providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
1
Research Note 99/50
Revised 10 January 2000
RACING PIGEONS AND BIRDS OF PREY
This research note provides an overview of the nature and severity of the
conflict between racing pigeons and birds of prey in Scotland. It has been
produced at the request of the Rural Affairs and Transport and Environment
Committees of the Scottish Parliament to assist them in considering a
petition received by the Scottish Homing Union.
On the 27 July 1999 the Scottish Homing Union (SHU) requested the Scottish
Parliament to consider the following petition:
‘We, the undersigned request that the Government carries out an urgent review
of the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with a view to
introducing changes which take account of the situation which has
development since the enactment of the legislation. We wish two main
outcomes:
In the definitions in the legislation, the granting of a status to racing pigeons
which would enable their owners to legitimately protect their birds;
agreement on population levels of birds of prey designed to achieve an
acceptable ecological balance with other species of birds.
In requesting this urgent review, we are of course aware, that the Government
has responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the European Wild Birds
Directive 1979. Our understanding is, however, that the Directive authorises
member states to make certain exceptions supervised by the European Union.
There, thus, appears to be no good reason why the review sought cannot be
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
2
undertaken as a matter of urgency. This appeal to Government is made
earnestly and sincerely. Please help us to save the sport of pigeon racing.’
The Scottish Homing Union (SHU) is the body representing all pigeon fanciers in
Scotland with which they have to be affiliated if they wish to race their birds. The
SHU has approximately 5,267 membersi who are located throughout Scotland
with particular concentrations in East, South and Central Scotlandii.
This research note has been produced at the request of the Rural Affairs and
Transport and Environment Committees to assist them in considering the SHU
Petition.
PIGEONS AND BIRDS OF PREY – THE DEBATE
Predation of pigeons
The Scottish Homing Union (SHU) is concerned about the increasing number of
attacks by birds of prey, particularly sparrowhawks and peregrines, on racing
pigeons. Although the SHU accepts that the nature of the sport carries a degree
of risk from attacks by predators, it considers the risk of these attacks to have
become unacceptably high. It attributes increases in attacks to increases in the
populations of birds of prey resulting from implementation of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981ii.
Losses of racing pigeons to birds of prey occur during exercise, around the loft
area, during race training and during racingiii. Losses can be a result of direct
attacks on pigeons by birds of prey and of disturbance to pigeons, which may
cause them to panic and become injured or get lost. There is a shortage of
independent scientific research into the extent of the problem. However, the SHU
conducted a survey of its members in 1996/97ii. Almost 95% of Scottish pigeon
racing clubs were surveyed and completed questionnaires were received from
1,937 pigeon lofts (representing around 47% of all lofts in Scotland).
Approximately 90% of the respondents to the SHU survey stated that they had a
problem with birds of prey. Estimates of total losses of racing pigeons should be
considered in the context of the total racing pigeon population in Scotland.
Although the SHU survey does not give this information, it does show that
210,647 rings were issued for new racing pigeons in 1996ii. The results of the
SHU survey are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of results of SHU survey showing racing pigeon losses in 1996
Loses during
training
Loses during
racing
Loses during
exercise
No of lofts losing
pigeons
1,713 1,643 1,587
No of pigeons lost 33,043 34,685 7,935
Average loss per
loft that lost
pigeons
19.3 21.1 5
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
3
The estimates of average losses shown in Table 1 suggest that around 45
pigeons are lost per year from each loft that has a problem. However, 1,937 lofts
responded to the SHU survey, some of which presumably didn’t have a problem
with birds of prey. Taking this into account would give an estimate that
approximately 39 pigeons are lost per loft per season. Given that there are 4,120
lofts in Scotland an approximation of the total number of pigeons lost over the
1996 season would be 160,680. This figure should, however, be compared with
the 210,647 rings issued for new racing pigeons in 1996.
In considering the reported losses of racing pigeons, it is important to note that all
those that occur when they are out of sight during training and racing can not be
attributed to attacks by birds of prey. Other causes of loss might include:
• pigeons getting lost (eg: due to poor weather, radio and magnetic waves, poor
quality birds or racing practices);
• pigeons choosing not to return and joining the feral population;
• pigeons dying en route due to fatigue (which may be exacerbated by poor
weather, collisions with overhead lines, shooting, other predators (including
cats, foxes, stoats, mink etc))iii.
Scientific research confirms that birds of prey (particularly peregrines and
sparrowhawks) do kill domestic pigeons. Wild, ferral and domestic pigeons are
the main prey of peregrines in the UKiv. Ferral and domestic pigeons, however,
are thought to form less than 5% of the diet of sparrowhawksv although this is
disputed by the SHU consultant ornithologist.
Population levels of birds of prey
Complete legal protection was first introduced for peregrines in 1954 and for
sparrowhawks in 1961. However, many of the original efforts to increase the
populations of these species were countered by negative influences. For
example, during both World Wars peregrines were officially killed to protect carrier
pigeons. Between the late 1950s and early 1970s, many birds of prey were
poisoned as a result of agricultural use of organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT.
These chemicals are extremely persistent and fat-soluable, so readily accumulate
in the bodies of birds. Birds which prey on other birds accumulate high enough
concentrations of the chemicals to depress reproduction and survivalvi.
Populations of both peregrines and sparrowhawks are now recovering. The
number of peregrines, most recently estimated to be 1,263 pairs in the UKvii, is at
its highest level this century following serious reductions due to organochlorine
poisoning when the population fell to 360 pairs in 1963viii. There are estimated to
be 625 pairs of peregrines in Scotland, representing almost 50% of the UK
populationiii. A factor thought to have contributed to the super recovery of
peregrines in some areas is the increase in the availability of domestic pigeons as
foodvi. Although the peregrine population has now largely recovered, the species
is still absent from parts of its former range in the UK and has declined in other
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
4
areas since 1981 probably due to illegal persecution, environmental pollutants and
deterioration in habitat qualityv.
Sparrowhawks have always been widespread in the UK although they suffered
serious declines due to organochlorine use in the 1960s and 1970s. Restrictions
on the use of organochlorines enabled sparrowhawk populations to mostly
recover by 1990. They are now the second most abundant bird of prey in the UK
with around 34,500 pairs in the UK and 7,000 pairs in Scotlandvi. With population
size frequently limited by the availability of suitable nesting sites, sparrowhawk
populations are now thought unlikely to increase further in many areas. However,
in some places sparrowhawks have declined recently, probably due to reductions
in songbird prey populations caused by the reduced quality of the farmland
environment.
Numbers of birds of prey are thought unlikely to increase indefinitely and
populations of all species are expected to stabilise at levels limited by the
availability of food or nest sitesv. Relatively speaking, numbers of birds of prey are
low. Table 2 compares current populations of sparrowhawks and peregrines with
those of common prey species.
Table 2 GB populations of sparrowhawks and peregrines and common prey species
Species GB Population
Peregrine 1,167
Sparrowhawkvi 32,000
Wood pigeonvi 2,325,000
Blackbirdvi 4,400,000
Conservation groups argue that the continued legal protection of all species of
birds of prey is essential because of their proven high susceptibility to human
impacts. This is because they are at the top of the food chain and therefore
particularly susceptible to poisoning by persistent environmental pollutants and
because they are relatively long-lived and slow to reproduce so populations are
less able to increase rapidly. They also argue that birds of prey are important
parts of the natural heritage and that their presence can contribute to local
economies by increasing tourismviii.
LEGAL PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN THE UK
EU Birds Directive
All wild birds are protected under EEC Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on
the conservation of wild birds (hereafter referred to as the ‘Birds Directive’). Article
2 of the Birds Directive requires that:
‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the
population of the species referred to in Article 1 [all naturally occurring birds
in the wild state] at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological,
scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
5
recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to
that level.’
Article 3 of the Birds Directive requires that, to this end:
‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to preserve, maintain or
re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for all species of
birds.’ [naturally occurring in the wild state].
Article 4 of the Birds Directive requires special conservation measures, including
the establishment of Special Protection Areas, for species which are either listed
on Annex 1 of the Directive (including, for example, peregrine, osprey and black
grouse) or are migratory. The species listed in Annex 1 are considered worthy of
special treatment because they are either in danger of extinction; vulnerable to
specific changes in their habitat; rare because of small populations or restricted
distributions; or vulnerable because of the specific nature of their habitat.
Article 5 of the Birds Directive provides for a general system of protection for all
species naturally occurring the in the wild. This includes the prohibition of
• deliberate killing or capture of the bird species covered by the
Directives. However, the hunting of certain species is permitted on
condition that the methods used comply with certain principles;
• destruction, damage or collection of nests and eggs;
• deliberate disturbance;
• detention of species.
Article 9 of the Directive provides for a system of derogation from the Articles 5, 6,
7 and 8 ‘where there is no other satisfactory solution’ for the following reasons:
• in the interests of public health and safety
• in the interests of air safety
• to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock forests, fisheries and
water
• to protect flora and fauna.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 implements the EU Birds Directive in the
UK.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
The requirements under the Birds Directive, to protect all wild birds, are
transposed into UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The derogation requirements of the Directive are transposed by Section 4(3) and
Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which were significantly
strengthened in 1995 by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Amendment)
Regulations 1995. Section 16 allows licences to be issued to take protected birds
if they are causing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs or fisheries, but only if
there is no other satisfactory solution.
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
6
Section 4(3) of the Act (as amended) allows wild birds, other than those on
Schedule 11, to be killed without a licence but only if it can be proven to have been
necessary to:
• protect public health, public safety, or air safety;
• prevent the spread of disease; or
• prevent serious damage to livestock, food stuffs for livestock, crops,
vegetables, fruit, growing timber or fisheries.
and only if the problem could not have been reasonably foreseen and a licence
sought in advance.
Status of racing pigeons, sparrowhawks and peregrines in the legislation
Where peregrines and sparrowhawks occur in the wild in the UK they are
protected. Peregrines are listed in Annex 1 of the EU Wild Birds Directive and
Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This means that
they are amongst the most heavily protected wild birds in the EU. Racing pigeons
are domestic, rather than wild, birds and are not protected other than by legislation
relating to animal cruelty, for example.
SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM
Granting a new status to racing pigeons
In their petition the SHU request:
‘In the definitions in the legislation, the granting of a status to racing
pigeons which would enable their owners to legitimately protect their birds’.
Member States are allowed to derogate from the provisions of the Birds Directive
to protect livestock. This might be implemented by the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended) in relation to racing pigeons and birds of prey in two ways:
• Licenses may be issued for killing otherwise protected species (including
sparrowhawk and peregrine) to prevent serious damage to livestock.
• Protected birds, which are not on Schedule 1 (would include sparrowhawk but
not peregrine), may be killed without a licence if it can be proven to have been
necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock and if the problem could not
have been foreseen and a licence sought in advance.
It is likely therefore that the SHU would like racing pigeons to be granted the
status of ‘livestock’ which would introduce the possibility of licences being issued
to kill peregrines or sparrowhawks for their protection. It may also allow pigeon
fanciers to kill sparrowhawks without a licence if they could prove that this was
necessary to prevent serious damage to their pigeons and could not have been
foreseen.
The current definition of livestock under the Act2 emphasises their use for
economic benefit. Since domestic pigeons are not kept for economic reasons or
1 Birds on Schedule 1 of the Act are specially protected and include the peregrine.
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
7
to support livelihoods, it may be difficult to prove that they are worthy of this status.
Legal advice sought by DETR and supported by MAFF has suggested that they
could not class racing pigeons as ‘livestock’ for the purposes of the Actiii.
Even if domestic pigeons were defined as livestock, legal control of birds of prey is
likely to be difficult to secure. Licences to kill birds of prey would be issued by the
Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department (SERAD) which takes advice from
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Although it is possible under current legislation
for licences to be issued to kill birds of prey to protect livestock, no evidence can
be found for such licences ever being issued. Nor are there any examples of
individuals having been able to prove that they had legally killed non-Schedule 1
birds of prey under Section 4(3) to protect livestock.
Acceptable population levels and ‘balance’
In their petition the SHU is also seeking:
‘agreement on population levels of birds of prey designed to achieve an
acceptable ecological balance with other species of birds’.
The SHU would like it to be recognised that control of the numbers of birds of prey
is required to achieve a balance between an acceptable level of risk to their
members and an acceptable level of control for birds of prey.
Conservation groups however suggest that, to reduce attacks on racing pigeons,
so many birds of prey would have to be controlled that it would adversely affect
their conservation status. Since pigeons form such a small proportion of the diet
of sparrowhawks a large number would have to be taken to reduce their impact on
racing pigeon numbers. Although there is likely to be a stronger link between the
number of peregrines and the number of racing pigeons taken, the smaller size of
the peregrine population means that killing relatively few may easily affect their
conservation status.
The issue of acceptable population levels is complex and likely to be difficult to
define. It is frequently called for to help prevent well known declines in songbird
populations, which form a significant component of the diet of sparrowhawks.
Researchix has shown that, although sparrowhawks may take significant numbers
of some wild prey species, they have never had a proven impact upon the
breeding populations of these species. Conservation groups point out that
researchx has shown some songbird populations not to be affected by increased
numbers of sparrowhawks and that populations of some prey species (such as
woodpigeon, great tit and robin) are not currently declining, in spite of increases in
sparrowhawk populations.viii.
2 ‘includes any animal which is kepta)
for the provision of food, wool, skins or fur;
for the purpose of its use in the carrying on of any agricultural activity; or
c) for the provision or improvement of shooting or fishing’
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
8
Deterrents
Conservation groups are calling for greater support for developing deterrents
against birds of prey by pigeon fanciers. Such deterrents include:
• Bali bells which are fitted to pigeon’s tails and emit a high-pitched noise when
they fly;
• the application of butterfly or owl eye markings to pigeons wings or napes;
• aversive conditioning of birds of prey by treating pigeons with a chemical which
induces vomiting in the bird of prey;
• other deterrents such as model eagle owls, large mirrors or painting eye
markings on or close to pigeon loftsviii.
SHU claim it to be in their members’ interests to have tried most of these
deterrents. Of the 366 respondents to their survey who had experimented with
deterrents only 39 found them to be of any use in reducing attacks. However,
there seems to have been little independent scientific research into the
effectiveness of such deterrents. Conservation groups suggest that the option of
aversive conditioning of birds of prey may be promisingviii, but the SHU express
concern that this option should be the subject of considerably more research
before being widely recommendedii. The need for more research prior to the
widespread introduction of such deterrents is supported by a PhD thesis published
by the University of Bristol in 1994xi.
CONTEXT FOR THE DEBATE
The debate about pigeons and birds of prey forms part of a wider debate on the
impact of birds of prey on various interests in the UK. In response to these
concerns John Gummer, then UK Environment Minister, established the UK
Raptor Forum in 1995. It has more than 30 members with an interest in issues
concerning birds of prey and meets annually. The Raptor Forum is informed by
the smaller Raptor Working Groupxii, which reports both to the Forum and to
Ministers.
When it was established, the terms of reference of the Raptor Working Group
were to: consider the population status of birds of prey; identify the species
alleged to be causing problems; identify, in particular, the impact of such species
on game birds, moorland management and racing pigeons; identify gaps in
research and possible sources of funding; consider statutory and other
mechanisms for the resolution of problems; and report back to the Forum within
one yearxiii. Since their initial examination of the issues and reporting to the
Forum, the Raptor Working Group, through the DETR, has commissioned and
overseen three pieces of external scientific research to help inform their decisions.
One of these commissions was of the Hawk and Owl Trust to research the issue
of pigeons and birds of prey. Their remit was to investigate the frequency of
attacks by sparrowhawk, peregrine and goshawk on domestic pigeons in the UK
and to examine these in relation to other causes of lossxiv. The Hawk and Owl
Trust were also asked to consider various solutions to any problems identified and
worked closely with the pigeon fanciers in conducting their researchxiv which was
providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament
9
completed in September 1998. The Hawk and Owl Trust report is due to be
published by the DETR early in 2000.
The findings and recommendations of the Hawk and Owl Trust will contribute to
the main report of the Raptor Working Group. This is due to be published in
spring 2000, and will form the basis for recommendations to Ministers on the
management of all issues concerning birds of prey in the UK.
Information Centre Research Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of the Scottish
Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers
with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
i Scottish Homing Union (1999), personal communication, 4 November 1999
ii Scottish Homing Union (1999), Attacks by peregrines and sparrowhawks on racing pigeons in
Scotland, an appeal by the Scottish Homing Union, save our sport.
iii DETR/JNCC Raptor Working Group, Progress report to ministers, 6 November 1998.
iv Ratcliffe DA (1993), The peregrine falcon, Second edition T and AD Poyser, London.
v Newton, I (1986), The sparrowhawk, Poyser, Calton.
vi Gibbons DW, Reid JB, Chapman RA (1994), The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and
Ireland, 1988-1991, British Trust for Ornithology, Scottish Ornithologists Club, Irish Wildbird
Conservancy, T & AD Poyser.
vii Crick HQP and Ratcliffe DA 1995, The Peregrine Falco peregrinus breeding population of the UK
in 1991, Bird Study 45, 1-19.
viii British Trust for Ornithology, The Hawk and Owl Trust, the National Trust, the National Trust for
Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Scottish
Raptor Study Groups, Wales Raptor Study Groups, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Wildlife
Trusts and World Wide Fund for Nature (1997) Birds of Prey in the UK: back from the brink,
Thetford.
ix Newton I, Dale K and Rothery P, Apparent lack of impact of sparrowhawks on breeding densities
of some woodland songbirds, Bird Study.
x Newton I, Dale L and Rothery P (1997), Apparent lack of impact of sparrowhawks on the breeding
densities of some woodland songbirds, Bird Study 44 pp129-135.
xi Musgrove A (1994), Peregrines and pigeons: investigations into a raptor-human conflict, PhD
thesis.
xii Members of the Raptor Working Group are Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish
Raptor Study Groups, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the Scottish Landowners
Federation; the British Association for Shooting and Conservation; the Game Conservancy Trust,
the Royal Association of Pigeon Racers, the Scottish Executive and the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions.
xiii Department of the Environment, Bird of Prey Working Group begins work, Press Release 20
October 1995.
xiv Hawk and Owl Trust personal communication, 26 October 1999.
