DEFRA licence farce (2 Viewers)

[Jos Stratford]

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.

I have communicated with DEFRA for several months regarding the inclusion of Jays in section WLF100088 of the general licence, whereby Jays can be specifically culled to preserve public health or public safety. Having researched and found no grounds at all for such inclusion, I repeatedly asked DEFRA on what grounds, supported by what data, was this inclusion made (i.e. particularly in this part of the licence).

In these`several months, DEFRA either ducked the question or simply did not answer, today I said I was taking the discussion to the Information Commission (who oversee the Freedom of Information Act). This got an almost immediate responce from DEFRA - and here I directly quote "I can confirm that Defra do not hold specific data concerning public health and safety and jays."


Just to clarify what this means - despite now openly admitting it holds no data to support the inclusion of this species, this government body is sanctioning and allowing the persecution of a British native species for a specific purpose which has no basis. This response does not seem very satisfactory from a body that I would expect to have sound scientific reasons to include a species on any list allowing culling.

They also outlined a history of the general licence and suggested Jay is on this part of the licence because, although the licence has evolved over the past number of years, there have been no assessments of whether Jay should be in this category or not.

So, in responce to the post above, I think I am justified in not simply trusting the so-called experts who were responsible for this section of the general licence. There has been no consultation regarding Jays and there is no evidence, compelling or otherwise, for the birds inclusion. It is a farce and makes a mockery of the system.

 

[adw73uk]

Hi,

Only just seen this thread, lots to read so I skipped the middle bit (sorry), so if what comes next has been said before - tell me to shut up!

What is the point of issuing a licence if it isn't regulated. Why not produce a list of guidelines saying you can shoot this that and the other, as long as you've tried this that and the other first.

If anyone crosses the line - they can be prosecuted.................. Mmmmm just realised why a licence is a good idea - no-one can plead ignorance of the guidelines. Still gonna post anyway - it took me ages to type this!

P.S. For the record I don't agree with random shooting, but understand that culling/controlling populations is a necessary evil to keep everyone happy. Shame we can't control our own populations.

 

[KnockerNorton]

Hi,
Why not produce a list of guidelines saying you can shoot this that and the other, as long as you've tried this that and the other first.
If anyone crosses the line - they can be prosecuted..................

That is exactly what system is in place.

Jos, you only mention public health and safety, whereas the general licence also covers economic losses too:

Permits authorised persons to kill or take certain birds, or to take, damage or destroy their nests; or to take or destroy their eggs, for the purposes of: (i) preventing the spread of disease; and (ii) preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters.

Jays would, therefore, easily fit into this if they were predating pheasant poults or eggs at a pen, or in a covert. And, if you think about it, that would have been the reason that they were included in the first place - at the behest of gamekeepers (not Environmental Health Officers).

I applaud your badgering of Defra for an answer (tip - mention Freedom of Information Act to any public body and you'll get a response 100 times faster, as you found), but you were always going to draw a blank if you were specifically asking about public health. Jays are egg/poult thieves, it's obvious why they're on the list.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Jos, you only mention public health and safety, whereas the general licence also covers economic losses too:

Permits authorised persons to kill or take certain birds, or to take, damage or destroy their nests; or to take or destroy their eggs, for the purposes of: (i) preventing the spread of disease; and (ii) preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters.

Jays would, therefore, easily fit into this if they were predating pheasant poults or eggs at a pen, or in a covert. And, if you think about it, that would have been the reason that they were included in the first place - at the behest of gamekeepers (not Environmental Health Officers).

I applaud your badgering of Defra for an answer (tip - mention Freedom of Information Act to any public body and you'll get a response 100 times faster, as you found), but you were always going to draw a blank if you were specifically asking about public health. Jays are egg/poult thieves, it's obvious why they're on the list.

Hi there,

I can accept the possible inclusion of Jays on the general licence for the reasons you stated (as I would hope there is evidence to support this) and Jay is indeed listed on the relevant sections of the licence for those purposes.

My concern is that DEFRA is also including Jay on section WLF100088, which specifically deals with species allowed to be persecuted on health and safety grounds. I would expect that a goverment body which has been entrusted with dealing with the cull of one of our native species should ensure that any species which is on any list or section should be there only if there is evidence to support its inclusion. I think it does neither DEFRA nor environmental protection any favours if species are on lists for no reason.

Best wishes,

 

[KnockerNorton]

Hi there,

I can accept the possible inclusion of Jays on the general licence for the reasons you stated (as I would hope there is evidence to support this) and Jay is indeed listed on the relevant sections of the licence for those purposes.

My concern is that DEFRA is also including Jay on section WLF100088, which specifically deals with species allowed to be persecuted on health and safety grounds. I would expect that a goverment body which has been entrusted with dealing with the cull of one of our native species should ensure that any species which is on any list or section should be there only if there is evidence to support its inclusion. I think it does neither DEFRA nor environmental protection any favours if species are on lists for no reason.

Best wishes,

But you're forgetting that to take a jay under that section, you'd have to be able to prove it was necessary if required. So, if you shot a jay and said "oh, it was for Health and Safety reasons", you're leaving yourself open to being asked to prove it. To take a jay when there was not sufficient cause, under that section of any other, is an offence. People have been prosecuted for, e.g. shooting starlings in their garden, because there was no justifiable cause under the Act. This would be the same thing - you can't just shoot a Jay cos you feel like it. The onus is on you to prove the necessity if required. So, it doesn't matter if jay is on a nonsensical section of the Act, because jays are probably never going to be a health and safety issue, so they can never be taken under that section.

 

[Strandman]

So, it doesn't matter if jay is on a nonsensical section of the Act, because jays are probably never going to be a health and safety issue, so they can never be taken under that section.

I'm with Poecile on this one- the continued inclusion is an anomaly but in practical terms, it is not likely to have any bearing on the number of Jays which are, in fact, controlled in the UK. So it would be nice to see it tidied up, but DEFRA's time is better spent on the ones that matter- like reviewing the status of House Sparrow and Starling, as they did in 2004.