Last August the RSPB called for an immediate moratorium on the release of birds for shooting, such as pheasants, partridges and ducks, due to the risk of them spreading highly pathogenic avian flu to wild bird populations (see here).
DEFRA chose to ignore the call.
Now the RSPB is repeating the call, this time to DEFRA and the devolved governments, asking them to take a precautionary approach ‘to limit the spread of avian influenza in wild birds and reduce the risk of viral re-assortment leading to new strains of the disease’.
In a blog written two days ago by RSPB Senior Policy Officer Claire Smith (well worth a read – here), the RSPB says that since 2021 there have been 10 outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in gamebird rearing premises: one in Scotland, five in England and four in Wales. This includes the most recent at Bettws Hall Game Farm, near Newtown, Powys, here, which has been described as ‘Europe’s leading game hatchery’.
Claire also points to DEFRA’s risk assessment on the spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) from pheasants to wild birds, which concluded that the risk of transmission to birds of prey from pheasants infected with HPAIV before release is ‘high to very high’, and the risk of transmission to birds of prey from pheasants infected with HPAIV after release is ‘very high’.
That risk assessment can be read/downloaded here:
Also worth noting yesterday’s news that two more poultry workers have tested positive for bird flu in England (see here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
Will not be done whilst Richard Benyon is the (unelected) environment minister.
But what will the Department’s Permanent Secretary advise? Permanent Secretaries report to Parliament, and Defra is scrutinised by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Commons Select Committee, chaired by a Tory but also with four Labour and one SNP MP.
Perhaps they will grill Therese Coffey, Secretary of State, when she is next due to answer questions on bird flu to the Select Committee?
It seems the authorities are being very cavalier about this risk and are playing fast and loose not only with our wildlife but also humans.
Re avian flu “we ain’t seen nothing yet”.
Obviously DEFRA and our devolved governments couldn’t care one iota about the spreading of the ‘high to very high ’pathogenic avian flu to wild bird populations including our struggling raptors who reside on or anywhere near grouse moors, nor the poultry workers it would seem.
So much for DEFRA and those devolved governments proclaiming to be defenders of: our countryside environments and all its wildlife and ecology; food production and standards; agriculture; fisheries; and rural communities in the entire United Kingdom.
Pathetic in every way
No chance…the bloodlust and the monetary profits from those who engage in this disgusting hobby, are too deeply ingrained. END ALL BLOODSPORTS.
Perhaps a few dead Black-headed Gulls delivered to DEFRA, Natural England etc might help enforce the message.
People used to catapult the bodies of plague victims into enemy cities to infect the defenders, so perhaps we should try that with bird flu and downing street (FAO MI5 operatives monitoring this subversive website: this isn’t a serious suggestion, honest)
The casual disdain with which DEFRA are treating this epedemic is lamentable. Would they do the same if it were swine fever or foot and mouth?
Ach, I’m sure we will have quite a number of gamekeepers posting on here telling us about the amount of pressure they are placing on their employers to stop these releases of pheasants and red legs. What else could they do considering the lengths they have gone to “save our waders”.
The Moorland Groups will no doubt take a similar position to ensure the wonderful videos they place online regarding these birds can be repeated next year as they both know and understand the dangers that this virus, and it’s mutations, carry with them.
Won’t they?
As part of this story I was amazed (and horrified of course) to discover that perhaps 1 – 2 million DUCKS are bred and released just to be shot: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-021-01508-z. How sick is that?
But my main point is that in opposing ‘sport’ shooting we are missing a trick. It’s hard for most people to care much about a pheasant, but everyone loves a duck! And they’re totally familiar from the park or riverbank. Talking more about mallards being raised specially so that some sicko can shoot them will get much more response from the British public, much more quickly than talking about pheasants. As someone said ‘after God created humanity s/he was so disgusted s/he created the duck to cheer him/her-self up!
Avian flu poses a serious risk to the governments environmental targets which they set to improve nature/wildlife and increase biodiversity.
The proposed targets were the cornerstone of the Environmental Act and included a target to halt the decline in Britain’s wildlife populations through a “legally binding target for species abundance by 2030 with a requirement to increase species populations by 10% by 2042.”
I would suggest senior government Ministers and DEFRA officials should perhaps remind themselves of these targets- failure to do would nothing short of a dereliction of their duty.
What the RSPB are calling for is just common sense, and there really shouldn’t be any opposition from the shooting lobby, as avian flu is a risk to not just to game birds such as grouse, but as others have already pointed out- all those endangered birds such as curlew and lapwing, whose protection the shooting estate managers are so keen to champion.
As something of an aside…
“Halting the decline in our wildlife populations through a legally binding target for species abundance by 2030 with a requirement to increase species populations by 10% by 2042”
Having fought both a Lib Dem/Tory Coalition Government through the European Court of Justice, and a Labour local authority Planning Committee through the Public Inquiry system, I can say such a statement can be interpreted to be practically worthless, if push comes to shove.
For example, the defence would be to find any period (could be very short) where a 10% population increase occurred ‘by 2042’ (doesn’t have to end at or in 2042), and the legal profession would argue that the condition had been satisfied.
Politicians rely upon ordinary people assuming what is meant is obvious.