The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO) is opposing a proposal by the Health & Safety Executive to ban the use of all Second Generation Anticoagulent Rodenticides (SGARs) in the wider UK countryside.
The HSE is proposing that SGARs be banned for all use other than in and around buildings, following concerns raised in the EU about the secondary poisoning of wildlife.
The NGO is claiming that if they are denied the ability to use rat poisons in the wider countryside, “rat numbers will escalate, with really damaging consequences for the game industry, for wildlife and for farming” (read their press release here).
They forgot to mention the usefulness of many species of raptors as natural predators of rats…
Here is a leaflet on the threat to wildlife from rat poisons, produced by a consortium of nature conservation organisations.
It has previously been reported that rat poisons are being misused or even deliberately abused (shock horror) to target birds of prey in Scotland (see here).
Here is the link to the HSE’s public consultation document (consultation closed 2nd Nov 2012).
Raptor Persecution UK 
I’ve worked on some nature reserves and in other areas of countryside in the UK, and rats are just not a problem. Around my home, I have witnessed just 1 rat in 30+ years. Methinks that the gamekeeping industry are exaggerating and embelishing the whole situation in a vile attempt to keep a hold on of their loved and proven raptor killing methods.
I find it interesting that when you read through all of the signatories to the Rat poison and the threat to wildlife leaflet (which includes BASC), that there are no gamekeeping organisations that have signed up to this. You really have to ask why they would choose to refuse to put their names to this leaflet and the valuable advice it gives. Preventative measures can easily be put in place, so why does the gamekeeping industry hold poisons in such high esteem?
Second Generation Anticoagulent Rodenticides (SGARs)? I presume we are talking about a Warfarin base bait? Whilst I appreciate the potential problems of poison misuse – and to be fair there are lots of substances that can be misused and can be classed as poision – alcohol and tobacco to name but 2 (and I’m an inveterate user of both) but I would be concerned about a ban on such materials just because of the possible misuse. I wage a constant battle against rats, as does anyone with chickens, or who feeds wild birds and lives in the country no matter how careful one is about feeding regimes and general cleanliness. I also work a lot in tunnels where rat infestation and Weils disease is a constant threat only kept in check by constant baiting. Traps are not the answer – catch one and the others become trap shy, and my terrier cannot reach the depths of the years woodpile.
The problem here is the misuse of such materials by certain individuals not the materials themselves – I know this iis the same arguement used by the gun lobby in the Stares regarding gun ownership – but without effective and constantly updated bait (now that we are seeing warfarin resistant rats) then we’ll end up with them “biting the bbabies in their cradles” as in Hamlyn.
Pip
No Pip we are not talking about Warfarin but those poisons that have largely replaced it. The real problem is that these substances are more toxic to non targets and many who use them never look for their poisoned rats and do not follow the best protocols. Hence many scavenging non targets get sub and sometimes lethal loads. If the stuff is not used properly then I’m afraid they should either cease to be available or use MUST be more rigorously controlled.
Ok, so the poisons that replace or are added to a warfarin base to deliver a quick knockout can also affect non target species – your point being “If the stuff is not used properly ” and “do not follow the best protocols” which was also the point I made. This is basically the 1920’s prohibition act arguement brought up to date and is the same arguement made again for alcohol pricing in Scotland and a whole host of other retrebutive legistation. What next? ban cars because a few drivers can’t be trusted – a bit extreme but a logical extension of the same arguement. So we ban these poisions because they can be misused and the misusers then buy camping stove fuel (metaldehyde) and use that – or boil up some laurel leaves and crystallise out the cyanide. Or aconite from monkshood. Banning the proprietry sustance will not prevent the misuse of poisions to kill wildlife – the nub of the problem is the the sort of people involved. Any sustance that reduces the rat population has probably contributed more to public heath and wellbeing than a great number of recent health initiatives and the price we pay for that is that some half-wits misuse the substance for their own stupid reasons.
Pip
Pip, I think this is another instance where gamekeeper scaremongering has had an effect on the truth of the matter. Although the gamekeeping industry is suggesting that there will be an all out ban, this is not the case.
“The HSE is proposing, in a public consultation ending today, that the currently available SGARs (Bromadiolone and Difenacoum) should be banned for all use other than ‘in and around buildings’ (ie within 5 meters of them).”
So, it would appear that it will still be OK to use it in and around buildings and I’m sure you could argue your case for . Of course, I have no idea how serious your own rat problem is, but I will offer some suggestions about preventative measures. A RSPB reserve that I have worked and volunteered at, stores large quantities of birdfood in a large metal container. And a WWT that I worked at stored large amounts of feed in a grain silo. Both of these methods prevented rodents from getting to the food and I can guarantee that rats were not a problem at these reserves. Of course, I will agree that these methods might not be suitable for everyone, but they are there as a suggestion that preventative measures can prove more beneficial and cost-effective than repeated trapping or baiting.
And once again, the incessant scaremongering nonsense from the gamekeeping industry had me laughing, with their quote “Left uncontrolled, a single pair of rats can, in just three years, give rise to 253,762 offspring, so keeping their numbers in check is crucial.”
But the following quote from the NGO website left me perplexed. They state;
“It is incorrect use that the HSE should be cracking down on, not legitimate use by gamekeepers, farmers and others.”
Now, if the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation are wholly against incorrect usage, does this mean that they will start reporting and banning their members for misusing poisons? I have a feeling I will be in for a very long wait for this to happen.
If legal rat poisons were regularly being used to target birds of prey surely there would be more instances of abuse. The case you have included regarding the red kites in the Black Isle is indeed an example of raptors dying as a result of secondary poisoning but the location in where it took place is not on a sporting estate and is more an indication of improper use as opposed to deliberate persecution.
Perhaps the kites you refer to did die in the manner you suggest, but I don’t think there was any reference to Red Kite poisoning in the Black Isle. You are trying to deviate from the subject matter by using an incident that was not attributed as illegal persecution.
Are you a politician, Grouseman? The reason I ask is that you have the propensity to forward on works of fiction, you tend to ignore the facts that gamekeeping is responsible for widespread and systematic criminal activity, you regularly stray from the original subject matter, you refuse to answer many questions and when your argument has been soundly defeated, you simply ignore everything.