News Blog A guide to Parliamentary survey on Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill 28-04-22 The Scottish Parliament has an open call for views about the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill, the new Bill aiming to close the loopholes that allow fox hunting to continue. This current call for views has been launched by the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment committee in parliament, as part of their scrutiny of the Bill. It is important that they hear the public’s views. MSPs, especially those on this committee, are the people who can make changes to the Bill, so this is another chance to strengthen the parts that need it. We have put together this short and simple guide to aid you in responding to the call for views. It should only take 10-15 minutes of your time. Respond to the survey here. We, like you, want a full foxhunting ban. However, working towards legislative change is not straightforward. Some of our suggested answers 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 fact that questions are multiple-choice, and the way they are worded, restricts the answers it is possible to give. The call for views closes on 13 May so please make sure that you have responded by then. Thank you so much for helping the animals. Survey response guide Respond to the survey here. 1. Will the bill make the law easier to understand and enforce the offence to hunt a wild mammal using a dog in Scotland? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: We agree with the intention of this Bill and it makes some significant improvements on the current law. However, it contains exceptions that could create new loopholes, and it is unclear if it will be easier to understand and enforce. 2. Section 3 would allow hunting with dogs to manage wild mammals above ground for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops, preventing the spread of disease and protecting human health. Do you agree with section 3? Our suggested answer: No Reason: If wild mammals need to be ‘managed’ for the reasons specified, it must be evidence based and prioritise animal welfare. The wording of this exception is not strong enough to ensure that. 3. Do you agree with the limit on two dogs to manage wild mammals above ground? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: We do not agree with this exception but if it is going to remain then using only two dogs is preferable. (You can explain this answer in the comments at the end.) 4. Section 4 would allow people to apply for a licence to use more than two dogs to manage wild mammals above ground. Do you agree with section 4? Our suggested answer: No Reason: It is harder to keep larger numbers of dogs under control, there will be more disturbance to wild animals (other than the one being targeted), and there is more likelihood of a chase or of the wild mammal being killed by the dogs. We are also concerned that this could create a loophole that will allow traditional foxhunting. 5. Section 5 would allow hunting with dogs to manage foxes or mink below ground for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops, preventing the spread of disease and protecting human health or for ending the suffering of an injured or dependent fox or mink. Do you agree with section 5? Our suggested answer: No Reason: We do not agree with sending any number of dogs underground, due to the grave welfare concerns for both the dog and the wild mammals involved. Sending a dog into an enclosed space with a wild mammal creates a strong likelihood of fighting. 6. Do you agree with the limit on one dog being allowed to flush a fox from cover to one below ground? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: We do not agree with this exception but if it is going to remain then using only one dog is preferable. (You can explain this answer in the comments at the end.) 7. Section 6 would allow hunting with dogs to search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal with the intention of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking. Do you agree with section 6? Our suggested answer: No Reason: The intention of the Bill to end the hunting of wild mammals with dogs as ‘sport’ and this exception is in direct contradiction to that. 8. Do you agree with the limit on two dogs to search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal with the intention of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: We do not agree with this exception but if it is going to remain then using only two dogs is preferable. (You can explain this answer in the comments at the end.) 9. Section 7 would allow hunting with dogs for environmental benefit for the purpose of preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species, the diversity of animal or plant life, or eradicating an invasive non-native species. Do you agree with section 7? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: We are not opposed to an exception for genuine environmental benefits that have minimal impact on the wild animals involved. These could include using dogs to locate animals of an endangered species to count or monitor but not harm them, for example. However, we remain concerned that this exception may be used in other ways. 10. Do you agree with the limit on two dogs for the purpose of preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species, the diversity of animal or plant life, or eradicating an invasive non-native species? Our suggested answer: Yes Reason: For genuine, well-evidenced, interventions falling under this exception a two-dog limit is reasonable. 11. Section 8 would allow people to apply for a licence to use more than two dogs to manage wild mammals for environmental benefit. Do you agree with section 8? Our suggested answer: No Reason: We are concerned that this could create a loophole that allows traditional hunting. 12. Do you agree with the section 11 proposed ban on trail hunting? Our suggested answer: Yes Reason: Trail hunting has emerged in other parts of the UK as a cover story for traditional fox hunting. It is therefore wise to pre-emptively ban it in Scotland. 13. Section 12 would allow trail hunting for the purpose of training a dog to follow an animal-based scent. Do you agree with section 12? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: This section gives an exception allowing dogs to be trained on an animal-based scent. There are legitimate situations that might require this, such as training dogs to locate (not hunt) endangered species for conservation efforts. 14. Do you agree with the definition of ‘wild mammal’ in section 1(3) of the bill? Our suggested answer: Yes Reason: This is a reasonable definition and an improvement on the previous one. 15. Do you agree that rats and mice should be included in the definition of a wild animal? Our suggested answer: Neutral Reason: 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. 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. 16. Do you agree that the court may disqualify a person from owning, keeping, or managing a dog for a given length of time, or deprive them of the dog or horse used in the offence, if convicted of an offence under this Bill? Our suggested answer: Yes Reason: This is a suitable provision, particularly as there are frequently welfare concerns for the dogs involved as well as the wild mammals. 17. Do you support the Bill? Our suggested answer: Yes Reason: We support the intention behind the Bill, although it needs close scrutiny to ensure the weaknesses are amended. 18. Please provide any comments in the box below. When responding, it would be helpful if you could indicate which section of the bill your comments relate to. Suggested points you might make (in your own words if possible): This Bill is much needed and long overdue and offers a chance to really ban fox hunting in Scotland, and I support the intention behind it. It is important that new loopholes are not created but as it is currently drafted that is a real possibility. The multiple-choice questions are sometimes difficult to answer; where I have answered ‘neutral’ to a limit of two dogs (or one, in the case of question 6), I disagree with the exception, but if it remains, I think a two-dog limit is preferable to more dogs. I do not agree with any licensing scheme for more than two dogs but if any are to exist, it is important that the licensing scheme is robust and follows ethical principles. It is important that any exceptions are clearly defined and require evidence that substantial harm is being caused and that there are no other solutions available.