|
* 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 
16 Comments
* 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 
Hi folks,
Hope you're all doing well. Just to let you know I've been communicating with NatureScot about their lethal control wildlife licences - and asking them when they plan to release more data. Before I launch into the update, it's been on my mind that we seem to have a distinct lack of transparency within some UK government departments. Data, that is of public interest, is routinely hidden from public view. I'm referring in particular to information relating to our country's wildlife and how human activities and industrialisation are affecting nature in this country. Through our campaign, we have succeeded in making Natural England's wildlife licence data available to the public every year, and I think we can now see just how much of an achievement this really is - certainly not something that we can take for granted when dealing with other government agencies. That was a long battle, but through calm discourse, a result was achieved and the public can now examine Natural England's licences in some detail - even if we take issue with some of the decisions made... but that's the point really - having access to the data enables public scrutiny of Natural England's activities, leading to debate and discussion, which is surely a good thing. In other areas of government though, concealing data seems to be the default position, especially when it might lead to the public asking awkward questions - an example of this was when I recently asked Defra to release cetacean stranding data following an increase in dead whales, dolphins and porpoises washing up on the UK's beaches. They declined, saying the information was not ready for publication, maintaining that "disclosing datasets in their raw state would give a misleading or inaccurate impression that would likely result in incorrect conclusions, drawn out of context." This in spite of their undertaking to publish annual stranding reports, which are currently running three years late....(more on that in a moment). NatureScot So, on to NatureScot. Given their track record of permitting high levels of lethal control, I know you'd all like to see the latest figures detailing how many licences Scotland has been issuing, and you might remember that it was way back in March 2023 when NatureScot assured me that they would be publishing data regularly - after I asked them if they could be more transparent about their work; back then they told me, "We agree on the benefits of publishing this information and are keen to ensure openness and transparency of our licensing functions," adding "we are currently in the process of formatting licence information which will be published on our website on a regular basis". Well, 'openness and transparency' is always good - but it took a further four months for them to publish some relevant information - and even then it was a heavily edited set of licence data which omitted key information. At the time NatureScot rejected my call to share more detailed statistics, telling me that "while data on the specific numbers associated with each licence is very informative we concluded that the time taken to process this quantity of data would not be viable and would impede on current licensing demand." Then, in a plot twist, the following month they very quietly published the full data on their website. The details, as expected, were shocking, high levels of lethal control across many species. By the end of 2023, I had received a further assurance from NatureScot telling me that "We plan to publish it [the licence data] 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. We will start collating that data in the New Year." Great. But wait..... Ambiguous Fast forward to last month, and I asked NatureScot if they were now able to share the latest data, as there has been scant information available for licences issued since June 2023, more than a year ago, other than a brief summary which was skeletal and lacked any significant detail. I was pleased to see that communication channels remained open and I was told that "We are just on the cusp of releasing all our data [....] to complete the info we have available." 'On the cusp of releasing data' sounded very hopeful, but I asked for clarification and confirmation that recent licences, issued since June 2023, would also be included in this upcoming release. I finally got a response from NatureScot, but there was an ambiguous start to the conversation, not least because they didn't seem to know when the information would be published. "We are currently working on updating the lethal control data alongside our broader summaries of the numbers of licences issued each month." Okay, well we knew that already, but they went on to explain that they are "...in the process of training up a Licensing Support Officer in this task but with holidays and the new grouse licensing system going live it is difficult to put a solid timeline on this." I expressed my disappointment at the lack of any specific timeline, which prompted a further response from NatureScot's senior licensing officer, "I have scheduled in the training with our Licensing Support Officer so this gives me a better idea of when we can aim for the data to be live. Currently we are aiming for end of September but as I say [....] this is hard to confirm with the nature of the licensing workloads." So perhaps September then? Or maybe not? Who knew that 'openness and transparency' could be such a challenging aspiration to fulfil? Well, please rest assured that as soon as the data is published, I will issue a further update with a link to the information. Whales.... Speaking of hidden data, it is with similarly treacle-wading frustration that I'm still trying to persuade Defra to release the statistics relating to cetacean strandings.... Defra told both me and the Information Commissioners Office (after I asked them to intervene), that they would publish the 2021/22 figures in May or June of this year - and they haven't. Maybe Defra's reticence to release the figures is because the 2020 data that they (eventually) published in May revealed the highest numbers of dead whales, porpoises and dolphins ever recorded in the UK, which is absolutely shocking. Though there are doubtless many contributing factors for the terrible numbers of dead marine mammals, I lay much of the blame on the ongoing industrialisation of our seas, especially the expansion of offshore wind farms. This is where public debate could be useful - if we had the figures. If marine mammal deaths have increased further, then that might explain why the government is delaying sharing the information with the public.... but I think it's in the public interest to see the data, something with which I think many of you will probably agree. You can read more about this particular ongoing saga on my other blog, where I have a number of articles, click HERE. I will continue to push for openness and transparency from these government departments - even if it does involve a lot of wading through treacle. Thanks for your continued support, encouragement - and patience! Best, Jase 
* Since 2012, Natural England has approved the destruction of thousands of Mallard eggs - at a single site.
* In addition, the same licence permitted the destruction of Coot, Moorhen, Mute Swan, Canada Goose and Greylag Goose eggs.... Hi folks, I said I'd let you know when I heard back from Natural England following my latest freedom of information request. This time it was regarding the destruction of thousands of wild birds eggs, permitted under an ongoing licence that Natural England has routinely renewed over several years. Eventually I had a response from Natural England, along with a zip file containing documents outlining the numbers of eggs approved to be destroyed under this regularly renewed licence, since 2012. It would seem that the licence goes back even further than that - but records prior to 2012, according to Natural England, "are no longer held and have been destroyed in accordance with best management records practice." Much of the information contained in the response has been redacted, hidden due to concerns over security, should the licence holder's identity be made public. Due to these redactions, I can't tell you the organisation that is destroying the eggs of wild birds, nor can I safely divulge the location. But I can tell you that since 2012, Natural England has approved the destruction of thousands of Mallard eggs - at a single site. In addition, the same licence permitted the destruction of Coot, Moorhen, Mute Swan, Canada Goose and Greylag Goose eggs. Why? To protect a zoological 'collection'. In order to protect selected waterfowl species contained within the 'collection', native wild birds are deterred from breeding at the site. To achieve this, the organisation is allowed (by way of Natural England's licence) to destroy the eggs of certain wild birds deemed undesirable within the boundary of the site. The organisation holding the licence aims to breed various species of birds (some of them described as 'exotic waterfowl' species) as part of wider conservation efforts. It sounds like a noble cause, except that it entails destroying native species of birds in the process... The licence holder points out that the native wild birds are welcome to breed outside the boundary, where there is a large area of managed nature reserve. The problem is that the local native species of birds don't seem to recognise that the area within the 8 foot high fence surrounding the site is no-go territory for them. The organisation running the site says that their "conservation aims are to protect both zoological and native species from disease and aggression. [We] have numerous exotic waterfowl on site which are bullied by the more aggressive native waterfowl which dominate managed nesting sites." "As the wild birds lay eggs they draw in avian predators which prey on their eggs and chicks (Herons, Corvids and Gulls) which in turn also predate the eggs of the exotic waterfowl which we are trying to breed." It all sounds like a complete mess, albeit one founded on an idealistic plan. Conservationists playing 'Mother Nature'. To my mind, that is never an ethical strategy and rarely successful in the long term. In this case, it will just result in crippling the local population of wild birds - it's fairly obvious that there would be thousands more Mallards, for example, if their eggs were not routinely destroyed, I mean it's not rocket science is it...? In issuing the licence, Natural England clearly believes that native species populations in the area will not be adversely impacted. Mallards though are a vulnerable amber listed species in the UK - how can anyone justify destroying their eggs? I've been through the data supplied in response to the foi request, and have come up with a shocking estimate of the numbers of wild birds eggs potentially destroyed - in the name of conservation - under this licence over the past few years. The figures since 2012 suggest that the licence holder has been allowed to destroy more than 3000 Mallard eggs. A similar combined number of Coot and Moorhen eggs and more than 2,500 Greylag Geese eggs. Eggs of Mute Swans and Canada Geese were also approved to be destroyed. In total, several thousand wild birds eggs permitted to be legally destroyed, all in the name of conservation. It's odd, isn't it - though perhaps not surprising - that the much loved Mallard is now amber listed, a threatened species in the UK. Yet this organisation was allowed to destroy thousands of Mallard eggs, in order to protect other selected species. I don't call that conservation, I call it misguided and irresponsible. Although I can't tell you right now exactly where this is happening, suffice it to say that it's yet another example of lethal control that has been enabled for years by Natural England and their questionable licensing system. This is just one example. I wonder if our wildlife would be better off without bodies such as Natural England altogether (and without some conservation organisations too) because however well intentioned they set out to be, they seem to lose sight of the welfare of wildlife and instead focus on their blinkered mission to 'manage' it - by way of lethal control. I don't know, sometimes it feels like a futile task pointing out anomalies to those who should already know better. The key to real conservation is clear - it relies on individuals on the ground, making space for wildlife in whatever way they can - without killing inconvenient species in the process. As for the particular case outlined above, who is to blame? Well the licence holder can only destroy the eggs if it has a licence issued by Natural England. And Natural England has seen fit to renew the licence for at least a decade. So I think that says it all. Time for the licence system to be overhauled, reorganised and monitored by those who really care about our natural world. It's a controversial topic, I'd welcome your comments.... Best, Jase 
Hi folks,
Two topics in today's update, firstly I've been looking into Natural England's recently published licence data, and one particular licence, (of many), raised questions.... Hundreds of waterfowl eggs licenced for destruction I have asked Natural England, by way of a freedom of information request, to explain why they approved the destruction of hundreds of eggs of Mute Swans (40), Canada Geese (100), Greylag Geese (600), Moorhens (350), Coots (250) and Mallards (500) . These actions were approved under just a single example of their now infamous licences. I don't know about you, but I've seen a marked decline in the numbers of all these species at a local level. It is clearly wrong headed to licence the destruction of their eggs. What are they thinking?? This particular licence was renewed last year, and it has been active for a number of years, meaning that many thousands of eggs could have been destroyed. Thousands and thousands of wild birds lost to the world. This is a tragedy, it is unacceptable. And it is just one of the licences that Natural England approves and issues each year, with little accountability and next to no direct monitoring of the actions taken. In years to come, this whole method of 'managing' wildlife will likely come to be seen as a national disgrace. Well, in regard to my freedom of information request about this mass destruction of wild birds' eggs, Natural England have informed me with 'regret' that they "must extend the time limit for responding by a further 20 working days, because of the complexity nature of the request". Not really surprising I suppose, the wholesale destruction of wild birds' eggs is going to take some explaining after all.... The second piece of news today is also really disheartening I'm afraid.... Harvesting 'gourmet' gull eggs - licences approved for 2024. It's the time of year when 'traditionally' the eggs of Black-headed gulls have been harvested to satisfy the gluttonous end of the fine dining market. Our campaign has helped to limit this unsavoury trade, and we have seen the withdrawal of most licences that enable the practice. It makes no sense at all to continue with licensing the harvesting of eggs of a threatened (amber-listed) species, for human consumption. It's patently obvious that this anachronistic practice should end. But two stubborn licences remained in place last year, in North Yorkshire, supported and approved by Natural England. The hope was that these last remaining licences would finally be withdrawn, as they have been in Hampshire, another traditional egg collecting area. In 2023, these Yorkshire licences enabled the collection of 2,500 eggs to satisfy the appetites of well-heeled diners. And now, unfortunately, Natural England has - in its wisdom - decided to renew the licences again this year. It's a disgusting trade. And it should stop. Explaining their decision to renew the licences again this year, Natural England told me "The collection of Black-headed gull eggs is a licensable activity under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 [...] the licensing team undertook a site visit to one of the collection sites last year and can confirm the colony appears healthy and has grown substantially since the previous survey. At the national scale, the cumulative effects of black headed gull egg-collecting are considered very small in relation to the national population and egg production. Therefore, we continue to believe licensing at this scale is sustainable." I think they're wrong. It might (possibly) be sustainable - just - but it's most certainly not ethical. I know many of you will agree. In my response, I told Natural England the following... "It is indeed very disappointing to hear that Natural England has continued to sanction the two remaining licences, permitting the harvesting of Black-headed gull eggs. I know that there will be much consternation over this among environmentalists, many of whom will struggle to understand the rationale behind the decision." Rest assured I'll be in touch again when I have some more answers regarding the destruction of the waterfowl eggs. It should make for interesting reading. 
|
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
February 2026
|
RSS Feed