Should Ring-Necked and Monk Parakeets Be Added to Britain's Quarry List?

Should Ring-Necked and Monk Parakeets Be Added to Britain's Quarry List? Understanding BASC's Proposal

Few birds divide opinion in Britain quite like the bright green ring-necked parakeet. 

To some people, they are charismatic additions to urban parks and gardens, bringing flashes of tropical colour to otherwise grey winter days. 

To others, they represent an invasive species whose growing numbers threaten native wildlife, agriculture and infrastructure.

That debate has intensified following an application by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) to add both ring-necked parakeets and monk parakeets to the official list of birds that can legally be hunted as quarry species. 

If approved, the proposal would mark a significant change in how these non-native birds are managed in the UK.

The issue raises difficult questions about conservation, animal welfare and what it means to protect biodiversity in an increasingly human-altered landscape. While opinions are often strongly held, the science—and the practical realities—are more nuanced than many headlines suggest.

What has BASC proposed?

BASC has asked for ring-necked parakeets and monk parakeets to be added to Schedule 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, commonly known as the quarry list. 

Species on this list may be hunted during an open season for recreational shooting, provided all other relevant laws are followed. The proposal forms part of a wider review of quarry species and would represent the first substantial change to the list in several decades.

Currently, the legal position is quite different.

In England, both species can already be controlled under general licences in certain circumstances—for example, where they are causing serious agricultural damage or where control is necessary to protect wildlife of conservation concern. These licences are intended for specific management purposes rather than recreational shooting.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more restrictive arrangements, generally requiring specific permissions before birds can be controlled.

BASC argues that adding parakeets to the quarry list would give landowners and shooters greater flexibility to manage expanding populations before problems become more widespread.

Has it been approved yet?

No—not at this point.

As of July 2026, there has not been a decision approving the addition of ring-necked (rose-ringed) or monk parakeets to the quarry list.

Instead, the process has moved into a broader government review:

In March 2026, Defra launched a consultation on quarry species and shooting seasons across England, Wales and Scotland.

BASC has formally argued that both rose-ringed parakeets and monk parakeets, along with several other species, should be added to the quarry lists.

The consultation has now closed, but the government has not yet announced the outcome or confirmed whether either species will be added.

Britain's unexpected parrots

The ring-necked parakeet is one of Britain's most recognisable non-native birds. 

Native to parts of Africa and South Asia, the species has established thriving populations across southern England after escapes and releases from captivity over many decades.

Urban myths have linked their arrival to everyone from Jimi Hendrix to film studios, although the most widely accepted explanation is that escaped pet birds gradually established breeding populations.

Today, tens of thousands live across Britain, with the largest concentrations still centred around Greater London and the South East. Their numbers have increased dramatically since the 1990s, and they continue expanding northwards.

Monk parakeets tell a different story.

Originally from South America, they also escaped from captivity but never became as widespread. Government control programmes removed many nests and breeding birds over the past decade, leaving only a very small remaining population.

Why are some conservationists concerned?

The strongest ecological argument in favour of managing ring-necked parakeets centres on competition.

Unlike many birds, ring-necked parakeets rely on holes in mature trees for nesting. Britain's native cavity-nesting birds—including species such as nuthatches, starlings and some woodpeckers—depend upon the same limited resource.

If an expanding non-native species occupies increasing numbers of nest cavities, native birds may struggle to find suitable breeding sites.

Government risk assessments have concluded there is sufficient evidence that ring-necked parakeets can negatively affect native cavity-nesting birds, particularly through competition for nest sites. Similar impacts have been documented in parts of continental Europe.

Farmers also report damage to fruit crops.

Large flocks can feed on apples, pears, grapes and other fruit, often pecking multiple fruits rather than consuming entire crops. Even relatively minor damage can make produce unsaleable.

Although current impacts remain localised, agricultural organisations argue that allowing earlier and more flexible control could prevent larger economic problems if populations continue expanding.

Monk parakeets present an additional concern because of their unusual nesting behaviour.

Rather than nesting in tree cavities, they build large communal stick nests, sometimes on electricity infrastructure. In countries where populations are well established, these nests have caused power outages and increased maintenance costs.

Why do others oppose the proposal?

While relatively few conservationists dispute that invasive species sometimes require management, many question whether recreational shooting is the appropriate response.

One concern is that the evidence of widespread ecological harm in Britain remains limited.

Although research has identified potential competition with native birds, many scientists note that severe impacts documented elsewhere have not necessarily been demonstrated across the UK on the same scale. Britain's habitats, climate and bird communities differ from those in continental Europe, making direct comparisons difficult.

Another question is effectiveness.

Most ring-necked parakeets still live in towns, suburbs and public parks, where recreational shooting would rarely be practical or appropriate.

As several researchers have observed, simply allowing sport shooting may do little to reduce populations if most birds occupy places where shooting cannot safely occur. Targeted management around vulnerable conservation sites or agricultural land may prove more effective than broad recreational hunting.

Animal welfare organisations also argue that lethal control should be justified by clear conservation outcomes rather than becoming an activity in its own right.

Many people who enjoy seeing parakeets in parks view them as sentient wildlife that has become part of Britain's modern urban ecosystem, regardless of their non-native origins.

Invasive does not necessarily mean harmful

The debate also illustrates an important point that is often misunderstood.

A species being described as "non-native" or "invasive" does not automatically mean every individual is causing ecological damage.

Some introduced species spread with relatively little measurable impact, while others fundamentally alter ecosystems.

Conservation scientists therefore increasingly favour evidence-based management that prioritises measurable ecological outcomes rather than simply targeting species because they originated elsewhere.

That distinction matters.

If a species demonstrably threatens endangered native wildlife or causes significant economic damage, management—including lethal control—may be justified.

If those impacts are small, localised or uncertain, broad-scale recreational hunting becomes much harder to justify from a conservation perspective.

Conservation versus sport

Perhaps the most sensitive aspect of BASC's proposal is not whether parakeets should ever be controlled, but why they would be shot.

Current general licences already allow lethal control in England for defined conservation or agricultural purposes when legal conditions are met.

Adding parakeets to the quarry list would shift part of the discussion from targeted wildlife management towards recreational hunting during an open season.

Supporters argue that this would simply provide another practical management tool.

Critics respond that conservation decisions should be driven by scientific need rather than sporting opportunity.

That distinction explains why the proposal has attracted attention beyond the shooting community.

Learning from other invasive species

Britain has extensive experience managing introduced wildlife.

Grey squirrels, American mink, signal crayfish and muntjac deer have all created conservation challenges, although the nature and severity of those challenges differ considerably.

In several cases, targeted control has helped protect vulnerable native species or habitats.

However, experience also shows that once widespread populations become established, complete eradication is often unrealistic.

Many ecologists therefore favour strategic, localised management where it provides measurable conservation benefits rather than attempting nationwide population suppression.

That lesson may also apply to ring-necked parakeets.

Public opinion remains divided

The colourful appearance of parakeets undoubtedly influences public attitudes.

Unlike rats or grey squirrels, many people find parrots attractive and enjoyable to watch.

Recent surveys suggest urban residents generally hold more positive views than those living in rural areas, where agricultural concerns are more prominent.

Neither perspective is necessarily incompatible with conservation.

People can appreciate the beauty of a species while recognising legitimate concerns about its ecological impacts.

Likewise, supporting management where evidence demonstrates harm does not require hostility towards the birds themselves.

Supporting wildlife means asking difficult questions

For wildlife enthusiasts, this debate presents no easy answers.

Conservation is rarely about choosing between "good" and "bad" species. Instead, it often involves weighing the welfare of individual animals against the health of entire ecosystems.

If ring-necked parakeets genuinely threaten declining native birds, some form of management may ultimately help conserve biodiversity.

Equally, if the evidence remains mixed and recreational hunting proves unlikely to achieve meaningful ecological benefits, caution is understandable.

These are scientific questions as much as ethical ones.

Looking ahead

Government ministers and conservation agencies will ultimately decide whether BASC's application succeeds.

Whatever the outcome, the debate highlights broader challenges facing British conservation.

Climate change, habitat loss, disease and invasive species increasingly interact in complex ways. Decisions about wildlife management are unlikely to become simpler in the coming decades.

Perhaps the most constructive approach is to remain guided by evidence.

Healthy ecosystems depend upon careful monitoring, robust science and a willingness to adjust management as new information emerges. Whether that means targeted control, habitat restoration or choosing not to intervene should depend on what best supports biodiversity—not simply on whether a species is native, familiar or popular.

Britain's ring-necked and monk parakeets are remarkable birds. Their intelligence, adaptability and vivid plumage make them fascinating members of our urban wildlife. At the same time, their growing presence raises legitimate conservation questions that deserve thoughtful discussion rather than polarisation.

For those who care about wildlife, the goal should be neither to celebrate nor condemn these birds uncritically, but to ensure that any future decisions place the long-term health of Britain's ecosystems at the centre of the conversation.