CHAPTER 7

MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
OF HABITATAND OTHER WILDLIFE

7.1 In this chapter we examine the extent to which hunting has a positive or negative impact on the management and conservation of habitat and other wildlife.

7.2       Foxes, deer and mink can all raise difficulties from a conservation perspective.  As we noted in chapter 5, foxes prey on game and ground-nesting birds.  Deer damage woodland habitats.  Mink eat a wide variety of birds and small animals.  To the extent that hunting contributes to controlling the numbers of these species - and that these difficulties could increase in the event of a ban on hunting - hunting has a potential benefit in conservation terms.  However, we noted that, other than in upland areas, hunting accounts for only a small percentage of foxes killed each year; that it accounts for only about 15% of the numbers of deer that need to be killed in the area hunted over by the three staghound packs; and that the minkhunts kill relatively few mink.

7.3       But we also received a good deal of evidence from the Countryside Alliance and the hunts highlighting the important role which, they argue, hunting has traditionally played in conserving habitat, not only for the benefit of certain quarry species but also for other wildlife and plants.  It is said that, if hunting was banned, many farmers and landowners would no longer have an incentive to conserve these habitats and that many of them would be lost.  The arguments mainly centre on the hunts' role in creating and managing habitat for foxhunting and hare hunting and coursing.  Mink, as we have already noted, are not a conservation species and there is no need to create or manage habitat specifically for deer.

7.4       We have been handicapped in our assessment of these wider benefits by the lack of information from independent sources about the relative importance of hunting in comparison with the many other factors that influence habitat and landscape management.  In particular, we received very little evidence on these issues from the wide range of statutory and non-statutory organisations concerned with wildlife and landscape protection.

7.5       There is no doubt that, historically, the landscape of many parts of lowland England, especially the Midlands, has been strongly influenced by the desire to establish and conserve good foxhunting country.  As the Countryside Alliance pointed out, this has taken the form, in particular, of planting, managing and conserving woodland, hedges and other forms of cover in which foxes generally live.¹

7.6       The efforts made to increase agricultural production, following the Second World War, had a dramatic effect on the English countryside.  The acreage of arable land increased at the expense of grassland, reducing biodiversity and creating less habitat for wildlife.  It is estimated that half of England's hedgerows were removed to accommodate bigger machinery and provide more land for cultivation.  In the years 1990-1993, alone 2,240 miles of hedgerow were lost each year.  Hedge and ditch maintenance machinery led to less traditional, and indiscriminate, forms of hedge maintenance, reducing the density of hedges and their wildlife value.  Recent surveys by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology show that as much hedgerow is now being planted as is being lost,² but new hedgerow does not have the same conservation value as old hedgerow.  Many areas of grazing and scrub were also improved for agriculture during the post-war period.  These changes led to marked declines in the numbers of birds, animals and plants. Alongside the loss of particular habitat and features, farming methods changed, especially in the 1970s and 1980s.  The trend away from mixed farming towards specialisation reduced farmland biodiversity.  In grassland areas the shift from hay to silage production adversely affected wildlife and so did the loss of winter stubbles due to the prominence given to winter cereals on arable farms.  In both types of farming the environment has been made poorer by the increased use of fertilisers and pesticides.

7.7       Few would argue that hunting is important enough to mitigate many of these effects.  For example, we received no evidence to suggest that significant numbers of hunting farmers have been prepared to maintain large areas of winter stubble for spring cropping to benefit mounted followers.  Nor are we aware that the trend to silage production has been resisted by those seeking to maintain hare numbers.  However, there is some evidence that certain features, particularly woods and hedges, were preserved for foxhunting by farmers and landowners who wished to maintain habitat. At a time of intensification of agriculture, hunting farmers showed less tendency to remove hedgerows and other non-productive habitat.  For example, Macdonald noted in a survey of over 800 farmers that, during the 1970s, those farmers who were enthusiastic foxhunters removed less hedgerow than farmers who shot or who were interested in neither activity.³

7.8       However, more recently, with a move away from over-production and a shift towards a package of agri-environment schemes, which place more emphasis on environmental management of the countryside and protection and creation of habitat, the differences between hunting and non-hunting farmers have lessened.  The 1998 survey of farmers’ behaviour over the last decade showed no significant difference in the length of hedgerow removed by hunting farmers and non-hunting farmers.  There were differences, however, in their management of other non-productive habitats, with hunting farmers more likely to encourage shelterbelts, ponds and parkland trees.⁴

7.9       The evidence we received from the Countryside Alliance and hunts illustrated the ways in which hunts themselves are engaged in conserving habitats which are suitable for foxhunting but which also have a wider nature conservation benefit.  In addition, there is evidence of committed conservation practice from specific hunts and landholdings, such as Ashford Valley Hunt and Wight Conservation.  This information draws on material being collated by the Game Conservancy Trust, the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports and some of the hunts.

7.10     Woodland management and the management of field boundaries are the two main activities undertaken.

7.11     Because foxes like to lie up in ground cover, lowland hunts sometimes coppice small areas in rotation, producing small clearings which provide favourable habitat for plants and for many birds and butterflies.  Similarly, gorse may be managed by cutting or burning back.  Woodland rides may be created to provide access for foxhunting for horses and hounds.  These act as wildlife corridors between areas of habitat for light-demanding species, such as butterflies, whilst maintaining aerial walkways between trees for arboreal species, such as dormice.  Coppicing and ride maintenance are widely advocated by woodland conservation organisations and statutory agencies for their benefits to wildlife.

7.12     These beneficial activities may be undertaken directly by hunts themselves on land which they own or on behalf of other landowners.  Alternatively, farmers and landowners may undertake these activities because of their interest in hunting.  A number of studies have attempted to gauge the direct role of hunts.  A British Field Sports Society survey of 158 lowland fox hunts in 1995  recorded that 98 of the hunts undertook covert laying and management  and 10 had planted new coverts.⁵  A total of 5,700 hectares of woodland were managed in this way, often through the use of volunteer labour.⁶  In England, the MAFF census of agricultural holdings for 1999 recorded 255,000 hectares of woodland.⁷  Thus, on the basis of the 1995 survey figures, hunts would appear to contribute to the management of just 2.2% of the woodland area on farms.

7.13     However, evidence provided by the Game Conservancy Trust suggests a considerably higher area of woodland managed by hunts.⁸  Unfortunately, this fresh research initiative is not yet complete and so the data presented by the Game Conservancy are from 31 of 185 hunts.  Of these, 28 (90%) have given locations of woodland they say they manage, amounting to a total of 15,723 hectares of woodland (an average of 562 hectares per hunt).  The Game Conservancy Trust calculate a total of 157,477 hectares of huntable woodland within the 28 hunt country boundaries.⁹  On the basis of these figures, the hunts appear to be managing 10% of the woodland available to them in their hunt countries.

7.14     We are not clear why there is this considerable difference between the 1995 survey figures and the more recent information collected by the Game Conservancy Trust.  We note, however, that the latter intends to carry out visits in due course to check the position on the ground.

7.15     All this work carried out by the hunts should be seen in the context of habitat  management taking place as a whole in Britain.  As land use policy in Britain has recognised the importance of habitat management, and an increasing proportion of agricultural support is offered in the form of land management grants rather than output subsidies, so more positive habitat management is taking place.

7.16     Hunts and their supporters' clubs clearly do carry out important conservation work.  For example, some of the woodlands which they manage are “ancient woodlands” and therefore of high conservation value.  However, a much greater amount of conservation work and land management is carried out by other landholders and dedicated conservation bodies.

7.17     The data collected by the Game Conservancy Trust also show that many hunts say that they are actively involved in maintaining hedgerows in order to provide good jumps.  Hedge laying by hand, though labour-intensive, avoids hedges becoming "gappy" and fragmented and produces a much better habitat for small animals such as voles and dormice.  A number of hunts run hedge-laying societies and hold annual competitions.  Hunts also contribute to the management of bridleways and maintenance of fences, dry stone walls and gates.¹⁰

7.18     In the case of hare hunting and coursing it is more difficult to disentangle the conservation efforts made in the interests of hunting and coursing from the game management (such as predator control) undertaken in the interests of shooting hare and other game such as partridges and pheasants.

7.19     The hare is the only one of the four quarry species considered to be of conservation importance.  As we noted in paragraph 5.77, the brown hare is now the subject of a UK Biodiversity Action Plan, which aims to double spring numbers by 2010.

7.20     In their evidence to us the Countryside Alliance drew attention to research carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust (which the Trust also sent to us separately) between 1988 and 1990 which looked at the effect of hare coursing on hare populations on two estates where hare coursing took place.¹¹  The Game Conservancy Trust found that, on these estates, hare numbers were maintained at relatively high densities and that the direct mortality associated with hare coursing was very low.¹²

7.21     The Game Conservancy Trust found, in addition, that coursing estates had made or retained habitats which benefited hares, for example areas of grass instead of cereal and root crops; that they had prohibited organised shooting; and that they had taken active steps to protect hares from predation and poaching.^{13 14}

7.22     Related research studied the impact of beagling on hare populations.  It found, similarly, that beagling made very little impact on hare numbers.

7.23     The evidence submitted to us indicated that the hunts and coursing clubs presently contribute to hare conservation by:

• joining with other organisations to publicise the problems caused to hares (and to birds and other animals) by modern agricultural practices such as the methods used to cut silage or hay
• taking part in county Biodiversity Actions Plans
• encouraging the planting of game cover crops, which also benefit farmland birds
• collecting information regularly about hare numbers.  For example, the rules of the AMBH provide that all Masters of Hounds may be required to complete a "Hare Survey Form" giving details of hares seen on each day's hunting.  The data are collated by the Game Conservancy Trust and assist in monitoring the health of the hare population.¹⁵  As the Game Conservancy Trust confirm, these records provide a better indication of changes in winter populations than do game bag records.¹⁶

7.24     On the other side of the coin, we also need to take into account the negative impact that hunting can sometimes have on conservation interests.  These include:

• some disturbance of the area being hunted and to the habitat and vulnerable wildlife there
• disturbance of otters and other riparian animals and birds by mink hunts during the summer breeding season
• interference with badger setts when stopping-up and digging-out during foxhunting
• transportation of hares for coursing, which might not survive or which might spread disease.

7.25     Hunting mink with hounds is argued to have a detrimental effect on wildlife conservation because of the disturbance caused when the hounds and the whips investigate potential lying-up spots or dig out mink that have gone to ground.  Mink hunts tend to operate from April to September, which includes the breeding season for birds and a time when many species are vulnerable to disturbance.¹⁷  There are no quantitative data regarding this issue, but a small survey by Dorset Wildlife Trust of academics and researchers working with otters showed that they were of the opinion that mink hunting would pose a significant risk to otters, although few had come across examples of such disturbance.  Several conservation bodies, including the National Trust, do not allow mink hunting on their land when otters are present.¹⁸  The Environment Agency discourages mink hunting where otters and other wildlife may be disturbed.¹⁹  The Otters and Rivers Project (OARP), a network of 24 Wildlife Trust staff working across England and Wales on otter, river and wetland conservation, after collecting evidence from a variety of sources, concluded in their evidence that mink hunting may, in some cases, damage riverine habitat and disturb riverine species at particularly sensitive times of year.  They added that it may have a direct impact on otters, both in terms of disturbance and in preventing otters from re-colonising and establishing in sensitive areas.²⁰

7.26     We received evidence from several badger protection groups around the country, which reported incidents of prosecutions and other evidence of people entering terriers and digging out badger setts.²¹  All claimed that legal forms of hunting with dogs facilitated this illegal activity, since participants could claim that they were in pursuit of a fox and had erroneously pursued a badger.  Badger protection groups also claimed cases of the hard stopping of setts by hunts when stopping up, so causing badgers to become trapped in their setts.  It is difficult to quantify the extent to which this is practised throughout England and Wales, since no aggregate records have been submitted. The RSPCA obtained 271 convictions for badger offences from 1986 to 1997.^{22 23} The League Against Cruel Sports states that its records show that, between 1986 and 1994, 18 members of official working terrier clubs and 11 officials or employees of registered fox hunts were committed of badger digging or other offences under badger protection legislation.²⁴  Whilst, it is unknown how many of these relate specifically to sett disturbance from digging-out, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that illegal practice is taking place, whether inadvertently or otherwise.

7.27     We received a certain amount of evidence about the live capture of hares, by driving them into long nets and boxing them, for movement from one area of the country to another for purposes of re-stocking.  This is carried out for the benefit of hunting and coursing, but is also seen by the registered hare associations as being helpful in transferring hares from areas where their numbers might constitute a nuisance value to areas where successful introduction would contribute to biodiversity.  Both the AMHB and the NCC emphasise that freshly-transported hares should not be hunted or coursed.  The NCC state that hares should be imported onto an estate in February/March to be coursed 6 months later at the beginning of the next season.²⁵  The AMHB recommends that, ideally, if fresh hares are introduced into a “country”, the hunt should be directed away from the specific area as much as possible for 2-3 seasons to allow the population to establish itself.²⁶  The AMHB also recommends that any reintroduction of hares into an area should be in accordance with the local Biodiversity Action Plan, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Guidelines for Reintroduction, 1998, which state the conditions that need to be satisfied before attempting to reintroduce a species.²⁷

7.28     The actual number of hares transported is not possible to gauge accurately, partly because it may often be carried out quietly so as not to attract the attention of poachers.²⁸  Some estimates put the number transported for coursing at several thousand per year.²⁹  The NCC states that the estate at Altcar, where the Waterloo Cup is held, was re-stocked successfully in 1987 and that seven out of 24 clubs have also transported hares in recent years.³⁰  The AMHB state that the local hunts say they reintroduced hares onto Exmoor five or six years ago and that there is now a healthy and balanced population.³¹

7.29     We received no firm evidence about the welfare implications of transporting hares, although some anecdotal evidence suggested that it might be a cause for concern in relation to the spreading of disease.  Nor did we receive any clear evidence that hares had been transported shortly before hunting or coursing events.  Doubts have been expressed, however, about whether re-stocking has other than a temporary effect on local hare populations.³²

7.30     There is also an indirect relationship between hunting and pasture management.  If a ban on hunting were to lead to a significant reduction in the number of horses kept, then there might also be a related reduction in the amount of grazing pasture and hay meadows maintained on land holdings.

Assessment of the influence of hunting on the conservation of habitat and wildlife

7.31     We mentioned earlier the difficulty in distinguishing, in the case of the hare, from conservation specifically for hunting or coursing from conservation for wider game management.  But the difficulties go wider than this.  For example, the Game Management Project revealed that game considerations were a strong motivating factor in influencing woodland planting and management practices.³³  Farmers and landowners who released pheasants for shooting were twice as likely to have planted new woodland as those who did not release pheasants.

7.32     It is difficult to distinguish the effect that hunting has had on influencing land management practices from the broader impact of game management for shooting.  Foxhunting has undoubtedly had a beneficial influence in lowland parts of England in conserving and promoting habitat which has helped biodiversity, although any effect has been in specific localities.  In the case of hare hunting and coursing, it seems clear that those interested in these activities have helped to maintain habitats which are favourable to the hare and to a number of other species.

7.33     We now turn to the more critical assessment of what the impact would be, from a conservation point of view, of a ban on hunting.

7.34     Some of those who support hunting have argued that, in the event of a ban, there could be an adverse impact on conservation of hedgerows and thickets.³⁴  It is necessary, however, to look at the various influences which bear today on farmers' and landowners' practices in managing their land.

7.35     It is possible that a ban on hunting would remove the incentive for certain landholders to manage parts of their land in a way that provides suitable habitat for their quarry species but which is also beneficial for other fauna and flora.  However, the removal of this incentive would not necessarily lead to the destruction or abandonment of such areas in all cases.  The extent to which landholders would change their patterns of management, in the event of a ban, would depend upon the presence of other influences which bear on their land management practices.

7.36     Agricultural and rural land use are subject to a number of controls to protect the environment.  For example, there are significant restrictions on woodland clearance through the Forestry Commission’s felling licence system.  Some woodland trees are also subject to Tree Preservation Orders.  Woodlands designated as SSSIs are afforded a high degree of protection, although SSSI status does not in itself ensure that best management practices will be undertaken.  The planting of new woodlands is also subject to some controls. Important hedgerows enjoy a degree of protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.  Farms entered into agri-environment schemes are likely to be restricted, through scheme conditions, in the extent to which they can remove hedges or trees.  There are also a number of regulations relating to environmental pollution which are less relevant to this inquiry.

7.37     It is undoubtedly the case that farmers’ actions are strongly influenced by the signals received through the market and from policy measures.  For example, hunting did not prevent many of the post-war trends towards intensification of production which took place in response to market/policy signals.  Increased acreages of winter wheat and of silage are two examples of changes that have brought financial benefits to farmers but have not benefited either the natural environment or hunting.  Attempts to limit expansion of production, as part of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, include the use of set-aside and the identification of areas eligible for arable aid. These, alongside quotas and stocking density rules in the dairy and livestock sector, act as important constraints on farmers’ land management actions.

7.38     These schemes, run by MAFF in England, exert a growing influence on the way in which agricultural land is managed.  The current schemes are: Arable Stewardship, Countryside Access, Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Farm Woodland Premium, Habitat, Moorland, Nitrate Sensitive Areas and Organic Farming.  As an indication of the take-up of these schemes, we note that the Countryside Stewardship Scheme had nearly 150,000 hectares by the end of 1999; over a million hectares were designated in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme; and by the end of 1998 nearly 50,000 hectares had been approved for planting under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme.^{35 36} To set these figures in context, we note that England has an agricultural area of 9.6 million hectares rough grazing and 0.2 million hectares of farm woodland.³⁷

7.39     In Wales, with the exception of the Organic Aid Scheme which remains separate, all agri-environment schemes have now been subsumed within a single scheme, Tir Gofal, run by the Countryside Council for Wales.  Farmers throughout the Principality are eligible to apply to Tir Gofal.

7.40     In an attempt to evaluate the importance of hunting as an incentive to farmers to engage in positive conservation activities, we sent a questionnaire to Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group conservation advisers in England.  They were asked to put in rank order a set of nine factors that, in their experience, motivate farmers to undertake conservation activity in their own particular county.  The advisers were asked to undertake the exercise for each of seven key aspects of conservation activity.³⁸  20 advisers responded.  The results show that personal interest, appropriate advice and encouragement and the incentives offered by agri-environment schemes are seen by FWAG advisers as the most important factors likely to motivate farmers to undertake conservation activities.  Hunting is seen to be of relatively low importance except in the case of woodland management, where it is ranked fourth in importance, and woodland planting (fifth).  In both cases, game management is considered to be of greater importance.  However, in some counties hunting was seen as the second or third most important factor encouraging farmers to manage woodland for conservation or plant new woods.

7.41     It is important to recognise that these are the views of a small number of people.  However, FWAG advisers are uniquely placed to make judgements of this kind.  The results certainly seem to indicate that, for woodland management at least, hunting may well continue to have some importance in influencing farmers' actions.  This is consistent with the evidence provided by the hunts.

7.42     Hunting has clearly played a very significant role in the past in the formation of the rural landscape and in the creation and management of areas of nature conservation.  Nowadays, however, hunting with dogs is likely to form only a relatively minor factor in determining farmers' and landowners' land management practices.  It still plays a role, though, in certain localities in respect of woodland planting and management.

7.43     Hunting exerts much less influence than agricultural market and policy trends, the management of game for shooting or incentives under agri-environment schemes.  With the possible exception of hare conservation, a ban on hunting with dogs would be unlikely to have a major impact from a conservation perspective.  In the case of the hare, on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather than shooting, a ban might lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers.  The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals.

² IFAW 1,86

³ Macdonald et al, 7.2.2.b

⁴ Macdonald and Johnson 2000

⁵ CA 1,11.8

⁶ Countryside Sports: Their Economic, Social and Conservation Significance.  Review and Survey by Cobham Resource Consultants. Published by Standing Conference on Countryside Sports, 1997

⁷ MAFF Statistical Press Release, 1999

⁸ Game Conservancy Trust 1, 3.2

⁹ Ibid, 3.4

¹⁰ Hobson 1,2

¹¹ CA1, 11.15

¹² Game Conservancy Trust, 2.4 hare coursing

¹³ CA1,11.5

¹⁴ Game Conservancy Trust, 2.4 hare coursing

¹⁵ CA1,11.19 and 11.20

¹⁶ Game Conservancy Trust, 1.5.8

¹⁷ The Wildlife Trusts 1, un-numbered

¹⁸ National Trust 5.3

¹⁹ Mink. Environment Agency (1995)

²⁰ The Wildlife Trusts 2, un-numbered

²¹ National Federation of Badger Groups 1, Glamorgan Badger Group 1, West Sussex Badger Protection Group 1

²² Badger Watch and Rescue, Dyfed 1,un-numbered

²³ Ibid, Appendix 3, Legal and Illegal 'Sports': The Facts.  Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals

²⁴ LACS 1, Appendix 10, point 33

²⁵ CA oral evidence, 10 April 2000. Session 2

²⁶ AMHB - telephone conversation

²⁷ AMHB - telephone conversation; Hare Hunting Association (HHA) 2,10

²⁸ AMHB - telephone conversation

²⁹ Harris et al, 2.1.2

³⁰ CA oral evidence, 10 April 2000. Session 2

³¹ HHA 2,10

³² Harris et al, 2.1.2

³³ Game Management in England.  Cox G, Watkins C and Winter M.  Cheltenham: Countryside Press.1966

³⁴ CA1,12.2

³⁵ MAFF AUK 99

³⁶ IFAW 1,86

³⁷ MAFF Statistical Press Release on 1999 June Census for England

³⁸ A summary of the responses is on the CD Rom.

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 12 June 2000