Beavers and pheasants tend to evoke strong emotional reactions among different groups for varying reasons. Depending on your viewpoint, pheasants may be held in high regard as a hunting quarry, enjoyed as a striking and quintessential part of the British countryside, or regarded as a pest and ecological menace. Beavers are similarly polarising; for some they are harbingers of ecological renewal, a source of hope in a much nature-depleted landscape; for others, they are perceived as a destructive nuisance.
While each species may be similarly polarising, they differ markedly in some important aspects. Pheasants are not native to the UK, whereas beavers are. Pheasants have detrimental impacts on our wildlife and ecology, while beavers have the capacity to sculpt wildlife-rich habitat through their eco-engineering, enhancing biodiversity at landscape scales. They possess an unrivalled ability to breathe life back into degraded landscapes. This eco-engineering capacity also has the potential to conflict with human land management objectives on occasion.
Despite these notable differences between the two species, the release of pheasants into the English countryside is permitted with very little regulatory red tape, while the release of beavers into the wild in England (with one exception) is still not permitted. Currently, the only beaver releases permitted in England (at significant cost, with vast regulation and paperwork involved) is into custom built enclosures. This obviously severely limits the potential benefits beavers can provide in the wider landscape, and longer term poses an issue of genetic bottle-necking.
How did we find ourselves in this situation, where a non-native, ecologically damaging species can be released in its tens of millions every year, while a native, ecologically beneficial keystone species is not permitted to be? Why has governmental progress towards the reintroduction of beavers to our wild landscapes in England resembled the animal in question out of water…slow and lumbering? This story has its foundations in biased agendas and vested interests, political spinelessness and bureaucratic foot dragging, the lining of pockets of a small but influential minority, and ‘tradition’ trumping ecology.
SUPPORTED BY HEROES LIKE YOU
Support independent eco journalism that drives real change.Tradition trumping ecology?
Pheasants have been released into the British countryside since before modern wildlife laws existed. Due to the historically entrenched nature of the game bird shooting tradition, pheasant release is shielded from government classification that would trigger a general prohibition of such a practice (which would likely apply to any other non-native species today). This also applies to another non-native game bird species, the red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa), although its lineage as an introduced hunting quarry only stretches back a few centuries. If such a historical precedent applies to pheasants and red-legged partridge, it makes very little sense that it does not also apply to beavers.
Beavers are thought to have been hunted to extinction in Britain sometime in the 16th century. The Wildlife and Countryside Act states that it is an offence to release any animal not “ordinarily resident”, with beavers wrongfully excluded, due their extinction at human hands a few centuries ago.
In stark contrast to beavers, an exception is made for pheasants, as they are designated as a naturalised species existing in a “wild state” (at least following their release into the wild, before which they are considered a form of livestock). This is despite them being reared in captivity, never having been resident here prior to their initial introduction and being unable to maintain self-sustaining populations without massive, continual, introductions.
Pheasants have a lot more political weight to back them up than beavers do. Large landowners and shooting estates tend to be politically well connected, and such groups exert a powerful pull on the levers of government.
Partly stemming from this, the licensing burden for pheasant releases is very low, in marked contrast to beaver releases which have a very high licensing and compliance burden. For pheasant releases, licensing is only required within 500 metres of a protected area, with no licensing required in other contexts. There is no requirement for a landscape assessment, ecological justification, long-term management plan or stakeholder engagement.
Beaver releases are a very different affair. These require multi-year management plans, a risk/benefit impact assessment, ongoing monitoring, an exit strategy, conflict mitigation details, welfare considerations, a trapping protocol, local landowner agreements and stakeholder consultation. All to “reintroduce” beavers into a custom built enclosure.
What about native game bird reintroduction?
When comparing the release pheasants to that of native gamebirds such as the great bustard (Otis tarda) or capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), a similar picture emerges. These two species were lost from the British landscape in recent centuries, primarily due to over-hunting and habitat loss (with tiny reintroduced populations of each species just clinging on). Their release is a much more complicated and expensive affair than the release of pheasants. These species have a much higher licensing burden, requiring individual, case–by-case licenses, supported by species-specific management plans, detailed justification, monitoring protocols and long-term reporting obligations.
Release of these native gamebirds also necessitates an intensive ecological risk assessment, in contrast to pheasant release which does not require any. The release of these birds also engenders a far higher compliance burden (i.e. the total cost, effort and resources required to meet the rules and regulations pertaining to release requirements) than it does for releasing pheasants. In spite of this distorted lack of ecological oversight when it comes to pheasant release in comparison to these native gamebirds, it should be noted that pheasant releases have been flagged as a threat to capercaillie populations, due to the risk of spreading disease, parasites and inflating predator numbers.
A brief history of pheasants and beavers in Britain
Native to Asia, the common or ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) was popular with Romans, who introduced it into much of Europe. They may have brought it to Britain, but it wasn’t until the arrival of the Normans that it was first released into the British countryside and popularised as a gamebird. Pheasant shooting became more popular with the advent of hand-held firearms in the 1500’s (although this was likely largely restricted to sitting or perching birds).
It was only with the advance of gun technology and the advent of the percussive cap in the 1820’s that guns became capable of reliably shooting flying birds, with the more-or-less modern double-baralled shotgun arriving on the scene around 1830. The expansion of the railways around this time also meant that wealthy city dwellers could more easily travel to the countryside, with driven shooting taking off in the 19th century, with pheasants extensively reared and released by gamekeepers. This means that driven pheasant shooting we know today is only 200 years old. Can this really be considered as a historical practice?
Beavers (Castor fiber) were hunted to extinction in Britain in the 16th century, sought after for their pelts, meat and castoreum (a musky exudate produced by their anal glands, used historically in medicines and perfumes). Beavers have now been officially recognised as a native species and their return “welcomed” by governmental authorities in Scotland, England and Wales, although only in Scotland are wild releases of the animals permitted.
Love them or loathe them, it is entirely down to the actions of “beaver bombers” releasing beavers without governmental approval that we have expanding wild populations of beavers in Britain at all. Beaver bombing is itself likely fuelled by the frustration of those who perceive glacially slow progress and expensive, obstructive bureaucracy by the relevant authorities, deciding to take matters into their own hands. Expanding wild populations in effect forced the Scottish government’s hand to recognise beavers as a native species and permit the expansion of their wild populations in 2019, with England following suit in 2022.
The first free-living beavers in England were found living wild on the River Otter in Devon. DEFRA’s first impulse was to remove them, which a public outcry prevented, with Devon Wildlife Trust and the University of Exeter launching an intensive study of the beavers. The results of this would play a pivotal role in DEFRA eventually granting beavers protected species status in England, “welcoming” their return (but doing little to actively facilitate this).
The ecological footprint of pheasants
Pheasants are omnivores and opportunistic feeders that will consume vegetation and seeds, as well as invertebrates such as insects and worms, in addition to small rodents, reptiles, amphibians and young birds. Pheasants pose a particular risk to adders, being their most significant predator in Britain, feeding on young adders and pecking at adults when given the opportunity.
Research conducted by usually pro-pheasant organisations such as the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust has highlighted the impacts of pheasants on hedgerow plant communities, which will have knock-on effects on other wildlife. Other research has documented impacts on the invertebrate community around pheasant release sites.
The impacts of their feeding are not the only way they impact wildlife populations. Pheasants are themselves eaten by generalist predators, and a rise in avian predators has been linked to pheasant shoots. When populations of pheasants fall to a low ebb, inflated predator populations put more pressure on native wildlife populations. Natural predators are systematically targeted by gamekeepers seeking to protect pheasants, using inhumane methods such as snares and Larsen traps.
The sheer numbers of pheasants released in the British countryside each year must be considered when contemplating their ecological impact. Following releases in late summer, pheasant populations peak at around 50 million birds, making them one of the most abundant birds in Britain. This is a huge number, representing 1.6-1.7 times the total biomass of the British breeding bird population in spring. Earlier in the year in May when pheasant populations are at a lower ebb, they still may comprise around 20% of the total biomass of all breeding birds. The densities with which pheasants occur around release sites tends to greatly exceed their population densities in parts of their native range in Asia, compounding their impacts.
At high densities, pheasant droppings add excess nutrients to soil, and their pecking and scratching disturbs the ground, both of which impact the plant community.
With the growing evidence base of their ecological impacts, following a legal challenge by Wild Justice, in 2020 pheasants were classified as a species that imperil UK wildlife. This meant that from 2021, DEFRA required any pheasant shoots to seek a license to release the birds within 500 metres of protected areas. Vast swathes of the British countryside are within 500 metres of pheasant release sites, and are likely being impacted. However some pheasants certainly disperse beyond 500 metres from a given release site, and there has been no research into their ecological impacts beyond this distance.
The lead in shotgun pellets used in pheasant shooting is a persistent poison that contaminates soil and endangers other forms of life, with an estimated 5,000-6,000 tonnes of lead ammunition released into the environment from shooting every year. This comprises the most significant cause of lead contamination in the UK. In spite of the well documented risks that lead exposure poses to humans and wildlife, lead shot in gun cartridges outside of wetlands remains legal in the UK (with only partial bans for lead shot when applied to certain waterfowl or protected wetland sites).
Concerns have also been raised about the risk of pheasant populations spreading bird flu, with a serious outbreak detected in a pheasant population in 2024, and linked to the lapse regulations governing their rearing and releases, with a lack of biosecurity measures in place compared to domestic chickens. This poses a potential risk to both domesticated and wild birds, and possibly humans.
Welfare considerations
Issues of cruelty have also been raised, in both the rearing of imported pheasants and in pheasants reared on British soil, and on the shoots themselves. Even before they are shot, following their release it is thought that up to 45% of pheasants may die from a combination of predation, disease and road accidents. This mortality rate dwarfs that of any found in any other animal husbandry system.
Among those pheasants that survive until the shooting season, it is thought that between 30-40% are wounded during shoots and not recovered, subjecting them to a slow, painful death. In spite of this, the gamebird shooting industry operates in a largely unregulated manner, evading laws that should otherwise apply. Even among those pheasants that are shot and recovered, only a small proportion of these end up on anyone’s dinner plate, with the rest discarded.
While breeding, hatchling and enclosed pheasants have protection under the Animal Welfare Act, this does not apply to pheasants once they are released into local woodland. They are then considered to exist in a ‘wild state’, in spite of their captive rearing, and the unnaturally high densities they are released in. This unusual interpretation of the law and the exception it allows has been custom made to appease shooting industry interests.
The bottom line
Advocates of pheasant shooting are quick to point to its income generating potential in remote rural locations, this being the primary reason it is embraced by landowners, irrespective of its environmental impacts. (This economic justification for shooting is not without its critics however). These same landowners are likely to be much more hostile to beaver reintroduction, given that hosting beavers on one’s land is likely to be perceived as incurring costs (such as minor flooding, tree felling and damage to crops), rather than generating income as hosting pheasants can.
Landowners bearing the brunt of beaver impacts so that others may benefit from their presence should be supported, both practically and financially. While the income generated by pheasant shooting might be obvious, beavers also generate significant economic benefits through the provision of “ecosystem services”, the various essential benefits provided directly and indirectly by nature.
Beavers and their eco-engineering provide a range of such services. They sculpt a more ecologically resilient landscape (all the more important in the wake of a changing climate), with their dams buffering against flooding (by slowing water flow, reducing peak flood levels and releasing water slowly), with the wetlands they create also forming a more drought-resilient landscape. The enhanced capacity of beaver-engineered landscapes to store water can help facilitate groundwater aquifer recharge. Beaver wetlands that form behind their dams can also filter nutrient pollutants such as agricultural fertilisers and sediment, improving water quality downstream, while sequestering carbon.
Beaver eco-engineering can also create habitat that supports much other wildlife, including pollinators. The more nature-rich landscapes beavers can help sculpt also creates opportunities for non-consumptive recreation, which can help boost the mental health of people having contact with them, when compared to more degraded and depleted landscapes. This is particularly relevant to a British context, with Britain considered a particularly nature-disconnected and nature-depleted part of the world.
The government should pay landowners to host beavers on their land, for these various beneficial ecosystem services their activities provide. With a shift away from the traditional subsidy grants towards the implementation of Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) payments, where the government financially rewards farmers and landowners to provide “environmental goods and services alongside food production” comes a viable means through which to do this. This could - and should - encompass beavers. One might hope that the government would take this step. However, going on our past and present government’s environmental track record, this may be a fool’s hope.
Ecosystem engineers
Both their firm fans and their haters will likely agree that beavers have a profound impact on the land through their eco-engineering activities (in contrast to pheasants). Beavers are not the kind of animal that you can release into the wild and turn your back on without any afterthought. Their eco-engineering activities can potentially conflict with the land management objectives of people, so their wild populations will require management so that any potential negative impacts can be mitigated. None of the issues beavers pose are insurmountable, and we can look to experience from elsewhere to inform approaches here.
The German state of Bavaria reintroduced beavers over half a century ago, and it can now be considered to be at capacity for beavers. A passive method for reducing human-beaver conflicts there has been to implement buffer strips between waterways and agricultural land. Bavaria also has state employed beaver wardens that work with trained community volunteers, to ensure that any landowners impacted have someone at the end of a phone they can contact, with rapid support provided as and when needed. (A similar approach has been successfully adopted in Switzerland). Management of beavers will incur some costs, but the evidence suggests that any such costs are likely to be far exceeded by the economic gains yielded by ecosystem service provision.
Conclusion
The marked contrast between the perception of beavers and pheasants and issues pertaining to their release into our wider landscapes is not just a legal oddity; it is a mirror held up to our relationship with nature. The laws that pertain to these two species are expressions of what we, or a minority of “we”, value. In this case, they continue to prioritise what is familiar, deemed profitable, supported by vested interests and historically entrenched, even when this places further strain on already degraded ecosystems.
While England prides itself on precaution in environmental decision-making, such precaution seems reserved for the species that might improve our landscapes, rather than those that already dominate them. England’s wildlife regulations were originally geared towards managing nature as a resource, rather than restoring it, and they still largely reflect this purpose. Species that fit comfortably within existing land uses are permitted; those that reshape landscapes face much tighter controls.
Beaver release necessitates mountains of paperwork and vast amounts of scrutiny, while being highly restricted even when viable, only being permitted into purpose-built enclosures. This is in spite of a growing evidence base to demonstrate the various ecological benefits beavers can provide. Pheasants can be released into the countryside in their many millions, despite mounting evidence of ecological harm.
This inversion reveals that what is culturally and economically embedded is treated as normal, irrespective of its environmental cost; while what threatens the status quo is framed as risky, even when the science points the other way.
If we are serious about restoring nature and combating the worst impacts of climate change, we need laws that protect ecosystems – not just traditions.
