It’s only just over a month since I wrote about the news that Natural England had issued a licence permitting the control of up to 10 buzzards to “prevent serious damage to young pheasants”.
At the time I said that “the decision sets a worrying precedent. What will be next?” Well now we have an indication of what the future might look like – the prospect of more legalised killing of buzzards. Yesterday, Natural England announced that there are four more licence applications in the system. While we do not, as yet, know how Natural England will respond to these licenses, my concern is that there could be four more places where native birds of prey could be killed in order to maximize the number of introduced gamebirds available for commercial shooting. Four more instances where a flawed policy framework could allow public interest to be trumped by commercial concern.
Image courtesy of Tim Melling
This is all happening despite the continued persecution of raptors. In Victorian times, buzzards were in a precarious position having been shot, trapped and hunted from all but the most remote parts of the country.
However, legal protection meant that the buzzard population was able to recover and it has slowly spread to many of its old haunts, where its soaring spectacle is admired by the many rather than the few.
So why, through current policy and law, are we allowing this still-recovering magnificent bird to be legally killed? In order to protect a private business concern. To protect a few of the tens of millions of non-native gamebirds that are released into the countryside each year.
This to me seems like a perversion of the licensing system. The system of licensing we have in this country is a good one. It sets a series of strict tests which must be met before the usual legal protection of a species can be put aside. However, any system is only as good as the way it is used. Killing a native and still recovering bird of prey to allow a few extra non-native gamebirds, dubiously classed as ‘livestock’ to justify the killing is wrong. Some will once again try to portray the RSPB as being ‘anti-shooting’. We're not. We are anti the killing of a magnificent and protected bird of prey for no good reason.
It’s striking that other birds of prey, most notably England’s hen harriers, are in the situation buzzards were 100 years ago – persecuted to the brink of extinction. Indeed the situation is more dire for hen harriers today than it ever was for buzzards. Something has gone terribly wrong in priority setting when the Government’s conservation agency is spending more time thinking about whether to grant licenses to kill a recovering raptor species, than it is trying to end the illegal killing of another.
I’d also like clarification about the process by which future licences will be monitored. The way previous licenses have been issued leaves a lot to be desired. The ability to take joy in seeing soaring buzzards across the UK should be available to all of us. Taking it away, even in small part to benefit a commercial interest, should be subject to public debate. That clearly isn’t happening here. Transparency is a must if this isn’t to look like a shady back room deal.
And just think what this could mean for the Police trying to tackle the illegal killing of buzzards. Every time they get a call about someone shooting a buzzard they would have to consider whether it’s under licence or not? Or has the licence holder exceeded the number of buzzards they can kill? The deterrent effect of legal protection has been slashed. The last thing we want is open season on buzzards, making the policing of the illegal killing we know still goes on, extremely difficult.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Reaching for the gun should not be the first course of action in perceived conflicts with nature. That’s not the sort of society I want to live in and I will be writing to the minister today to say exactly that, and to seek reform.
I support your every word - I worry that there are no stops or checks to account for ONLY 10 Buzzards. The weapon of choice in the controls of birds of prey is poisoned bait. The receiver of the poison dies a horrible death and in theory could take any live chicks in the nest along with them. Do the figures add up? How many chicks would 10 buzzard take of unprotected Pheasant young? What quantity of chicks is it being claimed are take? What is the proportion of those alleged taken when compared with the "industry" claim for the quantity of those bred as a whole? I would seriously doubt that killing 10 Buzzards would contribute to the reducing the vast numbers of chicks in the industry. What was the compelling reason to grant the licence surely it is not simply as they are "livestock". Has the research been completed to show how insignificant 10 Buzzards. Is it not the case that Natural England and or the RSPB examine and verify that 10 buzzards only are shot. On a personal level I believe that wholesale poisoning will be carried out significantly affecting Buzzard conservation. Could some one please attempt to intervene, do the laws allow checks and audits, surely it is not unreasonable to require controls on the birds authorised in the licence!!
Its important to realise that Natural England staff will have little or no say, other than if the law is being broken in a situation like this: the direction -and responsibility -lies entirely with Ministers - Therese Coffey in this case. Natural England is not like RSPB: whatever fine words there may have been about 'arms length' (and there haven't been any recently) it is quite simply a part of Defra and does as it is told - including accepting devastating cuts under the current and coalition Governments.
In the long run these license applications will look like the most incredibly stupid acts on the part of the shooting lobby: the dramatic spread of Buzzards is a positive story for shooting - quite clearly, many in shooting have changed, realising in particular that Buzzards pose no threat to shooting. It is ironic that it is the small number of licenses, not the larger number of shooting people trying to move into the 21st century, that is making the headlines.
Legal options may be tricky as one can only JR process rather merits of decisions. I am confident that Natural England don't want to consent license applications but clearly have to apply the policy and legal framework that exists - and, as has happened previously, if they don't then they expose themselves to legal challenge. This is why ministerial direction or change in policy/law seem likely the appropriate routes to go and is certainly our priority. However, we will still, inevitably, look at legal options.
So when would you like my to apply for the job of running Natural England? If I was successful a few things could change there.