It will be an interesting documentary tonight by BBC Scotland's environmental investigators, ably assisted by our field research and investigations officer.
In the run-up to the programme we have heard calls from the shooting industry – some sections of which have been implicated in the persecution of Scotland's predators – to be given licences to kill protected birds of prey, such as ravens and buzzards.
Their argument is that buzzard numbers in particular have increased to levels that cannot be tolerated by an industry dependent on rearing or promoting a few preferred species for sport shooting. At a penstroke, the granting of licences would remove the problem of illegal raptor killing - because it wouldn't be illegal any more. Brilliant.
The trouble is that this isn't just a numbers game. It's not only about conservation versus economic viability. When wild birds and animals are illegally trapped and killed, just like domestic animals, there's only one number that matters - the number one.
Each of these animals is an individual. When any animal suffers and dies after consuming carbofuran or alphachloralose, or dehydrates in an unchecked trap, or struggles as a snare cuts deeper into its neck, abdomen or leg, or has its body peppered with shotgun pellets, the only number that matters, there and then, is one. If we consider ourselves a humane society, the suffering of that single individual, regardless of its species, should matter to us just as much as any other.
Here's another number. £240 million. It is repeatedly said that the shooting industry contributes £240 million to the Scottish economy every year. During the debate on snaring, the Scottish Government cited this figure and still continues to do so. But it should not be accepted as the final word. In fact this is not an annual figure, but one published in 2006 by an economic consultancy, based on data gathered on behalf of the shooting industry in 2004.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), advisers to the Scottish government, commented last year that the estimates of total GVA supported by shooting appeared “too high” relative to the figures gathered on first round spend, and estimates of employment supported were “generous”. SNH itself put the value of field sports tourism, including angling, at £136 million. A recent Fraser of Allander economic survey of grouse moors, using what the authors disarmingly described as “heroic” grossing up, found that grouse shooting might contribute £23.3 million to GDP.
OneKind would not dismiss any significant contribution to the Scottish economy that keeps people in jobs, even if we would prefer wildlife tourism to be non-consumptive. But if we are to play the numbers game, let’s have the whole story.
In our own reviews of the figures, we probably haven’t found the whole picture either. But at least we are looking for it, and that’s the only way that government policy on wildlife protection or any other issue should be made. And always remembering that we start counting with the number one.
Read our Investigator's account of his day with the BBC crew.