WAWC raises welfare concerns over “wild take” of raptors

The WAWC has opposed licensing the taking of birds of prey from the wild (“wild take”) in England for falconry and aviculture.

 While all wild birds are fully protected under law, licences may currently be granted for falconry and aviculture purposes, on a selective basis and for a small number of birds. The last wild take licences were issued by Natural England in 2020, allowing a small number of peregrine falcon chicks to be taken from the wild. Those licences expired earlier this year with no chicks having been taken.

Historically, falconry and aviculture in England and elsewhere in the UK have relied on the taking of birds of prey, such as peregrine falcons, from the wild. Due to concerns about population declines, legal wild take has not been practised in England for some decades, but a recent increase in licence applications has led Natural England (NE) to call for evidence as it reviews its approach to future licensing.

WAWC Members decided that it was important to respond to the consultation so that the welfare of individual birds would not be overlooked in a process largely focussed on conservation issues.

With that in mind, the WAWC response opposes the taking of native birds of prey from the wild under licence each year for falconry and aviculture. In our view, birds taken from the wild, whether for falconry or aviculture, will experience poorer welfare over the course of their lives than would be the case if they remained in the wild, even if their life expectancy is sometimes increased.  We can see only two purposes to justify taking birds from the wild: captive breeding to provide stock for re-introduction of threatened species and the rehabilitation of injured birds, with both activities properly regulated.  Even so, WAWC believes that taking birds such as peregrines from the wild for subsequent release does not make wild populations self-sustaining.

WAWC has also opposed allowing the progeny of birds taken under licence and bred in captivity, or any subsequent generations bred from those birds, to be sold for commercial gain. In our view, selling birds for profit would go against ethical practice such as that adopted by UK zoos.  It is generally unacceptable to sustain a captive population by sourcing animals from the wild (elephants being a prime example) and when animals or birds are in captivity there needs to be careful management of the population (health, preservation of genetic diversity etc).  

Given the current avian flu crisis, there might appear to be an argument for establishing native breeding populations of birds of prey that could be used to repopulate areas where numbers have declined beyond that necessary to sustain the population.  However, as with any wild animal taken into captivity, there will be inevitable loss of behavioural complexity and selection for traits that favour survival in captivity (as opposed to survival in the wild).

Based on the widely accepted Five Domains model for evaluating animal welfare, WAWC believes that anything that permanently limits an animal from exhibiting the full spectrum of its behaviour repertoire ought to be avoided.  Factors considered in the model include interactions with humans which are an intrinsic part of falconry and aviculture.  Wild caught individuals are likely to experience an increased likelihood of motivational frustration, a high likelihood of negative affective states (such as fear) and behaviours consistent with experiencing stress in captivity.

Other welfare issues raised in our response included routine tethering (a practice that is to be phased out of all zoological collections by the end of 2027 under new standards of modern zoo practice), use of hoods, wild birds’ fear of close association with humans, hunger in birds used for falconry, and the restricted environment experienced by birds in both falconry and aviculture.  

These combined impacts on birds’ physical and functional domains can cause a significant negative effect on their mental state so that they experience poor welfare.  The WAWC consultation response makes it clear that any justification of these impacts must significantly outweigh the harms and be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis, paying proper attention to the potential harms to the individual bird.