Lord Burns
P. O. Box 31010
London
SW1H 92L

Dear Sir,

With Reference to the letter dated 19th January 2000 (amended 28th January) from the Secretary to the Committee inviting written evidence to be submitted to the Committee of Inquiry, I enclose information on some of the questions put, under headings used in your letter.

Dr. D. G. Boddington

Relevant Curriculum vitae of witness -

Dr. David Gamgee Boddington, Bromyard, Herefordshire. HR7 4QH

Retired rural General Medical Practitioner, now aged 67.

Huntsman of a Beagle Pack 1954-1956. Regular follower of hounds on foot up to then, and active foot follower of Foxhounds from 19591980. Post-retirement postgraduate studies in ecology at University College of North Wales, Bangor, culminating in an MSc Ecology in 1996. Voluntary work with several Naturalist bodies on a county and national basis. No direct link with hunting since around 1980, but in contact with people who were, both as patients and friends, during my working years. Daily care of sheep on my own land.

Q. 2. What evidence is there as to the importance or otherwise of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/ or to particular areas of England and Wales?

Q. 3. What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely?

Q. 4. To what extent could any detrimental consequences of a ban be offset by greater participation in drag or bloodhound hunting or other activities or by other measures?

It is believed that detailed financial information will be obtained from the 'Hunts' themselves; it seems that with total annual expenses of around £50,000 a small foxhound pack would spend 20% on staff, 20% on local services, and 60% on feedstuffs from local merchants. Staff would include the professional huntsmen, part time kennelmen, and part time grooms to exercise the horses used by hunt staff. The petrol expenses of the terrier men might also be included under staff heading. These payments would go via the hunts accounts.

Public houses and hotels expect to increase trade from foot followers and those merely attending the meet.

The reduction in the number of horses used by staff and followers in the event of a ban would reduce the need for farriers, veterinary services, summer grazing and riding equipment; and the absence of hounds needing flesh for routine feeding would create further problems to stock farmers needing an outlet for carcass disposal.

The annual Point-to-Point (for cultural effect see later) costs about £12,000 in its preparation and production. The local farmer whose land it is held on expects some payment, as do ParaTnedic vets and the Red Cross or St Johns Ambulance team. The latter groups benefit from the money and the experience gained from a training exercise. It used to be the custom that Doctors in attendance did not charge, but there

is usually a costly County Ambulance present. The cost of providing secure fences, both in material and in labour, is low because the provision seems to be a part of the volunteer ethos in the farmers and non-mounted followers. It is estimated that for a figure representing those actively participating on the day, and sometimes being paid: About three thousand attend as paying spectators, or in cars that are paid for irrespective of passenger numbers. Point-to-Point could not be continued by a drag or bloodhound pack because there would not be the local volunteer work force to prepare the event.

Q. 5. What evidence is there about the need to control the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink?

I have experienced as a country walker and a naturalist with specialist interest in coppice areas.

Hares are uncommon in north Herefordshire, only being seen in certain well-specified areas, where they are regular. They can damage woodland plantations but not where individual tree protection is given to trees. No control is needed.

Deer damage by Fallow Deer is usually territorial and acceptable in small amounts. However, winter nibbling of coppice stools, with subsequent stunted or 'nil' growth and regeneration, is regular and costly. Protection is difficult (but is not carried out by dogs in this area).

Mink have smaller territories than otters. 1'hey are omnivores, the apparent spectrum covering birds as well as fish. They need control.

Foxes in the countryside need control, but woods inhabited by them nearer the cities are well covered by Terrier Groups, and the species is quite uncommon in these areas. In the City habitat, it is again common. Here the species is more often diseased but growth in population provides a natural 'export' to rural areas. While I have watched Foxes hunting for small rodents I am unsure of what proportion of their diet consists of them. Foxes have been seen to catch rabbits and bury them while being hunted. They are fruit eaters and can damage strawberry patches. In certain areas there are problems with sheep. For example, the first lamb is vulnerable while the second is being dropped, and the presence of the placenta does not seem to suffice. There is little danger after 24 hours unless two foxes are present when diversion can mean the loss of a lamb up to six weeks old. Inside barn lambing has reduced the loss rate. A couple of good lamps at night used to act as a deterrent, but while foxes, live trapped in Cities, are still being brought out for rural release their acceptance of lamps as a form of street lighting is a problem.

Q. 6. What evidence is there about the advantages and disadvantages of hunting with dogs in terms of agriculture and pest control, compared with other possible forms of control?

Farmers that invite the hunt and followers accept that there will be some damage to autumn sown corn, but there is an effort by the hunt officials to control damage by orderly movements. Possibly as much pressure damage is done by using heavy vehicles to spray corn. Jumping in this area is now confined to arranged points. Farmers allowing the hunt can call on it to deal with a severe fox problem without resorting to less acceptable methods. Foxes are not only carnivores. Their diet includes wild and domestic fruit, but they are a predator of young and diseased rabbits and some ground nesting birds including Pheasants when they are sitting wild and penned as bought in 'public', The former have some inbuilt protection but dug-in high wire is needed to protect the latter.

As to methods of control, hunting alone rarely eliminates a fox population. It is a good means of killing diseased foxes, and those injured by gunshot, or snares. Intensive terrier work with shooting can eliminate a local population. Lamping after dusk is dangerous and crosses legal barriers. Snaring is not species selective badgers, pet dogs, and hares can be caught, as can Deer. It seems uncommon in North Herefordshire. Gin traps are still used (as are Pole traps)! Poisoning is again as non-selective as all these and causes distress to the primary and secondary prey.

The practice of clubbing acts to scatter families of young foxes, who would otherwise slowly drift apart, but can resort to working in packs with wolf-like tactics and damage.

Landowners not wanting the hunt on their land will say so. It is wrongly thought that there is a 'hunt off' or 'hunt on' situation. This is rarely so. Either party may say hunt staff only, or hounds only to be turned by the latter if need be.

Q. 7. What evidence is there about the consequences for agriculture and pest control of hunting with dogs was banned completely?

Terrier groups, usually based in built-up areas seem efficient in digging out foxes from earths in the areas they work. Such work in the city and suburban areas is not safe because guns often have to be used. The banning of fox hunting with hounds would lead to a big increase in the activities of these groups, sometimes as uninvited guests. If the ban extended to them the ultimate resort to previously mentioned nonselective measures would be needed, as foxes would become a real problem. I doubt whether there would be a rebound in mink and hare population if hunting with dogs was banned, but, deer hunting not being a local issue, the opinion of those in Red Deer areas would be needed. The intelligent culling of Fallow Deer (selective from the territorial aspects) is moderately efficient with rifles.

Q. 8. What other measures, if any, would need to be taken to protect agricultural interests and to control foxes, deer, mink, and hares?

Information given in Q. 7. partly covers this. It has been stated that the activities of terrier groups often exceed the limits of invitation from their host, and the groups are often synonymous with poaching groups who are not only seeking food quarry but badgers for illegal baiting.

Implanted contraceptives or oily injections might be possible in the future after live trapping, but live trapping needs twice daily visits to the traps, whatever the planned outcome.

Q. 9. In what ways and to what extent does the existence of hunting with dogs contribute to or impair the social and cultural life of the Countryside?

I am not aware of any really local opposition to hunting in our own community. People object to the way tracks are 'cut up' by horses, but ethical grounds are rarely heard unless from recent and often temporary incomers.

Those that do not hunt are catered for. For many the Point to Point is their only experience of horse racing. Families attend for the ffin and experience. It is a relatively cheap fun day because so much of the input in preparation is by volunteers, and expense is limited.

Fun rides are held from April to October. Riding club members attend, and most are children living in semi-urban areas. To many, even though confined to a planned course, it is their only glimpse of wild countryside; further benefiting by supervision. The farmers co-operate because of their allegiance to the hunt.

Between 20 and 30 car followers follow the ]local hunt midweek, and more on Saturdays. Often they are the elderly; commonly seeking a lift, and sometimes do not leave the car or merely stand and watch along tracks or roads using an acute vision blended with experience and understanding of the countryside. Many are disabled and use their days hunting as a social day. There is a great feeling of 'family' amongst followers. Although social groups contribute in different ways and there is a slight division between those that provide the money and are not 'hands on', and those that are not 'well off' and are 'hands on'. The blend is greater than the divide.

Non-hunting people find no barrier if they want to participate in social events. The absence of these social events with a hunting fulcrum would worry many as much as the loss of hunting alone. The absence if hunting with dogs would destroy a culture. To those unmounted and not fit enough to run with hounds, a good day as a stationary spectator can provide much 'feel good' factor.

How would a ban affect someone living in or participating in leisure in the countryside? Access to the Countryside would be fraught with the problems of an increase in shooting as landowners adopting a non-fox shooting or only occasional fox shooting policy will resort to shooting to include foxes, and have more of it. Snares and poisons would become more widespread with subsequent non-selective damage to wildlife' and even including domestic animals.

Many dogs will chase rabbits. People ferreting need dogs - perhaps a spaniel and a lurcher type dog. If rabbits were not included then the accounts of packs of terriers controlled by horn would appear as a new form.

Dogs are used by the terrier groups. Those from the towns still take badgers when they allege they are digging foxes (both species often associate). The authorities have failed to control this illegal activity even if they try to; some County Police do not even try.

Drag hunting is boring for foxhounds and almost as much a bore to followers. It gives no return of killed foxes to landowners. The hunt bores human followers as hound work is more predictable and lines more often cross. Foxhounds will joyfully and tunefully take the opportunity to deviate off a human line to a real fox. Beagles will change from a tired hare to a more obvious fresh. one, from hare to fox, or even to deer. Even Bloodhounds will riot to a different quarry. Control by hunt staff is possible but not always successful. How would such behaviour be accepted in Court?

Q. 10. omitted.

Q. 11. What evidence is there about the present effects of hunting with dogs on preserving or damaging habitats and on the management and conservation of wildlife, including the quarry species?

Much of our lowland landscape has had a field sports as a main consideration in its controlled design, and this continues today with 'set aside' being used for shooting and farm mini-lakes for fishing. These examples only have recent origins. The appearance of our woodland results from centuries of specific care. Certainly after the 1939-45 war, woodlands in danger of felling by 'get rich' contractors were bought up by hunting people. Subsequently many of these have now become precious gems amongst old woodlands, as regards their flora and fauna.

Conservation Trusts ban hunting in their woods. Those owners are not knowledgeable concerning the degrees of access that could be allowed. They are less able to control poaching by shooting or digging. Generally the need for coppiced wood at Point to Point enables clearings to develop - something conservationists hope for and need to create often at their own expense or with woodland grants from central government.

The fox, as a predator, is less successful when handicapped by injury or ill health. They are easier to hunt other than the fox's awareness of its limitations and their keenness to go to ground. Predators tend to increase the fitness of those they predate, both of the individual and the strain. This applies to hounds and foxes. A foxhound pack will normally aim at a controlled fox population that seems to be the wish of most landowners not primarily using their land for shooting income, which is now more common. A landowner who is orientated towards hunting will seek cooperation with the hunt to keep poachers off; those that dig for badgers for urban dog fights, and pheasant poaches and lampers. The liaison is good.

Foxes do predate ground-nesting birds, but the same thickets that are encouraged to give cover for foxes, also protect nesting birds. Mink predates water voles and birds such as moorhen nesting near rivers.

A ban on the hunting of fox and mink would cause a definite rise in population of the former and a possible rise in the latter. Farmers will boast about a fox and her cubs, bit not a couple of mink. The mink; has no friends.

Q. 13. No special comment.

Q. 14. What evidence is there about the impact on the welfare of animals of other means of control which might be used if hunting with dogs was banned?

I have personal knowledge of the poisoning of Common Buzzard, Red Kite, pet dog and badger by poisoned rabbits put out near fox earths.

Snares are always a worry for someone with a loose pet dog in the countryside. I have heard of deer being snared around their feet and not found until after death.

These methods could all be resorted to if foxes had to have increased control, and would and would occur if a landowner lost interest in his woodland.

Q. 15,16,17. What form might a ban take and what would be the implications?
How might such a ban be applied and enforced''
Would a ban need to be supported by any other action?

The ban would take the form of a ban on the use of dogs in hunting foxes, rabbits, hare, deer, otter, mink, and would need to include rabbit.

A ban could be easily applied to foxhound packs because their activities are so audible, and moderately visible.

Terrier work, lamping, shooting with dogs, can be quiet and hidden. Only 'law abiding' organised hunting will be stoppable.

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 30 May 2000