That is a key messages from our response to NatureScot's Species Licensing Review.
This week, the SGA responded to the Review, making the case for workable licensing processes for members.
We reiterated our belief that the SGA membership on land and river could be a powerful taskforce for Scottish Government, to help reverse species loss and tackle the Nature Emergency.
However, a well functioning licensing system is central to that - and there is work to do in this area.
The SGA recognises that lethal control can be contentious and that regulators require transparent processes to justify decisions to Parliament and the public. A significant proportion of what NatureScot can licence stems from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The SGA would agree that the protections given to species by that Act, at that time, were entirely appropriate.
That said, much has changed including the fortunes of many species. We now have a Nature Emergency. We are watching much loved species decline in population at alarming rates, to such an extent that, in some cases, nature is no longer offering the conditions some need to remain with us, without intervention. A case in point would be the Capercaillie in Scotland, which is down to a few hundred individual birds, but there are others such as Curlew and Lapwing which are threatened, globally. The UK homes a quarter of the world’s Eurasian Curlew but has lost half in recent decades.
The SGA believes, firstly, that in such circumstances, lethal control, under licence, can play a positive role in stemming and reversing species decline and tackling the Nature Emergency.
We know from science that Curlew nesting success is positively related to gamekeeper density (a surrogate of predator control intensity) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260707578_Upland_land_use_predicts_population_decline_in_a_globally_near-threatened_wader
and that upland wader breeding success can be up to 3 times greater when gamekeepers manage common predators such as foxes, stoats and corvids https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/249256/waders_on_the_fringev2.pdf
The decline in moorland keepering and the corresponding fall in breeding upland waders and red and black grouse in South West Scotland has also been well documented: https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/1018921/Changes-in-moorland-birds-in-SW-Scotland-final-version.pdf
Opportunity
We would argue that NatureScot and other regulatory bodies need to grasp the increasing role licensing could potentially play as a key mechanism in reversing some elements (not all) of the Nature Emergency. Habitat is also important.
NatureScot and other Government agencies also have a role to play in informing the public of the benefits such interventions could have, improving public understanding. If there was greater understanding, it is less likely that licensing decisions would end up in court or become divisive flashpoints in the media. When this happens, nature loses out and NatureScot staff feel ever more restricted by a culture of risk aversion and the permanent fear of Judicial Review.
Examples where public education already goes on is deer, where Scottish Government and its agencies regularly extol the benefits of increased killing of deer. Similarly, NatureScot and partners have expended considerable effort in public messaging around the benefits of killing stoats on Orkney to protect native species and there could be similar explanations about stoat management on mainland Scotland. Informing the general public can be achieved successfully, where there is a will. Other examples are the control of grey squirrels to protect reds and killing mink to protect a range of species. Everyone involved in nature conservation, whether as working land managers or NGOs, has a responsibility to explain where lethal control can be beneficial, if we are to move forward and tackle the Nature Emergency.
Species licensing is the single issue which the SGA hears about most from its members.
As an organisation, the SGA advocates the legal species licensing route as the vehicle through which land managers should settle all conflicts whether human/species or species/other species conflicts.
It is highly important to us, therefore, that licensing mechanisms work but, more importantly, that they are truly available for members, and others, who genuinely need them.
Professor Alan Werritty, when assessing conflict within the grouse sector, acknowledged, too, the role species licensing can play in ameliorating conflict and proposed, as a recommendation, greater use of this mechanism (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s16) for that purpose, see: https://www.gov.scot/publications/grouse-moor-management-group-report-scottish-government/pages/6/
With this as a context, it is highly frustrating to hear from our members that they:
a/ no longer bother applying for species licences because rejection is inevitable
b/ licences are not processed in time to be of use
c/ applying is too complex to be within the reach of ordinary working people.
At present, no usable Hunting with Dogs licences have been granted for Conservation purposes, despite competent applications, and only one novel lethal control licence has been issued in recent times to protect red-listed bird species. Either the evidential bar is set too high or there is a lack of willingness to grant licences which are deemed ‘contentious’ in case legal action will follow. This needs to be reviewed and a new way of working, found, if we are not to suffer paralysis when trying to address species loss.
The one successful licence was issued to the collective community of Strathbraan to lethally manage predatory ravens in an area scientifically classified as locally important for wading birds. It was subsequently removed (despite showing a positive uptake in wader eggs at nests) when NatureScot learned they were to be challenged in court. The revocation happened despite the multi-party Understanding Predation project providing all evidence that was deemed to be required to enable adaptive management licences, on community scale, to proceed in an attempt to stem further loss of at-risk wading birds.
We know of one member who has applied, two years in a row, to be able to use a Jackdaw in a Larsen trap (something used by NatureScot when managing its own reserve at Loch Leven) to protect red-listed waders from predatory Jackdaws.
The process was so convoluted, being handled inconsistently by several different licensing officers over a protracted time, that the individual simply gave up each year. We cannot, in a Nature Emergency, lose opportunities to make a difference when people are trying to do something positive for nature.
Adaptive approaches
To be constructive, the SGA advocates that greater use be made by NatureScot of novel and adaptive licensing approaches and that such licensing processes be designed or co-designed (in response to the Nature Emergency) in a way which is compliant and fit for purpose.
This would acknowledge that some species no longer have time to wait for action to be undertaken and that any action, if to be successful, needs to take place at scale. It acknowledges that we can never fully know or evidence all the reasons for a species declining in every particular circumstance, or area, but that we can make progress with the best of what we do know and monitor and adapt as we go. Where there may be contest about evidence, the process is one of acting, adjusting and, ultimately, learning (for all parties). We cannot pre-study everything into extinction when action is what is needed most.
*You can learn more about adaptive processes or 'learning by doing', here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344409874_Adaptive_Management_in_Wildlife_Conservation
Again, to be constructive, the SGA believes Scottish Government and its agencies need to look at the impact the rapidly rising protected badger population is having on vulnerable ground nesting species. This is something that anyone who lives in the countryside can see quite plainly.
It is acknowledged that, currently, there are few legal mechanisms available to NatureScot for managing badgers other than around development sites. However, while it is not our role to suggest what regulators may ultimately do, we feel there needs to be greater honesty around badger impacts and how they may be addressed.
Having spoken constantly to members, and people within the agricultural community, raven licensing processes should also be re-examined. From a conservation perspective, Green-listed ravens can cause significant damage across wide areas due to their hunting behaviour. At nesting time, they can hunt in groups in one location, picking up young chicks or protected leverets, and then move on, doing the same in another area, sometimes ranging up to 20km. Their impacts often extend beyond ‘local’, their numbers are continually rising https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-09/Guidance - Licensing - predator control - Raven information note - 29 April 2009.pdf
and, if we are to do something to protect red listed species in a Nature Emergency, we may have to be more truthful about what ravens are doing, ‘honorary raptor’ or not.
Livestock licences are available to prevent raven damage to ewes and lambs, and rightly so, but the truth is sheep are not endangered. Lapwing and Curlew, which are more rare than Capercaillie, may disappear in our lifetime, yet you cannot get a licence to protect them from ravens. We need to reflect on whether this is satisfactory in a Nature Emergency.
It is often said that, for predation control to be effective and to fulfil the licensing purpose, it should be undertaken robustly and at scale. We would support that theory.
Realistically, now, it is only by looking at legal licensing options to empower land managers (who can operate at scale or even in specifically zoned areas) that some vulnerable species will recover. At the SGA, we fully believe our members can be a formidable taskforce for nature conservation, given their skills and knowledge. However, if licensing processes cannot match collective ambition, we are stuck. The only choice Scottish Government would then have is to spend millions it can’t afford on tasking conservation NGOs who, despite holding financial reserves, seem reluctant to undertake conservation unless it is paid for by someone else.
Finally, the SGA believes that Scottish Government and its agencies need to re-assess their processes for licensing the management of seals. This is particularly important in response to the classification of salmon as endangered in the UK.
Many Scottish rivers are designated for wild Atlantic salmon as protected areas. NatureScot, therefore, has a remit when it comes to seal licensing.
While the Marine Directorate has a role to play, common and grey seals are now being sighted much further in-river, predating on salmon, despite being a ‘marine’ species. They are now virtually resident on some rivers such a the Dee, despite the efforts of ‘smolt shepherds’ and the deployment of acoustic devices.
Seal predation of salmon is not in doubt and river ghillies from our SGA Fishing Group are monitoring seal activity on rivers daily, recording sightings and behaviour.
Their evidence is important.
Acoustic deterrents 'not working'
On the Dee, seals have been sighted hunting as far up the river as Potarch Bridge (around 30 miles). Whilst it is not the fault of the seals that their food source at sea is depleting, present deterrents to move them back into marine environments are not working. A grey seal will eat 3-5 fish per day and a common seal will eat 2-3. It is not difficult to realise that vulnerable salmon are suffering in rivers that are designated for the species.
Bailiff teams on the Tweed used acoustic devices this year in an attempt to move seals after they were spotted 30 miles up river; one sticking around for nearly 5 weeks.
When the seal first moved, it soon returned and, after some time, ignored the device completely.
Seals were predating salmon on the lower Spey this year in Spring and September, with individuals spotted at Craigellachie and Orton. The Tay has recorded seals on numerous occasions this year, reflecting changing patterns across the country.
It needs to be considered whether present processes for seal management are responsive enough to prevent damage to protected salmon in-river when empirical evidence and the increasing number of seal sighting (and hunting) suggests that the predator/prey relationship is changing rapidly. NatureScot’s role or influence in this area needs to be considered.
