Seal licensing system: third review

Annex A: Feedback collected from stakeholders as part of the review

A questionnaire was sent to NatureScot, the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews (SMRU), and salmon fisheries stakeholders - Fisheries Management Scotland and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association - to distribute to their members to seek their views,

Q. Do you have any general comments on the current processes for licensing lethal control of seals under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010?

Respondents noted that keeping the Scottish Government return portal up to date is important in the consideration of licence applications, and that any changes that come about from this review are discussed with all stakeholders as early as practicable.

Q. Do you have any general comments on the current processes for licensing lethal control of seals under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010? Based on your experience, are there any changes or improvements that you feel could be made?

Respondents feedback to this question focused on the following points:

• Respondents would like to be able to include more data in applications.
• Respondents felt that the inclusion of ‘Barriers’ and ‘Translocation on Section 8 of the reporting form was unhelpful as currently these are not feasible for river managers.
• Respondents suggested that additional guidance on how to collect and/or demonstrate evidence that would support their application would be helpful.
• Several respondents have found acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) to be ineffective.
• Respondents were concerned that the endangered status of wild Atlantic salmon in the UK is not being fully considered.

Q. Do you think the current requirement for evidence/information to support a licence application is sufficient, or would further (or alternative) evidence or guidance be helpful? For example, is further evidence/supporting guidance required on seal sightings, predation events (or is feeding behaviour/presence sufficient), species ID?

Respondents noted that further guidance would be helpful for applicants, particularly information on the use of non-lethal alternatives, and on the nature of the information suitable for providing evidence on the seal(s) posing risks to conservation is recommended.

Q. Do you have any comments in relation to the timing of the current licensing period? For example, do you have any views on the potential to move to a year-round licensing system?

Respondents noted that the limited window in which they were able to apply for a licence makes it difficult to respond to emerging issues.

Q. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 Part 6 states that Scottish Ministers may require an application for a seal licence or a variation of a seal licence to be accompanied by such a fee as may be determined by, or in accordance with, regulations made by them. Do you support the principle of charging for seal licensing?

Views were received from some respondents that they would support the introduction of a fee in principle, noting that any fees should be cognisant of statutory consultees resource to enable cost recovery for their time. However, other respondents noted that the protection of endangered wild Atlantic salmon is in the wider public interest, and that applying a fee for a licence could act as a disincentive to river managers.

Q. Do you have any comments or suggestions in relation to the current consultation process?

SMRU advised that they would welcome a wider role in the consultation process, and could comment on the evidence presented in relation to the presence of seals and the non-lethal measures implemented.

Q. Do you think any improvements need to be made to marksmen training/ shooting practices, noting that a new course will be established in 2025?

It was noted that this course should provide teaching on seal ID skills, and that it should be a requirement for those responsible for lethal control to take the course. Scottish Government note that seal marksmen must have obtained this certificate to obtain a licence and so this requirement is already in place.

Respondents raised concerns about the anonymity of individual marksmen being maintained. Scottish Government noted that personal data is exempt from release under Regulation 11(2) of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004, and under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Q. Are there any additional considerations that you think the licensing review should consider regarding Special Areas of Conservation or Special Protection Areas?

It was recommended that applicants should be aware of the implications for other protected species in terms of European sites and HRA requirements.

Q. Are there any improvements you think should be made to the consideration of non-lethal measures in the licensing process?

Advisors recommended that translocation is not a viable option, due to the licensing requirements to take a seal, and due to the complexity of catching seals in fast moving rivers, and the likelihood of the seal returning to the same site. It was also recommended that physical barriers are logistically challenging due to the consent requirements. Respondents noted that acoustic deterrents are a viable option, but require further guidance.

Q. Is there any additional information you wish to be captured that is not covered by the above questions, or anything else that you think the review should capture?

Some respondents felt that the impacts of fishing activity should be considered as part of the licensing process. Scottish Government note that the licensing system must balance the conservation status of wild Atlantic salmon and seals, and that efforts to reduce wider pressures on Atlantic salmon should be entered into Section 9 of the reporting form. These can include efforts to manage fishing activity, but can also include wider efforts, for example restoration work. These are considered by MD-LOT on a case-by-case basis.

It was also noted that the process to apply for an authorisation to take seals under an existing licence where seals are to be taken within protected areas is overly burdensome, and the timescales involved impede efforts to conduct research required to provide evidence to inform conservation and management measures.

Q. Are there any additional seal biology, welfare or behaviour considerations that you think the licensing review should consider.

It was noted that translocation and release of rehabilitated seals could have welfare and conservation implications, and would therefore benefit from regulation. Scottish Government note that taking a seal for the purpose of seal rescue does not fall under any of the purposes for which a licence can be granted and so is out of the scope of this review, and will be considered separately.