By Kathleen Nutt
Political Correspondent
MSPs have backed plans for an overhaul of fox hunting legislation amid concerns illegal blood sports are taking place in Scotland despite a ban brought in 20 years ago.
Members of Holyrood's rural affairs, islands and natural environment committee support the axing of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and its replacement with the Hunting With Dogs Bill, introduced by ministers in a bid to close various loopholes.
Under the 2002 Act, hunting wild mammals with dogs for sport was banned. However, hunting can take place under certain circumstances for example to protect livestock or ground-nesting birds, or to prevent the spread of disease.
In England and Wales, a maximum of two dogs can be used in one hunting practice called “flushing to guns”, but there is no limit in place in Scotland. This has lead to concerns it is being used as a way of getting around the ban.
The new bill proposes that in Scotland in general no more than two dogs are used to hunt a wild mammal for the management of wild animals above ground. However, it also allows for the introduction of a licensing scheme for more than two dogs to be used in specific conditions.
In their report, published today, MSPs seek "urgent" clarification from the Scottish Government on the proposal to make it an offence to use more than two dogs when "flushing to guns".
They also raise concerns over proposals for the new licensing system allowing more than two dogs to hunt in some situations.
Ministers have also been asked to clarify how a one-dog limit for searching or flushing foxes or mink from cover below ground would work effectively.
MSPs have also requested more detail on including rabbits in a definition of "wild mammal" in the hunting bill which would give the animals more protection.
Currently, it is lawful for rabbits to be hunted and killed by dogs but not hares. The Scottish Government wants the former to be protected both for the animals' welfare and also to close a loophole noted by Police Scotland after officers have found hare coursers insisting they were using their dogs to hunt rabbits rather than hares to escape prosecution.
However, some members of the rural affairs committee oppose rabbits being included in the definition of wild mammal.
Finlay Carson, convener of the rural affairs committee, said MSPs agreed to support the broad principles of the bill which was brought in following a review of the 2002 Act by Lord Bonomy who gave evidence to the committee.
"There were quite a few sections of the bill that were not agreed unanimously. As the convener I would have liked to have seen the committee come to a conclusion on a lot of the sections, however it was quite clear there were certain members who were not happy with certain sections," Mr Carson told The Herald.
"But on the issue of giving approval for the general principles, the committee all agreed there did need to be a change in the law and as we've seen it's a total overhaul.
"The previous legislation will be ripped up and this bill will be brought in. This is something we as a committee welcomed generally. This is not tweaking about the edges of a piece of legislation which obviously didn't work. We also heard from Lord Bonomy that he welcomed the fact that wasn't going to be the case."
He added: "We also had some members who were not in favour of licensing in any form and who do not favour any exceptions.
"So there has been dissenting voices right through the bill process, but the general principles that this bill should improve the current situation and be a better piece law was certainly unanimous."
Opinion is split about the bill among groups which gave evidence to the committee with the Scottish Countryside Alliance arguing the new legislation is not needed while animal charities such as One Kind believing the bill does not go far enough in limiting hunting.
Jake Swindells, Director of the Scottish Countryside Alliance said: “Scotland’s rural community believe this bill is unnecessary and contrary to the evidence. It is also based on a false claim that the 2002 Act has somehow failed, when in fact it has operated exactly as intended enabling necessary wildlife management to protect livestock, livelihoods and vulnerable wildlife.
"Far from improving animal welfare, the bill could have the opposite effect. It is clear from the Stage 1 report that the bill’s shortcomings and lack of clarity have been recognised and must be addressed before the bill is taken any further. We cannot have a situation unfold where a bill of this magnitude is waved through with potentially devastating consequences for rural Scotland and our countryside.”
Animal charity OneKind previously welcomed the bill but insisted any exceptions to allow dogs to be used to kill animals must be “reserved for extraordinary circumstances”.
OneKind director Bob Elliot said in February this year that Scottish people overwhelmingly supported a “real ban on fox hunting”.
He added: “We do not believe a licensing scheme to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain circumstances is justified."
The Scottish Greens have also previously expressed concerns about the bill, backing an outright ban.
Field sports, which includes hunting, are excluded from the party’s cooperation agreement with the SNP.
MSPs are expected to vote on the bill following a debate on the committee's stage 1 report towards the end of October.
The bill will then return to the committee to consider possible amendments before a final parliamentary vote by the end of the year.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel