Read on Twitter
CP: "When you’re asking people who have been doing something unregulated for a long time to change what they’re doing, they will obviously feel it is an injustice... They have what we call perceived rights, but... if they are illegal, then they must be stopped.” https://twitter.com/phoeb0/status/1361268093994033159
Lots of criticism of @WildJustice_org flying around today, much linked to @ShootingTimes's revelation that defending one case cost taxpayers £120,000, money critics say could have been better spent on "proper" conservation. But what is proper conservation?
Many might prefer conservationists stuck to putting up nest boxes and feeding birds in tiny reserves, but driving landscape scale changes, as are needed to halt ongoing biodiversity loss, will continue to require political campaigning supported by the threat of legal action.
This is a tool that really works, and is already being copied as @treesforlifeuk take the Scottish Govt to task over beavers, and others tackle Govt over climate inaction. That is why WJ are provoking so much criticism. Because after they laugh at you, before you win, they fight.
Of course, driving cultural change cannot all be done through the courts. Changing attitudes has to be tackled on the ground by winning hearts and minds too. Arguably WJ are losing this battle. But is that their role? They are disruptors, provoking debate where there was none.
For thanks, WJ receives a torrent of intimidation, abuse and ignorant speculation as to their motives. This is petty, nasty & ultimately counter-productive. It certainly doesn't discourage WJ and only deepens divides. Argue against their cases if you want, but don't get personal.