Possible Gamebird Licensing: Why the MA Is Engaging Now

Quick summary

• Defra is weighing wider regulation of gamebird shooting and release, including a possible licensing scheme.

• Licensing is now the MA’s highest-priority regulatory issue; it could reshape how driven grouse shooting continues.

• The MA has written to Defra’s Permanent Secretary and lodged formal information requests seeking transparency.

• Members may be asked for evidence on conservation outcomes, existing regulation and likely compliance costs.

Defra is considering whether gamebird shooting and release should face wider regulation, including licensing. Reports suggest that evidence gathering may already be under way.

Possible licensing is now the MA’s highest-priority regulatory issue because it could determine whether, where and on what terms driven grouse shooting may continue. The Board has therefore decided that the MA must engage before the questions and options in any future consultation are fixed.

Engaging does not mean accepting the case for licensing. It means ensuring that Defra hears directly from those who manage moorland before any assumptions, options or consultation questions are settled.

What has happened?

On 23 August, the Guardian reported that the RSPB was preparing documents for submission to Defra through what the article described as an “evidence sprint”.

The Government’s Land Use Framework for England says Defra will work with the sector and other stakeholder groups to explore wider measures, including licensing and associated conditions for recreational gamebird shooting and release.

The Government has not decided to introduce licensing. It has said that it will gather evidence, examine possible measures and consult on any proposed changes. Defra must therefore examine whether further regulation is needed - not simply how licensing might work.

Why this matters to members

The Moorland Association supports the highest standards and effective action against wildlife crime.

But another layer of regulation should not be introduced without establishing what problem it would solve, whether existing powers are being used effectively and whether other measures would produce better results.

Licensing would regulate the activity of shooting itself. Its consequences could therefore extend far beyond anyone responsible for an offence and affect lawful land management, conservation work and rural businesses.

Defra must distinguish between different activities. Red grouse are wild birds and are not reared and released. Treating grouse moor management and the release of pheasants and partridges as the same activity risks producing rules poorly suited to either.

Why the MA is engaging now

The Board has adopted a measured, evidence-led approach. The MA will continue to oppose unnecessary or disproportionate licensing. But we must also prepare for the possibility that the Government proceeds and ensure that any resulting system is workable and does not damage the wildlife and land-management outcomes it is intended to protect.

Engaging with Defra does not mean accepting the case for licensing. It means making sure our evidence and the alternatives are considered before Defra decides what a future consultation will ask. If we wait until it is published, the questions and options may already have been shaped by others.

What the Moorland Association has done

The Moorland Association has written to Paul Kissack, Defra’s Permanent Secretary, seeking confirmation of whether an evidence sprint or other evidence-gathering exercise is under way. We have not yet received a substantive response.

Given the importance of the issue, we are publishing the letter alongside this briefing so members, policymakers and other stakeholders can see clearly what we have asked Defra to address.

We have formally asked to participate from the outset and to receive the same questions, materials and deadlines provided to other organisations. We have also offered to meet the officials leading the work.

In addition, the MA has submitted formal information requests to establish what evidence-gathering is taking place, which organisations have been invited to contribute, what material has been received, and how Defra intends to ensure that any process is balanced, evidence-led and fair to those who would be directly affected by future regulation.

The MA can provide evidence and practical experience from grouse moors, including wildlife outcomes, the regulations already in place, peatland management, wildfire resilience and the harm that badly designed regulation could cause.

What we have asked Defra

Before any licensing proposal is developed, Defra should explain:

1. What problem would licensing solve, and why are existing powers insufficient?

2. What alternatives to licensing are being examined?

3. How will Defra distinguish grouse shooting from the release of pheasants and partridges?

4. What safeguards would protect responsible owners and managers?

5. How will Defra assess the effects on wildlife, wildfire resilience, peatland management and conservation funding?

Defra should answer these questions before deciding whether licensing is needed.

How members may be asked to help

Members may be asked for documented examples of conservation results, problems with existing licences and consents, overlapping regulation, the effects on wildfire and habitat management, and the likely costs of new controls. We will provide further guidance before asking members to submit material.

What happens next

We have not published this briefing because licensing has been decided. It has not. We are publishing it because the evidence-gathering stage may shape the questions, assumptions and options in any future consultation.

A later public consultation would not be a substitute for involvement now. By the time a consultation is published, its assumptions, options and questions may already have been settled.

The MA will continue to seek constructive engagement with Defra and other organisations. Any proposals must be supported by reliable evidence, distinguish between different forms of game shooting and recognise the conservation delivered by responsible moorland management.

We will update members when Defra responds, when we receive replies to our information requests, or when there are further developments. We will also provide clear guidance before asking members to submit evidence.

This debate should not be decided by whether someone likes or dislikes grouse shooting. It should be decided by evidence, proportionality and whether new regulation would produce better outcomes for wildlife and the countryside.