Economic Impacts of a Ban on Hunting with Dogs in Scotland.

3. Mounted Hunts

3.1 Background Information

The hunts supply services to hunting households and farmers. They create a riding and social environment for the followers, and contribute to the destruction of foxes on farmland. They employ staff and purchase inputs from a range of suppliers. Table 3.1 gives some basic information on the structure and activities of the ten hunts. Subscribers varied from 0 (one hunt did not have subscriptions) to 210, and the Scottish total was 815. As indicated above, there were 357 Scottish households that subscribed to these hunts. The number of hunting days in the year averaged 58 per hunt. Numbers of mounted followers averaged 31 although these can vary considerably as between weekdays and weekends, and can be much higher on special days in the fox hunting calendar such as Boxing Day. A total of 543 foxes (including cubs) were killed, on average, by hunts in 1998/99 (54 per hunt), a figure identical to the average over the last five years.

Table 3.1 Basic information relating to the 10 Scottish foxhunts

Some hunts remove fallen stock from farms as a service to farmers and to feed to hounds. Seven of the ten hunts did this. The total number of stock removed was 5102, an average of 728 per hunt involved.

3.2 Impact of a ban on hunting

The hunts currently meet the costs of maintaining 69 horses although not all were owned by the hunts. Those not owned by the hunt were owned by the master, hunt staff or hunt subscribers. They also own 650 hounds. Not surprisingly, the hunts indicated that a ban on hunting with dogs would radically change their activities. In fact, the hunts would cease to exist in their present form. Most staff would be laid off and most of the horses and hounds dispersed. Twenty-eight of the horses would be sold and 23 destroyed. The remaining 18 would be retained. Of the 650 hounds, 584 would be destroyed.

3.3 Hunt Income

Hunts receive income from a variety of sources (Table 3.2). The total income in 1998/99 was calculated as £528,686 (Table 3.2). This table relates to cash income and excludes any material and services in kind. It can be seen that subscriptions from members and payments levied at meets and point-to-points amounted to £316,189. This is around 60% of the total income. Social functions (hunt balls, fund-raising events) are also important in generating income. Where the expenditures of hunts exceeded income donations from the masters and other benefactors normally cover the deficit.

Table 3.2 Sources of hunt income (1998/99)

3.4 Direct salary costs and employment

The hunts employed a total of 29 staff, 18 full-time and 11 part-time. These were grooms, huntsmen, kennelmen, whippers-in and terriermen. The figures include a number of staff not formally employed by the hunts but who spent part of their time on hunt activities. The mean full-time wage was £8,934 and the total labour costs £184,999. Most hunts indicated that they would terminate the employment of staff if hunting were banned. But this was not universally the case. The net impact of a ban on employment costs was to reduce expenditure by £173,929 and make 27 staff redundant.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) employment was calculated on the same basis as with the followers. The net impact of a ban was to reduce hunt employment by 19-20 FTEs.

3.5 Expenditures by hunts on suppliers

The expenditure of the hunts on inputs was calculated for 1998/99. Typically hunts have to meet the costs of maintaining premises, horses and hounds. There are also significant costs associated with repairs, vehicles and travel. The costs are listed in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Total expenditure of the 10 hunts (excluding labour) (1998/99

The total expenditures, other than labour, for the ten hunts was £400,884. There were major items for horse and hound feed and for entertainment. When the total expenditure is compared with income there is a cash deficit which averaged £5,700 per hunt. The hunts indicated that such deficits are typically either carried over or covered by donations.

It might be envisaged that the imposition of a ban on hunting would reduce hunt expenditure to zero. But this was not always the case. Some hunts indicated that there would still be expenditures associated with the maintenance of premises, the keeping of horses retained etc. It was estimated that the total non-labour expenditure would fall to £74,082. The net effect of a ban would therefore be to reduce expenditure by £326,802.

The data given above refer to the expenditure of the hunts wherever they took place. If expenditures are restricted to those taking place with suppliers located in Scotland, the net effect of a ban is to reduce expenditure in Scotland by £255,807.