Hunting with dogs: consultation analysis

5. Defining wild mammals and pests (Q6 to Q10)

5.1 The 2002 Act permits the use of dogs to flush a wild mammal from cover or from below ground for a number of different purposes including the purpose of 'controlling the number of a pest species'. Section 10 of the 2002 Act provides definitions of 'wild mammal' and 'pest species'. For the purposes of the legislation:

• A 'wild mammal' is defined as including 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.
• A 'pest species' is defined as including foxes, hares, mink, stoats and weasels.

5.2 The consultation paper made it clear that, under the 2002 Act, there is no prohibition on the use of a dog or dogs to hunt and kill rabbits or rodents. It was noted, however, that certain species of rodents such as beavers and red squirrels are afforded certain protections within other wildlife legislation.^[13,14]

5.3 The consultation paper asked a series of five questions on the definitions of these terms for the purposes of the proposed new legislation.

Question 6: For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal? [Yes / No/ Don't know]

Question 7: If you answered no to question 6, do you think that: [Rabbits / All species of rodent / Some but not all species of rodent / None of the mammals listed] should be included in this definition?

Please add any further comments on this section here.

Question 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 / No/ Don't know]

Question 9: For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species? [Yes / No/ Don't know]

Question 10: If you answered no to question 9, do you think that: [Hares / stoats / mink / weasels / none of the mammals listed] should be included in the definition of pest species?

Please add any further comments on this section here.

Definition of a 'wild mammal' (Q6 and Q7)

5.4 Respondents were asked whether, for the purposes of this Bill, they agreed with the current definition of 'wild mammal'.

5.5 Table 5.1 shows that, overall, just over a third (36%) of respondents agreed with the current definition while nearly two-thirds (60%) disagreed. The remaining respondents (4%) said 'don't know'. The overall pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals.

5.6 However, the proportion who agreed with the definition varied depending on whether or not they thought hunting should be banned. In particular, none of the organisations calling for a ban on hunting with dogs agreed with the current definition. By contrast, almost two-thirds (65%, 20 out of 31) of those organisations that did not request a ban agreed with the current definition. In relation to individuals, the equivalent figures were 11% (among those who wanted a ban) and 54% (among those who did not request a ban).

Table 5.1: Q6 – For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree with the current definition of wild mammal?

Respondent type	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Organisations
Wants a ban	0 (0%)	15 (100%)	0 (0%)	15 (100%)
Does not request a ban	20 (65%)	10 (32%)	1 (3%)	31 (100%)
Total organisations	20 (43%)	25 (54%)	1 (2%)	46 (100%)
Individuals
Wants a ban	467 (11%)	3,571 (86%)	100 (2%)	4,138 (100%)
Does not request a ban	2,998 (54%)	2,245 (41%)	269 (5%)	5,512 (100%)
Total individuals	3,465 (36%)	5,816 (60%)	369 (4%)	9,650 (100%)
Total, organisations and individuals	3,485 (36%)	5,841 (60%)	370 (4%)	9,696 (100%)

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.7 In terms of the campaigns:

• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 6.
• OneKind advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 6.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 6, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

5.8 Respondents who answered 'no' at Question 6 were asked, at Question 7, for their views about whether certain species of animals should be included in the definition of a 'wild mammal' for the purposes of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill.

5.9 Table 5.2 below provides an analysis of the responses to this question. However, respondents' comments suggested possible confusion about what these questions were asking (particularly among individuals but also, to some extent, among organisations). In many cases, respondents simply left the box(es) unticked but made a general statement in the comments box at Question 7 that 'all wild mammals should be protected', or 'no wild mammal should be hunted with a dog'.

5.10 It should also be noted that, although Question 7 was directed at those who answered 'no' at Question 6, a relatively large number of respondents (i.e. several hundred) who answered 'yes' or 'don't know' at Question 6 also went on to answer the closed questions and provide comments at Question 7 – again, possibly indicating confusion about this question.

5.11 The figures shown in Table 5.1 above and Table 5.2 below should therefore be treated with caution.

5.12 Table 5.2 shows that, among those who answered 'no' at Question 6, around three-quarters of respondents who answered Question 7 thought that rabbits (76%) and all species of rodent (71%) should be included in the definition of 'wild mammals' for the purposes of the Bill. The overall pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals, although organisations were less likely than individuals to say that all species of rodent should be included in the definition, and more likely to say that some but not all species of rodent should be included.

Table 5.2: Q7 – If you answered 'no' to Question 6, which of the following wild mammals do you think should be included in the definition?

Type of wild mammal	Organisations	Individuals	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Rabbits should be included	20 (77%)	4,314 (76%)	4,334 (76%)
All species of rodent should be included	17 (65%)	4,030 (71%)	4,047 (71%)
Some but not all species of rodent should be included	5 (19%)	728 (13%)	733 (13%)
None of the mammals listed should be included	0 (0%)	555 (10%)	555 (10%)
Base*	26	5,698	5,724

* The base figures shown here relate to the numbers of respondents who answered 'no' at Question 6 AND who ticked one or more of the boxes at Question 7. These figures do NOT include respondents who answered 'yes' or 'don't know' at Question 6 OR those who answered 'no' at Question 6 and made comments at Question 7 without ticking one of the boxes at Question 7. However, if a respondent did not tick a box at Question 7 but made a statement in their comments such as 'Rabbits and all rodents' without further comment, the relevant tick-box responses at Question 7 were imputed. These imputed responses are included in the table.

As multiple responses were permitted at this question, the column percentages do not sum to 100%.

5.13 Respondents' views in relation to each of these statements are discussed below.

Views that rabbits should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal'

5.14 Some of the reasons given by respondents for including rabbits in the definition of 'wild mammal' (and wishing to see it protected under any new legislation) were that:

• The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list as an endangered species and there is evidence that the rabbit population in Scotland has fallen substantially in recent years.
• Rabbits have a beneficial role in improving the habitat of other animals, insects and plants by close cropping areas of vegetation.
• Individuals involved in illegal hare coursing (as well as the illegal hunting of foxes, otters and other protected species) often give the excuse that they are hunting rabbits. (See Chapter 6 for further details.)

5.15 The OneKind campaign advised its supporters to indicate that rabbits should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' and suggested making the following points: (i) 'all mammals are known to be sentient and should receive equal protection under the law' and (ii) 'decisions should be based on evidence and ethics, not human convenience'.

5.16 Less often, respondents who wanted rabbits to be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' did so because they thought it should be permissible to use terriers to control rabbits. This group argued that rabbits needed to be controlled because of the damage that they can do to young trees. They also thought the control of rabbits by dogs was more effective and environmentally safer than the use of poison.

Views that all rodents should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal'

5.17 Most respondents who wanted rabbits to be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' also wanted all rodents to be included.^[15] Respondents who selected both of these options often explained their views in terms of the general principles that 'a mammal is a mammal' and 'all wild mammals deserved protection under the law'. This group argued that excluding any wild mammal from a list of wild mammals was inconsistent and likely to be unworkable since a dog would not be able to differentiate between a rabbit, a rat, a red squirrel, a grey squirrel, a beaver, or a legally protected type of mouse. These respondents suggested that including some wild mammals in the legal definition while excluding others simply provided a loophole which would allow people to claim that their dog 'inadvertently' killed one mammal whilst hunting for another.

5.18 Some respondents who ticked 'all rodents' specifically discussed whether rats should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal'. Those who were in favour of legal protection for rats commented that rats are highly intelligent creatures. However, others suggested that rats (and mice) should be excluded from the definition because of their ability to spread disease and damage crops. Within this latter group, it was suggested that if rats (or mice) were to be excluded, then this should be specifically written into the legislation.

Views that some rodents should be included in the definition of 'wild mammal'

5.19 Where respondents ticked 'some rodents', rather than 'all rodents', they often commented that rats, grey squirrels, and (in some cases) beavers and mice should be excluded from the definition of a 'wild mammal' and not given legal protection.

5.20 The OneKind campaign advised its supporters to select 'some rodents' rather than 'all rodents' at Question 7. However, the commentary provided alongside the OneKind campaign response indicated that, in fact, OneKind would prefer all mammals to be included in the definition. The reason given for selecting 'some' rather than 'all' rodents was that being killed by terriers was seen as 'more humane' than other existing forms of control for rats and mice. (A full explanation of the views expressed in the OneKind campaign on this issue are provided in Annex 2.)

5.21 Other respondents who selected 'some rodents' rather than 'all rodents' at Question 7 tended to explain their views with reference to rats specifically. This group argued that only rats should be excluded because of the public health risk they may pose, and they generally echoed the views of the OneKind campaign (above), suggesting that it was more humane and efficient to use terriers to kill rats than to use any other form of control.

Views that none of the mammals listed should be included in the definition

5.22 Respondents who ticked 'None' at Question 7 expressed two main views (and in some cases may have misunderstood the question). The first group thought (i) all animals should be protected, (ii) no wild animal should be killed or hunted by a dog, or (iii) 'humane' methods of control should be used instead. The second group argued that there should be fewer restrictions on the hunting of 'pest' species or 'vermin', and that the use of dogs was often the most effective and environmentally beneficial method of flushing out such animals.

Other views about the definition of 'wild mammal'

5.23 Some organisations called for any new legislation to be founded on an 'intentional, purposeful, and comprehensive' definition of 'wild mammal' which clearly sets out all protected wild mammals – rather than having separate laws providing protections for specific wild mammals (such as beavers and / or red squirrels). Any exceptions should be set out clearly within the same Act and these should be necessary, specific, clear in purpose, and based on the principles of ethical wildlife control. These respondents argued that such an approach would require full consideration to be given to any circumstances in which the killing of a wild mammal by dogs is to be permitted.

5.24 Some respondents questioned whether a mammal that has escaped or been released from captivity should be classed as a 'wild mammal' and thus covered by the legislation. For the most part, those who raised this issue did not think that escaped animals should be considered as 'wild'. There was particular concern about the practice of capturing (or bagging) wild mammals (e.g. foxes, hares or rabbits), and then releasing them for hunting / trail hunting. Some argued that classifying escaped or released animals as 'wild mammals' would then technically permit the hunting of domestic pets or escaped livestock.

5.25 Less often, respondents suggested that there may be situations in which a dangerous animal (e.g. a zoo animal) has escaped from captivity. Those who offered these types of examples suggested that the ability to use dogs in tracking such animals would be helpful.

Inclusion / exclusion of certain species or groups of animals

5.26 Finally, irrespective of whether they ticked one of the options provided at Question 7, respondents also often commented about whether certain other animals, species or groups of animals (i) should or (ii) should not be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' and given legal protection in relation to hunting with dogs. It should be noted that there was a great deal of overlap between the lists of animals / species named by those who wanted, and those who did not want, greater protections for those animals / species.

5.27 On the one hand, some respondents called for protections (or additional protections) to be given to badgers; beavers; birds (in general); deer; foxes; hares, including mountain hares; mice in general, and dormice, field mice and harvest mice specifically; otters; red squirrels; shrews; and voles, including water voles. This group argued that all wild mammals are known to be sentient and should receive equal protection under the law.

5.28 On the other hand, some respondents said that certain animals or species should not be included in the definition and / or should not be afforded special protection. Those named included badgers; beavers; crows; deer in general and muntjacs specifically; grey squirrels; feral pigs; foxes; hares; magpies; mice; mink; moles; pigeons; rabbits; and rats. Some in this group also expressed views that 'rodents' in general and 'any animal in the mustelid family'^[16] should not be included in the definition of 'wild mammal' or given protection under the proposed Bill. The main argument of this group was that some animals are 'vermin' or 'pests', cause 'nuisance', damage crops, injure or kill livestock, and require to be controlled.

5.29 A third relatively common view among respondents was that 'native' mammals should be protected while non-native invasive species (e.g. grey squirrels and mink) should be controlled and the use of dogs should be permitted in their control.

Control of a pest species (Q8)

5.30 Question 8 asked whether – for the purposes of the Bill – respondents agreed that a person should be allowed to use dogs to control the numbers of a pest species.

5.31 Table 5.3 shows that, overall, a third (32%) of respondents agreed with this proposition and two-thirds (67%) disagreed. The proportion who agreed was slightly higher for organisations (41%) than for individuals (32%).

5.32 As expected, respondents' views on this issue were closely linked to whether or not they wanted a ban on hunting with dogs. In particular, among those who wanted a ban, almost no respondents (zero organisations and just 1% of individuals) agreed with the proposition. However, among those who did not request a ban, more than half of respondents (61% of organisations and 55% of individuals) agreed that a person should be allowed to use dogs for the purpose of controlling the number of a pest species.

Table 5.3: Q8 – For the purposes of this Bill, do you agree that a person should be allowed to use dogs for the purpose of controlling the number of a 'pest' species?

Respondent type	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
	Number (%)	Number %)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Organisations
Wants a ban	0 (0%)	15 (100%)	0 (0%)	15 (100%)
Does not request a ban	19 (61%)	11 (35%)	1 (3%)	31 (100%)
Total organisations	19 (41%)	26 (57%)	1 (2%)	46 (100%)
Individuals
Wants a ban	34 (1%)	4,109 (99%)	21 (1%)	4,164 (100%)
Does not request a ban	3,032 (55%)	2,435 (44%)	73 (1%)	5,540 (100%)
Total individuals	3,066 (32%)	6,544 (67%)	94 (1%)	9,704 (100%)
Total, organisations and individuals	3,085 (32%)	6,570 (67%)	95 (1%)	9,750 (100%)

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.33 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 8.
• OneKind advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 8.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 8, and it was not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

5.34 Around a quarter of those who provided a written answer at Question 10 commented on whether the use of dogs to control the number of a 'pest' species should be allowed. These views are discussed below.

Agreement that dogs should be allowed to control the number of a pest species

5.35 Respondents who agreed at Question 8 expressed general support for controlling pest species populations – one respondent said it would be 'disastrous' for wildlife if control of pest species was stopped. Those who commented more specifically on the use of dogs for this purpose argued that this was a 'humane', 'efficient' or 'effective' method of wildlife management, especially in difficult terrain such as dense cover or forestry. Respondents argued that this was 'vital' in some circumstances, and that it was important that this option remained available.

5.36 However, some respondents qualified their response saying, for example, that this method was not effective with all pest species (e.g. stoats and weasels), and that any legislation should specify the species that may NOT be controlled with the use of dogs.

5.37 As shown in Table 5.3, those who agreed that dogs should be allowed to control the number of pest species included a few respondents who indicated they wished to see a ban on hunting. With two exceptions, these respondents did not explicitly comment on their answer to this question, and it was not, therefore, possible to explore the views of this group. With regard to the two respondents who did comment, one said that the use of dogs should only be allowed to control rats, while the comments of the other respondent suggested that they disagreed with the use of dogs to control pest species.

Disagreement that dogs should be allowed to control the number of a pest species

5.38 Respondents who disagreed at Question 8 often described the use of dogs to control pest species as 'cruel', 'barbaric' or 'inhumane'. They also questioned its efficiency and effectiveness and believed that the practice was used – or had the potential to be used – as a form of sport or entertainment, as a 'loophole' in the law, or as a 'cover' for hunting, or could lead to the harming of animals that were not the primary target of the pest control activity.

5.39 Respondents in this group said that harm (e.g. to people, livestock or crops) caused by specific species can and should be dealt with via alternative means, such as:

• Adapting human behaviour, and using deterrent or preventative measures such as good animal husbandry techniques, and the installation of effective fencing and barriers
• Relying on natural predators and introducing (or protecting) appropriate native competitive species – some respondents pointed out that foxes helped to control the numbers of rabbits and other species that might be regarded as pests.

5.40 However, others in this group (including some animal welfare and rights groups) accepted that more direct control of particular species may sometimes be required for valid reasons – particularly with regard to non-native invasive species – but said that:

• This should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and justified by evidence of actual or potential harm.
• Any action taken should adopt the most humane option available – respondents advocated control methods such as trapping and shooting, trapping and relocation, and neutering.
• Lethal control should be a last resort.
• Any action should be pursued under licence and / or by professionals or authorised government agents.

5.41 Some respondents argued that policy and / or action in this area should adhere to the principles of ethical wildlife control, which incorporate many of the individual points made by respondents.^[17]

Definition of 'pest species' (Q9 and Q10)

5.42 Question 9 asked whether – for the purposes of this Bill – respondents agreed with the definition of 'pest species' included in the 2002 Act.

5.43 Table 5.4 shows that, overall, just under a third of respondents (29%) agreed with the definition. Organisations (37%) were slightly more likely than individuals (29%) to agree.

5.44 There was a distinct pattern in the answers to Question 9 reflecting respondents' views on whether or not a ban on hunting was desirable. Whilst almost no respondents who wanted a ban on hunting agreed with the definition (0% of organisations and 3% of individuals), opinions were divided among those who did not call for a ban. Specifically, 55% of organisations in this group agreed with the definition and 45% disagreed. Similarly, among individuals 48% agreed with the definition and 49% disagreed.

Table 5.4: Q9 – For the purposes of this Bill do you agree with this definition of pest species?

Respondent type	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number
Organisations
Wants a ban	0 (0%)	15 (100%)	0 (0%)	15 (100%)
Does not request a ban	17 (55%)	14 (45%)	0 (0%)	31 (100%)
Total organisations	17 (37%)	29 (63%)	0 (0%)	46 (100%)
Individuals
Wants a ban	145 (3%)	3,942 (95%)	68 (2%)	4,155 (100%)
Does not request a ban	2,629 (48%)	2,727 (49%)	172 (3%)	5,528 (100%)
Total individuals	2,774 (29%)	6,669 (69%)	240 (2%)	9,683 (100%)
Total, organisations and individuals	2,791 (29%)	6,698 (69%)	240 (2%)	9,729 (100%)

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.45 In terms of the campaigns:

• The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance and the Postal campaign advised respondents to tick 'yes' at Question 9.
• OneKind advised respondents to tick 'no' at Question 9.
• The Lobby Network campaign did not provide any advice on how to answer Question 9, and it is not known whether the Keep the Ban campaign provided any advice in relation to this question.

5.46 Respondents who answered 'no' at Question 9 were asked (at Question 10) for their views on whether certain species of wild mammals (hares, stoats, mink or weasels) should be defined, for the purposes of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill, as 'pest species' – which would allow a person to use dogs to stalk, search and flush them, in order to control their numbers.

5.47 Table 5.5 below provides an analysis of the responses to Question 10. It shows that a large majority of respondents who disagreed with the current definition of 'pest species' (85%) thought that none of the mammals listed (hares, stoats, mink or weasels) should be included in the definition of 'pest species'. The views of organisations and individuals were similar in response to this question. In relation to the species listed, respondents were most likely to say that mink should be defined as a 'pest species' – 15% overall thought this. Fewer than 1 in 10 respondents suggested that hares, stoats or weasels should be defined as 'pest species' and, in relation to hares and stoats, individuals were more likely than organisations to see these particular species as pests.

5.48 However, as with Question 7, the responses indicate that there was potentially some confusion about this question. For example, respondents' comments suggested that some people may have thought the question was asking which species should be protected or excluded from the definition of 'pest species'.

Table 5.5: Q10 – If you answered 'no' to Question 9, which of the following mammals should be included in the definition of 'pest' species?

Type of wild mammal	Organisations	Individuals	Total
	Number (%)	Number (%)	Number (%)
Hares should be included	0 (0%)	375 (6%)	375 (6%)
Stoats should be included	1 (3%)	468 (7%)	469 (7%)
Mink should be included	4 (14%)	989 (15%)	993 (15%)
Weasels should be included	2 (7%)	455 (7%)	457 (7%)
None of the mammals listed should be included	24 (83%)	5,501 (85%)	5,525 (85%)
Base*	29	6,498	6,527

* The base figures shown here relate to the numbers of respondents who answered 'no' at Question 9 AND who ticked one or more of the boxes at Question 10. These figures do not include respondents who answered 'no' at Question 6 and made comments at Question 10 without ticking one of the boxes.

As multiple responses were permitted at this question, column totals do not sum to 100%.

5.49 Question 10 invited respondents to provide further comments to explain their views. The sections below present the views of those who disagreed with the definition of 'pest species', before presenting the views of those who agreed with the definition. (Note that comments specifically on the use of dogs for controlling such species have already been discussed at paragraph 5.35 to 5.41 above.)

Views of those who disagreed with the definition of pest species

5.50 Those who disagreed with the use of dogs to flush pests (Question 8) and / or wished to see a wider ban on hunting with dogs offered two main views in explaining why they disagreed with the definition of 'pest species':

• Some respondents said that all animals were sentient beings and had a right to live, free from harm, and all should be afforded equal protection under the law. These respondents did not think that any animals should be classed as 'pests'.
• Other respondents disagreed with the use of the word 'pest' and argued that the concept of 'pest species' was 'not scientific, ethical or logical', was 'subjective' or was a 'human construct' that devalued species and legitimised cruelty. This reflected the response suggested by OneKind in their guidance on responding to the consultation. Respondents called for this term to be removed from legislation. Some respondents offering this view, nevertheless, accepted that animal populations sometimes presented problems and may need to be managed (e.g. because of excessive numbers or serious risk to human or animal health). However, they argued that this required an approach based on 'pest characteristics' rather than 'pest species', or should be evidenced on a case-by-case basis. Animal welfare and rights organisations, in particular, highlighted the principles of ethical wildlife control as providing a framework for guiding decision making in such situations.

5.51 Occasionally, respondents in this group said that the definition of pest species should be reserved for non-native invasive species only.

5.52 Those who agreed with the use of dogs to flush pests and / or did not call for a wider ban on hunting with dogs were less likely than other respondents to disagree with the definition of pest species. However, those that did offered two main viewpoints.

• Most commonly, respondents in this group thought the definition of 'pest species' was too narrow or too prescriptive. These respondents said the definition should include all wildlife or other additional specific species, or should be reformulated to take account of pest behaviour, population numbers and the various circumstances in which different species might be regarded as pests.
• Less often, respondents in this group thought the definition should be made more restrictive, by limiting the species included to (i) non-native species, (ii) species that share dwelling space with humans, or (iii) species that are a threat to diversity, wildlife, livestock and crops. In some instances, respondents expressed concern about the inclusion of particular species in the definition – in most cases querying if hares should be included (see paragraph 5.54).

Views on the inclusion of individual species in the definition of pest

5.53 Although most respondents discussed their views on the definition of 'pest species' in a general sense, some commented more specifically on the inclusion (or exclusion) of the four listed species.

5.54 Among those that did so, there was a common view that hares and, albeit to a lesser extent, stoats and weasels should not be included in the definition. Respondents argued that these animals were native to Scotland and played an important part in local ecosystems, were not present in excessive numbers (and in some cases were declining in numbers and / or, in the case of mountain hares, had protected status); and did not do significant damage to wildlife, crops or livestock. Interference with game birds and shooting activities was specifically not regarded as justification for classification as a pest.

5.55 In contrast, those who thought these species should be included in the definition of pest generally argued that they existed in high numbers and caused significant damage in the countryside. They also raised specific points in relation to individual species as follows:

• Hares were said to be carriers of disease and to cause extensive damage to crops.
• Stoats and weasels were identified as a serious threat to hens and eggs on farms, and to wildlife and ground-nesting birds. In particular, the serious impact on rare bird species in Orkney – where stoats had been introduced as a non-native species – was noted.

5.56 Views with regard to mink were somewhat different. Respondents frequently pointed out that mink was a non-native invasive species that caused significant harm in the Scottish countryside and needed to be controlled (or eradicated) to protect local biodiversity and native species. Some nevertheless thought that any population control should be carried out humanely and / or under licence. However, other respondents thought that the non-native status of minks was irrelevant to their classification as a pest, arguing instead that, like the other animals listed, their numbers were low and any harm done was minimal.

5.57 Some respondents also mentioned foxes, arguing both for and against their inclusion in the definition of pest species. Foxes are defined as a pest species in the 2002 Act, but Question 9 did not specifically ask respondents for views on this.

Other animals that should be included in the definition of pest species

5.58 Around a tenth of those who responded to this question suggested other animals that should be included within the definition of 'pest species'. The most frequently mentioned animals were badgers, beavers, rabbits, grey squirrels, rats, mice and deer, with respondents citing the harm or damage caused by the suggested species. Species mentioned less often included otters, pine martens, seagulls, seals, rodents (in general), feral cats, pole cats, ferrets, and moles.

Views of those who agreed with the definition of 'pest species'

5.59 Although Question 10 was directed at those who disagreed with the definition of 'pest species', some respondents who agreed with the definition also provided comments. For the most part, these respondents commented in general terms saying that (i) all species (including those listed) needed to be controlled when populations become too great in a local area in order to achieve an appropriate balance in nature and to protect wildlife, crops and livestock, or that (ii) any mammal causing damage and creating a problem should be controlled. Some suggested that there should be a process for making changes to the species listed in the definition.

5.60 In a few cases, respondents in this group qualified their answer by saying that the classification as a pest species should be determined at a local level, or that no endangered species should be included within the definition.