# Outrageous! NE secretly licences Buzzard



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

persecution to protect pheasant shoots. So much Natural Englands ethos to 'protect wildlfe', its now nothing more than a quango serving the interests of the shooting/farming lobbies. So much for Benyons promise after his uturn last year. A dangerous precedence has now been set, expect to see many more licences issued..protected status means nothing under this government, theyre proving over & over again they have nothing but utter contempt for our wildlife.

Government licensed buzzard egg destruction, documents reveal | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'd just like to point out this is one case, so it's one pheasant shoot, not a normal occurance, and no (like many others who are involved with the sport), I don't agree with it for that reason; I do however think that some raptor numbers need controlling, sparrowhawks being the main culprit allowed to thrive at the expense of other species.

Edited to add, no birds or eggs were actually harmed, the nests were destroyed to deter them from remaining in that area.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'd just like to point out this is one case, so it's one pheasant shoot, not a normal occurance, and no (like many others who are involved with the sport), I don't agree with it for that reason; I do however think that some raptor numbers need controlling, sparrowhawks being the main culprit allowed to thrive at the expense of other species.
> 
> Edited to add, no birds or eggs were actually harmed, the nests were destroyed to deter them from remaining in that area.


They had no right issuing licences to destroying the nest of a protected native species to protect an exotic species, which is released by the million! & how do we know no eggs were destroyed? Theres no transparency it was suppose to be a secret

Natural England issues licence to destroy buzzard eggs & nests to protect pheasants | Raptor Persecution Scotland

alan tilmouth: 'Natural' England

You keep saying sparrowhawks need controlling apart from anecdotes you've yet to provide any scientific evidence of this assertion?

You just don't seem to understand how predator/prey relationships work. Basically put, predators control prey populations and prey + territories determine predator populations.

Ive pointed out the BTO study on Avian & grey squirrel predation on songbirds, several times! Heres the conculsion...

_This is a high quality study based on unique long-term and large-scale datasets. Despite the limitations noted below (notes to editors) this robust study found that, for the majority of the songbird species examined, there is no evidence that increases in common avian predators and grey squirrels are associated with large-scale depression of prey abundance or population declines. It is also clear that, for the majority of declining species with unfavourable conservation status population, declines appear to be due to factors other than predation.

Other studies have suggested that over the period of this study, songbird population changes have been influenced by a range of other factors, most notably changes in farmland and woodland management_.

If you want to actually learn about sparrowhawk ecology & the intricate and fascinating relationship they have with their prey, then I cant recommend this dvd enough...its a 10yr study & a fascinating insight how ecosystems work...it shows how healthy & diverse nature is when left to its own devices!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've no need to watch a DVD to learn about sparrowhawks, I see enough of them. 

Nice that you're already questioning the way the nests were destroyed, if you know about raptors you'll understand they have a number of nest sites to choose from, and it's not unusual for them to discount a nesting site that's unsuitable. So in the grand scheme of things, it's no great deal for them to be moved on in this way to protect the livelihood of someone organising a shoot. As I said, I don't personally agree with it, I can see and understand why it's done and would much rather see this method used than any actual culling, although it may get to the point where the balance between buzzards and their prey means their numbers do require controlling. 

I'd rather see more proactive ways of encouraging buzzards to utilise a food source so that they're not a nuisance to those putting down pheasants for shoots, but there's only so much you can do before they will then become a nuisance due to sheer numbers. Like it or not, the shooting industry is what manages much of the countryside to allow many species to thrive, if the shoots and moors weren't managed so well I wouldn't regularly see curlews, lapwings, snipe, weasels, stoats, hares etc, in the small area where I live and exercise my dogs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> .
> 
> Edited to add, no birds or eggs were actually harmed, the nests were destroyed to deter them from remaining in that area.


Heres one of those licences...http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/8267-licence-20130423_RD_tcm6-35939.pdf *To destroy eggs and nests Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Two nests, and the eggs contained within those nests *

& FOUR nests were destroyed



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've no need to watch a DVD to learn about sparrowhawks, I see enough of them.
> 
> Well there you go...no wonder you have such a blinkered view
> 
> ...


The evidence shows raptors are only responsible for 1-2% of pheasant losses...http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A253112.pdf.

The shooting industry doesn't 'manage' wildlife it PERSECUTES it. Any species which interferes with the sport is killed!. The only species allowed to thrive are those which don't come into conflict with it!

Incase you couldn't be bothered to click on the links, these are what the licences dished out for

According to the report summary NE considered the evidence as follows: "The quantity and quality of information and evidence provided for this case by the applicant provides comprehensive support for the application. The information recorded by the applicant appears to be thorough, systematic and accurate for this type of case". Personally I consider the evidence provided as scant, anecdotal based on estimates and opinion rather than sound surveying *So do I!*

1. Evidence - Look at the diary entries provided as evidence of a reduction in shooting returns. Notice anything? Look at the 'Birds in Pen' and 'Birds on Shoot' columns, all nice round numbers, in other words estimates. So the evidence for a reduction in shot numbers is based on estimates rather than hard evidence. I wonder, were the same shooters involved in the same conditions, given the appalling weather conditions in the summer of 2013 how much of the bag reduction could be attributed to less favourable conditions in which to shoot or for gundogs to retrieve birds etc?

One applicant provided 35 corpses that they attributed to buzzard or sparrowhawk predation. Of the 35 analysed only five showed signs of avian predation. So 84% of the evidence provided in this instance was wrong, yet licences were still issued by Natural England. *Lies,lies and more Monsterous Lies*

2. Return Rates
The information in italics is lifted from Natural England's report on the licence application " The latest advice from the GWCT suggests that returns around the 35% mark are reasonable and to be expected." - the return rates for this applicant 2011-12 34.5% and 2012-13 37.3% so despite this claimed serious predation by Buzzards the return rates during shoots are reasonable and to be expected based on GWCT advice, yet licences were still issued. The originator of the NE report posted lots of graphs (though all the actual content was redacted) which highlight that at the same time as Buzzards have increased return rates have decreased. No doubt many other changes havce occurred over the same period and drawing a corroletaion between two sets of data and simply basing a decision on that without further investigation displays a remarkable ignorance of good science.

3. Release Sites
NE visits concluded "The recommended layout for the release pen is one third open area, one third ground cover and one third shrubs and trees. Few of the release sites visited conformed with this" yet they issued the licences.
"The recommended woodland thinning and provision of brash piles has yet to be carried out" yet they issued the liceneces.

"Reflective tape  This was tried in 2011 but the applicant used red and white barrier tape instead of single sided reflective tape, due to availability of the latter. The cost of single sided reflective tape is also considerable, especially when compared with barrier tape. His concerns were the time taken for the installation of tape, the unattractive appearance of the woodland for other users (resulting in complaints) and the interference with the pheasants when they fly in and out of the pens. The use of tape may have contributed to the increased returns seen on some shoots in 2011-12 but this measure was not used to same degree in 2012-13 due to cost, time and the complaints received. It is therefore difficult to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing predation." *Un-feckin-believable!! *

DEFRA's overarching policy and advice which NE should follow states they will issue licences "where all other reasonable non-lethal solutions have been tried and shown to be ineffective" given the above statements in NE's own report they have issued licences in direct conflict with this advice.

It is clear in my mind that Natural England are failing or unable due to interference to discharge their responsibilities in relation to the adequate review of licence applications. They have fallen far short of the standards we should expect. It is clear that The Environment Secretary needs to stop this mess before it goes any further and make a public statement that no further licences will be issued to destroy the nests, capture and remove or kill protected birds of prey.

Once again I'd urge everyone contact your MP, write to the Environment Secretary or Richard Benyon MP Minister of the Natural Environment, they need to understand that we will not tolerate this abuse of our natural heritage in order to protect the profits of business.

*Its the shooting industry that is out of control not our beleaguered wildlife!*


----------

