Shooting Times provides supportive evidence for Wild Justice legal challenge

It’s really generous of the Shooting Times to provide supporting evidence for Wild Justice’s first legal challenge, announced two days ago.

Wild Justice’s first case challenges the casual killing of birds such as Jackdaws and Rooks under a series of General Licences (if you’re unfamiliar with General Licences, Mark Avery has written a useful blog today).

[Jackdaw, by Laurie Campbell]

Some members of the shooting community have been unable to get their heads around the legal challenge, and in amongst their predictable and lamentable personal insults and abuse towards the Wild Justice directors on social media, not many of them have been able to display the tiniest hint of comprehension.

If they’d read the latest edition of Shooting Times though, there’s a perfect example of why the Wild Justice legal challenge is long overdue.

This is p38 and is a regular column written by Liam Bell, chairman of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation:

Who “needs” more shooting?!

And is this so-called “need” sufficient justification to kill birds under the terms of a General Licence? No, it most definitely isn’t, but that is clearly what has been going on, for decades.

Thanks, Shooting Times, for helping to frame the Wild Justice legal challenge so effortlessly.

Some on social media have been accusing the Wild Justice directors of ‘making money’ from this challenge – they seem to struggle with the concept of Wild Justice being a non-profit company. It’s not that hard to grasp, is it?

Others (although often the same!) have accused Wild Justice of wasting public funds by seeking a judicial review – that’ll be the same people who recently supported a judicial review application by the Countryside Alliance, BASC and the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation to contest a decision by Natural Resources Wales to ban pheasant shooting on the Welsh Government Estate! Gosh, the irony! Their application for judicial review was refused (see here).

Meanwhile, 737 fantastic people have contributed to the Wild Justice crowdfunder, raising £18k of the £36k target within 48 hours. That’s a brilliant start. If you’d like to support the legal challenge, please click HERE

Thank you

14 thoughts on “Shooting Times provides supportive evidence for Wild Justice legal challenge”

  1. Dont forget the other article saying now bradford council have pulled the lease on ilkley moor badgers are now increasing. Basically, theyre saying that when gamekeepers were allowed on there were no badgers, what a coincidence!!

  2. I dunno – I feel the legal route should be about species that actually need protecting – at the end of the day Jackdaws et al have never had protection or appear to have ever needed it

    1. It’s at a more fundamental level than that. It’s about statutory authorities abiding by the law that both creates them and delimits their every action. That’s very very important.

    2. Aside from this being a test of statutory law, it’s also pretty callous to class intelligent wildlife as disposable, simply because they aren’t endangered.

    3. Jimmy, I’d like to know in which part of the country you live, because the concept of whether Jackdaws, Rooks and other members of the crow family are doing fine is sheer fantasy. Most of us birdwatchers, no doubt perceived by the shooting community as sentimental twitchers and ‘townies,’ know a hell of a lot more about the pressure these species are under than yo might think. I can only really speak for my own ‘patch,’ the western lowlands of Scotland, but the news I hear from other parts of Scotland is that a clandestine slaughter of Carrion Crows, Rooks, and most shocking of all, Ravens, is insidiously happening widely thanks to gamekeepers feeling picked upon by the likes of RPUK. There is no doubt in my mind, and I have had this confirmed by ignorant enemies of the crows, that Rooks in particular are being targeted almost as a form of revenge against the negative publicity from which the ‘keepers are currently ‘suffering.’ This attitude has been reinforced and encouraged by the formation of the Countryside Alliance. As Regional Bird Recorder for the Clyde area of Scotland, long term censusing of rookeries and Rook/Jackdaw winter roost counts confirm this quite dramatically. Yet my observations of observing the crow family over 55 years have convinced me that shooting these birds is wholly unnecessary and to put it bluntly, sickeningly cruel, especially the blasting of sitting Rooks on their nests. In my mind the entire crow family deserves better protection than we care to deliver in this make believe caring and civilised society, and any ornithologist who thinks otherwise is either bowing to public pressure, or seriously in need of education and enlightenment of the role that crows play in the whole natural scheme of things.

  3. Don’t forget the rookeries that get shot out, simply because some gamekeepers, some farmers, and other equally idiotic people think that they are “crows”, and pose a threat to livestock.

  4. Pledged and shared.

    “We gamekeepers need a break as much as the birds do..”

    Hopefully as the pressure mounts they’ll have a permanent break…

  5. Part of the problem has to be that ‘pigeon shooting’ can be a cover for whatever. Even on the capital city’s Green Belt there can be scattered brown and white striped feathers left near to shooters’ hide after the ‘pigeon shooters’ depart. By great coincidence ‘pigeon shooters’ for years regularly appeared just as the local farmer started harvesting, when buzzards and kestrels were flying high overheard circling the fields- just a stone’s throw from where the eagle disappeared

    1. Interesting comments, and presumably Edinburgh/Lothian – assume you’re aware even feathers would be sufficient to establish a species beyond doubt and hence that a crime has been committed – certainly worth documenting…

  6. just because a species is “doing well” is not a justification to let every moron with a gun the green light to kill it

  7. Who “needs” more shooting?

    That instantly caught my eye. What a peculiar turn of phrase. It sounds akin to junkies “needing” a “fix”.

Leave a reply to Richard Andrews Cancel reply