Natural England has commissioned and published a major evidence review assessing the ecological impacts of recreational hunting of coastal wildfowl, i.e., wildfowling, with a particular focus on two key issues: direct mortality from hunting and disturbance caused by shooting activities. The review was divided into three parts: a review of peer-reviewed research, a review of grey literature, and an evaluation of the overall strength of the evidence.

The publication, part-funded by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), represents one of the most comprehensive assessments of coastal wildfowling in England. It is expected to inform future decision-making on hunting sustainability and conservation.

Findings – While the peer-review literature did not find strong evidence that wildfowling causes significant disturbance and population level consequences to birds, the assessment of grey literature, which often allowed more applicable conclusions, did found strong evidence on the effects of many types of recreational disturbance on birds in UK protected areas. It concludes that, while wildfowling is often relatively more disturbing, it only made a small contribution to disturbance as it is an uncommon activity relative to almost any other recreational activity.

For example, studies found that recreational walking is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disturbance and that wildfowling would have to increase to 675 visits per season, from less than 200, to equal the disturbance of walkers alone in Poole Harbour. It was also found that all recreational disturbance accounts for less than 1% of feeding and resting time on the Exe estuary, and that it would have to increase substantially (7-12 times) for it to begin to have a cost on waterbirds. Disturbance levels in these highly utilized sites are non-threatening to waterbirds.

The overall assessment also showed that the dominant position in peer-reviewed literature is that wildfowling mortality was likely to influence waterbird survival and to be “additive”, despite not being able to comment on the role of shooting mortality on quarry populations.

In contrast, grey literature found that hunting-related ring recoveries in wintering ducks ranged from 4–8%, a level consistent with sustainable harvest targets (5–12%) for North American duck populations. With a likely range of 1-5%, wildfowling mortality is a minor source of the total hunting mortality, which would be considered restrictive or moderate in North American literature.

Conclusions – While hunting can cause disturbance in general, the review concluded that wildfowling is unlikely to lead to significant ecological decline through disturbance, either alone or cumulatively. A key recommendation is to manage disturbance on a site-by-site basis to evaluate likely effects on birds using the methodologies developed by the most relevant studies.

The review concluded that coastal wildfowling contributed minimally to total mortality (<5%), and that it is unlikely that wildfowling significantly impacts waterbird populations. Therefore, significant impacts on the ecological integrity of protected sites are highly unlikely.

As a result, it was recommended that regulatory processes focus less on mortality effects at the scale of individual protected areas or wildfowling sites, thereby supporting the continuation of low-impact recreational harvests, such as wildfowling.

Find the study: Cameron, T.C., Holt, C.A., and Madden, J. 2026. A rapid evidence review of the ecological impacts arising from the recreational hunting of coastal wildfowl (‘wildfowling’): Executive summary. Natural England Evidence Review, NEER160. Natural England. https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6162729751281664