CAMPAIGNERS have supported calls for tighter controls on fox-hunting in Scotland, as ministers prepare to update the flawed law banning the practice.
Animal welfare groups have claimed that loopholes in the law have allowed the bloodsport to continue despite hunting for sport being outlawed more than 10 years ago.
The current 2002 Protection of Wild Animals act bans the hunting of animals with dogs, but permits them to chase animals out of wooded areas on to open ground where they are in the line of fire.
After threatening to vote against the repeal of the fox-hunting ban in England this summer, the SNP-led Scottish Government are set to appoint a senior judge to conduct a review into the law, which could lead to current loopholes being closed.
Activists have claimed that around 900 foxes are killed each year in Scotland, which is double what the estimated figure was when the ban was introduced in 2002.
Harry Huyton, head of animal protection charity OneKind, said: “Fox hunting was supposedly banned in Scotland in 2002, however, 13 years later hunts are still riding out with full packs of dogs at their heels in search of foxes to kill.
“This is because of loopholes in the law that have rendered the ban so ineffective that there hasn’t been a single conviction of a mounted hunt since it was introduced."
“This totally undermines the credibility of the Parliament and flies in the face of the will of the public who overwhelmingly oppose fox hunting.
“OneKind is urging the Scottish Government to implement a full and thorough review of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act as an immediate priority as a step towards making the legislation fit for purpose,” he said.
OneKind have claimed there are currently 10 mounted fox-hunts in Scotland, which is the same number that were operational before the hunting ban was implemented in February 2003.
Fellow animal protection group, The League Against Cruel Sports, also said that the Scottish ban is “routinely flouted” amid the lack of convictions related to mounted hunts.
Opponents to the hunting ban have, however, claimed that hunting is an effective population-control method, and many of the hunts which still take place across the country do so under the guise of a pest control service, offered to farmers and landowners.
Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone yesterday said that the 2002 law had effectively ended cruelty towards the animals, claiming that strengthened laws would be a measure of “class warfare” rather than a measure against cruelty.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: “Scotland led the way in addressing animal welfare concerns with legislation in 2002, and we remain committed to ensuring the highest levels of welfare for our animals.”
David Cameron was forced to abandon plans to row back the hunting ban in England after the SNP threatened to vote down the proposals. Speaking after the decision was announced in July, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said: “We totally oppose fox-hunting and, when there are moves in the Scottish parliament to review whether the existing Scottish ban is strong enough, it is in the Scottish interest to maintain the existing ban in England and Wales.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here