Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Ewing did say that he would consider reducing the shoot to only two dogs due to fears about vexatious accusations.

I just wanted to establish, which I think we have, whether some form of enjoyment and killing could take place, and it sounds like it could.

Does it follow that the absence of hounds does not necessarily rule out foxes having been flushed and killed in that activity?

On that point, do we have any data on the proportion of rural residents who take part in rough shooting?

In what way will having only two dogs prevent enjoyment?

Yes.

So, those on a rough shoot could voluntarily notify you that it was taking place if there were any concerns about accusations being made.

Just for your peace of mind, I suppose.

Now that we have had an opportunity to review the written evidence that we received last week—there was a significant amount—I, too, have some outstanding confusion after today’s session with the bill team. As long as we have a balance of groups coming in, I think that it would be beneficial to have a round-table session.

I have two follow-up questions about the number of people and the number of dogs on a shoot. First, the convener said that, on a rough shoot, dogs are typically—or might be—managed by beaters or others who are not shooting. Is that a practice that you accept is part of a rough shoot?