By Andrew Gilruth, GWCT Membership & Communications Director
The muddled campaigning company, led by Chris Packham, has got itself so confused it asked the GWCT for help last week. However, it swiftly changed its mind after we recommended in this blog that it should start following the science and take a proportionate view of the risk.
What is Wild Justice’s problem with the science?
The Natural England and GWCT scientific reviews draw evidence together, but they are not supposed to make management recommendations. In fact, NE specifically asked GWCT and the University of Exeter not to include management recommendations in the scientific review that they commissioned. This subtle but important point is one Wild Justice does not seem to understand. Rather, it has fallen into the trap of believing that is what scientific reviews are supposed to do.
As with COVID-19, the available science can inform but not make decisions. In a perfect world, research would provide decision makers with all the information about every possible scenario. We rarely have such a luxury. The real world is complex and nuanced. The GWCT advisory service recognise this and use the best available science and practical experience to work with game managers to minimise negative environmental impacts and maximise the significant positive environmental benefits that can arise on well-managed shoots.
What is its problem with risk?
Last month Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, gave a speech about environmental regulation in which he said “good regulation is not about eliminating risk”. He recognises, unlike Wild Justice, that almost all worthwhile activities carry some risk, and most risks can never be removed entirely. As a result, we should manage and reduce risk. Finally, regulation “needs to be proportionate”. These are points the GWCT supports but ones Wild Justice appears unwilling to countenance.
How has its thinking become so muddled?
When Defra reviewed licences to control pest bird species, Wild Justice took an extreme position. It said where there is insufficient scientific evidence that pest birds are causing harm, Defra must assume no harm is being done. Now, in relation to the releasing of gamebirds, Wild Justice is saying the complete opposite: if there is no evidence to demonstrate no harm, Defra must assume harm. Unsurprisingly, Defra has rejected both extreme positions.
What has Wild Justice said since?
For daring to write a blog pointing out there is simply no evidence to support its extreme policies, it has reacted with fury here. Ironically, on the same day Baroness Stowell, the outgoing head of the Charity Commission, said that “a culture of outrage and judgement” was placing charities under more pressure than ever before. As a charity, the GWCT acts in the public interest – not the interest of the three friends that form Wild Justice. They may not like it, but that is the law.
Where is the wildlife in all this?
Wild Justice still appears unwilling to recognise that removing the benefits of game management, as explained in the scientific reviews, could be damaging. We have seen the same approach used with the licences to control pest bird species. For two years they have failed to answer a simple question now being regularly asked on social media: if the populations of pest species locally increase, do they think this will benefit or hinder the species that are struggling to produce sufficient young? The answer is complex and nuanced – like most things in the real world.