Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would that be possible with just one or two dogs?

Would foxes be included in the definition of ground game?

Last week—it might have been earlier; the discussions are all merging together—we heard that the use of dogs will be tied to a specific activity. That is the intention—that is, the revised intention—of the bill. If I have correctly understood the evidence that we have heard, it seems to be the Government’s intention that, if a person shoots a wild mammal that has been flushed by someone else’s dog, they will not fall foul of the legislation, as long as only one or two dogs flushed the mammal. That is because, for the purpose of that activity, it can be claimed that those dogs are owned by the shooter.

Mr Telford, do you see issues with the idea that dog ownership is interchangeable, depending on the activity and the time? How would that function?

I have a quick follow-up question for DS Telford just to give me a bit more of an understanding of the practicalities of enforcement. I am not sure how you envision things working in practice now, or how you envision them working in the future, but would you tend not to “join” but to “visit” rough shoots, or would you say that you “dropped into” them? Would they come into your frame of work only if there was an accusation of some illegality? How does it work?

I have a quick comment on Jim Fairlie’s point about the purpose of the bill. I accept that point, but we need to be mindful of the effect of the bill, and we are hearing that the effect will be changes to current practices. It is important that we acknowledge and explore that.

Thank you.

I have a question about enforcement—I will be guided by the convener if he feels that it does not fit here.

We have discussed the enforcement of the section 6 exception relating to no more than two dogs being used for sporting activity, and we have been talking today about rough shooting and how it might be difficult to ascertain which dogs were used, who was using them and so on.

If that limit was removed, would there not be enforcement issues, because activities would take place with more than two dogs? Would there not be issues around enforcing the limit in non-sporting areas, such as mounted hunts? Would there not be confusion?

I guess that what I am getting at is that, although we have heard that there are enforcement issues relating to the limit in this instance, if it was not there, would there not be other enforcement issues?

I am a Labour Party list MSP for the North East Scotland region.

Alex Hogg talked about the different breeds of dog that are used in different activities to flush different kinds of prey. Are foxes ever flushed on a rough shoot?

Yes, although I think that there is still some confusion.