DISCUSSIONS WITH DEFRA & NATURAL ENGLAND

Latest Communication:

Currently Surrounding Northern Goldfinch & Bullfinch Ring Sizes

 

 

 

....................................................................................................................................................

 

Hi Ashley

 

Thank you for your e-mail of 22^nd August 2014

 

Colour variants exemption/concessions. Yes, we do understand your position.  Likewise it is the duty of the British Bird Council to represent members and to seek fairness in regulations and legislation so that it is not unnecessarily restrictive.

When the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into force in 1981/82 colour variants or “abnormal coloured” as they were referred to then, were extremely rare to non-existent.  Today’s colour variants have been established by dedicated breeders using the art and study of genetics combined with line-breeding and in-breeding to establish birds which are distinguishable by colour as captive-bred because they are visually different to the wild phenotype.

The question you asked in your e-mail of 15^th August was, why our members were concerned about ringing colour morphs for trade, is it the cost or other issues, which I did answer, you now seem to have rephrased the question.

As stated the issue is mainly a matter of principle as pointed out the Wildlife and Countryside Act is to protect and conserve our “wild birds”, yes the risks to the environment, i.e. in this issue “wild birds” has to be considered “assessed”, so let’s look at it from a probabilistic angle or the law of probability, the chances “risks” of a colour variant being taken from the wild are remote, millions to one to impossible, depending on the colour of the morph, the risks from that angle are minute.  So breeders ask why should closed ringing be compulsory for trade of colour variants.

 

Do you know of any prosecutions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act which involved colour variants fitted with tampered rings or unringed?  My memory’s not perhaps what it was but I cannot recall any!

 

As already stated the risk of unringed normal phenotypes being passed off as colour variants are highly remote in practical terms, any so called loophole is so small it’s difficult to see how anyone would squeeze through it undetected.  We have not had any reports of anyone being conned into buying a normal as a colour variant fitted with a correct or a tampered ring. Neither have we had any reports of anyone being conned into buying unringed British or European birds as mules or hybrids, though we have had reports of said agencies requiring assistance in recognising the differences between these mules and hybrids British or European birds.

No doubt I’ll be corrected if I’ve got it wrong but my understanding is that the British or European parents used in the production of mules and hybrids must be captive-bred and the same would apply to colour variants exempted from closed ringing.

The above is used as a comparison, so is the situation with colour variant deemed any different.

We believe colour variants could and should be treated in the same way as mules and hybrids of which there are many colours derived from colour variants which quite rightly do not have to be closed rings.

They are both derived from “counterparts” of wild species and are both highly unlikely or impossible to be found in or taken from the wild.  Maybe the above in reference to mules and hybrids would help you conceive a workable definition.  We intend to keep members informed of dialogue on our website, maybe it will bring in some useful comments on the issue.

As already stated definition of colour variant or colour morph is that it is visibly different in colour to that of the wild phenotype.

We trust you will be able to incorporate it in the consultation as it is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a fair manner.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Bob Partridge

 

pp British Bird Council

 

 Reply from Ashely Smith (DEFRA) 22nd August 2014

 

 

 

Bob

 

Thanks for your email. I understand your position and the points you have made. I hope you will understand that it is my job to challenge them and ensure the best outcome.

In my email of 15^th August, I asked why you/your members think an exception for colour-variants is necessary? However, you have not addressed this point.

Government must implement the precautionary principle when considering potential risks to the environment – to deviate from the current position would therefore require a good reason, supported by robust evidence that the risk would be minimal. You have argued that there is no evidence to support the claim that introducing an exception would pose a risk to wild birds, but you do not provide any evidence to show that it would not pose a risk.

As you state, the key risks of including such an exception are unringed wild-caught birds being passed off as colour-variants. While this risk may, in practical terms, seem to be small, we need to be mindful of the legal position – we must not create a loophole by introducing a vaguely-worded exception that relies on the subjective identification of colour-variants by individual buyers, enforcement officers etc.

At this time, I cannot conceive of a workable definition which could be used in this way. However, others may be able to provide views and advice which could help us formulate something, which is why I am considering including it in the consultation. However, as stated above, this is subject to me gaining the agreement of others.

 

Regards

 

Ash

 

From Bob Partridge 22nd August 2014

 

 

Hi Ashley

 

Thanks for responding so quickly to e-mail of August 15^th 2014.

Colour variants, exemption/concessions, we understand your approach to this has to be cautious.

We assume the said agencies are concerned that unringed phenotype wild birds would be sold as colour variants.

We believe this is highly unlikely, the wild phenotype of a species is consistent enough to be generally recognised in both colour and pattern, that’s its nature.

So it’s difficult to comprehend how someone could be fooled into buying an unringed normal as a colour variant.  We know there are both the unscrupulous and naive on both sides of the fence.

If it was to happen the seller would face charges not only under the Wildlife and Countryside Act but also presumably charges of deception and fraud, as the saying goes “their feet wouldn’t touch the ground”!

True, there may be occasions when expert opinion may need to be sort but that’s the case in so many walks of life.

In the event of an alleged offence an investigating officer unsure of their ground, calls in expert assistance that’s normal procedure.  More specific information as to which colour variants are the cause for such concern is required.

Yes, it would be helpful to all concerned to include a section in the consultation to seek views, more dialogue, may well also prove helpful to all concerned.

It is not the cost of ringing colour variants for trade, it is not even that losses occur due to closed ringing.  As already stated the vast majority of colour variants would continue to be closed ringed for reasons already given.  It is a matter of principle, the laws and ringing regulations are there to protect and conserve our wild birds.

As already stated, we see no evidence that exemption/concessions for colour variants would have any adverse effects on wild populations, neither are we presently convinced the term colour variant would be misconstrued.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Bob Partridge

 

 

Reply from Ashely Smith (DEFRA) 15th August 2014

 

 

Dear Bob

 

Thank you for your email; I’ll respond now rather than have you slip off the end of my ever-growing ‘To Do’ list!

 

Concerns were previously raised to me by colleagues in the agencies regarding the risk of allowing colour variants to be sold without a ring. I understand your point that the bird must be considered ‘visually distinct’ from it’s wild-bred counterparts. However, I am sure you can understand the difficulty we would have in phrasing such an exception for colour variants. How do we define the point at which a bird is visually distinct due to colouration or patterning? In many ways it is a matter of subjective perception, a large part of which is based on experience – e.g. a breeder who works with a species of bird everyday may be able to spot a colour variant very quickly, whereas a buyer or enforcement officer who is less familiar with a particular species may not be able to tell the difference.

 

I’m also confused as to why your members would be so concerned about ringing colour-morphs for trade? Is it a matter of cost, or are there other issues?

Considering the differences in opinion on this matter, I’m minded to include a section in the consultation to seek views from all parties.

 

 

Best wishes

 

Ash

 

From Bob Partridge 15th August 2014

 

 

 

Hi Ashley

 

Thank you for your e-mail of July 25^th 2014. Answers to our questions appreciated and noted.

 

Colour variants, exemption/concessions can you illuminate on concerns regarding definition and which colour variants are, as you put it very close to non-colour variants.

 

Having specialised in the breeding of British and European colour variants for over 50 years, my understanding is that in aviculture, as in biology the term colour variant is accepted as referring to a bird which is a colour morph visually different in colour to that of the wild form/normal phenotype.

 

Colour variants have only been recorded in the wild as rare or very rare occurrences usually estimated to be one in a million or one in several million.

 

Many colour variants produced in captivity have never occurred in the wild and in fact could not occur in the wild due to their genetic make-up.  Your caution is noted but presently we fail to see evidence of how exemption for colour variants could have detrimental effects in respect of conservation of wild populations, what evidence is there?

 

Many colour variants would continue to be closed ringed both voluntarily and by necessity for breeding records and because the vast majority of colour variant pairing/matings produce varying percentages of both colour variant and visual normal siblings in a nest, and at ringing age differences are not always obvious, some colour variants can be identified at this age by eye socket or skin colour, others will not be identifiable until fully feathered.

 

Some of the visual normal siblings will be capable of producing colour variants but being visually normal they cannot be considered as a colour variant so would need to be closed ringed for both sale and exhibition.

 

We thank you for considering sharing V5 with us prior to publication, it would be much appreciated we do understand it would only allow for “dotting i’s and crossing t’s”, as they say.

 

We do understand that the consultation is in two parts, that is quite clear and it is obvious the second part cannot be undertaken until the first part is concluded, we still view the second part as the main consultation in regard closed ring sizes, characteristics etc.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Bob Partridge

 

pp British Bird Council

 

Reply from Ashely Smith (DEFRA) 25th July 2014

 

 

Hello Bob

 

Thank you for your email, I hope you are enjoying the glorious summer weather!

 

Version 5 of the consultation document is very similar to version 4 – some of the text has been expanded/amended to provide greater clarity, and there has been some slight restructuring, but the options are largely the same.

 

I am currently in discussion with colleagues regarding the issue of colour variants. There is some concern regarding the definitions that might be used – as I understand it, some colour variants can be very close to the non-colour variants, so we need to be careful about considering any sort of exemption.

 

If there is time I will consider sharing V5 with you prior to official publication, though I am sure you will realise that we will not have time to take account of detailed comments.

 

Your email below mentions the “main consultation on closed rings” - I am not sure what you mean by this comment. As V4 of the document made clear, the document currently being drafted is essentially a consultation of two parts, which will be dealt with on different timescales – there is a key issue regarding trade in birds imported from other European Member States which we are seeking to resolve as quickly as possible, and the consultation is seeking yours and others’ views on how we might implement the solution we have identified. We hope that this resolution will be implemented as soon as possible following the consultation.

 

Further to this, we are also using this opportunity to gather more information and perspectives on the range of other issues that have been raised regarding matters such as ring sizes, the characteristics of rings, etc. We will carefully consider the information we receive in response to these questions, and formulate further proposals on the basis of that information. I expect we will then seek to meet with you and copyees to discuss these proposals and refine them further. Any further amendments required to legislation or licences will follow this process. I recognise that you have an annual deadline whereby you must order rings for the following year every August, and we will take this in to account in our planning.

 

I hope that is clear.

 

Kind regards, enjoy your weekend.

 

Ashley G Smith

 

Defra

 

 

From Bob Partridge 23rd July 2014

 

Hi Ashley

 

Thanks for your e-mail of July 3^rd 2014.

 

We note reasons for delay and that you have prepared Version 5, following talks with your Welsh and Scottish counterparts.

Is Version 5 based on options etc. of Version 4 draft, taking into account comments made in relation to draft 4, particularly comments made previously and recently, ref. colour variants to be considered for some possible concessions or exemption?

Will we see a draft of Version 5 before it goes to full public consultation?

We assume this delay will also delay the main consultation on closed rings.

We remind you we have to place our order for closed rings for 2015 with the manufacturer before the end of august 2014 and are presently preparing our order requirements.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Bob Partridge

 

pp British Bird Council

 

 

From Ashley Smith DEFRA  3rd July 2014

 

 

 

Dear Bob

 

Apologies for the poor response rate, as you have identified I have been extremely busy and also have been on leave for some of this period.

 

 

We are still very much expecting to proceed with a public consultation on this matter; the delay has been necessary to ensure the range of options proposed to resolve concerns with the regime are all equitable, pragmatic outcomes that will not result in increased risk to wild populations.

 

As you will be aware, nature conservation is a devolved matter, meaning each Administration has powers to take steps as it sees fit to protect wild birds and other flora and fauna. However, it has been my strong preference since commencing work on this project to ensure that the final outcome is as consistent and coherent as possible for end-users such as your members to work with, while still acknowledging that variations in the regime may be necessary for a range of reasons.

 

To this I have been working with my counterparts in the Welsh and Scottish Governments in an effort to produce a joint consultation document that recognises these issues.  Version 5 of the consultation document is currently with my colleagues in Welsh Government and Scottish Government who are considering the amendments; once I have their comments, I expect to finalise the paper and gain permission to consult within a few weeks.

 

Regards

 

Ash

 

 

From Bob Partridge 1st July 2014

 

Hi Ashley

 

I have tried to get in touch with you over the phone for the past few weeks, since I received the – Version 4 draft (20^th March 2014) in April and I conversed with you on the phone.

Since which time we have received no further information on this consultation.

I have left messages on your answer machine but still have not received any information as to what’s happening with this promised consultation.

I realise you probably have a heavy work load but feel we should have been informed if this consultation has been delayed yet again.

 

Would you please acknowledge with an update as to what is happening.

 

 

Yours sincerely

Bob Partridge

British Bird Council

 

Reply from Ashely Smith (DEFRA) 3rd July 2014

 

Dear Bob

 

Apologies for the poor response rate, as you have identified I have been extremely busy and also have been on leave for some of this period.

 

We are still very much expecting to proceed with a public consultation on this matter; the delay has been necessary to ensure the range of options proposed to resolve concerns with the regime are all equitable, pragmatic outcomes that will not result in increased risk to wild populations.

 

As you will be aware, nature conservation is a devolved matter, meaning each Administration has powers to take steps as it sees fit to protect wild birds and other flora and fauna. However, it has been my strong preference since commencing work on this project to ensure that the final outcome is as consistent and coherent as possible for end-users such as your members to work with, while still acknowledging that variations in the regime may be necessary for a range of reasons.

 

To this I have been working with my counterparts in the Welsh and Scottish Governments in an effort to produce a joint consultation document that recognises these issues.  Version 5 of the consultation document is currently with my colleagues in Welsh Government and Scottish Government who are considering the amendments; once I have their comments, I expect to finalise the paper and gain permission to consult within a few weeks.

 

Regards

Ash 

 

Ashley Smith  DEFRA