Hunting with dogs: consultation analysis

4. Trail hunting (Q4 and Q5)

4.1 Trail hunting involves hounds following a specially laid animal-based scent along a line a fox might take when moving across the countryside, and is intended to simulate traditional mounted hunting activity.

4.2 In England and Wales, trail hunting has become established since a prohibition of hunting wild mammals with more than two dogs was introduced in 2004. However, there have been occasions where packs hunting a trail have encountered a fox and the fox was hunted in contravention of English law, and this situation was acknowledged by Lord Bonomy in his report.

4.3 The Scottish Government wishes to avoid trail hunting being used as a cover for illegal hunting, should a two-dog limit be introduced. They are thus proposing to take pre-emptive action to prevent trail hunting becoming established in Scotland. This could be done by banning the use of animal-based scents or any other scent that seeks to mimic the scent of wild mammals for the purpose of providing a trail for dogs to follow.

4.4 Two consultation questions invited views on the proposal to ban trail hunting and how it might be implemented. Note that for the purposes of this consultation, trail hunting was defined as follows: '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.'

Question 4: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting? [Yes / No / Don't know]

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

If you answered yes to question 5, please explain the reason for your answer here.

Proposed ban on trail hunting (Q4)

4.5 Question 4 asked respondents if they agreed that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting.

4.6 Table 4.1 shows that just over two-thirds of respondents (70%) agreed that the Scottish Government should ban trail hunting. These figures were similar for organisations (61%) and individuals (70%).

4.7 As would be expected, there was near unanimity on this question among those who wanted a ban on hunting with dogs (100% of organisations and 99% of individuals). However, among those who did not call for a ban, opinions were more evenly divided between those who wanted trail hunting to be banned (41% of organisations and 47% of individuals) and those who did not (48% of organisations and 51% of individuals).

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.8 In terms of the campaigns:

• The OneKind campaign advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 4.
• The Scottish Countryside Alliance and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 4.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide specific advice on how to answer Question 4, but the commentary implied that the 'no' option was appropriate.^[11]
• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation^[12] did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 4, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

4.9 Although there was no space for respondents to comment at Question 4, some respondents explained their views on trail hunting at Question 5, as summarised below. (It should, however, be noted that it was not always clear if respondents were referring to Question 4 or Question 5 in their comments.)

Agreement that trail hunting should be banned

4.10 Respondents who explained why they agreed that trail hunting should be banned often indicated (either at Question 5 or in response to another consultation question) that they were opposed to hunting in general. These respondents (mainly individuals) offered the following main views:

• Some 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 for hunting were to be tightened. Respondents in this group believed that those involved could not be trusted to carry out trail hunting within the law, with some citing recent court cases, media evidence and their own observations as justification for their view. OneKind's suggested response to this question argued that trail hunting was used as cover for hunting in England. Respondents in this group therefore agreed that pre-emptive action should be taken to ban trail hunting.
• Others argued that, even if trail hunting is not used deliberately as a cover for hunting, wild (and domestic) animals are at risk of harm when trained hunting dogs are involved in such activities and trail hunting should therefore be banned.

4.11 In addition, some respondents argued that trail hunting was 'not a sport', was used to train dogs for foxhunting, and was an archaic and unnecessary practice.

4.12 In a few cases, respondents who favoured a ban on trail hunting said that, if the practice were allowed to continue, it should be closely monitored, and action taken against those found to be breaking the law.

Disagreement that trail hunting should be banned

4.13 Respondents who explained why they disagreed that trial hunting should be banned gave a range of reasons for their views. Respondents, including sporting bodies, often argued that trail hunting was a lawful and 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 as unwarranted. The Lobby Network campaign response stated this view, while also noting that trail hunting was not common in Scotland. Respondents also made the following additional points, arguing that trail hunting was:

• Not linked with fox hunting, or wider pest control, and that there was no evidence that the activity endangers wildlife
• A natural activity for hunting dogs, and provided valuable training and exercise – some also suggested that a ban would lead to the destruction of dogs and horses, and an eventual loss of hunting dog breeds
• An important part of countryside tradition and heritage, and the rural economy
• Beneficial to the health and wellbeing of people who participated.

Circumstances requiring the laying of a scent for dogs (Q5)

4.14 Question 5 asked respondents whether they were aware of any other activities or circumstances (beyond trail hunting) which may necessitate the setting of an animal-based or artificial scent for dogs to follow.

4.15 Table 4.2 shows that, overall, around 15% of respondents answered 'yes' to this question, 75% answered 'no' and the remaining 10% answered 'don't know'. Organisations were far more likely than individuals to answer 'yes' to this question (60% of organisations compared with 15% of individuals). Respondents (both organisations and individuals) who did not request a ban on hunting with dogs were more likely than those who wanted a ban to answer 'yes' to this question.

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.16 In relation to the campaigns:

• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 5.
• The Lobby Network and OneKind campaigns did not provide advice on how to answer Question 5, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

4.17 Respondents who selected 'yes' at Question 5 were asked to explain their answer. However, those who answered the question included some (more than 10 per cent of all those who commented) who selected 'no' at the tick-box part of Question 5.

4.18 Respondents answered this question in two main ways:

• Some respondents, particularly individuals, listed activities or circumstances which they said required the setting of a scent for dogs to follow but did not offer further comment. These mainly fell into two broad categories of (i) 'activities related to the training of working dogs' and (ii) 'sporting activities'. It was also relatively common for respondents to mention activities such as 'pest control', the 'retrieval of wounded deer', 'police work' and 'search and rescue' in their response to Question 5. In carrying out the analysis, it has been assumed that these respondents meant that trail setting was used in the training of dogs for such activities.
• Other respondents put forward activities that required scent laying and also went on to explain their views on such activities. The remainder of this chapter focuses on the three main perspectives identified in these fuller responses:
  • Scent laying is required in a range of activities, and should be allowed to continue
  • Scent laying is required and should be allowed in specific limited circumstances only
  • Scent laying activities are not legitimately required and should not be allowed.

4.19 It should also be noted that some respondents used the question to re-state their general opposition to hunting with dogs. These comments are not discussed here. The views of those who used their comments to expand on their answer at Question 4 have already been discussed at paragraphs 4.10 to 4.13 above.

Scent laying is required in a range of activities, and should be allowed to continue

4.20 Respondents put forward a range of activities that require the setting of an animal or artificial scent. As already noted, these largely fell into two categories relating to (i) 'the training of working dogs' and (ii) 'sporting activities', each of which are discussed further below.

4.21 There was a widespread view that the laying of scent trails was 'vital' to the training of working dogs and played an important part in keeping working dogs fit and healthy and maintaining their skills.

4.22 Respondents stated that working dogs fulfilled a number of essential roles in relation to countryside sports and countryside management (e.g. in relation to pest control, and the tracking and location of wounded animals and birds) and had to be trained for this purpose. This was the view expressed in the British Association for Shooting and Conservation campaign, the Postal campaign and Scottish Countryside Alliance campaign. Respondents drew particular attention to the role of working dogs in deer management, and the location of wounded deer, often in difficult terrain, to allow for humane dispatch. Respondents said that the use of working dogs in wildlife management was important to animal welfare (in avoiding unnecessary suffering) and recognised as such by organisations such as Forestry and Land Scotland and the RSPB.

4.23 Respondents also identified the use of scent laying as essential to the training of dogs for law enforcement, military and search and rescue purposes, and as guide dogs and other assistance dogs.

4.24 Respondents said that any restriction on such training activities would impact on the ability of working dogs to carry out their designated roles efficiently and effectively and would have implications for animal welfare.

4.25 Respondents also identified a range of sporting and recreational activities such as drag hunting, clean boot hunting, fell hound racing, hound trailing, and beagling as requiring the setting of a scent. Respondents emphasised that these activities used human or non-animal based scents and no harm was done to wildlife. Some also pointed out that the dogs taking part in such activities also required training which, again, necessitated the laying of scents.

4.26 Occasionally, respondents mentioned the use of artificial scents in dog trials and obedience training and tests.

4.27 Respondents argued that such sporting and recreational activities were (i) legitimate and established parts of rural life enjoyed by many people, and (ii) supported many jobs in the countryside, directly and indirectly.

4.28 Overall, the views expressed by respondents in this group reflected the views of those who disagreed that trail hunting should be banned (see paragraph 4.13). Additionally, these respondents – including countryside management and sporting organisations – argued that banning or restricting activities that required laying a scent would have significant implications, and were anxious that the training of dogs, in particular, was not overlooked in any new legislation.

Scent laying is required and should be allowed in specific limited circumstances

4.29 Some respondents, including some animal welfare and rights organisations that were largely opposed to hunting with dogs, accepted that there were limited legitimate circumstances in which scent laying may be required. Most often, respondents referred to the training of dogs in relation to law enforcement and military purposes and search and rescue activities, and, in some cases, the tracking of wounded animals and birds. Some said that any scent laying activities should be 'strictly controlled'. However, some in this group also regarded sporting activities such as drag racing using artificial scents as acceptable as long as these were 'genuine' and carried out in a managed way that ensured that no wildlife were harmed. Some respondents in this group suggested that it might be appropriate for the use of animal and non-animal scents to be considered separately in any legislative context. The OneKind campaign advised its supporters to 'answer this question according to their own knowledge'. However, the commentary they provided stated that they recognised some legitimate reasons for laying a scent for dogs to follow, but that 'none of them should result directly in harm to wild mammals, and their use should not interfere with a ban on trail hunting'.

Scent laying activities are not legitimately required and should not be allowed

4.30 Some respondents who indicated that they were generally opposed to hunting said that they were aware of activities that involved laying a trail but did not think such activities should be permitted, or they said they knew of no 'legitimate' or 'valid' activities that involved laying a trail. These respondents perceived scent laying activities as linked to or facilitating hunting. They argued that such activities taught dogs how to hunt and kept dogs in condition for hunting, were used as a cover for hunting, and would be used as a loophole if the law on hunting with dogs were strengthened. Some said that the laying of all scent trails for dogs to follow should be banned.

4.31 Some listed activities that required following a trail rather than setting a trail, with these respondents arguing that such activities should not be allowed.