Hunting with dogs: consultation analysis

Executive summary

1. The introduction of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) was intended to address concerns about the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals. However, ongoing concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation, and about the use of packs of dogs for flushing foxes, led the Scottish Government to appoint Lord Bonomy to undertake a review of the 2002 Act. Following publication of the review report in 2016, a public consultation on Lord Bonomy's recommendations was carried out in 2017–18 and new legislative proposals were developed. The Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in February 2022. This Bill (if enacted) will repeal and replace the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

2. The Scottish Government has now consulted on the proposals contained in the Bill. The consultation paper invited views on four topics: (i) limiting to two the number of dogs allowed to flush a wild mammal from cover (Qs 1 to 3), (ii) banning trail hunting (Qs 4 and 5), (iii) the definitions of 'wild mammal' and 'pest species' for the purposes of the Bill (Qs 6 to 10), and (iv) strengthening the law on hare coursing (Q11). A final question (Q12) invited any other comments. The consultation ran from 29 October 2021 to 15 December 2021.

The responses and respondents

3. The analysis was based on 9,790 substantive responses and 3,106 campaign responses.^[1]

4. Substantive responses were submitted by 9,742 (99.5%) individuals and 48 (0.5%) organisations. Responses from animal welfare and animal rights organisations / groups accounted for 50% (24 out of 48) of the organisational responses. Responses from countryside management, sporting organisations and their representative bodies, accounted for 44% (21 out of 48). The remaining three organisational responses were submitted by two public sector organisations and a local branch of a political organisation.

5. In addition to the substantive responses, a number of organisations ran campaigns encouraging their members and supporters to take part in the consultation. These organisations provided model responses and / or a 'commentary' on the consultation and the consultation questions which people could draw on in drafting their own responses. Six different campaigns were identified. Of these, four were organised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), Keep the Ban, OneKind, and the Scottish Countryside Alliance. It was not possible to identify the organisers of the remaining two campaigns.

Two issues concerning the analysis

6. In undertaking the analysis, two specific issues required to be addressed as follows:

• First, although respondents were not asked whether they wished to see a ban on all hunting with dogs, a large number explicitly stated that they did. The views expressed by these respondents were distinctive and coherent. Thus, these responses were identified and 'tagged' so that the views of this group could be analysed separately.
• Second, there was evidence that some questions were not well understood by respondents – in particular, Questions 6 to 10 on the legal definitions of 'wild mammal' and 'pest species'. The quantitative findings for these questions should, therefore, be treated with caution, although the main messages reported are likely to be an accurate reflection of both the overall balance of opinion and the views expressed in relation to these questions.

Limit on the number of dogs used to flush wild mammals (Q1 to Q3)

7. Overall, two-thirds (67%) of respondents thought that, in situations where the use of dogs for flushing a wild mammal is permitted, the number of dogs used should be limited to two. A third of respondents (32%) disagreed with this proposal.

8. However, among those respondents who wanted a ban on all hunting with dogs, there was virtual unanimity that the number of dogs should be limited to two (within this group, 93% of organisations and 94% of individuals said this). Among those who did not request a ban on hunting with dogs, just under half thought that the number of dogs should be limited to two, while just over half thought it should not.

9. Overall, a quarter (24%) of respondents thought that, if a two-dog limit were to be introduced, licensing arrangements should be put in place to allow the use of more dogs in certain circumstances. Three-quarters of respondents (74%) disagreed with this proposal.

10. Very few respondents who wanted a ban on all hunting with dogs (13% of organisations and 3% of individuals) were in favour of allowing the use of more than two dogs, under licence, in certain circumstances. By contrast, those who did not request a ban were more divided in their views, with 63% of organisations and 41% of individuals agreeing that licensing arrangements should be introduced.

11. The vast majority of respondents (both organisations and individuals) who were identified as wanting a ban on all hunting with dogs thought that there were 'no circumstances' in which even two dogs should be allowed to hunt. However, a small number of respondents who explicitly said that they would like to see a ban on hunting with dogs noted that limiting to two the number of dogs that could be used (without a licence) would, nevertheless, be a positive step forward.

12. By contrast, respondents who did not call for a ban on hunting with dogs commonly said that more than two dogs would be required in 'all', 'nearly all', 'most' or 'many' circumstances. This group described a range of circumstances which would require more than two dogs to be used for flushing foxes and other animals. Specifically, they referred to issues relating to terrain (open ground with dense cover, large blocks of moor or forestry, etc.) and to pest control activities which were often linked to conservation considerations such as ensuring the breeding success of ground-nesting birds. These respondents thought that licensing arrangements were not required, and that the introduction of such as scheme was overly 'bureaucratic'. More generally, it was common for respondents in this group to say that the review report by Lord Bonomy provided clear and independent evidence that more than two dogs would be required in certain circumstances. These respondents often commented that introducing a two-dog limit was 'going against the science and the evidence' and contradicted the recommendation of Lord Bonomy.

13. Respondents were asked for their views on whether there should be a limit on the number of dogs that could be used for hunting under licence, and (if so) what that limit should be. The two most common answers were '0', suggested by just over a third (37%) of respondents and 'no limit', suggested by just under a third (29%) of respondents. One in eight respondents (12%) said '2', and a similar proportion (11%) said '3'.

Trail hunting (Q4 and Q5)

14. Just over two-thirds of respondents overall (70%) thought the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting. Just under a third (30%) disagreed.

15. Among those who wanted a ban on hunting with dogs, there was near unanimity on this question – 100% of organisations and 99% of individuals in this group thought that trail hunting should be banned. Among those who did not call for a ban on all hunting with dogs, opinions were more evenly divided between those who wanted trail hunting to be banned and those who did not.

16. Respondents who wanted trail hunting to be banned often stated that they were opposed to hunting with dogs. These respondents believed that trail hunting was currently used as a cover for fox hunting or would be used as a 'loophole' if the laws relating to the use of dogs were to be tightened. Others argued that, even if trail hunting is not used deliberately as a cover for fox hunting, wild (and domestic) animals are at risk of harm when trained hunting dogs are involved in such activities.

17. Respondents who opposed a ban on trail hunting argued that this was a legitimate activity, enjoyed by many in rural areas, that did not harm wildlife. As such, a pre-emptive ban guarding against possible future law breaking was seen by this group as unwarranted.

18. The consultation asked respondents if they were aware of other activities (beyond trail hunting) that required the setting of an animal-based or artificial scent for dogs to follow. Overall, around 15% of respondents answered 'yes' to this question, 75% answered 'no' and 10% answered 'don't know'.

19. Among those who answered 'yes', there was a widespread view that the laying of scent trails was important for training working dogs – not only in relation to pest control and countryside management, but also in relation to law enforcement, military, and search and rescue purposes. In addition, respondents in this group identified a range of sporting and recreational activities (drag hunting, clean boot hunting, fell hound racing, etc.) that required the setting of a scent.

20. Some respondents thought that (i) scent laying is required in a range of activities and should be allowed to continue and some suggested that (ii) scent laying is required but should only be allowed in specific limited circumstances. In contrast to these two views, other respondents did not think there were any valid scent-laying activities.

Defining wild mammals and pest species (Q6 to Q10)

21. The 2002 Act defines 'wild mammal' as 'a wild mammal which has escaped, or been released, from captivity, and any mammal which is living wild, and not including a rabbit or a rodent'. Overall, just over a third (36%) of respondents agreed with this definition for the purposes of the Bill, while nearly two-thirds (60%) disagreed.

22. However, among those who explicitly called for a ban on all hunting with dogs, very few (no organisations and just 11% of individuals) agreed with the definition. By contrast, among those who did not request a ban on hunting with dogs, almost two-thirds of organisations (65%) and just over half of individuals (54%) agreed with the definition.

23. Respondents who did not agree with the definition were asked for their views about whether certain species of wild mammal – i.e. rabbits, all species of rodent, or some but not all species of rodent – should be included in the definition for the purposes of the Bill. Around three-quarters thought rabbits (76%) and all species of rodent (71%) should be included. Thirteen percent (13%) thought some but not all species of rodent should be included. Just 10% thought none of the wild mammals listed should be included.

24. Those who thought rabbits should be included in the definition said that rabbits are (internationally) an endangered species, and that they have an important role in improving habitats for other animals, insects, and plants. Some also noted that individuals involved in illegal hare coursing often give the excuse that they were hunting rabbits (which are not currently protected by law), rather than hares (which are protected). Respondents who thought all species of rodent should be included in the definition argued that excluding any wild mammal from a list of wild mammals was inconsistent and likely to be unworkable since a dog would be unable to differentiate between protected and unprotected species of rodents. There was some debate among respondents about whether rats and mice should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' and thus protected by law.

25. The 2002 Act permits the use of dogs to flush a wild mammal from cover or from below ground for the purpose of 'controlling the number of a pest species', and defines 'pest species' as 'foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels'. Overall, a third of respondents (32%) agreed that a person should be allowed to use dogs for the purpose of controlling the number of a pest species. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) disagreed.

26. However, among those who wanted a ban on hunting with dogs, very few respondents (zero organisations and just 1% of individuals) agreed that it should be permitted to use dogs in this way. By contrast, among those who did not request a ban, more than half of both organisations (61%) and individuals (55%) thought a person should be allowed to use dogs for the purpose of controlling the numbers of a pest species.

27. Those who supported the use of dogs to control pest species argued that this was a 'humane', 'efficient' or 'effective' method of wildlife management, especially in difficult terrain. Those who were opposed saw this activity as 'cruel', 'barbaric' or 'inhumane'. They also said that this practice had the potential to be used as a form of sport or entertainment, as a 'loophole' in the law, or as a 'cover' for fox hunting, or could lead to the harming of animals that were not the primary target of the pest control activity.

28. Respondents were asked whether, for the purposes of the Bill, they agreed with the definition of 'pest species' as 'foxes, hares, mink stoats and weasels'. Overall, just under a third (29%) agreed with the definition, whilst just over two-thirds (69%) did not.

29. Among those who wanted a ban on hunting with dogs, almost no respondents agreed with the definition. However, opinions were divided among those who did not call for a ban on hunting with dogs with 55% of organisations and 48% of individuals in this group agreeing with the definition.

30. Respondents who disagreed with the definition were asked for their views on whether hares, stoats, mink or weasels should be defined as 'pest species'. Most (85%) thought that none of these mammals should be included. Respondents offering other views were twice as likely to think that mink should be included (15% said this) in the definition compared to hares, stoats and weasels (no more than 7% in each case). Respondents often highlighted the 'non-native' status of minks to justify their inclusion.

31. Most of those who agreed with the definition and / or wished to see the inclusion of other species or a broader general definition of 'pest species' argued that it was important to be able to (i) achieve an appropriate balance in nature and to protect wildlife, crops and livestock, and (ii) control animals causing damage. Most of those who disagreed with the definition either thought that all animals were sentient beings and had a right to live without cruelty, or they disputed the term 'pest species' as 'not scientific, ethical or logical' and as legitimising cruelty. Some in this latter group accepted that animal populations sometimes need to be managed but argued this should be evidenced on a case-by-case basis, and carried out in a humane way.

Hare coursing (Q11)

30. Around a fifth of respondents (20%) thought current legislation provided sufficient protection against hare coursing. However, two-thirds (67%) thought it did not. In addition, more than a tenth of respondents (13%) answered 'don't know' in response to this question.

31. Among those who wanted a ban on hunting with dogs, no organisations and just 2% of individuals thought the current legislation provided sufficient protection. By contrast, among those who did not specifically call for a ban on hunting with dogs, just under a half of organisations (47%) and a third of individuals (33%) thought that the current legislation provided sufficient protection.

32. Those who thought current legislation provided sufficient protection against hare coursing made three main points. This group argued that (i) current legislation already makes hare coursing illegal, (ii) strengthening the law was unlikely to make any difference to perpetrators who already ignored the law, and (iii) hare coursing was not a significant problem.

33. Among those who thought current legislation did not provide sufficient protection, the general view was that hare coursing continued to be common. This group thought (i) the current legislation was ineffective and / or (ii) the legislation was not taken seriously by the police or the courts.

34. There was a widespread view among both groups that there were significant challenges in enforcing legislation regarding hare coursing because of the nature of the crime. It was suggested that the police needed more resources to tackle this issue. Some respondents suggested specific ways that the legislation could be strengthened; others also suggested that penalties for hare coursing should be increased as the current penalties appeared (in their view) not to provide a sufficient deterrent.

Other comments (Q12)

35. Respondents' additional comments focused on four main topics: (i) the consultation process and the way the consultation questions were 'framed', (ii) the potential wider impacts (economic, social and health-related) of implementing the proposals, (iii) the role of public opinion (and evidence) in developing policy and legislation governing hunting, and (iv) technical issues relating to the current legislation or requirements for future legislation.