All that makes sense but surely the relevant part of the reason is to pander to people who do not have the skills or interest to recognise this species (or probably several other ones), so that the system does not get involved in debating whether someone made an identification or shooting error. The bureaucracy would have a hard task prosecuting that, given the likely defence. I would suspect that as the reason rather than what it eats or that it associates with other waterfowl species that do harm crops, which is of course a cop out. Maybe it does not help that it has a name that refers to a feature barely visible at shooting range.
Philip
