The conservationist's dilemma - 11

Written by: Martin Fowlie
Published: 19 Mar 2025
Topic: An update on the science, policy and practice of the impact of predators on wild birds.

The RSPB seeks to manage its reserves through sound habitat management but sometimes at certain sites, we have to take the decision to remove individuals of certain species, in order to protect threatened animal, bird or plant species.

In most cases, this is to recover the numbers of threatened wild birds: for example, we remove certain predators to aid the recovery of ground-nesting bird populations. We always favour approaches - such as habitat management and predator exclusion techniques – but, as a last resort, killing may sometimes be necessary.

However, before the RSPB carries out any kind of vertebrate control, we first seek evidence that a problem exists.  If there is good evidence that it does, we look for a non-lethal solution and, if there is one, implement that. However, non-lethal methods, whilst always the preferred way of doing things, are not always practical or effective and the problem may require lethal vertebrate control.  In order to even consider this, the following four criteria must be met:

• That the seriousness of the problem has been established;
• That non-lethal measures have been assessed and found not to be practicable;
• That killing is an effective way of addressing the problem;
• That killing will not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the target or other non-target species.

Only when these four criteria are satisfied is lethal vertebrate control undertaken.  This is the case for all the figures presented below, which are for the most recent reporting period (Nov 2023 -Oct 2024), with the previous 12 month period in brackets.