End results the same!
Shooting tax in scotland
- Thread starter Reloader708
- Start date
But it isn't one is someone's hobby that they are paying for the right to do. The other is tree/crop protection. Maybe this will stop people who pay lots of rent on blocks to "manage" deer who actually don't get on and kill many but like to call themselves deer managers.
But it will be seen as shooting for fun in the eyes of the class biased SNP urbanites that have no clue how rural Scotland works.
Yes, its ok to kill something as long as you dont enjoy it!
The end result is the same but it's all about how it's done it won't be seen as deer management if your paying for it. The paying for it makes it recreational stalking not deer management. Either way you'll have to dig into your pocket a bit more or lose the recreational stalking you do.
As I have already said the devil is in the detail.
The wording of the budget announcement was.
Exemptions: Relief remains only for land used solely for specific purposes: deer management (including preventing woodland/agricultural damage), environmental management, or vermin control.
I am sure the Assessor Office will argue strongly that is a land owner is being paid then the land use is not solely for deer management but is also for financial gain.
What NEEDS to happen here is what should have happened a long time ago.
Land owners that need deer controlled for woodland, agriculture or environmental management purposes shouldn't be using it as a cash cow and charging people to undertake their pest control. Emotive but deer are pests in the eyes of many.
There may just be a silver lining in this where land managers stop offering leases and start paying their GOOD stalkers, albeit it may be a nominal amount.
If you look at this from a commercial forestry perspective income from a stalking lese is a very small percentage of the average per hectare annual income. The critical ting in commercial forestry is to have local people who understand they have a job to do and dont fanny about only shooting trophies.
Land owners that need deer controlled for woodland, agriculture or environmental management purposes shouldn't be using it as a cash cow and charging people to undertake their pest control. Emotive but deer are pests in the eyes of many.
There may just be a silver lining in this where land managers stop offering leases and start paying their GOOD stalkers, albeit it may be a nominal amount.
If you look at this from a commercial forestry perspective income from a stalking lese is a very small percentage of the average per hectare annual income. The critical ting in commercial forestry is to have local people who understand they have a job to do and dont fanny about only shooting trophies.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
This has feck all to do with the number of deer killed, and whether they are shot by contractors or amateurs.
Case in point. I currently look after a bit over 1,000 acres, but these bits are facing a sporting rates bill of over £2,000.
The numbers of deer are minimal. This year, even though completed many visits I have seen and shot three deer. Very little sign of any others and no damage to trees. Both are very close to FLS forests where there have been massive culls with night licenses etc etc. the contractors are no longer bothering to carry on - there are no deer so no means of getting paid.
So the landowners or myself will be paying £2000 of tax for the potential of shooting perhaps 3 or 4 roe.
Scotland has massive sporting potential. It is a global icon in the shooting world and £millions could be flowing in from sporting activities. By definition good hunting ground is very good for nature and wildlife.
If landowners cannot get reasonable income from their land from sporting activities they will simply give it up to alternatives - property, renewables, commercial property or extractive industries.
Tourism has potential, yes, but tye vast majority of tourists are like any of us - on a budget. And Scotland tourism has a short season and midges.
Case in point. I currently look after a bit over 1,000 acres, but these bits are facing a sporting rates bill of over £2,000.
The numbers of deer are minimal. This year, even though completed many visits I have seen and shot three deer. Very little sign of any others and no damage to trees. Both are very close to FLS forests where there have been massive culls with night licenses etc etc. the contractors are no longer bothering to carry on - there are no deer so no means of getting paid.
So the landowners or myself will be paying £2000 of tax for the potential of shooting perhaps 3 or 4 roe.
Scotland has massive sporting potential. It is a global icon in the shooting world and £millions could be flowing in from sporting activities. By definition good hunting ground is very good for nature and wildlife.
If landowners cannot get reasonable income from their land from sporting activities they will simply give it up to alternatives - property, renewables, commercial property or extractive industries.
Tourism has potential, yes, but tye vast majority of tourists are like any of us - on a budget. And Scotland tourism has a short season and midges.
I think by the sounds of it I’ll be giving up my leases or he pays the rateable value and I pay nothing for the lease , I’ll maybe suggest this , my areas are not big so they work out the same value but I’ll be liable this year by the sounds of it . How’s FLS going to get on or has this been discussed earlier on .
FLS do not have any sporting leases so all shooting is solely deer management.
FLS moved away from the lease model years ago for two reasons.
A) as a body bound by public procurement rules it was very difficult to rule out big money bids from stalkers from hundreds of miles away who only wanted to shoot a few trophies. They simply weren't getting the job done. Some on here moan about how much they are paying controls but I can assure you it is less than the cost of deer damage in the leaseholder days.
B) as an agency of Scottish Government they had a good understanding of the political direction and could see this potential rates issue coming. It much easier to justify "solely deer management" if the books aren't showing any sporting income!
Have you not realised yet that the current Government a) doesn't give a stuff about rural income and b) hates landowners.?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
So how come there is syndicate on FLS land next to my ground????
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Not quite right, the current government couldn’t give a stuff about any business or the economy. As for the Rural side of things, Nature Scot should go to trade descriptions- their mission is the eradication of all deer. One day there will be talk of reintroduction of large iconic species such as red deer.
Going back to FLS - whole sections of their most recent annual report dedicated to sources of alternative income such as renewables, land leases and tourism. Seems like they are moving away from core business of growing trees.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Serious question, why are they facing a sporting rights rates bill ?
Why is the ground declared as sporting ground?
Perhaps I should have qualified with saying FLS stopped offering new syndicate opportunities years ago, and did not renew most leases.
I am aware of one (perhaps there are a small number more). I was actually in that one lease myself for a year. It was real bandit country and no contractors would go near it.
The clue is in the name. Forestry and LAND Scotland. As custodian of public land they should quite rightly be making it work best for the public purse.
While FLS are stewards of about 640,000 ha, 2/3rds if this is open land.
We have had this discussion before so you should be aware that the aims and objectives of a public body are quite different from those of commercial forestry, most of whom only want to maximise timber production.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Because there is the potential for sporting activity. Was mixed arable with bits of woodland and there has been small shoots on the ground in the past, abd there is still the potential again. Another farming friend has also had a bill, despite the fact that half his land is now under roads and houses. At the last round he got a bill for what was an open cast coal mine.
Another has land over which there is a grant of open access to the general public, and since the pandemic it’s very popular with walkers etc. again sporting rates are being applied. They used to run a shoot.
Reloader708
Well-Known Member
This is actually wild and as ive mentioned before....the fact you can be taxed on potential income!
Imagine if this was applies to the idle masses.
To me this is entirely focused around private land ownership; i belive the family farms tax in England has a similar aim, the question to ask is why our government's whan to pressure land onto the open market??
Tin foil hat thinking
......maybe?Its purely a class war thing, driven by the Green s and other central belt politicians that have a perception that all shooting is for the upper classes.
This is the same cohort of idiots that demand deer numbers are reduced in Scotland for environmental reasons. Again they haven't a clue as the big increase in deer numbers have been roe in the central belt, and in particular in peri-urban areas
This is the same cohort of idiots that demand deer numbers are reduced in Scotland for environmental reasons. Again they haven't a clue as the big increase in deer numbers have been roe in the central belt, and in particular in peri-urban areas
Similar threads
- Article
