Brighton and Storrington Foot Beagles

24 January 2000

The Secretary

The Committee of Enquiry into Hunting

It is with great pleasure that I submit the evidence of the Brighton and Storrington Foot Beagles to your Committee. It has been approved by our Masters and is therefore given on behalf of the Hunt and its members. However I should point out that the Hunt will also be joining with other Beagle Hunts in submitting joint and comprehensive evidence from the Association of Masters of Beagles and Harriers.

Yours sincerely

B S Russell.

1. The Brighton and Storrington Foot Beagles (the BSFB) is an old-established hunt for the hunting on foot of hares with beagles. The country that we hunt over comprises most of the Sussex downs and stretches roughly from the Hampshire border to Beachy Head, extending some twenty miles inland. This very large area results from the BSFB being an amalgamation of two hunts, the Brighton Foot Beagles (me BFB3 and the Stomugton Foot Beagles (the SFB). This took place effectively when the Master of the SFB died in 1941, though it was not formalised until 1962. The BFB started in 1893 and the SFB in the late 1920's, though the Storrington country had previously been hunted by other packs including the famous Wooddale pack which was considered to be one of the three finest beagle packs in Edwardian England The Hunt employs a professional Kennel Huntsman, who looks after the pack at our kennels at Fulking, just north of the South Downs escarpment. It is maintained by the subscriptions of, and much voluntary work by, the seventy four members of the Hunt.

2. The Sussex countryside, Downs and Weald, as the excavations at Boxgrove show, has been hunted for tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of years. Recorded history goes back many hundreds. We hold in our hunt records two copies of the "Star" newspaper for 1816 that report two notable meets of the Brighton Subscription Harriers in that year, but of course hare-hunting goes back much further than that. Indeed when our distant ancestors changed from being scavengers (which is not meant in a pejorative sense, scavenging being an essential part of the ecological cycle) to being hunter/gatherers the excavations at Boxgrove show that hunting preceded agriculture in Sussex by many thousands of years and was therefore the primal interest of mankind here. Whether the domestication of dogs and their use in hunting occurred then or later matters little: it is clear that the abolishing of hunting strikes directly at the oldest roots of what has now become civilisation, with effects that cannot now be known completely However we have done our best to examine the probable results dispassionately, though we must point out that many of the economic consequences (like the number of hounds and horses that would be put down) depends entirely on the affection of their owners, not the cold reaction of an Economic Man toward redundant assets.

3. It is one of the problems that bedevil a calm and dispassionate examination of hunting that its protagonists, on either side, feel extremely deeply about its principles and problems and rational discussion therefore becomes rare. When feelings run so high that the wife and small daughter of our professional huntsman are threatened in their own home, their bungalow at our Kennels, then this is not only sordid and disgraceful but indicates strongly that tensions should be reduced. However the Hyde Park Rally, with the contingents that walked great distances to it and the Marches in London and elsewhere organised by the Countryside Alliance show that the opponents of hunting are not the only ones who feel strongly about it.

4. Indeed the question could be asked why it is that, if the arguments based on moral or social grounds against hunting with dogs (hounds) are so strong and compelling, there are so many people in this country and abroad whose main sport is hunting and show every sign of wanting to continue to enjoy it. We ourselves think that those arguments are far from convincing, being based on emotion rather than a rational examination and that abolition, instead of saving hares and other hunted animals from cruel persecution, would cause their situation to become worse. The evidence for this is set out below and is based on our own observations or, when conjectural, the conclusions are those that we consider to be the likely results.

5. The Committee might profitably examine why this is so very much an English dispute, hunting does not seem to excite such extreme passion in Scotland, Wales or on the Continent and North America. Our members have found this to be so in general conversation when they were in those places, but as we cannot ourselves adduce any evidence why this should be, we merely pose the question. Abolition, on the other hand, is firmly opposed in other countries. We found ourselves next to a Spanish contingent when on the London March. They, and contingents from other countries, feel strongly about the attempt to stop hunting here.

6. We feel that is would not help the Committee for us to deploy now any of the moral, libertarian or philosophical arguments for and against hunting, with or without dogs (hounds) - though we do think them immensely important - or to attempt to counter them. We suspect that this will be done by others, probably at great length, whether or not this is within the Committee's terms of reference. We have confined ourselves to the economic, social and conservation aspects of, primarily, beagling. However most of what we say would apply to other types of hunting with hounds.

7. One of the problems that might attend the abolition of beagling is that it has been, until the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century, an essentially domestic form of hunting and it could easily return to that.. It needs little in the way of apparatus or equipment, simply a sturdy pair of boots and some hounds. Until the late Victorian era most packs were kept at home (some, the "trencher-fed" packs, still are - it is probably the only way the hill- or gunpacks can operate). The ending of the big, subscription, beagle hunts may well cause a reversion to the (surreptitious) keeping of domestic packs. Farmers and landowners will want to reduce the number of hares or vermin on their land and, though shooting will be the obvious answer, it may not suit everybody, or even be safe in some places. The alternatives of trapping or poisoning are equally horrible for the hares and are far more indiscriminate. It will be very difficult to investigate and police illicit hunting with dogs except through informers and gossip in the village pub, neither of which will be enjoyed by the majority of police officers or endear them to the local populace. A farmer going out to clear his or her land of vermin may rightly require a dog to assist in finding the quarry and may not unreasonably require the assistance of a few friends, who may themselves each bring a dog. At what point will they transgress the prohibition? Will it be reasonably defined and how can it be economically policed? (Gamekeepers will not be interested, indeed the farmer would be doing their job for them.) What evidence will be needed of "Mens Rea"? If a guilty mind is to be a component of the crime, what will be the exact state of mind required to constitute the offence, and when will it be deemed to have come into existence? If all hunting with canines, including both dogs and hounds, is to be criminalised, then the complications of a practical definition of the offence and the proper supporting evidence become far worse. We assume that even the most fanatical abolitionist will not be prepared to make it an absolute offence, or our courts will be choked with innocent, and very cross, citizens whose pets have been incautious or over-enthusiastic whilst roaming through the fields or commons. (We presume that rabbits will be equated to hares in the legislation or otherwise an impossible situation would rapidly arise, but we would point out that the clearing of rabbits from farmland is frequently an essential operation: which presumably becomes a sport if those taking part are guilty of enjoying it.)

8. Since it is one of the canons of bureaucracy that common sense is never allowed to intrude into the interpretation of administrative offences (e.g. when Messrs Harveys of Bristol were convicted of failing to put cream or milk into Harvey's Bristol Cream or Milk, an absurdity that got as far as the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division before being quashed) we would point out, diffidently, that there is hardly a pub in the country that has not got hunting prints on its walls: are they to be removed or will the owners and landlords run the risk of being convicted of abetting a crime or even a Common Law conspiracy? We would think this hardly likely, but experience, and newspaper reports of equally stupid stories, are against us.

9. There is no need to fantasise abut the economic results of the abolition (and consequent criminalistion) of beagling and other forms of hunting with hounds:-

9.1. The immediate question will be whether to stop or carry on as a drag hunt. Some hunts may prefer an immediate to a lingering death. We have not yet asked our members which they would prefer but we think that the BFSB would not last many years as a drag bunt, partly because the membership is relatively elderly but more because about a third of the Hunt's income derives, not from subscriptions or "cap" money, but from ancillary fund raising activities such as the Hunt Ball, Hunt Supper, a summer barbecue, a sponsored walk, auctions, theatre parties, the production of a very successful cookery book and so on. This has been a deliberate policy, to keep down the cost of hunting to our younger members. However the considerable amount of voluntary work that goes into these will, we think, undoubtedly diminish. And so will the other voluntary work, such as walking puppies and repairing or maintaining the kennels, that helps to keep us going.

9.2. Many hunts will be in the same position. Fox-hounds will feel it worse as they keep very much bigger establishments than beagles. There are 71 recognised beagle packs, about fifty of which employ a huntsman or kennel huntsman. Sooner or later their jobs will have to go. Whilst we realise that this is minuscule in the national accounting, nevertheless each is a personal tragedy and we can only hope that proper financial arrangements will be made by Parliament, whose actions have caused this distress, or else the European Convention on Human Rights might possibly be called in to redress the situation.

9.3 It is likely that the first to suffer will be the hounds and horses involved. The BFSS estimates that there are some 20,000 hounds used for hunting. Most of these will have to be destroyed. Beagles (and bassets) are probably the only breeds that are suitable as pets, but those brought up in kennels (even if walked as puppies domestically) are hardly house trained and, as may be seen from their behaviour in the hound van, hunt beagles are essentially pack animals and would be miserable living by themselves.

The situation about horses is far worse: the Equestrian Trade Association reckons that 68,000 horses go hunting, of which about half are used only or primarily for hunting. It might not happen immediately, but most of those would go. A horse is an expensive animal to keep as a pet, or just for the occasional ride. We question whether the present fashion for riding and horse competitions would continue unabated if hunting should be abolished.

9.4. That would affect the whole of the horse "industry" from horse-shoe nails to Rice Double Trailers, including the farriers, blacksmiths, saddlers, vets, livery stables (which would be immediately and badly affected because so many of their horses are hired for hunting), and the makers of riding and country clothes or other trades and professions. Their earnings would be diminished considerably and the economic situation of the countryside affected adversely. The horse industry would lose the basic reason for its existence. The British standards of equitation would decline and both a profitable export and a tourist attraction would gradually decline.

9.5. A less devastating, but still substantial affect, would be on pubs, whose taking during the winter can be agreeably improved by hospitality at Meets. Hotels would suffer from the disappearance of Hunt Balls and other entertainments, also during the lean winter season. The loss of earnings, even jobs, could be quite considerable in some areas, where it is likely that employment opportunities are restricted. We cannot attempt to evaluate this.

9.6. Two wider effects are, first, the disappearance of Point to Point Races because these are off-shoots of fox-hunts. Interestingly it was the BFB that introduced in 1904 the concept of Beagle, foot race, Point to Points in 1904, however the last one of these took place in 1969, the then Secretary being recorded as muttering that they were getting too professional and losing their popularity). Secondly the potential effect on National Hunt Rules (jumping and to a lesser extent hurdling) of horse racing. We suspect that the effect would be small, because these races have outgrown their original beginnings, but we mention it for the sake of completeness.

9.7. Trades that would improve considerably, to the chagrin of the Animal Rights enthusiasts, would be the manufacture of snares, traps and poisons. We dislike them too, but farmers must be able to rid their land of pests (unless, of course, those enthusiasts are prepared to compensate farmers financially for allowing deer, foxes, mink and hares to continue to live unmolested in their fields and coverts). We know of no other methods of passive control (apart from massive fences, which are very expensive). The cry that these creatures could and should be shot will probably go up, but the number of shots capable of safely culling small animals in crowded country is small and the effects of bad shooting are foul and grisly. (It also seems to be a slightly odd argument for those whose overt cause is that of avoiding cruelty.) Anyone advocating shooting has no real experience or conception of what they are proposing or else their hatred of hunting has blinded them to the consequences of the alternatives.

Against this we must admit that the vast majority of hares killed are shot, almost certainly for the pot. Estimates are vague (and do not include the large numbers taken by poachers or killed on the roads) but the figures of 400,000 shot annually as opposed to 1,500 killed in hunting have been quoted. The latter figure seems to be reasonable, but we have no means of knowing the accuracy of the first; however it is certain that it vastly exceeds the numbers killed by beagles, bassets and harriers.

meet. This was considered to be outstandingly good. It has been estimated that five out of six hares hunted escape. Our own records, taken from newspaper reports preserved in our scrap-books, because these give the numbers of hares hunted as well as those killed, stretch irregularly from 1893 to 1960 and total 339 hares killed from 1050 hunted, which suggests that, in the South Downs anyway, it is more like two thirds that escape.

9.8. An unexpected effect of the increased use of poisons would be a big loss of birds of prey. They will be attracted to the corpses of poisoned vermin (and so will other animals such as foxes, martens, stoats or weasels that take the bait or feed on poisoned animals, which will not be restricted solely to hares) and will die. Poisons and to a lesser extent snares and traps, are indiscriminate in their attack and indefinite in their final results.

9.9. We should also expect to see a big increase in poaching of edible game. We have historical examples for that. The Game Laws and hunting (and therefore preservation) were both abolished during the Commonwealth. The result was that deer were decimated and the wild boar completely disappeared. A more recent example is to be found in Exmoor when stag hunting was stopped by the National Trust. Poaching has flourished and the deer herd is much smaller. The cousin of one of our members who lives nearby herself counted the heads of twenty-eight deer at the side of the road where poachers had decapitated them in the process of crude butchery. The local farmers may be appalled by this - but it is to their economic advantage, because the deer are feeding on their assets. So do hares. It has been estimated that three hares eat as much as a sheep. Their sale price to a butcher is, normally, less. Poachers could be regarded as providing a beneficial service for farmers.

We wonder if the various societies that currently advocate abolition could be persuaded to divert the ample funds that they now w to foment protests against hunters to the more beneficial aspect of providing wardens or other people to look after and protect wild-life against this inevitable increase in poaching

9.10. It would follow, if we are correct, that substantial extra policing costs will be required to control this extra poaching together with, we might add, the prevention of illicit hunting. We would point out that cock-fighting still takes place, though it was abolished many years ago. The control of illicit hunting would be a major burden on the rural Police and we cannot consider that this extra cost, and the diversion of Police effort from preventing other crimes, can be regarded as really justified, except by fanatics (who, we would note are always ready to criticise and vilify the Police in the name of Liberty and Freedom when they attempt to control their protest actions, but invariably demand that all the resources of the State shall be turned against everything that they dislike.)

9.l 1. A certain result of abolition, with both economic and social effects, would be the stopping of "flesh" collection. This is going round and picking up for feeding hounds the carcasses of those farm animals that have died without being properly killed. We normally have about forty beagles at our kennels and they eat two or three carcasses a week, The BFSS estimates that there are about 20~000 hounds used in hunting. At a rough estimate of 21b of meat, gross with bone, each per day this amounts (almost certainly a low estimate) to 6,500 tons a year that would either have to go to incinerators or dealt with in some less healthy fashion.

The ending of the BSE culls may lead to an excess of incinerator capacity, but the disposal of corpses will be an extra cost that farmers may not willingly accept, especially when there is the extra cost, and trouble, of taking the carcasses (sometimes considerable distances) to the incinerator or abattoir. The temptation to burn or bury them in some remote spot will be great or the bodies may simply be left to rot or be scavenged as is the case in the plains of the USA and Australia. The Committee might like to enquire from the abolitionists whether they have any method of solving this problem without cost to farmers or the unpleasant social effects postulated above.. (The suggestion has been made that petfood manufacturers might be interested in this source of cheap meat, but we doubt if it would prove economically viable, otherwise they would probably do it now.)

10. The social consequences would be wide rather than deep.

10.1 A festering sore, the legitimate hatred of some people against cruelty, would be assuaged, but a deep resentment would build up in others.

10.2. However one of the more picturesque aspects of the countryside would disappear. It may seem tendentious to put hunting alongside the innocent pleasures of cricketing, football, morris dancing, the Druids, the Sealed Knot and other country recreations that require their participants to dress up, but it is a constant gibe that we do this for some reason that is darkly suspected of being snobbish, even elitist. We would simply comment that our garb is practical, water and thorn proof most of the time, and that it is certainly no more reprehensible than attending football matches clad in an expensive reproduction of the strip of the team favoured by the spectator.

10.3. As we pointed out earlier, hunting prints and other mementoes of the chase are a favoured form of ornament in pubs.. And in many houses too. The roots of hunting go deep into the human character - and this would apply to fishing, shooting or hawking too. If people choose to decorate their houses with pictures or artefacts relating to field sports, then there is obviously something there that is satisfying, psychologically. The call of the countryside to our largely urban population is very strong. The consequent transference of income from the cities to the countryside is, to the extent that it buttresses agriculture, a benefit to the balance of payments. It might even make for a healthier population. Its only ill effect would appear to be raising the price of houses in the country to an uneconomic level.

The feeling shown against the ossifying of the country into a high output complex for agricultural production is growing fast. Townspeople want the country to look both beautiful and picturesque. It would be impossible to assess just how much of the landscape actually has its roots, in a desire by landowners to assist hunting, but it could extend from preserving coverts to removing barbed wire. We would not advocate the "Disneyfying" of rural life by artificially preserving or creating a theme park civilisation there, but we do think that the traditions and authentic life of the countryside should be preserved, or at least not wantonly destroyed simply in order to satisfy a noisy, fanatical, ignorant group, whether it is minority or a majority.

11. So far as social considerations are concerned, we must point out that beagling is not an aristocratic sport. At the turn of the century the BPB did have one Marquess and two continental Barons among its members, but since then all we can claim in total is a brace of Baronets and three Knights At present we have to make do with an O B E and couple each of District and County Councillors. Thus any representation that we are toffs is sadly wrong and in fact our membership is largely middle class. Social categories A B and C would cover nearly all of us. We do not foresee any social upheavals attending the abolition of beagling, though most participants will regard it as an interference with their own liberty, not as a well-merited blow struck by the forces of light against those of privilege and rank.

12. This is where social and conservation considerations intermingle. Conservation enthusiasms derive mainly from social considerations, a feeling that the world would be better if this or that is done. We would agree with this concept. In fact we must point out with all the force at our command that field sports stand for preservation, not destruction. If we do not ensure that our chosen quarry can continue to exist, we thereby destroy our own interests. We have already mentioned the disappearance of the wild boar at the time of the Commonwealth, more recently the ending of otter hunting because of poisoned rivers, and the deliberate extinction of the coypu in the fens, but the fox was nearly hunted out of existence in early Victorian times when many were imported from the Continent. The introduction of the Ground Game Act in 1881 led almost to the extinction of the native hare population and this resulted in the Hare Preservation Act of 1885 which stopped the sale of native hares in the Spring. (This takes the place of a close season for hares.)

It might be bombastic to claim that the hunting fraternity were the original conservationists, but the planting of coverts and other wooded areas for animals to lay up in, indeed much of the present structure of the countryside, was developed originally for the benefit of hunting. Only barbed wire spoils this idyllic picture and much money has been paid out over the years to farmers to remove it: though not by our Hunt. What the BFB did was to pay quite large sums of money to local farmers for them not to kill their hares and, we may add, the abolitionists would be quite surprised to read how many times the hunting reports finish with a remark to the effect that the hounds were called off a really good hare so that she might give us another good run some other day.

13 The hare has many enemies. The increase in the hare population after myxomatosis led to the surprising discovery that one of the main causes of the deaths of young hares was jack rabbits, who kill many leverets in the Spring. Whatever its original origins the hare has developed into a creature that is superbly designed for escape. Many things are still unknown about its life and much of the continuing investigation depends on keen beaglers. The hare is a remarkable creature, though not nearly so remarkable as the superstitions and legends that surround it. Its conservation is our desire and, as we have pointed out above, the number that are killed in hunting is dwarfed by those who are shot. We realise that a plea of "de minimis" would certainly not stop the abolitionists, but in so failing it would prove, beyond all doubt, that, like the puritans of long ago, they were against hunting, not because it gave pain to the hare, but because it gave pleasure to the hunters.

14. As a final, comprehensive, statement, we agree with the conclusions of the Scott Henderson Report, to the extent that these apply to beagling and that we shall be joining with other beagle hunts when evidence is submitted to the Enquiry from the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles.

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 26 May 2000