A ban through the back door?

While the Government has 'no agenda' to ban shooting, restrictions on game management activities are threatening the conservation benefits our sport delivers.

- Dr Alastair Leake

WITH PUBLIC finances deteriorating the Government is increasingly looking at other ways to fund nature recovery. One option is accessing money through natural capital trading, including ‘biodiversity net gain’, ‘nutrient neutrality’ and opportunities to trade carbon. However, in this clamour for new sources of private finance, the Government risks overlooking one of the most significant existing contributors to nature conservation and one that has been with us for centuries: land management for sporting interests.

Thirty-three years ago, when the GWCT inherited the 800-acre Loddington estate from the late Lord and Lady Allerton, it did not turn to the public purse to fund the introduction of environmental measures but rather initiated a privately funded pheasant shoot. Instead of just recording the gamebird bag this yielded, the GWCT counted the songbirds too, and within just three years these figures had doubled: something not recorded ever before or indeed since. If we think about the number of existing shoots around the country that are using at least some of the same game management techniques employed at Loddington (and consider the findings of the annual Big Farmland Bird Count, where we separate the results based on whether or not the land has game management interests), it is clear that nationally songbird numbers are already being increased by the activities of game managers.