Gamebird Shooting: What Does It Mean for Animal Welfare?

At Hopefield, we believe animals deserve to live their lives free from exploitation, fear and suffering. That applies whether they have four legs, two legs, feathers, fur or hooves. So when the Government announced a new call for evidence on gamebird rearing, release and shooting in England, we thought it was worth taking a closer look at what the practice actually means for the birds involved. Because gamebird shooting isn’t just about what happens when a gun is fired. The welfare story starts much earlier.

What is gamebird shooting?

Gamebird shooting is the practice of shooting birds that are managed for sporting purposes. In England, pheasants and red-legged partridges are among the birds commonly involved. And many of the birds shot aren’t simply wild birds that happen to be living in the countryside. They are bred and reared specifically to be released for shooting.

The Government’s current call for evidence is looking at the whole process — including how gamebirds are bred and kept, their release into the wild, shooting, animal welfare, disease risks, biodiversity and impacts on wildlife and habitats. That’s important because if we’re talking about animal welfare, we need to look at the animal’s entire experience, not just one moment at the end of it.

What happens to gamebirds before they’re released?

Gamebirds bred for shooting are raised under controlled conditions before being released. There is a Code of Practice covering the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes in England, including birds bred and reared for release for sport shooting. It sets out requirements around things such as suitable environments, shelter, heating, lighting, ventilation, food and water.

But there is an important distinction here.

The Government itself points out that gamebirds reared for shooting aren’t covered by the same animal welfare rules as poultry farmed for food.

That’s one of the issues this new call for evidence is examining: whether the existing protections are adequate and whether stronger or similar welfare requirements should be introduced.

For us, that raises a pretty fundamental question.

Why should the welfare standards applied to an animal depend on whether someone intends to eat them or shoot them for recreation?

Then they’re released to be shot

Once the birds have been reared, they can be released into the countryside for shooting.

There are rules around where certain gamebirds can be released. For example, releases of common pheasants and red-legged partridges on certain protected sites, or within 500 metres of their boundaries, require licensing. There are also wider concerns around what large-scale releases can mean for the environment and native wildlife, which is another reason the Government is gathering evidence.

But from an animal welfare perspective, the basic purpose of the release is difficult to ignore. These birds have been bred and reared so that they can ultimately be shot.

What happens when the shooting starts?

This is where we think the language matters. It’s often described as sport. But from the bird’s point of view, being chased, shot at and killed isn’t a sport.

It’s simply something happening to them.

And not every shot results in an immediate death. Injuries and wounded birds are one of the welfare concerns surrounding shooting, alongside the conditions in which birds are bred and reared.

At Hopefield, we spend every day caring for animals who have experienced neglect, injury, exploitation or simply been let down by people. We know how much an individual animal matters.

A pig isn’t a target.

A horse isn’t a commodity.

A bird isn’t a sporting accessory.

They’re sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear and distress.

Is gamebird shooting really about conservation?

This is one of the arguments you’ll often hear around shooting: that it benefits the countryside and supports conservation. There are certainly wider environmental and land-management questions around the practice, and the Government’s call for evidence specifically asks for evidence about biodiversity, protected habitats, wildlife and other environmental impacts.

But conservation and shooting animals aren’t automatically the same thing.

You can care passionately about the countryside without believing that animals need to be killed for entertainment. And protecting habitats, supporting biodiversity and restoring nature can — and should — be about creating places where wildlife can thrive.

Not creating wildlife simply to shoot it.

Why is this being discussed now?

This isn’t an old debate being dragged back into the headlines. On 4 September 2026, the Government launched a new call for evidence on gamebird release, shooting and welfare during rearing in England. It is asking for evidence about the positive and negative impacts of the industry, including animal welfare, biodiversity, disease, wildlife crime, biosecurity and environmental impacts.

The call is open until 1 November 2026.

It doesn’t mean that the Government has decided to ban gamebird shooting, or that new regulations have already been proposed. The Government says the exercise is intended to build the evidence base and inform potential future policy. And we think that’s exactly why it’s worth having the conversation.

Our view at Hopefield

We’re an animal sanctuary. We’re here because we believe animals deserve better. We don’t believe any animal should be bred, raised and ultimately killed because somebody finds shooting them entertaining.

That’s not a complicated position for us.

It’s why we rescue animals.

It’s why we care for them for the rest of their lives. Animals are individuals, not resources for us to use.

Whether it’s a rescued pig enjoying a wallow, a donkey making their presence known across the sanctuary or a bird finally getting the space and safety they deserve, we see the same thing.

An animal.

Not a target.

Not a trophy.

Not a sport.

And as the Government gathers evidence on the welfare of gamebirds, we hope animal welfare is given the weight it deserves. Because ultimately, the question isn’t just what humans want to do with these birds.

It’s what the birds experience.