From the first of March it will be against the law to “intentionally kill, injure, or take” a mountain hare at any time in Scotland. This is good news for all of us, unless you happen to be a member of the SGA, the BASC or sundry other organisations whose view of life is restricted to what they can see beyond the barrel of a raised shotgun.
Some time before such organisations came into being, the questionable relationship between humankind and hares was brought into sharp focus by a farmer called Robert Burns. In a letter of April, 1789 he wrote that “while sowing in the fields, I heard a shot, and presently a poor little hare limped by me, apparently very much hurt…this set my humanity in tears”.
Shortly afterwards, he wrote a majestically titled poem – Verses On Seeing a Wounded Hare Limp By Me, Which a Fellow Had Just Shot At – and which began:
Inhuman man! curse on thy barbarous art,
And blasted be thy murder-aiming eye;
May never pity soothe thee with a sigh
Nor ever pleasure glad thy cruel heart!
Oh for farmers (and keepers, land managers and landowners of all shades) for whom the shooting of a hare would set his humanity in tears in 21st century Scotland, but the species rather seems to have died out. As it is, such has been the toll taken of mountain hares in particular in recent years that the Scottish Government has now enshrined year-round protection in law, and that law is about to come into force.
There is a snag. The first sentence of this article is incomplete. It will be illegal to “intentionally kill, injure or take” a mountain hare at any time in Scotland – unless you have a licence. Alas, licensing is in the hands of the grammatically challenged quango now known as NatureScot, and as we have seen with beavers, there has been a marked tendency towards generosity on the part of NatureScot.
It is perhaps worth a slightly closer scrutiny of the process. Announcing the mountain hare legislation, the Natural Environment Minister Ben Macpherson said:
“Protecting Scotland’s wild animals in their natural environment is a key priority for this Scottish Government.”
Good. The key words are “in their natural environment”. Bear with me for a moment while I explain why.
NatureScot’s (the name gets even more ridiculous with an ’s after it) Head of Wildlife Management Donald Fraser said:
“This increased protection will help ensure healthy populations of mountain hares…while giving some recourse when there is need to prevent damage being caused to saplings or sensitive habitats.”
A helpful background note explained that mountain hares are “a quarry species that have long been shot for sport and are also legitimately controlled for other reasons, including to protect plants and crops…”
But remember the minister said that protecting wild animals in their natural environment is a key priority for this Scottish Government. So who gets to decide what and where is the mountain hare’s natural environment? Surely only the mountain hare can decide. Because if people decide and the hare dies at the end of a gun because it was outwith their definition of its natural habitat, then there is nothing natural about the situation at all. The definition of the habitat has been arrived at unnaturally, the solution is unnatural, and the licence that permits it to happen is in flagrant breach of the Scottish Government’s key priority of protecting wild animals in their natural environment. The natural habitat of a truly wild animal is where the animal chooses to be.
One more thing. Why is a higher value placed on damage to crops or timber than the life of a wild animal, especially one whose protection is newly enshrined in law? Why is what Burns called “thy barbarous art” and “thy murder-aiming eye” seen as fit justice because a mountain hare happened to be somewhere that a man with a gun – and a licence – disapproved of?
This is the justice that affords complete protection to a wolf inside Yellowstone National Park but allows a man with a gun – and a licence – to kill it a yard outside the park boundary. Wild wolves don’t believe in boundaries. Mountain hares don’t either, and nor does all nature.
Don’t get me wrong. Giving the mountain hare increased protection is a good thing, and given the connections and influence that the shooting industry has with both government and NatureScot, it has been a difficult law to pass. But it’s nowhere near enough. The licensing system is nowhere near as inflexible as it should be. The relevant law exists to protect wildlife, not the needs of men with guns who shoot because they like to shoot things.
And the range of species that can still be killed – by men with guns and a licence – will always be too long until the day our 21st century society abandons the Victorian concept of vermin.
March 1st is one more small step in the right direction for nature, but it is a small step on a journey that calls for giant strides.
