Last month the media regurgitated a press release from Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) about how ‘400 rural businesses’ had written a letter to Environment Minister Gillian Martin to voice their opposition to the Scottish Government’s plans to introduce a licensing scheme for grouse shooting, as part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill.
I wrote at the time (here) how neither the letter, or its signatories, had been published and that I was keen to scrutinise it because the last time SLE pulled a publicity stunt like this (in 2010, under its former name of SRPBA), some of the 200 landowners / shooting estate owners who had written to the then Environment Minister expressing their condemnation of illegal raptor poisoning (here) had had recent raptor persecution incidents recorded on their estates and some of their employees even had criminal convictions for raptor persecution crimes (here).
So last month I submitted an FoI to the Scottish Government to ask for a copy of the latest letter and last week the letter, and its signatories, was published online as SLE had sent a copy of it to the Rural Affairs Committee who are currently scrutinising the Bill.
The letter itself offers nothing new – it is simply a repeat of the characteristically melodramatic points made by SLE during the Bill’s stage one evidence sessions, with claims that the proposed legislation “will lead to disastrous and irreversible implications for rural businesses and communities” and it makes a number of barely-veiled threats of legal action if the Bill goes ahead in its current state.
Here’s the letter and the signatories are included at the end; these are well worth a look:
There are around 80 sporting estates on the list, and although none of the estates that are currently serving General Licence restrictions for raptor persecution incidents are included, there are a few on the list who have recently served such restrictions (e.g. Edradynate Estate and Raeshaw Estate).
There are other estates listed where multiple alleged raptor persecution incidents have either occurred or been suspected but haven’t resulted in any prosecutions (e.g. Glenogil Estate, Cawdor Estate, and another one I’m not permitted to name, yet).
There are also a few sporting agents listed who I believe are linked to other estates that are either currently serving a General Licence restriction (e.g. Millden Estate) or have recently served a restriction (e.g. Leadhills Estate, which actually served two separate restrictions and yet remains a member of Scottish Land & Estates, despite SLE’s claim of having zero tolerance for raptor persecution).
The list also includes a number of businesses, some clearly legitimate but others that don’t appear to be registered at Companies House, which is interesting. To be fair they may just be sole traders so don’t have to register but how do we know they’re legitimate and not just a made-up ‘business’ for the purpose of populating this list?
I note that Rachael Hamilton MSP’s husband has signed on behalf of their business, the Buccleuch Arms – surely a conflict of interest given that Rachael serves on the Committee that is scrutinising the Bill and providing its recommendations to Parliament?
The inclusion of some other businesses just seems bizarre – for example, how will the introduction of a grouse moor licensing scheme ‘lead to disastrous and irreversible implications‘ for the Strathmore Rugby Club or Adventure Motorhome Hire?
It’s worth remembering at this point that the proposed Bill is simply a licensing scheme, not a ban on driven grouse shooting. The hysterical over-reaction of the grouse shooting industry and its mates to such a simple form of regulation is actually laughable – if the industry doesn’t think it can conform to such basic requirements, just like every other industry has to, then its practices are obviously unsustainable.
Speaking of which, I note that Scottish Land & Estates has just written another letter to Environment Minister Gillian Martin, this time signed by ‘150 land managers’ opposed to the proposed ban on snares and so-called ‘humane cable restraints’.
I’ve submitted another FoI to the Scottish Government to ask for a copy of that letter and its signatories…more on that in due course.
Raptor Persecution UK 
So how do they get to write such a letter on top of submitting evidence to the rural affairs committee? Surely, this will not be included in the committee’s file when considering a bill. If so, why can’t a letter from supporters of the bill be sent? I’m sure there’d be many more signatories. Talk about playing dirty. I’m sure, however, that all their claims can be dismissed by the true facts
A while ago I was browsing the “written evidence submissions” from both sides given for the 2016 Westminster debate about banning driven grouse shooting. Was interesting that several individuals and estates who at the time made very bold claims as to the integrity of the industry, ended up associated with wildlife crime cases and in at least two cases were actually convicted. Still, regards this letter – it is odd that at least one Agent who he is usually keen to sing his own praises in the shooting media, has preferred his underlings to sign on behalf of the estates he manages, and other estates in his portfolio are not present on the letter as signatories – along with a couple of the biggest grouse operations in Scotland managed by other Agents (as mentioned in blog).
A Parcel of Rogues … with no change of attitude or political integrity since The Clearances. (The land is mine and I will dio as i wish with it without any interference from the majority that live there.)
Whilst this nonsense and it is nonsense is entirely predictable, even that xxxxx estates or rather estates where crimes have occurred are signatories, just imagine what they would be doing if the proposals were considerably more than some perfectly legitimate regulation. Regulation we and our beleaguered wildlife desperately need.
PS I’m disappointed to see that my veterinary practice has signed the letter and also the business where I buy my car tyres
It’s a common enough tactic to let businesses know that the large landowners wiull withdraw their custom en block if they do not avtively support them. This is a reality that those living rurally know well and generally doesn’t require to be stated too often. Given the length of time — some from the 18th century — that these powerful individuals wield in terms of hegemonic power, it is very difficult for those living rurally and disagreeing with the rampany and pointless destruction of our ecology in the interests of the few,to rebel in practical terms.
The power of these Estates, and the few who genuinely support them is, is quite fragile and if the correct set of circusmtances emerged it would melt like snow off a wall om a sunny day.
Rules and regulations govern nearly every aspect of modern life, including business, commerce and industry. These regulations protect those who work within the industries, they prevent unfair practices and help create a level playing field, and they also make it more difficult for criminals and rogue players to operate.
I don’t think there is much evidence to suggest that the introduction of regulations to other businesses and industries lead to disastrous irreversible consequences. The Factory Acts didn’t close all the mills. Consumer Protection legislation didn’t close all the shops. Health and safety, and fire regulations didn’t close all the hotels. The list could go on.
So just why is there so much opposition from the shooting industry to the proposed licensing scheme? Those estates which operate lawfully have nothing to fear from the introduction of the regulations.
In fact the introduction of licensing could be seen as a potential win-win. A win for nature, and a win for the shooting estates which do behave lawfully and responsibly, as they will no longer be having to compete against villains who through criminal activity are able to increase game bird populations to unnatural levels, and as such gain an advantage over their law abiding neighbours.
Hopefully the Scottish Government will take no notice of this letter, and see it for what it is. which in my mind is just another attempt by the shooting industry to throw up a smokescreen and cloud the issue of the criminal persecution of wildlife.
Interesting to note looking through all of the signatures there are numerous cases of the same person signing from slightly different businesses, e.g. Eden Sinclair appears twice under Sinclair’s Catering and Sinclair’s Kitchen; Anne-Marie Hutchinson appears twice with a Saddlery and a Catering company, and Toncam Flooring and Interiors is entered twice. There are many others so one could reduce the number of signatories by about 30. If the proposed licensing of grouse moors will have such a damaging effect on Scotland’s rural economy then you would have thought they could have more than about 170 people in the whole of Scotland to sign it! It’s all an attempt at whitewash.
Dear Ruth, You’ve probably heard all the claptrap before, but I attach a response from the NGA to me. I asked about the ethics of killing for fun and profit. It’s right at the bottom of your email attached I hope! Kind regardsDave Kennedy
[Ed: Hi Dave, no email attached]
There is no clarity in what capacity the signitaries are exercising authority. Owner, employee, director or even customer? As a regular customer, I could have signed it under the name of Scotrail.