The Scottish Government’s Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill is making its way through the parliamentary process. For new readers, this is proposed new legislation to regulate grouse shooting and its associated management practices by way of licensing schemes, introduced because of the continued illegal persecution of birds of prey on many Scottish grouse moors.
The Bill passed Stage 1 on 30 November 2023 (here) when the Parliament voted to approve the general principles of the Bill.
Stage 2 is now fast approaching. This is the stage where any MSP can lodge amendments to the Bill (there is no restriction on how many may be lodged and, given the contentious nature of the Bill, it is anticipated that there will be hundreds of them).The cross-party Rural Affairs & Islands Committee will begin to consider the amendments at a meeting on 24th January 2024.
This may cause some alarm, given that some prominent members of the Rural Affairs Committee, including its Chair, voted against even the general principles of the Bill, but whatever amendments the Committee chooses to accept/reject at Stage 2, there will be an opportunity for amendments to be challenged/overturned at Stage 3, especially where they go against Government policy. [For a useful guide to what happens during the progression of a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, see here].
The deadline for submitting amendments for Stage 2 is 18 January 2024 so as you can imagine, there is a huge amount of background lobbying going on at the moment, both by conservationists and by the game shooting sector, in an attempt to (a) strengthen the Bill [the conservationists] and (b) weaken the Bill [the game shooting industry].
The tabled amendments are all being published on this page so it’s well worth keeping an eye on this over the coming week.
Two MSPs have tabled amendments so far – some are very sensible, others are simply bonkers (but entertaining, nevertheless). To help you interpret the amendments, you’ll need to refer to the details of the Bill (as introduced in March 2023) to understand the context of these amendments. Here’s the Bill (as introduced) to help you:
A sensible amendment has been tabled by John Mason MSP (SNP), who is suggesting that any fees charged to those applying for a grouse shooting licence ‘must be sufficient to cover any expenses and costs incurred by the relevant authority in carrying out its functions‘.
I’ve got no disagreement with that at all. Ten years ago journalist George Monbiot pointed out that the taxpayer already subsidises shotgun licencing in the UK as well as grouse moor owners – the Scottish Government needs to ensure that its grouse shooting licensing scheme is fully funded by the industry and not subsidised by taxpayers.
Edward Mountain MSP (Conservative) (who has featured on this blog previously here, here, here and here) has tabled 44 amendments, a few of which are sensible, but most of which are predictably designed to undermine the strength of the Bill.
Here are some amusing examples that I picked out from Ed’s amendments (this is not an exhaustive list by any means, just ones that jumped out).
Ed’s amendment #10 suggests that any trap user over the age of 40 years and who has used the trap in question for at least 10 years consecutively can skip having to complete an approved training course and should just get a trap licence automatically:
Eh? Why should anyone over the age of 40 years be exempt from completing a training course?! Nobody should be exempt if they are using traps to kill a sentient being, let alone anyone over the seemingly arbitrarily-chosen age of 40! Given the wide age-range of gamekeepers convicted for wildlife crime, including trap offences, there’s no evidence to support an exemption from training for the over 40s.
Moving on, Ed’s amendment #17 appears to be an attempt to prevent the ability of the Government to add pheasants and red-legged partridges to the licensing scheme if required:
As you may recall, the Government has not included pheasants or red-legged partridges in its proposed grouse moor licensing scheme, despite the recent upsurge of these gamebirds being released on grouse moors (see here), but the Bill does provide the capacity for these species to be added (i.e. a licence would be required to shoot them) if evidence emerges that wildlife crimes are being committed on grouse moors where these species have been released for shooting.
Ed is proposing that only gamebirds listed on the Red or Amber list could be added to the licensing scheme, which would obviously exclude the addition of pheasants and red-legged partridges as these are not endangered in any way – they are non-native, invasive species released in their millions each year for ‘sport’ shooting. The whole purpose of the licensing scheme is not to protect ‘rare’ (Red/Amber listed) birds – it is to enable the sanctioning of estates who commit wildlife crime when shooting these species. I hope this amendment is treated with the contempt it deserves.
Ed’s amendment #21 is to ‘leave out Section 8‘ of the Bill:
What is Section 8? Ah, that’s the Government’s proposal to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SCPA:
Given the Scottish Government’s (long awaited) commitment to extending the powers of the SSPCA (see here), this amendment is just a last-ditch attempt to prevent it from happening. Even if it gets past Stage 2, I fully expect it to be overturned at Stage 3 as it goes directly against Government policy and the Minister’s repeatedly stated intentions.
The remainder of Ed’s amendments focus on muirburn licencing where first of all he proposes excluding entire sections of the Bill relating to this (thus removing the requirement for a muirburn licence), but then goes on to suggest changes to the very sections he wants removed, presumably because he knows that the Government will never agree to removing the requirement for a muirburn licence!
Amongst the changes he proposes are the definition of peat depth to be changed from 40cm to 60cm, the ability to extend the muirburn season to 30 April at landowner discretion, and the management of gamebirds to be included as a legitimate reason to burn on peatland. He also suggests a public register of muirburn licences – that, at least, is a sensible amendment. As for the rest, they’re hard to take seriously in light of the climate crisis and I can’t see the SNP, Labour and Greens being supportive.
These amendments provide us with a flavour of what to expect from certain MSPs over the coming week – I dare say there will be even more outlandish attempts to overturn the provisions of the Bill given the ferocity of the grouse shooting industry’s objections to the Bill’s general principles. Let’s see.
UPDATE 15 January 2024: The National picked up on this blog post and published an article about it (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
Are other organisations monitoring this?
Hopefully so and therefore the response from the environmentally friendly sector will be more powerful
Yes, of course, all the organisations are all over this, on both sides of the debate.
Amendment no 10 about those over 40 and having used the traps for over 10 years not needing to take the training course, is fairly standard procedure for many new laws. Grandfathers (or acquired) rights have certainly been fairly common in agriculture ( eg spraying)and transport industries, though often only for a limited period.
The argument is that it allows the industry to transition more smoothly to the new rules and regulations.
Not saying that is a good argument in this case, but there are plenty precedents so it may be a hard one to successfully fight against.
Couple of scenarios that concern me – and I don’t know the best way to counter them in the draft
(1) Let’s be optimistic and say a decent licensing scheme is put in place and is well administered. Let’s say that on Estate X the authorities record strong evidence of wildlife crime to withdraw Estate X’s licence for a couple of seasons. Good.
But let’s say Estate X is fairly big at 15, 000 acres and all of the wrongdoing was centred around one Beat of 3000 acres. So Estate X simply sells off that Beat to a friend with a nod & wink, it dissolves its current management company and then resurrects the “clean” part of the Estate under a “new” management company, if only in different names. But the beneficiary of the sporting rights (unknown to the authorities) remains the same, still getting his shooting albeit minus one Beat.
(2) similar to the above, Estate Y gains access or influence (probably not putting anything on paper) to what appears to be low value land in sporting terms on the boundaries of its Estate, but which actually serve as the “vermin buffer zones” where their keepers or useful pals of their keepers – not employed by the Estate on the books, can do much of the real dirty work away from their own Estate. In these places, calculated risks could be taken with as example fewer in number but bigger in effort use of multiple poison baits, to get results that they would no longer dare to do with previous “little & often” method on their own land, knowing they could get caught out and lose a licence.
It is obvious the whole management team and the chair ar in the pockets of the shooting Lords pockets.
Sack the bloody lit and put members of the public in their place where sense will prevail.
Thos debate has already shown significant signs of becoming a debacle, a farce, this debate should not be held open to anyone from tha shooting industry as they clearly have a conflict of interest.
Along with that problem, comes the issue with green parties, who also have similar problems, added to this are wildlife enthusiasts.
In my humble opinion it should be a debate for an unbiased group, who are purely looking at the reason for this bill being introduced in the first place, and that is the criminal aspect.
With persecution at a high, nobody is being held accountable, wildlife is suffering at the hands of the criminal’s linked to the shooting industry.
Issuing a license to trap is just bonkers, all traps should be banned, and be made illegal to own, and use.
Traps have absolutely no place in the modern world, they are no different to using snares, or dogs to hunt foxes ( by accident apparently), it always makes me stop and think who are these people if they can not tell if a fox is in the area, and why on earth are they letting packs of dogs chase after them.
The license fees should definitely be big enough to cover all forward costs, including the policing of this so called sport, and the cost of administration for this barbaric pastime.
I also struggle to understand why we even allow shooting to continue with the track record hanging round its neck, with over 200 birds of prey killed last year, and these are just the ones recorded, there is probable 3 times that amount in reality, and we are going to debate a bill to help govern the activities of the shooting industry, if it was just banned it would be less costly, save thousands of birds from being persecuted, and the country would be a much nicer place, birds of prey would once again come back to their habitats, and all would be just groovy, but no, while gun toting toffs are able to influence government, and bribe their way out of trouble, it will be next to impossible to govern it.
All shooting licences issued should not only cover the people but the land also, and any license revoked should also make the land no longer available for shooting, this should include the entirety of the estate so that can not just rename, or rebadge the shooting club, the land should be no longer licensable for any kind of shooting activities.
All crimes should carry a penalty, no matter how many or what the crime is, the estate should be punished as well as the people/person responsible.
Estate managers, owners, conglomerates are all to be held accountable for any crime committed on the land, be that a bird of prey being killed, or burning of the peat, and any other infringement, like bird welfare, accounts, should all be a reason for sanctions.
First offence, suspension of license, second removal of license permanently, and this should be attached to land and people involved so they can not just move somewhere else and set up again, they should be banned from any involvement be that financial, or managerial.
Snares, traps should just be banned no debate needed, to suggest someone over 40 does not require training is the same as saying someone who was an electrician before training was required should not have to train, its bonkers, or someone born before driving licences where made a legal requirement does not need to sit a test, even if they take up driving at the age of 90 with no training, it’s ludicrous, what on earth are they wanting to use traps for anyway?, these are often placed and left for days/ weeks without being checked, many an animal, or bird has been trapped, and left to die an agonising death trapped, no different to what poachers do with elephants, rhino, lions, and many other wild animals killed in illegal traps, and snares, if I had my way the punishment for using a trap, would be to place them in a trap, or snare with their hands tied behind their backs,and no tools or help.
As for oiks with pots of money, and guns should not get off Scott free, they should also be punished to within inches of the law, and get generous fines, and custodial sentences that count, not less than 3 years, no possible chance for parole, and no more suspended sentences, minimum fines should be based on wealth, so it makes a substantial difference to their bank roll.
Or like I have already said, just ban all shooting, ban the use if shotguns by anyone not registered for vermin control, controlling large collonies of rats would be a good use of guns.
All the cost to take this bill to government, and al the hundreds of hours wasted writing the bil, would be saved by just banning all shooting.
With a flawed background on checking their own sport, and making sure rules are adhered to has never been a priority for shooting industry, just how much money we can make is the only law governing these people.
There are rather a lot of factual inaccuracies across this piece.
Starting with the number of amendments Ed Mountain has submitted. If you paid attention to the daily list of any Bill, you would know that amendments are numbered in the order in which they are submitted, regardless of who submits them. Ed has submitted 44, not 47 amendments.
Secondly, pheasants and Partridge are not exactly farmed animal das you seem to suggest. Of course they’re not endangered, and licensing land on which they are taken would essentially be to licence the majority of farmland in the country.
I could go on, but I think it would be to no avail when your approach is ideologically rather than scientifically driven…
Thanks, Calum. I’ve amended my error on the number of amendments tabled by Ed Mountain (changed from 47 to 44).
Re: the ability to add pheasants and red-legged partridge to the licence if deemed appropriate. This isn’t a ‘factual inaccuracy’ as you suggest – there is a provision in the Bill to facilitate this. Ed Mountain’s amendment is an attempt to limit the addition of gamebird spp such as pheasant and red-legged partridge. You may disagree with the provision to add these species but that doesn’t make it a ‘factual inaccuracy’.
You say you “could go on” with other ‘factual inaccuracies’. Please do, I’m always open to making amendments.
I agree with JB all said in a nutshell just ban this abhorrent stuff along with hunting.
The secrecy of offshore ownership could be broken by the new licence requiring that the ultimate beneficiaries of the land must be declared on the licence. This would enable the prosecution of vicarious liability should it be required.