Wildlife management: consultation analysis

2: Licensing of grouse shooting

The consultation paper argues that continuing persecution of raptors, despite a range of measures introduced by the Scottish Government, suggests that self-regulation alone will not be enough to end the illegal killing of raptors, and further intervention is now required.

It is therefore proposed that a licence is required to shoot grouse, and that if there is compelling evidence of unlawful activity or serious breaches of codes of practice by the licence holder, then their licence could be withdrawn. The intention is that the Code of Practice recommended in the Werritty Report will ensure that a minimum standard of management and environmental protection is adhered to by those managing grouse for sporting purposes.

Question 1 – Do you agree that the licensing of grouse shooting should be introduced to deter raptor persecution and wildlife crime linked to grouse moor management?

Responses to Question 1 by respondent type are set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Question 1

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	11	3	0	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	1	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	10	30	0	40
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	6	0	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	2	16	0	18
Other - non private sector	6	0	1	7
Total organisations	57	56	6	119
% of organisations	48%	47%	5%
Individuals	3207	1467	47	4721
% of individuals	68%	31%	1%
All respondents	3264	1523	53	4840
% of all respondents	67%	31%	1%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 67% of those who answered the question – agreed that the licensing of grouse shooting should be introduced to deter raptor persecution and wildlife crime linked to grouse moor management. Of the remaining respondents, 31% disagreed and 1% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were evenly divided with 48% agreeing, 47% disagreeing and 5% unsure. While a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents were in favour of licensing, a majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents opposed licensing. The majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 2 – If you answered 'No' to Question 1, please state what other option/s you think we should consider.

Around 1,570 respondents provided a comment at Question 2. Of these, around 1,430 respondents had answered 'No' at Question 1 and around 140 respondents had either answered 'Yes' or that they were 'Unsure'.

Overall positions on grouse moor licensing or shooting

The analysis of comments across the section on licensing grouse shooting suggests that many of those who commented took one of two overall positions. These were that:

• Either there should be no licensing scheme, or the proposals should be amended significantly. These respondents generally answered 'No' at the closed questions and, reflecting the focus of the open questions, were most likely to go on to make a further comment.
• Grouse shooting, and sometimes shooting of any animals for sport, should be banned. Some of these respondents answered 'No' at one or more of the closed questions (including at Question 1) and then went on to explain why. Others may have answered 'Yes' or 'Unsure' at closed questions, but then went on to note that they supported a ban, either at that question or under 'Any other comments' (Question 16).

Reasons given for disagreeing with a licensing scheme

Evidence requirements

Many of the commenting explained why they did not agree with the introduction of a licensing scheme. The most-frequently raised points included that:

• A licensing scheme would be an unnecessary, disproportionate and time-consuming bureaucratic exercise that is simply not needed. It was particularly noted that any interference with property rights must be necessary and proportionate.
• There is insufficient evidence to justify the introduction of a scheme. This includes a lack of evidence linking grouse moors to incidents or higher levels of wildlife crime. In particular, there is no established link between grouse moor management and raptor persecution. In fact, raptors are more likely to suffer as a result of development, including housebuilding, tree planting and the construction of wind farms, than at the hands of those connected to shooting.
• In any case, the persecution of raptors is declining, with incidents of raptor persecution related to grouse moor management at an historic low; it was noted that the Werritty Report states that licensing should be considered if, after a specified period of time, raptor persecution incidents do not decrease.

Connected to these issues was a common view that the current arrangements for grouse moor management are sufficient or work well, and that they should remain as they are. Associated points included that there are robust rules, regulations and penalties in place and that existing penalties that apply under the criminal law and general licensing regimes are effective deterrents; there was specific reference to Vicarious Liability meeting its purpose and that existing measures like Vicarious Liability and removal of general licenses this should be enough restrictions on grouse moors without adding licensing.

Rights, including Human Rights

Respondents also wanted the Scottish Government to consider the rights of those who own land, including their Human Rights. In terms of those Human Rights, it was stated that the right to shoot grouse on your own land is a property right, and it was noted that everyone's property rights are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this context, and linking back to the earlier point about proportionality, it was suggested that state interference with property rights must be necessary and proportionate. Given some of the themes already covered above (relating to existing arrangements, raptor crime linked to grouse shooting having reduced and there being insufficient evidence of higher levels of wildlife crime on grouse moors), it was also suggested that a licensing scheme would not be necessary and proportionate. Other related points included that:

• Singling out grouse shooting and/or grouse moors appears contrary to the principle of equal treatment before the law; the connection was made to other activities, such as wind turbine construction, being associated with raptor movements and deaths.
• It is critical that any approach does not persecute or restrict those most in touch with the land.
• Licence suspension would be a deprivation of property rights, with very significant losses for rights-holders, employees and the local community, but would not rely on conviction of any connected person. In this regard it was thought that the Recommendations 4,7 and 25 of the Werritty Report offer less intrusive options.

A more general rights and fairness-related issue raised was that the proposals are focusing on the few who break the rules rather than the interests and rights of the many who do not.

Other issues

Other concerns or suggestions included that:

• Any licensing scheme could be open to abuse, and that some could try and use it as a route to sabotaging and/or having grouse shooting operations shut down. There were calls to consider the motives of those non-government organisations (NGOs) and individuals that have lobbied to regulate grouse shooting, and also a view that licensing would hand too much power to the unelected body, NatureScot.
• A licensing scheme will have time and cost implications for both landowners and the public sector. These will include the costs of setting up the system, and then administering and policing it.

Positives associated with grouse shooting

Some respondents also highlighted the positives associated with grouse shooting, including suggesting that grouse moor management is good for the environment and biodiversity. There was reference to general benefits for flora and fauna and to increasing numbers of raptors in particular; it was suggested that grouse moors provide good breeding grounds for raptors and that raptors generally thrive on grouse moors because land management activities promote biodiversity. There was also a suggestion that the effective management of wildlife on grouse moors is best left to highly experienced landowners and the staff that work on the land.

Also in terms of those working on the land, it was suggested that grouse shooting and grouse moor management provides rural employment, and that any decline in grouse shooting could lead to job losses. The connection was made to rural depopulation and the health of the rural economy more generally.

Alternative approaches proposed

Implement other recommendations of the Werritty Report

A number of respondents suggested that there are approaches, other than the introduction of a licensing scheme, that could or should be considered. These included implementing certain recommendations from the Werritty Report, namely recommendations 3, 4, 7 and 25. More generally, there was a view that the proposals set out are inconsistent with the findings of the Werritty Report and its recommendations, and that the logical approach would be to implement all of the report's recommendations and work with the moorland management sector on a collaborative approach to ensuring that there is no reason for raptor crime to ever start up again.

It was also noted that tough new penalties for wildlife crime have recently been passed by the Scottish Parliament and it was suggested that these should be given an opportunity to have an impact before further changes or sanctions are considered. Specifically, it was suggested that time should be taken to ascertain whether penalties enacted under Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 serve as a deterrent to raptor persecution and wildlife crime.

Awareness raising and education

There were also calls to work with those managing the land, including around awareness raising. It was reported that modern day gamekeeping is much more professional but that improving communications and awareness raising would help all parties understand the wider environment issues. Empowering professionals to (continue to) manage the environment, and be vigilant in terms of wildlife crime, was seen as the best way forward by some respondents.

An associated point was that education and support are always preferable to licensing, and there was reference to improved training in agricultural colleges and training establishments and as part of apprenticeships.

Enforcement and monitoring

As noted above, some respondents thought that current laws relating to punishing wildlife crime are sufficient. There were also other references to those laws needing to be implemented, and the importance of more enforcement of current sanctions. It was suggested that prosecution under the current laws would be the effective deterrent, and that this does not require a licensing scheme to be in place. Rather, it was suggested, there is a need to make more resources available to enable better and more investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime.

One particular issue raised related to the crime detection methods currently available. There was reference to problems with raptor detection devices and for better tracking and research into missing birds. There was also a view that the tracking of tagged birds needs to be opened up to more than just the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

Code of practice or self-regulation

Another suggested way forward was the development of a code of practice or guidelines that could support self-regulation and encourage good practice. It was suggested that Aim to Sustain offers an example of the type of approach that could be taken forward, and there was also reference to appropriate representative bodies, such as the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), being involved in a self-regulation based approach. The work of the Tweed Foundation on salmon rivers was cited as an example of positive practice that could be drawn upon.

Ban grouse and other shooting

A very different reason for not supporting a licensing scheme was that grouse shooting, or shooting more widely, should be banned. As noted earlier, those taking this view sometimes answered 'No' at the closed question, others answered 'Yes' or 'Unsure' but went on to note that they favoured a ban, either at this question or elsewhere (primarily at Question 16).

Reasons given for favouring a ban on grouse shooting included that it would be better for the natural environment. Comments or suggestions included that land management for grouse shooting prevents rewilding and that, in the face of climate and biodiversity crises, the land management of large areas of the country should not be prioritising the needs of grouse shoots. Respondents also raised animal welfare and cruelty concerns, with comments including that grouse shooting, and often shooting more widely, is a barbaric and archaic blood sport. It was suggested that we need to protect all wildlife, including grouse.

Some of those who called for a ban commented that a licensing scheme does not or cannot go far enough. Others were of the view that a robust licensing scheme, backed up by rigorous enforcement, while potentially offering some improvement would also represent the bare minimum in terms protecting wildlife. However, a number of those favouring a ban were sceptical that licensing would act as an effective deterrent and did not think it would prevent raptor persecution. A different perspective was that, while licensing itself may not act as a deterrent for raptor persecution and wildlife crime, it would at least focus attention on landowners and may help to bring issue into focus.

Changes or modifications to the licensing scheme as proposed

A number of respondents, some of whom had also made it clear that they did not agree with a licensing scheme being introduced, suggested possible modifications to the proposals should they be taken forward. Suggestions from those who generally did not support a licensing scheme included that any scheme should be workable for land managers and producers of livestock, including removing birds and mammals that are causing problems; it was suggested that this would help prevent illegal actions, which individuals only resort to when they consider they have no other option. Other comments included that licensing should:

• Not be linked to wildlife crime, and in particular should not be predicated on a link between wildlife crime and grouse moor management.
• Be linked to raptor persecution only. If measures are introduced, they should focus solely on raptor crime, where evidence of criminality has been proven in court. A specific suggestion was that the focus should be on deterring the illegal killing of golden eagles, hen harriers and peregrines.

Further suggestions included that power to suspend licences should be limited to cases where there is a successful criminal prosecution for the illegal killing of a golden eagle, hen harrier or peregrine. (The issue of criminal or civil prosecution is covered in greater detail at Question 11). There was also a call for a statutory right to appeal against licensing decisions.

Other comments about how any licensing scheme should be framed included that it will need to be supported by enforcement and information sharing generally. It was also suggested that success, or otherwise, will depend to a large extent on the conditions that are imposed and the procedures around the licensing regime.

Question 3 – Do you agree that the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions and actions should be responsible for acquiring and maintaining the licence for the taking of grouse on a particular piece of land?

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Question 3

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	12	1	0	13
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	1	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	14	26	0	40
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	6	0	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	2	14	2	18
Other - non private sector	7	0	0	7
Total organisations	63	48	7	118
% of organisations	53%	41%	6%
Individuals	3316	1291	95	4702
% of individuals	71%	27%	2%
All respondents	3379	1339	102	4820
% of all respondents	70%	28%	2%

A majority – 70% of those who answered the question – agreed that the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions and actions should be responsible for acquiring and maintaining the licence for the taking of grouse on a particular piece of land. Of the remaining respondents, 28% disagreed and 2% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a small majority – 53% – agreed, while 41% disagreed and 6% were unsure. As at Question 1, a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 4 – If you answered 'No' to Question 3, please state what other option/s you think we should consider.

Around 1,360 respondents provided a comment at Question 4. Of these, around 1,300 respondents had answered 'No' at Question 3 and around 60 respondents had either answered 'Yes' or that they were 'Unsure'.

Reflecting themes at Question 2, a number of those commenting simply restated their support for a ban on grouse shooting or their objection to any licensing scheme. Connected to this latter point was the view that there is no need for change, including because the people in positions named in the consultation paper – the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions – already take full and legal responsibility for the management of, and actions on, grouse moors.

However, there was also a view that it would be wrong to put all the responsibility onto a single person, including because they cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. It was also suggested that reference to the 'person responsible' is far too broad and could including gamekeepers or anyone that works on the estate.

The most frequently-made suggestion by some margin was that responsibility for acquiring and maintaining the licence should sit with the owner of the sporting or shooting lease or rights. Further comments included that this could be the landowner or a tenant, since it is common for landowners of moorland either to retain the right to take and shoot grouse (the sporting rights) or to assign them to a third party under a contract (typically a sporting lease).

A reason given for the licence holder only ever being the person who holds the sporting rights was that otherwise someone who is responsible for management decisions and actions could place liability on someone who does not hold the sporting rights, such as the head gamekeeper or factor. However, it was suggested that the holder of the sporting rights or lease should be permitted to authorise a third party to deal with the administrative aspects of the licence on their behalf.

There was also a suggestion that, where the licence holder is somebody other than the landowner, the landowner should also be held responsible for the activities taking place on their land and be subject to licence conditions, akin to vicarious liability. It was suggested that this would incentivise landowners to seek out responsible managers and maintain oversight to ensure best practice.

Another suggestion made, albeit by only a small number of respondents, was that responsibility should sit only with the landowner.

Question 5 – Do you think that the person wishing to shoot grouse on land that they do not own, or occupy, should be required to check that the person who owns the land has a licence which allows for the taking of grouse on that area of land?

Responses to Question 5 by respondent type are set out in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Question 5

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	13	0	0	13
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	0	1	22
Land management, including representative bodies	14	19	7	40
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	5	1	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	3	3	0	6
Other - private sector	12	2	3	17
Other - non private sector	7	1	0	8
Total organisations	76	26	16	118
% of organisations	64%	22%	14%
Individuals	3823	744	129	4696
% of individuals	81%	16%	3%
All respondents	3899	770	145	4814
% of all respondents	81%	16%	3%

A large majority – 81% of those who answered the question – agreed that a person wishing to shoot grouse on land that they do not own, or occupy, should be required to check that the person who owns the land has a licence which allows for the taking of grouse on that area of land. Of the remaining respondents, 16% disagreed and 3% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a majority – 64% – agreed with a requirement to check that an appropriate licence is in place, while 22% disagreed and 14% were unsure. A clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other' respondents agreed, while 'Land management' respondents were most likely to disagree. 'Sporting organisations' were evenly divided, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 6 – If you answered 'No' to Question 5, please state what other option/s you think we should consider.

Around 740 respondents provided a comment at Question 6. Of these, around 690 respondents had answered 'No' at Question 5 and around 50 respondents had either answered 'Yes' or that they were 'Unsure'.

As at previous questions, some respondents restated their support for a ban on grouse shooting or their objection to any licensing scheme. Others noted that the question refers to 'the person who owns the land' and suggested that, reflecting their views at Question 4, it should refer to the person holding the shooting rights or lease, which could be the landowner or a tenant.

In terms of whether the person wishing to shoot should be required to check whether a licence is in place, the most frequent view was that they should not, because responsibility should sit only with the licence holder or the person who should hold a licence.

Reasons for not requiring the person wishing to shoot to check included that the equivalent requirements are not in place for other licensing regimes, and that there is no reason for special treatment under the law for those involved in shooting. It was noted, for example, that consumers are not required to check that a pub or restaurant holds an alcohol licence before consuming alcohol on the premises. It was suggested that placing the onus on consumers wishing to shoot to check licences goes a step further than this without delivering any obvious additional public benefit.

In practical terms, it was suggested that placing a requirement on the person wishing to shoot would be an unnecessary change that would create a pointless administrative burden, with monitoring and enforcement difficult if not impossible. It was also suggested that it would be unrealistic or unreasonably onerous to expect shooting guests to check whether a licence is in place, and that any licensing scheme should look to keep potential barriers to income generation to a minimum.

In terms of approaches that could or should be considered going forward, suggestions included that:

• An assurance that the estate has the necessary licensing in place could be provided by the estate as part of their commercial client operations. Specifically, details of the licence to shoot grouse could be required information in any advertising or could be set out in the shoot agreement that is signed prior to a shoot day taking place.
• A breach of the licence by a guest should potentially carry sanctions against the licence holder. It should be the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure all operations relating to grouse shooting on their land are carried out legally and responsibly.

Question 7 – If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority?

Responses to Question 7 by respondent type are set out in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Question 7

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	13	0	1	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	20	1	1	22
Land management, including representative bodies	30	1	8	39
Pest control, including representative bodies	2	0	4	6
Public body, including law enforcement	5	0	1	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	6	0	0	6
Other - private sector	11	2	4	17
Other - non private sector	8	0	0	8
Total organisations	95	4	19	118
% of organisations	81%	3%	16%
Individuals	3510	534	635	4679
% of individuals	75%	11%	14%
All respondents	3605	538	654	4797
% of all respondents	75%	11%	14%

A majority – 75% of those who answered the question – agreed that if licensing is introduced, NatureScot should be the licensing authority. Of the remaining respondents, 11% disagreed and 14% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a larger majority – 81% – agreed that NatureScot should be the licensing authority, while only 3% disagreed and 16% were unsure. A clear majority of all organisational respondent groups were in agreement, with the exception of 'Pest control' respondents, where the majority were unsure.

Those who did not agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority were invited to suggest an alternative organisation/body. Around 440 respondents made a comment, although some simply to note that they had answered 'No' at Question 7 because they did not agree with the introduction of a licensing scheme. Others raised concerns or reservations about NatureScot taking on the role, including because they did not consider them to be impartial.

General comments about what would be required of a licensing authority included that it should be impartial and/or politically independent. For some, this suggested that a new body will be required, while others referred to the importance of a range of perspectives being represented and/or of stakeholder representation. However, there was also a view that, to ensure impartiality, a licensing authority must be free of any association with the shooting industry.

Other respondents (including some who had answered 'Yes', 'No' or 'Unsure') highlighted the importance of any licensing authority having sufficient resources to operate a scheme; some of these respondents noted that they did not consider NatureScot to have those resources at present. An 'Animal welfare' organisation reported that information shared in response to Freedom of Information requests shows that NatureScot has not been undertaking necessary compliance monitoring of the four estates that are currently under a General Licence restriction, due to lack of resources. The associated suggestion was that NatureScot should be expanded to ensure that it can properly fulfil a licensing role.

In terms of those respondents who suggested an alternative body (around 270 respondents), the most frequent suggestions were:

• The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT).
• Police Scotland.
• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).
• The SGA.
• The RSPB.
• Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA).

Other less frequently made suggestions included the Scottish Government; Local authorities; Regional Moorland Groups; the Scottish Wildlife Trust; landowners; Scottish Land and Estates; Environmental Standards Scotland; and National Park Authorities if the licence would cover their Park.

Question 8 – Do you think that a licence should be granted for a maximum period of one year (renewable on an annual basis thereafter)?

Responses to Question 8 by respondent type are set out in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Question 8

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	11	1	1	13
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	1	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	7	32	1	40
Pest control, including representative bodies	2	0	4	6
Public body, including law enforcement	4	2	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	2	15	1	18
Other - non private sector	6	0	2	8
Total organisations	53	57	9	119
% of organisations	45%	48%	8%
Individuals	3061	1502	129	4692
% of individuals	65%	32%	3%
All respondents	3114	1559	138	4811
% of all respondents	65%	32%	3%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 65% of those who answered the question – agreed that a licence should be granted for a maximum period of one year (renewable on an annual basis thereafter). Of the remaining respondents, 32% disagreed and 3% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided, with the largest group – 48% of those who answered the question – disagreeing, while 45% agreed and 8% were unsure. A clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while the majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 9 – If you answered 'No' to Question 8, please state what other option/s you think we should consider.

Around 1,580 respondents provided a comment at Question 9. Of these, around 1,520 had answered 'No' at Question 8 and around 60 respondents had either answered 'Yes' or that they were 'Unsure'.

Respondents were most likely to raise concerns about an annual licence period being too short, including because it seems unnecessarily onerous and bureaucratic. It was noted that most estates aspire to shoot grouse every year and it was suggested that it would be better to grant licences for a longer period to reflect this reality. It was also reported that many people book shooting activities well in advance. Other reasons given for favouring a longer licensing period included that it would:

• Reduce the resource implications for those requiring a licence. This would apply both to any fee to be charged and in terms of the time and resources required to complete licence applications or renewal forms.
• Reduce the burden on the licensing authority, giving them more time to process and review the applications or renewals that are required. It was suggested that an annual requirement would have a significant resource impact on the licensing authority for no obvious public benefit. There were also concerns that an annual process could result in delays and uncertainty, with potential knock-on effects for those running shooting businesses.
• Support medium to longer term business planning and land management. It was noted that the management of moorland to promote biodiversity requires long-term focus and investment, and there was a concern that the proposed one-year duration could put that investment at risk. It was suggested that to attract investment a minimum of a five-year period is needed.

In terms of alternative timeframes, the most-frequent suggestion was that licences should remain valid indefinitely unless ownership of the sporting rights changes, or the licence is suspended.

Other respondents suggested simply that the time period should be for longer than a year. Amongst those suggesting a specific time period, the most frequent suggestion was for a five-year licence period. Other suggestions were every three years, every five to ten years, or every ten years.

Finally, some respondents commented on licence conditions that should apply, including that any licence should be revoked on a breach involving the death of a raptor or other predator. Other suggestions included that even if licences were issued for periods longer than one year, reporting on management activities should be undertaken annually.

Question 10 – Do you think that the civil rather than the criminal burden of proof is an acceptable test for the application of sanctions in relation to grouse moor licences?

Please note that a civil standard of proof would require NatureScot to base their decision on the 'balance of probabilities' whereas a criminal standard of proof requires satisfaction 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Question 10

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	12	1	0	13
Conservation, including representative bodies	19	2	1	22
Land management, including representative bodies	8	31	0	39
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	6	0	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	1	15	2	18
Other - non private sector	7	0	0	7
Total organisations	54	55	8	117
% of organisations	46%	47%	7%
Individuals	3034	1443	219	4696
% of individuals	65%	31%	5%
All respondents	3088	1498	227	4813
% of all respondents	64%	31%	5%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 64% of those who answered the question – thought that the civil rather than the criminal burden of proof is an acceptable test for the application of sanctions in relation to grouse moor licences. Of the remaining respondents, 31% disagreed and 5% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were evenly divided with the largest group – 47% of those who answered the question disagreeing, while 46% agreed and 5% were unsure. While a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents thought that the civil burden of proof is an acceptable test, the majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed . The majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 11 – If you answered 'No' to Question 10, please state what other option/s you think we should consider.

Around 1,490 respondents provided a comment at Question 11.

Disagreement with a civil standard of proof

Some respondents who disagreed at Question 10 did not think that a grouse moor licensing system is required and others that all grouse shooting should be banned, rather than introducing licensing.

Requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt

A frequent position was that it is not appropriate to suspend a licence on a 'balance of probabilities' that a wildlife crime has taken place, and that proof must be to a criminal standard or 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Some respondents argued that a licence should be suspended only following a successful criminal prosecution.

There was also a view that the role of the criminal standard of proof in protecting against wrongful conviction is essential in a democratic society. It was also argued that suspension of a licence on the basis of a wildlife crime that has not been proven to a criminal standard is not fair or proportionate and does not strike a fair balance between the interests of the rightsholder and the general public.

Consequences of losing a licence

Other reasons given in support of the argument that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt included the scale of the consequences of losing a licence. There were references to:

• The immediate financial loss for the licence holder which one respondent reported could, for them, run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
• Loss of related jobs, livelihoods and, potentially, tied housing.
• Economic damage to other businesses and to local communities.
• A risk of rural depopulation.
• Ecological damage and reduction in biodiversity.

Risk of sabotage

Another concern raised by many respondents was that individuals or groups opposed to grouse shooting could exploit a lower standard of proof to 'set up' estates in order to sabotage the grouse shooting business.

Human Rights

A small number of respondents raised arguments based on human rights – specifically that the proposed approach would be covered by a number of articles of the ECHR:

• Article 6 – the right to a fair trial. It was suggested that imposition of sanctions on the basis of a civil standard violates Article 6.
• Article 8 – respect for private and family life. It was argued that the working and private lives of gamekeepers (who often live in tied accommodation) are intrinsically linked, meaning an impact on their ability to carry out their profession falls within the scope of Article 8.
• Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) – peaceful enjoyment of property. It was argued that gamekeepers have a long-standing economic interest in the land and grouse shooting activities on the estates where they work, and that this is linked to their livelihood and the security of their homes, amounting to a right of use, and so a possession, for the purposes of A1P1.

It was argued that to safeguard such rights, a licence to shoot grouse should only be suspended or revoked where it is beyond reasonable doubt that a relevant offence has been committed.

Existing legislation to deal with wildlife crime

Some respondents referenced other legislation that is in place to cover wildlife crime, with an observation that existing provisions under criminal law include vicarious liability, long custodial sentences and General Licence restrictions. It was argued that penalties under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 only came in to force in November 2020 and that insufficient time has elapsed to properly evaluate their effectiveness. There was also a view that, since wildlife crime occurs in a variety of situations, the same law should apply in all circumstances.

Procedure around removal of General Licences

Many respondents referenced the existing application of the civil burden of proof to restriction of General Licences, allowing NatureScot to remove a General Licence where they have reason to suspect wildlife crime has taken place on a piece of land, but where they have insufficient evidence to meet the legal test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It was noted that, coupled with the fact there is there is no facility for an appeal (other than through Judicial Review) the procedure has damaged confidence in NatureScot as the regulator. Some respondents expressed concern at the prospect that a Licence to Shoot Grouse could be suspended without a right of appeal.

Requirements for a procedure to suspend a licence

Some respondents set out the procedures that they would wish to see implemented if a civil standard of proof were to be adopted with respect to suspension of a licence to shoot grouse. These included that:

• The sole trigger for sanctions should be robust evidence of the licence holder, or someone acting on their behalf, committing raptor crime on the estate – a causal link between the licence holder as an individual and the penalty.
• Relevant offences should be limited to illegal killing of a golden eagle, hen harrier or peregrine by the licensee or a third party acting within their knowledge and control.
• It should be a defence for the rightsholder to show that they (a) did not know the offence was being committed by a third party; and (b) took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence being committed. This would mirror the criminal defence in section 18A of the Wildlife Crime and Countryside Act 1981.
• Suspension of a licence should be for a period proportionate to the culpability of the rightsholder, the significance of the offence, the level of environmental harm arising from it, and the impact on the community arising from the penalty.
• There must be a statutory right of appeal to a court of law, with process that is accessible, robust and independent. A decision to suspend a licence should not be based solely on the judgement of NatureScot.
• Safeguards should be set out in primary legislation.

There was a view that Judicial Review is not an effective remedy, both because it allows only for a review of the procedure followed by NatureScot, and because it fails to adequately safeguard the rights of gamekeepers.

Grounds for an appeal

There were also suggestions with respect to appropriate grounds for an appeal, namely that NatureScot's decision was:

• Based on an error in law or an error of fact.
• Unfair or disproportionate for any reason.

Further, it was argued that any penalties should not take effect until the outcome of the appeal is determined, to avoid parties suffering substantial damage pending an appeal.

Other proposals in relation to investigating wildlife crime/ revoking a licence

It was also proposed that:

• There should be clear procedures for investigating wildlife crime.
• Only neutral, regulated bodies should conduct investigations that could lead to suspension or revocation of a licence. Campaign groups opposed to grouse shooting should not be involved.
• Prior to revoking a licence, proportionality should be addressed by carrying out an impact assessment to consider the number of gamekeepers and family members adversely affected by the decision.

Alternative views

Very much a minority view among those who disagreed at Question 10 was that criminal rather than civil procedures would reduce the chance of illegal activities being perpetrated, including because the risk of a criminal prosecution and potentially a criminal record, would act as a greater disincentive to wildlife crime.

A small number of respondents who had not answered 'No' at Question 11 also made points explaining their views. Among respondents who agreed that the civil burden of proof is an acceptable test, reasons given included that:

• Securing convictions for wildlife crimes is very difficult as they are committed in remote areas where there is little chance that they will be witnessed, and that the civil standard of proof the only viable standard available to the licensing authority.
• Application of a civil burden of proof with respect to grouse moor licences would align with procedures in place with respect to General Licences.

It was also suggested that:

• The licensing authority should act reasonably with respect to any action taken and, as alternatives to loss of a licence, inspection regimes and payment in relation to those regimes could be considered.
• There should be a mechanism for review / appeal. As an example, it was observed that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 makes provisions for an appeal to the sheriff or sheriff principal in connection with decisions of the Licensing Board under the scheme of liquor licensing.

Question 12 – Do you agree that record keeping or reporting requirements should be part of the licence conditions:

• Record keeping
• Reporting requirements
• Neither
• Unsure

Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence ( e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place, the number of grouse shot on each day, types of predator control undertaken, etc.) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.

Responses to Question 12 by respondent type are set out in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Question 12

Organisations:	Both record keeping and reporting	Record keeping only	Reporting only	Neither	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	10	2	1	1	0	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	19	2	0	1	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	8	7	0	24	1	40
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	0	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	3	2	0	0	1	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	0	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	2	3	0	11	2	18
Other - non private sector	6	2	0	0	0	8
Total organisations	49	18	1	43	9	120
% of organisations	41%	15%	1%	36%	8%
Individuals	2422	711	326	1150	84	4693
% of individuals	52%	15%	7%	25%	2%
All respondents	2471	729	327	1193	93	4813
% of all respondents	51%	15%	7%	25%	2%

A small majority of respondents – 51% of those who answered the question – thought that both record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of licence conditions, while 25% thought neither should apply. Overall, 65% of respondents (i.e. 51% + 15%) agreed with a requirement for record keeping and 58% (51% + 7%) that reporting should be required.

The level of support was lower among organisational respondents, where only 41% agreed with both requirements. 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents typically thought that neither record keeping nor reporting should be required.

Question 13 – If you answered 'Neither' to Question 12, outline why you believe this.

Around 1,235 respondents provided a comment at Question 13, including a small number who had not selected 'neither' at Question 12. Points made at Question 16 that are relevant to this topic are also covered in the analysis below.

Comments made at Question 13 illustrated that a large majority of those respondents who chose neither record keeping nor reporting requirements did so because they did not agree with introduction of grouse moor licences in principle, or objected on one or more specific grounds. However, a small number did so because they would prefer to see a complete ban on grouse shooting.

Reasons given for opposing record keeping and reporting requirements

The most frequently given reasons for thinking that neither record keeping nor reporting should be imposed were that:

• These requirements are not related to the core issue of preventing raptor persecution, or that it is not clear how they are related. Specifically, it was argued that there is no link between details of either shooting days/bags or predator control undertaken and the persecution of raptors.
• Other land management practices use predator control too, and it is unfair to single out grouse moors for particular recording and reporting requirements. It was argued that this would not be consistent with equality of treatment before the law.

It was also argued that while estates and keepers will have their own records, there should not be a statutory requirement to keep records or to report the information to the licensing authority. It was suggested that the proposed requirements would represent a disproportionate addition to the administrative burden on the licensee while providing little public benefit. There was also a view that the proposed approach is too adversarial, and does not provide scope for encouragement of positive outcomes, while a small number of respondents expressed concerns that even a minor error in record keeping or reporting could be used as a reason not to approve a licence renewal.

Some respondents suggested that:

• Only records that are relevant to the licence should be disclosed, upon request from the licensing authority and under relevant circumstances.
• This should not include records of predator control.

How predator control in the same area but for other purposes (for example to benefit upland sheep farming) can be separated from predator control for grouse moor management was also queried.

Other concerns raised with respect to reported data included that Freedom of Information requests to the licensing authority could see such information released in the public domain. Related points were that:

• Information about shoot days and number of grouse shot informs the capital value of the land and is commercially sensitive.
• Unaggregated data on predator control could increase abuse of gamekeepers and others working in the sector by those who oppose grouse shooting.

It was also suggested that the General Data Protection Regulation would require the licensing authority to demonstrate that they are using the data only for the purposes for which it was gathered – namely monitoring licence compliance – and not for informing broader policy decisions.

Reasons given for supporting record keeping and reporting requirements

A small number of respondents to Question 13 – and others at Question 16 – noted their reasons for supporting record keeping and reporting as licensing requirements. Points made included that:

• The proposed reporting requirements in relation to grouse moor licences would align with reporting conditions for other NatureScot licences – for example with respect to ringing birds.
• Records should be returned as a matter of course, not solely on-demand.
• Failure to update records in a timely fashion should result in withdrawal or non-renewal of licence.
• Statutory reporting requirements would provide data to inform policy development and annual publication of anonymised statistics would allow transparency and public scrutiny.

In terms of the information that should be collected, suggestions included that:

• Annual reporting of both numbers of grouse counted in spring and shot in summer would allow fluctuations in local and national populations to be monitored to help inform conservation measures.
• Annual returns should include not only numbers of grouse shot but also records of other animals and birds (including non-target species) killed as part of management practices associated with grouse shooting. The licence renewal process could include a requirement to assess how all interventions (both prevention and killing) are working.
• Recording requirements should include details of use of medicated grit, and of muirburn.
• Information on the number of shots fired (particularly lead shot) and estimates for carbon emitted through shooting activities (from muirburn to transport across the land) should also be required.

It was also suggested that if a requirement to keep records is introduced, a template and guidelines should be provided to assist users with the information that should be recorded and level of detail required.

Question 14 – Do you agree that, where a person holds a valid licence, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities a wildlife crime has been committed on their property, NatureScot should have the power to impose the following penalties:

• Issue a written warning
• Temporarily suspend a licence
• Permanently revoke a licence.

Responses to Question 14 by respondent type are set out in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Question 14

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	13	1	0	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	1	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	8	29	0	37
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	5	1	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	3	15	0	18
Other - non private sector	7	0	1	8
Total organisations	58	53	6	117
% of organisations	50%	45%	5%
Individuals	3273	1377	50	4700
% of individuals	70%	29%	1%
All respondents	3331	1430	56	4817
% of all respondents	69%	30%	1%

A majority – 69% of those who answered the question – agreed that where a person holds a valid licence, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities a wildlife crime has been committed on their property, NatureScot should have the power to impose the proposed penalties. Of the remaining respondents, 30% disagreed and 1% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided, with 50% of those who answered the question in agreement, while 45% disagreed and 5% were unsure. A clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while a majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 15 – If you answered 'No' to Question 14, outline why you believe this.

Around 1,440 respondents commented at Question 15.

The points raised at this question were often similar to those discussed earlier at Question 11, including in relation to the burden of proof for sanctions relating to grouse moor licences. This included some who repeated their objection to grouse shooting and who wished to see a total ban on grouse shooting.

Others who disagreed with proposals did not think that NatureScot should have the power to impose the listed penalties, again consistent with views expressed at Question 11. These respondents expressed concern that NatureScot's judgement does not provide sufficient grounds for penalties that could have a significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of licence-holders. Many respondents noted that they objected to NatureScot having the power to revoke a licence.

Proportionality of punishment

Concerns around the potential impact of penalties were also linked to a view that the proposed penalties are disproportionate to the offences. A number of respondents described the proposed punishment as too severe for wildlife crime offences. This included particular objection to the imposition of any permanent penalties, although some also felt that temporary suspension of a licence would also be a disproportionate punishment.

Some respondents also expressed concerns around the location-based nature of wildlife crime, and the challenges this creates for landowners. For example, it was noted that landowners do not have complete control over access to their land, nor the actions of those who access their land. It was also noted that illegally killed raptors may be found several miles from the site of the poisoning. There was a view that clear evidence of a causal link between the landowner and the crime would be required to justify the proposed penalties. Respondents also referred to the Werritty Report's recommendations, noting that these were focussed on the illegal killing of golden eagles, peregrines, and hen harriers. It was suggested that proposed penalties would extend the scope of the licensing scheme 'far beyond' this original policy aim.

The burden of proof

As was noted at Question 11, a frequent view was that the severity of proposed penalties should require more than a 'balance of probabilities' that a wildlife crime has taken place. This was most commonly linked to a view that a criminal standard of proof should be required, including some who argued that a licence should be suspended or revoked only following a successful criminal prosecution.

These respondents highlighted particular concerns around potential for vexatious and false accusations, and suggested that the civil standard of proof would not be sufficient to protect against these. Objection to the use of a civil standard were also linked to the concerns noted above in relation to the location-based nature of wildlife crime.

Impact of punishment

A key reason given in support of calls for a stronger burden of proof was the potential impact of the proposed penalties. Concerns about the potential impact were especially acute in relation to the potential revocation of a licence, but some also noted the potential for temporary suspension of a licence to have significant impacts for the licence holder and local communities.

Respondents referred to a range of direct consequences associated with losing a licence including immediate financial impacts and loss of employment, potentially also leading to the loss of tied housing. Wider economic and community impacts were also highlighted, with many of those commenting highlighting the importance of grouse shooting for local economies. There was reference to damage to local businesses, loss of community investment and the risk of rural depopulation (including an associated risk to local amenities such as schools and shops). Some also saw the potential for the proposed penalties to lead to ecological damage and a reduction in biodiversity, including loss of investment in programmes contributing to biodiversity and climate targets.

Based on these concerns, some respondents suggested that suspension or revocation of a licence required the additional safeguards provided by a criminal burden of proof.

Risk of sabotage

Concerns around the use of a civil burden of proof were also related to suggestions that this could be exploited by those opposed to grouse shooting to 'set up' land owners. This view was linked to comments noted earlier around the proposed focus on the location of crime; this was seen by some as providing an opportunity sabotage and/or vexatious allegations against licence holders.

Human Rights

A number of respondents objected to the proposals based on human rights-related concerns. As was discussed in relation to Question 11, this included reference to the potential for proposals to violate specific ECHR articles such as those relating to the right to a fair trial and equal treatment before the law. Concerns about the logic of linking the location of a crime to the landowner were noted. Some also saw the proposals as discriminatory against those with a licence to shoot grouse, in that these individuals would be subject to tougher sanctions than other licence holders.

On this basis, it was argued that a criminal burden of proof would be required for any suspension or revocation to protect such rights.

Existing wildlife crime legislation

Some respondents referred to existing legislation relating to wildlife crime, including raptor persecution specifically. It was suggested that this legislation makes sufficient provision for sanctioning of wildlife crime, and that licensing is not required. There was also a view that the same law (and associated penalties) should apply across all wildlife crime irrespective of location.

It was also suggested that proposals would add an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy in addition to existing legislation, and that guidance should be sufficient to ensure effective application of existing laws.

The role of NatureScot

Concerns about the proposed role for NatureScot were a source of concern for some of those opposed to the proposals. Associated comments included that licence revocation should not be within the power of any licensing body. There were also specific concerns around the capacity of NatureScot to take on the proposed role, with respondents referring to the potential for legal challenges that may detract from their 'core' work. Some suggested that NatureScot would require additional resourcing.

A small number of respondents also expressed a lack of confidence in NatureScot. This was linked to concerns around the existing application of restriction of General Licences where there is insufficient evidence to meet the legal test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It was suggested that this has damaged confidence in NatureScot as the regulator such that the new role proposed would not be appropriate.

A small number of respondents suggested alternative organisations that might deliver any requirements introduced through the proposals. Specific suggestions included local authorities, SSPCA, RSPB, Wildlife Crime Officers and the SGA or GWCT.

Procedure to suspend a licence

Some of those raising concerns around proposed penalties set out procedural elements they would wish to see introduced if a civil standard of proof is to be adopted. Specific suggestions included:

• Sanctions should only be triggered when there is robust evidence of a causal link between the licence holder and the crime – for example, that wildlife crime has been committed by the licence holder or a third party acting on their behalf. Some suggested that a licence should be suspended or revoked following successful criminal prosecution and/or following determination of any appeal.
• Suspension or revocation of a licence should be limited only to the individual committing wildlife crime - land owners and estates should be subject only to a written warning.
• In determining appropriate penalties, there should be consistency with the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. The length of any suspension of a licence should be proportionate to the offence and based on an impact assessment to consider the number of gamekeepers and family members adversely affected by the decision.
• A wider range of potential sanctions should be available, including financial penalties and seizing of land.
• Safeguards should be set out in primary legislation.
• A right to appeal should apply where there is a suspension or revocation of a licence – this was cited by some as a key reason for their objection to a civil burden of proof.

There were also specific suggestions relating to a robust appeals process, including that appeals should be to an independent body and should not be limited to Judicial Review.

Alternative views

A small number of those who disagreed at Question 14 felt that criminal rather than civil procedures would reduce the chance of illegal activities being perpetrated. Similar reasoning was also cited in opposition to proposals for written warnings; a small number of respondents wished to see a stronger and more immediate response to wildlife crime. Among respondents who agreed with proposals, reasons given included that:

• A civil burden of proof is the only realistic standard, given the challenges in securing criminal convictions for wildlife crimes committed in remote areas.
• A lower burden of proof based on a balance of probability was affirmed for use in similar circumstances by Lord Armstrong^[1].

Question 16 – Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Around 2,330 respondents provided a comment at Question 16. Many comments reiterated points made at Questions 2 to 15, and issues already addressed at these questions are referenced only briefly in the analysis below.

Comments in support of a licensing regime or further controls

A number of respondents noted their general support for the introduction of a licensing regime, with further comments including that this is a proportionate approach to tackling some longstanding issues of public concern. There was particular reference to crimes against birds of prey and other wildlife and the misuse and abuse of traps. It was also reported that:

• Attempts to cover up evidence continue to occur regularly, and particularly on land managed intensively for driven grouse shooting.
• There is a wealth of peer-reviewed evidence providing a clear and ongoing link between raptor persecution and grouse moor management.

A 'Conservation' organisation reported that their investigations team has assisted and supported the police in the follow-up to hundreds of raptor persecution and other wildlife crime incidents in Scotland over the last three decades, providing witness statements and testimony that has contributed to multiple successful prosecutions of those engaged in such crimes. The vast majority of these have been employees of gamebird shooting estates. An 'Animal welfare' organisation reported similar work from their special investigations unit.

There were also references to the impact on wild animals more widely, and it was reported that larger terrestrial invertebrates and birds of prey are generally not welcome on land managed for grouse shooting. It was suggested that, in circumstances where conflict arises between the presence of wild animals and their natural habitats and human interests, international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control should guide decision making.^[2] The associated view was that all wildlife management, including that on grouse moors, should be required to follow these ethical principles.

Some respondents made a connection between grouse moor management and the nature and climate emergencies, including that the State of Nature Scotland Report (2019) highlighted that 'widespread sporting management since the 19^th century had significant effects on upland wildlife'. The Report's reference to inappropriate muirburn was also noted. It was suggested that driven grouse moors are artificial landscapes where wildness, biodiversity, natural regeneration and carbon sequestration are severely compromised to ensure an abundance of red grouse for a few days shooting each year. There was also reference to some wildlife management practices on grouse moors damaging and polluting the environment, for example through the use of lead ammunition.

Some respondents, including some who saw the proposed licensing regime as a useful first step, were looking for more extensive changes. There was reference to the Werritty Report's suggestion that reflecting 'on the fundamental structure of the controls on hunting would be appropriate for a much deeper and more far-reaching review of the law and policy affecting that activity and related land use'. In particular, it was suggested that reform of grouse moor management could help deliver the Government's land reform aspirations and support a transition to more economically and environmentally productive uses of land. There was also reference to supporting the forthcoming Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and plans to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reverse it with large-scale restoration by 2045.

As noted above, those commenting in favour of introducing controls sometimes noted their support for the introduction of a licensing regime, albeit some were either looking for the licensing proposals to be strengthened or saw them as a first step. However, a number of respondents were either looking for more extensive controls to be introduced as soon as possible and/or simply favoured a ban on grouse shooting. Arguments made included that, in light of the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, use of land for grouse moors, and the over production of game birds for to be killed for 'sport' should not be tolerated. It was also suggested that grouse shooting causes immense suffering to both target and non-target species. There was reference to the killing of foxes, stoats, weasels, corvids and other animals for the purpose of increasing grouse numbers for sports shooting.

In terms of particular activities, there was reference to making driven grouse shooting illegal, and a suggestion that ultimately the only truly sustainable form of game shooting possible over large areas of the uplands will be low intensity 'walked up' shooting, carried out in the context of a wider suit of restoration and economically productive approaches to land management. It was also suggested that licences should prohibit the most intensive grouse moor management practices, including the burning of heather. This issue is covered in the Muirburn section (Questions 17 to 29). Other suggestions relating to licensing conditions and the management of grouse moors are set out below.

Parameters and basic conditions of licensing

Some of the suggestions made related to what or who should be covered by any licence. They included that:

• The licence should apply to both an individual landowner/sporting rights holder and a relevant area (or areas) of land.
• Any person responsible for or working on a grouse moor should have regard to the ethical principles of wildlife management - to protect against harm to ecosystems and wild animals.
• At initial licence application, factors such as being currently under a General Licence restriction should be taken into consideration.
• There should be protocols in place to ensure that violations of the licence terms or Code of Practice (discussed further below) are identified and result in licence revocation.

Respondents also raised wider concerns about limiting the licensing system to 'driven grouse shooting', and there were calls for it to cover all forms of grouse shooting in order to avoid loopholes that could be exploited to bypass licensing requirements. There was reference to red-legged partridges and pheasants increasingly being released on to land managed for grouse shooting. The associated concern was that if shooting of these species is not included in the licensing scheme it would be very easy for shoot managers to shift their focus to shooting red-legged partridge instead of grouse.

Code of Practice

The consultation paper sets out that the new licensing scheme will be accompanied by a Code of Practice for grouse moor managers. The Code of Practice will set out legal requirements, as well as strongly recommended practice and best practice guidance for moorland management. The Bill will provide that NatureScot may have regard to the Code of Practice when taking licensing decisions.

A number of those who supported some form of licensing commented on the important role they saw a Code of Practice playing. It was suggested that the Code should set out what must be done rather than what should be done, and that adhering to it should be a statutory requirement. A 'Conservation' organisation reported that their experience of the current Muirburn Code, as well as gamebird shooting industry voluntary best practice standards, is that non-statutory requirements are routinely ignored.

In terms of the Code itself, it was suggested that it should be based on an evidence-based approach signed off by the NatureScot Scientific Advisory Committee, and should:

• Include all regulation and best practice guidance relating to wildlife 'management', including trapping.
• Include issues relating to wider stewardship of the land such as the natural regeneration of native trees and preservation of mature trees.
• Outlaw the maintenance of deer numbers at artificially high levels in grouse shooting areas.

It was suggested that failing to adhere to the Code of Practice should result in automatic revocation of a licence.

Licences for shooters

Another common theme was that people involved in shooting gamebirds, or any wildlife, should need to have a shooting proficiency certificate or should need to pass a shooting proficiency test. It was reported that such proficiency tests are standard in many European countries and that typically certification includes a training course and then both theoretical and practical tests.

In terms of the requirements of such a certification, respondents referred to firearms safety and proficiency, wildlife identification, animal welfare, and understanding of the appropriate laws and best practice.

Other suggestions included that:

• Responsibility for ensuring all shooters have the necessary certification should lie with the licence holder.
• Certification should also be necessary for the killing of other game birds such as the red-legged partridge and pheasants. It was noted that in its response to the Deer Working Group Report the Scottish Government agreed that 'it is important to ensure that everyone who shoots deer in Scotland has the same basic level of training which would benefit both deer welfare and public safety.' It was suggested that, if this is the case for deer, there is no logical or scientific reason that it would not be the case for every other species being shot.

Medicated grit stations

A number of respondents commented on the use of medicated grit, including that the use of medicated grit stations should be banned due to the toxic effects on non-target species. The approach was described as amounting to mass medication that is unmonitored and unregulated, with an 'Animal welfare' organisation estimating that around two hundred thousand unregulated and unmonitored medicated grit stations may be spread throughout the uplands. They also reported that research shows contaminated grit stations to be a significant route for rapid disease transmission, not just in red grouse but other species of high conservation concern.

There was a call for use of medicated grit stations to be grounds for revoking of licence to operate. There was also a suggestion that, as part of a grouse licence return, a licence-holder should provide to NatureScot and the Veterinary Medications Directorate a copy of the prescription that permits the use of such veterinary medication, including details of the amounts used and period of use.

Licence fees

There was a view that the public should not have to cover the costs of the licensing regime and that licence fees should be charged at a level that would cover the costs of operating the licensing regime. With reference to NatureScot, it was suggested that fees should be charged on a cost-recovery basis to ensure that there is no impact on their wider conservation resources. However, it was also suggested that there may be a need for additional financial support from the Scottish Government to NatureScot.

The importance that a licence fee covers monitoring and enforcement costs was highlighted, with other views including that licence fees could be set at a higher level in order to support measures to address the harms to wildlife and the environment caused by grouse shooting. It was also suggested that monies could be raised for the Scottish Land Fund, to aid the Scottish Government in its land reform goals for more equitable land ownership and more community buyouts.

Additional concerns about a licensing regime or further controls

A number of respondents who had generally disagreed with the proposals set out, and in particular who had disagreed that a licensing regime should be introduced, also went on to make a further comment. As noted above, many of these comments reflected points made at previous questions and the focus of the analysis below is on other issues raised.^[3]

Economic and social impacts of licensing

Respondents raised a number of concerns relating to the potential social and economic impact of licensing grouse shooting. It was suggested that there seems to be little focus from the Scottish Government on the benefits the grouse shooting sector produces, particularly in terms of income and employment in rural areas. It was suggested that the impact of licensing proposals on the rural economy will be severe.

In terms of particular types or scale of impact that shooting businesses have:

• There was reference to shooting estates providing permanent and seasonal employment. For example, one 'Land management' organisation reported that they own and manage an upland estate with a grouse moor, employing three gamekeepers and providing housing for them and their families.
• Some respondents, including some private sector business owners, noted their concerns about the possible 'knock-on' impact on their own or other businesses in the local area.
• It was suggested that the provision of employment and housing helps retain population in rural areas, including remote rural areas, and that this helps local services, including local schools, remain viable.

It was also suggested that shooting has been shown to provide a unique mix of wellbeing benefits for participants – from getting people active, to reducing social isolation and encouraging engagement with the natural environment.

Environmental benefits of grouse moor management

The other main theme was that the proposals do not recognise the important role that grouse moor management plays in successful habitat management and in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. For example, a 'Land management' organisation referred to having staff to manage the land for wildlife, carry out peatland restoration work and work on other environmental projects. There was also reference to activities associated with managing a grouse moor helping to facilitate safe public access for those wishing to spend time in remote rural areas. In terms of the connection to grouse shooting as a business, it was suggested that it provides a workable model for managing upland areas that helps fund environmental and other work.

There was an associated concern that a licensing process could risk abandonment of upland management or inappropriate changes in land use without adequate research. One possible alternative land use cited was tree planting, and there was reference to research suggesting that planting of trees onto heather moorland did not lead to an increase in net ecosystem carbon stocks even decades after planting. It was also reported that the SRUC's 2020 report on the Socio-economic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland found no demonstrably better land use alternatives.