The campaign group Wild Justice has launched a second legal challenge against Natural England’s new General Licence (GL26), in so far as it relates to the killing of Carrion Crows to protect Pheasants.
Wild Justice’s legal team (Leigh Day) sent a pre-action protocol letter to Natural England and DEFRA last Friday. You can find a copy of that letter on the Wild Justice blog here.
Dr Mark Avery, one of the Directors of Wild Justice said:
“Licence GL26 is a shoddy document. It is scientifically threadbare and, we contend, legally flawed. It does not form a sound basis to justify widespread, unmonitored, unlimited control of Carrion Crows to protect livestock.
We are glad that Defra has promised a proper review of licensing of the killing of wild birds because, on the evidence of this licence, that killing often amounts to unjustified casual killing.
We call upon Defra to announce the date and substance of that review as quickly as possible so that these matters can properly be examined before 2020’s licences are issued.
We also repeat our call to Defra not to issue any general licences to allow the lethal control of Jay, Jackdaw, Rook or Magpie for the purpose of protecting wild birds.
But now we are asking for the elements of GL26 which relate to protection of Pheasants and other gamebirds to be quashed and those elements which relate to other livestock to be thoroughly scrutinised in the review of general licences promised by Defra”.
Natural England (and/or DEFRA) has to respond to the pre-action protocol letter within 14 days (by 4pm on 21 June 2019).
Raptor Persecution UK 
Excellent, well done to all those involved, so sickened by the constant persecution of corvids.
Firstly well done. I’ve read the pre-action protocol and it all looks cogent and well argued. The issue of the import of the meaning of “kept” is one that I have mulled over for a long time. If my winter Long-tailed Tits feed on the fat balls that I put out and then roost in the empty nest box in the garden are they therefore deemed as “kept” and therefore my own livestock to do with as I will?
Well done. Just sickening what these magnificent, intelligent birds have to endure at the hands of the morons that currently control our countryside.
Excellent work. I’m aware that NE have issued a general licence to kill jackdaws which breed in barn owl nest boxes. Can give further information if required…
I have been working with Barn Owls for 40 years and we keep telling those idiots to stop using shelves on their nest boxes. This is the main reason for Jackdaws in Barn Owl boxes so why should the birds be killed when humans have got it wrong!! They claim the young Barn Owls need the shelves to come outside and not fall out of the boxes!! So all natural sites have shelves on them do they? Not one young Barn Owl has fallen in all that time!
John we have put up about 100 owl boxes, many without shelves, Jacks still go into some of them, I just leave them to get on with it, but really if owls were to be given best chance then something ought to be done with the Jacksons, but theres so many boxes, not even time to check them, regards, RC
Clark, I’m not quite sure who “we” are, but assume you’re a private landowner rather than a conservation body like RSPB. It’s great that you have provided so many owl boxes, but I’d suggest you go easy on the Jackdaws, to whom you’re also providing a service. I dread to think what you mean by “something ought to be done” with the Jackdaws (not the American family pop group), but I hope your intentions are humane.
Re ” kept”’ – wild animals are regraded as ‘res nullius’ (Latin: nobody’s property), and therefore not the subject of private property law. However, wild animals that are ‘reduced into possession’ by being killed or captured (Pierson v Post) are regarded as ‘res’ (Latin: property). Wild animals that are in the process of being ‘reduced into possession’ are also considered property under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 as they are under the ‘control’ of a person. An animal caught in a live trap could be considered to be property because it would be in the process of being reduced into possession even before the gamekeeper actually took the trapped animal or bird into possession.
S10(2)(a) Pets are under the control of a person and are therefore property.
Your legal team seems to have a sound argument that pheasants which are free ranging are wild animals. They are ‘res nullius’ (nobody’s property) so, logically, cannot be kept by an owner.
Or at least that’s my take on it!
I should add that the definition of a ‘wild animal’ under the EU Animal By-Products Regulations (2009) Article 3, Definitions, R7.” ‘wild animal’ means any animal not kept by humans;”. So, as your solicitors point out, it comes down to the definition of “kept”.
Pheasants are a non- native species; why do they merit protection from our own native crows?
Exactly! They hardly require protection; certainly not amber/red listed. In many places they can be almost all the bird life you see when walking.
Apologies for the SPAM but since the world always could use a little more justice I thought I’d remind you that there is only a day left on Andy Wightman’s crowdfunder to help fund his defence against the defamation suit brought by Wildcat Haven Enterprises.
Since Andy does invaluable work on who own the land in Scotland and this is an integral part of defeating wildlife crime you might like to consider a donation.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/legal-costs-of-defending-a-defamation-action
I have no connection other than being a donor.
Am I being dim? When do crows damage these pheasants. Pheasant release pens can be netted over when the poults are small and vulnerable so that is a viable alternative to protect them. Once the pens are opened I would have thought(correct me if I am wrong) the pheasants were, in general, big enough and active enough to resist attack by crows.
Obviously wild nesting pheasant nests and young are vulnerable but they are not “kept” so the licence would be inapplicable for that. Wild breeding pheasants are pretty insignificant numerically compared to the tens of thousands that are released on big estates so why the need to prevent corvid predation?
Andrew – release pens serve a number of purposes.
According to BASC’s booklet Aim of the Game – at six weeks old, the poults “will be taken by the shoots to release pens where the process of introducing them to life IN THE WILD begins (my italics).”
Release pens are sited in woodland or among cover crops and the poults are protected from predators by high mesh fencing. The pens have to be big enough to contain trees and shrubs for shelter and food so netting would be difficult. This is designed to encourage the birds to accept the pens as their main roosting area. However additional food is placed in feeders in woods, cover etc in the surrounding areas. These feeders are designed to encourage the birds to stay in the general shooting area but to feed in areas from which they will, eventually, be frightened (driven) from during the shoot over the guns. The birds are encouraged to leave the release pens by the use of ‘pop holes’ which are opened once the birds have become accustomed to the pen. The ‘pop’ holes are designed to prevent access to the pen by predators but easy access in and out of the pen by the birds so they are free to leave and enter the release pens at will. The release pens are offered further protection from predators because they are often surrounded by snares, traps. I, personally, have also found ground level funnel bird traps a matter of meters from release pens as well.
Because the birds have been encouraged to consider the release pens as their favoured safe, roosting spot, then, when they are frightened out of the feeding area by beaters, they fly from the feeding area over the guns to the ‘safe’ roosting areas in the release pens and pop, pop, pop – bobs your uncle! Sneaky, eh?
As BASC’s Aim of the Game states “By the time shooting begins the birds will be … thoroughly acclimatised to their WILD existence”. (my italics).
Thanks Lizzy and I can see you are not defending them.
A couple of points.
1. I have seen release pens the size of a netball court with no big tree internally. They would not be difficult to net over.
2. The pens you describe and say “netting would be difficult”. Ok difficult is not impossible and all reasonable means of non lethal protection should be tried. So they need to net them. I was in Tasmania last year and saw whole hillsides, hundreds of acres of cherry orchards netted to protect the crops. A release pen should be “reasonable” (easy by comparison) to net. Probably cheaper in the long term than the labour required for “pest control”
That comes back to my question of how much damage can crows do to ten week (is that about the point they allow them to start to wander) old poults? If there are losses what other steps can they take to mitigate the losses? How about releasing an additional quantity to compensate? They don’t go round shooting motorists to prevent road death losses(I expect they might be happy to if they thought they could get away with it). They have factored those losses in to the quantity released.
I’m finding it difficult to see the justification of issuing a licence for corvid control for a pheasant shoot.
Hopefully, these cases will be helpful to your arguments:
Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1987.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Failure to comply with a directive – Conservation of wild birds.
Case 247/85.
European Court Reports 1987 -03029
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1987:339
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61985CJ0247
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED PROVISION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
THIRD COMPLAINT : PROTECTION OF NESTS
24 THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES ALLOWS BIRDS’ NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS TO BE DISTURBED, REMOVED OR DESTROYED IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 5 ( B ) OF THE DIRECTIVE .
25 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION IN QUESTION IS JUSTIFIED BY REASONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE DIRECTIVE . THE PRESENCE OF NESTS IN CHIMNEYS AND PIPES HAS LED ON MANY OCCASIONS TO FIRES AND FLOODS AND THEY HAVE ALSO CAUSED PROBLEMS OF HYGIENE, FOR EXAMPLE IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY .
26 IN THIS REGARD IT MUST BE STATED THAT ARTICLE 5 ( B ) OF THE DIRECTIVE REQUIRES THE MEMBER STATES TO PROHIBIT IN PARTICULAR DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF, OR DAMAGE TO, NESTS AND EGGS OR REMOVAL OF NESTS, WHEREAS ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES GENERALLY PERMITS THE REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS .
27 THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY THE CONTESTED PROVISION, NAMELY THE PREVENTION OF FIRES, FLOODS AND DISEASE, ARE CERTAINLY OF SUCH A KIND AS TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF NESTS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE . HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT’ S OWN ARGUMENT THAT THE REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF NESTS IS NECESSARY ONLY IN SPECIFIC CASES IN WHICH THE HIGHER-RANKING INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SECURITY MUST OVERRIDE THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS .
28 THE BELGIAN RULES PROVIDE FOR A DEROGATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DELIMITED . AS REGARDS THE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ), THE DEROGATION IS NOT LIMITED TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER SATISFACTORY SOLUTION THAN THE DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF NESTS . THE PROVISION IN QUESTION GENERALLY AUTHORIZES THE DISTURBANCE, REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS’ NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS . HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT ALL NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS ALWAYS REPRESENT A DANGER TO HEALTH . FURTHERMORE, THE DEROGATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) EITHER . THE PROVISION DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CONDITIONS OF RISK AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH THE DEROGATIONS MAY BE GRANTED OR THE CONTROLS WHICH WILL BE CARRIED OUT . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE DEROGATION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE AND IS TOO GENERAL IN NATURE TO BE JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
29 THE THIRD COMPLAINT MUST THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
FOURTH COMPLAINT : THE DEROGATIONS REGARDING CERTAIN SPECIES OF BIRDS
30 THE COMMISSION’ S OBJECTION TO THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT IS THAT ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES ALLOW CERTAIN PERSONS TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY HOUSE*SPARROWS, TREE*SPARROWS AND STARLINGS AND TO DESTROY THEIR EGGS, NESTS AND BROODS AND THEREFORE DEROGATE FROM ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE . SUCH A DEROGATION IS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
31 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE PROVISIONS COMPLAINED OF ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE . SERIOUS DAMAGE IS CAUSED TO CROPS AND ORCHARDS BY THE BIRD SPECIES CONCERNED . MOREOVER, THE DEROGATION CONCERNING THE STARLING IS JUSTIFIED BY REASONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH SINCE THIS SPECIES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POLLUTION AND NOISE IN A LARGE NUMBER OF TOWNS AND ON THE COAST .
32 IN THIS REGARD IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THE WORDING OF ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES . ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “OCCUPANTS AND HUNTING-RIGHT OWNERS, THEIR ATTORNEYS OR SWORN WARDENS AND OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OF THE WATER AND FORESTRY AUTHORITIES SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY THE BIRDS, AS WELL AS THEIR EGGS AND BROODS, MENTIONED IN ANNEX 1 TO THIS DECREE “. ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREE LISTS THE HOUSE*SPARROW, THE TREE*SPARROW AND THE STARLING . THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “THE NESTS OF THESE BIRDS MAY BE DISTURBED, DESTROYED OR REMOVED AT ANY TIME “. FINALLY, THE FOURTH SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “IT SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME TO TRANSPORT THESE BIRDS AND THEIR EGGS, BROODS AND FEATHERS “. ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF THE DECREES ALLOWS BIRDS LISTED INTER ALIA IN ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREES TO BE KEPT AND EXCHANGED AND UNDER ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) “THE BIRDS SPECIFIED IN ANNEX 1 OF THE PRESENT DECREE MAY BE BOUGHT AND SOLD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR “. ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THE PERSONS SPECIFIED ARE ALLOWED TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY THE AFORESAID BIRDS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THOSE PROVISIONS THAT FOR THE BIRDS LISTED IN ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREES THERE EXISTS THROUGHOUT BELGIUM A PERMANENT DEROGATION FROM THE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
33 AS FAR AS CONCERNS THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD, IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST AND THIRD INDENTS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) AUTHORIZE MEMBER STATES TO DEROGATE INTER ALIA FROM ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND TO PREVENT SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS . IF THE THREE SPECIES SPECIFIED IN ANNEX 1 TO THE ROYAL DECREES CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS AND ORCHARDS OR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLLUTION AND NOISE IN TOWNS OR CERTAIN REGIONS, BELGIUM IS IN PRINCIPLE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR A DEROGATION FROM THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 .
34 HOWEVER, AS WAS STATED ABOVE, A DEROGATION UNDER ARTICLE 9 MUST, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ), COVER SPECIFIC SITUATIONS AND, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ), COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STATED THEREIN . THE GENERAL DEROGATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THOSE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS . THE BELGIAN RULES DO NOT INDICATE THE REASONS REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE PREVENTION OF SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS OR OTHER FIELDS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE DIRECTIVE WHICH MIGHT NECESSITATE THE GRANTING TO SUCH A WIDE CATEGORY OF PERSONS OF A PERMANENT DEROGATION, APPLYING THROUGHOUT BELGIUM, FROM THE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR BY THE DIRECTIVE . FURTHERMORE, THE DEROGATIONS DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) IN SO FAR AS THEY MENTION NEITHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH THEY MAY BE GRANTED NOR THE CONTROLS WHICH WILL BE CARRIED OUT . CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE STATED THAT OWING TO THEIR GENERALITY, THE DEROGATIONS EXCEED THE LIMITS SET BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
35 THE FOURTH COMPLAINT MUST THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
Hopefully these cases will be helpful.
Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1987.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Failure to comply with a directive – Conservation of wild birds.
Case 247/85.
European Court Reports 1987 -03029
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1987:339
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61985CJ0247
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED PROVISION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
THIRD COMPLAINT : PROTECTION OF NESTS
24 THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES ALLOWS BIRDS’ NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS TO BE DISTURBED, REMOVED OR DESTROYED IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 5 ( B ) OF THE DIRECTIVE .
25 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION IN QUESTION IS JUSTIFIED BY REASONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE DIRECTIVE . THE PRESENCE OF NESTS IN CHIMNEYS AND PIPES HAS LED ON MANY OCCASIONS TO FIRES AND FLOODS AND THEY HAVE ALSO CAUSED PROBLEMS OF HYGIENE, FOR EXAMPLE IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY .
26 IN THIS REGARD IT MUST BE STATED THAT ARTICLE 5 ( B ) OF THE DIRECTIVE REQUIRES THE MEMBER STATES TO PROHIBIT IN PARTICULAR DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF, OR DAMAGE TO, NESTS AND EGGS OR REMOVAL OF NESTS, WHEREAS ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES GENERALLY PERMITS THE REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS .
27 THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY THE CONTESTED PROVISION, NAMELY THE PREVENTION OF FIRES, FLOODS AND DISEASE, ARE CERTAINLY OF SUCH A KIND AS TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF NESTS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE . HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT’ S OWN ARGUMENT THAT THE REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF NESTS IS NECESSARY ONLY IN SPECIFIC CASES IN WHICH THE HIGHER-RANKING INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SECURITY MUST OVERRIDE THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS .
28 THE BELGIAN RULES PROVIDE FOR A DEROGATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DELIMITED . AS REGARDS THE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ), THE DEROGATION IS NOT LIMITED TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER SATISFACTORY SOLUTION THAN THE DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF NESTS . THE PROVISION IN QUESTION GENERALLY AUTHORIZES THE DISTURBANCE, REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS’ NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS . HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT ALL NESTS BUILT AGAINST HOUSES AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS ALWAYS REPRESENT A DANGER TO HEALTH . FURTHERMORE, THE DEROGATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) EITHER . THE PROVISION DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CONDITIONS OF RISK AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH THE DEROGATIONS MAY BE GRANTED OR THE CONTROLS WHICH WILL BE CARRIED OUT . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE DEROGATION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE ROYAL DECREES DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE AND IS TOO GENERAL IN NATURE TO BE JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
29 THE THIRD COMPLAINT MUST THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
FOURTH COMPLAINT : THE DEROGATIONS REGARDING CERTAIN SPECIES OF BIRDS
30 THE COMMISSION’ S OBJECTION TO THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT IS THAT ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES ALLOW CERTAIN PERSONS TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY HOUSE*SPARROWS, TREE*SPARROWS AND STARLINGS AND TO DESTROY THEIR EGGS, NESTS AND BROODS AND THEREFORE DEROGATE FROM ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE . SUCH A DEROGATION IS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
31 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE PROVISIONS COMPLAINED OF ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE . SERIOUS DAMAGE IS CAUSED TO CROPS AND ORCHARDS BY THE BIRD SPECIES CONCERNED . MOREOVER, THE DEROGATION CONCERNING THE STARLING IS JUSTIFIED BY REASONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH SINCE THIS SPECIES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POLLUTION AND NOISE IN A LARGE NUMBER OF TOWNS AND ON THE COAST .
32 IN THIS REGARD IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THE WORDING OF ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES . ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “OCCUPANTS AND HUNTING-RIGHT OWNERS, THEIR ATTORNEYS OR SWORN WARDENS AND OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OF THE WATER AND FORESTRY AUTHORITIES SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY THE BIRDS, AS WELL AS THEIR EGGS AND BROODS, MENTIONED IN ANNEX 1 TO THIS DECREE “. ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREE LISTS THE HOUSE*SPARROW, THE TREE*SPARROW AND THE STARLING . THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “THE NESTS OF THESE BIRDS MAY BE DISTURBED, DESTROYED OR REMOVED AT ANY TIME “. FINALLY, THE FOURTH SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT : “IT SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME TO TRANSPORT THESE BIRDS AND THEIR EGGS, BROODS AND FEATHERS “. ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF THE DECREES ALLOWS BIRDS LISTED INTER ALIA IN ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREES TO BE KEPT AND EXCHANGED AND UNDER ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) “THE BIRDS SPECIFIED IN ANNEX 1 OF THE PRESENT DECREE MAY BE BOUGHT AND SOLD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR “. ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THE PERSONS SPECIFIED ARE ALLOWED TO CAPTURE, KILL, DESTROY OR DRIVE AWAY THE AFORESAID BIRDS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THOSE PROVISIONS THAT FOR THE BIRDS LISTED IN ANNEX 1 TO THE DECREES THERE EXISTS THROUGHOUT BELGIUM A PERMANENT DEROGATION FROM THE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
33 AS FAR AS CONCERNS THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD, IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST AND THIRD INDENTS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) AUTHORIZE MEMBER STATES TO DEROGATE INTER ALIA FROM ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND TO PREVENT SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS . IF THE THREE SPECIES SPECIFIED IN ANNEX 1 TO THE ROYAL DECREES CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS AND ORCHARDS OR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLLUTION AND NOISE IN TOWNS OR CERTAIN REGIONS, BELGIUM IS IN PRINCIPLE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR A DEROGATION FROM THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 .
34 HOWEVER, AS WAS STATED ABOVE, A DEROGATION UNDER ARTICLE 9 MUST, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ), COVER SPECIFIC SITUATIONS AND, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ), COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STATED THEREIN . THE GENERAL DEROGATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 4 AND 6 OF THE ROYAL DECREES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THOSE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS . THE BELGIAN RULES DO NOT INDICATE THE REASONS REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE PREVENTION OF SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CROPS OR OTHER FIELDS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE DIRECTIVE WHICH MIGHT NECESSITATE THE GRANTING TO SUCH A WIDE CATEGORY OF PERSONS OF A PERMANENT DEROGATION, APPLYING THROUGHOUT BELGIUM, FROM THE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR BY THE DIRECTIVE . FURTHERMORE, THE DEROGATIONS DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) IN SO FAR AS THEY MENTION NEITHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME AND PLACE IN WHICH THEY MAY BE GRANTED NOR THE CONTROLS WHICH WILL BE CARRIED OUT . CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE STATED THAT OWING TO THEIR GENERALITY, THE DEROGATIONS EXCEED THE LIMITS SET BY ARTICLE 9 OF THE DIRECTIVE .
35 THE FOURTH COMPLAINT MUST THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
What a pity Lizzybusy wasn’t present at the Defra committee at which Mr Vine “answered” questions put by the committee, which was composed largely of farming representatives. What a disaster! A case of farmers with scant knowledge of nature posing ridiculous questions to an Environment Minister who seemed to be making up answers on the hoof. According to Mr Vine, under the General Licence anyone wanting to shoot a Carrion Crow in future should apply for a licence A YEAR IN ADVANCE. At one stage he seemed to imply that “a general licence” could be sought to shoot a Golden Eagle provided justification could be proven!
Rather predictably, Carrion Crows were given a hard time, with the usual exaggerated anecdotes about how vicious they are, pecking the eyes out of newborn lambs. Personally I have spent literally hundreds of hours over many years observing Carrion Crows AND Ravens associating with lambing ewes, and not once did I witness any healthy lamb being harmed by either species.
Correction
The Environment Minister is the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP of course, not “Mr Vine.”
Idiots