Blogs

When it comes to researching the environmental impacts of game shooting, Britain leads the world. However, it’s bizarre that staff at the RSPB decided to use a review process that accentuates the negatives and minimises the positives in order to produce their doom-laden conclusions. 

When it comes to researching the environmental impacts of game shooting, Britain leads the world. This has largely been achieved by those that shoot funding ecological studies, including the hundreds of scientific papers published by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.

Those involved in game shooting were probably as surprised as me to hear the RSPB speaking on BBC Radio 4's More or Less, focusing almost entirely on the negative views of pheasant releasing – despite explicitly stating that it’s ‘rigorously neutral’ on the matter.

One of the replacement General Licences, issued by Natural England in April to protect livestock, is facing a potential legal challenge (General Licence WML - GL26).

The Welsh environment minister, Hannah Blythyn, cancelled her meeting with the GWCT only days after we published a poll which revealed 61% of the Welsh public thought she was wrong to end pheasant shooting on some of their land.

This was odd because only months ago she wrote to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) stating that the Welsh Government policy on firearms must take into consideration public opinion here. Her office stated that since some organisations (not the GWCT) are taking her decision to court she can’t talk to anyone...

A new independent survey reveals Welsh Environment Minister Hannah Blythyn was wrong to end pheasant shooting on Welsh government land and to go against the recommendation of the government body paid to advise her on the environment. 

Andrew Gilruth examines the Natural Resources Wales review into the use of firearms on their land and the decisive intervention from the Welsh Minister for Environment.