As many of you will be aware, the 2024 grouse shooting season in Scotland (12 Aug – 10 Dec 2024) saw the use of grouse moor licences for the first time ever, introduced by the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2024.
For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It works on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland under a section 16AA licence and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. on the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a period of up to five years.
The licences have already been weakened significantly by NatureScot after a legal threat from the game-shooting industry (see here) and I’ll be writing more about that, probably later this week.
As part of the new grouse moor licensing scheme, NatureScot published a Code of Practice for Grouse Moor Management (also known as the Grouse Code) which sets out the legal requirements associated with managing land for killing and/or taking red grouse.
The Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 requires that a licence holder comply with the Grouse Code. Non-adherence to the Grouse Code could result in a licensing sanction and/or suspension or revocation. Here is the Grouse Code:
You’ll note on pages 2-3 of the Grouse Code that it includes a section on compliance monitoring.
Stating the obvious, NatureScot says, ‘Compliance monitoring is a key aspect of any licensing approach‘ and then outlines the types of compliance monitoring checks it says it will conduct:
Sounds reassuringly comprehensive, doesn’t it?
However, in recent months I’ve learned that NatureScot can’t be trusted (more on that soon!) so rather than rely on what NatureScot says it will do with regard to Grouse Code compliance checks, I decided to find it what it actually did by submitting an FoI request as follows:
- In relation to the 2024 grouse shooting season (12 Aug – 10 Dec 2024), how many licences did NatureScot issue for grouse shooting?
- Of those licences, how many compliance checks were undertaken by NatureScot in relation to adherence to the Grouse Code of Practice? Please break down these results to show the number of (a) desk top checks, (b) on-site visits, and (c) checks via accreditation schemes.
- Of those compliance checks, how many licence holders were found to have committed (a) minor breaches and (b) significant breaches?
Here is NatureScot’s response:
So, NatureScot issued 264 grouse shooting licences for the 2024 season and says that 14 ‘were either cancelled, revoked or withdrawn‘. I’m guessing that none of them were ‘cancelled’ or ‘revoked’, but rather all 14 were ‘withdrawn’ by the licence applicant, probably as a result of the threatened legal challenge against NatureScot by the grouse-shooting industry that resulted in a narrowing of the licensable area, so perhaps some licence holders withdrew their original licence applications and submitted revised applications showing the more limited boundary.
Whatever the reason, I’m quite confident that no licences have been ‘cancelled’ or ‘revoked’ by NatureScot because if they had, NatureScot would have publicised it on its website in the same way it does for General Licence restrictions. I suspect in this case, NatureScot has deliberately included the words ‘cancelled’ and ‘revoked’ in its FoI response in an attempt to infer enforcement action when actually it hasn’t done any enforcement whatsoever.
That leaves 250 grouse shooting licences that NatureScot issued for the 2024 grouse shooting season. Of those, NatureScot didn’t undertake one single compliance check.
That’s astonishing, given that the Scottish Parliament introduced grouse shoot licensing on the basis that many grouse moor owners and managers couldn’t be trusted to abide by the law, despite years of warnings that if they didn’t stop illegally killing birds of prey they’d face imposed regulations. Given this long history of criminality, you’d think that compliance monitoring would be fundamental.
Regulation, in this case licensing, is only as strong as the associated compliance monitoring efforts and subsequent enforcement action. We’ve already seen the illegal shooting of an osprey (here) and a peregrine (here) since the licensing scheme began, and no sign of any subsequent enforcement action, which suggests that the licensing scheme simply isn’t an effective mechanism for stopping The Untouchables. NatureScot’s failure to undertake a single licence compliance check is playing right into their hands.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Their offices are quite well located for a quick drive west just 20-30 mins and be in amongst some very interesting grouse moors. I wonder if they haven’t been issued any Hi Vis jackets or wellies yet or done a H & S course on how to walk on uneven ground or some such crap. This is such a mismatch “in the field” that it is just an absolute joke. They need to recruit people along the lines of RSPB Investigations folk on either a permanent basis or on contract to conduct real-world surveys of the estates granted licences. You will struggle to find any breaches of licence if don’t go out and see what is actually happening. Or is that the idea?
It is self-evident that there is no point in having laws if the appropriate agencies do not act to uphold those laws. The grouse moor licences should be chargeable at a level to pay for the effective monitoring and policing of all of the potential licence holders. Anything else is just posturing.
I see that Labour are looking to do the right thing regarding firearms licence pricing, although they should also be putting additional, more stringent, restrictions on ownership of such weapons.
thats the key, isnt it – charge the full cost of regulation? There appears to be some movement towards that with firearms licences, but it needs to be applied across the board. I’ve a particular grievance over water pollution, when Im regularly told the regulator here in Wales (NRW) doesnt have the resources to even attend any but the most egregious of incidents. Without resources, regulators simply cant regulate
Very much agree on both your points, Simon.
In respect of ownership of weapons, those who are in favour of them sometimes make the point that terrible injuries can be inflicted by knives.
True, but knives have a useful, non-lethal purpose which we all need – guns have no beneficial uses so should be much more tightly controlled.
Well done Ruth. Someone needs to hold them accountable and, as usual, it is you.
I wonder what NatureScot’s plans are for the 2025 season and I also wonder what resources will they be deploying.
The MSPs who passed this legislation must be fuming that their efforts are being undermined.
Sums up Environmental regulation in the UK
Exactly. Meaningless words without any action and no accountability whatsoever. Still, at least the jobs involved in creating this type of legislation are at least well paid : (
And as our Birds and Wildlife are as vulnerable as ever, some Lib Dem MPs are more interested in what images grace the front of greetings cards, it really is beyond belief!
Regulators have been established in order to provide an impression that citizens rights will be protected but in reality their brief is to ensure the related industry suffers no interference whatsoever. There is plenty of evidence for this view. They cannot be embarrassed into action against their industry sector and provide yet another drain (no pun intended) on the taxpayer.
It doesn’t seem to matter what laws/licences/other publicised measures are introduced. The status quo (and the illegal killing of our raptors on grouse moors) remains unchanged.