Home > Research > Services > Report Abstracts > 248

Abstract from BTO Research Report No 248:

A.J. Musgrove, N.A. Clark, J. Gill & N.O.M. Ravenscroft (2001)

A Review of Wildfowling on the Stour Estuary

Executive summary

1. This report reviews the data on waterbirds, wildfowling and other human influences on the Stour Estuary, before creating a decision-making system for reviewing wildfowling consents. The Stour information is then passed through this decision-making system to assess whether there is a need to modify the wildfowling consents on the Stour. Recommendations are made with regard to future data collection and research to aid the process.

2. WeBS Core Count and Low Tide Count data sets were analysed for each species to identify population changes and the current distribution within the Stour. Twenty-two species occur on the Stour with an average winter population of over 50. Of these, nine have declined during the last five-, 10-, 25- or all-years that there have been standard counts on the Stour.

3. The local wildfowling clubs through BASC provided wildfowling data. Data on the numbers shot is only available consistently for the last five years during which time there has been no obvious trend in the numbers shot. At a longer time scale there is anecdotal evidence which suggests that wildfowling is either stable or decreasing on the Stour.

4. A number of studies of disturbance have been undertaken on the Stour . None of these has been carried out over a sufficient timescale to detect trends, however all consider wildfowling to be at a lower level (in terms of events) than many other potentially disturbing activities.

5. A decision-making system has been produced to review the wildfowling consents on SPAs. This system follows different pathways depending on the change in wildfowling on the site and the alerts status of each species.

6. The review of wildfowling on the Stour found no evidence that the favourable conservation status of any species was being affected at present levels of wildfowling.

7. There is a need for better data on the level of wildfowling and other types of disturbance to be collected and a need to match the WeBS count units and the wildfowling units. It would also be valuable to analyse the data from the review process for all UK estuaries to shed more light on the effect of wildfowling on bird distribution and numbers.

Back to Research Reports 248 - 286