Seòmar agus comataidhean

Alex Matossian submission of 29 September 2021

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

NatureScot’s advice must be sought/known direct to the Committee. As the Scottish Government’s response to enquirers stated, NatureScot are statutory advisor to Scottish Ministers on policies relating to natural heritage. Crucially it doesn’t reveal that NatureScot weren’t consulted, as they certainly should have been, about Alison Johnstone MSP’s late amendment to the Animals & Wildlife Act 2020 which then passed without relevant scrutiny. NatureScot can give informed and independent responses about conservation status of Mountain Hares in Scotland and the unfortunate consequences of the 2020 Act in its current form, as well as remedies to resolve that. I’d also recommend representations from the Rural Affairs, Islands & Natural Environment Committee be sought.

Discussion in the 1st Sept meeting concentrated on 'freedoms' of falconry raptors, which are important for the maintenance of animal welfare and enrichment. Paul Sweeney's late intervention was also very welcome as it reeled the conversation back toward a focus; a technical problem with the 2020 Act and an anomaly in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It is debatable whether Mountain Hares (MHs) in Scotland should have been afforded extra protection the amendment sought, resulting in licensing of the culling of MHs. The Werrity Review’s clear recommendations were primarily for a legal obligation to report numbers of MHs where shooting takes place, data gathering led by Scottish National Heritage (NatureScot), and only if the conservation status were thereafter found 'unfavourable' that licensing then be introduced. NatureScot however only categorise the status of MHs 'unfavourable with inadequate data' (the latter simply meaning that no viable count has taken place; the population status therefore unknown; but Scottish Government, Scottish Greens and pressure groups would have you believe otherwise, sometimes with alarming unsubstantiated 'data'). Such legislation should be based on empirical science but the Scottish Government-commissioned Werritty Review recommendations with regard to MHs were bypassed and leapfrogged by this legislation. It is ironic that an amendment ill-conceived as the antidote to media images of piles of gun-shot MHs results in the issuance of licences to those requiring to cull MHs by shooting, probably in relatively large numbers, but prevents licensing for a few falconers for taking small numbers of MHs.

It was likely that the urge to rush-through the amendment and quickly enact the Act caused an oversight that:

it unjustifiably discriminates against falconry; and

it likely hadn’t been identified that, in order to enable falconers to continue to lawfully hunt limited numbers of MHs with a large raptor in Scotland, some further minor amendment/s would also be necessary to the W & C Act 1981 in Scotland.

Although the legislation/amendment did pass last year, it doesn’t follow that MHs in Scotland are therefore at significantly low numbers (as both Bill Kidd and Tess White seemed to assume); because counts simply haven’t been done. Bill Kidd’s expressed opposition to falconers hunting MHs was unconvincing, however I can believe MSPs will’ve received many ill-informed letters from constituents, after the Scottish Greens’-distributed template letter (see below). I think SNP/Green MSPs are prepared to overlook facts and throw falconry under the bus rather than admit to flaws in their actions. Even worse, the possibility Scottish Greens and/or SNP intentionally struck a blow to the sport of falconry. Citizens long-held rights should never be relinquished easily, especially if the so-called justification and procedure for it are, in my view, patently flawed.

I feel that it’s disturbing, following passing of the legislation during chaos of the first Covid 19 surge, that Scottish Greens sought to hasten its enactment by distributing a pre-composed template letter for constituents to fill in their own name, and their MSP's, in the blanks and send, to pressure MSPs to speed up their agenda.

It stated ‘You will be aware that in parts of their range, where the dominant land use is intensive grouse moor management, mountain hare populations are now at less than one percent of the levels found in 1954. Mountain hares have been categorised as having unfavourable conservation status. There is not a moment to waste.’

I have twice emailed Scottish Greens enquiring about the source of their ‘data’ but I have received no response. A source at NatureScot has advised me that they believe populations of MHs on managed grouse moors are significantly healthier than elsewhere.

The word 'falconry' is misleading Committee members. When hunting MHs ‘falcons’ are not used but mostly eagles, especially Golden Eagle (Scotland's unofficial National Bird) and sometimes other large hawks/buzzards. The number of falconers in Scotland isn’t entirely relevant; only a small percentage hunt MHs, probably only a few occasions per year, perhaps not even every year, each taking relatively few MHs in total per season. There may also be a few visiting falconers from elsewhere in U.K. who hunt MHs. Since Brexit it isn’t practical for foreign falconers to bring hunting birds to Scotland.

I think that, as I have been advised by a contact at NatureScot, MH numbers taken in the pursuit of falconry in Scotland has insignificant impact on their population/conservation.