Britain's naturalised parrot now officially a pest
ALAMY
The ring-necked parakeet has officially been declared a pest that can be shot without permission
Britain’s naturalised parrot is now officially a pest. Forty years after it first bred on the outskirts of London, the ring-necked parakeet today joined gulls, crows and magpies on the short list of birds which can be legally shot without special permission.
The tropical parakeet, whose native range stretches from Africa to the Himalayas, has become an increasingly familiar sight in south London and Surrey in recent years and its numbers are mushrooming, with one roost in a Surrey sports ground sometimes holding several thousand birds.
Many people are charmed by its brilliant, iridescent-green plumage and exotic screech. But growing fears that it may damage native wildlife and crops – in the tropics it is widely considered a pest – today led Natural England, the Government’s wildlife watchdog, to add the bird to the “general licence” of species which can be controlled (that is, culled) without individual permission, if damage is being done.
Three other non-native birds joined it on the list today – the monk parakeet from South America, of which a few species breed in the northern home counties, the Canada goose and the Egyptian goose. All are considered to pose a threat in one way or another either to native wildlife, public health or public safety.
Their addition to the list does not mean it is open season on the birds, with a shooting free-for-all in prospect. But it does mean that if a landowner or any other “authorised person” has good reason to believe the birds are causing a specific problem, he is free to shoot them without seeking an individual licence to do so, as would have been necessary in the past.
The world’s most widespread wild parrot species, the ring-necked parakeet was first recorded successfully breeding in the wild in England in 1969. A population is believed to have been established with birds that escaped from aviaries and others released by sailors returning from the tropics. The British breeding population is now estimated to be 4,700 pairs and it is expanding steadily; the bird has reached as far north as the Scottish border.
Concerns about it have long been voiced. Aggressive, and a hole-nester, it is thought it might drive out British hole-nesting species such as woodpeckers. It also causes major crop damage, especially to fruit trees, on its native range. Tony Juniper, the former director of Friends of the Earth who is one of the world’s leading authorities on parrots, once said it had the potential to be “the grey squirrel of the skies.”
Natural England said today the parakeet and the other three birds had been added to the “general licence” as a precautionary part of its non-native species strategy. “This is not about telling people to go out and kill them but it is about facilitating people to control them if they've got a good reason to do so,” a spokesman said. “This is acknowledging that these are birds which can cause problems.”
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds today displayed what might be described as an uncomfortable acceptance of the move. “We can see why Natural England have put these species on the general licence, for good conservation reasons,” said Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB’s conservation director. “Non-native species cause problems for native wildlife across the globe, sometimes leading to species extinctions. At the moment these species aren’t causing conservation problems in the UK, but they might in future. However, you still need a legitimate reason under the general licence to kill them."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Re: Aviaries
Thanks to parrot lovers and the trade the passion encourages there are many hundreds, probably thousands, of parrots in sanctuaries already in the UK. It's dreadful to imagine more of them caged up in a weird limbo, a pointless nullifying existence some insist on calling humane treatment.
For conservation reasons and moral reasons too, whether in or out of cages Britain isn't really ever going to be a place where any parrot species belongs.
Hang on, peacocks are foreign! Shoot them!
Hang on, Indians are ....
Never mind :P
I find the reason for allowing them to be shot that people "fear" rather than "have proof" that they are damaging crops rather ridiculous and old-fashioned. There are other animals that were hounded by farmers for years based on "fears" which turned out to be unfounded.
Animal racists only?
Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman called on California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today to shut down an American website that allows British men who use prostitutes to rate their experiences.
During her speech at the Labour Party Conference she called on the former Hollywood strongman to close down the site which is hosted in his state but is filled with information on British sex workers.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
This was a story about naturalised parrots in the UK for flip's sake, what have American prostitutes, the Labour Party conference and websites got to do with that???
expediency
MEANING:
noun:
1. Consideration of what is advantageous or easy or immediate over what is right.
2. The quality of being suited for a purpose.
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin expedire (to make ready, to set the feet free), from ex- (out of) + ped- (foot). Ultimately from the Indo-European root ped- (foot) which gave us peccadillo (alluding to a stumble or fall), pedal, impeccable, podium, octopus, and impeach.
USAGE:
"Political expediency means that a lot of planning is still short term."
Elizabeth Sidiropoulos & Lyal White; How Brazil Beats Poverty Trap; Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg, South Africa); Aug 25, 2009.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -Martin Luther King, Jr., civil-rights leader (1929-1968)
Labour freezes pay and sells assets in cash dash
Plans to halve Britain's deficit with spending cuts and asset sales worth £75bn without resorting to further tax rises
Polanski arrest could delay 'Tony Blair' film
Movie adaptation of Robert Harris thriller The Ghost in jeopardy because director is wanted in the US for sex crime
YOU SEE DO YOU SEE THAT IT IS CALLED MIXED NUTS DO YOU LIKE NUTS?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Don't cull cute grey squirrels?
OK, see the cute red ones go extinct then.
If we are to maintain earth's biodiversity we will have to take unpleasant decisions about protecting native species.
Still not convinced? Is it because the parrot is cute? OK, how about the Asian bee eating hornet: do the French kill that or do they starve because it eats all their bees?
How about the Asian Long-horn beetle? Should the Canadians try to kill that or lose all their deciduous woodland?
How about Japanese knot weed. Are those in favour of not eradicating the undeniably cute ring-necked parrot also not in favour of trying to eradicate a weed which can grow from the tiniest bit of root 2m under ground up through concrete?
Are you only in favour of protecting cute animals? Is this a cuteness war? OK, red versus grey squirrel... who gets the thumbs down?
Rhododendron or our southern woodlands?
Ferns or brambles and woodland?
Zander or pike?
You see, the cute argument isn't much use. Whether you like it or not, one species will generally die out.
Just be thankful we don't have the problem Queensland, Australia has with the cane toad. It swallows everything smaller than its mouth... it poisons everything that bites it.
So, toad or everything else?
As for racial hatred, well, the mind boggles. My mind is, anyway. It's having a right, good, volatile boggle.
The point is that just as the fact that the parrots might have an adverse effect on species that inhabit the same ecological niche, so the brown people (and they are brown, they're not purple or pink with yellow spots) might have an adverse effect on the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. However, just as the fact that the brown people might have such an adverse effect does not provide sufficient reason for shooting them, so the fact that the parrots might have an adverse effect does not provide sufficient reason for shooting them.
The purpose of referring to new human residents of the British Isles was to shock, because by being shocked and by recognising the parallel between their case and the case of the parrots (which you somehow seem to have missed; still boggling about that), the force of the conclusion is established that we should not shoot the parrots.
I always think that one should sit back and attempt to discern the rationale behind what someone says before embarking on mind-boggling responses.
The UK is currently fighting a loosing battle against a number of non-native, invasive species - with the number set to increase as climate change (man-made or a natural cycle) takes effect. Some of these invasive species we have to live with, as their natural range extends they're capable of reaching the UK and integrating into our islands' ecosystems. However, some are introduced species that wouldn't reach the UK without assistance - those are the ones we should be trying to reduce or remove.
All ecosystems are in a state of flux, based upon changes to the environment and the evolution of its components - this is the natural state. Introducing species that are capable of out-competing and therefore replacing native species can cause imbalance in an ecosystem, the results of which can be detrimental. We can predict some of the changes, at a gross level, but the fine detail still eludes us and we may experience an ecosystem collapse long before we realise there's a problem.
But perhaps that's the future - anthropogenic environmental change - and we should learn to live with it; come to some accommodation with the invaders. But not just because they're cute...
I believe the issue about shooting is one of potential cruelty from bad shots rather than one of removing the species.
Nature is cruel & we shouldn't be squeamish, or get bogged down in laughable PC debates about human immigrants (grow up!), about giving it a hand to set the balance back after we've done so much to disrupt it.
Sean Leitsch
Chicago, IL USA