|
|
|
You are here: Home > Current Topics > Mind your Business > 27 September 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
On September 15th 2004, Members of Parliament (MPs) voted in the UK Parliament to ban fox hunting with hounds by a margin of 339 to 155 votes. The direction of the vote was not unexpected and pro-hunt and anti-hunt supporters predictably greeted it in equal measure with anger and joy. The bill to ban hunting still has to go through the House of Lords who are expected to throw it out, but that will lead to the House of Commons invoking the Parliament Act and forcing the legislation through. An amendment to the bill means that the legislation will not come into force until November 2006. 
The hunting ban caused heightened emotions on both sides of the debate. © Christopher Hall, Stock.Xchng Feelings on both sides have been running high and the break-in to the House of Commons debating chamber by five pro-hunt activists raised the issue about the degree to which Parliament and other key buildings are secure in the light of the heightened threat of terrorist activity in the UK. Demonstrations outside Parliament by an estimated 20,000 supporters of hunting (the police estimated the numbers were 8-10,000) were mostly peaceful although there were scuffles at times and some injuries to both protestors and police. The hunting issue has been at the forefront of political debate for many years. It clearly raises passionate views on either side. The proposed delay in implementing the ban is designed to help those involved with hunting to adjust to a ban. In Scotland, a ban on hunting with dogs was passed in 2002, but of the 10 hunts that existed before the ban, nine are still working and the tenth is intending to re-form. The hunts now work as gun packs with the intention of driving out foxes to allow marksmen to shoot them. Pro-hunt supporters claim this is less humane because the fox can end up being wounded rather than killed outright which tends to happen when a pack of dogs catches the fox. Anti-hunt supporters however seem to be happier that this method is more humane. Whatever the moral issues surrounding the 'sport' of fox hunting, there have been strong arguments put forward by both sides about the extent of the economic impact of a ban on hunting. This Mind Your Business will therefore be slightly different in that we will only consider the economic arguments surrounding the issue, not the moral ones. |
The hunting issue raises a number of questions for economic and business analysis. When conducting such economic analysis, the normal practice would be to try to identify the costs and benefits associated with the issue. If the costs are greater than the benefits, then this provides some evidence for making an informed decision, i.e. to ban fox hunting or to maintain it.
Such analysis does not take account of the moral questions, these questions are 'normative' questions - they are based on opinion that is not possible to corroborate by reference to evidence and fact. On the other side of this are the 'positive' issues - these are things that can be supported by resorting to evidence and fact.
In some cases, the information surrounding the debate will be difficult to get or to quantify - for example, no-one knows for sure what the size of fox population is, nor exactly how much damage they do to farm livestock and so on. In such cases, estimates must be made based on surveys or other forms of evidence, often oral evidence gathered from those affected.
In any form of economic analysis, therefore, we must ask where the information/claims/evidence came from, who supplied that information and who it was aimed at and why? An example of the difficulties associated with assessing the validity of such information is highlighted in the respective claims in the size of the demonstration by the Countryside Alliance and the police respectively in the text above!
The key aspects of the debate on the effect on the rural economy centre on jobs, the impact on farmers, the destiny of the shape of the landscape and the effects on businesses associated with hunting - either directly or indirectly involved.
The term rural refers to the countryside or specifically sparsely populated areas that have some connection with agriculture and farming. Changes in farming techniques and the move towards an information economy have meant that many people are now in a position where they can move out to more rural areas in search of housing and are able to commute to urban locations to work. Many people who live in rural areas, therefore, are not native to the area and have different cultural backgrounds and outlook compared to those born and bred in such areas.
The rural landscape therefore consists of affluent areas and areas of relative poverty. The nature of rural industries has changed; the number of people employed in agriculture has fallen as technology has replaced mundane tasks and the earnings from farming have declined. The picture is often worse in areas associated with particular types of farming, for example, hill farming in the far north west of England, the Yorkshire dales and the hills of Wales.
The facts associated with this change are as follows:
Source: Office for National Statistics
The Burns report, which analysed the factors associated with hunting, reported that 'between 1995 and 1998 an index of Total Income from Farming more than halved' (Source: The Burns Report).
The Report, however, was published in 2000 since which time there has, according to the data above, been a rise in incomes in farming, although the trend in terms of the jobs in the industry is still down.
Within hunting itself there are several main areas of employment:
The Burns Report estimated that there were between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs dependent to some extent on hunting. These jobs may be carried out by more than 6,000 to 8,000 people, however, so the number affected could be larger.
Burns valued employment as a direct result of hunting at around £15.6 million. This figure included the value of the services provided by hunts to farmers in taking dead stock from them to feed the hounds - a service that farmers would, if hunts were to be banned and the packs disbanded, have to pay for.
Over a quarter of the direct employment from hunting is located in south west England.
Hunt followers spend considerable sums on horses, which gets fed into the local economy in some way. This can be for vets bills, farriers, clothing, stabling, feed, social events, transport and so on. The total sum here could amount to over £70 million although the Countryside Alliance disputes these figures claiming they are in fact higher.
Such figures also have to make estimates on the average size of salaries paid to those in such services - often these may be inaccurate.
Having gained some idea of the potential costs of banning hunting (the assumption would be that the jobs and the livelihoods of those involved directly and indirectly in hunting would go) we have to consider what the benefits might be. Obviously there are those that would suggest that there will be significant benefits to the foxes of a ban but as mentioned previously, we are seeking to consider the economic benefits.
Assuming the hunting ban goes through, those involved in the sport would have to find alternative employment. There would have to be a consideration of what to do with the hounds, whether people who follow the hunt would continue to own horses and so on. Suggestions have been made that some form of exercise could be continued under the guise of drag hunting where an artificial scent is laid. Many hunt supporters see this as a poor relation to the real thing in that the unpredictability that makes the sport so enjoyable for them is gone.
We must consider these alternatives, however, if we are to assess the impact on the rural economy. The problem is no-one really knows what people will actually do. There may be alternative types of hunting activity that is legal; hunt followers may simply ignore the law and continue their sport in which case there is likely to be a social cost in terms of policing.
Image: A pest to be curtailed or a much misunderstood and maligned integral part of the countryside? Copyright: Hans Stenstrom stock.xchng.
One of the key reasons hunts put forward for the continuation of their sport is that they contribute to the maintenance of the stability of the fox population and given they view foxes as a pest, provide some benefit to farmers in so doing. The estimated population of foxes is said to be around 250,000 - a figure that has been stable for some time. Around 21-25,000 foxes are killed by hunts each year and a number of others shot. The stability of the fox population is, so say the hunting fraternity, evidence of the good work that they contribute to.
The argument that foxes kill livestock and thus control of their numbers is essential would, if supported by evidence, provide financial benefits to agriculture. Without doubt, foxes have been known to kill lambs, particularly those that are weak. A quick investigation of the price of lamb (see Agritradingnet) showed that new season lamb was selling at £2.55 per kilo (at the time of writing). The average weight of a lamb at slaughter is around 20kg. The cost of a lamb killed by a fox therefore would be around £51.00 per lamb.
How many lambs are killed by foxes is open to some debate. Those opposed to the hunt claim that only around 5% of lamb deaths are due to foxes; in most cases, they claim that foxes will eat lambs after they have died naturally rather than killing them. There may be as many as 4 million lamb deaths in total a year, in which case the cost to farming of foxes killing lambs could be around £10 million.
To put this in context, however, the cost of other problems leading to the death of lambs (still birth, exposure, disease, etc.) costs farmers £183.6 million a year based on the above figures.
So, having done some basic investigation, we have some indications of the economic costs and benefits that hunting provides to the rural economy. The questions below suggest some other links to help further research, ask you to evaluate some of the data given and what this information tells us with respect to decision-making on the hunting issue.
The government commissioned the Burns Inquiry to lead a detailed investigation into the issue. Its terms of reference was not to recommend a ban or not, as the case may be, but to try to look at the facts surrounding the debate. You can read the Burns Report - the summary at the beginning is useful (http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/pdf/news/hunting/report.pdf).
The following links may be helpful in seeking further information to help your answers to the questions above.
