The Scottish Gamekeepers Association queries in what way and to what extent have the Scottish Executive, and the Rural Development Committee, considered the social and moral effects of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill on the workers and communities whose livelihood depends on the conservation of game and other birds.

On 14th November 2000, Lord Watson told the Committee "The bill proposes: An Act of the Scottish Parliament to protect wild mammals from being hunted with dogs; and for connected purposes. The bill is primarily intended to end three cruel and barbaric practices that still occur in Scotland's countryside: fox hunting, hare coursing and terrier work. If the bill becomes law, that is what it will do."

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill alleges that gamekeepers use cruelty and barbarity to control foxes. In the interests of Democracy, accusations of this nature must be quantified.

Attempts to blacken the use of terriers by association with the illegal practice of baiting have been made throughout the evidence given to the Committee. The promoters of the Bill have failed to provide any evidence that terrier work, as carried out by gamekeepers, is either cruel or barbaric and we rigorously refute these accusations. If there were a hint of truth in the baiting allegations, prosecutions would have been forthcoming; there have been none.

Witnesses supporting the Bill refer constantly to "fox baiting"

Les Ward (SCAHD) told the Committee (14th November 2000): "The Bill does not differentiate between putting dogs underground for sport or for pest control." And: "It is as cruel and barbaric to bait a fox underground for the purposes of pest control as it is for sport and pleasure."

Gamekeepers do not put terriers below ground to bait foxes or for "sport and pleasure".

James Morris (SSPCA) -28th November 2000: "The gamekeepers from whom you have heard today are not the type of people who block up fox holes in order to ensure that there is a fight underground."

Gamekeepers use terriers to flush foxes from underground to shoot them. They also use terriers to humanely dispatch the cubs. All members of the Rural Development Committee have been asked to spend time with a gamekeeper so that they may understand the nature of this work. Four (cross party) members took up this offer in November 2000.

Mike Rumbles -28th November 2000: Many members who visited the Scottish gamekeepers in Braemar were impressed that, when we were openly shown the terriers, there was not a mark on them, or on the retired terriers. This afternoon, we heard evidence that it is not in the gamekeepers' interests to fight terriers and foxes. The dogs are valuable, loved animals”

Mr. Morris (SSPCA) "The man-nowadays I should say "the person"-controlling the whole business would be the person who creates the cruelty. There has to be a will to do something other than dispatch the animal as humanely as possible."

Gamekeepers do not want to pay huge amounts in Vets' bills. They are indeed fond of their dogs and the vast majority would never endanger their dogs' welfare, or its ability to work, by deliberately encouraging a fight between their dog and a fox. They also respect the fox and would never cause it unnecessary suffering.

Mr. Morris continued "I conceded that sending terriers underground to dispatch cubs might be a sensible use of terriers. We would not promote that, but I am prepared to accept that, to prevent cruelty to the cubs, it might be necessary in certain situations."

Gamekeepers use terriers to flush foxes because that is the only viable method of controlling foxes underground during the crucial (ground) nesting season. The use of terriers is a vital conservation tool during the spring and early summer.

Scottish Gamekeepers (and the communities in which we live) are the largest professional group who will be affected by a ban on terrier work, and yet there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that gamekeepers engage in cruelty or cause unnecessary suffering.

In our evidence to the Committee on 28th November 2000 we said: "From the evidence that we have heard so far, it appears that it is fine for one type of mammal to suffer, but not for another. However, it has been established that fox numbers need to be controlled in many areas."

"What constitutes the acceptable suffering of any animal? We are not scientists, but we are professionals. We have no doubt that what we do benefits the broad spectrum of wildlife, and that our predator control methods are necessary and humane."

"One of the worst cases of mental cruelty inflicted on a fox was depicted in a recent well-known and popular vet program on family television. We were entertained to the sight of a truly terrified fox that had been covered in oil; it was taken to a vet's surgery, examined by a human and repeatedly washed. Between the washing and further examination sessions, we saw the creature immobilised in a cage and stricken with fear. From the fox's perspective, that prolonged handling must have been as bad if not worse than being chased by a hound; yet that was considered acceptable suffering in the name of good television."

It should be remembered that there are a number of biodiversity action species, which the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament have agreed to conserve -including the capercaillie, the dotterel and the brown hare.

In written evidence to the Committee, SNH state "Foxes and other mammal predators are known to have severe impacts on colonies of ground nesting species, such as gulls, terns and eider ducks. For example, SNH's own experience at Sands of Forvie NNR is that foxes can take large numbers of breeding female eider ducks as well as eggs and chicks of breeding terns and gulls. Persistent predation can lead to abandonment of colonies and control of foxes in such situations is desirable."

The Game Conservancy's scientific investigations confirm that the most important period of fox control is during the nesting season, from spring and throughout the early summer months. Furthermore, they ruled out suggestions that late summer and autumn were the key periods of control saying "We could not agree with that as regards game and wildlife conservation."

"For me, as a working gamekeeper, a closed season for fox control would be a disaster. I would be unable to control foxes effectively." Robbie Rowantree (28th November 2000)

The SGA is strongly opposed to a closed season on fox control. Foxes must be controlled all year round.

In the early 19905, the Forestry Commission carried out research on fox biology in relation to forestry plantations in Aberdeenshire, Galloway, the Borders, and in Wales. That research produced, we understand, evidence that one-third of all foxes killed in response to lambing calls contained parts of Iambs in their stomachs. This data is highly relevant to the current debate. Why has it never been made public?

All those who gave evidence agree that predation control is necessary for conservation purposes.

"We accept that, as the gamekeepers have said, there is a problem in spring when there is a high demand on food resources because of pregnant and nursing vixens." -Bill Swann (28th November 2000)

The Committee heard that Aversion Therapy was not appropriate and that "gassing of foxes is legal but there are no products approved for use against foxes".

The supporters of this Bill advocate lamping and shooting as "the most humane, practical and effective way of killing foxes". Bill Swann -14th November 2000.

This does not take into consideration rough moorland terrain or dense woodland -neither of which are suitable for lamping; nor that foxes become lamp shy.

The Game Conservancy said (21st November 2000): "We are concerned about two methods that the bill would affect. The first method is the control of foxes with foot packs, in which foxes are flushed to teams of guns using hounds. Many gamekeepers keep foxhounds and use them for tracking and finding foxes in order to dispatch them by any of the other legal methods. The second method that the bill threatens is the use of terriers. We have done considerable research on fox control methods, across a range of different habitats-although not in Scotland-and have found that the methods of control and their efficiency vary."

In other words, it is up to the professional gamekeeper to determine the appropriate method of control.

In lowland areas, shooting and lamping may account for many foxes but in the Highlands, there are large areas where there is little or no access; snow blocks many roads for up to three months making lamping with a spotlight inefficient and impractical. In large forestry plantations, lamping is useless; footpacks are the most effective method of control. Many foxes are lamp shy, rendering the use of a spotlight ineffective.

How are wildlife managers (as gamekeepers have increasingly become) to locate and humanly dispatch a shot and wounded fox that has bolted to underground cover, if they do not have a terrier? If the wounded animal is not located and despatched, it can take weeks for it to die in pain and of starvation. Cubs will starve to death with their mother. This scenario is totally unacceptable to the SGA as it should be to all sensible people.

As in every form of employment, a gamekeepers' workload is distributed over the year. If terrier work is removed, the keeper will have to spread himself more thinly and increase his hours.

For example: A gamekeeper may have 40 fox dens spread across 4,000 acres. Some of these dens are regularly used (i.e. every 3 years) and 6 or 8 may be used every year.

To ascertain which den is in use he visits each den with his terrier, commencing on 4th April. He may visit 6 dens in anyone day before locating one that is occupied. When finding a den in use, the terrier bolts the fox and despatches the cubs. The same evening he will return to the den to shoot the dog fox. Hopefully this is achieved by the end of the 1st or 2nd evening.

This process is repeated until each den has been checked. If all goes well he will check all 40 dens and despatch the vixens and cubs during a 2-week period. He then tracks down any dog foxes that have escaped. If terriers are banned, this will no longer be possible.

Although occupied, fox dens can appear deserted. Without his terrier, he would have to keep a night-time vigil to ascertain whether or not the den is occupied; this could take several uncomfortable nights. Assuming the den is occupied the vixen or dog may be shot; should one animal escape, it will return when it feels safe to do so (we can not keep endless 24 hour vigils) to remove the cubs to a safer location -possibly spreading the cubs all over the hill or woods.

Imagine 3 or 4 litters of cubs spread all over a 4,000-acre estate and how long it would take a man to find them. Many keepers single-handedly manage ground of 10,000 acres or more.

Instead of it taking 14 days to clear 6 dens, months of dedicated work will be required. These months are necessary to carry out other aspects of the gamekeeper's job.

In his evidence to the Committee (28th November 2000) Robbie Rowantree said, "I work as a gamekeeper on an estate where two of us cover about 45,000 acres. Without a dog, it is almost impossible for us to locate foxes. Lamping has its limitations, and those limitations are increasing. In the early days, when I was a teenager and we shot foxes in the spotlight, they were reasonably easy to get, because the technique was new. However, foxes have begun to learn from one another that a spotlight is bad news. In the early winter, pairs run together. If we shoot one fox in a pair and the other witnesses that shooting, it realises that spotlights mean danger. From that point, it will not sit in a light. If a vixen escapes with cubs that are big enough to walk at foot and she sees alight and panics, she will educate her offspring to be light shy. Lamping is not a 100% effective technique for fox control. In thick cover, such as woodland, lights do not work. We cannot use a spotlight in trees

The 12% quoted in relation to fox control in the MLURI Report will rise dramatically if gamekeepers are unable to work efficiently, as the use of terriers allows them to do now. It would be difficult and time consuming to locate the foxes, which will continue to damage game stocks and other wildlife. The SGA conducted a similar survey of a number of shooting estates and concluded that terriers bolted 26% of foxes killed.

If increasing numbers of foxes escape all over Scotland the population will rise, thereby increasing the chance of stock failure and leading to redundancies.

The team promoting this Bill would appear to have scant understanding of the countryside, the work and the nature of gamekeepers. Their alternative methods of control are doomed to failure in many parts of Scotland. This failure will have a catastrophic effect on our wildlife.

Once again, the Bill's supporters demonstrate their lack of consideration for the wider implications of their evidence or of the Bill.

Petitions from across rural Scotland, sent from the Public Petitions Committee to the Rural Development Committee for action, have called for an investigation into the long-term social, economic and environmental impact of the Bill. We understand that these petitions have been "considered" by the Committee and yet no action will be taken.

Following the recent publication of the Rural Development Committee's detailed study into 'The Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland', Convener Alex Johnstone said:

"The main conclusion of this detailed piece of work is that the combination of poverty and the decline of traditional industries is a threat to the sustainability of rural life as we know it in Scotland."

In remote areas, gamekeepers make up a high percentage of the workforce. Without the investigation called for by the Petitioners, it is not possible for politicians to objectively and democratically decide whether it will, as we state, have a divisive effect on rural communities and undermine the Scottish Executive's National Parks Bill's principle of "Rural Sustainability" or indeed whether there are any merits in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

"The hunting of wild mammals with dogs is a cruel and unnecessary leisure activity". [Lord Watson,

Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 4 April 2000; c 595-96.]

Lord Watson has failed to provide evidence of cruelty by gamekeepers; furthermore, the terrier work practised by gamekeepers is not a "leisure" activity, but a vital conservation tool and part of their employment.

"Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity. Timeless values. Honourable aspirations for this new forum of democracy, born on the cusp of a new century. We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the commonweal. I look forward to the days ahead when this Chamber will sound with debate, argument and passion. When men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built from the first principles of social justice." From Donald Dewar's speech at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, 1 July 1999

If enacted, the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill will not reflect Wisdom, neither will it serve Justice; it is not born out of Compassion but emotion and it is based on a misguided sense of Integrity.

We were originally led to believe that this Bill would ban hunting with hounds but, as has been clearly demonstrated, it has far wider implications.