If you don’t want to be accused of making stuff up then stop presenting opinion as fact,
I didnt present anything as fact. Your inability to read isnt my problem.
Yup, that’s true however what is a civil penalty going to achieve that a criminal one wouldn’t?
I would have thought that would be blatantly obvious since it isnt a "civil penalty" but rather the right to continue doing the activity which is regulated.
Or to put it another way in the spirit of the forum. If I am a **** on my mountain bike the options to deal with me are more limited than if I am a **** in my car.
As I have already stated there are plenty on the anti grouse moor side of things who arent overly in favour of regulating as opposed to be banning since they arent convinced it will be done in a way which will work as opposed to booting it into the long grass. The RPSB for example has been attacked on several occasions for pushing for regulation as opposed to banning. It would need careful monitoring as to how it goes but the potential value should be clear.
Is that not bloody obvious? Suspension or removal of operating license.
And what then?
FFS you lot are acting as if boxing day hunts don't exist despite being criminalised years ago. They won't give a shit as long as they get their glorious 12th, licence or no licence.
Get caught out, the licence goes and conducting a formal shoot without a licence will be a firearms criminal offence that plod will enjoy acting upon.
Oh aye, and which section would that be prosecuted under? What firearms offence has a person committed by shooting on land where they have the owners permission? Wildlife crime maybe but definitely not a firearms offence (the implications still bearing criminal proof on individuals).
You lot are just havering utter nonsense, flinging it about and hoping something sticks.
The irony is that Squirrels attitude is exactly the reason the Scottish Gov are bringing in licensing. Entrenched, combative and partisan views with zero acknowledgement that there is an issue or that the industry can be part of the the solution. Fortunately, it is this same attitude problem that will, in time, drive this industry into the ground. Good riddance.
When are they going to realise that the problem isn’t government, Chris Packham, RSPB or bird watchers. The problem is the industries Trump style arrogance of assuming everyone is out to get them
About 50 million birds (mostly non-native) are released each year without any form of licensing or impact assessment. I'm a celebrity get me out of here has greater oversight.
It's hard to believe the industry thinks of anything other than their profits.
Where are you getting your info from because the statement on gov.scot says that no details of the scheme or any proposals will be made public until consultation begins.
One of the MSP's who has brought this to the table, and who is looking to ensure that a broad group of stakeholders are included in the consultation and design of the scheme. He is on the forum.
The irony is that Squirrels attitude is exactly the reason the Scottish Gov are bringing in licensing. Entrenched, combative and partisan views with zero acknowledgement that there is an issue or that the industry can be part of the the solution. Fortunately, it is this same attitude problem that will, in time, drive this industry into the ground. Good riddance.
You what?
I'm not arguing about the licensing, I'm arguing about what shape it should take and the disconnect between that and the likely proposals. In case that's too complicated for you, I don't think the proposals are going to deliver an effective solution. I have a very low confidence of the SNP getting it right based on past experience.
I don't know how many times that needs repeated. Dissonance has the cheek to suggest I have an inability to read. My greyhound has a better comprehension and attention span than some of you.
Shame people can't keep it their pants and have a reasonable discussion about this.
I am keen to see what is proposed and think it is a positive step. I think its wholly appropriate that an industry with such a large environmental impact and responsibilities for management of vast swathes of land should be subject to appropriate regulation.
Another use for some areas of the Highlands (and elsewhere) which occupies a large expanse of land is wind farms.
The consenting requirements for this are strict. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect in that world because the regulators, despite writing requirements for post-consent monitoring and habitat management into their consents, often have insufficient resources to actually fully digest and understand the work that is undertaken to satisfy those requirements. This means that the lessons from ACTUAL WIND FARMS are often not fed back into the consenting process for the next wind farms.
Without sufficient resource, licensing the estates may not be effective in achieving its goals (whatever they are), which is a worry - and hopefully something that will be resolved in due course.
Without sufficient resource, licensing the estates may not be effective in achieving its goals (whatever they are), which is a worry – and hopefully something that will be resolved in due course.
That's a bigger part of the problem. This won't come with new resources, rather a diversion and division of existing. Unless of course the licence scheme turns out to be nothing more than a paid membership profit making exercise in which case there's little reason to suspect it'll have any teeth and will just become burdensome on small shoots driving the industry further towards the largest most difficult to police driven shoots.
Is there such a thing as Driven Squirrel Shoots?
No. You can hunt them with dogs though.
Without sufficient resource, licensing the estates may not be effective in achieving its goals (whatever they are), which is a worry – and hopefully something that will be resolved in due course.
Given the voluntary bodies monitoring of the raptor persecution and the way they have proven raptor persecution is widespread on driven grouse moors you can be pretty sure that they will continue to collect the data that proves this and will make it impossible for the Scottish Government to ignore any further raptor killings and anyone killing raptors on their estates will lose their license. Its nothing like windfarms - you have a huge range of people collecting data and not reliant on the Scottish government to do so.
I am ( perhaps unwisely) going to try again on this point
1) I have not said -and denied this repeatedly - that ALL shooters are psychopaths. Just those that enjoy the act of killing. I have no arguement with shooting for the pot or for vermin control.
2) Several of you have refused to accept this despite me making it as clear as I can. those that shoot for utility are morally equivalent to meat eaters - accepted in society. Its those who kill for the pleasure of killing that I have the issue with
Why posters like Core keep repeating this canard that I called all shooters psychopaths I cannot understand - I did not and did my best to make this clear
3) Walk up, small scale and lowland shooting - I recognise and again said this above that this can lead to environmental benefits in terms of woodland and varied ecosystems etc. I understand a lot more of the nuance of all this and have said so several times.
Those who shoot ethically need to stop being so defensive about it and to distance themselves from the huge driven shoots.
Edit - infact I would go further and say they should actually repudiate the slaughter moors and join forces with the conservationists to get the criminals out of the countryside.
RSPB and other groups do a commendable job of collecting data on persecution.
As there are two highly polarised sides to this issue, my point was simply that a licensing body operating fairly and transparently is essential, and they must have adequate resources to do their job independently and thoroughly. Neither side is going to accept data from the other without considerable independent scrutiny.
The parallel I drew with wind farms is with regards to what happens to useful information if the regulators possess insufficient resources. The Scottish Government doesn't collect post construction data on wind farms (or any data really), the developers do. The Scottish Government often don't have the resources to assess it, so sometimes, the information doesn't get used in the best way. There's a possibility for this to happen to a licensing body overseeing grouse moors if not adequately resourced. That was my point.
Neither side is going to accept data from the other without considerable independent scrutiny.
already happening - all the data collected by the voluntary bodies is independently assessed - see the data given to the scottish government for the various reports. Various umbrella bodies assess the data. Maybe read up on the various submissions?
I'm aware of that, thanks. The points I have made regarding licensing authorities remain relevant.
Sound - my point is that the people who collect and assess this data have no equivalent with windfarms. the RSPB and others will push the government hard. Licensing will not be allowed to be toothless. the evidence is of such high quality that it is incontrovertible that many / most large grouse moors regularly kill raptors. there is no defense to it. If they do not stop then they will lose their business
I wonder how many birds the RSPB have shot every year ? Quite a lot.
Cite?
I’m quite curious about the RSPB shooting birds so a link would be good
is that you Ian?
At the beginning of this thread I said that the shooting industry in this country similar in their approach to things (if not scale) as NRA. The RSPB are their equivalent of Democrats!
Social media feeds from Moorland groups, gamekeeper associations etc are hilarious. They talk about RSPB as 'organisation' with thinly veiled agendas and always put it in hyphens or italics to make it sound conspiratorial or less credible. RSPB kill birds with heavy GPS trackers or to frame innocent gamekeepers
Cite
I’m quite curious about the RSPB shooting birds so a link would be good
Well in the year til 31 August 2018 on their own reserves they killed 526 carrion crows, destroyed over 700 goose eggs (Barnacle, Canada, Greylag), shot 10 gulls and destroyed the nests of 51 others.
Mammals shot on their reserves included over 1000 deer, 500 foxes, 4 feral goats, 97 grey squirrel, 108 mink and an unspecified number of rats. They killed a further 274 crows and 97 foxes off RSPB sites.
All done for sound conservation reasons I'm sure, but it does show that predator control is sometimes necessary.
Linky
High quality evidence on its own here is unlikely to be sufficient in my view. If you are a reasonable person it is, but this is culture war territory, so those rules are unlikely to apply. See also badger culling - not really supported by the science, happened anyway.
As for licensing not being allowed to be toothless - that depends who is influencing those that make the rules, and how well resourced the licensing authority is, as per my previous posts.
FWIW I fall firmly on the side of large grouse moors having had their day for a range of reasons. I'm not defending them.
My feelings on RSPB are that it is a large organisation with many sides. On one hand, they're are a conservation organisation that do lots of excellent work, including on raptor persecution. They're also a large landowner who manage said land to further their own agenda. A bit like the estates ironically.
Fingers crossed the proposals for licensing put a few concerns to bed.
tj, I think there's a lot more common ground here than I first thought, and can see and agree with must of your opinions. There's a lot of knowledge, salient points and healthy debate contained here if you can filter out some of us (me included) getting a bit passionate and defensive at times.
Additional regulation of grouse moors is necessary in my opinion (and personally I'd like to see that extended to all commercial driven shoots) but will only be a success if it's well formulated and properly resourced. So many times governments bring in or change regulation without considering how they'll implement it, or assuming under resourced local authorities, charities or voluntary organisations will do the leg work for them. The burden of proof discussion seems fairly simple to me, and only needing evidence of a civil standard to get a licence revoked seems a good forwards step.
The big question in my mind isn't whether grouse moors should be much more tightly regulated and monitored, it's who will do it, and how.
I think in the UK we like to look at the USA and assume they're all gun toting redneck hunters over there killing everything in sight on a whim. The reality however is that although it's easy to get guns, things are very tightly controlled once you go hunting. We really could learn a lot of lessons from their game and wildlife departments and the way they regulate.
I agree with Core here; I think some areas within Scotland would suit regulated, licensed hunting where landowners receive a fee for controlling the right to take wild game. However, I cannot see many landowners, with their frequent, anachronistic "MY land" attitudes, actually buying into a scheme like this.
Maybe in another hundred years, we'll have more widespread mixed native forests across the uplands. Healthy strong mixed deer populations, partly controlled by wolves and lynx on the one hand and by skilled, enthusiastic hunters on the other. One day.....
Thank you Core.
Ehrob - the greens in the scottish parliament have already started pushing hard on this - one advantage of having greens in parliament
Link already posted but the RSPB are well known for culling various species.
Contactors employed to shoot gulls on the Ythan estuary, deer culling on reserves alongside large number of predator culling.
They, and the SSPCA etc are political organisations as much as anything else. Do as I say, not as I do types.
Another discussion for another thread though, just pointing out the irony in citing RSPB on a bird shooting thread.
Wolves, lynx? No way*.
We got rid off them once already.
They will be used as a scam to restrict right to roam.
.
.
*Unless we are given back the right to re-arm.
Contactors employed to shoot gulls on the Ythan estuary, deer culling on reserves alongside large number of predator culling.
They, and the SSPCA etc are political organisations as much as anything else. Do as I say, not as I do types.
But the difference is that they are using contractors to remove pests presumably under licence rather than paying to shoot things that have been bred for that purpose for fun.
Cheers for the link @oldbloeuptheroad
They, and the SSPCA etc are political organisations as much as anything else
Although there’s nothing actually wrong with that. Political campaigning/lobbying is common within the charity sector (mostly with larger players) and can prove highly beneficial to an organisations charitable core aims. You get TV chefs doing just this too.
In terms of charity type, RSPB and the SSPCA are best thought of as membership organisations not political. I’ve no idea how they monitor the ‘wants’ of their respective membership but it could well be that which steers policy to some degree. I’ve no idea tbf.
Even the organisation I work for engages in political pressure, although in our case it’s trying to encourage certain treatments are available via the NHS, such as would be beneficial to those who have had Strokes.
I don't understand why Epicyclo doesn't like wolves and lynx in the Highlands; neither species are of any danger to humans, even the odd sort who trundle around the mountains on bikes. When was the last time a Great Divide rider was eaten by a wolf in Alberta/Montana/Wyoming? Or a rider in the Alps? And as for Lynx, they're just cute kitties. Even a big adult is unlikely to be more than 20kg. No threat to humans. My pet cat is 9kg..
I met a wolf out in the wild in Alberta backcountry once, on a night ski tour; I didn't feel threatened at all by it and it trundled off through moonlit glades. Awesome.
As for predation on sheep, we already know that these woolly gobblers are both harmful to the environment in numerous ways and are likely to be reducing in numbers as subsidies withdraw...
I’ve no idea how they monitor the ‘wants’ of their respective membership but it could well be that which steers policy to some degree.
I think set by annual membership conferences
Whilst rare, wolf attacks on humans continue
"The first fatal attack (in North America) in the 21st century occurred on November 8, 2005, when a young man was killed by wolves that had been habituated to people in Points North Landing, Saskatchewan, Canada[47] while on March 8, 2010, a young woman was killed while jogging near Chignik, Alaska.[48]"
Less likely than being hit by lightning but still a small risk. Having said that I'd prefer to meet a wolf in Alaska than a bear!
Highlandman - the problem with introducing apex predators like lynx and wolves is that they have a big range especially wolves and cannot be contained in an area. So who is going to pay for livestock they take?
Lynx reintroduction was not helped at all by the lynx trust ( I think they were called) who tried to get the keilder reintroduction and who spouted loads of utter nonsense and thus ruined any case they might have. Nor was the case helped by the chap on the scottish estate who wanted to fence off the estate and refuse access so he could reintroduce wolves etc
I would be in favour of apex predator reintroduction but it actually incredibly difficult to do
So who is going to pay for livestock they take?
Well aside from the minor detail we already do pay massive subsidies for the livestock Lynx are woodland creatures. In Europe outside of Sweden which has a habit of keeping sheep in woodland the impact is pretty much zero. The advantage to the country as a whole in terms of helping reduce and control deer is worth it and would also help farmers. There is also evidence that they help control fox populations.
The lynx trust is definitely problematic. The bloke in charge currently is going for a golden eagle reintroduction in Wales which is a tad dubious and might even be undermining a separate reintroduction project which was carefully and slowly building its support by making sure it involves everyone.
I think there are stronger arguments against wolves but the arguments against Lynx dont really add up and mostly seem like people think they are more like tigers.
Lynx will not take red deer. they might take smaller deer young. Lynx will take sheep and lambs.
Another discussion for another thread though, just pointing out the irony in citing RSPB on a bird shooting thread.
It isnt though. The RPSB does limited control in order to protect at risk species when other options fail. It is a problem with loss of habitat that some species are restricted to small areas and hence are highly vulnerable to attack.
There is also the problem with the loss of predators that some animals are no longer naturally controlled.
For example I would expect the RSPB site managers would prefer lynx to shooting but without that its plan b. Likewise to protect red squirrels currently shooting is pretty high on the list since the predators are unnaturally suppressed. There is evidence that if pine martins are introduced then red squirrels do better since they are more adapted to dealing with the martins than greys are.
Grouse moors on the other hand do pretty much unlimited predator control (plus anything else they feel might be a threat) in order to try and get artificially high numbers of grouse in order to shoot them.
Lynx will take sheep and lambs.
If those sheep and lambs are in woodland yes which isnt really the case on the hill deserts is it?
Lynx is also the natural predator for the beaver. Might be handy now in some parts of Scotland, where beavers are spreading rapidly and probably need some controlling. They also take young, weak and old red deer but are no threat to healthy adults. They would be good at controlling the wild goats too.
Cheers Scotroutes, looks decent at first glance.
Only a closely related note of the landscape not being in an optimum condition
FORESTRYANDLAND.GOV.SCOT The first steps to a new woodland alongside the A83 Rest and Be Thankful road will begin later this month. The project will plant a variety of species across the hillside to help stabilise the slope, create new habitats, and enhance biodiversity.
Part 1 is all about trees.
Lynx will not take red deer. they might take smaller deer young. Lynx will take sheep and lambs.
A set of strong ascertains any references that support these robustly held views?
A lynx weighs 20 kilos. An adult red deer weighs ten times that. No way will a lynx take an adult red deer. Lynx do not hunt in packs IIRC
According to evidence from where there are lynx they do take sheep and lambs. Even the hopelessly optimistic lynx trust admit they will take some.
its not a reason not to introduce them but it means mitigation measures are needed and a compensation scheme which needs funds
