League Against Cruel Sports
Evidence for consideration by the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament
August 2000
1 List Of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 3 Hunting 5 Fox hunting 5 Hare coursing 8 Mink hunting 9
2. Animal Welfare 11
3 Population Control 17 Foxes 17 Hare 18 Mink 19
4. Economics 21
5. Social ‘contributions’ 23
6. Practical Considerations 25
7. Consequences of a Ban 27
8. The Bill 29
9. References 30
2 League Against Cruel Sports
Evidence for consideration by the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament
1. Introduction
Evidence for consideration by the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs.
The League was formed in 1924 to campaign for the abolition of cruel sports. We have members and support groups across the British Isles. Hunting cannot be justified on the grounds that it has a particular significance in Scotland. If anything the opposite is the truth. Public opinion is certainly more opposed to hunting in Scotland than it is anywhere else in the British Isles. There are many parts of England and Wales which are comparable to highland Scotland where the use of dogs has been clearly demonstrated to be every bit as cruel, barbaric and inefficient as it is elsewhere. Locality does not make hunting any less cruel.
The League believes that hunting and killing wild mammals with dogs is cruel and barbaric and has no place in a modern society.
The League believes that a ban on all forms of hunting and coursing wild mammals with dogs is essential. The Government in the Westminster Parliament recently commissioned an independent inquiry into hunting with dogs under the Chairmanship of Lord Burns. The Committee commissioned a considerable amount of independent research into various aspects of hunting from scientists, academics and rural economists. The League commends the report of the Burns’ Inquiry to the Rural Affairs Committee.
Most of the claims made in defence of hunting have relied on assumptions and claims made by the hunting fraternity. Scientific investigation into the ecology and behaviour of the species used for sport as well as scrutiny by rural economists throws real doubt on the knowledge which the hunters’ claim. Independent scientific studies, post mortems and recorded evidence clearly shows that hunting is ineffective, often counter productive, inevitably cruel and of little significance to rural life.
It is clear that many hunters have a distorted perception of hunting and of hunted animals. It may also be the case that some hunters are perfectly aware of the unnecessary cruelty they inflict but remain indifferent to the suffering of the animals (hunted and hunters) involved. The latter will never be persuaded that it is reasonable to stop their activities. The League greatly regrets that animals will continue to suffer for human entertainment, which is why we believe there is no alternative but to introduce a wide-ranging ban on hunting with dogs.
The early cessation of live mammal hunting and the development of alternative equine activities afford an opportunity for rural business development and for improving the quality of life in the countryside.
3 Executive summary of evidence presented. q The evidence supplied by the League shows that hunting with dogs is a cruel and barbaric sport. q The evidence shows that hunting is closely associated with an abusive culture. Animals are chased for pleasure, hunts frequently trespass where they are not welcome and hounds frequently kill pets and other animals. q Hunts frequently lose control of their hounds and on occasion also lose control of their followers. q The evidence shows that hunting makes very little economic contribution to the countryside. The League believes that the evidence clearly shows that: q Hunting is a sport that is based on the abuse of animals for human pleasure by pursuing them with dogs. q Hunting by its very nature is poorly controlled and endangers the lives of other non-quarry animals. q Laws that permit hunting with dog’s legitimise forms of animal abuse that have no place in a modern society. Terrier work can even lead to underground dogfights. q Hunting causes death, trauma and injury to animals on a scale that should not be tolerated in a civilised country. q Public opinion is strongly against hunting with hounds and in favour of a ban. q There is no economic or agricultural justification for the cruel sport of hunting and killing wild mammals with hounds. q A ban on hunting could easily be implemented and would promote the harmonious development of life and leisure in the countryside.
4 Hunting
Most studies of hunting with dogs have been carried out by organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports or the British Field Sports Society (now called the Countryside Alliance). In Scotland the Scottish Countryside Alliance (SCA) claims to speak on behalf of Scottish interests but it is funded by the London based Countryside Alliance. Recent quotes to newspapers by Alan Murray, Director of the Scottish Countryside Alliance support this view. The SCA is part of the Countryside Alliance and its arguments are a continuation of the case made by the former BFSS.
Over the past few decades hunting has come under more scrutiny and academic study. Two of Britain’s leading experts on the ecology of wild mammals, David MacDonald of Oxford University and Stephen Harris of Bristol University, have produced a number of studies on the role of hunting in controlling the species they hunt. Both of these leading academics have independently concluded that hunting plays no part in controlling foxes. David MacDonald concluded that hunting should be viewed purely as a sport (1).
Recent studies into the economics of hunting in Scotland, again by an independent, Douglas MacMillan of the University of Aberdeen, have independently concluded that hunting is of little economic significance to the rural economy. Professor MacMillan suggests that if live quarry hunting were to end there might be an increase in equine and social activities in rural communities. More recently the Mackaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) report commissioned by the Scottish Executive showed that claims by the SCA that thousands of jobs in Scotland are depended on hunting are simply not true.
The studies by independent academics throw new light on a debate that, up to recently, had been conducted by people whose views were either strongly for or strongly against hunting. The new evidence, which supports investigations and research by the League Against Cruel Sports, shows that hunting is an unnecessarily cruel sport, carried out by a small but vocal minority, which is based on a culture of killing animals for entertainment. There can be no justification for the continuation of such an activity in the present day and age.
Fox hunting
Hunting with dogs is largely irrelevant to keeping down the numbers of their quarry species. Fox hunting, the most common form of hunting with dogs, kills at most 4% of those foxes that die each year (2). Given that the remaining 96% of fox deaths are occurring regardless of foxhunting and that, according to European studies, the fox population can survive an annual mortality rate of 80%, it is extremely difficult to find any justification for hunting as a legitimate part of fox population control. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to show that foxhunts may even encourage artificially high fox populations purely to ensure they have a ready supply to hunt.
Many hunts in the British Isles actively encourage high fox populations by the provision of artificial earths. League investigators have also found evidence of foxes being fed at these sites. The main determining factor in local fox populations is the availability of food, if additional food is being provided then claims by the hunt to be
5 engaged in pest control do not stand up to scrutiny. Nevertheless the main purpose of hunting is to provide human entertainment by the killing of animals and foxes are undoubtedly killed. The existence of artificial earths shows that hunting has no advantage to agriculture because it is mainly concerned about producing a chase for the hunt followers, even if this means producing foxes for the purpose.
All hunts in the British Isles share a common tradition. The majority of hunts in Scotland operate in the borders with England. Hunt servants tend to serve an apprenticeship with one or more hunt before going on to work at a more senior level in other hunts. Typically, hunt Masters will have worked at a number of hunts and may continue to work their way around hunts as they seek promotion to the more prestigious hunts. There are only nine registered hunts in Scotland and it is reasonable to assume that the majority of these will have employees who have served in hunts in England and Wales. Practices common to hunts in England and Wales will be common to hunts in Scotland.
The use of artificial earths by hunts has been recorded and written about in hunting literature for many years. The British Field Sports Society had argued that the practice was one that had died out until the League produced evidence in 1996 that they were in common use in many hunt countries. Almost overnight the argument that hunting ‘controlled’ the fox population changed to claims that they ‘managed’ British foxes. The Countryside Alliance has continued to use this argument and defends the use of the very artificial earths whose existence they had previously denied.
The construction of artificial earths is not restricted to mounted packs. One of the largest artificial earths in Britain is located in Blencathra hunt country at Millbeck, not far from the hunt kennels. ‘Porter’s Parlour, "…the largest man-made borran ever known, built about 30 years ago by Ronnie Porter"(3). When League investigators visited Porter’s Parlour in the autumn of 1996 and again in the spring of 1997 they found a maze of tunnels and chambers extending over an area of 150 yards by 50 yards. The ‘earth’ included tunnels carefully constructed using the stone from fallen walls, glazed pipes and brick-built chambers.
David MacDonald published his report on fox hunting, The Impact of Sport Hunting: a Case Study, in 1996. This comprehensive survey of hunting in Great Britain was conducted with the co-operation of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, which urged Masters of the hunts to reply to questionnaires, which MacDonald sent to all Masters in Great Britain. The study is one of the best available objective surveys of hunting available.
The study revealed that in each season, there were an average of 25 days cubhunting and 70 days of ‘hunting proper’. On each hunting day the hunt convenes at a particular district or ‘meet’. The average proportion of hunting days that were at meets visited only once was 47.9%, 32.3% twice, 13.1% three times, 8.1% four times. (1). There are some regional variations, but the typical hunt meets in most places only once or twice a year. In the course of a days hunting they may travel across country and revisit land over which they have previously hunted in that particular season. But most foxhunts tend to hunt over most land in their country only once or twice a year. Foxes may escape during the course of being hunted and there is no guarantee of a
6 kill. It is therefore extremely difficult to justify hunting as an exercise in local fox population control.
David Macdonald’s study led him to conclude that "The available circumstantial evidence suggest to us that it may be more realistic, at least outside the context of upland sheep-farming areas, to think of foxhunting more of a sport than as a method of fox control (1).
The fox has frequently been portrayed as a major killer of farm livestock. Claims made by hunting organisations have even included claims that foxes attack cows. Professor Harris has concluded that foxes can actually be of net benefit to farmers. "Foxes do not warrant their reputation as major pests of agriculture. Losses of lambs, piglets and poultry to foxes are insignificant relative to other causes of mortality. Improving husbandry than can make vastly greater improvements in lamb survival by fox control. Electric fencing and secure housing can prevent local problems with fox predation of livestock. Foxes can be beneficial by consuming rabbits and other pests of agricultural crops." (4)
The argument that farmers support hunting due to universal agreement that foxes are a pest that need controlling does not bear up to farmers’ actual views. When asked about their views: 70% of all farmers did not believe the number of foxes on their farms was harmful; 64% suffered no financial loss from damage proven to have been caused by foxes; 2% claimed losses of more than £100 per year (in 1974) from damage that was attributed to foxes; and, 46% considered foxes to be useful in controlling rabbits and rodents. (5).
The main argument put forward for keeping fox numbers down is their predation on farm livestock sheep, pigs and poultry. Around one fifth of lambs die shortly after birth (6) of which 0.5%, and at most, 3% of otherwise viable lambs may be taken by foxes (7). Foxes are sometimes seen on fields where ewes are giving birth but they are more likely to be looking for lamb carcasses and afterbirth. The small number of newly born lambs which may be taken by foxes represents a very small economic loss to sheep farmers compared with other causes of death. One study of lamb deaths gave the following causes: abortion and stillbirth, 40%; exposure and starvation, 30%; disease, 20%; congenital defect, 5%; misadventure and predation (including dogs and foxes), 5%. (8). The death rate of one in five new born lambs is high and may be due in part to the upland areas where many lambs are farmed, but given the small number of those that die due to fox predation, it would make better economic sense for sheep farmers to look at ways of reducing mortality from the main causes of lamb deaths. There is evidence that increasing winter feed available to ewes reduces the number of lambs reportedly killed by foxes. (9)
‘Considering the number of foxes in most areas, if most of them killed lambs habitually the losses would be astronomical. Since they are not, I presume most foxes rarely or never kill a lamb’ (10)
Pig losses are less easy to quantify due to the lack of scientific studies. Foxes are less likely to take new-born pigs than lambs because sows are better able to defend their offspring. Pig herds are more likely to be kept indoors in Scotland and fox predation will extremely rare or non-existent. The few outdoor pig herds are most likely to be
7 victim to fox predation. A telephone survey of pig farmers, carried out by Bristol University found that: 69% of outdoor pig farmers reported no problems with foxes; 25% reported minor problems with less than 1% of piglets thought to be lost to foxes; and, 6% had major problems with foxes reputedly taking more than 1% of piglets (4). Outdoor pig herds suffer higher levels of natural mortality. Harris reports that between £5.3million and £6.8million may be lost to outdoor pig farmers losing piglets to natural causes, of which less than £150,000 is due to fox predation. Once again any losses due to foxes are only a very small part of overall mortality.
MacDonald endorses this view: "Existing evidence is that the general economic impact of fox predation on lambs and piglets is small, although particular cases can doubtless be severe." (1) The hunting season is no more than half a year and, as MacDonald shows, hunts usually meet at most venues only once in each season. There is no guarantee that the hounds will pick up the scent of a particular fox. Farmers are therefore extremely unlikely to rely on the hunt to deal with problem foxes. The most likely solution will be to shoot the animal.
The overwhelming majority of laying hens in the British Isles are kept indoors out of the reach of foxes. Of 43 million laying hens in 1993 only 2.5 million were free-range (11). Harris found that the top 30% most profitable free-range poultry units might not have suffered any loss to foxes at all. These units will tend to be the larger ones, which are in a better position to provide electric fencing. In 1993, 50 free-range units, representing 200,000 laying hens, had electric fencing protecting their flocks and none reported any losses to predators (12) Smaller units should be able to remedy problems from predators by better husbandry and ensuring their hens are securely locked in at night.
A Master of Foxhounds stated in a British Field Sports Society leaflet: ‘The staple diet of a fox is not, as so many people apparently imagine, hens and ducks. Indeed it is probably true to say that not five per cent of all the foxes in Christendom ever taste domestic poultry at all.... The majority of foxes live largely upon beetles, frogs, rabbits and wild birds: carrion does not come amiss to their diet, while they are the biggest destroyers of rats and mice in the world, far excelling the domestic cat in this useful art.’(13)
Hare coursing
Although hare coursing is not common in Scotland it does, nevertheless take place and will be one of the sports effected by a ban on hunting with dogs. It is therefore worthwhile setting out the case against this particularly senseless activity.
Hare numbers are now so low that there can be no justification for the continued persecution of this indigenous species. According to a Joint Nature Conservation Committee report published in 1996 "The hare population today is probably at best only 20 per cent of that present just over a hundred years ago." This depressing view on hare numbers was confirmed by the UK Biodiversity Steering Group report of 1996 that included the brown hare in its list of 115 species in decline or under threat. The Countryside Alliance, of which the SCA is a part, has defended hare coursing by claiming that coursing estates maintain healthy hare populations, yet the League has filmed hares being netted in East Anglia. When challenged by the media the people
8 involved confirmed that the hares were being captured for coursing estates. This may explain why some coursing estates manage to produce abundant hares for coursing events. The hare is in danger in this country and if they are to be netted and transported it must be for repopulating areas where their numbers are low, not for killing for sport.
Hares are far more agile and quicker than rabbits and provide much better spectator sport. In coursing the aim is to assess the ability of greyhounds in turning the hare. Rabbits would not be able to provide this test of the greyhounds’ skills because they would be caught and killed in a matter of seconds. Hares are hunted for the same reasons; they provide a good chase.
Hare hunting and coursing are not concerned with controlling a pest but with providing human entertainment. However at its current population level the brown hare may not be able to survive continued persecution. Whilst they continue to be killed it is difficult to conduct scientific studies into their true population levels. It is in everyone’s interests to see a ban on the persecution of the hare. The League believes that as the UK Biodiversity Steering Group currently lists the hare, it should be a protected species.
Mink hunting
There are no official mink hunts in Scotland but some English mink packs have been known to operate in Scotland.
Mink hunts often justify their activity because of the, frequently unjust, image of the mink as a ferocious predator. However, hunting is far less effective than trapping and far more disruptive of the waterways on which they hunt. The mink is a highly territorial animal and itinerant animals are constantly looking out for new territory of their own. The main effect of mink hunting is to remove the occasional mink and allow others to take up residence in the newly vacant territory. All evidence shows that trapping mink is a far more effective means of control than hunting.
Dr J Birks, of English Nature offers the following view on the effectiveness of mink hunting. ‘The suggestion that mink hunting controls mink is laughable. The number killed by hounds is insignificant. In five years one man trapped and shot 119 mink on a short stretch of Devon river; over the same period…the Devon and Cornwall Minkhunts killed only four mink, and only 84 mink in their entire hunting country – a tiny proportion of the mink culled naturally by the subtle influence of their territorial system.’ (14)
Mink hunting developed when otter hunting had to stop due to the protected status of the otter. Mink tend to reside in stretches of water previously occupied by otters. It is to these areas that conservationists are encouraging otters to return. The disruption caused by mink hunting has caused many organisations concerned with reintroducing otters to criticise mink hunting. The Otter Trust has said "We condemn mink hunting as it frequently disturbs otters and otter habitats." (15) The Royal Society for Nature Conservation states: "We are against mink hunting if it might cause disturbance to otters…if mink do need to be controlled, trapping, so long as it is part of a co-
9 ordinated programme of control and research, is a better method than hunting which is very inefficient" (16).
‘Otter hunting with packs of hounds was banned in the UK in 1975. At least six of these packs switched to hunting mink… there have been a considerable number of reports of damage to river banks and their vegetation caused by hunt servants in attempting to dislodge mink from their dens.’ (17)
10 2. Animal Welfare
Professor Patrick Bateson’s study into the physiological effects of hunting on deer was the result of fifteen months study involving the co-operation of the three remaining deer hunts in England. Bateson’s conclusion that hunted deer suffer so severely that deer hunting should be banned was immediately repudiated by the Countryside Alliance who have adamantly refused to accept Professor Bateson’s findings even though they have been widely endorsed by fellow scientists.
The refusal by the hunting lobby to accept solid scientific research is typical of their claims in defence of hunting in general. The wealth of evidence clearly shows that hunted animals do indeed suffer as a result of being hunted. Lord Burns’ Inquiry concluded that in the case of each of the animals hunted in England and Wales their welfare was “seriously compromised”. One argument used to justify hunting is that is imitating nature and that in the wild foxes would be killed by wolves. Hunting, they claim, is a substitute. In this they reveal just how little they understand the way predators behave.
It is extremely unlikely that a wolf pack would bother to expend valuable energy chasing a fox as it is small animal and the return would not be worth the hunt. Foxes are fleeter than wolves and will be able to escape quickly due to their speed. The hunting strategy of packs of canids is to identify a target and to bring it down as quickly as possible. If the intended prey escapes they stop the hunt.
Hounds are designed for stamina. In fox hunting the quarry is worn down by the relentless pursuit of a pack of hounds specifically bred for superior stamina and tracking skills. Hunting is not a reflection of nature. The main defence of the fox is short rapid escape. They are not designed for a long drawn out chase and it is inevitable that hunted foxes will suffer exhaustion and severe stress as a result of the unnaturally long drawn-out chase they are subjected to.
The League has obtained post mortem evidence of foxes killed during hunting which shows that they do not die by a ‘nip to the back of the neck’ as is claimed in defence of hunting. The most common means of death are multiple wounds to the foxes’ most vulnerable quarters and disembowelling. The Burns’ inquiry commissioned a number of post mortems which clearly showed that the claims made that the lead hound instantly kills the fox with a nip to the back of the neck are wrong. Two foxes killed above ground had been killed by a number of bites to the vulnerable rear and under quarters. The corpses of fox killed after having first gone to ground were also found to have been bitten before being bolted or dug out. This is especially damning evidence for those who claim that terrier work is of greater significance in Scotland than it is elsewhere. Claims by the SCA and other pro-hunt groups about the method of death have been proven wrong and now they are making new claims about the speed of the kill. The Committee should remember that these are new claims only made recently as a result of older claims being proved wrong. Post mortems commissioned by the League support these findings and show that foxes do not always die quickly as a result of being hunted:
“In conclusion, there were extensive puncture wounds on the fox’s body consistent with multiple bite wounds. These included puncture wounds into the thoractic and
11 abdominal cavities. The fracture of the proximal tibia may have been caused by bite wounds or some other trauma. The injury to the right sublumbar area was severe, and was most likely to have been the cause of death.There were no visible external wounds corresponding to the sublumar injury, so this must have been caused by some form of blunt trauma.
With multiple puncture wounds, thoractic and abdominal injuries, sublumar injury and a fractured tibia, the fox would have been suffering severely until she received veterinary treatment”.
Post mortem carried out by Ivan Holmes, veterinary surgeon, November 1996.
“I feel that the most likely cause of death was that of shock (in the pathological sense) brought about by blood loss, organ damage, lack of oxygenation of the blood due to lower respiratory dysfunction and upper airway obstruction, and ensuring circulatory failure. In short, the fox died a painful and unpleasant death which probably was not quick as evidenced by the areas of haemorrhage seen at many sites.”
Post mortem carried out by Robert Pontefract, veterinary surgeon, January 1996
“I could detect no external damage to neck or throat areas, but there were extensive wounds to the abdomen and thorax. In fact the abdomen was ripped open and the intestines were hanging out. The wounds were consistent with the fox having been severely bitten by another animal or animals.”
Post mortem carried out by Norma Hamilton, veterinary surgeon, January 1992
Hunted animals suffer stress and trauma and may die later even where they are not killed by hounds.
In 1999 ‘Copper’ a young fox saved from the Chiddingford, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt escaped down a hole having been caught up by the pack of hounds. The vet examining Copper found that he had multiple puncture wounds on his rear and hind quarters. This fox had been hunted and attacked from behind - in marked contrast to the killing method described by the hunters. The examination also concluded that Copper would have died from his experience had he not received medical treatment when he did. The bites were not life threatening but the fox would have died even if he had escaped from the hounds.
A report of a day’s hunting with the Vine and Craven Foxhounds included the following: "Just short of the wood he [the fox] was put up in a pit and pulled down by the lead hound short of the covert side, but he managed to escape into the wood.’ (18). Foxes do not always die quickly in hunting.
The evidence shows that the quarry animal is often injured before it is killed, that it can be severely shocked before it is killed and that when it is killed, it is often killed by mauling by hounds
Hunts also claim that they take out old and injured foxes. Again this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Hunts are not interested in sick and injured foxes because they do
12 not provide the chase, which is so essential to a good days hunting. Stephen Harris has looked at the claim about hunting older foxes: ‘One frequent claim made by hunts is that it is the old, sick and weak foxes that tend to be caught by the hounds, and that hunting therefore maintains a healthy fox population. There are a number of reasons why this argument is flawed. First, most of the foxes they kill are less than a year old. Secondly, very few foxes live long enough to reach old age. The maximum life expectancy in the wild is ten or eleven years. With 65% of the fox population dying each year, only five out of every thousand cubs see their fifth birthday (half their maximum life expectancy), less than one in a thousand see their seventh birthday, and only three in every 100,000 cubs born reach their natural life span and see their tenth birthday. There are just no old foes for the foxhunts to kill.’ (19)
Considerable claims have been made about the role of terrier work in controlling foxes in Scotland. The Countryside Alliance claims that the purpose of using terrier to dig out foxes isn’t to create a fight between the animals: ‘In many pest control situations, the terrier is the most humane method available. The terrier's role is not to fight with its quarry, but to locate it underground and to bark at it continuously, either causing it to leave the earth or alternatively to indicate where in the earth the quarry is located – in order that it can be dug to and dispatched.’ (20)
However, there is considerable doubt amongst hunt enthusiasts about just how humane terrierwork actually is:
‘We hold that hunting is humane, because the hounds either kill the fox immediately or it gets away. But there is much cruelty involved in the way these men and their dogs try to despatch them... the practice of sending down terriers to dig out the foxes and then battering or shooting them, often without making a kill, was akin to bear baiting.’ (21)
‘Clearly the burgeoning of the [hunt supporters] clubs has produced a considerable growth in the ‘terrier and spade brigade’ and in many (hunt) countries, when a fox goes to ground, there is often a race to see who can get their terriers first into the earth.... The result in most countries is a great deal more digging. This is very often done in the twilight or by torchlight when hounds have returned to kennels and is rarely carried out in accordance with Masters of Fox Hounds Association guidelines, let alone in a humane way.’ (22)
‘If a mangy fox is put to ground, the best thing to do is to leave the second whipper-in and the terriers to get him out, but never keep the field standing about after regular hunting begins... A fresh fox is easy to bolt. A tired, hunted fox will endure any amount of punishment end on, or face to, the dog, will more often than not fight to the death, rather than face the seventeen and a half couple outside.’ (23)
‘First it is arguable that a large proportion of the cruelty associated with fox hunting occurs when, having gone to ground, foxes are dug out using terriers. Banning the use of terriers would radically reduce, although certainly not eliminate, the cruelty in hunting.’(1)
13 ‘...how many times have we seen the situation where we have dug down to a terrier to find that the fox has, the whole time, been ‘brush on’ to the dog with its head facing away, the terrier having the freedom to inflict severe damage.’ (24)
‘Our next day with Toss was a week later, New Year’s Day 1997. The first hole we tried, Toss disappeared almost immediately and we knew Foxy was home. After about 5 minutes, Toss was bleeped at about 5 feet, so we gave him a while and started to dig. Clunk – solid rock. We could hear the dog baying away, not too plainly though. After a couple of hours digging the baying stopped, but we were picking up the dog up in the same spot, so we decided to carry on. After three hours hard digging we broke through. Foxy was very much dead. But so was Toss. He had squeezed in too tight and through taking so long to dig him, we lost him’. (25)
Hare coursing is one of the most demonstrably cruel activities involving setting dogs onto animals. Coursers make no claims to be involved in keeping a pest down. Legal coursing often takes place on coursing estates and hare which escape run the risk of being coursed again as long as it remains in the area. It is no surprise that coursers need to net hares and transport them to restock coursing estates. Coursing has no role in either the welfare or conservation of the hare. Instead hares are chased by two greyhounds, often becoming a living rope in a tug of war between the dogs. The purpose is to test the skill of the dogs. The fate of the hare is incidental. Coursing estates, are not the centres of high hare population claimed by the coursers, instead they are restocked from the few areas where hare are common.
The League has been monitoring hunt activity for a number of years but our monitors have met with obstruction and intimidation as they have followed and filmed hunts in action. Our monitors have experienced increasing levels of violence in recent years. Two hunt followers were given custodial sentences in 1999 for assaults on League monitors. The level of intimidation means that we have found it increasingly difficult to gather evidence. Some of our evidence is a few years old but it remains an accurate reflection of what goes on in the course of hunting. If we were able to monitor all hunts openly, without interference, we believe that we would be able to record unnecessary cruelty on virtually every day of the hunting. A number of hunt followers have been successfully prosecuted for violence.
It is not just the quarry species which suffer in hunting.
Hounds are kept in cramped kennels in spaces which would be unacceptable in a zoo. They are fed on casualty meat and constantly contract worms. There is a culture of killing animals as a part of the management practices of hunting. Hounds rarely live beyond the age of 7 or 8 as they are usually destroyed after their sixth hunting season. Many offers have been made to hunts offering to rehome hounds but these are always refused.
According to Robin Mackenzie, an official of the British Field sports Society and master of Fox Hounds, the average hunt breeds six litters with six pups in each year (Shooting Times, June 21-27, 1984). There are 10 hunts in Scotland, so over 300 pups may be produced every year, yet the hound population remains stable. A number of hounds die every year on roads and railway lines and older hounds will be ‘retired’
14 because they are unable to keep up with the pack (the average hunting life of a hound is around six years). Older hounds are ‘retired’ by being shot. The same fate awaits the younger hounds that fail to enter the pack. Hundreds of hounds are killed unnecessarily every year. This is a substantial animal welfare problem. The League and other animal welfare groups have frequently offered to find homes for hounds which are no longer able to hunt. Yet hunts have consistently refused to allow their hounds to leave the hunting pack except by their method of ‘retirement’.
Before the Second Reading debate of the Foster Bill in1997 some hunters suggested that hounds should be shot in Downing Street and left outside the Prime Minister’s official residence. These people were persuaded that it would not be a good publicity move. Nevertheless it is a good demonstration of the attitude many hunts have towards their dogs.
Terriers used in digging out often suffer from the underground dogfights they are entered into. The Blencathra Fox Hounds hunt the rocky hill territory in Cumbria. They hunt over territory very similar to parts of highland Scotland where some hunters claim terriers are an essential part of hunting. Even here unnecessary cruelty occurs as a result of hunting. The following account appeared in the Sunday Telegraph magazine (17th August 1997, journalist Adam Nicolson). It tells of what happened after a terrier had been entered into a hole down which a fox had fled from the pack:
"From above ground we could hear terrible fighting below us. The screaming of dog and fox was only partly muffled by the layers of earth and rock that separated us from it. The noise moved for about ten minutes around different parts of the earth and then went quiet. The huntsman, the whipper-in and the followers stood listening in silence as the lark rose from the moorland grasses round us.
Then the huntsman said, "All right, that’s us then", and headed back downhill. It was just before nine in the morning. "But what about your dog?" I said to the terrier man as we walked down. "Oh," he said, "that’s all right. It’ll either be dead and the fox will be eating it, or the fox’ll be dead and she’ll be eating the fox. Don’t worry, I’m sure she’ll be back in a couple of days, once she’s slept the whole thing off."
Further proof of the injuries inflicted on terriers appeared in D B Plummer’s book The Working Terrier: ‘Few working terriers go through their lives without being bitten by their quarry… Fox bites, being another source of infection, almost invariably ‘go wrong’. Slashes usually cause little trouble, and as a result respond to simple salt-water washes, but punctures, as I have stated, are another matter. These need great care if they are not to lead to massive infections of staphylococcus.’ (26)
Farm livestock are regularly harassed by packs of hounds and mounted followers trespassing on land where they are not welcome. ADAS has advised that during lambing pregnant ewes should not be exposed to dogs.
Domestic pets are killed as a result of hunting each season. The typical response for the hunt is to offer financial compensation. Many owners complain that the hunt treats them with arrogance, frequently ignoring their reasonable requests to leave land on which they are not welcome.
15 The evidence also shows that hounds, horses and domestic animals are regularly killed and injured during the activity of hunting.
Police are frequently unable to arrest or prosecute people found digging for badgers as they claim they are digging for foxes. This loophole must be removed to help reduce badger baiting q Hunted animals suffer stress and trauma and may die later even where they are not killed by hounds. q The evidence also shows that hounds, horses and domestic animals are regularly killed and injured during the activity of hunting. q The evidence shows that the quarry animal is often injured before it is killed , that it can be severely shocked before it is killed and that when it is killed, it is often killed by mauling by hounds
16 3. Population Control
Foxes
Only a few problem foxes need controlling and they are usually taken out by shooting. Indeed in its submission to the Burns’ Inquiry the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated “Shooting is the recommended method of (fox) control in rural areas.” (27)
It makes no economic sense for farmers to rely on the hunt that may not meet in their area for months or even find the scent of a fox which may be a particular problem. Foxes tend to regulate their own numbers with only the dominant vixen producing offspring. Research by Professor Stephen Harris shows that the availability of food has far greater impact on the fox population than current levels of culling. He concludes that "Current levels of fox control are not effective in reducing overall fox numbers. Fox numbers can be temporarily reduced locally by intensive culling. However, it is unlikely that culling levels will ever again be sufficiently high to lead to a significant reduction in the total number of foxes in Britain, since they disperse over large areas to replace any local losses’ (19).
In his evidence to the Burns Inquiry, Professor David Macdonald argued that farmers may often perceive the level of fox predation to be higher than it actually is and hunting to kill more foxes than it actually does. Most studies of fox ecology and kills by hunting support the view that hunting plays little or no part in keeping fox numbers down. Indeed, Lord Burns' report concluded that ‘the overall contribution of traditional foxhunting, within the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole.’ (28)
The League believes that culling is not an effective part of fox population control. The British fox population recovers every spring. Those involved in culling may argue that the effectiveness of their work has been demonstrated by the fact that the fox population is not any higher. However, there is considerable evidence to show that where culling does not take place the fox population remains the same. Foxes tend to regulate their own numbers and the size of their territories is determined by the availability of food (19).
In 1987 the League Against Cruel Sports funded a three-year experiment in Eriboll in north-west Scotland, where the effect on predation on lambs when no foxes were killed was measured. Between March 1987 and March 1990 no foxes were killed on the Eriboll estate. Fox control continued as usual on the nearby Balnakeil estate which acted as a control. The study, carried out by Ray Hewson of the University of Aberdeen, concluded that ‘There was no evidence of an increase in fox predation on lambs, in the number of foxes or of breeding dens in the absence of control at Eriboll between 1987 and 1990’ (29).
The Eriboll study also looked at other areas such as the island of Mull where there are no foxes, but where the production of lambs was no better than on similar ground on the mainland. Hewson concluded that ‘predation by foxes was part of, rather than in addition to, the normal scale of lamb losses’ (29).
17 Wild animals are by their nature free to roam and to take up residence where there is available feed and territory. In many areas where one farmer might regard the fox as a pest another farmer will regard the fox as nature’s solution to the rabbit problem.
A more recent study carried out between 1993 and 1996 from two Scottish hill farms was printed in the Veterinary Record (July 8th 2000). The study found that minimum rates of fox predation were 0.6% for farm 1 and 0.2% for farm 2. In terms of potential revenue from lamb production, the maximum losses due to confirmed fox predation were equivalent to 1.5% on farm 1 and 0.6% on farm 2. Those seeking to defend hunting wildly overquote losses due to fox predation. But even if the fox were as significant a predator as they claim the fact remains that hunting is inefficient and ineffective as a means of controlling their numbers.
Culling has no effect on the overall fox population but intensive culling may temporarily reduce local populations. Farmers who engage in the culling of foxes may be removing a valuable ally. In the early 1980s MAFF estimated rabbit may cost Britain’s farmers between £90million and £120million each year. Harris points out that as rabbit numbers are increasing dramatically this figure may now have more than doubled. Rabbits form a major part of the diet of foxes across the country. Some studies have shown that rabbits are more abundant in areas where predators, including foxes, are removed or controlled. Harris concluded that ‘foxes can be beneficial by consuming rabbits and other pests of agricultural crops’ (4).
‘The Scottish Naturalist James Lockie estimated that one fox will eat a thousand field voles in the winter months and each vole consumes 23 pounds of grass – a fair quantity if your livelihood depends on sheep rearing...Another study concluded that the diet of foxes consisted of 57% agriculturally harmful animals, 27% agriculturally useful animals and 16% vegetable food.
" farmers and other landowners were presented with, and showed willing to accept, the scientific facts, they might come to see the continuing persecution of foxes as unnecessary’.(30)
Foxes are of benefit to agriculture because of their predation on rabbits and rodents.
The weight of independent scientific evidence shows that culling foxes does not work and that foxes can be of economic benefit to farmers. Some farmers will continue to cull the local fox population or may even have a problem with the occasional fox. Culling should be carried out by the most efficient and humane means available. In practice we believe this means the use of high velocity rifles by users who have passed a competency test or by humane trapping.
Hare
Hare numbers are down to 20% of their levels 100 years ago. The UK Biodiversity Steering Group report of 1996 includes the hare of its list of species in decline or under threat. Dr T E Tew, Senior Vertebrate Ecologist at the Joint nature
18 Conservation Committee stated in 1995 that ‘There has been a serious decline in hare numbers over the course of this century and we must now find the best way of reversing that trend’.
There is no need to control the population of hares. There should be a national programme for repopulating the British countryside with hares. The Countryside Alliance, and we must therefore presume the Scottish Countryside Alliance, justify hare coursing on the grounds that coursers need to provide estates on which hare populations thrive in order to have hares to course. This bizarre logic ignores the genuine concerns of the majority of the population that hares should be preserved for their value as a part of Scotland’s natural ecology. The League believes that the hare should be a protected species to prevent its continued persecution. We sincerely hope that current owners and managers of coursing estates value the hare enough to preserve their numbers even if they are no longer allowed to set dogs onto them.
The pressures on the hare population together with changes in agricultural practices mean that are no longer generally considered to be a pest. The League has spoken to farmers in East Anglia who inform us that they are now pleased to see the hare who they previously considered a pest due to their practice of flattening crops to provide runs. Modern agricultural practices now provide runs for the hare along the ‘tram’ lines used by tractors.
There is no evidence of significant damage being caused to agriculture by hares. Hares are no longer considered to be a pest.
Mink
Mink are a solitary territorial species that chases other mink away. Where one mink is removed another mink quickly occupies the vacant territory. The mink is now firmly established as a part of our riverside wildlife. It would be extremely difficult to remove them. It is debatable, therefore, that culling mink has any significant effects on their population. There have been numerous studies by experts such as Paul Chanin and John Birks that support this.
Hunting is far less effective than trapping and causes unacceptable levels of disruption, which may be a threat to the return of otters. Mink hunting is totally ineffective as a means of population control.
There is no evidence that mink cause significant damage to agriculture, but where mink may be a problem, trapping is a far more effective means of control. Good farm husbandry is effective in preventing mink from predating on livestock.
There is no evidence of significant damage to agriculture being caused by mink q Wild animals are by their nature free to roam and to take up residence where there is available feed and territory. In many areas where one farmer might regard the fox as a pest another farmer will regard the fox as nature’s solution to the rabbit problem. q Foxes are of benefit to agriculture because of their predation on rabbits and rodents.
19 q There is no evidence of significant damage being caused to agriculture by hares. Hares are no longer considered to be a pest. q There is no evidence of significant damage to agriculture being caused by mink
20 4 Economics
The Scottish Executive commissioned a study on the economic contribution which hunting makes to the Scottish economy. The League notes that the study has demonstrated the degree to which the Scottish Countryside Alliance has exaggerated their role, particularly in terms of the employment they provide.
The main source for the information used by the Macauley Land Use Research Institute was interviews with people closely involved in hunting. These sources will have been keenly aware of the importance of talking up any estimates of the economic importance of hunting. We accept that the MLURI had limited time in which to collect their data. For this reason we commend the economic study produced by Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) for the Burns’ Committee and by Douglas MacMillan of the University of Aberdeen.
Douglas MacMillan concludes that in Scotland ‘a ban would have very little impact on either employment or expenditure in rural areas’ (31)
Economic studies show that hunting is not of significant benefit to the rural economy.
One of the most common criticisms made by economists about claims in defence of hunting is that they rely on the assumption that every horse used for this purpose is used exclusively for hunting and will no longer be required in the event of a hunting ban. In fact most people who hunt do so as a part of their general riding activities. Hunting takes place during the coldest part of the year and horse owners may even increase their riding out of the hunting season. They will continue to use all the services associated with the maintenance of horses regardless of whether hunting is banned
The current close association between hunting and access to land for riding in the countryside is acting as a brake on the development of alternative countryside equine pursuits that could bring significant employment benefits to hard pressed rural areas.
The Rural and Agricultural Workers (RAAW) section of the Transport and General Workers Union supports a ban on hunting and is on record as stating that there will be no significant job losses. RAAW are the union which represents rural workers throughout the British Isles.
Many of the arguments made in defence of hunting rely on a static view of the rural economy. The assumption that a job, once lost, will not be replaced does not bear up to economic reality. Economists believe that any potential job losses from a hunting ban will be spread nationally throughout the rural economy, in marked contrast to some of the job losses which have occurred with the closure of large plants, such as rural factories or coal mines. There may be a few areas where employment provided by hunting is higher than elsewhere but even in these few pockets the employment provided is comparatively small and, as MacMillan points out, there is potential for alternative employment in the event of a hunting ban. ‘Data for West and Mid- Lothian, the former territory of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire Hunt, reveals that,
21 since 1991 when the hunt was disbanded, horse numbers have increased faster than in any other area of Scotland’ (32).
The evidence indicates that in the event of a ban on hunting many more horse owners and riders would want to participate in rural equine activities.
This submission has already made reference to the low predation of foxes on farmed livestock. MAFF evidence to the Burns’ Inquiry supports this argument. Lambs born and living in exposed areas will be more vulnerable to disease and cold. There has been a tendency to blame foxes for losses which can be explained. Ray Hewson of the University of Aberdeen refers to an observation by a gamekeeper in the Scottish Highland that "It will be a bad day for the shepherd when the last fox goes from the hills". The gamekeeper, according to Hewson, was referring to the ‘black loss’, the lambs which disappear from the hills due to a variety of unknown causes. ‘It is convenient to blame foxes for a large part of the black loss, and it is an excuse that is seldom disputed’ (29).
Post mortem examinations have revealed that many lambs showing signs of fox predation were in fact dead prior to attack, and the fox had been scavenging rather than hunting (33). Increasing winter feed available to ewes reduces the number of lambs reportedly killed by foxes, implying that foxes are blamed for lambs lost because of poor husbandry. Harris argues that better husbandry results in much lower lamb mortality and can therefore result in relatively great economic benefits compared to reducing fox predation (4).
The economic significance of fox predation has been vastly overstated. q Economic studies show that hunting is not of significant benefit to the rural economy. q The current close association between hunting and access to land for riding in the countryside is acting as a brake on the development of alternative countryside equine pursuits that could bring significant employment benefits to hard pressed rural areas. q The evidence indicates that in the event of a ban on hunting many more horse owners and riders would want to participate in rural equine activities. q The economic significance of fox predation has been vastly overstated.
22 5 Social ‘contributions’
Opposition to hunting is stronger in Scotland than it is anywhere else in the British Isles. Opposition is not based on class or even anti-English opinion as some have claimed. Polls consistently show that people in Scotland and through Britain regard hunting as cruel. Evidence produced by independent academics and commissioned by the Burns Inquiry demonstrates that hunting foxes with pack of dogs is inefficient. The Burns’ Inquiry concluded that hunting may have an impact in upland areas, but this included the use of dogs to flush or drive foxes to guns. MAFF states that shooting is their recommended means of killing foxes. Hunting with packs of dogs is thus cruel and unnecessary.
Polling data shows very clearly that the majority of people who live, work and play in the countryside in Scotland are against hunting with dogs
Hunting is practiced by a tiny minority, who often do not interact with the real rural population. In the case of mounted hunting this frequently includes riding across people’s property and their hounds killing pets. Terrier work is not as obvious to the local population due to the scale of the operation. Nevertheless, the method of killing is even more unacceptable the general population than by packs of hounds. The League has been informed of public houses where known terrier men have been asked not to drink because people find their presence offensive.
Many of the social and cultural events associated with hunting were originally established to provide funds for the local hunt. In most cases these events, such as point-to-point, have developed to the extent that they are essentially independent of hunting. In many cases they would benefit from a break from any association with hunting as this would produce greater participation from the majority of rural dwellers and horse users who oppose hunting. The Countryside Alliance submission to the Burns’ Inquiry referred to a few parishes where a high element of the social life is organised to raise money for the local hunt. They were unable to refer to a similar situation in Scotland. Given the low number of hunts which operate exclusively in Scotland this is hardly surprisng.
Most people living in the Scottish countryside are strongly opposed to hunting and they want nothing to do with events organised to support something they so dislike. Those who live in areas where hunting takes place may suffer from trespass and injury to livestock and pets. They would regard their lives as enhanced if hunting were to be banned. The main contribution to rural life by hunting is negative. Trespass by hounds onto private property, roads blocked by hunt followers and hounds are all too common. In addition, railway lines are frequently blocked and roads closed by trespassing or injured hounds.
The routine pursuit of prey across the countryside leads to deep divisions in the countryside. People who object to hunting feel, and often are, intimidated. People who live and work in the countryside who are tenants but do not own sporting rights object to being hunted over, but can do nothing about it. People who live side by side, but have different views of the hunting issue, find the issue deeply divisive.
23 Hunting near and over highways causes the loss of thousands of journey hours every year.
Where hunting provides social occasions it is mainly to raise money for hunting. Such activities would continue even if hunting were to be banned. This is as true in Scotland as it is anywhere else in the British Isles. Douglas Macmillan reports that when the Wigtownshire Hunt was disbanded in the early 1990s, members expressed a desire to continue the hunt’s social life by organising dinners and a hunt ball (32). There is no reason why social activities currently associated with local hunts should not continue.
Hunt control of social events is divisive as the majority of rural dwellers oppose hunting. Most social events would continue if hunting were to be banned q Polling data shows very clearly that the majority of people who live, work and play in the countryside in Scotland are against hunting with dogs. q The routine pursuit of prey across the countryside leads to deep divisions in the countryside. People who object to hunting feel, and often are, intimidated. People who live and work in the countryside who are tenants but do not own sporting rights object to being hunted over, but can do nothing about it. People who live side by side, but have different views of the hunting issue, find the issue deeply divisive. q Hunting near and over highways causes the loss of thousands of journey hours every year. q Hunt control of social events is divisive as the majority of rural dwellers oppose hunting. q Most social events would continue if hunting were to be banned
24 6. Practical Considerations
Legislation to ban hunting, provided that there is a willingness amongst hunters to convert to other forms of equine sport, would have a negligible negative impact on people directly engaged in hunting with hounds and related activities.
A ban on the hunting of live animals with dogs of any description should be framed in such a way that it includes any intent to course and to pursue one or more wild mammals with a dog or dogs, save only in the exceptional circumstances where an officer of the law or SSPCA inspector has specifically requested that an animal be tracked and found for humane treatment or, where necessary, humane dispatch.
The ban can only come into force as an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The hunting lobby has consistently refused to accept scientific findings such as the Bateson report into deer hunting. They have also refused to accept the conclusions of the Burn’s report preferring instead to quote selectively from the body of the main report. We recommend that the Rural Affairs Committee read the Report’s main conclusions, which were sanctioned and agreed by the Committee of Inquiry. It is clear to the League that hunts will continue to operate until banned from doing so by an Act of Parliament.
Enforcement would come from the police. Many police forces are currently engaged in monitoring and supervising hunts at present. A ban on hunting would greatly reduce their workload even if they are occasionally called out to investigate reports of illegal hunting. The majority of people who live in the countryside oppose hunting and there will be a large pool of people willing to report breaches of the law.
The Bill was presented to the Scottish Parliament nearly a year ago. It will take several months to complete its passage through the Scottish Parliament. Hunters will therefore have had plenty of time to decide whether to disband or convert to drag hunting.
The League believes that hunts should be positively encouraged to reduce the number of hounds bred and that alternative homes should be sought for redundant hounds.
The new law will have the strong support of most people living in the countryside and in practice it will need little additional action. The League and the public would expect people found to be involved in illegal hunting to be prosecuted.
The case for the abolition of hunting has been set out above. Legislation should be introduced as soon as possible for a complete ban on hunting. Members of the Rural Affairs Committee are asked to consider the following implications of introducing legislation: q Anything other than a complete ban on live mammal quarry hunting would prove unworkable and would be legally, morally and ethically indefensible. q A complete national ban should be implemented as soon as a bill to ban hunting with hounds becomes a part of Scottish law. q Regular incidents of trespass on private property, roads and railways, kills in front of school children, pet deaths and livestock panicking are an element of
25 each hunt season. Hunts frequently escape prosecution because many of the offences are civil. A ban would prevent these incursions into illegality q The ban should be total and immediate and would be enforced in the same way as the law is enforced with regard to other forms of cruelty to animals. q Members of the public will bring to the attention of the authorities any evident breaches of the law or intended breaches of the law q Enforcement should be through the law of the land, with an equivalence of penalty to other types of cruelty to animals. q The use of dogs to flush foxes out for shooting should only permitted under licence where there is a proven need. In such cases the number of dogs used should be restricted to reduce the risk of the dogs hunting as a pack. q The League believes that there is no pressing need for the government to take further action to support a ban on hunting after it has become law. That said, however, there would clearly be a benefit to the agricultural and forestry industries and to rural communities if the government, through its agencies, were to provide advice on wildlife management and the development of eco- tourism and new income generation in the countryside.
26 7 Consequences of a Ban
The main immediate effect of a hunting ban would be the removal from the countryside of packs of hunting dogs following a fleeing animal into fields of livestock and into private lands where they are not welcome. Rural roads will no longer be blocked by car and mounted followers and travellers on main roads and railway lines will no longer be involved in the unnecessary death of hounds.
Any conservation elements provided by hunters are largely historical and have been replaced and superseded by the general move towards conservation, often grant aided. Those hunts, which own land, may wish to apply for grants to aid conservation work. However, they will need to change their current practice of producing an imbalance in the local fox population in order to create a surplus for hunting. Many existing hunts will come under pressure from subscribers who currently ride to hounds to convert to drag hunting. Hunt owned coverts will become a valuable part of the land ‘hunted’ by drag hunts. There will therefore be a strong incentive to preserve these copses and areas of woodland for their aesthetic value.
There may a decrease in some local fox populations where artificial earths fall into disrepair as they are no longer maintained by hunts. In these cases the fox population will return to its natural levels. Hunters often claim that in the absence of their sport other means will be used to kill foxes. Macdonald argues that this may not be particularly important to conservation as fox populations do not seem to be threatened even by intensive control (1).
In spite of arguments that drag hunting is an entirely different sport to live quarry, many hunts will convert to drag hunting due to pressure from their own subscribers who will wish to continue riding through the countryside. Drag hunts follow an artificial scent which can be laid to avoid areas where hunts are not welcome or will cause environmental damage. They can also be laid to ensure that riders enjoy the most scenic countryside available to them.
The absence of hunting will remove one of the most divisive activities in the countryside. Macmillan has demonstrated that social activities associated with hunting continue in the absence of hunting where enough people wish them to do so. Point-to- point is largely independent of hunting and will benefit financially as they will no longer be required to raise money for the local hunt. People opposed to hunting who wish to ride will be more likely to become involved. Horse numbers have risen in areas where hunting has closed down. The abolition of hunting could see a substantial rise in horse related activity resulting in increased horse numbers and increased jobs.
The defenders of hunting have vastly overstated the significance of hunting in its role in controlling the fox population as well as its economic and social contribution. The following consequences of a ban are more likely to happen: q Hunting does not play a significant part in population control or wildlife conservation. The impact of a ban would be minimal. Overall the environment would benefit, as damage resulting from hunting trespass will disappear. q Most conservation work is not connected with hunting and will continue.
27 q Village life will also benefit as the most divisive activity in rural Britain will no longer be a bar to full participation in social and cultural activities.
28 8. The Bill
The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill has come under criticism from those whose activities it seeks to control. It should be stated from the start that the Bill was drafted following the experience of introducing a number of Bills into the Westminster Parliament, most notably the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by Michael Foster MP in 1997.
The definition of hunting is to ‘deliberately’ or ‘intentionally’ hunt. Home Office Parliamentary draughtsmen advised the Standing Committee looking at the Foster Bill that this common sense definition of hunting would allow courts to make a reasonable judgement about whether dogs were actually being used to hunt or course animals. The assertion that ‘little old ladies’ will become criminals if their dogs slip the lead and chase animals is a well rehearsed argument which has been dismissed by those looking at this form of wording. Its repetition makes no contribution to the debate. It is a feature of Scottish and British law that criminal offences have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Bill, as drafted, will ensure that only people actively engaged in hunting will be effected.
The Bill also makes it an offence to enter dogs into holes where hunted animals, mainly foxes, have sought refuge. As our submission shows, foxes and terriers alike are often placed at risk of injury from the resulting conflict. Indeed, post mortems of foxes killed after being dug out, commissioned by the Burns’ Inquiry, clearly show that the foxes had wounds from teeth. These could only have come from being attacked by the terrier. In such circumstances foxes will defend themselves. Most dog fighting has, quite rightly, been made illegal. This particular form of dog fighting where fox and terrier fight underground, remains legal. Its abolition is long overdue.
Rough Shooters will not be affected by the legislation, as some have claimed. These allegations are part of an attempt to create a wide alliance against the Bill by wrongly suggesting that it will affect people not engaged in hunting. If a dog used in rough shooting chases a wild mammal the prosecution would need to prove that it was deliberately intended that the dog should do so. Proof would almost certainly need to come in the form of video evidence of the dog being encouraged to chase and hunt down the animal. Again the common sense definition of hunting ensures that only people actually engaged in hunting are guilty of an offence.
The Bill has wrongly been attacked for supposedly preventing hill packs from operating. This is not the case. The Bill in its current form allows land owners or their agents to use a single dog to hunt a rabbit or rodent or to flush a fox or hare to be shot. Scottish hill packs will be allowed to use dogs if they have a licence to do so. The League believes that hill packs which operate according the Scottish Hill Packs Association rules would have no problem obtaining and holding licences.
Nevertheless, the League believes that it would be possible to legislate in a reasonable way to ban hunting without licensing provisions. The amendment submitted by Mr Watson is a reasonable way forward.
29 9. References
1 MacDonald, D.W. and Johnson, P.J. (1996). The Impact of Sport Hunting - a Case Study. Chapman and Hall 2 Pye-Smith, C. (1997). Fox-Hunting - beyond the propaganda. Wildlife Network, Oakham, Rutland 3 Spring Hunting in the Cumbrian Fells (November 1993) Horse and Hound 4 Harris, S., McDonald, R. and Baker, P. (1997). Is the Fox a Pest?. Electra Publishing 5 NOP Market Research (1974). Facts about foxes and farming 6 MAFF (1983) Reducing lamb mortality. HMSO, London 7 Hewson, R. (1984) Scavenging and predation upon sheep and lambs in west Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 843-868 8 Henderson, D. (pers. comm.) Moredom Institute 9 Burrows, R.(1970) Wild Fox, David and Charles, Newton Abbot 10 MacDonald, D. (1987) Running with the Fox. Unwin Hyman, London 11 MAFF (1994) Agriculture in the UK. 1993 HMSO, London 12 Bowler, J. (pers. comm.) John Bowler (Agriculture) Ltd 13 Brock DWE (1973) Fox hunting. A British Field Sports Society. BFSS, London 14 Birks, J. English Nature (26th September 1991) 'in Country Life' 15 Letter 19th October 1983 16 Letter 15th April 1987 17 Nigel, T. and AD (1993) The Mink, Dustone, Posyer Ltd 18 Hunting Report. Horse and Hound, 27th January 1994 19 Harris, S. and Baker, P. (1997) How will a ban on hunting affect the British Fox Population? Electra Publishing 20 Countryside Alliance (2000): This is Terrierwork 21 Newspaper interview with Jack Clarke, Master of the South Durham Fox Hounds, in the 'Middlesborough Evening Gazette', 2 January 1970 22 Letter to 'The Field', 27 October 1982, from JNP Watson, former Master and Huntsman of a pack of beagles, whipper-in to a fox hunt and author of the book, 'The Book of Foxhunting', Batsford 1977 23 McNeil C (1945) The Hunt Terrier, in: Foxhunting (The Earl of Lonsdale and E Parker ed.) p130. Seeley, Service and C Ltd London 24 Chapman E (1992) Earth Dog - Running Dog, July 1992 25 Orr, T (May 1998) The Story of Toss, Terrier, Earth Dog -Running Dog 26 Plummer,D.B. (1978) The Working Terrier (P198), The Boydon Press, Ipswich 27 MAFF (2000) Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales 28 Burns et al (2000) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting With Dogs in England and Wales 29 Hewson, R. (1990), Victim of Myth, a study of predation upon lambs by foxes in absence of control, LACS 30 Smith, M. (1984) New Scientist, 8th March 1984 31 Macmillan, D. (1999) The Economic impact of a ban on fox-hunting with dogs in Scotland, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group, University of Aberdeen. Research Paper 99/3 32 Macmillan, D. (1999) After Fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group, University of Aberdeen. Research Paper 99/4 33 Bygrave, A.C., Veterinary Investigation Officer, MAFF, November 1997
30