Licencensed "control" of Buzzards (1 Viewer)

I'm sure someone must already have posted about this, but yesterday I read on BirdGuides that Natural England has issued a licence "permitting the control of up to 10 buzzards to prevent serious damage to young pheasants":

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/licence-for-buzzard-control

"Control" effectively means "shooting". Alarming news, to put it mildly.

Patrick Barkham has written about this today at the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...licence-kill-slaughter-wildlife-natural-world

This is bizarre. If you elect to have have free-running chicken, it's your job to keep them off the road and away from predators. Otherwise, might as well shoot cars, dogs, cats, and most important of all people - after all, some people are criminals and might steal a chicken or two, so let's pre-emptively shoot them all.

Do these people have any evidence that buzzards need to be "controlled" in an agricultural environment? Because my field experience, and basic knowledge about buzzard ecology (they eat a lot of voles and mice, who by the way compete for food with pheasants) says otherwise.

Yep, totally bizarre. The problem is that our current government is in the pockets of extremely wealthy and influential landowners who have a deeply entrenched 17th century attitude to wildlife.

the biggest killer of pheasants on ashoot is a main road,how many of us see pheasant after pheasant, dead on the road near a shoot.this makes no sense. the judge should be investigated, to see if he has vested interests in shooting.

Not many know either that Pheasants are one of the biggest predators of our native Adder.


Andy

andyadcock said:

Not many know either that Pheasants are one of the biggest predators of our native Adder.


Andy

Click to expand...

Yes, but adders aren't cute and fluffy, and they are venomous snakes, so I think their conservation is even harder to sell to the folks who see even buzzards as "vermin".

Don't have any proof of it, but I'd guess Pheasants are also (by out-competing, and perhaps spreading disease) a major cause of the decline of Black Grouse.

100 years ago, Black Grouse used to breed within a few km of Newcastle city centre at lowland (50m alt.) sites. Long after Pheasant had been introduced of course, but before rearing became big business with artificially high populations. Now, you won't find Black Grouse below about 350 m.

Nutcracker said:

Don't have any proof of it, but I'd guess Pheasants are also (by out-competing, and perhaps spreading disease) a major cause of the decline of Black Grouse.

100 years ago, Black Grouse used to breed within a few km of Newcastle city centre at lowland (50m alt.) sites. Long after Pheasant had been introduced of course, but before rearing became big business with artificially high populations. Now, you won't find Black Grouse below about 350 m.

Click to expand...

I've heard this complaint from a West Highland shooter (over fifteen years ago) who reckoned the desire to run maximum Pheasants to guarantee shooting was ruining their local Black Grouse. He also suspected disease but it could just as well be out-competing. Research needed?

John

Farnboro John said:

I've heard this complaint from a West Highland shooter (over fifteen years ago) who reckoned the desire to run maximum Pheasants to guarantee shooting was ruining their local Black Grouse. He also suspected disease but it could just as well be out-competing. Research needed? John

Click to expand...

I don't know of recent research, but in the 1990s, the argument I heard was that because the pheasant-breeding industry was almost year-round from captive stock, in contrast to the mean number of broods raised by wild-living birds, the evolutionary rate of change of the captive populations' gut flora (excreted & re-ingested by successive broods) was faster than for wild-living populations. The consequence mooted was that other wild-living Phasianidae (Grey Partridges, Common Quail), by ingesting evolved gut flora that their bodies could not easily cope with, exhibited reduced breeding fitness such that productivity dropped below the viability levels of their populations. I know that Dick Potts of the Game Conservancy, as it then was, wanted research to be carried out to determine if this hypothesis was correct or not.

In addition, it was speculated that some captive-reared Pheasant populations bred for the shoot received high levels of antibiotics to reduce captive mortality rates, and others had received stored grain feed that had been treated with preservatives that had longer-term risks to fertility: those pheasants being raised as breeding stock were much more carefully managed. That said, I've no certain knowledge what has, or has not been researched on this subject.
MJB

There is a statement now from NE re this licence. At the bottom are links to documents ( heavily blanked!)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/buzzard-licensing-applications

The licences are issued to kill a native bird to protect a non native bird,something wrong there !!

I just received this response yesterday:
" The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Suspend Natural England licence to kill buzzards.”.
Government responded:
Buzzards are widespread in England and the issuing of control licences has no impact on their conservation status. This approach balances conservation of wildlife and supporting the rural economy.
Buzzards are now widespread in England with, according to the British Trust for Ornithology, over 60,000 pairs in the UK. Issuing control licences has no impact on the conservation status of buzzards and this approach strikes a balance between conserving wildlife and supporting our rural economy.
Where appropriate applications are made, Natural England issues Wildlife licences (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wildlife-licences) to prevent damage to agriculture, livestock and fisheries. In deciding whether a licence should be granted, applications are assessed in the same way against the evidence and within the legal framework of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69). If all the relevant criteria are met, there is legally very little scope for Natural England to refuse to grant a licence. Natural England would not consider licensing any activity that would adversely affect the conservation status of a species.
Natural England recently issued a licence permitting the control of up to 10 buzzards to prevent predation of young pheasants within rearing pens.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."

Interested to see what others make of this response, but they seem to be saying that control of any species with 'favourable conservation status' is not only permissible but unavoidable if anyone can assert damage to agriculture, livestock or fisheries. Leaving aside the argument about whether pheasants are 'livestock', according to this logic peregrine and red kite could both be controlled, as they are now 'green-listed' and currently considered to have favourable conservation status in UK. Depressing.

I also received that response, this government doesn't give a damn about our wildlife, as they've proven time and time again, it makes you wonder why we keep signing these petitions when they just seem to ignore them.

kb57 said:

Natural England recently issued a licence permitting the control of up to 10 buzzards to prevent predation of young pheasants within rearing pens.

Click to expand...

If they're worried about plastic pheasant chicks being plucked from pens by Buteo buteo - then why on earth can't the pleasant breeders of exotic infestants simply buy a roll of chicken wire and cover the pens with a roof?

Its beyond me...rant over!

kb57 said:

In deciding whether a licence should be granted, applications are assessed in the same way against the evidence and within the legal framework of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69). If all the relevant criteria are met, there is legally very little scope for Natural England to refuse to grant a licence.

Click to expand...

I had the email too. I'm no lawyer and I haven't read and digested the Act, but I did look up the licensing sections and it appears to me that the granting of any licence for control of this nature is always subject to Natural England being satisfied that there is no other satisfactory solution. I would very much like to know the basis on which they have (evidently) concluded that ithis is the case. I have been trying to find out, but so far they have just fobbed me off and my (Tory) MP is dragging his heels on the matter. I'll wring a reply out of them if it means an FOI enquiry.

I am given to understand that the problem has arisen because when the shoot releases the young birds they stay in the vicinity of the pens and so attract the Buzzards. Why do they do this? (Because food is provided for them there?) Is it really beyond the wit of man to find a method of release that does not result in them staying around the pens? It does look to me as if Natural England is putting commercial considerations above our native wildlife. The fact that the Buzzard population is healthy is neither here nor there AFAIAC.

kb57 said:

. Natural England would not consider licensing any activity that would adversely affect the conservation status of a species.

Click to expand...

Bye bye driven grouse shooting then. It's all so simple really.

keith said:

I also received that response, this government doesn't give a damn about our wildlife, as they've proven time and time again, it makes you wonder why we keep signing these petitions when they just seem to ignore them.

Click to expand...

That's what they want you to do.. just give up. But we won't lie down, no matter how futile it seems

I found this interesting, a paper titled:

Impacts and management of common buzzards Buteo buteo at pheasant Phasianus colchicus release pens in the UK: a review

It was published last year.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-014-0893-1

Two quotes on egg / nest and adult removal:

"The first case involved a pheasant shoot, with licences permitting the destruction of up to two buzzard nests (and eggs) across each of two release sites. Following implementation, the licensee reported no benefit as the buzzards merely re-nested less than 100 m from the original site (Natural England pers comm)."

"In the second case of licensing in England, a permit was issued to a free-range laying poultry business which allowed the permanent removal of up to three buzzards. Subsequently, two birds were live-captured (one juvenile and later one adult) and placed into captivity with experienced falconers. The poultry farm reported no losses to buzzards following the removal of the adult (which hunted pigeons and rabbits for a falconer)—undertaken almost a year earlier (Natural England pers comm)."