Since the removal of wildfowlers from Powhillon's foreshore, the Svalbard population of Barnacle geese sheltered and fed on Powhillon and its adjoining Site of Special Scientific Interest. They would migrate to the area in September and stay until April the following year. Within that period;- October, November, February and March saw the greatest numbers of geese with up to twelve to thirteen thousand descending onto the pastures with the average count for the aforementioned months from 1986 to 1996 being six to seven thousand. R Hill & Co applied twice a year for a licence to shoot the birds in order to prevent serious damage occurring. They applied in September in preparation for the huge influx of geese throughout October and November, then again in January for the pending onslaught during February and March. Following the advent of the EU Bird Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, and subsequent Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and amendments which incorporated the European legislation into UK law, Minister’s became responsible for maintaining current bird populations but in doing so had powers to derogate should damage be inflicted to local fauna, flora or inhabitants. With the population of Barnacle geese increasing significantly and serious damage occurring to Powhillon’s grasslands and SSSI, R Hill & Co applied to Ministers for licences to control the Barnacle goose population as listed in the table.

Preventing damage or compensating for it

In a memorandum dated 25 April 1995 concerning proposed amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, J. N. Randall informed Ministers of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust's response to the consultation. WWT argued that participation in a goose-management scheme, such as those operating on Islay and the Solway, could provide another satisfactory solution to shooting. Randall expressly identified the Quinn case and recorded that WWT might pursue legal action if a further licence were granted.
Randall reported that Scottish Office and Department of the Environment officials considered WWT's interpretation of the Birds Directive to be "perverse". They distinguished preventing serious crop damage from compensating farmers for allowing damage to occur. The requirement for there to be no other satisfactory solution was intended to ensure that practical alternatives, including non-lethal scaring, had been properly considered before protected birds could be killed.,
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1995 came into force on 30 November 1995. The amendments strengthened the conditions governing the agricultural-damage defence and the licensing provisions. Randall's memorandum explained that farmers would be required to seek a licence where serious damage could reasonably be anticipated. The legislation therefore contemplated preventative applications rather than requiring farmers to await the occurrence of serious damage.
The distinction provides context for the applications recorded above and for the Scottish Office agricultural reports documenting damage at Powhillon. Payment for damage already suffered did not, of itself, prevent further damage to crops or grazing land. Whether other satisfactory preventative measures existed remained a matter for the licensing authority to assess.
See J. N. Randall's memorandum of 25 April 1995 and the fuller account in the Shooting Trial.