LET me tell you what used to happen in Scotland. What used to happen is that thousands of mountain hares would be driven out into the open countryside so men with guns could kill them. The men with guns didn’t always succeed first time though, so their dogs would be sent in to finish off any of the hares that were injured or trying to escape. It was all perfectly legal and, in the minds of the people who did it, perfectly justified. But possibly, hopefully, it is all about to stop.

From August 1st, there will no longer be an open season on mountain hares. Instead, the Scottish Government has introduced a licensing scheme which means anyone who proposes to kill the animals will have to justify why they want to do so and provide evidence to back up their claims. They will also no longer be able to use the spurious reason that the hares spread disease to birds, specifically birds that rich people pay a lot of money to shoot. It is good news. And it is progress.

What the change in the law means, or should mean, is that there is now a de facto ban on the killing of mountain hares. I’ve seen the application form that anyone applying for a licence will have to complete and it says clearly that NatureScot, the government body that runs the licensing scheme, does not believe the evidence on mountain hares spreading diseases is robust enough to justify licences. This should essentially close down the main reason people used for the mass killing of mountain hares.

The harassment of Chris Whitty: could it be Scotland’s fault?

But there are other parts of the form that are a little more worrying. It says, for example, that a licence may be issued to prevent damage to growing timber, which raises the obvious risk that those who wish to kill hares will simply plant a few young trees on their land, use this to justify the killing, and then carry on as normal. It’s the classic problem: pass a law and people will immediately try to find ways to get round it.

In an attempt to prevent this, NatureScot has required anyone applying for the licence to provide a detailed forest management plan; the applicant will also have to outline what other measures they have taken to control mountain hares. In theory, this should thwart frivolous applicants – the ones who are at it, basically – and, because the apparent justification for the killing of hares has always been disease rather than trees, it should also reduce the killings to zero or close to zero.

But it all depends on how effective the system proves to be. For a start, does NatureScot have the resources to robustly test the claims on the forms and then check that people are really doing what they say they’re doing? Secondly, it is very strange indeed that anyone proposing to shoot mountain hares to protect trees does not have to establish what the hare population is in their area. In other words, there is nothing, in theory, to stop someone shooting mountain hares in a part of the country where the population is critically low.

The proposed methods used to kill the hares are also worrying. There are three options outlined in the form: shooting during the day, shooting at night using a light (otherwise known as lamping), and, most bizarrely, falconry. The last option is cruel, but even the shooting option is dubious because there is no requirement to prove that you are trained or competent to do it. What this means is that it’s highly likely that hares will be injured and left to die a slow and painful death.

The new licensing system also does not address the bigger problem, which is that the way we interact with animals is a mess. Some animals are outside the licensing system altogether – foxes, for example, which can be killed any time anywhere, including during the breeding season. Other species – like corvids – are subject to sweeping licences which effectively mean they have no protection at all. And even animals that are subject to the highest level of protection, hen harriers for instance, are being killed indiscriminately. Our attitude and approach to animals in Scotland is all over the shop.

The answer, it seems to me, is a much more profound change. One of the most encouraging measures in the Queen’s Speech in May was the proposal to recognise in law the capacity of animals to have feelings, including pain and suffering, and it’s a great start, but the principle won’t matter without practical consequences. Why can’t the law go further and assume that all animals are protected unless there is a good reason to kill them?

A new law along those lines would not rule out the killing of animals – even those who are most concerned about animal welfare accept, with a heavy heart, that in some circumstances some animals may have to be killed. But anyone seeking to kill animals would have to demonstrate that they could not achieve their aim by other means. They would also have to justify the killing with evidence and not simply assert, for example, that a disease spreads from hares to birds or badgers to cows and then kill animals en masse.

It has to be said the new law on mountain hares is a welcome step towards that aim, but it is only a step. NatureScot says it will review the situation every year. But how accurate will the records be? Will they be made publicly available? And what is there to prevent a kind of mission creep in which the number of hares killed increases year on year, undermining the idea of an effective ban? Remember that we’re dealing here with powerful vested interests who, like the people who enjoy hunting and killing foxes with dogs, do not like to be told what they’re doing is illegal and will seek ways to get round the law.

How to spot if someone you know is about to become a Yes voter

It may not happen of course (though I bet it will) and we obviously shouldn’t forget that the new licensing system is a welcome change. But the real test of a law lies not in the fact that it’s been passed but in how it works in practice. August 1st used to be the start of the killing time in Scotland, and this year should be different. But if the new law is to work and protect the beautiful mountain hare, the Government needs to keep a watch on those who seek to kill them. And the rest of us need to keep a watch on the Government.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.