Our Objectives

Grey Squirrel Protection UK campaigns for changes to the law

Objective 1: Permit the re-release of rehabilitated grey squirrels

To seek an amendment to the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 to allow the re-release of rehabilitated grey squirrels into the wild.

The current prohibition on releasing grey squirrels arises from the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019, which implements the EU Invasive Alien Species regime in domestic law. This framework represents a relatively recent change in how grey squirrel rehabilitation is treated in the UK.

Prior to the introduction of the EU IAS regime, the keeping and release of grey squirrels was governed primarily by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although grey squirrels were listed on Schedule 9, release into the wild was not subject to a blanket statutory ban. Instead, releases could be authorised under licence, including under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which permits otherwise prohibited acts where licensed by the appropriate authority.

Under this earlier framework, rehabilitated grey squirrels could lawfully be released under licence, including into areas where no red squirrel populations were present. The IAS regime replaced this discretionary licensing approach with an effective absolute prohibition on release, regardless of individual circumstances or welfare considerations.

Under the current IAS Order, Article 14(a) allows Natural England to license the keeping of grey squirrels, but the Order provides no lawful route for their re-release once rehabilitated. In England, rescue centres may keep grey squirrels for up to six weeks without a licence or permit, after which continued care requires authorisation.

In practice, this creates a severe bottleneck. Rescue capacity is quickly exhausted, new animals cannot be accepted, and otherwise healthy squirrels are left with no lawful pathway back to the wild. As a result, veterinarians may be asked to euthanise healthy grey squirrels solely because the law provides no alternative.

We believe this represents an unnecessary and harmful departure from the previous UK approach. A narrowly framed amendment restoring the possibility of licensed re-release of rehabilitated grey squirrels, in appropriate locations and excluding areas where red squirrel populations are present, would relieve pressure on rescue centres and prevent the routine destruction of healthy animals for administrative reasons.

Objective 2: Strengthen protections for wildlife from dog attacks

To seek an amendment to the Hunting Act 2004 and related legislation to address situations where dogs are permitted to chase wildlife due to owner negligence.

The law as it currently stands

Under the Hunting Act 2004, an offence is committed only where a person intentionally hunts a wild mammal with a dog. This means that, in practice, criminal liability depends on proving intent.

Where a dog chases or attacks wildlife — including grey squirrels — enforcement action is often impossible unless it can be shown that the owner deliberately allowed or encouraged this behaviour.

The gap in the law

Although the vast majority of dog owners act responsibly, some do not. Under the current legal framework, a dog owner may:

allow a dog to roam uncontrolled in areas where wildlife is present,
fail to recall or restrain the dog when it begins chasing an animal, and
take no immediate steps to intervene,

yet still avoid liability because negligence alone is not sufficient to constitute an offence.

This creates a clear enforcement gap: wildlife may be injured or killed by dogs, but no offence is committed unless intent can be proven.

Why intent-only liability is inadequate

Other areas of UK law already recognise that negligent conduct, where harm is foreseeable and preventable, can and should attract liability. For example:

the Animal Welfare Act 2006 imposes duties of care based on responsibility, not intent;
road traffic and public safety laws routinely criminalise negligent behaviour without requiring proof of intent.

By contrast, wildlife protection law offers no equivalent safeguard where dogs are involved.

What we are seeking

We seek a targeted amendment to the Hunting Act 2004, or related legislation, to make it an offence for a dog owner to:

act negligently by allowing their dog to chase wildlife, and
fail to intervene immediately when such behaviour occurs,

where the risk of harm to wildlife is obvious and foreseeable.

This would not criminalise responsible dog ownership, nor accidental or momentary incidents. It would apply only where an owner fails to exercise reasonable control over their dog in circumstances where wildlife is clearly at risk.

Why this change matters

Grey squirrels and other wildlife are frequently injured or killed by dogs in parks, woodlands, and green spaces. At present, the law offers little deterrence or accountability in these situations.

A negligence-based offence would:

close a clear gap in the law,
encourage responsible dog ownership, and
reduce unnecessary harm to wildlife without banning lawful dog walking or recreation.

Relevant legislation

• Hunting Act 2004 — intent-based offence framework

• Animal Welfare Act 2006 — duty of care principles

Objective 3: End unlicensed killing of grey squirrels by the public

To seek changes in the law to make it a criminal offence for members of the public to trap or kill grey squirrels without licence, training, or oversight.

At present, grey squirrels may be trapped and killed by members of the public without any requirement for a licence, training, or demonstrated competence. Unlike other regulated activities involving animals, there is no system of welfare oversight, record-keeping, or accountability.

This means that individuals with no experience or assessment may lawfully:

set traps,
use blunt force or firearms,
and kill grey squirrels in public and private spaces,

with no requirement to meet humane standards or justify necessity.

We believe this represents a serious gap in animal protection law. Activities that involve the intentional killing of animals should be subject to clear legal safeguards, including licensing, competence requirements, and enforceable welfare standards.

We are therefore calling for legislation that:

prohibits the trapping or killing of grey squirrels by members of the public without licence, and
places responsibility for lethal control, where authorised, within a regulated and accountable framework.

Objective 4: End unlicensed commercial killing of grey squirrels

To seek changes in the law to prohibit companies and organisations from trapping or killing grey squirrels without licence, training, and enforceable oversight.

At present, commercial operators may lawfully trap and kill grey squirrels without any requirement for specific licensing tied to welfare outcomes, transparency, or independent scrutiny. This allows lethal control to be carried out at scale, often in private and away from public view.

Where killing is conducted as a commercial activity, the risks are amplified. Targets, contracts, and financial incentives can encourage speed and volume over care, increasing the likelihood of suffering and abuse.

We believe that any organisation involved in the killing of wildlife should be subject to clear legal safeguards, including:

licensing tied to demonstrated competence,
enforceable welfare standards, and
meaningful inspection and accountability.

Ending unlicensed commercial killing would significantly reduce the scale of grey squirrel deaths and ensure that any authorised activity is subject to proper scrutiny rather than driven by profit or convenience.

Objective 5: Ban the use and sale of spring traps

To seek a change in the law to prohibit the use, sale, and purchase of spring traps in the UK.

The current legal position

Spring traps are regulated under a patchwork of legislation rather than banned outright. Under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to use a spring trap that is not of a type approved by the Secretary of State.

Approved traps are listed in secondary legislation, including:

The Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018
The Spring Traps Approval (Wales) Order 2019
The Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011
The Spring Traps Approval (Northern Ireland) Order 2016

These Orders permit the use of certain spring traps for specified species, despite longstanding welfare concerns.

Why spring traps cause suffering

In practice, spring traps frequently fail to kill outright. Animals may be caught by a limb rather than the neck or spine, resulting in:

fractured bones,
severe soft-tissue injury,
arterial damage and blood loss, and
prolonged pain and distress before death.

Where traps are not checked promptly, animals may remain alive for extended periods, suffering from injury, shock, dehydration, or exposure.

Why approval does not equal humaneness

The continued approval of spring traps sits uneasily with the principles of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which seeks to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals under human control. Although wild animals are not protected in the same way, the routine authorisation of devices that are known to cause prolonged suffering raises serious ethical and welfare concerns.

Approval under a ministerial order does not guarantee humane outcomes in real-world conditions — particularly where traps are used by untrained individuals, on private land, and without effective oversight.

What we are calling for

We are calling for legislation that would:

ban the use of spring traps,
prohibit their sale and purchase, and
remove existing approvals under the Spring Traps Approval Orders.

Spring traps are inherently indiscriminate and cannot reliably ensure a rapid or humane death. Their continued legality perpetuates avoidable suffering and undermines public confidence in wildlife protection laws.

Why this change is justified

Many countries and jurisdictions have already restricted or prohibited mechanical traps on welfare grounds. In the UK, alternatives that do not rely on such devices already exist.

We believe the deliberate use and commercial availability of spring traps is incompatible with modern animal-welfare standards and should no longer be permitted.

Relevant law

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 — section 11

• Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018

• Spring Traps Approval (Wales) Order 2019

• Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011

• Spring Traps Approval (Northern Ireland) Order 2011

• Animal Welfare Act 2006 (principles on unnecessary suffering)

Objective 7: Prohibit the killing of grey squirrels during nursing season

To seek a ban on the killing of grey squirrels during the twice-yearly nursing season, when mothers are raising dependent young.

Grey squirrel kittens are born blind and helpless. Their eyes do not open until around five weeks of age, and they are entirely dependent on their mother for warmth, nutrition, and survival.

When a nursing mother is killed, her kittens are left alone in the nest. Unable to feed or regulate their body temperature, they die slowly from starvation, dehydration, exposure, or predation. This outcome is not accidental — it is a known and foreseeable consequence of killing during nursing season.

Many areas of wildlife law already recognise the need for closed seasons to prevent the killing of animals while they are breeding or caring for young. Grey squirrels are afforded no such protection.

We are calling for a clear legal prohibition on the killing of grey squirrels during nursing periods, to prevent the routine and avoidable deaths of dependent young and to bring basic decency and proportionality into wildlife law.

Objective 8: Challenge the classification of grey squirrels as an invasive alien species

To seek the removal of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) from the list of invasive alien species under Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.

Grey squirrels in Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands are subject to lethal control as a direct consequence of their inclusion on the Union list of invasive alien species established under Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.

This classification has far-reaching consequences. Once a species is listed, Member States are required to pursue control or eradication measures, regardless of local context, welfare considerations, or long-established presence.

Grey squirrels have been present in parts of Europe for many decades and now form established, self-sustaining populations. We believe that their continued treatment as an “invasive alien species” warrants reassessment in light of:

the length of time they have been present,
their integration into existing ecosystems, and
the severe welfare consequences that flow automatically from listing.

The Union list is not fixed. Species may be added to or removed from it following review, scientific reassessment, and political decision-making. Other species have previously been reconsidered or subject to exemptions, demonstrating that revision is possible where the evidence and policy case is made.

We therefore call for a formal reassessment of the grey squirrel’s listing under Regulation 1143/2014, and for the development of alternative, non-lethal approaches that do not rely on mandatory population destruction.

We also invite legislators, representatives, and members of the public in Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands to engage in this discussion and to support a more proportionate and humane approach.

Change is possible

If persuading the UK Government — and the devolved administrations — to change the law relating to grey squirrels seems unrealistic, it is worth remembering that this has happened before.

Until relatively recently, outdated legislation required members of the public to report sightings of grey squirrels, even in their own gardens. This illiberal and unworkable provision was ultimately repealed as part of wider regulatory reform, with ministerial support, just over a decade ago.

That change did not happen overnight. It happened because laws were reassessed, outdated assumptions were challenged, and Parliament accepted that existing provisions no longer reflected modern values or practical reality.

This history matters. It shows that grey squirrel legislation is not fixed, and that incremental, evidence-based reform is possible. With public engagement and political will, further improvements can be made.

Many organisations tell the public that if a grey squirrel is trapped it must be killed and cannot be released.
This is misleading.

If a grey squirrel is accidentally trapped — for example in a bird feeder, netting, or on private property — the law does not prohibit freeing it and allowing it to leave where it was found.

What the law restricts is the deliberate capture and release of grey squirrels into the wild — not the act of freeing an animal that has become unintentionally trapped.

The RSPCA confirms this distinction in its public guidance:

👉 https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/squirrels/injured

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse