Grouse moor licencing, Scotland.

Very predictable that this thread has grown into this. It is worth remembering though that the question was about licencing.

Scottish Government wants to licence an industry to help enforce compliance with existing laws. That is all. The industry does not want to be licensed as it does not want to be sanctioned for breaking the law. There is no other reason to object to licensing.

I think that resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the industry and reinforces why it is necessary.

I think that resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the industry and reinforces why it is necessary.

I remember when GDPR was brought in people working in IT generally had mixed opinions.
Most of us were pretty happy (despite its imperfections) since previously making the case for good safeguards could hit cost/inconvience pushback but the rather big potential fines in GDPR worked wonders as a business case.
Those who didnt have quite the same respect for peoples data though were somewhat less happy.

Will need to see how the licencing develops and I know some who are cynical it might be used as a white wash option but the instant throwing the toys out of the pram does, as you say, speak volumes.

Scottish Government wants to licence an industry to help enforce compliance with existing laws. That is all. The industry does not want to be licensed as it does not want to be sanctioned for breaking the law. There is no other reason to object to licensing.

Apart from the cost of the scheme and whether or not it’s going to be as effective as the existing laws. Why make a new law that doesn’t do anything the old law didn’t?

There is a difference between arguing against the spirit of the law (which I don’t think anyone has) and the actual implementation of said law. If the existing laws were unable to be enforced I’m not sure exactly how anyone thinks things will be any different under a licensing regime. I hope I’m wrong but it’s hard not to be cynical.

I’d hope the burden of proof needed to remove a licence would be lower than for a criminal prosecution. Once removed if shooting carried on there’s a simple “operating without a license” case for criminal proceedings.

Why make a new law that doesn’t do anything the old law didn’t?

But it does do something different. It allows for the removal of license to operate where there ie evidence of crimes being committed on the estate. This was discussed earlier, how do you bring criminal charges against an individual when he has 30,000 acres of land to hide the evidence? Estates will now need to self police (something they have absolutely failed to do in the past) as the actions of their staff will risk, or protect, the operating license.

This is so common in other licensed or registered industries that any argument against it is weak.

Apart from the cost of the scheme and whether or not it’s going to be as effective as the existing laws. Why make a new law that doesn’t do anything the old law didn’t?

Because it gives you more options.
vicarious responsibility was introduced and whilst it has some use it has been limited. However if used alongside licencing it becomes a lot more effective. Since can go with if found guilty under that then no licence.
Similar to what was done with the general licences.

Or another area which has proved problematic is covert surveillance especially with cameras. In Scotland cases have been thrown out since until you hit a certain seriousness level then you cant place cameras without the landowners buy in. Which has a few flaws in this case. So a condition for licencing could be that you have to permit the placing of covert surveillance without any further notification.

Really? 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.

https://www.gov.scot/news/werritty-report-response/
https://www.gov.scot/publications/werritty/

You’re pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table. As I said before, I’d like to hope it’s effective but from past performance (those who comply would comply anyway) I have my doubts.

Also, in what world do you think it would be remotely legal to force consent to install covert surveillance equipment? Read that back to yourself.

You’re pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table

Ermmm correct! If only there had been a clue in what I wrote eh?
I was simply mentioning some things it could do which the current laws dont.
The only person who seems to be making stuff up is you with your absolute certainty it will only do what the existing laws do.
You do realise the existing laws have been used but are limited in their usefulness see the suspension of general licences for example?

Read that back to yourself.

I have done and since I have experience in a regulated industry I know that rules can be applied which wouldnt be permitted for the general public.
It would be an interesting one to put in for the simple reason it would be fun to watch someone try and argue why it shouldnt be allowed. Bearing in mind nests and roosting sites tend to be in the middle of nowhere so not exactly infringing on peoples privacy so why would anyone want to object?

Squirrels

Two major differences. It would only need civil standard of proof not criminal and you do not need an individual to be prosecuted as the estate is liable

I’d be inclined to say it sets a precedent that could have unintended consequences down the line. The usual ‘if you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear’ argument as well.

If you don’t want to be accused of making stuff up then stop presenting opinion as fact, as far as I’m aware I’ve been quite clear that my views are based on opinion only so I don’t know where you got that from.

Squirrels

Two major differences. It would only need civil standard of proof not criminal and you do not need an individual to be prosecuted as the estate is liable

Yup, that’s true however what is a civil penalty going to achieve that a criminal one wouldn’t?

That’s the questions that have to be asked and addressed sufficiently.

Close the criminals enterprise down

You’re pretty much just making all that up, you have no idea in reality what licensing will bring to the table.

In the spirit of just making things up, I suspect licensing may include an option to revoke a license when multiple tracked golden eagles disappear over the same estate and trackers are found wrapped in lead and buried under a rock in a river. Just a thought, although I am just making that up.

Much easier than a criminal conviction where you need an individual and it’s a lower standard of proof

Yup, that’s true however what is a civil penalty going to achieve that a criminal one wouldn’t?

Is that not bloody obvious? Suspension or removal of operating license.

Squirrel, please don’t mix up the burden of proof in a case, with the penalty that will be handed down if the prosecuting body accepts that evidence. I have acted to request that a licensing authority withdraws a licence from a party on a number of occasions and as TJ points out, the standard of proof required there (civil= balance of probabilities) is less than would be needed to prove to a criminal court that an offence has taken place. So, it will become more straightforward to argue that a ‘Driven Game’ licence be revoked for bad behaviour. If the estate stays clean, it keeps its licence long term. 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.

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…..