Wild Justice asks GWCT for help

Cock with five hens

Wild Justice, the campaigning company led by Chris Packham, is now in such a muddle it has asked the GWCT for help.

The knot it has tied itself in started two years ago. Then it was criticising the General Licences used to control pest bird species to protect the nests of other bird species, farmers crops or livestock. It argued that where there was no scientific proof of damage, it should be assumed there is no damage at all. That argument did not land well with farmers when lambs were left with their eyes pecked out by crows.

Releasing for shooting and the proposed 500m buffer

When it came to releasing pheasants on or near sites with a European level of protection (see our blog here) it argued the other way around. It claimed that if there is no scientific proof of no harm, it should be assumed there is damage.

Just think about that. Most things in the countryside, and society at large, would have to stop if we were to apply this rule. Despite its new logic being obviously flawed, the group demanded that, on this basis, there must be no releasing of gamebirds for shooting within 5km of a European protected site.

Did Defra agree?

No, it didn’t. Releasing and managing game can continue in these areas. However, Defra will soon consult on an appropriate interim general licensing system for releasing on or within 500m of one of these sites.

Why has Wild Justice asked for help?

Having failed to win the legal argument that releasing should be banned up to 5km from protected sites, it changed direction again. This time it decided to criticise the idea of allowing releasing withing the proposed 500m buffer – it claims it is “not based on science” and it would appreciate a little GWCT help on this.

It’s an unexpected request considering it’s barely six months since one of its team was hoping the GWCT might soon be going bust. Luckily, our members stood by us last year, and as a charity will continue to help all those wishing to understand the science.

What do the scientific reviews say about impacts and the 500m buffer?

There have been three reviews. One by Natural England, which we have written about before, one by the GWCT, and the other by the RSPB. All three looked at positive and negative impacts. Looking at the direct negative impacts of releasing, these can occur at or adjacent to release pens or other places where birds congregate at high densities. There is evidence on this for soils, woodland ground flora, hedgerow flora, and for insects.

The science and the reviews also indicate that no, or very little, direct impact of releasing occurs beyond these areas. There are several relevant studies, on insects for example, that included protected sites. There are plausible indirect effects identified in the reviews, in particular possible disease issues and predation caused by excess predators.

These complicated processes need to be investigated properly in the context of other land management activities. Currently there is no good evidence that they are significantly damaging to habitats or wildlife within or beyond the release area.

The data referred to in the Natural England review also suggest that on average the density of released pheasants at 1km or so away from release points becomes vanishingly small. We should also take account of the fact that the main role of a game manager is to keep released birds in the vicinity of release areas, game crops and feeding points.

500m is not explicitly discussed in the review, but it is not difficult to make inference from the available data and other information. For example, Natural England will know that the releasing and driving of pheasants for shooting tends to operate at the scale of a few hundred metres. Game crops, from which birds are driven over guns back to release pens or to other game crops, are usually considerably less than 500m apart.

So why did Defra choose 500m?

As far as we can tell, the 500m recommendation made by Natural England to Defra is based on several factors:

  • its reasonable interpretation of the impacts in the available scientific evidence (as described in the reviews).
  • its wider experience of dealing with wildlife impacts alongside, for example development.
  • its understanding of dispersal and of how shoots actually work
  • coupled with, in our view, an over-precautionary approach.

Does the GWCT feel 500m is appropriate?

Based on the same evidence and the other considerations, the GWCT suggests that 500m is over-precautious. It would be more appropriate to focus on adherence to the GWCT’s sustainable releasing guidelines, coupled with a site-based knowledge approach that accounts for potential conflicts on or adjacent to protected sites.

Was the Wild Justice recommendation of 5km based on science?

No. It produced its figure:

  • without any scientific backing (this figure is not supported by any science at all).
  • with no apparent sector or other expert consultation.
  • no scientific information on dispersal of released game.
  • a poor understanding of the releasing shooting system.

Could Wild Justice’s recommendation be damaging?

Yes. Such an uninformed approach can lead to inappropriate and possibly damaging management recommendations. For example, by curtailing the potential biodiversity benefits that game management can deliver.

Footnote 1: There are a range of positive and negative effects of releasing for shooting that tend to balance each other numerically. These are described in detail in the Natural England review and in summary in the GWCT review. The GWCT’s Advisory team offers a biodiversity assessment service to help shoots to make an even more positive contribution to wildlife and conservation.

Footnote 2: For those wishing to check if they have a European Protected Site within 500m of one of their release pens, we have provided a guide on how to access the online Defra mapping tool for FREE here.

Please donate today and help us undertake leading research, challenge misinformation and promote what works



at 17:09 on 06/02/2021 by David Palmer

The fact Wild Justice recognises that the work undertaken by CWGT provides a sense check to ill informed one dimensional views about activities aiming to deliver a balance in the countryside is a credit to your organisation.


at 8:50 on 06/02/2021 by Johnny Bluck

Keep up the excellent work you are doing on behalf of game shooting

Wild Justice

at 22:23 on 05/02/2021 by Andrew Price

Packham and co in all their disguises are driven to stop shooting by whatever direct or indirect method. we all know that but let’s never forget. Packham in particular is a master of playing to a skilfully targeted audience who worship the ground he walks on and hang on his every word and I am afraid there are more believers in towns and cities than those who really know how the countryside has to be managed 10 out of 10 Packham but that’s all he has in his tank. In my professional career a lot of my work was evidence based and if I knew someone was wrong they were told so,it wasn’t a case of appeasement or nicely nicely. Packham should not be entertained in the way the article suggests he should be marginalised with good scientific facts but not forgetting the real hard work and graft that our highly skilled land managers have been and continue to put into action. Forget Packham and co promote the true science and hard working people who truly make the countryside what it is. Get the facts out far more to the once a year countryside visitors and armchair nature lovers. I always just say to town people - how do you think that our countryside is as beautiful as it is ? 9 out of 10 can’t answer the question. The science is they haven’t got a clue,and there’s part of the problem The hard working countryside people whatever they do are the future of the countryside not Packham and co.

Challenges facing shooting

at 14:23 on 05/02/2021 by Michael Hill

Defence of shooting must be backed by sound scientific data which is why I have supported GWCT for many years - more than I care to remember!


at 8:36 on 05/02/2021 by Alun Williams

In light for many challenges now facing shooting, every major statement made in its defence must be backed by sound scientific data. In my opinion, the GWCT is the only organisation that is currently able to provide such data and is respected enough that Government ministers are willing to listen and act on the information and recommendations made by the GWCT. Everyone who therefore loves the countryside and country sports must do everything possible to support the GWCT as every contribution, however small, helps.

Make a comment

Cookie Policy

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better online experience. If you continue to use our site without changing your browser settings, we'll assume you are happy to receive cookies. Please read our cookie policy for more information.

Do not show this message again