Wild Justice comments on DEFRA/NE/BASC/GWCT/Exeter University review of released gamebird impacts
9 Replies to “Wild Justice comments on DEFRA/NE/BASC/GWCT/Exeter University review of released gamebird impacts”
Comments are closed.
Standing up for Nature
So we have an industry in the UK that needs access to ” between 39 and 57 million pheasants and 8.1 and 13 million partridges” each and every year. They say that they produce “fresh and healthy meat” for general consumption but forget to mention that although it may be fresh it certainly ain’t healthy as the industry still insists on using lead shot ( a known poison).
You cannot release circa 50 to 70 million birds each year without key detrimental impacts. The scale is impossible to comprehend as is the lack of supervision. This is an industry that has been allowed to grow out of control.
Mark, do you know for sure if this work is actually part of the Defra review in response to the WJ challenge? Could it just be possible that BASC and NE commissioned it at about the same time as the Defra review? If it was part of the Defra review, why didn’t Defra commission it?
Robin – thank you for your first comment here. I know for sure that DEFRA has not commissioned its own review and has been ‘waiting’ for the results of this review to emerge and that on 21 February DEFRA said that it had commissioned a review and that one of the four components of that review was this review see here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defra-sets-out-review-into-releasing-gamebirds-on-protected-sites
Well the report does essentially level the playing field in the sense that it acknowledges that nobody really knows whether the impact is harmful or not. That makes it a lot easier for somebody, maybe the courts, to demand that these gaps are filled and quickly.
I think it’s pretty clear that large scale releases are simply untenable in the future and that is going to seriously undermine the economics or the desire to go shooting. Killing one or maybe no birds is a lot less appealing than bagging a brace or two.
Myself and my colleagues are still in the process of reviewing the report/document and expect to forward some comments to you in a week or so Mark. I think Wild Justice are being fairly respectful in their comments. The report is essentially a review of existing literature on the subject and that existing literature has essentially been produced by the shooting industry with little or no interest in the welfare of nature.itself. As far as I can see there is no useful information existing on what for example pheasants consume and they say pheasants are mostly vegetarian. That is just not correct. Pheasants are omnivores. We have witnessed them eating rare schedule eight plants down to stumps and attacking and killing slow worms as well as seeing injured adders with their eyes pecked out which can only have been done by pheasants.
I expect to provide more comprehensive comments Mark, as I say, in a week or two but at this stage we rather regard the report as a white wash by the shooting industry.
They do like to release their birds in woodland. Now the report does seem to mention that some woodlands are broadleaves and some woods are connifer….. and far as I can see- that is the level of ecological scrutiny in the papers. Birch woods, Oak woods Beechwoods, Ashwoods……..deadwoods.
I wonder what the value of the contract was?
What does it actually tell us beyond 58 papers of the 229 assessed offered ‘some’ information for the period 1961 – 2020. Understandably there is a fair amount of subjective analysis and had the contract been awarded differently then different offerings might have been presented, such is the nature of these kinds of contracts.
But, omitted were any useful data on numbers of birds released, missing in my opinion were recommendations for further work on obtaining statistics and any studies which established impact on a range of other interest species near release sites as well as the habitats themselves.
Without knowing what the tender sought from the contract one might be wrong to surmise that if not NE but quite probably BASC would be unlikely to want to see licensing introduced which would create transparency and allow appropriate assessments to be made on releases near important sites.
Solid data is needed and needed now not if and when the shooting industry thinks it has to move beyond voluntary arrangements? No mention of likelihood of future work, perhaps other observers and students of statute and their partners might know differently?
This appears to be a white wash job being very selective. there of course is no mention and possibly there shouldn’t be of the sheer bloody nuisance to those who live in close proximity to large releases, ruined gardens and blitzed vegetable patches, constant stealing of chicken food and of course the noise pollution on the two or three days a week when ” the clients” are here blasting the damned things out of the air. My own view has hardened over the years and I now think we should follow the Dutch route. You can shoot as many as you like but you cannot release them! My experience would also suggest that there is a considerable degree of persecution associated with the bigger shoots too.
A question of more a General licence nature, How do entirely released bird shoots, where birds are released in late summer justify their multiple use of Larsen traps for Crows and Magpies?
Your last point is a good one that I have often thought about too, it urgently needs some proper regulation. There is no possible reason (that they could admit to) for setting any Corvid cage or Larsen type trap once wild birds have finished nesting. Of course we all know the real reason – to clean up the Tawny Owls, Sparrowhawks, Goshawks (if any still remain) and Buzzards before the thousands of smelly and noisy Pheasant and Partridge poults are put into their release pens, attracting every predatory bird and beast for miles around like a dinner gong.