Jump to content

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    716

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

  12. Cotes And Our Way Of Life.

    in Falconry

    Posted

    Our way of life is threatened.

    Lee Featherstone
    1 min · Birmingham
    so COTES has a review, answers must be in by tomorrow 10/03/2015, please copy and paste and send by email to the address i post after this lot, please attach your name and address at the top of the email and then copy below...please send it is important and in all our interests to get things changed.
    1.1. Interested parties. In our estimation this ought to include the purchasers/consumers/end users of specimens.
    1.2. UK is a member of the EU, which is a single CITES area. We should be promoting common regulations across the EU.
    1.3. Value of trade: The UK trade in birds of prey is restricted to domestically produced animals and these regulations should be supporting and enabling that trade.
    1.11. As a CITES signatory you have an obligation to support legal sustainable trade. This is a central tenet of CITES. Thus controls must not be so onerous that people cannot comply. We must also manage the source populations of the sustainable supplies. With regards to birds of prey, JNCC are not expert in captive populations and the decisions that they make take no consideration of them. This results in the project of maintaining genetic diversity within our domestic populations becoming very difficult. We observe that for many species, the UK domestic populations are of the same order of magnitude as the UK wild populations.
    2.1. Wildlife crime in the UK relating to illegally taking or trading in wild birds of prey is negligible. Wild birds of prey are frequently persecuted and this should be the focus of our legislative efforts. The increasingly complex and one might say obtuse, regulations have criminalised otherwise law abiding individuals who fall foul of 'paperwork offences'. These people keeping legally obtained birds of prey from captive breeding, have been vigorously prosecuted for failing to comply with unnecessarily complex regulations. This is a misuse of the legal framework.
    2.5. Falconers, breeders and bird of prey keepers are for the most part experts who work with raptors every day. In terms of handling and identification these people are second to none. Please do not overlook this resource of expertise by bypassing it in favour of veterinarians or others who claim subject knowledge.
    2.7.Seizing: Who is the individual who comes and catches up the bird of prey? How will the police ascertain that they have sufficient expertise? Will this be based on the say-so of an NGO such as the RSPCA? How will you ensure that the raptor will be humanely caught and handled? It is well documented that legal falcons have been killed or injured during these seizings. Will the subject animal be transported humanely? And where will it be accommodated? How long will it be held there for?
    Evidence can be gathered without the bird being moved from its accommodation, seizing is both contentious and largely unnecessary.
    2.8. Sting operations: We object fundamentally. There is no place for such practice here. I refer you to 2.1
    2.9. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate how the proposals will reduce red tape. We cannot see how these ideas will achieve such.
    2.15. In order to reduce travelling time for the live animals, approved ports ought to be as geographically accessible across the UK as possible.
    5.4. By producing increasingly complex legislation you are creating a situation where individuals cannot reasonably decipher or navigate such without legal assistance. This is both poor practice and discriminatory.
    Proposal E: if breeders/owners return these documents and at a later date need to prove parentage or prior ownership, how are they meant to do this if all documents have to be returned to avoid prosecution?
    Proposal F: surely if this is to bring the UK in line with current EU legislation then it begs the question why we have different annexes. In relation to commercial use, it would be useful to have clarification with examples, of what commercial use is, if it’s on the .gov web site it is not easily accessible.
    Provision G: The good thing about this idea is that it MIGHT cut down on individuals being prosecuted for passing items on without the paperwork, but, if anything is going to cause problems for end users it will be this. For it to work you will need to ensure that it is VERY well circulated (by contacting EVERY individual/company/organisation) on your database that has ever had a CITES certificate to make sure they know what’s required.
    Provision H: If this is adopted then individuals who follow the rules have nothing to fear, but this could be seen as entrapment.
    Provision L: Great care needs to be exercised when placing confiscated live animals, the police/RSPCA/RSPB do not fit these criteria. The individuals doing the seizing also need to be experienced.
    Civil sanctions as an alternative to prosecution: At the time when the Law Commission is reviewing wildlife legislation and civil sanctions are being proposed as an alternative to prosecution, they must not be dismissed out of hand.
    This avenue has been talked about during CSUG meetings for over 12 months and it appeared that the management authorities considered them as a suitable method for dealing with paperwork. Recent paperwork prosecutions that have cost the tax payer thousands of pounds to bring defendants to court to receive £25-£80 fines is a clear case of a need for their use.
    email to COTESReview@defra.gsi.gov.uk

  23. Rspb Hit For Six

    in Falconry

    Posted

    The RSPB poisoning birds.

     

     

     

     

     

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/poisoning_of_sea_birds_by_the_rs#comment-11554

     

     

    Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Per

    th, PH1 3EW

    Tel 01738 444177 Fax 01738 458611 www.snh.org.uk

    Mr David Street

    By Email: DAVID STREET

    request-34619-73029c9a@whatdotheyknow.com

    07 July 2010

    Our ref: A421875

    Dear Mr Street

    Review of SNH Response to Information Request

    Thank you for your request for an internal review o

    f our response to your recent information

    request. We considered your request under the Envi

    ronmental Information (Scotland)

    Regulations 2004 (the ‘EIRs’).

    From the review that I have undertaken I am satisfi

    ed that the correct procedures were

    followed at the time of your original request and t

    hat we conducted a thorough search for

    information in response to it. I am writing to inf

    orm you that I therefore support our response

    to your request and the explanation contained in ou

    r letter dated 1 June 2010. I do however

    find that we could have been clearer in telling you

    that we do not hold the information you are

    seeking, and that an EIR exception therefore applie

    s in this case.

    Your request asked us for information about a speci

    fic licence that you believed had been

    issued to the RSPB, and about the numbers of birds

    that were poisoned as a result. We

    replied that, having completed our searches of the

    information we hold, we could confirm that

    Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had never issued li

    cences to the RSPB, or anyone else, to

    poison sea birds in the Firth of Forth. In your re

    view request you stated that you had been

    told that birds had been poisoned after the 1981 Wi

    ldlife Act, and that this had been done

    under general licence.

    In response to your review request, I have ensured

    that we have again conducted a

    comprehensive search of our information holdings.

    This has confirmed that, as explained in

    our previous response, we are aware of poisoning ha

    ving been carried out on certain islands

    in the Firth of Forth in the 1970s and 1980s. A fu

    rther document that we have unearthed

    shows that this occurred up until 1989.

    Prior to the enactment of the Wildlife and Countrys

    ide Act in 1981 the licensing of such

    activities was the responsibility of the Secretary

    of State for Scotland. After this Act came into

    force, this activity could be licensed by either th

    e Scottish Secretary of State or the relevant

    Nature Conservancy Council. The relevant Nature Co

    nservancy Council in this case would

    have been the Nature Conservancy Council up until 1

    991, the Nature Conservancy Council

    for Scotland between 1991 and 1992, and from then o

    nwards Scottish Natural Heritage.

    SNH can find no record that we have issued any lice

    nces to permit such work. To the best of

    our knowledge, therefore, we do not hold the inform

    ation you are asking for. We believe that

    in these circumstances it is appropriate to apply t

    he exception under Regulation 10(4)(a) of

    the EIRs – Information not held – in this case.

    A421875

    2 cont...

    You mention that you understand that poisoning was

    carried out under a general licence.

    SNH does not issue general licences. The Scottish

    Government uses general licences in

    certain circumstances but we are not aware of any h

    aving been issued to cover the use of

    poisons.

    Appeal Process

    I hope that the information that we have provided t

    o you makes our position clear. I am

    satisfied that we do not hold any records which we

    can provide in response to your

    information request.

    We must explain your rights of appeal. The EIRs ma

    ke provision for applicants to appeal to

    the Scottish Information Commissioner for a decisio

    n on whether their request has been dealt

    with in accordance with the Regulations. Should yo

    u wish to lodge such an appeal, the

    Scottish Information Commissioner can be contacted

    at this address:

    Scottish Information Commissioner

    Kinburn Castle

    Doubledykes Road

    St Andrews

    Fife

    KY16 9DS

    Telephone: 01334 464610

    http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/

    Yours sincerely

    John Thomson

    Director of Strategy & Communications

×
×
  • Create New...