Publication - Consultation analysis

Hunting with dogs: consultation analysis

Published: 7 October 2022
Directorate: Environment and Forestry Directorate
Topic: Environment and climate change, Farming and rural
ISBN: 9781805250012

Key themes to emerge from our consultation on the use of dogs to control foxes and other wild mammals in Scotland.

Annex 2: Campaign texts

This annex provides further information about the six campaigns which provided templates or suggested text in response to the consultation. Copies of all the campaign texts are provided below. Rather than providing a standard response for supporters to use, some organisations provided commentary and suggestions to assist individuals in drafting their own responses. This commentary is also provided in this annex.

For those campaigns that did follow the structure of the consultation questionnaire, information is provided on how the text has been allocated to individual consultation questions for the purposes of analysis.

Any campaign response that was edited or otherwise personalised by the respondent was copied into the analysis database and has been included in the quantitative and qualitative analysis presented in Chapters 2 to 7 of this report.

British Association for Shooting and Conservation campaign

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) provided a guide for supporters to complete the consultation questionnaire. Responses were received via Citizen Space. 35 campaign responses were received.

Q1: In situations where the use of dogs is permitted, including searching for or flushing a wild mammal to waiting guns, do you think the Scottish Government should limit the number of dogs that can be used to two?

No.

Q2: If a two dog limit were to be introduced, should the Scottish Government introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances?

Yes.

We reject the proposed two-dog limit. If the government insists on following this course of action, a provision to use more than two dogs must be created. We strongly recommend that the government reflect on the findings of the sinto the effectiveness of two dogs versus a pack. The authors clearly demonstrate that two dogs will flush fewer foxes at a slower rate and with a longer active pursuit compared with a pack. We therefore echo the sentiments of Lord Bonomy: "such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country". There is clear evidence to suggest that this proposal will diminish land managers' ability to protect livestock. A licensing scheme is a necessity – not a choice – should the government insist on pursuing this damaging proposal. The government should also reflect on the welfare implications of a longer active pursuit for foxes.

Q3: If licensing arrangements to permit more than two dogs in certain circumstances were to be introduced, should there be a limit to the number of dogs that could be used? E.g. no more than four dogs, six dogs etc.

No limit.

Q4: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting?

N/A.

Q5: Other than for the purpose of laying a trail for sport as outlined in question 4, are you aware of any other activities or circumstances which may necessitate the setting of an animal-based or artificial scent for dogs to follow?

Yes

Dogs can be trained to track down deer that have been inadvertently injured in a range of scenarios, including by road traffic. Performing this vital service limits the extent to which deer suffer, but it is important to note that it is reliant on setting animal-based scents in the training process. A blanket ban on laying a scent would have the unintended consequence of banning the training of dogs for deer tracking and this will cause unnecessary suffering to some injured deer that need to be located by trained dogs.

Q6: For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

The 2002 Act defines a wild mammal as including 'a wild mammal which has escaped, or been released, from captivity, and any mammal which is living wild'. However, rabbits and rodents are excluded from this definition. This means that this Act does not prohibit the use of a dog or dogs to hunt and kill a rabbit/s or rodent/s. However, some species of rodents such as beavers and red squirrels are afforded certain protections within other wildlife legislation.

Yes.

Q7: N/A

Q8: For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs to stalk, search and flush wild mammals for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species? The 2002 Act permits the use of dogs to flush from cover or from below ground for a number of different purposes including the purpose of 'controlling the number of a pest species'. The 2002 Act defines pest species as; foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

Yes.

Q9: For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species? The 2002 Act defines "pest species" as foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

Yes.

Q10: N/A

Q11: Do you think the current legislation provides sufficient protection in order to tackle hare coursing in Scotland? Under the 2002 Act, it is an offence to use dogs to hunt brown and mountain hares (hare-coursing) however, we are aware that illegal hunting still continues in some areas. We are considering whether there are any further changes to the law which could discourage this practice.

Yes.

We welcome the tougher penalties for hare coursing brought about by the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. However, we note that there is a lack of awareness of these new penalties in various quarters, including within the police, which we find concerning. Consideration should be given to ensuring statutory agencies are aware of the new penalties. We also believe that these new penalties have compelling deterrence potential. As such, we recommend that consideration is given to a campaign to highlight them as part of Operation Wingspan. We are aware that hare coursing is sometimes prosecuted as a poaching offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We strongly believe that there should be a provision to disqualify a person prosecuted under the 1981 Act (as amended) from owning or keeping a dog, as there is under the 2002 Act.

Q12: If you have any other comments on the proposals we have set out in sections one to four of this consultation or if there are any further measures relating to the hunting of wild mammals with dogs that you think we should consider please provide them here.

We are not convinced by the proposed two dog limit. The balance of evidence indicates that such a move would make fox control less efficient, and we are concerned that there could be implications for fox welfare as a consequence of a longer pursuit time.

Use of two dogs or less is rare. The government should therefore expect to receive a considerable

number of licence applications. It is therefore difficult to deduce what the point of this bill actually is. The government seems to be committed to a medial and bureaucratic approach that is predicated upon making an activity unlawful, only to then permit it to continue under licence. It calls in to question the point of making the activity unlawful in the first place.

It is important to remember that it is land managers with obligations to livestock, ground-nesting birds and game birds that will feel the implications of this proposal the most. If a land managers' ability to control foxes is irreparably compromised, or the burden of evidence required to obtain a licence is too high, then there is a legitimate case to be answered under protocol 1, article 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Moreover, we would remind the government that any such licensing scheme that is brought to fruition must be designed to prevent harm. In the words of Lady Carmichael during her recent ruling on the lethal management of beavers: "it is not necessary that serious harm should have occurred before a licence is issued". This principle must be applied here.

These proposals have wide-reaching ramifications. While the intent is clearly to target mounted fox hunts, it will also impact footpacks that fulfil important pest control functions – especially in dense forestry blocks. In addition, the government must ensure that exemptions are made for shooting activities. For example, if gundogs working in a beating line were to flush a fox during a pheasant drive. There is a risk that these proposals could restrict other countryside activities involving dogs. The government must ensure exemptions are put in place.

Keep the Ban campaign

Keep the Ban provided information to assist supporters in responding to the consultation. However, at the time the analysis was undertaken, the only information identified on the Keep the Ban website related to guidance on answering Question 11 (about hare coursing). This is shown in Table A2.1 below. A total of 337 campaign responses were received.

Suggested text:

[The] Maximum penalties on summary conviction only are a fine of up to Level 5 on the Standard Scale (£5,000) and/or 6 months imprisonment for offences relating to the deliberate hunting of a mammal with dogs. There should be efforts made to increase the penalties associated with the illegal hunting of wildlife in an attempt to deter this activity.

Table A2.1: Allocation of 'Keep the Ban' text to the consultation questions

'Lobby Network' campaign

This campaign provided a letter for individuals to email to the consultation via a website. The letter did not follow the structure of the consultation questionnaire. Table A2.2 provides details of how the content of the letter has been allocated to the consultation questions for the purposes of the analysis. The originator of the campaign is not known. Altogether, 2,038 campaign responses were received.

From: no-reply=lobbynetwork.org.uk@mg.lobbynetwork.org.uk; on behalf of; Lobby Network no-reply@lobbynetwork.org.uk

To: Protection of Wild Mammals Act Consultation 2021 WildMammalsActConsultation2021@gov.scot

Dear Consultation Team,

I am responding to the consultation 'Use of dogs to control foxes and other wild mammals'. As someone who cares passionately about the Scottish countryside, its communities, and its wildlife I am concerned about some of the proposals contained within the consultation.

The consequences of these proposals are extremely serious for farmers, land managers and all those responsible for the management of pest species in Scotland, as well as the welfare of the livestock and wildlife which that management helps protect.

I particularly wanted to draw your attention to the following points:

Two dog limit

Attempts to reduce a hunt pack to 2 dogs is not increasing the welfare of the fox. Evidence of this is clearly explained by Lord Bonomy. The two dog limit was plucked out of the air by those who support a ban on hunting, to give the impression that they lend their support to legitimate pest control. The evidence shows that a pack of dogs is more efficient at flushing and, when a fox is dispatched by dogs, it occurs almost instantaneously. Reducing the pack number to two will reduce efficiency and welfare.

Restriction on responses

Severe word limitation on response questions does not allow for sufficient evidence to be submitted. This gives the impression that the consultation is merely a paper exercise.

Licensing

There is no detail as to what kind of licence is being considered. Any licence that is introduced will present a number of unintended and damaging knock-on effects, and so any proposal should be thought through carefully. ScotGov should consult with individuals and organisations that will be affected by licensing, prior to implementation. What will constitute "serious" damage when a farmer applies for a licence? Who or what will be licensed?

Protected sites

Has any consideration been given to the negative impact this will have on protected sites? How are negative impacts assessed prior to implementation? Is a European Protected Site Habitat Regulation Assessment planned prior to implementation, as the law requires?

Trail hunting

Since trail hunting isn't generally practiced in Scotland, why is it under attack? The vast majority of packs utilise trail hunting as a lawful and legitimate practice and it is unreasonable to remove this option without justifiable and sound reasons.

Misrepresentation of evidence from Bonomy report and Burns inquiry Why is the government choosing to ignore and misrepresent independent evidence from the reports it commissioned? Rather than heed the expert and independent advice in the reports, ScotGov seem to be pushing ahead with an agenda that totally ignores scientific evidence and a wealth of experience.

Snaring

It was announced last week that Minister Mairi McAllan is planning to reassess the laws around snaring. It is likely that she will attempt to ban snaring and so if the hunting with dogs proposals are upheld, it will have a devastating affect on Scottish wildlife. Ground-nesting red listed species are on the brink of collapse, yet the Scottish Government seem committed to contribute to their demise.

I am also concerned that until we see any draft bill we will not have a clear view of the impact of the changes proposed. Any draft legislation must be consulted on enabling Parliament to take an informed view as to whether effective and humane fox control will remain possible, and the welfare of livestock and wildlife will remain protected. Any proposals should be fair and workable.

Yours sincerely,

Table A2.2: Allocation of 'Lobby Network' text to the consultation questions

Two dog limit

Related consultation questions: Q1 and Q2

Trail hunting

OneKind campaign

OneKind provided a guide on their website for supporters to complete the consultation questionnaire. Responses were received via Citizen Space. A total of 105 campaign responses were received.

Section 1 – limit on the number of dogs used to flush wild mammals

1. In situations where the use of dogs is permitted, including searching for or flushing a wild mammal to waiting guns, do you think the Scottish Government should limit the number of dogs that can be used to two?

Our suggested answer is Yes

There is no space for comments on this question.

Explainer: Ideally, we would not want any use of dogs to be permitted. Unfortunately, that is not given as an option here. Some exception to the law to allow killing of foxes, for example, to protect farmed animals, will probably remain. Using only two dogs to flush wild mammals to guns, although something we strongly object to, is preferable to the current situation using full packs of dogs. Answering no to this question would be understood as support for the current situation.

2. If a two dog limit were to be introduced, should the Scottish Government introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances? If you answered yes, please briefly explain the circumstances under which more than two dogs would be needed (max 150 words).

Our suggested answer is No, with no further comment

Explainer: It seems to be inevitable that the use of two dogs is likely to be permitted in some circumstances, but we do not want to see larger numbers of dogs used. It is harder to keep larger numbers of dogs under control and there is more likelihood of a chase or of the wild mammal being killed by the dogs.

3. If licensing arrangements to permit more than two dogs in certain circumstances were to be introduced, should there be a limit to the number of dogs that could be used? E.g. no more than four dogs, six dogs etc.

Our suggested answer is Max. number: 0

There is no space for comments on this question

Section 2 – trail hunting

Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting?

For the purposes of this consultation we are defining trail hunting as: 'The hunting of a scent laid manually in such a way as best to simulate traditional mounted hunting activity. The trail is laid along the line a fox might take when moving across the countryside. Trail hunters use animal-based scent, primarily fox urine, a scent with which the hounds are familiar and with which it is intended they should remain familiar.'

Our suggested answer is Yes

There is no space for comments on this question

Explainer: The foxhunting legislation passed in England and Wales in 2004 has a two dog limit for stalking or flushing to guns (which is allowed under exemptions, similarly to our law). Since then, England and Wales have seen the establishment of trail hunting being used as a cover for illegal foxhunting. The Scottish Government aims to avoid a similar problem emerging in Scotland; if it reduces the permitted number of dogs to two, flushing to guns with a full pack will no longer be available as a cover for illegal hunting, so those looking for such a cover story may turn to trail hunting instead. It is good that the Scottish Government is pre-empting this problem, and we support a ban on trail hunting.

5. Other than for the purpose of laying a trail for sport as outlined in question 4, are you aware of any other activities or circumstances which may necessitate the setting of an animal-based or artificial scent for dogs to follow? If you answered yes to question 5, please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words)

We suggest that you ignore this question or answer according to your own knowledge.

Explainer: There are some other reasons that a scent may be laid for dogs to follow. However, none of them should result directly in harm to wild mammals, and their use should not interfere with a ban on trail hunting.

Section 3 – mammals covered by the 2002 Act

6. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

The 2002 Act defines a wild mammal as including 'a wild mammal which has escaped, or been released, from captivity, and any mammal which is living wild'. However, rabbits and rodents^[3] are excluded from this definition. This means that this Act does not prohibit the use of a dog or dogs to hunt and kill a rabbit/s or rodent/s. However, some species of rodents such as beavers and red squirrels are afforded certain protections within other wildlife legislation.

Our suggested answer is No

7. If you answered no to question 6, do you think that:

Our suggested answers are:

Rabbits should be included in this definition

Some but not all species of rodents should be included in this definition

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

All mammals are known to be sentient and should receive equal protection under the law.
Decisions should be based on evidence and ethics, not human convenience.

Explainer: This is a challenging issue. As a matter of principle, we believe all mammals should be included in this definition; because they clearly are wild mammals and because we don't believe in categorising animals to allow some to receive less protection than others.

However, some of the ways that rats and mice are currently killed, other than by dogs, are extremely cruel. These include being caught in glue traps where they may suffer immensely for hours before dying or being killed, and certain poisons that cause slow, agonising deaths. In contrast, being killed by terriers is a more humane death. If rats and mice are included in the definition of wild mammal for the purposes of this Bill, then using terriers to kill them would become illegal. A possible consequence of this is that people would then use the other, worse methods instead.

We are working to get glue traps and cruel poisons banned too. But until that happens, it may actually be better for the welfare of rats and mice to not include them under this legislation, counter intuitive as that seems.

There should be a better way to exclude them than saying that they are not wild mammals, which seems nonsensical. However, this approach is also used in other legislation. Starting from scratch we would suggest doing it differently, but as the legislation has been written it would be hard to change now.

Some other rodents, though, such as beavers and squirrels, should be included in the definition and protected under the Act, which is why we will answer 'some rodents but not all'. We would like to see rabbits included in this definition.

8. For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs to stalk, search and flush wild mammals for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species?

The 2002 Act permits the use of dogs to flush from cover or from below ground for a number of different purposes including the purpose of 'controlling the number of a pest species'. The 2002 Act defines pest species as; foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

Our suggested answer is No

Explainer: OneKind is opposed to the use of labels like 'pest' that malign certain species and cultivate an attitude that they should be killed routinely. Animals such as foxes and rats have been vilified for so long that is considered normal to kill them or treat them badly, without questioning the reason for doing so or possible alternatives.

We do not support the killing, harm, or disturbance of wild mammals but, when it is deemed necessary, we recommend the seven principles of ethical wildlife control should be followed. These principles say that any action taken should be justified with evidence, be well planned, and should use methods that cause the least animal suffering. Following such a framework for decision making would avoid certain animals being targeted simply because they have been labelled as 'pests'. We believe this word should be removed from the legislation, and from any use when discussing animals.

9. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species?

The 2002 Act defines "pest species" as foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

Our suggested answer is No

10. If you answered no to question 9, do you think that:

Our suggested answer is:

None of the mammals listed should be included in the definition of pest species

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

There should be no definition of pest because it is a word we should stop using.
Calling certain species 'pests' is a way to justify giving them less protection than other animals. This is not logical, scientific, or ethical.

Section 4 – hare coursing

Under the 2002 Act, it is an offence to use dogs to hunt brown and mountain hares (hare-coursing) however, we are aware that illegal hunting still continues in some areas. We are considering whether there are any further changes to the law which could discourage this practice.

11. Do you think the current legislation provides sufficient protection in order to tackle hare coursing in Scotland?

Our suggested answer is Don't Know

Please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words):

Hare coursing is still happening, which is a problem, but it is not clear if the problem is the law itself, or how it is enforced.

Section 5 – comments

12. If you have any other comments on the proposals we have set out in sections one to four of this consultation or if there are any further measures relating to the hunting of wild mammals with dogs that you think we should consider please provide them here (max 350 words).

It would be better to have no exceptions at all to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. However, if exceptions are to continue, they should be only for extra-ordinary circumstances and using two dogs only. The wording should be chosen carefully to avoid the type of loopholes that have so far allowed foxhunting to continue.
For any killing, harming or disturbance to wild mammals there should be a standard decision-making process based on evidence and ethics.

'Postal' campaign

This campaign provided a pro-forma response to the consultation questions. Responses were submitted via Citizen Space, email and post. In total, 382 campaign responses were received. The originator of this campaign is not known.

Section 1: Limit on the number of dogs used to flush wild mammals

2. If a two dog limit were to be introduced, should the Scottish Government introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances?

Yes

If you answered yes, please briefly explain the circumstances under which more than two dogs would be needed (max 150 words)

To maintain and protect a diverse wildlife the fox population must be humanely controlled. The current law ensures this. The review by Lord Bonomy conducted at some expense by the Government found that imposing a 2 dog restriction could compromise effective pest control.

No Limit

Section 2: Trail hunting

4. Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting?

Yes

If you answered yes to question 5, please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words):

Training of working dogs

Section 3: Mammals covered by the 2002 Act

6. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

Yes

7. If you answered no to question 6, do you think that:

[No answers]

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

[No answer]

8. For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs to stalk, search and flush wild mammals for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species?

Yes

9. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species?

Yes

10. If you answered no to question 9, do you think that:

[No answers]

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

[No answer]

Section 4: Hare coursing

11. Do you think the current legislation provides sufficient protection in order to tackle hare coursing in Scotland?

Yes

Please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words):

The police need the resources to enforce the current law

Section 5: Comments

The limit of 2 dogs is not logical and goes against the findings of the independent review by Bonomy funded by the government.

A licensing system needs to be fair and workable.

Scottish Countryside Alliance campaign

There were two slightly different versions of the Scottish Countryside Alliance campaign response. Some of the respondents participating in this campaign used just one or the other of the suggested responses, verbatim. However, others chose certain statements from both templates to form their own response.

In cases where a respondent combined texts from the two campaign templates and made no changes to these, these responses were categorised as campaign responses even if the respondent did not use all the texts from any one of the templates.

Altogether, 209 campaign responses were received through this campaign.

Scottish Countryside Alliance commentary on consultation questions [campaign response #1]

Q1 In situations where the use of dogs is permitted, including searching for or flushing a wild mammal to waiting guns, do you think the Scottish Government should limit the number of dogs that can be used to two?

No. The consultation allows no further comment.

Q2 If a two dog limit were to be introduced, should the Scottish Government introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances? (max 150 words)

There should be no limit. A two dog limit goes against peer reviewed science and contradicts the clear finding of the Bonomy Review.
Agreement between all parties that flushing using two dogs is useless. As the then Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, stated in August 2005 "The gun packs have realised that pairs of dogs are utterly useless in flushing to guns…".
Lord Bonomy recognised "…the use of packs of hounds to flush out foxes to be shot remains a significant pest control measure…I am persuaded …not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country". If the Government wants to ensure the necessary and humane management of foxes then clearly licensing will be necessary and applied widely.
The management of foxes is not just vital to protect livestock but is also important in protecting vulnerable species, such as ground nesting birds.

Q3 If licensing arrangements to permit more than two dogs in certain circumstances were to be introduced, should there be a limit to the number of dogs that could be used? E.g. no more than four dogs, six dogs etc.

No. The consultation allows no further comment.

Q4 Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting?

No. The consultation allows no further comment.

Q5 Other than for the purpose of laying a trail for sport as outlined in question 4, are you aware of any other activities or circumstances which may necessitate the setting of an animal-based or artificial scent for dogs to follow? (max 150 words)

Yes. Animal scent is vital for the training of dogs for deer tracking, which is essential for finding wounded or injured deer. Scents, whether animal-based or artificial also play a role in the training of working dogs in connection with shooting.

Q6 For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

Q7: Ignore

Q8 For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs to stalk, search and flush wild mammals for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species?

Q9 For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species?

Q10: Ignore

Q11 Do you think the current legislation provides sufficient protection in order to tackle hare coursing in Scotland? (max 150 words)

Amendments to the laws around hare poaching, which would strength court and police powers, and are currently under consideration in England and Wales, and could also be applied in Scotland.

Q12 If you have any other comments on the proposals we have set out in sections one to four of this consultation or if there are any further measures relating to the hunting of wild mammals with dogs that you think we should consider please provide them here (max 350 words).

The consultation seems to start from the false assumption that in most situations a pair of dogs is enough and that only occasionally will a pack be needed. Two dogs are useless for flushing to guns and if there is to be effective and humane fox control in Scotland there will need to be many licences issued.
If these licences are to be the only means by which farmers and land managers can protect livestock and vulnerable wildlife, then the system needs to be fair and workable. People have a right to protect their property and a licensing system that was discriminatory, arbitrary, unduly burdensome, or where the threshold for granting a licence was set unreasonably high, would clearly breach ECHR rights, particularly Art 1 (Protocol 1).
The consultation misrepresents the findings of Lord Burns and Lord Bonomy, suggesting a two dog limit is somehow a welfare measure preventing occasions when foxes are still killed by dogs under the current rules. As both Burns and Bonomy noted a kill by hounds is almost instantaneous and there is no risk of wounding. Lord Bonomy noted: "… The practice of using dogs or a single dog to dispatch another injured animal or orphaned cubs may seem to many distasteful. The same may be said of the sight of the breaking up of the carcass of a fox. However, the weight of the evidence, as noted in the Burns Report at paragraph 6.48, is that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death in these situations is no more than a few seconds. These provisions were enacted in the knowledge of the terms of the Burns Report…" These proposals cannot be justified by claims of some benefit in terms of animal welfare.
The current proposals not only go beyond the available evidence, but actually go against the available science and evidence. They are unnecessary, and risk both the proper and humane management of pest species and jeopardise the welfare of livestock and many vulnerable species that benefit from fox control across Scotland.

Pro forma response based on the Scottish Countryside Alliance campaign text [campaign response #2]

Section 1 – limit on the number of dogs used to flush wild mammals

Yes

No √

Don't Know

2. If a two dog limit were to be introduced, should the Scottish Government introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances?

Yes

No √

Don't Know

If you answered yes, please briefly explain the circumstances under which more than two dogs would be needed (max 150 words):

There should be no limit. A two dog limit goes against peer reviewed science and contradicts the clear finding of the Bonomy Review. There is an agreement on all sides in this debate that using two dogs is useless in flushing foxes to guns. As the then Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, stated in August 2005 "The gun packs have realised that pairs of dogs are utterly useless in flushing to guns…". Lord Bonomy concluded: "7.26 …I am persuaded …not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country".

Given that Lord Bonomy recognised that: "3.9 …the use of packs of hounds to flush out foxes to be shot remains a significant pest control measure, both to control the general level of foxes in an area as well as to address particular problems affecting a farm or estate.", the need for a licensing regime, or other mechanism, to allow the continued use of packs would seem unarguable, assuming the Government still wants to ensure the necessary and humane management of foxes. Moreover, licences will need to be granted widely given that in most situations two dogs are useless. The management of foxes is not just vital to protect livestock, but is key to protecting vulnerable species, such as ground nesting birds.

Maximum number

No Limit √

Don't Know

Section 2 – trail hunting

4. Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting?

For the purposes of this consultation we are defining trail hunting as:

'The hunting of a scent laid manually in such a way as best to simulate traditional mounted hunting activity. The trail is laid along the line a fox might take when moving across the countryside. Trail hunters use animal-based scent, primarily fox urine, a scent with which the hounds are familiar and with which it is intended they should remain familiar.'

Yes

No √

Don't Know

Yes √

Don't Know

If you answered yes to question 5, please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words):

Animal scent is essential for the training of dogs for deer tracking, which is vital for finding dead, wounded or injured deer. Scents, whether animal-based or artificial, can play a role in the training of many types of working dogs in connection with shooting activities. Training spaniels and retrievers to recover dead or injured game and training lurchers or whippets to catch rabbits that escape purse nets whilst ferreting. This banning of scent laying will have wide-ranging ramifications.

Section 3 – mammals covered by the 2002 Act

6. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

The 2002 Act defines a wild mammal as including 'a wild mammal which has escaped, or been released, from captivity, and any mammal which is living wild'. However, rabbits and rodents are excluded from this definition. This means that this Act does not prohibit the use of a dog or dogs to hunt and kill a rabbit/s or rodent/s. However, some species of rodents such as beavers and red squirrels are afforded certain protections within other wildlife legislation.

Yes √

Don't Know

7. If you answered no to question 6, do you think that:

Rabbits should be included in this definition

All species should be included in this definition

Some but not all species of rodents should be included in this definition

None of the mammals listed should be included in this definition

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

8. For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs to stalk, search and flush wild mammals for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species?

Yes √

Don't Know

9. For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species?

The 2002 Act defines "pest species" as foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

Yes √

Don't Know

10. If you answered no to question 9, do you think that:

Hares should be included in the definition of pest species

Stoats should be included in the definition of pest species

Mink should be included in the definition of pest species

Weasels should be included in the definition of pest species

None of the mammals listed should be included in the definition of pest species

Please add any further comments on this section here (max 150 words):

Section 4 – hare coursing

11. Do you think the current legislation provides sufficient protection in order to tackle hare coursing in Scotland?

Yes √

Don't Know

Please explain the reason for your answer here (max 150 words):

As far as the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 is concerned, Lord Bonomy concluded: "The statistics suggest that the Act enables prosecution of offences relating to hares. When there is sufficient evidence, coursing appears to be prosecuted." Hare coursing can also be a poaching offence and prosecuted under section 11G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, while a person prosecuted under the 2002 Act can be subject to a disqualification order under section 9, this does not appear to be the case under the 1981 Act (as amended). Consideration might be given to addressing this apparent anomaly. The ability not simply to seize and dispose of a dog used in illegal hare coursing, but also to disqualify a person from owning, or keeping a dog is an important tool in the armoury of the police and courts against illegal hare coursing. Such a change to poaching laws is also being considered by Defra.

Section 5 – comments

The consultation seems to start from the false assumption that in most situations a pair of dogs is enough and that only occasionally will a pack be needed. As noted above, two dogs are useless for flushing to guns. If there is to be effective fox control in Scotland there will need to be a number of licences.

If these licences are to be the only means by which farmers and land managers can protect livestock and vulnerable wildlife, then the system needs to be fair and workable. People have a right to protect their property and a licensing system that was discriminatory, arbitrary, unduly burdensome, or where the threshold for granting a licence was set unreasonably high, would clearly breach ECHR rights, particularly Art 1 (Protocol 1).

At present there is no detail as to the circumstances in which those licences would be granted, the evidential requirements on land managers to demonstrate loss and what level of loss to fox predation must be tolerated before a licence is granted. Would fox control be permitted on a preventative basis? We would note the issue of the licensing of lethal control of pest bird species which has proved anything but straightforward. It is also important to remember that those opposed to hunting in Scotland start from the premise that fox control is not necessary at all. In short, we are unable to assess what impact a licence would have as it is unclear as to who, or what, would be licenced and how that licence would work.

It has been announced recently that snaring may soon be banned. This will be catastrophic for those who rely on the effective control of foxes if the hunting with dogs proposed legislation is passed. The ways in which we can protect our livelihoods are being eroded. The biodiversity impact will be huge too as both of these proposals will adversely affect red-listed species.

Lastly, we would like to note, that the consultation links the two dog limit in England to the Burns Report. This is not the case and two dogs was always arbitrary. As Lord Bonomy correctly recognised a kill by hounds is almost instantaneous and there is no risk of wounding: "5.36… The practice of using dogs or a single dog to dispatch another injured animal or orphaned cubs may seem to many distasteful. The same may be said of the sight of the breaking up of the carcass of a fox. However, the weight of the evidence, as noted in the Burns Report at paragraph 6.48, is that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death in these situations is no more than a few seconds. These provisions were enacted in the knowledge of the terms of the Burns Report…" These proposals cannot be justified by claims of some animal welfare benefit.

The current proposals in this consultation are not only unsupported by the evidence but actually go against the available science and evidence. They are unnecessary, risk both the proper and humane management of pest species and jeopardise the welfare of livestock and many vulnerable species that benefit from fox control across Scotland.

Contact

Email: philippa.james@gov.scot

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

Annex 2: Campaign texts

British Association for Shooting and Conservation campaign

Keep the Ban campaign

'Lobby Network' campaign

OneKind campaign

'Postal' campaign

Scottish Countryside Alliance campaign

Contact

There is a problem