Consultation catch-up

The summer of 2026 has been a busy one for wildlife policy advocates, particularly those who take it upon themselves (as WAWC does) to respond to public consultations by government and its agencies.  Compiling and disseminating consultations and analysing the responses can be a lengthy process for officials – a recent DEFRA consultation on conditions for laying hens in Great Britain received 39,000 responses.  But it is really a question of quality, rather than quantity:  these are not popular votes, where the largest number of entries on one side or another “wins” – rather, they seek evidence from stakeholders with knowledge of the topic in question. For that reason, we like to think that WAWC contributions add to the sum of informed opinion and that our members’ efforts in compiling and reviewing them will bear fruit in continuing improvements to UK wild animal welfare.

In May, we responded to a DEFRA consultation on the government’s proposal to ban trail hunting in England, as part of the Animal Welfare Strategy announced in December 2025.  The government said:

“Trail hunting, where an animal-based scent trail is laid for dogs to follow, is an activity that did not exist when the Hunting Act was enacted. The use of large packs of hounds can put wild mammals, household pets and even members of the public at risk. In addition, the use of animal-based scents increases the risk of the scents of wild animals being picked up, as does the practice of lifting and dropping the trail, which means hounds must actively search. 

“There is also a real risk trail hunting could be used to facilitate illegal hunting by being used as a smokescreen to obscure intention and enabling the inevitable chasing of animals.”

WAWC agreed, noting the likely positive effects of the proposed ban for the environment and wildlife.  Hunting organisations acknowledge that foxes can be killed “occasionally” and “accidentally’’ in the course of a trail hunt.  A ban would prevent both intentional and unintentional killing of foxes by dogs, creating a net benefit for these wild mammals.

WAWC believes there should be no significant effect on predator “control”, where such control is deemed to be necessary and justifiable.  Trail hunting is supposedly a means of enjoying equestrian sport and working hounds, rather than killing foxes, and therefore cannot be said to perform any formal wildlife “management” function.  If lethal control is unavoidable, other methods are available. For entertainment purposes, drag hunting and “clean boot” hunting appear to be growing in popularity.

A second major consultation in May, spearheaded by DEFRA on behalf of England, Scotland and Wales, proposed amendments to Schedule 2.1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1986 – the “quarry list” of wild birds that can be killed and taken during their open seasons, without the need for a licence. Many of these proposed changes were based on the assessment by the three national nature agencies of the population status of the different species and the impact of shooting on those populations.  For most species, the welfare of individual birds was a secondary consideration and the NatureScot assessment paper was clear that welfare was excluded from their remit.

While supporting many of the proposals, such as extending close seasons for species such as Woodcock, Common Snipe and others, WAWC was keen to focus on the welfare of the individual.  Shooting wild birds carries an animal welfare risk due to the possibility of wounding or “crippling” birds. These are largely unresearched in the UK but studies of waterfowl  in North America and northern Europe indicate that substantial numbers of birds may be wounded at some time in their lives, often taking a prolonged period to die. WAWC is not aware of any research into wounding or crippling of other birds such as pigeons, either in Britain or elsewhere – but these gaps in evidence cannot be taken as indicating that there is no welfare problem.

One of the positive proposals, and one where welfare was a factor, was the decision to list woodpigeon on Schedule 2.1 in England, Scotland and Wales.  Woodpigeon are already shot all year round for recreation and food, but in the guise of permitted “pest” control under the general licence system. Listing the species allows for the creation of a close season - the extent of which is yet to be decided - which should reduce the toll of starvation and suffering among dependent chicks when their parents are killed. So, while it may seem paradoxical for an animal welfare organisation to support an additional purpose for killing wildlife, in effect this move should help to ensure that hunting practices comply with sustainable use and animal welfare principles. 

Talking of paradoxes, the Scottish Parliament’s decision to approve an amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill in March of this year appeared to fall into that category.  MSPs agreed to add falconry for killing or taking mountain hares as a licensable purpose to s.16(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), a decision inconsistent with the Parliament’s previous view on protecting mountain hares, and with Scottish Government policy. It came in the wake of prolonged lobbying by sport falconers to allow the taking and killing of mountain hare by captive birds of prey for sport, arguing that their kept Golden Eagles were suffering due to their inability to exercise natural hunting behaviour.

NatureScot consulted on the implementation of this new provision in July (note: NatureScot has no discretion over the “whether” to implement, only the “how”). Responding, WAWC expressed the view that the change was a retrograde step.  We asked that applicants for licences be required to provide clear justification for the activity, the proposed location, and evidence that the captive birds of prey are suffering due to being unable to exercise.  Given that the amendment restricts the open season to the period from October to February, we also suggested that NatureScot should ask how applicants proposed to meet their birds’ exercise needs at other times of the year.

Still in Scotland, NatureScot consulted on its general licensing scheme in August. General licences are often criticised as a blunt instrument, authorising the taking and killing of a number of native species with insufficient checks and balances.  WAWC shares this view, believing that the widespread taking and killing of wild birds and mammals under general licence is a significant departure from the spirit of our wildlife legislation posing serious risks to the welfare of the birds and animals affected.

In our response, we accepted that general licensing can play a practical role in facilitating activities that are essentially benign – such as keeping wild birds for rehabilitation or veterinary treatment – when these might otherwise be illegal under the WCA.  In the “control” arena, however, the system lacks accountability or meaningful welfare provisions.  For example:

·      Without consistent recording and reporting activity the impact of general licensed activities on populations is difficult to measure. 

·      The lack of inspection means that few, if any, checks are conducted to ensure that non-lethal methods of control have been exhausted before resorting to trapping and killing.

·      Operators of live catch traps such as Larsen and multi-catch corvid traps are not trained, licensed or supervised when killing captured birds. 

·      There is no ‘closed season’  meaning that mammals and birds killed during the breeding season will leave dependent young to starve or be predated.

·      There is little or no check on compliance.  This contrasts sharply with the killing of animals in other circumstances (e.g. on farm, in a slaughterhouse, in a research establishment) where the regulator conducts regular and unannounced checks.

Once the consultation report and responses are published, NatureScot intends to review “the overall principles supporting the use of General Licences and how they may be used in the future. While we will be seeking initial views on this through the forthcoming consultation, we anticipate that discussions will continue through 2027 and beyond, with further consultation planned in future.”

Fortunately, WAWC likes responding to consultations.

And there are more to come: a consultation by Natural Resources Wales opens on 21 September, seeking views on the creation of an offence of intentionally or recklessly disturbing seals and the introduction of a close season for hares. Similar provisions already exist in Scotland. This is a short consultation, lasting only four weeks.  WAWC will be responding and we encourage others with an interest in wild animal welfare to do the same.