Transport and the Environment Committee, 26 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001

Official Report 284KB pdf

---

Petitions

Agenda item 3 is public petitions. PE8 is from the Scottish Homing Union on the impact of the number of birds of prey on the sport of pigeon racing and PE187 is from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association on the culling of raptors. Members should have received a paper from Maureen Macmillan, who is our reporter on the petitions. I thank Maureen for the paper.

I am still thinking about my questions on sea lice that we talked about in private session, so I am not quite up to speed.

I hope that everybody has had a chance to consider the petitions. The basic problem was that the Scottish Homing Union was concerned about predations by raptors on pigeons and the gamekeepers were concerned about predations by raptors on the grouse that they rear for shooting. At one point, it seemed that the two sides were barely speaking to each other. The report calls for the two sides to get together again to do some more research into ways of diverting raptors from pigeons—either in flight or when the pigeons return to their lofts. We want more co-operation between the various bodies, and the Scottish Homing Union should be included in any research or discussions. Alex Neil MSP is trying to set up a body and I think that he will be successful. There is willingness on all sides to make that work.

There are questions on how the law operates in giving licences to people to deal with raptors. Currently, people should be able to get a licence if their livestock or poultry are threatened. Racing pigeons do not fall into that category. At this stage, I do not know whether it is appropriate to consider a change in the law. There is an anomaly in respect of PE187, because it would seem that grouse or pheasants should be protected by the granting of licences that are given not necessarily to kill raptors, but to prick their eggs or substitute their eggs in breeding times by china eggs, for example. The gamekeepers said that they did not know of any instance in which such licences had been granted. The report calls for more investigation into the law to find out whether some sort of derogation would be allowed in such circumstances.

RSPB Scotland e-mailed me about the paper and suggested one or two changes. I have lost the piece of paper, but one suggestion was to add the RSPB to the organisations that are mentioned in paragraph 38 in relation to on-going work. I would be happy to include the RSPB if the committee agrees.

Paragraph 48 of the paper states:

"The Scottish Gamekeepers Association was not involved in the production of the Raptor Working Group Report, and does not support its recommendations."

The RSPB said that that statement is wrong. I think that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association was involved as an observer and in a very limited way, but not in the way that the RSPB suggested.

My information is that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association attended almost all the meetings for the raptor working group report. The association may not have been involved in the writing of the final report, but it took full part in the meetings and attended them all. Paragraph 48, therefore, may require slight amendment, but overall, the report is excellent and I am happy to recommend that it be taken forward.

One small point that could be important is that there have been some successful experiments on the diversion of hen-harriers from predation on red grouse by diversionary feeding. That could be added to the paper, perhaps in paragraph 17 or paragraph 18.

The report is a good overview and a way forward on delicate and difficult matters—particularly the issue of pigeons against raptors. A lengthy lobbying process of MSPs has taken place and the report deals with the issue pretty well.

I have a question and some suggestions. Will Maureen Macmillan explain a little more what is meant by non-disruptive methods?

Non-disruptive methods include putting sequins on pigeons' wings so that raptors will be frightened away. They are methods that will not harm the birds in any way. Disruptive methods include removing birds' eggs and substituting china eggs.

That is a good explanation.

On further research into the success of non-lethal or non-disruptive methods of discouraging raptor predation on racing pigeons, would it be possible to add another bullet point or paragraph to the part of the paper that deals with the establishment of race flight corridors? From what I have heard from both sides, I think that work still needs to be done in that area. Everyone agrees that corridors are a good idea. They give recognition to the idea of establishing areas where pigeons can fly and race with a bit more freedom. The corridors would not be raptor-free zones, but at no stage has anyone defined how those could be established.

We could add that to the report.

Groups of pigeon fanciers in the Stirling area have lobbied me heavily about the introduction into the wild of peregrine falcons. The Stirling area has a large number of pigeon lofts or doocots. For understandable reasons, people are trying to reintroduce birds of prey back into that habitat, without considering the consequences on the pigeon fanciers in that locale.

Regulation may not be the answer to the problem but, when birds of prey are to be reintroduced, some sort of guidance needs to be given and understanding needs to be reached—especially when such reintroduction is done near to urban conurbations.

That problem was not drawn to our attention.

I have been the subject of heavy lobbying on that issue. If the problem exists, it may not be as big a deal as I am being told, but we should look into it.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Maureen Macmillan's report describe ecological balance and the perceived lack of such balance. I am concerned that, unless studies are carried out, we will lose that balance and a bigger problem will be created. The Scottish Homing Union reflected that point effectively when it asked how far we should let the situation continue. By bringing the organisations together, will we achieve the objective of the UK raptor working group's report, which was to arrive at ownership of the solutions?

The aim of the UK raptor working group's report was to acknowledge the interests of those who keep pigeons and those who want to protect the raptors. The protected species are now doing well, but the Scottish Homing Union argues that they are doing so by preying on their pigeons. During your investigations, was it clear how far all those who are involved in the debate take cognisance of the research because they feel a sense of ownership in it?

Part of the problem is that the SHU did not feel that it had ownership of the report that was produced by the UK raptor working group. The report suggested solutions that the SHU, from experience, did not think were workable. We must undertake research to see whether the solutions are workable. If the solutions prove to be unworkable, we can move forward from that position.

We must be careful about using the term "ecological balance" when we talk about raptors and homing pigeons. "Ecological balance" can apply to local ecologies where there is predation on wild grouse and other such birds. However, homing pigeons are not part of any ecology; they are part of a human activity. The balance is between countryside and conservation interests and human interest in breeding homing pigeons. One cannot use the word ecology when one is talking about homing pigeons.

If the number of peregrines and sparrow-hawks increases exponentially, there is an ecological impact.

I welcome Alex Fergusson to the committee.

Thank you, convener. I apologise for not giving you prior notice that I would attend the meeting. It was rather a last-minute decision. If it had not been, I would probably not have walked in on your private meeting—I apologise for that, too.

I have been interested in this whole subject from the start. Although I accept Robin Harper's point that the racing pigeons may not be a natural part of the ecology of our skies, if I may put it like that, the records that are kept by their owners are so good and so tight that they provide a barometer of the effect that the raptor population is having on smaller birds. For that reason alone, the evidence from the pigeon racing people is very important.

I commend the work of Alex Neil's working group. I understand that, together with the SHU and Scottish Natural Heritage, the group has come to an agreement on the methodology of some research. That is a step in the right direction and is to be encouraged. I am delighted to say that the position is moving forward.

I, too, congratulate Maureen Macmillan on her report, which was thorough, balanced and neutral. I particularly liked the second sentence in paragraph 12, which refers to the interaction of sparrow-hawks and peregrines with racing pigeons. That is about as neutral and non-emotional as you can get.

We tried to use non-emotive language.

I recognise that. What is the likelihood that the research that is called for will happen and how quickly is it likely to be concluded? If we are to finalise our dealings with the petition today, we should give the petitioners some indication that we are not just asking for something to be done, but commenting on a process that is likely to give them a definitive answer within a reasonable period of time.

Alex Neil has been putting together a group and, to a certain extent, the process of getting that group up and running is in the petitioners' hands. All parties now seem quite keen for that to happen, because they recognise that we have been marking time. I cannot give you a time scale, but I imagine that it would take quite a long time to do thorough research in the field. It will not happen in a couple of months; it may take a year or more. That presents problems, because there will be no solutions until the research has been done. However, the only way to stop all the arguments that are going on is to get some definitive research.

Is SNH thoroughly signed up to doing the research and providing some of the necessary resources?

I cannot answer detailed questions on that but, as far as I know, that work is progressing. Other bodies, such as RSPB Scotland may also become involved.

Maureen Macmillan has accepted some changes—from Robin Harper, on diversionary feeding, and from Bruce Crawford, on corridors and the reintroduction of species such as peregrine falcons in certain localities.

Could we also review paragraph 48? We need to establish exactly what status the Scottish Gamekeepers Association had at the meetings.

Indeed. That was to have been my final comment.

On the basis of the changes that I have outlined, are members happy to accept the recommendations on PE8, in paragraph 38, and on PE187, in paragraph 55?

Members indicated agreement.

We are grateful to Maureen Macmillan for conducting that work on our behalf.