Promising woodcock numbers show self-regulation in shooting works

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
A study carried out by BASC and the University of Exeter into the UK’s resident woodcock population has heralded positive results.

Newly published research into the scale of woodcock shooting in the UK has revealed that people who shoot are complying with calls for voluntary restraint. As a result, the outlook for this iconic but threatened species is much improved.

The peer-reviewed study, a collaboration between BASC and the University of Exeter, indicated that nine out of ten people who traditionally shoot woodcock now only do so after 1 December, when the UK resident population is swelled by the influx of migrant birds.

The findings add weight to the argument that self-regulation can be an effective method of improving the sustainability of wild bird harvests.

This result is reflected in annual bag data which shows that, since 2018, as few as 2.2 per cent of woodcock shot were harvested before 1 December. Around a third of people who responded say they have stopped shooting woodcock altogether.

This confirms an overall continuing decline in the numbers of woodcock being shot in the UK. In the last 20 years the numbers fell by around two-thirds. It is likely the woodcock harvest will continue to decline in coming years due to voluntary restraint.

BASC’s deputy director of conservation Dr Matt Ellis said: “The paper used five different data sources, including BASC’s substantial wing survey, and found that more than 90% of shooters complied with the voluntary delay to the season.

“According to GunsOnPegs shoot census data, the vast majority shoot woodcock only when there is a clear understanding of the local population, which indicates that they have a clear understanding of the conservation value of restraint.

“We believe that this shows that honest messaging from trusted brokers can result in successful self-regulation in the shooting community.”

Prof Joah Madden, University of Exeter, said: “This research was only possible thanks to the long-term record keeping by the shooting community and the generosity of so many Guns who kindly shared their shoot cards and game books with us. This gives us robust, long-term data that allows us to ask important questions about game management and wild harvests in the UK.”

Read the paper in full here.
 
I think there is far more chance of someone making the decision for us rather than us putting our own house in order and showing that we follow our own science that we keep banging on about
 
To me its simple then - alter the season and gain the moral high ground too
The current voluntary approach allows flexibility across all parts of the UK - the migratory birds arrive at different times in different places and that varies between years also. Local shoots and shooters make the informed choice when to start shooting.

The GWCT has produced the following advice – much of which is underpinned by science – for shooting woodcock:
  • Avoid shooting woodcock early in the season and refrain from shooting woodcock until the migratory population arrives.
  • Gain an understanding of your local woodcock population.
  • Show restraint even where resident birds are absent.
  • Shoot flightlines with caution.
  • Stop shooting in severe weather.
 
The current voluntary approach allows flexibility across all parts of the UK - the migratory birds arrive at different times in different places and that varies between years also. Local shoots and shooters make the informed choice when to start shooting.

The GWCT has produced the following advice – much of which is underpinned by science – for shooting woodcock:
  • Avoid shooting woodcock early in the season and refrain from shooting woodcock until the migratory population arrives.
  • Gain an understanding of your local woodcock population.
  • Show restraint even where resident birds are absent.
  • Shoot flightlines with caution.
  • Stop shooting in severe weather.

As i say - just advise on moving the season - or ballot members / the community maybe
 
Why is it ok to shoot some others countries woodcock, are they only a threatened species in the U.K.? How do you know if it’s a resident bird or migratory bird when you shoot it? Personally I stoped shooting them at all a few years back.
 
Why is it ok to shoot some others countries woodcock, are they only a threatened species in the U.K.? How do you know if it’s a resident bird or migratory bird when you shoot it? Personally I stoped shooting them at all a few years back.

In fairness there are plenty of migrants - but why risk shooting residents is my point
If we are being told to not shoot until November / December then surely the sensible thing would be to change the date and win some hearts and minds too
 
Although a well intentioned effort by BASC and others together with the lead shot issue isn't it about time that we collectively grew a pair and stopped asking how high every time that Packham and his chums shout jump?
 
Although a well intentioned effort by BASC and others together with the lead shot issue isn't it about time that we collectively grew a pair and stopped asking how high every time that Packham and his chums shout jump?
Spot on. It seems a lot of shoot folk are ashamed of what they do and wont speak up , this is where the battle was lost.
 
In fairness there are plenty of migrants - but why risk shooting residents is my point
If we are being told to not shoot until November / December then surely the sensible thing would be to change the date and win some hearts and minds too
Wouldn't win a single heart and definitely not a single mind. If the situation is good with voluntary restraint, then there is no need to have compulsory legislation. I recognise that most people have lost grip of the following concept, but the proper function of the law is not to act as a registry for virtue signalling, but as the minimal quantity of restriction of liberty necessary to protect society and the environment.
Adding laws for the primary purpose of claiming moral high ground is intrinsically immoral.
 
Wouldn't win a single heart and definitely not a single mind. If the situation is good with voluntary restraint, then there is no need to have compulsory legislation. I recognise that most people have lost grip of the following concept, but the proper function of the law is not to act as a registry for virtue signalling, but as the minimal quantity of restriction of liberty necessary to protect society and the environment.
Adding laws for the primary purpose of claiming moral high ground is intrinsically immoral.

I dont see why not - we always claim to follow the science
 
I have noticed more natives about this year.
It probably due to a restriction in nicitinoids for a few years thats done it, after all the majority of land is not shot over! How come they are assuming its down to restraint in shooting?
Is that not presuming?

I only take a few a season, preferably with a muzzleloader and lead shot.....
 
Back
Top