Many of the readers of this blog will remember ‘buzzardgate’, the subsequent u-turn and the licences granted to control buzzards in 2013.
The thorny issue of licenses for buzzard control reappeared today when Natural England issued a licence permitting the control of up to 10 buzzards to “prevent serious damage to young pheasants”.
The killing of a recovering British bird of prey to protect an introduced gamebird for the benefit of commercial interest is wrong. The decision sets a worrying precedent. What will be next? Red kites, peregrines, hen harriers?
Buzzard flying free from harm? Ben Hall, rspb-images.com
The fact that these commercial interests remain private and confidential is the second troubling point. Where is the transparency in this decision? As an issue of public interest why must it remain confidential?
Most importantly, I believe the legal framework behind this decision is broken. There needs to be a public policy debate about how can it be right that as a growing number of gamebirds are released, a protected bird of prey is in the firing line to safeguard a shootable surplus of pheasants.
Forty five million pheasants and six million red-legged partridge are released into the countryside each year. We don’t know what the ecological consequences of this introduction are but it’s hardly surprising that it attracts predators. The loss of some of these gamebirds is an inevitable consequence of doing business. Natural predators should not be bearing the cost in this instance. What we really need is the gamekeeping industry to identify ways in which they can live alongside buzzards and invest in protecting their poults without resorting the lethal control.
Some might say about our position, you control wildlife, what's wrong with people controlling buzzards to protect pheasants?
This misses the point entirely.
The control of predators is sometimes necessary for conservation and the RSPB is open about its use of such control on its own reserves (see here). Deciding to use lethal predator control is something we never take lightly, it is always a last resort after other methods of non-lethal control have failed. But there is a fundamental difference here. We use it in order to protect and conserve a public good, species already under pressure, delivering nature that all can see and enjoy. In the case of the buzzard license, the control is designed to protect a private, commercial interest.
Whilst some will try to paint it as such, this isn’t about the RSPB deploying an anti-shooting agenda through the back door, this is about us wanting to see a public debate around our relationship as a country with the natural world in the 21st century.
A test of a modern society is one that tolerates predators and finds ways to live in harmony with them. Reaching for the gun, every time there is a perceived conflict, is the wrong response.
What do you think about this decision?
It would be great to hear your views.
Many thanks for this, Redkite. We had previously (in early buzzard cases) looked at our legal options but concluded that this might not be effective/successful. There are many reasons for this - not least, previous information we received from NE about a previous case was insufficient to scrutinise the level of evidence upon which it was making its decision. The JR which the NGO successfully mounted against NE also implies that the law might be against us in this case. Although I am led to believe that this case cannot set a precedent, we will think about what else can be done to influence the policy/legal framework. So, while I don't rule out a JR, it may not in the end be a realistic option.
An absolutely disgraceful decision. According to the prime minister this Government is supposed to represent the ordinary person and not the privelige few. I would have thought those that have enough land and money to run a pheasant shoot were some of the privilege few. However clearly that is another mistake I have made about this Government!!! .
As I say, it is simply a wicked decision. Perhaps the RSPB could call for a judicial review of it. No wonder one is so cynical and that this country is in such a mess and will get in more of a mess, when one has decisions like this which are clearly in support of vested interests.
redkite
I have just received an email from David North in response to the issuing of permits to control buzzards. I thought I would share...
Buzzard looks down
On the men from the Estate
Come with permits from DEFRA
To destroy his nest.
On these men
Who will never know
What it is to soar
On wings lifted by sun-warmed air
Buzzard looks down on men
What it is to ride thermals
He plays with clouds
And renders the works of men
Cars, roads, houses, whole villages
To mere toys,
Buzzard’s play things
They say this is their wood
But buzzard knows different
He owns what he sees
And he sees much
With patient sure eyes
He has watched seasons change
Green brown, bare
Sat high in these oaks and watched stars turn
While winds howled and trees creaked
Has felt the hammer lash of hail
The soft coldness of snow
Buzzard has sat here in this wood they say they own
As countless nights brightened to dawn
Seen a thousand sunrises
Sat here through winter nights that dressed every branch white with frost
On their pheasants
Holds them in the contempt of talons
These birds that know nothing of soaring
That struggle to fly higher than tree tops
And feed on grain
He knows this wood as they never will
He owns skies
He possesses clouds
He needs no permits
David North
This is awful. As you say, Martin, there needs to be a public debate about whether it's right to cull our native birds of prey, naturally-recovering after decades of persecution, in order to protect an introduced species, released in their millions every year, thousands of which end up squashed on the roads. Quite apart from the ethics, I'd like to see the evidence base underpinning Natural England's decision.
It's not unreasonable to expect the UK government's statutory nature conservation advisors to have evaluation the ecological evidence base - for example, will killing buzzards simply free space into which nearby buzzards will move, creating demand for on-going culling?
There's also an urgent need to review the ecological effects of these releases. I've seen pheasants release into chalk downland demolishing ant hills and would love to know how invertebrates do with such a high biomass of predators released all at once. I'd also like to know how releasing such a high biomass of pheasants affects local predator (fox, badger) density and if this has a knock-on impact on other species on which foxes, badgers etc predate.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with people hunting, in my view - it just needs to be light touch so it doesn't impact disproportionately on wildlife and other people.
We need to contest this decision. Email Defra, Andrea Leadsome and Natural England. Start a petition. If we don't fight this now there will be more and more wildlife killing licenses issued. Doing nothing is not an option.