Evidence and principles ignored again

In this article for My Countryside magazine, Jake Swindells, Director of the Scottish Countryside Alliance looks at the tug of war over hunting laws in Scotland. 

Politicians love to talk about the importance of evidence and principle, but we end up with policies and laws that are neither principled nor evidence based. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to hunting. In Scotland this is compounded by the hypocrisy of the SNP. In 2015, the SNP leader, then Nicola Sturgeon, stated that her MPs at Westminster would never vote on laws only affecting England and Wales and used the 2004 Hunting Act as an example. Within weeks she had changed her mind and would threaten to use her MPs to block sensible proposals to bring the Hunting Act into line with Scotland. To save face the Scottish Government then announced that a senior judge, Lord Bonomy, would review the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act. Unfortunately for them, Lord Bonomy concluded not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country. Untroubled by the evidence and ignoring its own review, a ban on the use of more than two dogs was announced, but it took over two years to come to that decision and mostly because the Scottish Countryside Alliance was very clear that legislating in direct contradiction of peer-reviewed science and its own independent reviewer would be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. To avoid any legal challenge, they were forced to include a licensing scheme to allow the use of more than two dogs which in Lord Bonomy’s opinion is what makes the legislation ‘viable’. 

Under the new law anyone can use two dogs to flush to guns for certain purposes set out in the Act, such as preventing serious damage to livestock, just as they could use a pack for the same purpose under the older legislation. If a person wishes to use more than two dogs, then they must be licensed but a licence can only be granted if the licensing authority (NatureScot) is satisfied that there is no other effective solution to achieve that purpose. This approach is modelled on other wildlife licences, such as those to prevent damage from pest bird species and has been applied reasonably and proportionately for many decades. There is no reason why it should not also work for licensing more than two dogs, except that NatureScot has decided to take an approach that is different to other comparable licences. The whole process set out in their guidance seems designed to be as burdensome as possible. It is clear there is no practical understanding of how dogs are used and not only is the current approach unworkable, but it seeks to be more restrictive than the Act itself. It bears little resemblance to the licensing regime described by the Minister and her officials. NatureScot is on record saying that they have set a “high bar” for a licence to be granted. Surely the “bar” is set by the legislation as it is for other wildlife licences? Why is the bar set differently between comparable regimes? Why are those controlling foxes and protecting livestock using dogs singled out for different treatment to those wishing to control pest birds for the same reason? Even if ministers do not like it, there is a law in place which allows for the use of more than two dogs to control foxes and other mammals. Lord Bonomy was quite clear about the serious damage that could result to livestock if packs cannot be used to find and flush foxes. A person who fulfils the legislative requirements should be licensed and we will not back down from challenging either the government or its agency if they operate unlawfully.

The contempt in which the Scottish Government seems to hold rural people was quite clear when it laid the order to bring the law into force without informing any stakeholders or even having a licensing scheme in place. Guidance was published on a Thursday evening with the law coming into force at midnight the following Monday. There was no time for anyone to put together an application to use more than two dogs, let alone for NatureScot to process it. This situation is unacceptable but not surprising. Perhaps indicative of the level of ignorance within the Scottish Government on these issues is the definition in the Act of “enclosed gamebirds” that “are being kept enclosed prior to their release for sporting purposes”. The Scottish Government seems to think this includes “grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game or ptarmigan”. It would be funny if it was not so tragic. The Scottish Government is not interested in facts, evidence or principle, all that matters is politics and nowhere more so than where hunting is concerned.