Shooting ban proves government is biased
Shooting is an activity that can divide opinion, but whether you support the merits of it or not it’s importance to the rural economy across Wales cannot be overstated.
As many people will be aware, Natural Resources Wales recently made the decision to ban pheasant shooting on public land in Wales. This was done after receiving a ‘clear steer’ from the Welsh Labour Government on the direction it wanted NRW to take.
It was taken contrary to evidence and lacks any scientific basis, a view substantiated by a £45k taxpayer-funded report that stated there was no requirement to change existing laws.
Ironically, this report was undertaken by Natural Resources Wales.
Instead, the motivations behind the decision are purely political, driven by the ‘left’. It will remove a vitally important income source for businesses and individuals, as well as the conservation practices supported by the shooting community, hurting rural Wales.
This intervention is particularly damning given the Welsh Labour Government’s repeated failure to intervene on other significant issues such as nuclear mud dumping off the coast of Penarth in South Wales.
Labour Ministers have failed to provide any satisfactory answers or reasoning for the decision, simply reinforcing the view that the Welsh Labour Government only listens to science when it suits them.
We shouldn’t forget that rural communities in Mid Wales do have a voice at the cabinet table in Liberal Democrat and Brecon and Radnor AM Kirsty Williams.
It’s time she used her influence to demand the Welsh Labour Government and NRW revisit this decision before vital jobs are lost within the rural economy.
Andrew RT Davies AM, Welsh Conservative Shadow Environment and Rural Affairs Secretary
Send us your letters for publication:
Email us at starmail@shropshirestar.co.uk or write to: Readers’ Letters, Shropshire Star, Ketley, Telford, TF1 5HU. Letters MUST include the writer’s name, address and telephone number. Letters will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.
