Grouse moor licencing, Scotland.

Good- a step in the right direction. Wonder if we will ever see it in Engerland...

I agree it's a good step.

Unfortunately the massive budget cuts to Nature Scot (formally SNH) means there is no one available to enforce anything.

I also think the industry will fight every step, from introduction to hiding what they can if they are ever inspected.

Good - Living on an estate since this summer it’s been interesting to see how things are being ‘managed’. Breeding and releasing massively unsustainable numbers of young birds (pheasant and partridge) a significant number of which become road kill and then successive weekends of driven shoots to blast it all out the sky. We do have a few buzzards and lots of corvids sustained by the roadkill. Up on the hill barely any grouse, mountain hare or ptarmigan though. I did see a hen harrier down in Glenlivet.

The game sports lobby is the closest thing we have to NRA. Well connected, well funded, organised and absolutely single minded in the belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It’s nit that they don’t want to reform, they just can’t see why it would ever be needed They will fight all the way. They really are appalling

Exhibit A, statement today from Scottish Gamekeepers Association

Scottish Gamekeepers Association Chairman Alex Hogg said: “This decision will anger our community. It will not be easily forgotten. Our members have effectively had targets painted on their backs, today.
Our responsibility now is protect them from spurious claims sure to come their way from those seeking to end grouse shooting in Scotland and to have licences taken away.
“Ironically, those who lobbied so hard for licensing have no interest in seeing it being a success. For them, this was always a vehicle to agitate for a full ban. Scottish Parliament legislators should not be naive in thinking otherwise.
“I am angry beyond expression at the way a community of working people is being treated today in this country and the strain they and their families are constantly having to face as they cope with never-ending scrutiny and inquiry driven by elite charities with big influence over politicians and axes to grind against a people who produce so much for Scotland yet ask little back.
“If we are not to lose an important element of Scottish rural life, gamekeepers require some substantive recognition from Parliament for the many benefits they deliver and not the endless battering they perpetually experience.”

This is a great step forward.

Nature Scot may issue the licences, although that’s yet to be confirmed, could be SEPA or SG, but Nature Scot have never been responsible for enforcement for any licensing.
It’s definitely a good thing, but will be a bugger to police. Nature Scot are working on some nifty innovations using earth observation data to help with monitoring. Interesting times!

I’ve no problem at all with wild game hunting, but the mass murder of farmed and supported animals bred for that purpose really annoys me.

I'm assuming you're a Vegetarian?

What gets me going on most estates if you walk them. Most nearby woods will conceal game traps, even birds of prey traps. Usually find bins with fox, hare, birds of prey remains. Wingshooting. What a dumbass sport. I hope they use lead free ammo. They should breed boar and you should hunt by spear.

Er, no, not veggie. Although tonight's tea was meat free, as frequently happens in our house. I detest breeding for obscenely violent killing via shooting. Not breeding for eating, which I am happy to do occasionally. I even shoot occasionally. But in a manner that ensures a humane kill of a wild animal that is not in fear for its life at the time.
I agree with comments above; this will be fought by those with vested interests but each small step is part of the journey. One day we will see some land justice in Scotland and this may well be a part of that process.

Good.

Once more Scotland is leading the way amongst the four countries of the UK.

A complete and utter waste of time and effort. See the  beaver kill licensing scheme. It allows the Scottish government to pretend they are doing the right thing.

I have a to agree. So you go through the effort and expense to get a licence, what then? What has it achieved that existing laws didn't already cover?

See also air weapon licencing.

It's another SNP "be seen to be doing something" policy that gets lapped up by those who are ignorant of the actual facts. Meanwhile rogue estates will carry on as normal.

Our members have effectively had targets painted on their backs

That sounds like it would level the playing field but it would only be effective if you also give the grouse some guns 🙂

Shooting estates have a long history of committing wildlife crimes and the previous self regulation has failed. This failure is because wildlife crime is nearly impossible to prove against an individual (not many witnesses or cctv on an 10k acre estate). But it will be the estate, not the individual, who will be licensed. So when a tracked golden eagle is shot over an estate, illegal traps are found on an estate or unlicensed burning of critical peatland takes place, they risk losing their licence.
I know a police officer who works in wildlife crime and thinks it is a great step. That’s a good enough endorsement for me

It should have a huge effect. Instead of a criminal standard of proof - "Beyond reasonable doubt" it will be civil standard "balance of probabilities" and as above will apply to anything that happens on the estate. Estates that live within the law will be fine. those that do not will loose their license. Because you do not need to find the individual responsible - just that it happened on the estate it means it will be much easier to deal with the criminals even tho they will not face criminal sanction

Yay! Licensed grouse should be able to legally sell us their homebrew...I don't need to try to make my dealings with them look inconspicuous any more....

Its good, estates will no longer be able to claim a rogue employee letting down the estate/don't tar us all with the same brush/lessons learned/somebody else. Screw them, should also remove any tax breaks if they lock gates and block off bridges.

should also remove any tax breaks

That I disagree with.

We should replace a lot of the current tax structure with one that encourages sustainable development, environmental improvements, social and health benefits, and rural employment.

Many non game, farming or forest estates already struggle. And we do need sustainable employment and opportunities to increase in rural areas, not collapse of a delicate economy.

matt_outandabout Full Member

With you on the tax restructuring,and trying to give people viable employment where they grow up,every time I go to somewhere like Cannich, there are more and more holiday homes where folk should be raising families. My Dad was the minister in Gendaruel for a few years and it was the same there. My point is that I don't see why the estates in the Angus glens I USED to take Duke of Edinburgh kids on should get away with padlocking bridges while enjoying favourable tax breaks.Only looking out for us though, one of the closed bridges on the way up Tarfside is now so dangerous that you can only cross it in a Range Rover.

Mark Ruskell MSP has just made a comment on StirlingCrispins FB page about the timing. The detail is to be worked up across the Scottish election time and in partnership with the industry....

As a few comments above have said, is this a bit of SNP election games. Hmmm.

How to I get involved.

matt_outandabout
Many non game, farming or forest estates already struggle. And we do need sustainable employment and opportunities to increase in rural areas, not collapse of a delicate economy.

Considering that was often the excuse for clearing people off the land that is now occupied by those "struggling" estates, zero empathy.

Interesting times for the hunting types down our way, too. Police are apparently investigating*

*hoping it will go away, given the former officers on the video.

As a keen shot and countryman, I find it really quite difficult to take a stance on this issue.

I know that many, many people rural people, countrymen and women, and those involved in the shooting industry feel their way of life is being eroded and livelihoods affected by bureaucrats - be that in Holyrood, Westminster, or dare I say, Brussels. More recently this seems to be at the behest of or in order to appease a growing section of society that appear to be opposed to the killing of anything for any reason, and who are detached from the reality of rural life, food production and how nature really works. I can empathise with than viewpoint, to a degree, but they, we, need to engage with society, look outside our own bubbles and promote the positive impacts on the environment and society that field sports can have instead of just feeling attacked and going on the offensive. I've tried to engage a few times with various elements of the field sports press about the tone and content of their media output - it's often overly aggressive, combative, condescending and patronising - all of which only serves to reinforce stereotypes and widen divides.

I really don't like it being made a class issue - though there are lots of wealthy well spoken types tramping about the countryside each weekend, there are far more working class folk shooting and hunting in much more sustainable ways and relying on field sports for income, exercise, enjoyment, continuation of their way of life, and ultimately I guess to preserve/improve their mental health. I know for me a day shooting is one of the best ways to get out of a rut.

I read above "I'd like to see all driven shooting banned", why? Why tar all driven shoots with the same brush? Many more driven shoots are looking at sustainability and the public perception of shooting much more keenly these days, and for every Downton, Chargot, Brigands etc there's probably 50 or more little syndicate shoots that only shoot tens or low hundreds of birds each year. To ban all driven shooting would be ridiculous. In England a licensing system is proposed to look at bird release numbers, locations and environmental effects - that's the right approach I think, though it will be nigh on impossible to enforce. But just banning it all because it's difficult to police isn't the answer.

All of the above said, I don't really shoot on driven shoots, I have had an invite to a syndicate shoot next weekend as it happens, so will stand a peg for the first time in several years, but for me the most enjoyment comes from rough/walked up shooting and wild fowling. You need to be a good shot to hit challenging driven birds, but other than shooting proficiency it doesn't really require any skill - just turn up, drink port, talk shit, stand about and keep banging away. Rough shooting requires so many skills and teaches you so much, including respect for your quarry - I bet I shoot at less than 50% of what I see out of respect or the fear of not achieving a clean kill - that is what being sporting means.

The practices of big commercial driven shoots obviously vary, but living close to several I'd have to say that they're generally pretty bad and in no way can I condone these big bag days, shooting thousand of birds a week for most of them not to go into the food chain, raptor persecution, illegal trapping and snaring etc, denial of access, I know it all goes on, but NOT EVERYHWERE. Some elements of the shooting industry are indefencible, and I do think releasing tens of thousands of birds in a concentrated area, to the detriment of everything else should be stopped.

We as a community (I am sadly lumped in with the all the hooray Henry's and dodgy keepers) need to take steps to clean up our act, promote the positives and benefits of organised and driven shooting (not that I really participate in either), and engage with people to bring about better understanding, reform the commercial shooting industry and preserve the sport we love.

Banning everything is not the answer, but neither is taking a combative stance and telling everyone to eff off out of the countryside and leave us alone.

The countryside and field sports need a reasonable, coherent voice - and we currently don't have one.

Thanks Core, an interesting and well argued addition to this thread.

It's a good thing in theory but in practice if it transpires to be anything more than looking good I expect there will be a lot of

spurious claims sure to come their way from those seeking to end grouse shooting in Scotland and to have licences taken away.

Resulting in not so much

Estates that live within the law will be fine.

But rather a lot of estates getting their licensing withdrawn, the "good ones" going under and the problem ones carrying on regardless, operating without licence and actually getting worse not better.

Considering that was often the excuse for clearing people off the land that is now occupied by those “struggling” estates, zero empathy.

While I agree, we have to move on from history. Time to be pragmatic and work to see the environment, economy and society we want in these areas. We can't do that through 'no'.

Hopefully the next step will be the removal of the business rate exemption that many shooting estates enjoy; they are treated as agricultural holdings, rather than leisure facilities in a bizarre but financially very helpful manner. Hill shooting estates receive subsidies to support the 'food' production that they are involved in. There's also a further hidden state finance here, in the way that agricultural land is supported by the state. Many people are not aware of the way that finances are constructed on hill estates. Their low ground, tenant & upland sheep farmers are effectively milked for the agricultural subsidies in terms of the levels of rent charged; much of the money given to the farmer to, in theory, support food production ends up being paid to the landlord as rent.

Regardless of any view on this, the burden of proof has been put onto the estates.
So guilty until proven innocent.
Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

Only if the police are going to reopen EVERY instance of raptor poisoning/disappearance. Oh sorry; isn't that what you meant? Well done for using the usual defence trotted out by estates.

We as a community (I am sadly lumped in with the all the hooray Henry’s and dodgy keepers) need to take steps to clean up our act, promote the positives and benefits of organised and driven shooting (not that I really participate in either), and engage with people to bring about better understanding, reform the commercial shooting industry and preserve the sport we love.

Surely then you should be welcoming a licensing scheme and desperately trying to make it work, then everyone will be able to see how well it's all done. Though quite what the positives of large scale muirburn and big driven shoots are escapes me.

Regardless of any view on this, the burden of proof has been put onto the estates.
So guilty until proven innocent.
Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

This is the reality for many other regulated industries. The burden is on the duty holder to demonstrate what you're doing complies fully with the law. I think the argument you're expressing cynically tries to mix up legal principles around the rights of an individual with the rights of a business.

Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

Most objections to driven shoots have exactly nothing to do with "class".

I’ve tried to engage a few times with various elements of the field sports press about the tone and content of their media output – it’s often overly aggressive, combative, condescending and patronising – all of which only serves to reinforce stereotypes and widen divides.

Have my comparison with NRA

that was an interesting read Cove. What are your views on licensing, do you agree or object?

Only if the police are going to reopen EVERY instance of raptor poisoning/disappearance.

They are unlikely to need to reopen any. Both sides of this have their more "militant" elements, moving the burden of proof from acuser to accused won't address the problem any more than it being very difficult to prove criminality at the moment does.

Now all that will happen is instead of Estates which do break the law being able to get away with it because its hard to prove you'll get all estates being accused by a relatively fringe group with no evidence.

It's nothing to do with class it's that a small minority of people genuinely Hate what other people do for fun and a small minority of those who do enjoy it would be very happy indeed to blast away at the protesters instead of the birds.

In practice the middle ground of both sides will be lost, the "cold dead hands" brigade will carry on shooting regardless, the need to ensure maximum supply and profit on (inevitable loop hole) shoots will likely drive up wildlife crime on those shoots. All the while the other end of the spectrum will be flooding wildlife officers with reports on legal "well behaved" shoots in an effort to get them shut down not because they actually GAS about raptors, small mammals or habitat destruction but because "shooting is bad".

Actual criminality will likely stay the same or increase because the difficulty in policing it won't reduce and the ability to prosecute won't be improved. The only real difference will be the currently inadequate number of officers will have their case load massively increased.

If you think licensing is a route to good behaviour look at the standards of driving, the incidence of driving without licence or insurance etc.

The people likely to obey already do.

What's needed is greater numbers of wildlife officers and work to ease investigation, increase the liklihood of successful prosecution and drastically increase the impact of a guilty verdict. This just gives one group a stick to beat the other with and the ones who currently act illegally and get frothy about the law interfering in their pastime will get more so and continue to ignore it.

Er, no, not veggie. ..... I detest breeding for obscenely violent killing via shooting. Not breeding for eating, which I am happy to do occasionally. I even shoot occasionally. But in a manner that ensures a humane kill of a wild animal that is not in fear for its life at the time.

Significant level of hypocrisy there. Is death by shooting, in the wild, for someone's enjoyment really that much worse than death in a slaughterhouse, for food, for someone's enjoyment?

Regardless of any view on this, the burden of proof has been put onto the estates.
So guilty until proven innocent.
Queue hundreds of class driven complaints designed to end shooting.

Nope - the burdon of proof has been changed to the lower civil standard and an estate is viewed as an entity. Its not needed to identify individuals. However penalties are also only civil.

Given the numbers of raptors disappearing in suspicious circumstances in the same areas time and time again its clear there is a large amount of criminal activity systematically on some estates. They will be identified and rightly lose their license. I am sure people will be looking at the other unethical practices ie trapping of any predators, muirburn etc.

Good land management even for shooting preferably walk up with smaller bags will not be affected. Those who maintain huge areas of monoculture grouse moor where all other wildlife is cleared out will be out of business or will have to change

Land use should change over time resulting in a more sustainable shooting industry and greater biodivesity.

Significant level of hypocrisy there. Is death by shooting, in the wild, for someone’s enjoyment really that much worse than death in a slaughterhouse, for food, for someone’s enjoyment?

No - no significant moral difference indeed free range food can be argued to be kinder 🙂

however its a different argument. This is about the illegal and unethical practices systematic across large parts of the industry. Thwarting access, bulldozing roads, killing raptors and other wildlife in huge numbers, muirburn, medicated grit etc etc.
Its about how to get them under control.

If you think licensing is a route to good behaviour look at the standards of driving, the incidence of driving without licence or insurance etc.

Only a useful argument if you can show what the standard would be without licensing - it might of course be substantially worse.

If you think licensing is a route to good behaviour look at the standards of driving, the incidence of driving without licence or insurance etc.

The people likely to obey already do.

There are indeed a proportion of people who drive without insurance (not all of them completely intentionally), and indeed a proportion who drive without a license. To suggest that means licensing is pointless and everyone would still be just as responsible a driver without licensing is clearly flawed. The vast majority of people who are disqualified from driving do not drive during their ban; the vast majority of people who have their license revoked for medical reasons do not drive anymore, and by and large, people who haven't sat a test don't drive either. When they do its clear cut - they are committing an offence (in some cases an imprisonable one) - there's no "well actually he was driving just as carefully (badly?) as someone who was licensed". Do you think the roads would be safer places and fewer people would drive without insurance if there was no legal requirement?

A better analogy might be Pubs or Taxi drivers? Both of those need licenses. Both of those lose their livelihood if they lose their license. Obviously, not every publican or taxi driver is perfectly behaved, but if they are seen to significantly break the rules their license may be revoked or not renewed. There's quite a long list of professions/employers who need to be licensed: Fireworks, Sex shops, Zoos, Small Boat Operators, Betting Shops, Kennels, Game Dealers, Caravan Sites, Tatoo shops, HGV operators, labs working with certain materials, adventure activity providers etc... basically, places, where left unregulated the harm to society, may be a problem. Like so many of those places - the institutions/orgs have had a chance collectively to clean up their act and avoid licensing. Inevitably a minority of them have not done enough, to justify trusting them all to sort themselves out.

Will it get 100% compliance? No.

Only a useful argument if you can show what the standard would be without licensing – it might of course be substantially worse.

Depends if it's the Kafkaesque world of Scottish licencing.

Got a Section 1 or 2 firearms certificate? Crack on. Want a sub-12fpe airgun to go with it? No, you'll need to apply to PS with every conceivable reason to use one (lest you get restricted to using it in one single place), pay your £75 and then renew it along independently of your Firearms Certificate every 5 years. Not like you couldn't just put 'air weapon' in an extra slot is it?

Meanwhile, all the law abiders pay their money to support a scheme that can hardly pay for itself and all the scumbags still buy their kit via mail order or second hand.

Yes, I have an axe to grind, no it's not the exact same as this but as always you need to look at these things objectively. Also agree completely with Core, the shooting community are their own worst enemies and fixated on 'antis' rather than solutions. Been lambasted for not unquestioningly supporting some totally pointless campaign in the past. Not much different to here really, with their entrenched views, persecution complexes and complete unwillingness to take responsibility for their own destiny.

indeed free range food can be argued to be kinder

How therefore do you propose to catch and make use of the finest free-range and organic meat we have - venison?

I'm going to deliberately sidestep the driving licence example I gave, in part as Poly you've given better and specific examples and in another part as one of the reasons mine is a rubbish example will lead down a rabbit hole of its own [education vs licensing], So I'll jump on one of yours which (to my knowledge) avoids that.

[I've very little beyond some brief work place Googling to provide as evidence so apologies and take this as conjecture]

Tattoo parlours require a licence [personal and premises] to operate legally in the UK. Most (I'd guess verging on all) do and conduct themselves within the law.
Very very few licenced tattooists are prosecuted (brief Google turned up two nationally in 6 years though obviously they're headline cases).

Unlicensed tattooists make up more prosecutions even though they're far fewer in number (northern England 150 in 4 years investigated, 4 prosecutions Trashy news link).

Being convicted of having illegally operated as a tattooist and tattooed someone illegally [irrespective of being licenced] doesn't prevent you from getting a licence - though it very well may encourage you to behave legally in the future (Trashy news link 2)

Unlicensed tattooists are more likely to be willing to do illegal [irrespective of licensing] work Beeb

My point [badly put] is licensing gives greater control over people likely to behave anyway. Genuine opinion is it may well improve standards amongst those who would follow best practice without licensing but those who wouldn't will simply operate without licence. (moving to civil penalties won't help that either)

How therefore do you propose to catch and make use of the finest free-range and organic meat we have – venison?

If you think that's driven into the sky to be blasted by shotgun totting port swigging tweed wearers I'm sorry to break it to you...

If you think that’s driven into the sky to be blasted by shotgun totting port swigging tweed wearers I’m sorry to break it to you…

It is merely blasted from the earth by rifle totting port swigging tweed wearers... 😛
I was being obtuse - my point being that due to over stocking of deer, we have to cull many of them. Gathering such wild animals into pens, then trying to dispatch actually would be less humane than a current approach of a rifle shot.
Leaving them to starve where over stocked even worse.

Know I am pro-rewilding and against our current environmental, social and economic model of the Highland estates.
But I also have lived here long enough to know you cannot just 'switch off' a system that has operated for a few hundred years, or object to practices you find difficult as an outsider, without having a thought through, funded/financed and balanced plan that provides a good economic, social and environmental outcome for all.

I also know it will take decades - but that we have to make a start.

https://www.scotlandbigpicture.com/

https://www.rewild.scot

Should future relicensing (and any tax breaks/grants) of the estates be linked to environmental improvements?
The way most estates are run should be a national disgrace.. bulldozing new tracks through peat hags (without planning permission), driving quad bikes/argos across wet, fragile peat with no care of the environmental damage (not just to the ground but also CO2 emissions from the damaged peat).
Ongoing indiscriminite trapping/killing/poisoning and animal that they can't shoot,
Burning swathes of land each year to reduce the ground cover

should the estates also be forced into planting trees. Not necessary plantation type of forestry, but possibly low density silvaculture where they could still use the land for shooting/farming just with the added environmental benefit of tree planting.

Martin Hutch.. I guess that video is the reason NRW have just suspended trail hunting on their land with immediate effect.

my point being that due to over stocking of deer, we have to cull many of them. Gathering such wild animals into pens, then trying to dispatch actually would be less humane than a current approach of a rifle shot.

There's somewhat of a difference between the deer, of which we have too many, and grouse, where estates have to work at producing an unnatural abundance by manipulating the vegetation and slaughtering anything that might remotely threaten the grouse.

There’s somewhat of a difference between the deer, of which we have too many, and grouse, where estates have to work at producing an unnatural abundance by manipulating the vegetation and slaughtering anything that might remotely threaten the grouse.

This is where I am too.

I still still struggle with deer stalking being a pleasure activity rather than a necessary evil carried out by professionals with excellent skills. But even I can see that deer stalking takes time, patience, some skill and where shooting an animal in anything other than an efficient kill is very much frowned upon. Whilst the shooting of grouse and pheasant seems (I've never done it but observed it and my next door neighbour is a retired keeper so heard the tales) to be a blasting fest with impossible odds if you are the bird and where winging an animal is just something that happens tens and tens of times a day. Repulsive.

Genuine question though as I don't know the answer - does owning a grouse moor and running shoots make you proper money? Or is it a 'vocation'/keeping up traditions thing? I know it's an expensive thing to pay to do but I'd imagine the overheads are high to put the 'show' on. How much of a financial squeeze would be needed to be put on the owners before they would be begging the state to buy the land off them to relinquish responsibilities.

@dangeourbrain to draw a parallel with your tattooing licence example, piercing studios require a licence to operate using sterile equipment and trained staff. Claires can hand a cattle tagger to a Sunday girl and pierce whoever they like.

Nuts.

Genuine question though as I don’t know the answer – does owning a grouse moor and running shoots make you proper money? Or is it a ‘vocation’/keeping up traditions thing? I know it’s an expensive thing to pay to do but I’d imagine the overheads are high to put the ‘show’ on. How much of a financial squeeze would be needed to be put on the owners before they would be begging the state to buy the land off them to relinquish responsibilities.

They wouldn't sell the land, they would just do something else with it.

Matt - I'm in favour of eating deer.

Genuine question though as I don’t know the answer – does owning a grouse moor and running shoots make you proper money?

With all the subsidies and tax breaks it can be lucrative but many estates probably do not make much

Don't be fooled, big commercial shoots make big money, yes their costs are high but most of them will be old money, with lots of grant income (a lot of it agricultural) and huuuuge income from shoot days and the associated hospitality, overnight stays etc - that's where things have shifted in the last few years and possibly where the real money is made. The people I know of who are running big commercial driven shoots are exceptionally wealthy.

For the record, I'm in favour of licensing, I want the industry to clean it's act up in order to prevent a trickle down of regulation that could affect everyone who shoots, regardless of how ethical or sustainable their shooting practice is. Where I struggle is when sweeping statements are made about banning driven shooting altogether, or all forms of shooting - it's just an utterly ridiculous notion, there's so much diversity in shooting practice and culture.

I shoot with two friends, just rough shooting over quite diverse ground, an exceptional season for us would be to have a tally of 50-60, that's over 3 months, and may include up to 10 species, with anything edible getting eaten. It's the thing I look forward to most all year the start of the shooting season, this year we've barely shot anything, but had some great days out, seen all sorts of nature, scenery, weather, the change in the seasons, my friend has started his young dog working, we have a laugh and take the piss out of each other, it's just a day with friends that happens to include some shooting. We've all grown up in the countryside and shot from a young age, been taught gun safety, how to shoot sustainably, ethically, and are constantly acquiring skills and knowledge, and that's perhaps the biggest joy for me. Nobody knows wildlife better than shooters, you spend so long in the field honing your craft amongst nature that you learn habitat, behaviour, instinct, reactions, of all manner of species, not just those you're shooting. Last year I stopped one day for pethaps 20 minutes to watch a kingfisher, it was brilliant, but I'd not have been there if not for the shooting. So to lump the likes of us in with big driven shoots would be a tragedy. It's a huge missed opportunity that there isn't more dialogue between shooters and researchers and policy makers, as many of the former have more knowledge on nature and how it's changing than any government officer will ever have.

After I posted this morning I talked to some builders, all three shoot, two of them have started a little farm syndicate shoot, lads my own age, putting a small number of birds down, feeding them, and just having a few days shooting with friends, a dead loss financially. The other beats and/or shoots with them and they all have the odd driven day, seemingly by invite. All three were of a very similar opinion to me it turned out, and without prompting said large scale driven shooting should be stopped. Anecdotally one of them had heard of a local shoot putting down (releasing) 100,000 birds a year (though the head keeper will apparently never quote a figure), and in their biggest week of the season shooting up to 500 birds a day, 5 or 6 days a week - to one team of guns. That needs to be stopped, aside from anything else, it's a bloody huge waste - most of those birds are destined for a hole in the ground.

To summarise, licensing is a good idea so long as those licenses are effective and bring about real change. But whether the schemes are workable will be the crunch point.

It's a very emotive subject, with seemingly very few people from either side occupying any middle ground. The shooting industry/community and the bodies that represent us desperately need to move with the times, modernise, reform, push out criminal elements and self regulate to ensure the positives from shooting are not lost in a sea of extreme views and vitriol.

core
...just turn up, drink port, talk shit, stand about and keep banging away....

Aye, that's humane killing, ain't it. There's going to be a lot of maiming and slow deaths happening.

It raises another point, how come it's legal to consume alcohol and be in possession of a loaded gun?

I've nothing against hunting for the pot or eradicating non-native vermin, but killing for fun is sick, sick, sick, and should have no place in a civilised society.

with anything edible getting eaten.

So you shoot birds you will not eat for fun?

Last year I stopped one day for pethaps 20 minutes to watch a kingfisher, it was brilliant, but I’d not have been there if not for the shooting. So to lump the likes of us in with big driven shoots would be a tragedy. It’s a huge missed opportunity that there isn’t more dialogue between shooters and researchers and policy makers, as many of the former have more knowledge on nature and how it’s changing than any government officer will ever have.

But you could do all of that, and some people do , without any shooting at all.

Driven industrial shooting is terrible.
Last night I went to take the dogs out and someone I know had dropped of a dozen pheasants that I will butcher and use but already that's over 50 birds I've had this season for free.
The estate they come from try to give them all away but a couple of weeks ago it was near 1000 birds in a weekend.
It's not sports it's a slaughter.
This estate employs a few locals as beaters but the gamekeeper came from down south the owners are silly money banker rich.

So to lump the likes of us in with big driven shoots would be a tragedy.

A tragedy might be a bit strong but it would be wrong.

You need to separate out the moral arguments around shooting and also remember that the land needs a use and that useage shapes the land.

What this is about is the outrageous behaviour of many of the large players and reining them in. Eagles by the dozen, other birds of prey in the hundreds if not thousands killed. Mustelids trapped to oblivion. The annual slaughter of mountain hares. Its about the huge monoculture moors of burnt heather grouse farms. Its about access

What would I like to see? That the licensing system has teeth but is not overly bureaucratic. A carrot and a stick approach to access with grants to bring old paths back and plant native woodland etc. I'd like to think that the days of mass slaughter on the hills are over. I think there is still a place for walk up shooting.

Deer - there are too many of them. Shoot the buggers!

To answer some points raised:

"Killing for fun is sick, sick, sick". Yes it is, if that is the primary motivation, to just kill something. I'm not aware of any shooters or hunters personally who gain any pleasure from the actual death part of the process or go out with blood lust. Yes ultimately that's the finale, but in my case and with the type of shooting I participate in, the enjoyment comes from the whole experience and putting acquired skills into practice. I know I won't convince you, and appreciate your viewpoint, I don't know your background or upbringing, but please don't believe that we're all out there shooting just because we love killing animals for the sake of killing them. Growing up in the countryside and around farming death is somewhat normalised I'll admit, but not taken lightly.

Yes I shoot 'vermin' or non game species and don't eat them - all covered by general licences or otherwise legal to control, primarily for livestock and crop protection. We eat as much as we can, but I'm not about to tuck into a magpie. You can't have it all, ground nesting and song birds in abundance etc etc - and not control the species which predate them of which there are huge numbers. Talk to any country man or woman and they will tell you of the correlation between the decline in some species and rise of others.

I could watch a kingfisher without going shooting, as could anyone, but the point was that it's not all charging around the countryside single mindedly pursuing anything that can be shot. I and most other shooters I know have a deep respect for nature and gain a lot of enjoyment from being among it.

I think it is tragic to group all shooters in with those who participate in unethical industrial driven shooting, the two have very few similarities.

putting a small number of birds down, feeding them, and just having a few days shooting with friends, a dead loss financially

I think this is probably the point at which I get annoyed by the shooting lobby - going out and shooting deer I understand, some form of control is essential. Shooting a small number of wild birds I can comprehend. But when you start rearing birds explicitly for the purpose of shooting them it's hard to understand as anything other than a delight in killing things.

@core - therein lies your problem. The "industry" wants the cash from the commercial, "industrial", shoots and uses that as justification for bringing money into the local economies but want to be viewed as the caring environmentalists.

There's been a short TV series on Scotland's landscapes, one of which was about the effective desert that is Scotland's Highlands. Driven in part by the shooting estates but also sheep farming because of the Clearances. The factor from Glen Feshie estate was interviewed - they reduced their deer population down from 40 per sq KM to just one. As a result the native trees are naturally coming back and traditional species recolonating the area.

I grew up on a Cumbrian hill farm, I've no problem with shooting for food or pest control (that certainly doesnt' include raptors or mustelids) but not as "sport".

I take your point on rearing birds specifically to shoot, it does seem fundamentally flawed and a bit ridiculous if you (I) take a step back.

I know that there will always be opposition to shooting, but I hope that sustainable shooting and environmental management that does benefit wild, native species has a role to play in the future.

Creating monoculture and desert for the sole purpose of income generation and pleasure is reprehensible, no doubt about that.

There would be no 'wild' birds to shoot without birds released by organised shoots though...

Ducks and grouse surely exist without the cage rearing. Having shot in the past I can sympathise, and having a dog that kills rabbits quite happily I'd be in an odd position to oppose all hunting. But the monoculture wasteland that some local estates have made are intolerable surely.

Grouse aren't cage reared.

He literally said creating monoculture was reprehensible in the post above yours.

core

...I don’t know your background or upbringing, but please don’t believe that we’re all out there shooting just because we love killing animals for the sake of killing them...

I have hunted in Africa for the pot when I was young in the 1950s. I have hunted in Australia for vermin eradication (wild pigs).

I enjoy the skill of using a gun properly, but unless it's for the pot, it's not necessary to kill anything.

The concept of breeding animals and then scaring them into the path of alcohol sozzled toffs is totally repellent to me. The chances of clean kills are low.

If those animals and birds are really bred for food, them kill them humanely.

BTW Rewilding is a lousy concept. That land was rarely wild, it used to contain lots of humans until they were driven off to make sheep deserts and playgrounds for the toffs. If you want the landscape as it was in the last few thousand years, put people and their stock back on it, or if you are wanting an authentic earlier wild look, stick a few thousand metres of ice on it.

I know fine grouse aren't cage reared, although the manipulation of vegetation and destruction of "vermin" to ensure an oversupply cause a lot of problems. I was just trying to point out that shooting could still exist without the cage rearing of pheasant and partridge.

I enjoy the skill of using a gun properly, but unless it’s for the pot, it’s not necessary to kill anything.

So how do you propose farmers protect their crops or livestock from pests?

I know fine grouse aren’t cage reared, although the manipulation of vegetation and destruction of “vermin” to ensure an oversupply cause a lot of problems. I was just trying to point out that shooting could still exist without the cage rearing of pheasant and partridge.

Ah okay.

In partridges case they needn't be cage reared if the land was properly managed and they were allowed to thrive again. Dunno about pheasants, I think they survive through dumb luck tbh.

@epicyclo - the BBC programme (I think it was Prof Iain Stewart presenting) was pretty scathing about much of the guardianship of the Highlands since the start of the Clearances. The Glenfeshie estate factor was as diplomatic as he could be about the typical clientele that turned up: "rich, drunk, fat b*****s!" (not his exact words but pretty much everything but). I don't think I'd want a drunk in charge of a high powered rifle anywhere near me! Incidentally, Glenfeshie Estate owner Anders Holch Povlsen and his wife Anne lost three of their four children in the 2019 Easter massacre in Sri Lanka.

Yeah, rewilding. Sounds nice but just where are you turning the clock back to? 9th July 1654? 6th September 1426? The Highlands, and many other upland areas, used to have much, much bigger populations than they do now. During F&M in 2001 it was thought that much of the Lakes might revert to scrub if there weren't enough stock left to return to the fells. What we see as permanent is anything but.

You can’t have it all, ground nesting and song birds in abundance etc etc – and not control the species which predate them of which there are huge numbers.

The predator - prey relationship is one that will balance out, too many predators and their own population will suffer though it tends not to be quite that dramatic. The one predator to which this doesn't apply is: us. I've seen it said that we are a super-predator, we have both the skill and capacity to over hunt in a way that "natural" predators don't, indeed can't. One exception might be the fox in a chicken coop where it reacts to the fright of the birds by killing them. Red deer only have us as predator so there's going to be some form of stalking/hunting to keep their numbers in check. I've been above Blair Atholl and seen a hillside "move" due to the size of the deer herd, as a farmer there's no way I'd stock that land with a fifth of the number of animals, possibly even less.

Rewilding is an interesting concept, I've read Wilding, and though I can see the merits in part, it's so complex - who knows where you'd start, what you'd prioritise, or what point in the past you want to return to with it?

To my mind, large scale driven shooting and land management that prioritises one species for sport at the expense of all other species, pursuits, and wider access is just another example of human excess and greed which we're now realising is hugely damaging the planet.

squirrelking
So how do you propose farmers protect their crops or livestock from pests?

Did you miss the previous sentence about vermin eradication?

I didn't but since you can eat a wild pig that doesn't tell me anything about your stance on corvids and rodents. Especially when you say if you can't eat it you shouldn't be killing it.

@squirrelking

When I wrote that, I figured it was unnecessary to qualify the statement because I thought the previous sentence made it clear that I was not arguing against shooting pests.

I forgot STW is the place where pedants come for a rest from disputing how many angels fit on a pinhead.

I humbly apologise for my forgetfulness and my lack of clarity.

whitestone
...Yeah, rewilding. Sounds nice but just where are you turning the clock back to? 9th July 1654? 6th September 1426? The Highlands, and many other upland areas, used to have much, much bigger populations than they do now....

When you look at the number of fortifications on high ground in remote parts of the Highlands, and then consider the infrastructure that had to exist to construct and maintain them, it's plainly obvious that there was once a large population.

An example that puzzles me is near Forsinard, That's in the so called Flow Country, ie soggy peat bog. There's the ruins of a whopping great fort on Ben Griam Beg. All the surrounding flat land is peat bog. I can't imagine it was like that when the fort was there because why defend a peat bog.

If it was a fort it would have existed for a reason, there would have been many mouths to feed, and therefore a surrounding population to service it.

One theory is that it is instead a deer trap, but it's huge and would have needed a lot of labour to build. Surely the bog would not sustain enough deer to justify such a huge trap.

I'm pretty sure the landscape was much different when there were people on it, and nothing like what the re-wilders fondly imagine.

Depends when you go back to for your rewilding! 5000 years ago when they were building stone circles was before the peat developed.

but I hope that sustainable shooting and environmental management that does benefit wild, native species has a role to play in the future.

there is no shooting that benefits native species. some native species there is a big enough population to sustain hunting but that is very different

Yeah, rewilding. Sounds nice but just where are you turning the clock back to? 9th July 1654? 6th September 1426?

None of those things. Rewilding in Scotland as far as I’ve read is simply about increasing biodiversity from the point we are at now, not an attempt to recreate the world as it was.

There are many versions of rewilding. In some areas of Scotland, whole landscapes are being transformed by giving nature more space and freedom to allow forests, wetlands and peatlands to regenerate. Wild animals are being reintroduced to roam unimpeded across a seamless landscape, shaped and governed by natural processes. Elsewhere in towns and cities, passionate communities are working together to create more space for bats, bees and butterflies, in parks, gardens and public spaces.

The vision that unites rewilding at these different scales, is one of restoration and recovery; a commitment to return abundance and diversity of life to Scotland’s land and seas.

Rewilding is a journey that offers space for everyone. At its heart is a bold and ambitious new relationship with nature; an extraordinary opportunity to stitch back together an intricate tapestry of life.

piemonster
...Rewilding in Scotland as far as I’ve read is simply about increasing biodiversity from the point we are at now...

In typical STW fashion we've veered off topic, but I'll take us a bit further OT.

My object to rewilding is precisely that the proponents do not include humans in that biodiversity.

The land has been occupied by humans and their stock since the ice receded. My objection to the term is it continues the erasure of the Highland Clearances. It's the removal of humans and their cattle that has turned the landscape into its current form.

@squirrelking

When I wrote that, I figured it was unnecessary to qualify the statement because I thought the previous sentence made it clear that I was not arguing against shooting pests.

I forgot STW is the place where pedants come for a rest from disputing how many angels fit on a pinhead.

I humbly apologise for my forgetfulness and my lack of clarity.

You forgot the bit about being unable to sustain a civil conversation.

there is no shooting that benefits native species. some native species there is a big enough population to sustain hunting but that is very different

I assume by "shooting" you are referring to the driven shooting rather than in general.

No - all shooting ( apart from vermin control) You do not conserve a species by shooting it.

@epicyclo - pre-Clearances Highland life was only just above subsistence levels, there was some trade as witnessed by the old drove roads but in the main it was grow (and hunt) what you needed. Wanted a deer for the pot? No problem, head out and get yourself, and your clan, one.

Now wild deer "belong" to the estates on whose land they wander and taking one is a crime.

We are all complicit to some degree in this: we appreciate the Highlands as they currently are, as we've known them in our own lifetimes - the shortbread tin version. Putting humans back where they historically were means development, houses, roads, etc. and we can't be having that can we? Neither can we just leave nature to recover, the damage is too great, we've knocked the ecosystems so far out of balance they can't get back. So, ironically, for any "wilding" to take place it has to be managed: stalking of deer; introduction of persecuted species and so on. It won't be quick either - the Cairngorms regeneration project is looking at 250 years, that's committing ten generations to the idea.

Epicyclo is right tho. Any part of rewilding must include people. The land needs a usage and people otherwise the whole country becomes a giant park.