The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2837 contributions
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
My specific concern was about a situation in which people are shooting game birds and their dogs flush out animals other than game birds. Last week, we heard concern from one of the witnesses about whether that would constitute an offence, but we are now saying that that would not constitute an offence.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Does NatureScot have the local understanding to build up that relationship? The committee has also discussed the need for a working relationship between NatureScot and land managers. Could that sort of thing be built into that relationship?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
It is that two-week period that I am concerned about. As a practical land manager, I think that the period should be outwith nesting season and when we know that foxes are not going to ground to cub. There is plenty of scope for having a season during which hounds can be on the ground and able to flush those areas where you know that you will not be able to get out with a lamp. Will the bill consider that specific situation?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
If you do not mind, Mr Dignon, I want to come back to you on your previous point, as it ties in with my next question.
I am just thinking about the type of licence or about having a seasonal licence—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I know that you cannot follow what is going on in my head. I was thinking back to what the minister said earlier about dogs going to ground. Nobody wants dogs to go to ground, but if the licence is left until, say, lambing time, foxes will already be in the ground and you will have more dogs going underground instead of flushing.
In several evidence sessions now, I have made the point about the licence pre-empting cubbing time to stop more terriers going underground. Are you prepared to consider that? I am sorry—that should have been addressed to you, minister. I am concerned about getting the timing for applying for a licence wrong and about its being too prescriptive.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
Regarding the Scottish Government’s reasons for a one-dog limit below ground, there is an argument that any dog below ground is a welfare risk, but there is also an argument that there are circumstances in which two dogs are needed. I know from my own experience that anyone who puts two dogs down the same hole should not have terriers in the first place.
However, we have been told in evidence that there are circumstances in which using two dogs below ground is far better from a welfare point of view. Did you consider the National Working Terrier Federation’s code of conduct in coming to the conclusion that one dog below ground should be the maximum?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
It is clear that a balance will need to be struck across the entire bill. I understand that that is what you are trying to do.
I will leave it there, because I know that we are short of time.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
No—but if, in the process of dogs flushing game birds, a rabbit or fox comes out and the dog does not chase that rabbit or fox in order to kill it, is it correct that no offence is being committed?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
My question is about the reasons for the two-dog limit above ground and the Scottish Government’s assessment of the different impacts that it might have on the ability to control wildlife, animal welfare, wild animal disturbances and the groups that carry out hunting with dogs and so on. What consideration did you give to the two-dog limit above ground? What were the assessments of the impacts of using two dogs as opposed to a pack?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
If we consider the assessment from the point of view of an environmental group or a farming body, we heard throughout our evidence sessions that the use of more than two dogs as walked-up hounds will be essential for the welfare of not only the dogs but the fox that is being flushed, so that it is not going round in circles all day. Did you consider the welfare of the dogs and the fox when you put that number in the bill? Is it an arbitrary figure? How did you come to the conclusion that using two dogs is okay but using 12 dogs is not? There will be circumstances in which there is no other way of getting foxes out of particular cover but it will be essential to get them out because there is no other way of controlling them. Did you consider that? Where did the number come from?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Meeting date: 29 June 2022
Jim Fairlie
I fully understand your difficulty in trying to walk that fine line.
My other question is about other conditions that you might apply—again, I have raised this issue at a number of meetings. Is the number of guns on the other side as important as the number of dogs that are flushing? Hugh, I might have made this point to you when you were last at committee. If you have only two guns covering 150 yards of forestry, a fox will run straight through the middle and not get chased. If you have 15, the fox will not run anywhere and will get shot. Is the number of guns as important in the licensing scheme as the number of dogs?