Submitted Responses and Evidence

[wymberley]

Now that it's all quietened down and we're waiting to hear from Defra with regard to their latest GL proposals, from all of the opportunities we had to submit our ideas, how much emphasis did we all place on the need for stubble and roost shooting to continue in order to hold the woodpigeon population at a tolerable level which, after all, is the objective in having the GLs in the first place and the need to maintain their efficiency?

[Fellside]

Hi Wymberley,

I can’t comment on others - but I submitted a 3 page evidence base heavily focused on the need for shooting over stubble. It’s just a waiting game now. Fingers crossed for a pragmatic and reasonable governance.

[panoma1]

I placed emphasis on the necessity for proactive control!.....but.........

One thing I regret not addressing more fully is the interwoven relationship between predator/pest control and sporting shooting.....for example, the majority of pigeon shooters do so at their own expense, because they enjoy it, the farmers are happy to have their livelihoods protected from pests/predators by sport shooters who carry out this service! So pest/predator control is a necessity for farmers but sport for most shooters who carry out pest/predator control for the farmers!......take away the sporting/enjoyment element, the farmers will still need it, but I recon most shooters wouldn't bother! Who will then keep predators/pests under control? The farmers? Nope! The protectionists like Packham? Nope! Who will mitigate the financial and environmental impact? Packham? Nope! Who will pay the financial and environmental cost? Packham? Nope!.......The farmers and the public? Yep!

Packham has stated he has never been against shooting or culling/pest/predator control, in order to protect vulnerable species lower down the chain!.....So he agrees with pest/predator control, including shooting, where need be and under certain circumstance!...........So what he really objects to is people shooting for sport/enjoyment!!

Edited May 21, 2019 by panoma1

[old'un]

Although I did emphasize in my submissions the need to control pigeons and corvids whenever and wherever, I think it’s a bit late in the day to-be asking this question.  

[wymberley]

Oh, I don't know! The point seems to have been well made:

https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/388508-natural-england-caroline-cotterell/

 

[arjimlad]

I said : -

The ability to shoot pigeons on stubbles and roosting (during winter months) should be more clearly spelt-out. If you have a problem with wasps you don't just hit them on the dinner table, you go to the nest.

 

On the arable farms where I shoot, they deploy gas guns and scarecrows. These are not especially effective at deterring pigeons, rooks and crows from attacking the growing crops. We need to be able to shoot them when & where the opportunity arises in order to reduce the local population and deter them from certain areas. Shooting over stubbles or roost shooting around general arable holdings gives the opportunity to do this effectively.  It helps the crops which are in adjoining fields and helps deter birds from the fields where shooting takes place for when new crops are planted.

 

You can't  simply confine your activities to crops which are actually under attack. You need to stay on top of the local population by shooting when & where they are feeding. Without the annual reduction in numbers provided by shooting over stubbles, numbers will swiftly rise to levels which make arable farming uneconomic. Fields can already suffer 10-40% losses from pigeons.

 

I really hope we get clear & workable general licences after all this.

 

[Scully]

In a nutshell I suggested pigeons in particular and some corvids should be regarded as a pest species and controlled at every opportunity. 

[Guest]

Hers is my reply

As requested, here are my thoughts on the questions

 

1) Your views on the alternatives to killing or taking a specific bird species for:

 

Conserving flora and fauna

Preserving public health or safety

Preventing serious damage or disease (serious damage relates to serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber fisheries or inland waters) In particular, what are these alternatives and to which bird species do they relate? In your experience or evidence, how effective and practicable are they?

 

I shoot Wood Pigeon for local farmers and have done so for many years. All of the farmers use gas guns, scarecrows, flags etc to try and help the problem of Wood Pigeon attacking their crops. These methods are ineffective as after a couple of days, the birds get used to them and return. I have witnessed Wood Pigeon landing and feeding by scarecrows and flags and although the gas guns will make them take off, they will return within minutes or fly to another part of the field to continue feeding.

 

The problem is once the birds decide they are going to eat on a particular crop, it doesn’t matter what method you use, they will continue to feed. By shooting them, you at least reduce the amount of birds causing damage and for every bird shot, that is one less that will go on to breed. Any shooter will tell you that they will not hit every target and a return of 1 kill for 2 shots fired is a very decent return. When missing, the birds will fly away but only to return.

 

The Wood Pigeon population has increased over the past 40 years and continues to do so. Without lethal methods to control their numbers throughout the year, including shooting over stubble fields (to stop them feeding on other crops nearby) roost shooting or newly drilled crops, this will lead to unmanageable numbers in the future. Not only will this have a detrimental effect on the farming industry but will also badly impact the birds. With too many birds and not enough to eat, they will begin to starve and become diseased.

 

2) Your experience or evidence of any benefits that were delivered by the three revoked general licences?

3) Your experience or evidence of any problems with or caused by the three revoked general licences. Are there any conditions, in your view, that could be attached to general licences to address these issues?

 

I cannot see any benefits that were delivered by revoking the three licences, especially with such short notice. The GL had been in place and working to keep a balance in the countryside for many years. NE had not been administering it properly in legal terms and this needed to be sorted out at some point but not in the way it was done.

 

The new licence for Wood Pigeon and Carrion Crows which I have read, are over complicated and leave people in doubt as to what they can or cannot do. They seem to be written by lawyers leaving them open to challenges especially where the wording “ reasonable endeavours” is used. Stating that lethal methods should be the last resort is a nonsense. Lethal methods should be used alongside other methods which has been the case for many years and proven to be effective in keeping a balance. If it isn’t broken, why try and fix it? Yes by all means make sure they are legal but keep the basic proven principles in place

 

4) Your experience or evidence of any problems caused by the revocation of the three revoked general licences.

 

At this time of year with spring crops, lambing and nesting birds, revoking the licences at such short notice was poorly thought through and executed without due consideration of the consequences, leaving no protection for the above. The lack of communication via television and radio when the decision made would affect approx 600,000 people within 36 hours could be described as negligent.

 

The misinformation and negative propaganda issued by individuals on television, radio and social media at this time who support the revocation of the licences, without recourse or need for justification should be addressed to allow the public to make an informed view.