Coquetdale & Borders Coursing Club
I wish to submit evidence on behalf of Coquetdale & Borders Coursing
Club, who are registered with and run coursing greyhounds under the rules
of The National Coursing Club. I am secretary of the club and a committee
member. As an individual I have hunting with hounds, terriers, lurchers and
greyhounds all of my life and my family have hunted with dogs for generations
and we are proud to have numbered several huntsmen amongst our ranks. I therefore
feel very well qualified to give evidence to the enquiry. I have also been
involved in fox control as a shoot manager, a moorland gamekeeper and as the
breeder of a rare breeds flock of sheep.
I would submit that the ORGANISED hunting of foxes, deer and hares, by registered
packs is a vital and well organised aspect of country life, the alternatives,
which would continue should a ban be implemeneted, would lead to a level of cruelty
which those of us who have hunted all our lives would find quite unnaceptable.
We operate under a strict code of conduct and rule book and whilst it would be
foolish to say that everyone keeps entirely to the rules all of the time, it would
be fair to say that anyone found guilty of infringing the rules will be dealt
with severely and ostracised by fellow sportsmen. Banning ORGANISED hunting with
dogs will not stop the activity from taking place it will simply drive the matter
underground and previously law abiding citizens will be forced to break the law
to take part in an activity which has been bred into man for thousands of years,
legislation will not remove this. Indeed with regard to my own sport of greyhound
coursing it should be noted that as early as 900 AD and when King Canute came
to the throne he tried to introduce legislation that would grant the nobility
the exclusive right to hunt with greyhounds and later greyhound ownership was
forbidden to all but the titled and wealthy under Norman Forest Laws and then
the Statute Law. None of these laws stopped the common man from keeping and working
greyhounds (even though if caught the greyhound would have its toes severed to
prevent it running and the owner was often as severely dealt with) and I would
point out to the committee of enquiry that the same would apply today, hunting
with dogs may be banned but it would most certainly not cease.
As a coursing club we can not claim to be responsible directly for the full
time employment of any one employee, but we most certainly do have a significant
impact on the local economy and in particular on the lives of certain individuals
employed on a coursing day and upon local hotels etc.. At Coquetdale &
Border we hold 5 coursing meetings a year in rural Northumbria and at each
meeting pay out the following -
| 40 beaters at |
£20 per head |
£800 |
| 1 beatmaster at |
£100 per head |
£100 |
| 2 keymen at |
£ 50 per head |
£100 |
giving a total expenditure on wages in a season of £5,000 and whilst this
may not seem to be a significant amount to many I can assure you that it does
have an impact on those who receive the benefit, for example the beatmaster
and his wife (as a keyperson) are in receipt of £150 per meeting and the £750
generated in a season, makes a significant contribution to his overall wage
as he is only employed on a basic agricultural wage.
We also spend significant amounts of money in local hotels, where members
who travel from various parts of the country spend nights before and after a
meeting in local hotels, this will amount to at least £3000 per season at a
conservative estimate and whilst again you may not feel this is significant,
I feel that you would have an entirely different view if you were the owner
of a small local hostelry in Northumberland where this contibution could amount
to 3% or more of the establishments turnover.
We also have several committee meetings a year in hotels and an AGM where
we all have a meal and a drink and again the contribution to the hotel would
amount to at least £2,000 which is again a significant contribution to a rural
establishments turnover. None of the above expenditure would be generated
if our sport were banned. Small business would undoubtedly suffer.
In addition to the above, a ban would have a serious effect on coursing greyhound
breeders and trainers and their staff, as coursing greyhounds are a breed apart
in terms of bloodlines used and are not to be confused with track bred greyhounds.
The financial implications for all concerned and especially for the trainers
and kennel staff who would lose their jobs would be severe as some of them train
only coursing greyhounds and would not convert to running track dogs at any
price.
We also contribute a significant amount to local dog food suppliers, veterinarians
and food supplement manufacturers, I know myself that with only two coursing
greyhounds running this season I have spent at least £500 p.a. on dog food.
£150 p.a. on food supplements and vitamins, £140 on leads and kennel coats,
£430 on various veterinary expenses this year, nearly £1,000 on aquisition of
the two greyhounds, over £500 on diesel to travel to meetings, £195 on club
memberships and £245 on entry fees. I also spend over £240 p.a. on kennel fees
for the two greyhounds at a local kennel whilst I am away on holiday. My personal
expenditure directly related to the upkeep of my two coursing greyhounds
(and this does not include accomodation, drink and food whilst at meetings)
amounts to over £3,400, which is hardly insignificant!. Indeed even though only
a small club with 50 running members all of whom have at least one coursing
greyhound, you may start to appreciate the economic significance to the rural
economy.
If one also takes into account the costs associated with accomodation, food,
drink etc. the figure becomes even higher, for example during January 2000 I
travelled to Clonmel in Ireland for the National Coursing Meeting and spent
£210 on ferry fares, £110 on diesel, £220 on accomodation and £170 on food and
drink. Later this month I will spend (with my partner) at least £288 on accomodation,
£200 plus on food & drink and £65 on diesel when we spend 3 days and nights
at the Waterloo Cup at Altcar, you will find that coursing supporters make
a significant contribution to the local economy of Southport during this coursing
meeting. Should hunting with dogs be banned none of this significant contribution
to the economy would be made and many would suffer.
As I also hunt on foot with the fell packs of the North of England
and follow mounted packs in cars, the impact of a ban would be significant and
savage, many rural pubs would suffer as they have hunt meets, social evenings
and the like which contribute greatly to their economic viability, rural pubs
in the North are already under sever pressure and any further reduction in the
opportunities to generate business would I am sure lead to further village pub
closures. No hunting, no social meets, no income generated! Our lives revolve
totally around the hunt and working dogs, both for leisure, pleasure and our
social life.
Draghunting would not in any way shape or form take the place of hunting
with hounds in the North of England and it would most certainly not take the
place of greyhound coursing, there is no substitute!
As to the need for control, there can be no doubt that again in the sheep
rearing area in which I live there is a need for fox control and in game rearing
areas all over the country there is a need to control both the fox and the mink,
whislt working as a moorland keeper and as a one time breeder of a large flock
of rare breeds of sheep, I have over the years operated all types of vermin
control. A ban on hunting with dogs will not eliminate this need for control
and indeed as was evidenced in the 1970's when the Coop-erative Societies placed
a ban on hunting with hounds on land owned by them, other methods of control
continued and poaching was rife. Many ill informed people say that foxes do
not take live lambs, I can categorically state that this is nonsense as I
have personally witnessed it occur, specifically two foxes working together
to take one lamb from twins, by one fox standing to the front of the ewe and
distracting her, whilst the other nipped in from behind to take one lamb.
I have also had the personal misfortune to see a fox actually take a lamb from
the womb of a ewe who was worn out and laid down through having a long and difficult
birth, my shouting did not distract it from it's task and I was initially prevented
from taking a shot with my shotgun due to the close proximity of the ewe. As
the fox ran away with the lamb now in it's mouth I did get a chance to have
a shot at it as I considered it unlikely that the lamb would survive, I
shot the fox up the back end from a distance and it dropped the lamb and unfotunately
escaped wounded (even the best shots can not gaurantee to kill outright), the
lamb was, much to my suprise, still alive when I got to it and appeared unmarked
but severely traumatised, I took it home and tried to nurse it, but it was in
such severe shock that it died about 3 hours later, did I have any sympathy
for the wounded fox? not one bit having just witnessed the previous event. I
flushed the wounded fox out of whin bushes further down the valley with terriers
and lurchers the next morning and my lurcher killed it as I would not willingly
let any wounded creature suffer, I would not have found and flushed this wounded
fox without dogs. Yes hunting with dogs does work and is essential in hill farming
areas.
Predation of game birds and protected birds by foxes and mink is a serious
problem and I can vouch from personal experience that game and bird numbers
in general will be far higher on estates where fox control takes place than
where it is not practised a fact well documented and available to you from Game
Conservancy research.
Hunting with dogs in hill areas is a most effective means of control, especially
at lambing time when packs are placed on lambing call and kill foxes specifically
having been involved in lamb predation on the lambing fields, of course farmers
would shoot or snare these foxes if possible but it is not as easy as many think,
the hounds are used to find the fox in often impossible terrain and then kill
it outright, no wounded foxes here!. For those who say that only dead lambs
are taken, it is easy to prove the contrary, when collecting often numerous
lamb carcases left on the filed by the fox, one simply has to skin the lamb
and see if there is haemorrhage around the teeth marks, if there is the lamb
was alive when killed, dead lambs do not haemorrhage!
Shooting can not gaurantee a clean kill and no true sportsmen likes to see
an animal wounded, hunting with dogs produces the absolute certainty that the
hunted animal either escapes unscathed or is killed, this has to be a far more
acceptable end for a wild animal which hunts every day of it's life itself.
Even on the best keepered estates in the country there is often the need
to call in a private pack of hounds to flush out foxes from heavy cover where
other methods of control have failed or proved difficult. The hounds are necessary
to find and flush the fox in these circumstances and the foxes end is immaterial
in terms of if it is shot or killed by a hound when this activity takes place,
there is though the added certainty that a shot and wounded fox will at least
have every chance of being found and killed by hounds. This is why true sportsmen
are always happy to see hounds used. As some politicians are advocating that
using hounds in this manner should be allowed to continue in hill areas, perhaps
you would care to come and see how private packs of this type operate, you will
however still see foxes killed by hounds and not just shot as this is inevitable
and it is a fallacy to suggest otherwise, I would be happy to arrange such a
day for you.
Should hunting with dogs be banned, other methods of control would still
continue, you will never eliminate the need for control, a small hill farmer
who suffers fox predation in these difficult times will not hesitate to use
any means of control and this can not and will not be effectively policed.
As far as greyhound coursing is concerned, the hare population on estates
managed for coursing has been proved to be higher than on non coursing estates,
Game Conservancy research has proved this conclusively. On our own coursing
grounds our keeper (who also keepers the game birds) ensures that fox numbers
are controlled and keeps away the equally serious problem of poachers who take
hares with lurcher dogs (often at night with a lamp), which is now becoming
a national problem of epic proportions. We manage the ground sympathetically
for the conservation of the hares and ensure that mixed farming keeps the ground
right to sustain the numbers of hares. We kill very few during a season,
and pick up many more hare carcases and remains on the fields which have
fallen prey to the few foxes on our ground than are ever killed on the coursing
ground by greyhounds. Indeed the motorist is the biggest single killer of hares
on the coursing grounds we manage. It is also a plain and undisputable fact
that both domestic and feral cats torment and kill more leverets and young hares
than coursing greyhounds ever will, how can you possibly consider a ban on hunting
with dogs whilst the countries cat population freely and without comment, decimate
our small mammals and birds!. Cats can hunt, dogs can't! what a nonsense!.
Those of us involved in hunting with dogs see this proposed ban as yet another
severe intrusion of the town into the countryside and resent it severely. Feelings
are already running high and I believe that it is no exageration to say that
should a ban be implemented then massive civil disobedience would take place
as this is seen as one intrusion too far by meddling ill-informed politicians
and do-gooders. Previously law abiding citizens would be outlawed and would
not take the matter lying down, as is evidenced by the massive support given
to the countryside marches last year, WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO!.
Our recreation and social life revolve largely around our chosen country
pursuits, in many areas it is the only meeting point for many people who would
otherwise find no other reason to meet each other, it is our culture and our
tradition, we have a common interest and history, we see our freedom to participate
in our chosen country sports to be as important to us as members of religious
faiths in this country see their right to follow their chosen faith and to follow
it's traditions. We view our rights to partake in country pursuits as being
equally as important to us as those who have different religious beliefs and
have the right to pursue them in this country, we would feel as aggrieved and
affronted should hunting with dogs be banned, as they would should the government
ban halal meat.
Should hunting with dogs be banned, it would I am sure result in the
decimation of hare numbers by poachers, as we keeper our grounds very well,
and further we would see many estates take the action already being taken to
stop poaching by mass shooting of hares to eliminate the reason for poachers being
on their land, we would find this to be a tragic conclusion to a ban on hunting
with dogs. In particular as the ban would only realy be a ban on legitimate
and organised hunting with dogs, illegal poaching is and will continue to prevail
amongst those who take no notice of the laws of trespass in any case.
Indeed a ban would be almost impossible to enforce, how can you possibly
legislate against anyone walking across a field with a dog which then chases
a rabbit or a hare as they have done for thousands of years, what would the
offence be?. Would the chasing of rabbits and hares ban apply equally to cat
owners?, it would be selective and illogical for it not to do so as cats kill
many more mammals in a far crueller fashion every year than dogs ever do.
The only effect of a ban would be to ensure that legal hunting with dogs
would be banned in this country. Personally it would not stop me from greyhound
coursing I am fortunate enough to be able to finance trips to Ireland where
the sport is no longer under threat, I would still run coursing greyhounds,
I would still hunt in Ireland. I am however seriously concerned on the impact
such a ban would have on those who do not have the finances available to travel
to Ireland.
I would also take the matter up in the European Courts as I believe
that it was politically corrupt of the Labour Party to accept over £1 million
from the animal rights lobby and then to shortly afterwards announce their support
for a ban on hunting with dogs.
I would be glad to give any further evidence you may see fit or to arrange
any visits to hunts you may feel would help your understanding of the same,
especially with lambing time coming up for the foot packs of foxhounds.
Yours faithfully.
Mr Peter Lister
Secretary
Coquetdale & Border Coursing Club