|
Today I'm focusing once again on NatureScot, the Scottish government's nature agency, responsible for licensing the lethal control of wildlife across Scotland.
Their licences cover many aspects of wildlife 'management' and include some highly controversial culls; over the years some of their decisions surrounding the lethal control of wildlife have caused much public outrage, and not surprisingly as their actions have often been controversial to say the least. No data since August 2024 NatureScot haven't published their lethal control data since August 2024. At that time, the release of detailed data into the public domain was largely in response to pressure from our campaign, and it meant that we could see and examine the licence details and the full extent of Scotland's wildlife control. In view of the fact that we haven't been able to scrutinise the data since then, I thought it was about time that I asked them when they might be updating it. So that's what I did earlier this week.... No update until next February Unfortunately, they have told me that they won't be issuing the next update until February 2026. They told me that they want to bring the publication of lethal control data into line with the rest of their licence data. "We will be updating the lethal control data at the same time as updating the other data [...] detailing licensing in general, usually at the start of each year", they told me, "Having this one update at the start of each year brings both data more in line with each other and gives time for the relevant returns to be submitted." That sounds logical I think, but they also added that "We aim to complete the next update by the end of February 2026, however the exact date will be dependent on existing workloads." Hmm, that leaves it all open to potential delays and uncertainty, something which we have come across many times before when trying to tie Britain's nature agencies down to publication dates. However it's promising.... "Openness and transparency" Back in March, 2023, I asked NatureScot if they would publish their detailed licence data for public scrutiny. NatureScot assured me of their commitment to being transparent, saying "We agree on the benefits of publishing this information and are keen to ensure openness and transparency of our licensing functions." Since then they have shared some significant information. But still, data for the period since August '24 remains hidden from public view and it will doubtless contain some interesting statistics. For example, we do know that in 2025 NatureScot approved and licensed the notorious 'guga hunt', where men get together for the 'tradition' of catching and slaughtering hundreds of baby gannets (gugas), while still in their nests. They are then eaten. I know to most of us this abhorrent practice sounds incredible, unthinkable in the 21st century, an age when wildlife is in crisis. Yet Scotland's nature agency deems it entirely appropriate to licence this 'hunt'. You can read more about the guga hunt over at the website of wildlife campaign group Protect The Wild. Culling Scotland's wildlife But NatureScot's catalogue of wildlife destruction doesn't end with approving the killing of baby gannets. They have a less than glowing reputation, being responsible for licensing culls of many other species. I reported back in August of 2023, that since 2019 the agency had issued licences to kill 3307 Ravens, 6507 Brown Hares, 4996 Mountain Hares, 6000 Gannets, 9448 Greylag Geese and 4809 Barnacle Geese. Massive culling of gulls This catalogue of wildlife culling is in addition to their notorious targeting of gulls, which at one point appeared to many of us to be out of control - during 2022 NatureScot approved the killing of 130 gull chicks and 122 adult gulls, and the destruction of 224,750 nests. This was on top of huge culls and egg destruction during the previous few years, between 2017 and 2021, when 129,425 eggs were removed from nests of five species of red and amber listed gulls. As I reported in my article of the time, 530 chicks were also culled. 1,732 adult birds were killed and 52,569 nests were destroyed - all under licences issued by NatureScot. In early 2024, alarmed at the decline in gull species, NatureScot issued new guidance for gull licensing, aimed at limiting the number of licences they would be issuing; they said it was "in response to significant and serious declines in all five species that breed in Scotland", (declines no doubt exacerbated by NatureScot themselves, one can't help but despair at the irony...) Hopefully things have improved for gulls in Scotland - but we will have to wait until February to find out. This catalogue of wildlife destruction is why I decided to include NatureScot under the umbrella of our campaign and petition, which initially focused primarily on Natural England. So, we can look forward to seeing the data when it finally comes out, hopefully during February of 2026. That is just before Natural England's data is due to be published - another success of our campaign. No doubt both sets of data will reveal some worrying aspects of officially sanctioned lethal control of our wildlife. That's when we start asking questions again about just how competent and justified these agencies really are. The campaign continues.... 
7 Comments
* "Trade-offs with nature never work, we're far too clumsy as humans to understand the complexities involved...." When is conservation not conservation? When it involves killing one species to protect another. It's a thorny and contentious subject that raises its ugly head regularly in this increasingly industrialised, nature-depleted country, where wildlife has less space to thrive and species have to compete for the diminishing habitat available. But should that give humans the right to decide which species should live and which should be sacrificed? Personally, I think that is nature's job. To illustrate this issue, I'm looking at an example of a lethal control licence issued by Natural England, where one threatened species was sacrificed for another. The licence was issued to someone who was keen to protect a breeding colony of wading birds - but as with all human interventions in the natural world, it's not quite as simple as it seems. I'd be especially keen to hear your own thoughts about this.... Gulls Vs Waders We go back to 2021, and the licence in question was issued by Natural England to an 8,000 hectare estate in Lancashire, comprising largely moorland and in-bye farmland, where the licence holder wanted to nurture a colony of wading birds, helping them to breed successfully. Their 'ambition' was to "to restore and enhance habitat for red listed species". That all sounds very noble doesn't it? And it is, except that this estate is also on the doorstep of a very successful breeding colony of Lesser Black-backed gulls, an amber listed species of significant conservation concern. There are few such gull colonies in the UK, making this a highly important breeding site. Lesser Black-backed gulls are a species in steep decline in the UK, estimates suggest that in England the numbers of these beautiful gulls have decreased by 56% in recent years. The amber classification recognises that the breeding status is of international importance, with more than half of the UK breeding population being found at ten or fewer sites; indeed the UK is home to 40% of the entire European breeding population of this majestic species. So this breeding site is extremely significant. However, the representative of the estate in question clearly rates wading birds more highly than the neighbouring gulls, because he or she requested licences to shoot thousands of them in order to 'conserve' the waders. I believe this is flawed thinking. And Natural England thought so too - at first.... Slippery slope The applicant claimed that the gulls were eating the eggs and chicks of the waders. There had been a decline in the numbers of wading birds, and the applicant blamed the gulls, though this was something of a contentious claim, because there were many possible factors involved. They had requested permission to kill 100 gulls but Natural England concluded that "the decline in wader numbers could not be solely attributed to gull predation and the licensing of 100 birds was not proportionate to the problem". Nevertheless, they granted a licence to kill 10 gulls in 2021 and the same number again in 2022. It was clearly something of a token gesture, perhaps intended to pacify the applicant. One could argue that it would have been better to refuse the application altogether, because unfortunately (as we shall see) issuing this initial licence set a precedent and clearly emboldened the licence holder, resulting in many more gulls sanctioned to be culled further down the line. Request to increase shooting of gulls by 9900% Now that the precedent had been established, it should have come as no surprise to Natural England when they received a renewal application from the same licence holder in 2023, requesting permission to kill 1000 Lesser Black-backed gulls - that would amount to a 9900% increase! Natural England capitulated somewhat and decided now that there was indeed an issue with the gulls predating the waders' eggs and chicks, saying that "increasing the level of LBBG control is likely to help improve breeding wader success". And they agreed to increase the number of gulls that could be taken - to 100 - the figure they had earlier decided was not proportionate. 3000 Gulls.... In 2024 the applicant (clearly now with a loose grip on reality) amended their request again, this time asking for permission to shoot 3000 Lesser Black-backed gulls, an astonishingly high and unreasonable number. The licence holder maintained in their application that "this level of control is unlikely to affect the integrity of the gull colony." Really?? I beg to differ. Natural England, while again acknowledging some of the concerns over wader predation, concluded that "the evidence supplied by the applicant continues to be weak, with no additional evidence available following the 2023 licence. Therefore, it is considered proportionate to keep the numbers of LBBG controlled under licence to those recommended in 2023 (100 gulls)". They added a note to say that "provision of more robust, independent evidence which helps substantiate a direct effect between gull predation and low wader productivity will be required for licence applications in future years" - they seemed to have doubts that the level of culling was justified - but at the time of writing, regrettably, it seems that Natural England has again renewed the licence for 2025 and raised the number of gulls that can be culled to 300. Although less than the licence holder requested, this number represents an upward spiral and it's disappointing to see Natural England permitting the killing of so many amber listed birds to satisfy the whim of a conservationist who favours wading birds over gulls. I am not diminishing the importance of recognising and halting the decline of wading birds - indeed of all birds - but it's really clumsy conservation to be shooting one species because of the decline of another. The lack of suitable habitat for waders in the UK is surely the biggest issue here, together with human encroachment on traditional breeding grounds. This is not the fault of gulls or any other wild species. It's clearly a very complex matter but the bottom line is that, in this case, it has resulted in the culling of an amber listed gull. Meanwhile during 2025 more of the gulls are being shot, which to any rational mind is unacceptable. Humans to blame In these times of habitat loss, largely caused by humans, it is my belief that we should focus on the species that are managing to adapt to the changing landscape. Surely if the gulls are thriving at the site in question, given their own shaky conservation status, nobody should be requesting a licence to shoot 3000 of them - and the government's 'nature agency' should not be granting a licence to shoot any at all. Not even to conserve the waders, which face an uncertain future in this country due to widespread environmental degradation and other destructive human activity - indeed the gulls are probably the least of their problems. Prioritising selected species is wrong It's true that wading birds might have a better 'public image' than gulls, this is a perception encouraged by media and even some conservation organisations themselves. On that point, bear with me if we widen our scope here - I think the issue is perhaps akin to the 'marketing' behind red squirrels. I hold an unpopular opinion among environmentalists in that I like grey squirrels, and I believe that we should actively encourage these and other species that are managing to thrive in the hostile environment humans have created. Grey squirrels, so often cited as the major culprit for the decline in native reds, are a scapegoat - the real culprits behind the disappearance of red squirrels are (surprise surprise) humans, since people have persecuted and killed red squirrels for centuries and removed their habitat. In recent times, conservationists have woken to the fact that the reds have nearly gone. Their response? Demonise grey squirrels as 'pests' and kill them instead. They only survive because they can adapt. Have you noticed that as soon as wild animals encroach on 'our' space they become despised and persecuted? It's important to see where that way of thinking leads - animals become inconvenient and therefore disposable. We strive to 'save' species which simply cannot adapt to the hostile environment we have created, whilst culling more successful species which can - it leads to more and more destruction and less and less wildlife. And that's how we end up sacrificing gulls for waders. Other examples of this include the RSPB themselves, who cull foxes to protect birds at their reserves. Trade-offs with nature never work So, conservation becomes a destructive force, working against wildlife. I happen to think that these trade-offs with nature never work, we're far too clumsy as humans to understand the complexities involved. Meanwhile the government waters down protection for all wildlife, ramping up housebuilding on green field sites, industrialising our countryside and oceans, pursuing flawed ideologies and assuming that 'progress' including 'saving the planet' must involve some collateral damage. It's upside down and backward thinking. Symptoms of a human race becoming detached from the ecosystems of which we are a part. One day we might realise that. But it will almost certainly be too late. They are my thoughts, perhaps you hold a different opinion? Please let me know in the comments. - (p.s. I've been tweaking the blog a bit, so you might notice it looks slightly different, and the comments section now works properly, hooray!)  Lesser Black Backed Gull : Image by BeansandSausages from Pixabay
Natural England has issued an apology after acknowledging an error in the published licence data.
It's just as well someone is busy checking the integrity of Natural England's licence data.... Unfortunately it's not someone who works for them. It's yours truly.... I'll explain. Our campaign succeeded in getting Natural England's wildlife licence data into the public domain back in 2019 - and thanks to our hard work, the statistics are now published every year. The data, especially that surrounding the lethal control of wild birds, always raises questions over the quality of the licensing system and the decisions being made that affect our wildlife. This year was no different. When Natural England published the complete bird control data at the end of May, I submitted a Freedom of Information request, selecting six licences (out of many) that seemed worthy of further research. After quite a bit of dawdling from Natural England, last week I finally received the information I'd requested, with reams of documents relating to the six licences I had asked them about, together with Natural England's profuse apologies for the late response. But there was a problem... One of the examples that I was especially concerned about related to a new licence, apparently permitting the harvesting of around 1000 Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption. Followers of our campaign will know that these highly controversial licences are a particular bugbear of mine. Well-heeled diners should not be consuming the eggs of a threatened species just to satisfy their gluttony, and I've been calling for the complete withdrawal of these abhorrent licences for some time; indeed some of these egg harvesting licences were halted by Natural England after concerns over sustainability a couple of years ago. Two licences have stubbornly remained in place, in Yorkshire, but the signs were that the whole sorry trade in gull eggs appeared to be coming to an end. That was my hope. So it was with despair that I noticed, within the 2024 licence data, what appeared to be a fresh licence approving the harvesting of Black-headed gull eggs at a new location. Licence number 2024-66961-SPM-WLM, as listed in the data, permitted the harvesting of hundreds of eggs for human consumption, from nests of wild birds at a site in Lancashire. This discovery felt like a real kick in the teeth after making progress in getting other examples of these nasty licences withdrawn. You can imagine when the FOI responses finally arrived with me last week, I was very keen to see what was behind Natural England's unexpected decision to licence large scale egg collection of an amber-listed species - at a new location - when all the signs were that the practice was finally being scaled back. There was a lot of paperwork associated with licence number 2024-66961-SPM-WLM but it quickly became clear that something didn't add up. There was no reference to Black-headed gulls in the documentation at all. The licence related to an entirely different matter, it centred around the culling of birds at a 'conservation' project. Controversial in its own right for sure (more of which another time) - but nothing at all to do with supplying the trade in Black-headed gull eggs. Confusing? Yes, and very worrying. Flawed data.... and another apology from Natural England Needless to say I contacted Natural England right away to ask them what was going on. A couple of days later I received a reply. Natural England explained that, following my concerns, they had checked the licensing records for licence 2024-66961-SPM-WLM and they confirmed that there had indeed been a mistake within the data. Natural England's Deputy Director of wildlife licensing told me, "we sincerely apologise that the raw data contained incorrect information, the mistake will be corrected, and the raw data will be republished on GOV.UK. It is Natural England's aim to publish accurate information, so thank you for making us aware of this error." Let's just clarify that - the data that Natural England publishes, in the name of transparency - for the public to scrutinise and evaluate - "contained incorrect information". This is the data that our campaign has worked so hard to get into the public domain - and it was flawed. Time to overhaul the system I believe that this mistake is the result of a cumbersome licensing system that (as I've said for years) needs a complete overhaul. As it stands, the system is clumsy and, as we have proven today, potentially flawed. If a basic dataset contains misinformation then it is pretty useless. This post isn't about disparaging Natural England, there are undoubtedly well-intentioned people working there. But the organisation itself is out of step with public opinion. I hear regularly from folks who think we need a fresh start, a fully independent nature monitor - and a new more ethical, nature-focused licensing system. In these times of diminishing nature, it's time to acknowledge that if we are to conserve what is left of our wildlife, we must prioritise it, not treat it as an inconvenience. In an ideal world there would be zero culling of any wild animal unless there are exceptional, overriding reasons to do so. If we start at that hypothetical point, then gradually we might increase respect and consideration for what remains of the natural world in our increasingly industrialised environment. Let's start with a no kill policy. No killing. It's a fairly simple concept. As and when situations arise that leave no alternative, then a streamlined and humane licensing system would provide a solution, but as a last resort. But I'll end on a positive note. In spite of the data misleadingly suggesting that there was a new licence to harvest Black-headed gull eggs, no such licence has been issued. The data has now been corrected on the government website. Natural England have confirmed to me that "no new location for the collection of Black headed gulls [eggs] for human consumption has been licenced." Let's now hope the remaining gull egg licences are withdrawn and we can celebrate another small win for wildlife, and our campaign. 
Above: Licence number 2024-66961-SPM-WLM as shown in the licence data - clearly referring to the harvesting of gull eggs for human consumption. Image below shows corrected data - but how many more errors are there?
Natural England has failed to provide details associated with lethal bird control licences - requested under the Freedom of Information Act - missing an extended deadline to respond and neglecting to provide a further update.
Today I'm wondering, is Natural England fit for purpose? Background Our campaign has succeeded in getting Natural England's licence data into the public domain every year, since I started asking questions back in 2018 about the controversial system of controlling our wildlife. Most of the licence statistics are now available for public scrutiny, having been previously hidden from public view. This year, following the usual delays, Natural England, (the UK government's 'adviser for the natural environment in England'), eventually published the 2024 data at the end of May. As usual, the data raised many questions about decisions being made over the lethal control of our wild birds and other wildlife. I submitted a freedom of information request on 2nd June, to obtain details of six of the more troubling licences, about which I felt questions needed to be asked. The licences I asked Natural England about are:- 2024-67068-SPM-WLM-6 ('kill, injure or take' hundreds of wild birds by trapping, to preserve public health/safety, applicable to 'multiple counties') - this list includes Pied Wagtail, Robin and House Sparrow, in addition to pigeons and crows etc.) 2024-66961-SPM-WLM (another of the notorious licences affecting amber-listed Black-headed gulls - permitting the harvesting of hundreds of their eggs for human consumption; but importantly these are new licences issued at a Lancashire site, after some other sites became 'unsustainable'). I had hoped these licences would have been withdrawn entirely by now. 2024-67974-SPM-WLM (air safety licences, at a site or sites on Merseyside, allowing many wild birds to be shot, including declining species such as Lapwing) 2024-67804-SPM-WLM-1 (another public health/safety licence, to shoot wild birds in Wiltshire, including Buzzards, Starlings and Jackdaws, as well as other more common species) 2024-70027-SPM-WLM (a licence applicable to 'all English counties', similar to 2024-67068-SPM-WLM-6 above) 2024-67930-SPM-WLM (a licence to shoot 50 Starlings in Herefordshire) (note: the last two are renewals of earlier licence(s), I asked Natural England to provide original licence details in addition to current licence details, so that we have more context, information and perspective). The Freedom of Information Request Natural England, in common with other public authorities, is legally obliged to respond to foi requests within the statutory period of 20 working days, though they have the possibility under certain circumstances to extend this deadline in more complex cases or where they feel there are questions over public interest concerns. On July 1st, they informed me that they would be evoking this extension. The new deadline to respond was 29th July, though they told me "we hope to reply sooner." That deadline has now passed with no further communication from Natural England and no explanation forthcoming. I wrote to them earlier this week to ask for an update and have received no reply. The problem Clearly there's a problem here. Either the organisation is severely understaffed and unequipped to respond to fairly simple questions, including their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, or they are unwilling to share the information with the public - and if this is the case then they are duty bound to provide an explanation. If they decline to share the information, then I will take the matter up with the Information Commissioners Office, as I have previously done with questions I asked of Defra - who (some of you might recall) were reticent about sharing data relating to increases in cetacean deaths around the UK. You can read about all this on my other blog HERE. An explanation is needed If Natural England is for some reason unable to provide information within the statutory time frame set out by the FOI Act, then one is bound to wonder if they might be equally incapable of running a licensing system that oversees and controls the welfare of our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the licence details are too complex or sensitive to share, then we have a right to know - though I must point out that I have been able to obtain details of similar licences from them many times over the years, without too much fuss - so why the delay and silence now? Is this perhaps a government directive? (my previous enquiries have largely been made when a different government held power). Whatever the reason, this is a worrying silence over something that, in my opinion, is very much in the public interest. I believe that we have an absolute right to know how decisions are being made about the lethal control and management of our wildlife. I will keep you updated..... Meanwhile the campaign continues. 
Hi folks,
Just to let you know that Natural England has (finally) published the wildlife control data for 2024, including a detailed log of the bird species affected by their lethal control licences. The publication of the data is later than Natural England had planned, it eventually went live on Wednesday. As always, I implore you to take a look through the statistics, it was a hard fought battle to get this annual data released, achieved only through pressure from our campaign, so we must make the most of it and ensure that this annual declaration remains official policy. The information is basically in the form of raw data and is not presented in a user-friendly format, indeed you will have to scroll through 9+ years of statistics to find the 2024 figures. Quite why they make it so complicated I don't know, it's almost like it's designed to confuse the researcher.... It would be more useful and far less clunky if they just presented the data for a single year. No doubt at some stage I will point this out to them. (Meanwhile if some computer whizz wants to take on the task of analysing the data and presenting it in a more sensible format, please do!) Initial impressions... So, to my initial impressions of the 2024 bird control licences... The first thing that stands out is that several new species appear on the list for the first time in 2024, including the ultra rare Stone Curlew. Natural England issued two licences to 'disturb' these elusive birds, the method employed being 'falconry' (see further), apparently for reasons of 'preserving air safety', allowing the licence holder to disturb the bird (or dependant young) when nesting. I will have to confirm the details of these licences with Natural England in order to clarify the reason for issuing them. Nevertheless, seeing this rare and beautiful bird on the list is worrying. Great Crested Grebe, Twite, Yellowhammer, Reed Bunting.... Also on the list for the first time in 2024 are the Great Crested Grebe, Twite, Yellowhammer and Reed Bunting. With new species appearing on the list for the first time last year, it feels like we are really heading in the wrong direction. Unless Natural England make their annual licence data more user friendly, and include more information on the reasons behind the licences - in particular the ones which they know will raise eyebrows - then we are bound to view the data with a certain amount of incredulity and suspicion. Can there ever really be a justifiable reason to issue a licence to take the eggs of a Yellowhammer or destroy its nest, apparently in the name of 'preserving public health or safety'?? Some of these licences need much more clarification if we are to even begin to understand the role of Natural England in protecting our wildlife. Falconry The sport of falconry has become controversial in recent times, as I reported here, mostly due to the specific species of wild birds permitted to be hunted under falconry licences, which include many red listed species of high conservation concern such as Skylarks. The falconry licence statistics have only recently been included in the annual data publication, it's certainly a welcome step towards more transparency from Natural England - but it has also started a discussion over the morality of hunting rare species of birds for sport. Many people believe that threatened species of birds should never be included on such licences and that falconers should not be allowed to choose to hunt red listed species - something that is currently enabled by the licences, as the applicant can tick boxes and select from 25 species, including iconic and rare species such as Skylark, Fieldfare, Mistle Thrush and Lapwing. I've asked Natural England on several occasions to remove red listed species from the quarry list of birds that can be hunted in the name of falconry, but to no avail. Though the numbers of individual birds killed under these falconry licences might be considered fairly small, there is no way of knowing the actual numbers because the licensing system relies on the integrity of licence holders to report their actions honestly. But this particular issue isn't confined to falconry, it could apply to all of the licences, read on.... Returns data After a licence expires, licence holders are obliged to report to Natural England exactly how many birds they killed. This information is included on the licence 'returns'. The fact that Natural England doesn't include these returns figures in their annual data release is a big problem, as we are presented with only part of a bigger picture. It's in their interest to publish them - Natural England is at pains to point out that "annual returns show that the actual numbers affected are significantly less than the numbers covered on the licences". So, let us see them! Without having access to the returns figures, one is bound to speculate on how many birds are actually killed - and this is an area where Natural England's aim for transparency currently falls short. Why won't they publish the licence return data? Well Natural England says in this regard, "because of the complexity of return information, it’s not possible to publish these figures". In contrast, NatureScot, the equivalent public body north of the border, does include this information in their (albeit somewhat sporadic) licence data reports; so if they can do it then surely Natural England could too, it all really just comes down to having an efficient and well run database. Cormorants Some might suggest that the whole licensing system is open to potential abuse. An example of this is the case of Cormorants; there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that many more of these wonderful birds might be killed than the licences officially allow. I wrote about this potential problem in an article here. With so many licences issued annually to kill Cormorants - a shocking 424 last year - the actual numbers of individual birds culled could be horrifically high - significantly higher than the licences permit - I have called for much tighter restrictions regarding the culling of Cormorants over the years, and Natural England did seem to be listening at one time, and open to reforming these licences, but such is the influence of those whose industries are allegedly harmed by Cormorants eating fish (which is what Cormorants do to survive...) - and the income generated from angling licences - that Natural England has yet to take any further action over these licences, and so the effectively uncontrolled culling of this magnificent species continues. Many other species also face potentially massive culls under the licences, including the Rook for example. In 2024, the data shows that one brutal licence alone permitted the potential destruction of 900 Rook eggs in the name of air safety, with the option of killing 500 of the birds instead, huge numbers that would surely impact the local population. Bats and Badgers Also released at the same time as the bird control data is a summary of licences that apply to other animals. This list includes thousands of licences affecting bats. The data provided by Natural England does not include numbers of bats covered by each licence, nor any other significant details, but most come under the heading of "Imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment". We should perhaps remember here that the government decided, in its wisdom, to push ahead with planning reforms which many believe will result in less protection for wildlife in the process. This can't be good news for bats and wildlife in general. Badgers, of course, feature heavily on this list of wildlife control, with the notorious badger cull remaining one of the most controversial and cruel environmental policies that this country has ever witnessed. There was even a licence issued for the use of glue traps to kill rodents. Glue traps are especially abhorrent and have been illegal in England since 2022 - yet Natural England retains the power to issue licences enabling their use in "exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative satisfactory solution." Gull eggs Meanwhile, as I reported in a recent update, Natural England has provoked huge controversy by continuing to issue licences to harvest wild birds' eggs to serve up at 'gourmet' restaurants. We're talking about Black-headed gulls, a species on the amber list of conservation concern. Our campaign has relentlessly called for an end to this shocking trade. I asked Natural England recently to explain what had led them to approve these licences again this year, in spite of public concerns and ethical questions. In response, they told me "There has been no policy or position change on the collection of black-headed gull eggs for human consumption, so we continue to licence this activity where Natural England is content that the activity will not have a detrimental impact on the local or national population." I have for some time been under the impression that only two of these licences remained active, at sites in Yorkshire. Now I note with dismay that the 2024 data reveals that a licence was issued to harvest the eggs at a site in Lancashire, in addition to the Yorkshire location(s). I'll be asking questions over this surprising discovery in due course, as I was unaware that Natural England had approved another new location to supply this horrible trade. Natural England told me that their officials only visited one of the licensed sites in 2024, in order to establish the health of the breeding colony, prior to issuing the licences this year. They told me, "At the local population level, Natural England staff visited one of the colonies last year which appeared to be in good health/size, and had fortunately not been impacted by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. Wildlife Licensing Officers intend to visit the other colony this year to undertake similar checks." Obviously it would have been prudent for them to have visited the other site(s) before giving the green light to harvest eggs at those other colonies. I think this was a really irresponsible decision from Natural England. There also seems to be no understanding from them that there's a moral and ethical issue here, and that it's clearly wrong for humans (unless they are starving) to collect and eat the eggs of an endangered wild bird. I shared these thoughts with Natural England in a recent communication, in which I questioned their decision to continue licensing this abhorrent trade, telling them that "there remains something ethically questionable here though - after all, there is no ecological reason to harvest the eggs, it's not for any conservation purposes - these licences are issued solely to supply a very lucrative trade satisfying the appetites of wealthy diners." I also suggested that they shouldn't be granting licences to harvest eggs at any site that they haven't visited to ascertain the health of the colony. They told me to "please be assured that we continue to monitor the population status of black-headed gulls and only grant licences where we're content all the licensing tests are met". I'm glad they are 'content' with it - but I'm not at all reassured.... So lots of trawling through the data is ahead. If there are any obvious anomalies I will raise them with Natural England, and I'd urge you to let me know if you have any concerns too - because, with all the will in the world, I can't always spot an issue within the licences. So please do look and let me know if you find anything odd. Sorry it's been a long update but I hope you will look at the data and draw your own conclusions. The data can be downloaded HERE. The campaign continues HERE. Thanks for all your support, Best, Jase 
* Licence data publication delayed due to 'resource constraints' and 'Defra content availability'.
* Also: ongoing saga of covert trade in wild birds eggs for human consumption, as amber listed gull eggs once again appear on restaurant menus. Hi folks, Just a very quick update for you all. As you know, we have been expecting to see Natural England's wildlife licence data since March - they told me it would be released 'no later' than the end of that month... It didn't materialise then, and still hasn't as I write this. So, I contacted Natural England again last week to see if they could give me an update. They have now provided me with a revised publication date - 14th May. Natural England told me that "this is later than usual due to some resource constraints and also Defra content availability to publish." It's an explanation that doesn't inspire confidence in the system, and perhaps even gives the impression of a bit of a shambles behind the scenes. Anyway, we're now expecting to see the data on 14th. It will reveal the extent of lethal control affecting many native species of wild birds. I plan to issue a further update shortly after it is published, with some initial observations. Gull eggs for human consumption - abhorrent practice continues. On a related note, as part of the wider campaign, many of you will know that I have been calling for the complete withdrawal of specific licences that permit the harvesting of Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption. Our campaign has helped to pressure Natural England into withdrawing some of these particularly contentious licences, but a couple of them remained stubbornly in place. I have regularly asked Natural England if they would consider withdrawing these remaining licences, and I was hopeful this year that they would, given the shaky conservation status of this vulnerable species of gull and the effects of bird flu on the already declining populations. Now, in a highly dubious decision, it seems that Natural England, the agency tasked with protecting England's nature, has quietly decided to cave in to the demands of wealthy diners and allow the abhorrent trade to continue. It's of note that these eggs can change hands at around £100 a dozen..... so it's clearly a lucrative business for the few that benefit from it. It appears to be a sensitive subject for Natural England. Read on.... Promised update never arrived.... On 20th February this year, I asked Natural England for an update on the licences, and urged them again to halt the annual harvest of thousands of gull eggs as human food. They told me, "Natural England has not granted any licences to collect Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption as yet." That sounded fairly promising. So, on March 10th, I asked Natural England to confirm again whether or not they would be issuing any licences to harvest Black-headed gull eggs this year. Natural England's deputy director of wildlife licensing responded, saying that they would "provide an update once our processes have concluded". But that update never came. And now the eggs have been spotted for sale online, as well as being on the menu at a fancy restaurant, suggesting that the 'processes concluded' and the licences were approved behind firmly closed doors. So much for transparency. The whole trade in wild birds eggs for use as human food is an anachronism in the 21st century, and quite why the authorities in charge of protecting nature continue to approve and legalise the continuation of this abhorrent trade is beyond comprehension. We live in a time of rapidly declining wildlife and wanton destruction of nature. Black-headed gulls are on the amber list of conservation concern, it beggars belief that England's nature watchdog facilitates their persecution. When I raised this issue with the government's Minister for Nature a few weeks ago, there appeared to be a startling lack of empathy and understanding of the ethical debate around people collecting and eating wild birds eggs. The Minister told me "At the national scale, the cumulative effects of black headed gull egg-collecting are considered very small in relation to the national population of the species and the eggs they produce." But what about the morality of harvesting and eating the eggs of a threatened species?? As with so many things these days, there appears to be little sense of what's 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Nothing to hide' I have now asked Natural England why they did not update us about the gull egg licences as they said they would. I explained that a decision in favour of approving these particular licences will doubtless shock and surprise many. Natural England have told me that someone will be in touch with me next week with a response. Quite what that response will contain is anybody's guess. It is disappointing that Natural England was not more forthcoming with an update, this is the organisation that assured me they want to be as transparent as possible, and that they have 'nothing to hide'. Perhaps it's time for a more independent body to oversee and maintain the licensing system, one that comprises individuals with empathy for the natural world, with an emphasis on putting nature before financial interests. Okay, so let's see what the next couple of weeks bring. I'll keep you in the loop of course. Best, Jase Campaign and Petition Info: CLICK HERE 
So, it's that time of year again when I have to 'remind' Natural England of their promise to publish the annual wildlife licence data; I think I've had to prompt them every year since 2018 when our campaign began.
Several weeks ago when I initially asked them, they told me that the data for 2024 would be published "no later than the end of March". Now here we are in April.... still waiting for last year's figures. This is not a surprise, in my experience we are often kept waiting to see data that might reveal controversial statistics, in this case figures detailing the officially sanctioned killing of wildlife. Concerns This year, as I've mentioned in earlier articles, I am a little more concerned than usual because it's the first year of a new government.... and it's a government that I believe has very clearly demonstrated already that it is unsympathetic to the natural environment. I'm nervous about the continuity of the regular annual declarations we managed to secure, in case the government decides it's 'not in the public interest' to share it. Natural England is the government's 'adviser for the natural environment in England', they are sponsored by Defra, the UK government's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Some of you will know of the battle I had with Defra last year to obtain data relating to cetacean strandings in the UK - eventually they released some of it, having earlier implied it wouldn't be in the public interest to publish 'raw' data, lest it be misinterpreted. I worry that this argument could be applied to other sets of government data in future - such as Natural England's lethal control licence statistics. Transparency Several years ago now, in the early days of our campaign, discussions I had with Natural England resulted in a promise from them to openly share the complete data relating to the licences that they issue annually, licences that legalise the selective lethal control of wildlife in England. Prior to this, the information was hidden, and no wonder because it illustrates the shocking wholesale killing of wildlife, especially birds - all approved and facilitated by the system. When I first examined the licences, and the reasons provided for granting them, many of the licences appeared to be spurious and highly questionable. And because the figures were being hidden from public view, there was no accountability or transparency. So, since then, I've made sure that the annual licence data is available in the public domain for all to see, examine and question. And importantly I have been able to maintain a useful and open dialogue with Natural England, raising questions where necessary and discussing individual licences that might be contentious. I hope that the next data release is imminent, and I've reminded Natural England again of their promise. One does wonder whether, without a nudge, they would keep quiet and conveniently forget to publish it..... rest assured I won't let that happen. I hope to be in touch again soon with a link to the data. Let's wait and see.... Meanwhile, thanks to you all for your continued support and encouragement. Campaign/Petition details can be found HERE. Best, Jase 
* Natural England: 2024 lethal control licence data will be published "no later than end of March"
* Hopes for an end to Black-headed gull egg licences. * Serious concerns over government plans to bulldoze nature for houses and wind farms. I have just received a message from Natural England to let me know that their wildlife licence data for 2024 will be published "no later than the end of March". This was in response to a communication I sent them last week. It's welcome news - this annual publication of licence data is the result of the promise Natural England made to me in 2019, following pressure from our campaign. Many of the licences permit the destruction of wildlife, including wild birds, and our campaign maintains that a significant number of these licences are spurious and highly questionable. To recap, at the end of 2018, I wrote an article highlighting the shocking number of wild birds potentially being killed under Natural England's lethal control licences. There followed a huge outpouring of public anger over the licensing system, which was at the time operating behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. Such was the level of public outrage that, within a few months, I was able to engage in discussions with Natural England, during which they vowed to become more transparent and open about their activities, including sharing details of the lethal control wildlife licences issued by the agency each year. And so since 2019, we have been able to view, examine and question the data. It's vitally important that the public has access to this information, and getting it into the public domain every year has been one of the major successes of our campaign. This year, as always, it will be interesting (albeit depressing too) to examine the statistics, which basically amount to a ledger detailing the culling of England's wildlife, all officially sanctioned by the government. Political changes This time around I am even more apprehensive at seeing the figures, as the political situation changed significantly half way through last year, following the general election. I try to keep politics out of the campaign but it is difficult when the current government has already shown contempt towards those striving to protect nature in this country, what little of it remains. Primarily I'm referring to the watering down of environmental protections associated with proposed developments in environmentally sensitive areas, both on land and at sea - and the government's apparent determination to push on with projects even if local communities oppose the plans and regardless of the harm caused to wildlife in the process. This disregard for the genuine concerns of good citizens was demonstrated by the chancellor Rachel Reeves' glib response when asked last month to choose between newts or bats, two animals whose habitat is currently protected by law; Reeves replied 'neither', citing the need for 'growth' instead, her comments eliciting a furious reaction from conservation organisations and the public alike, angry at the government's lack of empathy with nature and indeed the lack of respect for the views of much of the British public. Public interest concerns So I'm nervous about the continuity and scope of the regular annual licence declarations we have worked so hard to achieve, in case the government decides it's 'not in the public's interest' to share it. While I hope this will not be the case, nothing is certain. To illustrate this, some of you will know about the battle I had with Defra last year to access data relating to cetacean strandings around the UK's coast. Whales, dolphins and porpoises are being washed up dead in alarming numbers, it's around 1000 every year. I believe that the sharp increase in cetacean deaths we have seen in recent years is, at least in part, due to the expansion of the offshore wind industry, and I asked Defra for the stranding data so that any correlation could be studied. At the time, this data had not been published in the public domain for years. They were adamantly averse to sharing the information, saying it was "still in the process of being finalised and quality assured." They said they recognised that there was "a public interest in disclosure of information" but at the same time maintained that there was "a stronger public interest in withholding the information." They were apparently worried that people might draw the wrong conclusions from the raw data. But I think that the public has a right to see the statistics. So I took the matter up with the Information Commissioners Office and eventually Defra released some of the figures. What we saw was shocking, 1000 dead whales, dolphins and porpoises washed up dead each year in the UK, adding weight to my concerns that industrialising the sea with wind farms is damaging marine life and entire ecosystems. Anyway, that's another story, but I worry that this 'public interest' argument might be applied to other sets of data in future, potentially including the licence data we have worked so hard to get published each year. Again, I don't think this will happen but we must be prepared for the possibility. If planning rules are relaxed, as the government has suggested will be the case, then it's possible that more lethal control licences affecting wildlife will be issued to accommodate and enable the plans. Worse still, it's not inconceivable that the requirement to hold a licence will be removed altogether in some cases, thereby making wildlife destruction, for some developments, a free-for-all. Gull eggs for human consumption - update Also in my most recent communication with Natural England, I asked them again about the contentious issue of harvesting Black-headed gull eggs from the wild, for use as human food, a practice that is facilitated annually through Natural England's licences, in order to satisfy the gluttony of well-heeled diners, who enjoy eating the eggs of an amber listed threatened species, (I know, it beggars belief). As I reported a couple of months ago, I approached the government's 'Nature Minister' about this. Alas, the Minister appeared to be less than interested in the plight of the birds, and I have serious concerns that the strides we have already made, in reducing the number of licences permitting this abhorrent trade, might be under threat from a government and a 'Nature Minister' that seem to have little understanding of the natural world and even less interest in protecting it. No gull egg licences - so far this year At this point, Natural England's Deputy Director of Wildlife Licensing Service has told me that so far this year "Natural England has not granted any licences to collect Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption as yet." This is hopeful news, but still doesn't rule out the possibility that they may still issue them over the next month or two, ahead of the traditional egg harvesting season. I have asked them for clarification over this. In the same message, Natural England quoted the usual disclaimer, "The collection of Black-headed gull eggs is a licensable activity under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If an application passes the legal tests and meets Defra policy criteria, Natural England cannot refuse to grant a licence." They then proceeded to tell me about 'Defra’s policy 1 for sustainable use licensing', ending with the point that "licences should not be unreasonably withheld or revoked.” I think that's poppycock. I believe that when a bird is on the amber list of 'species of conservation concern', as is the case with Black-headed gulls, then it is very clear that we shouldn't be collecting their eggs to serve up to wealthy diners in fancy restaurants. I was not reassured by the final line in their message, "We will continue to assess any applications annually against the legislation, Defra policy criteria and taking into account the latest available evidence when making future decisions." It's the kind of wordy nonsense that promises exactly nothing and leaves the door open to anything. I do remain hopeful that the last remaining gull eggs licences will be withdrawn for this year. The fact that Natural England has not yet granted any of these particularly abhorrent licences so far is a good sign but doesn't guarantee anything, as there is still time for this to happen, so I'll be monitoring that situation closely. The bigger picture The bigger picture is not looking great - Watered down environmental protection, ministers with a lack of empathy and understanding, completely out of step with public opinion and incurring the wrath of conservation organisations - all alongside apparently reckless plans to develop our countryside without our consent. And so the 'lethal control' of the country's wildlife continues. Anyway folks, that's where we are at. Incidentally, I haven't yet followed up with NatureScot north of the border, they also promised to be transparent and open about their own lethal control licences, issued separately from those in England. Since I asked them to share the data a couple of years ago, they have done so intermittently. I'll be pursuing their data too, in due course. I'll be in touch again when I have any further updates. Thanks for all of your support, Best, Jase Campaign link: click HERE My articles about whales and wind farms: click HERE
|
If you would like to support what I do, you can either buy me a virtual coffee or leave me a tip, just click one of the links below - and Thank You!
Archives
October 2025
|
RSS Feed