Tough choices (a follow up comment about values and motivations)

The group that has challenged our predator control practices have made some sweeping statements on social media which are misleading.

For example, following a first meeting when we discussed predator control at length, we did offer to meet again to discuss some of their concerns in more detail. They refused to do so.

They also have made highly subjective statements about the contractors we employ to undertake the predator control. As I explained in the previous blog, we have very clear processes which we follow during the recruitment process. Many predator control contractors will have links to the shooting community but this does not mean they are “bloodsports” enthusiasts and this has no bearing on their ability to undertake predator control for conservation purposes in a professional and humane manner.

I have also explained (in a previous comment and copied below for ease of reference) the rationale for why we do predator control and we continue to strive to meet our conservation objectives while operating to the highest animal welfare standards. I have also specifically addressed our use of Larsen traps.

At the heart of this is a difference in values and motivations. As a conservation charity, we work to keep common species common and recover threatened species. Others are perhaps more interested in the fate of individual birds. While, of course, I understand and respect these views, they differ from our values and charitable objectives which must guide the choices we make.

These debates will of course continue, but I think are best done through face to face meetings rather than through commentary on social media or even email exchanges which is why our offer to meet again still stands. 

---------------------------------

A few queries have been raised through twitter about our use of Larsen traps and whether we have an exit strategy for predator control.

On the former, as I have said in previous blogs, we only resort to lethal means when tests in our vertebrate policy are met:
- That the seriousness of the problem has been established
- That non-lethal methods have been assessed and found not to be practicable
- That killing is an effective way of addressing the problem
- That killing will not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the target or other non-target species.

Sadly, Larsen traps are an effective lethal means of controlling crows during the wader breeding season. The call bird is seen as an intruder by territorial crows who will then try to drive it away.

Shooting is another means of controlling crows. It doesn’t require the use of call birds but there are limitations to its use, for example as it takes place during the day on land that is often used by people. Therefore, whilst it can supplement Larsen trapping, it is unlikely to be an effective means of controlling crows on its own.

We do, of course, ensure that the trapping of crows is carried out in accordance with the General Licenses and relevant animal welfare legislation. Our policy for use of Larsen traps exceeds these legal requirements, as all contractors must check traps twice a day to ensure that the call-bird has access to food and water and that suitable welfare provisions are made for any caught birds. Fresh water is provided by a dispenser attached to the trap so that it cannot be knocked over. Call-birds are changed regularly. All contractors complete a daily checklist each time the check is undertaken and this is submitted to the RSPB. The RSPB Investigations Team regularly undertake ‘independent’ spot checks to ensure our contractors are compliant.

Regarding the issue of having an exit strategy for predator control, I would refer you to the conclusions from the recent review that we published about the impact of predation on wild birds where we say that there is “a real need for research to understand how landscape-scale management could be used to provide longer-term sustainable solutions to reduce the number of generalist predators and their impact of species of conservation concern”. So, we intervene to provide a lifeline for threatened species while we continue to seek what is inevitably a longer term ambition to secure more fundamental change in the way land is managed.