Defra refuses demands by gamebird shooting industry to extend the Call for Evidence

As I hope you’re all aware, last month Defra launched a Call for Evidence on all aspects of gamebird rearing, releasing and shooting in England, with a view to using this evidence to inform potential policy changes, which may include the introduction of a licensing scheme for shooting Red Grouse, Pheasants, Red-legged Partridges and Mallards.

We can have a long argument about the pitfalls and merits of a licensing scheme as opposed to introducing a ban, but that’s for another day. The most important thing right now is to get the evidence in to Defra, because without that, there won’t be any policy change at all.

The gamebird shooting industry has been rallying its troops to submit evidence – although its definition of ‘evidence’ is not quite what Defra has asked for. For example, I watched a short video on social media the other day by someone called Tarquin Millington-Drake, who likes shooting grouse. Tarquin was urging his followers to respond to Defra’s Call for Evidence, as follows:

“So I’ve done the Defra thing, and it’s a bit scary because it goes, ‘What evidence is there?’. All the questions are, ‘What evidence is there?’ So you’ve just got to ignore that, and just say what you think. And I haven’t answered the questions on game-rearing because I’m not a game-rearing expert, but, erm, you’ve got to ignore, you’ve got to translate in your mind what evidence is there, to what’s your opinion, basically“.

Whilst Defra has said the Call for Evidence is open to everyone to respond, and every submission will be read, I’m pretty sure it won’t place much value on people’s opinions – it’s called a ‘Call for Evidence’ for a reason; it’s not called a ‘Call for Opinions’ – that will come later in Defra’s public consultation on any policy changes it proposes after reviewing the evidence submitted in the current ‘Call for Evidence’.

Defra has stated: ‘We welcome a range of evidence types, including peer‑reviewed research, grey literature (e.g. research reports, working papers, NGO reports), official statistics, evaluation studies, monitoring data, and well-documented operational or experiential evidence. While all submissions to this call for evidence will be considered, greater weight will be given to evidence that demonstrates a transparent and verifiable evidence trail, provides relevant context for the evidence submitted, and includes clear rationales for any conclusions or observations, with links to the evidence provided where possible. Where possible, respondents should provide sources, methodologies, and any limitations of the evidence submitted. Submissions should provide sufficient detail on methods, context (including timeframes) and limitations to enable appropriate assessment’.

It’s clear that the gamebird shooting organisations are terrified at the prospect of the Call for Evidence. And so they should be. There is plenty of peer-reviewed scientific evidence out there to demonstrate the damage caused by gamebird shooting, not least its direct link to illegal raptor persecution, but there are plenty of other issues, too, all exposed in the scientific literature.

This time, the shooting industry can’t rely on its mates in Parliament to stand up in Westminster Hall and claim that ‘Gamekeepers are not the enemy of the Hen Harrier; they are its strongest ally in the uplands‘, as Greg Smith MP (Conservatives) laughingly stated in the most recent debate about banning driven grouse shooting. That level of idiocy went unchallenged in the debate, but it shouldn’t wash as part of a formal evidence review.

We can see just how terrified the shooting industry is about the Call for Evidence by a couple of recent blogs published by two prominent shooting organisations.

Yesterday, BASC revealed that its lawyers had written to Defra in September, requesting a six-week extension to the Call for Evidence deadline. BASC had argued that two months was not sufficient time for its members to submit their evidence. Defra rejected the request and told BASC that it thought the current two-month window was “reasonable and proportionate” (see here).

Not to be outdone, a consortium of shooting organisations, mostly from Scotland but also including the Moorland Association and the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) in England, have also written to Defra, asking for the deadline to be extended until 30 April 2027, almost eight months after the Call for Evidence was launched! Given Defra’s response to BASC, Defra’s response should be predictable.

If you haven’t yet submitted your evidence to Defra, please consider doing so – you’ll find some helpful advice on Wild Justice’s website, here.