"We can't stop stupid people from being stupid - but we can refuse them licences to carry out their stupidity...."
Many of you will have seen a considerable amount of media coverage in the past few days, relating to the story I broke on my blog last week... Following my revelations about the licences that Natural England had issued to destroy Mallard eggs, interest in the news spread quickly across social media. I had obtained data, through freedom of information requests, which shockingly revealed that one of the justifications provided in a licence application to destroy duck eggs was that wandering Mallards were a hazard to passing cyclists. I decided to highlight this ridiculous assertion because it illustrated just how absurd Natural England's licensing system really can be, in approving the destruction of wildlife on the grounds of such irrational nonsense. As the news began to go viral and public anger grew, the story was picked up by The Independent. The resulting article was both excellent - and accurate, creating a good deal of publicity and awareness over Natural England's highly questionable licensing system. When Chris Packham tweeted the news and shared it on his facebook page, there was another huge surge of interest and the whole sorry saga of Natural England's dubious activities was once again under the spotlight - and rightly so. A few angry cyclists claimed that the media coverage would result in anti-cycle prejudice but most knew that this was never the intention of publicising the whole affair; indeed one of the aims of the story was to call out a misguided attempt by the licence applicant to partly justify the destruction of wild bird eggs by citing a spurious risk to cyclists. Several cycling groups, websites and journals ran the story and thankfully most realised that we are in fact on the same 'side', we don't want cyclists being made any kind of scapegoat for a failing wildlife licensing system. In my opinion any blame for ill judged licensing decisions lies entirely with Natural England themselves. The news began to make waves internationally with articles published in The Netherlands and France and more, taking it to new audiences who were shocked to hear about England's wildlife killing spree in the name of health and safety. As with any media story that spreads virally, as this one did, inaccuracies creep in - and when The Telegraph decided to run an article about the Mallards I noted that they had apparently taken the figures from my blog (where I outlined several licences issued to destroy a total of 4,500 Mallard eggs) and focused the whole story on a park (which they named) in Bedfordshire, implying that this one site had permission to destroy all 4,500 eggs. Unless The Telegraph was privy to information that I did not have, I think they have got this wrong. That figure of 4,500 eggs covered multiple licences across a number of counties, primarily Bedfordshire and Suffolk - but it did not refer solely to the park in Bedfordshire that had indicated a risk to cyclists in their application. I feel that their article was misleading in this respect, though it did cause a massive amount of discussion and debate about the activities of Natural England - which is no bad thing I suppose... But I do not condone the fact that The Telegraph published information that identified the licence holder, who was quite possibly acting within the terms of their licence, albeit a licence that I consider should never have been issued. While I question the ethics, motives and common sense of the applicant, (whose identity, incidentally, was not revealed to me within the foi information), again the fault here lies with Natural England for approving the licence in the first place. We can't stop stupid people from being stupid but we can refuse them licences to carry out their stupidity. One of the aims of our petition is that the public should have a say in licensing decisions, especially those where action such as culling is proposed in a public place, for example a park. And that might entail disclosing an applicants' identity in some cases. But until that procedure is in place, and an integral part of the licensing process, I don't feel it is correct to reveal a licence holder's details in the press, and especially in the midst of a highly charged debate over a particular licence. All that said, the publicity generated from the Telegraph article was considerable and will have helped to highlight our concerns over the system - a system which I will continue to examine and research, independently. In conclusion, the petition is forging ahead, I have ongoing and significant contact with Natural England and I will continue to reveal more of the horrors emerging from the agency's licensing data. While Natural England's licensing system remains secret and out of sight of public scrutiny, I will campaign for change and for more accountability, compassion and intelligent decision making from those in positions of influence. Overhauling and reforming the entire licensing system remains top priority, saving thousands of birds and other animals from needless and irresponsible slaughter will be the result. Best, Jase
33 Comments
christiane COUSTET-BRUNET
17/11/2019 08:31:47 pm
LU
Reply
Maggie Reynolds
18/11/2019 04:05:31 pm
Can't believe an organisation paid for by tax payers think they can do this.
Reply
Jeffrey Ledger
18/11/2019 10:14:24 pm
I too support animal charities trying to counter the cruelty imposed on poor creatures by "man", including HSI in respect of dog meat farms. I am disgusted with Natural England,but more so the UK for allowing these people to even exist!
valerie.mathews
17/11/2019 08:32:13 pm
so pleased you are there to speak for us and the wild life. How can a petition remain secret and kept from the public when it is Natural England which by its pure name belongs and concerns us all
Reply
Ruby Ryan
17/11/2019 08:37:03 pm
Excellent news, with you all the way!
Reply
Helen Shipley
17/11/2019 08:39:35 pm
I applaud what you do and have done and I admire your measured approach.
Reply
Anne Dexter
17/11/2019 08:43:31 pm
Hi Jason,
Reply
Clare Alderson
18/11/2019 08:08:47 am
Anne,
Reply
Linda Badham
17/11/2019 08:50:02 pm
Thank you . I don't believe they should have the name Natural England. Whats natural about what they want to do . Nature has it's own rules which is above man . They are pathetic !
Reply
Denise Bowes
19/11/2019 01:45:48 pm
Natural England. What a misnomer. These people are beyond contempt.
Reply
Peter Monteath
17/11/2019 09:04:19 pm
Have any cyclists complained about the mallards?
Reply
Joan Raine
17/11/2019 09:23:00 pm
I love ducks and feed them in our village, the recent ruling of asking people not to feed them bread in parks and them going hungry is of concern.The ratio of ducks to drake's is important as too many drakes can be a nuisance to nesting ducks. Keep up the good work!
Reply
Lorraine
18/11/2019 10:12:17 pm
I was thinking myself if a mallard cull was ever actually needed better to reduce the drake population!
Reply
ALEX NEWMAN
17/11/2019 10:36:14 pm
Wandering Mallards are a hazard to passing cyclists.
Reply
Tim Finch
17/11/2019 10:44:02 pm
So pleased to hear of the escalation of your work in exposing Natural England’s licensing fiascos through the mainstream press and social media.
Reply
Graham Drew
17/11/2019 10:48:00 pm
I find it perplexing that a human given a 'position' can become a creator of all sorts of lunacy and will go to any length (excluding using their own money) to justify their thoughts and actions.
Reply
Carola Fielden
17/11/2019 11:17:47 pm
Thank you for all you are doing. It’s so very reassuring to have someone with your perseverance and commitment.
Reply
Richard Crowe
18/11/2019 12:14:33 am
Great work using the FOI route. Its apparently what Blair wished afterwards he had not made law. The secretive actions of unelected bodies should be a major concern to us all in a so called democracy. From this example to even more horrendous ones ( like our current support for actions in Yemen) decisions are taken with no real scrutiny or public knowledge. This has to be fought against. Democracy is meaningless without transparency.
Reply
Martin Johnson
18/11/2019 08:54:40 am
Continued excellent work, Jason.
Reply
Douglas Flack
18/11/2019 09:39:44 am
Well done, I'm a cyclist and regularly pass duck, geese, swans and pigeons who are being fed and all I have to do is slow down. I have a lot of cycling friends and I'm sure that not one of them would want this.
Reply
BoB Howson
18/11/2019 10:03:00 am
Brilliant result, you are doing a fantastic job and getting some real recognition. Thank you.
Reply
GLD Aderson
18/11/2019 11:08:11 am
This act of vandalism is typical of the bureaucrats employed by Nature England .Their sole concern is their budget.
Reply
Tim Burke
18/11/2019 12:03:29 pm
Perhaps we need some perspective on this. Estimated bag sizes for 2012/3 shooting season - Mallard 880,000; Teal 76,000; wigeon 34,000; Tufted Ducks 4600; Gadwall 4,700. To me, more shockingly considering the population declines Woodcock 160,000; Snipe 100,000; Golden Plover 5000.
Reply
duncan tolmie
18/11/2019 12:35:18 pm
thanks jason you have just shown what fools natural england are keep up the good work
Reply
Gillian
18/11/2019 12:56:42 pm
I'm ashamed to say I don't know how Natural England is funded.
Reply
Kathleen McDermott
18/11/2019 04:09:53 pm
Typical of Natural England who always favour humans as opposed to wildlife. Left to them our wild flora and fauna would completely disappear very quickly.
Reply
Dave
18/11/2019 06:00:47 pm
Keep up the good work. This absurd system needs dramatic changes to make it more fit-for-purpose. This must include regarding conservation as paramount in any culling request. As you say stop the stupidity.
Reply
Steve R
19/11/2019 02:59:34 am
I am one of the few that thinks people should be named and shamed. Stupidity is not a reason for anonymity, if anything it will highlight they should be questioned whenever they apply for something questionable, that cannot be done if they remain as invisible as the bureaucrats that are making the decisions.
Reply
Janine Proctor
19/11/2019 08:50:03 am
Whenever I read your posts it gets me angry. That the government are allowed to use the tax payers money to needlessly destroy OUR wildlife, just because these animals are surviving in the environment we live in. The government should be investing our money in protecting OUR heritage not destroying. Jason thank you for being our voice and fighting for our wildlife
Reply
Wendy Haslam
19/11/2019 08:52:48 am
Two questions: Which MPs have been informed of this and is it worth us all writing to our MPs with these facts? Perhaps a template could be made but perhaps I've missed this. And if NE thinks the public isnt concerned, a mass letter writing to them might make them see that we do. Jason could you put something to this effect on your email/blog?
Reply
Pamela Allen
19/11/2019 11:59:08 am
Highlighting this issue is great for birds and public interest.
Reply
Keith Dancey
1/12/2019 04:58:49 pm
Actually, I don't mind the Telegraph naming the country park concerned.
Reply
Kate Rattray
2/12/2019 05:23:28 pm
There is a survey by DEFRA to share your views about the licensing, it will be closed in a few days, maybe you can tweet it Jason? https://consult.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-management/wild-birds-general-licence-survey/
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
If you appreciate what I write about, please consider showing your support by buying me a virtual coffee!
Click the button below! Thanks :) Archives
July 2023
|