Fox hunting consultation guide

This is our chance to close the loopholes and get a real foxhunting ban

The Scottish Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the Protection of Wild Mammals Scotland) Act 2002 (the foxhunting ‘ban’). The consultation website is here.

This is our chance to close the loopholes in Scotland’s legislation that allow fox hunting to continue. That is why we have put together this short and simple guide to aid you in responding to the consultation. It should only take 10-15 minutes of your time.

We, like you, want a full foxhunting ban. However, working towards legislative change is not straightforward, as you will start to see if you choose to look at the background information on the links below. Some of our answers to the consultation may not reflect what we would ideally like to see but will offer a significant improvement in animal welfare compared to the current situation.

The multiple-choice questions in the consultation restrict the answers we are able to give. In this blog we will explain how we plan to answer and our reasoning for answering as we do. We will also suggest some important points you may want to make in the sections that allow comments. Please answer in your own words as much as possible.

The consultation closes on 15 December so please make sure that you have responded by then.

Background

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 is the law that was supposed to ensure a foxhunting ban. Unfortunately, various disagreements and amendments during its passage through Parliament resulted in a confusing and ineffective piece of legislation. It has several exceptions that have turned out to provide loopholes, allowing foxhunting to continue.

Recognising the problems with the Act, in 2016 the Scottish Government commissioned Lord Bonomy to review the Act. You can read our blog, written at the time, explaining the Bonomy review here, and our response to the follow-up consultation, conducted between October 2017 and January 2018, here.

The Scottish Government now plans to introduce most of Lord Bonomy’s recommended changes, as well as some additional changes. As they have already consulted on Lord Bonomy’s recommendations, the current consultation is only related to those additional changes.

The consultation

For each question we show how we plan to answer. For the questions that allow comments we have given some points you may want to consider and include in your consultation response. The parts titled ‘Explainer’ aim to help you understand the reasoning behind each answer.

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

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.’

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^[4].

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.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the consulation. This is our chance to close the loopholes that allow fox hunting to continue. All of our work is funded by generous donations from supporters and the public. If you would like to contribute to our work to protect animals, you can make a donation here.