A couple of weeks ago I wrote to my MP asking the following specific questions:
1) How, precisely, will Natural England ensure that that the gamekeeper(s) to whom the licence has been granted will actually conform to the terms of that licence?
2) How will Natural England determine that the licence has not been used surreptitiously as a carte blanche to remove more birds than the number specified?
3) What are the non-lethal measures that will be employed alongside this control?
4) Why are the rearing pens not already Buzzard-proof and what measures are being taken to ensure that they will be?
5) How many pheasants annually has this estate been prevented from releasing because of attacks by Buzzards?
6) How many pheasants does the estate anticipate that the control measures will now enable it to release that would not otherwise have been released
7) What proportion will this increase be of the total number that the estate expects to release?
I don't think these questions were unreasonable. All of them should have been considered and resolved robustly before any licence was granted, so a reply should be a straightforward matter.
This morning I received a formal reply, through my MP, from Natural England. This reply totally ignored all of the questions I posed and merely regurgitated the stock explanation that NE posted on their website on 5 August (and which I had already seen). As it happens, this does provide some sort of answer to my question 4), but that is purely coincidental. For a supposedly accountable body to treat legitimate enquiries with such laziness, sloppiness and downright discourtesy inspires no confidence whatsoever in Defra's and Natural England's competence. Naturally I have conveyed my dissatisfaction to my MP and asked for my questions to be properly addressed, but I do not hold out much hope because, frankly, I doubt that NE have many of the answers. NE's reply that I linked above does intimate that the problem may lie with released birds returning to the pen area, so NE could dead-bat my questions 5-7 by giving a strictly literal reply in which the numbers would probably be minimal or zero, but if they don't want yet another letter they'd do well to address the obvious point I'm making.
If it turns out that these points have been properly considered and NE can demonstrate why they are not sufficient to mitigate the problem satisfactorily, then I might - just might - be able to accept that NE acted within reason. Not that that would make me feel any better.
1) How, precisely, will Natural England ensure that that the gamekeeper(s) to whom the licence has been granted will actually conform to the terms of that licence?
2) How will Natural England determine that the licence has not been used surreptitiously as a carte blanche to remove more birds than the number specified?
3) What are the non-lethal measures that will be employed alongside this control?
4) Why are the rearing pens not already Buzzard-proof and what measures are being taken to ensure that they will be?
5) How many pheasants annually has this estate been prevented from releasing because of attacks by Buzzards?
6) How many pheasants does the estate anticipate that the control measures will now enable it to release that would not otherwise have been released
7) What proportion will this increase be of the total number that the estate expects to release?
I don't think these questions were unreasonable. All of them should have been considered and resolved robustly before any licence was granted, so a reply should be a straightforward matter.
This morning I received a formal reply, through my MP, from Natural England. This reply totally ignored all of the questions I posed and merely regurgitated the stock explanation that NE posted on their website on 5 August (and which I had already seen). As it happens, this does provide some sort of answer to my question 4), but that is purely coincidental. For a supposedly accountable body to treat legitimate enquiries with such laziness, sloppiness and downright discourtesy inspires no confidence whatsoever in Defra's and Natural England's competence. Naturally I have conveyed my dissatisfaction to my MP and asked for my questions to be properly addressed, but I do not hold out much hope because, frankly, I doubt that NE have many of the answers. NE's reply that I linked above does intimate that the problem may lie with released birds returning to the pen area, so NE could dead-bat my questions 5-7 by giving a strictly literal reply in which the numbers would probably be minimal or zero, but if they don't want yet another letter they'd do well to address the obvious point I'm making.
If it turns out that these points have been properly considered and NE can demonstrate why they are not sufficient to mitigate the problem satisfactorily, then I might - just might - be able to accept that NE acted within reason. Not that that would make me feel any better.
Last edited: