Further to my blog on Monday (here) outlining how Scotland’s grouse moor licensing scheme had already been sabotaged by the grouse shooting industry, today NatureScot has announced the commencement of its utterly shambolic and unenforceable changes made to the licence:
NatureScot is still stating, “We expect the area covered by the licence to be the full extent of the grouse moor“. This ‘expectation’ has no legal weight whatsoever.
As I discussed previously, the grouse moor owners can simply draw an arbitrary line around their grouse butts, denoting the reach of a shotgun pellet, and argue that THAT is the area where they take/kill grouse and thus that should be the extent of the licensable area:
What this means in practice is that if any raptor persecution offences take place outside of that licensable area, the grouse moor/licence holder will not lose his licence because there won’t have been a breach of the new licensing condition.
NatureScot has tried to address this loophole by introducing a second change, which, according to NatureScot, “Will allow us to revoke the licence if raptor persecution which is connected to the grouse moor takes place outside of this licensed area“.
Actually, it won’t, because how on earth will the authorities demonstrate that the raptor persecution crime was “connected to the grouse moor“? On a mixed shooting estate (i.e. the estate hosts grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge shoots), how will NatureScot determine whether a poisoned golden eagle, found on a different part of the estate away from the grouse moor, was killed in connection to the grouse moor as opposed to ‘in connection with’ the pheasant or red-legged partridge shoot? How will NatureScot determine who laid the poisoned bait?
All the licence holder has to prove in their defence is that they’ve taken “reasonable steps” to prevent raptor persecution on their estate (e.g. their employees all sign contracts swearing to uphold the law), the gamekeepers will all give ‘no comment’ police interviews, and it will be virtually impossible to identify the perpetrator. Any half-decent defence lawyer will shred any attempt made by NatureScot to revoke a licence based on such uncertainty.
It’s exactly the same situation we had before the licencing scheme became enacted, and, incidentally, is exactly WHY the licensing scheme was introduced, to get around these issues!
The other big shocker within these new changes is that all the other offences listed in the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act that are supposed to trigger a licence revocation (i.e. offences on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023) are NOT covered by this second change to the licence. That second change ONLY applies to raptor persecution offences.
Honestly, these new changes are so, so poorly thought through, and so, so far away from the Scottish Parliament’s intention when passing the Bill, it’s astonishing.
Stand by for more news about this later today…
UPDATE 13 November 2024: Mark Ruskell MSP starts parliamentary process of challenging the “vast loophole” in new grouse moor licence (here)
UPDATE 24 January 2025: NatureScot capitulated on grouse moor licensing after legal threats by game-shooting industry (here)
UPDATE 10 February 2025: Parliamentary questions lodged on grouse moor licensing shambles in Scotland (here)
UPDATE 14 November 2025: Scottish Minister Jim Fairlie provides rationale behind proposed amendment to close loophole on grouse shoot licence (here)















