Not true. The fact that we KNOW about raptor persecution WITHOUT having "legal monitors being permitted on the land to regularly inspect" is proof enough.
Why do you think this Bill was passed?
Also, why do you say "No law will ever be effective without... having more legal powers to prosecute" when the Bill does precisely that: it gives more legal powers to the SSPCA.
I really sincerely hope you are right and that will be evidence enough for the courts to take strong action against offenders and others will be deterred.
Rosemary, the Bill does not address raptor persecution through the courts. We have decades of experience which show it is too difficult to bring successful criminal prosecutions, for obvious reasons.
The Bill places control in the hands of NatureScot, who now only require a 'balance of probabilities' that raptor persecution is taking place to withdraw its license to shoot.
That is a big change, together with the fact that all grouse moor shoots now require this license from NatureScot to operate.
I am pleased this Bill has passed . What’s needed now is the manpower recourses to ensure the law is enforced. It would be fair that the shooting industry pay a shooters tax to fund the resources required to ensure they abide by the law. Why should other members of the public fund this ? This should also apply to hunts and any other wild life criminals.
Great idea about the tax Roger! If they are to be permitted to continue with their 'privilege' (which we are a very long way from ending completely), they should indeed be made to pay for monitors, and certainly not be permitted to form little associations to 'police their own'! We all know from hunting, that doesn't work! It is an 'industry' that needs to be opened up and closely scrutinised, and ultimately shut down completely!
No matter how many Bills are passed, the gun-toting, trigger-happy hunters will still ruthlessly murder anything that flies or runs. Its time hunting was banned as these moronic pieces of human trash are slowly destroying ALL our wildlife and environment, just so they can get their 'fun, entertainment and bloodshed'
Glue traps should be banned altogether, ie: banned from being sold. The shooting ‘industry’ is utterly shameful, it should be closed down, its ’employees’ should look for real jobs
Yes, Stephen I agree, but unfortunately people would still be able to buy them from the internet but anything to make things more difficult would help.
If there are any moves ahead that are going to "seriously tick off shooters" , then you can be absolutely reassured that they are going to seriously delight me !
That means that you must want to imprison people who eat animals, then, doesn't it? Or, do you seriously think you can eat animals without killing them?
Actually, Cellular agriculture offers that possibility soon! Seriously, I am telling the truth! Please look up "lab grown meat/clean meat and/or cellular agriculture". A brilliant way to "have your cake and eat it too" by having real meat without any animals being killed for it! Amazing!
GREAT TO HAVE A BAN ON SNARES, BUT HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE LAW WHEN POLICE ARE NOT BOTHERED AND SNARES COULD BE PLACED ON PRIVATE LAND WHERE NO ONE SEES WHATS HAPPENING
Hope there is enough room in hell for them. You have to be extremely sick to want to go out killing animals. Wouldnt be so big if the they were in the Army and it was gun against gun ! They are not fit to be in possession of firearms. Gutless cowards. Real men do not have to this, as for the women they are big butch ugly nasty bitches.
Well done Scotland! It’s a long and challenging road to a more compassionate and equitable approach to wildlife in Scotland but it’s a journey well started which is more than can be said of the approach south of the border.
I fully appreciate the caveats in the article but I wonder sometimes what it is ‘reasonable’ to hope for given that there has always been a sizeable minority of the British public that enjoys killing animals ‘for fun’, alas. And I don’t think this will change. Perhaps then it is time to be ‘realistic’ and - as far as pheasant shooting is concerned which is a large part of the gamebird shooting activity now - limit our campaign to banning the release of pheasant poults in their millions each year. Go back to pheasant shooting ‘as it used to be’.
As for grouse shooting I think that if you banned muirburn and medicated grit on grouse moors it would die off natually.
Perhaps then the ‘shooting estates’ could genuinely start to work towards conservation instead of making silly claims in this direction where the only ‘real’ conservation done - apart from the odd curlew here and there - is of the shooting estates.
Hi David. I understand your comment and appreciate it and I'm sure many people will agree with you. I'm aware that what I'm going to write doesn't really address the thrust of your thinking, but Protect the Wild would never say that because some people enjoy fox or hare hunting we should accept a limited version of it. We are opposed to the badger cull and would never accept a limited version of that. And we simply won't accept the shooting industry in a limited form either. We want a full ban on shooting birds - not some birds or some species but all of them because we don't accept the premise that 'gamebirds' like Red Grouse and pheasants are inherently different to birds like Robins and Blue Tits or that it's okay to shoot thousands of birds rather than millions. Our articles are not trying to be 'controversial' or 'different' or saying that other orgs are 'wrong', just stating honestly held convictions (convictions arrived at in my case after many decades of being a serious birder and seriously sick of seeing birds being blown out of the sky as if they were nothing more than live targets that happen to come wrapped in feathers). We are tired of 'our side' being expected to compromise and give ground when the industries we are opposed to won't budge an inch and have to be dragged across their 'red lines'. It's not acceptable to us, and while we know full well that not everyone will agree with us, all we can do is be honest about what we think and what we feel.
Thanks for your comment Charlie which perfectly aligns with my own feelings on shooting wild animals ‘for fun’. Then there’s the political dimension. In case you did quite ‘get my drift’ (?) I was trying to present a ‘political compromise’ based on the belief that often, in challenges, the ‘excellent’ is the enemy of the ‘good’.
Whilst I do completely understand David Elliott's point, agree with some of what he said and agree that sometimes "excellence" and perfection can be the enemy of "good", I do completely agree 100% with all you have said Charlie Moores as all hunting and shooting of any and all animals needs to end ASAP!
I am thrilled that Scotland has now banned barbaric snares, hunting, glue traps and other abhorrent "activities", which is far more than what England has so far done for animals! The next brilliant step for Scotland is to ban all grouse shooting next! I just hope this bill isn't going to act for licencing grouse shooting like the "2004 hunting act" did for enabling the smokescreen lie that is "trial hunting" to continue via loopholes but Scotland has now taken brilliant steps forward for animals, more than England and even Wales have so far (as even though Wales was the first county in the UK to ban snares, they still allow "trial hunting" whilst Scotland have now banned that and snares)!
Once upon a time farmers burned straw, but the terrible pollution it caused stopped it. They have to grow shorter stemmed wheat. The burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away to affect enough people. Perhaps climate change activists should get involved.
"Once upon a time farmers burned straw, but the terrible pollution it caused stopped it. They have to grow shorter stemmed wheat."
Shorter stemmed wheat was developed to help prevent it falling over in fields with a heavier yield. Nothing whatsoever to do with burning.
"The burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away to affect enough people"
The burning of heather on moorland leads to vast bare surfaces which cause vastly increased soil erosion in heavy rain, which - in turn - leads to far greater run-off. The result is increased down-stream flooding of settlements and far greater water pollution... and that effects a lot of people in Scotland.
When I said that burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away from people, I meant that if there were more people living close to the burning, they would be protesting because of the pollution, as people did with straw burning, and hopefully get it stopped. It is when people see something they do not like, when it affects them, they take action to stop it.
But note that there have been complaints about the air pollution within some settlements caused by muirburn, even in remote areas such as the Cairngorms National Park. See, for example:
The link you provided was fascinating to read. People are complaining, but there are not enough over a wide enough area, the land is managed by those who shoot grouse, they are the ones listened to, as in all the "sports" that involve killing animals. Their fun is more important than any discomfort they may cause to ordinary people. They have money and connections, which is why it still goes on.
Their use for anything other than invertebrates is being banned - but they are indiscriminate, so that is a gap in the legislation. Troll elsewhere . I am not trying to mislead anyone, but you ARE being obnoxious
No, glue traps are generally seen as the awful devices which trap mice, birds and reptiles so that they starve. Your ad hominem insults are really obnoxious , the bill has banned use of glue traps , did you miss that ? It seems you did.
Their use is being banned , as should their sale be. If it were considered desirable to keep fly paper that would be a very easy thing for someone with a modicum of language capability to do ( obviously though it is something you would struggle with) . For my part u would not mind if fly paper were banned as well. Now troll elsewhere you malevolent nonentity
Great work by the Scottish Greens to get this passed - the power of Greens in government!
Obviously there are still gaps, but unless and until we get a stronger Green presence in government, these types of compromises will still need to be made.
And at least we do have some Green presence in the Scottish government - we now need to make sure we get as close as possible to that for the UK as whole by getting Greens elected in the General Election.
I agree 100% about the effect the Green Party has had on the Scottish Government to get this momentous Bill passed... but, the Green Party STILL refuses to accept that the environment and our wildlife are steadily being destroyed because there are TOO MANY PEOPLE!
I completely agree with you Keith Dancey! Whilst Colin Boyle is right that there are too many rich people on this Earth who often sadly only care about themselves, the more people there are, the richer in time they often become and they then start requiring more resources for themselves and the planet just can't sustain them all, resulting in animals, the Earth and even us suffering as a result. Have you heard of the charity: "Population Matters"? They can help explain all this in a non judgemental way far better than I can.
There aren’t too many people, there are just too many rich people.
“The richest 1% of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity.”
"There aren’t too many people, there are just too many rich people."
So, when the population rises in the world by ONE BILLION and they ALL need houses, jobs, transport, energy, infrastructure, resources, raw materials, food, waste disposal etc etc YOU don't think ANY of that adversely effects wildlife and our environment?
Just like Oxfam - who do not give a damn about wildlife - you don't mind the human population increasing indefinitely, just so long as there are no more RICH PEOPLE!
And when the houses are built over places where wildlife used to thrive, you say "It doesn't matter - the houses are not for the rich. The wildlife can just... what?"
"you responded by stating that another billion living lifestyles *like the current top 10%* would be too many."
No, I did not. You are lying. Just an additional ONE BILLION living like the previous seven billion.
Clearly, YOU place more and more people WAY ABOVE any care for the world's wildlife and our environment. YOU clearly believe that the human population can increase INDEFINITELY and the wildlife and our environment can go to hell. In fact ... a TYPICAL GREEN.
No law will ever be effective without legal monitors being permitted on the land to regularly inspect and have more powers to prosecute.
Completely agree!
Not true. The fact that we KNOW about raptor persecution WITHOUT having "legal monitors being permitted on the land to regularly inspect" is proof enough.
Why do you think this Bill was passed?
Also, why do you say "No law will ever be effective without... having more legal powers to prosecute" when the Bill does precisely that: it gives more legal powers to the SSPCA.
Have you read the Bill?
I really sincerely hope you are right and that will be evidence enough for the courts to take strong action against offenders and others will be deterred.
Rosemary, the Bill does not address raptor persecution through the courts. We have decades of experience which show it is too difficult to bring successful criminal prosecutions, for obvious reasons.
The Bill places control in the hands of NatureScot, who now only require a 'balance of probabilities' that raptor persecution is taking place to withdraw its license to shoot.
That is a big change, together with the fact that all grouse moor shoots now require this license from NatureScot to operate.
I am pleased this Bill has passed . What’s needed now is the manpower recourses to ensure the law is enforced. It would be fair that the shooting industry pay a shooters tax to fund the resources required to ensure they abide by the law. Why should other members of the public fund this ? This should also apply to hunts and any other wild life criminals.
Great idea about the tax Roger! If they are to be permitted to continue with their 'privilege' (which we are a very long way from ending completely), they should indeed be made to pay for monitors, and certainly not be permitted to form little associations to 'police their own'! We all know from hunting, that doesn't work! It is an 'industry' that needs to be opened up and closely scrutinised, and ultimately shut down completely!
Completely agree!
No matter how many Bills are passed, the gun-toting, trigger-happy hunters will still ruthlessly murder anything that flies or runs. Its time hunting was banned as these moronic pieces of human trash are slowly destroying ALL our wildlife and environment, just so they can get their 'fun, entertainment and bloodshed'
But this Bill proposes to REMOVE the license to shoot. Didn't you know that?
Glue traps should be banned altogether, ie: banned from being sold. The shooting ‘industry’ is utterly shameful, it should be closed down, its ’employees’ should look for real jobs
Yes, Stephen I agree, but unfortunately people would still be able to buy them from the internet but anything to make things more difficult would help.
That is a very silly comment. Fly paper is a glue trap.
Not in the sense it is used here - the silliness is all yours
In EXACTLY the same sense as used here. You clearly haven't a CLUE what this Bill has passed.
MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR ANIMAL WELFARE .PEOPLE WHO KILL ANY ANIMAL SHOULD BE PUT IN PRISON FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
Completely agree with you Deborah Brand!
But some people eat animals. Are you going to imprison ALL of them?
Load of piffle! Who is going to police it? Animal abuse will continue whilst we have corruption in the Police and Judiciary...
You clearly haven't a clue about the Bill. Go and read it, and then comment.
If there are any moves ahead that are going to "seriously tick off shooters" , then you can be absolutely reassured that they are going to seriously delight me !
Me too!
KEITH, WE WANT TO IMPRISON PEOPLE WHO KILL/HUNTAND TORTURE ANIMALS
That means that you must want to imprison people who eat animals, then, doesn't it? Or, do you seriously think you can eat animals without killing them?
Actually, Cellular agriculture offers that possibility soon! Seriously, I am telling the truth! Please look up "lab grown meat/clean meat and/or cellular agriculture". A brilliant way to "have your cake and eat it too" by having real meat without any animals being killed for it! Amazing!
GREAT TO HAVE A BAN ON SNARES, BUT HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE LAW WHEN POLICE ARE NOT BOTHERED AND SNARES COULD BE PLACED ON PRIVATE LAND WHERE NO ONE SEES WHATS HAPPENING
The Police ARE bothered.
Hope there is enough room in hell for them. You have to be extremely sick to want to go out killing animals. Wouldnt be so big if the they were in the Army and it was gun against gun ! They are not fit to be in possession of firearms. Gutless cowards. Real men do not have to this, as for the women they are big butch ugly nasty bitches.
well said Larraine need I say more.
Completely agree!
Well done Scotland! It’s a long and challenging road to a more compassionate and equitable approach to wildlife in Scotland but it’s a journey well started which is more than can be said of the approach south of the border.
I fully appreciate the caveats in the article but I wonder sometimes what it is ‘reasonable’ to hope for given that there has always been a sizeable minority of the British public that enjoys killing animals ‘for fun’, alas. And I don’t think this will change. Perhaps then it is time to be ‘realistic’ and - as far as pheasant shooting is concerned which is a large part of the gamebird shooting activity now - limit our campaign to banning the release of pheasant poults in their millions each year. Go back to pheasant shooting ‘as it used to be’.
As for grouse shooting I think that if you banned muirburn and medicated grit on grouse moors it would die off natually.
Perhaps then the ‘shooting estates’ could genuinely start to work towards conservation instead of making silly claims in this direction where the only ‘real’ conservation done - apart from the odd curlew here and there - is of the shooting estates.
Hi David. I understand your comment and appreciate it and I'm sure many people will agree with you. I'm aware that what I'm going to write doesn't really address the thrust of your thinking, but Protect the Wild would never say that because some people enjoy fox or hare hunting we should accept a limited version of it. We are opposed to the badger cull and would never accept a limited version of that. And we simply won't accept the shooting industry in a limited form either. We want a full ban on shooting birds - not some birds or some species but all of them because we don't accept the premise that 'gamebirds' like Red Grouse and pheasants are inherently different to birds like Robins and Blue Tits or that it's okay to shoot thousands of birds rather than millions. Our articles are not trying to be 'controversial' or 'different' or saying that other orgs are 'wrong', just stating honestly held convictions (convictions arrived at in my case after many decades of being a serious birder and seriously sick of seeing birds being blown out of the sky as if they were nothing more than live targets that happen to come wrapped in feathers). We are tired of 'our side' being expected to compromise and give ground when the industries we are opposed to won't budge an inch and have to be dragged across their 'red lines'. It's not acceptable to us, and while we know full well that not everyone will agree with us, all we can do is be honest about what we think and what we feel.
Agree with you Charlie, 100%.
Thanks for your comment Charlie which perfectly aligns with my own feelings on shooting wild animals ‘for fun’. Then there’s the political dimension. In case you did quite ‘get my drift’ (?) I was trying to present a ‘political compromise’ based on the belief that often, in challenges, the ‘excellent’ is the enemy of the ‘good’.
Whilst I do completely understand David Elliott's point, agree with some of what he said and agree that sometimes "excellence" and perfection can be the enemy of "good", I do completely agree 100% with all you have said Charlie Moores as all hunting and shooting of any and all animals needs to end ASAP!
I am thrilled that Scotland has now banned barbaric snares, hunting, glue traps and other abhorrent "activities", which is far more than what England has so far done for animals! The next brilliant step for Scotland is to ban all grouse shooting next! I just hope this bill isn't going to act for licencing grouse shooting like the "2004 hunting act" did for enabling the smokescreen lie that is "trial hunting" to continue via loopholes but Scotland has now taken brilliant steps forward for animals, more than England and even Wales have so far (as even though Wales was the first county in the UK to ban snares, they still allow "trial hunting" whilst Scotland have now banned that and snares)!
Well said:-)
Thank you ❤️.
Once upon a time farmers burned straw, but the terrible pollution it caused stopped it. They have to grow shorter stemmed wheat. The burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away to affect enough people. Perhaps climate change activists should get involved.
"Once upon a time farmers burned straw, but the terrible pollution it caused stopped it. They have to grow shorter stemmed wheat."
Shorter stemmed wheat was developed to help prevent it falling over in fields with a heavier yield. Nothing whatsoever to do with burning.
"The burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away to affect enough people"
The burning of heather on moorland leads to vast bare surfaces which cause vastly increased soil erosion in heavy rain, which - in turn - leads to far greater run-off. The result is increased down-stream flooding of settlements and far greater water pollution... and that effects a lot of people in Scotland.
When I said that burning in Scotland can continue because it is too far away from people, I meant that if there were more people living close to the burning, they would be protesting because of the pollution, as people did with straw burning, and hopefully get it stopped. It is when people see something they do not like, when it affects them, they take action to stop it.
OK. I understand now. Thanks.
But note that there have been complaints about the air pollution within some settlements caused by muirburn, even in remote areas such as the Cairngorms National Park. See, for example:
https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2021/03/04/another-consequence-of-muirburn-air-pollution-in-the-cairngorms-national-park/
The link you provided was fascinating to read. People are complaining, but there are not enough over a wide enough area, the land is managed by those who shoot grouse, they are the ones listened to, as in all the "sports" that involve killing animals. Their fun is more important than any discomfort they may cause to ordinary people. They have money and connections, which is why it still goes on.
I don't disagree with you.
Their use for anything other than invertebrates is being banned - but they are indiscriminate, so that is a gap in the legislation. Troll elsewhere . I am not trying to mislead anyone, but you ARE being obnoxious
No, glue traps are generally seen as the awful devices which trap mice, birds and reptiles so that they starve. Your ad hominem insults are really obnoxious , the bill has banned use of glue traps , did you miss that ? It seems you did.
Stephen wrote "Glue traps should be banned altogether, ie: banned from being sold."
They ARE banned for "any animal other than invertebrate"
They are NOT "banned altogether" as you demand because we need them to trap damaging insects!
So I wrote "That is a very silly comment (trying to ban ALL glue traps) Fly paper is a glue trap."
So ALL glue traps are NOT banned (as you demand) they are banned for ALL animals EXCEPT invertebrates.
You clearly have not read the Bill, nor followed the debate!
Their use is being banned , as should their sale be. If it were considered desirable to keep fly paper that would be a very easy thing for someone with a modicum of language capability to do ( obviously though it is something you would struggle with) . For my part u would not mind if fly paper were banned as well. Now troll elsewhere you malevolent nonentity
"For my part u would not mind if fly paper were banned as well"
What is that meant to mean? Do you have a problem with the English language?
Stephen wrote: "Their use is being banned , as should their sale be."
Stop trying to mislead everyone! The purchase of glue traps designed to capture ANY animal other than invertebrates IS being banned, within Scotland!
You clearly have not read the Bill, nor followed the debate.
"Now troll elsewhere you malevolent nonentity"
Ha! So you can continue to misrepresent what the Bill says, unhindered?
https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/wildlife-management-and-muirburn-scotland-bill/introduced/accessible-policy-memorandum.pdf
Great work by the Scottish Greens to get this passed - the power of Greens in government!
Obviously there are still gaps, but unless and until we get a stronger Green presence in government, these types of compromises will still need to be made.
And at least we do have some Green presence in the Scottish government - we now need to make sure we get as close as possible to that for the UK as whole by getting Greens elected in the General Election.
I agree 100% about the effect the Green Party has had on the Scottish Government to get this momentous Bill passed... but, the Green Party STILL refuses to accept that the environment and our wildlife are steadily being destroyed because there are TOO MANY PEOPLE!
I completely agree with you Keith Dancey! Whilst Colin Boyle is right that there are too many rich people on this Earth who often sadly only care about themselves, the more people there are, the richer in time they often become and they then start requiring more resources for themselves and the planet just can't sustain them all, resulting in animals, the Earth and even us suffering as a result. Have you heard of the charity: "Population Matters"? They can help explain all this in a non judgemental way far better than I can.
"Have you heard of the charity: "Population Matters"?"
Yes Cara. I have been on their mailing list for years:-)
Same here too!
There aren’t too many people, there are just too many rich people.
“The richest 1% of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity.”
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity/
"There aren’t too many people, there are just too many rich people."
So, when the population rises in the world by ONE BILLION and they ALL need houses, jobs, transport, energy, infrastructure, resources, raw materials, food, waste disposal etc etc YOU don't think ANY of that adversely effects wildlife and our environment?
Just like Oxfam - who do not give a damn about wildlife - you don't mind the human population increasing indefinitely, just so long as there are no more RICH PEOPLE!
And when the houses are built over places where wildlife used to thrive, you say "It doesn't matter - the houses are not for the rich. The wildlife can just... what?"
You’re making a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
You initially stated there were too many people.
I disagreed with that, so you responded by stating that another billion living lifestyles like the current top 10% would be too many.
Which is it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
"you responded by stating that another billion living lifestyles *like the current top 10%* would be too many."
No, I did not. You are lying. Just an additional ONE BILLION living like the previous seven billion.
Clearly, YOU place more and more people WAY ABOVE any care for the world's wildlife and our environment. YOU clearly believe that the human population can increase INDEFINITELY and the wildlife and our environment can go to hell. In fact ... a TYPICAL GREEN.
I think you should do just a little bit of research and reflection before you next respond.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-philosophical-basis/