My recent ancestors served the Crown in India for very nearly a century: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2298621/pdf/brmedj07272-0051b.pdf
I wrote a blog here in 2015 (The Good Intentions Paving Company, 14 January 2015) which received quite a lot of comments including two blogs in respopnse (here and here). And another in March this year: Bookends https://markavery.info/2018/03/16/guest-blog-bookends-by-tim-bidie/
The Hunting Act 2004: a human and animal welfare disaster.
“Over the last 20 years, the public and the media have come to regard several events as notorious examples of bad government: the Community Charge (now remembered as the Poll Tax) in 1990, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the failure of the Child Support Agency, the Hunting Act 2004, the story of the Millennium Dome.”
Good Government a report by the Better Government Initiative, January 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-NKbxZ983I
The comments section of the recent guest blog here: ‘Foxhunting crimes’ was an entertaining read; highly recommended if you have not read it already. It illustrated, in a very British way, the hopeless incompetence, absurdity, of the Hunting Act; illegal to push deer munching your azaleas off your premises using the family pets, pekinese or pugs, say, or dachshunds (naturals at flushing anything) unless you then shoot the deer.
But the claim made by the article itself, that the law had been brought into disrepute by the Hunting Act 2004, was a serious one, and correct. English hunting law is held in contempt on all sides; the worst conceivable outcome for any piece of legislation.
This barbaric and incompetent act is responsible for the hideous lingering death underground of thousands of shot and wounded foxes every year, left unrecovered as a direct consequence of the two dog follow up limit imposed by the act, entirely useless in thick cover.
Peer reviewed research has shown:
‘In the case of skilled riflemen, shooting at ranges up to 150 yards with supported rifles, one can expect efficiency levels of approximately 95% with some 8% of hit foxes escaping wounded.’
‘Baker and Harris (1997) assessed the different known causes of mortality of British foxes, such as road deaths, shooting, terriers, snares, lurchers and hounds. They concluded that 80,000 foxes were shot and retrieved each year and that a theoretical further 115,000 fox deaths remained unaccounted for. Some of these may be foxes that have been shot and died later without being retrieved.’
Wounding rates in shooting foxes (Vulpes vulpes), Animal Welfare 2005, 14: 93-102
This absurd legislation gives rogue foxes licence to kill the livestock on which aged upland smallholders, (some of the poorest, hardest working people in the country, average age 58, living in challenging climatic conditions) depend for their livelihood; the loss of three lambs equivalent to the loss of their entire winter fuel allowance. The Burns Report on hunting makes it clear that hunting is likely to be the only practical and effective solution to problem foxes in many upland areas.
Problem foxes kill thousands of lambs, piglets, household pets every year and it is rarely a quick end for these victims. Last year, a Welsh farmer collected 27 lamb carcasses from his fields in three weeks, two further lambs left with head puncture wounds requiring weeks of intensive care. The foxes causing the damage find safe haven within local forestry now owned by the woodland trust.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/farmer-foxes-kill-lambs-gwynedd-12907960
So why was this low priority, hopelessly ill drafted, time consuming, expensive and utterly impractical act ever passed? The two dog follow up limit, responsible for the biggest wild animal welfare disaster in living memory, forms no part of hunting legislation in Scotland, where hunting law is a great deal more humane, effective and, consequently, respected. Why did the proponents of this mindless piece of legislation in England talk all sensible and practical amendments out of time in parliament? Why was the idea of an amended wild mammals protection bill, calling for the general protection of all wild mammals from undue suffering, also talked out of the commons? Why did the hunting act have to be forced through parliament by inappropriate use of the parliament act, described as ‘the most illiberal act of the last century’ by one of our most distinguished parliamentarians, Roy Jenkins (Labour and Social Democrats)?
The answer to that question is quite simply (freely admitted) that the hunting act has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with partisan political agendas entirely unconcerned with animal or human welfare:
“Hilary (Armstrong) told him that if he didn’t bring back the Hunting Bill for a third reading soon we would not have a hope in hell of winning the foundation hospital vote. Tony Blair said sane people just would not understand how we can put at risk our whole public service agenda over hunting. Hilary said he had to understand that hunting went deep, and was symbolic.”
Alastair Campbell Tuesday 17th June 2003
“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over that Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.’’
Peter Bradley, former Labour MP for The Wrekin, Sunday Telegraph – 21stNovember 2004
“This is a dispute we must win, having long ago ceased to be about the fate of a few thousand deer and foxes. It’s about who governs us. Us or them?”
Chris Mullin, former Labour MP for Sunderland South – A View from the Foothills(2009)
“This has nothing to do with animal welfare – this is for the miners”
Dennis Skinner MP, Labour Party Conference – September 2004
“As one of those who voted for the Act, I made it clear beforehand in many discussions with the pro-hunting lobby that I expected farmers to shoot more foxes (an acknowledged agricultural pest) after the Act was passed.”
David Rendel, former Liberal Democrat MP for Newbury, letter to the Independent– 1st December 2006
Opinion polls often quoted in support of public opposition to hunting are contentious, funded, as they are, by anti-hunting organisations. The questions these surveys ask are leading, emotive, entirely mischaracterising the nature of foxhunting, now precisely codified by the MFHA code of good hunting signed up to by all recognised packs of foxhounds.
‘…….in 2005, a few days before the Hunting Act came into force, MORI ran a poll for someone other than LACS. The research, for the BBC programme Countryfile, concluded that there was no overall majority of support for the ban……… At this point a cross party group of parliamentarians stepped in to raise the anomaly with the industry regulator, the Market Research Society (MRS)…..’
‘The parliamentarians argued that the description of hunting in this poll, and the inclusion of fighting and baiting activities unrelated to hunting were designed to prejudice the respondents’ attitude towards hunting and to influence the subsequent answers. They further pointed out that the effect of the preamble and question were evidenced by the earlier MORI poll for the BBC which had not included such pejorative content and reported a very different response.’
‘……when the parliamentarians took their case to the MRS’s ‘Reviewer of Complaints’, an independent lawyer, something extraordinary happened. The Reviewer savaged the initial response saying:
“I have considered carefully the Minutes and papers from the (Market research Society) Investigations Committee and the Standards Board and the reasons given for the decision in respect of the involvement of alleged unrelated activities. In the form set out the line of reasoning is far from clear. No attempt seems to have been made to address the substance of the Complaint, namely that the nature of the activities of badger baiting and dog fighting were inherently different to hunting.”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tim-bonner/lies-damn-lies-and-hunting-polls
And a 2015 open poll showed 52% in favour of a repeal of the hunting act. With polling, it is often the case that ’he who pays the piper calls the tune’. After all, hunt followers are simply experiencing the realities of the natural world, with the added bonus of fresh air and exercise, something millions of others prefer to watch on television in publicly funded wildlife programs.
The hunting act is a human and animal welfare disaster, held in contempt on all sides. It should be repealed forthwith; replaced by a new Wild Mammals Protection Act to protect wild mammals from undue suffering.
The idea of a Wild Animal Protection Act is a good one provided it requires those advocating killing animals to present a robust evidence base, independent scrutiny of their activities and effective local public consultation (not smply the landowners involved).
Should this apply to householders purchasing a cat or terrier for the purpose of controlling the rodent population in their own backyard?
Yes, probably. Do you honestly believe this is a major motivation behind cat & dog ownership in the UK, in the 21st Century – even in rural areas? Beyond the occasional barn cat, I think the vast, vast majority of people keep such animals for companionship, benefits to mental health, and in the case of dogs, encouragement to exercise regularly.
One thing is for sure, it will certainly become a major issue if any government attempts to regulate householders acquiring cats or dogs for pest control purposes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15717341
Lamb mortality is a disingenuous reason to justify hunting. Lambs suffer massive mortality rates. NADIS (national Animal Disease Advisory Service) put mortality rates at between 10-25% of all born ie 2-6 millions a year, with the majority dying because of exposure, starvation and disease; poor condition of the ewe pre birthing a considerable factor. Best estimates put lamb mortality due to predation at around 5%- mostly likely to be dogs. I am sceptical of the reports of foxes attacking lambs- foxes on average weight around 3-11 kg. A ewe is more like 65-80kg, and will defend her lamb, which will generally be a similar bodyweight of a fox, newborn. Upland grazing is notoriously overgrazed leading to poor condition of all livestock on it. This last winter in the inclement weather, most lambing will still have happened outside, exposed to the elements, rarely with any shelter in the fields. We must hope that the review of National Parks to be performed will look closely at overgrazing and the consequences for biodiversity and livestock welfare. I personally believe that there is far too much livestock agriculture and it is now well documented that this is adversely affecting the planet and health and is unsustainable long term. However, the real crux: if the Hunting Act is removed, what legislation will be used to protect animals? Can we assume that government are interested in reducing cruelty and improving welfare? No. Strengthen the Hunting Act and remove the loopholes. It is cruel to chase animals to death; it is cruel to train brutalised hounds to tear apart other wild dogs; it is cruel to dig out foxes and use them for sport. It is cruel to chase deer to death. And as for hares- how could you. Killing for fun is not fun for anyone else. We don’t want it- when I say “we”, I mean the majority, by far. Simple democracy.
Millions of pounds of your money was spent on a report on hunting which the author expressly stated could not state that hunting was cruel. That is precisely why an amended wild mammals protection act is required, so that sweeping assertions have to be backed by peer reviewed evidence.
Should this apply to householders purchasing a cat or terrier for the purpose of controlling the rodent population in their own backyard?
As a serious countryside professional I can only say that never has so much time and energy been wasted on such trivial issues – and they aren’t even anything to do with the real countryside, but almost entirely urban camps at the opposite end of the political spectrum – and, as here, not even living in England let alone making a living from the countryside. At a time when the future of the countryside – and the real, big issue, farm incomes – hangs in the balance the diversion of time and energy led by the Countryside Alliance and its allies is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.
Many years ago a colleague of mine summed it all up very nicely – ‘their just as bad as each other’ he said ‘ but the hunters are SO arrogant’.
Problems protecting their livestock created for upland smallholders by the hunting act is very much part of the farm incomes matter that you refer to.
The welfare of these smallholders themselves, their livestock and the hideously prolonged deaths of thousands of shot, wounded and unrecovered foxes every year, as a direct consequence of the incompetent, barbaric hunting act, may seem trivial to you but I doubt that many open minded observers will agree.
It is by no means clear that ‘hunters’ have any monopoly on arrogance
The usual mix of anecdote, assertion, overstatement, faux concern, cherrypicking and total lack of perspective, delivered with the usual breezy confidence and lack of self awareness.
If you are so concerned about fox welfare then advocate an end to routine fox ‘control’. It is a complete waste of time and you have no idea what impact it has on anything.
There seems to be a great deal of breezy lack of self awareness about. Evidence presented to the Scottish Parliament is against you:
‘Eleven foxes were shot over a three week period but still killing was continuing and many lambs were being lost. Lambs which in that year at market in early August, would fetch a minimum of £37.50 each or more. In May the Argyll Hillpack was contacted and a day arranged. The Saturday in question accounted for another four foxes, however the losses still prevailed. A farther call-out was arranged very early so as to catch scent in the lambing parks. Hounds struck off the foxes scent and after an hour caught the dog fox which was inflicting the damage.’
http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-rural/inquiries-00/pwm/hillpack.pdf
I find myself agreeing with much of what Mr Bridie wrote – I’ve just reached a different conclusion at the end of it.
I would strongly dispute that hunting random foxes is an effective means of population control, let alone the best way to remove problem individuals, but that’s not what I’m going to address here.
So instead let me start by agreeing that the Hunting Act 2004 was a politically motivated fudge, bad law that that ended up satisfying no-one. Mr Bridie therefore concludes that hunting should once again be permitted. I conclude it should be banned properly.
Mr Bridie asserts that it was the antis who made it a class matter for everyone else involved, at least as much as one of differing views about animal welfare. For me it was definitely the behaviour of the hunts that continue to make me view it through that lens.
I started out mildly sympathetic to hunting. It was a traditional spectacle – an early memory for me is seeing the red coats out on Exmoor on some family holiday and seeing the hounds gather at country pubs at home.
Early in my nature conservation career I had a few run-ins with fanatical animal rights activists, and the odd animal rights terrorist, which left me very wary of them to this day.
Back then though I managed nature reserves, and all we wanted the local Hunt to do was stop hunting over our land; my nightmare was some fox getting shredded in front of a school party. The local hunt carried on regardless. We met them, only to be told to our faces that the only way they’d stop hunting on our land was if we got an injunction against them, and if we tried to get an injunction they could afford much better lawyers than we could. I knew of several private landowners with similar experiences, but in their case sometimes with the added threat of social ostracization. Things came to a head when the hunt followers tried to run over one of our trustees in our car park because he didn’t “get out of the effing way” of their (trespassing) land rover fast enough.
Where I am now there’s a different hunt but a similar story continuing. I want to keep my job so I must be extra careful commenting in public about current events, but clearly the ban hasn’t stopped hunting here either, and this hunt still trespasses on private land where its not welcome, too.
I have relatives who are pro hunting. They love to boast about how they flout the law – apparently anyone (or more specifically me) who ever has ever parked illegally has no right to complain about this. I suggested that anyone who has ever stopped on a double yellow has no right to complain about murder, either, according to this logic but was told that’s different. Murder is what other people do. By the way, they were quite open about the fact that the hunts still use fox scent for “trail hunting” rather than some other scent because that’s one of the ways they can get around the ban. They’re so clever and the law is so stupid, you see.
The law seems to have been designed to be unenforceable, certainly it seems to be far too much of a fudge for any police force to be interested in trying to enforce it. Witness the perfectly legal fox scent trail ploy, a get out of jail free card if ever there was one. But to my mind the inadequacies of the letter of any law doesn’t justify the deliberate flouting of it, any more than the fact that most drivers will drive a bit over 70 mph on a motorway justifies boasting about how you regularly race at 90 through a housing estate and get away with it.
So for me, this is now about the rule of law. Are we equal under the law or not? It seems not. If you’re rich and well connected some laws don’t apply to you (and as we all know that hunting is sometimes the least of these). I’ve said this before and I still believe it’s true; if “fieldsports” ever are banned it won’t be because some vegan commie animal rights fanatics mislead everyone. It’ll be because the arrogance and hypocrisy and entitlement of the most vocal of the pro hunting lobby became just too much for everyone else to tolerate any longer. They’re their own worst enemies.
So to come back to Mr Bridie; he’ suggesting that the law be repealed. I respect that approach, even if I’d want it replaced with an effective ban not re-legalisation.
What makes me more and more angry, and inspires not sympathy but contempt, is the attitude of so many in the hunting community who think they’re above the law. I’ve had enough of the grouse shooters for the same reason. Here at least Mr Bridie is arguing his case for changing a law he disagrees with, which is what you should do in a democracy. Even though I disagree with his ultimate objective, I say good for him.
Fight the Ban!
Thank you Tim, always entertaining. I particularly liked the cherry picking.
Apparently opinion polls can’t be trusted, but then you spuriously quote an unreferenced 2015 poll where 52% were apparently in favour of repealing the Act. The very promise of such repeal reported to be the most unpopular part of the last Tory manifesto (amongst an array of bad policy).
And despite suggesting that Polls are rigged by the bias of anti-hunting types you then rely on a column by Tim Bonner, the very biased epitome of unbalanced thought.
As hunts regularly get away with brazenly ignoring the law, I doubt very much that unleashing the family dachshund on a rogue deer in the veg plot would ever fall foul of the Hunting Act, however evil you may wish to twist it.
Many thanks. The 2015 poll I refer to was conducted for the Daily Telegraph which, you may agree, further supports the point that I, and the MPs referred to above, made.
Your assistance to the many researchers attempting to identify exactly which part of a spectacularly unpopular 2017 conservative manifesto was the most unpopular part is, I am sure, much appreciated!
You may have no time for Tim Bonner but you do not take issue with his summary of the activities of a cross party group of parliamentarians who questioned the validity of the polling process.
Mr Bonner quotes verbatim from the MRS reviewer of complaints.
Unfortunately, pushing deer off your herbaceous border with more than two dogs is not ‘exempt hunting’ and is, consequently, illegal. If you legally push them off with one or two dachshunds, you must then ensure:
‘(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person, and
(b) in particular, each dog used in the stalking or flushing out is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (a).’
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents
Good luck to all dachshund owners in regard to para (b), particularly given that, under the act, the dachshunds may be ‘forfeited’ and ‘destroyed’.
I forgot one other ‘cherry’ from the referenced article above:
‘…as the other arguments for prohibition fell away public opinion became more and more important to its advocates.’
In actual fact when the quantock staghounds were prosecuted for such flushing the judge ruled that they should have had ten plus guns to shoot the entire herd of deer. In my opinion that is truly horrendous.
Why not flush them out of the woodland whree they are causing damage and not shoot them? Simply chase them out and then frequent the area regularly with dogs to discourage them from returning.
Tat’s less cruel than shooting them and more illegal.
Tim, I fear you are missing the main point here. Yes, there may be some issues around the edges of the Hunting Act that need tidying up, though I don’t know enough about it to say how that should best be achieved.
But a key aspect of the Hunting Act is that it very clearly bans an activity whereby large numbers of people, horses and hounds go careering around the countryside in the deliberate pursuit of animals. Yet, many of those undertaking this activity have simply chosen to ignore the legislation – much like many keepers in the uplands happily ignore the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Worse, it seems that (at least in this part of the world) those involved in hunting have the tacit understanding of the Police that they can carry on without fear of any serious efforts at enforcement.
In my view this is extremely damaging for the reputation of the Police and it is also damaging to those involved in country sports who are happy to stick to the law and wish to see their sport survive for as long as possible into the future.
You say that you still follow a hunt occasionally but you don’t say whether that is legal trail hunting or the illegal pursuit of animals. I guess that’s understandable though you sound like an honourable and honest type of character and it would be interesting to hear a few more details about the hunting you are involved with.
And I can’t help but ask – What is the dog famous for?
Rather more than a bit of tidying up of the hunting act is required:
‘The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that
‘everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law’. Similar guarantees are found
in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights…..’
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10609-016-9281-8.pdf
Of course the Police do not, will never, condone law breaking activity but, with regard to the hunting act, that is clearly extremely difficult:
‘“We observe at the outset that the experience of this case has led us to the conclusion that it seems to us that the relevant law is far from simple to interpret or apply; any given set of facts may be susceptible to differing interpretations. The result is an unhappy state of affairs which leaves all those involved in a position of uncertainty.”
Judge Graham Cottle, Tony Wright Appeal judgment, Exeter Crown Court – 30th November 2007
I mention, above, that I occasionally follow a pack of beagles.
Points made below with regard to coursing very much apply also to beagling, which improves the overall health of a local hare population by acting, as it does, in replacement of long disappeared apex predators:
‘Burns et al. (2000) suggested that in the absence of hare coursing there may be reduced tolerance by farmers of damage to agricultural crops, less interest in encouraging and sustaining suitable habitats, greater propensity to allow shooting, an increase in illegal coursing and deliberate culling of hares to prevent illegal
poaching.’
‘Each coursing club is associated with a number of discrete localities,
known as preserves, which are managed favourably for hares including predator
control, prohibition of other forms of hunting such as shooting and poaching
and the maintenance and enhancement of suitable hare habitat. We
indirectly tested the efficacy of such management by comparing hare abundance
within preserves to that in the wider countryside. In real terms, mean
hare density was 18 times higher, and after controlling for variance in habitat
remained 3 times higher, within ICC preserves than the wider countryside.’
https://pure.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/664299/Reid,%20Magee%20&%20Montgomery%20(2010)%20Hare%20coursing%20II.pdf
Bingo is a very modern labrador, famous for being famous.
I did the fox shooting study referred to in this blog, because I wanted to know what was likely to happen when I shot at animals. As a result I immediately gave up shooting as a method, except on rare occasions of pest control where there has been no alternative method option. But I strongly support hunting with dogs above ground because, amongst other reasons, the wounding rate is zero and death is almost instantaneous. I deplore the use of terriers underground.
But all this is about methods. The big issue is about managing wildlife. Although that starts at the level of the individual animal (either killing one, or rehabilitating one) it obviously progresses up the chain to managing populations (restricting some and conserving or promoting others), whole species, right up to the areas of habitat they need, and wider still to the management of natural resources held as ‘commons’ such as communally owned land and fisheries, to global warming. If, even with the best of intentions, you tie the hands of wildlife managers when dealing with animals at the individual level, then you tie their hands when managing at these higher priority levels. And each and every one of us is a ‘wildlife manager’ whether we like it or not, because we each want food, water and living space, and that has to come from somewhere on a planet that is finite.
As for the various bits of wildlife legislation, only about 20 of our 650 Members of Parliament have degrees in the natural sciences. Don’t expect them to pay much attention to science in their decision making. Most struggle with simple statistics.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
The Hunting Act may be imperfect legislation (it urgently needs a ‘recklessness’ clause) but there have been over 500 convictions under the Act since it was passed, which compares very favourably with other wild animal welfare legislation such as the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 or the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 over the same period. It’s not just aimed at fox hunting; it covers the hunting of all mammals with dogs, including the hideously cruel stag hunting that is still to be witnessed in the West Country several times every week during the long hunting season, under the guise of ‘research and observation’.
By the way, don’t let anyone tell you that the majority of the 500 convictions are for ‘poaching’ offences as many often claim – foxes aren’t game so aren’t covered by poaching legislation and the CPS don’t charge under the Hunting Act if charges under the Game Act 1831 or the Night Poaching Act 1828 would be more appropriate.
The intention of Parliament in passing the Hunting Act was summarised by the High Court in the DPP v Wright in 2009: “The legislative aim was one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical and should, so far as practical and proportionate, be stopped.” Whilst your guest blogger contends that the first part of that sentence has failed (I don’t agree) he completely swerves the latter part and claims the motive was class war, which is untrue. The law was passed to stop people from terrifying, maiming and killing animals for fun.
What on Earth is Bidie on about when he talks about the “two dog follow up limit”? The law allows no more than two dogs to be used to flush a fox from cover to be shot forthwith; it does not allow the fox to be shot first and then followed up with two dogs; that’s not what the exemption was designed for.
The reality is that hunting with dogs has nothing whatsoever to do with pest control – that’s just the pathetic excuse that is put forward by hunters to justify what they do. You only have to look at the continuation of their activities under the guise of ‘trail hunting’ to see why they do it. Look also at the exposés which have revealed foxes being encouraged by hunts, whose staff and supporters provide artificial earths in which foxes breed, and supplementary feeding to sustain them throughout the year and ensure plenty of foxes are available for their sport; look at the cases where foxes have been caught and kept in outbuildings and barns by hunts for release on hunting days – see here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33100242) and here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-43568572). The use of ‘bagged’ foxes to put on a show for paying spectators on a blank day is well documented – historically and recently – but never mentioned by those who claim they are conducting an essential service to farmers.
People who hunt animals with dogs – whether in a red coat or a camouflage jacket – do so sadistically, for their own gratification – they don’t care about animal welfare in the slightest. Their own dogs are horribly ill-treated during their working lives and then shot when they are of no further use for hunting.
Remember – 85% of the British public are opposed to repeal of the Hunting Act, and for good reason: because causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical and should, so far as practical and proportionate, be stopped.
.
Spot on, Steve. Those who abuse wild animals with dogs are, quite simply, “the scum of the Earth”.
No regard here given to the human and animal welfare problems that the hunting act has created; no concern for the complete lack of peer reviewed evidence to support the notion that stag hunting is more cruel than alternative forms of deer population control.
In 2001, Charles Harding, in his capacity as stalker for the Holnicote Estate, wrote to the National Trust’s regional chairman for Wessex. He pointed out that there had been an increase in sick and wounded deer found on the estate since the ban on stag-hunting. ‘I feel that if the National Trust let the staghounds draw some of the coverts to find these animals, before they die their dreadful lingering death, it would not only be obviously beneficial to the deer………’
(Letter from Charles Harding to J.Studholme, 5 May 2001.)
I myself will never forget the dreadful sight of a red deer hind on Exmoor pulling itself along with its forelegs, hind legs long since useless, entangled in wire for heaven knows how long. The hunt attended within the hour to put the animal out of its misery.
Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry into hunting, said on the issue of cruelty “Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel… The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.” That statement, after millions of pounds spent on detailed research, clearly makes any moral standpoint whatsoever specious, lightweight, because hopelessly uninformed.
But evidence subsequent to the Burns report on hunting does suggest that alternatives to hunting with regard to foxes (referenced above) and deer, below, are a great deal less humane than hunting itself:
‘Bateson and Bradshaw (1999) estimated the percentage of deer not killed outright by the first shot as 14.6%. A Scandinavian study gave a similar figure for moose of 13.2%. But the Joint Universities Study recorded as many as six of 12 deer (50%), shot by one of three experienced stalkers, that were not killed outright (Harris et al 1999). An experienced deer stalker, Major K.C.G. Morrison in a paper to the British Deer Society (1979) stated: “It should not be supposed by anyone who has no experience of stalking that any animal fairly struck by a bullet drops dead on the spot. It would be gratifying if this were the case but many factors combine to make this the exception rather than the rule”
http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/media/pdf/VetOpinion.pdf
Data from the Ministry of Justice from 2005 – 2015 show that 423 people have been convicted of Hunting Act offences. Just 24 of those people were involved with registered hunts. More than 94% of Hunting Act convictions did not involve hunts.
As for the effectiveness of hunting in controlling problem foxes, evidence accepted by the Scottish Parliament is illuminating:
‘Paul Crofts of the Three Straths Pack in Inverness-shire attends the Kilnadrochit Estate. In 1988 in his first season he accounted for 67 foxes in 20 fixture days. Lamb predation seen him attend 8 call-outs. After 12 years and into the Millennium season he attended 10 to 12 days for a total of 17 foxes this year. The Estate pays the subscription of £2,500 per year for this service, and all personnel on the Estate have voiced the differences they see in ground game and grouse. No call-outs for lamb predation have been called for over the last 2 to 3 years.’
The hunting act was most certainly motivated by partisan political agendas. I support this by direct quotes from some of those who voted for the act declaring their motivation; clearly nothing to do with animal welfare.
The fact remains that the following up of shot and wounded foxes is constrained by the hunting act. Only two dogs may be used to flush foxes, wounded or unwounded, from cover. Even an erstwhile Chairman of the league against cruel sports, Douglas Batchelor, stated that “Pairs of dogs are utterly useless in flushing to guns.”
But you are surely right that this constraint was not intentional (no doubt why it forms no part of hunting law in Scotland), yet more grounds for abolishing this appalling and incompetent piece of legislation.
The idea that hunt followers are sadists is just plain silly. You might just as well declare that all the tens of millions who have watched animals hunting and killing on the many excellent wildlife programs made, over the years, by Sir David Attenborough, are sadists. Hunt followers follow for a great day out in the countryside; fresh air and exercise in the natural world.
The wide disparity between polls on hunting that ask different questions quite clearly blows out of the water the idea that 85% of the great British public support the hunting act but, as the man said: ‘……as the other arguments for prohibition fell away public opinion became more and more important to its advocates.’ (Reference above).
And there you have it; a perfect insight into a twisted mind. TB attempts to liken watching an act of natural predation to cheering on a pack of dogs (for no other reason than entertainment) which are eviscerating a sentient being, often while that being is still alive. I repeat… Scum of the Earth.
Charles Harding! That would be the same Charles Harding who was master and huntsman of the Culmstock Minkhounds. The same Charles Harding whose mother was master of the Devon & Somerset Staghounds. The same Charles Harding who still rides with the Quantock Staghounds, whose huntsman has twice been successfully prosecuted under the Hunting Act. Well done for quoting another unbiased source.
But you do not take issue with his statement.
Neither did parliament:
‘I can do no better than quote from Mr. Charles Harding, the stalker for the National Trust. In the aftermath of the Bateson report, the National Trust chose to ban hunting with deer across its estate on Exmoor, but its stalker says:
”All types of animal management involve compromises. There is no doubt that a total ban on staghunting has increased the number of sick and injured deer on the Holnicote Estate, it has gone on long enough. It is now time for the National Trust to accept these consequences and be prepared, for the sake of the deer, to be brave enough to step forward and allow hounds to draw some coverts.”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/f/st030211/am/30211s08.htm
And is this the same Paul Tillsley that over saw the cruel death of over a hundred deer in one year at Baronsdown?
Surely that’s a classic example of a lack of wildlife management leading to serious cruelty?
The irony is that by using a few dogs to disperse those deer the appalling conditions and gross suffering could have been avoided.
This is a very good article by Tim Bidie. As Dr Nick Fox states, we should really be talking about wildlife management and those methods that are acceptable and those that are not.
Hunting with dogs forms part of that process (which is why comparisons with banning bull-baiting and bear-baiting are nonsense) and by removing it something else will take its place. Hardly any research has been done on that front, though the limited information we do have shows that in each case for those animals previously hunted, fox, red deer in the West Country and the brown hare, the situation is now much worse.
Surely if a hunting ban is to be justifies, scientific evidence must be produced that shows the use of dogs to be significantly worse in terms of suffering than any other method – that evidence simply does not exist.
I go back to my original point about wildlife management, which seeks to keep a wide variety of species, but in acceptable and healthy population levels; what methods do those opposed to hunting actually support? We rarely, if at all, hear their alternative methods which could then be assessed against hunting with dogs. Odd that many who oppose hunting are supportive of the rewilding of wolves, even though their hunting methods are similar to that of hounds.
Given that dogs are selective (via scent), testing (via the chase) and importantly non-wounding, I can’t think of a better method to achieve wildlife management aims.
Still banging on about the need for ‘wildlife management’ in a vain attempt to deceive the public about hunting with dogs. As you very well know Jim, hunting is nothing to do with pest control or species management – that is simply a smokescreen to cover up a bloodsport. Remember the Middleton 16 and the South Herefordshire case? The hunts’ dirty secrets are out – everyone know what’s going on! A very senior police officer told me just the other day that he has come to realise that “the hunts up and down the country are taking the piss”. Yes, they are, and so are those who represent them.
Condemning hunting based on a tiny number of instances of malpractice is exactly the same as condemning all who abhor hunting based on other instances of malpractice on their side of the argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgDclFnxdI
Claiming that hunting has nothing to do with species management is simply wrong as both the Burns report to parliament on hunting and evidence to the Scottish parliament make clear:
‘In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out.’
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080727002541/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/huntingreport.htm
‘After speaking to Mr McNicholl in the lambing period he had picked up some 89 lambs killed in the lambing parks this was out-with the lambs which had been taken away and eaten over that 10 week period. Calculating the economic impact on a conservative estimate of 90 lambs at E37.50 the loss that year was over E3,375. The fox predation problem is costly if kept unchecked. The Argyll hounds have attended every year since then. Two lambs were lost to foxes this year.’
http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-rural/inquiries-00/pwm/hillpack.pdf
These are anecdotes recounted by people steeped in the estate culture which distorts everything in upland Scotland.
How does the alleged loss of E3375 from 90 lambs compare with the ‘black loss’ of over 50% on even the best managed hill sheep farms ? Blackloss being the hill sheep which just disappear in any one year from causes unknown. Is loss to foxes significant set against this or would you just blame foxes for the whole lot ? I suspect you’d just blame the foxes. Is Mr McNicholl’s case typical ? Do you ever context anything ? At all ?
Your quote from the Burns Report says that in upland ares there ‘is a greater perceived need for control’. The ‘perceived’ is significant.
Losses of lambs to fox predation, whatever other losses occur, can make the difference between profit and loss for sheep farmers.
For upland smallholders, losses to foxes can cause real hardship.
Burns used the word perceived because:
‘Not everyone accepts that it is necessary to manage the fox population: some argue that it would be satisfactory to rely on natural self-regulation. It is clear, however, that the great majority of land managers do consider it necessary.’
The reason that most land managers consider it necessary is explained by the examples given in the newspaper article I reference above and another one here:
https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/farmer-demands-hunting-act-change-after-foxes-kill-115-lambs-21429
You, and others like you, may be happy to rely on ‘self regulation’ of problem foxes.
However, since the collateral damage of such strange complacency is lambs savaged, dying a slow lingering death:
‘Two more lambs were rescued with severe head puncture wounds but are unlikely to survive despite intensive nursing.’
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/farmer-foxes-kill-lambs-gwynedd-12907960
I doubt many open minded observers will share your view.
Thank you very much. Interesting comment regarding re-wilding, with which I could not agree more.
36% of Britain’s woodland is comprised of non native conifers – there is your re-wilding opportunity without any need to displace thousands of hardworking upland smallholders, some of the poorest people in the country, but, somehow, this idea seems not to have caught on…….?
Despite the politics of the Hunting Act turning against them, The Countryside Alliance will never give up fighting for repeal. This is because the CA was created in order to campaign for repeal – nothing else.
I have a grudging respect for their tenacity (terrier-like?), but the time has past, when there was any real prospect of success. If, as seems increasingly likely, there will be some major reform of the Lords, this will be the final nail in the coffin of repeal.
It’s time for everyone to move on. Eventually the Hunts which are still hunting or “trail-hunting” as they call it (and other associated illegal activities) will become drag-hunts or point to points; and hunting will be consigned to the history books, alongside other antediluvian rural pursuits, which have long gone.
Shooting (and fishing) on the other hand are separate issues, though plenty on all sides like to muddy the waters that separate them.
The replacement for the house of lords will have no choice but to address the widespread human and animal welfare problems created by the barbaric and incompetent hunting act, but you make no mention of these, only politics.
I note that no-one promoting fox hunting as a humane “wildlife management” strategy argues that most lamb mortality is caused by fox predation. In truth, the argument that “it’s about managing wildlife” betrays the mindset that threatens so much of our biosphere today. In the case of upland sheep farming, first, we subsidise the overstocking of marginal land to such an extent that large numbers of sheep go into the lambing season in too poor a condition to deliver healthy lambs, and/or in such numbers that it is impractical for them to be brought indoors to lamb. The natural consequence is that a proportion of sickly lambs are predated by the fox population that our overstocking supports. To suggest that the solution is to kill the predators (but to continue to overstock the land) is ecologically illiterate.
Similar reasoning applies to the licensing to shoot piscivorous species like Cormorant and Goosander. Here, the fault lies with our over-exploitation of wild fish stocks and the artificial restocking of fishing waters; once again it is our action and not nature’s response that needs “managing”.
I’d agree that cruelty issues need to form part of any review or reframing of the law on hunting with dogs. But reformers who stick to the ideology of wildlife management and who discuss hunt legislation while avoiding any mention of hare and deer hunts do not inspire my trust.
Thank you for your comment regarding the animal welfare problems created by the hunting act. Not many others here have addressed that.
As Jim Barrington points out above, many ‘reformers’ promote rewilding and the reintroduction of apex predators, lynx, wolves, in order both to improve the general health of the hare and deer population and keep that healthy population in balance.
These benefits are exactly the same as those provided by hunting, without any collateral predation of farm animals and without requiring any accompanying assault on property rights, displacement of some of the poorest, hardest working people in the country, upland smallholders.
It appears from the above comments that quite a few people regard the Hunting Act is an imperfect law. For me this begs a key question – should I obey it. I certainly would if I felt that my actions were cruel but I believe they are not. However I would also respect those who are prepared to back up their support for the law with action.
To that end I have continued using my dogs to manage law in much the way the blogger describes – although Tim’s azaleas are my woodlands and his daschunds are my collies.
In practical terms when the law is broken the question for those who claim they support it is should they enforce it. The answer is given not by words but actions and the police, LACS and the RSPCA do not.
The reasons they do not enforce the law are simple:
a) flushing deer out of woodland to protect it is not cruel.
b) in any case killing the deer – as the law requires would potentially cause more suffering.