Hunting with dogs: consultation analysis

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

3.1 The Scottish Government has proposed a new limit of two dogs for flushing foxes or other wild mammals from cover. Although Lord Bonomy's review did not recommend the introduction of such a limit, he did note welfare concerns related to the current arrangements, and concerns that these arrangements may be 'providing cover for the unlawful use of dogs, contrary to the intention of the 2002 Act, with the associated concerns about welfare of foxes and other wildlife'.

3.2 The Scottish Government is also considering the introduction of a licensing scheme to allow the use of more than two dogs to control wild mammals in particular circumstances, where no satisfactory alternative method of control is available. Any licensing scheme would need to consider details such as the period of validity, the geographical area covered, and any reporting duties on the licence-holder (number of foxes culled, etc.).

3.3 The consultation asked three questions on the related issues of (i) introducing a limit of two on the number of dogs used for flushing and (ii) introducing a licensing scheme to permit the use of more than two dogs in specified circumstances.

Question 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? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 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.

Question 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. [Max. number [insert] / No limit / Don't know]

3.4 It should be noted that because Questions 1 to 3 were inter-linked, they have been analysed and reported on together in the sections below.

'Tagging' respondents who wanted a full ban on hunting

3.5 As indicated in paragraph 1.12 above, it became clear as the analysis process began, that, although the consultation did not include a question asking respondents whether they wished to see a full ban on all hunting with dogs, a large number of respondents provided explicit comment to the effect that they did. This phenomenon was first encountered in comments provided at (the open part of) Question 2, and further confirmed by the large numbers of respondents (both organisations and individuals) who answered '0' at Question 3 (although '0' was not an answer that was expected at Question 3).

3.6 The views expressed by these respondents were distinctive and coherent within the group, and it was therefore agreed with the Scottish Government that work should be carried out to identify and 'tag' such respondents so that the responses from this group could be analysed separately.

3.7 A pragmatic approach was used to identify the respondents who specifically called for a ban on hunting with dogs. (See Annex 4 for details.) This approach led to the 'tagging' of 4,126 respondents (i.e. 43% of all respondents) as wanting a full ban on hunting with dogs. However, given the approach used, the actual number wanting a ban was likely to be substantially higher. This classification is used in Table 3.1 below, and in subsequent tables throughout the report. It is also referred to at appropriate points in reporting the qualitative findings of the analysis.

Proposed two-dog limit (Q1)

3.8 Question 1 asked whether – in situations where the use of dogs for flushing is permitted – the number of dogs used should be limited to two.

3.9 Table 3.1 shows that, overall, two-thirds of respondents (67%) agreed with this proposal whilst one-third (32%) disagreed. The proportions of organisations and individuals agreeing and disagreeing with the proposal were almost identical.

3.10 However, as would be expected, the proportions agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal varied substantially according to whether respondents did or did not wish to see a ban on all hunting with dogs. Among those who wanted a ban, there was virtual unanimity (93% of organisations and 94% of individuals) that the number of dogs should be limited to two. Among those who did not request a ban, just under half (47% of both organisations and individuals) agreed that the number of dogs should be limited to two, while just over half thought it should not.

Table 3.1: Q1 – In situations where the use of dogs is permitted, do you think the Scottish Government should limit the number of dogs that can be used to two?

Respondent type	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Organisations
Wants a ban	14 (93%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	15 (100%)
Does not request a ban	14 (45%)	17 (55%)	0 (0%)	31 (100%)
Total organisations	28 (61%)	17 (37%)	1 (2%)	46 (100%)
Individuals
Wants a ban	3,882 (94%)	156 (4%)	73 (2%)	4,111 (100%)
Does not request a ban	2,608 (47%)	2,897 (52%)	39 (1%)	5,544 (100%)
Total individuals	6,490 (67%)	3,053 (32%)	112 (1%)	9,655 (100%)
Total, organisations and individuals	6,518 (67%)	3,070 (32%)	113 (1%)	9,701 (100%)

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.11 In terms of the campaigns:

• OneKind advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 1.
• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 1.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 1, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

Licensing to allow more than two dogs (Q2)

3.12 Question 2 asked whether, if a two-dog limit were to be introduced, the Scottish Government should introduce licensing arrangements to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances.

3.13 Table 3.2 shows that, overall, a quarter (24%) of respondents agreed with this proposal and three-quarters (74%) disagreed. Whilst a large majority of individuals (74%) were not in favour of the introduction of licensing, opinion was fairly evenly split among organisations, with 47% saying they agreed compared with 53% who disagreed.

3.14 There was, again, a clear pattern in the responses based on whether or not respondents wanted a ban on hunting with dogs. Specifically, few of those who wanted a ban answered 'yes' at this question (13% of organisations and 3% of individuals). 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.

Table 3.2: 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?

Respondent type	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Organisations
Wants a ban	2 (13%)	13 (87%)	0 (0%)	15 (100%)
Does not request a ban	19 (63%)	11 (37%)	0 (0%)	30 (100%)
Total organisations	21 (47%)	24 (53%)	0 (0%)	45 (100%)
Individuals
Wants a ban	117 (3%)	4,002 (97%)	25 (1%)	4,144 (100%)
Does not request a ban	2,231 (41%)	3,121 (57%)	153 (3%)	5,505 (100%)
Total individuals	2,348 (24%)	7,123 (74%)	178 (2%)	9,649 (100%)
Total, organisations and individuals	2,369 (24%)	7,147 (74%)	178 (2%)	9,694 (100%)

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.15 In relation to the campaigns:

• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 2.
• The Scottish Countryside Alliance and OneKind advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 2.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 2, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

3.16 Respondents who answered 'yes' were asked to briefly explain the circumstances in which more than two dogs might be needed.

3.17 Despite the instruction that only those who answered 'yes' to Question 2 should answer, comments were offered both by those respondents who answered 'yes' and by those who answered 'no'. In addition, whilst the open question asked respondents to 'briefly explain the circumstances under which more than two dogs would be needed', respondents discussed not only the circumstances in which more than two dogs might be needed, but also aspects of the licensing system which they thought would be important if such a system were to be developed.^[7] Comments on both these issues are discussed below.

Circumstances under which more than two dogs are / might be needed

3.18 The vast majority of respondents (both organisations and individuals) who were identified as wanting a ban on all hunting with dogs, expressed the view that there are 'no circumstances' or that they 'cannot imagine the circumstances' in which even two dogs should be allowed to hunt. These individuals often (re-stated) their concerns in relation to hunting with dogs.

3.19 The OneKind campaign provided the following 'explanatory text': '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 number of dogs under control and there is more likelihood of a chase, or of the wild mammal being killed by the dogs.' Thus, the OneKind campaign did not identify any circumstances in which more than two dogs might be needed.

3.20 However, a small number of respondents who explicitly said that they would like to see a ban on hunting noted that limiting to two the number of dogs that could be used (without a licence) would be a positive step forward. This group suggested that if the Scottish Government were to go ahead with their plans to allow more than two dogs to be used in certain circumstances, then this should be allowed only in 'exceptional' or 'extraordinary' circumstances, and / or the licence should only be for a temporary period.

3.21 By contrast, many respondents who said (at Question 3, see below) there should be 'no limit' on the number of dogs that could be used, said that more than two dogs would be required 'in all circumstances', 'in nearly all circumstances' or 'in most circumstances'. These respondents thought that licensing arrangements were not required and that there should be no restrictions introduced in relation to hunting with dogs (see below for wider discussion of the issues around licensing).

3.22 More generally, it was common for respondents who did not explicitly ask for a ban on all hunting with dogs to say that the 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.

3.23 It was common for these respondents to repeat (aspects of) Lord Bonomy's conclusions that (i) searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, (ii) imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control, and (iii) animal welfare would not be improved by imposing a two-dog restriction.

3.24 These aspects of Lord Bonomy's report – about efficiency, pest control, and animal welfare – were highlighted not just by individual respondents but also by the Postal campaign, the Lobby Network campaign, the BASC campaign, and the Countryside Alliance campaign.

3.25 More specifically, respondents described a range of circumstances which would require more than two dogs to be used for flushing foxes and other animals and / or for pest control and / or for humane killing. Most commonly, respondents referred to issues relating to:

• The terrain – respondents said that more than two dogs would be required in situations where there was open ground with thick or dense cover, large blocks of moor or forestry, difficult terrain including rock piles, windblown trees, old heather, whins, rough or hilly ground, etc.
• Pest control – respondents described the need to manage fox and other pest populations. These comments were often linked to conservation considerations, and the importance of ensuring the breeding success of other species (e.g. ground nesting birds) which would otherwise be threatened.

3.26 Less often, respondents suggested that more than two dogs might be required for:

• 'Bad scenting' days when the weather conditions made it difficult for individual hounds to pick up animal scent and it was therefore helpful to have a larger number of dogs involved
• Managing wild boar or feral pig populations
• Densely populated areas where firearms cannot be used due to safety factors or noise pollution
• Recovering mammals following a vehicle collision
• Situations where there was a particularly large local fox – or other pest – population which can result in dogs getting distracted by crossing scents
• Any situation where dogs are required to work 'in teams'.

3.27 In addition, some respondents argued that:

• Animal welfare considerations, related to both protecting the dogs from exhaustion and ensuring that foxes or other pest species are humanely dispatched (i.e. shot by gamekeepers or other trained marksmen), meant that more than two dogs were required
• The training of young dogs required more than two 'experienced' dogs to be involved.

3.28 Finally, the point was made by a land and forestry management organisation that more woodlands are currently being planned in Scotland, and these will be situated predominantly on better and lower ground, nearer to livestock. It will therefore be vital that (licensing) arrangements are developed to ensure that livestock can be protected in these wooded areas.

Views on licensing arrangements

3.29 The consultation paper did not provide exact details about how any prospective licensing scheme would operate. However, it suggested that the 'established and well-understood approaches to licensing of wildlife management operations set out in section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981' might provide a useful model. Respondents expressed a range of views on how any licensing scheme could or should operate. (Others, however, said that it was not possible to comment on the licensing arrangements in the absence of any specific proposals.)

3.30 Two groups of respondents thought that no licensing arrangements of any kind were required. These comprised:

• (Almost all) Respondents who wanted a ban on all hunting with dogs, who said that since hunting would not take place, no licensing system was required.
• (Almost all) Respondents who thought there should be 'no limit' on hunting with dogs, and / or who said two dogs would be required in 'all' or 'nearly all' circumstances. These respondents said that the requirement for a licence was overly bureaucratic and, indeed, unnecessary if there was no limit on the number of dogs that could be used.

3.31 Other respondents identified concerns and raised questions that they thought would need to be addressed if a licensing scheme were to be workable and effective. The types of concerns and questions identified differed depending on whether respondents were generally in favour of, or generally opposed to, hunting with dogs.

3.32 The main points about any putative licensing system made by those who were generally against hunting with dogs were as follows:

• The licensing system must not allow the creation of any new legal 'loopholes'. (This point was raised particularly in the context of the perceived loopholes that had allowed trail hunting to take place in England and Wales following introduction of the Hunting Act 2004.)
• Licences should be issued only by the Scottish Government, Scottish Government- supported land management bodies (e.g. NatureScot), Scottish Government approved contractors, or Police Scotland. Moreover, it was thought that the Scottish Government should work closely with existing organisations in developing a licensing system.
• The criteria for granting licences should be clear, cautious, narrowly defined, strictly applied, properly enforced, and based on the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife management.^[8] It was suggested that applicants should have to provide specific and detailed evidence as to why a licence was required – simply specifying a purpose (e.g. prevention of serious damage to livestock) would not in itself provide adequate justification. Some respondents who made these kinds of comments further suggested that a licence should only be granted if the applicant could show that all other alternatives had been considered – and ruled out.
• No licences should be issued for 'sporting' purposes, and farmers should not be allowed to use their 'general gun licence' for the purpose of hunting with dogs.
• 'Independent observers' should be appointed to monitor whether the conditions of the licence were being fully upheld.

3.33 One national animal welfare organisation commented that anyone using a dog should also be a licensed firearms holder or accompanied by a person who is, to ensure that the bolted fox is humanely dispatched. They went on to say that licences should name not only the dog handler but the named firearms licence holder, and that it should be a specific offence for a person to use any dog to flush except in the presence of a licensed firearms holder.

3.34 The main points about any putative licensing system made by those who were generally in favour of hunting with dogs were as follows:

• Licensing will involve additional bureaucracy for little benefit. Farmers, in particular, already have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy, and a licensing scheme for hunting with dogs would make running their affairs more difficult still.
• Large numbers of licences are likely to be required. Licensing arrangements must therefore be simple, easily accessible, fair, and administered efficiently and quickly. If the bureaucracy is too burdensome, or the process is inefficient, there will be detrimental consequences for pest control and conservation.
• The arrangements must be able to be applied easily in a wide range of circumstances, and any licence issued would have to cover a range of activities and arrangements. (It would be unworkable, for example, to require licences for specific activities on specific days in specific locations.) Licensable purposes should include conservation as well as livestock protection.
• Speed in granting licences will be of the essence. In a situation where a fox is threatening lambs, for example, a delayed licence is effectively the same as no licence at all.
• Any complaints about possible breaches of licences would have to be investigated quickly, and pest control activities would have to be allowed to continue whilst the investigation was underway.
• There is evidence from England and Wales that there have been problems around (i) beaver licences, (ii) licences for lethal control of pest bird species and (iii) increased restrictions on general licences. It was noted that there have been successful legal challenges to general licences in England. It is vital that the licensing authority in Scotland is able to apply light-touch implementation without attracting legal challenge.
• There would have to be a consultation on the licensing arrangements once these were developed.

3.35 In addition, the Countryside Alliance campaign text stated that 'People have a right to protect their property and a licensing system that is discriminatory, arbitrary, unduly burdensome, or where the threshold for granting a licence was set unreasonably high, would clearly breach ECHR rights, particularly Article 1 (Protocol 1).'^[9]

3.36 Other points made about any licensing system were that:

• The licensing system should be paid for by a levy on those applying for a licence
• It would be important to take account of the impacts on court time, staff, IT, etc. of any licensing system.

3.37 Finally, a few respondents suggested that, instead of a licensing system, it would be preferable to introduce either (i) a voluntary code of practice – this could draw on the current codes of practice for foot packs and deer control, or (ii) a 'general licence' which could cover many purposes.

Limiting the number of dogs in a licensed arrangement (Q3)

3.38 Question 3 asked respondents for views on whether there should be a limit to the number of dogs that could be used for hunting under a licensed arrangement, and (if so) what that limit should be. Respondents could enter a specific number (or short text response), or could answer 'no limit' or 'don't know'. It should be noted that respondents were invited to answer this question regardless of whether they supported the introduction of a licensing scheme (as indicated in their answers to Question 2).

3.39 In analysing the responses to Question 3, two main issues arose:

• Any comment provided by respondents had to be 'translated' into a number. In most cases this was fairly straightforward.^[10] However, there were a few cases where the text did not easily translate into a number (e.g. 'Yes it should be a low number depending on a full independent assessment' or 'One per registered handler? I guess'). Such responses were categorised as 'unclear'.
• Some respondents answered both 'parts' of Question 3. That is, they provided a specific number (or a comment of some type) and they also ticked either 'no limit' or 'don't know'. In these cases, it was decided that the respondent's answer to Question 3 would be determined using the specific number or text that was offered. The exception to this was where the number given was greater than 50. In these cases, the respondent's answer was categorised as 'no limit'.

3.40 In addition, given the wide range of very specific answers offered (e.g. '17', '26', etc.), responses were then categorised into a manageable number of groups. Table 3.3 below shows the results of this process.

3.41 Table 3.3 shows that, for both organisations and individuals, the two most popular responses to this question were:

• '0' – selected by slightly less than a third (28%) of organisations and just over a third (37%) of individuals – note that those who selected '0' wanted a ban on hunting. (See Annex 4 for details. Note also that this answer was not an expected answer to Question 3.)
• 'no limit' – selected by a third of organisations (35%) and slightly less than a third of individuals (29%).

3.42 In addition, around one in eight respondents (12%) selected the answer '2', and a similar proportion (11%) selected '3'. Other specific numbers (1, and between 4 and 50) were suggested by a small proportion (7%) of respondents. The remaining respondents either selected 'don't know' (5%), or their response was unclear.

Table 3.3: Q3 – If licensing arrangements were to be introduced to permit more than two dogs in certain circumstances, should there be a limit to the number of dogs that could be used? E.g. no more than four dogs, six dogs etc.

Maximum number of dogs	Organisations	Individuals	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
0	13 (28%)	3,420 (37%)	3,433 (37%)
1	1 (2%)	62 (1%)	63 (1%)
2	3 (7%)	1,091 (12%)	1,094 (12%)
3	2 (4%)	985 (11%)	987 (11%)
4	3 (7%)	407 (4%)	410 (4%)
5 to 10	0 (0%)	73 (1%)	73 (1%)
11 to 20	0 (0%)	56 (1%)	56 (1%)
21 to 50	1 (2%)	45 (0%)	46 (0%)
No limit	16 (35%)	2,715 (29%)	2,731 (29%)
Don't know	7 (15%)	471 (5%)	478 (5%)
Unclear	0 (0%)	13 (0%)	13 (0%)
Total number of respondents	46 (100%)	9,338 (100%)	9,384 (100%)