As part of its scrutiny of the Wildlife & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs & Islands Committee put out a public call for views which ran from 31st March – 5th May 2023.
For new blog readers, this is the Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.
The Committee received 5,705 submissions in total, 109 from organisations and 5,596 from individuals.
The Committee has now published two documents in relation to these responses. One document summarising the views of individuals, and one document detailing the full responses from named organisations.
I’ve only skimmed these so far and it’ll take some time to go through in detail but I was amused to see on the list of respondees a number of estates that are currently serving General Licence restrictions imposed after ‘clear evidence’ of wildlife crime was uncovered on estate land (e.g. Millden Estate in the Angus Glens and Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park).
You can read and/or download both documents here:
The Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill is due to be completed by 6 October 2023 after the Scottish Parliament recently agreed to a motion to this effect (see here).
The Committee will be calling forward various organisations to give evidence before summer recess begins on 1st July 2023 and these sessions should be available to view on Scottish Parliament TV.
I’ll post links to these evidence sessions as they become available.
UPDATE 29th May 2023: Timetable announced for evidence sessions on Wildlife & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Largely positive, especially relative to the SSPCA involvement. It also occurs to me that those who appear to be leaning toward weaker sanctions have their own interests as a priority while the ones looking for stonger action — the majority in almost all cases — put the welfare of the environment and the creatures in it at the top of the list. Given the public response, and the largely predictable ones from the respective organisations, it would seem impolitic of Holyrood to do anything but tighten the regulations and introduce greater control over the practises currently taking place in our Highlands. The tightening up of heather burning seems very popular which is hardly surprising given the huge dangers on the horizon relative to deep peat fires occuring as the exact mechanisms of how they ignite are still, to some extent, unknown.
The misinformation currently being disseminated by Gamekeeper and Moorland Groups re the Forsinard Flow Nature Reserve fire a few years back is ingenious. What ensured the fire was not much, much worse was the previous rewetting of the area which meant the fire could not ignite and smoulder at a deeper level. If it had not been rewetted there is a huge possibility that the deep peat might well have ignited and that would, ideed, have been a catastrophe. By trying to claim that the reason the fires were extinguished so quickly (5 days) was because the firebrigade and the gamekeepers helped fight the surface blaze only scratches the surface and is deliberatety misleading in my view. It was put out so quickly because it was burning on a base of water soaked decayed foliage. I agree fire breaks should be created but the real measure is to keep the deep peat wet. All othger burning should stop. If BBQ’s are righfully banned then so should individuals or sooting estates be prevented from willfully setting fire to the land so an unnatural density of small birds can be created for a few wealthy individuals to shoot them.
Very much agree about the disinformation relating to ‘wildfire’ and ‘firebreaks’. As you say, George there is little evidence that ‘firebreaks’ work and ‘muirburn’ in any case is not done in the UK to create firebreaks – certainly not on grouse moors. It is actively and purposely done to create habitat (along with other practices), to maintain artificially high numbers of red grouse to be shot. The wildfire/ ‘firebreak’ argument from DGS industry is another disingenuous spin. If you were making firebreaks to protect land or property or people (as in other countries where these are a threat – southern France, parts of BC, Australia etc.) – you wouldn’t rotationally burn little strips across whole moors. How and where do you put ‘firebreaks’ to reduce risk of wildfire on moorland? How can you predict where wildfires might happen (except possibly human-caused ones – including as often happens, supposedly ‘controlled’ muirburn getting out of hand). I suppose you could put them near footpaths/ shooting access roads? – I regularly see flames (as well as smoke) several kms away from my house and the fire brigade get called out to uncontrolled muirburn fires. But does anyone actually do muirburn for firebreaks anywhere? Is there any evidence of effectiveness? You say you agree with ‘firebreaks’ in some places George – but where? The evidence I’ve seen, as you say, suggests that the best way to prevent moorland fires spreading out of control (deep peat or other) is to have wet places and generally healthy, wet sphagnum, peat and heather that retain water and maintain higher water tables. There is a very good NE report about the Stalybridge/ Saddleworth moor fires in 2018 (NE (2020) ‘The causes and prevention of wildfire on heathlands and peatlands in England’ (NEER014)). And a particularly useful (Appendix 8) which looks at all the media comments at the time and states what actual evidence is in relation to each (both comparison of what actually happened (RSPB/ UU restoration areas Dove Stone cf. muirburned (DGS) Stalybridge estate) – backed up by global experience. Basically the bits that burn less or less severely are wetter bits (sphagnum, riparian gullies etc.). 2 quotes: “No evidence was identified in this review specifically on the effectiveness of firebreaks for reducing the occurrence and spread of wildfires in the UK.” (at least partly because no-one does it in UK for this reason!) – and: “Monitoring and managing fuel load is often recommended in the UK, especially for upland heathland and peatland habitats but there appears to be little or no evidence of its direct effect on wildfire ignition, severity and extent, or in reducing wider negative impacts [C losses, water discolouration etc.]”. Also – if firebreaks are needed, why not mechanical cutting of heather (greatly reduced risk of CAUSING a wildfire cf. setting light to old and woody heather and dry grass?).
Interesting times. Maybe, exciting times? Will it be the end of the beginning, or… the beginning of the end?
Why do you think many country are going back to rotational burning becuas it works this is just another attack at grouse shooting
Which countries are ‘going back to rotational burning’ on high moorland?
Where is the evidence ‘it works’?
‘this is just another attack at grouse shooting’: indeed it is, because muirburn is enormously destructive of our flora and fauna so that violent gunmen can gloat about how many birds have been sacrificed in live target practise.
I notice you don’t even know how to write your own name.
The committee are going to have a lot of conflicting opinions to rationalise. Many on the pro-hunt side are clearly seriously worried regarding any banning of their activities and the ability of the SSPCA to investigate their activities. They were using any excuse to justify the fact that there is not requirement for any further regulation; it was not a problem, un-necessary, unworkable, biased, liable to perversion of justice, loss of jobs, loss biodiversity, wildfires etc etc. Anything but admit if they stopped raptor persecution, then they wouldn’t run the risk of a ban. I did get the impression that some pro grouse shooting organisations were more meticulous in documenting their control activities whereas others were of the opinion they should be able to do what they “bleeping” well liked, and probably do already!
From anti-glue trap perspective, I found some organisations on both side of the debate (e.g. Vets and Pest control) made some valid points. I suspect we may not end up with a total ban but tighter control.
Let us hope the committee (in spite of certain members positions) deliver their recommendations in a timely manner, so we can get this bill into law and working for the protection of our environment including flora, fauna and raptors.
I see that the GWCT is running a propaganda campaign linking “wildfires” to deep peat damage
Oddly I was on Skye recently where there is a lot of mature heather, no muirburn, and no evidence of wildfires. It’s funny that peat and heather have coexisted for 1000s of years, and yet in the last 5-10 years, grouse moor managers when there is a threat to their activities, have become worried that wildfires are a danger to deep peat.
Sounds like gaslighting to me.
Yup!!
What is needed is recognition that gamekeepers are employed by these estates, and the owners/management of the estates should be treated as equally culpa le for misdeeds by their employees. If they do not issue explicit instructions gamekeepers to uphold conservation laws they should be “in the dock” too, and fined proportionately their net worth, plus a shooting ban on ALL their land holdings.
Can’t see any glaring loopholes in that, such as issuing such instructions whilst whispering into their shell-likes ‘just ignore that load of rubbish.’
Exactly.
The licences have to be associated with the land and not the individual or land manager, so there is much less wiggle room. It stops all the “we never told him to do that ” crap, and means the land owner as well as the land manager is hit where it hurts. Looking at the shooting replies, this is what really worries the shooting concerns is losing the licences, and there is much gaslighting to keep license removal off the table.
Interesting from BBC today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65848872 Maybe?? this will help introduce a bit of strategic wildfire planning (targeted prevention and response) and dismiss all the spurious GWCT et al waffle about ‘the need for [DGS] muirburn to prevent wildfire’. For example (this BBC report): “Many of the wildfire-fighting methods being rolled out across the UK rely on a ‘toolbox’ of skills, from creating natural firebreaks and reducing the ‘fuel-load’ of vegetation to setting controlled burns deliberately around wildfires to stop their spread.” maybe…
And yet, incredibly, not a mention of ending the artificial drainage of natural wetlands, nor ending the sale of disposable barbecues.
Are we to understand that all the ‘experts’ on fighting wildfires believe that draining natural wetlands whilst continuing to allow people to use disposable barbecues is the best way to prevent wildfires? Are they wilfully blind to obvious political solutions?
Key thing here is strategic wildfire planning., and not leave it up the local gamekeepers. Fire service planners in conjunction ENH, Nature Scotland etc making the decisions. Any burn decisions need to be transparent, publicly available and not conveniently on grouse moors.
Shooting conservation organisations are a bit like certain pro-gun groups in the USA, they’re apparently pro the individual shooter, but in reality they are using them as cover for the large business concerns. They push out a huge amount of messaging, gaslighting everyone from their own supporters, politicians and the general public, creating a smoke screen round their activities; supporting biodiversity, preventing wildfires, supporting rural communities, trap damage, estate worker abuse, pest control etc etc. The reality is they want to maximise profits for the game shooting especially shoot managers, anything is a collateral benefit.