Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The probability of successfully killing a bird when shooting decreases with distance from the bird. If hunting is regulated by ‘bag limits’ (i.e. the number of birds individuals can harvest), then shooting at birds from a long distance may be detrimental, as many birds are hit but do not die instantly. These escape and die later but are not collected and so are not included in a bag limit. This means that actual mortality from hunting is considerably higher than the set bag limits.

Study locations

Key messages

A replicated, randomised before-and-after study from Denmark found that significantly fewer pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus were wounded but not killed, following the implementation of a voluntary maximum shooting distance.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, randomised before-and-after study in March from 1998-2005 in one wetland area in which 150-500 pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus were monitored annually in Jutland, Denmark (Noer et al. 2007) found that the implementation of a voluntary restriction on maximum shooting distance (25 m) in 1997 significantly reduced injury rate during the hunting season. The proportion of wounded first-year and older geese significantly decreased over the study period (7–11% and 18% decrease by 2005 respectively). A simple population dynamic model predicted these decreases to be consistent with a c. 60% reduction of numbers wounded for both age classes. Since 1997, the total annual number of harvested geese in Denmark increased from 15,000 to 30,000. Thus, the authors point out, reductions in numbers wounded did not appear to have had any negative impact on harvest size. A mobile surgical X-ray unit was used to screen for shot. Recaptures accounted for just 1% of the sample.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Noer H., Madsen J. & Hartmann P. (2007) Reducing wounding of game by shotgun hunting: effects of a Danish action plan on pink‐footed geese. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 653-662.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Scare fish-eating birds from areas to reduce conflict Action Link	Evidence not assessed	0	Synopsis Link
Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce unsustainable levels of exploitation Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’ Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link