De Registration Of Schedule 4's

[jasper65 6]

Dear All

 

Important message for all falconers. So pass it on. If anyone wants to

discuss, please call. This needs urgent action. (Derek: please forward to

the breeders group)

 

 

 

I can now confirm that Defra England and Wales plans to remove registration

on all falconry species with the exception of goshawks and golden eagles.

This will take the form of a statutary instrument expected to become law on

1st October 2008. The minister, Joan Ruddock, has stated that with a very

few exceptions (including the two above) the possession of an Article 10

certificate is sufficient legislation to protect wild raptors. The remaining

species are being retained either because the population is uncertain

(goshawk) or low (eagle - remember there are none in England and Wales).

 

 

 

Scotland will be a different case unless we act now. The Scottish Executive

is being lobbied hard by conservation bodies including the RSPB to act in

isolation and keep the peregrine on Schedule 4 north of the border. This

would cause problems for breeders, and be equally problematic for visitors.

Currently you are permitted to go north with a peregrine without having to

re-register it. How Scotland will view this rule if they are the only

devolved government to keep registration is unknown.

 

 

 

Scottish breeders will be lumbered with costs that are anti-competitive and

will suffer accordingly. Defra, seeking to slim down the department

responsible, will have to run a Scottish only section (unless Scotland

create their own). Or, and this is a real issue, Defra England will be

forced to keep the peregrine on the Schedule in deference to Scotland.

 

 

 

Hawk Board and breeders have fought long and hard for this relaxation and

are not willing to see it slip from our grasp at the eleventh hour. It is

good for falconry and continues our efforts to make sure we remain one of

the most unregulated falconry nations in Europe. Remember, it is very easy

for ministers to say no and keep the status quo; it is very tough for them

to risk unpopularity and make such changes. We should applaud Joan Ruddock's

determination.

 

 

 

So if you are either in Scotland or visit for hawking, please put the case

for parity with the rest of the UK. You might make the following points,

stating why you are writing (breeder, regular visitor for falconry, etc.):

 

 

 

I am very concerned that the Scottish Executive contemplates retaining the

peregrine falcon as a registerable species when England and Wales plan to

de-list it. It is a UK species and cannot be regionally proscribed. The

Defra Minister, Joan Ruddock MP, has taken a very pragmatic view based on

fact not emotion, and this must be applauded. We hope the Scottish Executive

will do the same. It is a fact that:

 

* the peregrine is not endangered in the UK

* the population shows a countrywide year-on year-growth

* thefts (for falconry) are at an all time low

* population pockets where growth is slow or reduced are not as a

result of thefts (for falconry)

* captive breeding (coupled with DNA testing) has reduced thefts (for

falconry)

* protectionist bodies have raised the peregrine to iconic levels over

and above other species in far greater need of protection

* Article 10 certificates provide more than adequate data on which to

base a prosecution

 

On the basis of these facts, coupled with submissions from the Hawk Board

and statements by the Minister at Westminster parliamentary questions and

adjournment debates, we see no reason for its continued inclusion in

Scotland. This would lead to confusion and legislative costs at a time when

government is continually seeking ways to reduce red tape. We hope that the

facts prevail when making the final decision.

 

The contact details are as follows:

 

 

 

Hugh Dignon Head of Nature Conservation 0131 244 7574

hugh.dignon@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

 

Michael Russell SMP, Minister for the Environment

michael.russell@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

 

The Scottish Government

Victoria Quay

Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

 

 

 

Thank you

 

Nick Kester

[SPAR 2]

Am I right in saying from October 2008 we no longer have to pay £17 for a registration document, the breeder has to pay £25 for an A10 if the bird is to be used for commercial purposes within Europe, but if the birds are exported outside of the EU the birds dont require an A10.

I hear something like this from a friend

[jasper65 6]

Am I right in saying from October 2008 we no longer have to pay £17 for a registration document, the breeder has to pay £25 for an A10 if the bird is to be used for commercial purposes within Europe, but if the birds are exported outside of the EU the birds dont require an A10.

I hear something like this from a friend

 

There's alot of things being said at the moment but no one seems to know 100% whats going on. it'll all come clearer when DEFRA send the latest paperwork through probably sometime this month, if not I'll get onto my case officer for some info....

 

I think its a good thing but its typical as the birds I have the most of Goshawks won't be removed so its still going to cost me £14 to register each young bird, on top of this if they charge for A10's too then its going to work out more expensive.....

 

there was simular stories last year charging for A10's but it didn't happen.....

[SPAR 2]

If there is a charge for A10s would this mean I would have to pay £25 for an A10 on a "3 handed bird". As you are aware the UK is the only EC Country that has the Registration system and it has been long outdated so removing it can only be a good thing. DEFRA are looking at different ways in which to protect the trade in birds like Peregrines and I am sure you will find that there will be changes in the Article 10 system such as Transaction Cert's for some birds. Transaction Cert's have already been issued for Golden Eagles in the UK even if they have been proven to be bred in captivity within the EC (so I have been told.) I would be very interested to see the outcome of this or like you say Jasper is it just hear-say. Like Chris said would there be any chance of tracking your bird if stolen is micro-chipping the answer.

One thing is we will have to wait later in the year to find out I suppose

Edited March 4, 2008 by SPAR

[jasper65 6]

Its a real sticky wicket isn't it at the moment! I never thought about what chris mentioned which would definitley be a worry. I remember this time last year there was talk about A10's being £20 first year! £40 second year! and topping out at £60 in the third year, thankfully it didn't happen but I can't imagine DEFRA not looking at it without making some sort of financial gain, at the moment having two lots of paperwork <schedule 4's> seems a bit much.

 

I find it strange they would leave Goshawks on document and not Merlins? I think one of us need to speak to someone in the know and clear a few details up....

 

ATB

 

Jasper

[SPAR 2]

I think one of us need to speak to someone in the know and clear a few details up....

 

ATB

 

Jasper

 

That will be more fun I have never got a straight answer from them or 1 person will tell you something different from another I'm not sure they know themselves what they are doing. Its a waste of time looking on there website because there isn't much on there. I would of thought if it was going to happen we would get a good few month notice but there is nothing on there website as of yet.

Edited March 4, 2008 by SPAR

[gsi2000stokie 5]

its like the speed camera argument really. we dont need more cameras but they put them up anyway. its a good source of income. this is basically another money making sceme from our wonderful government. lets charge a minor population, (i say minor because there arnt a lot of us falconers) an even more extortionate amount of money to be able to breed OUR birds. fair enough the paper work puts people off robbing a nest and passing the bird off with a fake a10 but do the high prices really need to be in place.

[gsi2000stokie 5]

If there is a charge for A10s would this mean I would have to pay £25 for an A10 on a "3 handed bird". As you are aware the UK is the only EC Country that has the Registration system and it has been long outdated so removing it can only be a good thing. DEFRA are looking at different ways in which to protect the trade in birds like Peregrines and I am sure you will find that there will be changes in the Article 10 system such as Transaction Cert's for some birds. Transaction Cert's have already been issued for Golden Eagles in the UK even if they have been proven to be bred in captivity within the EC (so I have been told.) I would be very interested to see the outcome of this or like you say Jasper is it just hear-say. Like Chris said would there be any chance of tracking your bird if stolen is micro-chipping the answer.

One thing is we will have to wait later in the year to find out I suppose

i personally think they have only got to speak to someone at the dogs kc register. there way of registering dogs has worked fine and very well for years and still does. i think thats the way forward. bring an exact replica way for the dog register into the the way that birds are bread. one paper with the individual birds details on it i.e breeder, parents, DOB, address and a second set with grandparant and breeders numbers next to them. even a kid could read and understand that way of doing things. WHO DO WE SPEAK TO? ITS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT AT MONEY MAKING AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

[SPAR 2]

From what I have heard DEFRA is running the show.

I think the RSPB have got alot to do with it all and by the sound of it the JNCC will back them up

Edited March 6, 2008 by SPAR

[SPAR 2]

Consultation response: English Nature ref. 02/03-178.

REVIEW OF BIRD REGISTRATION & SCHEDULE 4 OF THE WILDLIFE AND

COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981

This reply represents the combined views of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC) and the statutory nature conservation agencies - Countryside Council for Wales

(CCW) and English Nature (EN). Whilst this review does not cover Scotland, the views of

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have also been sought and incorporated. This response

addresses the key points raised in the consultation paper.

The main objectives for Schedule 4 listing

JNCC and the country agencies believe there are four principal reasons for maintaining a bird

registration scheme:

(i) to further conservation of globally endangered bird species in support of the UK’s

international nature conservation obligations;

(ii) to provide additional protection to native species of high conservation concern;

(iii) to assist in the enforcement of domestic wildlife legislation by allowing enforcement

agencies to investigate suspected cases of illegal trade and illegal taking from the wild

thoroughly and present evidence in court; and

(iv) to act as a deterrent against illegal trade and take from the wild.

Does the current system provide appropriate controls compared with its costs?

We appreciate that DEFRA has to ensure that any registration scheme provides value for

money in its use of public funds. However, the consultation paper seems to concentrate more

on the financial savings that could be achieved by the department and the keepers, rather than

the ‘costs’ and damage to wildlife if a registration scheme were to be abolished. It is

disappointing that the (non-monetary) value of registration as a conservation tool has not

been given equal emphasis as the actual (financial) costs of implementing the scheme. Any

balanced review of a regulatory or registration scheme must consider how delivering the aims

of the scheme contributes towards fulfilling the objectives that led to the scheme being

established in the first place. It is our considered view that the conservation value of

Schedule 4 should not be compromised simply as part of a cost-cutting exercise.

We are convinced that, combined with DNA testing, the registration system has played (and

continues to play) a vital role in deterring illegal taking from the wild. However, we

recognise that demonstrating the tangible value of such a deterrent is difficult. The fact that

populations of some of the native Schedule 4 species are stable or have increased in the wild,

rather than demonstrating that illegal taking no longer poses any threat, may actually suggest

that the deterrent effect of registration has contributed to their recovery. For example, since

the registration system was introduced in 1982 there has been a reduction of nest robberies

for some of the most sought after valuable falconry birds. Prior to the registration scheme

coming into operation, up to 50% of peregrine falcons nesting in the Lake District were

robbed annually, this figure dropped considerably once registration had been implemented.

(RSPB, 2002). Of course, other measures, such as campaigns against illegal killing and

poisoning will also have contributed to the recovery of some raptor populations. However,

2

abolishing the system entirely, or de-registering some of the most sought after birds, may

well bring about an increase in illegal trade or illegal take from the wild.

Registration under Schedule 4 also has other advantages over and above those relating solely

to enforcement. The information derived from Schedule 4 registration is used on a daily basis

by the UK CITES Management Authority (Defra case officers), and JNCC (as CITES

Scientific Authority), to assess claims of captive breeding in relation to applications for

Article 10 certificates for Schedule 4 birds which are also listed on Annex A of the EC

CITES Regulations. The data also allows the Scientific Authority to monitor trends in

captive-breeding, which can be important for influencing policy at European and

international levels. Not only does registration assist the keepers in establishing legal

acquisition or the captive-bred status of the birds in their possession, but it can also provide

the missing provenance details that may allow a bird to be used for commercial purposes,

when otherwise they would be refused outright for not fulfilling the exemption criteria in

Article 8.3 of Regulation (EC) 338/97.

The absence of comprehensive registration records would also make it increasingly difficult

for the Police to gather sufficient evidence to convince the Crown Prosecution Service to

bring before the courts, cases involving birds illegally taken from the wild.

DNA testing can be a useful enforcement tool to establish the provenance of a specimen

where doubts about the origin have been raised, but it relies on the birds concerned, as well as

the parental birds, to be located and tested. This in turn relies on good breeding and keeping

records and for specimens to be uniquely and permanently marked, which would not

necessarily be routinely carried out by keepers unless it was a requirement of registration.

Due to the absence of comprehensive records and legally binding declarations, there have

been, to our knowledge, no prosecution cases utilising DNA profiling that have involved non-

Schedule 4 species.

EC CITES Article 10 certificates cannot be regarded as a suitable alternative to registration,

as the ‘possession monitoring’, which is a key element of the registration system, is not

catered for within CITES, particularly with the introduction of ‘specimen specific

certificates’ (SSC’s). These SSC’s travel with the specimens which means that the

department does not necessarily have an audit trail and does not necessarily know where the

specimens are being kept. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are no

internal border controls within the EC and SSC’s are valid throughout the European Union.

This means that a specimen imported into the UK accompanied by an SSC issued by another

Member State, (or gifted) would not be notified to Defra unless it was listed on Schedule 4.

This would make investigating offences involving more than one Member State more

difficult and has major implications in terms of future EU expansion. Not only for the

detection of illegally acquired wild birds taken in the Eastern European countries themselves,

but also because we have been led to believe that some illegally acquired non-native species

have been ‘stockpiled’ in these accession countries in anticipation of EC enlargement.

Some of the administrative costs of Schedule 4 registration will be reduced through the

introduction of Phoenix and by streamlining the registration process (i.e. removal of

requirement for triennial registration).

In summary, we believe that the cost to wildlife if the registration system were to be

abolished, far outweighs the financial implications of maintaining the system. To lose

3

registration would seriously compromise our ability to detect birds illegally traded or

taken from the wild.

What changes could be made to streamline existing processes?

As long as keepers are legally bound to inform the department of any changes to their

registration details (i.e. change of keeper, change of address, death of bird), then we see no

reason to retain the requirement for triennial registration.

Unnecessary bureaucracy and some administrative costs could be reduced through the

introduction of the Phoenix licensing system and on-line registration (quicker, less paper,

reduced postal costs etc).

Article 36 of Regulation (EC) 1808/01 requires that captive bred Annex A birds be

permanently and uniquely marked with a closed seamless ring if they are to be used for

commercial purposes. The difficulty is that there isn’t just one ring supplier and there is no

guarantee that any of the closed rings being produced by the many different companies are

unique as required by the Regulation. In fact, the closed rings issued to keepers of Schedule 4

birds by the Secretary of State, provides one of the most robust systems for ensuring closedrings

are uniquely marked. Until such times that ring suppliers can guarantee their rings are

uniquely numbered then it would not seem sensible to remove the requirement for rings to be

obtained from the Secretary of State. In addition the Wildlife Inspectorate currently witness a

percentage of fitting of closed rings to ensure compliance with the law. This would not be

possible under EC Regulations. Accordingly, we do not support at this stage the removal

of the requirement for rings to be obtained from the Secretary of State.

What species should be included on a list of registered species?

We feel there is scope for amending the present list of Schedule 4 species, to focus on those

species which are most at risk from illegal taking or trade, where such taking or trade may

affect their conservation status in the wild (rather than simply being based on the latter), and

where registration will act as a deterrent to, or aid to prosecution of, illegal possession or

related offences.

Where birds which fall into the categories above and which are not listed on Annex A of EC

CITES regulations or, if so, where keepers do not apply for Article 10 certificates for their

commercial use, then the only way Defra would be alerted to the birds presence in captivity

(& any related offence) is through the Schedule 4 bird registration scheme. This alone is a

strong incentive to retain registration for those species where illegal take or trade has been

identified as a potential threat to their status in the wild.

While it may be possible to develop some guiding principles in terms of the sorts of species

that would benefit from being listed in Schedule 4, some of the criteria are likely to be

subjective and rely on informed judgements. Hard and fast criteria are very difficult to

establish when dealing with terms such as ‘significant threat’.

JNCC in consultation with the CCW and EN are in broad agreement that Schedule 4 should

be retained and should focus on species of conservation concern identified in the red and

amber list of the ‘UK population status of birds’ (Gregory et al, 2002), where UK

4

populations are less that 10,000 pairs, and globally threatened birds (Birdlife International

2000), which also meet the following criteria:

• A species is known, or is likely, to be subject to illegal taking or trade, or may become

so,

AND

(i) the sustained illegal taking from the wild may have a significant impact on the wild

population of the species

OR

(ii) the wild population is so small that even the taking of a very few individuals from

the wild would have significant impact on the wild population

• In considering candidate species, the following should also be taken into account,

namely:

Whether the species is common or rare in captivity

Whether the species is difficult to keep and/or breed in captivity

It would be desirable to define these terms more tightly for a future registration scheme,

however at this stage in the consultation process we have simply put them forward as an

outline proposal.

Should a bird registration system include non-indigenous species?

Whilst we recognise that schedule 4 was originally envisioned as a tool to aid enforcement of

offences against the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act, non-native, globally threatened birds

have been included in the schedule for some time. To date, these species have solely

consisted of birds of prey but there is no reason in principle why other groups should not be

included. Indeed, we believe that doing so would provide an effective measure to contribute

to the UK’s obligations to safeguard global wildlife. There are a number of bird species with

very small populations in the wild, which are in great demand in trade and where such trade

is primarily illegal. We are particularly concerned at reports that rare parrots (such as the

Lears Macaw, Anodorhynchus leari) have been ‘stockpiled’ in some the EU accession

countries. Enforcement measures in many of the accession countries have been found to be

insufficient, and lack the necessary tools to clamp down on illegal trade and fully implement

CITES (TRAFFIC, 2002).

Introducing a requirement for registration for such species would greatly aid the detection

and prevention of illegal trade and would provide a cost-effective measure to contribute to

other measures aimed at conserving these species. Their inclusion on Schedule 4 would not

amount to a large number of individual specimens and therefore would not greatly add to the

administrative burden of Defra. However, it would count a lot in terms of ensuring that the

UK had measures that would deter the illegal keeping in the UK of some of the world’s most

endangered birds.

5

Is there merit in continuing to require registration of hybrid specimens?

The JNCC, CCW and EN support the continued registration of hybrid birds where they are

derived from a species listed on Schedule 4 in their recent lineage (previous 4 generations –

definition taken from CITES Animals Committee – Res. Conf. 10.17). Hybrid raptors can be

very difficult to distinguish phenotypically from pure-bred specimens and this could lead to

illegally taken wild birds being passed off as hybrids. In addition DNA testing is expensive

and therefore relying on this method for resolving doubts about the ancestry of a hybrid in

captivity, could be a false economy.

The fee incurred for requiring registering of purebred birds only, may also encourage people

to breed hybrids instead as a means of avoiding registration. This would appear to be a

perverse incentive, given the risk of hybrids escaping from captivity and potentially interbreeding

with native wild birds. In Germany escaped gyr/peregrine hybrids have bred with

wild peregrines creating real problems in terms of conservation management, something we

should pay heed to if we are to avoid similar problems of genetic introgression of our wild

populations. Indeed, registration has allowed us to monitor the significant growth of hybrid

falcon populations in captivity.

In conclusion, JNCC on behalf of the statutory nature conservation agencies - Countryside

Council for Wales and English Nature – recommends that a bird registration scheme

should be retained; abolition of the Scheme would take away a proven method of regulating

and monitoring the possession of wild birds, and is likely to remove an effective deterrent to

illegal take and trade of native and non-native species, and a reduction in detection and

conviction rates.

The current list of schedule 4 species should be amended, to represent those species which

are most at risk from illegal taking or trade and where such taking or trade may affect their

conservation status in the wild. In this regard, we would support the adoption of some

guiding principles to ensure maximum conservation benefit is achieved, but point out that

some of the criteria are likely to be subjective and will rely, accordingly, on informed

judgements. In this regard we would be pleased to assist with the future development of

appropriate selection criteria.

We also support a degree of streamlining of the registration process, including removing the

requirement for triennial registration and enabling on-line registration, where this does not

compromise the conservation benefits of the scheme.

However, we do not support the removal of the requirement for rings to be obtained

from the Secretary of State or the removal of the requirement to register hybrid birds

where they are derived from a species listed in Schedule 4 in their recent lineage.

JNCC and the country agencies will be pleased to assist the Department with further

contributions to the review as required.

28 November 2002

6

References

Berkhoudt, Karin (2002) Focus on EU Enlargement and Wildlife Trade: Review of CITES

Implementation in Candidate Countries. Brussels, TRAFFIC Europe.

BirdLife International (2000). Threatened Birds of the World. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK,

Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International.

Gregory, R.D., Wilkinson, N.I., Noble, D.G., Robinson, J.A., Brown, A.F., Hughes, J.,

Proctor, DA, Gibbons, D.W. and Galbraith, C.A. (2002). The population status of birds in the

United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern

2002-2007. British Birds 1995: 410-450

Shorrock, G. (2002). Bird Registration under Threat. Legal Eagle, No. 34, pp.1-2.

02_03_178.pdf