Consequences of game bird management for non‐game species in Europe

Abstract

Game bird management has the potential to benefit conservation, as management practices specifically targeted at reducing the factors limiting game populations may have positive effects on non‐game species. However, such management may also have costs to species. We review the literature that examines the effect of different forms of game bird management on non‐target species in Europe, including habitat management, predator control, parasite control, provision of water and food and rear and release. We focus on Europe, where these forms of management are common and sometimes intensive. We identified 35 studies, which recorded 122 individual significant effects. Most studies (80%) focussed on the effects of habitat management and predator control, and >90% were carried out in the UK. 63% of the 122 significant effects on non‐game species were positive. Overall, 85% of the effects of habitat management in agricultural habitats were positive, while in non‐agricultural habitats 65% of effects were negative. Effects of rear and release were mixed (8 positive and 7 negative). Legal predator control was almost always positive (96% of effects), or benign, whereas illegal predator control was always negative (8 effects). This continues to be a major cost to conservation. No studies examined the effects of parasite control on non‐target wildlife. Three of four significant effects of supplementary feeding were negative. More studies are needed on the impacts of game bird management on non‐game species, and particularly of rear and release, the provision of supplementary food and water, and parasite control. We also found few experimental studies examining the specific effects of management for shooting of game birds, and very few studies overall outside the UK. Future studies should aim to fill these gaps. Synthesis and applications. The management of game bird populations for shooting is widespread across Europe. Our study shows that effects of such management practices vary between different non‐target species. There is a need to understand these trade‐offs, find effective strategies to limit the damaging aspects of game bird management and work to enhance the benefits for the conservation of biodiversity.

Why do many pheasants released in the UK die, and how can we best reduce their natural mortality?

“…Likewise, studies of supplementary feeding in the UK have been relatively small and localised, and we suggest a review of their efficacy and their extension to consider their effects in different conditions and locations. Such landscapescale interventions (predator control and supplementary feeding) likely have unintended positive consequences for wildlife beyond game (Mustin et al 2018;Roos et al 2018). We suspect that both methods do improve the survival of released birds and effects are currently concealed because all game managers practise them over much of the UK with little opportunity for representative control sites to be assayed, but further, directed studies are required to confirm this.…”

“…Regardless, there is a general pattern of increased release numbers over the past 50 years, with around nine times as many pheasants released in 2011 compared to 1961 when monitoring began (Robertson et al 2017). Consequently, they now comprise around 23% of the mass of the UK bird breeding population (Eaton et al 2012) and hence constitute a potentially influential component of the British ecosystem (Mustin et al 2018, Roos et al 2018.…”

“…Each pheasant costs £12.86 to rear and release (Anonymous 2016); therefore, the 21 million pheasants that do not contribute to the annual harvest constitute an economic loss of £270 million per year. Although release of game birds and their subsequent shooting can stimulate significant environmental management that benefits a wider range of species and habitats (Mustin et al 2018), release of game birds, especially at high numbers/ densities, can also contribute to environmental damage. This includes adverse modification of woodland ground flora and fauna within their immediate release pens (Neumann et al 2015;Sage et al 2005) and impacts on the broader environment (Callegari et al 2014;Sage et al 2009).…”

Shooting pheasants for sport: What does the death of Cecil tell us?

“…The shooting of game birds has a long history and is widespread across North America, Europe, and beyond (Mustin et al, ; Mustin, Newey, Irvine, Arroyo, & Redpath, ; Rashkow, ). Orders of magnitude more pheasants than lions are killed annually by sport hunters.…”

“…These habitats have benefits for the conservation of wildlife including pollinators (Holland, Smith, Storkey, Lutman, & Aebischer, ), passerines (Draycott et al, ; Stoate, ), small mammals (Tew, Macdonald, & Rands, ) and hares (Meichtry‐Stier, Jenny, Zellweger‐Fischer, & Birrer, ; Petrovan, Ward, & Wheeler, ). In their literature review of the effect of different forms of game bird management on non‐target species in Europe, Mustin et al () found that 85% of the effects of habitat management for game birds in lowland agricultural landscapes were positive. However, there were few studies of the effects on non‐game species of rear‐and‐release and supplementary feeding of game birds.…”