Game shooting in the UK under threat as never before

Adrian Blackmore explores how game shooting is under threat and why the Alliance will continue to campaign for the protection of land and livelihoods.

Game shooting in the UK is under threat as never before. Forget the fact that it is worth £2 billion to the UK economy and is the main economic driver for numerous rural communities. Ignore the fact that £250 million is spent on conservation each year – a significant amount when compared with the £46.6 million the RSPB spent on managing all its nature reserves last year and making it the largest contribution to conservation in England and Wales. Overlook the fact that of the 14 million hectares over which those that provide shooting have management responsibilities, active shoot management is undertaken on some two million hectares. That represents 12% of the UK’s rural land, which is more than 10 times the total area of all national and local nature reserves. 

Dismissing these enormously important environmental, economic and social benefits of shooting is what UK governments are increasingly being urged to do, despite all the objective evidence in its favour. This is because of a moral objection to game shooting as a whole, with anti-shooting activists tapping into an instinctive discomfort with any activity in which an animal dies amongst an increasingly urbanised population. As a result, politics is increasingly governed by perception and emotion, regardless of the consequences. Consequences that many politicians and NGOs appear to be unable to understand, or the impact of which they simply do not care about. Either is as worrying as the other, and it is essential that we do everything in our power to ensure that a proportionate and evidence-based approach is taken when addressing issues, and that unsubstantiated and misleading claims are robustly challenged. 

The forthcoming General Election is likely to result in a change of government. Nobody should underestimate the influence of policy developments and legislation both in Scotland and Wales, and a look at Labour in Wales could give us a pretty good idea of what we may face from a future Labour UK government. The Welsh Government has already banned game shooting on its own land, has voted in favour of an outright ban on snaring, and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has now advised Welsh Ministers to add common pheasant and red-legged partridge to schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, putting them on a par with invasive non-native species. This means the release of these species in Wales would be illegal, unless carried out under licence issued by NRW; licences that could be suspended or refused at any time. The proposed licensing approach would be proportionate if evidence-based and proven to be necessary, but currently it is neither. Indeed, the proposal could undermine the land management and conservation work undertaken by shoots that is so vital to delivering the Welsh Government’s environmental targets and obligations. 

In Scotland, the Scottish Government has introduced the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill which, if passed, would make the shooting of red grouse illegal unless licensed. This proposal would apply to anyone, anywhere in Scotland, who wished to shoot a grouse and it goes way beyond the licensing of grouse moors that was proposed in the Werritty report. As with NRW’s proposal to license the release of gamebirds, it is one that could have an enormous impact on rural economies, businesses and wildlife and biodiversity. 

Unsurprisingly, the RSPB is actively supporting the Scottish Government’s proposal and is also calling for the introduction of licensing in England. This call has been made on the findings of a recently published report into the economic and social impacts of future options for grouse moor management that was commissioned by the RSPB. A report that contains speculative, unscientific and misleading claims; is selective in the research chosen to ensure it reinforces its chosen position; and which was not updated prior to its publication in order to include important research published at the beginning of the year. Although it is a report that is insufficiently robust on which to make policy decisions, this is what the RSPB is doing. 

Ignoring or being ignorant of available evidence in order to drive a politically driven agenda is not just the premise of organisations such as the RSPB. Defra’s last-minute announcement that Special Protection Areas (SPAs) were to be removed from General Licence 43 (GL43) – with those wishing to release gamebirds on or within 500m of the boundaries of those sites having to apply for an Individual Licence – was made on advice it had received from Natural England. That advice appears to have been largely influenced by a Risk Assessment published in December 2022, the uncertainty of which Defra acknowledged at the time due to the limited data available and the reliance on assumptions. For Natural England to have used it as the basis of its advice to remove SPAs from GL43 is astounding, as too was the intentional lack of engagement with game and wildlife managers or specialist vets when producing their advice, choosing instead to use ‘in house’ experts. A looming animal welfare crisis, the potential economic collapse of a wide range of rural businesses and a devastating impact on the livelihoods of many, have been the result. 

Unfortunately, we can expect shooting in all its forms to face continuing hostile or restrictive legislation, whether it is with regard to: heather burning; firearms licensing, where full cost recovery of fees is a real possibility; game farming and the use of laying units; or the use of medicated grit and antibiotics. Increasing judicial activism has resulted in Defra and Natural England becoming increasingly cautious, but they need to be aware that they are under legal scrutiny not just by the opponents of shooting but also by those who manage the land and whose livelihoods are dependent on it. The threats are only too real and the Countryside Alliance will continue to be at the forefront of challenging them in Westminster, across the devolved administrations, in the media and on the ground.