September is notoriously a busy month and, now it is October, I am only now catching up on one or two things. I promise an update on hen harriers and the shenanigans in Europe very soon. Today's post focuses on when and how licenses can be granted to kill birds.
The Wildlife & Countryside Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, kill or damage any bird, nest or eggs. However, in reality, the situation is not quite that simple. There are circumstances in which Natural England (NE) can issue licences allowing the killing or taking of certain birds. There must, of course, be a specific, valid justification - for example for conservation of flora or fauna, to prevent serious damage to agriculture, orprotection of public health & safety. Depending on the activity, licence users are often not required to apply directly to NE, but instead are covered by General or Class Licences, which can bedownloaded from NE’s website (more information on the types of licences available here).
Every few years NE reviews these licences, the activities they cover and species they refer to, and this is our opportunity to letthem know our views. As an organisation we accept lethal control in situations where it is truly necessary, but only if non-lethal alternatives have been tried first, and if the control willnot affect the conservation status of the species. We therefore take a keen interest in which species can be legally controlled under which licences. This February, Natural England asked for feedback on 65 proposals and questions about their current licensing system, and following receipt of over 2000 responses (including, of course, a lengthy one from us) last week the final decisions were announced.
So, how did Natural England do? Well there’s good and there’s bad, but given the number of questions posed in the consultation paper, not a whole lot is changing. We urged NE to start collecting information on how many birds are shot under general licences – without this information we just don’t know how this is impacting on populations. However despite asking for views on how they should go about this, NE are yet to decide whether to take this forward. Regular readers of this blog will know that we have, for the past two years, published information about the control of vertebrates on our reserves and we would encourage other organisations to do the same.
We were heartened to hear that they listened to the public outrage that was sparked by a proposal to allow a General Licence for the destruction of robin, starling andpied wagtail nests for health and safety reasons, and I’m pleased to report that this proposal has been rejected.
But there were some disappointments too. NE have rejected a proposal to introduce a requirement for users to have read and understood the licence before use – a no-brainer really and I can’t help but feel nervous that some people actually are using these licences without having first read the terms and conditions. It is hugely important that licence users understand that failure to properly consider non-lethal alternatives prior to licence usewould be illegal, and NE have admitted that the current wording of this condition has left many people confused about what’s expected of them. Therefore we’re disappointed that a proposal to clarify the wording of this condition has also been rejected, and curious as to NE’s reasons for not taking action to increase understanding and compliance.
So a bit of a mixed bag. We don’t yet know when NE’s postponed decisions on the remaining proposals will be made, but our aim will be to ensure that the licensing system in England is fair, effectively enforced, and most importantly does not pose a threat to our native wildlife.
What do you think of NE's new licensing proposals?
It would be great to hear your views.
I have to say that NE's performance on these topics can only be described as most unsatisfactory. As you say Martin, it is a "no brainer" to require the clarification wording of a licence and to have read and properly understood the its terms and conditions.
All my experience of NE, including when I wrote to them twice, quite politely, about the licenced killing of buzzards and recieved no replies at all, is that they are a secretive and unresponsive organisation. All this is at a time of ever increasing biodiversity loss when one might expect them to be championing our wildlife.
Having said all this I suspect that it is not that simiple, as of course NE have to advise a Government, part of which wished to get rid of them as an organisation a year or so ago, some members of which have big land owner interests and which also pays their salaries. Not a satisfactory situation at all.
The status of NE therefore needs to be much improved and up graded perhaps to a statutory independent Trust like the BBC or similar, with a forward budget and terms of reference clearly set out.
The more their operations can be kept away from the influence meddelsome and ill intent politicians the better.