Petition launched as farmers call for increased control of ravens

This week saw the launch of a new petition, one aiming to have the Common Raven (Corvus corax) added to the general license – a move that would allow landowners to control (by lethal means) ravens in the same manner as other corvid species.

Raven Image: Ravem By Diliff – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

This week saw the launch of a new petition, one aiming to have the Common Raven (Corvus corax) added to the general license – a move that would allow landowners to control (by lethal means) ravens in the same manner as species such as Carrion Crow, Magpie and Jay. This is a move that will surely anger many conservationists, resulting in the deaths of a great deal of these currently protected corvids. It is however a move many farmers feel is necessary to protect livestock and thus, their income. It certainly is an interesting topic and one that, for the purpose of this post, I have tried to view without sentiment – a difficult task for someone, like me, who boasts a soft spot for these birds. Before giving my opinion on the matter, a summary of the argument (from both sides) is surely in order..

The Problem 

Ravens, by far our most imposing corvid are known to pose a direct threat to livestock, particularly in upland areas (SNH, 2016). This is particularly true when it comes to sheep farming – something made apparent by the graphic and, ultimately rather horrible images that surfaced recently of newborn lambs subject to depredation. A few of these images are shown alongside the petition which can be easily found online.

Farmers claim that due to the ravens protected status and subsequent population increases, that attacks of livestock are becoming more common – a logical assumption and one that is likely true. Attacks by ravens on sheep are not pleasant, the birds targeting various bodily orifices and often, not killing their prey outright. Something that no doubt results in a great deal of anguish for farmers forced to euthanize their stock upon discovery. This has lead many to criticize the protected status of the birds. Among these, Danny Bisset, the voice behind the current petition and Bert Burnett of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association whom stresses not just the threat posed to livestock by increasing raven numbers, but also to wildlife, most notably breeding wading birds.

One cannot dispute that ravens are having an impact upon livestocks and the situation is openly acknowledged by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) whom to date have issued licenses for the selective killing of ravens in areas where they pose a problem to rural interests. These licenses have been lambasted by farmers however who feel that killing “a few” birds is not sufficient to protect their stock, a recent example being used to bolster support for the petition. Here a flock of 30 ravens contributed to the deaths of a number sheep (both lambs and ewes) and as such a license to control the birds was applied for. SNH however granted permission for only two ravens to be removed – a move that many feel falls short of the mark when it comes to protecting “at risk” livestock.

SNH have responded to the current petition, promising to take the situation into consideration during their upcoming review of general licenses, their initial response shown below:

“we are aware of this petition and of the interest in adding Ravens to the birds which may be killed under the General licence. The list of species’ which can be controlled in this way is something which we keep under regular review. We are due to hold a consultation on General Licences later this year and following the outcome of that process, we will consider what changes, if any, are required for the general licences.”

The idea of adding ravens to the general license has however unsettled some and a number of groups have voiced their opposition to the notion, among these the RSPB.


The RSPB, while acknowledging the “distressing situation” has openly opposed the move to add ravens to the general license. Their initial response to the aforementioned petition going as follows:

“It’s completely understandable why this would be a distressing situation, however SNH does regularly issue licences to farmers to kill Ravens for livestock protection. We think it is therefor completely unnecessary to put Raven on the General Licence, which would result in poorly regulated, unrestricted killing of Ravens. It should be remembered that the Ravens in the East of Scotland are only now recovering from historical eradication and would be once again vulnerable to local extinction if SNH allowed a free-for-all on these birds. Hope that helps to answer your question.“

As ever, by opposing the notion, RSPB have prompted a backlash from those in favour of control measures – some fearful that the organisation could influence the decision on behalf of SNH. It should however be noted that many conservationist share the RSPB’s stance pointing out that moving ewes indoors to lamb would solve the problem without the need for lethal control. Highlighting that by lambing indoors and thus removing a potential food source for ravens that localised high densities would even out – ravens dispersing (or dying) due to a lack of food in the area. The latter statement has however been disputed by those in favour of increased control – stating that moving entire flocks indoors during lambing season is both unrealistic and detrimental to the welfare of the sheep themselves. Large numbers of sheep in close quarters allowing disease to spread and, ultimately, cause the deaths of more animals.

Ravens in the UK 

At present, ravens are strictly protected under UK law, the entire British population estimated at 7,400 pairs (RSPB, 2016) and 12,000 pairs (SNH, 2016) – a dramatic increase from decades past where the population crashed due to unchecked persecution. Though this number may appear healthy, it represents only a fraction of the population that the UK “could hold” and indeed, ravens remain scarce in some areas. As the RSPB point out, ravens are still recovering and consolidating their range in certain areas, including the East of Scotland where many issues have occurred. Those in favour of culls have however stated that these estimates are inaccurate and that far more ravens persist in the UK at present. Though the species is gradually colonizing lowland areas, the majority of the raven population remains centered on upland areas – something that may lead to assumptions that the species is “abundant” though, given the turbulent history of C.corax it is far more likely that such numbers represent a natural equilibrium – in essence, what raven populations should be like absent the persecution that took place in decades past.


Until figures are produced with a certain degree of accuracy verifying claims that the Raven population is far higher than estimated I cannot support the addition of C.corax to the general license. This is not born of sentiment, or indeed out of opposition for culls or farmers taking action to protect their stock – I have no problem with the current workings of the general license. No, I cannot condone the widespread killing of ravens due to their conservation status. They are, after all, still recovering from the last time humans pushed them towards the brink. In my opinion, allowing the unregulated killing of ravens would render the recent gains of this species obsolete – effectively setting the population back a century or so.

Despite opposing this move however I should stress that I in no way oppose the notion that farmers should be able to protect their stock (and thus their livelihoods). I have stated time and time again the need to be pragmatic when it comes to both protected species and conservation and do feel their is leeway for SNH to possibly build on existing licensing. Obviously all control measures must be highly regulated – the number of birds removed recorded and analysed so not to impact upon the over all population but yes, if SNH were to allow the killing of more ravens in exceptional, problem circumstances, I would not protest. The needs of people must after all be met and while ravens are admittedly rather charismatic and thus inspire a great deal of devotion from nature lovers, it may be possible to strike a balance between the needs of both man and beast. Allowing farmers to protect their interests without declaring “open season” on the species.

I do agree that other measures could be deployed to protect sheep from raven depredation – moving stock indoors during lambing is certainly an option in some locations. I am however not naive enough to believe this is an option in all localities and thus accept that some ravens will need to be killed. Something that animal welfare groups and “compassionate” conservationists will no doubt dispute. Protecting each and every individual of a species, at all costs, is a noble notion but one I do not feel is very realistic.  If raven populations remain stable – a likely prospect under the current system, even with an increase in licensing, I stand content. Of course, it would be nice to see other measures given an increased focus prior to the implementation of lethal control – something SNH must surely aid with.


  • I love birds (and dogs) but livestock owners SHOULD be allowed to shoot Ravens which attack their lambs and sheep.

    Lorna Windmill 1st May 2016 at 10:23 am Reply
    • Really ignorant comment. You don’t save things by killing them, think about that for a second. Killing to save, never worked for 2000 years will not work now.
      Buddha’s 5 precepts no killing, why did he say that, ermm, because its important!
      Please remember it and remember your ancestors words and don’t kill these birds

      richard 25th June 2016 at 2:10 am Reply
  • I love animals and I love nature, we regularly visit RSPB centres and are supportive of this charity however I also own sheep and these sheep aside from livestock are our precious family pets, we personally have been fortunate enough to not have had Ravens attack our stock we have had animals die of natural causes overnight and have found them with no eyes and their bodies pecked and bloody in the morning, this has caused us more distress still! I cannot imagine how I would feel if this happened to a live healthy animal- an animal that I had spent countless hours and with lots of worry and stress to safely bring him/ her into the world and have the lambs and the ewe safe to find them the next day attacked viciously by Ravens! I would be devastated! We have only a small flock of sheep and don’t rely on them for income but it must be so very soul destroying for farmers who do rely on them for income, all that work for nothing! With huge financial loss to make a heartbreaking situation worse! I hope that something can be done to control these ‘out of control birds’ in areas badly affected, why is the life of a bird more important than the life of a precious little innocent lamb? I hope the right thing is done and I am absolutely in support of farmers having the right to shoot them in areas where they are causing such distress

    Mairi grant 3rd May 2016 at 2:07 pm Reply
  • Farmers should be allowed to protect their sheep and lambs from raven attacks. I would have thought that 12,000 pairs of raven is a very conservative estimate, each year we see more and more. I have also watched a raven in the Isle of Wight try to attack a small child

    Elizabeth Snell 5th May 2016 at 3:25 pm Reply
  • As the originator of both the petition and the Facebook page Calling for Raven Control I would wish to congratulate the author of the above reasonably well balance report, however am struggling to comprehend the estimated figures on population given the BTO published average figures on mortality and breeding rates given that 1 pair produce 6 fledglings annually, 3 of these 6 reach breeding age at 3 years of age and go on to produce a further 6 fledgling annually. When worked out exponentially over the average 13 year breeding life of the pair the figure is in excess of 7000 birds. (Please remember these are average figures which account for mortality). Supporters of the Calling for Raven Control campaign have highlighted to SNH the increasing population of Juvenile Ravens due to highly successful breeding rates in problematic hotspots and would question the accuracy of BTO figures in relation to breeding pairs of Raven, as the published figure referencing 7200 breeding pairs was conducted in 2007. We would also put forward the point that the breeding pair figure does not account for the larger juvenile population which are of a greater concern. We would stress that our requirement is for Raven population control; proportionate to the scale of the problem and we do not align ourselves with the current SNH viewpoint which is that lethal control should only be conducted as an aid to scaring practices. This has been echoed by farmers throughout affected areas, as the targeting of individual birds in the field is felt to be ineffective in keeping Raven population at a manageable level.

    Danny Bisset 21st May 2016 at 9:31 pm Reply
  • Those in favour of culls, like the article writer, despite ‘loving’ or having a soft spot for birds, ravens or otherwise are shamelessly protecting an(other) industry that places humans at the top of the food chain, an industry that serves to feed only humans by ensuring these little lambs remain on our plate, let alone a bird’s. Don’t claim you love wildlife by preferring, protecting, ensuring the survival, of one species over another. We are wildlife. People claim they ‘like’ wildlife, but truth is, they love themselves (that is, humans and their needs) more. Let’s not fool about with all this loving a non-human species.

    Yes, I love ravens, and yes, I love corvids, and yes, let them eats the lambs! Whether or not they ‘own’ the lambs like these farmers (you don’t ‘own’ anything, that’s human myth), some birds eat meat (however they can get it). Did people not realise this? Maybe not.

    Maybe its the fact corvids aren’t adapted to take their prey and that’s simply too opportunistic. Scavenging is the ultimate sin? Humans have never been able to hunt down their prey (since weapons and domestication) and had their roots in scavenging the odd bit of meat from a predator’s kill. Shame on us, we stole too. But then again, it’s hardly like we love our prey birds, you only need to ask the farmers and game farmers.

    Practicality is a pathetic argument, and we do not need to wisen up when all these pragmatic arguments serve to limit other species to such an extent that is acceptable to human beings. It’s ‘this much but no more’. What we do do? We simply despair.

    amy 8th September 2016 at 8:01 am Reply
  • As ever the farming fraternity pleading special mitigation. Only families enjoy greater cultural support politically and in the media. The absence of sheep in the British landscape would be a particularly positive development.

    Dean Allen 14th March 2017 at 5:53 pm Reply
  • Lived on my dads farm in Norfolk and it seems pretty clear that far too many farmers shoot first and ask questions later.

    Give farm workers an inch and they take a mile.

    Nicholas Swatman 28th March 2018 at 11:01 am Reply
Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.*

Tick the box or answer the captcha.

You might also like

  • Piping Plovers Losing Nesting Habitat

    Findings suggest that if drainage continues, there will be a continued decline in the breeding habitat for piping plovers at wetlands in the Great Plains.

    By Alex Taylor
  • New Hope for Rare Parakeets

    Orange-fronted parakeets are small, brightly coloured forest-dwelling birds. They are classified as critically endangered by the IUCN, and as nationally critical in New Zealand which means, according to the Department of Conservation, that “the next stop is extinction.”

    By Alex Taylor