Since 1981, all wild birds, their eggs and chicks have been protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA). This means they cannot be killed, have their eggs taken or have their occupied nests destroyed unless this is done under licence.
We have been quite vociferous over licensing recently, particularly in relation to our anger at licences issued by Natural England for the destruction of buzzard nests to benefit shooting businesses. Although we have opposed the issuing of licences for the purpose of protecting game interests, we need to rely on the WCA licensing system for conservation, occasionally, too. And, in the interests of openness, I thought I’d share this information with you.
The bulk of the work we complete under WCA licences relates to ‘disturbance’ of wild birds, including those sensitive or rare species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA. For example, armed with licences authorised staff and volunteers can: monitor the nests of declining wading birds; erect temporary fences around the nests of Montagu’s harriers in arable fields; or place nest protection cages over little ringed plover nests, or electric fencing around little tern colonies. All of this work is done to increase the breeding success of threatened bird species. We have also needed to rely on the licencing system when setting up reintroduction projects for red kites, corncrakes or cirl buntings, or when our investigators try to thwart the attempts of collectors to steal the eggs of some of our rarest birds.
In all of these cases, disturbance is temporary. And, all of this work is only done for research, educational or conservation purposes. Every year we submit a comprehensive report of all our work carried out under these licences to the licensing authority.
Occasionally, we also have to control certain bird species under licence on some of our reserves, but only after all possible management has been done but failed to provide all the conservation needs for those species of concern. In most cases, this is to recover the numbers of threatened wild birds: for example, we remove certain predators to aid the recovery of ground-nesting bird populations. We always favour approaches - such as habitat management and predator exclusion techniques – but, as a last resort, killing may sometimes be necessary.
It is certainly not an everyday tool, and it must be justified on a case-by-case basis. In line with legal requirements and our own policies, we will only contemplate predator control when predation is shown to pose a threat to species or populations of conservation concern, and is sufficiently serious to warrant action. We will also only countenance lethal control where there is no satisfactory alternative and where any control measures are restricted to the predator, are humane and are capable of reducing predation pressure.
To benefit breeding wading birds, such as black-tailed godwit or lapwing, we carry out lethal control of carrion crows on some reserves. This happens under the so-called general licence, which means – like everyone using this provision - we’re not obliged to submit records on the number of birds killed (which we think is wrong), but we keep the records anyway and here are the most recent figures we have available:
In 2011-12, 292 crows were killed on our reserves. Eleven magpies have also been killed under general licence on RSPB reserves for conservation purposes during the same period.
To protect breeding terns from predation, licensed control of herring gulls, lesser black-backed gulls and great black-backed gulls is also undertaken on specific reserves as a last resort. In 2011-12, 76 large gull nests were destroyed (mostly lesser-black-backed gull) and three adult lesser black-backed gulls were shot on RSPB reserves. Both herring and lesser black-backed gulls have an unfavourable conservation status. So we would never carry out lethal control which endangers the predator species.
We also carry out control (through egg oiling) of greylag and Canada geese on two reserves in England for aircraft safety. In 2012 this amounted to 73 greylag goose eggs and 25 Canada goose eggs. Also 195 eggs of introduced barnacle geese have been destroyed on another reserve to reduce the impact of aggressive behaviour towards nesting species of conservation concern. At one site we also oil Canada goose eggs to prevent hatching to avoidserious crop damage to a neighbouring landowner.
The licensing system for permitting disturbance or control of wildlife exists for particular problems and we believe it is legitimate to make small-scale interventions for conservation, or as the law allows. However, we remain opposed to any plan to reduce the integrity of the licensing system and make it easier to kill things in general.
Sorry Martin, I am very uncomfortable about an organisation with 'protection of birds' in its name (and ethos) being responsible for the killing of one single bird. "Culling"may be justified by a 'science-based approach', but the human regard for, love of and care of birds is not just about science; indeed I suggest it has very little to do with it. Try asking yourself this: would you pull up your car (RSPB logo on the door panel), get out and help an injured bird, or would you steam on by, saying to yourself: ' No need here; it’s a Magpie' or 'Not stopping; it’s a Herring Gull chick' or "Forget it, it's an 'invasive'"? Putting the headline of "RSPB Conservation Director abandons injured bird to its fate", out of your mind, what would you do? I feel confident that you and many of us here would stop and try to help, proving we have the capacity to prioritise the blamelessness, beauty and sanctity of a single bird life over the scientifically-proven (?) culpability of the species. And, after all, if a bird - any bird - can't trust the RSPB badge, why should a prospective new member?
Martin, like Rob above I too applaud the transparency, although it is interesting that you cite openness as the reason for publishing details of the RSPB culling various species in order to conserve others, while the Countryside Alliance claims (in their latest newsletter) that you are reacting to their Freedom of Information requests on the subject.
Be that as it may, and in the interests of openness, perhaps you could tell us on which reserves the carrion crows and magpies were culled in 2011-12 and which threatened species they were killed to protect, and what other management measures had been tried, and failed, that led to lethal solutions being necessary.
Similarly, also in the interests of openness, perhaps you could tell us on which reserves the UK amber-listed lesser and greater black backed gulls and UK red-listed herring gulls were culled or had nests destroyed in 2011-12 and which threatened species they were killed or destroyed to protect, and what other management measures had been tried, and failed, that led to lethal solutions being necessary in those cases.
And to complete the picture it would be good to know how many foxes, mustelids and deer were culled in 2011-12 on RSPB reserves (or at RSPB behest on neighbouring land) and the reasons for those actions too.
Again, like Rob, I suspect such openness would help inform, better, the national conservation debate and minimise current polarisation of views and divisiveness.
There has to be some special catastrophe if lamb survival only 20%.Even in the uplands they would want 95% survival rate in normal years.
Lets give these hard working upland farmers(often 70 hours plus a week)our thanks and backing for all they do for our country.If everyone worked as hard as they do then the country would be in great condition financially and they do it all in more difficult conditions than 99% of population.
Anyone who criticises them wants to go and work there for 12 months,as long as they manage to survive they would change their views.
Hi Rob....there are huge areas of upland Wales that are subsidised and improved and loss making deserts not heather moor; most of the Cambrians and Beacons are so over grazed or improved without a shoot of heather so please do not limit the huge debating space that Monbiot is creating here by simplistic "not in my back yard stuff. It is notable that the Wildlife Trusts in Wales at Iolo Williams very good recent appeal seem to utterly lack a coherent political platform.
Peter Plover
Agree 100% with the policy in this blog just two strange facts in the policy however.How can the RSPB always say,absolutely always in fact that Magpies have no affect on small bird numbers yet cull a very small number(no excuses about it being special cases)they either kill or they don't.Secondly how can it be right for rspb to cull under license in special cases in their opinion but seriously oppose a trial repeat only a trial cull of Badgers that may save thousands of cattle lives also hopefully get Badger population healthier also very likely help several species getting infected with BTB.Quite honestly I think you should keep off the Badger subject anyway unless you change to a wildlife charity as opposed to bird charity.
It is just as important to farmers to solve the BTB problem as it is to RSPB to cull predators when it suits them,wouldn't it be ironic if in future the Badger population increases so that you have to cull some in certain areas as they are taking all the ground nesting birds eggs.