Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

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

  1. 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
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

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 20

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust