CONTENTS
To jump straight to a particular question/section click on the question/section number
Question 1. What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs, including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are carried out? Page 1.
Questions 2/3/4. What evidence is there as to the importance of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/or to particular areas of England and Wales? What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely? 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? Page 21.
Question 5. What evidence is there about the need to control the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink? Page 43.
Question 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? Page 55.
Question 7. What evidence is there about the consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs was banned completely? Page 62.
Question 8: What other measures, if any, would need to be taken to protect agricultural interests and to control foxes, deer, mink and hares? Page 66.
Questions 9/10. 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? What evidence is there as to its importance generally or in particular areas? Page 70.
Question 11. What evidence is there about the present effect of hunting with dogs on preserving or damaging habitats and on the management and conservation of wildlife, including the quarry species? Page 85.
Question 12. What would be the impact on these matters of a ban? Page 91.
Questions 13/14. What evidence is there at present about the effect of hunting with dogs on the welfare of the quarry species or on the welfare of other animals, including those used in hunting activities and domestic pets and farm animals which may be affected accidentally? 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? Page 95.
Question 15. What form would the ban take and what would be the implications? Page 107.
Question 16. How might such a ban be applied and enforced? Page 120.
Question 17. Would a ban need to be supported by other action? Page 124.
Appendix 1. Video shotlist. Page 126.
Appendix 2. (Description.) Page 128.
List of Annexes to IFAW submission. Page 129.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is one the largest animal welfare and conservation organisations in the world. Founded in 1969, IFAW has more than one and a half million supporters, and offices in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, East Africa, France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, United Kingdom and the USA.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare works to improve the welfare of wild and domestic animals throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well being of both animals and people.
Most recently IFAW sent a team of renowned experts to the Brittany coast to coordinate the wildlife rescue effort following a huge oil spill from the tanker Erika. Following a five year campaign we recently succeeded in persuading the Mexican government and Mitubishi to abandon plans to build a salt works threatening the last pristine breeding ground of the gray whale.
Since July 1997, IFAW UK has been campaigning jointly with the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA under the banner of the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals (CPHA). In November 1998 we launched Deadline 2000, an initiative aimed at achieving a ban on hunting with dogs by the end of the year 2000. Our call for a ban has won the backing of the majority of the British public in both urban and rural areasi, the vast majority of MPsii and of the Prime Ministeriii.
The hunting of wild animals with dogs causes unnecessary and prolonged suffering to its victims. Animals such as foxes suffer multiple bites, savaging and disemboweling before death because dogs are not capable of killing such large prey quickly. The hunting with dogs of foxes, hares and deer is designed to provide a deliberately long chase for the pleasure and enjoyment of hunt participants. IFAW believes it is long past time for hunting with dogs to be consigned to the history books along with bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting.
The CPHA campaign for a ban on the hunting of wild mammals with dogs continues centuries of condemnation of cruel sports. As early as the twelfth century, John of Salisbury considered that hunting had a brutalizing effect on the character. Sir Thomas More’s Utopians took no pleasure in hunting considering it ‘the lowest, the vilest and most abject part of butchery". There was much concern about hare coursing in the seventeenth century - to kill edible creatures was "no doubt lawful" thought Edward Bury in 1677 "but to sport ourselves in their death seems cruel and bloody" iv. Keith Thomas, who has examined changing attitudes to animals in England over the three centuries to 1800, says "In the eighteenth century it had become increasingly difficult to argue that either hare-coursing or staghunting served any necessary purpose; and moralists denounced them accordingly". In 1780, the Royal Buckhounds gave up any pretence that deer were hunted for any other purpose than the pursuit of pleasure when they abandoned the practice of killing the quarry and released the deer to be hunted again. v The practice of carted stag hunting only ended in the United Kingdom in 1998 with the demise of the County Down.
Fox hunting, although popular in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when deer became scarcer and enclosures impeded hare coursing, has only existed in its current form since around the mid-eighteenth century. In 1869, the historian Professor E A Freeman, launched the first modern attack on the ‘sport’. He described a fox’s life as being held sacred, so it could be killed with a prescribed amount of fright and suffering, adding, "fox hunting is the worst form of cruelty that I have to condemn" vi. Fox hunting could not, he argued, be defended on pesticidal grounds, since foxes were artificially preserved and even imported into territories where they were scarce. Indeed, in 1539 Robert Pye had informed Thomas Cromwell that foxes could easily be wiped out, if only the gentry would allow it. Foxhounds, he added, did more harm to farmers’ sheep and chickens than did foxes. vii
Today, foxes are still preserved by hunts in artificial earths to ensure the availability of an animal for the chase. Indeed, hunting spokesmen have admitted "there are artificial earths in almost every hunting country in England" viii. On October 3, 1999 the Beaufort Hunt admitted to building artificial earths "to attract foxes to the countryside" as hunting is "all about conservation and control" ix. The hunt denied that these were aimed at providing foxes to hunt. IFAW hunt monitors who had found the artificial earths on land used by the hunt commented "Almost without fail, each time the Beaufort go out - three times a week - they kill a fox. Now we know why. Hunters cannot possibly claim foxes are pests when at the same time they are enticing them to live and breed on their land by providing living accommodation. We even found fresh food and water at some of the sites." x
There is considerable misinformation on the need to control fox populations. There is in fact little evidence that foxes cause significant economic losses to agriculture, except locally. Professor Stephen Harris, from the University of Bristol, says that far from being pests, foxes actually perform a valuable service to farmers. "Seventy five per cent of the UK land area is in agricultural use. Twenty five per cent of this area is under crops. The fox can in no way be regarded as a pest on arable, dairy or beef farms. Foxes can even be beneficial by virtue of their diet of small mammals and rabbits which can damage crops and reduce available grazing." xi
For 23 years, Clifford Pellow was a professional huntsman with several fox hound packs in England and Wales. He dismisses out of hand the hunts’ excuse for their `sport’ as a means of pest control. "When you’re at your hunt function, such as your hunt dance, you never hear the hunting fraternity say: ‘Oh, we’ll have to kill a fox tomorrow because it killed a chicken or a sheep.’ The reason for hunting is simply to provide sport for, as we term it in the hunting trade, those who follow you." xii Pellow spent his last eight years hunting with the Tredegar Farmers Fox Hounds, Gwent, South Wales. He abandoned his sport after becoming steadily disillusioned with hunting and outraged at the abuse of foxes meted out in breach of hunting’s own codes of conduct.
Pellow says breaches of hunting rules by the Tredegar hunt include fox "bagging". Days before a hunt foxes were live trapped and put into sacks. After being dragged across field to leave a good scent they were released for the hounds to kill. In one case a fox was kept in a milk churn till its appointment with the pack, in another, a bone bin was used as a prison: its terrified occupant was kept there for a week before being stuffed into a sack and taken out to be hunted. "Says Pellow: "I’ve held a fox many times by the scruff and brush and felt how petrified they get; their hearts banging away like hell, farting and excreting and peeing every time the hounds ‘speak’...absolutely ghastly." xiii
The suffering experienced by the hunted fox is prolonged by the use of high-stamina, slower running dogs. Using fast running dogs would not provide the long cross-country gallop which hunters desire. The aim of hunting is not the quick killing of a ‘pest’ but entertainment. Fast running dogs such as lurchers are used where a quick kill is necessary, for example, during poaching.
The evolutionary history of foxes shows they have never been pursued by packs of dogs, or subjected to long-distance pursuit by any other predator. Studies show that foxes avoid areas inhabited by larger predators such as wolves, in part because foxes are sometimes caught and killed by larger predators. When this occurs, the foxes are caught opportunistically, not pursued for long distances. The scientific evidence is clear. Smaller canids are not subjected to long distance pursuits by larger canids, nor are they exposed to long periods of fighting in their underground refuges. Both patterns of behaviour are totally alien.
This submission will show that none of the quarry species hunted with packs of dogs, subjected to long-distance pursuit by dogs, or hunted underground with dogs, is behaving naturally. They are being forced to experience conditions lying far outside normal limits for their species.
There has been a wealth of writing on issues of animal welfare and rights over the past few decades. Wherever one stands in this debate, whatever views one may hold about animals, there is one issue on which all agree. Cruelty to animals - the intentional causing of avoidable suffering, pain and injury - is not acceptable. On this basis, scientific evidence led Professor Bateson to conclude "Hunting with hounds can no longer be justified on welfare grounds, taking into account standards applied in other fields of animal welfare" xiv.
Legislation and practices relating to the killing of animals in other fields, for example, farm and laboratory animals require methods that are painless, achieve rapid unconsciousness and death, involve minimum restraint, avoid excitement, minimise fear and psychological stress. If the reason for hunting deer, fox, hare and mink is, as its proponents argue, truly one of ‘control’ then the methods used should be those that meet accepted welfare standards for other animal species
There are no grounds for controlling or culling hares. Dr Tew, senior vertebrate ecologist for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee: "There is no doubt that hares have been faring badly since the turn of the 20th century … we must now work together to manage the countryside so that hare numbers do not become irreversibly low." xv Hares are the subject of an action plan aimed at increasing their population and doubling the spring hare population by 2010.
Direct scientific evidence for suffering similar to that obtained by Bateson is not available for fox, hare and mink and may prove impossible to obtainxvi. IFAW, therefore, advocates an established welfare precautionary principle: where there is doubt about whether or not animals are suffering, the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the animals. The precautionary principle has been accepted in the fields of international environmental and wildlife protection legislation". xvii
IFAW believes that hunting wild mammals with dogs is self evidently cruel. Most Britons who have seen footage or photographic evidence of foxes, deer, hare and mink being hunted with dogs will agree. We ask the Committee of Inquiry to watch the 40-minute time-coded video that is enclosed with this submission.
In a bid to assist responses to welfare issues posed by the Committee of Inquiry, IFAW commissioned an independent review of the scientific literature on the welfare of all four quarry species. The Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre carried this out. The report ‘The welfare of deer, foxes, mink and hares subjected to hunting by humans: a review" by Professor D. M. Broom is enclosed with this submission.
As the Committee of Inquiry will see the report considers the direct scientific evidence relating to deer and the considerable amount of information available relating to the basic biology of foxes, mink and hares. An analysis of alternative methods of control is carried out as the authors believe "there is little point in banning hunting with hounds if the alternatives do not provide improvements in animal welfare".
The report concludes "it seems likely that the welfare of these animals (deer, fox, hare and mink) will be poor when they are the subject of a chase". Where the animals are considered pests and must be killed, "on average, hunting by chasing with dogs will result in considerably poorer welfare" than specified preferred methods of control. Broom advocates that "wherever possible there should be a preference for careful, accurate shooting or traps which are selective for the target species and kill instantly or restrain without causing poor welfare".
With respect to foxes, the report states "… the fox is an animal with a complex social organisation, scenting system and ecology. The hunt may disrupt their home range, their scent marked territories and social system regardless of whether or not any individual fox becomes the target for the chase. A hunt using dogs would be bound to cause extreme fear and distress in the hunted animal" and concludes that "Careful shooting or trapping will result in a lower net extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs."
In recent years, hunters have downplayed their defence of their ‘sport’ as one that is not cruel, and have increasingly relied on other arguments. Their approach was summarised by Janet George, former chief press officer of the Countryside Alliance: "Wrap hunting up in the wider rural fabric. Because everyone loves the countryside and hates hunting". xviii Hunting has therefore been portrayed as vital to the economic, social and cultural life of the countryside. This submission will demonstrate that this is patently not the case and that legislation to outlaw the hunting of wild mammals with dogs will have very little impact on the rural economy.
Opinion polls reveal that the majority of country dwellers wish to see a ban on huntingxix and that the quality of life of rural people may be adversely affected by hunt havoc, trespass and intimidation. Barry Leathwood, National Secretary of the Rural, Agricultural and Allied Workers section of the TGWU was born on a farm, and now dedicates his life to the issue of rural employment. In 1998 he told a seminar: "We are totally opposed to the unnecessary cruelty which the hunt represents. This policy was decided by our own rural members who work on the farms and estates, who fully understand the issues." xx
A study by Dr Neil Ward of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne examined competing claims about the economic impact of a ban on hunting with dogs. It found that "Any claims that large numbers of jobs will automatically be lost following a ban cannot be sustained by reference to any evidence." xxi Indeed, in respect of the employment opportunities that would result from a transition to bloodless hunts, academics expect a huge growth in the economic impact of drag hunting. Drag and blood hound hunting is already booming - the number of packs doubled between 1988 and 1998. xxii
By far the most important determinant of the economic impact of a hunting ban will be what hunt followers choose to do with their horses. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of hunting horses are kept for dual purposes, and that benign equestrian activities are enjoying unprecedented popularity. xxiii The Scottish Agricultural Census has revealed that, horse numbers have increased faster than in any other area of Scotland in West and Mid-Lothian where the hunt was disbanded in 1991. xxiv
The International Fund for Animal Welfare contends that drag hunting is a suitable replacement, as a leisure activity, for live animal hunting. We believe that interest and participation in drag hunting will burgeon amongst those outside the hunting community once a ban is enacted. We do not seek the introduction of legislation to ban hunting with dogs - we seek an end to the hunting of wild animals with dogs. This ban must be introduced for however significant or insignificant the economic, social and cultural contribution of hunting with dogs, there can be no justification for the continuation of cruelty.
International Damage to Britain’s Reputation
Britain is internationally perceived as a leading proponent of animal welfare and a champion for wildlife protection around the world. However, the failure to ban hunting with hounds is seen as a paradox to this excellent reputation and indeed in some cases as hypocritical. Here is a sample of statements from internationally respected figures:
NETHERLANDS: Willie Swildens-Rozendaal, Member of Parliament, The Hague: "Why the United Kingdom continues to permit foxhunting is a mystery to most politicians around the world. It creates a very bad impression of a country that allows something so cruel and out of place in modern society."
ITALY: Grazia Francescato, Leader of the Green Party:
"Britain has an international reputation as an animal loving country, but this is seriously damaged by fox and stag hunting. These cruel pastimes belong in the 19th century, not the 21st. The UK’s credibility as a leading voice in respect of animal welfare is reduced because of this unsatisfactory situation."
DOMINICA: Mr. Athie Martin, (Government Minister) One of the Caribbean's foremost environmentalists:
"Around the world Britain is looked up to on so many vital animal issues, such as the international ban on whaling. In that light one finds it hard to understand why it allows foxhunting to continue, when there appears no reasonable justification for killing these animals."
CANADA: Professor David Lavigne, Guelph University (leading world expert on seals):
"Britain has taken a leading role in condemning the commercial seal hunt in Canada and it was partially responsible for the European import ban on products from harp and hooded seal pups. The UK’s stance on sealing is attacked, however, on the grounds that it should put its house in order with respect to foxhunting before it preaches to the international community about other animal welfare and wildlife conservation issues."
JAPAN: Mr Kazuo Shima, Delegate to the International Whaling Committee: Accused the UK of "Ethnocentric hypocrisy" in trying to prevent whale eating while "legally permitting foxhunting". He challenged Britain "to prove foxhunting is humane".
CHINA: Mr. Congjie Liang, President of Friends of Nature in China: "Britain’s position as a society with good animal ethics is undermined internationally by bloodsports such as fox and stag hunting. It is setting a very bad example for developing countries that are trying to establish animal welfare standards."
ASIA: Jill Robinson MBE, Founder of Animals Asia:
"The public and successive governments in the UK have played an important role in encouraging the end of animal cruelty in Asia over such issues as bear farming and the use of animals in traditional medicine. It is a pity that Britain’s reputation in the international community is severely damaged by the cruel and archaic practice of hunting with hounds. When Britain condemns animal cruelty it is often dismissed as hypocritical because foxhunting is still permitted."
ICELAND: (Daily Mail 14.5.93) An Icelandic observer (to the IWC) took issue with Mr Gummer’s (John Gummer, Minister of Environment) proposal that members should promote whale-watching tourism, rather than whaling. In that case, he said, "Britain should promote fox-watching."
UNITED STATES: Wayne Pacelle , Senior Vice President, HSUS: "The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal welfare organizations based in America have long looked to the United Kingdom as a leader on animal protection issues, dating back to the early part of the 19th century. The latest effort to ban the inhumane and unnecessary practice of foxhunting is in keeping with your humane tradition. The HSUS, the U.S.'s largest animal protection organization with more than 7 million members and constituents, unreservedly endorses a ban on foxhunting. We hope the anti-foxhunting legislation pending in the House of Commons is expeditiously approved."
____________________________
i Mori. Public Attitudes Towards Hunting With Dogs, summary of Mori research 1996-9
ii On 28 November 1997 MPs in the House of Commons voted by 411 to 151 on Michael Foster MP’s Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill - a record for any private member’s bill.
iii 8/07/99 BBC Question Time - Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister - "It will be banned .. I mean we’ll get a vote to ban it as soon as we possibly can. ….. people like myself, voted in favour of banning hunting". 19/05/98 - letter from 10 Downing Street - "Mr Blair has always made it clear that he would have voted for the 2nd Reading of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) bill … had his duties that day allowed him to be present in the House. March 1998 - in answer to a question posed by a junior member of the RSPCA - "I think fox hunting is the issue that causes the most public concern in the UK. I do think hunting is wrong and I will vote in favour of a ban in the House of Commons".
15/04/97 Sky News - Rt Hon Tony Blair MP - "I’m against hunting … I think it’s particularly vicious"
ivJohn of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. Clement C. J. Webb (Oxford, 1909), i. 21 - 35; Thomas More, Utopia (EL, 1951), 89, 128; Edward Bury, The Husbandsman’s Companion (1677), 222 - 3 cited from Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World, Penguin, 1983.
v J P Hore, The History of the Royal Buckhounds, 1893.
vi E.S Turner, All Heaven in a Rage, Michael Joseph, 1964.
viiLetters and Papers of Henry V111, xiv (2). No. 810 cited from K Thomas op.cit.
viii Jeffrey Olstead, British Field Sports Society, Sunday News and Star, Carlisle, 17 March 1996.
ix Jo Aldridge of the Duke of Beaufort Hunt in The Mirror, February 16, 2000.
x Kevin Hill and Peter White, IFAW Hunt Monitors.
xi Robbie McDonald, Phil Baker, and Stephen Harris, Is the Fox a Pest? The Ecological and Economic Impact of Foxes in Britain, Electra Publishing, 1997. Supplied as Annexe 1.
xii Clifford Pellow, A Brush With Conscience - Why a Huntsman Abandoned his Sport", League Against Cruel Sports, 1997
xiii ibid
xiv Professor Patrick Bateson, FRS, The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer. Report to the Council of the National Trust, March 1997. Supplied as Annexe 2.
xv Foreword by Dr Tew, Senior Vertebrate Ecologist, Joint Nature Conservation Committee in The Current Status of the Brown Hare in Britain, Michael Hutchings and Stephen Harris, 1996
xvi For example, it would be difficult to ensure that a fox hunted at the beginning of a hunt, is the same fox that is eventually caught or dug out.
xvii When listing species under Appendix 1 or 11 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, parties to the Convention are required to "apply the precautionary principle so that scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason for failing to act in the best interest of the conservation of the species. Resolution of the Conference of the Parties, Criteria for Amendment of Appendices 1 and 11, Ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties Port Lauderdale, USA, November 7-18, 1994, Com 9.17.
xviii Janet George, Blood on the Saddle, The Guardian, 13 August 1998
xix Mori
xx 23rd February 1998, Countryside Protection Group Seminar
xxi Dr Neil Ward, Foxing the Nation: Competing Claims About the Economic Impact of a Hunting Ban, University of Newcastle, March 1998. Supplied as Annexe 3.
xxii Baily’s Hunting Directories
xxiii (Baily's, Ward, SQW, Macmillan 99/3&4)
xxiv Dr Douglas Macmillan, After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment, University of Aberdeen, 1999.
CRUELTY IN THE NAME OF SPORT
"I AM CONVINCED THAT PUBLIC OPINION AND BRITISH SOCIETY AT LARGE, UNIMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE DEPLOYED, IS AGAINST THE HUNTING OF WILD ANIMALS WITH HOUNDS; VIEW IT, INDEED, AS A BARBARIC ANACHRONOISM, HOWEVER WELL THE RESTRICTIVE RULES ARE ENFORCED; AND THAT IT WILL ONLY BE A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THESE SPORTS ARE PRHIBITED BY LAW… ALTHOUGH, FOLLOWING DRAG-LINES, THE OLD QUALITY OF THE SPORT WOULD BE MISSING, THE TRADITION, THE PAGENTRY AND THE FRATERNITY WOULD REMAIN. WHETHER THE QUARRY IS LIVE OR FALSE, BRITAIN’S VENATIC THREAD WOULD SURVIVE."
- JNP Watson, who, according to the Guinness Book of Records, has hunted with 267 packs of hunting dogs in Britain, Ireland, the United States and Europe. From ‘Blue and Scarlet – an autobiography’ (1990).
HUNTING WITH DOGS IS A CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY ACTIVITY THAT CAUSES
SUFFERING TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WILD ANIMALS EACH YEAR.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC, IN BOTH URBAN AND RURAL AREAS, WANT THIS ACTIVITY TO BE PROHIBITED BY LAW. A RECORD 411 MPs SUPPORTED A PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL DESIGNED TO AFFECT A BAN.
IT IS PATENTLY IMMORAL TO SET A PACK OF DOGS ON A MAMMAL IN THE NAME OF ENTERTAINMENT. PRESENTLY TEN PER CENT OF HUNTS CHASE AN ARTIFICIAL SCENT. THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE SEEKS LEGISLATION TO FORCE THE REMAINING NINETY PERCENT TO FOLLOW SUIT.
Question 1: What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs, including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are carried out?
1.1 Widespread and Out of Control: Hunting with hounds by unregistered hunters is widespread. In fact the majority of people hunting with dogs are not registered.
1.2 Stress: None of the quarry species hunted with packs of dogs, subjected to long-distance pursuit, or hunted underground with dogs, is behaving naturally and hence they are not adapted to cope with the extreme stress they suffer.
1.3 Not Selective: Claims that hunts are selective to kill the inferior animals cannot be sustained. With stags it is easily disproved by the very mounted head trophies collected by the hunters, as well as by the wealth of video and photographic evidence. Equally with foxes selection is impossible. In particular cub-hunting where woods are surrounded by huntsmen to prevent animals escaping and digging out with terriers cannot be selective.
1.4 Not healthier: There is no evidence that red deer herds that are hunted are healthier than those that are not. Neither is there any evidence to support such assertions for foxes, hare or mink.
1.5 Litany of cruelty and code breaches: Although hunt monitors attend a mere 1% of the days hunted each year they manage to obtain repeated evidence on film of cruelty and breaches of hunting’s own code of conduct.
1.6 Cruelty: Numerous eye witness accounts and video footage testify to how deer suffer terribly during the chase and how they may be attacked by hounds or manhandled before being shot. Foxes are often savaged to death by a pack of dogs, literally torn apart whilst alive – and not dispatched by a ‘quick nip to the neck’ as hunters prefer to claim.
1.7 Evidence from hunters: The evidence from hunters themselves clearly shows that a long chase is common and ‘desirable’. The length of the chase is one of the cruelest aspects of hunting with dogs.
1.8 Hares torn apart alive: In hare coursing, the quarry is often still alive after being savaged by the dog that catches it. Sometimes it ends up in a tug-of-war between two dogs whilst alive, before eventually having its neck broken by a ‘picker-up’.
1.9 Hunts cause havoc to the countryside: People are subjected to trespass, damage to property and abuse. Pets are attacked. Hounds and horses die. There is a substantial cost, hidden and otherwise, for policing, delays to transport systems etc.
Questions 2/3/4: What evidence is there on the importance or otherwise of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/or to particular areas of England and Wales? What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely? To what extent could any detrimental consequences of a ban be offset by greater participation in drag or bloodhound hunting or by other activities or by other measures?
2/3/4.1 Economic Impact: A large body of evidence indicates that the economic impact of a ban on hunting with dogs would be minimal and the genuine number of job losses small.
2/3/4.2 Economic Potential: Clay pigeon shooting became a highly successful sport and business following the ban in 1921 on shooting live pigeons released from traps. Similarly there is the potential for drag hunting to exceed the revenue generated by live animal hunting with dogs. Likewise point-to-point horse racing could prosper far more in terms of sponsorship and media coverage if not tainted with its association with hunting with dogs.
2/3/4.3 Horses: Very few horses are used solely for hunting. Horse ownership unrelated to hunting has sharply increased in recent years, whilst that involved with hunting has declined. Equine based businesses would be unlikely to see any real reduction in horse ownership and more likely a continuation of the increase.
2/3/4.4 Farms: Foxes cause no significant impact on farms or stock. A fact that is supported by the vast majority of farmers. Indeed foxes benefit farmers in being the main predator of rabbits, which do cause considerable damage to crops.
2/3/4.5 Money No Justification: The issue here is cruelty not economy. Financial gains do not justify cruelty.
Question 5: What evidence is there about the need to control the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink?
5.1 Foxes: The fox population in lowland Britain has not changed significantly for many years. In fact foxes are the rarest of the large widespread carnivores in Britain, with lower numbers than badgers for example. Despite the pro-hunting claims to be doing something useful in controlling foxes, there is little or no evidence to suggest that hunting with hounds has any real effect on numbers. It is clear fox populations regulate their own numbers and there is no case for widespread control. There is also no validity in the argument that foxes cause significant losses to agriculture, and are in fact often the ‘farmers friend’ in controlling rabbits and rodents that do considerable damage to crops.
5.2 Deer: Deer numbers have recovered from the disastrous times of the 18th and 19th centuries when populations collapsed and some species became extinct in Britain. However, claims that a resumption of hunting on Exmoor was responsible for the survival of red deer are nonsense. Clearly the public like to see large herds of wild deer and there is likely to be increasing pressure to reduce culls in future. Also more consideration needs to be given to alternatives to culling, such as fencing.
5.3 Hare: The hare population is in decline and hunting with dogs has contributed to this worrying trend. Brown hares are one of the few species of mammal included on the short list of globally threatened and declining species. Conservation rather than control should be a priority.
5.4 Mink: Where control is required in specific areas hunting with dogs is not an effective option. Cage trapping is hugely more efficient.
Question 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?
6.1 No Evidence: There is simply no evidence that hunting with dogs is a valid means of population control for foxes, deer, hare or mink.
6.2 Foxes: Social factors such as food availability determine fox numbers. Fox populations are self-regulating and hunting with dogs has no noticeable impact. Where foxes do need to be controlled there are a variety of efficient techniques available, such as shooting. Night shooting is becoming ever more popular with gamekeepers, and is humane.
6.3 Deer: Deer do need to be controlled, but clearly the 200 killed by hunting with dogs is insignificant compared to the 200,000 culled each year.
6.4 Hare: Far from needing to be controlled, hares to be conserved so their numbers grow.
6.5 Mink: Trapping is by far and away the most effective means of mink control. Hunting with dogs can also leads to otters, which share mink habitat, being killed.
Question 7: What evidence is there about the consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs was banned completely?
7.1 No consequences: The answer to this is simple: there will be no consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs is banned.
7.2 Population control: Hunting with dogs does not kill enough animals to influence population size.
7.3 Farm benefits: Foxes benefit agriculture as a major predator of rabbits, which cause significant damage to crops.
7.4 Deer: Economic losses caused by deer are largely or completely offset by income from venison sales.
Question 8: What other measures, if any, would need to be taken to protect agricultural interests and to control foxes, deer, mink and hares?
8.2 Management Policy: A sensible management policy for British mammals is desirable, and practise of hunting with dogs has hindered the establishment of such a thing..
8.3 Protection: The hunting lobby obstructed legislation to protect badgers and otters as well as blocking the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. From these and other past actions it is evident that wild mammals will only obtain the protection offered to birds and captive animals once hunting is banned.
8.4 Research: It is necessary to ascertain the most effective and humane ways to control wild mammals and from this provide clear guidelines to farmers, landowners and others concerned.
8.5 Management Groups: The success of the British Deer Society in establishing deer management groups should be expanded to those areas currently hunted, where at present their efforts are blocked by hunters.
8.6 Wildlife Viewing: Wildlife tours are developing in Britain and offer considerable potential for future expansion, which should be encouraged.
Questions 9/10: 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? What evidence is there as to its importance generally or in particular areas?
9/10.1 Decline in Hunts: The number of packs of hounds hunting foxes, stags, hares and mink has been in decline for many years with 42 hunts disbanding since 1965. At the same time drag hunting’s popularity is on the increase with the number of packs having trebled in recent years.
9/10.2 Participants: Statistics for the number of participants involved in hunting given by the pro-hunt lobby vary wildly and are repeatedly exaggerated by quite ludicrous amounts.
9/10.3 Farmers Opposed to Hunting: Many farmers are opposed to hunting and most say they suffer no financial loss from foxes.
9/10.4 Rural Opposition: The vast majority of people in rural areas are opposed to hunting with dogs and want it banned.
9/10.5 Riders and Anglers Opposed: Polling shows that most riders (61%) and anglers (73%) want a ban.
9/10.6 Country Life: The social and cultural life in the countryside would not be significantly effected by a ban. Social activities would continue, for example, drag hunt balls would probably be attended by larger numbers and be more inclusive of the whole rural community. Other activities, such as ‘point to point’ would continue and potentially expand.
9/10.7 Old Arguments: The same arguments that cultural and social life in the countryside would collapse were made by those who opposed banning bull baiting in the 19th century. The were subsequently proved wrong.
9/10.8: Damage: Hunting is very unpopular with many farmers and land owners because of the incursions to their land and the damage caused to farm stock and crops.
Question 11: What evidence is there about the present effect of hunting with dogs on preserving or damaging habitats and on the management and conservation of wildlife, including quarry species?
11.1 Habitat Loss: There has been a massive loss of wildlife habitat in British countryside due to agricultural policy.
11.2 Hunting With Dogs Does Not Help: Nationally there is no evidence of any quantifiable benefits to habitat management, hedgerow retention, woodland management etc.
11.3 Damage: Foxhunting can cause extensive damage to badger setts and it is evident that foxhunts do not always obey the law in this respect, let alone codes of conduct.
11.4 Cannot Justify Cruelty: Whilst there is no evidence that hunting with dogs benefits the conservation and management of wildlife and habitats, even it did this would not justify the cruelty it inflicts on 200,000 wild animals annually.
Question 12: What would be the impact on these matters of a ban?
12.1 No Adverse Effects: All the evidence is clear: an end to hunting with dogs will have no adverse effects on the management or conservation of wildlife habitats in Britain.
12.2 Population Impact: Claims that fox and deer populations would decline if hunting with dogs ended are nonsense. The populations continue to increase despite current control operations.
12.3 Cruel: Claims that hunting with dogs is the most humane method of population control are insupportable. Shooting is clearly less cruel.
12.4 Healthy Animals: Research shows that hunting with dogs does nothing to maintain healthy populations.
Questions 13/14: What evidence is there at present about the effect of hunting with dogs on the welfare of the quarry species or on the welfare of other animals, including those used in hunting activities and domestic pets and farm animals which may be affected accidentally? 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?
13/14.1 No Selectivity: Hunting does not benefit the quarry species by selectively culling weak animals.
13/14.2 Video Evidence: Extensive footage shows what common sense dictates: hunting with dogs is inherently cruel.
13/14.3 Cubhunting: The wholesale slaughter of cubs, a few months after birth, is clearly totally unacceptable by any reasonable standards of animal welfare.
13/14.4 Terrier Baiting: It is illegal for a dog to bait a badger underground and dog fighting is illegal. It is therefore perverse to permit terriers to bait foxes underground and the cruelty that involves.
13/14.5 Scottish Ban: It is clearly anomalous that it has been illegal to hunt deer with dogs in Scotland for 40 years but such cruelty remains legal in England and Wales.
13/14.6 Deer Hunting: Research shows that chasing frightened deer to the point of exhaustion causes severe suffering.
13/14.7 Cruel Spectator Sport: Hunting with dogs is no different than other cruel spectator sports from the past, such as dog fighting, cock fighting and badger baiting, all of which have been banned.
13/14.8 Riot: It is clear that hunt dogs kill other species than those intended, including domestic animals. Indeed it is so frequent that hunting has coined the term ‘riot’ to denote this.
13/14.9 ‘Wounds of Honour’: Until recently hunts had ‘most scarred terrier classes’ in their annual shows, and the injuries inflicted to terriers are termed ‘wounds of honour’ by the hunts.
13/14.10 Path of Danger: Hounds are put in the path of danger by hunts, with regular deaths resulting from dogs being hit by trains and cars. This season 14 hounds have already been recorded as killed in this manner.
13/14.11 Annual Hound Slaughter: Each year hunts kill about 3,600 hounds that are beyond their prime as hunting dogs, but are only half the age of a normal dog’s life expectancy.
13/14.12 Horses: Less than 1% of horses are used solely for hunt purposes and it is hard to believe that such valuable animals would be put down rather than sold into the thriving equestrian market.
13/14.13 Animal Welfare: There would be no need for adverse impacts on animal welfare to be caused by a ban. A ban would improve animal welfare substantially.
Questions 15/16/17: What form(s) 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 other action?
15/16/17.1 Illegal: A ban would make it illegal to hunt wild mammals with dogs, or facilitate such hunting, i.e. allow a hunt on their land or provide dogs for such hunting.
15/16/17.2 Exceptions: There would be a number of exceptions, such as allowing someone to use a single dog to retrieve an animal that has been shot.
15/16/17.3 Regulation: A ban is necessary because it is not possible to regulate hunting with dogs in any manner that overcomes the fundamental cruelty.
15/16/17.4 Rights: A ban would not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights or civil liberties.
15/16/17.5 Implementation: A ban should be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.
15/16/17.6 Enforcement: The ban would be enforceable. Courts would have such powers as confiscating dogs if necessary. Hunting with dogs is a high-profile activity and so regulation and enforcement will be relatively simple. Certainly this would be better than trying to regulate hunting, which is impossible. Regulating registered hunts is not achievable, let alone all the other non-registered hunts, which are the majority.
15/16/17.7 Other Action: The ban will have little impact on rural life, as hunting with dogs is peripheral to the countryside. However, the broader real issues about the countryside, including employment, need to be tackled by the government.
What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs, including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are carried out?
Facts about hunting with dogs
Question 1. What factual information do you have about hunting with dogs,
including the organisation of hunting activities and the way those activities are
carried out?
Section 1
Species that are hunted with dogs
1. Hunting with dogs takes many forms. Of the best-known quarry species foxes are hunted with foxhounds, harriers, lurchers and other long-legged dogs as well as with terriers; hares with harriers, beagles, lurchers and other long-legged dogs; mink with foxhounds and otterhounds and, occasionally, terriers; and red deer with foxhounds.
2. In the past, many other species in Britain were hunted with hounds, including fallow, sika and roe deer i, otters ii, pine martens iii , polecats iv and even stoats. Sometimes these prey were hunted by packs bred for the purpose, in other cases packs hunted mixed prey: the Coniston Foxhounds originally hunted foxes, hares and pine martens. v Currently, there is nothing to stop any of these species being hunted again, or indeed for the hunting of new species, such as wild boar, to begin.
3. In addition to traditional hunts it is important to note that many other species are hunted with dogs in a variety of ways. For instance, poachers use deerhounds and other long-legged dogs to hunt all species of deer, especially red, fallow, roe and muntjac. Hares are hunted by whippets, deerhounds, salukis (all of which have registered clubs) and a variety of other long-dogs and there are a variety of terrier clubs dedicated to hunting foxes underground vi.
4. This means hunting with dogs is more widespread than might first appear. The hunting of past quarry species may be resumed, as shown by the reappearance of roe deer hunting in recent years. Equally, packs of mink hounds were only formed from 1978 onwards when otter hunting ceased. Their number is growing (see past editions of Baily's Hunting Directory). It is also important to realise that otter hunting was never made illegal: it ceased only because it was made illegal to kill otters, not because it was made illegal to hunt them with dogs. That protection, from 1978 in England and Wales and throughout Britain from 1982 vii, was on conservation, not welfare grounds. The otter population has since staged a remarkable recovery viii. If, however, the protection otters now enjoy were to cease there is currently no reason why otter hunting could not resume: many of the packs that now hunt mink were formerly otterhound packs.
5. These facts mean it is important to consider hunting with dogs in all its forms and not simply as activities recognised by hunting organisations or listed in Baily's Hunting Directories. For instance, Cobham Resource Consultants identifies more unregistered packs of deerhounds than are registered with the MDHA and while only 23 greyhound clubs are registered with the National Coursing Club there are at least 70,000 owners of lurchers and long-dogs who hunt hares. These unregistered hunters not only constitute the majority of people hunting hares with dogs they put considerable pressure on the population of brown hares: the current winter population is only 750,000 ix. Equally, while registered foxhound packs use terriers to dig out foxes this represents a small proportion of the terriermen in Britain. Cobham Resource Consultants reports that there are 2000 owners of working terriers in Britain, but this is undoubtedly a gross under-estimate. Each year registered packs of foxhounds kill less than 20,000 foxes, yet the terriermen’s tally is estimated at 50,000. A further 10,000 are believed to be killed by lurchers x. Even these numbers, supplied by Wildlife Network, are likely to be a significant under-estimate since their figures include around 110,000 "unexplained" fox deaths, many of which will be attributable to dogs. Therefore it is important to remember that hunting with dogs is far more diverse than the level indicated by registered packs, also that many more animals are killed by dogs not registered by or accountable to bodies like the Master of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA). This means that `codes of conduct’ drawn up by registered packs have little or no influence in the majority of situations where animals are hunted with dogs.
Hunting deer with packs of dogs
1. It is sometimes argued that hunting deer with packs of dogs is "natural" and that it simply replicates what happens when wolves hunt deer. This is manifestly untrue. Generally, deer do not run from packs of wolves - moreover, most deer hunts by wolves are unsuccessful. Healthy deer have little to fear from wolves: most of those which are killed by wolves are either young, old or unhealthy. Mech (1970), for example, reported that on Isle Royale, "any moose was safe from attack if it stood its ground against even a pack of 15 or 16 wolves, whereas moose that ran were almost always chased" xi. He also reported that "even when pursued, prey will stop soon after the wolves give up, and will turn and watch their back trail."
2. Scientific literature is full of examples of typical wolf hunts. Mech reported seven wolves chasing one deer but they gave up within one minute when it was clear the deer was too far away. He also reported seven wolves which stood and faced a female moose and calf; they too gave up within one minute. xii
3. As a typical pattern of events, Mech reported on wolf hunts on 131 moose. xiii Of these, 11 moose left without incident and 24 moose stood their ground and were left alone. Of the 96 that ran, 43 that fled got a good head start and the wolves gave up, 12 subsequently stopped and stood their ground and 34 were attacked/chased as they ran but the wolves gave up. Of the remaining seven, three were calves and four were adults: six of these were killed. Thus, out of 131 moose encountered, only 6 were killed. Peterson also reported that only 5% of wolf encounters led to a kill.xiv Moreover, the distances over which wolves hunt moose are minimal. Mech records that the furthest was 3 miles (41 observations): and in 32 cases they gave up in less than half a mile.
4. Allen found similar results for his studies on moose predation by wolves. Of 49 moose detected, 38 were tested and just one was killed. Allen also shows how wolves select old and very young moose. xv Further examples, with photographs of the wolf hunting behaviour, are given by Peterson. xvi
5. The patterns of hunting are similar with smaller species of deer (mule and white-tailed deer); these are slightly smaller than the red deer on Exmoor. Mech & Frenzel reported that wolves killed deer that were older and with more jaw and limb abnormalities; they reported one case where five wolves hunting deer quit after 250 yards, whereas they chased an arthritic deer for 3.75 miles before killing it. xvii
6. Mech & Korb xviii cite other reports as saying deer are rarely chased by wolves for more than 6 kilometres.xix However, they do give an account of one deer which was chased for 20.8 kilometres over four hours. This was such an unusual event that it warranted a scientific paper - yet this is actually the average distance over which red deer are hunted with hounds in Britain. xx When describing the hunting behaviour of wolves, Mech reported that wolves generally give up if not successful within about 3 kilometres, and only rarely do they keep chasing for more than 5 kilometres. xxi He also reported that whilst wolves hunting moose had 8% success rate, when hunting smaller deer they had a success rate of 25% one winter and 63% the following winter.
7. Mech gives further examples of deer hunted by wolves.xxii He believes the main defence used by deer is their ability to detect wolves at a distance and make a very fast, short sprint to safety before the wolves can dash in. This appeared to indicate that wolves give up the hunt quickly. His conclusion is supported by a large number of observations. For instance, he recorded nine instances of wolves chasing deer in Minnesota; the longest chase was 0.5 miles. Mech xxiii also noted that Dixon xxiv "never saw tracks where wolves had chased their victims for more than 200 yards", and that Murie xxv and Banfield xxvi each described cases of wolves chasing caribou for only short distances before giving up. Murie also gave several accounts of wolves pursuing Dall sheep for a similar distance. Rutter & Pimlott xxvii recorded three instances of deer kills by wolves; in two instances the deer were killed by ambush, the third killed within 700 yards by lone wolf.
8. Observations of wolves hunting red deer in Europe are fewer but the available data confirms the results from America. For instance, Bibikov xxviii reviewed the behaviour of wolves hunting red deer in the USSR. He also describes situations where wolves either do not chase deer even when hungry or give up after a short chase. As in America, he declares "When the prey stands its ground as the wolf approaches, the latter usually withdraws". He also quotes many examples of wolves choosing to hunt injured or diseased caribou and red deer.
9. So the evidence from wolf hunts is clear. Generally, few wolf hunts are successful, healthy deer (and other prey) are not particularly worried by wolves and in most cases are not chased for long distances. The main function of the chase is to detect signs of weakness in the prey. This is confirmed by both Murie studying Dall sheep and Crisler xxix with caribou: both reported that chases were short unless the wolves detected injured or weak prey. Crisler also reported that she was impressed with "how quickly the wolves had judged when a chase was useless". Burkholder stated that "of the 22 fresh kills made, none showed evidence of a long chase".xxx Because chases are often unsuccessful, wolves often use ambushes to catch their prey. Mech reported that most wolf-deer kills during winter are located on frozen lakes, rivers and beaver ponds; this is probably because these are the situations in which deer are at a disadvantage and hence most easily caught. xxxi
10. So, the normal pattern of wolves hunting deer is for the wolves to "test" their prey to see if any are weak or vulnerable and to pursue only sick animals. Chases that do occur are generally short and only a few wolf encounters lead to a kill. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that deer do not normally flee from wolf packs. Nor is it surprising that Bateson concluded that red deer are not designed for long-distance pursuits: these do not occur in natural situations and there is no reason for red deer to have evolved the ability to undergo long-distance flights. xxxii
11. The question remains: why do deer run long distances from packs of dogs (average for successful hunts just over 19 kilometres and three hours as documented by Bateson & Bradshawxxxiii), and continue to run until they are totally exhaustedxxxiv, when they do neither when hunted by wolves? In fact accounts of hunting show that red deer are reluctant to run from dogs: when selecting a stag to hunt, around ten tufters are used to try to isolate the animal.xxxv Hinds are even harder to separate from the herd to hunt and tufters are not used. xxxvi Even then, getting deer to run can be difficult: Whitehead, for instance, reports that "old stags, once bedded down, are often loath to move".xxxvii
12. Hunted deer are chased by a large number of hounds, greatly in excess of the average hunt by wolves: for deer the size of fallow and red, wolves would normally hunt in packs of less than ten. It is unclear whether it is the large number of hounds and/or the presence of mounted followers that ensures a deer does not stop and stand its ground (as frequently occurs in wolf hunts). Bateson's observation that "the greater the number of different stressful events [i.e. the number of times that the deer came into close contact with hounds, humans on foot, or had its escape route blocked by hunt followers] that occurred during a hunt, the shorter the distance and duration of the hunt" suggests it is the number of dogs and people that causes this unusual behaviour and that the greater the stress, the quicker the animal becomes exhausted. This is reinforced by Bateson's conclusion that "tiring animals exerted themselves maximally until the end". xxxviiiThe behavioural comparison with "natural" hunts with wolves reinforces this conclusion. For a deer to exhibit such unusual behaviour, it must be stressed in some way and this stress begins when the hunt does. If it was not stressed it would not embark on a period of extended flight: it would stand its ground until the predators withdrew. Thus the behaviour of hunted red deer does not equate with the claim by Yandle that "it is doubtful that the deer are aware of being hunted until the final stages of the hunt".xxxix It does, however, agree with Bateson's conclusions that "the prolonged exercise of the hunt is not natural for red deer" and that "hunts with hounds impose extreme stress on red deer and are likely to cause them great suffering".
Hunting other quarry species with dogs
1. The same arguments apply to the other quarry species but there is little data on natural patterns of predation with which we can make comparisons. The argument applied to red deer is even more true for roe deer. These small forest deer rely on crypsis rather than long-distance flight for protection; yet roe deer are currently hunted by hounds in Britain. Since the packs are not registered, little information is available on their activities.
2. Mink are not a traditional quarry; mink hunting in Britain only started when otters became protected. Apart from chance kills there is no natural process where mink are hunted by larger predators. Whilst there is a negative relationship between mink and otter numbersxl, no one knows how competition between the two species actually operates. Even if otters kill mink rather than just displace them, this will not occur after a long chase or hunt.
3. This argument is true in the case of hares. While there is no data on the physiological ability of European hares to undertake long flight, it is clear this is not normal behaviour. Therefore we must assume they are not adapted to it. Holley has shown that they respond very differently to foxes, their main predator, than to dogs. xli When closely approached by foxes across open ground, hares stand, face the fox and make themselves obvious. In most cases this ends the hunt by the fox, since foxes hunt hares by stalking and ambush, not by coursing. A fox can approach a feeding hare quite closely without eliciting flight, although the hare will keep the fox under careful observation. Dogs that course hares have been bred specifically for that purpose. Since the wild progenitor of the dog (the wolf) is not built for, and does not, course small prey such as hares (when they are caught by wolves, this is from ambush or after a very short dash), there is no wild predator that courses European hares or pursues them for long distances. This means hares have no natural response to such a predator and long-distance flight, either from a greyhound or a slower pack of dogs, is not seen in nature. The only possible exception to this is for those species of hares (not the European brown hare) hunted by cheetahs in Africa: then there is a short chase. We do not know if these species of hares show behavioural or physiological adaptations to such predators not seen in European hares. All we do know is that the pattern of hunting with dogs currently seen in Britain is abnormal and does not elicit the normal predator responses of European brown hares.
4. The same is true for foxes. In their evolutionary history they have never been pursued by packs of dogs, or subjected to long-distance pursuit by any other predator. It is true that fox numbers are lower where wolves and/or coyotes co-exist, e.g. in North Americaxlii. Studies such as these have shown that fox numbers are lower in areas where wolves are most active or, alternatively, foxes establish territories which intersect those of coyotes. Clearly, foxes avoid contact with larger predators, in part because foxes are sometimes caught and killed by larger predators. When this occurs, the foxes are caught opportunistically, not pursued for long distances. How such competition works is unclear, as is the actual importance of predation by larger members of the dog family. One thing is clear: smaller canids are not subjected to long distance pursuits by larger canids, nor are they exposed to long periods of fighting in their underground refuges. Both patterns of behaviour are totally alien and, as such, cannot be considered patterns of behaviour to which the quarry species is adapted to respond.
5. Therefore, none of the quarry species hunted with packs of dogs, subjected to long-distance pursuit by dogs, or hunted underground with dogs, is behaving naturally. They are not adapted to cope with such stress.
Are hunts selective?
1. Some have claimed hunts are selective and help maintain the health of the quarry species. For instance, Yandle asserts that the average size of the deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks "is noticeably larger than elsewhere in Britain".xliii This claim, though often repeated, is wrong. Lowland red deer are, not surprisingly, bigger than upland deer, and the biggest in Britain, both in terms of body and antler size, are to be found in East Anglia, especially the Thetford area, not south-west Britain.
2. Yandle said that "inferior young stags are hunted to ensure the best genes are passed on to future generations"xliv, an assertion often used to justify hunting with hounds. However, it shows a lack of understanding of basic deer biology. Most red deer stags never breed; they have a polygamous mating system in which only the best stags manage to breed successfully - see Clutton-Brock, Guinness & Albon for a description of the process. xlv Since inferior stags do not get the chance to breed, there is a very effective selective system already in operation and hunting does not benefit it. In fact, hunting is positively disruptive to the selection process. The big stags are selectively hunted in the autumn during the rut; these are actually the breeding stags, not as Yandle states, the "oldest stags which will have passed their best as contributors to the breeding herd".xlvi That the stags hunted in autumn are prime stags can be seen from mounted heads and photographs and films of hunts. Furthermore, hunting autumn stags physically disrupts harems, allowing younger and possibly inferior stags mating opportunities whilst the dominant stag is being hunted. There are numerous books describing best management practices for selectively culling red deer e.g. de Nahlik. xlvii
3. There is no evidence that the red deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks are in any better condition as a result of being hunted than herds of red (and other) deer that are not hunted.
4. The same applies to other species hunted by dogs. It is frequently argued that fox hunting preferentially selects the young, the old and the weak, thereby maintaining the health of the fox population. Again, there are no data to support the assertion that fox hunting is selective; two key processes, cub-hunting (whereby woods are surrounded to prevent animals escaping) and digging out animals that are pursued to ground, cannot be selective. Furthermore, such assertions are biologically incorrect. Unhealthy or unfit carnivores do not survive for long, either because they are unable to compete with conspecifics or because they cannot hunt successfully. Hunting plays no part in this process: if it did, the only logical argument would be that populations of wolves, or lions, or other carnivores with no natural predators are consequentially unfit and have an undesirably high proportion of unhealthy animals. This is clearly untrue. Similarly, there is no evidence that either mink or hare populations benefit from being hunted and that chasing then killing these animals maintains more healthy populations.
Section 2
1. This section is aimed at highlighting the facts about hunting obtained from eyewitness accounts from hunters and hunt monitors, film footage and hunting literature. Examples are chosen to assist the inquiry’s queries regarding the length of the chase and the nature of the kill contained in its explanatory note to Question 1. This section also pertains to Question 13 concerning animal welfare.
2. Time coded video film accompanies this part of our submission. This was filmed by two hunt monitors who have worked for both IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports. A shot list appears in Appendix 1. For ease of reference, all incidences are mentioned in the text together with the appropriate time code.
3. When reviewing footage obtained by hunt monitors, it should be noted that according to the Countryside Alliance there are 22 000 hunting days in a year. Hunt monitors are present on only 200 to 300 days a year. Even so, they manage to obtain footage that demonstrates both the cruelty of hunting and breaches of hunting’s own codes of conduct. This is despite the fact that hunts are aware that their activities are under scrutiny as never before.
Foxhunting
1. For hunters, one of the key aspects of a "successful" hunt is one that involves a long chase. As Captain R E Wallace stated: "As I’ve said we are not a pest destruction society. I would rather account for a fox at the end of good run than ’chop’ it at the beginning." xlviii
2. A "good run" for a fox hunt lasts typically one to two hours, but sometimes much longer. To encourage such lengthy chases and ensure foxes cannot seek refuge, earths and badger setts in the vicinity of a meet are often blocked up beforehand. Two IFAW monitors with 24 years’ experience between them have witnessed hunts lasting as long as three hours in which foxes were forced to run up to an estimated 25 miles.
3. The stopping up of badger setts causes concern to badger protection groups. Setts are sometimes ‘hardstopped’ to prevent foxes escaping underground. The use of hard material to stop holes is a breach of hunting rules and may lead to badgers suffocating in their setts. At the very least it forces them to waste valuable foraging time when they dig themselves out. Damage to badger setts may also occur when hunted foxes manage to gain access to them. IFAW hunt monitors in the New Forest filmed an example, of the interference caused to a badger sett by hunting. The footage will be seen on the video at time code 10:10:32 – 10:11:42. Further evidence of harm caused to badgers by hunting activities may be seen at time code 10:35:20 – 10:35:27. This shows a boy holding a badger’s tail at last year’s Waterloo Cup hare coursing event. He boasted of killing a badger cub that morning.
4. Members of terrier clubs have also been convicted of badger-digging offences. Enforcement of badger protection legislation is made difficult by the fact that suspects are able to claim they were digging for foxes. xlix . There have been several prosecutions of which further details may be obtained from the RSPCA.
5. These extracts, taken at random from a few back issues of Horse and Hound confirm the grueling nature of the hunt for the fox:
6. It should be noted that the authors of these Horse and Hound accounts refer to hunts lasting 45 or 50 minutes as ‘fast’ or ‘exceptionally fast’.
7. During the debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill in 1997, Michael Foster MP quoted Alan Cure, the former master of the Worcestershire Hunt who claimed the longest recorded run, "from the place where they found to that where they killed is more than 50 miles in a straight line and with a compass of the ground which must have been covered, the distance could not have been less than 80 or 90 miles".
8. A hunted fox eventually becomes exhausted. It cannot compete with the superior stamina of the slower running hounds. Where it is unable to find a refuge in an earth or hole, it will tire. The hounds will catch up, swarm over it and kill it.
9. Hunters often assert that foxes taken above ground are killed by a quick nip to the back of neck by the lead hound, breaking the foxes’ spine. But postmortem reports on the bodies of hunted foxes recovered by hunt monitors and eye witness accounts show this is often not the case - rather, the foxes tend to be savaged to death, sustaining appalling injuries in the process, or are literally torn apart. (Very few hunters actually witness the fox’s death: the Master of Fox Hounds Association’s own code of conduct actually discourages them from being in at the kill.) Moreover, hounds are described in hunting literature as bearing ‘wounds of honour’ – scars from bites inflicted by foxes fighting for their lives. These prove that foxes are not killed instantaneously by the lead hound.
10. Footage at time code 10:00:25 – 10:00:37 shows the injuries inflicted to a fox by the Taunton Vale Foxhounds. The fox has been disemboweled. Footage at time code 10:07:53 – 10:08:17 shows a fox cub that is killed by hounds only after several attempts.
11. The following veterinary reports on the bodies of hunted foxes tell against the "nip on the neck" story:
12. The British Field Sports Society’s own promotional hunting video, "Hunting - The Facts", shows a fox being chased by hounds. The commentary claims the fox is killed instantly by the "bite to the back of the neck" from the lead hound, but the actual kill is not shown. liii However, the Blencathra Fox Hunt used the same footage in their own video, in which the kill sequence runs several seconds longer: it shows the fox was, in fact, caught by a number of dogs and was bitten on different parts of its body. liv
13. The hunt is not over for foxes that manage to escape the hounds by ‘going to earth’ - finding refuge in an open hole. Hunters describe these foxes as ‘unsporting’. The terrier men who support foxhunts deal with such foxes. They put a terrier down the hole to locate the fox underground. If the fox bolts, the hunt resumes. Invariably, the fox does not bolt and the terrier’s job is to keep it at bay until the terrier men uncover it by digging. When the fox is dug up, it should according to hunt rules be either set free or humanely killed.
14. Peter White, a hunt monitor for 14 years comments: "The hunts say they use terriers to bolt the fox. But when a terrier is sent into a fox’s earth what you get is effectively a dog fight underground. Both animals can suffer terrible injuries, losing ears, eyes, and parts of their faces. A terrier may also be introduced to a hole in which there is a badger, this happens a fair bit and a badger is a tough animal. The terrier is often ripped to shreds. The hunts also say the terrier just holds the fox at bay, pinning it into a corner, till the terrier man digs down to it. Terriers don’t do that. They attack and lock on. They’ll hold a fox by its throat or face and will not let go. We’ve got footage of a terrier pulling a fox out of a drain by its throat."
15. Another observer of terrier work was Adam Nicolson, a journalist who spent a day with the Blencathra fox hounds. An extract of his report for the Sunday Telegraph was read by Michael Foster MP during the debate on his Bill on 28 November 1997: "From above ground we could hear the terrible fighting below us, the screaming of dog and fox was only partly muffled by the layers of earth and rock that separated us from it. The noise moved for about 10 minutes … and then went quiet. The huntsman, whipper-in and the followers stood listening in silence … Then the huntsman said ‘All right, that’s us then’ and headed back downhill. It was just before nine in the morning. ‘But what about your dog?’ I said to the terrier man as we walked down. ‘Oh’, he said, ‘that’s all right, it’ll either be dead and the fox will be eating it or the fox will be dead and she’ll be eating the fox. Don’ worry, I’m sure she’ll be back home in a couple of days, once she’s slept the whole thing off’".
16. Incidences of terrier work on the video that accompanies this part of the submission, include:
17. A great deal of suffering is caused to both foxes and terriers by this aspect of hunting. In ‘The Impact of Sport Hunting: A Case Study", Dr D Macdonald and P I Johnson stated "It is arguable that a large proportion of the cruelty associated with fox hunting occurs when, having gone to ground, foxes are dug out using terriers. Banning the use of terriers would radically reduce, although certainly not eliminate, the cruelty in hunting". lv
18. In 1991, an undercover hunt monitor, posing as a supporter, filmed a fox being dug out live and thrown to the hounds. They chased it and quickly killed it. This footage was kept by the League Against Cruel Sports for one month to establish whether any hunt members would complain about this blatant breach of the rules. There were none. Only after the film had been shown internationally on news programmes, did the footage lead to the suspension of all four hunt masters.
19. Clifford Pellow, a former huntsman, calls the terrier men "the thugs of the hunt. They are a law unto themselves…if you get too close when they are digging out and producing a fox - 90% of the time by foul means - they become aggressive. They are aggressive because, deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong and they believe you will see something and report them. What’s in it for them is that they get the fox in the end. It doesn’t matter whether they throw it to the hounds, bash it on the head with a spade or stick an iron bar through its guts. And I’ve seen it all." But Pellow believes hunting is unjustifiable even when hunts actually follow their own rules. Cubbing appalls him: "It is a barbaric, hideous business in which the victims are still completely and utterly inexperienced and still dependent on their mothers."
20. Cubbing is used to train the hounds and takes place three months prior to the start of the official foxhunting season. Foxhounds do not hunt foxes instinctively. They have to be trained and encouraged to do so. "A deer is a more natural quarry for a hound" commented John Stride, a Master of the New Forest Buckhounds "After all you have to teach it to hunt a fox". lvi
21. To teach the new, young hounds to chase and kill foxes, the pack is taken to a small wood or ‘covert’ where a family of foxes is known to live. The pack is sent in and set onto the fox cubs. If a cub manages to escape by leaving the wood, riders and foot followers who have the area surrounded, drive them back. Footage showing this operation may be seen at time code 10:08:19 – 10:10:27. Filmed in August and September the scenes show cubs being headed back towards the hounds by riders and being chased by hounds.
22. Most fox cubs are born in March, some in April. Therefore, when cubbing begins in August, the cubs are only four to five months old. The foxhunting season starts in November and continues through March into April. Some hunts operate until early May. This means that pregnant and lactating females may also be killed in contradiction of hunt claims that efforts are made not to hunt or kill vixens when they are breeding.
23. In 1980, the late Duke of Beaufort who was Master of the Beaufort Hunt and President of the British Field Sports Society wrote "It is essential that the hounds should have their blood up and learn to be savage with their fox before he is killed. A sleeping cub killed by two or three enquiring hounds is of no use whatsoever to the rest of the pack who will only wander up after everything is over to see what has happened, and nothing would have been learned". lvii
Deer hunting
1. Red deer are hunted by three packs of hounds in the West Country - the Tiverton, the Quantock and the Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Fallow deer were hunted by the New Forest Buckhounds until mid-1997 when the hunt was disbanded.
2. Mature males, hinds and young males are hunted at different times of the year. Riders and hounds split up the whole herd until either a suitable stag is running alone or a hind has been singled out. There is no element whatsoever of selection with hinds - the first one to break off on her own is hunted. At the start of the hind season, hinds may have a totally dependent calf at foot. These calves have great difficulty keeping up during the chase. The target hind will double back trying to urge the calf on, sometimes nudging it. Eventually, she will be forced to abandon the calf to run for her life. Footage of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds chasing non target deer and heading a very tired hind and calf filmed on 9/12/99 will be seen at time code 10:31:40 – 10:33:09.
3. The hounds are bred for stamina and their ability to sustain the pace over the hours tires the hunted animal. Deer run and may collapse many times before they either slow to a point that the hounds catch up or simply lie down, unable to run any further.
4. The duration of a hunt varies according to the time of year. An adult stag in August or September "may run all day until darkness falls - a matter of some eight hours or more". lviii In October with the debilitating effect of the rut, the stags may be caught after one or two hours. Hinds are able to run longer in November and December (in the early stages of pregnancy) than in January and February when their pregnancy is advanced.
5. The average duration of hunts for 61 deer studied by Bateson, was 3 hours with an estimated distance of about 12 miles (19 kilometres). lix
6. Kevin Hill and Peter White, hunt monitors for IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports have known "stag hunts that last from the morning to 8pm and they even go equipped with torches". Kevin Hill says, "The terrible exhaustion of a deer at the end of a hunt is tragic. You might first have seen them at 11.30am and here they are in mid-afternoon, still trying to run".
7. The pro-hunt lobby claimed for many years that "The stag (in stag hunting) is not hunted to exhaustion, it stands at bay, as it would to a wolf, until it is cleanly dispatched with a rifle. lx The claim that deer when hunted with hounds react just as they would in the wild if hunted by a wolf pack has already been addressed (see above Hunting Deer With Dogs paragraphs 1 – 10). The exhaustion suffered by hunted deer has been graphically proven. Bateson stated: "The Scientific Panel were unanimous in their view that hunting a deer makes demands upon the muscles to the limits of cellular capacity and approaching pathological levels." lxi
8. As the hunt progressed, "the overall posture of the animal changed and it was more likely to be seen lying, standing or walking. Deer panted more after the first fifteen minutes, and were more likely to have foam on their muzzles at the end of hunts. Despite such indications of fatigue, the frequency with which the deer cantered at different stages of the hunt did not vary. This suggests that the animals exerted themselves maximally to the end." lxii
9. Footage of animals that are in the words of Bateson "pushing themselves as much as they are able and risking a great deal in order to save their lives" will be seen at the following time codes:
10. Professor Bateson found that the frequencies with which hunted deer came into close contact with hounds and humans or where its escape route was blocked by hunt followers or supporters had a direct correlation to the duration of the hunt. The greater the number of stressful events that occurred, the shorter the distance and duration of the hunt. Examples of such stressful incidences on IFAW’s accompanying footage are riders and followers heading a stag at time code 10:18:15 – 10:19:04 and a stag apparently being whipped on to prolong the Devon and Somerset Staghounds hunt at time code 10:26:12 – 10:26:47.
11. Hunters claim that hounds hold the deer at bay and do not attack and that deer are humanely killed with a single shot at the end of the hunt either using a prescribed shot-gun or a humane killer. Hunt monitors that show that this is not always the case have filmed many incidences. In reality, the hounds may reach the deer before the hunt followers. If the hunt gun is not at hand, hunt followers may or may not be able to both manhandle the dear and keep off the hounds until the gun arrives and it can be killed. The kill may or may not be clean. Of the four kills witnessed or videoed during the fieldwork of Bateson’s study for the National Trust, deer were not killed instantaneously on half the occasions.
12. The licence of the New Forest Buckhounds was suspended on several occasions. In 1995 hunt monitors filmed hounds attacking a live deer, leading to a one day suspension. In 1996 monitors filmed another buck being attached by hounds, resulting in a three-day licence suspension. Footage of this event will be seen at time code10:14:25 –10:14:37. Peter White who took the film said "One of the worst aspects of hunting I’ve seen is when deer are brought down by hounds and having chunks ripped out of them before anyone comes along to shoot them. The hunts claim this never happens. Hounds that chase their `dinner’ for hours on end are not going to stop at the end, are they? They pile in."
13. On 3 April 1999 hounds of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds attacked a stag - please see footage at time code 10:17:28 – 10:18:14. At time code 10:21:01 – 10:22:28 a stag will be seen engulfed by hounds of the Quantock Staghounds. Time code 10:29:34 shows an injured hind bring held by ears as a hound bites rear. On 5 February 2000 hounds of the New Forest Foxhounds killed a fallow deer - a non target species. This will be seen at time code 10:38:57 – 10:42:24.
14. Professor Bateson commented "We did not ourselves see any instances of hounds biting deer but what was shown on one video tape convinced us that biting does occur sometimes. While we believe such incidences of biting are uncommon, they may occur more than direct observation or video recordings suggest". He added that for up to 15% of hunting time during his study "some or all of the tufters or full pack were hunting without a hunt staff or mounted followers in attendance". He also noted that "the video evidence of hounds attacking a red deer stag on (29 August 1995) as well as video evidence of a fallow deer buck (29 November 1996) clearly shows that hounds did have one or more huntsmen standing by". He concluded, "it seems likely that hounds, bred specifically for hunting, will periodically attack deer if the opportunity arises".
15. Professor Bateson commented "We say a kill in only four cases and in two of these the deer shot at by the hunt staff did not die instantly. Although such woundings are evidently a cause of stress we do not know how common they are. Of greater concern may be the number of incidents in which deer are handled by people at the end of the hunt. The hunt estimated they used a humane killer, which usually involved holding the deer, at 20-30% of the kills". Incidences of deer being manhandled whilst hunt members await the person with the gun or humane killer, some of which involve a risk of the deer drowning, have also been filmed and are shown at the following time codes:
16. Botched kills have been filmed on numerous occasions. Incidences shown on the video that accompanies this evidence include:
17. When considering the issue of botched kills, it is important to note that one of Bateson’s key conclusions was that the suffering arising from deer being hunted with hounds was great whether or not the deer were eventually killed. "The forced chase of red deer, that are normally sedentary, for an average of more than 19 km produces changes that could hardly be more severe in welfare terms. The results are so clear-cut that it is not even necessary to invoke the principle of giving the animal the benefit of the doubt."
Hare hunting and coursing
1. Hares are hunted from October to March by packs of beagles, harriers and basset hounds. A single hare is hunted until it is killed or lost. As with all hunting with dogs the victim is beaten not by speed or stamina. The superior stamina of the dogs wears the hare down until it is simply overwhelmed by the hounds and killed.
2. The hunting season does not end until after some litters of leverets have been born. Does killed will therefore leave dependent young. These facts contradict hunt statements that hares are left undisturbed during the breeding season.
3. Hare coursing involves the setting of two dogs, usually greyhounds, on a hare. The hares are either beaten onto a field, flushed out or as in Northern Ireland and Eire, caught and held captive until being released into an enclosed area. Unlike in hare hunting and other hunting, the dogs used in coursing are faster than the hare. They are awarded points for turning their lead over the other dog, the way in which they turn the hare and for a kill.
4. Coursing enthusiasts claim that when a hare is caught it dies instantaneously from the bite of one dog. However, as video footage taken at last year’s Waterloo Cup event illustrates, see time code 10:33:13 – 10:35:04, when caught, hares may suffer in a tug of war between the two dogs. This will last until a ‘pickers-up’; one of the coursing officials stationed around the field can reach the dogs and remove the hare. At this point the hare may still be alive and screaming.
5. After being taken from the dogs’ jaws, the hare is killed, usually by having its neck broken. Film footage from last year’s Waterloo Cup at the above time code shows a hare being pulled from the dogs and having its neck broken. It appears that the ‘pickers-up’ either had difficulty in breaking the animal’s neck or repeated the action several times in order to make sure. A hare may suffer if the person involved is inexperienced at neck breaking.
Mink hunting
1. In l978 the precipitous decline of Britain’s otter population led to their full protection under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Order. Deprived of otters to pursue and kill, the hunters then switched to hunting mink: by the early 1990s there were at least 16 packs.
2. Mink hunts use either otter hounds or foxhounds that are followed by foot supporters. When scented and pursued by the dogs, the mink almost invariably hide in riverbank trees or holes. The hunters will then try to dig out or dislodge the mink, frequently resorting to extreme and environmentally damaging methods. These methods are graphically illustrated in the League Against Cruel Sports video "Rural Vandals."
3. In one sequence a mink escapes a mink hound pack by climbing up a tree. A hunter first shakes the tree to try to dislodge the mink, then knocks it off a branch with a long stick. The mink hides in a hole at the base of the tree. After trying in vain to bolt the mink by hitting the trunk with spades, the hunt arrange for the tree to be felled. As a chainsaw begins cutting through the trunk, the terrified mink rushes up the inside of the tree and again takes refuge in the branches, where it is once more dislodged. Eventually the mink is caught and held underwater by a member of the hunt in an attempt to drown it. Its head is then stoved in with a heavy implement to ensure it is dead. The carcass is pulled round a field on a string for the benefit of the pack, which are finally encouraged to tear it to pieces.
4. Another sequence shows a hunt digging out a mink from a riverbank hole, possible a former otter holt, seemingly oblivious to the damage they are causing. This mink is finally pulled out and thrown, alive, to the dogs.
5. The damage and disturbance caused to river environments by mink hunts is made worse because they hunt from March to September, during which time riverside birds and mammals, including the mink, are breeding and rearing their young. As well as disturbing these creatures, the hunts also pose a significant threat to the habitat of otters, which are now beginning to recolonise their former river territories. Many conservation and environment authorities oppose mink hunting for these reasons:
6. On 26 September last year, two locals clashed with mink hunters on the banks of the river Derwent. They were concerned that the hunt would disturb newly established families of otters. The hunt claimed that they had permission of the landowners but this was not the case. The property manager for the National Trust which owns land on one side of the river bank at the area in question said: "We manage the river banks …and the woods. .. There is no way we would tolerate mink hunting here, we have just got otters back and we wouldn’t want to disturb them". lxvi
7. Mink hunters claim their "sport" is a means of controlling mink. But it is a hugely ineffective method. Britain’s hunts kill only a few hundred in a season, a negligible proportion of the total population. And those mink which are killed are rapidly replaced by itinerant mink or neighbouring individuals extending their own river territory.
8. Dr John Birks has studied mink hunting in Devon. He found that one day’s hunting by one pack covered the territories of just six mink. The hounds found three and killed only one: a neighbour soon occupied its territory. lxvii He says, "The suggestion mink hunting controls mink is laughable. The number killed by hounds is insignificant. In five years one man trapped and shot 119 mink on a short stretch of Devon river; over the same period…the Devon and Cornwall Minkhounds killed only four." lxviii
Hunt Havoc
1. Hunting with dogs does not only affect the quarry, it causes havoc in the countryside. People are subjected to trespass, damage to property and abuse. Pets are attacked. Hounds and horses die. Road and rail traffic is delayed. Examples of such incidences will be seen at the following time codes:
Tiverton stag hounds. Stag shot in garden without owner's permission.26.10.92.
Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Foxhounds. Hound being run over by train, leg severed. 08.02.95.
Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Traffic chaos.1998/1999 season.
10:40:24 - 10:40:50
8 hounds electrocuted on railway.
Cottesmore. Horse killed on road. September 99.
Quorn - unattended hounds on road. 11.11.99.
New Forest Foxhounds, deer killed by hounds. 05.02.00.
2. A glance at newspapers during the hunting season reveals the extent of hunt havoc:
3. When opponents of hunting with dogs highlight such incidences, there are two standard defences. The first is that the incident took place years ago and that hunts have now cleaned up their acts. If the case is more recent, the second defence will be used – it was an isolated incident and will not happen again. Examination of the number and nature of reported incidences reveals that they occur on a regular basis and can in no way be described as isolated. For further information regarding the 97/98 and start of 98/99 hunting season please read the Hunt Havoc section in our response to Question’s 9 and 10 regarding Social and Cultural Life of the Countryside and the accompanying two booklets and video "Out of Control in the Countryside" submitted in the appendices.
___________________________
i Whitehead, G.K. (1993) The Whitehead encyclopedia of deer. Swan Hill, Shrewsbury.
ii Strachan, R. & Jefferies, D.J. (1996) Otter survey of England 1991-1994. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.
iii Webster, J.A. (2000) A review of the historical evidence of the habitat of the pine marten in Cumbria. Mammal Review, in press.
iv Blandford, P.R.S. (1987) Biology of the polecat Mustela putorius: a literature review. Mammal Review, 17, 155-198.
v Webster. Op.cit.
vi Cobham Resource Consultants (1997) Countryside sports - their economic, social and conservation significance. Standing Conference on Countryside Sports, Reading.
vii Corbet, G.B. & Harris, S. (1991) The handbook of British mammals (third edition). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
viii Strachan & Jefferies op.cit.
ix Temple, R., Clark, S. & Harris, S. (2000) Changes in the British hare population between 1993 and 1999. Unpublished report to the People's Trust for Endangered Species – Supplied as Annexe 4.
x Pye-Smith, C. (1997) Foxhunting - beyond the propaganda. Wildlife Network, Oakham, Rutland.
xi Mech, L.D. (1970) The wolf: the ecology and behaviour of an endangered species. University of Minnesota Press, London.
xii Mech, L.D. (1966) Hunting behaviour of timber wolves in Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy, 47, 347-348.
xiii Mech, 1970 op.cit.
xiv Peterson, R.O. (1995) The wolves of Isle Royale: a broken balance. Willow Creek Press, Minocqua, Wisconsin.
xv Allen, D.L. (1993) The wolves of Minong. University of Washington Press, London.
xvi Op.cit
xvii Mech, L.D. & Frenzel, L.D. (1971) Ecological studies of the timber wolf in northeastern Minnesota. North Central Forest Experiment Station, US Department of Agriculture.
xviii Mech, L.D. & Korb, M. (1978) An unusually long pursuit of a deer by a wolf. Journal of Mammalogy, 59, 860-861.
xix Mech, 1966 op.cit, Mech & Frenzel op.cit and Kolenosky, G.B. (1972) Wolf predation on wintering deer in east central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management, 36, 357-369.
xx Bateson, P. (1997) The behavioural and physiological effects of culling red deer. Report to the Council of the National Trust, London.
xxi Mech, L.D. (1975) Hunting behaviour in two similar species of social canids. In The wild canids (ed. M.W. Fox), pp. 363-368. Van Nostrand Reinhold, London.
xxii Mech, 1970 op.cit.
xxiii ibid
xxiv Dixon, J.S. (1934) Mother wolf carries food twelve miles to her young. Journal of Mammalogy, 15, 158.
xxv Murie, A. (1944) The wolves of Mt. McKinley. US National Park Service, Fauna Series 5. Washington, DC.
xxvi Banfield, A.W.F. (1951) Populations and movements of the Saskatchewan* timber wolf (Canis lupus knightii) in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, 1947 to 1951. Canadian Wildlife Service, Wildlife Management Bulletin Series 1, 4, 1-24.
xxvii Rutter, R.F. & Pimlott, D.H. (1968) The world of the wolf. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
xxviii Bibikov, D.I. (1982) Wolf ecology and management in the USSR. In Wolves of the world: perspectives of behaviour, ecology and conservation (ed. F.H. Harrington & P.C. Paquet), 120-133. Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
xxix Crisler, L. (1958) Arctic wild. Secker & Warburg, London.
xxx Burkholder, B.L. (1959) Movements and behavior of a wolf pack in Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management, 23, 1-11.
xxxi 1970 op.cit
xxxii op.cit.
xxxiii Bateson, P. & Bradshaw, E.L. (1997) Physiological effects of hunting red deer, Cervus elaphus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1707-1714.
xxxiv Bateson, 1997 op.cit and North, R.D. (1999) The hunt at bay. Wildlife Network, Oakham, Rutland.
xxxv Whitehead, 1993, op.cit; Yandle in Harris, R.C., Helliwell, T.R., Shingleton, W., Stickland, N. & Naylor, J.R.J. (1999) The physiological response of red deer (Cervus elaphus) to prolonged exercise undertaken during hunting. R & W Publications, Newmarket.
xxxvi Yandle, op.cit
xxxvii op.cit.
xxxviii op.cit.
xxxix op.cit.
xl Strachan & Jeffries, 1996 op.cit and Strachan, C., Strachan, R. & Jefferies, D.J. (2000) Preliminary report on the changes in the water vole population of Britain as shown by the national surveys of 1989-1990 and 1996-1998. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.
xli Holley, A.J.F. (1993) Do brown hares signal to foxes? Ethology, 94, 21-30.
xlii Harrison, D.J., Bissonette, J.A. & Sherburne, J.A. (1989) Spatial relationships between coyotes and red foxes in eastern Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53, 181-185.
xliii op.cit.
xliv op.cit.
xlv Clutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E. & Albon, S.D. (1982) Red deer - behavior and ecology of two sexes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
xlvi op.cit.
xlvii de Nahlik, A.J. (1974) Deer management - improved herds for greater profit. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
xlviii Countryweek Hunting, April l993, "Why Stop Earths?", P. 32-33
xlix League Against Cruel Sports, Pack of Lies, 1997
l Postmortem carried out January 1996 by Robert Pontefract BVMS MRCVS.
li Videotaped post mortem carried out in Janurary 1994, cited in Pack of Lies, League Against Cruel Sports, 1997.
lii Post mortem carried out by Norma Hamilton, veterinary surgeon, on 30 January 1992
liii Hunting: The Facts, video, Campaign for Hunting (now the Countryside Alliance)
liv This film footage is closely analysed by the League Against Cruel Sports in its own video, The Things They Do to Foxes, 1994.
lv Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, July 1996,
lvi The Field, February 1996.
lvii Fox Hunting, David and Charles, 1980.
lviii League Against Cruel Sports, Wildlife Protection, The Case for the Abolition of Hunting and Snaring, 1992.
lix Bateson, op.cit.
lx League Against Cruel Sports, Pack of Lies, 1997
lxi Bateson, op.cit.
lxii ibid.
lxiii 15 April 1987
lxiv 19 October 1983
lxv Extract from a leaflet entitled ‘Mink’, published by the Environment Agency, 1996 and supplied as Annexe 5.
lxvi Evening Chronicle, September 30 1999.
lxvii "What Regulates the Numbers Of Feral Mink?", Nature Conservancy Council, "Nature In Devon" No 10, l989
lxviii Country Life, 26 September 1991.
What evidence is there as to the importance of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/or to particular areas of England and Wales? What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely? 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?
Rural Economy
Questions 2/3/4: What evidence is there as to the importance of hunting with dogs to the rural economy in general and/or to particular areas of England and Wales? What evidence is there about the likely impact on the rural economy if hunting with dogs was banned completely? 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?
"In 1997 I received communications from the British Field Sports Society stating that 60,000 full-time jobs were at risk. That’s a fall of 44,000 in two years. It suggests people in that line of work are taking heed of Labour’s promised ban on hunting, leaving the industry in droves. Or it could mean the figures quoted by pro-hunt groups owe more to creative accounting than to accuracy."
-Dan Norris MP, in a letter to The Guardian newspaper, September 1999.
1: Figures that don’t add up
1. The debate as to whether live quarry hunts should be compelled to transfer to the hunting of an artificial scent, is a moral one. The question of economics is not relevant. However, given that the Countryside Alliance and other groups have propagated fallacious statistics in support of their campaigns, it is incumbent upon animal welfare groups to provide the inquiry with the facts as they relate to the economics of hunting wild mammals with dogs.
2. We are told that 16,000 foxes are killed each year by mounted hunts – an activity that, according to hunt enthusiasts, requires the expenditure of £243.1 million i. As such, we are expected to believe that for every fox killed, fifteen thousand one hundred and ninety three pounds and seventy-five pence is expended in the rural economy.
3. The actual economic impact of hunting live quarry with dogs is significantly less than this, and as such, relatively few jobs would be lost were the activity to be brought to an end. It will be demonstrated that the research upon which the Alliance has based its figures is unreliable – and a number of academic reports will be submitted in support of this claim.
4. On September 28th 1999 the town of Bournemouth was awash with banners, poking up from the crowd of protesters which had gathered on the south coast to protest against the Prime Minister’s commitment to outlaw the hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The majority of these printed placards proclaimed faith in the organisers’ assertion that many thousands of jobs would be lost were the proposed abolition to be enacted, and all but a few predicted the exact number ‘at risk’. Unfortunately the marchers found it impossible to agree on what that number was.
5. A number of banners claimed that 4,000 jobs would be lost, were legislation passed banning hunting with hounds. Some put the number at 8,000, more opted for 16,000, whilst others plumped for 250,000 ii. On 20th September 1999, a Countryside Alliance Press Release had stated that ‘16,000 marchers will therefore take to the streets of Bournemouth to form a graphic illustration of just how many livelihoods would be destroyed.’
6. Pro-hunt bodies have, on a number of occasions, commissioned reports by Cobham Resource Consultants into the economic impact of hunting. In 1983, CRC claimed that the total employment generated by hunting amounted to 9,210. In 1992 the CRC figure rose to 34, 725 and in 1997 fell to 22,950.
2: Minimal impact on rural economy
1. The lack of consensus derives from a lack of evidence indicating that the economic impact of a ban on hunting would be in anyway significant. Conversely, academic research has conclusively demonstrated that the economic implications of a ban would be minimal. In support of this claim, the International Fund for Animal Welfare submits as annexes the following evidence:
2. Although Douglas Macmillan’s work concentrates on Scotland, and in Scotland the number of mounted followers per hunt is less than that in England and Wales, his conclusions have acute relevance to the debate south of the border.
3: Alternatives to hunting live quarry with hounds
1. In assessing the economic impact of hunting mammals with dogs, it is first necessary to consider what would happen if the activity was outlawed.
2. Dr Ward describes as ‘naïve and simplistic’ the claim that a hunting ban would result in the loss of all those jobs currently associated with the activity. The claim, he says, has evolved from a ‘static’ view of how the rural economy operates, a criticism echoed by Segal Quince Wicksteed.
3. In the years following the Great War, when legislation was proposed to ban the practice of releasing live pigeons from traps to be shot, it was claimed that the rural economy would be adversely affected. Parliament outlawed the activity in 1921, leading directly to the development of clay pigeon shooting in its present form – a hugely popular rural sport now worth millions of pounds.iii
4. It is an accepted fact, across the political and academic spectrum that the British countryside is changing. Macmillan has termed it the ‘dynamic rural economy’ iv – a system where farm laborers now work in IT and land once used to produce beef and cereals has been converted to new recreational uses. An increase in disposable incomes, and time available for leisure, have opened up the countryside to a wider proportion of the British population. The emphasis of economic activity in rural Britain has shifted from production to consumption, a change that manifests itself most obviously in the area of tourism. Almost 1.5 billion leisure days were made to the countryside in 1996, and many billions of pounds were spent. v According to Edward Lycett-Green, Master of the Portman Hunt: ‘We are in the entertainment and leisure business.’ vi Aside from the wider debate over hunting, it is undoubtedly the case that this business has an image pro