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

8. Conclusions

8.1 Mounted hunts

The main economic impacts of a hunting ban on mounted hunts are summarised in Table 8.1 and 8.2. The expenditure of hunt subscribers on the hunts and related inputs would be cut by £4.36m per year, of which £3.23m was on goods and services in Scotland and £0.53 on employees. This withdrawal of spending affects employment by the households themselves and has income and employment impacts on the supply sector and the wider economy. Similarly the ban on hunts affects employment by the hunts and to a much lesser extent in the rest of the economy.

Table 8.1 Effects of a ban on hunting on the expenditure of subscribing households (Scottish hunting households)

Table 8.2 Employment effects of a ban on hunting (Scotland)

^*full-time equivalent jobs (including part-time)
* This is an FTE figure-actual job losses were not calculated
^†the 95% confidence interval was ± 23%

The main employment effect of a ban is on those most directly connected with the hunts or the follower households. There would be significant implications at an individual level for an estimated 75 full-time jobs (Table 8.2). There would also be implications for many part-time staff employed by the subscribers. Because they are generally on low rates of pay conversion of these ‘jobs’ to full-time equivalents could be open to misinterpretation given the low annual wage levels that may be implied. We calculated an adjusted FTE loss of possibly 72-83 FTE jobs. Direct impacts on the hunts and other suppliers add 48-49 FTE jobs, a total of 120-132. Those most directly affected are farriers, livery suppliers and people engaged in horse trading.

Less immediately, there will be adjustments throughout the economy that may lead to a further loss of 30 FTEs reflecting the knock-on effects of the initial withdrawal of spending. New-injections of expenditure by the subscribers would reduce this by 17 FTEs. The net longer-term adjustment might be a loss of 159-171 FTE jobs. Impacts on farmers’ costs or output appear to be minimal and not a significant issue for the debate. The impacts are therefore very largely restricted to the households engaged in hunting, their employees, the hunt employees and a small number of businesses closely associated with hunting (farriers, blacksmiths, horse purchase and livery). Impacts beyond these in the Scottish economy are extremely small.

Whilst the hunts and followers are widely dispersed in central and southern Scotland there is a concentration of activity in the Borders. It is here that any impacts are expected to be greatest. The net effect was to reduce expenditures in Scotland by subscribing households by £1.39m. The net effect of a ban would be to lose around 60-65 FTE jobs in the Borders.

The economic impacts of a ban on mounted hunting are unlikely to be higher than those calculated in this study. If anything they may be lower due to strategic responses to the questionnaires. But the form of the surveys minimised bias and any bias is thought to be small. Some alternative riding activities (such as drag hunting) may develop but we have no evidence to suggest that the limited enthusiasm of the hunts and subscribers on this issue were deliberately contrived. The fact is that drag hunting is not a close substitute for fox hunting and there is very considerable uncertainty that it would develop to such a degree that it retained much of the current hunting expenditure.

8.2 Gamekeepers and hill packs

The study of impacts on gamekeeper employment used 905 SLF members as its ‘population’. There was considerable uncertainty amongst landowners as to the interpretation of the Bill and the impact of restrictions on current methods of vermin control on their sporting operations. Whilst some would increase activity and expenditure to compensate for restrictions, others were pessimistic about the long-term effects on their sport activities. Overall, their responses indicated a possible reduction of £1.97m in expenditure entering the Scottish economy (excluding labour) with up to 114 FTE jobs lost through reduced employment.

We consider these estimates are upper limits for the SLF landowners sampled, and they would not be immediate. Any effects of increased predation on bird populations may take some time to affect demand for sport shooting and, indirectly, gamekeeper employment. We were not able to estimate the complete indirect and induced impacts of any fall in expenditure by landowners, but comparison with the mounted hunts suggests that these additional effects would be quite small.

The SLF sample used in the study will understate to some extent the total Scottish sporting sector since not all landowners are SLF members. More importantly there would be other economic impacts of a reduction in sporting activity that were beyond our remit. In particular, there would be reduced expenditure in the sectors servicing shooters such as hotels, restaurants and equipment. Account would need to be taken of the income and employment impacts of any reduction in shooting in order to provide a more all-embracing assessment of the Bill’s economic impacts.

The five hill packs would cease to operate under a ban on hunting with dogs. Seen in the context of the overall impacts of the Bill, the effects would be small - reduced expenditure of £46,000 and a loss of 10 FTE jobs. Expenditure effects on other predator control groups were not examined.

8.3 Re-employment

Those most affected by the Bill are employees offering specialised services to the hunting and land management sectors. Whilst the study did not explore alternative employment opportunities, neither the wider horse sector nor the land sector are sufficiently dynamic to absorb the number of jobs in question. The latter is particularly depressed at present. Many individuals will not be well placed to compete for rural jobs although those with part-time, seasonal jobs, and at an early stage in the life cycle, will be better placed to find new employment.