Game theory

Wild Justice has turned its attention to the release of gamebirds. Patrick Hook addresses the salient issues with regard to predators

- PATRICK HOOK

Wild Justice recently announced that it was seeking a judicial review over the release of game birds, specifically, pheasants and red-legged partridges, which it wants stopped. Its argument is that these birds not only consume things that we don’t want them to eat, such as invertebrates, reptiles and vegetation, but that their droppings upset the chemistry of the environment. Further to this, it says that the birds attract predators that then also kill other wildlife, and that the Government has failed to act to prevent all of this, especially where Natura 2000 sites are concerned.

The first question I had to ask myself was what exactly were the Natura 2000 sites? It transpires that they’re composed of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas as designated under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. As these are pieces of EU law, I admit to wondering whether they are even valid since the UK has left the European Union. I’m not a lawyer though, so I will leave that to the legal experts.

While I can see that gamebirds could be responsible for eating the aforesaid organisms and producing unexpected levels of fertiliser, this is very much an evidence-based matter. In other words, without having demonstrable scientific data on hand, you can’t prove anything either way.

Wild Justice claims that the Government hasn’t done anything about gamebird release, but ignores the fact that before it can act, it needs to establish the precise situation. In order to do this, it must first get its scientists to collate all the relevant data, and that is not a trivial matter. Lots of sites spread across the country need to be monitored for a significant period of time – and that cannot be rushed simply to mollify a few rabble-rousers.