Why the Scottish Natural Environment Bill must be fixed

[Conor O'Gorman]

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill proposes introducing repackaged intervention powers and unjustified mandatory training, threatening the future of deer management in Scotland, says BASC's Scotland Director, Peter Clark.

Why the Scottish Natural Environment Bill must be fixed

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill increases regulatory intervention with little detail on financial incentives for deer managers.

basc.org.uk

 

[Buchan]

Explain why mandatory training for the use of firearms on live animals is not acceptable please. I would accept the concept of grandfather rights.

 

[Apthorpe]

The short answer is that:
1. certain species need to be controlled.
2. the only people available to do it are generally very low paid.
3. dumping a load of extra cost and red tape (which they are also often ill-suited to manage) on this group means that you cause a failure - both in policy and environmental terms.

It may well be that to a person sitting an ivory tower, the idea that everybody else is not a graduate on higher than median income is impossible to comprehend. However, one must try to work with reality and the reality is that the countryside is not awash with people who have bothl ots of time and lots of disposable income on their hands.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Explain why mandatory training for the use of firearms on live animals is not acceptable please. I would accept the concept of grandfather rights.

BASC supports industry-led voluntary training and is opposed to the introduction of mandatory competence testing for any form of shooting. There is a whole section on this in the article. I am copying and pasting it below - but please also read the full article for further context.

Beyond additional regulation, the Bill proposes introducing mandatory training for all deer stalkers in Scotland.

BASC is the only Scottish organisation actively opposing this requirement, as there is no evidence to justify it. No welfare concerns have been identified in legitimate deer management. Such a drastic measure requires clear justification, yet none has been provided.

The Bill also proposes changes to the register of authorised deer stalkers (under section 17A of the Act) and that providing information on cull returns will be a requirement of their ability to retain their registration. However, the baseline competence standard has not been specified, raising further concerns about vague regulation.

For those involved in night shooting, additional competence requirements will apply, with evidence needed via a specific qualification or certificate.

BASC supports high standards in deer management and training, but we firmly believe that self-regulation is effective. Mandatory testing would increase bureaucracy, deter newcomers, and reduce the number of active deer stalkers.

Projections indicate that the proposed measures could halve the number of active deer stalkers in Scotland, reducing them to fewer than 7,500. Over time, this will further shrink the workforce needed to meet increased cull targets – a deeply concerning prospect.

Adding to this, there is no mention of grandfather rights for existing stalkers, which would unfairly impact long-standing professionals in the sector.

Within the Bill there is no mention of lowland deer or community-integrated deer management either, which are both two significant opportunities missed, and both which BASC has raised with the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.

 

[swagger700]

How does this affect someone like me who travels north for 3 days on stags guided

 

[andyk]

Explain why mandatory training for the use of firearms on live animals is not acceptable please. I would accept the concept of grandfather rights.

Because it’s (yet another example of) regulation arising from a belief that regulation is intrinsically desirable.

I’m aware of no compelling evidence that this is needed on grounds of animal welfare or public safety.

What regulators appear consistently blind to (or perhaps deliberately ignorant of) is that regulation inevitably puts up the cost of doing things and/or deters some from doing it at all.

Some of this may be mindset but I tend toward thinking that it should be regulation that must be justified, whereas the political zeitgeist appears firmly the other way, with regulation being the default.

 

[Buchan]

Thanks Conor. Interesting that the organisation for shooting is against people demonstrating an ability to shoot well. With the resources you have it should be relatively easy to set up competency range days, minimum cost as part of the membership fee, all over the country. Make it a fun day out, few stalls, maybe a chat on improving accurate shooting.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thanks Conor. Interesting that the organisation for shooting is against people demonstrating an ability to shoot well. With the resources you have it should be relatively easy to set up competency range days, minimum cost as part of the membership fee, all over the country. Make it a fun day out, few stalls, maybe a chat on improving accurate shooting.

Thanks, BASC members can book on regularly held range days at the National Shooting Centre at Bisley and at several sites in Northern Ireland, subject to terms and conditions. The Bisley range days give participants the chance to shoot both static targets and running boar/deer targets with .22 rimfire and centrefire rifles, with the additional option of handguns on Northern Ireland range days. BASC is rolling out more sites across Britain for range days in 2025. There are also ongoing events for airguns and clay shooting, all bookable via the events area of our website.

Home

The original deer management qualification. Evolved. Discover the UK’s only 100% Online DSC1 Theory with BASC. Enrol now GSC1 Online Assessments Want to improve your knowledge of game shooting? Book your course All upcoming events

events.basc.org.uk

 

[Dunwaters]

The UK, Australia and New Zealand are the only developed countries I can think of without a nationally recognised training and certification scheme for deer hunters.
The measure to introduce mandatory minimum qualifications, particularly for professional stalkers should be welcomed.
You wouldn’t be allowed near a forest with a chainsaw without your tickets and certs, semi skilled and skilled workers professionals and tradesmen are all certified, tested and qualified, finally it’s the turn of the stalking profession to regularise its credentials.
It’s going to happen because once the process is in place, anyone without the necessary qualification will not be eligible to work as a stalker.
The insurance underwriters wont stand for it.
Underwriters and HR departments are probably pushing the agenda, precisely because it gives them a standardised baseline to establish the competence of their stalkers, just as they have had for decades for most other estate workers, which reduces their potential liability in the event of an accident and claim.

I honestly don’t think you have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping this, the arguments in favour of a standardised training and certification regime are pretty difficult to counter.
Once its in Scotland it’ll be adopted everywhere else too.

 

[Pete6.5]

Explain why mandatory training for the use of firearms on live animals is not acceptable please. I would accept the concept of grandfather rights.

No dig at you but I hate the term grandfather's rights. It just means sod the next generation let them pickup the extra cost but as long as I'm ok that's fine. It's another way of divide and conquer.

 

[Pete6.5]

The UK, Australia and New Zealand are the only developed countries I can think of without a nationally recognised training and certification scheme for deer hunters.
The measure to introduce mandatory minimum qualifications, particularly for professional stalkers should be welcomed.
You wouldn’t be allowed near a forest with a chainsaw without your tickets and certs, semi skilled and skilled workers professionals and tradesmen are all certified, tested and qualified, finally it’s the turn of the stalking profession to regularise its credentials.
It’s going to happen because once the process is in place, anyone without the necessary qualification will not be eligible to work as a stalker.
The insurance underwriters wont stand for it.
Underwriters and HR departments are probably pushing the agenda, precisely because it gives them a standardised baseline to establish the competence of their stalkers, just as they have had for decades for most other estate workers, which reduces their potential liability in the event of an accident and claim.

I honestly don’t think you have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping this, the arguments in favour of a standardised training and certification regime are pretty difficult to counter.
Once its in Scotland it’ll be adopted everywhere else too.

Most stalkers aren't doing it as a job and most jobs with mandatory training the cost is past on to the customer. If it was only put in place for people doing it for a living it would be a bit pointless as the majority are hobby stalkers. How many chainsaw workers, heating engineers or electricians do it as a unpaid hobby?

 

[jall55]

The UK, Australia and New Zealand are the only developed countries I can think of without a nationally recognised training and certification scheme for deer hunters.
The measure to introduce mandatory minimum qualifications, particularly for professional stalkers should be welcomed.
You wouldn’t be allowed near a forest with a chainsaw without your tickets and certs, semi skilled and skilled workers professionals and tradesmen are all certified, tested and qualified, finally it’s the turn of the stalking profession to regularise its credentials.
It’s going to happen because once the process is in place, anyone without the necessary qualification will not be eligible to work as a stalker.
The insurance underwriters wont stand for it.
Underwriters and HR departments are probably pushing the agenda, precisely because it gives them a standardised baseline to establish the competence of their stalkers, just as they have had for decades for most other estate workers, which reduces their potential liability in the event of an accident and claim.

I honestly don’t think you have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping this, the arguments in favour of a standardised training and certification regime are pretty difficult to counter.
Once its in Scotland it’ll be adopted everywhere else too.

Loads of people use chainsaws without tickets

 

[jall55]

Most stalkers aren't doing it as a job and most jobs with mandatory training the cost is past on to the customer. If it was only put in place for people doing it for a living it would be a bit pointless as the majority are hobby stalkers. How many chainsaw workers, heating engineers or electricians do it as a unpaid hobby?

I would imagine the number using chainsaws for unpaid work would be large - we have 3/4 every weekend in use on the shoot for much of our conservation works

 

[andyk]

The UK, Australia and New Zealand are the only developed countries I can think of without a nationally recognised training and certification scheme for deer hunters.
The measure to introduce mandatory minimum qualifications, particularly for professional stalkers should be welcomed.
You wouldn’t be allowed near a forest with a chainsaw without your tickets and certs, semi skilled and skilled workers professionals and tradesmen are all certified, tested and qualified, finally it’s the turn of the stalking profession to regularise its credentials.
It’s going to happen because once the process is in place, anyone without the necessary qualification will not be eligible to work as a stalker.
The insurance underwriters wont stand for it.
Underwriters and HR departments are probably pushing the agenda, precisely because it gives them a standardised baseline to establish the competence of their stalkers, just as they have had for decades for most other estate workers, which reduces their potential liability in the event of an accident and claim.

I honestly don’t think you have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping this, the arguments in favour of a standardised training and certification regime are pretty difficult to counter.
Once its in Scotland it’ll be adopted everywhere else too.

Putting aside my inherent dislike of regulation, a more pragmatic reason for objecting to this is the people who’ll set the requirements.

In countries where field sports are respected, I’d be content that the requirements would be set in good faith. Here, you can be certain that those with an agenda will see this is a further ‘back door’ way to put people off/regulate shooting out of existence by adding lots of time consuming and expensive requirements whose only purpose is to make life hard.

The chainsaw analogy is also a little off. Yes, I’d expect to have to show qualifications to do tree work on an Estate (and any landowner is free to require stalking qualifications). What’s being proposed is more akin to requiring me to have a qualification to chainsaw logs in my own garden.

 

[Dunwaters]

Loads of people use chainsaws without tickets

Are they employees hired with the intention that their main work will involve the use of a chainsaw?
We all do things we’re not qualified to do, but that doesn’t mean that qualification isn’t required for those who are hired and paid to do the job. These are the people we call when our amateur efforts fall a little bit short of what was required.
I’ll bet that just about everyone on this site is qualified professionally with the training and a formal recognition that you have achieved the required minimum standard that goes with it.
Stalking is coming into the fold and being recognised as a legitimate profession.
You’re not really going to argue that education and qualifications are a bad thing now are you?

 

[Pete6.5]

Loads of people use chainsaws without tickets

But it's not mandatory for someone to use it to cut fire wood

 

[finbar]

I work in construction we have a training scheme called citb it’s shite just an arse covering excise
We have driving lessons before we pass Wor test
How many accidents do we have trained people bad drivers
Education & intelligents are two different things
Rachel from accounts comes to mind
Great cv but useless at what she does
We are already dieing through death by a thousand cut this will just speed things up

 

[andyk]

You’re not really going to argue that education and qualifications are a bad thing now are you?

I certainly wouldn’t argue that it’s a bad thing in principle. What I object to is it being made mandatory not because of any identifiable need but either because politicians feel an insatiable need to regulate or as part of a ‘death of a thousand cuts’ approach to shooting.

As to recognising deer stalkers as a legitimate profession, this is being pushed by the SNP who have nothing but disdain for people in classic rural jobs.

Currently, their priority is land reform and ‘re-wilding’ projects. Stalkers are a necessary evil if they want to push those, as they need deer gone to (a) knock the bottom out of sporting estates, so they can be bought up by community interest groups, carbon credit venture capitalists, Brewdog etc, and (b) so their planting projects aren’t just deer food. Once they achieve their aims, I have no doubt they’ll turn on those stalkers - a job made all that easier by all the ‘benign’ regulations they’ll have passed, that’ll give them complete control.

 

[HonestJohn]

I have no issues with regulation on government based contracts and deer management as there are risk factors, insurance requirements, etc, etc.

The general requirements for local stalkers, whether professional or hobby, should remain as it is, it works.

It’s essentially the ‘employer’ setting standards they want to see met in order to award work/contracts

I think the inclusion of best practice and training on night shooting and night shooting equipment should be included in DSC1, which is a qualification all stalkers should strive towards of course.

Should DSC’s be a requirement broad brush, no.

 

[David Barker]

Explain why mandatory training for the use of firearms on live animals is not acceptable please. I would accept the concept of grandfather rights.

Because there are those that come in to wild life management out with the training set up. I was shooting air rifles at 10 years old moved on to shot guns and rifles soon as i could at 17. Have had lots of permissions because i was effective took my DMQ test in the 1990,s Its called progression and in my opinion is the best way to learn anything. If it becomes mandatory that will remove the ones that learn through real practical experience. A real concern is we slow down even further the take up of deer stalkers when in scotland we have to many deer and are currently pay over £20 million just to kill deer. Its called shooting ones self in the foot by government. Nature scot the government s advisors on all this wild life need a rethink on policy down to the very core. The wild life bill while not mentioning the dreaded DMNRO,S has kept them in there under a nice disguise.