Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry that I cannot convince Mr Fairlie of a practice that has been going on for many years across Scotland. That is one reason why I think that shooting rabbits and other wild mammals is not always appropriate, which may be something that the committee needs to consider.

I will also mention the issue of injured animals and the use of more than two dogs. I gave an example last week of a deer that had had its jaw shattered—tracking down the animal took, I think, four days. Using two dogs would have made that problem significantly more difficult. It is not that the dogs would have killed the deer; it would have been a question of cornering the animal and dispatching it. As members will know, if deer still have their forelegs, they can survive for a considerable time.

I do not propose to make any comments on Colin Smyth’s amendments, because I do not think that they are right, and I have said that before.

For clarity, I press amendment 69.

To help the committee, I will not move those amendments.

Amendments 93 to 96 not moved.

Amendment 167 moved—[Jenni Minto].

It is that polecat issue again, convener, so I will not move amendment 87.

Amendment 87 not moved.

Amendment 88 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I will not move the amendment because I did not understand the minister’s answer.

Amendment 105 not moved.

I think that you are getting confused between hunting and flushing. We are talking about using dogs to flush; we are not talking about hunting. You are giving the illusion that that would take place over miles of countryside. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about putting dogs into cover to flush out a mammal so that it can be controlled. As Mr Fairlie has made positively clear, in thick cover in perhaps a 200-acre wood, people will probably need to consider replacing a dog as they are trying to flush out a mammal. I think that Mr Smyth is presenting an illusion that misrepresents the bill and what the minister is trying to achieve. However, I am sure that the minister does not need my support to clarify her position.

I am disappointed that the minister has not considered amendment 69, on the basis that she perceives that it would create a loophole. The amendment aims to achieve a more reasonable approach, based on lived experience of more than 45 years of wildlife and countryside management. Therefore, I am disappointed that she believes that people would use it as an excuse. The legislation is new, and my amendment seeks to make it clear that people would have to aim to shoot an animal dead rather than shoot it dead. It is not always possible to achieve that, which I can say from long experience.

I will make another point about Rachael Hamilton’s amendments that address the most humane way of dispatching a mammal. I am sure that the minister is aware of the practice of mist netting, which is used to remove rabbits in the wild. Do you understand mist netting, minister, or do I need to explain it?

I have not moved amendment 75 on the basis that I am not sure that my definition of a polecat meets the requirements. So, I am not going to move any of my amendments that relate to polecats.

Amendment 76 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Mr Fairlie will know that, under the bill, two dogs would be used to drive the rabbits back to the nets, which is the way it is done. You would not just expect the rabbits to run into the net; you would drive them away from their burrows and from where they are foraging into it, which is where you would then dispatch them.

Mist netting is when you put out a soft net, which is propped up, before nightfall. After darkness, once the rabbits have moved to the middle of a field to forage, you would drop the net and move the rabbits back to it. Once they have become entangled in the net, you would then dispatch them. Shooting rabbits in those situations would not be appropriate; dispatching them with a sharp blow to the back of the head is the most effective method. In some circumstances, shooting is not appropriate, and I have rehearsed other circumstances when that might be the case.

I have listened carefully to the arguments. I am disappointed that Colin Smyth used the example of stag hunting south of the border. I am sure that he will be well aware that the last deerhound pack was disbanded in about 1920. It was based at Culachy, by Fort Augustus. Deer hunting with dogs is not done in Scotland. What we are talking about is forming a pack or a relay. We can discount stags for the reason that I have given.

I understand why the minister has put this provision in the bill, and I have made it clear that I do not support her on the issue of two dogs. However, as it appears that that will go through, I caution on the use of the word “relay”. If two dogs are following an animal, they cannot run all day, Mr Smyth, in the same way that I cannot run all day—in fact, my endurance and stamina are such that I can run for only short periods of time. Taking those dogs off a scent, and replacing them with dogs that are fresh on the scent, in order to flush the animal out of what may be a large woodland—as we have heard—is the appropriate thing to do. I cannot, therefore, support the amendments. I do not like the original wording in the bill but, if it is to remain, I ask the minister not to support the use of the words “or relay”.