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.
I've e-mailed (un)Natural England and Andrea Loathesome. Has anyone started a petition?
Well... it is a very disappointing decision on behalf of (un)Natural England. It would appear that they have bowed to pressure from land owning and shooting interests in this case. A JR might be worth a go, but it isn't a sure-fire way of getting this decision over-ruled as it would possibly go to appeal. JMT have just seen their successful JR on the Stronelairg wind farm over-turned on appeal by the Scottish Government. I've been watching the debate around the game and shooting industry ramp up over the last few months and the writing may well be on the wall.
The more folk realise that land management for shooting and game interests just exacerbates predation on native/wild species, the better. I wonder why more people don't point this out. It's Ecology 101 surely? Management to create a shootable surplus just creates the conditions for a larger predator population (through symbiosis) which in turn generates the need for more predator control to maintain the shootable surplus. Meanwhile, those predator populations whose numbers have increased symbiotically with prey populations will also predate on native wildlife as a spill-over effect (i.e. collateral damage from management for game). The game and shooting interests then use this predation on native wildlife as justification for further predator control when all they are really interested in is maintaining the shootable surplus of game species. It's perverse really.
I understand why the game and shooting interests feel under threat; it is what they enjoy doing, there's big money involved and there are some very powerful and rich people involved. Inevitably, it ends up being an "us and them" battle; one that it underpinned by a long history of cultural and social hegemony. This makes it particularly toxic and entrenched, and why NE have bowed to pressure from vested interests.
Thanks, Redkite. I also think it is worth making representation to your MP to take it up with the new Minister, Terese Coffey.
Thanks for this Martin, I have written to DEFRA in the meantime complaining about this decision to n the strongest possible terms.
redkite
Senseless. When will we learn. Shows Natural England's priorities doesn't it £££€€€$$$ probably have a bunch of Americans/Arabs on a waiting list to come and shoot a bird of prey legally. Sickening.