In what seems like undue haste, the hunting, shooting and fishing brigade have moved on to cormorants after failing (at least for a while) to get a receptive government department to licence some buzzard bothering.
Now we often hear fishermen slagging off cormorants and herons and otters and birdwatchers so this doesn’t really come as a surprise, although I was disappointed to see the Angling Trust‘s quite sensible Mark Lloyd having to front this call for cormorants (and goosanders) to be added to the general licence.
The general licence is, basically, a pest list. It is a list of species which can be killed without having to apply for a specific licence to do so. It was only after years of RSPB pressure that Defra removed the red-listed starling and house sparrow from this list. See here and here for details (England only).
I’ve always felt uncomfortable about the jackdaw and rook being on this list – I wonder whether they are really there because so many ‘real countrymen’ would struggle to tell the difference between a crow , a rook and a jackdaw (and I could quote examples but I won’t to spare the blushes of the landed gentry). Maybe the cormorant will be added just because it is another black bird – perhaps we should have a ‘black bird’ general licence with blackbirds, black grouse, black guillemots and black-winged pratincoles.
I notice with little surprise that the Countryside Alliance is supporting this call – it is, after all, an organisation in search of a purpose right now. But I was disappointed to see BASC signed up to it, and even more disappointed to see the GWCT’s name there too.
Our mission is to promote and protect sporting shooting and the well-being of the countryside throughout the United Kingdom and overseas. We represent our members’ interests by providing a voice for sporting shooting which includes wildfowling, game, and rough shooting, deer stalking, target shooting and air gunning, pigeon shooting and pest control, gun dogs, promoting practical habitat conservation, training and the setting of standards and undertaking appropriate research.
Where does it mention fishing? Or maybe a spot of cormorant shooting is the new sport?
No, what is happening here, in my opinion, is that those who want to kill things in the countryside are getting on each others’ bandwagons. You can imagine the conversation: ‘We failed on buzzards – we now need a big push on cormorants so that we can make a breakthrough. We’re all in it together.’. Too far fetched?
I wonder whether the environmental NGOs will behave in the same way or whether they are too divided to gather together to combat this threat. Will we see the National Trust, WWF UK, Plantlife and Buglife joining forces with the RSPB to argue that extension of the general licence is wrong? I wonder?
What should be the response to this concerted move by the hunters, shooters and fishers? This might be an opportunity to protect the cormorant but also to remove jackdaw and rook from the general licence altogether. You would still be able to control these species if you had a need (and it will be very rare) but you would have to apply for a specific licence rather than being given blanket permission from the general licence.
But there is another more radical route too (which you can read about in my book when it comes out in about 6 weeks time), and that would be to point out that the general licence does not, arguably, allow widespread control of crows and magpies for the purpose of pheasant shooting and red-legged partridge shooting. The general licence limits its use to preventing ‘serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters’. Pheasants are not livestock etc and so, arguably, much gamekeeping is illegal. Who might take a test case on this issue?
[registration_form]
Some possible misinformation here. Gamebirds are livestock when held in captivity/dependant on man for food etc. for the purposes of rearing or release. Specific licences may be sought for specific purposes including to prevent serious damage. To be granted they need to meet certain tests depending on the pirpise of the licence. These include evidence as to the seriousness of damage, the links between cause and effect and the extent to which no other satisfactory solutions are available. There are a number of General Licences (plural) for a range of specific purposes, where there is no general conservation issue for the species involved. Another of these purposes is for the conservation of Wild Birds.
Roger – crow control is not to protect gamebirds held in captivity (they are ‘protected’ by being in captivity).
Mark, I’m getting a bit confused by all this. When you were kind enough to show me Geltsdale before you departed RSPB you were at pains to point out that you killed crows to protect nesting waders on that site. I had always thought that this was under the General Licence and that you agreed with the culling. Was I wrong?
As you know my view is that the issue is reducing predation which is not necessarily the same as reducing predators but we need a reasonable debate based on science and not yet another bout of arid point scoring and abuse.
Ian – I’m sorry you are confused. It is, in my view, legal to control crows under the general licence for nature conservation purposes. But it isn’t, in my opinion, to protect non-native gamebirds which are neither livestock nor property. IF people want to open up the whole basis of the general licence then it can be opened up in any direction. Is that what GWCT , BASC, the Angling Trust and others intended? Or were you confused?
I don’t think I was at pains to point out that the RSPB control crows on some of its nature reserves but I would have been perfectly happy to tell you that we did.
If there was a campaign to allow the burning of witches in remote country areas I suspect the Countryside Alliance would be in favour.
It’s fairly obvious why they want want Cormorants to be shot – they be black, see? Them’s the Devil’s birds…
Ian – I wonder whether that’s why swifts are declining? They’d be a more sporting shot than some pheasant shoots? Devil birds indeed.
Mark,
Your exchange with Ian may have covered it. Crow control might most often fall under the GLs for both conservation of wild birds and but some farming interests might also undertake it for prevention of serious damage to livestock – which includes lambs and (free-range) poultry.
The GLs are open for consultation on an annual basis.
Roger – I am quite sure (well, fairly sure) that nature conservation interests would be reasonably happy to see crows removed from the GL which would mean that the relatively few cases of crow control by nature conservation organisations would have to be licenced specifically. I can’t see that your local pheasant shoot would be so keen on the idea. And, as I say, arguably generalised crow control under the current GL is illegal anyway.
Mark, I’m sorry I made a mistake. I thought this was a serious attempt to discuss a serious matter seriously. As we are already into witch burning, wanting to shoot cormorants because they are black, shooting swifts and wild speculation about the wishes and conduct of imagined shoots I see I was profoundly mistaken.
There is a problem relating to the impact of predation on a range of species both wild and domestic but I’m sorry to say that when we try to unravel myth from fact and find practical broadly acceptable solutions any debate seems to descend into abuse almost immediately. In the circumstances it is hardly suprising that most conservation organisations feel that they have to keep as quiet as possible about the predator control they undertake.
Ian – I don’t know any conservation organisation that keeps quiet about the predator control it undertakes but there may be some out there that you know about. But is that a serious point about the impact of predation or just an attempted dig at conservation NGOs?
What scientific evidence does the GWCT have to justify jackdaws and rooks being on the general licence by the way?
In a year when the demise of the hen harrier in England looms ever closer, and buzzard control was on the Defra agenda we now see a call to put cormorants on the general licence supported, it seems by your organisation. Not an increase in licences, but a move of this bird onto the general licence.
Your views are always welcome on this blog. But who is taking the micky really?
Roger – Livestock that are suddenly released into the wild! I think you will find you need a license for that.
Geltsdale no longer needs crow control as the number of Goshawks have increased. The same goes for Cormorant and Goosander. You need to bring back the predator which is best to control its numbers namely White tailed Eagle. Ground nesting Cormorants are now common on the Solway due to lack of predators. Interesting to note that a meeting is to take place on Mull for the removal of some young White tailed Eagles to other parts of the UK. Hopefully Cumbria will be first on the list.
John – some good points here, thank you. Golden eagles might reduce hen harrier impacts (but gamekeepers do that a different way) and white-tailed eagles would scare the living daylights out of marsh harriers, foxes etc. I think the GWCT even produced a report which talked about the impact of predator release years ago.
I’m most certainly attacking NGO’s. What I am pointing out is that abuse might be fun but it is not an argument. The level of vitriol which is stirred up whenever predation control is mentioned is a brake on honest debate and you know as well as I do that, faced with the risks, many organisations understandably keep their heads down.
A very interesting point by the way about the increase of Goshawks at Geltsdale removing the need for crow control. Have the RSPB written that up because if that is the case and wader and Black Grouse productivity have improved it would be an important piece in the jigsaw.
I have watched the Goosander decline as a wintering species here in the south and birds have disappeared from many of their haunts from 10-15 years ago. To consider control of such a species to protect sporting interests is abhorrant and only goes to show that the country pursuits brigade don’t know their environment – Snipe and Woodcock are other classic examples that are disappearing as breeding species and should be afforded protection, not controlled for sporting interests.
Mark, so if, as you say, the cormorant is not an ugly bird which, in your opinion, is Britain’s ugliest bird?
Oh dear. This is why I no longer frequent accoustic guitar forums on a frequent basis.
Pete, That has to be woodpigeon nestlings
Can we have a poll instead for Britain’s most beautiful ugly bird? Joint top – all the corvids, second cormorant, third … etc. etc.
The Angling Trust has made two serious errors of judgement. Firstly calling for cormorants and goosanders to be added to the general licence and secondly by aligning itself with the Predation Action Group, Countryside Alliance and BASC. This issue has nothing to do with the CA or BASC and their inclusion on the joint statement is deeply regrettable and serves to deflect attention away from an issue which does exist and one that is worthy of more sensible and better informed debate, free from the vitriol, abuse and point scoring that association with the CA always seems to generate.
Perhaps I should point out that am both a naturalist and a fisherman and a member of both the RSPB and ex-member of the Angling Trust.
The real issues here are the fact that we have bollocks-up our salt-water fish stocks to such an extent that Cormorants (particularly the sub-species carbo sinensis) have been driven inland, where they have discovered fresh water fish stocks to be relatively easy pickings. No doubt this has also been encouraged by the proliferation of over-stocked, ‘hole-in-ground’ commercial day ticket fisheries which frequently support obscene stocking densities in the region of 750lb/acre, though this never occurs to many anglers.
However the truth remains that the inland migration of cormorants set against a backdrop of increasing water abstraction, reduced flow rate, the presence of endocrine disruptors and effects of diffuse pollution from agriculture is placing severe pressure on our wild silver fish stocks in many of our freshwaters and it saddens me to see some of the rivers and glacial meres which I know intimately, with such depleted stocks of silver fish. How this will affect the future ecology of these ecosystems, I do not know and I’m not prone to guessing; however it does seem evident to me that in the absence of any evidence there is little justification for adding cormorants and goosanders to the general licence.
To my mind the Angling Trust and the others should focus their efforts in the other issues I have mentioned, e.g. the excellent work of Fish Legal, rather than marching blindly down the well-trodden route of the small thinker – predator bashing. I know many other anglers feel the same.
Joe W – that is a wonderful comment. Thank you.
So, what are you intelligent and thinking fishermen going to do about it….?
Good question and the simple answer is to continue NOT supporting the Angling Trust and to do more than we are currently doing now!
I always make a point of questioning the anti-predator drivel that I hear some anglers regurgitating, but more often than not it’s like banging ones head against a brick wall. Well-reasoned, rational points about the more serious threats to the UK’s waterways are brushed aside with indifference or personal abuse. The sad reality is that many anglers have a lower IQ than the contents of their bait tub.
Many anglers who had a well-rounded understanding of the environment that they fish in and the ability to see the wider environmental picture, were supporters of the Anglers Conservation Association (ACA) before it merged with other organisations to form the Angling Trust. It was felt, for reasons never apparent to myself, that angling needed to be represented by one single voice. The ACA had an excellent track record in taking private legal action against polluters (to be fair the legal arm of the Angling Trust (Fish Legal) still does), and generally seemed to take a considered, sensible view on issues such as cormorant predation, so it is surprising to see Mark Lloyd who was the CEO of the ACA, steering the Angling Trust down this route.
The ACA had some big-thinking trustees, including the excellent Dr Mark Everard (or Dr Roach as he’s known in some circles), who now sits on the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Salmon & Trout Association. There is a good article by him on the fish predation issue here: http://www.markeverard.uwclub.net/page9.html
It’s interesting to note that the Salmon & Trout Association have supported this call, as it appears that not all of their Scientific Advisory Panel believes that this is the correct course of action.
Joe W – thank you very much for this. I was a bit surprised at the Salmon and Trout Association being in with this crowd and on this issue too.
The white-tailed eagles taking over the roost scared the bejessus out of the roosting cormorants at Loch Leven, although getting rid of the rainbow trout probably played a major role too.
What I find utterly depressing is the instant move to the ‘kill-something’ solution and any pause for ‘beard-stroking’ suggested by the ‘greens’ is scoffed at!
Bimbling – quite right. Interesting observation on cormorants and wtes. Thank you.
When the fishing press (I think it was the Angling Times) heard of the possible reintroduction of cormorant-eating white-tailed eagles to East Anglia they were quite enthusiastic about the idea. The eagles were certainly seen as the lesser of two evils. There was a sudden u-turn, however, when one of their more learned journalists got it into his head that the white-tailed eagle was in fact just an alternative name for the osprey. As ospreys clearly don’t take cormorants he was quite irate that the conservation bodies had tried to hoodwink the fishermen.
I think in a lot of situations w-t eagles visit cormorant colonies to steal fish rather than kill cormorants – forcing the adults to regurgitate their prey. Not sure if eagles predating cormorants might compensate for those occasions when the cormorants just have to catch their fish all over again?
Rich – interesting, thanks
Mark – could this be the beginning of the end of the general licence altogether? What is the point of it? If all other legal methods have to be tried first, those proposing to kill any “pest” species will be having to make an actual case that the threat they pose is real and specific, and that all other legal measures have been tried without success – exactly as if they had applied for a special licence! If ‘all other legal measures’ means up to and including (re)introduction of goshawks or white tailed eagles and a case means a proper case founded on evidence of actual harm, then the case for the general licence dissolves by this logic. In other words cormorants, crows, magpies, rooks, jackdaws, etc. are all innocent until proven guilty in each case rather than guilty just coz they iz black and anyone ‘needing’ to kill them has to have a special licence to do so.
(PS perhaps the general licence would need to remain for feral pigeon and ring necked parakeet – and I know neither they or magpies are black which spoils the joke somewhat, but hey, it wasn’t a very good joke anyway…).
Martin – thanks!
The Angling Trust seem to be hell bent on alienating conservationists and anglers, who often enjoy wildlife too. I quick search on fishing forums shows very few anglers are members and many don’t seem to be fans…
They recently released a ‘report’ which claimed releasing beavers would be a disaster as they would harm fish stocks because the dams would “prevent coarse and game fish migrating up and downstream to complete their lifecycles.” If that is so how on earth did these fish survive for the 1000s of years in which they coexisted before we made them extinct!? It also seems to miss the fact that pools of water in a river course are great for wildlife, providing fish with food to grow and being full of twigs and branches provide an excellent nursery for fish fry. But why let facts get in the way of your mission.
Sorry skipped through the comments. Yes the bloody things should be shot on site whilst on inland waters.
Get marine waters sorted then they wouldn’t raid my trout loch !! Whilst they reside there it’s none to safe !!
Some years ago the then CSL now FERA looked at the problem of cormorant predation and tested a number of non-lethal solutions, some of which I understand worked in severely reducing cormorant predation. Unless these have been tried and tested by fisheries on a large scale there is absolutely no reason to go to lethal control nor any justification for the granting of any sort of licence to allow it.
Goosanders here in North Yorkshire seem scarcer than they were 10 years or more ago , is it a case of the law already being broken, surely not? After all the hunting, shooting and fishing lobby wouldn’t want such a dangerous precident of illegality setting would they?
There is no justification in killing native piscivores to protect non-natives like rainbow trout any more than killing buzzards to protect alien pheasants. Yes “sinensis” cormorants are native, in that they found their own way here naturally. This form of cormorant has always fed on inland waters and is not driven to them by a lack of sea fish, although our over fishing the sea cannot help.
If as suggested they are damaging NATURAL fish stocks we need to find out why and not just blame the predator.
Yes Ian predation debates often become heated because we on the conservation side often feel it is the first option chosen, not a position of last resort and phrases like “over population of predators” and “restoring a natural balance” are used in the false arguments used trying justify that predator control. Indeed those arguments are now so common place and familiar we could insert the appropriate predator in them almost at random, depending on who has been chosen as this weeks bete noir, try it Hen Harrier, pine marten, buzzard, otter, cormorant, badger, pike etc. The list is as long as the number of native predators, a position best poorly supported by science and in most cases entirely unjustified except by a lack of ecological knowledge, prejudice or good old human greed.
Paul – very well put. Thank you.
Paul is right. Fish refuges were found to reduce predation by about 60%. Perhaps an outcome of the cormorant review that is due to conclude next week should be that more needs to be done by the likes of Angling Trust to deploy and improve the effectiveness of non destructive methods of protecting fish stocks.
Two of the organisations signing Angling Trusts call for cormorants and goosanders to go on the General Licence have the word ‘conservation’ in their title (GWCT and BASC). So what is the conservation aim of such a measure?. Which fish species are being threatened by cormorant predation? The Government research mentioned above also looked at whether cormorants were having an impact on fish populations overall, it concluded they weren’t. If there are localised issues of serious damage fisheries managers can get a licence to shoot cormorants. Many do, perhaps too many do, because since about 2004 when licence criteria were relaxed (despite opposition from the RSPB) many more cormorants are shot under licence. In the last couple of years around 1700 cormorants were shot under licence, around 1 in 10 of the wintering population in England. There are now signs that the wintering population is starting to decline, probably because of the high level of killing. The breeding population of cormorants has declined by 7% in the last decade. This is not a population out of control, not yet but the warning signs are there.
So what is the conservation advantage of putting cormorants on the general licence.? This would allow unlimited, unjustified, unmonitored and unreported killing of cormorants. There is a very real risk that this could send the cormorant population into a tail spin. This is where the decades of vilification of cormorants in the angling press (the black plague, black luftwaffe etc) and the resulting tales of the river bank becomes important. I know many sensible anglers who know that this black scapegoating is nonsense, but I fear there are many out their who will take the opportunity of a General Licence to persecute the cormorant.
So where are the fish conservation benefits of shooting more and more cormorants and where is the evidence to back this up? Perhaps the cormorant review can come up with this, but I very much doubt it. I would argue that there are far more important issues affecting our freshwaters than natural predation. The Angling Trust should focus its efforts on these, persecuting the cormorant, the goosander or other parts of our native wildlife will just bring the sport of angling into disrepute.
Boris – thank you. Lots of good points backed up by lots of good science. Maybe ‘the leading UK charity conducting scientific research to enhance the British countryside for public benefit’ (which is the GWCT, just in case you don’t recognise them from their own description of themselves) will respond here.
Is anyone going to answer my question? An important assertion was made in this debate, that the arrival in strength of Goshawks at Geltsdale has removed the need for the RSPB to kill crows to protect the waders nesting there. Is that a fact and has the success of the waders breeding there been maintained or enhanced as a result?
Of course they will have presumably continued to cull foxes as Goshawks don’t normally kill them but if the Goshawk assertion is correct it is important that more people know.
One final point before I go and start work conserving wildlife on a small patch of England, there is no line with self selected conservationists on one side and people concerned with controlling predation on the other. The RSPB, WWT, NT, and many others control all sorts of predators when, very reasonably, in my view, they decide for themslves that it suits their purposes. Please be careful, there may be a bigger plot. While we argue about whether it is nobler to kill crows to protect Redshanks than to protect Grey Partridges, we may turn round and find that Hampshire is a housing estate.
Ian – that’s probably because this isn’t an RSPB site and the discussion started off on cormorants. The scientific case for cormorant culling, even at present levels, is very weak. Your organisaton is asking that there be no limit set to this killing – that’s what putting cormorants on the general licence would mean. Some will think that GWCT may have allowed its science, for which it used to be more highly regarded, to take a backseat to its political actions. We all expect better of you, and of BASC – admittedly no better of the Countryside Alliance. Have a look at Boris’s comments here and come back with some answers yourself on the cormorant question please.
While I cant comment about the situation at Geltsdale, studies done in Germany in areas that contained breeding Goshawks showed many species had better breeding results than in areas that didnt contain Goshawks due to the Hawks preying on Carrion Crows and Magpies
One of the things that seems ill understood, or at least not publicised is the effect of high potential unnatural prey densities has on predator numbers. Take the high number of road kill pheasants as an example does this enable corvids to rear more successfully or aid mortality rates? If that were the case does this enhanced corvid population have a deleterious effect on unenhanced native wildlife populations?
Do cormorants breed better as a consequence of high density put and take fisheries? Do natural fisheries in the vicinity of such put and take waters suffer excessive predation by cormorants as a result?
These are questions I ask because we do seem to have high densities of corvids and foxes amongst others.
Rats seem to populate areas with lots of pheasant feeders too, all worth thinking about.
I would like to pick up on the idea that rooks and jackdaws are included on the general licence so that country folk don’t need to be precise with their id skills. If that is true and if cormorant and goosander are added to the general licence, will we also find that shag and red breasted merganser are added for the same reason? I suggest that if the subject of general licences is opened up ‘from both ends’ that it should be argued that anyone exercising such as licence should be in possession of a certificate of competence – this might cover such important things as proficiency in safe use of firearms, legal use of traps and identification skills.
Oh and Britain’s ugliest bird: – cock pheasant, especially when half squashed on the road.
Along the same lines, I remember that during the prolonged debate prior to the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act, there was a call from the shooting fraternity for Garganey and Whimbrel to be excluded from special protection on the grounds that they were difficult to distinguish from Teal and Curlew. BASC (or was it still WAGBI at that time) were concerned that their members wouldn’t be competent to identify what they were shooting and therefore might inadvertently be breaking the law.
I like the idea of a total rethink on the general licence, I also rather like the American idea in their migratory birds act that all natives are protected but aliens are not or at least non European aliens in our case. Specific licences would be needed to control so called native pest species and release non natives. The idea require more thought but has some merit.
Paul – it does
The issue of providing licences to cover non-target/misidentified species is long-standing. Back in 1997 I published a paper in Scottish Birds (2: pp 93-100) on winter sawbill and cormorant surveys on a Scottish river (subsequently with Adam Watson’s data going back to the 1940-50s too). Surveys on the river found goosanders and cormorants present, but no red-breasted mergansers. Government licences (which could only be granted if evidence of significant damage was provided) were being issued on the river to kill red-breasted mergansers. How a non-existant species could cause significant damage to fish stocks is one of life’s great mysteries. Might as well have issued a licence to cull crocs or gaiters.
Peter – welcome and thank you for making an important point in an amusing way.
This takes me back some 12 or so years, when the proprietor of a tackle shop near my home claimed in a local paper that “hundreds” of…wait for it…”PYGMY Cormorants” were present on the Severn in Worcs, and were, not only, decimating Barbel stocks, but were also killing off all the trees along the river with guano. The following day, I surveyed a ten mile stretch of the area in question. Needless to say, no Pygmy Cormorants were recorded. Furthermore, I only saw a single, overflying Great Cormorant.
In this particular case, not only was the author of this bandwagon-jumping drivel pig ignorant, but a liar to boot.
Hi,
The 4 comorants we had in the Severn in worcs have gone. I heard through the local grapevine they have been ‘ removed’ for fishing ideals.
The residents of this small community were not consulted and most of the anglers are visitors. How dare they destroy our comorants? Wondered where this stands legally as I will be following this up.
Dom
I think any real envriomentalist would agree there needs to be something done about the population explosion in the migratory Cormorant population which stands at over 20,000 now. They are not just decimating fish that fisherman want to catch but they are unbalencing the ecosystem that you think you are protecting by protecting this bird. Some people need to look reality in the face and not run away from problems that mostly humans caused int he first place. If they are not dealt with by human contoll then they will end up starving to death in years to come once they have eaten all the fish.
Big Matt- welcome to this blog and thank you for your comment.