1.1 A Private Members Bill to ban fox-hunting with dogs is proposed for the Scottish Parliament. The Bill would ban hunting on horseback and certain other methods of fox control involving dogs (for example the use of terriers to attack animals underground), and hare coursing. It would not affect the use of dogs to flush out foxes from cover (e.g. wooded areas), or the rights of farmers to use dogs to control rabbits and rodents.

1.2 The pro-hunting lobby has argued that mounted fox-hunting is an important economic activity in fragile rural areas, and that a ban would result in large scale job-losses and business closures. For example, the Countryside Alliance (a pro-hunting lobbying organisation) have claimed that anywhere between 300 and 14000 jobs might be lost. However, as there have been no published studies examining the economic impact of a ban on fox-hunting for the whole of Scotland, these claims are difficult to verify.

1.3 The aims of this study are therefore to:

· estimate the economic importance of fox-hunting with dogs in Scotland in terms of employment and expenditure

· forecast the impact of a ban on fox-hunting with dogs on employment and expenditure

· assess the overall impact of a ban relative to the wider rural economy.

1.4 There are nine registered mounted hunts in Scotland, five of which are located in the Scottish Borders. Hunts and mounted followers employ staff primarily as grooms on a full or part-time basis. Hunts and mounted followers also spend money on feed and bedding, vets, saddlery, clothes and entertainment. Expenditure on goods and services to support hunting also gives rise to indirect employment in other sectors. This employment, together with jobs associated with induced expenditure (that is the personal spending of local inhabitants that arises from income related to hunting) can also be attributed to fox-hunting.

1.5 Foxes are also controlled with dogs through the Scottish Hill Packs Association (SHPA) and Fox Destruction Clubs (FDCs). The hill packs are controlled by a huntsman on foot and operate over hilly terrain. The dogs are used to flush out foxes which are then shot. There are also approximately 28 FDCs active in Scotland and they typically involve the use of terriers. Although mounted hunts create more employment than both the FDCs and the SHPA, the latter two are much more important as a means of controlling fox-numbers.

1.6 Based on survey data reported by the Produce Studies Group (1998), direct employment associated with mounted fox-hunting in Scotland is estimated at 92 FTEs, with 84 FTEs created by expenditure of approximately £2 million on related goods and services. An additional 38 FTEs are attributable to the FDCs and SHPA. Total employment in hunting foxes with dogs is therefore 214 FTEs.

1.7 This figure is considerably lower than the estimates provided by the Scottish Countryside Alliance and in a recent research note to the Scottish Parliament (Badger, 1999) which suggested fox-hunting was associated with 1200-1700 FTEs. However, these estimates were based on predominately English data, and took no account of the smaller number of horses per hunt in Scotland, nor the fact that more than 50% of employment by mounted followers is attributable to activities not related to fox-hunting.

1.8 If fox-hunting with dogs was banned it would be incorrect to assume that all 214 FTEs would be lost because a considerable proportion of expenditure associated with mounted hunts would simply be diverted to other businesses in the local and national economies. Also, as the primary aim of the FDCs and SHPA is fox control, it is reasonable to assume that current employment levels associated with this activity would be maintained following the adoption of alternative legal methods of fox control.

1.9 Predicting the impact of a ban is difficult because considerable uncertainty surrounds the extent to which money previously spent on fox-hunting will be re-distributed in the economy. The conventional approach to the problem of uncertainty is to examine a range of plausible future scenarios in a sensitivity analysis. Three scenarios are examined in this study:

Scenario A: Drag hunting and other horse-related leisure activities substitute for mounted fox-hunting. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

Scenario B: Drag hunting and other horse-related leisure activities partially substitute for mounted fox-hunting (50% of original expenditure), with a further 25% of original expenditure diverted to other sectors of the economy. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

Scenario C: Mounted fox hunting not replaced by drag hunting or other horse-related leisure activities, but 75% of original expenditure is diverted to other sectors of the economy. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

1.10 A ban on hunting with dogs is expected to lead to a decline in total employment equivalent to between 0 and 87 FTEs, with a central estimate of 51 FTEs. Hence claims by the Countryside Alliance that a ban would affect anywhere between 300 to 14 000 jobs in Scotland can only be considered unrealistic.

1.11 Relative to the rest of the rural economy, the impact of a ban will be negligible. Agriculture and forestry contribute over £1650 million to the rural economy and employ almost 56 000 FTEs. Even in comparison to other country pursuits the economic contribution of fox-hunting is small. For example, hillwalking and cycling in the Highlands generate combined revenue of over £120 million annually, and account for 4400 FTEs.

1.12 The major conclusion of this study is that fox-hunting with dogs makes only a very small contribution to the rural economy, and there is no convincing basis for the claim that the proposed ban on fox-hunting would have a serious impact on the rural economy.

2.1 Since devolution in 1999, activities such as fox-hunting now fall under the control of the Scottish Parliament. The Labour MSP, Mike Watson, has proposed a Private Members Bill to ban fox-hunting with dogs. The Bill will ban chasing foxes with dogs on horseback and on foot, hare-coursing, and the use of terriers to attack animals underground. It would not affect the use of dogs under license to flush out foxes from cover, or the rights of farmers to use dogs to control rabbits and rodents.

2.2 Although the debate about fox-hunting has been concerned primarily with cruelty and the need to control fox numbers, the pro-hunting lobby have drawn attention to the potentially serious effect of a ban on employment in rural Scotland. For example, the Countryside Alliance (a pro-hunting lobbying organisation) and their supporters claim that between 300 and 14 000 jobs might be lost in Scotland if a ban on hunting is imposed.

2.3 It is difficult to substantiate such claims because the economic impact of a hunting ban has not been investigated for Scotland. Previous studies have tended to focus on Britain as a whole (CRC, 1997), or on particular areas of England (Winter et al., 1993), and have estimated the total economic contribution of fox-hunting, rather than the economic consequences of a ban.

2.4 This last point is important because it is highly unlikely that a ban on fox hunting will result in all, or even a major proportion of, hunt-related jobs and expenditure being lost to the rural economy. For example, it is possible that drag hunting or other forms of horse-related leisure activity would substitute for live-quarry hunting (Ward, 1999). Even if hunt mounted followers stopped riding altogether, the local economy would still benefit from expenditure redirected to alternative leisure pursuits, or other goods and services.

· estimate the economic importance of fox-hunting with dogs in Scotland in terms of employment and expenditure

· forecast the impact of a ban on fox-hunting with dogs on employment and expenditure

· assess the overall impact of a ban relative to the wider rural economy

2.6 In the next section a brief background to fox-hunting and the debate about banning the sport in Scotland is given. Sections 4 to 6 concentrate on the economic contribution of mounted hunting in Scotland. Section 7 examines employment associated with the FDCs and SHPA. Section 8 investigates the economic impact of the proposed ban for a range of plausible scenarios. The penultimate section provides an assessment of the impact of a ban relative to the wider rural economy. Finally, the main conclusions of the study are presented in Section 10.

3.1 In Scotland, fox-hunting on horse-back as a sport is thought to have begun in Berwickshire around 1740. Currently there are nine mounted hunts listed in Baily’s Hunting Directory (1998), five of which are located in the Borders (The Berwickshire, The Duke of Buccleuch’s, The Jedforest, The Lauderdale, and The Liddesdale), three in the west and south-west of Scotland (The Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, The Eglinton, and The Dumfriesshire) and one in Fife (The Fife).

3.2 By comparison, there are over 300 mounted hunts involving live-quarry in England and Wales, and almost 30 times the number of participants (CRC, 1997). Although reliable estimates of the number of people who regularly participate in fox-hunting are not available for Scotland, it is clearly much less popular as a country sport than in the rest of the United Kingdom (approximately 10% of the UK population is Scottish).

3.3 Mounted fox-hunting is very much a minority sport compared to other forms of outdoor leisure activity. For example, a recent survey estimated that over 500 000 people now go hill-walking in the Highlands, contributing over £100 million and the equivalent of 4000 jobs to the economy. Whereas these outdoor activities are growing in popularity, fox-hunting is in decline. In recent years the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire hunt was disbanded, and CRC (1997) in their research for the Standing Conference for Country Sports, estimate that UK participation in fox-hunting has fallen by 10% between 1992 and 1997.

3.4 Mounted fox-hunting is increasingly unpopular among the general public. A recent opinion poll by MORI suggests that 75% of the Scottish population would like to ban hunting with hounds, with only 4% against such a ban. Even in predominantly rural areas, 70% of respondents support a ban. Despite this strong animosity towards fox-hunting, previous attempts at legislation at Westminster to ban fox-hunting have been unsuccessful, mainly because of the tactics employed by a small number of pro-hunt MPs to frustrate change through the Private Members Bill system.

3.5 Foxes are also controlled with dogs through the Scottish Hill Packs Association (SHPA) and Fox Destruction Clubs (FDCs). The five hill packs are controlled by a huntsman on foot and operate over hilly terrain. The dogs are used to flush out foxes which are then shot. There are also approximately 28 FDCs active in Scotland and they typically involve the use of terriers.

3.6 Although SHPAs and FDCs have attracted less public and Parliamentary attention than mounted hunts, the proposed ban will also affect many of them. The FDCs and SHPA are an important means of controlling foxes in remoter areas where there are problems with lamb predation. It is expected that fox control through the SHPAs and FDCs will continue, but certain methods of control (e.g the use of terriers to attack foxes underground) will no longer be allowed.

4.1 A key argument put forward by pro-hunting organisations is the contribution of fox-hunting to the rural economy, and the potentially serious impact such a ban would have on employment in rural areas. Hunts and mounted hunt followers employ staff primarily as grooms on a full or part-time basis, and spend money on feed and bedding, vets, saddlery, clothes and entertainment.

4.2 Expenditure on goods and services to support hunting gives rise to indirect employment in other sectors. This employment, together with jobs associated with induced expenditure (that is, the personal spending of employees as a result of income derived directly or indirectly from fox-hunting) can also be attributed to fox-hunting.

4.3 There have been a number of studies on the economic contribution of fox hunting in recent years. Many of these (e.g. CRC 1983, 1992, and 1997; PSG, 1998a and 1998b) have been commissioned by pro-hunting groups such as the Countryside Alliance. Perhaps the most authoritative and independent estimate of the local economic contribution of hunting is the study by Winter et al., (1993) of stag hunting in south-west England.

4.4 The only study which specifically involved Scottish hunts was commissioned from the Produce Studies Group (PSG, 1998b) by the Borders Foundation for Rural Sustainability. This study examined the employment and expenditure associated with mounted fox-hunting in the Borders country and included five Scottish and two English hunts.

4.5 In order to forecast the economic impact of fox-hunting for Scotland, it is important to utilise survey data derived from Scottish sources as far as possible for two reasons. First, the number of mounted followers per hunt is lower in Scotland than in England (CRC, 1997). Second, the expenditure and employment characteristics of hunts in Scotland may differ from their English counterparts.

5.1 The Produce Studies Group (1998b) report (subsequently referred to as the PSG report) estimates the total number of direct jobs generated by the seven hunts and 368 mounted followers in the Borders country to be 16 and 225 respectively, a total of 241 jobs (PSG, 1998b). Two of the seven hunts were based in Northumberland, with the remainder in the Scottish Borders.

5.2 In order to provide an accurate and defensible estimate of the jobs associated with hunting several adjustments are required to the total given in the PSG report. First, as many of the horses owned by mounted followers are employed in a range of activities, it would not be correct to attribute all horse-related employment to hunting. The PSG report estimates that 43% of horses are used only or mainly for hunting: hence it is reasonable to attribute only this percentage of direct employment to hunting.

5.3 Virtually all direct hunting jobs are primarily associated with horse care (i.e. grooms) and comprise a mixture of full-time (all/part year), and part-time (all/part year) jobs. The PSG report quotes employment in terms of the total number of jobs irrespective of whether they were full-time or part-time. This can create serious problems with double-counting. For example, the same person may have part-time jobs with two or more mounted hunt followers. Also it does not allow a fair comparison with other sectors where full-time employment dominates.

5.4 The conventional approach to assess the overall employment contribution of any particular activity or sector is to calculate the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs. Conversion of the PSG survey of jobs to FTEs was achieved by dividing the total earnings of all part-time and seasonal jobs by the average annual earnings of a full-time, all year employee which is given in the PSG report as £7328 per annum.

5.5 The PSG study collected employment data for the seven hunts of the Border country of Scotland and England. Only five of these hunts are based in Scotland. Hence, in order to estimate the contribution of fox-hunting to the Scottish Borders, the jobs associated with the two English hunts have to be deducted. The simplest approach would be to attribute 5/7ths of all FTEs to the Scottish hunts. However, on average there are approximately 50% more participants per fox-hunt in England and Wales than in Scotland (CRC, 1997). Average employment per hunt was therefore weighted to reflect this difference in order to estimate the total number of FTEs for the Scottish Borders.

5.6 Following the adjustments outlined above the revised estimate for total direct employment in the Scottish Borders attributable to fox-hunting is 43.8 FTEs. People employed directly through mounted hunting will also create further employment as a result of spending their income in the local economy (i.e. induced employment effects). Other studies in rural Scotland indicate that approximately 1 FTE is generated by induced effects for every 6 direct FTEs (Crabtree et al., 1994). In the case of mounted hunting in the Scottish Borders, this is equivalent to approximately 7 FTEs.

5.7 Expenditure on goods and services related to fox-hunting, such as clothing, saddlery, farriers, and feed was estimated in the PSG study to be £2.37 million. This expenditure will also generate employment in the Borders economy. The number of indirect FTEs employed depends on the proportion of hunt expenditure that occurs within the local economy, and the extent to which local businesses obtain their inputs from local sources. For example, bed and breakfast accommodation is associated with higher local employment than larger hotels, because the former tend to be locally owned and generally source more of their inputs from local businesses (Slee et al. 1997).

5.8 Most rural economies are diverse, and complex linkages exist between and within sectors in terms of the relationship between expenditure and employment. Predicting the precise impact of expenditure on employment is therefore extremely difficult. The conventional approach to the problem is through multiplier analysis based on Input-Output analysis or Keynesian approaches (Winter, et al., 1993).

5.9 Although there have been a number of studies relating to economic activities in rural Scotland, multiplier values have not been estimated specifically for either horse-riding or fox-hunting in Scotland. The PSG report assumed that one FTE job is created by £23 000 of expenditure, but this was a UK national figure, and is not necessarily appropriate for a predominantly rural area of Scotland.

5.10 A review of previous studies of the Scottish rural economy (e.g. Slee et al. 1997; Surrey Research Group, 1992; and Crabtree et al. 1994) suggests that a more accurate and reliable multiplier of £25 000 per FTE would be more appropriate.

5.11 As with direct employment, the PSG expenditure figure of £2.37 million requires some adjustment downwards to accurately reflect expenditure directly attributable to fox-hunting, rather than other horse activities in the five Scottish hunts of the Borders. The revised estimates for expenditure and associated employment are £1.48 million, and 46.4 FTE jobs respectively.

5.12 Table 5.1 provides estimates for total employment generated by hunting, including employment associated with expenditure on goods and services in the Scottish Borders economy. A total of 97 FTEs are associated with hunting, with total expenditure around £1.5 million. Approximately 19 FTE jobs are created by each hunt, with annual expenditure of £300 000.

5.13 These estimates are considerably lower than those given by the PSG study. However, they are consistent with estimates from related studies. For example, Winter et al. (1993), in a detailed study of the economic contribution of deer hunting with hounds in south-west England, estimated that 0.065 FTEs were generated by salary expenditure per hunting horse. This is slightly lower than the estimate given in Table 5.1 (0.095), which probably reflects the economies of scale that can be achieved in south-west England where there are more horses per hunt than in Scotland. A report by Mackay Consultants for the Scottish Tourist Board (STB, 1989) estimated that one FTE was created for £15000 of total expenditure on salmon angling in Scotland. This figure is very similar to the equivalent figure derived for this study (£15549).

6.1 The economic contribution of mounted fox-hunting throughout Scotland has not been investigated before. The best approach to estimating the aggregate impact of fox-hunting on the Scottish economy is therefore to raise the estimates for the Scottish Borders to the national level. This is not ideal because the employment and expenditure characteristics of hunts may differ considerably around the country. However, Baily’s Hunting Directory (1998) lists nine hunts in Scotland, hence the five Scottish Border hunts surveyed by PSG represent just over half of all hunting activity in Scotland so should be relatively representative.

6.2 Based on an average expenditure and employment per hunt given in Table 5.1, the aggregate total for Scotland is £2.7 million and 176 FTEs respectively (Table 6.1). However, due to the impact of redirected expenditure in the rural economy, these figures do not represent the actual loss in either employment or expenditure which would occur if fox hunting with hounds is banned in Scotland.

6.3 This figure is considerably lower than the estimates provided by the Scottish Countryside Alliance and in a recent research note to the Scottish Parliament (Badger, 1999) which suggested fox-hunting was associated with 1200-1700 FTEs. However, the estimates in the Scottish Parliament report were derived from predominately English data, and took no account of the smaller number of horses per hunt in Scotland, nor the fact that more than 50% of employment by mounted followers is attributable to horse-related leisure activities other than fox-hunting.

7.1 Foxes are also controlled with dogs through the Scottish Hill Packs Association (SHPA) and a number of Fox Destruction Clubs (FDCs). The five hill packs are controlled by a huntsman on foot and operate over hilly terrain. The dogs are used to flush out foxes which are then shot. There are also approximately 28 FDCs active in Scotland and they typically involve the use of terriers.

7.2 Although mounted hunts create more employment than the FDCs and SHPA, the latter two are much more important as a means of controlling fox-numbers. Badger (1999) reports that SHPA packs and FDCs are responsible for killing approximately 4400 foxes annually, whereas mounted hunts account for less than 600 foxes.

7.3 Badger (1999) goes on to estimate employment to be 33 FTEs, based on 1 FTE per SHPA/FDC unit. If employment generated by induced effects is included then it is likely the total employment associated with SHPAs and FDCs is around 38 FTEs.

7.4 There is no data available for expenditure on goods and services by the SHPAs and FDCs. As horses are not involved, expenditure is likely to be relatively low compared to mounted hunts, restricted to low cost items such as dog-food, outdoor clothing for the huntsman, and possibly some veterinary expenses. In 1998 the government paid £56 000 to FDCs to help cover hunt costs (Scotsman, 28/7/99).

8.1 If a ban on fox-hunting were imposed by the Scottish Parliament, the 176 FTEs associated with mounted hunting and the 38 FTEs associated with the SHPAs and FDCs would not be lost to the Scottish economy.

8.2 In relation to mounted hunting this is because much of the expenditure would be diverted to other businesses in the local and national economy. Predicting the impact of a ban is difficult because we cannot predict with any certainty what will happen to the expenditure of mounted hunt followers. For example, it is possible that drag hunting or other forms of horse-related leisure activity such as ‘Le Trec’, may entirely substitute for live quarry hunting. On the other hand it is possible that dedicated mounted hunt followers would no longer ride. However, even if this happened, the local economy would still benefit from the displaced expenditure, whether on alternative leisure pursuits, or on other goods and services.

8.3 Previous studies on fox-hunting have been criticised for not recognising the impact of redirected expenditures in the economy (Ward, 1999). A simple example is provided by the PSG study (1998b), where it is claimed that ten out of eleven farriers would go out of business as a result of a ban because each would lose about 20% of their turnover. However, this is an exaggeration because the custom of non-hunting clients of any farrier that goes out of business will boost the turnover of the remaining farriers in the region and compensate for the loss of hunting business.

8.4 In the case of SHPAs and FDCs it is unlikely there will be any observable economic impact, because the legal fox-control methods which would replace illegal activities under the proposed Bill, such as the use of terriers underground, would require similar inputs of labour and expenditure.

8.5 The conventional approach to economic forecasting where there is uncertainty is to examine a range of plausible future scenarios in a sensitivity analysis. Three scenarios are examined in this study:

Scenario A: Drag hunting and other horse-related leisure activities substitute for mounted fox-hunting. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

Scenario B: Drag hunting and other horse-related leisure activities partially substitute for mounted fox-hunting (50% of original expenditure), with a further 25% of original expenditure diverted to other sectors of the economy. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

Scenario C: Mounted fox hunting not replaced by drag hunting or other horse-related leisure activities, but 75% of original expenditure is diverted to other sectors of the economy. Employment and expenditure associated with legal fox-control methods replace the economic contribution of banned hunting activities involving the FDCs and SHPA.

Scenarios B and C therefore assume that 25% of all expenditure would be lost from the Scottish economy if fox-hunting was banned.

8.6 Table 8.1 provides estimates of the net effect of a ban on fox-hunting on the Scottish economy. Employment will fall between 0 and 87 FTEs depending on assumptions, with a fall in expenditure between £0 to £680 000 per annum.

8.7 Although these forecasts may be imprecise due to uncertainty about the future behaviour and expenditure pattern of hunt followers once a hunting ban is implemented, it is clear that the resultant job losses are unlikely to be as severe as suggested by the pro-hunting lobby. For example, David McLetchie, a leading Scottish Conservative stated in the Telegraph (23.7.99) that a ban on fox-hunting would affect 14 000 jobs in Scotland. Clarrissa Dickson-Wright, Rector of Aberdeen University and TV chef, asserted in the Press and Journal (4.8.99) that up to 5000 jobs would be lost in the Borders alone.

8.8 More modest estimates, such as 300 jobs provided by Mr Murray of the Scottish Countryside Alliance (Telegraph 31.5.99) are also likely to be biased upwards. The PSG study, upon which this claim is based, incorrectly attributed all horse-related employment by mounted hunt followers to fox-hunting, did not consider the employment effects of expenditure redirected within the economy following a ban, and did not convert part-time or seasonal jobs to FTE jobs.

Expenditure (£)
	Scenario A	Scenario B	Scenario C
Goods and Services	0	-287 000	-51 200
Direct Employment	0	-314 400	-628 900
Total	0	-601 500	-680 100
Employment (FTEs)
	Scenario A	Scenario B	Scenario C
Goods and Services	0	-5.2	+5.0
Direct Employment	0	-45.9	-91.8
Total	0	-51.1	-86.8

9.1 In relation to aggregate rural employment in Scotland, the economic impact of a fox-hunting ban can only be regarded as limited significance. Table 9.1 presents estimates of the employment and economic value of a range of rural activities. Agriculture and forestry are much larger sectors of the rural economy, worth over £1650 million, directly employing almost 56 000 FTEs.

9.2 Fox-hunting makes a much smaller contribution in comparison to other leisure pursuits. Hillwalking and cycling in the Highlands alone generate a combine revenue of over £120 million annually, and employ 4400 FTEs (HIE 1999a and 1999b). Over 500 000 people participate annually in these activities, and this figure is growing. By contrast, participation in foxhunting has declined by almost 10% in the past five years (CRC, 1997), with perhaps as few as 500 participants in Scotland.

9.3 Other country sports make a far bigger contribution to the rural economy of Scotland. For example, a Scottish Tourist Board study (STB, 1989) estimated total expenditure on rod-fishing for salmon to be £50.4 million, with associated employment in the region of 3400 FTEs. McGilvray and Perman (1991) estimated that grouse shooting generated 2323 FTEs and contributed £10.3 million to the Gross Domestic Product in 1989.

9.4 In the Borders, where approximately half of all fox-hunting activity in Scotland takes place, the impact of a ban will also be relatively small in terms of rural employment or expenditure. Agriculture and forestry for example, have a combined output in excess of £200 million and directly employ over 6000 people in the region (SBC, 1999).

10.1 In comparison with other activities in the outdoor recreation sector such as hill-walking and cycling, which contribute hundreds of millions of expenditure to the Scottish economy and generate thousands of jobs, foxhunting is in decline, with perhaps as few as 500 participants.

10.2 This study predicts that a ban would have very little impact on either employment or expenditure in rural areas. Employment associated with mounted hunts would fall between 0 and 87 FTEs depending on assumptions, with total expenditure in the Scottish economy expected to fall between £0 and £680 000 per annum. In the case of SHPAs and FDCs it is unlikely there will be any observable economic impact, because the legal fox-control methods which would replace illegal activities, such as the use of terriers underground, under the proposed Bill would require similar inputs of labour and expenditure.

10.3 The claim by pro-hunt supporters that a ban on fox-hunting would affect up to 14 000 jobs in Scotland is therefore difficult to support. Even the more modest claim by the Scottish Countryside Alliance that 300 jobs would be lost is unreliable. The PSG study, on which this claim is based, attributed all horse-related employment by mounted hunt followers to fox-hunting, ignored the employment effects of expenditure that would be redirected locally following a ban, and did not convert part-time or seasonal jobs to FTE jobs.

Baily’s 1999. Baily’s Hunting Directory 1998-99. Baily’s, Cambridge.

Badger, R.J. 1999. Fox-hunting in Scotland. Research Note RN99-17, Scottish Parliament Information Centre, Edinburgh.

Crabtree, J.R., Leat, P.M.K, Santarossa, J. and Thomson, K.J. 1994. The economic impact of wildlife sites in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 10 (1):61-72.

CRC, 1983. Countryside sports: their economic social and conservation significance. Cobham Resource Consultants for the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

CRC, 1992. Countryside sports: their economic social and conservation significance. Cobham Resource Consultants for the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

CRC, 1997. Countryside sports: their economic social and conservation significance. Review and Survey by Cobham Resource Consultants. Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

HIE, 1999a. Economic Impact of hill-walking and mountaineering in 1996. HIE Economic Information (http://www.hie.co.uk/economy/reports/hillwkg96.html).

HIE, 1999b. Economic impact of cycling in 1996. HIE Economic Information (http://www.hie.co.uk/economy/reports/cycling96.html).

McGilvray, J and Perman, R. 1991. Grouse shooting in Scotland: analysis of its importance to the economy and the environment (Summary Report). Dept. of Economics, University of Strathclyde.

PSG, 1996. BETA national equestrian survey. Produce Studies Limited, Newbury.

PSG, 1998a. Employment generated by fox-hunting in Great Britain. Produce Studies Limited, Newbury.

PSG, 1998b. The economic contribution of hunting within the Scottish and Northumberland Borders. Produce Studies Limited, Newbury.

SCB, 1999. Scottish Borders in Figures 1999-2000. Scottish Borders Council, Newton St. Boswells.

STB 1989. The economic importance of salmon fishing and netting in Scotland. Summary Report. Scottish Tourist Board and Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Slee, B., Farr, H and Snowdon, P. 1997. The economic impact of alternative types of rural tourism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 (2):179-192.

Surrey Research Group, 1993. Scottish Tourism Multiplier Study 1992. Surrey Research Paper No. 31, Scottish Office Industry Department.

Ward, N. 1999. Foxing the nation: the economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds in Britain. Journal of Rural Studies 15; 389-403.

Winter, M., Hallett, J., Nixon, J., Watkins, C., Cox, G. and Glanfield, P. 1993. Economic and social aspects of deer hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks. Centre for Rural Studies, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester.