Dear Cabinet Secretary,
We, the signatories to this letter, support the Scottish Government proposal, as part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, that all muirburn should require a licence, regardless of whether it takes place on a grouse moor or not.
We also support proposals to redefine deep peat depth. However, we recommend the Scottish Government redefines this as 30cm (as opposed to 40cm). This would take Scotland beyond the ambitions of the UK Government. In addition, we request you consider the purposes under which a licence to muirburn might be requested and accepted.
At least 163,000 hectares of Scotland’s landmass is regularly burned for grouse shooting, particularly concentrated in certain areas of the country. It is estimated that around 40% of the burned area has taken place over deep peat (as it is currently defined).
Even if the muirburn code becomes a mandatory legal requirement of land managers, the large areas in which muirburn takes place will be hard to police without significant resources and without continued significant risk to our vital peat reserves.
We note that BASC Scotland (in response to government plans on February 28th, 2023) said it would be ‘unfeasible, laborious, and impractical for land managers to be expected to measure peat depth across their land as part of a licensing regime’.
We believe this argument fails to account for the Government’s climate change efforts. As the grouse shooting industry has shown time and time again, particularly with regards to raptor persecution, voluntary restraint cannot always be relied upon. Moreover, against the recommendations of the UK Climate Change Committee they simultaneously argue, that best practice is widely followed while attempting to make the case that burning over peat is actually a good thing and should be allowed.
To draw a different conclusion on how muirburn should be handled, to make the regulation of muirburn manageable, in addition to our above points we propose that a licence should not be given for muirburn when the purpose is increasing grouse numbers for sport shooting.
In situations where there is evidence to support muirburn taking place, where alternatives like cutting are not available, we would not oppose this. These situations could include responsible research, creating strips for wildfire breakage points (as opposed to large less effective patches that are common on grouse moors) while peat should be avoided. We also support wider efforts from the Fire Service and the Scottish Government on public education initiatives and training land managers of all types to prevent wildfires where possible.
Large monocultures like heather moorland present their own challenges to fighting wildfires and that a more diverse mosaic of flora, fauna and trees can alter wildfire intensity and make them easier to tackle. Moving away from muirburn on our moors will unlock our land’s potential to provide far better resistance to wildfires over time, and also enable greater biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential.
The main point is that due to the risk of our vital peat reserves; our lack of faith in the grouse shooting industry to look after and prioritise peatland over grouse shooting; the difficulty and resources it would take to effectively enforce the licence; and because keeping so much of our land in state of monoculture stops the development of greater biodiversity: a licence should not be given for muirburn when the reason is as unnecessary as ensuring more grouse can be shot by a few people for sport.
We strongly urge you to consider and adopt the above position. To do so would be to aid the Government’s own stated goal to transition to more appropriate, economic and biodiverse land uses for our people, our wildlife and the environment.
Signed,
REVIVE
John Muir Trust
Friends of the Earth Scotland
Scottish Raptor Study Group
Rewilding Britain
League Against Cruel Sports Scotland
Raptor Persecution UK
Reforesting Scotland
Common Weal
North East Mountain Trust
Raptor Persecution UK 
“we recommend the Scottish Government redefines this (peat) as 30cm (as opposed to 40cm).”
I despair! As if gamekeepers, inspectors or visitors to these remote areas are going to notice or attempt to measure the depth of peat soils across vast areas of shooting estates. It’s nonsense.
We’re in the midst of a climate crisis! Stubble burning was banned in the 1990s and yet farmers survived!
Muirburn should be banned except under licence for extreme circumstances such as research, disease control, the prevention of the spread of fires to designated and protected sites, public safety health or where there is a prerogative to protect property or conservation where other methods are simply not viable.
These shooting estates can and do cut the heather to create fire breaks around the Muirburn areas.
I’ve gone through this bill. It is pathetic and weak. It’ll delay urgent important action for years if not decades.
I urge readers to write to the Scottish Government asap calling for a near ban on Muirburn.
The part in the bill on wildlife slaughter (oops wrong word) “Management” is weak weak weak. Please write what you can.
Spring trap users aren’t required to comply with the sorts of rules that licensed live capture trap users are required to follow. This is a chance to change that. For example, there’s no requirement for spring trap users to have no or spent convictions. There is a requirement to follow manufacturers instructions on use but theres no requirement for users of spring traps to comply with codes of best practice such as not setting traps where non target animals might pass or for daily checks to be made (because animals are not always killed and do receive terrible injuries from these evil devices) etc etc.
As for licensed live trapping – there’s no requirement for live trappers to have no convictions for poison or fire arms related offences and the relevant wildlife related offences listed which would bar someone using licensed live traps omit important wildlife protection laws.
Agree with all if this…..just ban it, what possible good does it serve.
As you say, farmers survived……
Well done for all of these organisations to put this forward to the Scottish Government. I applaud these efforts.
Excellent! The letter is reasoned and scientific as well as being bloody obvious to any sane person. The list of signatories covers a large range of bodies and gives huge hope of a positive result.
Can any reader help here –
In the new Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill, P14, Part 2, S10(2)
“The purposes (*for a Muirburn licence application) are:
(a) where the land to which the application relates is not peatland –
(i) managing the habitats of moorland game or wildlife,
(ii) improving the grazing potential of moorland for livestock,
(iii) conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment,
(iv) preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property.
(v) research
(b) where the land to which the application relates is peatland –
(i) restoring the natural environment,
(ii) preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing damage to habitats,
(iii) preventing, or reducing the risk, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property,
(iv) research.”
Muirburn licences have previously been issued under the Hill Farming Act 1946, S23C(4) which it is proposed (under S19 Repeals and Amendments) will be repealed. Under S23C(4) “A Muirburn licence may be granted only for the purposes of
(a) conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment;
(b) research; or
(c) public safety”
So – if I am correct – the purposes for which muirburn can be applied for a license will be increased! It actually increases the opportunities for Muirburn to take place on grouse moors and moorland grazing areas!
I’m proposing that if S22C(4) is repealed then the new S10(2) should be:
“The purposes are:
(i) Research;
(ii) Disease control or the elimination of plant pests where a notice has been served under Article 22 of the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993(2) and(3);
(iii) Preventing or reducing the risk of wildfires when there is an overriding public interest or other imperative reason to protect public safety, public health or property;
(iv) conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment in a protected area or a designated site.”
Muirburn shouldn’t take place unless essential and certainly not on shooting grounds we’re cutting alternatives exist.
Can any legal eyes check this over for me please and comment. Thanks.
Thank you for your two replies LizzyBusy. You know your stuff and have a keen eye on proceedings as they, the large landowners with a lot of hegemonic political power, look set to deceive us again — and worse — they seem to have all their pieces in place.
In our area, massive burning for sheep is threatening the existence of Hen Harriers & Merlin, plus severely limiting supply of prey for Eagles.