Fox hunting save birds of prey

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2...0031028_HOL_381

return to the subject of the New Forest, where the survival of the Montagu's harrier was threatened by foxes taking chicks. In 1997 the Forestry Commission called in the New Forest hunt to help. The hunt killed eight foxes within one mile of the nesting site and, using the hounds, was able to locate a den near the nest. A fox was dug out and humanely destroyed. So it is not just the quarry species themselves which benefit from hunting; a variety of other animals benefit from sympathetic management and the things that hunting can do.

The utility is not solely directed at culling or pest control. Both culling and pest control are important but pest control is simply one part of the management 225 of any species. No doubt the Minister will return to the old theme that hunting accounts for only about 10 per cent of foxes killed in places such as the East Midlands. In my view, saying that demonstrates the absurdity of the position which the Government have got themselves into.

Why does anyone think it is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a wildlife management department but not a pest control department? It is because wildlife management is the aim. Pest control is just one part of it. Wildlife management is about conserving healthy and balanced populations of species in numbers that are sustainable for very different environments up and down the country. I say that with one exception, on which we have not touched in these debates, which is that of mink. I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is not in her place. I am sure that she would have something to say on this subject.

We want sustainable, manageable, balanced populations of fox, hare and deer. We want, I think, no population of mink. Hunting is just one way of getting rid of them. I should like to see more ways of getting rid of them—of course humanely. Everyone accepts that and would like to see that, but we must get rid of mink.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2...20000626_HOL_73

 

In some areas, keeping the public to defined footpaths is imperative for conservation reasons. Mr Meacher said at the Second Reading of this Bill in another place: There is no question but that wildlife will be protected. My priority is, through the Bill, to extend rights of access on foot, provided that such access does not damage the interests of wildlife, which must prevail". —[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/00; col.724.] That statement is greatly to be welcomed. However, it means that on grouse moors for example, as the Game Conservancy Trust has pointed out, the public must be kept to defined pathways during the spring nesting season—March to July inclusive—and forbidden to take dogs onto the moors. The Game Conservancy Trust has reminded us that it is grouse shooting that has enabled this country, alone in western Europe, to retain a good deal of heather moorland. It and the RSPB have established that ground-nesting birds—curlews, lapwings, snipe and golden plover—are much more abundant on managed moors than on unmanaged moors. We must ensure that these birds are undisturbed in the breeding season.

 

Lord Buxton of Alsa

My Lords, I shall not say everything that I was going to say because it has already been said and said very eloquently. I want to talk about custodial sentences.

First, perhaps I may say that I am not against organised access and have organised it very successfully at home, where I have wetlands and marshes in a reserve. I have an informal relationship with English Nature, which is nearby, and that has worked very well.

All that is voluntary and it is working extremely well. Visitors tend to act as wardens themselves. They keep in touch; they talk; and they thoroughly enjoy it. I hope that I shall not live to regret all the permissive paths which have been granted. People think that they have rights. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to an incident which occurred a year or so ago. But last month, one of the ramblers on the permissive path rang me during lunch and said that two people were walking straight through the avocet colony. It turned out to be two charming schoolgirls, aged about 16. They said, "Mum said we can go anywhere we like now". I want to make sure that the Minister has taken that on board because I believe that we shall be faced with an absolute tidal wave. Even though we are well organised, I do not know how we shall handle it.

However, I want to speak about custodial sentences. Therefore, I must concentrate on birds of prey. There are 15 species of raptors, or birds of prey, in this country. Of those, 14 are listed in various publications as doing well or with splendid prospects. The prospects of the kite are described as "brilliant" by Chris Mead at the British Trust for Ornithology. He is the leading authority. According to him and the trust, we can apparently expect to be overwhelmed before long by buzzards, marsh harriers and by record numbers of peregrines. In about 20 years' time in this country there may be 400 pairs of osprey. That is official.

The present overall increase in birds of prey since we got rid of pesticides and chemicals is about 200 per cent. The Government and conservation authorities need to consider what will happen when the overall increase is about 400 per cent. I may not be here myself, but some noble Lords will be. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will consider holding a conference on the subject as serious consideration should be given to it. As far as predators are concerned, we must be virtually the only country in the world where the "sky's the limit". The conservation 704 authorities, including the RSPB—I am unsure about the position of English Nature—flatly refuse to discuss or consider the long term.

The hen harrier, one of the 15 birds of prey species, is the only one about which there is a problem of numbers. They do well on keepered grouse moors, because they eat grouse. In bad grouse years, when they are short of prey, the numbers of harriers fall. The bird zealots blame the keepers, but henceforth they should be more objective in their conclusions as there is plenty of evidence. There are practically no hen harriers nesting on unkeepered moors and uplands—although they are ideal sites—because there are foxes, stoats and people roaming about. Hen harriers have disappeared from areas such as Exmoor because there are no keepers and there is intrusion.

Under this Bill, unrestricted access in remote areas may well eliminate hen harriers altogether. It will be no good blaming landowners and keepers. It will be the sole responsibility of the Government and their advisers, whoever they may be. The irony is that having failed to look after birds like harriers on open, unkeepered land, the snoopers and sneakers, who are encouraged to go around looking for trouble, now concentrate on private keepered land simply because the birds are there.

If birds of prey are doing well—some very well—what on earth is the purpose of threatening citizens with prison when heavy fines are already in place? Surely it will be seen as proof that this Government are yet again going backwards. In the Middle Ages a peasant may have been put in the stocks or even exiled for killing birds, but in the 21st century, in the new millennium, a Government that hope to unite the nation, is to resort to medieval practices and ancient class warfare and they propose to send a young man to prison for killing a bird.

Let us consider a circumstance. A keeper lives, of necessity, in an isolated place with no protection with a young wife and probably children. The children have to travel to school and the wife has to shop so the house is left untended. This Bill proposes to remove that man after he has committed an offence and leave a young family defenceless at the mercy of robbers, rapists, travellers and so on, in a situation where even if the wife and children scream their heads off nobody will hear. In most cases they would be more isolated than Mr Martin, the farmer in the Fens.

That situation applies to every keeper and warden, not only on mountain and moorland, but everywhere in the British countryside, in woods, fields and farmland. In my view, Members of both Houses of Parliament, of all parties, may have blood on their hands if they heartlessly vote for imprisoning young family men for killing a bird. That sort of tyranny can soon spread to other creatures because a Minister can easily extend the list without coming back to Parliament. We may find that something like a mole or a field mouse is added, and one of your Lordships is in trouble for running it over.

Nobody is more fervent than I am about birds, as instanced by my own reserve. It is just as good as most SSSIs. We disapprove of people breaking the law, but 705 a civilised way of dealing with such offences is fines, heavy only when appropriate, and perhaps when an offence is repeated. The publicity and embarrassment will do the rest.

The most important factors are education, persuasion and good PR, not savage punishment. Apart from the timing being wrong, one may seriously wonder whether the Prime Minister picked up this idea from Mr Putin or the Chinese president.

One great thing about the last century of conservation, in which I was involved for over 50 years, was that the fathers of conservation inspired the nation: Huxley, Max Nicholson, Peter Scott and so on. The exciting new movement for the conservation of wildlife of the last century became a bandwagon. There was complete harmony and a national surge of support.

Long ago, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for whom I have always had a warm regard, gave a lunch for me at No. 11 at which all the mandarins were assembled and subjected to a lecture on conservation. He was the first Cabinet Minister of any party to give such a lead. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House is not present this evening, but if she had been I would have suggested that she should emulate some of the activities of her father.

To everyone's distress, wildlife conservation has now become unpopular with many people in the countryside, the very people who matter most of all to birds and wildlife. Threatening to put people in prison will severely worsen the feeling. The ultimate error, therefore, will now occur if the Government are imprudent enough to send people to prison for conservation offences. There will be no end to this process once it starts. I trust that the Minister will persuade the Government to withdraw this divisive and savage part of the Bill before Committee stage.

Such custodial sentences could give rise to serious injustices in court, of which, within the past month, there has been proof. A keeper in north Norfolk was found guilty in connection with poisons for foxes, but which killed kestrels. That was a serious offence and he was fined. There is no argument about that. However, the prosecuting officer implied to the court that kestrels were an endangered species and that there were, only 50,000 pairs left in the whole country". That was an unpardonable distortion, evidently concocted to influence the magistrate. Birds of prey are territorial species which fiercely protect their own hunting grounds and 50,000 pairs is a substantial threshold.

Mr Crampton, the prosecuting officer, went on to say, this crime came against the context of the current decline of kestrels in the UK". Perhaps he did not know that recent evidence published by the Government's own UK raptor working party states that kestrels are common but that a recent small decrease is due entirely to the decline of prey species such as shrews and voles.

706 It is now clear that if some bird-of-prey zealots come before the courts, the prosecution can be wrongly briefed and facts may be distorted and fabricated to secure a custodial sentence. I cannot believe that the Government could possibly want to blemish further their cold relations with country people by introducing custodial sentences into a harmonious, non-party, universally popular cause. I ask the Minister to take on board what I have said.

 

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1990s → 1994 → June 1994 → 23 June 1994 → Written Answers (Commons) → AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Protected Birds

HC Deb 23 June 1994 vol 245 cc314-7W 314W

§ Mr. Redmond

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, by estate, those occasions on which birds belonging to protected species have been found(a) shot, ( poisoned or © otherwise illegally killed in each of the past five years; and how many (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions have resulted.

§ Mr. Soames

Cases reported to this Ministry of protected birds killed by poisoning are given in the table on a county basis as details of the estates on which poisoned birds have been found are not readily available. The location where a poisoned bird is found is not necessarily the same place as where it consumed the, poison. This Ministry does not collect information on protected bird species that have been illegally shot or otherwise illegally killed.

Information held centrally by the Home Office on prosecutions and convictions for illegal activities cannot separately identify the killing of protected birds from other illegal activities against them because the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not separately identify an offence of killing wild birds from the offence of injuring or taking them.

Details of illegal poisoning incidents reported to MAFF involving protected bird species from 1989–93

County Year Number and species involved

Avon 1991 1 buzzard

1992 1 crow

Bedfordshire 1993 1 red kite

Buckinghamshire 1992 10 feral pigeons

Cambridge 1989 2 chaffinches

1990 1 buzzard

1991 1 crow

1993 Several rooks

Cheshire 1992 4 magpies

1993 Numerous crows and magpies

1 crow, 2 jackdaws, 4 magpies

Cornwall 1990 3 buzzards

1991 1 red kite

1992 1 buzzard, 1 gull, several crows

315W

County Year Number and species involved

Cumbria 1989 2 buzzards

1 buzzard

1 buzzard, 2 crows

2 buzzards, several crows

1990 2 buzzards

1 buzzard

2 buzzrds

1 crow

1 crow

1991 2 buzzards

1 buzzard

1992 1 buzzard

1 buzzard, several crows

1 buzzard

1993 1 rook

Derbyshire 1989 1 kestrel

1 goshawk

1990 1 sparrowhawk

Devon 1989 1 buzzard

1990 8 feral pigeons

1991 1 buzzard

1992 2 peregrines

1993 1 buzzard

Dorset 1989 1 buzzard

1992 2 buzzards, 1 peregrine

Durham 1993 1 buzzard

East Sussex 1989 46 feral pigeons, 2 black-headed gulls

3 crows

1990 Several feral pigeons

1993 Several feral pigeons

Essex 1990 8 black-headed gulls

1993 2 magpies

1 magpie

Greater London 1993 20–30 feral pigeons

60 feral pigeons

Hampshire 1989 1 buzzard

1993 1 little owl

Hereford and Worcester 1989 c. 300 mallard and pheasants

1 red kite

1990 1 sparrowhawk

1 buzzard

1 buzzard

Several pheasants

19 crows, 1 jackdaw, 1 pheasant,1 woodpigeon, 2 greenfinch

1991 11 pheasants, 3 jays, many woodpigeon

2 crows

1 buzzard

Several house sparrows

Humberside 1990 17 rooks

1992 8 rooks, 9 feral pigeons

1993 12 mallard

Kent 1990 Blackbirds, robins and starlings

1991 2 rooks, 1 magpie

1 kestrel

Lancashire 1989 2 magpies

1990 1 hen harrier

1 kestrel

1991 1 red-tailed hawk (falconer's bird)

1 magpie, 1 rook

1992 48 rooks, 1 pheasant

1993 1 buzzard, 1 rook

316W

County Year Number and species involved

Lincolnshire 1989 1 tawny owl, 1 crow

4 blackbirds, 4 house sparrows

1990 1 crow, 1 rook, 5 magpies

1991 2 magpies

More than 25 feral pigeons

20 gulls

1992 91 brent geese, 1 pheasant

Norfolk 1989 Several house sparrows, feral pigeons and blackbird

1991 20+ feral pigeons

1992 c. 30 pheasants, 1 robin

Several feral pigeons, 1 robin

1993 1 hen harrier

Northumberland 1992 9 rooks, 1 crow, 1 magpie,1 chaffinch

1 goshawk

North Yorkshire 1989 18 mallard, 1 moorhen

1 crow

1990 2 crows

3 rooks

1991 1 hen harrier

1 rook

1992 2 kestrels, several crows

1993 4 feral pigeon, 1 woodpigeon,

1 rook, 2 jackdaws,

1 yellowhammer

Nottinghamshire 1990 1 sparrowhawk

30 pheasants

1992 1 buzzard

1993 5 magpies, 1 crow

Oxfordshire 1990 1 red kite

1993 1 sparrowhawk

Shropshire 1989 1 buzzard

Several feral pigeons, 1 blackbird

Several crows, jackdaws and rooks

Several rooks

1990 2 buzzard

1 buzzard

Several rooks and woodpigeon

2 crows

1 magpie

1991 1 magpie

Numerous rooks and jackdaws

Numerous magpies and 2 jackdaws

1992 1 magpie

South Yorkshire 1990 3 kestrels, 1 sparrowhawk

Staffordshire 1991 1 magpie

Several starlings

1992 1 buzzard

Somerset 1989 1 buzzard

1991 2 buzzards

Suffolk 1989 1 sparrowhawk

1990 4 mallard

Surrey 1991 1 magpie

Tyne and Wear 1989 Several gulls and crows

1991 Several house sparrows

1993 Many house sparrows, blackbirds, starlings

Warwickshire 1990 2 buzzards

1 jackdaw, 3 rooks

1991 1 buzzard, 1 crow

West Midlands 1992 1 buzzard

West Sussex 1992 1 magpie

317W

County Year Number and species involved

West Yorkshire 1991 1 magpie

Wiltshire 1990 1 buzzard

1991 1 buzzard

1993 2 buzzards

Back to Fisheries

Forward to Agricultural Tenancies

Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

 

Search Help

 

HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1980s → 1989 → May 1989 → 25 May 1989 → Written Answers (Commons) → ENVIRONMENT

Birds

HC Deb 25 May 1989 vol 153 c678W 678W

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what opinions have been put by the EEC Commission to Her Majesty's Government on the extent to which the shooting of crows, rooks, jays and magpies, as covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is consistent with the EEC birds directive 79/409; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this issue.

§ Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

The Commission has suggested that the provisions of the directive require that the killing of the species listed on schedule 2 part II to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by authorised persons should be subject to a strictly controlled system of individual licensing. We consider that this would represent an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on farmers and landowners, would be costly to administer and would bring no conservation benefits. We have supplied the Commission with scientific data that shows that the population of none of the species concerned are endangered by present United Kingdom practices. We are trying to secure an amendment to the directive which would clarify the position on sensible pest control.

Back to Greenhouse Effect

Forward to Wildlife Conservation

Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament