Defra want to know what everyone thinks about everything by 5pm a week on Monday. That gives the world 5 working days to get their thoughts together. I”m pretty sure that Wild Justice will be submitting something.
[registration_form]Defra in a big panic – consult, consult!
It is hard to imagine what will transpire on 20th May. The newly issued general licences will be dead. Will the Secretary of State decide, as I am sure many will be urging, replace the illegal ones with more illegal ones before they are again replaced later in the year?
Whilst this will be what shooters and the establishment want, is it necessary?
Will it damage the Conseevative prospects in the next general election?
If Wild Justice had a small following before, the publicity given to the (unnecessary) illegal actions will be huge.
Just in order that the evil Jays can be killed.
Bad policy usually comes from such a rushed process/consultation!!
What a massive conservation mess brought about by Wild Justice. Surely corvids and pigeons are not endangered and declining unlike many of our majestic and iconic waders? Hopefully common sense prevails and a realistic and workable licencing system reinstated soon?
Wild Justice didn’t bring about the mess, entirely the responsibility of Defra! As I understand it they withdrew the General licences before it got to court so they knew they would lose the legal argument.
When will shooters understand that objections to the killing of animals can be on ethical grounds as well as on conservation grounds? That means merely because one species or another is abundant it doesn’t mean that you have carte blanche and can shoot as many as you want. I am quite sure many people thought that about the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Look where that got us.
I’m sure Shooters do understand that objections can be on both ethical and conservation grounds, I for one certainly do. We dont object to your personal views, we all have them about a range of different issues but why should you force your ethical standpoint on others? Ethics are a personal thing and the act of making others conform to your personal views in the absence of scientific or other types of evidence that prove a real detriment to people or wildlife (or anything) is just dictatorship like. You are putting personal feelings ahead of peoples lives without just cause or evidence.
What a massive conservation mess brought about by tiny-minded idiots killing native species for no good reason, other than self-gratification.
Such a rushed consultation would appear to break the government’s best practice on consultation and as such might well be open to legal challenge, since it is not clear why such speed is essential. See Gunning Principle 3 on adequate time. See also Elizabeth’s book, “The politics of coonsultation”.
You shooters are interested in pheasants and partridge. These are bred, under cover/protection and the influence of wild birds: corvids pigeons jays buzzards etc on the size of their populations is non-existent. So why not leave wild birds alone?!
Explain please the common sense behind killing for fun?
Yet again everyone is transfixed on hating the shooting community here rather than the supposed goal of WJ in this legal challenge…to protect birds??
Are you worried because this consultation process will seek ‘evidence’ of the misuse of the old GL and the detrimental effects of them on the species listed? I myself am most looking forward to the WJ consultation response and the evidence put forward. I already drafted and submitted mine to Defra lastnight.
I personally think there is a middle ground where both WJ and the shooting community can be satisfied and that is by making the new GLs fit the current way people control pests species whilst allowing some species to be shot for food.
S
Not really. There’s plenty of evidence that non-human animals (including birds, if that needs to be said) can suffer. It’s not about personal feelings (what is enjoyment in shooting other than a “personal feeling” though?) but the need to recognise that other animals besides humans can suffer as a consequence of our decisions – decisions that often will only cause harm with no benefits. The general licences were not evidence-based and that is what needs to change.