Scottish General Licences
April 2007
Introduction
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation (NGO) is pleased to make this submission to assist the Scottish Executive (SEERAD) with its ongoing review of the General Licences for the control of certain birds in Scotland. These licences are of particular significance to gamekeepers, who rely on them more than any other user group, so we hope our comments will be given appropriate attention.
For the record, the NGO was founded in 1997 and now has over 10,600 members. It represents the gamekeeping profession in England and Wales but also has members in Scotland and so comments on gamekeeping issues north of the Border as well. More details about the organisation can be found on our website: http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/.
The lead body for gamekeeping in Scotland is of course the Scottish Gamekeepers' Association and we urge officials to pay particular attention to their comments on this issue. We are also aware that the Game Conservancy Trust and BASC Scotland have made detailed submissions and we support the comments they have made.
General Points
Justification for Change
Occasional review of the licensing arrangements is a good thing and we welcome some of the suggestions in the consultation for making the General Licences clearer and more consistent. Simplification is always welcome. However, SEERAD's far-reaching proposals are being made on the basis that the licences need to be "brought up to date" and "made more relevant". These may seem desirable ambitions but there is no clear evidence that the current licences are not working. Whilst we agree that sensible changes should indeed be made, we do not support change for the sake of it, particularly when it is legally significant and/or could have serious wildlife management implications.
Cross Border Consistency
Our other general point is that it is not helpful to have subtly differing licence conditions for Scotland, England and Wales. Wildlife law is complicated enough for the user to understand as it is, without unnecessary and over-complicated distinctions between the home nations. Gamekeepers often change between jobs in Scotland and England and they all get their information about the law from one set of country magazines. As the consultation papers point out, clarity is important. There should therefore be a presumption that the licences north and south of the Border will be the same unless there is good reason (eg climatic or environmental variation) for them to be different.
Specific Comments
KEY POINT: ‘No other satisfactory solution'
We are told in the consultation papers that: "A legal condition will be inserted to ensure that these licences may not be used unless there is no other satisfactory solution." This phrase appears, for example, in the introduction to draft licence SGEN1.
Elsewhere in the papers it is suggested control under the licences should only be allowed in response to "an actual threat".
We are also told that, "The conditions of the control licences have been tightened to ensure that the licences are not used as an excuse to 'cull' certain species on the basis that they are generally considered a pest species. (General Condition 15).
Another new condition states that "A person using a General Licence must now have considered alternative non-lethal methods of control, be convinced that they could not prove effective without excessive cost, and be able to explain their reasoning to an officer of the law if so required." (General Condition 16).
It must be understood by SEERAD that changes of this nature are major issues for licence users. Having to show an actual threat, let alone explain that there was no other satisfactory solution, with proven costs, would be new and demanding departures from the status quo.
Such requirements would dramatically affect the legal basis of woodpigeon shooting, for example, as well as much gamekeeping activity. They cannot be justified.
We presume that these highly significant changes are based on the erroneous but oft-pedaled view that they are in some way required by the 1979 EC Birds Directive. This is not the case. The Birds Directive does not require that individuals show ‘no other satisfactory solution' before they can rely on a licence. It is the governments of member states that have to show this, when putting a system of licences in place under the Article 9 derogation.
This has recently been confirmed in the European Commission's own ‘Sustainable Hunting Guidance', issued under Article 9 of the Directive and by even clearer guidance given in relation to derogations from the equivalent Habitats Regulation[1].
Indeed, the Scottish Executive itself appears to accept this interpretation when it writes in its consultation document "The Executive does not believe that there is at present any other satisfactory alternative to the issue of such licences. General Licences allow users to take action as and when necessary, and were the licences not in place, there would be serious risks to public safety, agriculture and wild birds." Yet it goes on to propose a restriction based around individuals having to justify their actions.
When a requirement for individuals to show ‘no other satisfactory solution' was erroneously introduced into the equivalent English licences in 2005, Ministers had to back down and have them changed back within weeks because they found there was no legal basis for the inclusion. It was gold-plating of the worst kind.
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation will fight strongly, and in public if necessary, just as we did in England in 2005, to have these new and unjustified aspects of the Scottish proposals dropped.
Professional/Amateur Use and Control in Gardens
The SEERAD proposals suggest that amateurs should not be allowed to shoot and trap pest birds, nor should traps or shooting be allowed in domestic gardens (SGEN1). These changes would restrict many people in Scotland who currently rely on the licences. These changes are not needed nor justified.
Providing someone is complying with the licence (in terms of what is being controlled, their justification for controlling it and the way they are operating), it can make no difference, either to the welfare of the birds concerned or their conservation status, whether that person is a ‘professional' or an ‘amateur'. Nor can it matter whether they are shooting or trapping in a garden or a field.
There are also serious practical difficulties with defining the terms ‘professional', ‘amateur' and ‘domestic garden', so we believe these new and unjustified restrictions should be dropped completely.
Trap Inspection Times
Inspection of cage traps "within each 24 hour period", as proposed, effectively means having to check traps earlier and earlier each day. Gamekeepers normally check traps during a daily round, every morning, for example. If they are delayed at one trap during their round, they will be ‘late' arriving at subsequent traps. The alternative approach being discussed in England is "Once a day between dawn and dusk" which is better but still not ideal because this period of time varies hugely at different times of year, especially in northern latitudes. It could be problematic in Scotland, for example, for part-time keepers who have to check traps in winter after a full day's work elsewhere. We think a more flexible approach is needed and we would be happy to discuss this point.
Numbering Traps, Records and Returns
The proposals that all traps should be tagged with the phone number of the trap user are without justification and would create a great opportunity for mischief-makers. If traps have to be inspected regularly by the users (who understand what the law requires and the welfare needs of decoys etc), where is the benefit in others, who may well not understand what is going on, being given the chance to interfere? If traps carry private phone numbers, the scope for anti-social phone-calls from animal rights campaigners to gamekeepers and other trap users would be considerable.
Nor do we see any need to formalize record-keeping, let alone to make returns of actual captures to SEERAD. Trap uses know where their traps are and invariably keep their own record of what they catch. It is disproportionately bureaucratic to formalize this. The suggested justification that bird captures at airports already have to be notified is irrelevant. That has a public safety dimension, which doesn't apply to pest bird control by gamekeepers or on farms. If SEERAD go down this route, its logical end is for anyone who shoots a pigeon to have to tell the executive about it. Who would collate all that information, at what cost and for what purpose?
Ban on Controlling Gulls
The proposed changes to the ‘gamekeepers' licence (SGEN1) would ban the control of herring gulls, and greater and lesser black backed gulls throughout Scotland. This would cause serious problems for grouse moor management because all three species can be serious predators of grouse. The essential control of these species by gamekeepers is already targeted to where they are causing conservation problems. Numbers taken are relatively small, though highly significant in terms of grouse and wildlife protection. Taking these gulls under licence in this way has not been shown to be harmful to the species concerned. It should therefore not be prevented.
Restriction of Decoy Species
It is proposed that only crows and magpies be allowed as decoys in Larsen traps. Why? Rooks and jackdaws may occasionally be used if circumstances require it. Where is the evidence that this is a problem and should be stopped?
Over-wintering Decoys
The suggestion that the over-wintering of decoys should be banned is without justification and would cause real problems for gamekeepers. Catching the first birds in Spring without any decoy birds available is extremely difficult. Where is the evidence that over-wintering decoy birds is a problem? They are well-protected by the new animal welfare legislation. Again, this is unjustified gold-plating, driven no doubt by bird protection bodies.
Woodpigeons
We have commented earlier on the dangers of the changing the legal basis for woodpigeon shooting (see page 2). This species has also been included in error on the first proposed licence, SGEN1, as one "that may be a threat to other birds". Woodpigeons should of course be on the second licence, which is to do with agricultural damage.
Sighting Devices
The proposal to restrict the use of ‘sighting devices' to feral pigeon control alone would effectively make it illegal to use any rifle or air rifle with a telescopic sight - perhaps even just with an open sight - to shoot a rook, crow, magpie, woodpigeon or any other pest bird on the licences. This is clearly nonsense and would render illegal a large amount of current pest control practice.
Conclusion
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation is unimpressed by SEERAD's consultation. It contains many errors and misunderstandings and if the ideas within it are pursued unaltered they will create serious problems for gamekeepers and other licence users in Scotland.
Many of the problems we have highlighted above could have been avoided had the NGO been properly consulted during the face to face meetings SEERAD says it held "with a number of key organisations" during 2005.
We would therefore very much like to be part of the ongoing discussions on these matters before any firm conclusions are reached.
Gamekeepers in Scotland have more to lose on this than most through what is being proposed here, so we look forward to sitting down in due course with SEERAD, the Scottish Gamekeepers' Association and others to take these matters forward.
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/species_protection/library?l=/commission_guidance/final-completepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d Page 58 section III 2.2. paras 34 and 35 especially.