n agreed. I call amendment 233 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 233 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. Do it again. For amendment 171, I abstained, but I would have supported. I don't think that we can change the vote, but you have that on the record. I call amendment 34 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 171, just for the record. I know that you can't change the vote, but I would have abstained. I call amendment 172 in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, raise your hand now. The result of the vote is six, four, zero against three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 130 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 9. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. On behalf of Colin Smyth, moved. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 234 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 234 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 235 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 235 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 173 in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 9. Jim Fairlie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is six, four, zero against three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 236 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 9. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 236 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is three, four, six against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 18 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 131. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 104 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 105 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. I am not moving at this stage because I did not understand the minister's answer. Thank you. Amendment 105 not moved. I call amendment 106 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not moved for the same reason. Amendment 106 is not moved. I call amendment 19 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 9. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two, four, seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 107 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 9. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Not move, convener, because it is a consequential amendment to an amendment that has already been rejected. Amendment 107 has not been moved. Bear with me a second. I call amendment 174 in the name of Christine Grahame, grouped with amendments in the name of Edward Mountain, to move amendment 174 and to speak to all amendments in the group. On behalf of Christine Grahame, I move amendment 174. Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 174A and other amendments in the group. Obviously, there is a very good reason that Christine Grahame is not here to speak to her amendment. I would have liked to have heard what she had to say, but on the basis that she is not, my amendment amends Christine Grahame's amendment on the laying of assent. The inclusion of the term reckless and amendment 174 is excessively restrictive and unhelpful. It would adversely affect any type of hunting ascent, much so that it may not be possibly legal to lay assent for dogs to follow with every confidence that they will not stray off that ascent, reckless is a term that could be utilised and abused by anti-hunting or anti-shooting organisations easily. If that term is removed, I would be very happy to support the rest of Christine Grahame's amendment, but she is not here to answer that, so that is slightly unfortunate. Amendments 237 and 238 addressed trail hunting in this bill more broadly, and I struggled to find any examples in legislation or the history of legislation where it is proposed that a lawful activity should be banned on the basis that it might be used as a cover for any unlawful activity. Those amendments reflect that and would remove the proficient for an outright ban on trail hunting. Section 12 would therefore not be necessary, so amendment 238 would remove that. It is also surprising that the penalty for an offence under this part of the bill be set at the same level as that for the most serious welfare and wildlife crime offences. That seems disproportionate and fails to recognise the fundamental difference in the gravity of the offences. Do you want me to move my amendments? Can you move them? No, no, there is no need for you to move them. Any other members wish to speak to this group? I am grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing forward this amendment 174, because I think that it strengthens this section of the bill by placing a greater responsibility on those following cents. I therefore will not be supporting amendment 174A in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which would narrow the scope of amendment 174, nor will I be supporting amendment 237 or 238 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, because I am concerned that they could create a loophole for trail hunting. I would like to speak in favour of Christine Grahame's amendment 174. Trail hunting was invented in England after the Hunting Act came in in 2004. It provides a loophole for hunting with packs to continue. Police Scotland told the committee that, if trail hunting were illegalised, it would certainly limit the opportunity for fox hunting. The Government is right to preemptively ban it by making trail hunting an offence, but we also need to be alive to the potential loopholes, in the exception for training a dog to follow an animal-based scent for a lawful purpose. Christine Grahame's amendment 174 would ensure that anyone training dogs to follow a scent would need to take precautions and not allow the dog to pursue wild mammal. Further, they must not allow themselves to act recklessly, that is, not to get into a situation where they might foreseeably lose control of the dog, even if accidentally. It is crucial to ensure that the ban on trail hunting is fit for purpose and that it is crucial to help to put an end to hunting with packs of dogs. I call the minister to speak to other amendments in the group. I wish Christine Grahame well, and I would like to speak to her amendment in its substance, because I know that she will want to catch up with what is being discussed today. While I support the principle behind amendment 174, I very much understand Christine Grahame's desire to be vigilant in avoiding a loophole whereby those who wish to continue illegal hunting will use drag hunting as a cover. I have some reservations about the amendment as posed. First, the wording relating to reckless conduct spoken to by Rachel Hamilton is misaligned with the rest of the bill, something that goes to the heart of what we are seeking to avoid. Moreover, regulating the use of dogs to find and follow a non-animal based scent, including human scents, was not included in the bill, as it does not directly or indeed indirectly involve the use of dogs to hunt wild mammal, which of course is the core purpose of the bill. Unlike trail hunting, we do not have evidence to suggest that drag hunting is being used as a cover for illegal hunting. Neither do we have evidence that wild mammals are being accidentally chased or killed during the course of drag hunting, although yet you might say that. I think that that speaks to some of what the other members contributed. I understand the concerns that if the bill is passed, people intent on illegal hunting may try and use drag hunting as a cover. I agree that we cannot rule that out entirely, although we hope not to be the case. However, as the bill is drafted, if a person is undertaking drag or clean-boot hunting, as it is sometimes called, and allows their dog to chase or kill a wild mammal without taking reasonable steps to prevent that happening, they will have committed an offence under section 1 of the bill. Weighing all that up and in conclusion, although I cannot support Christine Grahame's amendment 174 today, we and I will continue to keep the subject matter, the potential risks and the possible solutions under review as we move towards stage 3. Ms Grahame and I discussed last week that we would meet before stage 3 to discuss her other amendments, and I would propose to discuss that matter with her then. Briefly, if I can, convener, amendments 237 and 238 in Rachel Hamilton's name. Section 11 of the bill creates the new offence relating to trail hunting, and section 12 provides an exception to that. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 237 would remove section 11 with the effect that trail hunting would not be prohibited. As I have set out during various points of scrutiny over the bill, trail hunting poses a significant risk to wild mammals, and I would add that 70 per cent of respondents to our consultation supported a ban on trail hunting. We know that there are significant risks to animal welfare. Dogs that have been trained to follow an animal-based scent can be diverted from a laid trail on or near to a natural trail and start chasing and killing wild mammals. That is exactly what we want to stop. I would add in that regard that a ban on trail hunting is supported by animal welfare groups, including the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the Scottish SPCA. We have the other reason for pursuing a ban being that we know that it has emerged as a cover for illegal hunting in other countries. In that regard, I would point to Lord Bonomy in his report where he said that it is worthy of note that the way in which some mounted hunts now operate in Scotland and the practice by mountain hunts of trail hunting in England and Wales have both given rise to suspicion that organised mounted hunts have continued to hunt foxes with a path of hounds in contravention of the legislation. On the points about laying an animal-based scent for the dogs to follow and the point about training, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons why some people may need to lay an animal-based scent, for example, to train police dogs or dogs used to manage deer or search for invasive species. That is why the bill includes provisions for those activities to continue subject, of course, to the two dog limits and to other conditions. For all of the reasons that I stated, convener, I cannot support those amendments. If the minister is willing to take an intervention at this stage— Yes, I'm happy to. Thank you. No serious. Thank you very much. I'm grateful to the minister for taking the intervention. It was just on your remarks regarding amendment 174 from Christine Graham. Did I hear rightly that it's something that you'll look at out of stage 3 so that she might potentially bring it back at stage 3 or are you ruling out an amendment to this effect that if a person in the course of an activity of laying a scent allows the dog to hunt a wild mammal, that that would be specifically excluded within the bill? Thank you for the question. What I'm saying today is that I can't support this amendment as it stands. Between now and stage 3, I'd like the opportunity to consider the extent of the risk and, indeed, anything that could be done if we establish that there is a risk. I'd like to consider possible solutions and I can't commit to anything further than that today because that work still needs to be done. Christine Graham to wind up and press or withdraw. Thank you, convener. I too wish Christine Graham a speedy recovery. On Christine Graham's behalf, I thank the minister for her comments and also her willingness to meet with Christine Graham to discuss her other amendments and this one specifically prior to stage 3. Given that reason, I'm sure that Christine Graham would also appreciate the comments from the other members in the meeting. At this point, I will not move this amendment. The amendment is to be withdrawn. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member have an objection? No objection. I call amendment 237, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 174. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 237 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise a hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 202, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 194. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. No, not moved, convener. Amendment 202 is not moved. I call amendment 238, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 174. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 238 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is three for six against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 175, in the name of the minister. Group with amendments is shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 175 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener, and I move amendment 175 in my name. This amendment introduces powers for a constable to stop and search a person without warrant, where that constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence under the bill. It includes powers for a constable to search or examine anything found in the course of a search and also to seize anything found in the course of a search. Section 7 of the protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 allows for a constable where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has committed an offence, and that evidence of the offence under the 2002 act is to be found on that person to stop and search the person in question. Of course stopping search powers should not be conferred lightly, but, after reflecting on the comments made by the police during stage one and after considering the powers available to the police in other pieces of wildlife legislation, we consider it appropriate to include powers in the bill for the police to stop and search a person, and that on similar terms to the 2002 act. Amendments 177, 178 and 179 in my name change the test in the schedule for a constable to enter a premises from where that constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant offence has been committed to one where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed. Section 13 of the bill introduces the schedule, which makes the provision about the powers for constables. Currently there are powers for constables to enter premises together with the powers associated with entry, including search and seizure. Those amendments make the minor adjustments to the schedule so that the wording of the tests for entry and seizure of items are consistent with the wording for stop and search powers. I can move on to speak to other members. Sorry, you have explained that you want to substitute believing to suspecting. I just need to understand why. I understand you want to do it, but I do not understand why. Exactly, as I said in the last point, it is to have a consistency of the language with the stop and search powers that we are introducing, and the stop and search powers introduced mirror that of the 2002 act. I am sorry, convener. Will the minister take an intervention on that? Are you introducing or have you introduced? You are bringing something new in here, or is this to reflect that something is already in place? If you are bringing something new in here to reflect what you might be doing in the future, I have a little bit of concern about if that is the right way to do legislation. The stop and search powers, which was the first amendment that I brought in, would be new. I am bringing them in on the basis of evidence from the police at stage one, and I am bringing them in to line with the 2002 act. The second suite of amendments that I am introducing is changing that point about believing to suspecting. That is about ensuring that they were already in the bill, and that is about ensuring that there is a consistency of language with the new stop and search powers, which I am proposing that I voted on today. I am still not clear that I understand the difference between believing and suspecting, but maybe I could be informed afterwards, rather than waste the committee's time. I have a lot of questions relating to those amendments. Thank you. 175, on making it possible to stop and search without a warrant, are you able to outline how typical is that across Scottish Government legislation? Is this quite standard? Is this exceptional? What has led you to this decision? At first glance, it sounds like it could be a little bit heavy-handed and exploited. That is why I said that we would not confer stop and search powers lightly. However, a couple of points are there. The first is that this is consistent with other wildlife legislation, and I am happy to provide you with examples of that afterwards, if that would be helpful to give you a bit of peace of mind. Equally, I am just looking in my notes because I am just looking for the evidence of Detective Telford, where I think that he stayed at stage 1. Yes, we are just looking for a bit of clarity around that. As there is nothing in the bill at present, the powers that are afforded by the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the other wildlife crime legislation are really effective. That legislation affords us the power to search persons, which is key in gaining evidence of offences. To go back to hair coursing, for example, that power allows us to take people's phones in order to get potential evidence, such as footage, from them. We hope that the powers that we will be afforded in this bill will be similar to those in current legislation, and that is referring exactly to stop and search powers. Sorry, could you direct comments through the chair to make it easier for the official report rather than a conversation across the committee room? I appreciate that. Sorry. Would I be able to ask a follow-up question? If you wish to intervene, would the minister take an additional intervention? I was wondering if you could outline your understanding of the Scottish Government's understanding of the difference between believing and suspecting. I think that I would follow up with you on that. The reason that I think that this is important and the reason that I have asked the committee to support it today is because I am conscious that we are introducing that new power with stop and search, and I want a consistency of language between that new stop and search power, if it is included, and the powers of seizure. That is why I am asking the committee to support it today, but I can certainly come back with anything that you would like about the difference between the two believing, suspecting. I will move on now, if you do not mind, to amendments 40 to 56 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which will remove the ability of the court to make a deprivation order in relation to any horse used in or present at the commission on offence. Deprivation and disqualification orders can only be granted when a person is convicted of the offence in relation to hunting with dogs or trail hunting, and therefore apply to a dog or a horse used in or present at the commission of the offence. In that regard, the bill makes similar provision to the existing disqualification orders under the 2002 act, in section 9. The rationale for including horses within the scope of death privation orders is to ensure that anyone who is convicted of a relevant offence is deprived of the tools that were used in the commission of that offence, and the intention is to limit the ability to re-offend, as well as to act as a deterrent to unlawful activities under the bill. I should be clear that we have not singled out the use of horses. The schedule on the bill on enforcement powers allows for the seizure of vehicles to provide evidence of the commission of an offence, and such a vehicle may be forfeited in accordance with part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Scotland Act 1995. If a person uses a quad bike or similar vehicle, there is also a route for that to be forfeited. Of course, horses and dogs are explicitly mentioned in the bill because they are sentient beings, and we believe that additional safeguards were required when making orders to remove them. I will move on to amendments 192, 193, in the name of Arianne Burgess. I agree with Ms Burgess that the welfare of a horse or a dog should clearly be an important factor for the court when considering imposing a deprivation order. Therefore, I very much support the principle of this amendment. However, I just like to take the opportunity to ensure that it works alongside other provisions for the operation of deprivation orders more generally. If the member was agreeable, convener, I would like to ask her not to press this today, but to work with her ahead of stage 3 on an amendment to her effect. Amendment 108, in the name of Edward Mountain, restricts the use of deprivation orders so that they can only be applied when the court is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent the future use of the dogs in the commission of an offence. I think that that is an unworkably high bar for the court, and we all have to ask ourselves how the court would know if the dog or the horse will be used in an offence in the future. It also restricts the court's discretion in the circumstances as to when a deprivation order could be made and, as I suppose, as an aside, it creates inconsistency whereby the requirement does not apply to other uses of deprivation orders. For example, dogs seized in badger baiting do not be supporting those amendments for that reason. Finally, convener, amendment 109, in the name of Edward Mountain, I believe that this amendment is section 17 of the bill to limit the period for which a disqualification order may be granted to 18 months for a first conviction, three years for a second and for a third conviction such period as the court may determine. Again, we are getting into the territory of unnecessarily unjustifiably fettering the discretion of the court when they will be considering the appropriate period of time in which a disqualification order should take effect. There may be circumstances in which a long period should be able to be made by the courts, and that, in light of all the circumstances, I would not want to impinge on that, so I cannot support that amendment, but I move amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton speaks to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Amendment 40 and 56, as the minister has referred to, remove reference to horses in this particular instance in relation to the deprivation order. Whilst it would be fair to say that dogs are an essential ingredient of the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog, it would not be fair to say that horses, if a horse can be the subject of a deprivation order, then why not a quad bike or for those on foot at this particular section of the bill? This inconsistency has, I believe, not been addressed by the minister despite her trying to reassure members of the committee that the schedule provides for seizure of vehicles that is in another part of the bill, and therefore that is inconsistent. There has been no explanation for the inclusion of horses in this section of the bill or the exclusion of quad bikes or footwear, for that matter, has been given. I fail to see any justification for the inclusion of horses and therefore seek to remove reference to them in the bill with those amendments. Just on the point of, I would like to make a comment on the minister's amendment 175, she says that there is evidence from Police Scotland, but there was only opinion from Billy Telford, not evidence where police powers are concerned. I would be grateful if the minister could reference that particular point of evidence that she is citing. The other question that I would like to ask the minister is whether a deprivation order includes the prevention of possession, sale, transport or animal in that particular situation. Annan Burgess, to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group. My amendments 192 and 193 are straightforward. They simply add that if a court convicts a person of a relevant offence and makes a deprivation order or a seizure order, which affects the person's dog or horse, then any so-called disposal of that dog or horse must take into account the need to ensure its welfare. I did not lodge amendments adding this requirement to the destruction option because section 16 and 18 already state that a court cannot order the destruction of a dog or horse unless it is satisfied on evidence provided by a veterinary surgeon that destruction would be in the interests of the animal. However, I would like to note on record that it is appalling that activities such as fox hunting may feasibly result in destruction being in the best interests of a dog or horse and that those activities are able to continue. However, I thank the minister for offering to work with me at stage 3 to ensure that my amendments to the deprivation and seizure order sections work alongside other deprivation seizure orders, so I will not move my amendments and look forward to working with the minister at stage 3. Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 108 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. I'm somewhat disappointed that Ariane's bird is not going to move her amendment because it's perhaps one that I would agree with and let me explain why. It's because when a dog or a horse is taken out to create to undertake an illegal activity, it's not the horse's choice or the dog's choice, it is the individual's choice. In fact, the horse has no choice when you put a saddle on it and a bridle and take it out to ride. In very exceptional circumstances you have no control of it, but in most circumstances you will have control of it, but the horse cannot say it doesn't want to go and nor can the dog for that matter, so the argument that dogs because they've been used for badger baiting are automatically bad. I would actually disagree with that. I would say that the owner is bad and it is the sentient animal that doesn't have a choice. I was actually surprised by the minister's wish or statement that she was unable to support my amendments because my amendments seem to me want to bring some reasonableness into the argument of what to do with the horse or the dog if a deprivation order is going to be put in. I believe that it needs to be a high bar put in place to make sure that the animal isn't removed. For the very same reason that Ariane Burgess says, I don't want to see those animals, horses or dogs to be destroyed for no particular reason. I also brought in the second amendment for the simple reason that I am a firm believer in rehabilitation and not purely retribution, which is why I would like to see timescales placed on the ability of an owner to get their horse or dog back. In the same way that we do when people create and undertake that heinous crime, in my opinion of dangerous driving, they are given a chance to get their licence back at a later stage. We should allow that person, in the case of a dog, to get their licence back. However, what you are saying in this act is that they might never get the chance to get that animal back or to have a dog in the future. I think that that is cruel when people look to their dogs and love their dogs and it is perhaps that they have learned from their lessons. I think that that is wrong. I think that it is interesting that the Minister compares the ability to remove a quad or a car from when an offence is committed. Cars are seldom removed for drink driving. It is up to the driver to dispose of it. In fact, the driver can hold on to that car and keep it in the garage until they get their licence back. However, what you are suggesting is that a dog and a horse should be removed. For those reasons, I think that this is retribution rather than rehabilitation, which is why I have placed my amendments in. It is why I would ask this committee to really consider very carefully the effects of removing somebody's pets, which may have been misused improperly, but could be used properly and loved in the future. I make a very strong plea on this because I think that we are going the wrong way round. With regard to amendments 175 to 179 in the name of Minister Mary McCallan, I am not persuaded by the Minister's remarks today, but I appreciate her commitment to share further information. I am not sure whether that is for myself or the whole committee ahead of stage 3. On that basis, I would ask her not to press these amendments today so that we can vote once we have a full explanation in front of us. If the minister did press these amendments today, I would ask members not to support them. The amendments in my name are technical in nature. They essentially reproduce the police powers of enforcement that exist under the 2002 act. On the basis of evidence by Police Scotland at the committee that I was able to narrate to the committee earlier, I mentioned that I support, in principle, Ariane Burgess in seeking to bolster animal welfare during the forfeiture of horses and dogs. I look forward to working with her on that, but I do not support amendments that would fetter the discretion of the court in imposing deprivation orders and enlighten of Edward Mountain's comments on rehabilitation. I absolutely take that on board, but that is to be taken into account by the court. We are best placed to decide all that in light of the circumstances of the case. The point that I made about the evidence, I just asked, was it Billy Peezy-Billy Telford's opinion or was it evidence from Police Scotland just for the record? The detective was representing Police Scotland at this committee when he gave that evidence. I do not think that we would discount any other evidence that the committee has taken as only being opinion. It is evidence that is given to this committee and that it constitutes evidence. Can you cite that evidence now? I did read out what the detective said. So that was the actual evidence that you are citing? Right. Okay, thank you. Thank you. You have completed. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is five, four, two against, two abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 176 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 175. Minister to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is five, four, one against, three abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. 1707. We have just done that. We have just done that. My apologies. We have just agreed. Just be with me. Have we done that? Yeah, we have just done that. Okay. The question is, section 13 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. 7, 178 a 179—all the name of the minister all previously debated with amendment 175. I invite the minister to move amendments 177 to 179 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 177 to 179? No. If no member objects, the question is amendments 177 to 179 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members not supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members wishing to abstain and the result of the vote is 5 for 2 against two abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. The question is that section 14—the question is that the section be agreed to a bigger pardon. The question is that the schedule be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 14 and 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain, please raise your hand. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against two abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain, the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 192 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 175. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Amendment 192 is not moved. I call amendment 42 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those not supporting the amendment, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 108 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 175. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Yes, moved. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 6 against one abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 43 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendments 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, all in the name of Rachel Hamilton, and all previously debated with amendment 175, Rachel Hamilton, to move amendments 44 to 49 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 44 to 49? The question is that amendment 44 to 49 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendments have not been agreed. The question is that section 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 109 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 175. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. I am moved, convener. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 17 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 193 in the name of Arianne Burgess, already debated with amendment 175. Arianne Burgess, to move or not move. Not moved. Amendment 193 is not moved. The question is that section 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, all in the name of Rachel Hamilton and all previously debated with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 50 to 56? The question is that amendments 50 to 56 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise their hand now. Those members not supporting the amendments and those members who wish to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstention. The amendments have not been agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 239 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, group with amendments 240 and 241. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 239 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendments 239 to 241 would address concerns shared by the Law Society of Scotland regarding the provisions to allow ministers to amend the act in the future or any enactment subject to positive resolution to the Parliament. It is felt that those powers are too extensive. The requirement for the affirmative procedure is that there is no substitute for full debate and scrutiny as applied to primary legislation. In the Law Society of Scotland's evidence committee, we heard that, at the very least, there should be some requirement for consultation. It was felt that the concern about the extent of ministerial powers sought was not properly reflected in the stage 1 report. My amendments would remove these ministerial powers to allow for proper debate to any further amendment to the bill. I move amendment 239 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, to speak to all members in the group. Thank you for the explanation of her amendments, which would ultimately amend the bill so that regulations could not modify any enactment, including the bill once passed. As with any body of law, the bill may give rise to the need for a range of ancillary provisions. The power contained in the bill is a standard provision, which is contained in many acts of the Scottish Parliament. It is not wide, as has been suggested. The power, in fact, is limited on the face of the bill in that the Scottish ministers will only be able to exercise it as they consider appropriate for the purposes of, in connection with or giving full effect to any provisions of the bill, and it is no wider than that. However, the power is necessary, for example, to ensure the smooth transition from the 2002 act to the new provisions of the bill, including, for example, by removing references to the 2002 act as they exist. As you can imagine, after 20 years, they are numerous. It will also allow Scottish ministers to make further changes should there be any unforeseen issues with the operation of the new legislation. Practically, without that power, it would be necessary to bring forward primary legislation every time to deal with technical, operational or implementation matters. I do not think that, albeit that it is not a decision for me to take, I do not think that that would be an effective use of Parliament's resources. It could also mean that the statute book was out of date while we waited for primary legislation to become available in order to make amendments. I would also highlight that section 21 requires regulations that add to replace or omit any part of an act to be subject, as Rachael Hamilton said, to affirmative procedure, which I think provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and, of course, is typical of ancillary powers provisions. I would also highlight for the record that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made no comments in relation to the inclusion of that power in the bill. I think that section 21 is important and I can't support those amendments. Thank you. Rachael Hamilton to a wind-up and press or withdraw. No further comments and press. The question is that amendment 239 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendments, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 240 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 239. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 240 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 241 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 239. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 241 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 244 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 113. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 244 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 242 in the name of Rachael Hamilton already debated with amendment 113. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 242 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members not supporting the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 180 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 180 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I move amendment 180. This group of amendments are technical. Amendment 180 refers to section 23 of the bill, which is drafted, deals with the repeal of the 2002 act. Amendment 180 will remove sections 232 and 3 of the bill. Those sections amend the statutory list of offences, which are subject to disclosure. We do that by replacing references to the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act 2002 with references to offences under this bill. That is as it previously was drafted. However, since the introduction of the bill, there have been developments in bringing forward the changes made by the Disclosure Scotland Act 2020 to the list of offences. Regulations have been laid before Parliament and are due to come into force on 19 December, which will repeal and replace the provisions that are referred to in the bill in line with the changes that will be made by the Disclosure Act. As I mentioned, the provisions that were previously in sections 232 and 3 of the bill are no longer required owing to that separate legislative change. Amendments 182 to 190 are equally technical. They simply change nine references to Her Majesty in the bill to His Majesty, and they do not change the effect or meaning of any of the provisions in the bill. Amendment 180. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 181 in the name of the minister, group with amendment 57. Minister, to move amendment 181 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 181, which again is a technical amendment. Section 17 of the Animals and Wildlife Penalty Protection and Powers Scotland Act 2020 places an obligation on Scottish ministers to publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament, and that within five years of it coming into force, a report setting out an assessment of the steps that have been taken to ensure information sharing in relation to certain persons and the steps that the ministers are taking to further progress such information sharing. The persons that are to be the subject of the report include those who have been convicted of an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland Act. My amendment 181 removes section 234A from the bill. That section removes the reference to the 2002 act in section 17 of the Animal and Wildlife Act. However, despite the fact that the bill will repeal the 2002 act, I now consider that the reference to it should remain. That is simply to ensure that the reporting requirements under the Animals and Wildlife Act capture any persons with previous convictions under the 2002 act, so we are just trying to ensure that there is continuity in that regard. I think that I moved 181, but if not, I will do that again. Just to speak to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 57, which, in my view, inserts a duty on the ministers to prepare a report to be published and laid before Parliament within one year of the commencement of section 1 of the bill, stating that this report must set out the impact of the act and the cultural heritage associated with the hunting with dogs and other points. I do not support that amendment as I do not believe that it is necessary or relevant for the Scottish Government to produce a report on the matters that are explicitly set out in the amendment. The Scottish Government, as a matter of course, will always seek to monitor and evaluate the impact of any new policies or legislation that is passed. However, that amendment would introduce a duty to report on things that I think are not within the remit of the bill. As we have discussed at length, the bill was introduced to address widespread concerns that foxes and other wild mammals are being hunted and killed by dogs in contravention of the 2002 act. Neither in this bill—sorry, there is nothing in this bill about cultural heritage associated with hunting with dogs—it is about preventing dogs from being used to kill and chase mammals, which of course has been illegal for 20 years. Animal welfare legislation, such as the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, ensures that the health and welfare of protected animals, including dogs, is insured. As part of the process of developing the bill, the Scottish Government undertook all of the statutory impact assessments, including an equality impact assessment and a business regulatory assessment, which I think should give Rachel Hamilton some comfort on some of the issues that she raises. However, for those reasons, I will not be supporting those amendments. Rachel Hamilton, to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the minister for her comments as well. I believe that the duty to report is an important aspect of all legislation. I would hope that the minister would agree that there could be significant impact of the reform of the act on, as she says, not things that are specifically within the remit of the bill but are a consequence of the reform of the bill. Whilst I have reflected, and I am looking at this as it could be overly prescriptive, I believe that there could be an impact on the things that I have stated within the amendment itself. For example, there could be an impact on jobs and livelihood, there could be an impact on biodiversity loss, there might be a negative environmental consequences. I do not think that we should underestimate the impact that there could have on the cultural heritage as well. However, I agree that it could be overly prescriptive. I will be bringing this back at stage 3. I am going to withdraw it at this stage, if I may say that now, convener, and reconsider it on the basis that the minister has stated that the impact will be considered within the business regulatory impact assessment or the statement. I thank the minister for her comments. Thank you. You will have the opportunity not to move the amendment later on. Any other members wish to speak to this group? I hope that members will agree that my amendment is necessary and that we support it. I have listened carefully to what Rachael Hamilton has said today. I absolutely agree with monitoring and reporting, but, as I said, it is not on issues that are not connected with the purpose of the bill, so I cannot support that. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 190, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 180. Ministers, to move amendments 182 to 190 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 182 to 190? No. The question is that amendments 182 to 190 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Do we have a no? Okay, that we are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supported the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members who wish to abstain, please raise your hand now. The result of the vote is 8 for 0 against 1 abstention. The amendments have been agreed. The question is that section 25 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 57, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 181. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Amendment 57 is not moved. The question is that section 36 and 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. We will very briefly suspend to allow the minister and her assistants to leave and we will continue in private.


Everybody forced here ripping 2021 of city and football hobby 12 bucks full case number 17 random teams There's a results link in chat currently and you can always find the results at late in sports cards calm Thanks everybody for joining a good luck. Let's see what we got base card Vikings rookie Amir Smith Marseille Dalvin cook cutting edge jersey card Vikings number to 100 400 points random to all at the end Vikings rookie auto orange Amir's not Kellan mawn to 75 Vikings Vikings first box here Kenan Wang Wu to 150 rookie dual jersey auto Saints Peyton Turner rookie number to 25 And a supernova Jaguars rookie QB Trevor Lawrence 16 that's his jersey number of 25 Heck of a start for the Jags check that out man. Get that mag for you. That's awesome. Yeah, dude. I'm sitting pretty dope as a great start God Ravens rookie Oda fail away Ravens Marlon Humphrey purple to 100 Cheese tunnel vision Patrick Mahomes the second 15 of 15 jersey number Dang she's in on it now. Look at that Kevin H. Yeah, 15 of 15 dual jersey number in fact Yeah, all the die cuts are fire. We'll mag that too for you chiefs Goodness gracious, man. Kyle Pitts trifecta rookie triple relic to 75 Balkans Patriots rookie auto train Nixon to 199 Cowboys auto Bob Lily to 50 and chargers rookie Jersey auto Josh Palmer to 99 Chargers Josh Palmer Yeah, basic one Barclay Purple rookie lay around for the third for the Chargers Got a Contra Russell Wilson There you go Seattle Good stuff there, man Russ Contra got Jason Witton atomic Jersey to 75 Cowboys Titans racy McMath rookie auto to 199 Chargers rookie auto Josh Palmer to 199 and dolphins RPA Jalen waddle for color waddle numbered 21 of 25 Sweet one Miami Eric M. Kansas We'll get that mags what a case so far All right, you've got Javon Holland rookie dolphins orange burrow nice color match. I'll be number to 75 Sincy with a nice burrow purple rookie bills mark has Stevenson to 100 Niners cutting-edge Pat hatch or I think that's patch. Maybe glove relic potentially Debo to 75 not quite sure Patriots rookie auto Christian Barmore to 199 Panthers rookie auto Chuba Hubbard to 199 and Ravens to 99 rookie Jersey auto Tylen Wallace Got my homes for the chief's base card. We've got a tunnel vision. Wow.  Oh my goodness Dolphins who's got Miami there crushing it now? Eric M. McCann's I think I just said it Eric M. McCann's is that's nasty, dude Contra supernova again. Those are not numbered. I think those act as a case hit though That's what I'm wondering. This case is getting a little crazier, huh? Not jets to 75 rookie Jersey Elijah Moore. I Be yelling louder, but I don't think I can right after yesterday yesterday wore me out Lions rookie auto Devine was a recated 75 Patriots another Christian Barmore rookie auto to 199 lions are the next one. That is an almond Ross St. Brown red RPA to 10 There you go, David 7 to 10 red edge RPA Almond Ross St. Brown that is nasty too. We'll get that magged It's a fantastic case. All right. We got Marlon Humphrey base for the Ravens chase young Washington purple to 100 green-jared goth lions to 50 galaxy gear chiefs Tyree killed to 50 25 25 Dolphins rookie Otto Javon Holland number 299 199 Ravens rookie auto Tylen Wallace to 199 Vikings rookie Jersey Otto Amir Smith Marset the 150 come on now got an Adam Thielen Gold flood Colts rookie Mike strong Eight of ten Those are freaking beautiful And orange tunnel vision buccaneers Tom Brady 23 of 25 The die cuts in this case have been insane dude Will mag the Brady in the gold flood in that same in this same box Haven't gotten the hits yet Jersey card Raiders Tim Brown out of 50 Volcanic rookie Jersey Jets Zach Wilson to 75. Oh, that's one of 75. Wow almost Jersey college Jersey number Steelers green Aurora Otto Heinz Ward number to 10 Stealer legend now Matrix patch auto packers Aaron Jones that yellow color match Nice hit for the pack. That's gonna be 21 out of 25 on your serial number there Sweet bet hit God Jake Funk Got a gold flood CD lamb now Dallas five out of ten Those are so nice What a what an amazing addition obsidian these gold floods will mag this CD got tunnel vision green for the Rams Matt Stafford Numbered 9 of 15 on the Jersey number More nice die cuts 9 of 15 Jersey number Stafford now Vikings Amir Smith more said rookie Jersey card to 100 volcanic rookie patch trail Lance to 25 Yeah, 11 at 25 nice Lance Buccaneers rookie auto Kyle Trask orange to 75 And the Steelers rookie Jersey auto Pat fire move to 99. All right, let's keep it rolling Make sure you're grabbing your spots for tomorrow's daytime prism basketball release day PYT style breaks lots of teams still available at half cases One through 12 PYT style a lot of random teams not a lot of spots left for random teams tomorrow actually Colts Jonathan Taylor Colts Mike strong rookie purple to 100 Niners green rookie trace sermon to 50 Ravens cutting-edge Jersey Marquis Brown to 75 Jaguars rookie eruption patch Travis etn jr. That's numbered to 50 Cincinnati rookie auto Jamar Chase number to 125 Big hits since he now Cases keeps on going Michael G with the Bengals We'll get that mags. We've got desvits Patrick to 99 rookie dual Jersey out of Titans Yes, all that Dominic Got base DJ shark Orange gj shark with the Jags 75 purple chase young Washington to 100 Texans rookie Jersey card Niko Collins to 100 Bears trifecta rookie triple rally Justin Fields to 100 the Bears Jets Quinn Williams auto number to 25 and Steelers Super Bowl auto mean Joe Green Not numbered Super Bowl auto Steelers Boxes left All right, we've got Daniel Jones for the Giants That's it's Patrick rookie to 100 for the Titans Another gold flood this time Panthers DJ Moore four of ten The third gold flood of the case Such a fun break man Cowboys to 75 rookie Jersey cards Simi Fajoco Texans Niko Collins rookie patch card That's out of 75 Washington rookie auto Dax mill in the 199 and Jags rookie Jersey auto Trevor Lawrence boom out of 50 it's been non-stop this case Awesome hit after awesome hit Last box number 12 here. Good luck everybody. All right. We got base rookie Titans desvits Patrick Got orange rookie Niners tray sermon to 75 purple Baker to 100 Browns Dolphins Galaxy Gears Evian Howard to 100 Volcanic rookie patch Trey Lance to 100 Saints lightning strike auto Taysum Hill to 75 And a redemption on the back Last hits gonna be a redemption and it's going to the Titans rookie Jersey auto Elijah Moore No, sorry Jets. I was thinking Elijah Molden Elijah Morris Jets Jets rookie Jersey auto. I go solid stuff there. That'll be the 150 or less maybe 99 less like Which one right we got one pointer one points card is pretty low for for an obsidian case too Just a great break. All right, 400 points random to all spots Randomize 11 times whichever team is up or whichever name is up top is gonna get the points one Two three four five six seven eight nine Ten and eleven. It's gonna go to Justin B. All right. Let's recap Yeah, there was no color blast, but we had two contra so That kind of stinks. Well one of the contras is pretty sick. All right, so we had relics here Xavier and Howard Trey Lance Simi Fahoko Niko Collins Justin Fields Niko Collins Travis Heatsy and Junior Marquise Brown Trey Lance Amir Smith Marseille Tim Brown Zach Wilson Tyreek Hill Elijah Moore Debo Samuel Jason Whitten Kyle Pitts Dobbin Cook All of the autos we had an RPA redemption a rookie Jersey auto redemption Elijah Moore for the Jets Taysum Hill Dax Milne Quinn and Williams Joe Green Desmond's Patrick Pat Friar booth Kyle Trask Aaron Jones Heinz Ward Amir Smith Marset Jevon Holland Tylen Wallace Christian Barmore Levi was a Rique Tylen Wallace Christian Barmore Chuba Hubbard Josh Palmer Racy McMath Josh Palmer Trey Nixon Bob Lily Kenan Wang Wu Callen Mond Mag we had a gold flood CD lamb for Dallas Tunnel vision Brady to 25 bucks tunnel vision Mahomes dual Jersey number 15 to 15 for the Chiefs a supernova Lawrence 16 of 25 on that Jersey number card Contra supernova Jalen waddle Not number of the contra counts as a case hit technically red RPA. I'm in Ross St. Brown Lions to 10 RPA yellow for the Dolphins Jalen waddle the 25 Jamar Chase auto to 125 for the Bengals and RPA Jags Trevor Lawrence. It's a 50 Great case. Thanks again everybody. We've got more football coming up


It is currently Saturday December 31st 11 53 p.m. I'm here to Bring in the new year with you. My name is Amanda Silvera I am the voice that you hear in some of these like to go videos and I'm actually here on behalf of the entire psych to go team To wish you a happy new year. Thank you so much for being a part of this community To wish you all the best in 2023 And to remind you to please take a second to just pat yourselves on the back for making it through another 365 days on this planet Earth. It was about to say 365 years You know, it's it's been another weird year and they're probably gonna keep getting weirder so It's important that you really Acknowledge what you've made it through You are stronger than you think And now it's time to find our way through 2023 and we're gonna do it together So sending so much love Five minutes to go I'll see you on the other side


we are bringing this what's called as Isha Kriya, which gives you a distance between you and your thought, between you and your body. If people experience this for two minutes a day, their lives will change. Definitely. I'm telling you. Once they know the freedom of it, you will not like anything. You will not like any drink or drug or whatever because it is a much big high than that. Much much big high than anything that you have seen. So one of the resolutions that you take for the new year is, I meditate.


Hi, I'm Ryan Wibby, President and Brewmaster of Wibby Brewing. Wibby Brewing, we only brew lagers, so all of our beers are cold fermented and cold aged for a smooth, crisp, clean finish to the product. Drinking a Wibby Lager on our patio is the best way to get rid of your COVID blues.