Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Supplementary Evidence for the RAINE Committee

Following the Stage 1 oral evidence sessions the Alliance would like to highlight the following issues surrounding the proposed legislation. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the existing law, its purpose and the intent behind it, as well as a number of questions which remain unanswered. We are also concerned that beyond the statutory licensing conditions in the Bill there is a total lack of detail and clarity surrounding how the proposed licensing in the Bill will actually be implemented. The Parliament is being asked to approve legislation that will have profound implications for farmers, livestock and biodiversity, without any certainty as to its impact.

The existing legislation and its purpose

• Much has been made by proponents of the Bill that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 has not delivered what was intended. It is argued that because a proportion of foxes continue to be killed by dogs, the legislation has in some way failed or is deficient. Anyone who was involved in the passing of the 2002 Act will know that when the law was passed it was fully understood that despite all the conditions around the exceptions to ensure that as far as possible there was no chase and kill of wild mammals by dogs, there would always be a proportion that continued to be killed by dogs before they could be shot dead. We would draw the Committee's attention to the Stage 1 Report of the Rural Development Committee (RDC) on the Bill which became the 2002 Act and make the following observations:
  • The Report explicitly recognised that the legislation seeks to prohibit the pursuit and kill by dogs of wild mammals. The fact that this is what the final 2002 Act does is accepted by all parties and the Scottish Government.
  • The Report recognised that the continued use of packs when flushing to guns was essential for pest control. This was supported by organisations now claiming the Act has failed and that a two-dog limit is required.
  • The Report recognised that in flushing to guns a proportion of foxes flushed would continue to be killed by dogs. The fact that a percentage of foxes, even the 20% figure widely referenced, are still despatched by dogs before they can be shot dead, was both recognised by the Committee in its Report and understood by the Parliament which even amended the Bill during its passage to take account of this. The RDC Committee noted: "84. The Committee took oral evidence from representatives of the SHPA on 28 November. In questioning how effective their operation was, Paul Crofts, a professional huntsman with 20 years' experience, estimated that 90 per cent of the foxes found would be killed. Of these about 80 per cent would be shot dead, 10 per cent wounded and then caught by the hounds, and 10 per cent caught by the hounds under their own steam". The amendment made to the Bill is section 2(2) which provides that: Where a person is using a dog in connection with the despatch of a wild mammal, being of a pest species, with the intention of flushing the wild mammal from cover or from below ground in order that it may be shot or killed by lawful means, that person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) by virtue of the dog killing that wild mammal in the course of that activity.
• Commenting on Section 2(2) and 5(3) Sherriff Drummond (PROCURATOR FISCAL, JEDBURGH v. TREVOR ADAMS) noted that they "provide for situations where the target species might be killed by a dog in the course of the excepted activity and some brief reference was made to Section 2(2) in the submissions before me. It appears to me that those two provisions are designed to address further exceptional, and in one sense, accidental consequences, of actions arising during an excepted activity. They plainly, in my opinion, do not provide broad exceptions to the general scheme which could be used as a justification for the intentional killing of a target species with a dog or dogs".
• Lord Bonomy also states: "6.17 There are occasions in the course of the work of both mounted and foot packs when a fox is caught and killed by the hounds before it can be flushed from cover into the open and when a fox is wounded by the guns when it emerges from cover and is killed by the hounds. In addition, a fox which goes to ground may on occasion be killed by the terrier which is placed into the hole to flush it out or keep it at bay pending its being dug out. The Act recognises the likelihood of these events occurring by providing in section 2(2) that where the dog is being used ―with the intention of flushing the wild mammal from cover or from below ground to be shot, there is no offence where the dog kills the fox ― in the course of that activity".
• The RDC Committee understood the compromise needed between the desire of legislators to minimise the occasions on which a wild mammal might be pursued and killed by dogs, and the need for effective control of foxes and other mammals.
• To state that foxes that are killed by dogs under the existing law is 'unlawful', as the Minister asserted before the Committee, is to misunderstand the law which was based on the conclusions of the RDC.
• The failure to understand the evidence before the RDC and therefore the scope of the 2002 Act is evident in comments from those on the Bill team. For example, Hugh Dignon states "…The two-dog limit was introduced primarily to address the welfare issues that Lord Bonomy identified when he said that dogs still killed a significant number of foxes despite the fact that the legislation had attempted to put an end to that…". Leia Fitzgerald stated to the Committee: "…where dogs are used to search for or flush out wild mammals, it is done in a humane way and that hunting—the elements that involve chasing and killing—are not permitted. Those are not permitted under the existing legislation, and they are certainly not permitted under the bill". It is true that the existing and proposed legislation seek to ban the same thing, but the fact that a minority of foxes continue to be despatched by dogs was entirely foreseen and accounted for in the terms of the 2002 Act.
• It is suggested by Mr Dignon that the fact that a minority of foxes continue to be killed by dogs before they can be shot was identified by Lord Bonomy as a welfare issue, which misrepresents the findings of the review. In fact, Lord Bonomy confirmed the finding of the Burns Inquiry with regard to the kill by dogs that there is no evidence that the kill by dogs is cruel or worse than any alternative and that what matters is how quickly death occurs and that in the "vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds".
• Much has been said about loopholes but as was pointed out by Mr Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland an exception is not a loophole – "whether the bill closes loopholes, …depends on what you mean by a loophole, which might be one person's perspective of a perfectly respectable defence". Activities which are conducted that do not meet the conditions of an exception are simply unlawful. To view an exception as a loophole, despite the tight conditions that apply to the exception, is simply wrong.
• Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn of the SSPCA said "It is fair to say that, if everybody had acted in accordance with the intent of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, we would not be sitting here today". The overwhelming majority of those using dogs in Scotland have complied with the 2002 Act and are acting in full accordance with its intent, if that intent is properly understood. Lord Bonomy noted how the mounted packs had changed the way they operated to comply. It should be noted that the SSPCA were fully involved in the passage of the 2002 Act and supportive of its terms, as was the League Against Cruel Sports. Not only did they support the continuation of using packs to flush to guns but also told the RDC Committee "that it is difficult to quantify an animal's response to a given situation and to assess whether that response constitutes a compromise of its welfare". They also explained that "although there is much research into cruelty and abuse of animals, there is little to enlighten us on the responses of hunted animals. This at least is the conclusion of the academics contracted to the Burns Inquiry in England and Wales". No evidence has been produced that changes this conclusion.
• Whatever legislation is in place successful prosecutions rely above all on enforcement and evidence.

Welfare - methods of manging wild mammals

• There seems to be an assumption among witnesses that shooting, whether during daytime or at night (lamping), is automatically preferrable in welfare terms. No evidence has been supplied to justify this position.
• There has been no proper recognition that shooting (day or night) is only practical at certain times of the year and in certain terrains.
• There seems to be a binary approach to the management of foxes with little or no understanding that fox populations are managed using a combination of methods, including flushing using a pack of dogs, and that it is an ongoing activity throughout the year.
• In much of the evidence presented to the Committee witnesses started from the unproven assumption that death by a dog is worse than alternative methods of control. This is an issue addressed by the Burns Inquiry, Lord Bonomy and by the Rural Development Committee's Report into the original legislation. It cannot be assumed that foxes that continue to be killed by dogs under the existing law suffer more than those killed by other available methods. Speaking in the House of Lords on 12 October 2004 Lord Burns said: "The committee did not have sufficient evidence to reach a clear conclusion on whether hunting involves significantly worse welfare effects than other legal methods of control" (Hansard). Unless it can be shown that being killed by dogs is measurably worse than the alternatives then the fact that a minority of foxes continue to be killed by dogs before they can be shot is not a welfare concern. All independent inquiries carried out into hunting with dogs have concluded that the alternatives to using dogs are not necessarily better than the use of dogs and are not always practical or workable.
• Unless licenses are issued to allow for more than two dogs to be used, there will inevitably be an increased use of methods which can be less welfare positive than being flushed by a pack and shot or despatched by dogs where a fox may have been wounded.
• The Minister told the Committee: "the bill is not about making an assessment of the different ways in which Scotland manages foxes. It is about saying that the attempt that was made 20 years ago to not allow chasing and killing as a form of control has not worked, and that we really ought to revise the legislation so that that one specific part works as it was intended to. There will be debates about all the different types of control, but that is not what the bill looks at". Not only does she seem not to appreciate the reasoning and evidence that is reflected in the drafting of the 2002 Act, recognising as it does that a percentage of foxes would continue to be killed by dogs, and that the Act does what it was intended to do, but also that without some assessment of the different methods on a comparative basis the Minister is unable to be sure that the Bill will represent any improvement in welfare terms, and in fact the opposite could be the case.
• Those opposed to hunting have always argued that the chase is negative in terms of welfare. Indeed, the conditions of the exceptions in the Act, as in the Bill, seek to preclude or limit as far as possible, pursuit. The peer reviewed evidence into the use of two dogs compared to a pack when flushing from cover (Naylor & Knott) makes clear that the time from a fox being found to it being flushed out of cover so it can be shot increases when only two dogs are used, increasing any period of pursuit. Several witnesses noted that with only two dogs in large areas of cover using only two dogs could see the dogs and fox go round all day. If one accepts the logic of those opposed to hunting in terms of pursuit, the two dog limit is a negative in animal welfare terms.
• The exception in the existing Act for retrieval and location of injured animals is not replicated in the Bill. Only animals injured in the course of exempt activity must be followed up. Why is this general exception, designed to enable dogs to locate injured animals (deer hit by a car, etc.) and reduce suffering, been omitted in a Bill that purports to be about welfare?
• Even on the welfare arguments advanced by those favouring this Bill it is hard to see how the further restrictions in the Bill are rationally connected to any improvement in animal welfare. It is, however, easy to see the harm it will do to effective wild mammal control, to livestock, wildlife and hard-pressed farmers, unless we have a fair and workable licensing system.

Two dog limit

• Lord Bonomy in his Report was unequivocal in his view "not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands…". In his evidence before the Committee, he was clear that "The licensing scheme is…what makes it viable to have the two-dog limit. There must be circumstances in which people can justify that it is appropriate to have more dogs…". He also noted that "flushing out will be much more difficult with two dogs than it is with a properly organised pack. In upland areas and scrub, foot packs will find it very difficult to do their job with only two dogs".
• It was notable that Hugh Dignon of the Scottish Government's Bill team said that: "We are aware that the limit has not been hugely popular at all, particularly with upland sheep farmers in other parts of Great Britain. Farmers in the north of England and in Wales have complained about it". Robbie Marsland of the League Against Cruel Sports said: "It is common sense that two dogs will not be as good or as quick at flushing foxes as 36 or more hounds, but, if you have those 36, there is a 20 to 40 per cent chance of the hounds killing the fox…. Since the reduction of the number of dogs to two in England and Wales, I am not aware of anybody flushing to guns with two dogs in England and Wales". In stark contrast the Minister stated: "England and Wales have a two-dog limit, which they have found works successfully". It is clear that the two-dog limit is not used to manage foxes in England and Wales because it does not work. It is hard to see how this arbitrary limit can be regarded as a success.
• Lord Bonomy told a previous Committee that he did not think that the number of dogs was a problem or that "reducing it to two would change the situation, other than to bring the practice of flushing to guns to an end…". Therefore, if dogs are to continue to be used effectively to flush to guns more than two dogs will be needed and therefore licensed under the Bill.

Fox control

• Contrary to their evidence to Bonomy that fox control is not necessary, supporters of the Bill now seem to accept control is needed.
• Kirsty Jenkins of OneKind noted that "We accept that wild animals need to be managed, but we think that there are different ways to do that". Yet at no point were these 'different ways' explained. She simply stated that "if we do not have enough effective and humane methods to control and manage wild animals, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. It does not mean that we should just carry on doing what we are doing". What is not established is why what is currently allowed is not effective and humane, when the evidence would suggest that it is, both for wildlife and livestock welfare. Much was made of seven principles for ethical wildlife control and supplementary evidence was submitted by OneKind to explain the way in which these principles might apply. However, it is unclear why current practice does not meet these principles and NatureScot confirmed that they apply these in their approach to wildlife licensing already.
• While there was appreciation by Onekind that the management of foxes must take place at landscape scale, it was less clear whether witnesses understood the implications in practice, especially as to how a licensing scheme would work. Fox control must take place across different holdings including where someone may not farm livestock or owns a large area of forestry but failure to control foxes on that land has direct consequences for neighbouring livestock farmers. Control must take place year round and involves a combination of methods depending on terrain, time of year etc. Fox control is primarily preventative, as well as responsive to specific problems.

Licensing

• It is understandable, given his recognition of the need for fox control and the role played by packs of dogs, that Lord Bonomy considered the Bill 'viable' only because of the possibility of using more than two dogs under licence. As he said in his evidence: "The licensing scheme is, I think, what makes it viable to have the two-dog limit. There must be circumstances in which people can justify that it is appropriate to have more dogs…"
• It is essential that the licensing is workable. Much of the detail of the licensing remains unknown. The Committee are asked to take on trust that a fair and workable scheme will be implemented. The statutory requirements, which if they remain, cannot be altered in any future scheme and are not workable as they stand.
• Were the use of packs of dogs to flush foxes to guns not an effective and efficient method it would not be so widely practised, in conjunction with other methods, and it must be assumed that farmers will want to continue to make use of this method.
• The Minister has said that "applying for a licence should be the exception. NatureScot, as the licensing authority, would need to scrutinise applications. Secondly, where a licence is merited for use, we are determined that it will be workable, reasonable and available". She went on to say "the bill is principally about pursuing the highest possible animal welfare standards in Scotland, but on the understanding that we are a rural nation and access to legitimate control must be possible". While we welcome her commitment to making licences "workable, reasonable and available", we are concerned by the apparent prejudging of the situation and that "applying for a licence should be the exception". It is important that the number of licences issued should be based on need, regardless of whether licences are few or many.
• Robbie Kernahan of NatureScot stated that: "My understanding is that the policy intention behind the bill is to try to reduce reliance on the use of more than two dogs as far as we are able to do so". It is hard to imagine that if there was an easier and more cost-effective method available that farmers would continue to use packs of dogs. It is not our understanding that the Bill is designed to take away from farmers a method that they currently rely on, forcing them to rely entirely on other methods. Packs are used because they work as an effective method in conjunction with other methods. If alternatives alone were sufficient then they would not use packs of dogs as part of fox control. We have already noted that an increased reliance on other methods may be negative in welfare terms both for wildlife and livestock, as well as representing an increase burden on farmers both financially and in terms of their time and wellbeing.
• How would allowing more than two dogs for a maximum of 14 days in a 14-day period actually work in allowing year-round and preventative fox control? Most land managers that use packs to flush may well do so two or three times a year at regular intervals, in conjunction with the ongoing use of other methods. A maximum of 14 days a year is not unreasonable for a single holding or area, depending of course on size. However, to limit each licence to a 14 day period when the allotted days can be used is unworkable unless applicants are granted multiple licences, which is both bureaucratic and unnecessary. Farmers need the flexibility to use their days (up to 14) as is most appropriate in any given year.
• The proposed licensing makes an arbitrary distinction between those seeking to protect livestock and those seeking to achieve an environmental benefit as part of a 'scheme'. Nobody has yet been able to explain why a fox or other mammal hunted (as defined in the Act) has a different welfare experience based on the reason as to why it is hunted.
• No answer has been given as to how licensing would work between adjacent landholdings recognising that the control of foxes must take place at landscape scale. In evidence, Kirsty Jenkins of OneKind seems to accept the problem with the evidence that will be needed to obtain a licence and the way in which licences will need to operate across different farms – "The other thing, as I said at the beginning, is that all the responsibility does not necessarily have to fall on individuals. In one of your previous panels, landscape-scale wildlife management was mentioned. Equally, some of the evidence base could be broader. Neighbouring farms could have the same foxes affecting them, for example. I do not know whether the evidence should be provided at the level of an individual farmer—that would have to be discussed further".
• The Bill restricts NatureScot's ability to grant licences unless they are satisfied that there is no other effective solution. It remains unclear how NatureScot is to be satisfied and what evidence land managers will need to supply to satisfy them? How many alternatives, or combination of alternative control measures must be tried before NatureScot can be satisfied as to the necessity of control using more than two dogs? How intensively must land managers deploy alternatives to satisfy NatureScot? How is NatureScot intending to apply this condition? Robbie Kernahan of NatureScot has made clear that "I referred to snaring and shooting as perfectly legitimate means of effective fox control. We would ask applicants to demonstrate why they are not effective in their circumstances". Who is best placed to make the judgement as to what is effective the farmer or NatureScot? How do you demonstrate that the alternatives are not effective, or at least not effective on their own without being able to periodically flush with a pack to guns?
• There appears to be a disconnect between what the Bill sets out and what the Scottish Government says it should do. For example the Minister stated: "I do not want people to get to the stage of being able to demonstrate that damage has been done. We do not want dead lambs to be used as evidence that a licence was needed. Drawing on the expertise of farmers and land managers, the Scottish Government and NatureScot understand that it is not necessary to wait until lambs have come into contact with a fox in order to justify control of the fox". The recognition that fox control is preventative is welcome but how is an applicant for a licence to satisfy NatureScot of the need for a licence before damage has been experienced. Robbie Kernahan of NatureScot was clear that they would "need to be clear with applicants about where the burden of proof lies with them, in order that they can demonstrate clear and evidential need". A further consideration, which remains unanswered, is that evidence of current losses is against a background of ongoing and historic fox control. How will the necessary evidence be obtained? This is surely a classic situation for which a General Licence approach would be appropriate, subject to conditions.
• Robbie Kernahan said that NatureScot "can issue a general licence with specific conditions attached to it, which would allow for a more flexible approach to something that is quite well established and commonplace, while clearly setting out conditions for how we would expect people to operate. As something between those two approaches, we could have a class licence, which witnesses in the previous couple of evidence sessions mentioned. Under that scheme, we would license a trusted operator to act in a certain way and report back to us". As drafted it would seem that the Bill does not allow for the possibility of a General Licence approach, but in our view it should do so.
• NatureScot must only permit the minimum number of dogs to achieve the purpose of the licence. During the evidence sessions nobody was able to provide any explanation as to the basis on which NatureScot was to make such a determination. As the Minister said: "As for the minimum number of dogs, that is dependent on the activity, the land and the issue at hand. At this stage, I am not going to theorise about what would be a suitable number, because there are so many variables that I could not possibly be accurate".
• It was notable that all witnesses could not see how it could be a condition of the licence to specify the number of guns but seemingly saw no problem with NatureScot having to specify in the licence the number of dogs that could be used and that this should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the purpose for which the licence is granted.
• It is ironic that using more dogs means more foxes are flushed and more quickly, limiting any period of pursuit and making it more effective in controlling fox numbers, and that a sufficient number of guns present is what ensures effective despatch. It was not entirely clear why, if the League Against Cruel Sports had evidence of 'token guns' or no guns when dogs were being used to flush, as they told the Committee, why no prosecutions had been brought. In 2004 Sherriff Drummond in the first case against a mounted hunt was quite clear: "The use of what might be termed "token guns" or what was described by the Crown as paying lip service to the legislation is not available by virtue of sections 2(2) or 5(3) as a justification for the continuation of what was referred to in the evidence before me as traditional foxhunting".
• The Bill allows for licences to be granted to a "particular person" or to a "category of persons". Category is undefined but it must be possible to licence a group of persons so that control can be carried out across different holdings and at landscape scale.
• There is no appeals process beyond NatureScot's own internal processes. We have been told judicial review would be an option, which is both lengthy and prohibitively expensive for most people. Given the legal duties on NatureScot there is real and substantive risk that they will face legal challenges either from those to whom a licence has been refused, or from someone opposed to a licence being granted.

Rabbits

• The Bill would mean that all rabbits would now have to be shot. The Bill bans despatch using dogs or despatch by hand. Again it is assumed that using dogs as the means of despatch is a less welfare friendly than both shooting and netting and despatching by hand. Dogs involve no risk of wounding or the considerable periods in which rabbits may be held in nets before they escape or are despatched. There is no evidence provided to support the assumption that flushing rabbits to be swiftly despatched by dogs is a welfare concern.
• A comparison has been made between hares and rabbits but without any recognition of the physiological difference between them, as well as the fact that rabbits are flushed from below ground while hares live in the open.
• The Committee was given contradictory responses on what the Bill does, or does not, allow. In response to Jim Fairlie MSP asking whether the intention was to ban "guys who ferret rabbits and then allow lurchers to kill them" Leia Fitzgerald replied "No" before contradicting herself and saying "dogs are not permitted to chase and kill the rabbits".
• The argument that rabbits must be included to prevent hare poachers/illegal coursers claiming to be after rabbits could be addressed by requiring landowner's permission to control rabbits. It would then not be open to someone accused of illegal coursing to claim they were after rabbits.

Rough shooting

• It has been made clear that anyone rough shooting for ground game will not be able to use more than two dogs. It must also be remembered that hunting includes searching, no mammal need be present or killed. The Bill's impact on aspects of shooting remains unclear. In response to a question on rough shooting and what would happen if a rabbit or hare was flushed Detective Sergeant Telford said "That is a difficult one. That is where intent would come into it, and it might be difficult to differentiate. That opportunity is always going to be there, if dogs are flushing game legally but encounter a mammal and chase it. That risk is there. I do not know whether that is necessarily addressed by the bill". Pressed on the possibility of reports of illegal hunting to the police in connection with shoots involving dogs he replied "We will not know until the new regime is introduced". Despite the exception for game shooting the Bill remains problematic.

Number of guns

• It has been raised throughout the evidence sessions that it is the number of guns which matters, not the number of dogs. The existing legislation seeks to prevent, as far as possible, pursuit and kill by dogs. We have been told that it would not be possible for NatureScot to specify a minimum number of guns but somehow they can determine the maximum number of dogs.
• It is worth recalling again Sherriff Drummond's judgement that makes clear that 'token guns' do not make an activity lawful. He stated in his judgement in Fraser v Adams – "It appears to me, therefore, that while Parliament, in terms of the Act, has recognised that there is certain limited and defined scope for the legitimate use of dogs in activities which are specified in each of the sections which I have mentioned, namely and broadly speaking, stalking, searching and flushing, that activity will require to be accompanied by realistic and, one would expect, effective arrangements for the shooting of pest species. The use of what might be termed token guns', or what was described by the Crown as paying lip service to the legislation, is not available by virtue of sections 2(2) and 5(3) as a justification for the continuation of what was referred to in the evidence before me as traditional fox hunting".
• In evidence the League Against Cruel Sports stated they had recorded evidence of hunts flushing with no guns present. If true, then the activity would be clearly unlawful and could be prosecuted. The same for the deployment of 'token guns'. It must be asked why if all their evidence was so clear were no prosecutions brought?
• Lord Bonomy also agreed that number of guns is more important than number of dogs – "I think that the number of guns is vital. As I have said, the different way that the foot packs went about it did not seem to me to involve a chase…"

Prosecutions

• Police Scotland were clear, until suddenly changing their position in their evidence to Lord Bonomy, that they did not believe the existing legislation was being widely breached. Lord Bonomy noted that prosecutions under the POWM Act were proportionate to those in England and Wales.
• Contrary to suggestions that the existing legislation is difficult to prosecute under, the most recent Wildlife Crime Scotland Annual Report reveals that between 2015-16 and 2019-20 there were more prosecutions under Section 1(1) of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 than for any other wildlife offence.
• It was also suggested by the League Against Cruel Sports that police resources have been an issue in enforcement. We would remind the Committee of Lord Bonomy's findings:

"4.5 The allocation of police resources has not been the subject of adverse comment to the Review". (At paragraph 4.6 he makes the same observation regarding the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service.)
"4.7…The operation of the Act has not been raised as a topic in this forum (the Plenary Group of the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime Scotland (PAWS))..." (The Plenary Group consists of all PAWS members including Police Scotland, COPFS and animal welfare charities, land management organisations and Government agencies.)
"4.15…there have been proportionately no more prosecutions in England and Wales than in Scotland…"
"4.17…Police Scotland lead on wildlife crime, Chief Superintendent Sean Scott, did say, in answer to a question posed by a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee at their meeting on 13 January 2016, that there is no evidence to suggest that the mounted hunts are acting outwith the legislation that is in place…"
"6.1 … none of the submissions contain evidence of hounds actually killing a fox…"
"6.15 …Clearly suspicion of illegal activity is not an adequate basis for deciding that the Act is not working as it was intended to or condemning the hunts or outlawing a practice that has been changed with a view to complying with the law. It is, however, a basis for considering whether reasonable measures can be put in place to determine whether the suspicion is well-founded and, if so, steps can be taken to ensure that it is eliminated."

Dogs below ground

• Lord Bonomy's Report found that "the material presented to the Review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the despatch of a fox gone to ground…" The 2002 Act allows more than one dog to be entered below ground at the same time. The National Working Terrier Federation Code states that only one dog should be entered "wherever possible or practical". The Bill introduces a ban on more than one dog. It would be better, for the reasons presented to the Committee, to caveat that ban along the lines of the Federation's code so that more than one dog can be used in exceptional cases where needed.

Conclusion

• The Bill is advanced on a seemingly deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the available evidence and the purpose and reasoning behind the 2002 Act which led to it being framed as it was. The view being peddled that what has happened in the last 20 years is at odds with the 2002 law and the intent behind it is simply wrong, as the RDC report and the legislation itself makes clear. As Lord Bonomy noted the 2002 Act "did not ban hunting with dogs but placed major restrictions on doing so".
• If the Bill is about improving animal welfare while allowing effective and humane fox control, then it represents no improvement on the current legislation. Indeed, depending on how the licensing scheme actually works, it could be both animal welfare negative and compromise fox control in Scotland, harming communities, livestock and wildlife.
• At no point have the organisations which supported the current law, and now given evidence to the Committee, explained what evidence has become available since the RDC report of 2001 that would justify their changed position. They have not provided evidence of widespread law breaking nor that the Bill is not working as it was intended, to minimise occasions where foxes etc are chased and killed by dogs, while allowing effective fox control to continue using packs of dogs to flush to guns.
• The Bill is more about politics than welfare, but accepting that the use of more than two dogs in flushing is to be licensed, that licensing system must be based on need not preconceptions. It must be fair and workable; and must not open the door to endless challenges in the courts by those who oppose the use of dogs despite the evidence to the contrary both as to their efficacy and the need to use them.
• NatureScot should be able to licence the use of packs of dogs to guns via individual, class or general licences, subject to sensible conditions. This would ensure that packs were used for a justifiable reason, according to good practice, were monitored, and the police would be more easily able to determine lawful from unlawful activity.