Scotland’s first grouse shooting season under licence – an update from SLE
Much has been said over the last few weeks about changes to the licensing scheme for grouse moors in Scotland. Today, on the last day of the grouse shooting season, Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) is providing an update to correct some of the claims made over the last few weeks.
SLE was involved in the discussions with NatureScot ahead of the changes being made. It is extremely disappointing to see the way in which those discussions have been characterised by those who were not there. Accusations of sabotage and insincerity have been levelled at us for trying to ensure the law is implemented accurately and in accordance with the legislation.
Clearly we do not accept these accusations and have sought to clarify some of what has been purported below.
First - it has been suggested that the licensing scheme has been sabotaged. It hasn’t.
The Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act couldn’t have been any clearer on what was to be licenced. The section is headed with the words: “Licensing: land on which certain birds may be taken or killed.”
Given this is a licensing scheme for red grouse, it is obvious and clear that the legislation intended for the grouse moor to be licenced. Unfortunately, NatureScot’s initial interpretation was almost certainly ultra vires, and to their credit they have worked hard to resolve the issue. This can happen with new regulations and SLE is grateful to them for their engagement and expediency.
The veracity of having a licence which relates to the grouse moor is further supported by the requirement for an applicant to specify the licenced area. NatureScot may not know the area of land over which red grouse may be taken or killed; nor whether any sporting rights have been assigned to another party under the terms of a lease. It is important, therefore, that such discretion is afforded to an applicant so that the correct entity is licenced.
This is not - and never has been - about licensing estates as some have suggested. A cursory look at the legislation makes that clear from the outset, and it simply isn’t credible to state otherwise.
Second - it has been suggested that the will of the parliament has been undermined. It hasn’t.
During the various debates and exchanges in the Scottish Parliament, this licensing scheme was repeatedly and assuredly characterised by MSPs as “grouse moor licensing”; while the stage 1 report produced by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee characterises the scheme as “the licensing of land used for the killing and taking of certain birds”.
We’re not sure parliament and MSPs could have been any clearer. Notwithstanding what the legislation says (which was also scrutinised by MSPs for a year), parliamentarians used language which suggests unequivocally that licensing was to be applied to grouse moors - not some wider entity.
Third - it has been suggested that licence holders will draw arbitrary boundaries around grouse butts to game the system. They won’t - and NatureScot have confirmed to us that this has not happened to date.
If a licence holder did this, it would render the taking or killing of red grouse illegal beyond said area. This is completely counterintuitive and fraught with risk from the estate’s perspective. It would effectively remove a licence holder’s ability to shoot grouse walked-up (which dovetails with driven shooting on the vast majority of estates) and it would also put any driven shooting at serious risk due to the practicalities of the activity itself. It would also prohibit an estate’s ability to expand or make changes to grouse drives.
It is worth mentioning that NatureScot also have enabling powers to refuse to grant a licence if it isn’t appropriate to do so which could be used to counter any weaponisation of the licenced area. However, the fact that NatureScot have confirmed to SLE that none of the c. 250 licence holders have done this rather suggests that this is not - and will not - be an issue.
Fourth - there has been much discussion about the perceived inadequacies of the new licence condition, which is designed to tackle raptor persecution beyond the licenced area.
SLE is not going to comment on this in detail other than to say it is categorically not unreasonable for a licence condition to have legal safeguards – including the requirement to link any illegal activity to the management of the licenced entity. That does not mean action cannot be taken by NatureScot where criminality occurs, as has been erroneously suggested.
Finally - we note with interest the campaign to amend the legislation. What is most perplexing about this campaign is that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a problem. We would argue that the provisions actually need to be tested before such a determination can be made.
In any case, those pursuing parliamentary amendments should note that the facts at this time are these:
- grouse moors are still licenced;
- no one has sought to game the system by drawing arbitrary boundaries around grouse butts;
- a new licence condition is now in force to tackle raptor persecution beyond the licenced area, should it be required.
What is not a fact is the claim by Mark Ruskell MSP that “this is a disgraceful loophole wildlife criminals are exploiting”.
We absolutely respect that interested parties will hold different views on this matter. However, it is important that the discourse is predicated on the facts which we have endeavoured to set out in this blog today.
Comments