The hunting of the woodcock and its future.
Notes on Oncfs Analysis
-
To avoid interpretations, the estimate of the 2013/2014 withdrawals should have been carried out with the two methodology, the old and the new, the components of which are unknown. !
2. It is abnormal, for a species announced by the hunting authorities as the most followed, supervised and protected that there has been no survey on the estimate of the withdrawals at least every five years.
3. The assessment of the Cnb judging the season 2013/2014 Very good (ica 1.73) 736,129 woodcock collected, implies higher withdrawals than those of the 1998/1999 season, qualified as Fairly good (ica 1.28) 1,168,000 woodcock collected .
This observation can only amplify the real drop in levies in fifteen years.
4. The possibility according to which the estimate of the removals 1998/1999, would have been almost done "with a wet finger" as suggested by a friend hunter of Woodcock, cannot be retained. It would call into question the seriousness of the work of the Oncfs network, especially for the season long considered the benchmark for the level of woodcock removals in France (confidence interval 2.3%).
5. The national sample book, for 5 years, despite its high cost 1.7 Million euros, has not allowed still not to know the estimate of the withdrawals! Yet that was his goal, it is simply scandalous!
Therefore, its result could not be compared to the 2013/2014 estimate.
6. A PMA of 30 birds per season can only have a very limited effect on the level of harvest; a daily PMA is much more effective, for example during large cold waves. Today in France 1% of woodcock hunters have the potential to harvest more than 30. It is not thanks to him that we will justify a decrease of 430,000 woodcock. Assuming the 1% have the potential to harvest 40 each, 30,000 woodcock would be spared.
7. While there has been a decline in hunting permits in France in fifteen years, the number of woodcock hunters has remained at least stable (300,000). On the other hand, the hours spent by hunters in the woods increased, confirming the exaggerated level of hunting pressure on the woodcock. The drop in the number of permits cannot therefore justify the drop in levies.
8. The indicators used by specialists to justify the good health of the species and the stability of numbers (ICA, hunting index of abundance in hunting and the IAN, hunting index in ringing, can only provide an idea of the level of attendance in France each season: in no case to know the state in which is the European woodcock herd.
Conclusion
This study provides a clear answer to the questions of many woodcock hunters. It reinforces my conviction acquired for almost ten years, thanks to my research and observation on this species.
The European woodcock herd has been on a downward trend since the early 1980s. This trend has accelerated over the last decade to the point of becoming worrying.
The figures from the Oncfs indicating this decline appear to be invisible , without anyone giving the impression of being moved and wanting to know the cause.
The hunting politicians would be well advised to take into account this number of woodcock lost to sight in just fifteen years.
Under these conditions, today, we can no longer hear and read that the species is in good health, with stable numbers. The greatest caution is called for, apart from these affirmations, which are repeated in a loop in meetings, by all the hunting magazines and by far too many hunters, do considerable harm to the species and its hunt.
It is urgent to get out of the single thought, in order to inform the actors of the hunt on the reality of the situation of the woodcock.
