A European study shows that hunting is not linked to the decline of game birds

Are huntable bird species declining more than protected species? This is one of the questions addressed by a study recently published in the scientific journal Global Ecology and Conservation. The research, conducted by scientists from University College Dublin and the Institute for Game and Wildlife Research (IREC), has analysed bird population trends in different European countries over two decades.

The main conclusion is clear: across Europe, there is no statistically significant association between a species being huntable and the likelihood of its population declining. This finding holds after other ecological and conservation-related factors are included in the analysis.

256 species and nine European countries

The researchers analysed trends in 256 bird species across nine countries: Spain, France, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Their aim was to find out whether species listed as huntable were more or less likely to be in decline than protected species or those not designated as huntable.

To do this, the analysis considered breeding population trends and various characteristics of the species and their conservation context. The variables included a species’ legal status as huntable, its inclusion in Annex I of the Birds Directive, its nesting strategy, and its relationship with agricultural habitats and the intensity of agriculture.

The first analysis found that a species’ huntable status had no statistically significant effect on its likelihood of being in decline. In other words, in this dataset, the fact that a species may legally be hunted did not, by itself, explain why its populations were declining.

What happens when the amount hunted is taken into account?

The researchers went a step further. A second part of the study focused exclusively on huntable species in six countries and used average annual harvest levels as a rough indicator of hunting interest or pressure. Here too, there was no statistically significant relationship between the level of harvest and the likelihood of a species being in decline.

This finding is particularly interesting because it avoids reducing the issue to a simple comparison between huntable and non-huntable species. The study also sought to establish whether, among species subject to harvesting, those with higher harvest levels were more likely to experience population declines. The analysis found no such association at the scale studied.

Birds in agricultural habitats appear to be among the most exposed

The study did find associations with other characteristics. Species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, which receive special protection, were less likely to be in decline across the dataset. By contrast, ground-nesting birds were more likely to be in decline.

This finding is consistent with the importance of changes in agricultural habitats for many European birds. Agricultural intensification, changes to the landscape and the loss of certain habitat features can affect the reproduction and survival of species, although the specific impact of each factor varies between species and regions.

An important caveat from the researchers themselves

The study includes a fundamental caveat that should be borne in mind when interpreting its findings. It does not show that hunting is irrelevant to all bird populations. The authors point out that using a species’ legal huntable status as a national-level variable is a relatively crude measure. Knowing that a species may legally be hunted does not tell us how many individuals are actually taken, where harvesting takes place, what the local hunting pressure is, or how it is distributed across ages, sexes and populations. Likewise, the average harvest level used in the second analysis cannot capture all the differences between regions.

The researchers therefore stress that local effects, or effects on particular populations, may exist that this large-scale analysis cannot detect. Eva de la Peña sums up this distinction by explaining that the finding does not mean hunting has no effect on specific species or populations; rather, the relationship is more complex than simply determining whether a species may legally be hunted.

The finding that changes the debate: hunting and decline are not statistically linked

The value of the study lies precisely in the fact that it does not simply compare opinions or perceptions, but statistically analyses a broad range of species and countries. The question was whether legally huntable birds are generally more likely to be in decline.

Based on the data used, the statistical answer is no.

And when the researchers replaced the simple measure of huntable status with an indicator of harvest levels, they still found no significant association with the likelihood of decline. This shifts the focus to a much more complex question: what factors are driving changes in bird populations, and under what specific circumstances might each one have an influence?

Reference: de la Peña, E., Arroyo, B., Cruz-Flores, M. & McMahon, B. J. (2026). Neither legal huntability nor harvest-based hunting interest explain broad-scale variation in population decline probability at the European scale. Global Ecology and Conservation. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2026.e04418.

Preprint of the study: Does Legal Hunting Affect the Probability of Birds' National Population Decline Across Europe? (2025).