IN 2002, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that was intended to ban hunting with dogs, but how robust is the ban in reality? Since the act was passed, there have been no successful prosecutions and animal welfare organisations have claimed there is widespread evasion of the law - just last weekend two charities published what they said was proof a fox was killed by dogs during a recent hunt.
Last year, this lack of clarity and confidence in the law led the Scottish Government to announce a review by Lord Bonomy and he has now delivered his report. Lord Bonomy says there are grounds for suspecting illegal hunting is still taking place and that the law should be changed to make prosecutions easier. He has also suggested introducing monitors to check on hunts, with their reports admissible in court, as well as a code of practice for the conduct of hunts.
These are good recommendations and if accepted by the Government, would be a step towards limiting what looks like widespread evasion of the law. The legislation states that the hunting of foxes with dogs is illegal but that a dog can be used to flush out a fox provided it is shot “when it is safe to do so”. However, one of the problems is there is no definition of how long the flushing-out of the fox can last and the law has been interpreted by some hunts as allowing a lengthy chase.
Independent monitors, as suggested by Lord Bonomy, may be able to cast some light on this situation and help enforce a law that is opaque and open to exploitation. One of the aims of the monitors would be establish how often hunts are chasing foxes with dogs, and for how long, and if and when the foxes are being killed by the dogs rather than being shot.
But introducing monitors may not be enough – if their evidence shows there is widespread evasion of the law, then the Government will have to be prepared to act and toughen up the law even further. Scotland’s ban on hunting with dogs must be made to work.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here