Wild Justice revealed yesterday evening that it had written to Natural Resource Wales challenging the legality of their general licences.
Wild Justice is waiting for a response from DEFRA, requested by the end of this week, on its plans for new general licences this year when the current ones run out at the end of February.
Almost a year ago Wild Justice started legal action on the subject of general licences which we (Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and me) believe to be unlawful. We asked for Natural England to admit that the licences were unlawful and promise to issue lawful versions in 2020. We also wrote to NRW in Wales and SNH in Scotland.
A year later we see general licences which we still believe are not fit for purpose and which are unlawful. It’s hardly surprising that without any meaningful shift in position we are still challenging these licences and intend to do so with vigour. Our legal advice is clear that these general licences are unlawful – we have communicated that, in detail, to both DEFRA and NRW (and indeed NE). Let’s be clear, although we see it as a difficult task, we do not rule out the possibility that DEFRA and NRW might come up with lawful general licences if they work very hard at it – it is not the principle of general licences which we challenge but the detail of these general licences. Having said that, there is no requirement for there to be general licences – lethal control of birds under apprpriate legal circumstances can be regulated by specific licences (as it is already with most bird species).
It’s unclear to us whether the statutory agencies and government departments involved disagree with our legal interpretation or are just hoping that Wild Justice will go away. Whichever it is, we may have to go to court to resolve these issues (but we’ll have to see).
We are sometimes asked why we chose this time of year to make legal challenges. The answer is very simple, challenging a public body’s decision through judicial review requires a decision to be made that can trigger that challenge. In these cases the trigger is the issuing of the licences. Wild Justice is not in a position to determine the issue date of the licences under question so the timing of these challenges is totally under the control of the licence issuers. And the content of the licences is the choice of DEFRA and NRW. So anyone affected by these legal challenges should address questions over timing and content of licences to DEFRA and NRW. We note that some pro-shooting bodies have been very vocal in demanding that DEFRA and NRW reissue unchanged general licences – well, maybe those affected by our legal challenges should ask those bodies about the wisdom of their campaigning too.
[registration_form]
Living in Wales I’ve just looked up the NRW GLs. The species covered by the foodstuffs, livestock and crop damage ( my comments are in brackets) are Carrion Crow ( may be), Magpie ( no), Jackdaw (no), Feral Pigeon ( probably not), Wood Pigeon ( may be) Canada Goose ( alien)
Prevention of human disease risk Feral Pigeon ( may be)
For the purposes of conservation Carrion Crow, Magpie, Jackdaw and Jay ( all No)
In specific instances Jays and Hawfinches etc individual licences could be issued where need is proven.
For me the Wood pigeon issue only applies in arable farming areas but I still think w3oodies should be on the shot game list with no close season not on the GL. Canada Goose is an alien and should not be on the protected list at all. Of course your opinion may differ but killing wildlife must have a reason other than fun or prejudice.
Oh and tongue in cheek of course why aren’t Gamekeepers on the for conservation purposes list?
I noticed on the Fieldsports Channel there are now the usual round of claims that WJ is trying to get gamebirds shooting stopped via challenging the General Licences. Ironically they also claimed Chris P is spreading misinformation about muirburn.
These people just don’t get it that birds should not be on the general licence list, as all birds are protected, just because they claim they are pests/damaging to their interests without scientific proof. There must be an ulterior motive and being paranoid because of some of the unethical , not to say illegal practices by some of their number this must be an attack on shooting. It isn’t its an attack on lazy government trying to bring in something which on the face of it is illegal. Then despite their protestations the “shooting lobby” has never worried about that too much if it favoured them or their prejudices. This is an attack on, as they see it, their world view, its probably time they took off the time travel goggles that has them firmly trapped in the Edwardian or Victorian era.
Can we for once and for all get away from this archaic working class notion that the toffs and upper classes only persecuted the wild animals of this country in the 19th century.
The day we walked out of Africa we have systematically dealt with species we considered a threat or a rival to our wellbeing – we excel at this slaughter. In every one of us is the latent ‘predatory’ DNA strand instinct.
With the invention of the flintlock rifle mankind now had the means to hunt (kill) more efficiently.
The Preservation of Grain Act, passed in 1532 by Henry VIII and enhanced by Elizabeth I in 1566, made it compulsory for every man, woman and child to kill as many creatures as possible that appeared on an official ‘vermin’ list.
Henry VIII put a bounty on each creature, a penny for the head of a red kite or raven, a badger was worth 12p. For the 16th century this was a considerable sum of money for an individual. The average agricultural wage being less than four pence a day.
Killing of ‘vermin’ was profitable. The act was finally repealed in the mid-18th century when concern about the permanent impact it was having on the fauna of Britain.
Thomas -and your point is? Who is ‘we’ in your first sentence?
Forgive me if I’ve missed it but what is re situation with SNH, WJ and General Licences?