Further to last week’s blog about the commencement legislation being published for the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 (see here), NatureScot has now published its draft Code of Practice for Grouse Moor Management, which provides the legal framework for how grouse moors have to be managed.
The final version of the Grouse Moor Code of Practice is set to be published on 12th July 2024 and licence applications will open online on 15th July 2024, allowing grouse moor managers time to apply and have their licences in place for the start of the grouse-shooting season on the Inglorious 12th August.
Here is a copy of the draft Code of Practice:
A few of us have been invited to comment on the draft version of the Code, although this appears to be NatureScot just paying lip-service to a consultation, given the closing date for comments is 10th July and the final version is expected to be published two days later on the 12th July. Nevertheless, I have submitted some comments as follows:
- There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for grouse moor licence holders to produce evidence of a formal veterinary prescription for the use of medicated grit. This is both surprising and disappointing given that NatureScot told campaigners earlier this year that the use of medicated grit will be subject to greater regulation under the new Code of Practice (see here). Rest assured that campaigners from the League Against Cruel Sports (Scotland) and Wild Justice are planning to monitor the use (and mis-use) of medicated grit on grouse moors using a newly-developed lab technique they recently co-funded, and another technique currently undergoing testing. Watch this space.
- There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for licence holders to provide ‘returns’ (data) on the type and number of species that are (lawfully) killed as part of routine grouse moor management. There is a requirement for ‘bag returns’ on the number of red grouse shot, which is definitely an improvement, but what about the thousands (estimates of up to a quarter of a million) of other native animals that are trapped, shot and killed (e.g. corvids, stoats, weasels) each year just to enable an artificially high population of red grouse to be shot? How can NatureScot and the Scottish Government possibly evaluate the sustainability of grouse moor management if they don’t have access to these figures?
- There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition. Why is that? How can grouse shooting be considered sustainable when thousands of tonnes of toxic poison are being fired and then left to accumulate in the environment, contaminating soils, plants and waterbodies, not to mention poisoning wildlife?
- It’s possible that some of the above are addressed in the associated ‘Best Practice Guidelines’ being drafted to support the Code of Practice, but currently the latest edition of the Best Practice Guidelines hasn’t yet been published and isn’t expected to be until ‘summer 2024’, whenever that is. How is it possible to provide an opinion on something that isn’t available for scrutiny?
Apart from these specific detailed concerns, the overall content of the Code seems reasonable and the general information that NatureScot has published so far about the Code of Practice and how it will work seems to be fairly comprehensive. It’s clear that an effort has been made to make the process as easy to understand as possible, both for the benefit of those having to work to the conditions of the licence and for those who will be watching closely and reporting suspected compliance breaches.
I’ll check back on the Code of Practice when the final version is published on 12th July, just to see if anything has actually been amended as a result of the mini-consultation, but I’m not holding my breath.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Re Section 19: Why does the statement ‘Causing a protected animal unnecessary suffering …’ not specify ‘any animal’ and not just those that are protected?
Maybe there was no appetite to widen the discussion to perhaps encompass the ethics in the first place of fast paced shooting at driven birds, by a line of people with shotguns firing barrages of small lead pellets. In which there is unavoidable accepted wounding to a small* percentage of birds that are not killed, or downed but are merely “tickled” (i.e. struck with a few pellets that penetrate the feathers) – they get clear of the action, crouch up somewhere distant and well – suffer unnecessarily and often die during the night when temperatures drop.
*small only as a percentage of the Bag, not small in total numbers.
Please can you clarify S19 of what law?
The meaning of a “protected animal” varies.
In law, most “protected” animals are specific species of animals, fish, birds, invertebrates etc which are provided legal protection from certain actions (such as capture, killing and injury or injuring or killing using specified practices.) The species being provided legal protection are often identified in legal lists called Schedules or they can be defined more generally.
For example the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 defines a “protected animal” as:
an animal is a “protected animal” if it is—
(a) of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) under the control of man on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c) not living in a wild state.
Section 19: Why is the statement ‘Causing a protected animal unnecessary suffering …’ not worded ‘any animal?’
Insects are animals.
Those are glaring omissions in vital areas. A healthy ecology requires the balancing effect of small predators as overkill results in the numbers of the weaker in prey species that survive to breead and, as a result, the population that evolves from these species become less healthy — as red deer have shown us.
There is no excuse for not outlawing lead shot either. This is simply landowners/shooters throwing the rattle out of the pram illustrating that they will not be dictated too, no matter the strength of evidence against them.
Allowing anyone nowadays to lay down pharmaceuticals on wild land without strict oversight seems illogical, given the long term dangers involved.
As you have noted they have left very little time for any potential loopholes to be identified and corrected. Hopefully it’s not business as usual with old verbal gymnastics employed when it comes to interpretations of what this new restrictions actually mean in practise.
This reminds me of the fox hunting ban. If your mates object, fill it full of holes and allow the public to understand that you have banned it whilst allowing your mates to carry on as usual. An awful lot of work has gone into this and perhaps I should not be so cynical, but an outright ban would have been so much easier. Hard to trail hunt a grouse.
The medicated grit point is going to be interesting. I hope that the person(s) (often a vet doing so on behalf of a supplier) who signs off the prescription of medicated grit is held to account. Let their reputation also be scrutinised and their business penalised if the product is misused because they have signed it off without due diligence. It’s funny that to get a repeat prescription for a dog or a farm animal, most of the time vets will insist on another consultation / visit and often stick you with another charge. I know that on some estates they send off samples (caecal gut) from some shot grouse on some shoot days for worm counts, supposedly to inform whether medicated grit should be used or not. I also know some estates where they just keep putting it out religiously based on their own judgement, whenever they worry they may have “too many grouse” (ie. anything above a moors ideal stocking density).
Why is there no mention of Peregrines, Buzzards, Goshawks, Merlins, Owls, et al?
The subject of Lead shot is ignored, The subject of poisoning is ignored. Muirburn is only mentioned in passing. Traps are glossed over, except for the larger cage (Larson) style traps. Snares and rail traps are ignored.
There is a lot of stuff which has been omitted. Do the Estate owners think we are all morons?
Hi Jill,
The species you mention are all covered by the Wildlife & Countryside Act, as is the offence of illegal poisoning- check the section on ‘wild birds’.
Muirburn is being covered by a separate Code of Practice, which isn’t expected to be finalised until early 2025.
The use of traps is being covered by a separate requirement for compulsory training for the use of all traps.
Snares will be banned, as detailed in the Act – we are just waiting for Minister Jim Fairlie to say when this ban will begin (I don’t understand why it hasn’t already begun).
The use of lead ammunition does not appear to have been addressed. Several of us have raised this point with NatureScot and we wait to see whether it will be included in the final version due to be published on 12th July.
It really can’t come soon enough for me.
Am I missing something here but I simply see a list of statutory requirements and best practice guidance that were in place before the Wildlife and Muirburn Act was passed?  I assumed the Code would include lots of new statutory duties.  I appreciate there will be a new Muirburn Code but I see nothing significant in this draft code.  I feel hugely disappointed. Â