Evidence.Land.People.
Moving the debate on shooting and the countryside from noise to knowledge.
Moving the debate on shooting and the countryside from noise to knowledge.
Figures drawn from published research. Each links to its source so you can check it yourself.
We take the common arguments at face value, look at the evidence, and set out what it actually shows.
"Shooting is just a hobby for the wealthy elite."
620,000 people take part, many through informal local shoots. It is a rural economic activity, not an elite pastime.
It supports 146,700 jobs in fragile rural areas where other industries are often absent.
"Shooting destroys the countryside."
Shooting interests help manage 7.6 million hectares, about a third of the UK, for wildlife and habitat.
Without management on much of this land, environmental outcomes would in many cases be worse, not better.
"It's a net drain on public services."
Shooting is linked to £64 million in annual public health benefits, largely through activity and access to the outdoors.
Replacing comparable NHS social-prescribing activity has been estimated at around £500 million.
Numbers explain the scale. People explain why it matters.
Practical tools to test claims, hold debate to a higher standard, and see the evidence on a map.
Type a question about shooting, conservation or the countryside. You will get a plain-English answer drawn only from sourced evidence, with the source named. On contested topics it gives both sides.
Demonstration tool. Answers come from a sample evidence set and are for testing only.
Report or fact-check a claim in confidence.
Practise civil, evidence-based conversations.
See where and how shooting benefits wildlife.
Compare the real cost of replacing shooting.
TruthHub exists to raise the standard of public debate on shooting and the countryside. We criticise arguments and claims, not people. These principles guide everything we publish.
We criticise arguments and claims, not personal characteristics.
We cite sources accurately and acknowledge uncertainty.
We do not caricature communities or opponents.
Reasonable criticism improves standards.
If we get something wrong, we amend it.
We reject intimidation, pile-ons, threats and mockery.
Where agreement exists, we recognise it.
Complex countryside issues rarely have simple answers.
Better debate needs better evidence. Explore the facts, test a claim, or back the work.
Explore the facts