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, REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform has published the following press statement in response:
REVIVE coalition urges Parliament to be bold on new wildlife Bill
Scottish Government’s draft Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill marks biggest intervention in land management for generations
The Scottish Government has today published its draft Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. The Bill has been introduced to protect the environment and tackle the persecution of birds of prey. It is expected to significantly change the way in which large areas of Scotland are managed, making it one of the biggest interventions in this area for generations.
Campaign Manager for REVIVE, Max Wiszniewski said: “The proposed Bill is a major intervention in land management that regulates destructive practices through licensing, instead of stopping them.
“Intensively managed grouse moors are unnatural monocultures that are burned and stripped of competing wildlife so more grouse can be shot for sport. By creating a circle of destruction around huge areas of our land, biodiversity and more diverse economic opportunities are missed for Scottish people and communities.
“With a new First Minister on the horizon, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we hope it will be even bolder and braver to meet the expectations of the Scottish people.”
The Bill follows a review into grouse moor management led by Professor Werritty, the findings of which were published in December 2019. A year later the Scottish Government committed to introduce measures which will hold land managers far more accountable for their activities.
The Bill proposes to strictly regulate the use of muirburn, the controlled burning of vegetation, on peatland as well as ending raptor persecution. It also includes measures to ensure grouse moors are managed sustainably, to ban the use of glue traps for rodents and tighten regulations for the use of other types of wildlife traps.
Robbie Marlsand, Director of the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, a REVIVE coalition partner added: “When it comes to grouse shooting, this Bill appears well intentioned but kicks a couple of contentious cans down the road. Snares are primitive, cruel and indiscriminate. This Bill should remove them from the Scottish countryside – with no ifs and no buts.
“The impact of this Bill on killing grouse for sport will also depend much on the content of a yet to be written code of conduct that shooting estates must comply with. Only when that is finalised will we be able to appreciate the potential impact of this legislation. For example, hundreds of thousands of animals are killed each year so that there can be more grouse to shoot for fun and it’s not yet known if this Bill will change that.
“Killing any animal for entertainment is repugnant to the majority of people in Scotland. We therefore welcome any incremental steps that will make it more difficult to do.”
ENDS
Raptor Persecution UK 
Thanks Max, Love it if the rest of the UK followed suit, but too much tory self interest I’m sure. Come the revolution end of next year, this could all change. Agree with LACS stance on traps and snares, abhorrent and so destructive…. one more goal in sight. Well done Revive, what a difference you and your mates are making. Wow! Best Steve
There’s a chance that one of the Green MSP’s will try to add an amendment to ban snares. Obviously this doesn’t mean the government will consider it for debate or that it’ll be passed by the Scottish Parliament but never give up hope.
New laws passed in Scotland with the intent of diminishing the unlawful killing of raptors have without exception failed in this intent. Where it appeared that killing of raptors could be sta.ped out the Crown office stepped in to prevent prosecutions. It appears that this law requires a code of conduct written in such a way as to remove obvious loopholes. Once the grouse shooting supporters have a chance to influence this, or to make amendments to the bill, there may well be a means of ensuring that the law is toothless.
I hope that there is truly a possibility that NGOs can ensure that failure to comply with the code of conduct. It must be remembered that the Crown Office has already made it illegal for NGOs to inspect operations on a shooting estate. If this is still not allowed we are unlikely to see any findings that an estate has failed to comply with the code. If the police are alerted to a offence by an NGO acting illegally even the police may be powerless.
I’m not hopeful that we can prevent grouse shooting supporters from preventing a successful law being enacted.
The devil is in the detail and the detail will be finalised with Nature Scotland and it’s allies being intimately involved.
The political hurdles have been successfully negotiated but, as most keen observers know and understand, some of the real problems come with the inbterpretation, implementation and policing of the contents.
Landowners have some ptretty strong networks in the non political upper tiers of the Civil Service who wield more power than most know. Controlling the Committees and research activities is central for them as the public aspect has been completed. They have a lot of hegemonic power behind the scenes. A close watch should be kept on who Chairs these Committees and how they go about their business and the appointment process.
I have little fears at to the direction taken of those “on the shop floor” of Nature Scotland or other similar bodies as they do not hold enough administrative power for them to be of much interest to the landowners or the shooting fraternity.
This is NOT the end of the battle. It simply moves to a different terrain out of sight of most of us. Therein lies the danger. Remain vigilant. Fight, as Ruth does, for public clarity at all stages.
In the meantime many thanks to all who made this possible and especially to those who put themselves in vulnerable positions during the process.
George, absolutely agree and we need all of you to engage with MSPs to get your views across when the specific battle lines are drawn. We all have our part to play. Stick with it.
SNARES: Research has shown that snares catch significantly more non-target species than those which they are set for. Animal Aid put the non-target capture rate across a range of studies as high as 70%:
Click to access Snaring-report-final-version.pdf
Estimates of the total number of animals caught in snares totalled in excess of 1m. This would mean that the number of non-target species would be in excess of 700,000. The report on which these figures are based was quite unequivocal about the degree of cruelty involved in the use of snares, irrespective of whether the animals caught were target-species or otherwise. It is, therefore, regrettable that the Bill does not directly address this issue alongside the legislation relating to traps. Maybe an amendment could be put forward to rectify this apparent oversight.
Hi WTF,
I think you’ve misunderstood the Bill. A provision has been made to consider snaring restrictions at Stage 2. This slight delay is to allow analysis to completed of a review currently underway. Snaring hasn’t been forgotten!
That’s good. Thanks for clarifying this. Much appreciated.