On Friday, with no fanfare, Defra published the findings of its review of the impacts of fish-eating birds on inland fisheries in England (or, to cut to the chase, the perceived impact on fisheries of that much maligned bird, the cormorant). I should have commented on the day, but alas was enjoying the Game Fair (sweltering conditions, expecially in the marque where I was debating whether pheasant shooting could benefit conservation - more in due course).
Given the rhetoric surrounding the launch of this review two years ago, when much was made of the ‘bold decisions’ Minister Richard Benyon was reportedly prepared to make on cormorant licensing, it is perhaps surprising that this has been slipped out so quietly. Surprising because, to a certain extent, Mr Benyon has been quite bold. Despite being under what I can imagine to be fairly considerable pressure from certain parts of the angling community, he has heeded the evidence and rejected calls to add cormorants and goosanders to the general licence, which would have allowed unlimited and unjustified killing of these birds. This is a good decision.
The findings of the review are clear – there is no evidence to suggest an increasing impact of predation, or that the existing licensing regime is insufficient to meet anglers’ needs. In contrast, research commissioned by the review found that the cormorant population is 20% smaller than previously thought and already subject to potentially unsustainable levels of control.
Which is why we’re still not entirely comfortable with some of the recommendations made as a result of the review. We’re still very concerned that government policy already permits the licensed killing of 2000 (or up to 3000) cormorants every year in England, despite model projections indicating a risk of extinction if control continues at these levels, and the known decline in the breeding population of this species in the UK (-14% between 2000-2012).
We also think more clarity is needed regarding the role, objectives and implications of the proposed fisheries management advisors and catchment management trial. We believe the key test of the new arrangements will be that they reduce the level of serious damage to fisheries AND reduce the number of birds killed. To do this, the new advisors must help fishery managers to provide the right habitat for fish to avoid predators, rather than encourage them to reach for the gun. Such measures work, are non-contentious and will be more sustainable in the long run for the benefit of ALL users of the aquatic environment (fish, birds and people).
Does that seem reasonable to you?
It would be great to hear your views...
Not just reasonable, but a model for all field sports - to put it in the words of the Hawk & Owl trust's policy 'lethal control should be the last, not the first resort' . Field Sports and conservation need to work together - conservation, to save wildlife - including species like Cormorant which, perhaps surprisingly as you point out could slip easily from green to red status, and field sports to maintain and enhance their public support.
And, giving credit where its due, on this occasion we must thank Richard Benyon for not taking the all too easy and comfortable route of bending to the volume of protest rather than carefully considering the facts as he has creditably done here.