3.8 million people live within the first three counties most likely to be colonised by the sea eagles, after they are released.  50% of these own either a cat or a dog.

​

If you haven't heard about this yet, you're not alone.

 

Many people in the south of England are still unaware of this project.  Of those who are aware, most first heard about it only after Natural England's decision to grant a licence to the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation (RDWF) was announced in April 2019.

​

Prior to the decision last year, RDWF held three public 'drop-in' meetings on the Isle of Wight.  Fewer than 2,000 people completed online questionnaires.  According to RDWF, the majority of those respondents were in favour of the introduction of sea eagles into the Isle of Wight.

​

This represents barely 1% of the population of the Isle of Wight.  It is highly unlikely that this tiny survey represents opinion on the Isle of Wight as a whole - let alone the 3.8 million people on the mainland in the counties closest to the Isle of Wight.

​

The release of a major apex predator into the heavily populated south of England is unprecedented.

 

It is unacceptable to deal with this as a nature conservation issue, as if it were the introduction of a new species of butterfly.

​

​

​

 

 

'A Dangerous PR Stunt'

​

It is not the first time that this controversial plan has been attempted.  In 2010, attempts to introduce these birds into Suffolk were labelled

'a dangerous PR stunt' by critics.

​

At the time, Natural England claimed that 'the vast majority of the public strongly support the idea of the re-introduction of white-tailed sea eagles to East Anglia'.  This is similar to the unlikely claims being made in connection with the present plan.

​

It was then reported that a leaked email from Natural England had referred to the plans as a:

 

'major opportunity for Natural England to lead a high-profile 'flagship species' project that will highlight the organisation at the forefront of an major biodiversity' delivery initiative. …..There is a small risk of conflict with both socioeconomic and nature conservation interests, but these would be effectively managed by risk assessment and contingency planning … A thoroughly planned and well-executed public relations strategy will maximise the potential positive publicity.'

​

The plans, which were supported by RSPB and Natural England, ran into opposition from farmers and pet owners.  According to RDWF, 'funding was withdrawn by Natural England .... because the project was not considered a priority at the time.'

​

​

​

​