Packham & Co at it again

[Mr.Fixit-Norm]

Just had this come through as part of an email.

Quite worrying for us rough shooters, just hope they don’t succeed

Norm


“
Hi!

On Friday afternoon Wild Justice (the not-for-profit company set up by Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and myself) launched its first case - a legal challenge of the General Licences.

All birds are protected by law to some extent, but all species can be killed for a prescribed list of reasons (such as protecting human health, protecting crops or livestock from serious damage). Although Robins, Curlews and Skylarks are all protected, you can get a licence to kill them if you can satisfy the authorities that you have a good reason and that you have tried legal and non-lethal means. You would have to get a licence, though - an actual bit of paper you can hold in your hand.

But for a fairly small list of species including Woodpigeon, Carrion Crow, Jay and Collared Dove you don't need the bit of paper, and you don't have to apply for a licence - but, if asked, you would still have to be able to justify any cull on the same narrow grounds.

Wild Justice, based on legal advice, contend this system is unlawful because it allows casual killing of birds (millions of them every year) without any overview. Wild Justice is making a legal challenge of Natural England's issuing of the 2019 General Licences on 1 January this year and is raising money to fund the legal case.

The crowdfunder is proving very popular - 775 people have donated a total of over £19,000 since Friday - but the total needed is £36,000 so any contributions would be most gratefully received.

Click here to visit the 'Challenging the casual killing of birds' crowdfunder'.


Mark Avery
Standing up for Nature
9 Lawson St, Wellingborough, Northants NN9 6NG, UK “

[MartynB]

Just had this come through as part of an email.

Quite worrying for us rough shooters, just hope they don’t succeed

Norm


“
Hi!

On Friday afternoon Wild Justice (the not-for-profit company set up by Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and myself) launched its first case - a legal challenge of the General Licences.

All birds are protected by law to some extent, but all species can be killed for a prescribed list of reasons (such as protecting human health, protecting crops or livestock from serious damage). Although Robins, Curlews and Skylarks are all protected, you can get a licence to kill them if you can satisfy the authorities that you have a good reason and that you have tried legal and non-lethal means. You would have to get a licence, though - an actual bit of paper you can hold in your hand.

But for a fairly small list of species including Woodpigeon, Carrion Crow, Jay and Collared Dove you don't need the bit of paper, and you don't have to apply for a licence - but, if asked, you would still have to be able to justify any cull on the same narrow grounds.

Wild Justice, based on legal advice, contend this system is unlawful because it allows casual killing of birds (millions of them every year) without any overview. Wild Justice is making a legal challenge of Natural England's issuing of the 2019 General Licences on 1 January this year and is raising money to fund the legal case.

The crowdfunder is proving very popular - 775 people have donated a total of over £19,000 since Friday - but the total needed is £36,000 so any contributions would be most gratefully received.

Click here to visit the 'Challenging the casual killing of birds' crowdfunder'.


Mark Avery
Standing up for Nature
9 Lawson St, Wellingborough, Northants NN9 6NG, UK “

Report as phishing or spam to your mail provider and they may block it

[Rocket launcher]

it may be unlawful..
We dont know ....Only the judge can decide..
I would be interested in the final decision once it comes out as they are bound to get the money to fund the case

[JerryD]

..... or forward it to the NFU: they may have something to say about the damage done to crops by pest species......




.

[aris]

The General License isn't some ancient blanket legislation - it is updated every single year by Natural England based on sound scientific advice. I'm wondering how Packham suggests farmers can protect their crops from birds such as woodpigeon.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...se-licence.PDF

[Mr.Fixit-Norm]

Report as phishing or spam to your mail provider and they may block it

Actually Martyn it came through as part of an email from a chap who champions Swifts and putting up swift boxes etc. I do actually have an interest in swifts and he’s given me quite a bit of help when I first built and put up a swift box.
He runs a swift conservation organisation and I suppose he also gets this stuff through as well.

Whilst I also love wildlife and do a lot of photography, I also enjoy a bit of rough shooting, mostly Pigeons and Rabbits.

To me it’s all about balance, having seen the damage that large flocks of pigeons can do to crops they have to be controlled, nature alone can’t do that.

Norm

[MartynB]

Actually Martyn it came through as part of an email from a chap who champions Swifts and putting up swift boxes etc. I do actually have an interest in swifts and he’s given me quite a bit of help when I first built and put up a swift box.
He runs a swift conservation organisation and I suppose he also gets this stuff through as well.

Whilst I also love wildlife and do a lot of photography, I also enjoy a bit of rough shooting, mostly Pigeons and Rabbits.

To me it’s all about balance, having seen the damage that large flocks of pigeons can do to crops they have to be controlled, nature alone can’t do that.

Norm

I'm with you on this, I have, for the last couple of years, had House Martins nest on the house, they can make a bit of a mess but I love watching them too

[RobF]

To me it’s all about balance, having seen the damage that large flocks of pigeons can do to crops they have to be controlled, nature alone can’t do that.

Norm

Well it can, it's just that plonking a massive food source in front of it upsets the accepted 'natural' balance, or more importantly it upsets the crop production. The balance of things eating food is actually there, but that's not wanted.

It will be up to the courts to decide but it could be argued that if commerical reasons are the ones used for pest control then licensing may and could move to reflect that. What I suspect it's trying to address is the idea that anyone can go out and shoot certain species and then cite 'pest' reasons when it's just in their own back yard. That reasoning does fall a little flat when you're not talking about crop production etc and it's you're talking about certain species and animals visiting bird feeders.

I don't really buy into this 'natural' thing anyway. We're all natural, we didn't just suddenly appear from an alternate dimension.

It would be interesting to see what BASC's thoughts are. £36k doesn't seem like a large fighting fund. There's shooting clubs that have those amounts sitting around gathering dust.

[bighit]

The General License isn't some ancient blanket legislation - it is updated every single year by Natural England based on sound scientific advice. I'm wondering how Packham suggests farmers can protect their crops from birds such as woodpigeon.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...se-licence.PDF

wave a bright flag while shouting "shooo" ?

[RobF]

wave a bright flag while shouting "shooo" ?

Or it could be that legislation forces them to conduct a paperwork exercise to do that the same as wildlife they currently need to do it for. I wonder if that's the drive, to separate legitimate commercial pest control from more casual and perhaps less necessary domestic control.

[Kes]

Or it could be that legislation forces them to conduct a paperwork exercise to do that the same as wildlife they currently need to do it for. I wonder if that's the drive, to separate legitimate commercial pest control from more casual and perhaps less necessary domestic control.

Absolutely.

Or, to put it in layman's terms: "Anything that means that nasty men with guns can shoot less wildlife".

[angrybear]

Absolutely.

Or, to put it in layman's terms: "Anything that means that nasty men with guns can shoot less wildlife".

Well, that nasty men can't shoot birds in their garden while claiming it's covered by the general licence.

[RobF]

Well, that nasty men can't shoot birds in their garden while claiming it's covered by the general licence.

Succinctly put.

[Steyr]

So. If you are at the edge of a field your OK. if you are at their evening roost... your OK...but if you get them at a.layup whilst they digest their meal.... which maybe a garden because it has a bird bath and a water supply...you are not OK.

And if its Jand S because they crap on a path and it goes slimey and slippery thats not ok.either.

Also.....Never rely on just 1 of the reasons under GL. Go for as many as is sensible.

[thisisdonald]

I would counter that there are far far more cat owners in the UK than there are people acting out on the general licence and that as cars don't read, the don't follow the rules on the general licence, and as such, cat owners are a far far greater threat to native bird species than shooters will ever be.
Then watch the furore as a packham and legal team spend all their money publicly justifying themselves to all the armchair animal activists.