Should shoots be more heavily scrutinised?
“It is surely time to look more closely at the release of such huge numbers of non-native birds and to subject those who release them to effective regulation,” says Martin Harper of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The GWCT also offers a best practice code on its website (gwct.org.uk), which most observers agree is useful and sensible. This includes advice that shoots should be able to demonstrate that they do not significantly damage woodland flora and fauna. The concern of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) is that this guidance is advisory rather than compulsory.
The Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust points out that many species are subject to strict regulation before they are introduced into the countryside. Its own sand lizard reintroduction policy (the reptile has declined by 80% over the past century) is subject to such scrutiny. “We have to go through a rigorous process to justify their release, from agreements with landowners to risk assessments. Pheasants don’t have the same level of scrutiny,” says Jim Foster. “It’s not clear to us that Natural England and others take into account the presence of important reptile populations when pheasants are released.”
“It would be a major starting point to know how many pheasants are released and where this happens,” says Dr Pringle of the BTO, who believes gamekeepers and breeders should be legally required to report how many birds they released.