Seòmar agus comataidhean

In circumstances in which dogs are managed by the shooters—as I understand it from Ms Fitzgerald’s response to Beatrice Wishart—shooting wild mammals that have been flushed by someone else’s dog or dogs would be an offence, and the shooter’s dog does not have to be their personal dog. At what point during the shoot does that need to be decided? This might come up in relation to enforcement. It strikes me that someone could very easily say, “That’s my dog for the purposes of this shoot,” and that that could be changed to suit them.

That sounds slightly different to what Leia Fitzgerald was saying. I understand that it is related to the activity, so that shooting a wild mammal that has been flushed by no more than two dogs would not be an offence. I understand from what Amy Hogarth is saying that if a shooter had brought dogs but other dogs flushed the mammal to them, that would be an offence.

I want to follow up on Jim Fairlie’s question. I understand that addressing animal welfare concerns is a motivator of the bill. How is it that multiple sets of one or two dogs flushing to guns leads to higher animal welfare outcomes than a single pack of more than two dogs flushing to guns does?

There might be five sets of one or two dogs flushing in close proximity to one another on a rough shoot. If a fox or a wild mammal is in that area, how will that lead to higher animal welfare than if there were the same number of dogs working as a pack?

Is sport predator control?

Could there be a sort of relay flushing, with one dog flushing to another dog, then to another dog and finally to the shooter? How would you keep track of that mammal and know that it had come into contact with only two dogs?

I have a follow-up question. I am concerned that the exemption in section 6 of the bill, which includes rough shooting, will undermine the wider purpose of the bill because, essentially, it allows for more than two dogs to be present during an activity that involves flushing wild mammals, whereas that is not permissible for flushing foxes.

The rationale seems to hang on the idea that, on a rough shoot, groups of more than two dogs can be prevented from forming a pack. I am interested in hearing a bit more about the evidence base for why that is possible in rough shooting circumstances but not when foxes are being flushed. Why, in one instance, is it believed that the level of control over dogs will prevent them from forming a pack, losing control and potentially killing the animal whereas, when foxes are involved, the claim is that it is not possible to control dogs and prevent a pack from forming? To an outsider—I have not been on a shoot—it seems that foxes and rabbits are wild mammals. I am not clear on the distinction and the rationale behind the exemption.

Given some of the correspondence that the committee has received, I suggest that, rather than take that decision today, we defer a decision on what we do next until next week, when we have a chance to discuss the work programme.

I seek clarification. The Scottish Government’s stated aim is to pursue the highest possible animal welfare standards, so can we get an explanation as to why the bill has ended up having an exemption for sport? How does the Scottish Government square the hunting and killing of animals for sport with pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards?

I expect that we will come on to this in more detail later, when we discuss enforcement, but it sounds as though you are saying that, as long as there are enough humans present to have plausible deniability, we could continue to see packs of dogs flushing foxes, if people can say, “Each of us is here separately with one or two dogs.” Can you see how that might—