CAMPAIGNERS fear the future of commercial shoots, which pour tens of thousands of pounds into the North-East each year, could be threatened by Government plans to update animal welfare legislation.

The Countryside Alliance has criticised the "Labour dominated" environment, food and rural affairs committee for launching an attack on the rearing of game birds in its report on the draft Animal Welfare Bill. The Bill, published in July last year, is due to be introduced in the current Parliamentary session.

In making a total of 101 recommendations, members of the cross-party committee said the draft raised important and complex issues which must be resolved before a final Bill was introduced.

Among these was the call for more consultation with animal welfare groups over whether further protection should be given to the game birds reared every year for shoots. The Government has continually maintained that shooting will not go the way of hunting.

However, the committee refuses to support making the Game Farmers' Association code of practice the basis for statutory legislation without more consideration of some rearing practices, including beak-trimming and burning, and the fitting of bits, masks and spectacles. The committee considers gamekeepers should be required to try other methods before resorting to those practices.

Members were also concerned that, of the 30m birds reared each year, only 40pc ended up being shot, and they suggested a limit on the number raised. But Countryside Alliance regional director, Richard Dodd, believes that, if the report goes unchallenged, it will be the first step to banning shooting by the back door.

"Animal rights groups have turned their attention to shooting, and want to see it done away with," he said. "If they can restrict the number of birds raised, it will have a serious effect on commercial shoots. The more birds that can be shot, the more money is brought into the economy. Restricting numbers would make shoots unviable, because they would still have the same outgoings."

He likened it to owning a 100-seater restaurant, but being allowed to serve only 20 diners. All the overheads would still be the same.

"It's a back door way of banning it," he added. "We will put a robust challenge in to this. Labour is anti-shooting despite all the noises it makes. Their issue is not about shooting, it's about the people who shoot, but there are all walks of life in shooting, as with any other sport. It's no different from a football crowd; some will be platinum seat holders but most will be in the stands."

Charles Nodder, spokesman for the National Gamekeepers' Association, was less vehement. "We need to get in proportion what this is," he said. "It's a commentary by a group of MPs, with a strong, urban Labour bias to it, so I don't think we would have expected anything else."

He felt the report raised some good points. "They have acknowledged the need for docking dogs' tails where they could be a hindrance and get damaged when working," he said. "We fought hard for that to be retained and they appear to have supported it.

"They also seem to have accepted the point about gamekeepers not being responsible for the welfare of a bird once it is released into the wild and fending for itself," he added.

"We are less impressed by what they had to say about game rearing. They seem to have given more credence to what the anti-shooting lobbyists have said. We are disappointed with some of the conclusions they have drawn about rearing, when they admit in the report that they have insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion on this issue."

Mr Nodder said the NGO would work with MPs of all parties regarding the recommendations in the report, because it was in everybody's interest that the birds did not suffer.