The Rt. Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
50 Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1A 0AA

9 June 2000

You appointed us in December 1999 to carry out an inquiry into hunting with dogs, with the following terms of reference:

"To inquire into:

• the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales;
• the consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and
• how any ban might be implemented.

To report the findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department."

We now have pleasure in enclosing our report.

Without doubt, conducting the inquiry has been a challenging experience. This is a complex issue that is full of paradoxes. We were helped by the terms of reference, which asked us to concentrate on the factual and analytical background to hunting. We have addressed those issues and we have not attempted to answer the question of whether or not hunting should be banned. In particular, we have not sought to find a compromise solution, which we regarded as outside our terms of reference.

The result is a report that might appear long on analysis and short on solutions. But we believe that it will help to inform the debate that will follow the publication of our report.

We have travelled widely throughout England and Wales and listened to many people. We were left in no doubt about the sensitivity of the issue or the passion that it arouses. We have sought to conduct the inquiry in a very open manner. We have made as much as possible of our evidence available on the inquiry website. Our oral evidence sessions have been in public and transcripts have also been posted on the website as quickly as possible. We commissioned research papers, which were made available in draft and discussed at seminars, also open to the public.

In the process we believe that we have gone some way to reach a wider agreement about the analysis of the issues, although some important differences remain. Some of these differences could be narrowed further with more research conducted over a longer time period. Others are likely to remain because they are not capable of being resolved in this way.

We would like to record our thanks to the staff of the Committee. They have worked tirelessly against very tight deadlines to cope with the huge amount of material we received, to prepare it for publication on the website and to organise a complex series of visits, oral evidence and seminars. In particular, we would like to recognise the important role of Brian Caffarey, the Secretary to the Committee. We have only been able to complete our task within the tight timetable given to us because of Brian's planning and organisational strengths, his ability to communicate quickly and sensitively with people on all sides of this debate and because of his drafting skills.

LORD BURNS (Chairman)

DR. VICTORIA EDWARDS

PROFESSOR SIR JOHN MARSH

LORD SOULSBY OF SWAFFHAM PRIOR

PROFESSOR MICHAEL WINTER

We would like to thank all those who helped us in our inquiry, including all the organisations and individuals who submitted evidence to us. We are particularly grateful to representatives of the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000, the hunts and other groups whom we visited, the research teams, participants at our seminars, the Home Office, Professor David Macdonald and Mr Michael Fordham, who assisted us, respectively, on scientific and legal matters and our stenographer, Cheryl Slater.

References such as "MDHA 1" refer to ‘first round’ evidence. References such as "IFAW 2" refer to ‘second round’ evidence. Other details refer to the paragraph numbers in the evidence unless otherwise stated.

The CD Rom in the back cover of this Report contains the following material: terms of reference; letter of 19 January 2000 inviting ‘first round’ evidence; evidence submitted by the main organisations and a number of individuals; details of visits made by the Committee; details of the research commissioned by the Inquiry; draft research reports; transcripts of the seminars held to discuss the draft research reports; final research reports; transcript of a seminar on the legal aspects of implementing a ban, plus supporting papers; notes of 'by invitation' meetings held with supporters of the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000; letter of 17 April 2000 inviting ‘second round’ evidence; all the responses received to that invitation; and the Committee’s report.

Back to contents

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1 The Committee was asked to inquire into the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales; the consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and how any ban might be implemented.

2 We were asked to focus on the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. The use of dogs solely to locate or retrieve quarry was excluded from our terms of reference. We were not asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned. Nor were we asked to consider moral or ethical issues.

3 The Committee gathered information through an open process of written and oral evidence, research reports, seminars, meetings and visits.

Chapter 2 HUNTING

4 Hunting with dogs is a diverse activity.

5 There are about 200 registered packs of hounds (mainly foxhounds but also some harriers) in England and Wales which hunt foxes, plus a number of unregistered packs in Wales. Most packs have mounted followers but a number, including the Fell packs in Cumbria and the footpacks in Wales, are followed on foot only. The Welsh gunpacks use dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns.

6 The registered packs are estimated to kill some 21,000-25,000 foxes a year. About 40% of the foxes killed by the registered packs are killed in the autumn/cub hunting season. In Wales and other upland areas, a high proportion of foxes are dug out, using terriers, and shot. Outside the registered packs, many more foxes are dug out and shot or are killed by people using lurchers or other "long dogs". Some of these activities are carried out by farmers, landowners and gamekeepers. Others involve trespass.

7 There are three registered staghound packs in the Devon and Somerset area. They kill about 160 red deer a year in total, excluding injured deer which they dispatch. This probably represents about 15% of the numbers which need to be culled in the area to maintain a stable population.

8 There are about a hundred registered packs of hounds (beagles, bassets and harriers) which hunt hares. They kill about 1,650 hares a season, a very small percentage of the number killed by shooting.

9 There are some 24 registered hare coursing clubs, which kill about 250 hares a year in total, and a small number of other unregistered clubs. But there is a good deal of illegal hunting/coursing in some areas.

10 The 20 minkhound packs kill somewhere between 400 - 1,400 mink a season. The number is thought to be considerably smaller than that killed by trapping and shooting.

Chapter 3 HUNTING AND THE RURAL ECONOMY

11 Hunting, especially in its organised form, needs to be seen in a wider economic and social context. The population of rural areas is increasing and new service industries have been established. But agriculture has been in serious decline, and the new jobs tend to be in less remote areas.

12 There is a complex set of relationships between hunting and a diverse range of other economic activities, mostly in rural areas, and largely horse-related, that either directly serve hunting or are in some way dependent on it.

13 There have been widely varying estimates given in recent years for the loss of jobs which would result from a ban on hunting.

14 The research which we commissioned attempted to estimate the jobs (full-time equivalents, FTEs) which currently depend on hunting, either directly or indirectly.

15 It is relatively straightforward to estimate the number of jobs which the hunts provide. It is much more difficult to estimate the other jobs which depend, directly or indirectly, on hunting. Identifying the number of participants and allocating their expenditure between hunting and other equestrian activities is particularly problematic.

16 Estimating the effects of a ban is also complex. It is necessary to take account of other factors such as the extent to which alternative activities would replace hunting, how the money currently used would be spent, other changes taking place in the rural economy and the differential impact in different areas.

17 It is difficult too to estimate the effects of a ban on hunting on individuals. These must take into account the extent to which the people concerned would be able to switch to other available employment, as well as the part-time and seasonal nature of many jobs.

Chapter 4 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS

23 It is commonly argued that hunting plays a critical role in the social and cultural life of rural communities. Hunting is itself a social activity, and hunts organise a wide range of social and sporting events. But it is also important to see hunting, especially organised hunting, in its wider context. It is a highly co-operative social activity taking place in a rural setting. Different people value different aspects but farmers and landowners are at its heart. Rural communities are diverse and changing but farmers, as a group, feel that their interests and way of life are not understood by central government and the urban majority.

24 The research which we commissioned examined the relative importance of hunting to the social and cultural life of four rural communities where hunting is actively pursued. Among the findings were that there were higher levels of support for hunting than previous surveys have suggested; that support tends to be based not so much on importance to the individual - although this was true for hunt participants and some farmers - but a belief that hunting had greater significance for the community as a whole and for others living there; that hunt-based social activities play a significant part in the social life of these communities, but are not as significant as those of the local pub or church; that support for hunting, and a belief in its importance to individuals and to the local community, was particularly strong in the Devon and Somerset study area; and that a significant minority who were opposed to hunting would welcome its abolition.

25 It is not possible simply to extrapolate these findings since the areas studied deliberately focused on those in which organised hunting actively takes place, rather than rural communities in general.

Chapter 5 POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL

Foxes

31 The pre-breeding population of foxes in England and Wales is thought to number some 217,000. They are perceived as pests mainly because of predation on lambs and game birds, although there are marked regional variations. Farmers and gamekeepers consider that they need a range of methods to control foxes. There is little information about the numbers of foxes which are killed and by what methods. Shooting is the most common method, but the use of dogs is particularly prevalent in sheep-rearing upland areas.

Deer

36 There are estimated to be about 4,000-6,000 red deer in the areas hunted by the three registered packs in Devon and Somerset. About 1,000 deer need to be culled each year to maintain a stable population. The hunts kill about 160 deer each year, excluding the "casualty" deer which they dispatch.

37 The population needs to be managed, mainly because of the damage which deer cause to agricultural, forestry and conservation interests and because the numbers would otherwise increase substantially. Apart from hunting, the only other method of culling deer is by stalking/shooting.

Hares

39 There are about 630,000 brown hares in England and Wales. They are most abundant in eastern England, where high numbers are often encouraged for shooting purposes. Hares are regarded, at most, as a minor agricultural pest. About 1,650 hares are killed by hunting by the registered packs and about 250 by the registered coursing clubs. Much larger numbers are killed by shooting and illegal coursing.

40 There is little or no need to control overall hare numbers and, indeed, they are a Biodiversity Action Plan species. However, the distribution of hares is uneven: they are abundant in some areas, mainly in the east of England, and scarce in much of Wales and the West Country. Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests. (Paragraph 5.94)

Mink

42 Mink are not a native species. Following their introduction to Britain mink rapidly increased in their distribution and abundance. However, over the last 10 years mink populations have declined substantially, and are now an estimated 18,000 in England and Wales. Mink prey on a wide variety of mammals, birds and fish. Trapping is the main method of killing mink, but mink hunts probably account for between 400-1,400 mink a year.

Chapter 6 ANIMAL WELFARE

45 The issues of cruelty and animal welfare are central to the debate about hunting. Animal welfare is essentially concerned with assessing the ability of an animal to cope with its environment: if an animal is having difficulty in coping with its environment, or is failing to cope, then its welfare may be regarded as poor. This judgment is distinct from any ethical or moral judgments about the way in which the animal is being treated.

46 Except in relation to deer, little scientific work has been done to assess the impact of hunting on the welfare of the four quarry species. Because it is not possible to ask an animal about its welfare, or to know what is going on inside its head, it is necessary to draw up some indicators which enable one to make a judgment. The precise nature of these indicators will vary depending on the animal concerned but they will usually comprise a mixture of physiological indicators and behavioural indicators. But, because they are only indicators, there is often room for argument about the extent to which a particular finding indicates poor welfare as opposed to, for example, exertion that can be regarded as falling within natural limits. It is also necessary to consider whether the assessment of welfare should be on an absolute or comparative basis.

Deer

49 The hunting of a red deer typically comprises a series of intermittent flights in which the deer exerts itself maximally in order to escape from the hounds. An average hunt which ends in the killing of the deer lasts about 3 hours. Scientific studies show that, at the end of a chase, deer have very low levels of carbohydrate (glycogen) in their muscles and that this largely explains why they are forced to stop.

50 There is a lack of firm information about the wounding rates which arise from stalking/shooting deer. Comparing the welfare implications of hunting and stalking/ shooting deer is a complex matter, requiring the balancing of the welfare of all the deer that are hunted against the welfare of the numbers of shot deer which are wounded.

52 Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting. (Paragraph 6.39)

Foxes

54 The three main aspects of foxhunting which give rise to concern on welfare grounds are: the chase; the "kill" by the hounds above ground; and digging-out/terrierwork.

55 There is a lack of scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting, although some post mortem reports have been received. The welfare implications of hunting need to be compared with those which arise from other methods such as shooting, and snaring.

Hares

62 There are two areas of welfare concern in respect of hare hunting and coursing: the chase and the "kill". Although no scientific studies have been carried out, there is evidence that, in the case of coursing, there can be a significant delay before a hare which has been caught by the dogs is dispatched.

Mink

66 There have been no scientific studies of the welfare implications of hunting in relation to mink.

The welfare of other animals incidentally affected by hunting

68 Concerns have been expressed about the welfare of wildlife incidentally affected by hunting and of farm animals and pets.

The welfare of the hounds and horses

71 Concerns have been expressed about the welfare of hounds and the horses involved in hunting. These have tended to focus on injuries or deaths of hounds on roads or railway lines; injuries to terriers during terrierwork; and the common practice of putting hounds down at the end of their working lives. In relation to horses, concerns are sometimes expressed about the injuries received during hunting.

Chapter 7 MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF HABITAT AND OTHER WILDLIFE

74 The hunts argue that hunting has played, and continues to play, an important role in creating, managing and conserving habitat which is valuable for plant and animal life.

75 Hunts are involved in activities such as managing woodland, scrub and hedgerows, as well as helping to carry out censuses of deer and hares. A judgement about the importance of these activities needs to be made in the context of major changes in agricultural land use and practice, the introduction of agri-environment schemes and any evidence of negative impacts arising from such matters as the disturbance caused to habitat and wildlife by hunting.

Chapter 8 DRAG AND BLOODHOUND HUNTING

79 Drag and bloodhound hunting involve following a man-made trail, either an artificial scent or the scent of a human being. It is frequently argued that they could provide a very satisfactory replacement for live quarry hunting, enabling hunters, followers, hounds and horses to switch from one activity to the other.

80 The research which we commissioned, and the evidence which we heard, indicates that the picture is more complicated than this. There are potential difficulties over such matters as the availability of suitable land, the relative "predictability" of these sports compared with live quarry hunting, the lack of attraction for non-mounted followers, the problems in producing interesting "houndwork" and the fact that they tend to appeal most at present to those who want concentrated riding and jumping.

Chapter 9 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF HUNTING: THE CONCERNS

Trespass, disruption and disturbance

88 There are complaints of trespass, disruption and disturbance by the hunts. These include trespass on roads and railway lines, invasion of people's property and blocking of roads and lanes. There is also concern about the way in which hunts sometimes deal with complaints.

Openness

90 Concerns about hunting are exacerbated by a sense that it is not really open to public scrutiny.

Autumn/cub hunting

92 Autumn/cub hunting takes place in the late summer/early autumn. It is argued that it is important in reducing the numbers of foxes; that it disperses the young foxes; and that it serves to train young hounds. These arguments are not wholly persuasive. Moreover, the practice of "holding up" (i.e. driving foxes back into the wood or coppice) causes concern.

Digging-out and bolting/Terrierwork

94 There is concern about terrierwork. It is felt that a fox, once it has gone to ground, should not be dug out. There are also reports of injuries caused in fights between terriers and foxes underground. On the other hand, it is argued that terrierwork is important in controlling fox numbers, especially in upland sheep-rearing and game management areas.

Stopping-up

96 There are complaints that hunts are not complying with the legal requirements governing the way in which they may stop up badger setts. Some people also object to the stopping up of foxes' earths.

Use of artificial earths

98 Artificial earths have been used by hunts to provide shelter for foxes and to provide shelter for foxes and to encourage them to live in suitable places.

Deliberately interfering with the quarry's flight

A closed season for hares

101 There is no closed season for culling hares.

102 There is understandable concern that the seasons for hare coursing and hunting are too long in relation to the hare's breeding season. In the absence of a ban on hunting, an option would be to introduce a closed season. Consideration would also need to be given to whether a closed season should apply to shooting.

Hunting hinds with calves

Legislative action

Hunting practised outside the registered hunts and coursing clubs

105 A great deal of hunting takes place outside the regulatory framework of the registered hunts and coursing clubs. Consideration would have to be given, in the absence of a ban, to the way in which any changes made should apply to these activities.

Licensing and regulation

107 Many other countries have licensing systems to cover hunting, governing such matters as the suitability of the applicant and their knowledge of hunting. In the absence of a ban, consideration could be given to establishing such a system here.

Further research

110 There are a number of issues which would probably benefit from further research work, if a ban on hunting was not introduced.

Chapter 10 IMPLEMENTING A BAN

Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights

112 It has been argued that a ban on hunting would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The arguments principally centre on whether a ban can be regarded as an interference with "respect for private life" and, if so, whether this is justified under the terms of the Convention; and on whether a ban can be regarded as an interference with property rights and, if so, whether this is justified in the "general interest".

Scope and form

114 In preparing legislation to ban hunting consideration would have to be given to the precise scope of the Bill; the need for exemptions or exceptions; whether the prohibited activities can be defined sufficiently clearly; whether the main offence should be defined closely or be cast in broad terms; what the mental element of the offence should be; the need for secondary offences and enabling powers; and its geographical coverage.

Timing

119 There are three options in respect of the implementation of a ban: implementing it at an early fixed date; implementing it at a later fixed date; and providing an order-making power to allow various provisions to be brought into force subsequently.

Enforcement

122 It is argued that the police might have some difficulties in enforcing, and in giving sufficient priority to, a ban on hunting.

Controls on hunting

124 There are various matters relating to other methods of control which might be considered in the event of a ban on hunting.

Other population management measures

126 Other than in relation to hares, there are no arrangements for monitoring or managing mammal populations.

Encouraging other activities

128 The extent to which drag and bloodhound hunting would be taken up, in the event of a ban, would depend on its appeal in comparison with other leisure activities. The Jockey Club and others would no doubt consider the future of point-to-pointing. No central government action would seem to be necessary.

Financial, economic and employment aspects

130 Local action might be needed to deal with the employment and economic consequences of a ban. It would be necessary to consider whether any action was required in respect of the fallen stock service and the destruction of hounds.

Back to contents

1.1 This chapter sets out our terms of reference and describes how we went about our work.

1.2 The Committee's terms of reference were:

"To inquire into:

• the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales;
• the consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and
• how any ban might be implemented.

To report the findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department".

1.3 The Home Secretary made clear that he intended that the Committee should focus on the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. He also indicated that he regarded the use of dogs to retrieve dead or injured quarry as being outside our terms of reference.

1.4 It is important to stress that we were not asked to recommend whether hunting [1] should be banned. Nor were we asked to consider moral or ethical issues. Instead, our task was to set out as clearly as possible the impact of hunting on certain matters, the effects of a ban on those matters and how a ban might be implemented. Chapter 2 discusses the scope of our work in greater detail.

1.5 We were appointed in December 1999 and were asked to report by "late spring". This meant that we had about six months to complete our inquiry.[2] Inevitably, this placed some limitations on the way we went about our work: for example, there was not time - even if we had wished to do so - to take extensive oral evidence. Nor could we follow up in great detail any matters which, though of interest, were not central to our inquiry. We hope, nevertheless, that the open way in which we approached our work, which we describe below, enabled all the interested parties to contribute fully despite the tight timetable.

1.6 The immediate background to the setting-up of our inquiry was continuing debate, in Parliament and elsewhere, about a possible ban on hunting. This followed the failure of a Bill, introduced by Mr Michael Foster MP in November 1997, to make progress beyond Report Stage in the House of Commons.

1.7 Mr Foster's Bill is one of a succession of Bills which have been introduced since the last full-scale inquiry into hunting, undertaken by the Scott Henderson Committee, reported in 1951.[3] These Bills have either sought to ban hunting with dogs in general or specific activities such as foxhunting or hare coursing. Even while we have been undertaking our work, two further Private Member's Bills have been introduced, Lord Watson has introduced a Bill before the Scottish Parliament and amendments have been tabled to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

1.8 Our examination, in the rest of our report, of the issues surrounding hunting inevitably leaves us open to the inference that we support a ban; that we are opposed to it; or that we favour some "middle way". We need to make the position clear. We have reached no view on these matters - because we were not asked to do so - and nothing in the rest of our report should be construed to the contrary.

1.9 In carrying out our work we tried to be as open and as even-handed as possible. For example, we made available on our website as much as possible of the written evidence which we received from the main organisations and a number of individuals.[4] We were also accompanied on visits by representatives of the two main "pro" and "anti" organisations: the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000.[5] This helped to provide reassurance to us and to others that we were seeing hunting activities as they would normally take place.

1.10 The following paragraphs describe the main ways in which we collected evidence.

1.11 We issued a request for written evidence on 19 January 2000 inviting responses by 21 February. This request was sent to 247 organisations and placed on the Committee's website. We received written evidence from 317 organisations and 53 individuals. A list of the main organisations which responded is at Appendices 1 and 2.[6][7] Appendix 3 contains an analysis of the written evidence sent to us by members of the public. We subsequently issued a further request for written evidence on 17 April 2000. This invited brief observations on evidence which had already been submitted and on other material which we had posted on our website. This request was sent to those organisations which had submitted evidence on the first round and was also posted on our website. We received 79 responses, all of which were placed on our website.[8]

1.12 We took oral evidence from the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 on 6 and 10 April 2000. These sessions were held in public and transcripts were placed on the website.[9]

1.13 We commissioned research on the following topics:

• hunting with dogs: expenditure and numbers employed by hunts and their followers
• the direct and indirect effects of hunting with dogs on the rural economy and the longer-term effects of a ban
• the effects of hunting with dogs on the social and cultural life of the countryside
• management of the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink and the impact of hunting with dogs
• methods of controlling foxes, deer, hares and mink
• the effects of hunting with dogs on the welfare of foxes, deer, hares and mink
• drag and bloodhound hunting.

Further details of the research are given in Appendix 4.

1.14 Draft final reports of the research were made publicly available prior to our holding seminars to discuss the findings.[10] These seminars also took place in public and transcripts were made available on the website. Each seminar took the form of a discussion between the researchers, the Committee, representatives of the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 and other expert contributors. Following the seminars the researchers produced their final reports. These reports are discussed in later chapters. We also held a seminar on implementing a ban on hunting: this issue is discussed in Chapter 10 of our report.[11]

1.15 We also commissioned the following pieces of background briefing and research:

• an interpretative account of foxhunting by Dr Garry Marvin of the Roehampton Institute, University of Surrey, on which we have drawn in Chapter 2
• post mortem reports on four foxes killed by hunts - discussed in Chapter 6 [12]
• post mortem reports on twelve hares killed during hare coursing - also discussed in Chapter 6 [13]
• a survey of Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group advisers - discussed in Chapter 7 [14]
• information about hunting in other countries, compiled by Professor S.R. and D.F. Harrop of the University of Kent - summarised in Appendix 9.

1.16 We thought it important to see at first hand as wide a range of hunting activities as possible, including drag and bloodhound hunting and drag coursing. Our visits included seeing a demonstration drag hunt in Germany. Because of the time of year, however, we were not able to observe autumn/cub hunting: see paragraph 2.29. We also observed lamping i.e. shooting at night using a bright spotlamp. Details of our visits are at Appendix 5. On our visits, in addition to observing hunting, we spent time talking to those present about their views on hunting and the impact of a ban. We also visited some hunt kennels and stables, a wildlife hospital and a sanctuary run by the League Against Cruel Sports.

1.17 We considered holding fully open public meetings. However, discussions with the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 suggested that joint meetings would not be productive. We therefore held four meetings with Countryside Alliance supporters in Exmoor, Coventry, Builth Wells and Leeds, and three meetings with Deadline 2000 supporters in Taunton, Wrexham and York. Each organisation was responsible for issuing invitations to its own supporters. Summaries of the issues raised at these meetings were placed on our website.[15] In addition, we attended two informal gatherings with Deadline 2000 supporters. These took place in Taunton and London and were intended to provide the same opportunities to talk informally to us as hunt supporters had enjoyed during our visits.

1.18 In the latter stages of our work we appointed Professor David Macdonald and Mr Michael Fordham to assist us, respectively, on scientific and legal issues.

[1] For the sake of simplicity, the term "hunting" is normally used in this report to describe the activities with which the Committee was concerned. See paragraphs 2.66 to 2.70 for a description of other types of hunting with dogs, which were outside our terms of reference. In other countries, "hunting" often has an even broader meaning, encompassing shooting.

Back to contents

2.1 The main purpose of this chapter is to describe the different types of hunting covered by our terms of reference. We also give a brief summary of the legal position. And we say something about the way organised hunting is run and financed and what it costs. Finally, we give some information about other types of hunting, involving the use of dogs, which fall outside our terms of reference and about hunting-related activities such as point-to-point and National Hunt racing.

2.2 Hunting with dogs covers a wide range of activities. The following paragraphs summarise the main types of hunting with dogs with which we are concerned.

2.3 The main ways in which foxes are hunted with dogs are:

• on horseback by registered [16] packs of foxhounds and harriers
• on foot by the registered and affiliated foxhound packs in the Lake District (the 'Fell packs') and by registered and unregistered packs in Wales
• by registered and unregistered gunpacks in Wales, which use hounds mainly to flush out foxes to waiting guns
• by the use of terriers, in conjunction with the above packs or by other groups or individuals such as gamekeepers, in order to locate or kill the fox underground and to dig it out or bolt it to nets, guns or lurchers or other "long dogs"
• by the use of lurchers and other "long dogs" at night to kill foxes caught in the beam of a powerful lamp.

2.4 Deer are hunted on horseback by the three registered packs hunting red deer in the south west of England and by at least two unregistered packs hunting roe deer.

2.5 Hares are hunted on horseback by the registered packs of harriers and, on foot, by the registered packs of beagles and basset hounds.

2.6 Hare coursing is practised by registered coursing clubs using greyhounds or other dogs and by other groups and individuals using lurchers or other "long dogs".

2.7 Mink hunting takes place by the registered packs of mink hounds and by the use of terriers in conjunction with these packs.

2.8 The best known, and most visible, types of hunting come under the auspices of various bodies such as the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA). But a good deal of hunting takes place outside this regulatory framework, sometimes involving trespass on private land. It is impossible to quantify accurately how much hunting takes place informally, but the fact that it is extensive has considerable implications for estimating the effects of hunting, the impact of a ban and how a ban might be implemented. We return to this aspect in later chapters of our report.

2.9 The registered packs and coursing clubs operate a system of self-regulation, [17] but there is no body of legislation in England and Wales which is specifically concerned with hunting. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 prohibits the carrying out of various acts with intent to cause suffering to wild mammals. There is an exception, however, in respect of hunting and coursing provided that an animal is killed "in a reasonably swift and humane manner" and provided that the individual concerned is not trespassing. There is a further exception in respect of acts done by a dog used for the purposes of killing or taking any wild mammal. There are also specific provisions in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which allow registered hunts to stop up badger setts provided that certain conditions are met. In addition, there are various provisions in other pieces of legislation, summarised in Appendix 8, which deal with such matters as the prohibition on the sale of hare during the breeding season.

Hunting by registered packs

(i) Background

2.10 Organised traditional mounted foxhunting in England and Wales has a relatively short history compared with the hunting of hares and deer. By the late thirteenth century, King Edward I had a royal pack of foxhounds but it was not until several centuries later that foxhunting was generally taken up by the nobility. [18] Today there are some 175 foxhunting packs in England and Wales registered with the MFHA.[19] There are also nine fell packs registered with, or affiliated to, the Central Committee of Fell Packs (CCFP).[20] In addition, there are seven packs of harriers, registered with the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles (AMHB), which mainly hunt foxes, under MFHA rules. There are also another two harrier packs which are registered to hunt foxes.[21]

2.11 The position in Wales is less clear and more fluid. There are 48 foxhunting packs registered with the Federation of Welsh Packs (FWP), which include 27 Welsh-based packs of the MFHA, and 30 registered with the Welsh Farmers' Fox Control Association (WFFCA), although some of these are also registered with the FWP.[22] However, both these bodies have been formed fairly recently and represent only a proportion of the total number of packs in Wales. Some estimates put the number of unregistered packs in Wales at two or three times those of registered packs.[23]

2.12 Hunting by the registered packs takes place from August/September until March/April. The hunting season in a particular area depends on local circumstances, especially the need to avoid damaging crops or disturbing livestock. In total there are some 15,000 meets throughout the season. Most hunts go out twice a week but some of the larger hunts go out more frequently. According to a survey commissioned by the Countryside Alliance, there are about 67,000 subscribers and hunt supporters, the great majority of whom would be involved in foxhunting.[24]

2.13 About 14,000-15,000 foxes a year are killed by MFHA packs and a further 7,000-10,000 by other registered packs.[25] About a third of the foxes killed by MFHA hunts are dug out and shot but the percentages vary significantly in different parts of the country, ranging from 18% in the East Midlands to 77% in mid-Wales.[26]

2.14 Those hunts covered in a Produce Studies survey [27] kill, on average, 79 foxes over 74 hunting days. This amounts to just over 1 fox per day’s hunting, averaged over the year. The number of foxes killed per hunting day does not vary a great deal by region, the lowest being 0.8 per day in the North and the highest 1.3 per day in Wales.

2.15 A typical MFHA pack has an income of £73,000 a year, although there are some important regional variations. The average in the Midlands and East Anglia region is £125,000, in contrast to £35,000 in Wales. On average, there are 120 subscribers per hunt and 200 members of supporters’ clubs.[28][29]

2.16 About 40 to 50 per cent of the hunts' income goes on employment costs. On average, a typical hunt employs 2.5 full-time and 1.4 part-time staff (excluding employed Masters), although this varies with the size of the hunt. On average, they look after four horses that are owned by the hunt, 31 couple of entered hounds and nine couple of unentered hounds.[30][31]

2.17 Putting on a day's hunting costs an average of £1,000 after all overheads have been allocated.[32] Again, there are regional variations. The number of days' hunting is similar across regions and the differences in income are reflected in differences in the average cost of putting on a day's hunting. In the Midlands and East Anglia it is £1,500 per day, compared with £500 per day in Wales.[33]

2.18 Averaging out over the year and across all foxhunts, each fox killed costs £930. Looking at it by region, the cost per fox killed varies from almost £1,500 in the South to £380 in Wales. Looking at the figures for the individual hunts, the range is much bigger. There are six hunts, mainly in Wales, which have a cost per fox of under £100. At the other end of the spectrum, seven hunts have a cost per fox of over £3,000. In large part this reflects the extent to which hunting can be seen as a recreational activity or, alternatively, as efficient pest control. If anything, these figures probably understate the full cost, particularly with the hunts with a lower income, as some labour is provided on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, there will have been some additional "lambing"calls when the hunt will have gone out without the field and which are not included in these figures for the number of days’ hunting.

2.19 The following paragraphs briefly describe the main features of a day's foxhunting with mounted followers.

(ii) A day's hunting

2.20 In the days leading up to a hunt the Master or Huntsman [34] is expected to contact farmers and landowners in the area to discuss any potential difficulties such as growing crops or fields in which livestock are being held. Many hunts take steps the night before, or early on the day of the hunt, to block up the entrances to earths, badger setts and artificial places such as drains. This is to ensure that foxes stay above ground after they have hunted during the night and to prevent them from going to ground once the hunt has started. Where earths have been stopped they are required by the MFHA rules to be opened up again at the end of the day's hunting.

2.21 Typically, riders, hounds and followers gather together at the meet at about 11:00 am. This is usually held at a farm or outside a public house or on a village green. After refreshments and any announcements, the Huntsman, the hunt staff and hounds will "move off" to the place where it is planned to start hunting. The mounted field, typically 30 at a mid-week meet and 50 at weekends, led by the Field Master, will follow at a distance. A similar number of other followers will set off, often in vehicles, for a suitable vantage point.

2.22 The hounds will be encouraged to spread out to "draw" (search) for a fox in woodland or rough ground. If they find a scent, the hounds will "speak" (give voice excitedly) and follow the "line". Sometimes the hounds will come across a fox and kill it immediately ("chop" it) before it has had a chance to flee. In other cases, the hounds, followed at a distance by the mounted field, who may have to take an indirect route, will pursue the fox or, rather, its scent. Often, the hounds will lose the scent altogether, as a result of the scenting conditions or the fox's movements. They may have to "check" in order to rediscover it. If the hounds are successful in their pursuit, they will get close enough to the fox to see it and will then catch it up, kill it and usually tear at the carcass ("break it up"). The length of the chase may vary considerably, from a few minutes to well over an hour or even longer, but the average is some 15 to 20 minutes. The distance covered may be anything up to six or seven miles, in a circular or twisting line.[35] The Huntsman, once he or she has caught up with the hounds, will call them off. The tail ("brush") of the fox, or possibly its feet, may be removed and given to one of the followers. Generally, few riders and followers will be present at the kill.[36]

2.23 Quite frequently, instead of being caught by the hounds, the fox will go to ground, typically in a fox earth. According to the rules of the MFHA, if the fox has gone to ground in a natural earth, it may be dug out and killed if the farmer or landowner has requested that any foxes going to ground on his or her land should be dug out.[37] It cannot be released to be hunted again. The decision whether to dig out is for the Master to take and may turn on the difficulty of doing so or the damage which might be caused in the process. If, however, the fox has taken refuge in a man-made structure, or in a place such as rocks where it cannot be dug out, the fox may be "bolted", by putting a terrier down, and hunted again. The MFHA rules require that the fox must be given a sporting chance to escape before the hounds are "laid on".

2.24 The same rules about digging-out apply to MFHA-registered members of the FWP and to those AMBH packs which hunt foxes. The CCFP's rules also require that the MFHA procedures should be followed, although we understand that more discretion is permitted because of the nature of the terrain and the greater emphasis on 'pest control'.

2.25 The task of dealing with a fox that has "gone to ground" falls to the terrierman.[38] In the case of the MFHA and related associations, the terrierman must be on the register of terriermen kept by the MFHA and must also hold a current licence from them.[39] If the fox is to be dug out, they will close, or net off, other possible exits and then put a terrier (usually with a radio tracking device) down the hole in order to locate the fox. The terrier will either bolt the fox or drive it back to a stationary position. In the case of the latter, the terriermen will then block any exits from the earth and dig down to the fox, remove the terrier and shoot the fox in the head with a specially-adapted pistol. If the fox runs into a net, it will be held still and shot. The MFHA rules state that only one or two people should assist the terrierman when digging out or bolting and that the Master in charge, or someone of authority personally appointed by them, must supervise any digging-out or bolting operation.[40] In the meantime the hunt will usually have moved on to begin hunting elsewhere.

2.26 For the rest of the day there will be a similar process of drawing, scenting and pursuit. Mounted followers may change horses.

2.27 A typical day's hunting for a fell pack - and for foot packs in Wales - is quite similar except that no horses are involved and, because of the terrain, the hounds tend to work at a greater distance from the Huntsman.

2.28 The Welsh gunpacks, however, operate rather differently. Typically, the hounds will be sent into forested areas to drive out foxes to waiting shotguns. These tend to be stationed near routes which foxes leaving the wood are likely to take. The foxes will often move out quite slowly, perhaps having been merely disturbed by the noise of the hounds some distance away in the wood. Some foxes will be "chopped" in the forest; others may escape the guns and then be pursued by the hounds; some may go to ground and be dug out. There is no firm information on the numbers killed by these different means.

2.29 Starting in late August or September, many packs engage in "autumn" or "cub" hunting. The object is to kill or disperse foxes, whose numbers will have increased during the breeding season, and to introduce the young hounds to hunting foxes. Soon after daybreak the Huntsman and a few others on foot or horseback will surround a small wood or coppice and send the hounds in. Foxes will either be killed in the wood or will escape, sometimes pursued by the hounds. Those present will attempt to deter fleeing foxes by making as much noise as possible. Autumn/cub hunting is not advertised in the meet card and there are usually very few people present. About 40% of the foxes killed by MFHA packs are killed during autumn/cub hunting.[41]

Other hunting of foxes

2.30 Although there has been little research carried out on the subject, it is generally accepted that the number of foxes killed with the use of dogs by other groups and individuals is higher than those killed by the registered packs. We include in this category both legal hunting and illegal activities i.e. those involving trespass because prior permission has not been obtained from the landowner.

2.31 Terrierwork is the most widespread. It is practised by some individual farmers and gamekeepers as a means of pest control, and by individual or "gangs" of terriermen, as a sport, or in response to a request for help in pest control. The National Working Terrier Federation (NWTF) consists of 26 clubs and has about 3,000-4,000 individual members. It has drawn up regulations and a code of conduct. However, much terrierwork is carried out by non-members. There is no accurate estimate of the numbers of foxes killed with the use of terriers outside registered hunting.

2.32 The use of lurchers or other "long dogs", though not as widespread as terrierwork, is nonetheless significant. Some are used for pest control by farmers and gamekeepers, most often in the context of lamping. There are also many other lurcher owners in the country, a small minority of whom use their dogs for catching foxes. The Association of Lurcher Clubs has a set of regulations and a code of conduct for their membership, which, though growing in number, represents only a minority of the total number of lurcher owners. Numbers of foxes killed by the use of lurchers are impossible to estimate with any precision.

International information

2.33 Foxes are hunted with dogs and guns in many other countries. Mounted 'English-style' foxhunting is also widely practised, including by 10 packs in the Scottish lowlands and a number of packs in Ireland, the USA and Canada.[42]

Hunting by registered packs

2.34 There are now three registered packs of hounds in Britain which hunt red deer, all based in Devon and Somerset: the Devon & Somerset, the Quantock and the Tiverton Staghounds. The New Forest Buckhounds, which hunted fallow deer, were disbanded in 1997.[43][44]

2.35 The three packs hunt on a total of about 290 days each season and have a total income of £360,000 a year. The average cost of putting on a day's hunting, at £1,250, is about 25 per cent higher than for the average fox hunt and reflects the larger number of hounds in the pack and the greater number of horses that are owned by the hunt.[45]

2.36 The three packs are of very different size, with the result that average figures for members and followers are less meaningful. However, the three hunts have mounted fields averaging about 50 at mid-week meets and 90 at weekends. The number of unmounted followers is put at 150 for mid-week meets and 300 at weekends.[46]

2.37 The season is divided into three phases. Mature stags are hunted in August, September and October. Hinds are hunted from the beginning of November to the end of February. "Spring stags", usually two to four years old, are hunted in the last two months of the season, March and April. The numbers killed over the seasons are evenly distributed both between stags and hinds and, among stags, between mature and "spring". Over the last five years the packs have killed about 160 deer each season in total. They also deal with about 80 "casualty" deer each year. The latter are deer which have been injured, for example in road accidents, and which the hunts are called out to dispatch. The total number of deer killed by the packs, excluding casualties, is thought to represent about 15% of the number which it is estimated [47] need to be killed to prevent the population increasing in the area. The average cost per deer for the hunt comes to £2,300, excluding "casualty" deer, and £1,500 per deer if "casualties" are included.

2.38 A major difference between deer hunting and fox and hare hunting is that, in the case of the stags at least, the hunt aims to select, hunt and kill a particular deer. It is the role of the "harbourer", following discussion with farmers in the area, to select a particular stag for the hunt to pursue. The harbourer and assistants will track the individual deer's whereabouts the previous day and return there early in the morning of the hunt to make sure it is still in the same place. The harbourer will then advise the Huntsman, who will take a small number of experienced hounds (called "tufters") to flush out the stag. The stag will then be given a head start before the whole pack sets off in pursuit.

2.39 The selection of a hind to hunt is usually more random since they are difficult to distinguish from each other. In this case the tufters will usually be sent to disperse a small herd, with the intention of separating one from the others.

2.40 The length and duration of the chase can vary considerably. The chase may last less than an hour or it can even last all day. Recent research indicates that, in the case of deer that are killed, the average duration of the hunt is about three hours and that the distance travelled is about 18 kilometres.[48] The chase will usually take the form of a series of intermittent flights by the deer as the hounds come near, followed by periods when the deer will move more slowly or even lie low. Sometimes the hounds will lose the scent altogether and have to cast around for it. About half the deer which are separated from the herd and hunted subsequently escape.[49]

2.41 Eventually, if the hounds are successful in following the deer, the stag ceases to run and confronts the hounds by turning and facing them ("standing at bay"). (Hinds similarly stop and may lie down.) In Exmoor this quite often takes place in a river or stream.[50] The hounds will surround the stag until the Huntsman and gun carrier arrive. The hounds are trained not to attack the deer but biting occasionally occurs.

2.42 Since the last war, the preferred method of ensuring a quick kill has been a 12 bore shotgun.[51] A shot to the head is always used, and the marksman will get as close to the deer as possible. The recommended maximum distance is seven yards in order to ensure an "instant knockdown". A second shot is occasionally required. Each hunt will also have several members who carry, and are trained in, the use of firearms known as a "humane killer" (normally a .32 pistol). The nearest available gun carrier will be expected to shoot the quarry if, for example, it is known to be lying down or otherwise concealing itself in such a manner that the marksman does not have a clean shot. On occasion, the deer may be held by the antlers or neck.

2.43 After the kill, the deer is cleaned and the offal (with the exception of the liver) is fed to the hounds. Slots and antlers are retained and subsequently mounted. The carcass is butchered and distributed free of charge to farmers and landowners in the area where the deer was found.

Other hunting of deer by dogs

2.44 Roe deer are also hunted by at least two unregistered buckhound packs in parts of the staghound hunt countries. The hounds used to hunt roe deer are usually either basset/harrier crosses or beagles. Buckhounds commonly pursue their quarry followed only by a small core of mounted followers (Huntsman, Master and whipper-in), with the remainder of followers on foot. The way in which roe deer are hunted is similar to that described for hind hunting. An average hunt which results in a kill normally lasts about an hour to an hour and a half. At the end of the chase, roe deer tend to lie down, rather than being brought to bay, and are then dispatched with a modified shotgun or humane killer. Hunting of male roe deer usually takes place between the end of August and the end of October, and also from April to early May. Females are hunted from October to February. Each of the two packs usually hunts once a week during the season, with a total of around 35 meets per pack. The main purpose of roe deer hunting is to provide sport. It is estimated that about 30-40 roe deer in total are killed each year by the two packs.[52]

International information

2.45 In Germany, the use of hounds for hunting deer has been forbidden since 1936. Trained dogs are, however, commonly used for tracking and following wounded deer. In Sweden, hunting of roe deer with shotguns and driving deer with hounds is permitted. The use of dogs for driving deer is also still permitted in France and Belgium. In France, La Grande Vénerie (mounted hunting with dogs), is particularly popular, with about 120 registered packs hunting red or roe deer.[53] In Spain, the traditional hunting method known as the 'Monteria' is still practised, which involves the use of dogs, beaters, and sometimes also horse-mounted riders, to drive deer towards guns.

Organised hare hunting

2.46 Hunting hares with hounds dates back some 2000 years. Nowadays, in England and Wales, three different types of hounds are used: beagles, bassets and harriers.

2.47 There are 72 registered packs of beagles in England and Wales, 10 packs of bassets and 20 packs of harriers. (Seven of the harrier packs hunt mainly foxes and two hunt foxes and hares). Beagles and bassets are followed on foot, while harriers are followed on horseback. Beagle and harrier packs are registered with the AMHB and the basset packs are governed by the Masters of Basset Hounds Association (MBHA). The packs have an average income of £17,000 a year and, on average, hunt over some 50 days a year at an average cost of £325 per day. Typically, there are reported to be about 30 followers present at weekend meets. The packs kill about 1,650 brown hares in total or, on average, less than 20 hares per pack.[54]

2.48 There is no statutory closed season for hare hunting but the AMHB rules forbid hunting after the end of March [55] to coincide with the onset of the breeding season. The season begins in late August or early September. The way in which hunting by packs of harriers and bassets is carried out is broadly similar to foxhunting by a mounted hunt, although hares generally travel much shorter distances and tend to follow a circular route. In addition, since hares live entirely above ground, earth stopping and digging-out are not practised.

Other hare hunting

2.49 In addition to the registered packs of hounds, there are a small number of privately-owned packs which hunt hares.

2.50 Much more significant, though, in terms of the numbers of hares killed are the activities of various other groups and individuals who use dogs to kill or course hares: see paragraph 2.56 below.

International information

2.51 Hunting hares with registered packs, as opposed to using dogs for driving or retrieving, is not practised widely elsewhere in the world with the exception of France, where "Petit Vénerie" (foot pack hunting) is widespread. There are currently 115 registered packs in France which hunt hares.[56]

Organised hare coursing

2.52 Hare coursing has a long history, going back to the Egyptian and Greek empires. It seems likely that it was introduced to Britain by the Romans. It became very popular in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries when there were some 300 coursing clubs and large crowds attended the Waterloo Cup, the premier hare coursing event.

2.53 There are now some 24 greyhound coursing clubs affiliated to the National Coursing Club (NCC), as well as clubs for other breeds such as whippets and salukis. Some dogs also run on the greyhound track. The NCC has a set of rules which affiliated clubs are required to observe. It also licenses key officials, including coursing inspectors, whose duties are to ensure that the rules are observed at each event. In the 1998/1999 season, 90 days' coursing took place, involving some 1,600 courses. About 250 hares have been killed each year in recent seasons.[57]

2.54 Coursing by registered clubs takes place from 15 September to 10 March. The object is to test the skills of two greyhounds in a knock-out competition. Typically, a day's coursing will involve some 32 dogs competing against each other in a series of rounds, with the final two dogs challenging for a cup and a cash prize. A mounted judge awards the dogs points for their speed and skill in making the hare turn. A maximum of one point is awarded in the event of a dog catching a hare.

2.55 Typically, beaters move in from neighbouring fields, encouraging hares onto the coursing field, one at a time. (In "walked-up", as opposed to "driven", coursing the participants walk in a line through a field and release the dogs from the middle of it when the hare sits up.) The slipper, who is holding the two greyhounds on a leash, is expected to allow the hare a minimum of some 80 yards before releasing the dogs. The dogs quickly gain ground on the hare, but the latter twists and turns and has much more stamina. Because greyhounds hunt by sight alone, once the hare reaches cover or a hedge, the chase is over. An average course lasts about 40 seconds. If a hare is caught, one of the pickers-up is expected to get to it as quickly as possible and to ensure that it is dead. This is done by breaking the hare's neck. The number of hares killed averages between one in six and one in eight overall, but the proportion varies considerably between coursing events.

Unregulated coursing

2.56 In terms of the number of hares killed, unregulated coursing, including illegal coursing, where the landowner's permission has not been obtained, is thought to be very significant. The actual numbers killed can only be inferred from the estimated number of working lurchers, which, at its lowest, is put at 70,000 and, by another survey, at over 200,000. The fact that hare populations are concentrated in specific areas of southern and eastern England probably serves to limit the number killed by unregistered coursing rather more than the figures for lurcher ownership would indicate. Hunting hares for the pot is also carried out with dogs but there is no reliable evidence of the numbers killed.

2.57 Illegal coursing is sometimes accompanied by threats or physical violence to landowners, leading some farmers and landowners to "shoot out" hares in order to deter illegal coursers and poachers.[58]

International information

2.58 Coursing is a popular greyhound sport in Ireland. Most of the coursing that takes place is "park", in which the coursing occurs within enclosures and the greyhounds are muzzled. There is also open coursing on the English model, for which the greyhounds are not muzzled. Open coursing is also popular in Spain, and park coursing is being reintroduced in Portugal, after hare numbers on the estates had been decimated during the 1970s. Coursing is also popular in Pakistan, and greyhounds are often shipped out from this country for the purpose. The position in the USA varies state by state but open coursing is still practised in California, Wyoming and Montana. Live hare coursing is no longer permitted in Australia.[59]

Organised mink hunting

2.59 Mink hunting is a relatively recent development. North American mink were introduced into this country in 1928 and subsequently spread widely as the result of escaping, or being released, from mink farms. Following the ban on the killing of otters introduced in 1975, the former otterhound packs switched entirely to hunting mink. The Masters of Minkhounds Association (MMHA) was formed in 1978 and now represents 20 mink hunts in England and Wales, some of which are privately run. Some five to 15 couple of hounds are used for hunting. These are often kennelled at neighbouring foxhunts. The average income for a mink hunt is reported as £4,500.

2.60 The mink hunting season usually runs from April to early October. Hunts go out, on average, once or twice a week, with about 35 followers present at weekend meets,[60] although the number of people following a mink hunt varies from a handful to as many as 150.[61] The hunts manage, on average, about 42 days' hunting in each season, killing some 400-1,400 mink a year in total.[62] The hunts also respond to calls at short notice from people suffering from mink depredation. In 1999 these represented just over 10% of the total meets.

2.61 A day's mink hunting is conducted in a similar fashion to other types of hunting on foot, although of course it takes place mainly along rivers and streams. The hounds will draw a river bank or stream. Occasionally, a mink, once discovered, may be killed quickly ("chopped") by the hounds. More often the hounds will pursue its scent, checking to rediscover it as necessary. The mink will either be caught by the hounds or, if it has climbed a tree, it may be shot or dislodged so that it falls to the hounds.[64] As with fox hunts, mink hunts may make use of terriers for bolting mink and for the purposes of digging-out.[65]

Other hunting of mink by dogs

2.62 There is no information about whether other hunting of mink by dogs takes place.

International information

2.63 Trained dogs are sometimes used in Iceland to sniff out occupied mink dens, from which the mink may be captured.

2.64 As we mentioned in Chapter 1, we were asked to examine hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. The Home Secretary also indicated that he regarded the use of dogs to locate or retrieve quarry as being outside our terms of reference.

2.65 We thought that it would be helpful, nevertheless, to describe briefly other hunting activities involving dogs, since they might be affected by any future legislation to ban hunting with dogs.

2.66 It is common in rural areas to use terriers, and other dogs, in an attempt to control rat populations, particularly on agricultural properties and where gamebirds are found. Ratting is largely conducted on an informal basis and is regarded as being a useful contribution to pest control. Whilst there is a social component to ratting, it appears to be viewed mainly as a means of pest control where poison cannot be used safely.[66]

2.67 Dogs (spaniels and pointers) are used extensively with hawks and falcons to flush quarry such as rabbits for the bird to give chase. We received representations from those involved in falconry to say that they believed that any ban on hunting with dogs, on the lines of the Bill introduced by Mr Michael Foster MP, would have a direct and serious effect on the continuation of falconry as a sport and as a means of pest control.[67]

2.68 The use of dogs for hunting rabbits is widespread and involves a large number of breeds/types of dog, the lurcher appearing to be the type most commonly used. This activity is carried out as a sport and as a means of pest control and can take several forms, for example in conjunction with ferrets to put up the rabbit; in lamping; and in coursing. Terriers are also used, often in conjunction with ferrets, with the terrier being used to mark the warren before the ferret is introduced.[68]

2.69 In stalking deer, use is made of dogs to scent the deer and provide advance warning to the stalker of the presence of deer. A dog (or dogs) may also be used to locate a deer that has been shot or wounded, enabling the stalker to dispatch it or, in the case of a fatally wounded deer which has run before death, to locate the carcass.[69]

2.70 Gamebirds are often driven towards guns by a combination of human beaters and dogs. We have received representations which stress that such dogs, no matter how well trained, may pursue other animals that are put up in the course of a beat. Concern has been expressed to us that any legislation to ban hunting should take this into account.[70]

2.71 Point-to-pointing is an amateur form of steeplechasing, regulated by the Jockey Club. To qualify to race in a point-to-point a horse must have hunted a minimum of seven times in the current season. Certification to this effect is issued by the relevant hunt and lodged with the Jockey Club. A total of 4,106 horses qualified with 190 hunts in 1999. Each point-to-point rider is required to be a member of, or a subscriber to, a recognised hunt. In 1999, the Jockey Club issued 1,084 riders' qualification certificates.

2.72 Point-to-points are designed in part to raise funds for the organising hunt, but also to provide a competitive arena for the participants and an enjoyable day out in the countryside for spectators. They attract around 700,000 people every year. In 2000 there are 209 meetings programmed, being held at around 120 different venues around the country.

2.73 Point-to-points are generally regarded as the training ground for both horses and riders prior to National Hunt racing, with young horses learning their trade. Around 10% of National Hunt runners have previously been point-to-pointing. At the same time, many National Hunt horses are able to enjoy a healthy and active retirement by being ridden in point-to-point and in the hunting field.

2.74 Hunter chases, for horses which have hunted in the current season, make up 10% of the National Hunt steeplechase programme.

Chapter 2 Footnotes