Chamber and committees

What are your thoughts about NatureScot’s shared approach to wildlife management, which was mentioned in the chamber last week? I asked the minister, Màiri McAllan, about how stakeholders in rural settings who know best, such as our conservation farmers or land managers, could be involved in that approach.

To expand on what I am trying to get at, I should say that I am slightly confused about the approach to wildlife management in relation to ensuring that we protect the endangered, red-list species. In one of its reports, NatureScot said that there will be problems if we carry on the way that we are going in relation to capercaillie decline, so we must think about wildlife management in a different way. That very much speaks to this bill, because there has been a lot of comment in our evidence sessions so far about one group of people being treated in one way and another group being treated in another way, with environmentalists almost being seen as better beings than people who work the land every day. Do you see where I am coming from?

In the earlier evidence session this morning, the definition of

“management of foxes and mink below ground”

was discussed, and it was suggested that that should be broadened. I do not know whether you agree with that, but perhaps both of you could write to the committee on where you think that the definitions in the bill could be improved.

I will ask for something to be given to the committee. Mr Macleod, you mentioned the Otterburn project. I know that it is possibly something that we can find online, but it could be beneficial for the committee to look at the references to the Otterburn project that relate to this bill. Mr Orr-Ewing, it would be interesting to know whether the RSPB used the Otterburn project as part of your evidence-based approach to management.

That is an interesting point, because the civil servant said last week that the defence would not be able to be proved. It is therefore a bone of contention.

Penny, would you like to come in?

We are talking very technically here. A lot of people do not understand why we need to control pests. We have a huge land mass, but most people live in the city. I direct this question to Penny Middleton. What happens on land if rabbits, foxes, mink and other species are not controlled?

I now come to my proper questions. You have all said that different terrains are an issue. Given that there will be a broad range of applications for licences, how will NatureScot understand the number of dogs that should be involved in an action?

Secondly, what happens to the dogs if they are not working? For example, if NatureScot does not understand the density of a forest and it gives a licence for only two dogs to work within that cover, will those dogs get exhausted, which would raise an animal welfare issue? What happens in that instance? What are the practicalities? Do you kill the hounds? What do you do? Are the dogs sent to slaughter? Can we have the absolute raw detail on that, please?

I will ask all my questions in one, but first I want to go back to the definition of a wild mammal. My question is for Barrie Wade. Should the definition be amended to bring in fox and mink? I just want a yes or no answer.

Yes, but in the circumstances where the age had been reduced to 16.

Who does the Church of Scotland engage with to come up with the policy positions that you are presenting today?

I have looked at your faith forum. In your opening remarks, you mentioned Engender and Rape Crisis Scotland. Who else has the church engaged with to form opinion?