RESPONSES concerning the hunting of mink with dogs
1. What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs, including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are carried out?
Mink hunting
Otter hunting with packs of hounds was banned in the UK in 1975. At least six of these packs subsequently switched to hunting mink. Other packs were formed with the specific purpose of hunting mink. By December 1984, 20 such packs had registered with the Masters of Minkhounds Association.
Mink hunting is carried out from April to September, a period which includes the mink's breeding season. Den sites are located by the dogs as they search the riverbank, and an attempt is made to bolt the quarry which then dashes to its next refuge.
2. What evidence is there as to the importance or otherwise of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and /or to particular areas of England and Wales?
In terms of supporters, mink hunting has a considerably more limited following compared to fox hunting. As mink hunting is conducted on foot there are unlikely to be any severe financial consequences for support industries resulting from a ban.
3. What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely?
In contrast to fox hunting (with horse and hounds) there are no significant support industries likely to be adversely be affected by a ban on mink hunting.
4. To what extent could any detrimental consequences of a ban be offset by greater participation in drag or bloodhound hunting or other activities or by other measures?
In the case of mink hunting there are unlikely to be any actual detrimental effects, drag hunting could completely compensate for any perceived consequences.
5. What evidence is there about the need to control the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink?
Early worries concerning the impact of mink as a significant predator of native fauna and domestic stock, or as a competitor with native carnivores are largely without foundation, the exception concerns the mink’s impact on the water vole. It can be seen that the relatively small size of mink and hence their low energy requirements coupled with their low population density, means that they have a small effect overall on prey populations. General conclusions from dietary studies indicate that mink are not specialist predators: they exist in a flexible balance with prey and do not appear to have threatened the viability of any one prey species apart from the water vole. In Britain only reductions in populations of the water vole have been directly and unequivocably attributed to mink.
While distressing incidences of surplus killings of ground nesting birds (e.g. terns) have been recorded, these are isolated, and in most cases the threat to UK populations is slight. However, where habitat damage/modification has already put the population in a precarious position, as is the case with the water vole, the effect of mink may be exacerbated.
Mink are territorial and the size of the territory is influenced by two factors, the habitat quality and the presence or absence of other mink. Because of this spacing mechanism any local abundance of food or seasonal glut will only be available to the territory holders, thus allowing only a small number of animals to share the food, and preventing mink from surrounding areas gaining access.
Considerable concern has been expressed over the predation by mink on domestic stock, in particular, chickens, game birds and fish. Undoubtedly mink can pose a serious threat to agricultural holdings of high density stock, for example, game-bird rearing pens, chicken farms and fish rearing ponds, as can many other predators such as the fox, otter, dog and cat. Mink are frequently blamed for surplus killing of domestic prey, usually when encountered in confined conditions. These incidents can be guarded against by good husbandry, which will, additionally, provide protection against native predators. The maintenance of traps in the vicinity of pens is all that is usually required to control mink in these instances.
In terms of direct losses, the economic impact across the country of mink as a predator of domestic stock is almost negligible, although the individual farmer who has just lost some of his best free-ranging hens down by the river might not see it that way. Tthere are also hidden costs associated with the presence of this alien predator. The cost of control operations both in trapping equipment and time can be considerable The unsuccessful eradication campaign of the Ministry of Agriculture in a five-year trapping programme cost £105,000 between 1965 and 1970. If such a campaign were even to be contemplated today it would cost many millions of pounds. The individual farmer may spend an appreciable sum of money mink-proofing his stock, but the benefits derived by also excluding other predators may be substantial. In some locations, the prevalence of mink predation may threaten the viability of certain farming operations. Such restrictions in the siting of these enterprises should also be counted as a cost. Before the presence of feral mink most farms kept a few free-range chickens or small flocks in deep-litter houses. Today the poultry industry is intensive with far fewer but much larger flocks kept in battery units where they are immune from attacks by predators.
6. What evidence is there about the advantages and disadvantages of hunting with dogs in terms of agriculture and pest control, compared with other possible forms of control?
Trapping
The cost involved in mounting 'effective' control operations can be substantial. The job is magnified by the presence of transient mink who will rapidly replace resident territory holders that are removed by control operations. Consequently many more animals will be trapped on a given stretch of river than were initially present, and recolonisation from adjacent areas is almost inevitable.
Successful attempts to trap out mink populations have only occasionally been documented. Most fail or have only a limited effectiveness until mink re-invade. One such effort was made on the river Otter in Devon in 1973 (Chanin 1981). A total of 47 mink from 27 km of river were killed between April and September. It is unlikely that all mink were captured, and the area was recolonised during the next breeding season. As Chanin points out, even if mink had been eradicated on this river they would inevitably have re-invaded from adjacent rivers. The cost of establishing a "mink-free zone" is not warranted in view of the small amount of economic damage they do.
There have been a considerable number of reports of damage to river banks and their vegetation caused by hunt servants in attempting to dislodge mink from their dens. Although precise figures are not available each hunt probably accounts for some 40-50 mink per season, amounting to an annual nationwide slaughter of 700-800 individuals (Birks 1986).
Hunting with dogs
Only one study (Birks 1981, 1986, 1989) has addressed the effectiveness of hunting with dogs as a means of controlling mink. In an analysis of hunting records of the Cornwall and Devon Minkhounds (southwest England) from 1976-1980 the pack hunted on 156 days during which time they accounted for 84 mink. Two-thirds of the mink located by the hounds successfully evaded capture.
On one occassion the minkhounds hunted through Birks' study area, at which time five or six resident mink were known to be present. Three of these residents were found by the hounds, two of which escaped into secure rocky dens, only one was killed. Although this seems a remarkably inefficient means of control, the extent of persecution may be more subtle. The recently born litter of the female were left to perish. In another case a presumably pregnant female hunted in March failed to produce a litter that year. On mink farms interference causing stress at such an early stage in pregnancy is likely to lead to abortion.
7. What evidence is there about the consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs was banned completely'?
As mink hunting with dogs has a negligible effect on the population and is very localised in coverage I do not envisage that its ban would have any significant effect. Effective population control is best carried out by cage-trapping.
8. What other measures, if any, would need to be taken to protect agricultural interests and to control foxes, deer, mink and hares?
Damage limitation is relatively easily implemented with predator proof housing and judicial siting of poultry houses etc. Mink control using cage traps should be routinely conducted. Bounty schemes are unlikely to be cost-effective.
9. In what ways, and to what extent, does the existence of hunting with dogs contribute to or impair the social and cultural life of the countryside?
In the case of mink hunting, which is not very widespread and not a major spectator or participant activity, I doubt it will have any real effect on social or cultural life.
10. What evidence is there as to its importance generally or in particular areas?
11. What evidence is there about the present effect of hunting with dogs on preserving or damaging habitats and on the management and conservation of wildlife, including the quarry species?
There have been a considerable number of reports of damage to river banks and their vegetation caused by hunt servants in attempting to dislodge mink from their dens.
12. What would be the impact on these matters of a ban?
Reduction in disturbance to riparian species caused by
hounds and huntsmen would have obvious conservation advantages.
13. What evidence is there at present about the effect of hunting with
dogs on the welfare of the quarry species or on the welfare of other animals,
including those used in hunting activities and domestic pets and farm animals
which may be affected accidentally? There is considerable disturbance to riparian wildlife, e.g. otters, caused
by hunting wiith dogs. 14. What evidence is there about the impact on the welfare of animals
of other means of control which might be used if hunting with dogs was banned?
15. What form(s) might a ban take and what would be the implications?
16. How might such a ban be applied and enforced? 17. Would a ban need to be supported by any other action?