Seòmar agus comataidhean

Petitioner submission of 26 August 2021

PE1859/C - Retain falconers rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland

The addition of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus) to schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act from March the 1st 2021, was, in my view, expedited in a highly unusual manner and very quickly. The process allowed time for neither stakeholder, nor even the government’s own advisory body (NatureScot) to submit specific data, facts nor concerns.

Tabled, briefly debated and passed during the global Covid-19 pandemic was (cynically) probably unfair. It is my belief that the pandemic itself was used as a smokescreen to bury the passing of the legislation leaving it missed or at least overlooked by those who would otherwise contribute while they dealt with the stress, trauma, lost lives and livelihoods in the grip of the pandemic.

I believe that one reason the legislation was accelerated so significantly in comparison to similar submissions, is that without the pandemic restrictions, Nature Scot would probably have been given the time and opportunity to make their thoughts known, and thus have them considered. We now have confirmation that NatureScot, the government’s own wildlife advisory and licensing authority, were never consulted in advance about the amendment to the Act. Is it not highly unorthodox for a government to pass an amendment to far reaching legislation with no consultation with their advisors on the topic. One has to question the reason for this.

Indeed, landowners allowing the proliferation of hares on their land to attract the revenue from visiting falconers likely means that in the real world, falconry leads to an increase in hare population. Especially when considered beside the fact that falconers birds, like their wild counterparts, demonstrate natural selection and remove the sick, weak, old and infirm animals, leaving the strong to pass on their stronger genetic map.

NatureScot have confirmed that from a conservation and all other standpoints, that they would have ’No hesitation in considering applications from falconers for licences to take hares for the purpose of falconry’ as the numbers taken are utterly insignificant.

Evidence exists on the ground showing highly robust hare populations on managed land, from people on the ground, available advice from the government’s own advisory body, and advice in the governments consultative paper (The Werrity Report) suggests that licensing should be considered in perhaps 5 years time and then only for shooting and if hares are proven to be at an unfavourable population.

Sadly, despite this, the government has seen fit to steamroller the amendment through based on, what I believe to be, a protectionist ideology and has made no provision for the allowance for the continuation of falconry in the uplands, nor a licensing avenue for falconers to follow.

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 Section 16 is a list pertaining to wild birds, which allows for licensing by certain agencies for those birds to be taken, and on the list of licenses that can be authorised is ‘For the purpose of falconry or aviculture’. Subsection (3) in section 16 of the act shows a similar list but in this case relates to ‘wild animals’. In this case, the exemption for the ‘purpose of falconry’ is missing. Our direct consultation (which has not been completed by the Scottish Government) with NatureScot confirms that they ‘Cannot identify why it is absent, nor see any justification for its absence’.

In summary, I must note that government has failed to establish the state of the hare population in Scotland that was required under the Werrity Report, (counts were not possible under Covid-19 restrictions) ignores evidence that it is very strong. Despite the Environment Secretary assurances that careful consideration would be recommendation and other evidence, including meetings with stakeholders and advisory bodies, none were completed.

Despite The Werrity report being entirely focussed on shooting and a 5 year study plan and making no allusion that falconry should be included.

Despite burgeoning evidence that falconry has no negative effects on mountain hare populations, and indeed likely assists in increasing hare numbers.

Despite all these points, I believe that the Scottish Government has failed utterly to complete any due diligence or properly understand the subject they have legislated.

I request that the Committee should support a request for an amendment to the Act allowing mountain hares to be taken ‘for the purpose of falconry’ or to allow licences to allow hares to be taken for ’the purpose of falconry’.

I also request that any debate on this matter by the Scottish Parliament should include a full submission of evidence and recommendation by the Scottish Government’s own wildlife advisory body and licensing authority, NatureScot.