Open Season for Woodcock

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting my spelling, punctuation and grammar—it is always good, as a teacher, to be clued up on these things, and I have shown that I need to go back to school quite urgently.

I also want to put across the point made to me: actually, we would have expected a much sharper decline in the use of lead shot. Although the RSPB will accept that, to a certain extent, because of covid and lockdown there will obviously be lead shot that still needs to be got rid of—that process will have slowed down—the reality is that it would still have expected a much more drastic reduction than the 0.5% that we have seen. It would argue that the point proves that voluntary restraint is not actually being taken very seriously by those participating. That is why the concern for the woodcock is shared by Wild Justice, which would argue that despite the informal agreement, it has not been carried forward. In fact, in the Shooting Times there has been open bragging about the shooting of woodcock outside of the agreed season, which would lean into this idea that there is currently mistrust in the system, sadly.

The RSPB argues that the lead ammunition survey makes it clear that voluntary restraint is ineffective on this issue and therefore statutory measures must be enforced to protect the woodcock. In addition to the lead ammunition survey, another indicator of the shooting communities’ reluctance to co-operate in voluntary restraint is the article in the Shooting Times, dated 25 January 2023. It clearly celebrates hunters celebrating the woodcock that they have shot in mid-November. Woodcock shooting days are even now advertised online for dates before December. That suggests that there is compelling evidence that woodcock shooting is not voluntarily withheld until December. For the RSPB, it shows that there is a partial or incomplete understanding of when the appropriate time to shoot is.

This is an important point of discussion, as we have already seen. One of the key arguments against a ban, made by those who support shooting, is that the principle of voluntary restraint means that any statutory ban is unnecessary. However, as the lead ammunition survey shows, there is little evidence to suggest that shooting organisations keep to their promises and restrain themselves from shooting woodcock.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group on lead ammunition, which I co-chair; he would be very welcome to join that group to pursue that angle.

On whether a voluntary approach is good enough, if the shooting organisations accept that there should not be shooting out of season, surely the underlying principle that shooting woodcock before 1 December is wrong has been established, so I do not understand what their objection would be if it were outlawed. I have not expressed that very coherently, but if they have accepted that it is wrong, I do not understand why they feel that it should be allowed to go ahead if people feel like it.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fine work in the APPG on lead ammunition. She hits the nail on the head when it comes to Mark, Chris and Ruth’s viewpoint: ultimately, there is already an voluntary agreement in place, which is agreed by all parties, so why would there be any objection to statutory enforcement of the shooting season?

Ultimately, everyone agrees that the woodcock needs to be removed from the red list and that we need to see population growth come back, especially as we are working towards rewilding, improving our nature and landscape, and making sure that we look after British species and see them repopulate. Ultimately, there is a win for everyone in this regard, and I completely concur with the hon. Lady. To me, her argument seems reasonable. As someone who is not a shooter, who represents an urban constituency and who did not know about woodcock until I volunteered to take on this debate, it seems like plain common sense. That is my personal opinion, but I want to make sure that I outline the opposition to the petition, because I am grateful to those who were willing to give their time to argue against it, but who obviously do not have the privilege of standing here today.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the GWCT and the Countryside Alliance argue that climate change, natural habitats and deer population are the main reasons for the decline in woodcock. The British Trust for Ornithology largely agrees with that interpretation, saying that

“reasons for the decline are unclear but may include recreational disturbance, drying out of woodlands, increased browsing by deer, declining woodland management, and maturing of new plantations.”

To the shooting organisations, this means that it is highly unlikely that a statutory change will make any real difference.

The BASC argues that there is no evidence that shooting is responsible for either breeding range or population declines, and it refutes Wild Justice’s notion that shooting is the primary factor in the woodcock population’s struggle. The BASC argues that Wild Justice is wrong to claim that around 160,000 woodcock are shot each year. It says that that figure is based on the Value of Shooting survey from 2014, reflecting a bag estimate from 2012, and that, rather than focusing on Wild Justice’s figure, we should look to the 2022 Value of Shooting survey, due to be published later this year. All indicators point to a significantly lower figure almost a decade on, and all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of these birds come from the over-wintering migrant population, which is healthy and not threatened.

Of course, we must also consider voluntary restraint from the perspective of those who endorse it. Most shooters already act responsibly and do not start shooting woodcock until later in the season, when more birds have migrated from the continent, which helps to protect the vulnerable UK population. Additionally, many shoots explicitly forbid the shooting of woodcock, as they are aware of the vulnerability of the UK breeding population. Although there are examples of voluntary restraint not being followed, pro-shooting organisations argue that there is a minuscule number of breaches of the rules, which we must weigh up when coming to conclusions on this issue.

It is important to stress that shooters argue robustly that they have deep respect for the magnificent species that we are discussing today, and shooters provide invaluable conservation work in the form of research and improvements to the habitat for both migratory and resident woodcock all over the UK. I represent 676 members of the BASC, and I have no doubt that they are dedicated to preserving this bird. Their argument is simple: to best protect woodcock, it is more beneficial to address environmental problems. Furthermore, the GWCT points out that a statutory change to the woodcock shooting season fails to consider geographical nuances—for example, there are no native woodcock in the south-west and Wales. Therefore, should a woodcock be shot in one of those areas in mid-November, it would almost certainly be a foreign bird, especially given that native woodcock typically stay within a 30-mile radius throughout the year.

I have held discussions with Andrew Hoodless from the GWCT, who believes that Wild Justice’s focus on shooting risks taking the focus away from the real issues facing our native breeding woodcock and could disincentivise the active management of woodlands, which is what woodcock actually need. The GWCT argues strongly that Wild Justice has failed to consider some of the nuances involved in the debate on this subject; it believes that it would be more appropriate to consider a change to the shooting season when the results of the national breeding woodcock survey—to be repeated in 2023, 10 years after the last survey—are known.

The GWCT argues that to address breeding woodcock decline, a change to the shooting season should be considered as part of a package of measures, including targeted woodland management incentives, which would also benefit certain other declining woodland birds and butterflies. The argument is that Wild Justice is missing the point through its failure to properly acknowledge the significant impact of the change in habitat and that it is using shooting to score political points. Wild Justice has stated that it would like to see an outright ban on woodcock shooting, and pro-shooting organisations have argued that it is using the current proposed change to the start of the season as a test of the Government’s commitment to wildlife conservation.

The Countryside Alliance argues that the primary reasons for the decline in woodcock include the maturing of conifer plantations and changes to management practices, such as coppicing, which means there is a reduced, less diverse shrub layer and a loss of open space for woodcock to breed in. One of the Countryside Alliance’s main arguments centres on the need to dedicate focus on local deer populations. It points to a study that vividly illustrates the demonstrable impact that browsing by deer can have in the habitat that woodcock live in. The Countryside Alliance feels that parliamentary time would be best suited to debating sustainable deer management or the impact that habitat degradation has on the native woodcock population and wider biodiversity.

Lastly, I will outline the importance that shooting has to the economy of our United Kingdom. Research from shooting organisations suggests that shooting contributes £2.4 billion to the UK economy. Crucially, people who shoot contribute around 3.9 million working days on conservation every year. It is game shoots on farms and estates that create the revenue and the reason to invest in creating and caring for the biodiverse habitats that benefit woodcock and many other species. That would not be the case if the land was used for commercial farming. The combination of managed woodland, predator control and biodiverse habitats is the secret to a healthy woodcock population, not the changing of the shooting season.

It has been immensely interesting to hear other points of view, and it will be fantastic to see colleagues in the Chamber representing different perspectives. I appreciate Members’ willingness to contribute to this timely debate. Before I conclude, I will quickly offer my own view on the matter. Given that there is already pre-agreement between those who shoot and those, such as Wild Justice, who want to see conservation work, I do not see why we cannot come to a statutory agreement that the shooting season should take place from 1 December. When a bird is placed on the red list and is in decline, it is the responsibility of UK law makers to ensure we protect and preserve those animals, allowing them to repopulate as quickly as possible. Then, when the bird is moved off the red list, we can have an open conversation about whether to change the shooting season back to the current informal agreement.

The preservation of our wildlife is really important to my constituents. Although my constituency is in a city, it is one of the greenest cities in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to represent it. I hope that I have done justice to the petitioners in putting their views across, as well as being fair and balanced to the other side. I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.