|
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 
9 Comments
* 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
* The UK Minister for Nature has issued "a lacklustre response" to campaigners' concerns over wildlife licences.
* Hopes for licence reform are overshadowed by apparent lack of empathy and engagement. Hi folks, As many of you will know, we have been awaiting a response from the government's Minister for Nature, Mary Creagh, after I contacted her on behalf of the 400,000 good folks who have signed our petition. I put to her the notion that the current wildlife lethal control licences need a complete overhaul and that many of these licences are, as we know, spurious and poorly thought through - this being the essence of our campaign and something we have pointed out time and again. Initially there was no reply at all from the Minister, but - after I called out this silence - I was promised a formal response to our concerns, and I was told that details of some specific points would be addressed and forwarded to "policy officials in Defra and Natural England". This sounded impressive but actually we are already in contact with said "officials" and have been for a number of years. 'Dull' response from Minister I thought it would be good to offer the Minister a chance to reassure us that our legitimate concerns are heard and might be addressed. I hoped that would be the case, but the cynical side of me suspected that we might get a pretty dull standard response. And folks, I'm afraid that's what we have received. Anyway, I said I'd share the Minister's response with you all, so here goes. Initially it sounded promising: "The fact that your petition has received over 400,000 signatures," said the Minister, "is a clear illustration of the level of public interest in our national wildlife and the associated concerns with how wildlife licensing is implemented. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you". So, at least there was some recognition of the strength of our campaign. But then her lengthy letter descended into a rather lacklustre explanation of wildlife licensing, the sort of thing we used to receive at the start of our campaign - before we were taken seriously. The Minister began by telling us what we already know, "Natural England (NE) consider licence applications on a case-by-case basis and take into account any impacts on the conservation status of a species when deciding whether to issue a licence. NE operates within the legislative framework to protect species that is set by government and considers licence applications which can be deemed legitimate subject to a number of statutory tests and government policy criteria...." (Yeah, we know.... this is just 'copy and paste' stuff.) She continued, "....These include that the cumulative effects of licences should not be detrimental to the conservation status of native wild bird populations or protected species." But that's really our point isn't it? - some of the species directly affected by the licences are already very much at risk and further endangered by the government issued licences that permit their destruction. It's pretty obvious that killing more of them will be 'detrimental' to their conservation status. Minister not concerned over trade in threatened birds' eggs The Minister went on to address just one of the specific concerns that I raised with her, the contentious issue of harvesting Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption, a distasteful practice that is approved under licences issued by Natural England. Our campaign has helped to ensure the withdrawal of most of the licences that permit this outdated trade to prosper, though two licences still remain in place. I had hoped the Minister would at least support the withdrawal of these last two remaining licences. I was wrong. Black-headed gulls are a species suffering significant population decline in the UK, they are on the amber list of conservation concern. But the Minister seems to imply that this concern is misplaced, telling me that "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. Furthermore, NE colleagues make site visits to understand local populations where appropriate. As a result, in some areas NE continues to consider licensing at the current scale to be sustainable." Point of interest: when I raised this matter with Natural England a few years ago, there was a similar situation with active licences in place at that time to harvest gull eggs in Hampshire. However, shortly after I queried the justification for these licences, the practice of egg collecting in that area was rather suddenly considered 'unsustainable' and those licences were withdrawn.... The Minister perhaps underestimates our understanding of the matter. "Open to consider further changes" I asked the Minister if the new Labour government would consider an overhaul of the current licensing system (something which I think we can all agree is long overdue), and there was a glimmer of light in her reply, "We are currently considering wild take licensing, and we are open to consider further changes to NE's licensing processes." Exactly what is meant in this context by the term 'wild take' licences is unclear to me, though it might refer to the taking of birds of prey from the wild for use in falconry and aviculture. In fact, back in 2022, Natural England called for evidence ahead of a review for these wild take licences, so if we assume this is what is referred to in the Minister's reply then it's really not news. Minister's lack of empathy with nature? I do wonder just how much empathy with nature our Minister for Nature actually has, but the Minister sought to reassure us by telling us that "This government is committed to improving biodiversity and halting the decline in species abundance by 2030 and reversing it by 2042." (Well. Nice words). The Minister explained how they would achieve this, "To meet these biodiversity targets we need to take action on three fronts: creating wildlife-rich habitats, reducing pressures on biodiversity, and taking targeted action for species." (Oh dear, it's not really rocket-science level stuff is it...) 'Rapid review' of 'Environmental Impact Plan' The Minister also told me that Defra has already launched a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) to ensure that policies are in place to deliver on the Secretary of State's priority to recover nature. The 'rapid review' was announced in July. They will publish a summary of findings in early 2025. Riding roughshod over our countryside In response to this 'rapid review', the Office for Environmental Protection offered the government the following advice: "The Government has been clear about its ambitions for house building and clean energy. As it develops its plans for such large scale initiatives, and as it reviews the EIP, it must take the opportunity to align them to nature, rather than work against it, to enhance nature rather than further deplete it." Personally, I feel that this good advice from the OEP might be difficult for the current government to follow, given the government's apparent intention to ride roughshod over our countryside building houses, wind turbines, pylons and solar farms, amid weakened local planning restrictions - surely this is at odds with their claim to be 'committed' to "creating wildlife-rich habitats" and "reducing pressures on biodiversity"? But then I'm relying on common sense, and I wonder how many politicians are in possession of this faculty. On a final note that holds at least a little hope, the Minister told me "I want to assure you that we will continue to review other areas of policy that may be hindering nature's recovery", adding, "I welcome further engagement on specific wildlife licensing issues for which there is genuine public concern." Mind you, I had already cited some other specific licensing issues in a separate communication with the Minister's office, including the hunting of red-listed songbirds permitted by falconry licences and the culling of Cormorants - though it seems that these 'specific issues' escaped her attention.... So folks, I'm not terribly impressed, are you? I think we deserved better. I definitely get more engagement working directly with Natural England (and NatureScot) to be honest, but I suppose it's good to have channels of communication open with any authority who has influence, including the Minister for Nature. I'll reiterate something I said in my last blog post: protecting nature in the UK relies on individual citizens - and not government. Wishing you all a great Christmas and a Happy New Year. And sincere thanks for all your support. The campaign continues.... Best, Jase 
IMPORTANT UPDATE: 7/12/24 @ 17.35pm:- Following the publication of this blog post (below), I have just heard from the office of Minister Creagh, with an apology for not having responded sooner. I have been assured that the matter has been picked up, and escalated, and that the issues raised in our petition are being looked into with policy officials in Defra and Natural England. I've also been informed that a formal response from the Minister will be shared with me shortly, once internal discussions on this have finished. So, excellent progress. Thanks to every one of you who has shared, commented and helped to get our concerns noticed. I'll be in touch again when I have a further update. Best, Jase *************************************************************************** As our landmark petition reaches 400,727 signatures, the UK's official Minister for Nature has failed to acknowledge the concerns of the country's wildlife campaigners. I reported on my blog last month that I had written to Mary Creagh, the UK's new Minister for Nature, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who support our campaign; we are calling for an overhaul and reform of the UK's current wildlife licensing system, a system that facilitates the mass culling of wildlife in the UK. Our work has focused on two government agencies, Natural England and NatureScot, both of which issue lethal control licences to 'manage' wildlife. In particular we have concerns over the licences affecting wild birds. Some of these licences are issued for contentious and often spurious reasons, and include those that allow culling species of high conservation concern. UK's nature lovers feel 'snubbed' by minister Our campaign began back in 2018, and since then we have managed to achieve some significant changes to the system, not least ensuring the transparency of data by persuading Natural England and NatureScot to publish regular licence declarations, thereby allowing the public to see and scrutinize details of the controversial licences. This has allowed us to raise concerns over individual licences and enabled discussions with the authorities responsible. So you might have thought that the UK's Minister for Nature, whose remit includes responsibility for 'domestic biodiversity', would be interested in the opinions of 400,000 people who love nature. I've written to the minister twice now, on behalf of the good folks who have signed our petition, and have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. It feels like a snub for the hundreds of thousands of people who care passionately about this country's wildlife - and begs the question as to what 'Minister for Nature' actually means. We are a large group of good people who are worried about the state of nature in the UK, we see our precious wildlife being destroyed before our eyes - and we have a Minister for Nature who has apparently ignored our polite and respectful request for our concerns to be noted and acknowledged. Follow the money? As mentioned earlier, the minister's remit includes responsibility for 'domestic biodiversity' and indeed she is also the 'lead for Natural England', so you might assume she'd be interested in the views of a huge number of genuine nature lovers who have worked very hard to bring about changes to the failing system. The minister's job description also includes responsibility for 'green finance', whatever that means. Perhaps money takes priority over nature, (something we see time and time again in this country). Whatever the reason for the minister's silence, we can only speculate for now. It would certainly be helpful to know her thoughts on the current licensing system, how she views nature in the UK, and what she intends to do to protect 'domestic biodiversity'. Alas, we might never know. People power - a powerful force for good It is really disappointing that the government's minister for nature has not responded to the voices of those striving to protect nature in the UK. What our campaign has achieved so far is incredible, what we can accomplish together going forward can be just as impressive. The wildlife of the UK relies on us, as individuals, doing what we can on the ground - it might be that the government doesn't care, but we do and that is a more powerful force for good than any government minister could ever hope to be. The campaign continues. 
Hi folks,
I have, this week, written to the UK's 'Minister for Nature', Mary Creagh, who was appointed to the post after Labour won the election. I waited for the dust to settle after the election before making contact with her, but now I feel the time is right to open some dialogue. I have shared details of our campaign with her and asked her to consider supporting our call to overhaul Natural England's contentious licensing system. Wholesale culling As we all know, there is wholesale culling of our birds (and other animals) under officially issued licences, enabling the legal slaughter of wildlife, so I wanted to make sure that she - as Minister for Nature - is aware of the current system and its significant shortfalls. By way of an example, I highlighted one of the specific concerns we have, that of the licences to harvest Black-headed gull eggs for human consumption. Earlier discussions I had with Natural England, backed by pressure from our campaign, have helped to get most of these abhorrent licences withdrawn, though at least two remain in place. I asked her to look specifically at this example by way of an introduction to the problems with the licences, pointing out that far too much of our wildlife is killed every year under Natural England's licences, without any real justification and often for spurious reasons. I hope that Mary Creagh chooses to engage with us, especially as I pointed out that more than 400,000 people now support the campaign. Rapid decline in nature The UK is suffering a rapid decline in nature, especially through damage to natural habitat, resulting in widespread destruction of entire ecosystems. Adding to this serious problem is the clumsy wildlife licensing system, administered by Natural England, which suffers from questionable decision making and insufficient monitoring. A new government should bring hope and we must keep that hope alive, but there are already signs that we might see further industrialisation of our countryside, including dubious plans for 'affordable' housing (that never seems to be affordable) and renewable energy projects that cause more harm than good; not forgetting my bugbear - the industrialisation of our seas with vast offshore wind farms, the evidence is growing to suggest that marine wildlife is struggling to survive amid the rapid expansion of the offshore wind industry. At the time of writing, I have yet to receive a response from the Minister for Nature - but rest assured I will let you know when I do. If I do. Just a reminder that you can follow me on X/Twitter: @jasonendfield (HERE) And you can read my articles about the issue of wind farms on my other blog, CLICK HERE Thanks for your ongoing support, the campaign continues. Best, Jase
NatureScot's lethal control licences continue to cause alarm:-
* 557 Ravens Killed in Scotland in 2023 * 2,056 Hares Killed in Scotland in 2023 * Licence Issued to Kill Hedgehogs This mass culling of wildlife is not acceptable and must stop. NatureScot have published their latest licence data, for 2023, detailing the lethal control of Scottish wildlife. Making this data public contributes towards more transparency and accountability from Scotland's nature agency - this being a major focus of our campaign. A significant new development is the inclusion of licence returns data - that is the number of birds and animals that the licence holders themselves have reported were actually killed under the licence. These returns are submitted by the licence holder after each licence expires. It was during discussions I had with NatureScot at the end of 2023, while pushing for annual licence declarations to be published, that the inclusion of this additional information in future data releases was mentioned. At the time they told me, "We plan to publish it annually so we can include the returns data and everyone can see how much lethal control was actually undertaken rather than just the numbers that were licenced." So including the returns information is a positive development. Of course these returns rely on the integrity and honesty of the licence holder, but they do give an idea of the actual numbers killed, rather than the maximum numbers NatureScot approves to be killed. But - what the 2023 data reveals is absolutely no cause for celebration. The numbers of birds and animals killed in Scotland remains shockingly high. Brace yourselves for some figures..... Hundreds of Ravens Culled During 2023, 557 Ravens were reportedly culled in Scotland, under official licences issued by NatureScot. These are the actual numbers as stated on the licence holders' returns for that year. According to NatureScot's application form, this licence is available to those wanting to shoot Ravens in order to "prevent serious damage to livestock". The Raven is an iconic British species, rare and spectacular - I believe there is no justification at all to cull these magnificent birds. None whatsoever. Thousands of Hares Culled. Also last year, 2056 Hares were reported killed, 1187 Brown Hares and 869 Mountain Hares. It's not looking good for Scottish hares this year either because NatureScot issued more licences to kill hares during 2024 than in 2023, meaning that thousands more hares are probably being killed in Scotland right now. The culling of hares is completely out of step with efforts to combat a widespread depletion of nature in the UK. As in the case of Ravens, it's highly unethical and morally unacceptable to be culling wildlife in the midst of a biodiversity crisis. Hedgehogs Worryingly, NatureScot issued a licence in 2023 to kill 20 Hedgehogs. According to the licence return, it seems that this quota was fulfilled. In the past, introduced Hedgehogs have been removed from some Scottish islands due to their predation of wild birds eggs, though they were previously captured and relocated to the Scottish mainland. The suggestion that this licence permits killing the diminutive mammals is at odds with an article on NatureScot's website, relating to Hedgehog control on the isle of Uist, which says that "caught animals are passed into the care of Uist Hedgehog Rescue and translocated to the Scottish mainland." I hope NatureScot will be able to clarify this particular licence - there can be no justification for killing one of the country's most endangered species. Anyway, take a look at the data for yourselves, our campaign has helped to get the information out there into the public domain so that everyone can see it (and raise questions wherever necessary). This is something to be proud of, even if it does reveal a catalogue of lethal control that is highly concerning.... The data can be found via NatureScot's website HERE Our campaign continues HERE Thanks for your ongoing support and encouragement, Best, Jase 
|
If you appreciate what I write about, please consider showing your support by buying me a virtual coffee!
Click the button below! Thanks :) 
Archives
December 2024
|
RSS Feed