Law Commission takes aim at multiple wildlife statutes
Wildlife law could be modernised to balance the conflicting priorities of managing wildlife for sport with protecting and conserving it under Law Commission proposals published today.
The aim is to simplify the current legal framework, which includes statues dating back to the 1831 Game Act, by placing all wildlife law into a single statute.
Current wildlife law evolved from measures to regulate hunting, fishing and poaching to enforcing conservation and protection against invasive species. The result is a legal landscape that is out of date, confused and often contradictory, the commission reports. For example the hunting, management and welfare of pheasants is governed by four separate statutes while the principal modern act – the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – has been amended so often that only specialists understand it.
The commission is seeking views on how to place wildlife law into a single statute. The new regime, the Law Commission proposes, should be less dependent on criminal law and instead allow a mix of guidance, advice and civil sanctions, such as fines and bans.
Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner leading the project, said: ‘The law must take into account the competing interests of all parties. With this project, we are seeking to achieve a balance between the needs of those people who want to manage wildlife and those who want to protect it.
‘What we are proposing does not alter the level of protection currently offered to wildlife, but it will help people understand what their obligations and duties are and what they can and cannot do, and ensure they are properly licensed to do it.’
The consultation closes on 30 November.
Comments
wildlife statues and change
I read with interest but with scepticism, that the law on wildlife and its surroundings is outdated? I wonder how many people will see this as a way of bringing hunting of that wildlife to the fore? Legislation for control of animals in the wild should be based on fact and natural selection. The word 'statistics' has an unknown quantity to those that play with profit before life. If it is to be changed, lets be transparent about it and fair?
Wildlife statutes and Change
Such a review is welcome, but not if it is framed in terms of a conflict between wildlife management by the sporting community and wildlife conservation.
It is a fact that those who manage wildlife for sport do so with conservation at the heart of their cause. Human beings are the interfering factor, upsetting the natural balance of preditor and prey and interfering with habitats. Those who manage the land for sport attempt to correct this imbalance by carefully managing numbers, habitat, preditor and prey. If they did not then the countryside would have to rely entirely on charitable organisations to create nature reserves which would STILL have to manage numbers by contraception or culling or both. Sporting estates simply get paying customers to PAY for this conservation work so that the tax-payer and charities don't necessarily have to pay up.
The reason rhinos and elephants in Africa have not been poached to extinction is because the nature reserves in which these animals reside employ active land and wildlife management techniques INCLUDING culling to manage numbers where a natural preditor does not exist. This is in order to preserve the habitat and the natural balance it supports. Eco tourism is a valuable source of inward investment in Africa but this includes tourist paying a fortune to hunt animals which would otherwise have to be culled.
The sooner all parties understand that hunting, other field sports and conservation are inextricably linked to each others mutual benefit, the sooner we can have a rational debate about wildlife legislation and avoid hysteria and misinformation from both sides.
Unfortunately natural
Unfortunately natural selection has little meaning in an environment (rural or urban) that has been changed beyond recognition by the presence and demands of humans. Any effective management of that environment (if the law is consolidated as suggested) must have some mechanism for the humane control of certain species from time to time. By that I don’t mean riding through town and county with red coats and horses! If matters were left purely to 'natural selection' you would have some aggressive/populous species increasing beyond a reasonable level and making life difficult for other species. In short you have to have from time to time human intervention or sensible control in a country such as ours where town and county are often in close proximity.
Of all the hugely important
Of all the hugely important issues current in the field of law, wildlife law isn't one of them.
Which planet are these people from? Do we actually need a Law Commission if this is the quality of its ponderings?
dont knock it...
If they are messing about with wildlife then they leaving personal injury lawyers alone...