The Scottish Government has, for the second time, delayed the implementation of muirburn licensing after caving in to pressure from aggressive lobbying by the grouse shooting industry.
A quick re-cap for new blog readers:
In March 2024, the Scottish Parliament voted for the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which introduced, amongst other things, a requirement for all muirburn to be licensed (see here).
The Bill was enacted in May 2024 and became the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and since then we’ve seen the introduction of a grouse moor licensing scheme (although this still remains contentious as the licence has been significantly weakened after lobbying by the grouse shooting industry – an update on that is coming shortly) and the banning of the use of snares.
The introduction of the muirburn licence, also contentious because many conservationists didn’t believe it went far enough (e.g. see here), was due to be in place for the start of the 2025/26 muirburn season on 15 September 2025, some 18 months after the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of it.
However, in June 2025 the Scottish Government announced it was delaying implementation until 1 January 2026 because the grouse shooting industry had laughably argued that it wasn’t practical or fair for the licences to begin in September 2025 (see here).
Since then, the grouse shooting industry has continued its lobbying and wants the licences dropped altogether because of what it calls the ‘need’ for muirburn to ‘control the fuel load’ – the amount of combustible vegetation which could influence the intensity and spread of wildfires.
Although if you read these two fascinating recent articles written by Professor Douglas MacMillan for the ParkswatchScotland blog (here and here), you’ll see that within the Cairngorms National Park at least, a considerable number of wildfires are believed to have been caused by ‘muirburn gone wrong’.
Nevertheless, inevitably it seems the powerful lairds have applied sufficient pressure for the Scottish Government to capitulate once again, probably with an eye on the forthcoming election.
Yesterday, an obviously-planted written question appeared on the Scottish Parliament’s website:
Question reference: S6W-41119
Asked by Emma Harper MSP (SNP, South Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the muirburn licensing provisions in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 will be implemented on 1 January 2026, in light of the lessons learned following the wildfires in Dava and Carrbridge in summer 2025.
The question was answered this morning by Jim Fairlie MSP, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity:
Following discussions with a number of stakeholders and experts over recent weeks, I have decided to delay implementation of the muirburn provisions until the start of the next muirburn season in Autumn 2026.
This decision will provide us with the time and opportunity to carefully consider the upcoming changes to muirburn and how these changes can be brought forward in a way which does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires. Wildfires as I saw this summer, are very damaging to our precious peatland carbon stores and further discussions on this issue will take place with key stakeholders and at the Wildfire Summit on 14 October 2025.
I don’t know what the legal position is for the timing of when legislation must begin after being enacted, but as it currently stands, it’ll be well over two years between the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 being enacted and muirburn licensing commencing, assuming, that is, that the Scottish Government doesn’t capitulate again before the start of the 2026 muirburn season on 15 September 2026.
Meanwhile, across the border in England, I see that the Moorland Association has written a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to Defra to challenge the lawfulness of the Heather & Grass Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, announced in September 2025 to restrict the burning of vegetation on deep peat, redefined from the current 40cm to 30cm depth (see here). A PAP letter marks the start of potential legal action (judicial review).
To be honest, none of this political lobbying and legal action by the grouse shooting industry in both Scotland and England should come as any surprise. Intensive driven grouse shooting relies not only on wildlife crime (it’s not possible to have the grossly excessive number of Red Grouse available to shoot without killing off as many native predators as possible), but relies also on torching the uplands via muirburning to sustain an artificial environment for those excesses of Red Grouse.
If muirburning is banned, or restricted, the intensively managed grouse moors simply wouldn’t be commercially viable. And that’s why the grouse shooting industry is throwing everything in to challenging the new regulations north and south of the border.
I suspect there’ll be a significant and angry reaction to the Scottish Government’s decision to further delay the implementation of muirburning at the behest of the lairds- one to watch.
UPDATE 9 October 2025: Breaking news…’out-of-control’ muirburn on grouse moor in Cairngorms National Park (here)
UPDATE 11 October 2025: “SNP caves to shooting lobby” – reactions to Scottish Government’s decision to delay muirburn licensing (again) (here)
UPDATE 13 October 2025: ‘The problem, which the Scottish Government is willfully ignoring, is that muirburn is responsible for a large number of wildfires’ (here)
UPDATE 30 October 2025: Scottish Govt fiddles while grouse moors burn (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
And of course isn’t it ‘funny’ how our S1 licences were changed right in the middle of a breeding season this year?! No delay for us! Absolute shower of corrupt vested interests, with no care in the world for nature, just the continuation of barbaric and outdated practices. Land reform can’t come soon enough.
I’m amazed by this. I’ve always rejected the idea that the SNP are ‘TartanToriies’ .It seems I was wrong. Why does the Scottish Government need to bow to pressure from these ‘Stakeholders”eho seem to have more power than Parliament?
Because they’re spineless
Xxxxx cowardly politicians..
Sent from AOL on Android
“If muirburning is banned, or restricted, the intensively managed grouse moors simply wouldn’t be commercially viable.”
They could cut and remove.
I don’t suppose the following is any less rigorous than the assertions made by the Moorland Association…
https://www.britishmoorlands.com/grouse-management/cutting-alternative/
“There is no scientific evidence that burning produces more grouse than a precision cutting system. The superior chick rearing environment with Maze cutting can easily offset the nutritional advantage of heather in a burning rotation. The most productive grouse moor in British Moorlands portfolio of managed moors has produced just under 200 brace per 1000 acres without any burning for over 40 years, and the other moors were run for 8 years without any burning. All have produced much more grouse per unit area than local moors with traditional burning.”
If the Scottish Government were really concerned about (a) global warming, air pollution, water pollution, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and water run-off/floods, and (b) wild fires, they would ban burning completely and enforce compulsory re-wetting of the moors by damming all the artificial drainage systems.
But they aren’t: they are charlatans:-(
It may well the case that there is little difference in the overall averages of grouse produced by either mowing or burning heather. But the cost of mowing on difficult ground (too steep, too uneven, too boggy, too stony) is always higher and can be very high when areas require specialist equipment & perhaps even contractors, whereas the costs (time/effort of usually only the existing keepers) associated with burning varies only slightly whether on difficult ground or not. That is the “new factor” imposed on their business models by this legislation and may well be why they are throwing a tantrum. That said, please don’t think my above explanation means I am expressing sympathy for them. I’m not.
“That said, please don’t think my above explanation means I am expressing sympathy for them. I’m not.”
Fair enough. Understood.
“But the cost of mowing on difficult ground (too steep, too uneven, too boggy, too stony) is always higher and can be very high when areas require specialist equipment & perhaps even contractors, whereas the costs (time/effort of usually only the existing keepers) associated with burning varies only slightly whether on difficult ground or not.”
That is true only because the drips who inhabit the Government(s) refuse to consider the costs to themselves (ie us, the taxpayer) of the global warming, air pollution, water pollution, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, water run-off/floods and fighting wild fires(!) caused directly by the way the driven grouse shooting industry currently manage their moorland:-(
Whimsically… Maybe – as compensation to the shooting land owners, but in recognition of the additional costs they ought to bear for all the damage they cause – the Scottish Government should fight for the right of setting a minimum wage to be a devolved matter… so they could simply abolish it for gamekeepers? Or… the land owners could just increase the price of their shoots? Or… the Scottish Government could introduce a special land-burning tax? So many market-force possible solutions…
On the other hand… the Scottish Government could just grow a pair…
Scotland remains feudal
I wrote, in anger, to my local SNP MSP. I received a very rapid reply, which I repeat below. I am, of course, not swayed bathing response, obviously prepared ready for the inevitable reaction to the continued delay. They have suggested that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service may have been influential in the decision. I shallvontact them to see if they objected to the legislation being enacted.
Here is the reply. I assume there isno reason not to repeat it here:
“Thank you for your email to Shirley-Anne, which I am responding to on her behalf.
She is grateful that you have contacted her to share your views on this important matter.
As you rightly pointed out and also as confirmed by Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie, new licensing conditions for muirburn will not come into force until autumn 2026. In the aftermath of the wildfires which have affected many parts of the country and caused extensive damage to Scotland’s peatlands, the decision has been taken to move the commencement date from 1 January, when the relevant part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act would have come into effect.
This follows extensive discussions with land managers, game keepers, estate owners and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS).”
Mr Fairlie said:
“Delaying the implementation of the muirburn provisions until the start of the next season in Autumn 2026 gives us more time to carefully consider how these necessary changes to licensing can be brought forward in a way which does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.
“As we have all seen this summer, wildfires are very damaging to Scotland’s landscape, wildlife and particularly to our precious peatland carbon stores that are vital in tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis.
“I repeat my thanks to all those involved in getting the wildfires under control and for their continued engagement as we look to be better prepared in the future. We will continue to work in partnership with key stakeholders and continue these discussions on 14 October at the Wildfires Summit to discuss our approach to muirburn licensing and prevention of wildfires.”
I appreciate from what you shared that speedier enactment of this legislation is what you would have hoped for but I hope that the above update from the Scottish Government clarifies the position at present.
Thank you, Alex, for your efforts and for publicising this rather strange and spineless letter.
It is the current regime of rotational burning which has led to this season’s wildfires and ‘extensive damage’ so, to be on the safe side, ‘let’s carry on doing it’:-(
‘I’ve consulted with all the stakeholders and experts – land managers, game keepers, estate owners and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (who fully understand ecology) – and I’ve decided we haven’t spent anywhere near enough time (two years) or been careful enough to decide what to do’.
Have you seen Nick Kempe’s latest blog post? Well worth a read!
Why the ban on camp fires in the Cairngorms National Park maybe political rather than sustainable….. – parkswatchscotland
Thanks for that. Rather illuminating….
On the ban on camp fires in the Cairngorm National Park…
“My colleague Euan Stevenson and I analysed the most recent satellite-derived data from NatureScot (see here) to explore this question. We found that the main cause of wildfire in the CNP is not actually campers, but sporting estates. Only 9% of wildfire burns were likely caused by campers, whereas 71% were most likely caused by ‘muirburn gone wrong’.”
Looks like a concerted effort by the shooting industry at scapegoating…
Unfortunately it’s not going to change money privelage rules the governments are so spineless they should be carried about in a bucket another description is glass back,to think people pay lots of money to burn the land pollution kill everything in their path all wildlife including the poor Gamebirds dump their unwanted carcasses and they think this is a good day out words fail me.