This is the last opportunity for the Scottish public - via a consultation - to officially urge the Scottish parliament to strengthen the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill.
As it stands it's an important intervention in land management but it needs to go further. We need YOUR help to get us there.
The deadline is May 5th.
* For this consultation we strongly encourage you to not simply copy and paste what is below and to maximise the individuality of your response by adding your personal thoughts and comments.
* The link to responding to this consultation is here and also at the end of the bullet points below. Don't forget to share this page with your networks!
Glue traps
Q1. Do you agree with the proposed ban on the use and purchase of glue traps (sections 1-3)?
YES: you may wish to highlight the following points:
- Your thoughts on the cruelty of these traps
- That a good use of a wildlife management bill is to end the cruelty of wildlife killing and trapping
Wildlife traps
Q2. Do you agree there is a need for additional regulation of the use of certain wildlife traps?
YES: You might want to discuss your views on the following :
- You think the Scottish Government should adopt the International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control for all wildlife management.
- The ethics of trapping & killing hundreds of thousands of animals, so more animals can be shot for sport – ‘killing to kill’.
- Your thoughts on the reasons wildlife should be trapped/killed, if at all, compared to grouse moors.
- Snaring is already regulated, in the way that is proposed for these traps. Your thoughts on snares being banned completely in line with most other European nations.
- The Bill does not require trappers to record the numbers of animals killed. Grouse moors need to be more transparent.
Q3. Do you agree with the proposed licensing system for the use of certain wildlife traps (sections 4-5)?
YES: BUT You might want to discuss your views on the following :
- Monitoring tens of thousands of traps should be done effectively but at no cost to public – with full cost recovery
- Statutory training scheme administered by NatureScot is better than an industry led scheme but 10 years refresher is too long
- Animal welfare should be more of a consideration in the proposed scheme – perhaps mention the 7 principles mentioned above and the need to use methods that cause less suffering
Licensing scheme for land used to shoot red grouse
Q4. Do you agree there is a need for additional regulation of land to be used to shoot red grouse?
YES: You might want to discuss your views on the following:
- That voluntary enforcement has failed for decades and raptor persecution has continued – current deterrents are not enough
- How intensively managed grouse moors and the need for more grouse for sport shooting has negatively affected animal welfare, your communities, the environment
- That the licence should require the number of grouse shot be recorded to measure intensive land management practices
- Your personal reasons & discuss the circle of destruction that surrounds grouse shooting
Q5. Do you agree with the proposed licensing system for land to be used to shoot red grouse (sections 6-7)?
YES: BUT you might want to discuss your views on the following:
- For effective monitoring and administration costs – licence fees should mean at least full cost recovery
- There should be a named responsible person holding the licence to avoid loopholes
- That it should be easy to add other bird species to the licence system – stopping loopholes from developing over time
- That the mass chemical medication of grouse should end
Additional powers to investigate wildlife crime
Q6. Do you agree with the proposal to give the Scottish SPCA additional powers to investigate wildlife crime (section 8)?
YES: You might want to discuss your views on:
- Increased investigation of animal welfare offences and for tackling wildlife crime, which goes largely undetected
Licensing scheme for muirburn
Q7. Do you agree there is a need for additional regulation for muirburn?
YES: You might want to discuss your views on the following:
- Muirburn for grouse stops peatlands from rewetting, sequestering more carbon & more biodiverse landscapes developing
- Peat in a degraded state emits carbon and muirburn for grouse stops recovery
- Public investment in peatland protection is in the hundreds of millions. Burning for grouse puts that at risk
- Your experiences of moorland burning locally
- Muirburn for grouse is part of the circle of destruction that surrounds grouse shooting – damaging the environment and disturbing local wildlife
Q8. Do you agree with the proposed licensing system for muirburn (sections 9-19)?
YES: BUT you might want to discuss your views on the following:
- A licence to muirburn should not be given for a purpose as unnecessary and harmful as grouse shooting
- Defining peat at 40cm deep to protect more of it is good but should go further – 30cm deep or stop burning on all peat
- For effective monitoring and administration costs – licence fees should mean at least full cost recovery
- Breaking muirburn licence should effect a grouse moor licence
- Proposed muirburn season may end too late for ground nesting birds – damaging nests and creating disturbance
LINK TO ANSWERING THE CONSULTATION IS HERE
*Using the link just above, please fill in the public consultation. You can right-click it to open a new tab so you can refer to our guide throughout.
Thanks for taking time to offer your views - it really does make a big difference for our people, our wildlife and the environment.
*Note, that the link below redirects you to an unrelated article
