Myth-busting claims over licensed grouse
New legislation in Scotland meant the 2024 grouse season was the first under which moors must be licensed — but do the reports match reality?
Last year’s grouse season in Scotland was the first with licensing in place. Despite the illegal killing of birds of prey being at a historic low, the Scottish government pressed ahead and introduced licensing, seemingly to quell the furore from the various organisations against grouse shooting. Yet what has become apparent over the months since licensing in Scotland became law is that those anti-shooting organisations are spreading myths about the licensing scheme — a scheme they fought so vehemently to have introduced.
We all know these groups don’t want to see licensing work. They simply want an outright ban on grouse shooting, despite the untold damage that would cause to rural areas. Anti-shooting organisations had the chance to shape the legislation too, through political lobbying, similarly to BASC. It appears now they failed to engage when the parliamentary process was in full swing.
BASC worked hard to ensure the disproportionate powers around licence suspension based on allegation were removed, and that licence duration was extended to five years instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of annual renewal.
Now, left reeling in their inaction and lack of political credibility, the anti groups are fabricating myths around how BASC and others have supposedly “hijacked” the grouse licensing process. With the 2024 season finished, this offers a natural point for BASC to reflect and address claims by anti-shooting groups about the new grouse moor licensing scheme.
Some of these organisations have claimed there has been a “sabotage” of the grouse shoot licensing process because the initial request to mark the land defined for shooting has been changed. The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 clearly states grouse moors, not entire estates or landholdings, must be licensed. NatureScot — which issues the licences — corrected initial misinterpretations promptly, thanks to the work of BASC.
It has also been alleged that licence applicants have been using “fake” grouse shoot licence boundaries to avoid scrutiny.
The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 couldn’t have been any clearer on what was to be licensed: “licensing: land on which certain birds may be taken or killed”. NatureScot has said that no licences have been granted using inappropriate or unrepresentative boundaries, for example solely an area around grouse butts.
Further to this, these anti-shooting organisations have suggested that the Scottish parliament’s will wasn’t upheld. Quite the contrary: the legislation was debated, scrutinised, agreed and voted on, all by the will of the Scottish Parliament. BASC was present at all stages of the Bill passing and it was clear this was a thorough and transparent scrutiny process.
Shooting organisations, like all stakeholders, lobbied to ensure it did not stray from policy intent to become overbearing for our members. BASC held hundreds of hours of meetings with MSPs to discuss the impact of licensing on our members.
Misinterpretation
To top it all off, amid a plethora of myths and misinterpretation, some of them have claimed that raptor protection is no longer at the core of licensing. In fact, though, the new conditions for tackling the illegal killing of birds of prey are reasonable and enforceable.
BASC has worked tirelessly to ensure the licence scheme is workable for our members, from gamekeepers right through to land managers. We didn’t want to see licensing introduced; nonetheless, a thorough scrutiny process and now a licensing regime has been implemented. It is paramount that we continue to rebut the speculative and unfounded claims by anti-shooting organisations, especially as their myth-spreading does a disservice to the professionalism of those who manage and operate grouse moors in Scotland.
