Protecting Wild Birds Part 2: Flawed Consultation Endangers Wild Birds

It’s no surprise that people are unhappy about the government’s proposals to carry on hunting Red and Amber Listed birds.  Ironically, these proposals appeared in a recent public consultation called Protecting Wild Birds.

For those outraged by these suggestions, you may be interested to know this consultation was a ‘legal requirement’.  The Government cannot change the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 without it.  The question is, have they presented a fair and open-minded consultation?  Or have they just ticked a bureaucratic box, putting its outcome and credibility into question.

The Consultation Objective

The further you get into this consultation, the more the title, “Protecting Wild Birds,” feels like lip service.  The consultation objective is actually ‘sustainable’ shooting.  Not no shooting.  Sustainable shooting prioritises entertainment killing above the protection of individual animal wellbeing.

It’s only when a species is knocking at the door of extinction that the Government proposes solutions to effectively protect these birds.  Let’s be clear, the only effective solution to protect hunted bird species on the UK's Red or Amber lists is no shooting.

Research Underpinning the Consultation

The government’s proposals were partly based on N. J. Aebischer’s research, published in 2019.  The broad nature of which was outstanding, spanning 50 years and covering 30 UK bird species, amongst other animals.  

However, this research relied on information from ‘voluntary bag returns’.  The term ‘bag’ refers to the hunting bags used by hunters to store hunting supplies and animals they have killed.  

For consultation proposals to be reliable, they should not be informed by voluntary data.  This is by definition incomplete.  Or, for that matter, data provided by hunters. The phrase, it’s a bit like asking a turkey to vote for Christmas, springs to mind.

Biased Questions

The biggest issue with the consultation was the wording of the questions.  Which, let's be honest, is a fairly fundamental part.  The government appeared to have a pre-determined belief that less hunting meant protecting wild birds.

Remember the proverb 'look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves?'  Well I believe that effective protection of wildlife should consider the individual animal as well as the species.  Once a person truly cares about an animal, it’s impossible to jeopardise their wellbeing.

As a consequence, I was locked out of a meaningful and authentic contribution to this consultation.  The Government had predetermined a pro-hunting solution.

Let me describe what I mean.  The consultation mostly offered two scenarios for the respondent.  Scenario one suggested taking a bird off Schedule 2.1. This was a clear yes if you really care about protecting birds.  This means they are off the Kill List.

Alternatively, the government proposals were to restrict shooting to a smaller time-frame.  In this scenario, the consultation question would be, “do you agree the close season should be extended?”  The 'no' answer option was both leading and loaded.

Let me explain.  Answering yes implied that you supported hunting, just for less time.  

But answering no, well if I’m generous, it could have two meanings.  It could mean, no, we don’t think these birds need a reduced open season.  In other words, carry on shooting as normal boys!

Or no, we don’t think this solution goes far enough.  However, as the consultation is looking for sustainable hunting solutions, “no” probably meant the bird does not need more protection.

The best case scenario would be to say that the questions were fundamentally flawed.  So, does the consultation bias make this a truly public consultation or has it prevented “intelligent consideration?”  Thus rendering the process unlawful.