Dear Sir/ Madam,
I reply to your request for the following:
1) Views on the alternatives to killing or taking a specific bird species for:
• Conserving flora and fauna
• Preserving public health or safety
• Preventing serious damage or disease (serious damage relates to serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber fisheries or inland waters) In particular, what are these alternatives and to which bird species do they relate? In your experience or evidence, how effective and practicable are they?
and,
2) Your experience or evidence of any benefits that were delivered by the three revoked general licences?
I would advise that you could do little better than review two pieces of research already carried out regarding the efficacy of shooting to control pest species such as Columba palumbus, more commonly known as the wood pigeon, a species whose number has grown by an estimated 134% between 1970 and 2011 and a species that costs UK farmers an estimated £4million in lost revenues each year.
The first document, completed in 2014 by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, shows clear evidence that the shooting of wood pigeon by concealed ‘gunmen’ (their term not mine) provided the most cost efficient and practicable means by which to control this pest species and conversely, rather than discouraging shooting during the breeding season as suggested by the revised licence for this particular species, shooting throughout the summer is to be encouraged in order to reduce or at the very least maintain current numbers.
“An NFU/BASC nationwide survey showed that farmers regard shooting as the most effective means of crop protection. Of those growers undertaking shooting, 75% rated its effectiveness as moderate to high; reported by the survey as markedly ahead of the other main protective measures bangers and scarecrows…"
Ref.1
It is worth contrasting opinion on the culling of ‘wild birds’ by Wild Justice, with little evidence to support the claim that the shooting of ‘pest species’ such as the rook, jackdaw, crow, pigeon, magpie et al has on actual numbers, with this research which is thorough and has reviewed the alternative methods to controlling wood pigeon numbers. None matched the shooting of wood pigeons throughout the year as a better, more efficient and cost effective means of controlling numbers.
To further bolster the evidence that shooting through the summer months in order to actually reduce pest species numbers is to be encouraged I would welcome you to review the second document attached as evidence. This is a document created by DEFRA itself and relies partly on data collected during the study conducted at Carlton (one of the longest studies in the UK, covering a period of 43 years). It states that:
"Reversing the seasonal shooting pressure to 40:60, winter:summer, a process which is happening (see Discussion) results in a gradual population decline with the population halving over 60 years.”
Ref.2
Logically, if we are to prevent further serious damage to crops in the UK and costs to UK farming in general, then shooting of pest species is to be encouraged and supported, at least in the short term, until numbers show evidence of decline. That is assuming, of course, that prevention of damage to crops and farming is regarded as a priority for a body that represents food and rural affairs?
Sadly, living as I do surrounded by arable crops, I lack the ‘hands-on’ experience to comment on the corvid family, except to say that the evidence for predation on wild birds, ground nesting species, cattle and livestock is widely available and substantive. Culling is the means by which the body entrusted with protecting wild birds in the UK, the RSPB, protects endangered wild birds and damage to ecosystems where wild birds nest (Ref: 3), I would have thought that if the judicous use of ‘bangers’ were an intelligent and ‘friendly’ option to nesting wild birds then that is what they (the RSPB) would have deployed.
The reality is that these forms of deterrent (bangers, tapes, netting, scarecrows) are blanket in their approach; bangers put off all species, not just the ones whose absence is desirable. Shooting however, provides a means to target specific species, at a specific time in a specific area. It is widely accepted as effective and the evidence supports this.
Both documents are attached for your review.
Best regards,
Mick Miller.
Ref.1
https://horticulture.ahdb.org.uk/sites/default/files/research_papers/FV 426_Report_Final_2014.pdf
Ref.2
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2889_FRP.doc&usg=AOvVaw3sCm4qqBgKv5XB1Y-4e1YE
Ref.3 -
https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwo...ce-of-the-impact-of-predators-on-wild-birds-5
www.gov.uk
