Should we repeal the Wildlife and Countryside Act? A great opportunity for Michael Gove to say ‘No way’ as he is sure to be invited to the limping-on Game Fair.
He might want to point out that the WCA is a broad piece of legislation that covered a wide range of conservation and rural issues – that might be why it is called the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The WCA covered aspects of the conservation of all species (not just birds – the Habitats and Species Directive was still years away at this stage), but also rights of way, SSSIs etc etc. The WCA did tidy up some aspects of UK law relating to birds that were required because we were members of the EC and had played a full part in the drafting and adoption of the Birds Directive.
The Game Fair will probably move on to the repeal of Magna Carta next.
[registration_form]
They may be getting confused with the Law Commission’s review on nature conservation law which reported back in autumn 2016 recommending a new Act to consolidate the various disparate legislation in to a single statute. A sensible move and a good proposed piece of legal housekeeping.
The Government rejected it’s recommendations.
If the WCA is repealed with no replacement, then there would be no protection of any kind for any wildlife or habitats whatsoever after Brexit save for what is retained in the (Great) Repeal Bill (which would be incongruent as the two are/ would be intertwined); other than that in the Game Acts and other legislation aimed at protecting the ‘economic’ resources. It would take England and Wales back to pre-Edwardian levels of protection; perhaps even worse as the WCA incorporated or transported certain protections that had been retained through various now defunct legislation dating between the 1900s and 1950s.
A pointless debate by an increasingly pointless sector of society.
I agree with Richard, the simple answer is NO! But perhaps we should control/prevent the right of landowners to release millions of non native birds into the countryside for shooting until a proper scientific study has been conducted to determine what the impact on native wildlife is of both the release and the subsequent management is. It is time somebody bit that particular canned hunting bullet!
Well said Paul and I agree it is absolutely time to discuss the insanity of releasing millions of non native birds and firing thousands of tons of lead at them and destroying anything native that has the audacity to prey upon them!
Completely agree about assessment. In the interim can we please have the birds fitted with rings so that owners can be traced and a claim made against them when the birds cause accidents?
Dogs are chipped, livestock require licenses for movement so why are pheasants exempt?
Mark and other commentators have already made the important point that the W&CA, although it WAS intended to implement the EU Birds Directive in GB (not UK), went way beyond the requirments of the EU and provided a whole range of non-avian and wider countryside protections. So, it is very much a British statute and not some unwanted imposition by that Johnny Foreigner chappie. Even the birdy bits have many parallels with the earlier 1954 Protection of Birds Act and do lots of things the the Directive did not ask for. And the fact that it was possible to rework the ’54 Act as EU law reflects the strong influence Britain had in the drafting of the Directive. But the thing I enjoy pointing out most about the WCA81 and the PoBA54 to the game shooting whiners, is that they are both Conservative government Acts. The WCA was one of Maggie’s. The PoBA was one of Winston’s. It’s your own legislation, Mr Gove!
It is astonishing and somewhat depressing that anyone can seriously ask the question.