Countryside Alliance publishes recommended responses to quarry list consultation

After careful consideration, the Countryside Alliance has published its recommended responses to the ongoing Defra consultation on its proposals to change the seasons of a number of birds currently on the quarry list or general licence. Whilst some of the proposed changes are based in sound science and are perfectly justifiable, Defra has also included proposals which directly contradict Natural England advice and the available scientific evidence and one that is based on a clear and gross misinterpretation of data.

The consultation runs until 23:59 on 17 May 2026, and submissions can be made either via the online form here, or by emailing WildlifeManagementAndCrime@defra.go.uk with your written response.

We encourage as many people as possible to respond to the consultation, to ensure that policy is based on robust evidence and justifiable reasoning.

Section 2

Questions 1-11:

TO BE FILLED IN PERSONALLY (personal/business information and experience). See here for details.

For a number of the following questions, no response is necessary, unless you have particular evidence and experience to share.

Section 4

4A1) Do you agree the European white-fronted goose should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in England and/or Wales?

I do not agree that the European white-fronted goose should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in either England or Wales.

• The self-regulation of wildfowlers is sufficient and effective.

• The effect of shooting pressure on the non-breeding population is insignificant, at less than 1%.

• The overall African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) flyway population in Europe is considered stable, any decline in wintering population in the UK is due to shortstopping, not shooting pressure, which has no discernible impact.

• The risk of Greenland white-fronted geese being accidentally targeted in England is negligible at most. Their only population in England is at Grindon Lough, where no shooting takes place as it is a Northumberland Wildlife Trust nature reserve.

 4A2) No response 

4B1) Do you agree the goldeneye should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in England and/or Wales?

I do not agree that the goldeneye should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in either England or Wales.

• The self-regulation of wildfowlers is sufficient and effective.

• The European flyway population of goldeneye is considered to be stable. Declines in the population overwintering in England are attributed to shortstopping and climate change, not shooting pressure. The sustainable harvest of goldeneye in the UK is insignificant compared to total population within its natural range.

• An extension to the close season is also unnecessary, but if forced, should be in line with that for Scotland.

4B2) Do you agree the close season for the goldeneye should be extended in Scotland to 30 September?

No.

• The self-regulation of wildfowlers is sufficient and effective.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 30 September as this would allow for the arrival of the many overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

4B3) No Response

4C1) Do you agree the close season for the pintail should be extended in Scotland to 30 September for below and above the high-water mark?

No.

• The self-regulation of wildfowlers is sufficient and effective.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 30 September as this would allow for the arrival of the many overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

4C2) Do you agree the close season for the pintail should be extended in Wales to 30 November?

No.

• The population of pintail in Wales has been stable since 2010 (BTO WeBS).
• Pintail is considered a non-breeding species in Wales, therefore resident breeders that might be protected do not exist. The extension of the close season to 30 November is therefore disproportionate and unjustifiable.
• Shooting pressure has little, if any, impact on the population of pintail in Wales.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 30 September as this would allow for the arrival of the many overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

 4C3) Do you agree the pintail should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in England?  

No - its current status should be maintained.

• The government should accept the recommendation of its statutory body, Natural England, which is to maintain the current Schedule 2.1 status of the pintail in England.
• Pintail numbers in England are increasing and existing evidence shows that current shooting pressure has little, if any, impact on their population.
• Pintail is a migratory species in England with a healthy, increasing population. Any residents are anomalous and irregular with numbers <10 pairs on average.
• Removal of pintail from Schedule 2.1 in England is not only disproportionate and unjustifiable, it directly contradicts the advice of Natural England.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 30 September as this would allow for the arrival of the many overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

4C4-6) No response

4D1) Do you agree the pochard should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in England, Scotland and/or Wales?

No

• The self-regulated moratorium of shooting pochard by wildfowlers is sufficient and effective. No further action by government is required.

4D2-4) No response

4E1) Do you agree the close season for the common snipe should be extended in England and/or Scotland to 30 September, for reasons of both conservation and animal welfare?

No

• We do not believe the evidence presented justifies a change in the close season, particularly in the light of the voluntary restraint of game shooters of not shooting snipe before the arrival of the large, migratory population. This self-regulation is sufficient and effective, and requires no further action by government.

4E2) Do you agree the common snipe should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in Wales?

No

• The voluntary restraint of game shooters by not shooting snipe before the arrival of the large, migratory population is sufficient and effective, and requires no further action by government.
• The rationale for NRW’s recommendation is based on a serious misinterpretation of the data. The assertation that the population of overwintering snipe in Wales is “c. 2,000” cannot be correct, given that 1,100,000 that snipe overwinter in the UK, of which a significant proportion overwinter in Wales. It is not uncommon to see 1,000 snipe in a single field in Carmarthenshire during the winter.
• The vast majority of snipe in Wales are migratory and have a stable/increasing population.
• Shooting pressure is not considered to have any meaningful impact on the population of snipe in Wales.
• A comprehensive population count is required before any consideration of a change to their Schedule 2.1 status.

4E3-5) No response

4F1) Do you agree the close season for the woodcock should be extended in England and/or Wales to 30 November in order to protect our native breeding population?

No

• The self-regulation of shooters to not shoot woodcock until the arrival of the migratory population is sufficient and effective.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 14 November, as this would allow for the arrival of the overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

4F2) Do you agree the close season for woodcock should be extended in Scotland to 14 November in order to protect its native breeding population?

No

• The self-regulation of shooters to not shoot woodcock until the arrival of the migratory population is sufficient and effective.
• Whilst unnecessary, any extension of the close season should be to 14 November, as this would allow for the arrival of the overwintering birds before any shooting begins.

4F3-5) No response

4G1) Do you agree to adding woodpigeon to Schedule 2.1 in England, Scotland and/or Wales?

Yes - all three nations.

We welcome this change that recognises that woodpigeon should be able to be shot outside of the proposed close season for food and recreation, and at all times for the prevention of serious damage according the general licences.

4G2-4) No response

Section 5

5A1) Do you agree the coot should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in Wales?

No

• Shooting pressure on coot is low and is not considered to have any meaningful impact on their population in Wales.
• Removal of coot from Schedule 2.1 is disproportionate, unjustifiable and misuse of the precautionary principle.

5A2) Do you agree the Schedule 2.1. status of the coot should not be changed but maintained as it is in England and/or Scotland?

Yes

5A3) No response

5B1) Do you agree the golden plover should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in Wales?

No

• Golden plover is considered a migratory species, whose overall AEWA population is large and stable. Any decline in population in the UK is not due to shooting pressure but to shortstopping and climate change. Therefore the current level of shooting of golden plover is sustainable and suitable for continuation.

5B2) Do you agree the Schedule 2.1. status of the golden plover should not be changed but maintained as it is in England and/or Scotland?

Yes

• Current evidence suggests there is no justification for a change to the current Schedule 2.1 status.

5B3) No response

Section 6

6.1) Do you think any other species should be removed from Schedule 2.1 in England, Wales or Scotland?

No

6.2) Should other amendments (for example an extension or shortening of a close season be made with regard to any other species listed on Schedule 2.1 in England, Scotland or Wales?

No

6.3) Should any other species be added to Schedule 2.1 in England, Scotland or Wales?

Yes

• Brent goose has a large and increasing population in the UK, a sustainable harvest could be taken. There are other species in a similar state of population strength which should be considered for addition to Schedule 2.1.