REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform in Scotland has produced a guide to help people respond to a request for views of the long-awaited grouse moor reform bill, formally known as the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill.
This is the Bill the Scottish Government introduced in March 2023, in response to the 2019 Werritty Review, which recommended a grouse moor licensing scheme in an attempt to address the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. The Bill is also designed to regulate grouse moor management ‘to ensure grouse moors are managed sustainably’.
Now the Bill has finally been introduced, this is how it will progress through Parliament over the coming months.
It is currently at Stage 1 in the process, which is where a cross-party Parliamentary Committee scrutinises the Bill. The committee (in this case, the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee) will hear from experts, organisations and members of the public, including an opportunity for some to present oral evidence, and then the Committee will write a report detailing its view of the Bill and there’ll be a subsequent Parliamentary debate before the Bill progresses to Stage 2.
Rather unhelpfully, some commentators from ‘our side’ are refusing to engage with the Bill because they take the view that a grouse moor licensing scheme is unacceptable, arguing that we should instead be pushing for a ban on grouse shooting. In my view, that’s counterproductive because a ban isn’t on the table, and won’t be until such time a licensing scheme proves to be ineffective. The licensing scheme is seen as an unavoidable, proportionate next step by the Scottish Government so for now, it’s either (a) get behind the licensing scheme and try and make it as robust as possible, or (b) refuse to engage, allow the game-shooting industry to water down the proposed regulation and put up with the status quo. I prefer option (a). If the licensing scheme proves to be ineffective, then will be the time to push for a ban, because the Scottish Government won’t have anywhere else to go, having exhausted all other routes.
Some of you may think you’ve already responded to a consultation on this Bill, and you’d be right. The Scottish Government held a public consultation last autumn (here) prior to drafting this new Bill, and that consultation elicited an impressive 4,863 responses.
The latest call for public views and evidence is different to that consultation. This time the request has come from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee who are about to start scrutinising the Bill.
The Committee is calling for the public’s views on a number of specific issues to help inform its deliberation of the Bill. The closing date for submitting views is Friday 5th May 2023.
Having seen how some of the game-shooting organisations are encouraging their supporters to respond (e.g. BASC, whose guidance basically amounts to, ‘Say no to everything‘!), the REVIVE coalition has produced a handy guide to help its supporters engage more constructively. Click here for REVIVE’s guidance.
Please note, it’s only a guide. If you have different views, or personal experience, feel free to express those, in your own words.
Please also note, anybody can respond to the request to views. It’s not restricted to Scottish residents.
Here’s the link to REVIVE’s guidance again (here).
Many thanks.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Thanks for the info that it’s not just open to Scots. I scrolled down the ‘where are you from’ list and saw only Scottish counties so thought I wasn’t eligible to comment.
I will respond to this exercise for the reasons given about, but my heart is heavy with misgivings when I view the Ccabinet Minister in overall charge. I’m finding it difficult to find out who the members are that will comprise this Committee. Can you help?
Thanks, George.
The Committee members are listed on the Committee website, although the Scot Parl website seems to be down at the moment:
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-rural-affairs-and-islands-committee
It’s a good cross-party mix on this Committee.
Thanks, RPUK. Much appreciated.
Done, I would encourage all to do this it is time well spent.
“Rather unhelpfully, some commentators from ‘our side’ are refusing to engage with the Bill because they take the view that a grouse moor licensing scheme is unacceptable, arguing that we should instead be pushing for a ban on grouse shooting.” It’s not unhelpful at all Ruth. A ban is the ONLY ‘solution’. Are you really saying that decent folk who want to see the back of this vile ‘sport’ are ‘unhelpful’? Or, to put it another way are you really saying that killing hundreds of thousands of wild birds each year is OK so long as it’s licensed? That is a very odd definition of ‘conservation’ in my and many peoples’ minds.
“In my view, that’s counterproductive because a ban isn’t on the table, and won’t be until such time a licensing scheme proves to be ineffective.” In my – and many others’ – view licensing this slaughter is counterproductive as DGS will legitimised for years/decades to come i.e. licensing will put a ban even further away than it is now. Be very careful what you wish for.
“The licensing scheme is seen as an unavoidable, proportionate next step by the Scottish Government…” Or, a way to maintain DGS whilst pretending to do something about it…
Just because the Scottish Government is not willing to entertain a DGS ban now does not preclude campaigners to stick out for a ban and tell the SG that they are wrong. Besides, the current SG have just done a decent job (with a few caveats, notably licensing under certain conditions… ) in banning fox hunting north of the border, so why should the campaign against DGS be any different? The positions of campaigners against DGS should be for a TOTAL BAN and tell the SG that they can go for licensing but we DO NOT agree.
“… (b) refuse to engage, allow the game-shooting industry to water down the proposed regulation and put up with the status quo.” This is really disingenuous as the shooting industry will do its ‘watering down’ regardless of what conservationists do or say. Experience shows that the shooting lobby cannot be reasoned with. Surely you must agree with that simple fact?
I’ve filled out the consultation and done the best I can – given the inbuilt constraints (i.e. we are going to licence DGS regardless) of the questions – to tell the SG that licensing is a sop to the shooting ‘industry’ and the DGS supporters within the SNP.
Now is the time for BALLS, not mealy-mouthed compromises.
Campaign for what you want and not for what they are prepared to give you.
““Rather unhelpfully, some commentators from ‘our side’ are refusing to engage with the Bill because they take the view that a grouse moor licensing scheme is unacceptable, arguing that we should instead be pushing for a ban on grouse shooting.” It’s not unhelpful at all Ruth.”
It is. And you agree that it is by participating: “I’ve filled out the consultation and done the best I can”.
Which is all anyone can do, under the circumstances. Refusing to engage might otherwise appear petulant, and is in danger of leaving a void in the minds of the politicians on the issue.
I see no problem in arguing for the strongest possible licensing scheme whilst continuing to campaign to end all live target shooting.
“Besides, the current SG have just done a decent job (with a few caveats, notably licensing under certain conditions… ) in banning fox hunting north of the border, so why should the campaign against DGS be any different?”
Because these two activities are in different states of legality. One had an established set of ‘controls’ which current politicians now see as inadequate, and have agreed to tighten. While the other has almost no ‘controls’ at all, and current politicians now see the need to introduce some.
Not all politicians have our mind set regarding nature and the environment, and we do not have the power to summarily impose our will. Therefore, it becomes a tactical war of attrition… until we win.
“It is. And you agree that it is by participating:” Utter tosh Keith. Holding out for a ban and not agreeing with DGS licensing is not at all ‘unhelpful’. It is a principled position taken by many conservationists. I participated in the consultation not because I support DGS licensing, it was merely a (small, feeble) opportunity to call for a ban and that is what I did despite the questions being worded to not even allow discussion of a ban.
“Which is all anyone can do, under the circumstances. Refusing to engage might otherwise appear petulant, and is in danger of leaving a void in the minds of the politicians on the issue.” More tosh. Refusing to engage in a consultation with a pre-ordained outcome is not ‘petulant’ or unhelpful at all. There are many decent, principled folk who have opted out because they fundamentally disagree with DGS licensing and its supporters such as the RSPB and REVIVE. Many people simply thing they have got this one badly wrong and because of their size and influence have effectively sucked the oxygen out of the ban-DGS campaign. That is a great shame and a huge strategic error.
“I see no problem in arguing for the strongest possible licensing scheme whilst continuing to campaign to end all live target shooting.” Many do. You will have legitimised a vile blood sport – and all its ills – by licensing it thereby undermining any subsequent campaign to ‘end all live target shooting’. Why not adopt the position of : “Okay SG, you want to license DGS and that is what you are going to do, but we do not agree and we want a ban as that is the only solution that will work.”?
“Because these two activities are in different states of legality. One had an established set of ‘controls’ which current politicians now see as inadequate, and have agreed to tighten. While the other has almost no ‘controls’ at all, and current politicians now see the need to introduce some.” This is real tosh Keith. DGS does have controls as in case you haven’t noticed – I think I’m right in saying – that it is illegal to kill raptors, for example. And before you say that that is not a control we all know that the DGS ‘business model’ depends raptor persecution. There are also supposed controls on other legal predator extermination and muirburn. The real problem is the lack of enforcement and I fail to see why a licence will improve matters. So, anti-DGS campaigners can indeed follow tactics used to (almost) rid us of fox hunting; it is a legitimate comparison with much common ground.
“Not all politicians have our mind set regarding nature and the environment, and we do not have the power to summarily impose our will. Therefore, it becomes a tactical war of attrition… until we win.” For once we agree Keith – well said. But, and it is a BIG but, DGS licensing will prolong that war of attrition as the SG will see the DGS issue as ‘sorted’ and will be loathe to re-visit the issue. Meanwhile circa 15% of Scotland’s land will remain subjugated by the most environmentally destructive blood sport of them all.
Agree wholeheartedly with Ruth’s advice – in Scotland, although it is not perfect, we have a balanced Rural Affairs Committee, and over the past few years (being in the position of dealing with this committee regularly), we have steadily moved forwards. Due to the amount of negative propaganda, it is very important for people to engage. Letters and e-mails are scrutinised and read, and Ruth is right. The first step is for anybody to make themselves and their views known.
Will be doing it tonight. Got plenty of thoughts on problems of enforcement in the “real world”. A once in a blue moon visit to estates to check paperwork by a NatScot official – who is perhaps a generalist across all of their work, will not suffice. Also, I wonder when there will be one to do for england?
I urge readers to send in letters of support for policies suggested by Revive that they back but I would also call for readers to raise the following issues:
The Code of Practice for the Licence (p12, S16AC of S7(2) if the Bill ) should be a statutory order requiring compliance with the Code or prosecution for non-compliance – not “guidance” as is being proposed in the Bill. We know the level of compliance of this sector with voluntary codes of practice! It also massively weakens the potential for licences to be suspended, modified or revoked. Frankly, a voluntary code of practice will make for incredibly weak legislation.
Also I’d like to invite readers to call for the purposes of Muirburn to be reduced not increased as is being proposed. Licensed muirburn should not be allowed to be carried out to improve the management of habitats of moorland game or wildlife, or improving the grazing potential of moorland for livestock. These are outrageous purposes at a time of a climate and biodiversity crisis! I think Muirburn should be heavily restricted to emergencies like disease control, public health or safety interests or the protection of designated sites, European sites or protected sites for nature!