This (relatively short) consultation paper sets out proposals for licensing of grouse moor management with revised controls over muirburn and various forms of trapping. These are not new issues; there’s been ongoing debate over the years and a disappointing failure especially to prevent illegal persecution of raptors. The proposal to introduce a licensing system is an attempt to regulate this form of rural land management, which has become increasingly intensive over recent decades. My response to the consultation is as follows (extracts from the consultation paper in italics, for clarity):
Section 1 – Licensing of Grouse Shooting
The Scottish Government is proposing a licensing scheme for the taking of grouse.
Purpose of the scheme
The main purpose of the proposals to license grouse shooting is to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime and in particular persecution of raptors on grouse moors. It will do this by enabling the application of a meaningful civil sanction regime for offences against wild birds and other specified wildlife crimes.
More details can be found in “Part 1: Licencing of Grouse Shooting”” of our consultation paper.
Q1. Do you agree that the licensing of grouse shooting should be introduced to deter raptor persecution and wildlife crime linked to grouse moor management? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q2. If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please give us your views
Q3. Do you agree that the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions and actions should be responsible for acquiring and maintaining the licence for the taking of grouse on a particular piece of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q4. If you answered ‘No’ to question 3, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘No’ to question, please give us your views
Q5. Do you think that the person wishing to shoot grouse on land that they do not own, or occupy, should be required to check that the person who owns the land has a licence which allows for the taking of grouse on that area of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q6. If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please give us your views
Q7. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Other body (please specify)
Q8. Do you think that a licence should be granted for a maximum period of one year (renewable on an annual basis thereafter)? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q9. If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please give us your views
Q10. Do you think that the civil rather than the criminal burden of proof is an acceptable test for the application of sanctions in relation to grouse moor licences?
[Please note that a civil standard of proof would require NatureScot to base their decision on the ‘balance of probabilities’ whereas a criminal standard of proof requires satisfaction ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.] (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q11. If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please give us your views
Q12. Do you agree that record keeping or reporting requirements should be part of the licence conditions?
[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place, the number of grouse shot on each day, types of predator control undertaken, etc.) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]
Record Keeping – Yes
Reporting Requirements – Yes
Neither
Unsure
Q13. If you answered ‘neither’ to question 12, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).
If you answered ‘Neither’ to question 12, please give us your views
Q14. Do you agree that, where a person holds a valid licence, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities a wildlife crime has been committed on their property, NatureScot should have the power to impose the following penalties:
- Issue a written warning
- Temporarily suspend a licence
- Permanently revoke a licence
(Yes/No/Unsure)
Yes
Q15. If you answered ‘no’ to question 14, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).If you answered ‘No’ to question 14, please give us your views
Q16. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
Grouse moor management has been given every opportunity to demonstrate responsible self-regulation and to tackle the long term sustainability of the practice. Failure to show significant progress makes licensing, along the lines explored in the Werritty Report, inevitable. Any licensing system needs to be robust enough to provide effective oversight of what is happening on the ground and, hopefully, to encourage improved working practices. All the elements above (Q1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14) are required to achieve this.
The licensing system will have cost implications for the licensing body, which should be recouped as one of the expenses of grouse moor management.
Grouse moor management has gradually become an intensive form of land use on some of our most sensitive upland landscapes, with damaging ecological consequences. The growing need to mitigate climate change is another reason to rethink the forms of land management compatible with the wider public interest in these upland areas.
Section 2 – Muirburn – Scottish Government Proposals
The Scottish Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Werritty review which stated:
“That muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence.
- That muirburn should be subject to increased legal regulation
- This should apply to all muirburn, not only on grouse moors.”
We are also proposing a statutory ban on muirburn on peatland (to be defined as peat of a depth of 40cm or more) unless it is part of an approved habitat restoration programme, to protect public safety (e.g. reduce the risk of wildlife) or for the purpose of research.
We propose that the approach outlined above is consistent with precautionary principle in this matter. However, recognising that the scientific evidence on the impacts of muirburn is currently contested and that the management of peatland is a highly important aspect of Scotland’s net-zero target, we propose that the Bill should contain powers to modify the regulation of muirburn in the future, as the scientific evidence base develops.
More details can be found in “Part 2: Muirburn” of our consultation paper.
Q17. Currently a licence is only required to undertake Muirburn outwith the Muirburn season. Do you agree that a licence should be required to undertake Muirburn regardless of the time of year that it is undertaken? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q18. If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):
If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please give us your views
Q19. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q20. Do you agree that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q21. Other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research, are there any other purposes for which you think muirburn on peatland should be permitted? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
No
Q22. Do you agree that the definition of peat set out in the muirburn code should be amended to 40 cm? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Unsure
Q23. If you answered ‘No’ to question 22, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):
Please give us your views
The case against muirburn on deep peat for any reason is strong, however the threshold of 50cm is arbitrary and originates, I understand, from the basis on which peatland has previously been mapped by the James Hutton Institute, among others. But a reduction in the threshold to 40cm, or even 30cm, would still permit damaging muirburn on large areas of peaty soils. The urgent need for measures mitigating against climate change suggest that routine muirburn on peatland of any depth should be discouraged. There’s enough of a challenge controlling wildfires in our uplands; it can be argued that permitting deliberate muirburn, even within the terms of the muirburn code, makes this challenge more difficult.
Q24. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
The practice of deliberate muirburn is not restricted to grouse moor management, although perhaps this is where it is most prevalent. Taking a long view, across recent centuries, there’s good evidence that repeated burning has impoverished our upland soils and vegetation, with damaging ecological consequences. These are hard to see, because throughout our lifetimes the hills have been bare. There’s even a perception that such bare hills are natural, contradicted by comparisons with similar areas in Scandinavia. We urgently need a strategic rethink about land management in our upland areas, so as to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergency we are facing and begin to ‘bend the curve’ in favour of nature recovery.
Section 3.1 Wildlife Traps – Scottish Government Proposals
The Scottish Government accepted this recommendation, committing to amend legislation to strengthen the use and monitoring of traps.
To fulfil this commitment, we are proposing to make it a requirement that anyone must satisfy certain conditions if wishing to use the following types of traps:
- Live capture bird traps;
- Live capture mammal traps (except for traps that are used or intended to be used to capture mammals in indoor settings); and
- Traps regulated by the Spring Traps Approval Order (STAO)
The conditions to be met are as follows:
- complete training by an approved body (list of approved bodies to be determined by NatureScot);
- register with NatureScot for a unique ID number;
- display this unique ID number on each trap they use using a non-transferable ID tag or another other form of permanent ID marking;
- undergo refresher training every 10 years; and
- keep a record of the traps they deploy and make those records available to Police Scotland if requested.
More details on this can be found in “Part 3.1: Trapping and snaring” of our consultation paper.
Q25. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap must apply for a unique identification number which they must then attach to any traps that they set outdoors, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):
Live capture traps for birds – Yes
Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes
Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes
Rodent kill traps – Yes
Live capture traps for rodents – Yes
None of the above
Unsure
Other Traps (please specify)
Q26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must successfully complete an approved course dealing with the relevant category of trap, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):
Live capture traps for birds – Yes
Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes
Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes
Rodent kill traps – Yes
Live capture traps for rodents – Yes
None of the above
Unsure
Other Traps (please specify)
Q27. This question should only be answered if you agree that training should be required for at least one of the traps listed in question 26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must undergo refresher training every 10 years, do you agree that this proposal should apply to: (select all that apply)
Live capture traps for birds – Yes
Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes
Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes
Rodent kill traps – Yes
Live capture traps for rodents – Yes
None of the above
Unsure
Other Traps (please specify)
Q28. Do you agree that record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of the registration scheme?
[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place and the number of grouse shot on each day) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]
Record Keeping – Yes
Reporting Requirements – Yes
Neither
Unsure
Q29. Do you agree that an individual found guilty of the offence of:
- using a trap without valid training from an approved body
- using a trap without being registered to do so
- using a trap without displaying an identification number correctly on the trap
- falsifying records or identification number
- using a trap on land without landowner permission
- failing to comply with the duty to keep trapping records
should be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). A level 5 fine is currently £5,000. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q30. If you answered no to question 29 please explain the reason for your answer (max 150 words):
Q31. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
Control of ‘predators’ is an important issue which goes well beyond the grouse moor management which is the focus of this consultation. It is argued, for example, that such control is necessary to protect breeding wading birds such as curlew, yet these species co-existed for centuries before humans massively modified the landscape. Any resulting imbalance between predators and other species need very careful research (some of which is taking place) before this can be properly understood and management actions prescribed. However, it is certainly plausible that numbers of crows, foxes etc are artificially high due to availability of prey species such as pheasants, bred and released annually in huge numbers.
Section 3.2 Glue Traps – Scottish Government Proposals
The Government has accepted the recommendations of the SAWC report on the use of rodent glues traps in Scotland.
We are proposing introducing a comprehensive ban on the use of glue traps by both members of the public and professional pest controllers.
We are also proposing introducing a ban on the sale of rodent glue traps in Scotland, provided that this can be achieved under the terms of the Internal Market Act, which was brought in by the UK Government in 2020.
In-line with the recommendations made by the SAWC that there should be an outright ban on the use and sale of glue traps we are not proposing to the introduction of a licensing regime for professional pest controllers.
We are proposing that there will be a 2 year transition period between the legislation being passed and the ban on the use (and sale) of glue traps coming into force. This is to allow a reasonable period for businesses who use and sell glue traps to develop, trial and source alternative methods of rodent control.
More details on this are available in the section on “3.2 Glue Traps” in our consultation document.
32. Do you agree that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
33. Do you agree that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
34. Do you agree that there should be a two year transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
No
35. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
Glue traps are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay.
Section 3.3 Snares
The Scottish Government is proposing to implement the recommendations of the 2017 Snaring Review. This involves the following legislative amendments:
- “the Scottish Government to consider the merit of amending legislation to require operators to update records at least once every 48 hours unless they have a reasonable excuse not to do so, and to submit records to the Police on demand if the Police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to a police station.
- “Furthermore that consideration is given to the introduction of the power of disqualification for a snaring offence, in line with section 1 of the WCA regarding the use of general licences to control birds.
- “Consideration should also be given on how a strengthened Code of Practice can be better endorsed through legislation in a manner comparable with how the WANE (Scotland) Act 2011 (section 15) applies the Code of Practice for Non-Natives.”
A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals.
As recommended by the Statutory Snaring Review Group, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a wider review of snaring which will consider the wider welfare implications of snaring included whether there should be a ban on the use of snares.
Depending on the outcome of the wider snaring review we may undertake further consultation on additional proposals to amend the legislation governing the use of snares, at a later date.
More details on this can be found in the section on “3.3 Snaring” of our consultation paper.
Q36. Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q37. Do you agree that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences?
A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)
Yes
Q38. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.
Snares are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay. However, in the meantime it’s important that snaring is conducted in a way which minimises harm, and the measures proposed here might help to achieve this.