• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

DEFRA licence farce (1 Viewer)

Why don't we just exterminate everything on the planet and let nature start all over again? Oh, I just realised - we're doing that anyway!

Gus
 
Well, I'm afraid it's a fact that sometimes people kill birds, legally. It's all good and well to wish for a utopian world where everyone eats grass and jays or gulls sing us to sleep with a lullaby, and nothing died ever. But, back in the real world, there are sometimes conflicts between species protection and economics or public health, but we have some of most stringent wildlife protection laws in the World. The General Licence goes a long way to enforcing them.

If you're happy to accept dichotomies and imperfect worlds, lets' accept the General Licence, shall we?
 
I'm not for a utopian world, far from it. Sounds kinda boring.

All right then, let's keep the General Licence, but only let responsible people have it.

At least it's got a lively debate going.

Gus
 
Offord said:
Well, I'm afraid it's a fact that sometimes people kill birds, legally. There are sometimes conflicts between species protection and economics or public health, but we have some of most stringent wildlife protection laws in the World. The General Licence goes a long way to enforcing them.

I don't doubt any of this and fully understand the (occasional, well thought-out) culls for a specific purpose for the reasons you quote above. However, my point remains and I think is valid ...a species should be on each of the license categories for a real reason, supported by data to show this. I do not accept that Jay constitutes a threat to public health or safety, though would be happy to withdraw this statement if someone can show may any data that shows a real and general threat posed by these birds.
 
Gus Horsley said:
only let responsible people have it.

I also think this is a valid point, what harm is there in keeping a register of who has applied for the license (earlier a comparison was made to the 'unregulated' T.V. license - well, they know who has and hasn't got a license). If a simple register is kept, at least people who have violated its conditions in the past can be turned down if applying for another licence.
 
Jos Stratford said:
I don't doubt any of this and fully understand the (occasional, well thought-out) culls for a specific purpose for the reasons you quote above. However, my point remains and I think is valid ...a species should be on each of the license categories for a real reason, supported by data to show this. I do not accept that Jay constitutes a threat to public health or safety, though would be happy to withdraw this statement if someone can show may any data that shows a real and general threat posed by these birds.


Jos, why should the onus be on someone to prove it to you? Why don't you provide evidence that it should NOT be on the list? After all, I assume you're basing your objection on little more than a gut feeling. Hardly scientific in itself, is it? (apologies if I'm wrong, and you're an authority on Jays and public health).
 
Jos Stratford said:
I also think this is a valid point, what harm is there in keeping a register of who has applied for the license (earlier a comparison was made to the 'unregulated' T.V. license - well, they know who has and hasn't got a license). If a simple register is kept, at least people who have violated its conditions in the past can be turned down if applying for another licence.

And are you will to pay for a system that assesses and then personally licences everyone who wants to shoot a woodpigeon for their tea? Are you willing to fund that amount of red tape from the public purse? Let's be pragmatic here - these are very very common species. They could be banged out of the sky all year round (and they are), and there's not a dent in the population. There is even an argued justification for it. With only so much money in the pot, would you rather police who's shooting carrion crows, or who's taking Peregrine chicks or robbing godwit nests?
 
Offord said:
Jos, why should the onus be on someone to prove it to you? Why don't you provide evidence that it should NOT be on the list? After all, I assume you're basing your objection on little more than a gut feeling. Hardly scientific in itself, is it? (apologies if I'm wrong, and you're an authority on Jays and public health).

Very simple why they should provide the evidence - species are added to the list, that means the species has been selected to be on that list, therefore those who have made that decision should have a reason and, I think when we are talking about culling a species, I think there should be supporting data for this and it should be available for those who perhaps debate this. Yes, I base my objection on a gut feeling - I have never heard of a health problem with Jays. And no I'm not an expert on public health.
This is why I posted my question "could someone explain to me how Jays have become a species dangerous to public health and safety?" If a supported source reveals Jays are indeed a general threat to public health, as I said, I would withdraw my objection.
 
Jos Stratford said:
Very simple why they should provide the evidence - species are added to the list, that means the species has been selected to be on that list, therefore those who have made that decision should have a reason and, I think when we are talking about culling a species, I think there should be supporting data for this and it should be available for those who perhaps debate this. Yes, I base my objection on a gut feeling - I have never heard of a health problem with Jays. And no I'm not an expert on public health.
This is why I posted my question "could someone explain to me how Jays have become a species dangerous to public health and safety?" If a supported source reveals Jays are indeed a general threat to public health, as I said, I would withdraw my objection.

Then, by the same token, you must accept that there WAS compelling evidence to include the bird, as the mechanism that you've just outlined so demands it. Or does your, possibly baseless for all you know, gut feeling override the faith in the system?

You seem satisfied with the other species being on the list for justifiable reasons. So, as you're admittedly not an expert, then what grounds have you got to object, except your own lack of knowledge? The people who drafted the list (after consultation), would have had more expertise in the field, so why can't you trust their judegment (especially when Jay is in the context of these other species)?

If House Sparrow and Starling can be removed this year, then you cannot say that jay is on there purely because Government lacks the backbone to potentially rile the Country Alliance/farmers. The list is clearly dynamic and informed.
 
There was time, in the not so distant past, when any bird was "banged out of the sky", with no thought as to whether it was scarce or not, or persecuted because it was thought to be a nuisance. Think of red kites as one example. According to farmers they were a pest, and peregrines are a pain for p***** fanciers. In fact just about any species is probably going to be offensive to someone somewhere; some people just don't like birds at all....

Gus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point I'm trying to make is that, underneath it all, attitudes haven't changed much. Rare species are being persecuted at the moment because their existence conflicts with somebody's interests, as witness the recent spate of peregrine poisonings. This is now, not then. And as far as legislation in concerned, we have many recent examples of how birds have been killed due to conflicts of interest and the law hasn't done a vast amount to act as a deterrent.

Gus
 
Then, by the same token, you must accept that there WAS compelling evidence to include the bird?

No I don't think I 'must accept' it, I think I am entitled to ask a simple question, such as how is Jay categorised as a threat to public health or safety. If it's there for justifiable reasons, so let's see the reasons.

So, as you're admittedly not an expert, then what grounds have you got to object, except your own lack of knowledge?

Yes I admit I'm not an expert in the relationship between Jays and public health, so educate me. I explained the grounds I have to object.

The list is clearly dynamic and informed.

If you say so, but you did also say 'jay is on all of them, so it will on there for completeness as the other species (eg Canada Goose) will have been added to the other ones as ammendments.'

So, now off to do some research, see what I can dig up on the health hazards of having Jays in my garden.
 
Last edited:
Gus Horsley said:
The point I'm trying to make is that, underneath it all, attitudes haven't changed much.

I'm sorry but this is simply rubbish. Attitudes in the majority of the shooting population have changed enormously and the days "blasting anything out of the sky for the fun of it" have long since disappeared.


Gus Horsley said:
Rare species are being persecuted at the moment because their existence conflicts with somebody's interests, as witness the recent spate of peregrine poisonings. This is now, not then. And as far as legislation in concerned, we have many recent examples of how birds have been killed due to conflicts of interest and the law hasn't done a vast amount to act as a deterrent.

Gus

Surely this point is so far removed from General Licences as to be irrelevant in this thread. I am not suggesting that some rare species (BoP) don't get persecuted by specific interest groups but to suggest that General Licences encourage it is completely unfounded.

If people break the law - either through mis-application of a General Licence or through deliberately flouting laws protecting rare species - then by all means prosecute and I would support you every inch of the way.

However please do not suggest that around 1 million law abiding UK gun owners are all bent on breaking the law at the first opportunity they get. Within these forums I am only aware of 3 cases which have been discussed in the last 6 months and I believe only one of those came to a conclusion in court. Wrong - undoubtedly but hardly a spate!
 
Re attitudes changing and the law acting as a deterrent, we could cite the recent introduction of custodial sentences for wildlife crime, the removal of quintessential 'pest' species (starling, sparrow) from the general licence, the complete outlawing of egg collecting (which was as common as stamp collecting 50 years ago), the creation of Police Wildlife Liason Officers - the upshot of which is amply witnessed by the enormous rebound in BoP populations. If attitudes hadn't changed, we wouldn't be seeing Buzzards and marsh harriers and Sparrowhawks and Peregrines at their highest populations for over a century.

Jos, it's obviously up to you what you do and do not accept, but as I cannot really follow your pyrrhic argument I'll bow out of that one by saying that if you don't know the grounds for inclusion, then you're not in a position to object to the status quo. The last comment to which you refer is taken out of the context I put it in, which was about being able to kill them all year round without being strung up on a technicality.

As a counterweight to all this - in my experience of the airgun world, there is quite a shocking widespread ignorance of bird quarry species and identification and the General Licence. That is not the fault of the general licence, it's a fault of the individual in that they're leaving themselves open to prosecution, and possibly enforcement of the criminal law (which would be the fault of the police). I'd like to see enhanced emphasis on responsible airgun shooting in their press and among their peers, in the way that bad birders are given short shrift. But, again, from my experience, many airgun hunters feel under the cosh from the creeping firearms laws already, and so are very defensive about it all. Which kind of ignores the problem.
 
Offord said:
Jos, it's obviously up to you what you do and do not accept, but as I cannot really follow your pyrrhic argument I'll bow out of that one by saying that if you don't know the grounds for inclusion, then you're not in a position to object to the status quo

Personally I think ignorance of an issue is when you don't know something and so don't care, then simply accept 'oh it must be correct'. As I said, I don't know why Jay is included in a list of species deemed a threat to public health and safety (and after an hour failing to find anything on the internet, I still do not know), so would welcome somebody telling me.

Frankly Offord, I don't think many people will ever be convinced by being told, 'you don't know, they do know, so believe them!'
 
Indeed, and that's why we've got a mumps epidemic in Britain now, people actually think a crystal is going to help their cancer and Songbird Survival gets on Radio 4. People don't trust experts, or those who's job it is to make these decisions. Everyone thinks they know it all.
 
Have to admit Jos -I tried to do the same search to find out why Jay might be classed as a pest species-the only thing close was an article on one Jay kelly of Sussex who was served an ASBO(antisocial behaviour order) by his local authority! ;)

Jays are a very uncommon species in central Scotland & a bird I would welcome. Its presence might help some of our old granny Oaks compete better with Sycamore in the "Generation" game.
Jay occupies a fairly narrow niche in comparison to other listed pest species & I like yourself feel there should be sound scientific reasoning behind this species being included in a pest target list.... or is its presence there an historical anachronism that now needs rectified?
 
Steve G said:
Have to admit Jos -I tried to do the same search to find out why Jay might be classed as a pest species-the only thing close was an article on one Jay kelly of Sussex who was served an ASBO(antisocial behaviour order) by his local authority! ;)

Jay is currently on the list due to its taking eggs of other species (and I guess it first went onto simply because if its reputation as pest species). I think the public health point is a red herring in the case of Jay.

DEFRA consulted on this in 2004 as aprt of the same exercise that addressed sparow and starling saying "[DEFRA] has been advised that the jackdaw, jay and rook may no longer be considered a significant threat to other species of birds under our licences...This raises the question of whehter they should continue to be on the general licence."

Having asked the question, DEFRA decided on the basis of the reponses to the consultation to keep jackdaw, jay and rook on the list. I have seen a few of the responses- for example, BASC said that jackdaw and jay remain significant egg takers; and that rooks damage spring-sown crops. That was probably enough for DEFRA to maintain the status quo.

Here's the consultation:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/bird-licence/consultation.pdf
 
Last edited:
What objective evidence is there that Jay is a serious nest predator? This behaviour is deemed common knowledge -everybody "knows" it but have there been any effective studies? -I suspect not!
Jays are common in many parts of continental Europe & are a major "vector" of acorns for a number of Oak species (indeed they are longterm Oakwood architects). In my limited experience of such woodlands there has been no shortage of small passerines. The recolonisation of for example, large parts of Argyll by Jays coupled with sheep exclusion would go a long way to encouraging the recurrence of the once extensive & species-rich sessile Oak woods of that area.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top