The number of readers for my post about the SNH bird killing licences has topped 130,000, and still thousands of visitors are arriving every day, from the UK and around the world.
There is huge indignation about the granting of licences to kill native birds, especially those on the RSPB 'red list' of globally threatened species. With so much interest in this news, I felt obliged to contact SNH again today in order to get an appropriate response given that such a large number of people are nonplussed at the logic behind the issuing of licences to kill such treasured birds as Robins, Swallows, Swifts and even Skylarks. SNH had previously told me that none of the licences they had issued had related to endangered birds - clearly this was not true - and today I challenged them on this point. This afternoon I received a reply which I will publish in full here. I feel it neither adequately explains the culling of 'red list' species nor does it reflect in any way the strong public concern over the decisions of SNH which many feel are ill-judged and out of kilter with the conservation efforts we expect to see in 2018. Also below is a link to a petition started by Henry Wilkie which aims to overhaul SNH and ensure that the decisions it makes are responsible and won't further endanger already threatened species. The response I received from Scottish Natural Heritage today:- Dear Mr Endfield On rare occasions birds on the red list do get into circumstances where they are posing a significant threat to human health and safety. This could be the risk of bird-strike to aeroplanes, a build-up of lethal carbon monoxide by nesting in a boiler flue, or their fouling on food produce, for example. These individual birds need to be removed and a licence is required to do so. Issuing a licence does not automatically mean killing the bird and all alternatives, such as trapping and releasing the bird, or removal of the nest, are exhausted first. The impact from these licences is absolutely minimal when compared to the other threats that these species face. Often the impact (i.e. a bird lost to the population) has already occurred before the licence is granted, such as when a bird is trapped in a place from which it cannot free itself. Protecting individual birds from any bird species has to be balanced with the need to ensure public safety. Kind regards..... The petition "De-power Scottish Natural Heritage" can be found and signed HERE Once again, thanks for all your interest and support, it is much appreciated. Best, Jase
5 Comments
jan fisher
20/8/2018 07:19:45 pm
This is not the way you cannot go on killing our wildlife what ever you think the problem is they have a right to live like us
Reply
Eddie Bell
20/8/2018 10:16:28 pm
I have been a naturalist for 50 years... a Police Wildlife Liaison officer for 25 years..and I have no idea why the Scottish government is issuing so many licences. Exactly what threat do swifts cause? What on earth is going on?
Reply
Gary
20/8/2018 10:35:03 pm
More than anything this situations goes to highlight SNH's inability to communicate with the public. SNH struggle to know the exact details of the licenses they issue because there software isn't able to register precise reasons for the action the license was applied for so quite often the report they submit to the EU Commission isn't correct. Natural England have "high risk" applications which may be seen as controversial, they are viewed by a committee, SNH don't appear to do this. Legally speaking the courts have decided public opinion isn't something the licensing authority has to take into consideration when processing a license application, they have to take into account "other satisfactory solutions" but then only within the principle of proportionality which means if the action doesn't threaten the overall population status it can be allowed, even if the species is on a protected list, as most European species are, by the EU Birds Directive. I wouldn't think anyone who uses air travel wouldn't question the control of birds on airport run ways but there are other situations that are questionable, such as the Gannet cull, and its this situation that shows SNH are unaccountable. They sanctioned the blowing up of a Peregrine nest site by the Forestry Commission near Lockerbie when they wanted stone from an old hill quarry to use for forestry tracks, no one was bothered, not even the RSPB. There is far too much politics involved with environmental issues and its this people need to fight and hold SNH accountable for their actions !
Reply
Gary
21/8/2018 12:09:38 am
This is the link that will take you to SNH's derogation reports to the EU Commission :- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_birds/index_en.htm
Reply
21/8/2018 09:36:57 am
To put it bluntly SNH is nothing more than rubber stamp merchants for their government pay masters and the landed gentry. This bird cull is yet one more example of their cynical disregard for the natural environment they are meant to protect,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
If you appreciate what I write about, please consider showing your support by buying me a virtual coffee!
Click the button below! Thanks :) Archives
July 2023
|