Improving the protection of wild mammals: consultation analysis

Report analysing responses to the 2017 to 2018 Improving the protection of wild mammals consultation.


Annex 4: Question response rates (substantive responses only)

The table below shows the number of substantive (personalised) responses received, and the percentage of all substantive responses, for each consultation question.

Question Number of responses % of 290
1.1 Do you think the definition of 'to hunt' as provided in the 2002 Act should be more specifically defined? [Yes / No] 216 73%
Please explain your answer. 174 59%
1.2 Do you agree with Lord Bonomy's suggestion that the word 'deliberately' in section 1(1) serves no useful purpose? [Yes / No] 213 72%
Please explain your answer. 161 55%
1.3 Do you think the Act would be clearer if 'searching' was included alongside 'stalking and 'flushing' in section 2(1)? [Yes / No] 214 73%
Please explain your answer. 168 57%
1.4 Is 'searching' relevant to any other subsections? [Yes / No] 184 63%
Please explain your answer. 133 46%
1.5 Do you think the Act would be improved if it included definitions of:    
  • 'to stalk' [Yes / No]
198 67%
  • 'to search' [Yes / No]
196 66%
  • 'to flush' [Yes / No]
196 66%
1.6 Please explain your answer:    
  • 'to stalk'
128 44%
  • 'to search'
120 41%
  • 'to flush'
126 43%
1.7 Do you think section 2(3) should be framed more narrowly to remove any overlap with section 2(1) by removing reference to using a dog under control to flush a fox from an enclosed space within rocks or other secure cover above ground? [Yes / No] 194 67%
Please explain your answer. 145 50%
1.8 Do you think that the various areas of overlap and inconsistency between sections 2(1), 2(3), 3(a) and 5 of the Act should be addressed in the manner suggested? [Yes / No] 185 63%
Please explain your answer. 145 50%
1.9 Do you think the 'lawful means' mentioned in section 2(2) should be specified? 195 66%
Please explain your answer. 149 51%
1.10 Do you think there are any other inconsistent, inappropriate or unnecessary features in the Act which could be improved, or do you think there are any terms in the Act which have not been covered above and should be addressed or have been omitted from the Act and should be included? Please identify them and suggest ways in which they might be addressed. 169 58%
2 Do you agree with Lord Bonomy's suggestion that the legislation should impose a restriction in line with the Code of Conduct of the National Working Terrier Federation that, wherever possible and practical, only one terrier should be entered to ground at a time? [Yes / No] 196 66%
Please explain your answer. 171 59%
3 Do you agree with Lord Bonomy's suggestions which seek to provide greater clarity on the question of whether someone is hunting illegally (by finding ways to clarify the element of intent)? [Yes / No] 196 66%
Please explain your answer. 152 52%
4 Do you agree that we should explore a new vicarious liability provision whereby a landowner who permits a person or persons to deploy dogs to stalk, search for and flush wild mammals over their land is guilty of an offence in the event that someone involved in such activity commits an offence? [Yes / No] 216 73%
Please explain your answer. 177 60%
5 Do you agree with the proposition that the onus should lie upon an accused to establish that their conduct falls within one of the exceptions provided in the 2002 Act? [Yes / No] 198 67%
Please explain your answer. 171 58%
6 Do you agree with Lord Bonomy's recommendation that the time limit for prosecution under the 2002 Act be extended and harmonised with other statutes which create wildlife offences? [Yes / No] 215 73%
Please explain your answer. 158 54%
7 Please use this space to provide us with any other comments you wish to submit on the use of dogs to stalk, flush or search for wild mammals. 256 87%

Contact

Back to top