 Hi, wrth digwydd, wrth gwrs, a chdiwm i'r 19r ysgolweithio wrth ddiwrnod y Ffairial ysgolweithio i Llyfrgell Gael y byddwyr yn 2022. Felly, rydyn ni'n fwy o'r ddiwrnod o'r ddiwrnod ymgyrch ar gyfer y ddigwydd, neu i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae ymgyrch yn y pwynghau sy'n ddweud gan gyfnodd oedd o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r I welcome to the meeting of our first panel, which will focus on rural sector and wildlife management interests. This morning, we have Penny Middleton, the policy manager from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Ian Duncan-Miller, the farmer and chair of Athel, and is it Bridalbian? Good. Fox Control Society and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. We have Barry Wade, the president of the National Working Terrier Federation, and Jake Swindells, the director of the Scottish countryside alliance. We have approximately 90 minutes for questions. I will turn to Jake first. Can you give me your overall view on the bill? The first thing that I must say is the introduction of a licence is a little disappointing, if I'm honest. There's a feeling in the sector that a licence is unnecessary and potentially burdensome on a rural sector that's already struggling in the current climate. To introduce a licence at this stage will impose restrictions that the sector feel are pretty unnecessary around the activities that really should be much more encouraged and assisted by the Scottish Government rather than further restricted themselves. If there is to be a licensing scheme, the overriding factor should be that the licence is workable and fair and is available to everybody across the sector, and certainly those who would rely on the licence for their livelihood. First of all, we generally support the bill, appreciate the difficulties in trying to close the loopholes that exist in the current legislation. Again, our disappointment comes around the licensing side of things. In our belief that there are genuine occasions when you need to use more than just two dogs, our feeling was very much that we should be licensing packs or organisations like Mr Duncan Miller's here. They carry the licence and the responsibility and a two-week licence for that kind of situation just wouldn't be workable. We don't believe, although they should also be for individual licences, if they're not using a registered pack maybe. Our main concern is to sit around the licensing side of things. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I think that most of my friends, colleagues, neighbours and members would generally welcome much of what is in the bill. There are obviously areas of some concern, which we'll come to in the licences mentioned already, and that will be subject of a detailed discussion, I guess, in a few moments. But generally speaking, the bill itself does clarify quite a lot of issues, but we still have to deal with some of the practical realities out there in the countryside, dealing with predation, dealing with how does the countryside manage both the environment and the farming aspects? Those are both important, and of course you're dealing with farming, you're also dealing with people, so we need to be able to deal with them as well and make sure that the bill actually takes account of that. Thank you, Mr Chairman. One of our primary concerns is that a number of the conditions and definitions would render the use of dogs below a ground, either in practical or illegal, and some of those conditions also have negative welfare implications, and that's something that we always seek to avoid. Okay, thank you. Alasdair Allan. Thank you. Just following on from that, I'm thinking again about the aims of the bill. Obviously, this bill emerges in large part from what Lord Bonomy had to say about failures as he saw it, or gaps as he saw it, in the existing legislation. I wonder if that was a view in Lord Bonomy that you were able to identify with? Can you say anything about whether you feel the aims of the bill were coming out of Lord Bonomy and whether you agreed with what Lord Bonomy had to say? I'm looking perhaps first at Penny Middleton and then Ian Duncan Miller. As we say, we recognise that there were loopholes, there have been problems, unforeseen with the existing legislation that need to update it, and largely supportive of what Lord Bonomy recognised and put forward in his report. Again, he recognised that there are situations where it is necessary to use more than two dogs, and as I say, we accept the fact that licensing would probably be the way for that, but to manage that and to handle that going forward, it is important that these rural communities are able to protect their business and the environment. Controlling foxes does an awful lot for biodiversity as well as just farming, so we just think it's important that they should still have that ability to be able to control them in all circumstances. Chairman, I think I would probably agree with most of that. I think what Lord Bonomy recommended has in large part been picked up by those who drafted the bill. It is disappointing that one of the key points that Lord Bonomy made, and that was around the number of dogs required for vermin control, has been totally ignored in the drafting of the bill, and I'm sure we'll come just to talk about that in a bit more detail. But clearly what is behind the bill is looking to make sure that animal welfare is first and foremost. We would totally support that, and what our society does in controlling vermin in the countryside has very much got cognisance of that and the way that it operates, and I'm quite happy to explain in detail to the committee how that does happen. It was just a supplementary question for Barry Wade. He said that some licensing conditions have negative animal welfare implications. I just wondered if you could explain what you meant by that. A simple example, if I might, is the restriction of one dog to ground. It's something that we're actively promoting in our code of conduct, but there's also a caveat attached to that. That's wherever practical and possible, and that's exactly the sort of wording that Lord Barnamy uses. In normal telepaths with defined tunnel structures, then that is what we advocate, the use of a single dog below ground. There are no advantages in putting more than one dog in, but there are lots of disadvantages. However, when you consider, for example, a mountainside or a rock can, it's tons of rocks all piled on top of each other, and if you enter a single dog in there, it would be rather like putting a single hand into a large patch of forestry and expecting a fox above. All that happens is foxes and terriers have got significantly different climbing capabilities and agility levels. So, for example, a normal four or five foot garden fence would contain a terrier all day long and forever. A fox will just scramble in and out of there and even walk along garden fence tops, just like a squirrel or a cat might do. In an underground situation such as that, all that will happen is a fox will clamber to places where it's less accessible. The terrier is down there, he can't get there at all, and it will just ignore him. So you've got a fox and a terrier staying in there all day long and that's not what we want, it achieves nothing, and it's a welfare issue as far as we're concerned. All that you've got is a terrier barking away and getting exhausted, possibly climbing places, you know, they're going to tire it out. The moment you enter a second terrier, that's a complete game changer. The fox feels it's less safe below ground than it is above and it leaves. When I was a much younger man than I am now, I remember pursuing the one dog argument with an old fell homesman and he said, Barry, unless you put that second dog in there, you might as well sit down and light a second pipe because the fox ain't going to come over there. So when you say it's a welfare issue, you mean for the dog because it'll be tired from being down there so long because you feel that it's ineffective? It would just stay there, yeah. But the other solution would be to not send the dog down, I suppose. There is an alternative, but then what you're doing is you're leaving the fox to carry on and do more damage. Thank you. We're going to move on to section 1 and 2, which covers offences. Harry-Anne Burgess. Yeah, so this is for Barry. We've got the spotlight this morning. So the written evidence from the National Working Terry Federation states that it is commonplace on a shoot day to use more than two dogs while flushing game from cover. And then it went on to say, we do not believe that the intention of the bill is to restrict, control or interfere with normal shooting practices. So I just wanted to get clarity on that point because the bill does restrict the number of dogs to two for game shooting and it restricts the number of dogs to one for flushing foxes and mink from below ground. So if you don't think that the bill restricts these practices then that's a really important point that we need to really fully understand. I think that reflects back more on the fact that the rabbit has been included in the definition of a wild mammal. So for example on a shoot day, if you're flushing through cover, there might be a rabbit in there, there might not. And until that rabbit has been flushed, you don't know. If it has been flushed, then it's an offence to try and flush it from there, isn't it, offence? Or explain it. Yeah, I say that more. I really don't know your mould at all. There may be three spaniels, for example, that you use to flush ground game. And if part of that ground game is rabbits and rabbits are part of the act, then you're committing an offence. Rachel Hamilton's got a supplementary. On the point that you just made there, Barry, about an unintended consequence, I believe I'm right in saying that that's what you're inferring. Do you and the rest of the committee believe that it would be right in an animal welfare sense that we looked at excluding rabbits within the scope of this bill? Most definitely. It creates a legislative mindfield, really, as well as a legal one. For example, dogs are used in a variety of ways for hunting rabbits. They're used, for example, to mark a rabbit warrant, to say which one is likely to contain rabbits. That's using the dog to hunt below ground. Rabbits, typically when they're ferreted or bolted into nets, they're not shot. You can only use a dog to flush a wild mammal in order to be shot or caught by a bird or prey. Whereas rabbits that are ferreted, they're caught in a net and they're dispatched by hand. That would be a legal... Would it be okay at Covenish, because this is an important point to hear from the rest of the... Ian, would you like to say... Jake Swindell also indicated he'd like... Certainly happy to comment, Chairman. I think generally speaking that the inclusion of rabbits has caused, not for us personally, a problem. But if you look at hair coursing, which all of us, I think, would view as being fairly important to the countryside, to have the chasing of rabbits as being a potential defence, I think, is probably not very helpful. So there is a real difficulty in understanding what Barry is saying. There's a conundrum here, as there are in several other parts of the bill, and actually working out what we wish to try and find. And I think that rabbits were included, if I understand it correctly, to try and get around the defence of chasing rabbits, not hairs. But if there is evidence that hairs were being chased, then surely that is the defence that should be brought to justice. And that is an interesting point, convener, because that's what the civil servants said last week. They said that the defence wouldn't be able to be proved, and so this is a sort of boning contention. Penny, would you like to come in? Yeah, I mean, we have had some concerns about rabbits now being coming in under the bill. You know, they are a major pest species and do need to be able to control them, appreciate their difficulties that you have got there with hair coursing, certainly don't support that in any way, shape or form. It would be an unintended consequence that could potentially cause problems, but we can also see why it has come in, and it's a very difficult one to balance the pros and cons against. I'll move to Jake, and then Barry has indicated that he'd like to come back in, and then Jim Field has got a supplementary. Thank you, convener. I echo what Penny said about unintended consequence. I think that if rabbits were to be included within the bill, for instance, on an almost daily basis I get phone calls from legal and professional rabbit controllers who are trained in themselves. They have trained dogs and trained practices that farmers rely on these services as part of the livelihood, as part of the whole management scheme. There is a huge worry that those people will be completely out of work and that dogs may be redundant. Instead of tackling the hair coursing issue, I think that the Scottish Government is trying to legislate for that, but it is actually encompassing far more than it needs to. One thought process that we have at the SCA is that there is a potential of using permission to be an exception. If the rabbit was indeed included within the bill, then if the rabbit controller has permission to be on that land, doing what they are doing legally is a legal exercise, then there would be an exception for them to do so. In which case if there was a hair courser on the ground who obviously would not have permission, then they would be encompassed in the bill and be breaking the law. There are two things that combine with each other as well within the bill as it is currently framed. At the moment it is only legal to use a dog below ground to control a fox or a mink by including rabbits into the equation. It suddenly becomes illegal to use dogs to control rabbits. That needs to be recognised, I would suggest. Just expanding on that slightly, I also think that there are risks in the definition of how dogs can be used below ground. It is far too specific for what I would suggest you actually need. It refers simply to a fox or a mink at some point in the future. It could well be that there is some other ground-dwelling mammal that you need to control. I believe the reason it is written this way is that some 20 years ago when I sat in front of this similar committee, we raised the issue of mink then. It was fox specific. We mentioned the issue that was arising with mink and which did grow. Rather than expanding it just to include wild mammals, the word mink was added. I think that is a serious limiting factor for what you are trying to achieve and it undermines the longevity of the act. Just to make the point that hair-cursing would normally be an activity which the land manager or farmer, person living there, would not be aware of and would certainly not be supporting, whereas rabbit control would be an activity that would be at the behest, probably at the payment of the farmer or land manager. As it defends against hair-cursing, it is a pretty spurious one, I would suggest. Thank you very much. That was a very interesting and informative resession on that particular point. I want to come to you and possibly to yourself, Jake, on this in particular. Ferritin is generally done with nets, but I do understand that there are occasions where ferrits will be used and dogs will be used to catch the rabbits above ground. We were told last week by officials that that is probably not happening very much in the country at all. Can you clarify whether that is still a method of rabbit control for us? Most certainly it is. In fact, I have got an out here about that. Had the legal team spoken to, for example, a terrier club or a lurching club, they would have got an entirely different response. I would suggest a warren as basic equipment is a ferrit, nets and a dog, and the option is a gun. My mother's preference was always for a rabbit that had been dispatched by hand rather than one that had been shot. You have got all the problems of getting a lead shot out. For anybody that ate rabbits and I am sure you have, you will understand exactly what I am saying. Obviously I watched the evidence session last week and I was interested in that comment as well. I was in a meeting with the director of the BSc yesterday who I know the bill team spoke to and around that certain topic. The director said that he was actually misquoted or misunderstood and the fact that this information was volunteered during a completely separate meeting yesterday and the fact that he meant that ground game was not generally part of a general shoot day, a driven shoot day. If ground game came out such as rabbits then generally they weren't shot and his meaning and intention was not to do with controlling rabbits directly. But the ferrit in two lurchers or another dog is still very much a viable method of controlling rabbit numbers. Absolutely, yes. Thank you. Just to pick up on the points that have been made there about rabbits because this was something that when we had people in from the Government who had been drafting the bill last week, a number of us pressed the Government about. As far as I understand it from what was said then, the intention of the bill is very much about, as others have alluded to here, about preventing the chase, if you like, and preventing the killing by a dog rather than preventing the killing of rabbits. I don't know perhaps Penny Middleton is that an intention that you accept is there in the bill, notwithstanding your concerns? Sorry, I'm not too sure I understand that. Some of the concerns that there are about rabbits are about pest control and that's a legitimate concern to have. I think that many of us loving the country would appreciate that rabbits can be a pest, but the intention that's been put to us, the intention that lies behind this part of the bill is not to prevent the killing of rabbits, it's simply about the method. I just wonder if that's something that you would recognise or if you feel that's what the bill does? It is a slight concern that, as I mentioned, it could be an unintended consequence of the bill that it potentially would limit the control options for rabbits. Certainly, we fully support the most humane method you can use for control, but control is still necessary and vital and need to make sure that you've got the necessary means to carry that out. You mentioned the unintended consequences, and I appreciate that the concern that you're raising there, but a number of you seem to have indicated that there may be unintended consequences associated with the current law in this area, so I don't know if perhaps yourself, Penny Middleton or Duncan Miller, I don't know who wants to come in on this, want to say something about the unintended consequences that may exist just now around hair coursing. I mean, some of you have different views about the extent to which it's happening, but could that be described as an unintended consequence of the current law? Yes, it could. I would say that that's right, but I support the suggestions of Duncan Miller and Jake on the fact that when rabbits are being controlled, they've been asked to be there, they have permission to be there on the land, and I think that that would be a very sensible way round controlling that loophole that would have less unintended consequences than to simply include rabbits in the new bill. I don't know if anyone else wants to end on that point, Ian Duncan Miller. I think it's quite clear from the drafted bill what the intention is, and I think that most of us would go with the intention. I think that what you've got to consider, you look what the general intention of the bill is, and if you're looking at a particular aspect of that, what are the alternatives? In the role of my society, the control of foxes can be done by a number of ways, and the question I would have always is what is the best way? What is the most humane way? What is the most effective way? Now clearly we are on board with the whole aspect. If you don't want to chase a fox right halfway around Scotland, that's not a good idea, but what is a good idea is that you effectively use the tools at your disposal, in my case a number of well-trained, senting dogs, to flush that fox from cover to strategically placed guns who dispatch it in a quick, efficient and humane manner. So we are on board with the general concept of where the bill is trying to get to, but we feel that there are issues within the drafting, which actually make matters worse in some areas rather than better. I hope that our contribution today would help you to draft bits of the bill in a way that is more constructive and more humane for everybody involved. I think that I indicated that I'd like to respond to that point. Thank you. It was in addition really more than anything. I think that there's a potential safety issue as well. For anybody that's seen, excuse me, for anybody that's seen ferreting and netting, if a dog is involved, then it's generally a very, very quick process. We're talking seconds. The only other option to that, if there's a restriction on the use of dogs where that's concerned, there would probably have to be a number of guns surrounding warrens in a field, and that in itself brings a safety issue that really should be considered. Thank you. Jim Fairlie has got a short supplementary then, Rachel Hamilton. You clearly got my thought process before coming back in there, Jake. By taking out the use of a dog for flush rabbits, you then are limited to either guns or nets. So Devils advocate why don't you net whenever you're doing a warren, and that way you take out the use of guns and dogs? So why not net everything? I'll let you go with that one, Barry, because I see you're smiling there right away. As you well know, you can only net so many holes, and you can't net every hole. It's as simple as that. And not all holes are nettable, are they? If you have four or five rabbits bolted out of a hole and all caught in nets, then you're actually extending the time that they are caught and struggling, which is a welfare issue in itself. If a dog is used, it's over within seconds. That was another point that I was going to make. Blanket netting has been raised with me in the past. If you're a blanket netting, you'll catch them, but for exactly that reason you could have rabbits in a net for 10, 15 minutes until they're eventually caught. Is that correct? I feel like we're talking a lot technically here, and I think a lot of people, it's not understandable why we need to control pests. There's a huge land mass, but most people live in the city. I'm going to ask Penny directly. What happens on land if rabbits, foxes and other species are not controlled? There's a whole huge factor of things that can happen. Obviously, our interest from the farming side is that foxes are a predator. They do take live lambs, and that has a big impact on not just farm productivity, but also mental health of the farmers. They work really hard to get these live, viable lambs, and then to season taken by foxes night after night can be quite distressing. They also have big impact on biodiversity, and a lot of the focus from farming at the moment is to try and improve biodiversity. I would say our president, Martin Kennedy, is really good at explaining the fact that he is up in Highland Persia. He's got incredible biodiversity on his farm, and he's really proud of the number of types of ground-nesting birds and things he's got there. As he says, he wouldn't have that if it wasn't such well-keeping land. By controlling the foxes, it helps his lambs and his farm, but it also does help biodiversity with these birds. In the controls happening for farming, you get the added biodiversity benefit. Rabbits, similarly, are a pest. They cause damage, but they also have high grazing pressure. I believe that they can also have impacts on biodiversity as well, if they're in numbers and grazing. We're going to move to sections 3, 5, 6 and 7, which are looking at exceptions. I think that you've already touched on a lot of what I was going to ask about the exceptions. I wonder if you could expand on the fact that the licensing scheme recognises that there are situations where more than two dogs are required above ground or one below. I wonder if you could expand a bit more on those situations and what you think about the exception in the bill. I don't know who wants to go first. The licensing issue clearly is at the heart of the changes that we would like to see brought into the bill. To be fair, we have some concerns about the process at the moment, which I'm sure could be overcome. NatureScot at the moment does not have either the resources or the expertise to deal with the licensing, and that would need to be built up and made available and workable. The licensing system itself has got to be workable. If you look at the key policy elements of the government, increasing forestry is one, and looking after Cappacallee is another one, which has recently had prominence. One of the main predators of Cappacallee clearly are foxes. Penny has mentioned the hill farming situation where the loss of lambs is important, and we've already talked about some of the alternatives which are out there to control foxes. But if you look at the reasons why my members pay our society to do the job which we do, it is so that they can minimise the loss of lambs. Using government statistics, I think that the net farm income for sheep farms for 2021 is something like £9,600. If, as I heard mentioned, 10% is the level of damage which would need to be acceptable before a licence was offered, that might be 50 lambs, that might be £2,500 of that guy's income, so clearly 10% at up until the situation is not acceptable. Yet that farmer is being asked to live with government policy of increasing forestry around about him, and at the same time he's being asked to improve the environment in any which way he can, which he's very happy to do, but he needs the tools to do it. If I could perhaps take a moment, convener, to explain how our operation works. We don't have horses, we don't have redcoats, we don't have followers, but what we do have is a membership of about 70 farmers who pay for the service, it's totally funded by them. We have a special dog trader, Handler, who looks after the dogs, and the dogs are specially trained sending dogs, and they are used to flush the foxes. On a day when they are out doing their job, the local people have made sure that there are sufficient people out with guns that whatever woodland they are surrounding, it is properly surrounded by people who know what they're doing. We have a set of rules, we have a fixture list, we have walkie-talkies between the dog handler and the people with guns who are surrounding the wood. We have GPS collars on the dogs, so we know where the dogs are at any point in time, and the dogs are all controlled by the handler, and they are under his control, despite the fact that they may at some points be some many hundred yards away from him. When they are put into a plantation or woodland, then they will find the fox and rapidly flush it. The point which I'd like to make and be absolutely clear on, if we were restricted to using one or two dogs, that one or two dogs will go into a plantation and they would not make enough commotion to really frighten the fox, and the fox would run around in circles, and that would happen all day. Now that's not good for the welfare of the fox, it's not good for the welfare of the dogs, and it's certainly not doing the job that we're paid to do. The reason that a number of dogs is important is that if you watch a number of dogs which are outworking, they do not run in Indian fire one behind the other, they run in a phalanx, so when the fox dodges left or right, that is immediately picked up, and the commotion which the dogs create very quickly persuade the fox that it's not safe to stay where it is, and it will expose itself to the guns who will quickly and humanely destroy it. Murdo Fraser came out to see our pack of dogs in operation, and he was witness to what happened. The dogs found a fox, there was a bit of a noise as they gave tongue for a short period of about a minute and a half, there was two bangs and everything went silent, and that is what happens. It is quick, efficient and humane, and if I could take the opportunity to suggest what some of the alternatives are. If people are using rifles, they are not any more guaranteed to be quick and effective and accurate on every occasion. If you're using spotlights, again there is an element of error there, if you're using thermal, there's an element of error there as well. The element of error in our operation is very low indeed. The fox is found, it is quickly dispatched. I'm not saying it happens in every single occasion because that is not the case. Every now and then the fox will make a mistake and tumble back and it will meet up with the hounds. I have to be honest and say that that does happen, but very rarely, and I would say about 90, 95% of the time the operation works as it is supposed to work, where the specially trained dogs do the job which they are set there to do. Now questions from Jim Fairlake and then a supplement from Ariane Burgess. Okay, I was actually going to pick up on what somebody in Duncan Millar was saying there regarding the community getting together to surround Ireland. One of the issues that I brought up last week officials was would there be a better way of doing this by having a minimum number of guns as opposed to a minimum number of dogs? Because if we're being absolutely honest about this, what this is trying to do is stop a hunt being set up with riders, two guns at either end of a huge plantation, the fox gets through and then they can go after it with hounds and horses. That's what this loophole is about so, but it's well to be honest about it. Is there value? Is there a method of saying that there has to be a specific number of guns for a specific area in order to cover that loophole and not limit the number of dogs? I think there are two issues around numbers. We are a society with some experience in how this works. We have a committee made up of people from the different parts of the area and the other footpacks I know work in a similar fashion. These local representatives know and understand the terrain in which they are working. The dog handler, the trainer, he knows the number of dogs best to take out on any particular day, any particular venue. His experience is important. As is the experience of the local representatives to understand the type of terrain that is being used and worked on that day. If you start putting numbers, restricted numbers, either of dogs or of people, then I would actually challenge whether Nature Scott, even with considerable running in time, would have the experience or the ability to actually say any better than the man on the ground what the correct number of either dogs or people would be. We are quite happy with a licensing system which would apply to the organisation, to the society, and we are quite happy to report back to the licensing authority on the operation of that licence in terms of the number of days that we were out, the number of farmers who we helped, indeed the number of foxes which were shot on days when our hounds were out. All of that is quite doable, but the licence has got to be there in a way which is workable and it's got to be workable for the terrain and using the experience and the knowledge which our members have. We're very happy to be accountable for that, quite happy for observers to come out of that so that the licence is going to work, but the licence has got to be in such a way that the society can work to its fixture list, every knows where it is and the thought of having individual licences for individual days is something frankly convener which is not workable. Okay, how do people who carry out your kind of fox control who are not part of your organisation, because I know that it does happen in other parts of the country, how do, are you saying that the only people who should have licences are those who are under organisations like yourself or if I'm farming and I know that I've got a fox problem and I know that there's a guide on the road with 15 hounds and we've got 15 neighbours that we can flush that out? Are you saying that it should only be your organisations that should have a licence? No, I'm not saying that it should be just us, but I think it should be organisations and people who are recognised for what they are doing. At the moment there are three footpacks, recognised full footpacks. There's our own one, there's one in Lochaber and Sunit and there's the three straths foxhounds at base at Tomaten. To my knowledge there are another four small groups of hounds used in the same way by individuals. There's one in Fife, there's one in Coda, near in Vanessa, there's one in Stirling and there's one near Stonehaven. Now all of these organisations would I am quite sure work within a licence system which gave the licence to those particular bodies to operate in a way which is acceptable to everybody and to be accountable to the way which they do operate. How do you feel about the 14-day limit that is currently in place? How would you like to see that amended? I think it is illogical for a 14-day limit or time period for a licence to be issued for our type of operation where if you take the Orkney experience for stote control for example where it is a two-year licence. Those two things are not compatible. We'll come on to that later but I'm specifically asking about from hunting with dogs for foxes the 14 days doesn't work. It would only work if we were working within a fixture list like that. So that would be a seasonal licence as opposed to an individual licence for every hunt. We would be quite happy to work to that licence as long as there was a day or two up to 14 days either side for a particular venue but it is not workable for us to have every 14 days to be applying for another licence. That is admin which is completely above and beyond anything which is reasonable. I'm really keen to get the opinions on this topic we're just discussing just now from other panellists. Can I ask Apenny and then Jake and then Barry to give their thoughts because we've heard quite clearly the message from Ian Duncan-Miller but I'd like to hear the views of the other panellists. My comment, obviously as Ian Duncan-Miller has just explained a very professional organisation with his hands and everything you know run following to guidance I can't see why it couldn't be possible for these kind of professional organisations to be granted a licence to work and obviously they are bound by their guidelines and you know their big threat for them if they were caught doing something they shouldn't do is that they might lose their licence so I think that that would be a good good way of you controlling and ensuring that you've got these professional organisations there doing the job as effectively and humanely as possible well-trained operations. There may then be room scope beyond that for that individual licence for somebody that maybe doesn't have access to a professional PAC and that would be a shorter term individual licence for whatever they are doing but the two-week licence is that wouldn't work for the professional type organisation that Ian's talking about and they could have you know because they are professional they have their their licence to work as they need to. Jake, your views on organisations having licences on individuals and the timescales as well please. Sorry if I might sorry I made a few notes from Ian's comments as well and if I could just chip in with those if that's okay excuse me I'm struggling with an awful throat right. First of all we absolutely support the overriding factor of welfare across the rural sector that goes without saying. Now the bill team said last week about the number of guns and you alluded to it then so the bill team feel confident that they can assess and dictate the number of dogs that may be used for a particular area but they didn't feel inclined to be able to say the same about the number of guns that would be needed so I'm not sure how you could be confident to get the decision right with one but not the other so that was something I picked up from that last week. I think it's also worth noting that Lord Bonning himself declined to recommend the limits to dogs and quoted that it's not as effective. Following on from that the league against cruel sports chief executive in 2005 has stated that pairs of dogs are utterly useless in the flushing to guns which again is interesting. There's peer reviewed evidence to show that two dogs can make a pursuit much longer so all of these things compound my question which is why the Scottish government are looking to introduce this bill and this licence because it will clearly go against their own agenda of improving welfare. You touched on the lamping as well and other methods of control. You can be an ex-practitioner or an ex-gamekeeper as well. I've dealt with the likes of lamping from when I was a police officer progressed into gamekeeping so I've seen both sides of it as well and you can effectively lamp and use them for around one and a half seasons per year and for the rest of the time the vegetation is too high to be able to do these things effectively. You can also snare which is currently under review as well so there is a possibility that we're going to lose at two of these control methods which could be absolutely devastating for both the farming community and for the conservationists as well of which farmers are. One of the points I must make as well is our focus is if a licensing scheme does come into fruition then it must be available for everyone and the method of how you follow dogs is utterly irrelevant so what we must focus on is having a licensing scheme that is workable and that's fair. Thank you. Buddy Weed. As far as I'm aware the licensing suggestion doesn't apply to the use of dogs below ground however I agree entirely with what Ian and Jake and Penny have already said. I think a season's licence is essential rather than a relatively small period of time while life management is an all year round operation just like farming is. As regards the groups of people it may well be that some of those packs of hens which are currently mounted could alter their behaviour to fit in with the new regulations and I've seen no reason why they shouldn't be included. I would suggest that the threat of losing a licence, licences can be issued and licences can be withdrawn. The threat of issuing licences and withdrawing them is sufficient for anyone to want to comply with the legislation and if they don't do so then you withdraw the licence simple as that. Arrianne Burgess, for a supplementary, excuse me. Thanks convener. I've got a couple of questions. One is for Ian Duncan-Miller and thanks so much for beginning to describe the work with foot packs. Lord Barnaby stated that when a full pack of dogs is used as part of hunting foxes 20 per cent of the foxes are actually killed by the dogs not the guns but killing foxes with dogs is already illegal. Can I ask for your experiences and as I said you did begin to describe a bit but your experiences with foot packs how many foxes are killed by dogs and how many by guns? About 90 plus 95 percent are killed by the guns. It is unusual. I speak to the handler every 10 days or fortnight through the season and it is unusual, very unusual for the hounds themselves to catch the fox. The fox nearly always goes out of the cover and is dispatched. I'm not going to pretend it never happens but then you know there's no certainties when you're dealing with wildlife but it is set up in such a way that we minimise the opportunity for the dogs and the fox to actually come in close contact with each other. And does it make any material difference to animal welfare whether the hunt is taking place on horseback or foot? From my point of view, I don't see any point and we don't have horses. Our participants are there to do a job. It's not fun, it's not leisure, it's not sport, they're there to do a job, get the job done, get back home to do the day job. So let's be absolutely clear. This is work, this is vermin control on the countryside for the benefit of agriculture and the environment. There's no element of fun or sport or enjoyment in it. Get the job done, let's get back home to the day job and get on with it. Thank you and I've got another question for Barry. So you did start in response to Mercedes' question earlier talking about terrier work and I'd like to understand a bit more about what the dogs are actually doing underground to the fox? The point of terrier below ground is it's not there to fight with the fox at all, it's there to bark with her team and to discourage him from staying below ground. It's a similar sort of game that might occur with let's say two dog foxes vying for mating rights of a vixen or territorial rights. Sorry, am I speaking to her quite yet? It's a game of bluff if you like. Terrier is a selectively bred to bark and to yap and anyone that's around a terrier knows that when you get visitors at the door or strangers on the premises what they do is they bark and they yap, they don't come up and bite you. What they do is it's just part of the very nature. We utilise that nature below ground. A terrier goes in, his job is to flush the fox from below ground. The idea is to make the fox feel less secure below ground than it is above ground and it brings me on to another issue within the conditions that are being imposed. What you have to do is you have to observe complete silence at all times so that the fox thinks I've got this yappy little dog being a nuisance. I'm going to go elsewhere where I feel more comfortable. The revised definition of under control now requires that we keep in contact with the terrier while it's below ground either by verbal commands or by hand movements or by physical touch. You can't do any of those things at all. If I was to be speaking to my terrier while it was below ground all that I would be doing is discouraging the fox or the mink or whatever wild mammal it is from leaving the ground and once again I'd be creating a standoff situation below ground and that's just what we try to avoid. We try to make the fox feel as secure as possible above ground and as uncomfortable as possible below ground without actually engaging in physicals. I've been made aware of evidence that terriers, terriers that do terrier work have scars on their faces so surely they must come into contact. If you put a dog down that is in a kind of hunt mode and comes up against a fox it's surely that's you know what's the difference between putting two dogs against each other above ground which is illegal to putting terrier down underground against a fox in a very high stressful situation. I understand completely. It's all about the manner in which you work that dog but what you have to do is you have to create the situation where the fox is not going to stop below ground and have a standoff situation. You've got to create a situation where he feels more confident to leave the earth. In nature animals don't fight with each other for fun. What they do is they avoid it. They'll have confrontations but they don't engage with each other not unless they're killing something for food. It's exactly the same situation with a terrier and a fox. The terrier doesn't want to get injured and I certainly don't want to get it injured. So how do you actually stop the dog from attacking a fox underground? It's not their nature to attack a fox, it's the nature to bark at the fox. What we do have is we have a code of conduct which says you must conduct yourself in this particular way and I have some issues with some of the conditions within the present legislation which I believe would lead to a confrontation situation rather than discourage them but if you follow our code to a letter of the law what you're doing is you're actively avoiding the type of confrontation situation which could occur. It's one of the reasons that we advocate the use of a single dog below ground rather than multiple dogs but we also acknowledge the fact that you're working with nature and that no two situations are the same so you have to build in there a degree of flexibility. So our recommendation for example is in natural earths what I would regard as natural earths the ones with the clearly defined tunnel structure. You only ever use one dog but if you've got areas of wind blown forestry rock piles cliff faces things like that if the fox is reluctant to bolt then what you do is you put in a second dog it feels less comfortable and then it leaves the earth. So I hear your bit about the way in which the dog has worked but how often does it happen that a dog would attack a fox underground? I would say first of all it depends on the circumstances and the manner in which you work them. We did a survey of vets in areas where it was suggested that there was a high degree of fox control particularly including terriers and the question that we asked them was how often of you found it necessary to treat work-related injuries in terriers? Never infrequently, frequently and the answer was in most instances infrequently or never. I think there was oh and there was a fourth question sorry how often were those of a serious nature? I'm afraid I don't probably don't have a copy of the table with me somewhere. The other one was how often are these injuries serious and I think of all the vet surveyed there was one vet which saw serious injuries and that was once and it was 20 years ago which was prior to the implementation of our cowder, this is a survey we did about 10 years ago. It was prior to the implementation of our cowder conduct, it was prior to modern locating equipment, all the things that have evolved over time. There are now frequent terrier injuries being reported amongst any of those vets. Thank you. It may be helpful if you've got that information to provide the committee that would be most helpful. It was just a supplementary for Ian Duncan Miller. I just want to check that I've understood the point that you were making about the exception for a 14-day licence. Were you saying that the reason you oppose it is because in a particular season it would be required almost continuously, so it would create an administrative burden because you would have to keep applying for sequential licences? Convener, yes, is the answer to the question. In the season just finished, the first appointment was on 1 October and the society was in operation in different places throughout our area continuously up until Wednesday the 30th of March, operating two, sometimes three days, sometimes four days a week. That would have been with more than two dogs? Always with more than two dogs. Gix Wendalls. Thank you. Just to touch on that point as well. The 14-day licence versus the two-year environmental benefit, my understanding of where the two years come from is that that's the maximum amount of time that the Scottish Government can issue a licence for such a purpose. We're really struggling to understand why the 14-day, first of all, how the 14-days came about and why that's been considered. I know the Bill Team made reference to one Farm A and Farm B with the terms last week. One week Farm A could have a licence and the next week Farm B could have a licence. In reality, it just doesn't work like that. Foxes certainly do not identify boundaries. They've got a wide range, particularly when they're looking for food, so they may have a den on one farm, which might be an arable farm, and they might feed on the livestock farm next door, in which case you would be able to effectively flush it from the livestock farm back onto the arable farm and stop at the boundary because you are no longer able to follow up, if you like. It causes all kinds of problematic issues. The 14-day licence from every rural sector organisation representative I've spoken to on this side effectively says that it's just not workable. Before we move on to the next section, I'll bring you both in, but the question was that 95 per cent is a commendable figure. On a date where you're out controlling the foxes, how many foxes are you likely to shoot? Some days they are without success, other days could be five, could be six, that sort of number. For the season last year, I think the total was one five four, so that was the total number of foxes shot on days when our society and our handler were out. 154 foxes were accounted for. It was just falling on from Jake there about the two weeks limits for the licence and just raising the sort of why there's a difference in the proposed bill with the introduction of the control use of more than two dogs to control foxes for reasons of biodiversity. Why there that's a two-year licence for basically effectively the same activity whereas the one for controlling agricultural damage you're looking at a two-week licence and just again raising that thing that there's a massive overlap there between the work of controlling for agricultural damage and the positive impacts that that has also on biodiversity. It's quite a fine line between the two as to which they both get the same sort of results effectively. Just before we move on to the next section, Rachel Hamilton's got a brief supplementary. Yeah, we're short of time, so it's a yes, no. Most of you spoke about this term under control. Do you think that that should be revised and possibly revert back to the wording of 2002 act? We're now going to move on to the section looking at licensing. I know we've touched on a lot of licensing issues, but we're specifically going to look at sections 4, 8 and 9, Jenny Minto. It's really a quick question because you have given a lot of information with regards to licensing and your views on it, but what really struck me in the evidence, your written evidence, was you kept using the word workable and you've used it again a lot in this session. I'd like you just for the record to tell us what you think will make the licence workable. Jake, do you want to start? I think that workable should mean that it's available to everyone, it's easily applied for, it's affordable. I know that with the financial memorandum that came out, it was suggested that it may be cost-neutral at some point, so if there's a 14-day licence that's going to be cost-neutral, then you're looking at numerous licenses that the applicant would have to pay for, would have to evidence, would have to meet a certain threshold, would potentially not meet that threshold and be refused, which would cause issues such as livestock damage or conservation damage, financial damage, mental health issues as well. I think that workable for the sector is something that is absolutely fair, that is accessible by everyone and works well for everyone, not just individual sectors of anybody that controls foxes or rabbits. I agree with what Jake says but also stress the usefulness of having professional organisations that have got a licence to work, which then as a farmer would give you the option to call on their services and get a really good professional service done. The workability and the practicality of it, for instance, if you're in the middle of a lambing and you're suddenly getting lambs taken a couple of days delay and actually trying to get a licence can be quite significant. It's fair to say that that's the discussions that I've had with some of my farming constituents, that's what they have raised with me is the pressures of work and the pressure at the same time. The pressure then on NatureScot as well if they're the ones issuing the licences that they probably could issue them all if they all came in evenly throughout the year but they're not going to come in and bulk at certain times of the year. I think that in all your evidence you suggested that NatureScot was a suitable organisation to do that, if, as Ian Duncan-Miller has said, it's properly resourced. Can you explain why you think NatureScot is the right organisation? It's their experience that they've got with already issuing licences. They issue most of the licences that are there for various things, for general licences, through to more specific licences for situations where agricultural damage has occurred and they've got the experience of working. For instance, we did quite a lot of work with them on the raven licensing. Again, because it was really problematic getting those raven licences, so I spoke to them about what was needed and what was necessary. They've got that experience there that I think would be useful to me. Jake and Otis, you've indicated. Yeah, thank you. I agree with Penny. It would make sense for NatureScot to be the licensing authority. What might make things difficult, the decisions that they might have to make in relation to a specific area that the licence would be assigned to, the amount of dogs that might be used, so whilst they probably will be the appropriate licence and authority, I think that they will need help throughout the process of building the licence from the rural community and stakeholders and practitioners just to make it very easy for them at the time to be able to issue a licence. Mr Duncan Miller, would you? Thank you, convener. I think that there are various issues. The extra and unnecessary administration should be avoided in all things that we do and includes this. The whole process of applying every 14 days for a licence would add costs, which is quite unreasonable and quite inappropriate. I mean our dog handler is a whiz with dogs, but he's not a whiz with paperwork, so it's crazy to try and think of a system to build in a new system which is going to add costs unnecessarily. The other two issues which concern us, one is the expertise available within NatureScot. They are the right body because, frankly, I see nobody else in a good position to do it, but they do need help, they do need experience under the belt to be able to do it effectively. The issue of timescales is very important that we've got to be able to work in a method that actually suits our members. In other words, if there is a situation around Laming Time, for example, where a rogue fox appears and starts killing, then it must be possible for our society to step in and help that member. The other issue that we've got is perhaps more fundamental and hasn't been mentioned yet, and that is the ability to challenge a licence. I think that there will have to be some method of challenging licences, but it cannot be on an ad hoc basis where it would add immeasurable time to getting the operation done effectively. I think that the challenge needs to be restricted in such a way that the licence could only be challenged where the conditions of a licence were actually being broken and broken consistently, and not simply because there was somebody out there who had a different view. I think that we are all aware that there are lots of people in society with different views on all sorts of different things, and this particular subject is particularly sensitive to that, and we need to make sure that whatever licence system we put in place, it cannot be challenged immediately to a stop to a practical situation, and we need to be subject to due process so that it could be demonstrated that the licence holder was actually over the piece, not obeying the licence, rather than an objection coming in which stopped things that morning. I think that everything has been covered, to be honest. The only thing that I would stress is the importance of involving practitioner groups. It is in their interest to be as open and transparent with, however, his draft in the legislation as possible and also with representatives of the forming community. That is all that I have got to add, really. It was interesting that you made the point about having a licence and getting that rescinded would be a very useful way of controlling malpractice in humanity and bad welfare. I am interested in the difference, because you have talked a couple of times about your code of conduct—the difference between a code of conduct and a licence. What are the penalties under your code of conduct? Well, as far as I am concerned, the difference between a code of conduct and a licence is that we are a voluntary organisation, so we are not in a position to licence anyone. All that we can do is suggest that this is what we believe you should do, and when we come to dealing with members of our own organisations, then we can take action against them. In terms of the wider community, we do not have the powers that, for example, this committee has. A licence gives a stronger tool to ensure that people follow the correct welfare of the wildlife and also their animals. There are other countries where licences are an absolute necessity, and the threat of the withdrawal of that licence is better than having a placement on every corner. Rachel Halt, on the general question of licences, our members are mostly hill farmers and people who have managed land in the hills in Uplands. The crossover between agricultural benefit and environmental benefit is enormous. Upland waiters and the committee will be familiar with the discussions around that. The biggest predators are foxes, so we offer a service that is of greater benefit to the farmers and to the wider environment, just to pick that point. I keep referring to the bill team. Obviously, it was a very important session last week. The bill team also stated that farmers will not need a licence all year round, which is one of the considerations for the 14-day licence. The reality is that the likes of fox management are an ongoing process. It is a full all year round management process, and without that process, there would be far more of them, more predation on stock, livestock and on red-listed species as well. My point was that they need to be able to control predators all year round. If I could just touch on licensing as well, were the likes of the licensing process particularly a general licence? They are reviewed annually. They are relevant to a particular species or topic, and they can also be withdrawn as well. For the sector, I wonder why. I know that the question was asked last week, but I do not feel that there is a full enough answer to why a general licence cannot be considered for that process. Generally, if we are where we are, do you think that you can propose a licensing system that would work on an annual basis? Would that be a licence, a licence at a park? Would you licence an operator? Would you licence a piece of land? How do you see that working? We have put together a licence in working group when the bill first came out, and that involves all of the organisations here today, plus others, the National Sheep Association, the BSC and pretty much every rural stakeholder with an interest in this particular bill. I am absolutely confident that we could put together and work with the Scottish Government on a proper and workable licence that would suit everyone. I am going to do all those questions, but I need to go back to the wild mammal definition convener, because I just want to ask Barry, do you think that that should be amended for the Fox and Mink definition? I just want a yes or no. Yes, definitely a wild mammal. Okay, second point. Jake, has your working group met with Mary McCallan? Not yet. We have a meeting this Thursday, and Mary McCallan has agreed to put observers on the group, which is very good news. Obviously, we are looking forward to working with her directly, and the next meeting after that, I believe, is when hopefully we will be able to move forward with Mary. Okay, now to my proper questions. Right, so you have all mentioned terrain that is an issue. How will NatureScot understand with such a possibly large application of licences for licences the number of dogs that should be involved in that action? My second point is what happens to the dogs if they are not working? For example, if NatureScot does not understand the density of a forest and they give a licence for two dogs to work within that cover, will those dogs be exhausted and therefore it is an animal welfare issue? What happens to us? What are the practicalities? Do you kill the hounds? What do you do? Do you kill dogs? Are they sent to slaughter? Can we have the raw detail of this, please? Chairman, there are unintended consequences. If the bill goes through as it is just now, somebody is going to have to turn to our dog handler and say, look, you need to euthanise these dogs. Now, who's going to do it? I hope it's not me. We have a kennel of about 35 dogs, and on any one day, about 20 to 24 dogs are taken out by the handler to do his job. The point that I was making earlier about numbers is that the licence should allow discretion for the dog handler in conjunction with the local representative to understand the best and appropriate number of dogs to take out. If you end up recommending to Government that a licencing body, like NatureScot, as we're all agreed, is able to put a restriction on the number of dogs for any particular day, how can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that somebody sitting in an office in Battle Bay will know better what the appropriate number of dogs for that day would be than the local representative and the dog handler? It's just, sorry, it's nonsense. So, if you put those numbers on, yes, the restriction would inevitably mean dogs being euthanised, and that is not something that any of us would like to do. These dogs are bred for a purpose, they are kept in kennels, which anybody would be quite happy to go and see. It's actually quite fun to go in among them, to be honest. They're remarkably clean animals, they are there, they are quite happy animals, they get taken out every day for a run with their complete group, so they're running out 35, 40 dogs running about together, the dog handler has them trained when he blows his whistle, they know it's feed time, so back they come. Any of you have experienced in training any kind of dog, repetition and reward, it works for our dogs as well, so they are under control, and yes, I would really like to avoid any situation where dogs are euthanised, and if you start putting low numbers or restriction on the licence, that's what's going to happen. Anyone else? Penny? I was just going to effectively agree with Ian there that we have talked about NatureScot and the sort of steep learning curve that they would have if they were to be required to make these kind of judgments on, you know, not just whether a licence should be issued, but how many dogs should be allowed and that kind of thing. We've mentioned that these packs, they're professional groups doing professional job and they know the job, so again I think that it comes down to in the licensing that those kind of decisions should fall to the people that know and work the system. Very quick, we'll just add, I mentioned the numbers. We have arrived at those numbers not through any ad hoc decision making, it's his experience, that's what works. The handler takes out 20 to 24 dogs, he knows that is the quickest way to put pressure on the fox to flush the fox to the guns. If we go with two, three, four dogs into a large plantation, it simply won't work. The objectives of this bill is to improve welfare all round, both for the wild animals and for the dogs that should be used. If you restrict numbers, you can make matters worse, not better. I mentioned the cost-neutral aspect just a short time ago. If NatureScot needs to conduct any site visits, which I would imagine they will, because I would imagine whoever is issuing the licence won't be familiar with every piece of ground, then there will be a cost element to that as well. If the bill or application for the licence is going to be cost-neutral effectively, then that cost will only go one way and that's to the applicant. Is it not the case that in the session that we had last week he was suggesting that NatureScot would not argue about what were workable solutions and that they would work with the dog handler or other organisations or individuals? Is it not unlikely that NatureScot would come back and say, well, we think you're wrong, you don't need 15 dogs, you only need 10? They will use their expertise to ensure. They will recognise that Ian Duncan-Miller has been doing this for a long time and is the expert on this. Unless we have grounds to suggest that it's an unreasonable number of dogs and I don't know why they would do that. I suppose what's really important is the relationship that's built up between those who are controlling the predators and NatureScot. I would like to think that there would be a situation where they would be saying that you're wrong, we want to halft the number of dogs, they would assume that the experts would know best. All through this process it's been focused on animal welfare and I think we've got to take that as given. Rachel, have you any further questions? I want to make the point really that listening to Jake Swindells there about the resource, it's something that we haven't really touched on as a committee. I think it's important to recognise the vast land mass that we have in Scotland where we need to control pests. I mean it's a huge area to cover for NatureScot and if every single NatureScot person has to go on farm every 14 days. I mean how many people is that going to involve and how many millions of pounds? That was just a comment. I could gain more back to the presumption that those controlling the pests will assume to be the experts. I'm fairly... I'm actually going to come into this and I'm going to come back to you with just a clarification. But as you all you know I've been involved in how sheep farming for 30 years so I know this business intimately. On that point that the conveners just made I had a very very good work in relationship with NatureScot when it came to getting a licence to control ravens that were predating lambs on us. But one of the points that Ariane made earlier on to yourself Barrett about dogs below ground, the only time I've ever seen that going wrong and dogs coming out hurt is if you've got two dogs down for one burl and the back dog's pushing the front dog in and you get the fight. That's just mishandling by a particular handler. If they're licensed they're going to be really clever careful about how they put dogs down. That's the only time I've ever seen a dog getting actually into contact with a fox. Would that be a fair assessment? That's exactly the reason that our code's written the way that it is. Most definitely. I think the wording in our code is we actively discourage the use of more than one dog below ground but we then have a caveat that in certain circumstances there are benefits and it goes beyond the sort of rock faces that are mentioned. There could well be an equipment failure. We've not touched on the fact that today most areas that go to ground are actually fitted with very sophisticated locating equipment or the fact that you may be rescuing a dog below ground so there's a need. You could have a dog that's trapped. It may not necessarily be a working dog. Our clubs offer a rescue service for pet dogs. They just follow the natural instincts and they're below ground and we get a call. It's not so much that the dog's actually stuck. It's actually joined itself. It's just following what the good Lord intended it to do but to an unfamiliar owner that's a very stressful situation and also you've got an unfit dog that's below ground as well. I've got a number of concerns about some of the conditions that are not associated with the use of dogs below ground. We believe much more could be done to make the whole process more animal welfare friendly. There are a number of conditions that were taken out of the previous act which we consider has been very worthwhile and I can't understand why they've been taken out. For example the requirement that if a dog becomes trapped below ground that we don't act immediately. That was in the previous bill. Sorry can you say that again buddy? In the previous bill should a dog become trapped below ground there's a requirement that we acted immediately. That's been taken out of the bill. I've got a couple of examples. The previous bill said all reasonable one of the conditions was that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the fox or mink which in my opinion should read mammal is flushed as soon as reasonably possible after it is located and shot as soon as possible after it is flushed. I think that's a clear objective that we should be attempting to follow. It also included in there was and that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent injury to the dog including steps to prevent the dog becoming trapped underground. I'm very conscious of time. The information you give us is really important so if you could provide that and write into the committee that would be most helpful. I'm just very conscious. We've only got eight or nine minutes left in this session. And similarly, the table that I referred to. Yes please. And your examples of where the bill is lacking compared to the existing legislation would be helpful. We're going to move on to the prohibition of trail hunting which is covered in sections 11 and 12 and we've got questions from Beatrice Wishart and Jenny Minto. I know very little about trail hunting so I wonder if you could explain the extent to which trail hunting is practised in Scotland and the impact therefore that a ban would have. And I'd be interested to hear your views on the exception to the trail hunting ban for training dogs to follow an animal-based scent. Jake, you've got your best position to answer this one. Thank you. Quite honestly, it isn't really practised very much tall in Scotland, much more so south of the border. So as you know at the minute, it's a legal activity. There are no welfare issues related to that activity. It's a very useful activity to be able to train and bring on young dogs so if that was removed then the ability to effectively train trained dogs would be restricted as well. I struggle to understand, I understand the reasoning behind it but because it's not an activity that regularly takes place and it is a legal activity I'm not sure, you have to draw an inference as to why trail hunting is being targeted and whether this is a targeted attack if you like on traditional hunting because there have been no fences where trail hunting is concerned over the past 20 years since the 2002 legislation came in and so the question has got to be asked why really this seems to be under the spotlight. Sorry if I could just progress from that as well. For a more community aspect, traditional hunting obviously involves following on a horseback now. Generally the horse, the riders have very little contact with the pack and certainly the fox as well. It's a big community aspect and if you remove trail hunting as well and there are restrictions to traditional hunting as it stands then you're effectively removing what could be a very big community benefit both for mental health and economically for the local community as well so it will have that knock-on effect. Just on, so do you believe that the reasons for banning trail hunting have no grounds when it comes to animal welfare? It's actually the practice of people jumping on horses and going across the countryside. It's just unpalatable to some people. It's hard to think of it any other way. There are a number of aspects of the bill that seem to point in that direction in trail hunting being the most obvious one. Alasdair Allan has got a supplementary question. Yes, although I do live in the countryside, like most of the people in the committee, I don't have foxes in my constituency so I defer to your knowledge on that but just for Jake Swindells you're talking about trail hunting. Would you draw some distinction between hunting, whether it's trail hunting or anything else, would you draw a distinction between dogs following an animal or another set when it comes to the usefulness of that exercise or the potential of use of it? The things are very similar but for instance with drag hunting if you train the animals to follow an aniseed scent for instance then they no longer are as effective to be able to follow a fox scent to flush it from cover. So whilst each one of these things have the place it needs to be as realistic as possible to be able to train the dogs in a realistic circumstance. Does the bill not actually provide for the training of dogs for those very reasons? Yes, it does. I think that the bill focuses very much still on the likes of recovery of injured deer and such like. My understanding is that the bill allows for that but we may be able to talk about that with the next panel as well. I think that what is unclear is whether drag hunting is considered dog training. I think that that's where I'm certainly confused whether that trail hunting could actually be included in that. Ian Duncan-Miller. It is not an activity for our society at all. I'm interested in the fact that you know dogs are intelligent animals and if you're following a trail and then a fox comes in the dogs are intelligent enough to chase the fox. I suppose that from the way that I look at that that's perhaps one of the loopholes that this is looking to change or to close I should say. I'm interested that both in Wales and on national trust properties that the trail hunting has been banned. Have you got any comments as to how that has impacted? I think what must be understood first of all having spoken with Kennel staff and those that effectively run and operate the dogs who essentially are the experts here which is why we seek information from them is that older dogs in the pack can keep the younger dogs in line so effectively the older dogs do take on some of the training as well of the younger dogs so if the younger dog does stray away from the scent then the older dog will scold it and bring it back in again so without that capability without that training I think things will be a lot more difficult as well. Any comment on the impact of the ban in Wales of trail hunting as I understand it? Yeah it's not something that I can comment on with any authority to be quite honest. Trail hunting isn't necessarily practiced regularly up here so I wouldn't say I'm an authority on why and the reasons why they're looking at it in Wales. Thank you and finally we move to part to give the bill on enforcement and Jim Farley's got the final question. Yeah we know that the legislation can be fairly punitive you can have vehicles etc removed from your possession if you are proven a broke in the law. This bill includes having a horse or horses removed from your possession if you're a convicted person. How do you? What is your views on that and Jacob? I'm going to come to you because obviously Ian you want to have an issue with that. Initially the sector felt that it was probably slightly more targeted towards traditional hunting but we asked the same questions to the bill team when I spoke to Mary McCallan and the bill team were on the call in support. I do understand there is legislation separate from this bill that covers any vehicle used in the commission of a crime so I think the process was that that's not repeated and doubled in this bill which I think is why the likes of most vehicles aren't included in the bill. But they can have vehicles taken off them if people are found to be broke breaking the law because one of the concerns that has been raised here is this seems like a targeted attack on a particular group it's not it's just bringing any group into line with the legislation. Yep that's my understanding of it. There is separate legislation that covers the recovery and the seizure of motor vehicles and that's why it's just a horse. So horses being included in here would not cause you any concern? No providing there is legislation across the board to deal with every aspect and it's not just a targeted issue. Okay thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Do any of the panel members having listened to what you've said there about loss of livestock etc believe that if it wasn't possible to control predators there should be a provision within the bill for compensation? Jay? Yes thank you. That's something that just hasn't been raised whether it's been thought about I'm really not sure. I think at the point of refusal of a licence I think two things will happen. I think the conversation will be sought on the loss that's occurred whether it's conservationally or whether it's more likely through livestock and also that is the point which we'll probably see the first judicial review as well with the refusal of a licence. So there are potentially a couple of things that could happen there but conversation is something that hasn't been hasn't been accounted for as far as we're aware. Penny? Compensation always yeah it's a difficult one. You there's from other predator losses and things like that. Compensation is something that's rarely offered so that's why it is you want to actually be able to control the problem in the first place and not have to be compensated for it and you it's a complex issue. Compensation when you're talking about hill flocks if you've got considerable losses of lambs it can actually affect the entire viability of the the flock it's not just a case of giving them money to replace the lambs because in nature of hefted flocks they're not actually replaceable and so they can't you know the lambs have to be born on the hill and stay on the hill you can't just buy in replacements so it's it's you know a much bigger issue for compensation and I did mention earlier the mental health aspect of it that you know it is very very difficult for farmers dealing with these losses and compensation yes it might help to some extent but it still won't address the yeah the feelings that they get. Penny am I right in saying just correct me if I'm wrong that with the livestock worrying bill that was put through last year that there is an avenue for compensation for loss of livestock I think yeah I think you're right with that um and again it's it's how would you compensate how how is that compensation calculated becomes the very tricky question you've got um yes you could have a an auctioneer value on an animal um but as I say sometimes there's more to the value of that animal than just the simple simple market value or what you might have um yeah lost financially we we Ian we delayed come on very quickly there are precedents for compensation whitetail seagulls beavers there are various presidents there what I would be more concerned about would be consistency so that the license would apply consistently to agriculture and to environmental gain and again I refer back to the opening example thank you we are running overtime but I would quite like to get this on record um with the bill moving forward can ask you all individually what you think the the critical amendments to this bill would be for you to think it was workable and fit for purpose for for the sector you represent I'll start with barry and work I think some of the conditions and definitions definitely need revision and and I'm happy to write to you separately about that thank you Ian for us it's all around the license and the license has got to be available in a in a reasonable manner that we've already discussed but if the licensing system is is done properly then the rest the bill we as I said at the start we concur with the objectives of that that's in the bill any again main main issue around the licenses and the issues that we've already discussed about if for instance professional packs being issued a license seasonally rather than every 14 14 days and the issues we've discussed around rabbits and maintaining the strength that the hair coursing side of things um and not not losing it losing there but introducing something like we say about um the defence of whether you've got permission to be on the land they're doing the activity thank you and jeak um I think one of the main things is the reduction to two dogs that's the most problematic thing um so I think a pack must be able to operate and operate easily um the license must be fair and available to people across the board regardless of terrain and obviously we're looking at open forestry and open land being the main topics of conversation but then you've got fields lowlands full of crops which acts exactly in exactly the same manner the 14 day license as well absolutely not workable so I think either a seasonal license or in line with a two-year environmental benefit license or indeed a general license type thank you very much that ends our sessions just wanted to thank you all for your valuable evidence that will help us inform our work as we move forward we'll now suspend for a comfort break and a change of our witnesses and we'll resume at 11 20 okay I welcome to our meeting our second panel who'll be focusing on conservation issues and this morning we've got Ross McLeod the head of policies Scotland for the game and wildlife conservation trust and Duncan or Ewing head of species and land management with RSPB we've got about 45 minutes for questioning I'm going to kick off can you give me your experiences relating to wildlife management with dogs for conservation purposes so for example the control of a non-native invasive species or management of predators for endangered species and we'll kick off with Ross thank you convener first of all our experiences mostly mostly around collecting information by use of dogs so for instance in terms of species counts we use dogs quite regularly for that purpose I think that'll be the main reason that we are engaged with or have experience of use of dogs we also obviously see it in connection with predator control aspects and we can elaborate on that in due course but I think I think the primary reason would be for for data collection for scientific purposes is our main remit okay and Duncan so for us I would divide this really into two areas that's our specifically our land management and then projects that we're involved with so I'll start with the projects so most of our use of dogs for projects is as conservation detection dogs for control of invasive non-native species especially in Scotland on islands so where it has been necessary to use dogs to detect rats on Orkney for example the current Orkney native wildlife project to detect stotes as part of the non-native stotes as part of the eradication programme that is ongoing on the Orkney isles yeah so that's our main use like Ross said the other use that we would use dogs for is occasionally for research purposes and actually it's one thing that maybe isn't covered in the bill that we were going to mention is that sometimes you do need to use dogs for research purposes I know the bill doesn't cover birds it covers mammals but for example you might want to use dogs for example for the detection of pine martins or something like that for research purposes I just mentioned that the other aspect that is in relation to our land management so as a significant landowner in Scotland we occasionally carry out fox control we do not use dogs for control of foxes on our land all the fox control that we do is done through shooting we work to what has been our vertebrate we call our vertebrate control policy which are strict ethical standards around fox control and predator and vertebrate control and we're advised by an ethics committee on those standards the standards that we employ are very similar to the seven principles of ethical wildlife control which I know have been discussed in the parliament recently the only other occasion where we would kill foxes on our land is naveliness where we have a neighbouring farmer who is experiencing land predation by foxes and in those cases we would consent to controlling foxes for that purpose just on that you know you see you don't use dogs to help control foxes what is that based on given the previous panel that said that sometimes hunting with dogs was the the most animal welfare minded way to control foxes or the only way to actually control them effectively and undergrowth and whatever what did you base your decision on what did at SPB base of decision on not using dogs to control foxes so we have an ethics committee which helps in form of animal welfare and other expertise which helps in form our policies around predator control which is built into our our council approved vertebrate control policy and that sets out methods and ways that we can humanely control vertebrates on our land i mean most of the management of vertebrates that we actually do on our Scottish estate is deer management we do do some fox control but it's very much a last resort and from our perspective the most and the advice that we're getting from our experts is the most humane way to control foxes is through shooting them by experience and trained marksmen and we would quite often go to our local bask accredited gang keep or whoever to do that work for us you know again listen to the previous panel there are there are situations right across scotland where shooting is not is not possible without the ability to flush foxes from undergrowth does that limit your ability to prevent damage to endangered ground nesting birds and so on yeah so i don't think we would claim that the fox control that we do is the most efficient fox control but we do it in a way we have a lot of ground nesting birds clearly on our reserves we use fox control to control wet predators but we take an evidential approach so it's not always foxes that are predating ground nesting birds it can be other things like for example badgers sometimes eat waiter and grouse eggs and things and also we found that sometimes livestock will eat including sheep will eat waiter eggs so our approach is based on an evidential method we use nest cameras and things like that before we even embark on any form of predator control on our land and as i say we have never found it necessary to use dogs to control foxes on our land all our control is done through shooting using trained marksmen has there ever been evidence provided to RSPB that suggested that flushing foxes might be the best method and RSPB have decided they don't want to do that for for other reasons evidence will have been provided and considered by our ethics committee and and built into our vertebrate control policy we take advice from experts in this area we also take advice from animal welfare bodies like the Scottish SPCA for example okay thank you arrianne bodges thanks convener i think i've got a question for Duncan but you've actually responded to most of those to the convener's questions but just a follow-up on that so the the bill proposes a licensing scheme for using more than two dogs for wildlife control purposes individual landowners farmers and organisations will be able to apply for these licenses but i'm aware that for some predators species like mink control measures are often are only efficacious in the long term if they're done at a landscape scale but how do you think the approach to species control in scotland could be improved could we take an alternative approach to simply allowing greater numbers of dogs to be used by license holders in their local area so that's a long question yes agree with you that things like mink control are only effective indeed we only participate really in mink control schemes where they're done at a landscape scale that is the most effective way to i mean mink being an invasive non-native species of course in terms of in terms of fox control as i say you're probably asking the wrong person because we don't use we don't use dogs to control fox on our land i can't actually envisage a case where we would need more than two dogs for the work that we do be it research or be it control of invasive non-native species on islands i don't know whether that answers your question i think what i'm trying to get at is is and again maybe you won't be able to answer this question but it's this idea that we need to start looking at the whole kind of ecology and a larger landscape approach and we've got some opportunities coming as well with you know the agricultural bill bringing conditionalities and looking towards biodiversity so i i'm just wondering if we're looking at a scotland that is deeply scarred and if we actually have this landscape scale approach that could actually transform form how we approach wildlife management yeah i very much agree with that as you will know we're involved with some of the big biggest landscape scale restoration projects in scotland including the flow country and the peatland restoration work the work at kengelms connect in the kengelms the great trossocks forest project and others so that is that is part certainly part of our ethos i would agree with that and you know we're in terms of other vertebrate control like deer management it makes sense to do it at that kind of level our experience would be the same that we've had growth in the farmer clusters down in england being able to transfer that particular collaboration to scotland will be a great step forward i think particularly in terms of for instance rodear management in in low ground situations where ownership can be quite fragmented but getting people together constructively to manage would be would be useful and in terms of predator control you could see the same that it would help organise more efficiently for that control thank you thanks convener supplementary from rachel howellton yeah thank you i wondered what both witnesses approach to the the shared outlook to world life management is so the shared approach that nature scot are taking it was mentioned in the chamber last week and one of the questions i asked the minister mary mcallan was is about a sort of approach that would allow stakeholders that know best within the rural settings such such as our conservation farmers or land managers and how they would be involved in this and to expand on where i'm trying to get at i am slightly confused about the the approach to world life management when it comes to ensuring that we protect endangered species species the red list species such as the the report from nature scot that said that you know we will never if we carry on the way that we are carrying on in terms of the capocalian and you know decline we need to be looking at world life management in a different way and i think it speaks very much to this bill because there's been a lot of comment in the last two sessions that we've had where it appears that one group of people have been treated in one way and another group of people are treated in another so environmentalists are almost a better being than somebody who's working the land every day do you see where i'm coming from i mean we are a land manager a significant land manager in scotland so i would hope you're not treating us in the way that you know we do understand how how land is managed we have agricultural operations on our land we have woodland woodland operations on our land as well invasive non-native species are clearly one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss and that i have to say is one of the reasons why we are very happy that section seven of this bill does look at the environmental aspects of of wildlife management and environmental benefit and conservation exceptions it was one of the issues with the 2002 act when it went when it was passed that it actually didn't really consider the environmental aspects and very recently you know work particularly to restore biodiversity on seabird islands and where many of the ground predators are non-native species it is very important that we have that have that facility but yeah in terms of the collaboration yes absolutely essential i don't know whether that answers your question yeah ross be the same for us as well that it's uh it's a matter of of collaboration and having the trust to work together particularly when we see challenging situations that need to be resolved and being able to use information and collection of evidence to for best reason is particularly in terms of adaptive management process um having the courage to do that is quite a big step and i think we all need to work together towards that whether it's for waders or other species that are at risk at the moment sorry i should have said we are we are signed up to the nature scott shared principles of wildlife management which you referenced so uh you will see our name against them is the rspb signed up to the shared approach sorry i can't hear that what are your views on the shared approach to world life management we're signed up to it yeah okay so just to expand on this as well um i know that the rspb are evidence led um i'm just wondering whether there's any provisions within the bill that don't allow the rspb to take a view of an approach that that protects species so that's questions to me um i have to say we're largely contempt with the bill and the way it's framed i mean the key the key area for us as i say is that section seven and the environmental benefit uh the main the main issues we have around that are some of the definitions uh that are being used and just consistency with other pieces of legislation for example the wildlife and natural environment act uh 2011 or the wildlife and countryside act uh 1981 which have some different definitions for example uh around native uh non-native species so um i mean non-native to area um we we would encourage you to think about making the definition of invasive non-native species as appropriate as possible uh we support the biographical approach we think that's what's intended in the bill uh so just in that context things like stoats are non-native to awkney hedgehogs are non-native to the western aisles that kind of that kind of thinking and i have to say we prefer the 2011 definition at weinac definition uh which is reference to the locality where the animal plant is indigenous or out with its native range than the one that is proposed here so it's those kind of definitions that are more of interest to us i mean there are other definitions that we would like to see improved for example the whole enclosed game birds definition um and um there are some other things about action being taken as as soon as reasonably possible i mean for given the awkney stote example um you know it the way the way that project works it may may take several there's no start point in terms of when as soon as reasonably possible starts and it may take several days for example to actually do the work that's necessary to control stoats so i'm just i'm just mentioning some of those definitions it would be very helpful to us to have clarified by officials in fact we've in new all have seen in our response we've specifically asked for that okay there was discussion in the earlier session regarding the definition of underground control of um mink that was included and uh fox so that there was possibly a suggestion that that should be uh broadened um but i don't know if you agree with that but maybe those parts of the recommendations we you could write to the committee on where you believe that the bill could be improved in terms of those definitions from from both mr mcleodown and yourself we've we've done that we've we've we've highlighted about five or six points where we think the definitions could helpfully be improved and they're mostly around because our main interest in this this bill is around uh uh you know use of uh a conservation detection dogs for control of non-native species which is a growing area of work especially with the biodiversity crisis the threats to seabirds i mean we're seeing now just talking to the convener the break there about the avian influenza outbreak that is now affecting many of our seabirds you know they are stressed from a range of issues that are going on out there in the environment and we have to take all the measures we can to safeguard their populations and that includes control of invasive non-native species can we just bear in mind everybody this we're discussing hunting with dogs i'm i'm a few or this is grown arms and legs today but can we focus on actually the bill that's in front of us can i go to jim fairly alasar allan and then supplementaries okay thanks very much convener morning gentlemen asr you Duncan sorry my apologies you said earlier on that you don't use dogs at all do you believe that it is unethical to use dogs to flush foxes that is the advice that we are given by our ethics committee as i say they have our vertebrate control policy that governs the wildlife management that we do on our nature reserves the advice that we're getting is yes that that is not a humane approach we do not use and there are other methods for example of fox control that we are advised that we should not use like snaring so the method that is our agreed method through our vertebrate control policy which as i say largely adheres to the seven ethical principles of wildlife control is that shooting of foxes via trained marksman is the most humane and indeed most efficient method okay if you're trying to protect kappa kailey which we clearly have to do if we're going to save them by and large they're going to be in wooded areas how you're going to get those foxes shooting them in woodland so we do very limited predator control for kappa kailey in fact has an evidence-based organisation we you know we follow the evidence and have to say that in terms of fox and crow control we have limited evidence that actually that benefits kappa kailey the the woodlands that we're dealing with i mean especially our Abernethi nature reserve we actually have very low densities of foxes and crows when compared to example you know out in farland in the straff i might be wrong in this but i believe that we read somewhere in a report that one of the main things that was highlighted in a recent report about kappa kailey is making sure that predation was limited and foxes were actually cited i could be wrong in that so i will check that there's one other point i want to come to you you are the RSPB not you personally I apologize for that the RSPB is one of the largest landowners in the country and you do farm is it an issue for you when you're farming to actually be profitable or is it simply to maintain the landscape so our farming is all of our nature reserves have management plans with agreed objectives which are focused around as you would expect on a nature enhancing the biodiversity the important biodiversity of those sites in the farming context we have some in-hand farming but more often we actually work with grazing tenants on grazers on licenses our largest in-hand farming operation is on isla um so yeah we we as i say where are you know where farmers ask us for naveliness reasons to control foxes we will do that where they are suffering lamb predation or whatever do you have a limit i last week officials were saying that they thought a 10% was an acceptable level to take action do you have a limit is to say right okay well you've now had so many lambs killed we'll do something about it or is it an immediate response it's an immediate response if a farmer comes to us we will we will authorise control of foxes but it will be according if it's on our land it will be according to our methods you know we will not allow the neighbouring farmer to come on and use dogs to control foxes on our our land we will we will bring in a trained marksman to do the fox control okay but the primary function of your in-hand farming is not to be profitable it is to well there is an element of profitability i mean some of our some of our farming makes a reasonable return but our primary purpose for farming the land is to graze the land usually to manage for biodiversity all right okay i'll come back to the other question where can i go thank you allister allen thank you just to pick up on something you said there mr or doing and it was he talked about how i think you said you'd never felt the need to go beyond roughly what's in proposed in the bill just now when it when it came to controlling foxes appreciate you've indicated an ethical view but have you or the people who are practicing agriculture on your land ever felt the need for agricultural reasons as it were to go beyond what's envisaged in the bill around the number of dogs not that i've heard no right and have you i mean not all of them will be extremely versed of course in what's in the bill they will take guidance from from us and you know the professional staff that manage our nature reserves so you've never you've never felt the need or the people who are working who are practicing agriculture on your land you're saying have never felt the need to dispatch a wild mammal other than by shooting i've i've that has never come to my attention okay thank you how much cities thanks combina good morning um i had a question around um population control um we've heard that killing of foxes is necessary to control the population and i wondered from your from the rspb's evidence base um whether routine killing of foxes has been found to be an effective means of population control yeah so are you talking about populations of foxes or populations of other other you know so for example ground nesting birds i mean with with regards foxes they are of course territorial they will defend their their territory quite rigorously against income as there's clearly if you remove territorial foxes then other foxes will come in and occupy that habitat um and that's spare spare territory um so if you are going to do fox control efficiently and i'm sure ross will back this up you have to do it every year at the right right time of year and that kind of thing um in terms of in terms of populations of birds on our land as i say we do not do uh fox control involving dogs we take an evidential approach to make sure it is foxes that are actually doing the predation before we uh step in and control them because it's not always the case you know there are other predators out there um so um yeah so that that's the approach that we would adopt thank you that's very clear and then just one other question about um you mentioned at the start about um the approach that you use is similar to the seven principles the ethical principles of wildlife control um and i wondered if so you mentioned that you you're shooting i wondered if you could outline a couple of the other measures that you deploy other than shooting um to control predators so we do very i mean relatively speaking we do very little predator control on our our land in scotland but we will do it where's necessary we will do it obviously legally and i mean the main method that we use is shooting occasionally for other predators i mean we have occasionally used larson traps for control of crows for example but actually i'm i'm thinking at the moment we're not doing any of that on our land in scotland i struggle to actually give you an example of where we're doing that so most of the vertebrate control that we do on our land is through shooting as the most humane method that we are advised and that i mean most of the vertebrate control as i say that we do on our land in scotland is deer management and are there any methods that don't involve killing the animal i suppose is what i was getting at it right um yeah well we certainly wouldn't use dogs to try and kill any animals on our land i mean the only other um yeah could you just repeat that again so so if you if you had an issue with foxes for example and are there other steps that you try before shooting or is you found shooting to be the yeah well the other steps that we would take is we would explore all non-lethal options before moving to to lethal control and certainly when it comes to waders and i'm not saying breeding ground nesting birds i'm not saying this is appropriate everywhere we can do it on our reserves because often the areas are smaller is things like anti predator fencing for example we've used on a number of our nature reserves which is effectively electric fencing around fields which prevents access by predators not just foxes but badgers and other other ground predators as well and that has proved pretty effective on quite a number of our sites so the general approach and that's built into our vertebrate control policy is that killing vertebrates is a is a last resort and that we will explore all non-lethal options beforehand which i think is synon is is aligns with the also with the seven principles and taking that approach of having a lethal method as a last resort you haven't found that that's impeded on your ability to maintain and improve biodiversity and protect livestock where necessary no and i think we're the only organisation in terms of land management that actually monitors very effectively you know the productive the biodiversity productivity on our land we have a team of reserves ecologists that do that we publish our information annually in an annual report so yeah i think we can demonstrate that you say that the trust itself operates two farms demonstration farms one in england one in scotland our Scottish farm is a sheep enterprise it's on the hill edge of the eastern cairn gorgs and that acts as a laboratory for us as well we are we benefit from predator control that's undertaken by local keepers we have a very substantial population of curlews lapwings noise to catch us on the farm and that is the reason why we we look after it i think what we're discussing here is the need for flexibility in the way that we approach predator management our view on predator management is that it has to be rational rational achievable that it's focused and that it's humane and it's important to to respect that we've got lots of research which indicates the benefits of predator management the otterburn research from the 2000 through to 2010 we have other work from the Sussex study down south which indicates the benefits of predator control the situation for predator control will vary depending upon the topography in the location i'm sure you've heard from from colleagues who spoke earlier about the need to manage in hard to difficult hard situations such as dense forest or or wind banks or gorse where it's really difficult to to move a fox and i think it's those situations where sometimes you need the flexibility our position on this is that we are concerned to take care that the legislation continues to offer us that flexibility in those situations where there is a particular need and it may be down to an individual fox that's causing problems so it's essential to be proportionate in that respect but i hope that gives you an idea of where the trust comes from in this respect just on that so you're looking for a flexible approach do you believe and this is not specifically about the rspb's position on taking an ethical stance on predator control but do you believe that birds in land are managed by organisations or individuals who have this ethical approach at a disadvantage and that they're more likely to be predated because the option of using dogs to flush whatever is not being considered does it put the birds at a disadvantage it will depend on certain situations of it we can we can locate areas of scotland where it's perfectly possible to have a very light touch to predator control there'll be other situations where it's most definitely needed because of productivity for instance awaiting birds or capocale is plumeting and we need to take action so are you suggesting the likes of and i don't want to set up a battle between rspb and anybody else but are you suggesting given that it's the protection of birds that you're not actually protecting as much as you could because you've taken an ethical stance on predator control which we've heard earlier today isn't necessarily the best or most humane way to to control foxes does your position mean that you're not actually protecting birds as well as you might otherwise do you asking me that yes i'm saying i would add to your you you say ethical we take an ethical and evidential approach i mean you know the the the predator that people assume might be there at the causing the issues if you like in terms of predation of ground nesting birds may not always be the thing the obvious one that people are thinking about and as i say we've had instances where we've put out nest cameras and we've actually had sheep predating you know ground nesting bird nests not not foxes or badges but again i suppose suppose we're talking about here is not shooting sheep it it's actually very much about hunting with dogs our approach going back to that if you're a gamekeeper managing a grouse more the way you approach predator control is very different from the way that we would approach it they are looking to maximise a surplus of game birds to shoot we are looking to deliver a wide range of biodiversity on our land including predators you know foxes and badges and things like that i mean i know badges you can't kill legally but foxes you know they are part of biodiversity for us we are not looking to you know eradicate foxes from a piece of piece of ground i think that's the case for most keepers as well i think we should reflect also on the the biodiversity crisis the climate crisis is affecting us and i think that'll bring about significant focus on delivering of outcomes just the same as it is in the agricultural sector i think we'll see that in the land management sector in general okay that i've got a very brief supplementary from Mercedes yes sorry a question for the RSPB does any of the land that you manage contain dense forestry or gorse yes and have you found well clearly you've said that you don't use dogs to hunt foxes have you found in topography such as those areas that your approach has fallen or yeah our vertebrate control policy would still apply in the way we approach vertebrate control but i have to say generally most of the issues that we have and where we do fox control are not in that kind of habitat they're mostly on for wading birds and which are open ground nesting species that's where where we do most of the fox control on our land in scotland we have some very important breeding populations of those wading birds on our land so but as i say you know we would not even go for fox control before we've explored other methods as well which might include anti predator ffencing but yeah i mean most of our woodland sites or where we have scrub habitats they tend not to be the sites where we're doing much predator control because the evidence you have is that foxes are not the primary predator of species that you're looking to protect in those areas thank you thank you now we're going to move to look at six and seven exceptions for environmental benefit and we'll be touching it somewhat already but Ariane Burgess has got a question thanks convener the bill includes an exception for environmental benefit which would allow the use of two dogs or more with a licence for purposes like eradication of non of invasive non-native species however can you tell me so this is for Duncan can you tell me about the environmental harm that can be caused by bringing dogs into an area such as where ground nesting birds are nesting yeah so um we do know that uh you know dogs that are out of control can cause problems for ground nesting birds and probably this situation has become more acute during lockdown with more people recreating in the countryside uh staying staying at home and often taking their dogs with them including to places where you've got fragile populations of ground nesting birds i'm thinking particularly of some of the islands uh i mean ground nesting birds are yeah we focus and the questions need to focus on hunting with dogs yeah so yeah so it's not it's not just about the only one they're dogs we need to be really careful we we could stray into a whole range of other things so there's very much about exceptions on the two dog limit exactly sorry so it's it if dog if there was a situation where it's a hunting context and there are dogs coming into the into that area with nesting birds because we hear from farmers earlier and in other situations that um you know um the hunting actually helps the nesting birds but i'm just trying to understand if there's another another experience yeah so we would be concerned about a lot of dogs running loose in in certain habitats at certain times of the year where there are ground nesting birds present i mean one of one of the areas where there has been quite a lot of concern expressed is footpacks of hounds running loose for example on the national forest estate in certain places in march and april when you've got birds beginning another mammal and mammals starting to breed um so that has been it is something we have expressed concern about in the past thank you ross do you want to come in on that hall um well i think um a lot of the footpacks would probably say that they try and target their their effort at a suitable time that avoids those risks um i think that's that that makes an awful lot of sense and if that's reflected in legislation in due course that would be a sensible provision thanks and then just a follow-up to to that um for duncan um i'm just wondering if we should give more thought to the environmental benefit the wild mammals such as foxes and badgers contribute to an area such as how they're digging in the soil contributes to nutrient recycling moisture retention helping to prevent flooding and drought and creating habitats for other animals yeah so we we clearly acknowledge the importance of these of these predatory species as part of the you know the ecology so yeah the environment thank you thanks convener gem fairly yeah thanks you know and i'm slightly confused duncan you said earlier on that you have um electric deterrents in certain areas is that so what a wide a wide scale yes we have i have to say less so in scotland but more in england we have a lot of these electric fences round a number of our nature reserves to prevent ground predators from predating ground nesting birds okay i can see the value of that from your point of view but from a farmer's point of view he will not have the capacity or the financial capability to be able to put those deterrents in place do your neighbours tell you that you're keeping foxes out and badgers out of the vast areas of land that you have actually put more pressure on them i've not i've not heard that but i acknowledge what you say i mean i think i mentioned earlier that we accept that not everybody can do that kind of approach i mean our focus is clearly on management of biodiversity and enhancing biodiversity on our land so we will we will do we will do that there but you know this is not suitable for everywhere i think i acknowledge that earlier so the point i'm trying to get to is is that the bill as it currently stands allows a two-year licence for organisations like yourselves but it's limiting 14 days farmers who are basically trying to make a living ross do you have a view on that at all yes i think we're concerned to make sure that the there is flexibility in the approach so that the foot packs that are undertaking predator control at the request of farmers can do so at relatively short notice and it may be difficult for them to achieve that if they've got to organise particularly i think it was a point that was well made in on the during the first evidence session that you've got to have the requisite number of guns to achieve the the humane predator control approach so i think we need some flexibility and the 14 day provision i think is is quite restrictive in that sense and i think we should just think further about that okay it's purely an observation but we're coming at this from different or the groups are coming in from a different area absolutely take on board everything that you do in the RSPB don't know but it's not the same environment despite the fact that it's a landmass but it's not the same environment or objective as what it is for land managers who are working in a for a different objective would that be a fair point occasionally but as i say we do have productive livestock on our land as well i mean you know there are large parts of our land i mean we're talking about the electric fencing model we don't employ that everywhere there are there are large parts in fact our largest in-hand farming operation which is on isla we have no electric fencing there around our sites we deliver a lot of wading birds and ground nesting birds but you've no foxes either we also manage a productive farm but you've no foxes either we have no foxes indeed yeah but we have other aerial predators oh yeah big black ones we need a license to shoot them thank you we're now move on to look at section eight on licensing and geni mental kickoff thank you convener and yes the only fox on isla is a dead one that's in the museum so i'm interested to just expand a bit more on the licenses and the which has been touched upon the the two year for environmental and your thoughts on on that element of it Duncan please i've got to be honest i don't think any of that presents a major issue for us so i don't want to duck your question but i think we can work within what is proposed and why partly because you know we don't do a lot of the the management that people are are concerned about i would imagine but uh also you know our main interest in this subject is around conservation detection dogs and the the act and the section seven of the act in particular of the bill in propo in particular address some of the shortcomings that we felt were present in the 2002 act and give us the we hope the flexibility to do the work that we need to do conservation work thank you and mr mcleid yes we need to preserve the the well i think i'd come at it from the point of view of the the flexibility to look after our environment through different means as i said earlier we we see predator management as being proportionate needs to be proportionate to the situation and that should reflect what we find in terms of evidence on on the species that we're trying to to look after so uh yeah that's that would be our approach okay i was um quite struck by one paragraph in your evidence which talked about that it's basically i've i quote there are several methods to control foxes but none of them are effective in all circumstances the need for different approaches uh to management is there for vital and in response to some of mercedes misadies valalabas questions you touched on that i wonder if you if you have anything to add to that area yes there are situations where the the habitat is such that it's very difficult to achieve a safe shot to kill a fox and in those situations you might use other techniques we use snaring for instance um now the end product unfortunately for the fox is that it's shot but it's as long as we can guarantee that that approach is humane that is an option that's available but it's difficult to achieve that in it's difficult to shoot foxes uh straight with a rifle under all circumstances because of the nature of the terrain maybe thick grass maybe gorse maybe dense forest and in those cases what you're trying to do is sufficiently pressure the fox to move to guns and in that respect i come back to the point that was made in the junior first submission that actually concentrating on the number of guns as a as a humane measure to ensure that there is no chase is a very important point i suppose from from my perspective and limited knowledge i i'm not entirely clear how um the word snare and humane can be put in the same so maybe could you expand on on that a bit sorry can you repeat the question that's difficult to hear you i i find it difficult to um listen to humane and snare in the same sentence so i'm interested if you could explain a bit a bit more about that well again i don't want to divert from the main purpose of this session um but again uh i think we can we can look at the the effect of the wildlife natural environment act and the work that was done and snaring in that respect to see the evidence of improvement and professionalism on the part of the users and again i think if we can achieve that in the hunting with dogs build then we'll have done good work thank you again very aware of time we've really we've got another seven seven minutes probably tops um very quickly and this will be directed to ross because you know dunk in the rspb don't use dogs for control but the situation where two dogs may be necessary um for the purpose of environmental benefit we've heard about exceptions but it would appear that there's very few situations where um a license won't be required because there's very few situations where two dogs will actually be the most humane the most animal welfare minded way to flush foxes so there are really not exceptions that the license is in my opinion probably wrong because every every situation where the dogs could be used we've heard is almost inevitably going to be more than two dogs what's your thoughts on the two dog limit and the the licensing which is for exceptions to that well our concern was that there would be situations where it is difficult to to move a fox um for it to be shot safely by by a gun and in those particular situations and that they can be very particular um that it it may be necessary to use more than than two dogs that is just our our view um i think there's there's a need to explore perhaps by by gathering further information from foot packs about how many dogs are used in certain situations to explore further what the what the limits might be but the trust itself doesn't have any information on that okay but i think it would be useful to explore that through an evidence gathering facility thank you um jim fairly then aran Burgess yeah just stick to yourself on that one i can see a situation where two dogs will be fine if you've got a very narrow shelter belt two dogs will in the what when you've got guns covering it that's fine but in much bigger areas where you know talking about the edge of an arable field with a shelter belt in much bigger areas would you accept that more than two dogs would be required for environmental benefits as well as agricultural benefits to make sure you flush that fox out safely well i think i would defer to the the expertise and the practicality of those foot packs have got experience in this but uh yes i could see a situation where that might be necessary yeah and you'd be comfortable with that yes okay thank you aran Burgess thanks convener this is again for Duncan so the proposed licensing scheme in section 4 and 8 would allow the use of more than two dogs to search for stock flush kill or capture a wild animal for a number of purposes related to wildlife management and environmental benefit yet if the number of dogs was always limited to rather than allowing a pack of hounds this would effectively put an end to mounted fox hunting which is one of the big motivations behind this bill would a hard limit on two dogs have a significant impact on the ability of rspb to carry out nontraditional work with dogs for conservation purposes and i think so thank you we're now going to move on to the final section prohibition on trail hunting allister allen thank you convener section 12 of the bill as it's envisaged provides for the training of dogs to follow an animal scent or an animal based scent when it's for the purpose of training young dogs but it doesn't envisage trail hunting per se taking place i just wonder if either of you can offer any observations about that whether you feel that distinction in the bill is is adequate and how it sits with your own ethical point of view there will be situations where stalkers may require a dog to follow up on an injured animal to find it and dispatch it humanely so i think there would be concern within the land management community about the need to to have that that facility to be able to do that in future i can't offer any experience on trail hunting i'm afraid so training animals using an animal based scent we've we've got us i'm not answering your question here but the issue for us and it's one of the clarifications that we've sought on this for conservation detection dogs so for example for stoats on awkney where stoats are non-native it may be necessary to train those dogs on the mainland to actually allow them to do the work on the island where stoats are non-native as long as that sort of facility is not closed off that would be extremely helpful so i'm not i know i'm not answering your question but it's one of the points of clarification that we've sought i just wonder very briefly i just wonder if you mister or you and if you would you would see that distinction or the motivation between making a distinction between training a young dog and having an organised trail hunt i i don't know that's really my my area to be honest yeah okay thank you okay well thank you very much i know it's possibly something we could find online but the reference is to the autoburn project that relates to this bill that could be beneficial for the committee to look at and mister or you and be interesting to know if you at the RSP be used the autoburn project that the GWCT were talking about as part of your evidence-based approach to management yeah so the autoburn project i'm struggling to remember the dates but it took place in the 1990s was it 2010 right early yeah so i mean yes is the answer to your question yes i mean any evidence that's out there you know we we build into our our land management if it's if it's valid edge evidence and the autoburn the autoburn study was a replicated trial which is is a high level of evidence so and just lastly for clarification you don't use dogs um within your pest control and within the RSP be where there is no other method for effective control is it is it purely shooting and who does that because i know the RSP be shoot hundreds of fox across the united kingdom every year what how do you actually do that is it just so you have contractors so we would contract some of some of our staff are qualified to do this themselves and have firearm certificates but normally we would go out usually to a basket accredited i mean quite often a neighbouring gamekeeper to actually do the work do the work for us so that that is the the way we we tend to operate okay thanks yeah that brings us to the end of this session thank you both very much for your evidence it's most useful that concludes our business in public and we now close our business on blue jeans and meet in a private session thank you