# Introduction There are fifteen species of birds of prey in the united kingdom outlined in Table 1. They are legally protected, yet despite this, they are being trapped, shot and poisoned. Data shows that confirmed persecutions are predominantly found around or within land managed for gamebird shooting. This article will explore available data on persecution and analyse it to demonstrate persecution hot spots. | Common Name | Scientific Name | Type | Wingspan (approx) | Key Features | Habitat | | -------------------- | ---------------------- | ------ | ----------------- | ---------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Red Kite | _Milvus milvus_ | Raptor | 175–195 cm | Forked tail, reddish body | Woodland, farmland | | Common Buzzard | _Buteo buteo_ | Raptor | 110–130 cm | Broad wings, variable plumage | Woodlands, countryside | | Eurasian Sparrowhawk | _Accipiter nisus_ | Raptor | 55–80 cm | Short wings, long tail, agile | Woodland, gardens | | Northern Goshawk | _Accipiter gentilis_ | Raptor | 95–125 cm | Powerful build, bold white eyebrow | Dense forests | | Golden Eagle | _Aquila chrysaetos_ | Eagle | 180–230 cm | Large, golden head feathers | Scottish Highlands | | White-tailed Eagle | _Haliaeetus albicilla_ | Eagle | 200–245 cm | Huge wings, pale head, wedge tail | Coastal areas, Scotland | | Peregrine Falcon | _Falco peregrinus_ | Falcon | 95–115 cm | Fastest bird, dark hood | Cliffs, cities | | Eurasian Kestrel | _Falco tinnunculus_ | Falcon | 70–80 cm | Hovers while hunting | Open fields, roadsides | | Merlin | _Falco columbarius_ | Falcon | 55–65 cm | Small, fast, dark plumage | Moorland | | Hobby | _Falco subbuteo_ | Falcon | 80–95 cm | Sleek, sickle wings | Open countryside, woodland edges | | Barn Owl | _Tyto alba_ | Owl | 80–95 cm | Heart-shaped face, pale | Farmland, grassland | | Tawny Owl | _Strix aluco_ | Owl | 80–100 cm | Round head, no ear tufts | Woodland | | Short-eared Owl | _Asio flammeus_ | Owl | 85–110 cm | Visible ear tufts, ground hunter | Moorland, marsh | | Long-eared Owl | _Asio otus_ | Owl | 85–100 cm | Prominent ear tufts | Woodland | | Little Owl | _Athene noctua_ | Owl | 50–60 cm | Small, flat head, yellow eyes | Farmland, buildings | *Table 1: A list of all the bird of prey species found in the United Kingdom.* # History of raptor persecution ```mermaid timeline title Raptor Persecution in the UK Medieval period (pre-1700) : Limited persecution : Raptors sometimes protected for falconry 1700s (18th century) : Rise of shooting estates : Raptors increasingly labelled as vermin 1800s (Victorian era) : Peak persecution by gamekeepers : Widespread trapping, poisoning, shooting : Local extinctions (eagles, harriers) Late 1800s : Severe population declines : Raptors confined to remote areas Early 1900s : Changing attitudes begin : Early conservation awareness 1954 : Protection of Birds Act passed 1960s–1970s : Pesticide impacts (DDT) : Peregrine declines 1981 : Wildlife and Countryside Act 1990s–2000s : Reintroductions (Red Kite) : Population recovery 2000s–present : Ongoing illegal persecution : Conflict with grouse moors ``` Persecution is not a recent phenomena and the earliest accounts begin as far back as the 1700s in the United Kingdom , where Kites were killed to protect poultry and other small livestock (Bijleveld, 1974). Commercial game shooting estates became more established during the 18th century and land management practices began to centre around game birds. One of those practices, of course, became killing predators i.e., raptors. During this period Golden Eagle and White-tailed Eagle were driven to extinction in England and Wales. In the Victorian era (1800s), widespread and systematic killing of raptors was the norm and many species disappeared from Britain, where only remote areas in the Scottish Highlands were able to harbour a select few species. Egg collecting was a common trend during this period too, adding extra pressure to waning populations. It wasn't until the 1900s when protections came about, leading to the "Protections of Birds Act (1954)", which made it illegal to kill most birds of prey. While persecution still took place, this law enabled a gradual recovery of species such as Red Kite and Peregrines. Even in the 20th century, we are still seeing persecution taking place, particularly in upland shooting estates and the methods of execution are becoming more sophisticated and covert. It takes dedicated teams and volunteers countless hours to catch persecutors in the act and the punishment isn't fitting to the crime, often resulting in just a fine. # Reasons for persecution There are several arguments used by apologists for raptor persecution, all of which centre around the financial stability of the gamebird shooting industry. Where they suggest there is unfair treatment towards policies targeting their arguably outdated land management practices. On top of this, attitudes have changed in recent years, due to education and research on persecution and harmful land management through groups such as the RSPB, BTO and local bird groups. ## Key arguments for persecution - Predation of game birds by birds of prey reduces population below shooting threshold (Nota K., et al, 2019) - Estates provide rural jobs and are threatened by birds of prey affecting game bird populations (The Value of Shooting , 2024) - Birds of prey are overprotected (Countryside Alliance, 2026) - Estates provide conservation efforts which otherwise wouldn't happen (NGO, 2026) - Scientific studies exaggerate bird of prey persecution (Smith, A. et al, 2001) # Land management practices Land management is a key driver for the distribution of bird populations and biodiversity as a whole. Many shooting estates compared to the same habitat types managed for restoration, feature significant differences in the way they manage their land. ## Harmful land management practices Below is a list of highlighted harmful land management practices: - Persecution of raptors - Peatland burning - Mass release of non-native birds - Lead ammunition poisoning and bioaccumulation - Predator control using traps/snares - Disease and parasite spreading through crowded rearing facilities Table 2 demonstrates the differences in land management practices between the same habitat types for shooting estate and conservation charities. | Dimension | Shooting estate habitat (game-managed) | Conservation charity restored habitat (restoration) | | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Primary objective** | Maximise game species (e.g. pheasant, grouse) for shooting while maintaining viable habitat | Restore ecosystem function, native biodiversity, and ecological processes | | **Management intensity** | High, continuous intervention (predator control, feeding, vegetation manipulation) | Variable: often initial intervention followed by reduced management (especially in nature based solutions) | | **Habitat structure** | Often **heterogeneous at fine scale** (cover crops, hedgerows, woodland edges) to support game ([MDPI](https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/8/1249?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Structural Diversity and Biodiversity of Forest and Hedgerow in Areas Managed for Pheasant Shooting Across the UK")) | Moves toward **natural structural complexity** driven by succession, hydrology, grazing regimes ([POST](https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0678/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The habitat restoration target - POST")) | | **Species composition** | Frequently **biased toward target species** and generalists; may include non-native gamebirds (e.g. pheasant) ([MDPI](https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/8/1249?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Structural Diversity and Biodiversity of Forest and Hedgerow in Areas Managed for Pheasant Shooting Across the UK")) | Emphasis on **native species assemblages**, including specialists and trophic interactions | | **Biodiversity outcomes** | Mixed: can increase some farmland birds via habitat provision, but **negative impacts on non-target taxa documented** ([ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716300751?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Improving habitat for game animals has mixed consequences for biodiversity conservation - ScienceDirect")) | Generally aims for **net biodiversity gain**, though recovery may take decades and depends on baseline conditions ([PLOS](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002052&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection \| PLOS Biology")) | | **Predator dynamics** | Predator control common (foxes, corvids), simplifying trophic structure | Predators often protected or reintroduced; trophic cascades encouraged | | **Vegetation management** | Managed for accessibility and game cover (burning, cutting, planting strips, release pens) ([ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716300751?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Improving habitat for game animals has mixed consequences for biodiversity conservation - ScienceDirect")) | Managed to restore **natural processes** (e.g. grazing, flooding, woodland regeneration) | | **Ecosystem processes** | Often **artificially maintained** (feeding, stocking densities, disturbance regimes) | Focus on **self-sustaining processes** (succession, nutrient cycling, hydrology) | | **Spatial scale & connectivity** | Can enhance local habitat patches, but may remain fragmented or designed around shoot boundaries | Often aims for **landscape-scale connectivity** and ecological networks | | **Time horizon** | Short- to medium-term productivity (annual shooting cycles) | Long-term recovery (decades), with lag before full ecological function returns ([PLOS](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002052&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection \| PLOS Biology")) | | **Economic driver** | Private income from shooting and sporting rights | Public/charitable funding, ecosystem services, biodiversity credits, grants | | **Monitoring & evidence base** | Evidence often **site-specific and unevenly measured** ([ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716300751?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Improving habitat for game animals has mixed consequences for biodiversity conservation - ScienceDirect")) | Increasing use of **formal monitoring frameworks and metrics** (e.g. biodiversity net gain) | | **Trade-offs** | Can support some species but risk **ecosystem simplification or localized degradation** (e.g. release pens) ([MDPI](https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/8/1249?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Structural Diversity and Biodiversity of Forest and Hedgerow in Areas Managed for Pheasant Shooting Across the UK")) | Trade-offs include **cost, time lag, and uncertainty of outcomes** ([PLOS](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002052&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection \| PLOS Biology")) | *Table 2: A comparison of land management practices of the same habitat type between shooting estates and conservation charities.* # A look at the data The RSPB have dedicated investigation teams which work closely with wildlife crime units to determine whether birds of prey have indeed been illegally killed. Figure 1 illustrates confirmed raptor persecution incidents in the UK between the years 2007 and 2024. ![[CRPI_UK.jpeg]] *Figure 1: Confirmed raptor persecution incidents in the UK from 2007 - 2024.* Shooting estate boundaries and locations are generally private and potentially hundreds of smaller syndicates exist, along with private farms who participate in shooting activities. Figure 2 demonstrates where raptor persecution incidents are clustered along with available shooting estate data, where in some areas up to 30 confirmed raptor persecution incidents have occurred. This data was created using available shooting estate lists and google maps to generate approximate centroids of larger well known estates. ![[CPRI_Heatmap_UK.jpeg]] *Figure 2: Confirmed raptor persecution incidents heatmap with shooting estate locations.* It is worth noting that while persecution hotspots exist predominantly around shooting estates, organisations like BASC and GWCT claim to take a strong stance on raptor persecution, condemning any illegal activity. With that being said, between the years 2000 and 2022, there were 116 convictions, with 67% of those having links to the shooting industry (Wildlife and Countryside Link, 2022). The penalties for wildlife crime are an unlimited fine, and/or a six month custodial sentence, however no person in England and Wales has ever received prison time specifically for persecution of raptors. Many argue that there needs to be stricter penalties to deter illegal activity. # Conclusion Raptor persecution is still an ongoing problem and the data suggests that much of the confirmed illegal activity is from individuals linked to the shooting industry. There needs to be stricter penalties for individuals convicted of wildlife crime to deter these crimes from happening on such a wide scale. # References “Achievements | the National Gamekeepers Organisation.” _Nationalgamekeepers.org.uk_, 2026, www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/about/achievements. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026. Barrington, Jim. “Science or Fiction? Hunting for Truth in the Anti-Hunting Lobby.” _Countryside-Alliance.org_, Countryside Alliance, 18 Sept. 2024, www.countryside-alliance.org/features/science-or-fiction-hunting-for-truth-in-the-anti-hunting-lobby. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026. Bijleveld, Maarten. “The Systematic Persecution: A Review of Historical and More Recent Examples of the Destruction of Birds of Prey in Europe.” _Birds of Prey in Europe_, Macmillan Education UK, 1974, pp. 1–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-02393-6_1. Accessed 16 Apr. 2026. “Capturing the Economic, Environmental and Social Value of Shooting in the UK - the Value of Shooting.” _The Value of Shooting_, 27 June 2024, valueofshooting.co.uk/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2026. Mason, L.R., Bicknell, J.E., Smart, J. & Peach, W.J. (2020) The impacts of non-native gamebird release in the UK: an updated evidence review. RSPB Research Report No. 66. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Sandy, UK. Nota, K., Downing, S. & Iyengar, A. Metabarcoding-based dietary analysis of hen harrier (_Circus cyaneus_) in Great Britain using buccal swabs from chicks. _Conserv Genet_ **20**, 1389–1404 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-019-01215-y “Politics and Policy | Countryside Alliance.” _Countryside-Alliance.org_, 2026, www.countryside-alliance.org/politics. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026. Smith, A. A., et al. “Meadow Pipits, Red Grouse and the Habitat Characteristics of Managed Grouse Moors.” _Journal of Applied Ecology_, vol. 38, no. 2, Apr. 2001, pp. 390–400, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00601.x. Denny, S., Latham-Green, T. and Hazenberg, R. (2021) _Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting? A summary of the evidence._ #Data #Ecology #Environment #Research #RSPB #Geospatial