Further to this morning’s news (here) that the Scottish Government has introduced its long-promised grouse shooting bill, formally known as the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, the game-shooting industry is seething.
Probably because the penny has finally dropped that the game is up. Despite years of expensive and extensive lobbying, their arguments haven’t been sufficiently persuasive and their posturing hasn’t been sufficiently convincing. As a result, the Scottish Government has produced draft legislation that, if passed, will bring wide-sweeping reforms, none of which the shooting industry wants, nor until this morning, believed would happen.
This is where the fight really starts as that Bill makes its way through the Scottish Parliament.
Here are the furious responses of Scottish Land & Estates, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, BASC, and Countryside Alliance:
Raptor Persecution UK 
Very glad to hear that they are all extremely angry. The battle lines are being drawn.
At last some control on what the grouse Moors are doing.
This announcement alone must surely cool down the red-hot market in Scotland for buying, leasing and obtaining sporting rights and / or management of grouse moors. Especially for any Owner who was considering (or was being persuaded into) tipping a heap of millions of personal wealth or bortowed capital into “turning around” or “maximising” an underperforming moor.
As the blog says, this is where the fight starts and I think won’t end for years and years until a good system of measurement and enforcement is fought for and put in place. Standby for some real dirty tricks and black-ops from some powerful people, I would say. But it is great news in its own right, just to get the principle on the books! Everyone who has fought for it down the years should pat themselves on the back and feel justifiably proud of this. To Owners, Agents, and those in the shooting world who didn’t oppose the intensification model that has been the root cause of the campaign for licencing (particularly upper hierarchy, but also many cap-doffers too), I say this…it’s your own f-g faults – so suck it up you greedy bastards!
It looks like the Landowners and the Shooting Industry will now launch a campaign of misiformation of the same intensity was the one that was launched against Jeremy Corbyn.
They must be forcefully resisted at every level and every lie and deception they use be widely rebutted both in the Social and the Established Media.
I would have thought that these upright bastions of the countryside would have been delighted at the opportunity to demonstrate that their management practices are above reproach. But…..
And the xxxxx buggers dare to cite “biodiversity”. When the truth is that they don’t even know the meaning of the word. F*** ’em.
Oops! Sorry Ed.
Amen !
I must be missing something because when I read it I had the impression it had more holes than a Swiss cheese. Think they are just blowing smoke, so we don’t see the get out clauses.
‘No you mustn’t burn heather…..oh, it’s for research, in that case carry on old boy’
Let me help. If you burn on deep peat it will keep burning long after you think it’s out. If you burn any vegetation it will increase pollution and become a health hazard. If you burn vegetation it will kill insects and amphibians…..yes really. If you burn anything at all it will add to an already overheated planet.
Research my arse. The research has already be done chaps. Over and over and over again.
Seem to remember we’ve been here before with Ravens. Just to see what happens.
I can’t understand why these governing bodies are so opposed to this Bill. The Bill is being introduced partly to tackle wildlife crime, and raptor persecution- something which all these bodies have previously expressed to have zero tolerance towards.
One would also think that as the Bill will also address poor environmental management practices, those working in the game shooting industry who profess to be champions of conservation would welcome licensing and regulations to ensure best practice is applied consistently across the entire
industry.
The only people who have anything to fear from this Bill are those engaged in criminal behaviour and poor land management practices, so I am sure the public will be able to draw their own conclusions as to why these organisations which represent the game shooting industry are so opposed to this proposed legislation.
What is perhaps important now, is that people lobby their MSP’s to ensure that as the Bill passes through parliament it is not watered down, but strengthened to ensure Scotland’s countryside and wildlife is given the best protection. I would suggest that this lobbying should also include the fact that this proposed regulation and licensing is also applied to other species of game birds, so that the entire game bird shooting industry operates within a properly regulated legal framework which roots out the criminals and those responsible for environmental damage.
Experts will need to thoroughly scrutinise this legislation for loopholes.
I sincerely hope, for example, that the legislation will not only ban the use and purchase of glue traps (as referenced by BASC) but also the sale and possession of glue traps by any individual.
These are indiscriminate, cruel devices – whoever sets them. We can’t allow the licensing system to be used to by-pass any bans or restrictions on use – as has happened in England.
In England the soon to be enacted Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 allows the use of glue traps to continue to be used by licensed pest controllers to catch rodents. In addition, it does not ban the sale, possession and purchase of these appalling devices by members of the public – just their use to catch rodents.
In my opinion, these two huge loopholes undermine the entire basis of the legislation and destroy the concept that glue traps are so indiscriminate and cruel that their sale, purchase, possession and use by anyone should be banned.
This is the English legislation
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/26/notes/division/2/index.htm
“Overview of the Act
The Glue Traps (Offences) Act (“the Act”) makes it an offence to set a glue trap for the purpose of catching a rodent, or in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become caught.
The Act allows the Secretary of State to grant licences authorising pest control professionals to use glue traps to catch rodents in exceptional circumstances, in order to preserve public health or public safety when there is no suitable alternative. The offence relating to the setting of glue traps does not apply to the setting of glue traps by a licensed pest control professional in accordance with the terms of the licensee’s glue trap licence.”
You have highlighted some very important issues. The fact that the legislation doesn’t ban the sale, purchase or possession of the glue traps will just create the situation where their use will continue, with either non target species getting “accidently “trapped, or the traps will simply be used illegally, with those using them knowing full well they are very unlikely to be caught or prosecuted, when they use them on their private property, property to which the public have no access and where no one will be a witness to what is happening.
But I am sure those in parliament who lobbed for these traps to remain on sale but only to be used by licensed pest controllers knew exactly what they were doing.
I would suggest at the forefront of their minds was the notion of serving the vested interests without whose support they wouldn’t be able to feed at the parliamentary trough!!
I really hope the media in Scotland scrutinise very carefully which MSP’s attempt to amend this proposed grouse moor licensing Bill and make sure the entire population of Scotland are made aware of just who tries to water down the legislation.
In my mind any legislation which seeks to protect the environment, wildlife or animals is more than just a conservation issue but one of profound ethical and moral values. Sadly something which seems to be lacking in some of those elected to govern this money driven society.
Can anyone comment on the research quoted by the SGA, please?
Try this comment piece on the research, from the RSPB:
https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/nature-s-advocates/posts/burning-in-the-uk-s-uplands-the-need-for-a-precautionary-approach
Not yet fully studied, but here are a couple of relevant research papers. The first is from round 2014 and is the famous EMBER study:
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmental_changes
and
Click to access EMBER_2-page_exec_summary.pdf
The second (2019) is a Leeds refutation of Heinemeyer’s methodology of drawing conclusions from
surface-layer carbon deposits only:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53879-8
Both Leeds studies were financed by the UK Natural Environment Research Council, with some money from Yorkshire Water…
…while Heinemeyer’s works have been funded by Defra, The Yorkshire Peat Partnership, The Moorland Association, Natural England, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, The Heather Trust and the Law Family Charitable Foundation (formed by the CEO of Caxton Associates – a global macro hedge fund – and ex-Managing Director of Goldman Sachs).
Otherwise/hitherto known as ‘the usual suspects’:-(
Thank you all. My own viewpoint is that, when rain falls after burning, nutrients will be lost. N will have mostly gone up in smoke, K will dissolve and flow away in soil water runoff. I guess P will have no clay minerals to bond with, so will also be lost. I wonder whether anyone has looked into this: moorlands tend to be short of key nutients and burning may make this worse. I believe heather has symbiotic fungi which source P and possibly K from minerals. Other plants may be deficient, leading to reduced range of plant species.
They’ve had decades to deal with the ‘rotten apples’ – their failure to do that has made this legislation essential, yet they direct their anger at anyone but the guilty. Their ranks are full of the respected and successful – they will fight this tooth-and-nail.
The essence of all licensing is whether those affected can or will comply. This is a universal problem for everything from road tax and driver, gun, television, planning, the list goes on. Create a licence then cost the implications on the general taxpayer. Can it be policed? Will the courts actually prosecute on the evidence presented. The headline legislation sounds favourable but is the detail practical? There is still a long, long way to go.
Agree- that is a major problem with the proposed licensing, as evidence will still have to be found which implicates an estate in wrong doing. There is every probability that those engaged in criminal activity will simply tidy up much better after themselves so that very little evidence will be left to be found- and the remoteness of most crimes means there is every probability the public won’t even stumble on evidence by chance.
If licensing is to be successful – it will need an an awful lot of intelligence sharing between Police Scotland and other interested parties so that people become the eyes and ears on the ground and then report anything suspicious. But will people in remote communities want to report on their “neighbour” ???
My concern is that licensing will only scratch the surface of the problem, and raptor persecution will continue.
What is perhaps needed is a complete shift in public attitude so that those persecuting birds of prey and damaging the environment are seen with similar dislike by communities as drug dealers, burglars and rapists. The challenge is to get the wider public to see wildlife and the environment as fundamental to their wellbeing, so that they develop a deep passion to protect it, in the same way that they would if it was their property or loved ones.
“Intelligence sharing ” – trying to get Police Scotland to share anything with the public throu the media and social media is a battle in itself.
They say they can’t police communities without the eyes and ears of the public but then refuse to release any info about incidents.
It doesn’t just need a shift in public attitude. It goes much deeper than that