9/2/2021

Wild Justice – didn’t like our help!

Chris -packham

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.

Please donate today and help us undertake leading research, challenge misinformation and promote what works

Comments

Packham and his friends

at 9:10 on 10/02/2021 by William Higgins

Firstly, well done to GWCT for the very measured and scientifically researched arguments made. This has indeed shown up Packham and his friends to be be illogical, extreme and wrong. It also displays a prejudice against most of the countryside community and those interested in enjoying outdòor recreation. As highlighted, of course balance is the sensible course and sensible regulation to ensure predator birds do not decimate other species and that quantities of game birds also do not cause imbalance and undue harm. Packham seems against any killing of birds. But he does not consider the lives and the poor environment of the many millions of chickens. So where is his logic? And this reveals his anti-countryside sports prejudice and his keenness to destroy a sustainable way of life that has existed for centuries. Packham therefore ignores balance and reveals himself to be imbalanced.

Wild Justice

at 21:33 on 09/02/2021 by Stephen Norris

As others have so eloquently pointed out, if it doesn't fit with their agenda they dismiss out of hand. An excellent example of this occurred not long ago when Chris Packham disagreed with a report that recognised the benefits of predator control through Game Keeping, for ground nesting birds. This report was written and published by the RSPB. You can't negotiate with extremists.

The ever more curious approach from Wild Justice.

at 19:30 on 09/02/2021 by Alec Swan

I wonder if I'm alone in questioning the principles and the honesty attached to the claims made by not just Chris Packham but by his satellites. When we consider the Wild Justice (WJ) continual drive for small and seemingly insignificant victories, is it not starting to dawn on us that the reality of their ambitions isn't, as is claimed, the protection of our environment and the wildlife within, but more likely the desire to affect control. Let us consider the drive to enplace those local Government Officers who will be responsible for issuing the WJ planned for licensing of our Grouse Moor management protocols - - 'all that you need to do is agree to licences' - - a tightening of the control screw. If we consider the promoted charters of Revive - The LACS - WJ - and Raptor Persecution UK - they all, every one of them are claiming political allegiance and to a change which will foster an all controlling Orwellian painted picture. Regardless of our political allegiances - assuming that we have them - to have a total and suffocating level of local Government control over our wildlife management protocols, none of which have any support based upon experience or reality, would have these offices who are answerable to no one, affecting sweeping and hugely damaging changes, and without ANY level of accountability. …….. Put simply, in 10 years time "I'm sorry, we got it wrong" will not be an acceptable answer but it is without question, the reality.

Request for help

at 18:09 on 09/02/2021 by Simon Kibble

I find it very puzzling to see the Gwct Being asked by wild justice for help in the first instance. My intial thought of smelling a rat came to mind but knowing the trusts credentials with regards to responsing i had every faith in them . Without knowing the level of asking i now see from the article that the tact has changed. Perhaps its a case of wildjustice only hear what they want to hear . And as this is ususlly the case with any anyshooting stance im pleased to see reference is made to what the science says . I myself use this route on each and every occasssion when up agsinst those blinkered opions. The more this is pressed home the better.

wild justice

at 17:31 on 09/02/2021 by Stewart Hughes

If the goverment set up a agency with RSPB to cull areas that have to many birds of prey and natural balance out the bird population we may see more song birds in our gardens. This way it bypasses wild justice and eliminates the continual threat of packham and co.

Wild justices contribution to wildlife conservation

at 13:56 on 09/02/2021 by Mark yorke

One wonders what positive contribution wild justice and it's supporters make to wildlife conservation and of endangered species in particular? Are their "members "made aware of both sides of an argument or discussion ?

Wild Justice

at 13:30 on 09/02/2021 by Nick van Zwanenberg

Like all bullies Wild justice is saying that they must be right and everyone else is wrong. (Shades of a ccertain Mr Trump across the pond. and Andrew Wakefiled in the 1980's with the MMR vaccine) Reason and sense does not come into it. What is good for the natural world is immaterial. This is wild justice doing much the same thing Spouting cod-science for their own ends.. One wonders who is paying these people to spread this nonsense.

Wild Justice

at 12:00 on 09/02/2021 by David White

Just read their response by following the link in your blog "Wild Justice - didn't like our help". It seemed practically illiterate.

Make a comment