Official Report 361KB pdf
We are ready to progress to today's most time-consuming business. It will take a moment or two to get the first team of witnesses in place, but I ask members not to leave.
The National Working Terrier Federation is extremely grateful for this opportunity to present oral evidence. We are opposed to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, which would criminalise the use of terriers to control foxes and mink. It would also affect adversely people who use terriers to control rats and rabbits, because those people would be required to justify their actions or run the risk of falling foul of the law. We believe that the bill is based on ignorance, misinformation and misguided political bigotry, and that it is influenced by animal rights, rather than animal welfare, considerations.
Can I stop you there, Mr Wade? We are keen to get on with questions, and we have the remainder of your statement before us. Is that okay?
That is fine, convener.
In the opening sentence of your submission you state:
Terriers are used frequently to control mink and so are hounds. Hounds from down south have visited north of the border. I used, about 15 years ago, to go to the Stair estate near Stranraer. We took hounds and terriers to control mink on that estate. We made an annual two-week visit, with a view to reducing the population of mink.
Does that continue?
No. However, terriers are used to control mink. They are particularly effective for locating mink, once they have learned their scent.
Forgive me for addressing this question to you if you feel that it should not go to the NWTF. I am sure that all members have had considerable representations from lurcher men during the past week. Are you qualified to answer questions on lurcher work?
I have owned lurchers. John Waters uses them, and might—
It has been made plain to me in correspondence that lurcher men—as they call themselves—do not consider that their views have been represented to the committee. Can you inform the committee—as briefly as possible—about the work that lurcher men carry out and its relevance to pest control and/or to the sport-related matters that the bill affects? If you are unable to answer that, I will understand.
The question is fine, although I will field it to John Waters. I point out first that John is a lecturer at the North Highland College at Thurso. That college is publicly funded, but John is speaking today on his own behalf as a professional gamekeeper, rather than as a representative of the college.
Lurchers play a very important part in pest control and have done so for hundreds of years. I saw on the television the representation that was made by the deerhound-coursing people and I saw snippets about greyhound coursing. I have seen nothing about the use of lurchers.
Are lurchers used where guns are not also involved?
Yes.
Can one hunt foxes with lurchers alone?
Yes—it is possible to go fox hunting with lurchers and many people do that. Many Highland gamekeepers have lurchers on the hills. If they were going over a hill and a fox raised at a distance, they would be able to slip the lurcher. A lurcher can run a fox in and kill it very quickly.
I was told in one letter that there are 11,000 lurcher owners—or perhaps lurchers. If all lurchers played a part in vermin control, I would think that that part was quite large. Is that correct?
Yes.
Lurchers are also used at night, in conjunction with a spot lamp. That is particularly effective for controlling rabbits—many rabbits are caught that way.
As those who have kept terriers are aware, the term terrier covers a variety of dogs, from little Yorkshire terriers to Airedale terriers. Could you say something about the types of terriers that are appropriate for fox control? Mr Waters mentioned the use of small terriers. Do you think that those dogs would be capable of fighting a fox? What is your view of people who use more aggressive animals for fox baiting, rather than for pest control? There might be a distinction between what you do with terriers and what other people use them for.
In practice, almost any type of terrier can be used for fighting, from a Yorkshire terrier to an Airedale. The main factor is the way in which the terrier is worked, rather than its breed. That is why there is a National Working Terrier Federation code of conduct.
There are some people who make use of the terrier's fighting instinct—possibly in a sporting capacity—rather than its barking instinct. Is there a need for legislation to control further terrier work? Would you favour legislation that sought to control the use of terriers to ensure that they were worked single-handed and used only for pest control, to prevent people from being able to use them to fight wild animals underground?
I think that Dr Murray seeks to ensure that such activities are carried out in the most humane way possible—either through legislation or through voluntary codes of conduct. It is fair to say that the code of conduct has been accepted or endorsed by almost every organisation whose members are involved in terrier work. We promote the code, as do other organisations, such as the Scottish Hill Packs Association.
Is the current legislative framework sufficient to prevent the cruel use of terriers in sport?
The legislation contains the opportunity to cut out bad practice—that is what has tended to happen south of the border. For example, there have been some prosecutions by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. South of the border, if someone went on to land without permission to work their terriers and a terrier got injured, that person would be liable to be found guilty under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
Mr Watson's bill draws a distinction between the use of dogs, including terriers, above ground and their use below ground. Any use of dogs below ground is apparently cruel and would be made illegal. On the other hand, their use above ground is, I presume, not cruel and would be made legal in limited circumstances. If Mr Watson's bill were passed, would you be able to operate in compliance with the law—that is, could you avoid the use of terriers underground?
Last week, the SSPCA made the point succinctly that, if a terrier is shown a hole, it will find some way of getting into it. That is a simple fact of life. Many of our terrier clubs run a rescue service for terriers that get trapped below ground. Today those dogs tend not to be working terriers, but pet terriers that have gone hunting of their own accord.
One of our witnesses—Douglas Batchelor of the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs—suggested that the use of dogs underground is cruel because it is a form of fox baiting.
Fox baiting seems to be a new term that has been generated over the past couple of years. As I understand it, baiting is defined as an animal being taken from its natural environment, being made captive under the dominion of man and having another animal set upon it. Under the present laws, that practice is illegal.
The Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs—and in particular Mr Bill Swann—put it to the committee that lamping could be used as an alternative to your practices. Lamping would not require dogs to work underground, but is lamping an acceptable and adequate alternative for the use of terriers?
Do you mean lamping with rifles?
Yes.
I have a little experience of lamping—the problem is that it is not as exact a science as has been suggested. It has been suggested that foxes are almost transfixed in a powerful beam of light, but that is not the case. Foxes are less cautious under cover of darkness and so, instead of using cover as they would in daylight, they will be out in the middle of a field. Spotlights are used to find out where the foxes are—the lights catch the reflection of their eyes rather like cat's-eyes on the road. At that point, one would attempt to call the fox into close proximity by sucking the back of the hand to imitate the call of a wounded rabbit, so that the fox could be shot. Foxes—particularly older cubs—will tend to come running to that noise.
When he described the process of lamping, Mr Swann said that
I know that Mr Waters would like to comment. There are professionally produced videos by experts in lamping, which show foxes that have been injured, but which are still alive.
Barry Wade said that he does not have much experience of lamping. However, he has explained the situation perfectly to the committee. I do quite a lot of lamping and I know that the perfect shot—the mythical marksman who can hit everything—does not exist. If he does, I have never met him. A fox can be fired at and missed. As Barry Wade said, he then becomes very lamp shy, so that one has a devil of a job getting him.
I would like to correct my colleague. In fact, I have done quite a bit of lamping.
Thank you for that correction.
In practice, the season that the SSPCA is arguing should be the close season is the season during which, typically, there is the greatest need for control. It is the time when most damage is being done and when birds are nesting. I am sure that John Waters will want to comment from the point of view of a gamekeeper. Tom Parker is also fairly actively involved in that side of things.
Dr David MacDonald did an in-depth study of the red fox and concluded that one of the best times for controlling it is den time. Professor Peter Hudson, who worked for the Game Conservancy Trust for 10 years, wrote a book called "Grouse in Space and Time". He said that spring was the best time to control foxes to preserve ground-nesting birds. He added that year-round control of foxes was essential to maintain numbers of game birds and other ground-nesting birds. Some of the greatest predation can occur in winter, with the result that insufficient breeding stock is left over to the following spring.
We carry out a systematic programme of fox control, mostly in the central belt. We operate on a four to six week programme, visiting the farms that have called us in. Our highest number of call-outs comes during spring lambing, when there is a high incidence of farmers finding occupied earths. Farmers tend not to notice the earths until they see signs of occupation. That is when the phones start ringing.
Would you describe terrier work as pest control or as a sport?
I would describe it as pest control.
I am interested in the issue of cruelty. You may have heard Mike Rumbles ask the minister to define cruelty. Do you think that terrier work is cruel? How would you define cruelty?
The legal definition of cruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering. The courts have interpreted that as meaning that, if suffering occurs for necessary reasons, no cruelty has occurred.
We have received reports—although probably not concerning organisations such as yours—of terrier men whose terriers suffer frequent, sometimes fatal, injuries. What are your thoughts on that? Elaine Murray asked earlier about the need for legislation and regulations to ensure that such injuries are not sustained. What is your view on that?
Standards in terrier work slipped badly some 20 years ago. We addressed that through establishing our code of conduct, and the standard of terrier work that is carried out today is probably higher than at any time in living memory.
Was that report based on terrier work in Scotland?
Scotland and Wales.
I have worked terriers in Scotland for more than 30 years and I have never seen a fatality when terriers have been worked properly. Injuries are minimal: there is no future in having an extremely valuable animal damaged. On the issue of cruelty, the fox must be killed as swiftly and humanely as possible, and we try to control the environment so that that is generally what happens.
I am aware of the reports that have been issued by people who are opposed to hunting with terriers. Some of those reports date back 20 or more years and are taken from written material that is not relevant today.
I know of no one who carries out pest control in the Highlands or in my area who goes round fox dens—as they do in the springtime—wanting their terrier beaten, chewed and mashed up so that it cannot be worked again. They want a terrier that can be worked from day to day. The intention is not to have a battle underground; the intention is to bolt the fox, shoot him, and get home.
When foxes are lying naturally below ground, they are very susceptible to being bolted. As a child, I used to rabbit a lot with my father. On more than half a dozen occasions, I have put a ferret—which is only a small thing—into a rabbit earth, and a fox has bolted. He has been lying there quietly but, at the slightest disturbance or threat, he has bolted. I have many friends south of the border who are hunt terrier men and go out earth stopping of an evening. Just throwing soil into the mouth of a hole will frequently make a fox bolt. It is very easy to bolt a fox that is lying quietly in his earth.
I am keen to get on to our next witness and to get through our afternoon's work, but a few people would like to ask questions.
A number of my questions have already been answered. I take the point that the use of a combination of dogs is the quickest and most humane way of doing the work. It would help the committee—and possibly take some of the heat out of the debate on this bill—if we felt that best practice was being adopted for terrier work. If standards are at the high level that you suggest, why have only 25 per cent of the people involved signed up to the voluntary code? You may want to dispute that figure; it was supplied by the SSPCA. Might professionals in your line of work accept legally binding national standards, which could be monitored and enforced? Would that not be a way of allaying people's fears about cruelty?
The figure of 25 per cent is our own figure so we do not disagree with the SSPCA on that. The National Working Terrier Federation is made up of virtually all the major terrier clubs in England, Scotland and Wales. Other professionals, such as gamekeepers, have their own organisations. In practice, all those organisations have endorsed or adopted the National Working Terrier Federation's code of conduct, so the percentage of people who work according to that code is significantly higher than 25 per cent. The percentage will, in fact, be very high.
Is the 25 per cent figure for Scotland or the UK?
It is for the UK. I will give you some examples: the Scottish Hill Packs Association has adopted the National Working Terrier Federation's code of conduct; the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, like its colleagues south of the border in the National Gamekeepers Organisation, has endorsed it; and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Master of Foxhounds Association have taken it on.
If so many of them have already adopted it, it will be relatively easy to make its standards apply nationally, without any great loss to anyone.
I would not disagree with that. In your original question, you suggested that statutory regulation might be better than voluntary regulation. We have no power to make things statutory; we operate a voluntary regulation system. We drew it up as a yardstick because we realised that the day would come when mainland UK might well come into line with the rest of Europe, where they tend to have licensing. We felt that it was important to have a code that people could adopt.
I am a constituent of Mike Watson. I spoke to him at his surgery and he mentioned the other code of conduct that had been drawn up. I had already seen that code and told him that it was totally unworkable. However, I asked him to send me a copy of that code anyway. He sent me a copy of the National Working Terrier Federation code of conduct. I do not know if Mike Watson was confused between the two codes or if he thought that ours was the better one.
You said that foxes often bolted when you were blocking up the earths. Why would you block up the earths?
I would not block them up, but I have friends who are terrier men who would. South of the border—perhaps north of the border too—it is perfectly legal to block badger sets to prevent terriers from entering them during the day's hunting. Where the idea is to catch foxes with hounds, people are employed as earth stoppers or hunt terrier men and they are authorised to block lightly the entrances to badger sets. Sometimes foxes lie in the entrances to those sets and if one entrance has been blocked by loose soil the fox will bolt from another entrance.
I have a question for Thomas Parker. You mentioned that you do not work in particularly remote areas, but that you work for farmers.
That is correct.
I presume that gamekeepers mainly control pests on estates and that, as you run your own pack, you are called out by farmers, who ask you to come and deal with foxes that are causing a problem.
Yes.
Is that run as a business?
No, it is voluntary. We have worked in conjunction with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology as well as with farmers. We have provided the institute with a lot of data, including six-figure map references for the location of fox earths and badger sets. That work was carried out in the 1970s to aid the institute with contingency plans in the event of an outbreak of rabies. I mapped out every fox earth and badger set of which we had knowledge at the time. I also included the dates on which we took foxes from those places. All that information was passed to Dr Kolb at the Institute of Terrestial Ecology. I understand that the institute has since been burned down by animal rights activists.
Do you derive income from terrier work? Do farmers pay you?
At one time in the mid-1970s we derived an income from fox pelts. However, our main activity is the breeding and working of terriers. It is a barter system. We began as a group of guys who went out shooting. When we were dealing with pests such as rabbits and pigeons, the farmers asked us to control foxes as well. That is why we added an extra tool to our box. The farmers contact us because we are known to be efficient.
Farmers will phone you up because they know that you are efficient. However, you will not be paid for it.
We will not be paid for it.
Do you take the dogs out only when a farmer calls you?
No. As I tried to explain, once a farmer contacts us, we institute a systematic programme. We check the earths on his ground every four or five weeks during the winter months. We do it at that time because the cover is down and the holes can be found more easily.
We are trying to sort out which activities are sports and which are legitimate pest control.
We are involved in pest control.
Do you consider what you do as a sport?
No. My sport is fishing. The activity that I am talking about today is pest control. Also, it allows me access to places to fish and places to shoot. In the countryside, we work an effective system of bartering.
I thank our witnesses for their assistance and welcome the next group of witnesses, who represent the Scottish Hill Packs Association: Robbie Rowantree; Mark Naisby, who is the secretary of the organisation; and Paul Crofts, who is the chairman.
On behalf of the SHPA, I thank the committee for inviting the practical, hands-on guys to give evidence today.
You mentioned the fact that you hunt in difficult terrain. What type of terrain do you cover apart from the densely forested areas? Do you work steep and uneven ground as well?
The two huntsmen with me work on steep and uneven ground: one in Argyllshire and the other in Inverness-shire and Sutherland. They are better equipped to answer that question than I am.
The average size of the woods that we work in is between 100 acres and 3,000 acres. In big woods, the guns go inside the wood and try to shoot the fox as it crosses a ride. In the smaller woods, the guns are outside and try to shoot the fox as it is flushed out of the wood.
So the job of the foot pack is to flush out foxes to guns.
That is the primary intention. The fox is shot at the first opportunity. Occasionally the hounds catch the fox above ground; that is also part of what we do.
In his evidence to the committee on 14 November, Bill Swann of the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs suggested that the Scottish Hill Packs Association could operate without needing dogs to go below ground. Would that be possible?
No. We could not operate without using terriers below ground. The farmers and other people who subscribe to these schemes see them as a total fox control operation. If a fox goes to ground, that fox must be dispatched. We must have the means of dispatching foxes that go to ground.
I want to put to you the proposition that I put to the witnesses from the National Working Terrier Federation: that lamping might be an acceptable alternative. Is that the case? I would like you to talk specifically about the type of terrain in which you operate. I am thinking of forests and upland terrain.
I work as a gamekeeper on an estate where two of us cover about 45,000 acres. Without a dog, it is almost impossible for us to locate foxes. Lamping has its limitations, and those limitations are increasing. In the early days, when I was a teenager and we shot foxes in the spotlight, they were reasonably easy to get, because the technique was new. However, foxes have begun to learn from one another that a spotlight is bad news. In the early winter, pairs run together. If we shoot one fox in a pair and the other witnesses that shooting, it realises that spotlights mean danger. From that point, it will not sit in a light. If a vixen escapes with cubs that are big enough to walk at foot and she sees a light and panics, she will educate her offspring to be light shy. Lamping is not a 100 per cent effective technique for fox control. In thick cover, such as woodland, lights do not work. We cannot use a spotlight in trees.
The SSPCA has proposed a closed season—presumably in spring, although we are not sure what time limits, if any, the society would want to place on a closed season. How would that affect your activities?
For me, as a working gamekeeper, a closed season for fox control would be a disaster. I would be unable to control foxes effectively.
The SSPCA argues that autumn and winter are the most effective times for fox control.
That flies in the face of all the evidence, particularly the work done by Dr David MacDonald of Oxford University. He said that the most effective time for fox control is when the vixen can be located successfully, at the breeding den.
I am sure that you appreciate that the issue of fox hunting raises a number of questions, some of which remain unanswered. There are a lot of fancy ideas about the activity. It has been suggested to us that hunting with dogs is a sport. At the outset, I was inclined to accept that proposition, because I was thinking merely of hunting with horses and hounds. I was not thinking of the Scottish Hill Packs Association. Do you regard the activity that you undertake with your hill packs as a sport or as a necessary part of the conservation of the countryside? I am sure that when you flush a forest or a plantation, you do so at the invitation of the owners and that it is not an organised day for sport.
I can answer your question in two parts. First, as a working gamekeeper I employ the three straths fox pack to hunt on my ground. When I am doing my work, I invite Mr Crofts to come with his hounds to do his work. If someone regards their job as sport, they are very fortunate. I happen not to. For us, this is a simple predator control exercise.
When hunting is carried out with horses and hounds, the untimely death of the fox occurs when the hounds eventually catch up with it. In the plantations, the forests or the grounds where you operate, have you ever known a hill pack dog to catch a fox?
Yes. On occasion, the hounds will catch foxes. One of the advantages of that is that, in the event of a wound, there is a guaranteed kill when the hounds catch the fox. As an effective method of control, what we do is unsurpassed in the woodland situation.
I know from experience that the fox is a wily old character. When he hears the hill pack away in the distance, he can usually keep himself well in advance of the pack in a woodland situation. Is that your experience?
I have seen a number of foxes shot when they have been hunted in woodland. The fox keeps in front of the hounds as best he can, but he runs into the line of guns and is shot.
I would like to ask about the selectivity of the different methods of hunting when a farmer is having problems with a specific fox rather than with foxes in general—it may be a rogue fox that is predating lambs. How do you rate what you do—in terms of being able to locate and destroy a specific, rogue fox—compared to the other methods that have been mentioned, such as lamping?
As a gamekeeper, I would say that all foxes are rogues. The hill pack can also be effective in a lambing field. Mark Naisby will have had more experience of that, as most of his subscribers are hill sheep farmers in Argyllshire. The hill packs can go to a place where a fox is killing regularly, pick up its scent, track it to where it is laying up and deal with it accordingly. Is that correct, Mark?
That is correct. In one place that I cover every year, there is lamb killing. The farmers phone me up when they lose even one lamb. They are good at animal husbandry; every lamb is marked and they know when one has gone. Straight away they will ask whether I can come down in the morning. They will often ask me to bring a dozen or 15 hounds, as they know where the fox is coming from. I take my hounds and unbox them, and the farmers tell me exactly where the lamb has gone missing. A drag is taken away and the hunt usually ends up in the forest. The same farmers will have arranged for neighbours to turn out with guns, and the fox is either shot or put to ground for the terriers to dispatch.
Would the alternative methods, such as lamping, which are preferred by some of the organisations from which we have taken evidence, be equally selective in picking out the foxes that are causing problems?
We usually take the lamp to the place that I am talking about, but in that area people do quite a lot of lamping and the fox is usually lamp shy. There are not many gamekeepers in my area, and some of the people who go lamping are not professionals.
Many people in my constituency follow the mounted hunts by foot, in cars or on horseback. They enjoy the spectacle, which they say is not the killing of the fox but the use of the dogs. When you take the hill packs out, do people come to watch them working?
No.
Imagine standing on the top of a hill in Sutherland in January—it is not very popular.
So, what you do is purely a matter of pest control.
In Argyll, in the past eight weeks, I have had two dry days. I am sick of drying out waterproofs. People do not go to the hunt for fun.
In your submission, you mention Government funding; I am sure that many people will not have realised the extent of Government funding for the packs. You say that there are
That is correct.
Can you give us a sense of the amount of money that is involved? You said that the amount of Government support had been cut recently.
Until three years ago, when the Labour Government came to power, we received 50 per cent of all our costs—if we spent a pound, the Government gave us a pound. That funding has been cut. We are given 50 per cent of our costs for three months of the year. The three months of the year that are stipulated are February until the end of April or beginning of May, which is the breeding season for foxes.
Has there been any discussion about the impact of the bill on future funding? Under the bill, what you do will not be allowed, so presumably your funding will end.
As you can imagine, it was a big shock to lose the funding of 50 per cent of our costs. That loss was made up only because people who subscribed to the hill packs put their hands in their pockets and continued to pay for what we do.
My second question is unrelated to my first, other than that it involves Government agencies. I think that you mentioned the Forestry Commission. I understand that the Forestry Commission has no form of pest control on its land and does not allow hunts. If the bill is passed, there will be a major impact there, too. Could you say more about that?
I can answer that because my brother is a chief ranger with the Forestry Commission, so I have inside information.
Two for the price of one.
The Forestry Commission will act on complaints from a neighbour if there is a fox coming out of its land to predate on livestock. It is not quite so helpful in cases of predation on ground-nesting game birds—there is more argument about that. Many decisions are left to the local line manager—the forest district manager—who can decide whether to give packs access to his ground. They tend to stipulate the presence of an independent scrutineer to ensure that reasonable levels of animal welfare are maintained.
When you locate a fox, what is your usual success rate in dispatching it?
Over a season, we will account for 90 per cent of the foxes that we find. I estimate that 80 per cent of those foxes will be shot dead; 10 per cent will be peppered and wounded, and will be caught by the hounds; and 10 per cent will be caught by the hounds under their own steam.
We have heard a fair amount of talk about voluntary codes of practice and licensing. I dare say that you already have voluntary codes of practice. How do you feel about them? How would you react to their being legislated for and put into a licensing scheme?
Our submission addressed the licensing. We follow a fairly rigorous code of conduct, which is scrutinised in places such as Forestry Commission land. Our only concern about licensing was that any licensing operation under Lord Watson's bill would have to be self-financing. As we have explained, our grants have been cut and we are struggling financially. Placing on us the burden of a licensing system with open-ended costs could be punitive; it could lead to our being abolished because we would be too expensive. Making it unviable for us to operate could be a back-door way of banning us. The details of any licensing system would have to be made clear before we could say yes or no to it.
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their time. They have been very helpful.
Thank you.
Our next witness is Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. He is accompanied by Archie Dykes and Peter Fraser. Would you like to make a brief opening statement, Alex?
Good afternoon. Thank you for asking the Scottish Gamekeepers Association here to discuss the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I am Alex Hogg, the chairman of the association. On my left is Archie Dykes and on my right is Peter Fraser.
When Mike Watson gave evidence to the committee, he made it clear that the general principles of his bill were aimed at ending mounted hunting, hare coursing and terrier work. We are focusing on that third element. He said that the real purpose behind his bill was to end cruelty and cruel practices. This afternoon, we heard the Executive's definition of cruelty, which was unnecessary pain or distress. I want to ask the Scottish Gamekeepers Association whether it feels that, in the pest control operations that it carries out, it is engaged in a practice that causes unnecessary pain and distress.
We always try to carry out our operations to the best of our professional capabilities. Gamekeepers look after animals—we have dogs and pets, and we see to a wide range of wildlife throughout the year. We would never want to be unnecessarily cruel to any animal.
This question is directed at Peter Fraser, who is a gamekeeper at Invercauld in the Cairngorms, in the uplands of Scotland. If the bill goes through, what would be the effects on your work, and on the landscape and the environment, over five or six years?
If we are not allowed to put a terrier below ground, our fox control will cease. You can kill a few foxes with a spotlight and a few with a snare, but the terrain that we work in is a large area of 40,000 acres. There are big fox cairns and many sand earths. If we are not allowed to control foxes, their number will rise, which will have a disastrous effect on all ground-nesting birds. We still have some capercaillie in our area, which will suffer.
We saw some of the landscape when members of the committee went up to Braemar. For the benefit of those who did not, will you explain whether there are any real alternatives to the use of dogs on the slopes of those large hills? Are shooting and snaring real, practical alternatives or do you really need to use the dogs?
We have sheep and deer where we are. We have to think carefully about where we set our snares—we are greatly limited in that. The spotlight was a success early on, after the gin trap was banned. We killed quite a few foxes, but if you miss a fox it learns not to stop for a second shot.
Are there times of year when there is greater need of fox control? When do you find foxes the greatest problem?
Spring is when the need to control foxes is greatest. Birds that nest up a tree are safe, but curlews, ring ouzels, lapwings and grouse all nest on the ground, so they are defenceless. The fox has to rear cubs in that area. A lot of people in the room today will have owned puppies and will realise how much food they need to get them to eight weeks old. Imagine the vixen hunting to feed her cubs. She devastates the wildlife within two or three miles of her den.
So a nursing vixen might be the greatest nuisance in respect of wildlife, lambs and so on?
Yes—and she has her husband; she has got the dog.
That brings me on to the problem with orphaned cubs, which the committee has discussed a couple of times. There is a likelihood that in controlling foxes that are causing a nuisance you will sometimes orphan cubs.
Are you asking me how to deal with those?
I know that they are often dealt with by dogs. Bill Swann made the point in an e-mail that it is kinder to allow the fox cubs to die underground than to use a dog to locate them and dispatch them. What is your view on that?
How would you feel if you were left to starve to death in a room over a period of two or three weeks? It is much kinder to dispatch them with terriers.
That was not my view. It was a view that was put to members of the committee by somebody else.
Can you repeat that question?
He is saying that in his experience—he is a veterinary consultant to the RSPCA—the use of terriers to kill cubs is done solely to increase the head count of foxes killed. He is saying that terriers are being used to bump up the cull of foxes and it is not a co-ordinated attempt to ensure that cubs who are orphaned are targeted.
That is a lot of nonsense. Most times when we are at a den and we bolt a vixen, the cubs are with her in the den. We are not trying to bump up the number of foxes killed. We are there to do our job and control them.
So the vixen and her cubs are generally killed at the same time.
Yes, usually. On odd occasions a vixen may be shot in the spotlight, but 90 per cent of the time she will be with the cubs. That is why we go round the cubs at cubbing time. We always set our date at about 15 April. That is when she will be with the cubs. If she were not with the cubs, she would have to come into the den in the early morning or late evening. We would wait and shoot her with a high velocity rifle or a shotgun.
I thank you, convener, especially as I am not a member of the committee, although rumour has it that I might be shortly.
An American gentleman, who is a professor of biology, has shot with us for about 20 years. He is interested in the Watson bill and its effects on the rural economy. He estimated for me this year that his group alone has spent £3 million over the past 20 years. That is just one group, who come with their wives, stay in hotels, go shopping and the rest of it. If you multiply that out by the other groups, it would amount to a considerable amount of money.
Will you advance that argument more loudly in future, or have you done so already? I ask because the argument is new to me.
Yes. From the mathematical point of view, if there are more foxes, there will be less game, and if there is less game, there will be less sporting income from visitors. It is as simple as that: less game means less income and less money with which to provide jobs.
I do not know the answer to this question, and I will forgive you if you do not know it either, but if the fox population rises, what will be the effect on other carnivorous mammals such as badgers? We have heard about the effect on birds, such as ring ouzels, but what about badgers and otters? Have you done sums on an increase in foxes leading to a decrease in the food supply?
No; we learned that badgers in big sets will share the set with foxes. It is not unknown for that to happen when there are a number of holes in a set, and foxes may cub in the same holes as badgers. However, while they can live together relatively well, a badger will usually send a fox packing if it is not welcome. As to the effects on the animals if they live in the same area, the fox is probably more resourceful than the badger as far as food is concerned.
Given that you use a variety of dogs in different circumstances, but have mentioned only terriers and their use underground, is it fair to assume that gamekeepers would be able to carry out the pest control part of their job if they were allowed to continue to use terriers underground? Do you see a need to use other dogs in different circumstances?
Most gamekeepers have terriers, but some have lurchers. As you can imagine, we would definitely still need the hounds to carry out our job properly in large tracts of forest and in the other areas that you have heard about.
Is it safe to say that you could carry out effective pest control by using terriers underground?
Yes, but we would still need to use other types of dog in the battle against the fox. It would be a big plus for us if we could use our terriers underground. If an estate has large tracts of forest next to it, hounds are needed.
Are they needed to flush out the foxes so the foxes can be shot?
Yes.
What are Peter Fraser's comments? I presume that, in Braemar, the area is mainly hilly but that it also has some wooded land.
As Alex Hogg said, we need to use a variety of dogs for different work. We would definitely be stuck—we would be finished—without the terriers and the foot packs. There is no way we could operate without the foot packs. In our district, as in many others, we have large areas of forest. The Forestry Commission no longer controls foxes unless a neighbour complains. We must have different dogs for different uses—it is as simple as that.
Do you use hounds in Braemar?
Yes.
An aspect of terrier work has not yet been mentioned. Often you cannot tell whether a den is occupied; with more and more hillwalkers appearing in the hills, a growing problem is that a vixen will shift her cubs if one comes within a quarter of a mile of a den. Although there might be carcases lying about, she will be gone. A vixen disturbed in that way will often split her cubs up and put them in two or three different places. Without terriers, it would be impossible to find them, as she can pop them in any handy hole.
I endorse Archie Dykes's comments. Our grounds are covered in rabbit holes. It would be impossible for me to find out which hole the fox is in without my terriers.
Before you took the stand—so to speak—Robbie Rowantree told us that, as a gamekeeper, he sees every fox as a rogue fox. Do you agree?
Yes.
In that case, do you agree with a point that was made last week: that the mounted hunt is the one land user or land manager in Scotland with an interest in keeping a healthy fox population?
I cannot comment on that point. We are not close enough to the mounted hunts.
Right. In your view, is the only good fox a dead fox?
That is a really hard question. I have so much respect for a fox—it is a really cunning animal. However, what has not been mentioned is that quite a few gamekeepers in the association have consulted old game records, some of which from 40 or 50 years ago show that only one fox was killed in a certain year. Indeed, I know of one estate where that total has risen from one fox killed in a year to 200. It is a constant battle; every time a fox is killed, three or four come to the funeral. Perhaps foxes keep piling in because gamekeepers have created an oasis of land in the middle of other land that has been mismanaged and has no wildlife on it. We have to try our hardest to keep on top of the situation. I should repeat that the most crucial time of year is when the birds are nesting on the ground.
In the presentation that he gave some of us at lunch time, Ronnie Rose said that if the bill were passed it would have the gravest effect on Scotland's current biodiversity. Do you agree that, as Ronnie Rose slightly touched on, biodiversity means the balance of nature?
I agree totally. If this bill goes through, I think that we will see something close to the second Highland clearances.
That is a very strong statement and it is not the first time we have heard it. How do you back up that assertion?
For example, nine or 10 gamekeepers and stalkers and their families might live up in a certain glen in the Highlands with children who attend the local school. If the fox became such a predator that we could no longer have grouse shoots, the landowner would probably sell the ground or turn it over to sitka spruce, the gamekeepers would be paid off and the school would close. The situation would be on-going, as the committee can well imagine.
I should declare an interest as an ex-farmer—one who is, according to some press reports, becoming fat, along with the convener. [Laughter.]
Usually the victims of fox killing are twins. When a shepherd goes into the field the morning after an attack, he can tell that something has happened because the ewes are uneasy or nervous. When he mothers up all the twins, he will see a ewe with one lamb, being very protective of it and keeping it close to her side. That ewe has lost a lamb.
Earlier you mentioned badgers. Would you normally block up badger sets before going out to look for foxes?
We have nothing to do with badger sets. We are concerned solely with finding vixens at their dens.
Would you at any time block up holes or dens?
As I mentioned earlier, we would block up a hole only if we were at the dens and the vixen was not there with her cubs. If we had to go home to fetch a rifle or more people to wait for the vixen to return, we would put a jacket or a game bag in the mouth of the hole to prevent her from going in and taking her cubs away.
It is usually quite easy to tell whether a den is being used by a badger or by a fox. Apart from the legal issue, we would not want a terrier to go near a badger, as they are seriously bad news. They can do a lot a damage to terriers.
However, you would not block up a badger hole to stop a terrier going down.
Badgers use their holes all year round and sleep in them. Foxes do not usually sleep in their holes, except at cubbing time. We get to know where the badger sets are and in spring we avoid them. A badger is usually at home every night, but a fox is not.
Thank you for coming to give us your evidence. How do you see the activities of the fox over the past couple of decades? Twenty or 30 years ago there was a proliferation of rabbits in the countryside. Then we had myxomatosis, which almost wiped out the rabbit stock. As a result, foxes have begun to forage and maraud in a different area. Increasingly, they have come on to the domestic scene. In many areas, the number of foxes is getting out of control. Do you think that those developments are the result of a shortage in the environment of the food to which they were accustomed?
After the gin trap was banned, the fox population started to rise slowly. About 30 years ago, many of the lowland estates, particularly in our area—Deeside and Donside—were broken up, and the tenant farmers were given the chance to buy them. The estates might previously have employed one or two keepers, but they were paid off. There was no fox or vermin control at all. That contributed to another rise in the number of foxes. Over the past 10 years, the Forestry Commission has been toning down its vermin control policy. That is why we have more and more foxes—it is never ending.
Many groups have told us that controlling fox numbers is a sport rather than a legitimate occupation. As gamekeepers you lie out on a ridge or by a den, early in the morning, waiting for the vixen to come in—perhaps she does not come that day or even the next. I am sure that you do not consider that a sport.
We do not.
The SSPCA has suggested that there should be a close season. If there were a close season—ignoring for a moment that the SSPCA has not yet specified when it would begin and end—how would your activities as gamekeepers be affected?
On average, a bird must sit on her eggs for 24 days to hatch them. During that time she risks foxes, crows, stoats and weasels; she lives in danger the whole time she is incubating the eggs. Even when the eggs are hatched it takes up to two weeks for the wee chicks to learn to fly and so escape danger. I have sat on a hill and watched a vixen clean up a load of young lapwing chicks, picking them up one by one and filling her mouth with them. That is a scene of devastation. A close season at that time of year might mean that some bird populations of the uplands would become extinct.
I gather from your submission that foxes prey on a wide variety of ground-nesting birds. You have 90 years' experience of gamekeeping between the three of you. Do you know whether RSPB Scotland uses any method to control foxes?
About three years ago, RSPB Scotland stopped controlling the fox populations as some kind of experiment. Fox control was reintroduced this year because of the decline in capercaillie and black cock. RSPB Scotland does not use snares or terriers, but it carries out some lamping.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Yes, and I assure you that it is brief. Mike Watson has stated on several occasions that it is not the intention of this bill to affect shooting. As recently as 14 November, he stated to this committee:
Who would like to begin the questioning?
Mike Watson has said that he would be prepared to lodge an amendment to exclude rough shooting from the bill. Would that be sufficient to address your concerns?
The proposals for an amendment that I have seen have addressed some of our concerns, but they have by no means addressed them all. Although they have removed some of our members' serious concerns about rough shooting, there are still provisions that directly affect shooting and concern us enormously.
Do you think that the shooting community's concerns about the bill could be addressed by an amendment? Would it be possible to amend the bill so that all your concerns were addressed?
Nothing is impossible, but the scale of the amendment that would be required should be borne in mind. One of the fundamental principles of the bill is to make shooting with one dog good and shooting with two dogs bad. That is a massive component of the bill, the removal of which would weaken the structure of the bill as it is drafted. Would that weakened structure then be capable of supporting further amendments? I do not know. Rebuilding the bill after such a massive weakening of its skeleton would be difficult.
Would the provisions on the use of dogs to flush mammals that are to be shot have an effect on shooting activities in Scotland generally?
Yes. Whether one dog is being used or more than one are being used, the bill makes it an offence to use dogs to hunt for wild mammals. It should be borne in mind that 62 per cent of those who shoot in Scotland have at least one working gun dog. In the majority of shooting situations for our members and others, there will inevitably be mammals present on the ground. The bill makes it clear that the intentional hunting of those mammals would be a criminal offence. I am concerned that someone who has three hunting dogs that take off after a mammal for a short period of time would not be able to prove his innocence in a court—he was hunting with hunting dogs—and that it could be established that he has used those dogs for the flushing of hares, rabbits, foxes and other mammals.
No matter how good a marksman someone is, they are fallible. When a mammal is shot and injured, under current circumstances it may be normal for that mammal to be pursued, retrieved and possibly killed by a dog.
Yes.
Does that add to or take away from the cruelty of the situation?
All the codes of practice that we produce for a wide range of shooting exercises require those who are taking part to have with them a dog for such contingencies. There is only a low incidence of wounding in a lot of situations. Some research that has been undertaken on rifle shooting has found that, in deer stalking, the level of wounding is as low as 2 per cent. We have heard other reports, and other reports have been received by this committee, of higher levels of wounding.
If Mr Watson's bill becomes law, it will not be permitted to use dogs underground. Virtually all today's witnesses have said that they could not continue their activities without being able to use dogs underground. Lamping has been proposed as an alternative method of pest control. It would involve the use of high-powered rifles. Do you know how many licences exist in Scotland for the use of such firearms? Has the number of people with such licences reduced? Those are the people who would be able to carry out lamping.
The only people who would be able to use a rifle for lamping would be those with a firearm certificate and the landowner's permission. Off the top of my head, the 1999 figures are that about 32,400 people in Scotland have that certificate. Five or 10 years ago, perhaps five or 10 per cent more firearm certificates were issued. There has been a progressive decline in the number of firearm certificates, so fewer people are able to undertake that form of fox control.
Of those 30,000 or so, how many would be interested in carrying out lamping?
Some people will have their firearm certificates for target shooting, but the majority will have them for rabbit shooting with a 0.22 rimfire rifle, which is small calibre and not suitable for foxes. The rest will have their licence for fox control and deer management.
The MLURI report suggested a possible loss of the equivalent of 114 full-time jobs; in your written evidence, you suggest the loss of the equivalent of 228 full-time jobs. Why are you right and MLURI wrong?
I would probably argue that we are both right to a certain extent. MLURI worked out a methodology for predicting the percentage of job losses within the working gamekeeping community. Our work, based on our membership figures, indicates a total employment of 1,300 gamekeepers and deerstalkers in Scotland. I am sure that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's membership figures will bear out the fact that more than 1,000 gamekeepers are currently employed. The MLURI report came up with a total employment figure of 534—that is off the top of my head—and our figures were about double that. Applying its logic of interpretation to our more accurate figures would indicate a higher loss of gamekeeper employment than MLURI predicted.
I do not think that there are any further questions, but I would like to raise one other point. No, I am wrong, there is a further question, but Alex Fergusson will have to wave a bit quicker. I will finish what I was saying and come back to him.
Primary firearms legislation is reserved to Westminster, and the clear political will is to reduce the number of firearms or shotguns in private ownership. That will have an impact on the ability of people living or working in the countryside to manage a wide range of pest species, of which the fox is one. We have consistently argued that, although shooting is undoubtedly the most commonly used means of fox control in Scotland, and probably one of the most successful, it is but one of four tried and tested methods that are legally available. The removal of any one of those four components could have a serious effect on necessary countryside management.
Please forgive me if you dealt with this point while I was out of the room, but at the fourth bullet point on the A4 sheet that you submitted, you say that you
That is very difficult actually—I had not noticed that I had chosen those particular words. It was very observant of you to pick them out. I will bring in Alastair MacGugan to explain why we are opposed to a total restriction.
Did he write it then? [Laughter.]
All day we have heard that lamping is the method that we should use so that we do not have to use terriers. We have also heard that the SSPCA says that we should have a close season. It is no mistake of nature that foxes decide to have their cubs when the greatest food resources are around. If you are lamping, the only way you can ensure you get the cubs is by using terriers. Having all the types of pest and predator control available is important. Timing is also important. A document that has gone to the Scottish Executive on the capercaillie has, as a top management priority to be implemented, the control of foxes and crows in the period between March and August. You could not do that if you were limited to lamping or snaring, because you need the terriers to get down to take the cubs.
I repeat a question that Elaine Murray asked earlier: which is less cruel—sending a terrier after cubs or leaving cubs to starve underground if you get the vixen?
I have spent many a night trying to ensure that my terriers could get at cubs, and I know that that is preferable to leaving the cubs to starve. I have come to terms with the fact that we need to have some form of control over foxes. I must carry out that control in the least cruel way. In my mind, during the denning season, which is the important period for fox control, it is less cruel to put a terrier below ground than to take the vixen away and leave the cubs to starve to death over a week or two.
I notice that in a policy statement a few days ago, the SSPCA said that
We oppose the bill in detail, which is what we have discussed this afternoon. We also oppose the bill in principle, because it places a restriction on the use of dogs in the countryside and on the number of dogs that can be used. Although, as a shooting organisation, we give full support to other legal countryside activities, we would be very concerned that, if such a bill were introduced, it could be amended later to impose further restrictions on the use of dogs in the countryside. Similar things have happened on previous occasions—for example, the Firearms Act 1968 has been amended to introduce further restrictions. The shooting community would examine seriously a bill that was said to affect only one or two activities, anticipating that in subsequent years there would be further restrictions on the use of terriers or other species of dog.
If there are no further comments, I thank the witnesses for giving evidence.
Members indicated agreement.
We will take our final groups of witnesses together. I am told that it will take a couple of minutes to bring the witnesses in, but I do not want any members sneaking off now that we have agreed to continue.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
The witnesses are Mr David Coulthread, the head of public affairs of the League Against Cruel Sports, who is accompanied by Bill Swann, whom we have met before. We will also take evidence from James Morris, the chief executive of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who is accompanied by Libby Anderson, the society's parliamentary officer, and Mike Flynn, its chief inspector.
When the League Against Cruel Sports was formed, there was very little information about the ecology of animals that were hunted, and in particular of foxes. It is telling that we now have a mountain of evidence, including the Burns inquiry, which served a tremendous purpose by bringing together the pool of knowledge. It is quite clear from that inquiry that hunting plays a very minor part in the overall control of the fox population that is exercised in Scotland and elsewhere. The post mortem evidence shows that all the animals that had been supplied by fox hunts had endured unnecessary suffering before their deaths. It is not surprising that the inquiry concluded that the welfare of those animals was significantly compromised. In our view, hunting is a minor part of population control, which causes unnecessary cruelty. Under any definition, it is cruelty.
I heard nothing today that I would not have expected to hear. That is because you were questioning people who are deeply committed to what they do. We have heard their arguments and discussed the matter with them. We work with gamekeepers and everyone else who works with animals in Scotland. I heard nothing unexpected. My only concern is that there is an all-pervading tendency to do things in the way in which they are done because that is the way in which they were done.
I understand that Bill Swann wishes to react to a particular point.
Elaine Murray quoted from an e-mail that I sent to her. In that e-mail I made it clear that its purpose was to say that orphan fox cubs represent a no-win situation from an animal welfare science perspective. My e-mail made it clear that leaving orphan cubs to starve to death causes suffering. However, I also said that if cubs are a little older and are aware and are able to defend themselves, they will put up a spirited fight against a terrier. That, too, causes suffering. I do not believe that animal welfare science can say which is the worst scenario, as both cause suffering that is unacceptable. That is why I supported the SSPCA's call for a close season.
We have heard much evidence in the past couple of weeks. How do you react to claims that the ban would cause a new Highland clearance, would be devastating for rural communities and would be bad for the land and for animal welfare? We have heard such worrying statements.
We heard many similar claims south of the border. When those claims were investigated, they were well and truly nailed. In the evidence that was supplied by studies such as the MLURI report, we heard claims—if they were to be believed—that thousands of dogs would be lost. We now know that the number would be in the low hundreds, or even less.
On a point of order, convener. Will we have some evidence about the position that prevails in Scotland rather than reliance on such reports as that which was just mentioned? Will the witness be directed to answer the question that was asked?
I take my lead from David Steel, who says that he controls the questions, but cannot control the answers. Have you finished, Cathy?
No. This might be a fairly obvious question. Do we need to kill foxes?
Some say yes, some say no. Considerable evidence shows that when fox culling stops, the number of foxes may decrease. I will restrict my answer to Scotland. A study was conducted on the large Eriboll estate, where all fox control was stopped for a couple of years. On the estate, the number of sheep rose, and the number of foxes declined slightly. There are several explanations for that.
What is the best method?
We recommend shooting with a high-velocity rifle. Like the Burns inquiry, we prefer lamping.
Mr Morris, do you have any comments?
You will not be surprised to hear that I do. The SSPCA recognises fully the fragility of the Scottish rural economy in some areas. It is not even right to talk about the Scottish economy as a whole, because the Borders, the central belt, the Highlands and the islands must be treated separately. All have different economies. I worry whether a job lost, in some areas, could really be replaced. However, that is a matter for bodies other than welfare organisations such as mine. MLURI was asked to conduct a study for the Scottish Executive and duly completed it. That evidence must be taken into account. It is not the place of a welfarist to provide such evidence.
Evidence this afternoon has largely focused away from sporting activity and on pest control. I noticed that David Coulthread from the League Against Cruel Sports began by talking about fox hunts and hunting. I was rather surprised at his dismissive attitude to people working in the rural economy. I am thinking in particular of people in the Highlands such as Peter Fraser, who gave evidence this afternoon about his gamekeeping activities on the hills above Braemar, where many committee members have visited him. I would like to know from the witnesses, and particularly from David Coulthread, what experience they have. You made somewhat dismissive comments about jobs in the most fragile rural areas of Scotland.
As you know, Mr Rumbles, my base is in England, so I will pass you on to Bill Swann, whose base is in Scotland.
But I want to know from you whether you regret the comments that you just made.
I stand by my comments, because I was endorsing a report by Sean Rickard, who has considerable expertise in the matter.
In that case, I will focus on my main questions. I understand where you are coming from. You are from the League Against Cruel Sports. However, do you recognise a difference between the culling, if you want to use that word, or the dispatch of foxes for sport and the dispatch of foxes by members of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association as part of their job? Members of that association gave evidence today. They said that they do not do that for fun; it is part and parcel of their work. Do you differentiate between those two roles? Do you realise that the bill, as presented to the committee, will hit not only sporting activity, but jobs that focus on pest control, which would affect the rural environment?
I am grateful for the chance to clarify our position. It is important to state from the outset that we are primarily an animal welfare organisation.
I will pursue my point. Many members who visited the Scottish gamekeepers in Braemar were impressed that, when we were openly shown the terriers, there was not a mark on them, or on the retired terriers. This afternoon, we heard evidence that it is not in the gamekeepers' interests to fight terriers and foxes. The dogs are valuable, loved animals. Do you accept that when the Scottish gamekeepers flush foxes from underground for predator control, the terriers simply instinctively locate the fox, which departs to be shot?
I will ask Bill Swann to answer that.
I would like to answer the question as I have first-hand experience of terrier work on both sides of the border. As I stated in the evidence that I gave on behalf of the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting with Dogs, which includes the League Against Cruel Sports, we do not believe that gamekeepers set out wilfully to be cruel. I hope that that was entirely clear in what I said at that time.
Do you think that they are cruel?
I do not think that they intend to be cruel, but I think that what they do includes cruelty. I hope that that is clear.
It is not clear. Are you saying that what they do is cruel or not?
The activities that are involved in terrier work contain intrinsic cruelty. However, gamekeepers are not cruel people. That disparity has arisen because, as Mr Morris said, time and scientific knowledge have moved on and our appreciation of an animal's capacity to suffer has changed. Everything that we have heard from the gamekeepers today has emphasised the intelligence of the fox. Because we have a greater awareness of the animal's sentience, we have a better understanding of its capacity to suffer.
Nevertheless, I would like some clarification. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that you are saying that the gamekeepers do not think that they are doing anything cruel. That is not what I asked about. I asked you whether you think that the gamekeepers are engaged in a cruel practice. Yes or no?
Yes.
Thank you.
I think that Mr Rumbles asked a second question that I have forgotten in the course of that exchange. I ask him to repeat it.
I am resting at the moment. I believe that that answer was effective.
Mr Morris, would you like to comment?
I dare not.
I am not surprised.
A certain hostility is developing that I do not think is necessary.
Before you answer, I should say that we are aware that the organisations that we have before us have slightly differing positions. For that reason, I am happy to allow vociferous exchanges to take place and to allow the witnesses to comment on them from a relatively peaceful position.
I would like to ask a follow-up question.
Will it be short, Mike?
In Mr Morris's evidence the last time—
On a point of order. I would like to point out that there are other members of the committee.
Excuse me, but I think that Richard Lochhead has asked more questions than I have this afternoon. We shall check the Official Report.
Mike Rumbles has not been here for most of the afternoon.
Gentlemen, please. Carry on, Mr Rumbles.
The last time that Mr Morris appeared before the committee, he said that he did not wish to ban the use of terriers for going underground to dispatch young foxes, but that the bill would do so. I am confused. Is Mr Morris saying that there is no alternative?
Our basic position is that we would prefer it if no terriers were sent underground. During my previous evidence, I conceded that sending terriers underground to dispatch cubs might be a sensible use of terriers. We would not promote that, but I am prepared to accept that, to prevent cruelty to the cubs, it might be necessary in certain situations.
I would like to take some evidence so that I can better understand the issues.
The use of hounds to flush foxes from woodland—flushing above ground to guns—is not an offence and the bill would not make it one.
You consent to sending terriers underground even although, on occasion, the dog might encounter a vixen. Do you accept that, if hounds are used in woodland areas, a hound might occasionally kill a fox?
Yes. If a dog that is chasing a fox catches the fox, the dog will kill it. However, lurchers can kill a fox quickly because of the difference in weight, but terriers and foxes are of similar weights and our difficulty is with a situation in which they might fight underground.
A fortnight ago, Mr Morris and I had a brief conversation after evidence taking had finished, and we talked about blocking up holes. I pointed out that I understood that that practice was already illegal. Mr Morris and his officials put it to me that cases had been brought to court under the existing legislation, but that loopholes had been found and the prosecutions were unsuccessful. In previous evidence today, we heard that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had conducted several successful prosecutions. What is the difference between England and Scotland that prevents successful prosecutions in Scotland?
I will hand over to Mike Flynn, who tracks such cases closely.
I spoke to Barry Wade from the National Working Terrier Federation. His comments were based on a case in Fife in which an individual put a fox down a man-made pipe, put two terriers in behind it and closed the pipe. The charge was fox baiting. He also was charged with cruelty to the terriers, because both terriers were injured. He was found not guilty of fox baiting because there was no evidence that the fox could not have escaped. In the view of the court, the fox was not captive, although in our view it was. However, the man was found guilty of cruelty to the terriers.
May I continue?
A long time ago I promised Elaine Murray that she could get in.
The SSPCA submission states:
I appreciate fully the difficulties of protecting game birds—that is a fact with which no one can argue. We took advice from Bill Swann, who is an expert in the field, on the best time to control the fox population—we do not claim to be experts. As I said, science moves on and there is evidence that the breeding season might be the time to do the majority of culling. As was mentioned in previous evidence, RSPB Scotland apparently does not need to use the same controls that others use, yet it is protecting birds. I have not seen the details, but if one organisation that has a great deal of land can protect its birds without using certain traditional practices, re-examination is required.
I am flattered by James Morris's faith in my expertise. I will pass the buck even further down the line and say that my expertise comes primarily from sitting through all the sessions of the Burns inquiry, reading all the evidence and taking part in all the specialist seminars. I feel reasonably confident about commenting on the conclusions of the scientific evidence that was passed to that committee.
Do you accept that there are incidents that could result in cubs being orphaned underground? Your e-mail states that you are
I would where I believed there were alternatives that could avoid that situation. This is essentially an issue of conscience and I expect fully that people will have different views on it at different times. There are times when fox cubs are orphaned—that can happen through road accidents. I have been in the unfortunate situation of running a fox over. I must say with all honesty that I did not stop to see whether it was a pregnant vixen; that did not occur to me. I checked it over to see whether it was dead and carried out the act of humanity to ensure that it was dead. It did not occur to me at the time to worry whether it had cubs.
My understanding of what the gamekeepers said was that they bolted the fox cubs after they bolted the vixen but, as Bill Swann says, we will have to look at the Official Report.
We have said that we would work with any agency to attempt to rehome animals, rather than having them humanely destroyed. We recognise the difficulties, but certain packs are fed in different ways. Nothing appears to be standardised. I have some difficulty about rehoming animals that have been fed on raw meat. Their food is totally uncooked; part of a lamb is thrown to them. That could make for a rather messy transition.
In his answer to Elaine Murray, Bill Swann mentioned his personal objection to terrier work underground and referred to the percentage of underground fights between terriers and foxes. Can Mr Swann tell us what that percentage is?
If I had that information, I would impart it gladly. The honest answer is that I do not know. I accept that, for reputable gamekeepers—and we accept that many gamekeepers are reputable—their preferred intention is that the foxes bolt quickly, like flushing above ground. No animal welfarist could have any great objection to that. If it is reasonable animal welfare to disturb a fox from cover above ground, how could disturbing it quickly underground be any different? There is no difference, because both are quick. However, that does not happen all the time.
The Scottish Hill Packs Association witnesses said that 10 per cent of their foxes were taken by dogs when they were flushing to a line of guns. You accept that it is not cruel for 10 per cent of foxes to be dispatched by dogs above ground, but you cannot tell us what percentage of foxes are dispatched by dogs underground. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that, because it happens underground, it is cruel—although we do not have statistics for that—but that above ground, where we believe the figure to be 10 per cent, it is okay. I do not understand the logic of that.
I refer to evidence that I gave at a previous meeting. We do not approve entirely of the way in which the Scottish foot packs operate. I referred to a foot pack in Wales, which Lord Burns had been to see. I had an extensive conversation with him about the Welsh foot pack's method of operation. I believe that foot packs can operate above ground with a code of practice that would make the situation better. I firmly believe that there is the capacity for improvement and that the figures can be improved.
I have one comment and two questions. My comment is simply to pick up on the point that Mr Flynn made about examples of bad practice. I want to flag up the readiness of some of today's witnesses to be bound by legislation and a national code. I hope that that point will be taken on board.
I heard two questions—I assume that the question on population control was addressed to the League Against Cruel Sports. Control using dogs is responsible for a minority of the foxes that are taken out every year. Bill Swann has already mentioned the population modelling study that is being produced by Professor Stephen Harris and Dr David MacDonald, the two leading experts on fox ecology. Their research shows that the majority of foxes that are being taken out are those that would probably die anyway. If control with dogs were to stop, the number of foxes that survived to the end of the year would increase only marginally.
The sum of what you are saying, with sound academic credentials, is that if hunting were to be removed, there would be no significant change in the fox population. Is that correct?
We are saying that there would be no difference whatsoever.
Duncan Hamilton asked about wounding—I refer him to the BASC evidence, which mentioned a wounding rate of about 2 per cent. Burns could not come up with an exact figure, but mooted 1.8 per cent. There are no hard statistics to confirm those figures, although we all suspect that they are about right. In shooting, 2 per cent is a low level of wounding.
With the greatest respect, if times have moved on, why do people continue to make the case for using dogs? Are you suggesting that they could take a second shot and not use the dog, but that they choose not to do that?
When a wounding occurs, a farmer is not necessarily equipped to do something about it. The farmer might be trying to look after sheep that are lambing, among which a ewe is mismothering one of its twin lambs, bad weather is approaching and the farmer is trying to get everything sorted. The farmer might, incidentally, have a gun with him and shoot at a fox, not knowing whether he had wounded the fox or missed it. Under such circumstances, a farmer could do no more than respond to the immediate requirements of the day—looking after his sheep. The farmer could not track the fox for miles. If it can go so far, the fox is probably not seriously wounded. If it is still in the vicinity, the farmer will probably have another chance to shoot it.
That was not the scenario that I set up. We are not talking about a random shot at a fox, but a carefully controlled attempt to flush out a fox and shoot it. Why do not you accept that, if the fox is wounded and can be finished off there and then, that is the most humane way in which to kill it?
Are you talking about a situation where foxes have been flushed to a gun pack?
Yes. The fox has been shot and not killed. Why is it not humane to put the fox out of its suffering there and then?
If the fox were severely wounded it would simply be shot again. The way in which a gun pack is set up—
Sorry, but what if that was not possible? You must accept that there are some situations in which shooting the fox again would not be possible—you have just admitted that.
I support fully the use of dogs to track a wounded animal. For example, one would use a dog to track a wounded deer. If the dog got there first and killed a wounded fox, I would not consider that to be an act of hunting, but an incidental act. The intention is to be humane—I do not accept that using a dog to track a wounded animal is cruel.
In other words, as far as you are concerned the issue is not cruelty, but intention.
In a case such as we have discussed, yes.
I draw members' attention to section 3(1)(c) of the bill, which would allow people to use a dog to track an injured animal. The foot packs explained that the 10 per cent of foxes that were killed by dogs had already gone through a gun line and been injured. The intention is to slip the dog. If the fox is badly wounded, a swift dispatch is what is wanted. If it runs too far, one would try to track, capture and dispatch it. That is covered in the bill and we are not saying that that is cruel.
Do you have a problem with saying that it is humane for the dogs to kill the fox in that environment?
It is the only thing that one could do.
There was some confusion about the nature of that question. Foxes that are flushed into a line of fire are likely to be shot by more than one gun and the chances of them getting away with several gunshot wounds are remote.
Today's written submission from the League Against Cruel Sports finishes by stating:
That relates to a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that has been reported to the league. In particular cases, people have been digging in badger sets, but have claimed that they were digging for foxes.
I am sure that, like me, you do not want the bill to be based on anecdotal evidence.
I was interested in your response to Duncan Hamilton, who hit the nail on the head. On the issue of the line of guns, you said that it was perfectly acceptable for dogs to be slipped to track and dispatch a wounded animal. However, I think that Duncan was referring to another scenario. If a gamekeeper was flushing out or lamping and shot and wounded a fox without using a line of guns, would it be it acceptable for the gamekeeper to let slip his dogs to dispatch the animal?
I will ask Bill Swann to answer that question.
I must apologise to Mr Hamilton—I misunderstood his question. I hope that we have clarified the point.
Do not worry—you are certainly not the first person in the chamber to have misunderstood me.
I support the position that Mr Morris outlined. By supporting the bill, we hope to avoid intentional acts that we believe are intrinsically cruel, but which cannot be legislated out or removed through good practice. If that were not the case, we would not be here. In any case in which an animal is injured, we are all obliged to look to the welfare of the animal at that time.
The scenario that I outlined was not an incidental activity—I was talking about the deliberate activity of a gamekeeper going out to shoot and bringing his dog as a back-up. That situation will arise if he misses the shot.
Convener, am I wrong in saying that that figure was mentioned this afternoon by BASC?
Is that the origin of the statistic?
I believe so. It was also mentioned at one of the specialist seminars for the Burns inquiry. Although the figures have not been subjected to the sort of scientific rigour that would satisfy a published paper, BASC believes that they are correct and we agree.
If this afternoon's proceedings have proved one thing, it is that men argue and animals act. My difficulty is that the previous witnesses seem to have massive personal experience of dealing with the problem first hand. Every one of them said that their methods are the most effective, the most humane and the least cruel. Furthermore, every one of them said that the close season proposal of Mr Morris and Mr Swann would be ineffective and impractical. Why should we believe you, but not them?
I appear to be live, so I will deal with the question.
Do not feel forced to do so because of the light on your microphone.
I have tried to keep all my answers short this afternoon, but I would like to make a short statement now. Nearly everything that we are discussing today in relation to people's worries is about exemptions in the bill. No one is after gamekeepers—the problem is the use of terriers underground. Everything else is included in the bill and allows the control of any species that preys on another or causes damage to a farmer. Gamekeepers should be aware that no one wants to stop their work.
If there were an easier and more humane way, perhaps it would have been found by now. However, is not it the case that another aspect of the bill—namely section 3(1)(c)—poses a problem? As Mr Hamilton said, in some cases it is necessary to use dogs to retrieve foxes that might have been wounded through being shot. I think that Mr Morris suggested that section 3(1)(c) deals with that point—it does to some extent. However, am not I right to say that that section permits the use of only one dog and that, therefore, the people from the Scottish Hill Packs Association would be restricted in their activities? If that is the case—as I believe it is—is not it also true that, if they did not use a full pack of dogs, they would be far less likely to locate the wounded fox. One dog is far less effective than a pack. As a result, the proposals in Mr Watson's bill are bound to be more cruel because, if only one dog is used, it is more likely that the wounded fox will escape retrieval.
The explanatory notes of the bill state that what is called the interpretation order
I thought that you might say that. However, your argument fails in the light of the wording of section 1(5) which refers to "one or more dogs". The deliberate use of the phrase "or more dogs" indicates that the particular method of interpretation does not necessarily apply to the use of one dog.
That is why we criticised the bill.
I am sure that, as a reasonable man, you will accept that that makes two particular problems, not one, as was suggested earlier.
I accept that only a minority would cause us concern. The figure of 25 per cent that we cited was given to us by the National Working Terrier Federation. It is now saying that other groups accept its guidelines. However, as far as I know, the SSPCA was not signed up to the guidelines at the time that we received the information.
Are you saying that the SSPCA was unaware of the fact that those other organisations had signed up to the code?
One big problem that we have is that, although 25 per cent of terrier men are registered with the National Working Terrier Federation, that figure does not include members of the Scottish Hill Packs Association or the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Many people who are not bona fide gamekeepers use terriers in the countryside—they probably outnumber bona fide gamekeepers. Most of the problems that we encounter are caused by people who class themselves as gamekeepers on Saturday and Sunday, but who are painters and decorators from Monday to Friday. They do not check their snares, but simply go out now and then with their terriers. We have raised that issue with the Scottish Gamekeepers Association.
I am very pleased with that answer. I asked the question because, generally, Scottish gamekeepers feel that they are under attack for taking part in cruel activities. Having heard the evidence and having spoken to a number of gamekeepers, especially in my constituency, it seems to me that, far from being cruel, gamekeepers know best how to manage wildlife most effectively and humanely. People who spend their lives going to seminars and giving evidence to parliamentary committees might not be as well placed to comment.
I do not simply attend seminars and take an academic view on the issue. For many generations, my extended family has farmed upland areas of Britain and many of my relatives still do. The areas that they farm include grouse moor and very high-level ground, some of it above the 2,000 ft mark. I have a great deal of first-hand experience of fox control and know a number of gamekeepers, some of them personally. I have been out working with gamekeepers; when I was a boy, I went out working regularly on a grouse moor with a gamekeeper.
I am pleased that you have clarified what you said earlier. Could you provide the committee with the names of individuals who, in your view, are responsible for unacceptable activities? I do not know who they are and I cannot take your evidence seriously until you give us some examples. The use of generalised slurs and smears against groups in Scottish society is absolutely unacceptable. You have just said that there is a group of people who have taken part in unacceptable activities involving cruelty. Those people should be named and identified, so that we can treat your evidence as evidence, rather than as a generalised smear. I hope that this is a legitimate question, convener.
Convener, I am more than happy for you to have sight of confidential veterinary records that contain details of names, addresses and the circumstances in which injuries occurred, provided that you can give me an absolute assurance that that privileged information will be treated in the confidence that it requires.
We will correspond with you about that.
I am intrigued by the legal interpretation that the singular includes the plural. I will be very careful before offering anybody "a drink" again.
We are happy that we can gauge intent from the fact that people have taken their dogs out and set them to course or to flush out the fox to a line of guns. The people out with those dogs would have to be carrying guns. Those would be licensed, so we would have some control of the type of person who would be in the hills shooting foxes. If someone is out in woods with hounds but no guns, they are not flushing but hunting.
Let me put a hypothetical case to you. If the bill were passed and the mounted hunts decided that they would use dogs to flush foxes to guns, would that practice be acceptable?
The use of the hounds would be acceptable. They would not be doing long-distance chasing. They would have to start close to the guns, or the radius within which animals could move would become uncontrollable. The activity would be under control in the sense that there would not be a long chase and there would be flushing to guns. The same hounds could do that.
I am intrigued. You said that the angst that we are going through this afternoon, specifically my focus on gamekeepers, was not necessary, because the bill covers it all. Which part of the bill means that I do not have to be worried any more about that issue?
Which issue?
You said that the concerns are taken care of. There are real worries about it.
My understanding of the bill is that it is anti-hunting and not anti-pest control. There are exceptions for controlling animals that are predating others.
So, as far as you are aware, the bill does not cover pest control.
The bill says:
Sorry, which section of the bill are we talking about?
Section 2(2).
It says:
You are not reading the section that I am reading.
You must read paragraph (b) with the subsection as a whole.
Section 2(2)(b) says "protecting livestock". Is that what you are reading?
That is correct, but you must read the subsection from the beginning. It states:
Are you suggesting that you can do everything except kill it?
That is correct. That is the problem. I think that I have made my point, convener.
I would like to bring this evidence session to a close.
In response to Fergus Ewing's final point, Mr Swann said, quite rightly, that many of the activities that are currently legally carried out by gamekeepers will be rendered illegal if the bill is passed. I accept that. Gamekeepers and others have told us—I have no greater reason to disbelieve them than I have to disbelieve Mr Swann and Mr Morris—that the bill's impact on their activities will affect the biodiversity of upland and mountain Scotland. The protection of biodiversity is enshrined in legislation; it is one of the principal aims of the Executive's National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Is the disadvantage to biodiversity—"destruction" would probably be too strong a word—that we are told would be a result of the bill a price worth paying?
I will have to be careful not to talk about matters that I do not feel confident to talk about. Biodiversity and conservation are not my field. We are back to anecdotal evidence, which I am cautious about using. I live in the heart of one of the largest of the west-coast estates—the Gairloch estate in Ross-shire. There is now little sporting activity. A small number of stags are shot each year but, as far as I am aware, that is the only hunting that takes place. I have had long conversations on this topic with the manager of the estate. There is little dog use; the odd farm commissions one of the terrier owners, but the practice is not extensive.
Have we come to the end of questioning? Mr Morris would like to comment.
I want to provide clarification on the previous question from Mr Rumbles. We are not professional givers of evidence to inquiries; in fact, we have never having done this until now.
It does not allow dispatch with a dog. That is the point that I am making.
The fox is being flushed so that it can be shot. If it is not shot or is wounded, the dog may be used, under section 3(1)(c), to relocate it so that it can be dispatched quickly. I think that it is covered. The whole intention is that the aim of pest control is to dispatch the pest.
We would benefit from time to reflect on that.
There is no mention at all of its being dispatched by the dog.
The intention is not for it to be dispatched by the dog; the intention is for it to be shot. That is what the bill is after. The use of a dog subsequent to the shooting is to relocate an injured animal.
In its evidence, the Scottish Hill Packs Association makes it clear that part and parcel of its everyday activity is that foxes are dispatched by the dogs. It is not an afterthought.
Are we satisfied?
Yes. I am.
I will leave the evidence for members to study.
That brings us to the end of this part of the meeting. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your help.
There is a slight problem. This is not an Executive bill, but the Executive is clearly a key player in it. Given that we heard today that the Executive has a significant financial involvement, I would like to have the chance to take evidence from the minister. Are you saying that there is no possibility of our doing so before we start the draft stage 1 report?
I am not saying that we have to wait until after we have started the draft. I am saying that we can successfully get the evidence, probably early in the new year.
When do you envisage concluding the stage 1 report?
I do not think that we will produce even a draft report before the end of January.
On the subject of further evidence, RSPB Scotland has been mentioned more than once today and Scottish Natural Heritage has also come into the discussion.
And the Forestry Commission.
Those are major players in the bill, and we have all been lobbied by the lurcher men. We must consider inviting those people to give their views.
It would be appropriate to ask members of the committee whether there is anyone else whom they would like to take evidence from. That could be treated as a specific agenda item, probably at the next meeting, and we should try to collate any additional evidence as quickly as possible.
I endorse Alex Fergusson's recommendation to invite the prospective witnesses that he mentioned—SNH and the RSPB. We also need more information about the use of lurchers, which we heard about today. There was another organisation—
The Forestry Commission.
Mr Hamilton has a younger, more agile mind than mine.
It would not be difficult.
I wonder whether we might have the opportunity, once my mind—not Mr Hamilton's mind—is a bit fresher, to consider the implications further before we take evidence from the minister. I would like to give more careful thought to these matters, rather than reach a precipitate conclusion.
Okay.
We could take evidence from the minister when we have received all the other evidence. Would not that be more appropriate?
We will approach the minister about the suitability of dates extending beyond next week. We can agree on a time when dates have been made available.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation