Having lived in a country that allows suppressors, and having used them for work and recreational purposes, I must say a lot of the stuff in this topic falls into myth territory.
They generally improve accuracy, but may change your point of impact slightly, but the groups do tighten in most cases.
They don't effect muzzle velocity.
They don't effect range.
Hearing protection is not sufficient for most centrefire calibres. You are still in a dangerous range of volumes with even the best ear defenders. Even double plugged, especially as so much noise goes through the bones of your skull.
Most suppressors on centrefire rifles won't lower it below hearing protection levels, so still a good idea to use ear defenders.
They do nothing for the supersonic crack.
These last two points combined mean that poachers won't suddenly become an issue. They are not like the movies. A suppressed 308 is still louder than an unsuppressed .22 generally. And the supersonic crack is still present, but that noise does disperse more quickly and is less disturbing to wildlife.
I've just been invited by a commercial suppressor manufacturer here in alberta to help demonstrate suppressors to some MP's in the next few weeks.
So the government are interested.
The law in Europe was almost identical to here, and the health and safety laws say the same thing. As soon as that is challenged it's almost impossible they wouldn't be allowed. The workplace laws says you must take mechanical measures to reduce noise, not just make people wear hearing protection. The source of noise must be reduced where possible.
Having used them both professionally and personally I'd have them on every rifle I own. There are barely any reasons not to.
Here's an interesting read.
http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Imag...uppressors.pdf
I'll report back what the MP's say after the demo.