Protecting Wild Birds Part 3: Voluntary Shooting Moratoriums - a Lethal Solution
The government proposals in the recent “Protecting Wild Birds” consultation were shocking. So shocking that they actually proposed to continue hunting birds on the Red and Amber List of Conservation Concern. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the consultation mentioned voluntary shooting moratoriums in glowing terms.
What are Voluntary Moratoriums?
Voluntary moratoriums are when hunters voluntarily agree not to kill a particular species of animal. Largely because their numbers are being threatened. This could be due to human factors such as hunting or environmental factors such as ongoing severe weather.
The key issue with voluntary moratoriums is that they are self-regulated initiatives, mostly instigated by shooting organisations. Importantly, they encourage a pause to shooting rather than force a legal stop.
Examples of Voluntary Moratoriums
The ptarmigan and grey partridge are both Red Listed, but neither was included in the Protecting Wild Bird consultation. Sadly, the Scottish government proposed voluntary shooting moratoriums for both species. Citing the “successful” case of the black grouse.
Let’s be clear. It’s been about 25 years since that voluntary moratorium came into effect. Black grouse were a Red Listed species then, and remain one today. Total numbers today actually seem to be lower than they were when the moratorium started.
Not really a success story. NatureScot's review of Schedule 2 is a little more telling, stating that “there are no indications that the existing moratorium is not working effectively.” The art of avoiding the obvious with a word salad.
Voluntary moratoriums are weak mechanisms. So when you hear there are only 720 breeding pairs of Pochard in the UK and 2-4 breeding pairs in Scotland (yes, you heard that right), it is somewhat horrifying to hear this was the solution of choice to protect them in August 2024.
While all 3 countries now recommend removing the pochard from the Kill List, why were legislative solutions not suggested sooner? In what world is 4 breeding pairs the trigger point for this to happen?
Voluntary moratoriums are a despicable insight into the world of pro-hunting power and procrastination.
Why Hunters Would Choose Voluntary Moratoriums
Voluntary moratoriums are regarded as a temporary fix rather than a permanent one. Hunting organisations can reverse them to carry on shooting if bird numbers limp back to acceptable numbers.
Consequently, they prioritise the long-term rights of hunters to carry on killing. It’s this very autonomy that could jeopardise the survival of these birds in perpetuity.
No one wants to be on the receiving end of police enforcement or legal consequences. But that is why they work. And in part, that is why hunters would choose voluntary moratoriums over legislative solutions. This in itself should set off alarm bells.
Goodwill Breakdown
For voluntary moratoriums to be effective, they need a large proportion of the hunting sector to agree to it. That is only likely if a species population is in freefall. Not an ideal starting point for saving a species from extinction.
Of course, the more desperate a species gets, the longer the voluntary moratorium would need to last. But the longer it lasts, the less likely hunters are to abide by it as they lose patience.
As solutions go, voluntary moratoriums require short-term restraint in exchange for a long-term gain. But humans generally favour immediate gratification over delayed gratification. This is referred to as ‘present bias’.
So not shooting birds now so that hunters can shoot them in the future is not necessarily playing to hard-wired human traits. Especially if someone is older and they feel they might not be around for that future gratification.
Why Voluntary Moratoriums Are a Problem
People can and do ignore voluntary moratoriums. As they are self-regulated, it leads to sporadic and inconsistent responses. This problem is different across the different types of hunters.
The regulated hunting organisations in the public eye are held accountable. They will therefore encourage their members to participate in voluntary moratoriums. To do this, they can exert leverage; this can be done via peer pressure, by suspending booking rights or denying membership renewal.
This is not the same for private landowners. They are not held up to public scrutiny or motivated by peer pressure. Police intervention, criminal prosecution and judicial sanctions provide a hard stop for them. But without this, voluntary moratoriums continue to be broken.
The Peace and Panic of the Pause
As a voluntary moratorium deadline approaches, there is the equivalent of a panic buy at the supermarket. With hunters known to employ a shoot them or lose them approach. Thus forcing wild bird populations to spiral closer to extinction.
Hunters should be punished for nudging a species closer to extinction. Instead, voluntary moratoriums are framing “not killing” as a positive action akin to conservation. Let’s get this straight. Not killing wildlife is not a form of conservation.
Voluntary moratoriums can provide a sense of unearned virtue for hunters. They detach hunters from the negative impacts of shooting on wildlife. Instead blaming severe winter weather or disease outbreaks like bird flu. Even when the underlying damage is caused by humans, they still somehow seem to sidestep any blame.
Take the government’s recent “Protecting Wild Birds” consultation. It did not definitively blame hunting for any of these birds' decline. Even though the consultation was about changing the Kill List of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Phrases like “the conservation needs of some species of wild birds”, “the potential impact of hunting”, or “shooting pressure” all pirouetted around the elephant in the room. Whereas, climate change, habitat loss, pollution, and agricultural intensification all got directly blamed.
Take the resident pintail that faces imminent extinction with only 30 breeding pairs in the UK. The government should be taking a definitive stance. Instead, when suggesting their removal from the Kill List, their wording is painfully apologetic.
“The UK government recognises an alternative view however that argues pintail has such a small breeding population in England it should be removed from Schedule 2.1 as a precautionary measure”.
Using the precautionary principle does nothing but shift the focus to doubt. It’s time that hunters accepted moral responsibility. Voluntary moratoriums do not enable that.