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.

  • Good stuff Martin  - perhaps this transparency can help bring 'warring factions' together for the greater good of wildlife. There will always be tough decisions - has anyone, as they bite into their juicy Cox apple, done a Freedom of Information into how many bullfinches were controlled in commercial orchards?

    The countryside does not thrive off fresh air - it needs viable rural enterprises and we need food - both of which, at times, conflict with wildlife.

    Unpalatable for many reasons, but we need less 'juicy' subjective campaigning and more 'dry' objective science in how we manage the environment.

    PS Peter Crispin - Hen harriers, according to State of Nature, doing rather well in Wales - just the place that Monbiot (see my review of his book in July Countryfile mag and up coming interview)  wants to see the end of heather moorland with some quality rewilding...

    Can we have it all?!

    aye

    twitter.com/blackgull

    www.robyorke.co.uk 

  • Peter - George has been invited and am still hopeful that he will contribute something.

  • I gather that on the Taff/Ely Compensation Reserve or just off it there is a pair of buzzard that is particularly fond of "wader chicks" and herein lies a dilemma that certain individuals of predator species may specialise in certain types of hunting ie upland crow/raven re wader eggs/chicks, some buzzard re chicks etc and that the problem has always been that indiscriminate "control" may be less useful than the elimination of a particular individual or pair... or perhaps encouraging Buzzard pairs to nest somewhere else for example ! I am quite sure that this can probably be extended to some pheasant shoots where the living for a predator is particularly easy; even disgracefully so.

    If the game keeping community were not rendering the hen harrier extinct then I am sure that  I could have more confidence in their judgement; but actually I have none. My experience of their community has almost always been poor; so I am disinclined to give them leeway when I know that predator control of fox and crow is important for wader survival...

    Given that George Monbiot has initiated a considerable and very valuable debate re-rewilding should nt he be "invited" to guest blog here ? Or are all the "conservationists" sitting on their hands here ? The Wildlife Trusts seem to do little else !  The Elan Estate in mid Wales would certainly be a good starting point...................... the lamb mortality there is around 70-80 % and the collosal levels of subsidy to the upland farmers of the Elan catchment and Abergwesyn Commons could be far better spent.

    Peter Plover 

  • The Hawk and Owl Trust policy 'calls for any alternative to be sought to lethal control where humans come into conflict with birds of prey.'

    Culturally, we have a long tradition of reaching for the shot gun as the first, not the last, resort. We, particularly people in rural areas, need to recognise and reverse this approach.

  • Let me say that I think the RSPB is 100% right in the way it uses the licensing system. The RSPB is also to be congratulated in adopting this open approach as to how it sometimes needs to cull certain common species in order to protect much rarer breeding species. This open approach is entirely right.

    When one looks at the underlying cause as to why culling under license is sometimes necessary the answer always comes back to man's activities having caused a distortion of the natural balance of nature. For example certain birds like crows and magpies fair better than most other farmland birds under intensive farming regimes.

    However the issue of licenses to destroy buzzard nests I have to say I regard as "rock bottom". In such cases it is destroying a native species that, despite its recent slight recovery, is still a relative rare bird,and  which has long suffered from human persecution.It is being destroyed in favour of a totally non native species and it is being destroyed for commercial gain by organisations that in most cases already make very large sums out of commercial shooting. Hard to think in this day and age of a worse reason for issuing licenses

    redkite