You may remember that the Defra response to Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting referred in an alarming way to control of problem species.
I asked Defra what they meant and have only just (yesterday) received a response. Here it is:
Dear Dr Avery,
Thank you for your email of 27 November about the Government response to the e-petition calling for driven grouse shooting to be banned. I apologise for the delay in replying.
A wide range of species are managed to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity for the protection of livestock and damage to property. This could include, for example, the management of deer to reduce impacts on woodland or the control of fox populations to protect populations of ground nesting birds. Management should not have an adverse effect on the conservation status of the species and lethal control should only be used when other methods of management have been shown to be ineffective.
Yours sincerely,
***** *********
Ministerial Contact Unit
Defra
So-called constructive ambiguity is destructive in reality.
This was an opportunity for Defra to be clear about what they really meant by problem species – which species are included in Defra’s use of this phrase and which species are not? They have failed to do so.
Defra under Michael Gove has been consistent in refusing opportunities to state that the protection of species and habitats currently provided by EU laws applying across the UK will be retained after we leave the EU. This is a major source of distrust about where Conservative environmental policy is heading and was sidestepped in the 25-year environment strategy. Relaxation, let’s call it ‘protection meddling’, of the existing protection for species, sites and habitats would be a developers’ charter for habitat destruction and a wildlife-hater’s charter for anyone who believes that they can see a problem species down the barrel of their gun.
For example, the current crazy proposal for brood meddling of Hen Harrier nests may be illegal but it may also be that the fact that it is a ‘trial’ may let Natural England, Defra and the moorland owners off this legal hook. I would expect that the RSPB is looking into this as a matter of urgency. However, give it a few years and if we a) leave the EU and b) repeal some of the existing protection then there would be no legal basis for a challenge to the rolling out of brood meddling in an even less controlled manner than it is presently envisaged.
Defra’s needs to be clear on this general area instead of completely unclear, and wildlife NGOs need to press Defra hard on this matter.
Please sign Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting – a clear and effective means of ending wildlife crime under existing legislation and a way to remove the incentive for wildlife crime on the grouse moors even if wildlife legislation is weakened in future.
‘the fact that it is a ‘trial’ may let Natural England, Defra and the moorland owners off this legal hook’
I know Mark is referring to the EU but as far as trials go, twice in the Brood Persecution documents unearthed by RPUK there were references to IUCN guidelines. So the schemes apologists appear to be wanting to play it both ways and ignore guidelines when it suits them i.e. by releasing Hen Harriers back into the places where they are getting killed.
On the other hand, if we remain in the EU, and the EU repeals some of the existing protections, we would still be in the position of having no legal basis for a challenge.
Now, consider a protected species… Let’s say Bats. An old railway tunnel used by up to 13 species of Bats (roosting, hibernating and commuting) co-exist for decades with trains travelling at 30 mph.
But Deutsche Bahn want to run trains through at 70 mph.
Natural England refuse the licence, unless the trains keep to 30 mph (it adds 46 seconds on to the proposed much faster time from Oxford to London, Marylebone). Deutsche Bahn run to Clegg and Cameron, and Natural England are ‘forced’ to change their position. A new Public Inquiry is called, and this time Natural England are SUPPORTERS of the scheme to increase line speeds ‘regardless of whether this rare colony of Bats is destroyed’.
I lodge a complaint to the European Court on the basis of the Habitats Directive. The EU Commission take TWO YEARS and then say I am NOT ALLOWED to take my case to the court.
We were, and still are, a Member State of the EU. Can you explain, again, just how being a member of the EU has given me a legal basis to challenge this decision by our Government and Natural England?
Talk to Chris Packham – he was and still is President of the Bats Conservation Trust. I wrote to them and to him, personally, at the time. Or Geoff Billington, since he was Deutsche Bahn’s hired expert.
I received this today from my mate Lizanne:
Sent: 26 January 2018 08:52
To: Keith Dancey
Subject: Bat lights have been switched back on prematurely
Hi,
We have noticed that the bat lights in the tunnel have been turned back on again. My understanding is that they should be off during the hibernation period (December to end of February). We noticed them on last night and this morning. Tried calling Natural England but the person there didn’t know anything about the lights. Will try the Bat Trust when they open this morning. I note that there has been problems with points and signals 2 days this week, causing line to be shut between Oxford and Oxford Parkway for several hours over 2 afternoons.
Made me think whether any discussions have gone on about the tunnel concerning the next phase for the line. The lag period for the lights coming on and off when trains are travelling through the tunnel is quite some time.
Sent: 26 January 2018 09:53:43
To: Keith Dancey
Subject: No one appears to take responsibility for the bat lights!!!!!
Talk about nobody taking responsibility!!!!!! Contacted the Bat Trust as told to do so by Natural England. They told me to contact Natural England as possibly a breach in licence but that the Bat Trust is not involved. Contacted Natural England again and the helpdesk chap I spoke to earlier was going to try and find someone about the breach in licence. Found contact number for Geoff Billington, who was the Bat Expert who worked with the project. Spoke to him and he was vague about whether the lights should be off. He said the agreement was more to do with saving electricity rather than protecting the bats during hibernation! He thought Natural England might have had something in the licence. He did wonder if the lights being on may be a fault. He has no contact info for Natural England or Network Rail/ERM although he currently has an ongoing monitoring role of the effectiveness of the lights for the next few years. Although aware of the plans to ramp up train movements in the next year or so along the line, he is not involved in any consultation. He then cut the conversation short as he had to go and deal with an escaped horse!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have now logged the lights being switched back on with Network Rail’s helpdesk.
date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:31 AM
to: Keith Dancey
Seems contacting NR’s helpline and suggesting that they may be in breach of bat licence works!!! Someone is on the compound now in the bat light box.
So when he stated in November 2017 that – We will deliver a Green Brexit, where environmental standards are not only maintained but enhanced. Or how about July 2017 when he stated – And I have no intention of weakening the environmental protections that we have put in place while in the European Union. Obviously your view of a constant refusal is different to mine.
Breuzh resident – there is no promise on timescale – unlike other parties. And the 25 year strategy was the place to remove ambiguity.
Yet another example of this Government’s and Defra’s doing and saying what is expedient instead of being straight forward and doing and saying what is right. Again and again one sees the privilege and vested interests of the this Government and its supporters lying behind Defra’s statements and actions.
It further demonstrates that vested interests will always come before any meaningful wildlife protection far as this Government is concerned.
Well done to Mark for keeping them on their toes. I’ve suggested before that some of these responses appear to have been written by a computer programme. They are just word salads.
Can anyone understanding what this sentence actually means “A wide range of species are managed to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity for the protection of livestock and damage to property”?
I specifically mean this portion “to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity for the protection of livestock”. It doesn’t pass the Turing test.