Scottish Animal Welfare Commission: letter to Cabinet Secretary regarding the Guga Hunt

From: Professor Cathy Dwyer, Chair of SAWC
To: Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs
Date sent: 3 June 2026

Dear Cabinet Secretary

Animal welfare aspects of the annual Guga Hunt

I write in connection with the annual gannet chick (guga) hunt on the island of Sula Sgeir in the Western Isles, traditionally undertaken by the Men of Ness from Lewis. Following correspondence from stakeholders raising concerns about this hunt, SAWC has undertaken a short review, primarily focused on the available evidence regarding the relative humaneness of capture and killing methods used both for guga and for other birds of equivalent size.

In most cases a hunt of this nature would contravene s.1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prohibits the killing and taking of wild birds. An exception in s.16 of the Act makes specific provision for the granting of a licence for the purpose of providing food for human consumption in relation to the gannets on the island of Sula Sgeir. While NatureScot is the licensing authority for the hunt, I understand that the agency consults with Scottish Government when considering the relevant application. SAWC’s remit is to advise the Scottish Ministers on matters concerning the welfare of animals, as sentient beings, and we have therefore thought it appropriate to write to you. 

In 2025, the licence issued by NatureScot following marine ornithology advice permitted the taking and killing of up to 500 guga on one day. Conservation issues are beyond SAWC’s remit but, when assessed against scientific animal welfare concepts, this scenario raises potentially serious impacts on individual sentient seabirds. The 2025 licence required that birds taken “must be killed immediately and in a humane manner” without any further recommendation other than suggesting that advice might be obtained from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is therefore some doubt as to the approved method, if any. In practice, the guga are captured from their cliff nests using noose poles, and are usually then brought to the cliff top where they are killed using one or more blows to the head. We understand that the Scottish SPCA objects to this method of killing.

SAWC has requested a view from the Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) on the welfare aspects of killing guga, as far as these can be assessed. In its response the HSA noted the welfare costs of capture and restraint of a wild bird using a noose pole and the difficulty of achieving effective stunning (essential for humane killing and a legal requirement in the slaughter of domestic poultry) using blunt-force trauma – in this case, one or more blows to the skull. The HSA letter further considered alternative methods (captive-bolt stunning and killing by cervical dislocation or shooting) and concluded that these would be unlikely to offer improved welfare due to the conditions that prevail on Sula Sgeir.

The Director of the HSA has given permission for SAWC to share this response with you and accordingly I attach it for your attention (published separately).

In addition to killing methods, SAWC has also considered the welfare impact of disturbance on nesting seabird colonies, and the impact on adult birds of having their chicks killed. The 2025 licence stated that “[D]ue care and attention must be taken to avoid any unnecessary disturbance or damage to the gannet colony.” Disturbance is acknowledged as one of the main conservation threats to Scottish seabirds at their breeding colonies  (e.g. Scottish seabird conservation action plan: vulnerability report 2024) and the impacts of disturbance on populations have been widely studied.

We also considered the welfare costs of disturbance on individual birds, who would be subject to fear from human presence as well as the stress of capture of guga, of potential hunger of nearby chicks experiencing disruption of feeding as their parents avoid the disturbed area, and for the parent birds whose chicks have been removed. Last year, the guga hunt involved approximately one whole day of human activity within the colony. Although these issues have been less studied compared to the impacts of different slaughter methods, and rarely in wild birds, there is evidence of marked physiological and behavioural impacts on parent birds of the distress of offspring. In particular, vocal calls of distress have been shown to be potent stimuli eliciting fear, anxiety and stress in domestic birds, even in unrelated animals. These disturbances may also have profound longer term impacts including nest site abandonment, leaving unfledged chicks to starve, and reduce foraging success.

In summary, SAWC is unaware of a humane way to dispatch guga that is feasible under the conditions that prevail on the island, and we urge consideration of the wider animal welfare implications of the disturbance for all the birds nesting in or near the vicinity of the hunt. Both SAWC and HSA acknowledge that the hunt for and consumption of guga are of cultural significance and no doubt you, your officials and NatureScot will take that into account when determining any future licence application. Given that animal welfare is a matter of considerable public interest, I hope that this information will also be thought relevant. I would be pleased to discuss the matter further if that would be helpful.

Yours sincerely

Professor Cathy Dwyer 
Chair 
Scottish Animal Welfare Commission