Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 30 October 2024

Introduction 

This document is a summary of responses to the consultation on proposed registration requirements for all bird keepers in Great Britain. The consultation was issued by Defra on behalf of the UK government, Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. It was launched on 7 March 2023 and ran for 12 weeks, closing on 31 May 2023.  

This document also sets out the government’s response to the feedback received. It informs stakeholders and the public of next steps that will be undertaken, including implementation of legislative changes. The UK government, the Scottish Government and Welsh Government are grateful to all the organisations and individuals that took the time to respond to the consultation.  

There were 22 questions in the consultation. Ten of these were background questions about the respondents, to give contextual information. This summary is an overview of the main messages from the consultation responses, reflecting the views offered. It provides a government response to these messages.

Background to the consultation 

All poultry keepers in Great Britain are encouraged to record the fact that they keep poultry by registering their birds with the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), but only a keeper with 50 or more poultry at any single premises is currently required by law to do so.  

Poultry keepers with less than 50 birds are encouraged to voluntarily register their birds.  

Keepers of racing pigeons in Great Britain are also required to register their establishment with the relevant government authority in order to move their birds to Northern Ireland or the EU for immediate release to race back to Great Britain. 

The proposed changes in the consultation took forward lessons identified from previous highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks, as well as the recommendation by Dame Glenys Stacey’s Farm Inspection and Regulation review, which was conducted for England. 

The information on the poultry register is important in the prevention and control of notifiable avian disease outbreaks (such as Newcastle disease and avian influenza (also known as bird flu)). The information on the register is used to:   

• communicate with keepers when there is a heightened risk of bird flu incursion and during bird flu and Newcastle disease outbreaks, on measures they need to take to protect the health of their birds, and to prevent disease spread   
• meet the disease control measures set out in domestic legislation (The Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (England) (No. 2) Order 2006, as amended in England, the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (Wales) (No. 2) Order 2006, as amended in Wales and Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals (Scotland) Order 2006, as amended in Scotland) and the Notifiable Avian Disease Control Strategy for Great Britain, such as undertaking surveillance activities in any restricted zone following confirmation of disease outbreak 
• meet EU disease freedom requirements for trade purposes following an outbreak of disease in Great Britain

Purpose of this consultation 

The purpose of this consultation was to seek views from the public on government’s proposals to require all keepers of poultry and other captive birds to register their birds. We consulted on 3 options: 

• baseline: do nothing – do not change the current poultry registration requirements 
• option 1: (government preferred option) extend the registration requirement to all bird keepers, including a mandatory annual update to the registration information  
• option 2: extend registration requirement to a keeper of 10 or more birds, including a mandatory annual update to the registration information 

The consultation asked for additional information and evidence to further our assessment of the impacts of the proposed changes. This will ensure proposals are suitable for meeting the policy objectives and will check against potential unintended consequences. In addition, we asked a few questions (questions 20 and 21) to help address gaps in the de-minimis assessment. 

Overview of the respondents 

The consultation received 3,419 responses. 3,387 were submitted via the Citizen Space website. Not all respondents answered every question. There were 2 further responses that did not answer any of the consultation questions. They have been treated as invalid. 

32 responses were submitted via email. Most responses by email did not answer the consultation directly. These contributions have been included in the summaries of the most relevant sections. This accounts for why some questions did not receive a 100% response rate. We have considered all responses. The percentages may add to over 100 due to rounding. 

Respondents were asked whether they were replying as an individual or in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation. This has been drawn upon, where relevant, to characterise the views of different types of respondents. Many of the responses to questions repeated themes and issues throughout.  

Of the 3,387 responses received via the Citizen Space website, 3,148 were from individuals, 81 from businesses, 34 from sector trade bodies, 7 from research organisations, 19 from charities, 27 from local authorities and 101 from other types of organisations. No campaign responses were received in response to the consultation. Annex A provides a list of all those that responded who did not request that their response be confidential.  

Table 1: The breakdown of geographical representation of the consultation 

Region	Total
England	2,712
Scotland	558
Wales	451
Northern Ireland	164
Other	25
Not answered	2

The total is larger than 3,419, as respondents could select more than one region.   

Table 2: Breakdown of responses by respondent types

Respondent type	Total
Sector trade body or membership organisation	34 (1%)
Research organisation	7 (0%)
Charity	19 (1%)
Business	81 (2%)
Local authority	27 (1%)
Individual	3,148 (92%)
Other	101 (3%)
Not answered	2
Total	3,419 (100%)

Table 3: Breakdown of respondents by respondent types

Bird-keeping	Sector trade body/member organisation	Research organisation	Charity	Business	Local authority	Individual	Other
Keeps poultry	12	5	5	65	2	1,753	45
Keeps other captive birds	19	0	13	18	1	562	36
Does not keep birds	8	2	3	8	24	965	30

Consultees were asked whether they or their organisation kept poultry or other captive birds (multiple responses could be selected). Table 3 shows the results by bird keepers.  

Summary of responses  

There were 22 questions in the consultation document. Ten of these were background questions about the respondents, providing important contextual information. This summary is a high-level overview of the main messages from the consultation responses, reflecting the views offered.  

Questions 11 to 20 were a mixture of open and closed questions, requesting opinions and inputs from respondents on the proposed options and selected aspects of the proposals.  

Questions 21 and 22 were general questions (closed and open respectively), which requested additional information. Questions gathering views on the consultation topic start at Question 11, under ‘Proposals to extend current poultry registration requirements’.  

Details of the responses to Questions 11 to 20 are given below: 

Proposals to extend current poultry registration requirements (questions 11 to 13) 

Question 11: Please state your preferred option. Please explain the reasons for your answer  

• baseline: do not change the current poultry registration requirements. 
• option 1: (government preferred option) extend the registration requirement to all bird keepers, including mandatory annual update to the registration information.  
• option 2: extend registration requirements to a keeper of 10 or more birds, including mandatory annual update to the registration information. 
• I or we don’t have a preferred option. 

All those responding to the consultation (3,419) answered question 11. The majority (75%) of respondents did not want a change to the current registration requirements (‘Do nothing’). Option 1 was only selected by a small proportion of respondents (13%) and option 2 by only 11%. 2% of respondents did not have a preferred option.  

Table 4: Distribution of respondents’ preferred options

Options	Number of responses
Do nothing	2,560
Option 1 (government preferred option)	427
Option 2	372
No preference	60

Table 5: Breakdown by respondent types to question 11

Respondents	Do nothing	Option 1	Option 2	No preference
Sector trade body or membership organisation	20	10	1	3
Research organisation	5	1	1	0
Charity	7	8	4	0
Business	35	37	8	1
Local authority	0	27	0	0
Individual	2,420	325	353	50
Other	71	19	5	6
Unknown (not answered)	2	0	0	0

Comments from respondents in favour of ‘do nothing’ 

Most respondents favoured retaining the current registration requirements. Where respondents selected that there should be no change to the current registration requirements, 37% considered the proposed options to be too bureaucratic or onerous for bird keepers. Some respondents (31%) indicated that the current mandatory poultry registration requirements are sufficient, and 21% highlighted a “right to privacy” as their reason for supporting this option.  

Comments from respondents in favour of option 1 

Where respondents selected option 1, 48% noted that the proposed changes would help improve traceability of birds to effectively manage disease threats and tackle avian influenza outbreaks. Respondents also noted that the mandatory registration requirement would help government in communicating information to keepers regarding biosecurity, changes in best practice or regulation and information on keeping their birds healthy. 

Comments from respondents in favour of option 2 

Some respondents that supported option 2 (36%) felt that small flocks of birds should not be considered a risk, and 27% expressed concerns that the option would discourage small flock keepers from keeping birds. Whilst a few also raised concerns on how the proposed changes would be enforced. 

Question 12: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend the poultry registration requirements to include all bird species? Please explain the reasons for your answer 

There were 3,387 responses to this question:  

• 404 (12%) strongly agreed  
• 301 (9%) agreed 
• 228 (7%) were neutral 
• 331 (10%) disagreed 
• 2,123 (62%) strongly disagreed

Table 6: Breakdown by respondent types to question 12

Respondent types	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Sector trade body or membership organisation	9	3	3	4	15
Research organisation	2	0	0	1	4
Charity	7	2	0	0	10
Business	32	10	6	3	30
Local authority	21	5	0	0	0
Individual	314	274	212	307	2,010
Other	19	7	7	15	53
Not answered	0	0	0	1	1

The comments received to this question correspond to, and are consistent with, the responses to question 11. Several respondents (48%) that objected to the proposal to extend the current mandatory registration requirements to all bird species considered it too bureaucratic or onerous, with a subset citing distrust from perceived overregulation and control. Some respondents (20%) stated that the proposed extension would be an infringement on keepers’ privacy. 

Some respondents (12%) noted that the proposal would not help to manage the spread of avian influenza during an outbreak, stating that wild birds play a bigger role in the incursion of avian influenza in kept birds. A few respondents felt that voluntary registration of birds rather than mandatory registration of all birds should be sufficient for keepers to receive important information about local risks on avian disease incursion or disease outbreaks.  

A few respondents (21%) were in support of the proposal to extend the current mandatory registration requirements to all bird species, with a majority (60%) noting that it would have a positive impact in managing avian influenza and other avian diseases. Some respondents noted that all bird species, not just poultry, are susceptible to avian influenza, highlighting the need for government to mandate all keepers to register their birds. A few respondents (18%) suggested that registration of all bird species would allow for better monitoring and identification in the event of a disease outbreak. 

15% of the respondents who chose ‘neither agree nor disagree’ repeated concerns about the proposed changes being bureaucratic or onerous, with a subset citing a general distrust in registration process. Some added that the proposals would be an ineffective use of public finances.  

Question 13: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposals to reduce the registration threshold of all bird species (except pet birds kept entirely in a domestic dwelling)? Please explain the reasons for your answer. 

Respondents were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the proposal to reduce the registration threshold from 50 to either one bird or 10 birds. A total of 3,376 responses were received for this question.  

Respondents selected more than one option in responding to this question by agreeing or disagreeing to the reduction of the current registration threshold from 50 to either one bird or 10 birds. However, 35 did not answer the question regarding the reduction from 50 to one, and 97 did not answer the question regarding reduction from 50 to 10. Therefore, the comments provided could be in relation to supporting or opposing the reduction of the registration threshold from 50 to one, or from 50 to 10, or in relation to both.  

The key feedback from respondents, who either supported or opposed the reduction in the registration threshold from 50 to one bird or 10 birds, was similar to feedback received for question 11 and 12. These have not been repeated here. Although a small number of respondents noted that the proposals may be difficult to enforce. 

Table 7: Breakdown of responses to question 13

Type of respondent	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know
Reduction from 50 to 1	342	153	75	251	2,499	34
Reduction from 50 to 10	225	291	476	239	2,032	29

Exemption for pet bird keepers (Question 14) 

Question 14: Do you think pet birds that are housed exclusively within a domestic dwelling should be exempt from the proposal to extend the mandatory registration requirements to all bird species? Please explain the reasons for your answer. 

This question received 3,389 responses. The majority (79%) agreed with exempting pet birds within domestic dwellings from the proposal to extend mandatory registration requirements to all bird species. 392 (12%) responded ‘no’ they did not agree with the exemption. 324 (10%) were not sure or did not have an opinion.  

Table 8: Breakdown by respondent types to question 14

Respondents	Yes	No	Don’t know
Sector trade body or membership organisation	26	4	4
Research organisation	7	0	0
Charity	12	4	3
Business	54	21	6
Local authority	14	9	3
Individual	2,481	340	296
Other	75	14	12
Not answered	2	0	0

Key themes 

Of those that responded ‘yes’, 48% felt that caged birds or pet birds kept in domestic dwellings should be considered very low risk for exposure to avian influenza or the spread of the disease. Similar to feedback from previous questions, 23% cited that the proposed mandatory requirements would be burdensome for pet bird keepers. A small minority (11%) expressed that pet bird keepers should have a right to privacy and should be exempt from any mandatory registration requirements.   

Of those that responded ‘no’, a majority (53%) felt that pet birds kept within a domestic dwelling should not pose a risk in the spread of notifiable avian diseases. 

Some respondents across all responses (yes, no, don’t know) questioned whether the definition of pet birds should be extended to include pet chickens. Some respondents called for clarification on the definition of pet birds and what constitutes ‘within a domestic dwelling’. A respondent from the sector trade body or membership organisation category said that ‘‘clarity on the definition of pet birds will be critical to avoid confusion among owners, to avoid loopholes and to reduce potential unintended welfare issues.’’ 

Mandatory annual updates (questions 15 to 17) 

Question 15: How far do you agree or disagree with mandating all bird keepers to review and update their information annually on the register, by a specified date? Please explain the reasons for your answer. 

3,387 responses were received for this question. Of these: 

• 297 (9%) strongly agreed 
• 303 (9%) agreed 
• 221 (7%) neither agreed nor disagreed 
• 384 (11%) disagreed  
• 2,182 (64%) strongly disagreed 

Table 9: Breakdown by respondent types to question 15

Respondents	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly agree
Sector trade body or membership organisation	9	4	3	3	15
Research organisation	1	1	1	0	4
Charity	6	4	1	1	7
Business	28	13	7	7	26
Local authority	19	5	2	0	0
Individual	217	271	199	364	2,066
Other	17	5	8	8	63
Not answered	0	0	0	1	1

Key themes 

Of those in support of the mandatory annual update, 72% highlighted the importance of keeping the register up to date and accurate, to ensure compliance. Some respondents added that it would be helpful if annual reminders were communicated to keepers through the proposed online system to help maintenance of information. A few respondents (20%) noted that annual review of the information on the register should be required. The possibility of having different reporting requirements for keepers of less than 50 birds to those with 50 or more birds was suggested. 

Of those that opposed, 56% felt that mandating keepers to update their information online annually would be unduly burdensome for keepers, with some respondents adding that the proposed process was not an effective use of public finances. Keepers’ right to privacy was again raised as a concern.   

Question 16: Following on from question 15, when do you think the annual reminder should be sent to keepers?  

3,387 respondents answered this question. Of those that responded: 

• 121 (4%) opted for 1 June of every year  
• 68 (2%) opted for 1 July of every year  
• 172 (5%) opted for 1 December of every year  
• 1,323 (39%) had no preference 
• 1,693 (50%) selected ‘other’ 

50% of respondents selected ‘other’ in response to the question. The majority (94%) of which were opposed to the proposal to mandate keepers to review and update their information annually in question 15.    

Table 10: Breakdown by respondent types to question 16

Respondents	1 June every year	1 July every year	1 December every year	No preference	Other
Sector trade body or membership organisation	2	2	3	10	17
Research organisation	1	0	0	2	4
Charity	0	1	2	12	4
Business	8	6	13	25	29
Local authority	4	5	0	14	3
Individual	113	52	146	1,225	1,581
Other	3	2	8	35	55

Some respondents noted that 1 December was a good date to send annual reminders to keepers to update their information on the register, saying that it was a less busy season for breeders, and that this was a time when bird numbers were most stable. Some respondents preferred either 1 June or 1 July as dates when keepers should be sent annual reminders to update their information on the register. Both dates were noted as outside of breeding or hatching seasons, but before the high-risk avian influenza season. Other dates suggested were 1 January, 1 February and 1 April. 

Question 17: In your opinion, is the proposed transition period of 12 months for the new mandatory annual update requirements reasonable? or too short? or too long? or don’t know/no comment? Please explain the reasons for your answer. 

3,387 respondents answered this question. Of those that responded, 53% did not know or had no comment to make with regards to the proposed transition period. 24% said the proposed transition period was too short. 20% said the period was reasonable and 3% said it was too long. 

A few respondents raised accessibility to an online portal as an issue, noting that not all individuals have access to the internet and may struggle with registering their birds via an online portal. Some also noted that a public awareness campaign would be required by government to drive forward proposed changes to ensure compliance. 

Table 11: Breakdown of respondent types to questions 17

Respondents	Reasonable	Too short	Too long	Don’t know/no comment
Sector trade body or membership organisation	8	7	1	18
Research organisation	2	1	0	4
Charity	8	2	1	8
Business	26	10	13	32
Local authority	15	4	4	3
Individual	600	749	76	1,692
Other	20	33	7	41
Not answered	0	0	0	2

Additional information (Questions 18 to 20) 

Questions 18 and 19 sought additional information or evidence on the potential impacts of proposed changes under option 1 or option 2. 

Question 18: Do you have additional information or evidence on the potential impacts of the proposed amendment to the mandatory poultry registration requirements and extension to all bird species as set out in option 1?  

Question 19: Do you have additional information or evidence on the potential impacts of the proposed amendment to the mandatory poultry registration requirements and extension to keepers of 10 or more birds as set out in option 2?  

The responses received to these questions correspond to, and are consistent with, the responses to question 11. Respondents to questions 18 and 19 who were in favour of the ‘do nothing’ option reiterated their disagreement to the proposals to extend the current mandatory poultry registration (one bird or 10 birds). The key themes are the same as those detailed in questions 11 and 12. Therefore, they are not repeated here. 

Question 20: Is there anything else you would like to tell us relating to the proposed amendments to the registration requirements? 

3,387 responded to this question, of which only 2,025 provided further comments.  

Key themes 

27% of respondents reiterated that they supported the current mandatory poultry requirements (‘do nothing’). 21% of respondents said that proposed changes would deter keepers from keeping birds. 16% said that the proposed changes to the mandatory registration requirement would incur additional costs for keepers. 

15% of respondents reiterated that the proposed changes are considered bureaucratic or onerous, with some adding that they had a general distrust in the process or the government. 

A number of general themes and issues also emerged from the consultation responses. These included: 

• the issue of accessibility to an online registration portal for individuals without access to the internet 
• the need for awareness raising campaigns on the proposed changes to registration requirements to ensure compliance 
• the need to make the registration process simple, easy, and user-friendly 
• the request to ensure that there are different registration requirements for keepers with less than 50 birds in comparison to those with over 50 birds 
• the need for clarity on how the proposed changes would be enforced 

Government response and next steps 

We want to thank all respondents who contributed to the consultation. 

We have carefully considered the responses on the options to extend the current poultry registration requirements, including the ‘do nothing’ option. The government recognises that although most respondents to the consultation disagreed with making changes to the current mandatory poultry registration requirements, there was agreement from a number of respondents to reduce the registration threshold from 50 birds to one or 10.  

We are very grateful for the interest we have had in this consultation. After due consideration of the consultation responses and taking into account government objectives to tackle outbreaks of notifiable avian diseases (such as bird flu) in kept birds, we intend to implement option 1. 

Extending the current mandatory registration to all bird species by reducing the threshold to one will ensure we have information on the location of all at-risk birds (both poultry and other captive birds). This is important in the prevention and control of notifiable avian disease outbreaks, such as bird flu. Outbreaks of bird flu, even in small flocks, can have significant costs to government, industry, and the taxpayer. Knowing the location of all at-risk birds will enable government to communicate with all bird keepers when there is a heightened risk of bird flu incursion, and during bird flu and Newcastle disease outbreaks, on measures they need to take to protect the health of their birds and prevent spread of disease. Extension of the registration also allows us to undertake surveillance: 

• to meet disease control measures set out in domestic legislation and  
• to fulfil EU disease freedom requirements for trade purposes, following an outbreak of disease in GB 

Mandating all keepers to update their information on the register annually will ensure accuracy of data and will aid compliance with compulsory registration measures being brought forward. 

We noted the need for clarity in terms of definition of pet birds and domestic dwelling requested by respondents. All poultry and other captive birds (including pet birds) are susceptible to notifiable avian diseases (such as bird flu and Newcastle disease). However, we accept that some caged birds kept indoors are very low risk, given their location. Therefore, our intention is to exempt psittacines and passerines kept in a dedicated ‘bird house’ without any access to the outside area from the mandatory registration requirement. The exemption criteria and relevant definition of outside area will be made clearer in legislation. 

We understand that the majority of the respondents felt the proposed changes are too bureaucratic and onerous. We agree that the process for registration and annual updates should be as simple as possible. As noted at consultation stage, we are currently working on streamlining the registration process by introducing an online portal. This will allow new keepers to register their birds online, or for existing keepers to access and update their record or deregister if they no longer keep birds. The new registration process will be simplified and user-friendly without unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork. Guidance will also be provided to help keepers navigate the new system. We also recognise that people do not always feel confident using digital applications, and we will explore ways to support this. 

Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the current poultry registration requirements and will retain this responsibility under the proposed changes. Local authorities will continue to take a stepped approach to enforcement, advising keepers of their duty. Formal enforcement action will only be considered for continuous non-compliance.  

Next steps 

The proposed changes will be implemented in 2 phases. The mandatory registration requirements would apply from late summer or early autumn 2024 and the mandatory annual updates 12 months afterwards.  

Defra, the Scottish Government and Welsh Government will be launching a joint public awareness campaign in in advance of the new requirements coming into force. We will take this action to raise awareness and understanding amongst all bird keepers before the new mandatory registration requirements come into force. This is especially important for those that are currently not legally required to register their birds.  

Defra, the Scottish Government and Welsh Government propose to implement the new measures through the following legislation:  

• The Avian Influenza (Preventive measures) (England) Regulation 2006 in England 
• The Avian Influenza (Preventive Measures (Scotland) Order 2007 in Scotland 
• The Avian Influenza (Preventive Measures) (Wales) Regulations 2006 in Wales

Annex A: list of respondents 

A list of consultees who responded to this consultation and did not request confidentiality.

• 2 Sisters Food Group  
• A F Beavan & Co  
• AM Doble  
• AFD Roberts Farm  
• Adams & Thom  
• AJ & EJ Philip  
• Ama  
• Anglia Free Range Eggs Ltd  
• Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers  
• Australian Finch Society UK  
• Avara Foods Ltd  
• Aviagen Turkeys Ltd  
• Avicultural Society  
• Banham Poultry (2018) Ltd 
• Border Convention  
• Bridgers Farm Ltd  
• Bristol City Council  
• British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums  
• British Association for Shooting and Conservation  
• British Bird Council  
• British Egg Industry Council  
• British Free Range Egg Producers Association  
• British International Championship Club  
• British Poultry Council  
• British Small Animal Veterinary Association  
• British Veterinary Association 
• British Veterinary Poultry Association  
• British Veterinary Zoological Society  
• Brownies Bespoke Aviaries  
• Broxtowe Borough Council  
• Bruce Howell Waterfowl  
• Caerphilly CBC Trading Standards  
• Central Trading Standards Authority (Centsa) Animal Health regional Group  
• Cheshire Hawking Club  
• Cheshire Pheasants  
• Chickens To Your Door  
• City of Newcastle upon Tyne  
• Canary Colour Breeders’ Association  
• Countryside Alliance  
• Croft 2 Lee  
• Cumbria Region – Royal Pigeon Racing Association  
• Dementia Pioneers CIC  
• DJ & MP Mills  
• East of England Trading Standards Association – animal health and welfare task group  
• East Sussex County Council  – Trading Standards  
• Essex County Council  
• Farmers’ Union of Wales  
• Female Falconers Club  
• Force Brewery Limited  
• Frankiss ltd  
• Gateshead and Newcastle Budgerigar Society  
• Glenrath Farms Ltd  
• GNF & GA Browning  
• Go Active Falconry  
• Hailsham & District Bird Club  
• Havant & Solent Cage Bird Societies  
• Hazelgrove farm  
• High View Farm  
• Highland Eggs (Scotland) Ltd  
• Homestead Farm  
• Humphreys  
• Intake Farm  
• International Centre for Birds of Prey  
• Isle of Wight Council  
• IWC Ltd  
• J Priestner Partnership  
• Kirklees Council  
• Laying Hen Welfare Forum  
• LCS Agriculture Ltd  
• Lizard Canary Association of Great Britain  
• Loftus Town Council  
• Logie Farms  
• London Borough of Bromley  
• MJ Hayward & Sons  
• Mainline Growers Ltd  
• Market Bosworth Farm Sales Ltd  
• Midlothian Federation  
• Miss Sally E Crowe  
• Morndyke Parrot Sanctuary  
• Muirmill Farm  
• National Animal Health and Welfare Panel  
• National Centre for Birds of Prey  
• National Farmers’ Union (NFU)  
• NFU Cymru
• NFU Scotland  
• Norfolk County Council – Trading Standards  
• North Devon Hawk Walks  
• Northeast Trading Standards Association (NETSA Region) Animal Health and Welfare Group  
• North of Scotland Gloster Club/Publicity Officer Portknockie Cage Bird Society  
• Norwich City Flying Club  
• Nottinghamshire County Council Trading Standards  
• P&M Bennion  
• PD Hook (Hatcheries) Ltd  
• Paradise Park  
• Paradise Pets Ltd  
• Parrot Trust Scotland  
• Poultry Health Services  
• Powys County Council – Trading Standards Service  
• RJ Harbottle (Farm)  
• RG & RJ Allen  
• Royal Pigeon Racing Association  
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds  
• Royal Veterinary College  
• RSPCA  
• Rutland Poultry Ltd  
• SJ Bridger  
• S Holmes agricultural services  
• Salford City Council  
• Scottish Homing Union  
• Scrumptious Eggs  
• West Wales Fife Fancy Canary Club  
• Shotton & Trimdon Federation  
• Shropshire Council  
• Shropshire Good Food Partnership  
• Shropshire One Loft Race  
• Soames Trust  
• South Essex wildlife hospital  
• Stoke City Council  
• Suffolk County Council Trading Standards  
• Sundean Vet Group  
• The British Hen Welfare Trust  
• The Canary Council and The National Council for Aviculture  
• The Falconry School  
• The Game Farmers’ Association  
• The Hawk Board  
• The Lakes Free Range Egg Co Ltd  
• The Lancashire British Bird Mule and Hybrid Club  
• The International Ornithological Association 
• The New Arc Wildlife Rescue  
• The Owls Trust  
• The Scots Fancy Specialist Club  
• The Self-Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)  
• TIR Bach Smallholding Ltd  
• Trading Standards Southeast Limited  – Southeast Animal Health and Welfare Panel  
• Welsh BS  
• Welsh Hawking Club  
• Welsh homing union  
• West Grinstead Bird Society  
• Westland Barton ltd  
• Wickerty Snook Ornamental Waterfowl Breeding Farm  
• Wild Things Rescue  
• Wirral Metropolitan Council  
• Wolds And District Flying Club  
• Woofferton Poultry Ltd  
• Wrexham CBC  
• WT & RT Greenhill  
• WWT Slimbridge Living Collection