Dear Lord Burns,

I write in a private capacity, but as co-founder of the Mink Eradication Scheme Hebrides (MESH), a conservation group set up in 1998 to combat the threat of mink in the Western Isles of Scotland. (I am also a member of the Board of the Countryside Alliance.)

Though I am aware that the terms of reference for your inquiry do not extend outside England and Wales, I would like to draw your attention to recent research, primarily in Scotland, which may have some relevance to the subject of hunting with dogs that you are now considering.

This first part of my submission relates to the biology of the mink itself (which you may already know), the second relates to this research, and the third relates to the issue of its control.

The American mink was introduced into this country some fifty years ago for the purpose of fur farming, and due to escapes, both accidental and deliberate, it has now colonised the majority of the river and water systems of the UK up to Loch Ness in Invernesshire.

It's territory is linked to water, and is usually linear, extending for anything up to two or three kilometres along the bank of a waterway, though rarely more than100 to 200 metres from its edge. It produces a litter of between six and ten young in April-May, which are capable of fending for themselves by late August.

The mink is an efficient and highly versatile predator, feeding on a wide variety of fish, mammals, and birds, as well as invertebrate prey. Due to its ability to swim, dive, and climb (as well as enter small burrows) with ease, very few of our native species are safe from its predation.

When it was introduced to this country, it was widely thought that American mink would cause little or no long-term damage to our bio-diversity. Leading biologists and conservationists assumed that after some initial reduction in overall numbers of its prey species, their overall populations would soon stabilise - albeit at lower numbers than before. However recent research now shows that we may have seriously underestimated the impact of its introduction to our river systems.

What is becoming clear is that, far from co-existing with our native species, feral mink may well now be systematically destroying the delicate balance that exists within our natural riverside eco-systems. Unlike in the mink's own native America, our native birds and mammals have no natural defense mechanisms to deal with this predator. Already suffering from a combination of factors such as pollution and change of habitat, many of our riverine species may well be unable to cope with this new and deadly threat.

Since their introduction some forty years ago, there has been only one systematic attempt to control mink in this country. This was based on a bounty system, and was trialled by the Ministry of Agriculture over two decades ago, but was considered a failure and abandoned soon after. Since then, it has been left largely to the efforts of individuals to deal with the problem.

a.) The overall eradication of mink from the UK.

The complete eradication of mink from the UK is now almost certainly out of the question because of its sheer cost and complexity. While eradication programmes involving 'exotic' species have been carried out successfully - the coypu and the muskrat are examples - they have been confined to restricted or limited areas in the UK. The extent to which mink have now colonised this country would mean that it is almost inconceivable that a wholesale eradication programme would be a viable option on the UK mainland as a whole. (Unless some biological or other method can be developed.)

b.) Localised control.

Where local problems exist (for example when mink threaten an especially sensitive area such as bird reserve), the solution has been to employ live (or Larsen-type) traps. These are 'mesh' type cages in which the target-animal can be held unharmed until dispatched by an operator. Mink are naturally inquisitive, and properly sited and baited cage-traps can prove an effective means of dealing with a problem.

However trapping also has its limitations. All traps (live or otherwise) have to be checked every day under the law, and this makes them extremely labour intensive - as well as costly to maintain. It is therefore only practical to use them where sufficient resources exist to employ a full-time workforce, or where a voluntary one is willing to carry out the work. They are also far from reliable, since individual animals sometimes show a marked reluctance to enter them, and females, in particular, can often be difficult to capture.

Also, in a many cases, a problem will often not be identified until significant damage has already occurred. In the case of a specially sensitive site, the presence of mink will be identified fairly quickly, but in most river systems, their presence may not be detected for years. Mink can be difficult to find, and even people living adjacent to a territory will often be unaware of them until a substantial reduction in the number of birds or mammals in the area is noted.

c.) The control of mink by gamekeepers and water-bailiffs.

Mink control by gamekeepers and water-bailiffs is practiced in many parts of this country, but is nether systematic nor co-ordinated. While water-bailiffs might carry out mink control as part of their normal vermin control duties, gamekeepers would do so only when mink pose a direct threat to the rearing of game. Though of some significance locally, it provides little more than a token response to the problem of mink on a regional or national basis.

d.) Mink-hunting.

Mink hunting with hounds is a relatively modern practice, which started in the late seventies. There are at present some twenty hunts registered with the Mink Hound Association, which cover over 30% of this country.

The mink-hunting season lasts from approximately April until October, when the rivers are navigable and less likely to obstruct normal access to the banks (or to endanger the hounds and people involved). The dogs used are bred for the role, and are 'scent-specific' (eg. trained only to hunt a single quarry species), and therefore have a substantial advantage over other methods of control since they do not rely upon anecdotal or visual evidence to identify the presence of mink.

The environmental effects of mink hunting.

A number of conservationists express concerns about mink hunting - mainly relating to the possible disturbance of otters and to ground-nesting birds during the breeding season. However, examined objectively, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support these concerns.

In the case of ground-nesting riverine birds, mink hounds rarely visit the same place twice in a given season, and even when they do, it is rare that they remain in a given place for more than a few minutes. It would be reasonable to assume therefore that any nest-vacation, once it occurred, would be temporary and would allow the parent birds to return within ten minutes or so. This would make total abandonment far less likely than would be caused by say a (stationary) party of anglers, and possibly no more so than if caused by a group of ramblers.

In the case of otters, I believe it is normal practice to gather the hounds and immediately vacate the area if evidence is found of their presence. I am also told that if mink hounds should chance upon an otter, they can be called off. Being 'scent-specific', they are not trained to react to its smell and react in a similar way to foxhounds when encountering a deer or hare. While there could be a risk that hounds could kill an otter if immediate physical contact was made, I believe the likelyhood of this occurring is extremely low, and is outweighed by the benefits of mink control to wildlife in general.

With a ban on hunting with dogs, we would lose the only systematic or organised means of controlling mink in this country. We would also lose a voluntary service committed to providing control in areas not normally monitored (or indeed visited) by the local communities.

The Icelandics have accepted that large-scale mink control is impractical without the assistance of dogs. While mink hunting clearly cannot offer the level of control that is required to reduce the impact of mink on a national basis, where it does occur regionally, it almost certainly relieves pressure on the mink's prey species. It is also delivered free of charge.

I believe that mink hunting is in the interests of both the local bio-diversities affected, and of conservation in general. In my view, it should not be discontinued until a suitable alternative can be found.

Yours,

In a private capacity,

Mark Miller Mundy.

________________________________________________________________

JCA Craik,
Centre for Coastal & Marine Sciences,
PO Box 3, Oban, PA34 4AD
(or by e-mail from: mmundy@globalnet.co.uk)

Note 2. Copies of the 1999 report "The effect of predation by mink on Ground-nesting Birds in the Outer Hebrides" by Dr. S. Rae can be obtained from:

Dr. Stuart Rae,
52 Osborne Place,
Aberdeen, AB25 2DB
(or by e-mail from: mmundy@globalnet.co.uk)

Note 3. Copies of the 1999 summary: "The mink and the water vole - analyses for Conservation" by David Macdonald and Rob Strachan can be obtained from:

The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit,
Department of Zoology,
South Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3PS

Copies of the "Preliminary Water Vole Report" by Dr. Don Jeffries from:

The Vincent Wildlife Trust,
10 Lovat Lane,
London EC3R 8DN

Specially trained dogs under the supervision of Government, local authorities, and the University of Reykjavik carry out the control of mink in Iceland, where eider duck are farmed for their down or feathers. Live trapping was once used, but is now considered ineffective. Eider farms are protected regionally by the use of registered terriers or similar dogs, which are kenneled at the expense of the Government or local authorities for the rest of the year.

The techniques used are to use the dogs to find mink, which are then dug out and dispatched humanely. This is considered far more effective than trapping, live or otherwise, since it is selective and does not rely upon random methods.

Back to top