Following their joke response to the Committee on Climate Change’s report on land use the Moorland Association has issued another joke response today – this time to the new licensing regime of lethal control of gulls from Natural England.
Even the thickest of journalists surely won’t quote the Moorland Association’s contention that their members, notably the Duke of Westminster (I assume he is a member), is doing a great job for all the wading birds by culling gulls. The Abbeystead Estate in the Forest of Bowland AONB (logo a Hen Harrier but curiously no Hen Harriers have nested on his Grace’s large grouse moor for years, although they do much better on his neighbour’s land) used to have a massive Lesser Black-backed Gull colony. In fact, along with the Hen Harriers, it was one of the reasons that the Bowland Fells SPA was notified under the EU Birds Directive (see here). But the numbers are now greatly reduced and the Abbeystead Estate had its knuckles rapped for straying outside the terms of its ancient licence to kill gulls a few years ago.
Natural England have quite rightly noticed, maybe with the help of their new Chair, Tony Juniper, who is a good naturalist, that gulls are wildlife too. And that in the case of Abbeystead, the gull colony forms part of the wildlife interest of the larger site. Natural England have come to the view, it seems, that there is far too much gull culling going on and they are seeking to limit it to allow the populations to recover whilst allowing lethal control to continue where there is a good case in terms of human health and safety (as the law permits) and where other non-lethal means have been assessed/tried and are deemd to have failed or be ineffective (as the law requires).
The Moorland Association doesn’t seem to care about gulls, just as I suspect it doesn’t care in a very caring way about birds of prey, but it pretends that it cares a lot about wading birds because it wants to cull gulls in order to protect (though the evidence is scant that this will do any good) the one bird that they really, really care about which is the Red Grouse. Of course, it’s a tough type of love, because the Moorland Association’s caring for Red Grouse ends on 12 August when their members start blasting them out of the air. The Abbeystead estate still holds the record for the number of grouse shot in one day, 12 August 1915, of 2929 birds killed (at that time Abbeystead was owned by the Earl of Sefton).
Natural England has to be congratulated on choosing a logical and sensible way to regulate lethal control of gulls (under exceptional circumstances). That robust and sensible way requires specific licence applications and does not rely on the discredited general licences.
[registration_form]
Yes congratulations to Natural England for showing the sort of knowledge and wisdom which we should expect from them. Thanks to all concerned, it won’t be a perfect solution but it is certainly in the right ball park.
Sadly there will be journalists who will swallow the Moorland Association’s line hook, line and sinker and politicians too, ludicrous though it is. All that emotive language about ‘ruthless predators devouring chicks and decimating populations’ and the unsubtle implication that it is only ill-informed townies who object to culling gulls whilst the gamekeepers heroically get on with the hard work (but definitely not fun!) of protecting the grouse – sorry, waders – will sell very well to its target audience. It’s important to keep on countering this kind of rubbish with the facts.
This is just a further example of how biased the BBC has become over recent years. Not to have someone on the programme who can respond to the many misleading and at times virtually false statements made by the Moorland Association. Is just not acceptable.
Still, as I read it the BBC are shortly having to make big cuts in their work force. I send them no sympathy at all.. Compared to what they used to be they have become a second rate broadcasting organisation, often biased, as in this case, lacking good judgement and lacking any scientific skills,
Let’s hope the cuts are fair and not just staff but start with Chris Packham, who certainly has leant to use the bias of the BBC to his advantage.
Good to see the compassion you show to people losing their jobs.
John – you too, John, you too
John, do you bother to establish the facts? How exactly does Chris Packham use the bias of the BBC to his advantage?
You may not agree with some or all of his views, though if you don’t agree with at least some of the arguments he makes, then that demonstrates a worrying ignorance of environmental issues on your part, though maybe its just willful deafness? But I can hardly see how its to his personal advantage that he makes the case about Climate Change, Conservation and the persecution of Birds of Prey.
Surely he could just pick up his pay cheque for the free lance work he does very well? How does he gain from sticking his neck out and making factual statements that are an inconvenient truth to some people?
He entertains and informs millions of people, the majority of whom I’m sure are quite capable of taking in the information and forming their own opinions?
So what it is it you don’t agree with?
That there is widespread persecution of Birds of Prey (and other birds and animals) and that this activity is linked through clear evidence to the management of driven grouse moors and other managed shoots?
That climate change is a scientifically proven issue which affects us all?
That there have been massive reductions in wild life across the country and that this due to human activity and could easily be reversed IF there was the will to do so?
Industries change, employment changes, the loss of jobs should driven grouse shooting be banned, would still be a fraction of the number of jobs lost in industries such as mining and manufacturing did you give a toss about the plight of those people?
My heart bleeds for those poor moorland owners who have strived for years to boost the numbers of wading birds ( real conservationists call them waders) by killing gulls . This according to that font of all ecological knowledge of our uplands Amanda Anderson ( who has a qualification in Marine biology!)
One wonders how long it took the managers of the Duke of Westminster’s Abbeystead Estate to persuade Amanda to write this, how shall we describe it, Shit.
The colony in question is one of the reasons for the Bowland SPA designation and the Abbeystead estate have been killing those gulls ever since the Westminster estate has owned it (1980) not to save the Curlew but to boost grouse numbers although if you look at the reasons the licences were granted they have varied and never been apparently about grouse (really!). It has now less than 10,000 pairs of gulls, it used to contain over twice as many. Quite clearly Abbeystead don’t want these birds at all and would like to follow the example of Bolton Abbey estate ( Duke of Devonshire) where a colony of Lesser Black Backs founded in the 80’s was completely eliminated during the early nineties.
The MA are only and have ever only been interested in maintaining driven grouse shooting and all public statements concerning any subject are tailored to that end.
That NE is finally getting to grips with the routine killing of birds under licence is whilst somewhat late to be congratulated especially in the face of such vested interest as the MA.