Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill Scotland: Publication of Scotland-only answers and exclusion of gamekeepers sparks concerns over 'misleading' figures

The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is currently hearing stakeholder evidence as part of its Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill.

Misleading data and omitting key stakeholders in evidence have been cited as some of the concerns over the handling of Scotland’s proposed Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill, according to rural groups.

Introduced in March, the Bill contains measures to address issues such as wildlife crime and raptor persecution. The proposals also look at a more strict licensing system for muirburn – the controlled burning of vegetation.

The rural affairs and islands committee held a consultation on the provisions of the Bill, which closed last month.

What does the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill mean for Scotland?

It has since published responses from the 109 organisations who replied. A second report summarises the answers from the 5,596 individuals who responded.

Responses from Scotland-only addresses were published exclusively in the second report, despite some 54 per cent of answers coming from outside of the country.

The British Association of Shooting and Conservation (BASC) said this presented “transparency issues” because the committee failed to warn respondents from the outset their opinion might not be included if they were not a Scotland resident.

Some rural group have raised concern over the transparency of results published by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the responses to the consultation on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill (pic: Graeme Hart/SLE)

The organisation has since insisted the report be updated as it “fundamentally changed the weight of public opinion on grouse shoot regulation and licensing and muirburn licensing”.

The Scotland-only answers said there should be additional regulation of land used to shoot red grouse (53 per cent versus 45 per cent), and more regulation for muirburn (52 per cent versus 42 per cent).

According to BASC, responses to the consultation as a whole, however, were against the need for more land regulation for grouse shooting – 49 per cent versus 48 per cent, with 55 per cent against the proposed licensing system for it compared to 36 per cent.

On muirburn regulation, answers taken as a whole show 47 per cent were against what is proposed, while 39 per cent are in favour.

Peter Clark, BASC Scotland director, said the committee’s approach had been “misleading”. “It is vital that the MSPs on the committee have accurate and complete figures to hand when scrutinising the Bill,” he said.

Scotland wildfires: What's the latest advice on how to manage Scottish moorlands with wildfire risk?

The committee page has been updated to show answers from in and outwith Scotland separately, but not as a whole. Another concern raised has been the absence of gamekeepers invited to the evidence session for muirburn.

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) said “there is no representation from any practitioners directly involved in carrying out muirburn in Scotland”.

“With the exception of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who put fires out, those currently billed to give evidence have no actual management experience of using fire in the landscape,” an SGA spokesperson said.

"As a result, the session is likely to lack that important input … this is perhaps an omission.”

Just last week, Kate Forbes, SNP MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, lodged a motion in Parliament commending gamekeepers and firefighters for their efforts tackling a wildfire in the Highlands. Controlled burning is used as one method by some land managers as a way of creating fire breaks to prevent the spread of wildfires.

In response to concerns, a spokesperson for the committee said: “The oral evidence sessions were agreed by the committee.

“Unfortunately, it is not always possible to include all interested stakeholder groups and individuals in oral evidence sessions, but all written evidence received informs committee deliberations and so the SGA’s views will be taken into account on all Bill provisions it has commented on.”

Rory Kennedy, director of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, said it was “bizarre” the wildlife charity, which is one of few organisations that carries out research of wildlife traps, has not been called for evidence in relation to the Bill’s proposals on trapping.

"We devised how to do best practice trapping – the most humane method, and we advocate moving away from snares to more modern, humane methods,” he said.

Mr Kennedy added: “What we really need to look at is the science. With public consultations, some of the views, in short, will be totally irrelevant."