Following this, this and this, I have asked Natural England this:
On 10 July I asked ‘Has NE consented culling of Lesser Black-backed Gull in the Bowland Fells SSSI this year?’
On 9 August, after turning this into an EIR request (Request 3929), you used Regulation 12 (5)(B) – Administration of Justice to justify refusing to answer this question. You did not state that you would at any stage answer my question, and you did not indicate how long the investigation would continue.
Therefore, I am now repeating my question ‘Has NE consented culling of Lesser Black-backed Gull in the Bowland Fells SSSI this year?’.Maybe your response this time will either be a full response or will give sufficient information to save us both the trouble of having this rather disjointed conversation.
As you know, I have requested an internal review of your response to my other two questions and you have indicated that you will reply by 23 October. I await your response with interest.
Penny for this Guy’s thoughts?
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/guy-thompson
That’s a very shocking and upsetting photo. How can they justify that? Most people wouldn’t have a clue that such things go on – it’s only thanks to your blog that I do. Natural England should be thoroughly ashamed.
As with Ravens, how on earth can Natural England justify the slaughter of Lesser Black-backed Gulls when there is absolutely no evidence that they cause any significant harm? These birds resort to moorland for nesting due to being disturbed from their urban nest sites, and travel considerable daily distances to forage for food for their nestlings. Then one day they return to find their efforts in vain with dead young scattered all around. Sometimes I wonder what kind of society we live in. Too many decisions are made by NE and Scottish Natural Heritage based upon folklore and old wives’ tales, rather than by reliable science. Yet they pretend to be science-based.