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 20^th 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 obtain^xvi. 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 hunting^xix 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.

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

^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

^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."

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.

Back to top

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.

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.

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 18^th and 19^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 19^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back to top

• 26/11/98 - South Devon - "A splendid 70 min hunt - four miles as the hounds ran." p48

• 3/12/98 - Barlow - "A run of 1hr 40 min with hounds all in at the end" p. 60

• 14/1/99 - Bicester with Whaddon Chase - "… 11 mile hunt in 1hr 30." Pytchley p. 57 and "2hr continuous sport" p. 55

• 21/1/99 - Cottesmore - "This was a hunt of more than 10 miles as hounds ran, with a point of 6 and a half miles in 1hr 50 min" - p. 40

• 25/2/99 - Belvoir - " … after a punishing 80 min. This was a first class hunt over nine miles of heavy going and a 4 and a half mile point" - - p. 116 and in the same issue the Holderness hunt reported " a fast 45 min hunt with only car followers and huntsmen to see hounds get their reward" and " a good fast hunt of 1 hr 25 min" - p. 108

• 4/3/99 - Seavington - "Hounds caught their fox in the open after 1hr 50 min and 10 miles as the hound ran" - - p.108 and

• 11/3/99 - Warwickshire - " a good hunt of 1hr 40 min", " a good hunt of 1hr 20 min and "an exceptionally fast hunt of 50 min without a check" - p. 54

• 22/4/99 - Fernie - "Our good hunt had a point of 7 and a half miles and was 11miles as hounds ran in 2 hr 5 min" - p.81

• 13/5/ 99 - Spooners and West Dartmoor - "a tired fox was left after 1hr 35 min - a five mile point". - p.83

• "The most likely cause of death was shock brought about by blood loss, organ damage, lack of oxygenation of the blood due to lower respiratory dysfunction and upper airway obstruction and ensuing circulatory failure. In short, the fox died a painful and unpleasant death which probably was not quick, as evidenced by the areas of haemorrhage seen at many sites." ^l

• "There are no bite wounds on the neck. I am not convinced that it has been bitten on the neck or killed in that way. Personally, you’ve got to be very suspicious that it’s just been killed by being ripped apart… It hasn’t been killed with a single blow." ^li

• "I could detect no external damage to neck or throat areas but there were extensive wounds to the abdomen and thorax. In fact the abdomen was ripped open and the intestines hanging out. The wounds were consistent with the fox having been severely bitten by another animal or animals." ^lii

• Time code 10:00:58 – 10:01:27 - 11 January 2000 - Taunton Vale Foxhounds digging out a fox that is finally shot with a rifle. The terrier was underground whilst this was happening.

• Time code 10:02:58 – 10:05:55 - 9 October 1993 - New Forest Foxhounds. A terrier is put into a water-filled pipe to bolt the fox. A fight between the terrier and fox takes place. The terrier eventually pulls out the fox after they both lock jaws. The fox is still alive when it is pulled out and is only released from the terrier’s jaws after it is dead - the terrier man manages to unlock them. Also, terrier with blood on its face as result of underground fight with a fox. Hunt monitors and policemen at the scene stopped the terrier man from putting the terrier back in a hole and asked him to take the animal to a vet, which he finally agreed to do. However, the monitors later found out that the animals were not taken to a vet.

• Time code 10:05:56 – 10:07:52 - September 1990 - New Forest Foxhounds. A terrier was injured after an underground fight with a fox. The terrier man put it back down the hole. A court case decided the terrier man was guilty of causing unnecessary suffering.

• 10:17:04 – 10:17:15 - 24.2.97 Peter White commented "The buck was tired and lying down. It had run for several hours and had lay down through exhaustion but it still got up to face the huntsman".

• 10:17:06 – 10:17:27 - 17.3.97 Buck had run for several hours and could run no more. It lay down in front of riders and followers.

• 10:22:30 – 10:24:43 - 03.10.95 Devon and Somerset Staghounds - one antlered stag with part of leg missing was hunted for 45 minutes, chased into reservoir, escaped via a weir into a garden where it was finally shot behind a house.

• 10:28:21 – 10:28:43 - 13.12.94 Devon and Somerset Staghounds – a hind being chased into a fence.

• 10:28:44 – 10:29:34 - 20.12.94 Devon and Somerset Staghounds – deer hiding from the hunt.

• 10:29:44 – 10:29:57 - 95/96 Quantock Staghounds - exhausted stag hiding behind a fuel tank. The hunt monitor commented "It stayed there for five or six hours after the hunt".

• 10:31:35 – 10:31:39 - 07.1.99 Devon and Somerset Staghounds - hind falling heavily during hunt

• 10:15:23 – 10:15:37 - 13.1.95 - Buck in river being held with head in water - - stood on by hunters

• 10:14:38 – 10:15:22 - 15.9.95 - Deer sat on in river for several minutes

• 10:13:13 – 10:13:37 - 4.11.95 Deer was chased for 4 and half to 5hours. It was jumped on by two people and held down for several minutes before being shot.

• 10:15:38 – 10:17:03 - 30.11.96 The deer is first seen in the river. It runs on herded by riders. It has been chased for at least 4 hours. It stops in trees where a woman is encouraged to hold it, but escapes again into the river. A boy then grabs hold of its antlers and pushes its head underwater. The huntsman shouts for him to hold the deer up and it is finally shot

• Time code 10:19:57 – 10:20:57 - 29 September 1994, the Devon and Somerset Staghounds took 6 minutes to kill a stag after a hunt of some 2 hours. The stag was shot four times and then wrestled into the water. The hunt received a five-week ban from the Master of Deerhounds Association.

• Time code 10:24:44 – 10:26:13 - 25 April 1996, the Quantock Staghounds shot and wounded a deer.

• The Royal Society for Nature Conservation: "If mink do need to be controlled, trapping, so long as it is part of a coordinated programme of control and research, is a better method than hunting, which is very inefficient." ^lxiii

• The Otter Trust: "We condemn mink hunting as it frequently disturbs otters and otter habitats." ^lxiv

• The Government’s Environment Agency: "This is an ineffective method of control and there is concern that it causes indiscriminate disturbance to river habitats, especially significant where otters are beginning to recolonise. The EA wishes to discourage mink hunting where otters and other wildlife maybe disturbed." ^lxv

• 10:26:48 - 10:27:22

• 10:36:34 - 10:37:17

• 10:37:19 - 10:38:58

• 10:38:59 - 10:39:40

• 10:41:13 - 10:42:22

• On 19 October, the Northampton Chronicle reported a hound killed on the A413. An eyewitness said: "The dog was hit by a Mercedes. It did a lot of damage to the car. The dogs were just running riot, it was very dangerous."

• On 28 October, the Northern Echo reported "Angry mum threatens to sue hunt". The hunt had trespassed onto her land even though she had asked huntsmen to stay away. She was particularly concerned about her herd of pygmy goats, one of which was pregnant. Nevertheless hounds invaded the barn where the goats are kept.

• On 9 November, 1999 the Daily Mirror reported four hounds killed by a train while chasing a fox across the line near Llandow, South Wales.

• On December 13, 1999 the Dorset Echo reported that "children looked on in horror as a fox was ripped to pieces in a neighbours garden". Their mother commented "There must have been 30 - 40 hounds … my two oldest children saw the whole thing - and are now totally traumatised by what they saw". The owner of the garden said: "… the fox was literally torn apart. A man I presumed was the master said he was sorry before picking up the remains of the fox and throwing it into the field behind. My stomach was churning." Mothers of children who saw the incident now say they will keep them indoors when the hunt is around "for safety’s sake."

• On January 20, this year, The Oxford Mail reported a cat owner had been given £500 compensation after hunting hounds ripped his cat apart. The hounds chase the 13 year old ginger tom called Ginger into the garden and killed it. The hunt apologised. The RSPCA said it was the sixth such case in Oxfordshire in the last 16 months.

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.

^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.

^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.

^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

^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.

^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

Back to top

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."

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 28^th 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 20^th 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.

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:

• After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment, Research Paper: Ref 99/4 – Douglas Macmillan, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group (1999). Supplied as Annexe 7.
• Drag hunting: ‘A family sport’ – published by the League Against Cruel Sports (1996). Supplied as Annexe 8.
• Economic effects of a ban on live animal hunting – a report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, (March 1997). Supplied as Annexe 9.
• Foxing the nation: Competing claims about the economic impact of a hunting ban – Dr Neil Ward (1998)/ The economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds in Britain – Dr Neil Ward, Journal of Rural Studies 1999 no.15. Supplied as Annexe 3.
• Review of the estimates of the employment impact of a ban on hunting with dogs – Segal Quince Wicksteed, economic development consultants (1997). Supplied as Annexe 11.
• Riot! – published by the League Against Cruel Sports (1994). Supplied as Annexe 12.
• The economic impact of a ban on fox-hunting with dogs in Scotland, Research Paper: Ref 99/3 – Douglas Macmillan, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group (1999). Supplied as Annexe 13.
• Track record: A Report on Road and rail Accidents Caused by Hunting with Hounds – published by the League Against Cruel Sports (1995). Supplied as Annexe 14.

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 problem.

5. Innovative methods of sating the demand for benign rural pursuits have resulted in a growth in sports as diverse as mountain biking, golf and ‘war games’. Drag hunting is both a suitable replacement, as a leisure activity, for live animal hunting, and interest and participation in drag hunting will burgeon amongst those outside the hunting community once a ban is enacted. What is being sought is NOT the introduction of legislation to ban hunting with dogs – but an end to the hunting of wild animals with dogs.

6. In the words of Wildlife Guardian magazine: ‘There will be no clauses in the coming bill which require the handing in to police stations of red coats as part of a general amnesty. Hounds will still be seen running across fields on misty Boxing Day mornings and the hunt ball will remain a social institution. The only thing that will change for hunt enthusiasts will be the nature of the quarry.’^vii

7. Enthusiasm for benign hunting is not restricted to animal welfare groups and rural economists. The number of drag and blood hound packs has increased five-fold since 1966, the most recent addition to the number being the New Forest Draghunt, which was born from the embers of the disbanded buckhounds. ^viii Academics have examined in detail the plausibility of claims that benign hunting provides a suitable alternative, and have concluded that it would.

8. The advantages of benign hunting are somewhat obvious. Firstly, enjoyment of the activity does not depend upon the chasing and killing of a wild mammal, and secondly the likelihood of serious damage and disruption to the lives and property of rural dwellers is considerably reduced. It is an incontrovertible fact that this form of hunting attracts little animosity and as a result, it is contended, a growth in the activity could prove to be of great benefit to the rural economy.

9. The supporters of live animal hunting are, unsurprisingly, keen to discredit the plausibility of bloodless hunting as a replacement. But on occasion individuals have revealed that their lack of enthusiasm has little to do with the practicalities of a switch-over. Paul Flynn MP recounted in the 2^nd reading debate of the Foster Bill how he had been told by an MP associated with the BFSS that drag hunting was unacceptable because it was like ‘kissing one’s sister’. A letter to the Daily Telegraph, was more succinct, stating: ‘Most foxhunters I know regard draghunting as similar to paying for sex – it lacks the uncertainty of the chase!’^ix

10. However, even if some of those involved in hunting with dogs for live animals did not want to switch to benign alternatives it does not mean that a ban would not result in an increase in drag hunting, bloodhounds or point-to-point. Removing the association with dogs killing animals is likely to attract many riders and others who currently have no involvement in hunting. After all the vast majority of riders at present have no involvement in hunting.

11. Consider an interview on Radio Four’s Today programme, on November 11^th 1997, in which an athlete who acted as human quarry for bloodhounds was interviewed:

Maggie Johnson-Myers, athlete: ‘Last week in the woods we had to go through the woods and it was very confusing, different pathways, and we’d put tape up the day before but I’d said ‘oh no, come on, we can go this way, there’s a jump along the hedge that we’ve got to go over,’ but then I got lost in the woods and we were going all over, all over the place, and you can hear them. We had to get under the hedge and some of them are quite big, there were fences to get over and I did catch my hand last week on the wire and that too but it’s all part of the course I’m afraid.’

Anna Hill, presenter: ‘You have to be fit as I found out when I joined Maggie in the Worcestershire countryside scamping over hills, down dales, through streams, woods, and over fences. It’s certainly not for the feint-hearted or for anyone who minds being a bit smelly.’

Maggie Johnson-Myers: ‘You don’t have a bath the night before or the morning before and you certainly don’t wear cream or perfume or anything like that because they have to smell your natural scent. And I tend to wear like a thermal jumper and things on the day before when we’re going out around the course, so I wear that again – sounds horrible doesn’t it! – I wear that again the next day so it probably smells of me, you know, quite strong smell, I’m sure that we don’t smell as strong as men.’

Anna Hill: ‘Nim Hammond (phonetic spelling), you’re a very long way up on your rather large horse. As a woman do you feel a bit guilty about chasing another woman across the countryside?’

Nim Hammond: ‘No I don’t, I think it’s a wonderful thing to chase a woman, it keeps our end up for us. She’s by far one of our best runners, her navigation skills are par excellence, she always finds her way and never gets lost, and she’s absolutely ace.’

12. The reports submitted contain further pronouncements made by the hunting community in support of drag hunting. In addition, consider the following extract from the autobiography of JNP Watson, who holds the Guinness World Record for number of hunts attended:

‘I am also 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 anachronism, however well the restrictive rules are enforced; and that it will only be a matter of time before these sports are prohibited by law. Although many of the hunts vow that, in such circumstances, they would never go ‘drag’, I believe they would in fact opt for the drag-line if the choice was left between that and going into suspended animation. Rather than see them fighting a losing battle against politicians I would prefer them to go drag before. There need be no loss of face… the fox hunters and hare hunters could very plausibly present their reasons for converting to drag-lines as the ever-increasing danger of the roads, the sensitivity of farmland and the potential hazard of rabies. Although, following drag-tradition, the pageantry and the fraternity would remain. Whether the quarry is live or false, Britain’s venatic thread would survive.’^x

13. Fox and deer hunting are not the only hound activities that could transfer to a benign alternative. Drag coursing is an international sport in which sighthounds chase an artificial lure, often a refuse bag, along a course. The lure is secured to a fishing line, which is passed around a series of pulleys staked to the ground and attached to an electric motor at the far end of the course.

14. The motor hauls in the lure at up to 40mph (the same speed at which a coursed hare can sprint). The competing hounds are scored in the same manner as in hare coursing while they pursue the lure to the finish line. Indeed, apart from the absence of live quarry this humane sport is virtually identical to hare coursing. Unlike hare coursers, where entertainment depends on hares to chase, drag coursers are always guaranteed a days sport.

15. Drag coursing is especially successful in Australia, where in some states hare coursing is prohibited, in the USA and in Canada. It is growing in popularity here. In 1999 the National Drag Coursing Club was founded in Britain: it now has several affiliated member clubs. Switching to drag coursing would not be difficult. It uses the same breeds of dogs. All that would be required would be a motorised winch.

16. A further example of innovative benign equestrian activity comes in the form of UK Chasers, an initiative which is owned and managed by farmers as part of government supported moves towards diversification. The scheme provides managed off road riding to its 30,000 subscribing members. They currently have 23 courses open, and 10 in the process of being built. In 2000 there will be 30 sites, around 165 miles of track and over 1000 jumps. Planned expansion will see a target of 70 sites, 250 miles and 1750 jumps. UK Chasers has been going for 11 years, and describes itself as ‘structured farm diversification’, both a ‘farming issue’ and an ‘equestrian issue’.

17. UK Chasers are currently in touch with more than 70 farms around the country who are interested in building courses on their land. It offers riders access to cross country riding, with obstacles suitable for a variety of standards of riding, so that people can either go for a cross country hack or practice for competitive cross country riding, without having to go hunting. Courses are built with the advice and guidance of the UK Chasers enterprise and are consequently likely to be well-built and built over suitable terrain. The evident availability of land for activities of this sort casts doubt on claims that similar amounts of land would not be available for the purposes of conducting drag-hunting.

18. According to Ward, the debate as to whether bloodless hunts can replace live quarry hunting revolves around the following issues: land availability; number of hunting occasions; the management of wild mammal species; the operation of market forces; the predictability/uncertainty of the chase; and employment.

1. Contrary to claims made by representatives of hunting, a huge amount of land would be available to drag hunts and bloodhound packs in the event of a ban on live animal hunting. An NOP survey in 1996 found that of those farmers who would not allow drag hunts on their land (56%) and those who were not sure (14%), only eight per cent gave the reason that drag hunts do not kill foxes. The survey also found that 48% of farmers do not allow any form of hunting on their land^xi. Hardly surprising, given that hunts account for a mere 4% of annual fox mortality. ^xii

2. MacDonald and Johnson, of Oxford University, published figures which indicated that the land available to bloodless hunts would be between 55% and 77% of the total already hunted – the equivalent of 145 square miles for each of Britain’s 200 fox hunts. ^xiii

3. The unfounded assertion that only limited terrain is suitable for bloodless hunting, and the positive advantages of drag hunting in opening up previously unused territory, are also dealt with in the academic reports contained in this submission. Indeed, according to Ward and Macmillan, bloodless hunting has grown most prominently in areas where fox hunters have come into conflict with other land users^{xiv xv}. Ward states that many drag hunts are now over-subscribed.

4. Also contained in the reports submitted is evidence demonstrating that the number of hunting days available to drag hunters would be significant enough to satisfy the demand created by a ban on live animal hunting. Further evidence is submitted demonstrating that, despite claims to the contrary, drag hunting would be an attractive proposition to live quarry enthusiasts.

5. In respect of the employment opportunities which would result from a transition to bloodless hunts, academics expect a huge growth in the economic impact of drag hunting through both an improved public perception of hunting with hounds – including within the riding community, which supports a ban^xvi - and a resultant series of reforms in the way the sport is run. We can anticipate, for example, the advent of competitive drag hunting and revenue for farmers who allow the hunt to operate on their land. Moreover, because the route of the hunt is pre-determined, disturbance to farm operations and to livestock is likely to be significantly less^{xvii xviii}.

6. Defenders of live quarry hunting make great play of public pronouncements made by the Masters of Drag and Bloodhounds Association in support of fox hunting. These pronouncements have been made largely for political reasons. The inquiry should examine the evidence of independent researchers and rank-and-file drag hunt and bloodhound enthusiasts without an alternative agenda.

7. Consider comments made by Capt. Ian Farquhar, Master of the Beaufort Hunt, in The Daily Telegraph on July 5th1997. He felt that perhaps ‘ten couples of hounds could be kept on’ if that hunt switched to drag hunting. His recognition that a conversion to drag hunting was possible for his prestigious hunt was all the more significant given his position as a member of the Countryside Alliance Hunting Committee. ^xix

It is no more difficult to train a hound to follow the scent of the drag than it is to train it to follow the scent of a fox, hare or deer. Drag hunts use fox hounds, and the fact that the Oxford Drag Hunt uses hounds borrowed from the Bicester with Whaddon Chase Fox Hunt is proof that the hounds currently hunting foxes could be retrained to hunt the drag^xx.

8. Estimates made by hunt supporters about the possible number of hunts that would convert are based on an assumption that drag hunting will remain in its present form. And yet the sport would be certain to change if a ban on live animal hunting came about. A ban on the sport of hunting of mammals with dogs would stimulate innovation in drag hunting.

9. In the words of Macmillan: ‘Overall, it would appear that the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting lobby concerning the limitations of drag and bloodhound hunting as alternatives to fox hunting are not very credible. Indeed, in an era where other pastimes have adapted to new circumstances (for example the introduction of ‘catch and return’ policies on major salmon rivers), it is hard to imagine that hunt followers, in the event of a ban, would choose not to participate in alternative sports which so clearly capture the thrill and the tradition of mounted fox hunting.’ ^xxi

10. It is claimed by the Countryside Alliance that drag hunting is too fast to be properly inclusive, because there are no checks. Once again, this claim ignores the likelihood of future innovation. Furthermore, live animal hunting does not differ greatly from drag hunting in this respect. Take, for example, three hunt reports from Horse and Hound of 24^th February 2000:

• A report on the Heythrop Hunt ends: ‘After this run, of the 160 people who started, only 40 got to the end, as hounds ran through the best of the Heythrop’s Wednesday and Saturday Vale country.’

• A report on the Dartmoor Hunt states that: ‘There were no checks throughout this fast five-mile hunt.’

• And a report on the Golden Valley Hunt ends: ‘Only three people, including the staff, were at the finish of this enjoyable hunt – our hostess, her son William, who was on half-term, and Mrs Philby.’

11. Only the removal of the animal as a sporting accessory can result in a positive future for hunting with hounds in this country. MacDonald and Johnson, writing after the completion of their three year study, ‘The Impact of Sport Hunting’, concluded the following:

‘With the opportunities offered by modern odour chemistry to synthesise scents of particular qualities, the opportunities for farmers to profit by diversifying the use of their land, and the great desire of ever-more people to participate in benign country pursuits, there would seem to be very strong incentives, both cultural and economic, to explore with the greatest zeal and ingenuity ways of making drag hunting attractive. This would seem the only course that is likely to preserve, and indeed potentially enhance greatly, the traditions, skills, social infra-structure and employment associated with fox-hunting.’ ^xxii

12. Note also, later in this submission, evidence demonstrating the declining numbers of live quarry enthusiasts, in comparison to the burgeoning popularity of benign hunting.

5: Research shows impact on jobs minimal

1. Even if hunt enthusiasts fail to follow this advice, the number of jobs threatened by their intransigence would be minimal. The contention, made vocally by the Countryside Alliance, that hunting mammals with dogs is of economic significance to the countryside, is based primarily on a set of studies produced by Cobham Resource Consultants’ (CRC) on behalf of the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports (SCCS), an organisation which, according to its own literature, has as its sole objective the task of ‘maintaining countryside sports as an integral part of the national way of life.’ A number of the claims made by CRC, and in particular estimates of potential job losses, are without foundation.

2. Segal Quince Wicksteed (SQW), a firm of Cambridge-based development consultants, assessed the validity of the various CRC figures in 1997, using what Ward describes as ‘an improved framework’. Ward and SQW attempt to draw a distinction between the direct and indirect employment associated with hunting. Unsurprisingly, the researchers claim that those directly employed are at greater risk than those indirectly employed. This is, according to Ward, a distinction which is ‘difficult to maintain at times when reviewing the CRC studies because of the nature of the data and the lack of clarity of definition in the (CRC) reports.’ SQW concur.

3. We will first address the issue of direct employment. There is little doubt that the number of people directly employed by hunts has been grossly exaggerated. The CRC 1997 report put the figure at 8,600. As a first step to gauging the actual number of jobs directly dependent on hunting, it is first necessary to ascertain the number of hunts, (described, in economic terms, as ‘providers’). There has been a degree of dispute over the exact number of providers, but what does not seem to be in dispute is that there has been a modest decline in the number of hunt providers over the period since the 1980s to about 200 registered fox and deer hunts and some 125-145 hare and other hunts. ^xxiii

4. Using data from the British Field Sports Society and the Master of Fox Hounds Association – and the assumption that hunts pay an average of the approved agricultural minimum wage plus 50% - a figure of 620-644 FTEs employed directly by hunts is produced (SQW), in stark contrast to the CRC 1997 assertion. If figures released by the National Equestrian Survey (1996) are to be believed, there are 1.6 FTE jobs per hunt, and thus around 340 people directly employed by mounted live quarry hunts. According to the Ward report, ‘it is consistently estimated – and this study concurs – that there are fewer than 1,000 FTE jobs directly provided by those hunts threatened by the proposed ban on hunting wild mammals with hounds.’ (In 1997 the British Field Sports Society put the number at 3,910. ^xxiv)

5. An examination of the direct employment associated with the 48 packs of hunting hounds in the northern region of England by the BBC’s ‘Close Up North’ found just 60 FTE jobs were sustained directly by the hunts. If northern hunts are representative of the national average, Britain’s hunts directly employ the equivalent of 390 FTEs. ^xxv

6. The SQW study chose to divide direct employment into two categories:

1. Elements associated with organising and delivering hunts.

ii) Elements associated with participating in hunts.

In assessing the former, the SQW study states:

‘The CRC 1997 report made reference to a figure of total expenditure by ‘organisers’ of £17 million (British Field Sports Society survey 1996) which it reported to be consistent with annual average expenditures of £25,000 and £70,000 respectively for foot and mounted packs. It corroborated this with an (unsourced) estimate derived from ‘grossing up’ the total annual wage bill ‘which accounts for approximately 65% of the total expenditure.’ If we take these unsourced estimates to mean that the average annual wage bill is £16,000 and £45,000 ( i.e. 0.65 multiplied by £25,000 and £70,000) respectively for foot and mounted packs, we can derive the direct employment associated with an average hunt provider by dividing the average wage bill by the average labour cost per head.

‘The approved agricultural minimum wage is £8,060 pa. We assume that the average employment cost for hunt employees should be taken to be higher than this because of their higher skills and to allow for non-wage employment costs (e.g. National Insurance). However, we could not find data specifically on hunt employment costs; so, we have made an arbitrary assumption that costs are 50% higher than the minimum agricultural wage, i.e. an average employment cost per FTE of £12,090.

‘On the CRC 1997 figures for the wage bill for hunt providers and using our assumption on average employment costs, the implication is that an average of 1.3 FTE and 3.8 FTEs respectively are required for foot and mounted packs…

‘The average FTE employment by hunt providers is a critical number in the calculation of direct employment. The only collaborative evidence we could find on this question was in the British Horse Society Report (1988) where an estimate was quoted of 6 FTEs per riding establishment or 2 FTEs per 9 horses.’ ^xxvi

6: The number of horses used for hunting compared to riding in general is insignificant

1. It is suggested that there are around 2000 horses kept in hunt kennels, ^xxvii – an average perhaps of 10 per hunt. Therefore, at 2 FTEs per 9 horses, and accepting the possibility that hunting horses require a greater degree of care, SQW calculated that each hunt provider employs 2.5 FTEs. They also estimated that non-mounted hunts employ just one FTE, and thus arrived at the figure of 620-644 jobs directly provided by hunting with dogs. It is these jobs, according to SQW, that are ‘without question the most vulnerable to any government intervention to ban hunting with dogs.’

2. It is, of course, the case that participants also keep horses outside hunt kennels, and in some cases employ individuals to care for those animals. In attempting to ascertain the number of jobs dependent on the hunting activities of these individuals it is important to remember that the vast majority of hunting horses are used for dual purposes, and would therefore not be destroyed if hunting was banned. ^xxviii

3. In the area of participant related direct employment the CRC figures from 1992 and 1997 can be dismissed. Macmillan believes that the CRC reports may have used a definition that was based on total expenditure by participants on the upkeep of horses which in most cases are used for dual purposes. Moreover, the CRC may have included these jobs in their figures for direct and indirect employment, and so run the risk of over-counting. ^xxix

4. SQW found that by far and away the most important component of the participant related direct employment estimates in the studies it reviewed, are attributed to the maintenance and upkeep of any horses and dogs owned by participants. CRC agreed that horse upkeep was the primary factor in both spending and employment. It is therefore the case, according to SQW, that the number of participants is ‘less relevant… than the number of animals – especially horses – maintained by participants for hunting purposes.’

5. The 1996 National Equestrian Survey claimed that 60,000 horses had been used for hunting in the previous 12 months^xxx. The NES was unable to estimate the number of horses kept solely for hunting as the number was too small to be identified from the survey sample^xxxi. Indeed, according to the Standing Conference on Country Sports, the number of subscribers to fox, stag and harrier packs in 1983 was just 19,459^xxxii. Furthermore, it is not disputed that there has been a modest decline in the number of hunts over the period since the 1980’s^xxxiii. To claim that each of the horses kept by these hunt subscribers is used solely for hunting is to display a lack of understanding of rural culture and riding habits. Let us not forget that hunting is only possible for a maximum of six months each year. Bill Griffiths, a supporter of live quarry hunting with hounds and manager of the Northallerton Equestrian Centre, serves as an example. He told the BBC’s Close Up North:

‘People will ride. They ride because they love it, and I don’t honestly think that if there was a hunting ban that they would pull their horses away. They’ll find an alternative. Drag hunting is the obvious alternative.’

6. Of further interest is the existing rate of growth in horse related activities unrelated to live animal hunting. Whilst the popularity of hunting has decreased by around 10% in recent years^{xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii}, the popularity of other equestrian activities, in Scotland at least, has surged. Macmillan cites the Scottish Agricultural Census, which reports a 75% increase in horse numbers between 1983 and 1998.

7. In claiming that legislation to outlaw hunting would adversely effect employment levels in the horse owning community, is to assume that a ban would lead to a reduction in horse ownership. But this is far from certain. The positive benefits of bloodless hunting have been, and will be further, discussed. Moreover, Macmillan^xxxviii cites figures that indicate that the existence of live animal hunting may depress horse ownership in certain rural areas. The 1999 report, After Fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment, states:

‘Comparisons between different Local Authority areas suggest that regional rates of growth vary considerably. In the Scottish Borders, for example, where hunting is strongest in Scotland (five of the registered mounted fox hunts in Scotland are located in the Borders) horse numbers have grown at a lower rate than the national (Scottish) average. In Aberdeenshire, where there are no registered hunts, horse numbers have increased by double the national rate over the same period.

‘The data for West Lothian and Midlothian (W&M), the former hunting ground of the Linithgow and Stirlingshire (L&S) Hunt, is of particular interest. In 1991 this hunt was abandoned due to urban encroachment and persistent, organised protesting by hunt saboteurs. However, since the hunt ended, horse numbers have increased in this area faster then anywhere else in Scotland, with the rate of increase actually accelerating after 1991. This trend is all the more remarkable given that there are no organised drag/bloodhound hunting events in the area.

‘Although a range of factors can influence horse-ownership (such as household income, migration patterns, the profitability of agriculture etc.), this data suggests that the demise of fox hunting has, if anything, encouraged horse riding and by implication employment. Intuitively, this is a surprising finding, but one that can be explained by the economic forces of supply and demand.’

7. Macmillan goes on to suggest that a fall in the cost of resources required for keeping horses, following the end of hunting in the area, acted as a ‘key driver of rural change’ resulting in the ‘expansion of new and existing businesses.’ He also suggests that people who had previously been discouraged from riding, due to the sport’s association with live animal hunting, were prepared to take-up the activity following the demise of the local hunt. This is a contention supported by Ward, who states that ‘it is worth noting that opinion polls suggest that the majority of horse riders are opposed to hunting live quarry with hounds. Many of these people might, however, choose to follow a drag or bloodhound hunt if such sports were developed imaginatively by entrepreneurs who have no association with live quarry hunting.’ ^xxxix

8. And so, where as the CRC 1997 report contends that around 8,600 jobs depend directly on hunting, and the British Field Sports Society put the figure at 3,910^xl. In reality the figure is less than 1,000, and possibly significantly less than that.

9. 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 ^{xli xlii xliii xliv xlv}. It is therefore the case that legislation to outlaw the hunting of wild mammals with dogs will have very little impact on the rural economy.

1. We shall now consider the issue of indirect employment attributable to the hunting of mammals with dogs. It was at the ‘Countryside Rally’ on July 10^th 1997 that Baroness Mallalieu, now President of the Countryside Alliance, proclaimed that ’16,500 jobs depend solely on hunting, 63,000 more rely in part on it,’ ^xlvi a total of 79,500 and a rather sizable increase from 18 June 1982, when AHB Hart, Secretary of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, stated that ‘the number of people engaged in jobs dependent on hunting is 3,900.’ ^xlvii

2. The various CRC reports published on the subject for the British Field Sports Society are equally unable to concur. 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. ^{xlviii xlix l}

3. The later Produce Studies Group report (1998), seized upon by pro-hunt groups as the definitive study, relied on the findings of previous BFSS/Alliance commissioned reports to arrive at the now widely quoted figure of 15,900^li, and as a result this figure is unreliable. In his report ‘The economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds,’ Ward claims that ‘the PSG report synthesises the findings’ of Cobham Resource Consultants^lii. Moreover, it will be demonstrated that PSG methodology is unsound.

4. Ward is explicit in his criticism of the methodology behind the CRC reports in their approach to the issue of indirect employment, whilst SQW, (1997, p19), felt unable to vouch for the accuracy of the CRC figures. ^liii

5. In compiling figures for indirect employment it is necessary to apply so-called ‘multipliers’ – factors used to gauge the knock-on effect of a change in economic conditions. In respect of the CRC 1997 report, Ward states that ‘the multiplier ratios were not fully defined or sourced… so it is difficult to assess their authenticity or usefulness.’ SQW described the CRC multipliers as ‘unsafe’. SQW also showed that the compilers had placed many jobs in as many as three categories of those at potential risk, and thus counted each of those jobs as many as three times before arriving at a final figure. ^liv

6. In 1997 the number of jobs sustained by hunt participants’ hired help was estimated. The NES estimated that £3,000,000 was paid to hired help per year by the 35,000 hunt participants. This was divided by a standard national income figure for this type of non-skilled rural work: the basic agricultural minimum wage approved by the Agricultural Wages Board of £155 a week or £8,060 per annum. This gave a rounded total of 375 FTEs. ^lv

7. It is estimated, on the basis of the 1997 NES study, that the total expenditure on horses kept for dual purposes, including hunting, was £71 million^lvi. If this figure is then divided by the British Equestrian Trade Association estimate of GDP per capita in the equestrian industry, £23,300, then a figure of around 3,050 FTEs can be attributed as indirect employment from hunting. Added to this can be 340 jobs provided directly by hunts and 375 by hunt participants' hired help, to reach a total of 3,765. Although this figure ignores non-mounted hunts, it is certainly the case that foot packs, beagle packs, mink hunts and hare coursing do not provide anything like as many employment opportunities as mounted hunts, and are significantly fewer in number.

8. The CRC 1997 study adopted a similar technique, but used a figure of £159 million for the total expenditure on hunting. They then used a multiplier of 1.51, significantly higher than standard accepted multipliers^lvii. The CRC study concludes that there are 7,750 FTEs retained by multiplier employment in hunting. But, as discussed, the figure is arrived at through double counting.

9. Many of the estimates seized upon by the defenders of live animal hunting, including many of those made in the CRC 1997 report and the Produce Studies Group (1998) report, are based in part upon the CRC 1992 report^lviii. The science underlying the 1992 findings is erroneous. The report was subtitled a ‘summary’, but no full report was published to accompany it. Analysis found, in particular, that inflated claims about the number of jobs dependent on hunting were not substantiated by their own sources. As such, subsequent reports based on the 1992 study are unreliable.

10. The analysis shows a significant number of the estimates published by CRC were based on 177 responses sent by professional hunts to Mr. Rob Mackenzie, a master of fox hounds, in a survey for the Master of Fox Hounds Association in 1984. Data taken from the Mackenzie report includes an estimate of 8,450 jobs provided by hunt followers, even though no hunt followers were surveyed. CRC had themselves identified ‘deficiencies’ in Mackenzie’s survey method in a review of the Mackenzie report published in 1992^lix.

11. In this same review, CRC acknowledged clearly that a British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) survey on hunt-dependent jobs in the equestrian industry was not based on a random sample and therefore could not be used to extrapolate a national estimate. Nevertheless, CRC based their 1992 estimate of 7,000 hunt-dependent jobs in the equestrian industry on this BETA survey.

12. On hunt-dependent spending, CRC undertook no fresh research for their 1992 report and said that there was a dearth of reliable data. Nevertheless, the 1992 report claimed to identify nearly a 50% increase in hunt spending since 1983 to £148 million. This claimed increase came despite a decline in the number of fox hunts, the biggest source of spending amongst all hunts.

13. CRC claim an average of around 1,000 followers on average participate in each fox and deer hunt in Great Britain, including around 165 riders! It is a quite perverse claim that can in no way be substantiated. Hunt Masters who responded to MacDonald and Johnson’s questionnaire survey indicated that ‘a typical day’s hunting involved approximately 80 participants, including mounted followers and others.’ ^lx

14. It is of vital importance to note that it is erroneous to equate the estimates of employment currently associated with hunting, with actual job losses were a ban enacted. Both Ward and SQW doubt that all those at threat from legislation will actually lose their jobs. According to SQW the ‘dynamic effects’ of alternatives to live quarry hunting ‘have been neglected in the debate which has too often been based on the erroneous assumption that both direct and indirect employment associated with hunting will be equivalent to the employment lost by a ban.’ According to Ward, ‘it is still quite wrong to assert that all these jobs are threatened by a ban on hunting with hounds.’ He goes as far as to describe only the estimated 910 jobs provided by hunt kennels as those ‘currently threatened by the hunt ban.’ ^lxi

15. The equally preposterous claim that there are 242,800 participants in all forms of hunting, if true, would indicate that the activity is nevertheless carried out by just 2.4% of the rural population and 0.4% of the British population. As it is, according to ‘Countryside Sports – Their Economic Significance,’ published by the Standing Conference on Country Sports (1983), in that year the total number of subscribers to hunting and coursing was less than 26,000^lxii. As has been demonstrated, the popularity of hunting has been in decline since then. It is possible that the CRC figure is artificially inflated by its counting individuals who observe a hunt once a year, on Boxing Day, as ‘participants’. Either way, it is certainly the case that only subscribers, and in particular those who maintain horses, in general make any significant contribution to the economic impact of hunting. This review of the CRC 1992 report is dealt with in more detail in the report entitled ‘Economic effects of a ban on live animal hunting (1997)’, which is submitted.

16. It is estimated the total jobs in mounted hunting is 3,765, deduced from analysis of the National Equestrian Survey. SQW thought it necessary to apply a multiplier to this figure, and so adjusted it to 4,070. Assuming a worse case scenario that assumed all 35,000 dual purpose horses^lxiii were sold for non-hunting purposes, an analysis of the NES study revealed that spending on horse related activity would fall by £11 million in the event of a hunting ban. Dividing that lost £11 million by £23,300 - the BETA ratio of GDP per job in the equestrian industry - a figure of 475 lost jobs was ascertained. (The Produce Studies Group report 1998 used a figure of £23,000.) This was then added to the 340 jobs estimated were provided directly by mounted hunts. The result was a figure of approximately 815 jobs in mounted hunting lost through a ban. Undoubtedly the total number lost in all forms of live animal hunting with dogs, should legislation be passed outlawing the activity, would be higher, as indicated by the SQW and Ward studies. However, mounted hunting is the primary contributory factor to the economic impact of hunting with dogs, and as such the total figure could not vaguely approach that claimed by pro-hunt groups.

1. The above evaluation assumes a worst case scenario. It was assumed that all jobs directly provided by hunts would be lost – that is to say no live animal hunts revert to bloodless mounted hunting after the ban. It also assumes that 35,000 horses kept for dual purposes are thus surplus to requirements and sold for non-hunting purposes.

2. Such a scenario is unlikely. MacDonald and Johnson, in their 1996 study of the impact of sport hunting, concluded that:

‘Matson (1991, cited by Winter et al, 1993) estimated that closing down a large pack of foxhounds could affect 57 jobs. However, the majority of these are jobs generated by horse husbandry (grooms, grain merchants, etc.,) and the extent to which they would be affected depends on the extent to which horses are kept solely for the purpose of foxhunting. Winter et al (1993) carried out a detailed investigation of the economic impact of stag hunting with hounds in Devon and Somerset. They concluded that hunting played a relatively minor role in the economy, though on a local scale the impact could be important. Fewer than half the horses owned by hunt subscribers were said by their owners to be kept solely for hunting, and it cannot be concluded that these horses would not be kept for other purposes in the absence of hunting.’ ^lxiv Are we really to believe that people who enjoy hunting with dogs would stop riding if hunting was banned?

3. Other estimates of economic impact are made in the 1997 study, The Economic Effects of a Ban on Live Animal Hunting, based on differing scenarios, such as a significant movement towards benign mounted hunting. The report is submitted for examination by the inquiry.

4. The SQW estimate of the total number of jobs associated with hunting is ‘in the order of 8,000 FTEs,' although it accepts that this may be an under-estimate. The SQW study does not state how many of these it expects to be lost if hunting live quarry with dogs is banned, but does state that ‘ the indirect component represents some 70-75% of the total employment associated with hunting and this component is less at risk from a ban than direct employment.’ What appears to be beyond doubt is that the 1997 CRC figure of 22,950 is a gross over-estimate. Moreover, a review of the methodology behind the British Field Sports Society figure of 13,800 lost jobs – a figure claimed in The Independent on July 17^th 1997 - indicates that this is over-stated^lxv.

1. The methodology used by the Produce Studies Group for their 1998b report, based upon the earlier PSG 1998a nationwide study and finally settled upon by the Countryside Alliance as providing a definitive review of the economics of hunting in Scotland, is expressly criticised by Macmillan: ‘The PSG study… incorrectly attributed all horse-related employment by mounted hunt followers to fox-hunting, did not consider the employment effects of expenditure redirected within the economy following a ban, and did not convert part-time or seasonal jobs to FTE jobs.’ ^lxvi

Macmillan cites further problems with PSG methodology. Again with reference to the 1998b study, he states:

2. It is claimed that ten out of eleven farriers would go out of business as a result of a ban because each would lose about 20% of their turnover. However, this is an exaggeration because the custom of non-hunting clients of any farrier that goes out of business will boost the turnover of the remaining farriers in the region and compensate for the loss of hunting business.’ ^lxvii The point is obvious, but demonstrates the nature of the PSG methodology.

3. The 1999 Royal Agricultural College report, Economic, Social and environmental aspects of hunting with hounds in West Somerset and Exmoor^lxviii, which concluded that hunting with hounds is of importance to the local economy, is equally unreliable. In many aspects it contradicts an earlier RAC report, by Winter et al, entitled Economic and social aspects of deer hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks (1993). The latter was described by Macmillan as ‘perhaps the most authoritative and independent estimate of the local economic contribution of hunting.’ ^lxix

4. The 1999 report calculates the total number of jobs directly attributed to hunting and multiplies that number by 2.1 to calculate the total number of jobs reliant both directly and indirectly on hunting. The 1993 report used a factor of 1.88.

1. The 1999 report concludes that a hunting ban ‘could well impact upon tourism.’ And yet on the same subject the 1993 report stated; ‘Without a full-blown visitor survey and indeed a national household survey, it is impossible to make any comment upon these claims.’ The 1999 report did neither. Moreover, with a huge majority of the public opposed to hunting with dogs^lxx it is more likely that tourism would be adversely affected by the prevalence of the activity. MacDonald and Johnson, in their 1996 study, stated:

‘Although the attitudes canvassed in our questionnaires might not be representative of the British electorate as a whole in the late Twentieth century, they suggest to us that traditional foxhunting by mounted followers is unlikely to escape restricting legislation in the next few decades. Yet there is an increasing desire by urban-dwellers to participate in rural pastimes, a populous that is ever more knowledgeable about wildlife and eager to be out-of-doors, and a farming economy under mounting pressure to diversify.’ ^lxxi

2. Winter, et al, (1993) concluded that a hunt enthusiast’s contribution to local employment would only be ‘wiped out if he invested in a building society all his monies previously devoted to hunting, and devoted his leisure time entirely to sitting in armchairs watching television.’ The 1993 study went on to conclude that if the same enthusiast devoted his hunting expenditure to the establishment of a ‘tourist enterprise based on labour intensive recreational activities,’ the rural economy, and employment, would benefit from the demise of his leisure activity.

3. The 1999 study based many of its findings upon the economies of two villages, Exford and Stogursey. The former is home to the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, the latter a well-known hunting village. The 1993 report stated: ‘The smaller villages at the heart of the hunting country are clearly reliant to a much greater degree than those on the fringes, where it scarcely signifies at all.’

4. The 1993 report found that a shortage of affordable housing in the area was ‘largely as a result of in-migration from the relatively affluent,’ a factor which ‘acts as a constraint’ on rural employment. The 1999 report claimed that a hunt ban would result in a reduction in local property prices, but does not go on to mention the possible benefits for local employment. Newby believed that ‘as prices inexorably rise, so the population which actually achieves its goal of a house in the country becomes more socially selective.’ ^lxxii

5. On 27^th November 1997 the Western Daily Press reported that Anne Heseltine had owned a weekend home at Exford, Devon for the previous 17 years which she used as a base whilst hunting. This, reported the newspaper, had angered local residents who said that the loss of hundreds of country properties to holiday and second home owners has already ruined much of the fabric of country life.

6. Furthermore, it can be the case that the existence of hunting in a locality is detrimental to a business. A survey of businesses in the West Country found that, of 195 responses, 42 indicated the negative aspects of hunting, such as customers avoiding the area, roads blocked, upset to people and so on. Winter et al report the owners of pubs and hotels expressing the economic benefits of hunting, but also saying:

‘We have lost business because our guests have encountered the Hunt on their first visit.’

And:

‘Stag hunting is a complete turnoff for 99% of our visitors.’

One owner recorded the ‘disgust expressed by her guests and their reluctance to return due to horror at the Hunt activities.’ Another wrote that ‘In my experience these car followers are a total nuisance to all road users.’ ^lxxiii

1. It is interesting to note that statistics from MAFF’s annual Agricultural Census show that the total labour force in agriculture declined by 78,800 between 1986 and 1996 – a fall of 11.6%. Removing part-time and seasonal workers from the figures still leaves a loss of 59,600 jobs. Even if all the jobs directly sustained by hunt providers were to be lost at once, this would still equate with only 1.5% of the jobs lost in agriculture in the past decade. Moreover, the jobs associated with hunting are spread nationally throughout the rural economy. This can be contrasted with the closure of large plants, where job losses tend to be concentrated in a much smaller geographical locality with much more tightly focused social and economic consequences^lxxiv.

1. It is also important to consider the accepted downturn in participation in live quarry hunting. The CRC 1997 report estimated that the number of participants hunting fox and deer in Great Britain fell by 9.5% between 1992 and 1997 – whilst the drop in active hare hunting was 12.2%. The CRC report claimed that this was due to the recession. And yet in the same period the number of packs of drag and bloodhounds increased by 50% with the formation of the Celtic Draghounds, the Cheshire farmers, the North West, the Llynfi Vale, the Cranwell Bloodhounds, the East Anglian, the Kyre, the Southern Shires and the West Country^lxxv.

2. The years since 1997 have seen the formation of further drag and blood hound packs, and a further decrease in the number of live animal hunts^lxxvi. The number of drag and bloodhound packs doubled in the years between 1988-98^lxxvii. Twenty-two live quarry hunts have amalgamated in the past eighteen years^lxxviii.

3. As such it can be seen that the activity of hunting wild mammals with dogs is in secular decline in contrast to its benign alternative, and thus it can be assumed that its limited economic importance is also waning.

1. As an example of the geographical factors that should be considered when discussing the issue of hunt-related employment, consider the case of the pub. Live quarry hunters often claim that the absence of the money spent by enthusiasts at the public house prior to a meet, sustains jobs. In reality the hunt will gather at one of the numerous districts or ‘meets’ in the course of a season^lxxix. As such a particular public house will rarely host a gathering, which in any case will, according to MacDonald and Johnson, number only 80 participants, many of whom will be observers. As such, expenditure by hunt enthusiasts in pubs on hunting days, although perhaps substantial, is spread over thousands of establishments and thus has little local impact. Furthermore, simply because people eat and drink in the course of a hunting day, they not cease to do so in the event of a ban. Legislation to outlaw hunting will not prohibit consumption of alcohol and meals in rural areas.

2. Macmillan states that the overall impact of a fox hunting ban will be partly determined by its indirect impact on other businesses in the rural economy^lxxx. Macmillan estimates that more than half of all jobs associated with hunting are generated by expenditure on local goods and services, such as hotels, pubs, outfitters, and vets^lxxxi.

Macmillan elaborates:

‘Even in the unlikely event that dedicated fox hunters decided to stop riding altogether, they would in all likelihood continue to spend money in the local economy, through participation on other sporting activities, or merely by maintaining their traditional social life. For example, when the Wigtownshire Hunt was disbanded in the early 1990’s, members expressed a desire to continue the Hunt’s social life by organising dinners and a hunt ball (Sunday Times 3/3/91). Expenditure of this nature would help retain jobs in local businesses, shops and hotels.

‘As in the case of new horse-riding ventures, the increased availability of resources such as land and labour would also stimulate the growth of other businesses: stables could be converted to office accommodation or to craft workshops, and land and labour could be used in new recreational activities. For example, the Gaelic College on Skye, Sabhal Mor Ostaig, which has become an important employer on the island, was originally housed in converted stables.

‘The extent to which these new opportunities will replace employment associated with fox hunting will depend primarily on the labour required by these new businesses relative to hunting, and the degree to which these businesses are embedded in the rural economy.’ ^lxxxii

14: The hidden costs of hunting

1. According to Ward, a full audit of the economic impact of banning hunting with hounds would require consideration of the costs hunting generates through damage and disruption to farmland, crops and stock and other forms of private property (such as domestic pet deaths) as well as disruption to road and rail services^lxxxiii.

2. It is certainly the case that live quarry hunting leads to significant disruption, economic and otherwise, in the countryside. The evidence collated suggests that such disruption is ‘endemic in parts of the country.’ ^lxxxiv

3. Riot!, the League Against Cruel Sports’ study into ‘hunt havoc’ has recorded incidences of disruption to people and property by hunts. Between 1991 and 1997 there was a marked increase in the number of incidents in comparison to those recorded in the eighties^lxxxv. Further evidence of the impact of hunt havoc is included in the section of this submission concerned with social and cultural life in the countryside.

4. An example of the economic disruption that can be caused, occurred on 20^th January 1998. Hounds from the West Kent Hunt crossed onto a railway line in pursuit of a fox. Ten were electrocuted, causing 45 trains to be delayed, as reported by The Observer on 25^th January 1998, and a total train delay of ten hours and three minutes^lxxxvi. Amongst those trains delayed were the high cost Eurostar services.

5. By way of further example, on November 27^th 1999 seven hounds from the New Forest were electrocuted on a railway line, again causing major disruption to services, as reported by News of the World on November 28^th 1999.

6. Track record, a report by the League Against Cruel Sports, details numerous other incidents of hunt disruption to rail services in rural Britain. ^lxxxvii Conversely, bloodless hunts follow a pre-determined trail, and so avoid disrupting rural residents and services.

1. Its supporters have also claimed that hunting with hounds is of important benefit to the economic well-being of farmers. In reality, the fox does not cause the disruption that is often attributed to it, and furthermore hunting with hounds does little to control its numbers. These assertions are dealt with in greater detail elsewhere in this submission. However, it is worth citing here MAFF statistics which suggest that 95% of the 4 million annual lamb deaths are caused by exposure, starvation, abortions, still births, infectious diseases and congenital defects. Only 5% are attributed to predation and misadventure, included in which are road accidents and predation by foxes^lxxxviii. MacDonald and Johnson concluded, in their 1996 report, that ‘in general there is minimal evidence that fox predation limits agricultural profit or that the effort put into prophylactic fox control is repaid by greater profits in the marketplace.’ ^lxxxix

2. Further evidence demonstrating that the negative economic impact of fox predation is minimal, and that foxes are often of great benefit to agriculture, can be found elsewhere in this submission. As an example, MAFF wrote in a letter to the League Against Cruel Sports that ‘the Ministry does not consider fox hunting to be a major controlling factor in the fox population.’ ^xc

3. Hunts also claim to provide a valuable economic service to farmers by disposing of fallen stock. But, as reported by the House of Commons Agricultural Committee 1991, hunts are, in reality, ‘having to pass on the renderers’ charges to farmers for whom they were previously happy to operate a free collection service.’ ^xci For example, the answering machine at the kennels of the East Devon Hunt states that charges are as follows:

‘Cows and sows thirty pounds. Sheep and pigs fifteen.’ (Recorded on February 15^th 1999).

4. The 1991 Agriculture Committee also heard from representatives of the knacker industry, who stated that hunts are, in effect, in competition with knackermen. It might therefore be inferred that if some hunts refused to convert to drag hunting, the long suffering knacker industry could benefit^xcii.

5. It should also be noted, with some concern, that, according to Brown (1997), hunt kennels have been exposed as having ‘the worst record for breaching hygiene controls’ designed to prevent the spread of BSE. ^xciii

6. A further claim made by the proponents of hunting is that without it, point-to-pointing would suffer, and with it an important economic contribution to rural life. In reality, according to the Geoffrey Cragghill Memorial Scholarship, a report in favour of hunting with dogs:

‘It is no longer accurate to say that without hunting there would be no point-to-points… those who participate in point-to-points are more and more interested first in racing and secondly in foxhunting,’ ^xciv

7. And furthermore, according to Point-to-Pointers and Hunter Chasers, Mackenzie and Selby, (1985):

‘Nowadays point-to-pointing is amateur steeplechasing – nothing more, nothing less. There is now virtually no connection between it and hunting despite strident announcements to the contrary from the Jockey Club and BFSS… The sport has outgrown the hunting field and hunts should regard their virtual monopoly of organising it as a privilege not a right… The current necessity for each hunt to earn as much money as possible from its point-to-point is having a detrimental effect on the sport… In complete contradiction to the propaganda, if hunting were abolished amateur racing would get a shot in the arm.’

8. In a letter to IFAW, dated 25^th February 2000, the respected race horse trainer, Gay Kelleway wrote:

‘As for qualifying Pointers surely Drag Hunting would be the answer – Man made fences there to be jumped. They will be expected to jump these types of fence when they qualify to run. Take the hounds out over planned courses, aniseed trails that don’t rip up private land and put the safety of other people and their animals at risk. The same rates of pay etc would still exist. Killing foxes doesn’t bring in revenue. If you can afford to own a Point to Pointer, you can’t be badly off.’

10. 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 have campaigned for years for better animal welfare regulations on the farms and 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.

‘The Countryside Alliance supporters have claimed that thousands of jobs will be lost if hunting is banned though there is no firm basis for that claim. We believe that this is nonsense and if any jobs are lost it will only be because of the malicious intent of the hunt masters.

‘If the Countryside Alliance is so concerned about the loss of rural jobs, what were they doing about the 30,000 jobs lost in agriculture since 1990?’ ^xcv

11. TGWU General Secretary Bill Morris states: ‘It gives untold strength to our cause to show just how many people within the Trade Union Movement abhor bloodsports and oppose them.’ ^xcvi

12. Ann Widdecombe, speaking in the second reading debate of Michael Foster’s bill, was equally forthright: ‘It is argued that if we abolish hunting we will abolish jobs. If we abolish crime, we will put all the police out of work. If we abolish ill health, we will put all the doctors and nurses out of work. Does anyone seriously suggest that we must preserve at all costs crime and ill health because they keep people in jobs?’ ^xcvii

13. The final word, however, is left to Douglas Macmillan, from his report After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment. ‘Depending on the labour inputs required by new businesses,’ he writes, ‘it is plausible that rural employment could actually rise as a result of a ban.’ ^xcviii

__________________________

ⁱ Countryside Alliance figures – as supplied to Press Association, (Sep 1999).

ⁱⁱ Financial Times 09/10/99 – Fox hunting debate homes in on ban’s threat to rural jobs.

ⁱⁱⁱ Wildlife Guardian (Autumn 1999) - Published by the League Against Cruel Sports, and supplied as Annexe 10.

^iv Macmillan D, (1999b) After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment. University of Aberdeen, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group

^v Ward, D (1999). Foxing the nation: the economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds in Britain. Journal of Rural Studies 15; 389-403.

^vi World Magazine, November 1990.

^viii Baily’s Hunting Directories, Cambridge, Pearson Publishing.

^ix The Daily Telegraph, 3^rd April 1997

^x ‘Blue & Scarlet’ by JNP Watson, published by The Sportsman’s Press, 1990.

^xi League Against Cruel Sports (1996) Drag Hunting – ‘A Family Sport’, London: LACS.

^xii Baker and Harris, Bristol

^xiii MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996) The impact of sport hunting: A case study.

^xiv ibid

^xv Macmillan D, (1999) After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment. University of Aberdeen, Environmental and Rural Resource Economics Group

^xvi MORI polling for International Fund for Animal Welfare, 1995-2000.

^xvii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^xviii Winter M, Hallet J, Nixon J, Watkins C, Cox G and Glanfield P. 1993, Economic and social aspects of deer hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks. Centre for Rural Studies, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester.

^xix Countryside Alliance Handbook and Trade Directory.

^xx League Against Cruel Sports (1996) op.cit.

^xxi ) Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^xxii MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996) op.cit.

^xxiii Segal Quince Wicksteed (1997) Review of the Estimates of the Employment Impact of a Ban on Hunting With Dogs, Cambridge: Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd.

^xxiv The Independent, 17^th July 1997.

^xxv Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^xxvi Segal Quince Wicksteed (1997) op.cit.

^xxvii MFHA 1985 figures.

^xxviii British Equestrian Trade Association (1996) The B.E.T.A. National Equestrian Survey, Wetherby: B.E.T.A.

^xxix Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^xxx British Equestrian Trade Association (1996) op.cit.

^xxxi International Fund for Animal Welfare (1997) Economic Effects of a Ban on Live Animal Hunting, Crowborough: IFAW.

^xxxii Cobham Resource Consultants (1983) Countryside Sports – Their Economic, Social and Conservation Significance, Reading: Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

^xxxiii Segal Quince Wicksteed (1997) op.cit.

^xxxiv Baily’s Hunting Directories, Cambridge, Pearson Publishing.

^xxxv Countryside Protection Group Seminar – 23^rd February 1998.

^xxxvi Segal Quince Wicksteed (1997) op.cit.

^xxxvii Ward, D (1999) op.cit.

^xxxviii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^xxxix Ward, D (1999) op.cit.

^xl The Independent, 17^th July 1997.

^xli Baily’s Hunting Directories. op.cit.

^xlii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^xliii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^xliv Macmillan D, (1999) ibid.

^xlv Ward, D (1999) op.cit.

^xlvi Countryside Alliance (1998) The Countryside Rally, Listen To Us, July 10^th 1997, London: Countryside Alliance.

^xlvii Pack Of Lies – League Against Cruel Sports

^xlviii Cobham Resource Consultants (1983) op.cit.

^xlix Cobham Resource Consultants (1992) Countryside Sports – Their Economic, Social and Conservation Significance, Reading: Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

^l Cobham Resource Consultants (1997) Countryside Sports – Their Economic, Social and Conservation Significance, Reading: Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

^li Produce Studies Group (1998) Employment Generated by Fox Hunting in great Britain, Report for the Countryside Alliance, Newbury: Produce Studies Group.

^lii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^liii Macmillan D, (1999). op.cit.

^liv Macmillan D, (1999) ibid.

^lv International Fund for Animal Welfare (1997). op.cit.

^lvi International Fund for Animal Welfare (1997). Ibid.

^lvii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lviii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^lix Cobham Resource Consultants (1992). op.cit.

^lx MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996) op.cit.

^lxi Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^lxii Cobham Resource Consultants (1983). op.cit.

^lxiii British Equestrian Trade Association (1996). op.cit.

^lxiv MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996). op.cit.

^lxv Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxvi Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxvii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxviii Manley W, Hallett J, Nixon J, Baines R (1999) Economic, social and environmental aspects of hunting with hounds in West Somerset and Exmoor – Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester.

^lxix Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxx MORI polling conducted for the International Fund for Animal Welfare 1995-2000.

^lxxi MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996) op.cit.

^lxxii Newby, Green and Pleasant Land? 1980.

^lxxiii Winter M, Hallet J, Nixon J, Watkins C, Cox G and Glanfield P. 1993, op.cit.

^lxxiv Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^lxxv Baily’s Hunting Directories, op.cit.

^lxxvi Baily’s Hunting Directories, ibid.

^lxxvii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^lxxviii Baily’s Hunting Directories, op.cit.

^lxxix MacDonald D. and Johnson D. (1996) op.cit.

^lxxx Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxxxi Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxxxii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

^lxxxiii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^lxxxiv Ward, D (1999). Ibid.

^lxxxv League Against Cruel Sports (1994) Riot!, London: LACS.

^lxxxvi Hansard written answers, 5^th February 1998.

^lxxxvii League Against Cruel Sports (1995) Track record: A Report on Road and rail Accidents Caused by Hunting with Hounds, London: LACS.

^lxxxviii League Against Cruel Sports (1995) ibid.

^lxxxix League Against Cruel Sports (1995) Track record: A Report on Road and rail Accidents Caused by Hunting with Hounds, London: LACS.

^xc House of Commons Research Paper 97/122 (1997).

^xci House of Commons Agriculture Committee (1991) Disposal of Fallen Stock, HC Paper 493, Session 1990-91, London: HMSO.

^xcii Ward, D (1999). op.cit.

^xciii Ward, D (1999). ibid.

^xciv Geoffry Cragghill Memorial Scholarship, 1991.

^xcv Countryside Alliance (1998) The Countryside Rally, Listen To Us, July 10^th 1997, London: Countryside Alliance.

^xcvi League Against Cruel Sports leaflet – Why should trade unionists care about hunting?

^xcvii Hansard, 28^th November 1997.

^xcviii Macmillan D, (1999) op.cit.

Back to top

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

Population size of hares, foxes, mink and red deer

1. The status of all species of mammals in Britain was reviewed by Harris et al. (1995) under contract to the Joint Nature Conservation Committeeⁱ. The aims of the study were to provide pre-breeding population estimates and review the current population trends for each species. For this, the authors contacted all the active mammalogists in Britain and the review summarises their opinions.

2. The population estimates are for the pre-breeding population. For foxes, mink and red deer, this represents the minimum number of each species at the start of the breeding season. For hares, this is not the case; the population estimate is for mid-winter, but around 40% of the hare population is killed in shoots in Februaryⁱⁱ, before the onset of the breeding season, and so at its minimum, the hare population falls to around half a million. Population estimates are provided separately for England, Scotland and Wales, and for Britain as a whole. The population trends shown in the report are an overview of changes during the preceding thirty years and does not necessarily reflect current trends:-

3. The population estimates were derived by different means; full details are given in the reportⁱⁱⁱ. For both hares and red deer, these are based on tried and tested census techniques. There have now been two comprehensive national hare surveys in the 1990s^iv. Census techniques for the red deer population in south-west Britain are described by Langbein & Putman (1992) ^v: the number of red deer in south-west Britain is at least 10,000, with 4750 in the Exmoor National Park, a further 1000 within 10 kilometres of the park boundary, and 800-900 on the Quantocks^vi.

4. For foxes and mink, there have been no national population estimates, and so numbers were estimated by using known densities (from detailed autecological studies) in different types of landscape. This is a reasonable approach: so far there are no plans to undertake a national mink survey (other than to continue to monitor presence/absence at sites surveyed for otters and water voles during national surveys undertaken by The Vincent Wildlife Trust), but The Mammal Society, in collaboration with BBC Wildlife magazine, are currently undertaking a national fox survey. Results of this will not be available for another year. However, the general pattern of results suggests that the densities used by Harris et al. (1995) ^vii do reflect the relative number of foxes in different landscape types. Since there were no density estimates available for foxes from East Anglia or the east coast of Scotland, two areas where foxes have been rare in recent years and where fox numbers are currently still increasing (see below), it is likely that fox numbers in these areas may have been over-estimated. However, the impact of this on the national population estimate will be small; any error will have been to slightly over-estimate the number of foxes in Britain. For most of Britain, more recent studies^viii have confirmed the density estimates used by Harris et al. (1995) ^ix.

Fox population trends

1. There are a number of areas where, until recently, foxes were rare. These include much of East Anglia and parts of eastern Scotland^x. Here fox numbers are recovering. They are also colonising the conifer plantations in upland areas where, previously, foxes had been rare^xi. Foxes colonised urban areas in the inter-war years, but there has been little change in the number of urban foxes in recent decades^xii. About 14% of the total British fox population now lives in urban areas^xiii. Whilst a few cities have been colonised in the last decade, there has been little change in the number of urban foxes generally.

2. For most of lowland Britain, however, there is no unequivocal evidence of any significant change in fox numbers in recent years. Game bag data^xiv show an increase in the number of foxes being killed by gamekeepers on large estates (the source of information for the National Game Bag Census). This is frequently quoted as evidence for an increase in the number of foxes nationally. However, keepered land only covers about 12% of rural Britain^xv and it may equally well be that gamekeepers are simply culling a surplus of foxes that move in from surrounding areas. Also, changes in the number of foxes killed in the autumn and winter, many of which will be dispersing young of the year, may not be a reliable measure of changes in the size of the breeding population. Certainly, research^xvi has shown that in areas with established fox populations, winter culls by gamekeepers by night-shooting (lamping) kill far more foxes than the area can actually hold, and that the number of culled foxes never reaches an asymptote. This only occurred in eastern England and eastern Scotland, yet even in East Anglia fox numbers are still believed to be increasing from very low levels or absence earlier this century^xvii.

3. In the past, however, there have been dramatic changes in fox numbers. Their apparent rarity in historical times is described by Lloyd (1980) ^xviii and last century many thousands of foxes were imported from Europe to stock areas for foxhunting.

Red deer population trends

1. There are currently around a million deer of six species in Britain^xix. The status of all deer in Europe and North America is summarised by Gill (1990) ^xx. This shows that all species, with the possible exception of North American caribou, are increasing. For red and roe deer in Europe generally, and this applies to Britain as well, numbers are increasing because of "conservative hunting", amongst other reasons. This is despite 270,000 red deer (from a total European population of 1,067,000) and 1,678,000 roe deer (from a total European population of 5,500,000) being harvested each year. Current culling pressure is insufficient to prevent population growth.

2. These population estimates^xxi also reinforce the high density of deer in Britain. Britain forms 4.7% of the land area of Europe west of the former USSR^xxii. Yet we contain around 30% of the European red deer population, 40% of the entire fallow deer population, and roughly the proportion of the roe deer population that would be expected from area considerations. The other three species (sika, muntjac and Chinese water deer) are found in low numbers in Britain, but are even rarer or absent from the rest of Europe^xxiii. For Chinese water deer, the British population (less than a thousand), although introduced, actually forms 10% of the entire world population of the Chinese sub-species of water deer. In China they are under threat, and the small British population could one day serve as an important source to restock areas of China^xxiv.

3. It is clear that deer management in Britain has led to a remarkably healthy deer population. This has not always been the case. Widespread forest clearance in the 18th century led to the extinction of a number of woodland species in much of Britain^xxv. As a consequence, species such as red squirrels had to be reintroduced to many areas. Woodland deer also suffered badly; this was partly due to the extensive woodland clearances and heavy culling pressure. In the middle of the last century, there were few fallow deer herds in Britain, roe deer became extinct in England and only survived in Scotland in low numbers in remnant woodlands in the central and north-west highlands, and red deer numbers in England were very low. In Scotland they became extinct in the lowlands in the 17th century, and only survived in low numbers on remote hill lands. Red deer numbers were lowest in Scotland at the end of the 18^th century^xxvi.

4. Many factors led to the deer population recovery. These include: habitat improvement; patterns of population change from rural areas; an increased interest in deer stalking, especially in Scotland; and deliberate reintroduction programmes. The roe deer population in southern England is entirely descended from two reintroductions, to Milton Abbas in Dorset in 1800 and to the Thetford area in 1884. The roe deer in the Lake District are also introduced, probably from Austria^xxvii. It is important to remember these historical changes; it is frequently argued that the low number of red deer on Exmoor during the last century was a consequence of a cessation of hunting with hounds^xxviii. In fact the pattern of population change is exactly the same as that seen in the rest of Britain, where there was little or no hunting with hounds^xxix. Thus, there is no basis for the assertion that the red deer on Exmoor only survived due to the resumption of hunting with hounds.

Hare population trends

1. The national hare survey was repeated over the winters of 1997/1998 and 1998/1999. This showed that the hare numbers had declined by nearly 10% to 752,608ñ37,697, compared with 817,520ñ42,959 in 1991-1993. The trend in most areas of Britain was downwards, and the population declines were significant in some arable areas^xxxi. These two surveys represent the only random sample of hare populations throughout Britain. Others use either game bag data from large shooting estates or the numbers of hares seen when hunting with packs of dogs. None of these approaches represent random samples; Langbein et al. (1999) ^xxxii concluded the approach used in the national surveys represented the only objective approach.

2. The continuing downward trend in hare numbers was particularly surprising, because until the repeat survey it had been assumed that hare numbers would benefit from set-aside and other schemes designed to reduce the levels of agricultural intensification^xxxiii. The decline in hare numbers in arable areas following the introduction of set-aside is, therefore, worrying.

3. Research^xxxiv found that hare numbers were negatively correlated with the number of access features such as tracks. It is clear that hares are rarest in areas where there is greatest ease of access to the land. Whether this is directly due to hunting pressure (from shooting, coursing, etc) is unclear. It may equally well be a reflection of the problem highlighted in the first national hare survey^xxxv, which reported that coursing pressure was so high in arable areas that landowners deliberately shot as many hares as possible on their land to discourage coursing. It is, of course, possible that both factors are contributory. Thus, the preliminary data suggest that hunting and/or shooting pressure is having a significant impact on hare numbers locally, and may be the major factor leading to the population decline during this decade, despite the advent of habitat changes that should have reversed hare population declines.

4. It should be remembered that brown hares were one of the few species of mammal included in the short list of globally threatened/declining species and so warranted a species action plan to aid their population recovery^xxxvi. This document was part of the UK's response to the Prime Minister signing the Biodiversity Convention at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The key target for this action plan is to double the spring hare population by the year 2010. So far we have not even managed to halt the population decline, let alone reverse it.

Mink population trends

1. Mink are a relative newcomer to Britain: although they were imported for fur farming from 1929 onwards, and the first escapes occurred soon thereafter, the first evidence that populations were breeding in the wild and therefore self-sustaining was not until 1957 in north Devon and elsewhere in the early 1960s^xxxvii. Mink were not farmed in Ireland until the early 1950s, so populations there are not so well established^xxxviii.

2. The spread of mink was probably aided by the absence or rarity of otters in many parts of lowland Britain, so the mink spread rapidly into what was a vacant niche. However, otter populations are now recovering from the effects of past persecution and pollution. Otter numbers have continued to increase in recent years, especially in the midlands, east and south-east England^xxxix. This has had a significant impact on the mink population. Strachan, Strachan & Jefferies (2000) ^xl recorded how many sites showed evidence of mink during two national water vole surveys; in their preliminary report, they noted that mink populations have continued to decline. The number of survey sites showing evidence of mink has declined by around 50% in the last seven years^xli.

3. Whilst mink numbers are declining in lowland Britain due to intraguild competition with otters, we cannot assume this pattern will continue. Clearly mink can and do co-exist with otters. For instance, they are continuing to spread into parts of Scotland and in Ireland, both areas with large and healthy otter populations. It appears that the impact of otters on mink is more pronounced in areas with established mink populations that are recolonised by otters than in areas with otters that are colonised by mink^xlii. These data may suggest that, once otter populations are re-established in lowland Britain, they will co-exist with mink and that mink numbers will start to recover. Although the data are currently inconclusive, we should not assume that mink numbers will continue to decline as otter populations continue to expand.

The need to control fox populations

1. There is considerable misinformation on the need to control fox populations. At present, foxes are culled extensively in the belief that (a) this is necessary and (b) it is achieving a useful goal. Both beliefs are widespread, but there is little unequivocal evidence to support either assumption.

2. The economic losses to foxes are summarised in McDonald et al. (1997) ^xliii. There is little evidence that foxes cause significant economic losses to agriculture except locally, and this is not surprising. A high proportion of agricultural land is used for raising cereals and other crops, or cattle. Foxes have no impact here, and can only be beneficial in reducing losses to species such as rabbits and rodents. Equally, few chicken flocks are kept in situations where foxes could predate them, and losses to free-range flocks are low. This is not surprising; before widespread intensive factory farming, the BFSS said that the foxes reputation as a poultry killer was not deserved, and went as far to say that "it is probably true to say that not 5 per cent of all the foxes in Christendom ever taste domestic poultry at all"^xliv.

3. Fox control is widely undertaken to reduce perceived predation on lambs, yet studies that have focussed on this problem have generally concluded that losses of lambs to foxes are insignificant^xlv. A variety of studies have shown that lamb losses on open hills are significant, but that predation is a very minor part of this loss, and better husbandry would have a much greater economic benefit.

4. Under the Agriculture Act 1947 and the Agriculture Act (Scotland) 1948, the Agriculture Departments can serve notice on any person having the responsibility to do so to control, among other species, the foxes on his land. The purpose of this notice is to prevent damage to crops, pasture, foodstuffs, livestock, trees, banks, hedges or works on any land^xlvi. Although this Act has been in force for over half a century, MAFF have never yet had to use it with respect to foxes. Thus, even with high density fox populations, there is no evidence that foxes are causing significant economic damage to require landowners to reduce their numbers.

5. The food of foxes in Britain has been reviewed by Baker & Harris (in press) ^xlvii. This has shown that there is little clear evidence that foxes are having a significant impact on any of their prey. The main problem is that the few studies that try to assess impact are generally limited in extent, yet these are taken to be typical of Britain. For instance, Reynolds & Tapper (1995) ^xlviii use simulations based on a density of 15 hares per square kilometre, three times the national average for hares in arable landscapes^xlix, and then use the models to show that at these high densities, foxes are preventing further population growth. There is no evidence that foxes are having an impact on hare numbers nationally, but this one study on an extremely high hare density is used as evidence that fox predation is a major factor leading to the decline in hare numbers throughout Britain. Such extrapolations from a single situation are frequently used to make the case that foxes are a major pest.

6. Similar arguments apply when foxes are said to be a major predator of ground-nesting birds^l. There are some situations where this is the case, but in many more there is no evidence that foxes are having a major ecological impact. The key question here, therefore, is perhaps why do they have an impact in some situations? When we can answer that question, we may then be able to find ways to minimise that impact e.g. through habitat management, that may be more effective in the long term than population control.

7. The other issue to consider is the actual number of foxes. They are actually the rarest of the widespread larger carnivores: population size is lower than badgers, and only a third of the number of feral cats in Britain^li. Foxes are not an over-abundant species.

8. Thus, the case for widespread fox control has not been made. Nor have potential alternative methods of damage control been adequately considered. Methods such as habitat management, aversive conditioning, alternative feeding during critical periods, ensuring an adequate natural food supply all play a role here. This requires an effective countryside management policy, something which is currently lacking.

9. There is little evidence that widespread fox control works. Studies^lii show that in lowland areas with established fox populations, lamping does not have a demonstrable effect in reducing fox numbers. Baker & Harris (1997) ^liii have discussed the effect of culling on fox numbers in Britain, and concluded that fox populations generally regulate their own numbers naturally. They also conclude that current levels of fox control are not effective in reducing overall fox numbers.

10. This conclusion has been confirmed by Reynolds & Haydon (1999) ^liv. They compared three sites; of these, the east midlands is most typical of lowland Britain in that it has a well established fox population which is subjected to a wide variety of culling pressure. They conclude that "Although culling is substantial, especially on a few shooting estates where gamekeepers have a bigger local impact, the fox population is generally high and cub production is suppressed". They agree with Baker & Harris (1997) ^lv that density dependent factors are operating and the foxes are regulating their own numbers. For the other two areas, west Norfolk and the hill areas of mid-Wales, there was no evidence of density dependent effects in operation, but that is to be expected. These are two areas where fox numbers are known to be increasing^lvi. Thus, whilst the fox population is expanding, density dependent suppression of reproduction would not be expected. Certainly, the Game Conservancy state that current culling pressure is not stopping the fox population expanding, and so density dependent effects must be expected to operate in these areas at some point in the future.

11. Not only is there little evidence that widespread culling is reducing fox populations other than locally, there are also no data on the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of control. Widespread culling is extremely labour intensive, and has to be repeated on an annual basis. There are few situations where it is clear that the cost is justified. Research^lvii identified reared game rather than agriculture as the biggest source of economic losses to foxes, yet now 80% of gamekeepers rely mainly on reared game^lviii; losses of reared game to foxes are much less than wild game, especially when the pheasants are released shortly before a shoot. The number of reared pheasants that are released each year has risen from approximately 50 per square kilometre in 1962 to 250 in 1997^lix. With such a dramatic change in the pattern of game shooting in lowland Britain, there is clearly a need to see whether it is cheaper to rear more birds to replace any losses to foxes rather than undertake widespread fox control.

The need to control deer populations

1. Deer populations are expanding and there are clear culling targets laid down locally by organisations such as the British Deer Society and Forest Enterprise. Local Deer Management Groups have been formed in many areas; these set local culling targets, which they then seek to achieve. These deer management groups provide one of the few examples of integrated management of a species of mammal in Britain across areas rather than haphazardly by individual land owners.

2. For most species of deer, there are few data on their full economic impact, nor a full analysis of their economic costs and benefits from stalking, sale of venison, etc. There are better quantified data on the impact of deer control on conservation than agricultural interests^lx, although there are extensive data on forestry impacts. Thus, whilst population control is the prime objective of many culling programmes, the economic rationale is less clear. Equally, it is often unclear where culling is a less effective strategy than alternatives, such as fencing to protect areas of conservation importance.

3. There are also very conflicting goals for culling programmes. The desired population densities for best trophy heads, maximum venison yields, or minimum impact on the ground flora, are very different. Densities as low as 5 deer per square kilometre can depress plant diversity, whereas the optimum density for trophies is around twice this density, for venison three times, yet density dependent population regulation only starts at five times that density^lxi. Culling programmes often fail to consider the goals of the programme and the optimum density that has to be achieved to meet the desired goal.

4. Equally conflicting here is the public interest. Members of the public like to see large herds of wild deer; if numbers are reduced to levels where the deer do not have an ecological impact, population density is invariably so low that there is public concern that culling levels are too high. Such concerns have been expressed in areas such as the New Forest, Cannock Chase, and elsewhere. Judging by the situation in America, public perceptions are likely to play an increasing role in designing deer management programmes, and at least in some areas this is likely to lead to lower culls and higher population densities.

The need to control hare populations

1. The Brown Hare Action Plan^lxii raises an important issue: the brown hare is the only game animal in Britain that does not have a close season, although The Hares Protection Act 1892 makes it illegal to sell hares between March and July; this provision was meant to protect hares during the breeding season^lxiii. However, it does not include hares imported from abroad and this in itself makes the Act difficult to enforce. Many hare shoots are still held in March, and the hares sold to game dealers. Whether these hares are stored frozen or exported is unclear, but clearly the Act does not protect hares during their breeding season.

2. The Brown Hare Action Plan requires the Steering Group to "Review legislation pertaining to the shooting and selling of the hare in the light of new research findings on the seasonality of hare productivity". This comes under the section ‘Proposed action with lead agencies’, and the Department of the Environment (now the DETR) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee were identified as the bodies to take action on this issue. Five years after the Action Plan was published, neither government body has taken any action to review this issue.

3. The need to review the culling period for brown hares is based on recent research that has shown that the young born in January and February have a major influence on the size of the hare population, since young born later in the year have a much reduced survival rate when the quality of the food available to them is lower^lxiv. It is clearly anomalous to have a Biodiversity Action Plan species hunted in large numbers during the most important part of its breeding season. This is both a conservation and a welfare issue.

4. There are few quantified data on the problems caused by hares. Mean densities in most areas are low, even in the arable areas of eastern England^lxv. In arable areas mean mid-winter densities, before the main culling period, were just over seven hares per square kilometre in the early 1990s^lxvi; these have declined during the course of the decade. The economic damage caused by hares at this density is unknown, but it is unlikely to be high. One of action points in the section entitled Proposed action with lead agencies in the Brown Hare Action Plan is as follows: "Investigate the relative economic importance of hares as either a game species or a pest, to assist farmers to make informed choices in hare management". MAFF, SOAEFD and WOAD were identified as the lead agencies to take action on this point. No such action has been taken on this point, even though the Action Plan was published five years ago. So there is no basis on which to make an informed decision on the need to cull hares, and the densities at which economic losses are likely to occur. The only quantified data are for commercial forestry, but this is a localised problem, and even there losses can be minimised by appropriate plantings^lxvii.

5. It should also be remembered that the key target for the Brown Hare Action Plan is to double the spring hare population^lxviii. It is not clear how hunting with dogs, especially coursing, is hindering this goal, but the two national hare surveys provided good circumstantial evidence that this is a factor leading to continuing hare population declines, at least in some areas. The priority, therefore, is not culling but population recovery. Localised culling may be desirable in some arable areas where numbers are high, but elsewhere in Britain numbers of hares are low. This is especially true in the pastoral areas of western Britain^lxix, and here there is no need for culling. In fact, since hare populations in western Britain and Wales started to decline about a hundred years ago, and still show no signs of recovery, conservation is the priority.

1. Mink are an introduced and highly successful predator that have colonised a vacant niche. They are continuing to spread, particularly onto islands off the west coast of Scotland, where they will have a serious ecological impact on native species of conservation importance, such as water voles^lxx and seabirds^lxxi. They are even having a significant impact on hitherto common species of birds such as coots^lxxii.

2. There are no quantified data on their impact on commercial interests such as fisheries and agriculture. Locally, mink can have a serious impact on fish farms, but it is unclear whether culling is the most effective way to deal with this problem.

_____________________________

ⁱ Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D. (1995) A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

^xii Harris, S. & Rayner, J.M.V. (1986a) Urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population estimates and habitat requirements in several British cities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55, 575-591.

Harris, S. & Rayner, J.M.V. (1986b) Models for predicting urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) numbers in British cities and their application for rabies control. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55, 593-603.

^xlv Hewson, R. (1984) Scavenging and predation upon sheep and lambs in West Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 843-868.

^lxx Strachan, C., Jefferies, D.J., Barreto, G.R., Macdonald, D.W. & Strachan, R. (1998) The rapid impact of resident American mink on water voles: case studies in lowland England. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 71, 339-357.

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. Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.

Strachan, R. & Jefferies, D.J. (1993) The water vole Arvicola terrestris in Britain 1989-1990: its distribution and changing status. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.

Back to top

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?

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?

General points

1. There are a number of assumptions in this question; it assumes that (a) the species in question (foxes, deer, hares and mink) need to be controlled, and that (b) hunting with dogs serves as a means of population control. Both of these assumptions are flawed to a greater or lesser extent, and so it is not possible to argue that there are advantages and disadvantages to hunting with dogs as a form of "pest" control.

2. The question also assumes that foxes, deer, hares and mink are all considered pests. For the number of foxes in Britain, the amount of damage they do is surprisingly little, and there is no clear case for arguing that they are pests. Equally, for deer. Whilst they can cause economic damage, this is poorly quantified, and as for foxes there are no data which compare the economic losses attributable to deer with their economic benefits. The same is true for hares: there is no economic assessment of any damage they cause, and the Game Conservancy describes them as a "minor pest"ⁱ. For mink, the situation is somewhat different. The economic argument has not been quantified, and generally losses to agriculture are probably low. Their main impact is likely to be to fish farmers and game rearing interests rather than agriculture per se.

3. It should also be remembered that the image of foxes is changing rapidly, and the impression that foxes are widely regarded as a destructive species is no longer the case. The Mammal Society's web site (www.mammal.org.uk), for instance, has a poll in which members of the public are asked to vote for their favourite mammal. Of the carnivores, the fox and the otter are easily the most popular, vying for first place, and a long way ahead of traditional favourites such as the badger. This is remarkable: despite all the adverse publicity about foxes over the years, they are equaling the popularity of otters, a species which has long been held in high esteem following books such as Henry Williamson's Tarka the otter and Gavin Maxwell's Ring of bright water, among others. The results from The Mammal Society's poll is similar to that organised by NOP on behalf of BBC Wildlife magazineⁱⁱ. This poll covered animals, not just mammals, so birds are included in the rankings. Of the British species, the fox was second only to the dolphin, an extremely charismatic species, and was well ahead of both otter and badger, hitherto traditionally the two favourite British carnivores. In the previous poll, in 1991, the fox was ranked third; so its popularity is increasing.

4. Thus, the use of pejorative terms such as "pest" should be avoided in any rational discussion. Such terms have no role in modern society, where people generally are becoming more objective in their assessments and viewing an ever-increasing number of species as an integral part of our ecosystem. For instance, despite the claims that urban foxes are "pests", "dustbin foxes", "mangy" and "living in habitats where they do not belong" (all, incidentally, wrong - see Harris, 1986) ⁱⁱⁱ, urban residents generally welcome their presence because, despite their very high densities, the problems they cause are remarkably few^iv. Since they are so popular, and cause so few problems, perhaps it is not surprising that in Bristol, in a suburb with one of the highest fox densities recorded anywhere in the world, around 10% of all households fed the foxes regularly^v.

Do foxes, deer, hares and mink need to be controlled?

1. This question assumes that all species need widespread population control. It ignores a basic point: despite extensive attempts to control numbers of foxes and deer, their populations are increasing^vi. Hares are declining and the key aim for this species is to help populations to recover, not to control numbers^vii. For mink, whilst the population is currently undergoing a decline, this may not continue, and this is a natural event, not the consequence of population control. Even when mink numbers were much lower, attempts by MAFF to control their spread proved unsuccessful; see the account by Thompson (1968) ^viii.

2. Thus, the question should be: do we need to control the problems caused by foxes, deer, hares and mink? This is a more objective question and also allows for a more broad-based assessment of the issues. Control can, and does, include culling, but in many situations alternative approaches may be better and more cost-effective in limiting problems. At present, proponents of hunting with dogs use "pest" control as a justification for their activities. Once hunting with dogs is banned, the way will be open for a more rational debate on managing British mammal populations.

3. The other key question so far not tackled in wildlife control in Britain is the question of "targets". What is the aim of control, and what is the desired population size for each species? So far the only objective assessments of the relative population sizes of different species of mammals has been that undertaken by Greenwood et al. (1996) ^ix. This showed that terrestrial mammals have to exist at much higher densities than birds or bats, and discussed possible reasons for this. The analysis was developed by Harris et al. (2000)^x, who showed that generally there are too few carnivores, and too many large herbivores, in Britain. They also showed that the key factor limiting the number of carnivores was a shortage of small mammals in the prey base. This analysis, which is the only objective basis we have for deciding on the "desired" population size for each species, shows that the fox population is at about the right number, whereas red (and roe) deer are too numerous. For brown hares, the problem is not the number of hares but their disjunct distribution: Hutchings & Harris (1996) ^xi showed that around 20% of the entire hare population is to be found in just 5% of the land area, in East Anglia. Here the priority is to increase hare numbers in areas where they are less common, thereby ensuring a more even distribution of the hare population (Temple et al., 2000).

4. Until we have an rational assessment of both the need for control, the aims of control, and the cost-effectiveness of control, it is completely impossible to discuss the relative merits of different forms of population and/or damage control. All we can deduce, from the figures published by Cobham Resource Consultants (1997) ^xii that £176 million is spent on hunting with hounds - a breakdown by various species is not given - is that hunting with hounds is not a cost-effective activity. Assuming that around 20,000 foxes, 6000 mink, 6000 hares and 200 deer are killed by recognised packs of hounds each year, roughly £5500 is spent for each animal killed. There is clearly no evidence to suggest that the economic losses attributable to any of these species is anything approaching that order of magnitude.

1. The question as posed assumes that hunting with dogs acts as a means of population control. If this is the case, then there must be some evidence that hunting either reduces economic losses and/or reduces population levels by a pre-determined amount. There is no evidence that either situation is the case.

2. The control wild canid populations is reviewed by Harris & Saunders (1993) ^xiii. They show that canid populations generally need about 70% mortality if numbers are to be reduced, and that rarely is any control effort approaching this level. At the start of the hunting season, the British fox population is around 500,000 adults and young of the year: the killing of around 20,000 (4%) by hounds is not a means of control, and nor is there any evidence that it makes a significant contribution to the overall level of fox control. Hence fox numbers in Britain are believed to be increasing despite current levels of culling^xiv. Harris & Saunders (1993) ^xv concluded that "ill-monitored or poorly designed canid control programmes are unlikely to be successful, yet considerable effort and money are often spent without adequate research or monitoring of events". They also stress that canid control programmes will increasingly need to be publicly accountable. That conclusion is becoming ever more true.

3. All the independent evidence from Britain shows that generally fox control does not reduce population levels, but that social factors and/or food supply does. Research^xvi showed that a bounty system in Northern Ireland from 1944 to 1967 failed to reduce fox numbers. Hewson & Kolb (1973) ^xvii showed that the increase in distribution of foxes in Scotland was not associated with changes in the number of gamekeepers, amongst other factors. They concluded that food availability in late winter and spring have an important influence upon reproductive success or cub survival. Availability of carrion may be particularly important; they also reported a large peak in fox numbers in the late 1950s associated with myxomatosis. Hewson (1984) ^xviii extended these studies; he showed that the number of foxes killed in Scotland had increased between the 1960s and 1970s, and that these changes were associated with changes in field vole numbers. Hewson (1986) ^xix also showed that killing foxes in winter did not lead to fewer breeding dens in the following spring, but that areas with high levels of control apparently had more juveniles than more inaccessible areas with less control.

4. The impact of culling pressure on the age structure and number of non-breeding vixens in the population has been long-established ^xx, research also showed that there are more older foxes in areas with less fox control. Twenty years on, these results have been repeated by the Game Conservancy ^xxi. All studies show the same; heavy culling mainly targets the juvenile part of the population, and in many areas foxes are reducing their own level of productivity by social factors, which are mediated through food availability.

5. The only study in Britain that has concluded that culling pressure reduces fox numbers is that by Heydon & Reynolds (2000b) ^xxii. They conclude that current fox densities reflect a history of culling and that culling can substantially depress fox numbers. However, this is at variance with the other main conclusion from the Gamer Conservancy: that fox numbers are increasing despite current levels of culling ^xxiii. This can only mean that either (a) fox numbers are not increasing or (b) that culling does not depress fox numbers, although it may be that culling pressure is slowing the rate of increase. The Game Conservancy cannot have it both ways: one conclusion is wrong, and the general view is that fox numbers are increasing and that current levels of culling does not reduce numbers substantially.

6. The impact of hunting with dogs on deer is clear. Of the million or so deer in Britain, the couple of hundred killed by hounds is insignificant compared to around 200,000 (0.1%) culled each year, with a retail value for the venison of around £20 million ^xxiv. Even when considered locally, Langbein & Putman (1992) ^xxv showed that in the west country 20% of the herd need to be culled to keep numbers stable, whereas the Devon and Somerset Staghounds only accounted for about 2% of the total number of red deer in their area. They conclude that hunting with hounds does not "exercise control over population numbers, nor is it likely that numbers taken in this way could be increased significantly".

7. We have already discussed the situation with hares: they do not need population control, and are actually hunted in many areas where the population is very low and there is a clear need for population growth, not control. There may be a case for local control to reduce damage levels, particularly in parts of East Anglia. Where this is necessary, shooting is clearly the most effective, and generates a cash return: 200,000 to 300,000 hares are shot each year, with a unit price of around £2.50 and hence a potential sale value of £500,000 to £750,000 ^xxvi.

8. The mink hounds kill around 6000 mink each year, from a pre-breeding population believed to be in excess of 110,000 ^xxvii. Thompson (1968) ^xxviii showed that killing up to 6000 mink by trapping, even when mink were rare in Britain, still failed to prevent population growth. Killing that number of mink today has no effect on population size at all. It is also grossly inefficient when compared to trapping: Birks (1981) ^xxix has discussed population control of mink, and showed that one person trapping and shooting on a small section of river caught and killed more mink over a five year period that the Devon and Cornwall Minkhounds killed in the total of their hunting area. On the river in question, the Teign, the hunt only accounted for 3.25% of the total number of mink known to have been killed. Birks (1981) concluded that: "Hunting is clearly an ineffectual means of controlling mink; indeed few of the hunting fraternity seriously regard it as a form of control at all". Birks also goes on to discuss the ineffectiveness of population control at a wide scale.

The costs of hunting with hounds

1. When considering the effectiveness of hunting with hounds, the impacts of hunting need also to be considered. These include delays to transport systems, the need for policing, and damage due to riot and killing of domestic animals. All of these costs are unique to hunting with dogs.

2. The ecological impacts also need to be considered. The National Federation of Badger Groups has documented the damage to badger setts from hunting activities, and the number of prosecutions of hunts and hunt staff for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The League Against Cruel Sports also has documentary evidence of close links between badger diggers and hunt staff.

3. The other issue to consider for mink hunting is that it is a summer activity, undertaken in the main breeding season for many species of birds. The Environment Agency believes that mink hunting is destructive to riparian habitats and should be ended. Equally, it is not possible to prevent mink hounds hunting otters, and county Wildlife Trusts, through their Otter Project officers, have extensive documentary evidence of mink hounds hunting and/or disturbing otters. Macdonald et al. (1978) ^xxx report how otters abandoned a favoured site for several months after a pack of otter (now mink) hounds had passed through, and Jefferies (1987) ^xxxi reported that otters regard dogs as a bigger threat than humans. Green et al. (1986) ^xxxii reported how otters and mink cohabit in the same holt, and report how a mink and an otter were flushed from the same stick pile by a mink hunt on the River Creedy in Devon.

4. The hunting literature is full of reports of otters being killed by hounds that are out of control e.g. Coventry (n.d.) includes a glossary of hunting terms. "Chop" is "to kill an otter or cubs when found, before they have a chance to get away", and "riot" is where "otterhounds 'speak' to or run deer, fox, hare or rabbits". Clearly, there is no control of hounds, and the reports in the otter hunting literature show how the staff could not prevent the hounds killing bitches and cubs. Other research ^xxxiii also describes how otterhounds kill otters and their cubs when out of control.

______________________________

ⁱ Tapper, S. (1999) A question of balance - game animals and their role in the British countryside. The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge.

^vii Anon. (1995) Biodiversity: the UK steering group report. Volume 2: action plans. HMSO, London.

^viii Thompson, H.V. (1968) British wild mink. Annals of Applied Biology, 61, 345-349.

^xxxiii Lomax, J. (1892) Diary of otter hunting. Henry Young, Liverpool.

Back to top

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

Introduction

1. The answer to this is simple: there will be no consequences for agriculture and pest control if hunting with dogs was banned completely. This is clear because, as we have already explained, recognised packs of hounds and coursing clubs do not kill enough animals to influence population size, and generally they do not cull individuals identified as "problem" animals.

2. It should also be remembered that some species are maintained at high densities solely for the purpose of hunting. For foxes, the planting of coverts and the widespread use of artificial earths are all designed to increase fox numbers. As we have shown, foxes still cause remarkably few problems even when numbers are artificially inflated for hunting.

3. There are also many accounts of hares being caught to restock areas for hunting. Whilst most of this activity is not documented, it is believed that many thousands of hares are caught and transported each year for this purpose. Not only is it a undesirable and cruel to catch and box wild hares so that they can be transported to a new site, it is also probably extremely unsuccessful and simply serves to provide animals to be killed "on the day" rather than restock hare populations. We have no data on the survival rates of hares during catching and transportation, but there is one documented case of the success of this restocking. In 1988, 128 hares were released at a site near Southport (believed to be the site for The Waterloo Cup). Despite restocking, the hare population continued to decline in 1989 and 1990, when it was less than half the size of two years earlier ⁱ. Hare restocking is currently unregulated, but the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations are not in favour of such releases, which are counter to the guidelines issued by conservation bodies such as the IUCN. In the absence of hunting, we assume that there will no longer be any need to try to inflate local hare populations for the benefit of hunting, and so there is no basis to assume that agricultural losses will increase in the absence of hunting.

4. In the absence of hunting, it is often argued that the numbers of foxes, deer and hares would decline, or they would even be exterminated, at least locally. For instance, Swingland (1999)ⁱⁱ argues that, in the absence of a monetary value placed on quarry species through hunting, extinction often follows, and that this would be a problem for those species that are currently hunted in Britain. His argument is clearly flawed. In an ideal world, mink would not be part of the British fauna and any population declines are to be welcomed; only a few thousand of the million or so deer in Britain are hunted, and yet deer numbers are thriving, and probably too high for conservation interests, in large parts of Britain even though there is no hunting; hares are declining in numbers despite organised hunts because blood sports currently play no role in the conservation of hares; and finally, foxes are increasing in numbers despite widespread culling at levels many orders of magnitude greater than currently imposed by hunts.

5. The argument is equally flawed because it assumes that the current population size for each of the hunted species is the most desirable. As we have already explained, there is no basis to decide on the optimum population size; see Harris et al. (2000)ⁱⁱⁱ for a discussion of this issue. So no one can really say whether or not any population changes are desirable. Yet we can be sure that irrespective of hunting, numbers of foxes, deer, hares and mink will continue to change; change is occurring irrespective of hunting. Badgers and otters, for instance, have undergone significant population changes in recent decades ^iv. When they reviewed the state of British mammals, The Mammal Society concluded that of the 60 species of land mammals to be found in Britain, only 17 currently have stable populations; for six current population trends are unclear. Of the others, 19 are declining and 18 increasing. Reasons for these population changes are various: when considering the problems faced by British mammals, The Mammal Society concluded that 32 species were threatened by habitat changes, 24 by pesticides or pollution, 17 by poaching and other forms of deliberate killing, seven by climate changes, seven by population fragmentation, six by road deaths, six by competition with other species, five by interbreeding with similar species, four by predation and three by disease. The presence or absence of hunting did not feature in their list of potential threats to the British mammal fauna.

6. Thus, the only thing we can be sure about is that, irrespective of any changes in hunting, we expect mammal populations to change, this is part of a natural process, and no one can predict how the numbers of any species will change. Whilst changes in land use are the prime factor driving population changes, interaction between species are also important. We know that declines in one species benefit another, and vice versa. When otters first declined, it was argued by some people that increasing mink numbers was a major contributory factor: we now know that exactly the reverse was true, that mink rapidly colonised a vacant habitat, and that mink numbers have subsequently declined in the face of increasing otter numbers ^v. Similarly, increasing numbers of foxes lead to declines in the number of smaller carnivores such as stoats and pine martens ^vi. Finally, Trout & Tittensor (1989)^vii showed that rabbit numbers are held in check by foxes when these are operating in conjunction with other methods of rabbit control. These findings were confirmed by Baker & Harris (2000)^viii. Rabbits were estimated to cause over £100 million of damage annually during the mid-1980s^ix. As rabbit numbers have doubled since then^x it can safely be assumed that the economic losses to rabbits are now considerably larger.

7. It might be assumed, therefore, that an increase in the number of foxes would be beneficial in that it would lead to increased predation pressure on rabbits. Yet whether this is a fair assumption is unclear: more foxes could lead to fewer stoats, another major predator of rabbits, and so there could be no change in the predation pressure on rabbits. We do not understand species interactions in Britain, and so it is impossible to make realistic predictions as to how populations may change in the future.

8. The damaged caused by deer to agricultural interests is often reported to be significant, but the only economic assessment has been by that undertaken by Putman & Moore (1998)^xi. They found that most reports were of damage to pasture or cereals, with oilseed rape, nursery and orchard crops also frequently damaged. They concluded that "Despite the apparent severity of damage caused to agriculture or forestry, the actual economic significance of such damage would appear in many cases to be negligible or small. Field crops frequently recover completely from such damage, and although woodland crops may be checked and the quality of the timber may be reduced as a consequence of earlier browsing damage, losses may be far less than they first appear. The whole question of the true economic cost of deer damage needs further research." Thus, the only independent review of the subject concludes that deer cause little economic loss, and so any population changes are likely to have minimal effect of agricultural and forestry interests. Equally, with a retail value for British venison of £20 million^xii it would appear that economic losses are in large part or completely offset by income from venison sales.

9. Hence, there is no evidence that a ban on hunting will have any effect on agriculture or pest control. What is clear, however, is that we know remarkably little about the true economic significance of foxes, deer, hares and mink, and that much of our current perceptions are based on misinformation and prejudice.

__________________________

ⁱ Stoate, C. & Tapper, S. (1993) The impact of three hunting methods on brown hare (Lepus europaeus) populations in Britain. Gibier Faune Sauvage, 10, 229-240.

^ix Mills, S. (1986) Rabbits breed a growing controversy. New Scientist, 1498, 50-54.

^x Harris et al., 1995. op.cit.

Back to top

1. We need a sensible management policy for British mammals, and this should be coupled with a research and education programme. Many of the current attitudes to British mammals are based on myth and prejudice, and this makes it impossible to have sensible discussion on the problems foxes, deer, mink and hares actually pose to agricultural (and other) interests. We have already shown that there is no quantified information on the economic losses attributable to these species, although all the evidence suggests that economic losses are small. We clearly need better information before we can even start to discuss whether these species need to be "controlled", and if control is cost-effective.

2. It is clear that hunting with dogs has been a major bar to a sensible discussion of the need to control foxes, deer, hares and mink, and hunting interests have played major roles in blocking previous attempts to introduce sensible legal measures to protect British mammals. As a consequence, mammal protection in Britain is half a century behind protection for birds. The basic principle behind the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 and thereafter, and then the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is that all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected. The Acts then go on to make certain exceptions to these basic provisions in respect of various species considered to be "pests" and sporting birdsⁱ. This works extremely well; there is unifying legislation that ensures that bird protection and management operate in unison. This has benefits to all interested parties, and provides a framework for rational debate.

3. In the absence of any unifying legislation, there is extremely limited provision even to protect mammals such as brown hares, despite being a Biodiversity Action Plan species. Hares are only protected from sale during a limited period, even though every other European Community country has close seasons to protect hares, and some have bag limits as well. For foxes, there is limited protection - from the use of gas, poison, spring traps and certain types of snare - but beyond that any form of control is legal even though it may cause the animal considerable suffering. There is, for instance, no legal requirement on the size of shot used to shoot foxes. Nor is there any guidance on the best forms of fox control in each circumstance, and how to manage fox problems other than by lethal means. This is because of the widespread assertion by the hunting lobby that foxes need to be controlled, even though there is no basis for even this presumption.

4. There are close seasons for some species, such as deer ⁱⁱ, and protective legislation for even fewer species, such as badgers. Yet obtaining protection for badgers, a charismatic species, has required a number of pieces of legislation, which required a great deal of parliamentary time. The various pieces of legislation then had to be consolidated under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This piece-meal approach to badger protection was necessitated by strong opposition from hunting interests - we refer you to the Parliamentary debates and discussions in Committee during the passage of each piece of legislation to protect badgers. The original Badgers Act 1973 (introduced as a Ten Minute Rule Bill) only became law because of its limited scope ⁱⁱⁱ, and actually allowed badger digging to continue so long as it was with permission of the landowner or other authorised person ^iv. This provision allowed foxhunts to continue to dig out badgers for some years: badger digging only finally became illegal with the enactment of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

5. Similarly, legal protection for the otter was only finally achieved in England and Wales in 1978 (under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975) because of their massive population decline, and otters were not protected in Scotland until 1982 (under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). In the interim, the Eastern Counties Otterhounds continued to hunt otters in Scotland under invitation from the Dumfries Otterhounds. Otter hunting was never made illegal and would start again if otters were ever taken off Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; with the population recovering^v such a change is possible.

6. The hunting lobby also blocked the passage of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. The original aim of this Act was to afford comparable protection to wild mammals when they are living in the wild as they currently receive if they are held in captivity. This dichotomy in the protection afforded to the same species, simply depending on whether it is wild or held in captivity, is an obvious anomaly in the law and one for which there is no logic or rationale. The original provisions of the Bill were simple, but the hunting lobby were concerned that the courts would interpret hunting as being cruel. Because of this concern, the word cruelty had to be removed, and the final provisions in the Act make it illegal to commit certain actions - specified as mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate - to any wild mammal. This law is further complicated because prosecutions are required to show "intent to inflict unnecessary suffering" ^vi. It is not surprising, therefore, that there have been few prosecutions under this Act; whilst it established the principle of protecting wild mammals from certain acts of deliberate cruelty, it cannot be effective.

7. From the past activities of the hunting lobby, it is clear that wild mammals will only obtain protection comparable to that offered to birds and captive animals once hunting is banned. We can then pass legislation comparable to that for birds, with clear schedules specifying which species of mammal are fully protected, and which species can be killed and by what means. This will also put us on a par with most other European countries and north America. The current situation in Britain is anomalous among the developed world.

8. As part of this process, we need research to establish the most effective and humane means of population control for each species of wild mammal. This will ensure that there are clear guidelines for farmers, landowners and others on what to address specific problems. This work will also examine when alternative means of protecting agricultural interests are more appropriate than culling.

9. We also urge a proper assessment of the costs and benefits of each species currently hunted with dogs. This needs to be done for different types of landscape. For example, it is hard to see how arable farmers can consider foxes a pest, since foxes can only be of benefit in hunting problem species such as rabbits and rodents. The same applies to cattle farmers. All the evidence shows that this is even true for sheep farmers^vii, and that improvements in husbandry would be far more cost effective than fox control in limiting lamb losses. Hewson (1990)^viii showed that on one Scottish estate an end to fox control did not lead to any increase in lamb losses to foxes, which were less than 1% in the absence of fox control. So economic assessments need to address different types of farming, and the costs/benefits of different management strategies.

10. As part of this process, we would seek to encourage the work of the British Deer Society in establishing local deer management groups around Britain. At present, Exmoor and the Quantocks are notable for the absence of a system of deer management comparable to that seen throughout most of Britain, and attempts to introduce deer management groups to these areas have consistently been blocked by the local hunts. After hunting is banned, it will be possible to establish local deer management groups in the areas currently hunted with hounds; these will set cull quotas and management goals. They will also ensure that there are stalkers available on call-out to deal with injured deer; this service is provided throughout Britain, and the claim from the hunts that their call out service is unique is disingenuous. In the absence of hunting, injured deer will probably be dealt with more efficiently and more humanely than at present.

11. The other issue to remember is that there is already an extensive network of wildlife hospitals dealing with wildlife casualties; the RSPCA and The Wildlife Hospital at Haddenham in Buckinghamshire are international leaders in this work, and establishing standards for the rest of Europe. As a conservative estimate, 250,000 wildlife casualties are taken to wildlife hospitals in Britain each year, and the work of organisations such as the British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council have been instrumental in setting standards for the care and rehabilitation of British wildlife. Such expertise will provide an essential component of a management strategy for British wildlife post-hunting.

12. The other aspect to be considered is the economic value of British wildlife that can be generated through wildlife viewing. There are already several wildlife tours operating on Exmoor, with the red deer being the major attraction. There is great potential to develop wildlife tours both there and elsewhere in Britain; many landowners are already offering wildlife holidays and opportunities for wildlife viewing. The potential to develop wildlife holidays and other economic returns from wildlife will be an essential part of any cost-benefits analysis of those species that are currently hunted.

13. Thus we believe that a rational reappraisal of the costs and benefits of British mammals, and the cost-effectiveness of different forms of control (lethal and non-lethal) will benefit all interested parties, especially agriculture. It will ensure a better management strategy for British mammals, it will facilitate rational debate, and it will ensure that any control measures are targeted to be most cost effective and that they achieve their desired goal. This will be a major step forward, will put Britain on a par with other developed countries, and benefit all interested parties.

________________________________

ⁱ RSPB (1971) Wild birds & the law. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.

"..to the extent that fox control is deemed necessary, the data suggest that lowland mounted packs make little contribution to it, and since farmland conservation is increasingly promoted by other sources, the debate increasingly focuses on the moral proprieties of taking recreation which inflicts suffering, as opposed to the preservation of tradition and employment"

Macdonald and Johnson 1996

"We are in the entertainment and leisure business"

Edward Lycett-Green, Master of Fox-Hounds, Portman Fox-Hounds ‘World Magazine’, November 1990

It is very strange, and very melancholy, that the paucity of human pleasures should persuade us ever to call hunting one of them

Samuel Johnson. Johnsonian Memoirs

Hunting in the countryside is in demise. Since 1965, forty two hunts have disbanded. The number of packs of hounds hunting foxes, deer and hares and mink has declined from 353 to 311 - a decrease of 42 hunts (12 %) while drag hunts and bloodhound packs have more than trebled from eight to 28. In the last 18 years, 22 hunts have amalgamated. (Figures include foxhounds, harriers, staghounds, beagles, bassets, otterhounds and minkhounds in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Excludes human hunts.) In addition, 37 County Councils, and more than 100 smaller local authorities have voted either to ban hunting on their land, or in favour of the principle of such a ban.

Figures about levels of participation in the activity have fluctuated wildly and often seek to blur the distinctions between economically active participants, subscribing hunt members and passive supporters. Hunt enthusiasts also appear to co-opt as supporters anyone who happens to be out for a walk or a drink on Boxing Day. Macdonald and Johnson ⁱ found that a typical days hunting involved approximately 80 participants, including mounted followers and others, but inflated figures continue to bandied about, including; "A million people support hunting in the course of a year" ⁱⁱ, "293,000 people hunt regularly." ⁱⁱⁱ, "The number of participants in hunting is 242,800." ^iv

In 1993, the advertising regulatory body, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) warned the British Field Sports Society (BFSS) not to repeat the unsubstantiated claim that over 1 million people attended Boxing Day hunts. Following complaints to the ASA, the BFSS was unable to substantiate the claim and was ordered not to repeat the advertisements. A survey of local newspaper reports on Boxing Day meets in 1994 revealed that the total number of spectators, riders and followers at Boxing Day hunt meets was approximately 100,000 in total. In a rather surprising admission in August 1999 the hunt lobby stated that the actual number was significantly less. "The Code of Good Hunting Practice has now been upgraded and will be re-issued next week to 50,000 supporters of hunting as a joint document for all those who follow hounds, be they on foot or on horses or indeed in cars." ^v The number of subscribers to hunts is also given as totalling less than 26,000. ^vi

Hunt supporters have attempted to portray their sport as one which is intertwined with the social fabric of rural life. While once this argument may historically have stood up to some scrutiny, it is no longer valid and straining attempts to do so have been wholly disingenuous. Some light was thrown on the strategy of the pro-hunt movement following the departure of the Countryside Alliance press Officer, Janet George. Shortly after she left the organisation, she revealed that the strategy was to: "Wrap hunting up in the wider rural fabric. Because everyone loves the countryside and hates hunting." ^vii

Polling by MORI in October 1997 found that among those respondents saying they lived within the immediate area of a hunt (nearly half of all respondents), 50% supported a Bill to ban hunting with dogs and just 39% opposed it. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the hunt from their closest neighbours. Neither does it reinforce any sort of argument for retaining hunting for the supposed benefit of local communities, when the majority in those communities are shunning the notion of it even taking place.

2 Guardians of the Land? – The Views of Farmers

"Many….individuals are heartily fed up of the corrupt misrepresentation by the farming media of the views of many country dwellers as being sympathetic to fox hunting when they are not. We are fed up, too, of the main farming unions attempting to coerce us, the membership, into agreeing that such a practice is acceptable in the late 20^th century."

Richard Morris, Old Pontymister Farm, , Risca, Newport, Gwent.

"NFU leaders have said that they support fox hunting with hounds. I would like to know where they get authority for such a statement, as about 75% of NFU members are, like the public, against fox hunting with hounds.

A Smythe, Valley View, Goorhaven, Truro, Cornwall.

Letter to Farmers Weekly. 15 August 1997

In 1996, NOP undertook a poll (Number 44811 – Access to land for equestrian sports, conducted between 8^th and 19th March 1996) which asked 1000 free-holding farmers whether they allowed the hunting of foxes or other wild animals on their land. 48% said ‘No’. 52% said ‘Yes’. Claims by the BFSS ^viii that "Over 90% of them (farmers) allow the local Hunt access to their land" are therefore shown to be entirely bogus.

The situation has changed little in the last 25 years. An NOP survey of farmers in 1974 revealed that 70% of farmers did not consider that foxes were significantly harmful to their interests, and that 36% considered that foxes were actually useful to them in controlling rabbits and rodents. The poll also revealed that half of all farmers did not make any effort to control foxes and that only 15% used hunting as a form of control. Of those farmers questioned, 64% said they suffered no financial loss from fox damage at all.

The NOP poll in 1996 asked farmers whether they would permit drag-hunting on their land if fox hunting and similar hunting of wild animals were banned, 30% said ‘Yes’, 14% said ‘Not Sure’ and 56% said ‘No’. One in six (16%) of farmers who do not allow fox hunting at present said they would allow drag hunting. 40% per cent of sheep farmers stated that they did not permit fox hunting on their land, reinforcing the view that despite strenuous attempts by hunters to demonise the fox in the eyes of sheep farmers, they themselves clearly view other fox control measures as being more efficient.

Macdonald and Johnson ^ix showed that just 33.7% of farmers who responded to a research questionnaire had at some time participated in hunting with hounds – hardly indicative of substantial participation from a group of people cited by hunting supporters as those most in touch with the countryside. Interestingly, only 58.4% of farmers questioned thought that hunting with hounds was humane. Even fewer farmers (47.8%) thought it was effective. The authors of the report also stated that a farmer’s inclination to hunt did not stem from personally suffering damage by foxes.

A 1990 survey of farmers’ lifestyles, conducted by the magazine ‘Big Farm Weekly’ found that fox-hunting was 33^rd in popularity amongst farmers’ pastimes. It was placed below soccer, rugby, golf, bowls cricket, walking and snooker.

It is evident that very many farmers do not welcome the hunt with open arms. They view them as inefficient, and a large proportion do not view the practice of hunting with dogs as humane. The underlying impression conveyed by the polling is that if farmers have a problem fox on their land, they deal with the matter themselves, and do not wait until the next hunt meet takes place in the area, with no guarantee that any problem animal would be caught anyhow. If they allow them at all, it may have more to do with peer pressure, and a disinclination to be shunned by pro-hunting members of the rural community. In a notable contribution to the Second reading debate of the Foster Bill, Jackie Ballard MP for Taunton said: "I have received many….letters from people who live on Exmoor, and are opposed to deer hunting, but who are frightened to speak out. If they live in small, isolated communities, they are subject to powerful pressures to conform, especially if the most influential local landowners support hunting."^x The Wiltshire & Gloucestershire Standard (November 1998) reported that a shot fox was placed outside the gates of land belonging to an anti-hunt farmer. The lady farmer described the incident as a ‘common gesture’ in hunting areas and commented that the tactic was a ‘veiled threat’ used to upset and deter opponents of hunting. Another incident showing the pressure exerted on landowners is recounted by Buckinghamshire farmer Paul Houlbrooke: "We had a visit from the hunt, trying to persuade us to hunt across it, but we said that we weren’t in favour, and we weren’t going to allow it. We got a letter back saying how disappointed they were. How the neighbours would be very disappointed and probably wouldn’t give us any help in moving into the new farm." ^xi

In the run up to the Countryside March on March 1 1998, the Guardian ^xii reported that some farm workers were being co-erced into attending by their employers. One branch Secretary of the TGWU Union said "One of the men was told that if he didn’t go, he wouldn’t be given any more overtime." Both of the workers who had contacted the regional branch lived in tied cottages. The Branch Secretary acknowledged that it was very difficult to get them to speak out. The national secretary for rural workers at the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU), Barry Leathwood also spoke of the pressure being put on rural workers to attend the March; "Tenant farmers have been told (to go) by their landlords, agricultural workers by their employers. It seems to be fairly common". One rural worker, interviewed anonymously in the article spoke of her fear of the consequences of standing up against pressure being put on estate workers to attend the march. Her fellow employees were told to wear Countryside March badges, and to put posters in their cars, despite agreeing that the pressure being put on them was an "…abuse of the employers authority..". They agreed, because they "…didn’t want to scupper their payroll..".

Hunt supporters have consistently argued that rural opinion is pro-hunt. Polling has consistently shown that it is not. A Gallup telephone poll of 1,023 adults across Great Britain between 31 July and 6 August 1997 compared replies between those describing themselves as ‘town people’ and ‘country people’. The results were reported in the Daily Telegraph on 11 August 1997, showing that 77% of country people disapproved of hunting foxes with hounds, along with 84% of town people. 78% of rural dwellers believed it was cruel, along with 83% of those living in towns.

Polling conducted by MORI specifically on the question of rural opinion was undertaken between 17-28 October 1997. 1,529 telephone interviews were conducted on rural dwellers aged 18+ throughout Great Britain. 57% of people living in rural areas were found to support Michael Foster’s Bill to ban hunting with dogs, while just 32% opposed it. The remainder were on balance either neutral or undecided. Those who strongly supported the bill outnumbered those strongly opposed by two to one (43% against 19%) and since July 1997 strong support had increased by 12% in rural areas.

The same MORI poll asked what were the issues of key concern to rural people, and asked what the organisations ‘..representing these country areas and communities should be tackling." Hunting with dogs did not figure in the top six issues of greatest concern, which included better public transport (26%), the environment (17%) crime (10%), conservation of wildlife (12%) and traffic issues (10%). Analysis of the polling by MORI showed that neither rural nor urban people see hunting as a major issue that country groups should be tackling.

A survey of 600 people conducted by Produce Studies Ltd for the Countryside Alliance (CA) in October 1997 found only marginal rural participation in hunting. An Alliance press release ^xiii compared the new polling with a similar exercise Produce Studies had undertaken in 1995. Rural support for hunting was found to be only marginal. Only 9% of people questioned (compared to just 5% in 1995) participated in hunting. Only 10% of those questioned supported or even watched hunts (compared to 7% in 1995). Once again, the main concerns of rural dwellers were found to be little different from those of urbanites, with NHS funding levels, education and employment being top of the list.

The provocative statement in the same Countryside Alliance press release that: "There is clear concern that the country way of life is being threatened by an influx of visitors and tourists.." is indicative of an unpleasant attempt at fostering divisiveness between town and country on the part of the pro-hunt movement. In truth the economic benefit of visitors and tourists to the countryside far outweighs any contribution to the rural economy that hunting makes. Just 3% of tourists to Scotland undertook either shooting, stalking or hunting ^xiv. The figures for Wales were 1%, and Great Britain as a whole, also 1%. There were no recorded figures for England. This compared to 28% of visitors to Scotland who visited heritage sites, and 24% who went hiking, hill-walking, rambling or orienteering. 26% of visitors to Wales who visit heritage sites, and 23% who went hiking. 19% who visited heritage sites in England. 1% of all tourists to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland participated in horse riding or pony trekking, with 2% in Wales. According to the Sports Council the most popular sport activities in countryside areas are walking, golf and fishing. All holiday spending in the UK in 1998 totaled £19.375 billion.

Ward ^xv noted that "Often, in the more remote areas where hunting takes place, localities may be well equipped in terms of their countryside landscape resources (such as the Lake District, Northumberland and the South West). These resources provide opportunities and potential for economic development and job creation through tourism and service sector industries. Moreover, there are a range of current policies, accompanied by substantial public funds, aimed at promoting the development of such activities in rural areas." However there is evidence that such policies, and their consequent economic benefits to the rural economy, may be inhibited by the perpetuation of hunting. A survey ^xvi of perceived business benefits or adverse effects as a result of hunting in the Exmoor region revealed that some hoteliers and guest house owners recognised that their staple clientele were put off by the presence of hunts. Comments included "Stag hunting is a complete turn-off for 99% of our visitors", "We have lost business because our guests have encountered the Hunt on their first visit." One owner of accommodation wrote of the "…disgust expressed by her guests and their reluctance to return due to horror at the hunt activities." Another wrote that ‘In my experience these car followers are a total nuisance to all road users." It can therefore be the case that the existence of hunting in a locality is detrimental to a business. The survey also found that, of 195 responses, 42 indicated the negative aspects of hunting, such as customers avoiding the area, roads blocked, upset to people and soon. The survey concluded that if a hunting enthusiast channeled his hunting expenditure to the establishment of a ‘tourist enterprise based on labour intensive recreational activities,’ the rural economy, employment and presumably a string of other benefits would flow from the demise of his leisure activity.

The same study posited that hunting is perhaps less important to the social life of rural communities itself, but rather to those subscribing and participating members of the hunt. The study found that "…stag hunters are likely to be highly conscious of their status as a distinct community. They are conscious too that its social cohesion is vital to its continued viability as an island in what they perceive to be a overwhelmingly hostile wider environment." It is no surprise that subscribing or supporting members of a hunt would attend their own hunt ball, barn dance or jumble sale, but unlikely whether these social activities provide anything more for the wider, anti-hunting majority of the rural community. However all of these social activities, and perhaps many more, would continue subsequent to a ban were humane drag-hunts to replace fox or stag hunts and might well attract wider support from the community than happens at present. Even in the area of study undertaken by Winter, an NOP poll in 1994 of Devon rural residents found that 66% approved of banning fox-hunting on council owned land, and 70% approved of banning deer-hunting on council land. Any perception amongst the hunt that they are popular in rural communities, may have something to do with the relative unwillingness of anti-hunt members of those communities to speak out against them – a factor borne out by earlier reference to pressure being exerted by the hunt on anti-hunting rural people. While this may say something about the close-knit nature of rural communities, it certainly cannot be used by hunting enthusiasts as an argument for majority grass-roots support for their activity. The polling shows conclusively otherwise.

Speaking in response to the Countryside March, director of the Countryside Protection Group, Chris Fairfax said: "The idea that country people are fully behind hunting and that opposition comes from ‘misinformed townies’ is a nonsense, as the majority of country people oppose hunting. The hunt lobby claims to speak on behalf of the countryside but in reality they are a group who have done little to address the many problems facing the rural community." ^xvii

An article in the Western Daily Press ^xviii reported that Anne Heseltine, wife of Michael Heseltine MP, has owned a weekend home at Exford, Devon for the past 17 years which she uses as a base while hunting with the Devon and Somerset Staghounds. This was reported to have angered local residents who said that "…the loss of hundreds of country properties to holiday and second-home owners has already ruined much of the fabric of country life."

Winter et al ^xix found that a shortage of affordable housing in the area of their study was ‘..largely as a result of in-migration from the relatively affluent’, a factor which ‘..acts as a constraint..’ on rural employment. Newby believed that "as prices inexorably rise, so the population which actually achieves its goal of a house in the country becomes more socially selective." ^xx Murphy and Shucksmith ^xxi quote Bradley ^xxii as drawing attention to the problems of social isolation facing many elderly households ‘..adrift on a sea of incomers..’ in parts of rural Britain, because their children have been priced out of local housing markets. It is often claimed that hunting is an activity around which a local community revolves. In reality the existence of a prestigious hunt can often have a detrimental effect on rural societies through the existence of subscribers from outside an area, who retain holiday homes in hunt countries. The result is often higher property prices, which force younger locals to seek accommodation and employment elsewhere.

Take the example of the Blencathra Foxhounds, also known as the John Peel Foxhounds. One of the nation's foremost hunts, its list of subscribers reveals that many active enthusiasts reside hundreds of miles from Keswick, where the hunt is based. A number live in the United States, thirty-one in Yorkshire, more still in Essex, Hampshire and Kent. In fact, of the 821 listed subscribers only 499 list Cumbria as their address.

Hunting with dogs is not a rural institution. It is an activity practiced by a tiny minority of rural and urban dwellers. Indeed, according to Janet George, former Chief Press Officer of the Countryside Alliance, her organisation has more than one thousand members in the inner London constituency of Kensington and Chelsea ^xxiii, Even if the Alliance's 80,000 members were divided equally between all constituencies, urban and rural, one would expect there to be just 120 members in each.

Hunters would preserve outmoded aspects of the country way of life in aspic, regardless of whether the majority of farmers or country people agree with them. Worse, they seemingly advocate inhibiting tourists and visitors from coming to rural areas on the grounds that they are a ‘threat’, despite the demonstrably greater economic benefits to rural communities which they bring.

4 The Views of Riders and Anglers

"There are approximately 600,000 horses in the UK, and less than 7% of them are used for hunting." Matson 1991

Macdonald and Johnson ^xxiv found that fewer than half the horses owned by hunts subscribers were said by their owners to be kept solely for hunting, and it could not be concluded that these horses would not be kept for other purposes in the absence of hunting. Participation in hunting necessitates the possession of a horse. The opposite is not the case. Ward ^xxv argued that a ban on hunting would "..remove the barrier of moral opposition to mounted hunting and could foster innovation and wider participation in drag hunting and bloodhounds." Ownership of a horse subsequent to any ban on hunting would provide ample opportunity for alternative equine pursuits such as drag-hunting, and point-to-point races and the sort of equine pursuits undertaken by UK Chasers Ltd.

A rolling MORI poll of a total of 6,231 adults undertaken in three waves in June and July 1999 yielded full interviews with 358 riders. MORI found that 6% of the general public have, in the last year or two, taken part in a riding activity, or drag hunt or similar sport. However, like the public in general a majority (61%) of riders support a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs in Britain. Overall, 46% strongly support a ban, and 16% tend to do so. This disapproval rating is pressed home when it’s realised that only 6 % of riders actually participate in hunting. Another MORI poll on riders opinions about the issue was undertaken in October 1997. A comparison of the two polls shows that there has been a slight increase (by four points) in the number of riders supporting a ban (from 57% to 61% in June/July 1999). Significantly, 92% of riders felt that a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs would make no difference to their riding activities.

In 1997 MORI sought the views of 394 anglers on a possible hunt ban. The data was collected between 17-28 October 1997 and was weighted to the national profile. Like riders, the majority of anglers were found to be anti-hunting, with 73% opposed to people hunting with dogs. 70% disagreed with the idea that hunting with dogs was an important part of the British way of life. 69% agreed that hunting was outdated and should not be a part of modern Britain. 77% disagreed with the assumption that hunting with dogs is necessary to control the numbers of animals such as foxes. Polling by MORI has consistently shown that even those living in rural areas who are riders, or who are anglers, oppose hunting – notable given that these are the groups often claimed as more supportive (anglers on the basis that their sport will ‘be the next to go’). In an IFAW press release ^xxvi John Kelly, editor of Britain’s biggest angling magazine, Angling Times said "I don’t think this is a surprise. The groundswell of feeling I have found is that angling is very uneasy about linking itself to hunting with dogs." Mr Kelly, in an editorial in Angling Times (November 1997) said: "I don’t believe that inextricably allying ourselves to people who enjoy watching a pack of dogs rip apart a fox is sensible." A poll of readers of Angling Times in April 1996 found that 91% voted against closer links with hunting.

5 A Transferable Culture

Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity; and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom

George Bernard Shaw in Killing for Sport, 1914

Arguments about the loss of ‘Olde England’ culture following a ban on hunting with dogs are exceptionally disingenuous. In the second reading debate of the Foster Bill, Peter Brooke MP ^xxvii made a plea for the continuation of hunting because of his perception of its importance in the nations sporting literature. Matson ^xxviii tries to argue that on the cessation of hunting, artists would lose one of their main canons. He also made an unconvincing case for retaining it on the basis that it he believed it to be a ‘training ground for initiative and leadership." Both in terms of literature and art, it is unclear why anyone imagines there would be a correlation between the cessation of hunting and people desisting from buying hunting memorabilia, art or literature. So far as we are aware, no-one is positing a ban on these as a consequence of a ban on hunting and the argument is rather confusing. There is a huge market in artistic representations of World War II military scenes and equipment (Spitfires, Lancaster Bombers etc), and in works of fiction and non-fiction about the conflict, and which have not been dependent on a continuation of them. If there is a viable market for representations of hunting scenes, or literary works on the subject, we are sure they will continue.

Two hundred years ago, an otherwise obscure MP by the name of Sir William Pulteney attempted to introduce a measure to ban bull-baiting. At the time the proponents of cruel sports used a series of arguments to defend their activities which sound uncannily similar to those being used to defend hunting today. The debate took place on April 24 1800. Pulteney had assembled his supporters including Rowland Hill, Richard Sheridan and Richard Martin. Ranged against him were George Canning, the then Foreign Secretary, and the Minister for War, William Windham. When we consider that 21 years later, the introduction of a measure to prevent the ill-treatment of horses was laughed out of the House, we get some understanding of the environment in which Pulteney introduced his Bill.

Opposing the measure, Windham started by acknowledging that bull-baiting was conducted at the expense of an animal which was '..not by any means a party to the amusement..', but argued that it helped '..cultivate the quality of certain species of dogs which afford so much pleasure to their owners..'. Pulteney later gave examples of the same bulldogs attacking people, so one can imagine what qualities these were.

Windham continued to play the Libertarian card, and his arguments read like the mantra of hunting supporters today. He argued that there were other, more pressing issues to legislate on. This was not an issue for Parliament. A ban would set supporters of the sport against opponents. There were already laws sufficient to prevent abuse. Minority rights had to be considered along with the sports social value. He argued that the Bull derived pleasure from the activity. He duly passed the baton to George Canning, who with equally Libertarian fervour, kicked off by stating that he thought no more absurd a Bill had ever been brought before Parliament. 'What could be more innocent than bull baiting…?' he said. He believed that it elevated the mind, and inspired courage. Baiting involved a bull, tethered to the ground to deprive it of a means of defence. It therefore had no chance, and the dog set to bait it would tear at its head, chest and legs. Bulls often had their nostrils stuffed with pepper to drive them mad with rage. One notorious tale recounts how a bull had its hooves sawn off to deprive it of any recourse.

The measure was defeated. The report of the debate in the Times of April 25 1800, shows that supporters of institutionalised animal abuse have done little to update their arguments: "It should be written in letters of gold that a Government cannot interfere too little with the people; that laws, even good ones, cannot be multiplied with impunity and that whatever meddles with the private personal disposition of a man's time or property is tyranny direct….Till another person is injured there is no room for power to interpose and it is then to redress and not to restrain." It is fortunate that one supporter of the Bill, the social reformer William Wilberforce was not cowed by such rhetoric.

Subsequent debates scaled new heights of the bizarre, with one General Gascoigne asserting that bull-baiting was an aid to recruiting good soldiers. Clearly buoyed up by the reception given to this assertion, and presumably echoing Canning's sentiments about elevation of the mind and inspiration of courage, the General said that it increased the population of the country to a much greater degree than the army thinned it. It is hard to conceive why anyone could ever have defended sports such as bull-baiting, let alone actively defeat measures to end them. History has vindicated Pulteney, Sheridan, Wilberforce and the others. The social life and economies of bull-baiting heartlands like Stamford have not gone into the vacuum that Windham portentously imagined. The population has not decreased as General Gascoigne might have predicted it would.

It is telling that supporters of hunting with dogs have done little to update their arguments, and presently come up with no better reasons for the continuation of their sport than the sort of invalid, worn-out defences of practices as barbaric as bull-baiting. The illustration of bull-baiting shows clearly that the loss of an activity, which it was said drew between 500 and 600 people from their work for a week in counties like Shropshire, did not result in any sort of social or economic vacuum as a consequence of its passing. A similar analogy may be drawn with the banning of stag-hunting in Scotland in the 1950’s. What important historical culture there was to such activities as cock-fighting, bear or bull baiting, the passage of time has shown us to be transferable. Significantly, time has also made the majority of people wholly averse to such practices, despite never having witnessed them. What art or literature there exists in celebration of such execrable pursuits provides us with a history lesson in the extent to which we have evolved away from the need to derive enjoyment from setting animals on each other.

From a cultural perspective, few rural people concur with the view that hunting is in any way important. Evidence from the MORI rural poll conducted in October 1997 shows that six in ten (60%) rural people disagree that hunting with dogs is an important part of the British way of life, while similar numbers (57%) agree that the practice is outdated and should not be part of modern Britain. Any cultural attachment to the sport, such as the meets in village marketplaces, the passing round of a stirrup cup and so forth are already replicated at meets of drag-hunts.

Even hardened huntsmen are forced to acknowledge the way ahead. – "I am also convinced that public opinion and British society at large, unimpressed by the arguments I have deployed, is against hunting of wild animals with hounds; …..Although, following drag-lines, the old quality of the sport would be missing, the tradition, the pageantry and the fraternity would remain. Whether the quarry is live or false, Britain’s venatic thread would survive." JNP Watson, 1990. The Guinness Book of Records contains an entry which records that between 1968 and 1989, JNP Watson hunted with 267 packs of foxhounds, staghounds and harehounds in Britain, Ireland and Europe.

McDonald and Johnson both argue of hunting that "…being a venerable tradition is evidence neither for nor against contemporary acceptability." The authors also posited that drag-hunting would "seem to be the only course that is likely to preserve, and indeed potentially to enhance greatly the traditions, skills, social infrastructure and employment."^xxix

Hunting is in decline. Farmers and academics view it as ineffective. Rural people shun it as outdated and irrelevant. The economically vital visitors and tourists to the countryside find it repellent, and are deterred by it.

A BFSS leaflet ^xxx says of hunting that "From the very beginning, it has been open to all." An article in The Guardian ^xxxi revealed that supporters of hunting do not operate as inclusive a policy as they claim. The report described pro-hunt protesters at the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth as bearing posters depicting Nick Brown MP, the agriculture minister, as a man ‘who loves gays and buggers the countryside’ and others saying "Steer or Queer – its your choice Tony". Another of the posters said "Labour supports sodomy. Labour bans hunting. It’s a queer world." At least one of the posters had a Countryside Alliance logo attached to it.

A magazine named Earth Dog, Running Dog, which is a trade member of the Countryside Alliance and bears its logo, regularly warns readers of the cost of the ‘gay plague’ and made a vicious attack on the gay Labour MP for Exeter, Ben Bradshaw. It reported the MP as saying: "I would like us to reach a stage where everybody’s reaction to these lurid headlines is a very large yawn." The reaction of Earth Dog, Running Dog to this was to say "I bet he would. Fortunately most people are still totally revolted by such lifestyles. And let us not forget the money the health service is forced to spend on the treatment of Aids – the gay plague. Do we really deserve to have such people rule us and tell us what to do?" ^xxxii

In October 1997 the magazine attacked black Labour MP Oona King as ‘typical of her species’. The MP for Bethnal Green and Bow who like Ben Bradshaw supports a hunting ban was told to "direct her talents to advising her scrounging supporters on how to claim more handouts. She has no right to interfere in my life or anybody else’s, apart from the deadbeats who helped send her to parliament."

The Countryside Alliance in a faxed letter to the editor of the Caribbean Times on March 6 1998 said that they had written to the Editor of Earth Dog Running Dog ‘…asking for his assurances that he will not persist with his behaviour." The fax said that "There are strong feelings on both side (sic) of the debate about foxhunting, and some hunting people feel they are subjected to unwarranted personal abuse by those who do not understand the realities of pest control in the countryside. That is no excuse for this magazines remarks."

This clearly fell on deaf ears. Some 18 months later the Countryside Alliance were still making excuses, but had achieved nothing. The Guardian article reported the Alliance as saying; "We shall be approaching Mr Harcombe (Editor of Earth Dog, Running Dog) and if he does not desist from this we shall remove his trade membership. We cannot have members making personal attacks on people or attacking other minorities." While supporters of hunting continue to use the sort of homophobic and racist rhetoric employed by Earth Dog, Running Dog, and on the posters seen at Bournemouth, it is not surprising that their claims about hunting being a sport open to all are treated with considerable scepticism.

7 Hunt Havoc

Refortified by exercise and air

I, jogging home astride my chestnut mare

Grow half humane, and question the propriety,

Of foxes torn to bits in smart society

Siegfried Sassoon

Rural opposition to hunting is nothing new. Louisa Beckford, daughter of Lord Rivers of Stratfield Saye wrote of her aversion to it in the 1780’s ^xxxiii. But while hunters attempt to explain away increasing instances of hunt trespass as being indicative of a reduction in hunting country, hunt trespass has always been a part of hunting. Lousia Beckford’s relative, the aesthete William Beckford, constructed an eight-mile wall, known as The Barrier, which enclosed and protected his Fonthill estate in Wiltshire from incursions by hare hunters. Beckford’s biographer, Cyrus Redding, quotes him as stating that the hunters "… take no denial when they go hunting in their red jackets to excruciate a poor hare." ^xxxiv

Incursions by hunts on private land are increasingly commonplace. Speaking on Radio 4 in April 1990, Nick Fawcett, a Master of Fox Hounds with the Surrey Union Hunt said "I don’t think I’ve seen a meet this year where we’ve not gone through somebody’s back garden." The gradual post-war replacement of tenant farmers with private smallholders or landowners has meant that, in theory at least, hunts are more accountable for their actions to a larger number of individuals rather than detached landlords. But reports of incidents continue to stack up. Also becoming more common are reports of hounds killing pet cats and dogs, or themselves being killed after straying onto, or even being led onto, railway lines and busy roads, possibly as a direct consequence of hunts over-utilising their ‘good country’. These instances of hunt havoc led to the formation, in 1997, of the Countryside Protection Group, a 3000 strong body of farmers and rural landowners intent on putting paid to the suggestion that rural opinion was pro hunt.

Ward ^xxxv noted that "On occasions, the costs incurred by damage or disruption caused by hunting with hounds can affect large numbers of people, and be widely felt." Other considerable costs are incurred by landowners having to resort to legal action in a final resort at stopping serial trespass on the part of hunts. Such legal action is sometimes necessitated when hunts are incapable of giving assurances to landowners that they will desist from entering land they are not welcome on. In a letter to one landowner, Capt CE Barclay Joint Master of the Puckeridge Hunt was unable to give an assurance that he could stop his hounds trespassing on a particular farm, going so far as to say that "..unless the Hunt is to abandon hunting over all land within a mile of any property, however small, where hounds are unwelcome….the possibility of hound trespass must remain." ^xxxvi. This is an extraordinary admission on the part of the Hunt about their inability to ensure proper and responsible control over their pack. Ward notes that such problems of control do not occur with either drag-hunts or bloodhounds.

A report in ‘Tribune’ ^xxxvii revealed that a ‘leading proponent of fox hunting threatened to sue supporters of the ‘sport’ when they trespassed across her land in Shropshire. The farmer in question, none other than Countryside Alliance spokeswoman Janet George said "Actually, I threatened to bite the balls off the hunt organiser. After all, you can’t have the hunt intruding on busy farmers. I had to put down two pedigree sheep."

The Tribune article contained a response from Chris Fairfax of the Countryside Protection Group (CPG) who said "In reality, on a hunt day, farmers are prisoners on their own land. You have to lock up your animals and patrol your perimeters. It is the civil liberties of non-hunters that is being affected."

In February 2000 the CPG were contacted by Richard Barnes, a farmer of 1,000 acres in Sussex. Mr Barnes has endured numerous instances of trespass, and has been forced to incur considerable legal expense in protecting his own civil rights, and his economic livelihood, simply to keep the hunt off of his land. This excerpt from one of his letters summarises the havoc hunts cause. "I then received a call from my daughter Trudy, who said that our stockman George Reid was looking for me as hounds were all around the cattle yard and the animals were going beserk. For the avoidance of doubt these are Pedigree Charolais cattle worth up to £10,000 each. Two very young calves who were penned on their own were very distressed and the sheep which were in the adjoining field had bunched up in woodland."

For each of the last two hunting seasons the CPG have produced a report detailing instances of ‘Hunt Havoc’. We enclose these as an Annexe to this chapter. Nothing better demonstrates the contemptuous disregard for the rights of some rural people than the many incidents which are detailed in the personal accounts in "Taking Liberties in the Countryside". The common thread in many of the case histories is the arrogant and unrepentant attitude adopted by the hunt despite being in the wrong. On the part of the rural people, many of them farmers, one senses the complete exasperation from the accounts of having to become involved in wars of attrition with the hunt just to receive even basic information about the times and places of meets, so that livestock can be safeguarded.

"Out of Control in the Countryside – The 1998/99 Hunt Season" showed that the events summarised in the previous year’s document were not unusual. A compilation of news reports and incidents for this season detailed hounds killing a number of pets and livestock. Other reports described hounds being struck and killed by vehicles on busy roads or on railway lines. Farmers and landowners reported a number of continuing problems with trespass. One told how hounds from the Ashford Valley hunt roamed, out of control, over a vast expanse of his property and it was a full hours before the hunt left the land. This was despite a two year old agreement banning all hunting on his land, which had recently been reiterated so that the farm boundaries were clearly understood. The farmer described the huntsmen as being ‘powerless and unconcerned to act’. In addition to a leaflet detailing the incidents, a video was produced containing interviews with landowners and rural people who had suffered trespass. ^xxxviii

Sue Pratt, a Sheep farmer from Devon was interviewed on the video speaking about her local hunt. "I just don’t understand why they feel they have the right to trespass. I think they think that the countryside belongs to them, and anyone else’s views are totally irrelevant. I’ve had the ground here for about ten years and we’ve had continual trespass from the Tiverton Staghounds. The very first trouble I had was when I had a ewe and lamb chased into the stream, but by the time I found them they were dead. I phoned the hunt up. They came out. Picked the corpses up, gave me a cheque for £90 and hoped that the matter would go away. I was a little bit green and accepted it. Since then I’ve had continuous trespass…." Sue sent the hunt a solicitors letter telling them they were not to trespass on her land, but problems continued.

"In 1996, I got some ewes and some young lambs outside, and this was actually witnessed and a hound bit the head off a young lamb that was about three days old…..This lamb was actually decapitated…. I think they are just incapable of controlling them. There’s the nuisance side of it where, as a farmer, I’ve always got to be the one who picks up the pieces afterwards. We’ve got to go and rescue the casualties. Take them to the vet. Mend fences. Pick electric fences up. There’s also the health to the sheep. It leads to abortions, things like that when they are actually in lamb. The farm is a place of work. I don’t think they’d go and run a pack of hounds through a car factory, so why should they run it through my place of work which is a farm."

Another landowner who had endured numerous instances of hunt trespass is Brian Berry, who was also interviewed on the video. He commented on his local hunt that: "They had an attitude problem. They just didn’t want to know…The worst part was the last season in fact where they crossed the property three times. It got particularly nasty at one point where the language from the members got a little threatening. I really don’t see why we have to lock our pets away just because they want to be out and about."

In another interview on the video, Joan Salmon recounted the events which led to the death of her pet cat, Hobbit on Boxing Day 1998. - "The hunt were coming back down the lane, and my family called to me that I should make sure that Hobbit was inside. I knew that he wasn’t very far from the house, because I’d seen him just a few minutes earlier in the back garden, so I ran out of the back room, and called his name. I could hear him miaowing. Just as I started to turn, I saw streak which came out of the shrubbery, presumably to make for the house. At this point all hell broke loose because several hounds broke through the shrubbery. More hounds came up from the gate. They seemed to converge on the steps at the back of the garage. It was just like a rugby scrum. That’s the best way I can describe it. They converged onto something. There was a lot of noise at this point. There were dogs baying. There were horses on the road. My daughter suddenly screamed: "They’ve got him". I realised what was happening and I started to scream. All I could see at this point was hounds, in the garden, milling around. And then we could see this grey shape being thrown up into the air. It was just like watching a rag doll being thrown around…. Suddenly a huntsman ran up the steps. He had a whip with him and he cracked it hard down on the steps and at this point the dogs dispersed."

"How long he lived after the hounds let go of him, I don’t know…The post-mortem showed that he had suffered terrible internal injuries. They didn’t offer an apology. They didn’t seem to be very concerned about what happened. They seemed to be more concerned about the fact that my daughters car was parked, in front of my garage…they seemed to be more concerned that we move the car so that they could carry on with the hunt. They’d actually killed our pet. They have to respect that people have private property, and that they are not allowed to go into that property."

On January 5, a pack of hounds invaded the garden of a 70 year old widow in Oxfordshire. Her six cats were in the garden and one, a year old black and white called Little Mrs, was ripped apart: "They (the hounds) were everywhere, in full cry. No one was controlling them. The next thing I saw was half of a dead cat in the mouth of a hound coming down the garden. The memory will always haunt me." ^xxxix Sam Butler, the joint Master of the Warwickshire Hunt and chairman of the Countryside Alliances Campaign on Hunting said "We are extremely sorry. Hounds hunt by scent. That is a problem we have to deal with. Cats are occasionally killed, but if we are accountable we always take full responsibility". The Oxford Mail commented: ".. scant consolation for the unfortunate feline and small comfort to other pet lovers who look forward to a visit from the hunt with fear and anxiety."

_____________________________

ⁱ Macdonald, DW and Johnson, PJ – The Impact of Sport Hunting: a Case Study. In Taylor, V., Dunstone, N., (eds) The Exploitation of Mammal Populations. Chapman and Hall, London 1996. pp. 160-207

ⁱⁱ Help us put the case for Country Sports – British Field Sports Society leaflet

ⁱⁱⁱ Campaign for Country Sports leaflet

^iv Cobham Resource Consultants – Countryside Sports: their economic and conservation significance, Reading. The Standing Conference of Country Sports – 1992

^v Cobham Resource Consultants – Countryside Sports: their economic and conservation significance, Reading. The Standing Conference of Country Sports – 1992

^vi Countryman’s Weekly – August 1999.

^vii Cobham Resource Consultants - Countryside Sports – Their Economic Significance - The Standing Conference on Countryside Sports, 1992

^viii ‘Blood on the Saddle’ - The Guardian - 13 August 1998

^ix BFSS leaflet ‘Help protect Hunting’

^x Macdonald, DW and Johnson, PJ – The Impact of Sport Hunting: a Case Study. In Taylor, V., Dunstone, N., (eds) The Exploitation of Mammal Populations. Chapman and Hall, London 1996. pp. 160-207

^xi Countryside Protection Group – Out of Control in the Countryside Video, 1998. Supplied as Annexe 6.

^xii Second Reading Debate – Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill - 28 November 1997 col. 1259

^xiii Rural Attitudes Survey - 16 October 1997

^xiv UK Tourist – Statistics 1998

^xv Ward, Neil – Foxing the Nation – Competing Claims about the Economic impact of a hunting ban 1998 – Newcastle University,

^xvi Winter, M., Hallett, J., Nixon, J., Watkins, C., Cox, G., Glanfield, P. Economic and Social Aspects of Deer Hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks – Report to the National Trust. Centre for Rural Studies April 1993.

^xvii Countryside Protection Group – "Hunt Havoc" report, 1998. Supplied as Annexe 6.

^xviii Western Daily Press - "Second-home Heseltines get some stick" 27/11/97

^xix Winter, M., Hallett, J., Nixon, J., Watkins, C., Cox, G., Glanfield, P. Economic and Social Aspects of Deer Hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks – Report to the National Trust. Centre for Rural Studies April 1993

^xx Newby, A - Green and Pleasant Land? 1980

^xxi Murphy, Cath and Shucksmith, Mark – Rural Audit – A Health Check on Rural Britain – the Rural Group of Labour MPs - 1999

^xxii Bradley, A – Poverty and dependency in village England – Geo Books - 1987

^xxiii George, Janet – A Rural Uprising - Abbot's. 1999

^xxiv Yeomen get marching orders – The Guardian – 21 February 1998

^xxv Macdonald, DW and Johnson, PJ 1996 op.cit.

^xxvi Ward, Neil 1998 op.cit.

^xxvii ibid

^xxiii Anglers and Riders Support Foster Bill to Ban Hunting with Dogs - Monday February 3 1998

^xxix Hansard 28 November col 1230

^xxx Matson, R – The Hypothetical Consequences of Closing Down a Large Pack of Foxhounds to include its economic implications on the local community and its effect on the countryside in general. – Geoffrey Craghill Memorial Scholarship – 1991

^xxxi Macdonald, DW and Johnson, PJ 1996 op.cit.

^xxxii Life in the Countryside is Under Threat - Undated

^xxxiii War over hunting turns dirty with smears against gay and black MPs – 30 September 1999

^xxxiv Mowl, T – William Beckford – Composing for Mozart. – John Murray. 1998

^xxxv Redding, Cyrus – Memoirs of William Beckford of Fonthill. (Charles Skeet, London, 1859)

^xxxvi Ward, Neil 1998 op.cit

^xxxvii Barclay to Berry – 27 September 1998

^xxxviii Mike Naughton - Fur flies as fox-hunt fanatic gets a taste of her own medicine – 10 April 1998

^xxxix Countryside Protection Group - Hunt Havoc – Taking Liberties in the Countryside – CPG 1998. Supplied as Annexe 6.

Back to top

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?

1. The main issue here is the massive loss of habitats, and the continuing decline of biodiversity, in the British countryside. This is almost entirely due to agricultural policy. We refer you to the regular surveys undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, who monitor such change on behalf of the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions and others. Their last report ⁱ provides extensive evidence of the rate of habitat loss. The main survey is currently being repeated, but in the interim reports have been issued on continuing patterns of change of e.g. hedgerows ⁱⁱ. This showed that rates of hedgerow replacement during the period were more than balancing, in quantitative terms, rates of hedgerow loss. More critically, they could not find any reasons for this change and say that nothing can be inferred about reasons for change. This is the critical issue: whilst there may be claims about the local benefits of hunting with dogs on habitat management, hedgerow retention, etc., nationally there is no detectable or quantifiable impact, and much of the comment on the benefits of hunting are based on perception rather than fact. In Britain the inescapable fact is that the pattern of landscape change is driven by agricultural policy. Future changes in agricultural policy will determine landscape and habitat changes in Britain and not the future of hunting with dogs.

2. As evidence of the impact of agricultural policy on landscape structure, we refer you to the agri-environment schemes on the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food website (www.maff.gov.uk/environ). The current agri-environment schemes are: Arable Stewardship; Countryside Access Scheme; Countryside Stewardship; Environmentally Sensitive Area; Farm Woodland Premium Scheme; Habitat Scheme; Moorland Scheme; Nitrate Sensitive Areas; Organic Farming Scheme. There is great interest in these schemes: the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, for instance, had 143,055 hectares by the end of 1999, 1,149,208 hectares were designated in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme, and to the end of 1998 46,450 hectares had been approved for planting under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme.

3. In the past, coverts were planted and managed for foxes, particularly in the earlier days of foxhunting when natural cover had been extensively removed. Many earlier books on foxes and hunting ⁱⁱⁱ give practical advice on managing fox coverts, although it should also be noted that Talbot (1906) ^iv said that natural coverts are better than planted ones. Most of these coverts were planted in the midlands, where little natural woodland remained during the early days of hunting. The very open nature of the landscape in those days can be seen in early hunting prints. The situation today is very different, and in the modern countryside hunting plays little role in woodland management.

4. The key sporting activity affecting landscape structure is shooting, especially pheasant shooting, and sporting estates are often managed to benefit game species ^v, and the Game Conservancy's demonstration estate at Loddington. Shooting is continuing to expand rapidly, and this will lead to further, probably extensive, landscape changes. Tapper (1999) ^vi has documented the increasing importance of pheasant shooting this century, with the average "bag" rising from around 25 pheasants per square kilometre in 1900 to almost 150 per square kilometre in the 1980s. This figure is still rising. The Tapper study ^vii then goes on to argue that pheasant rearing provides "significant conservation benefits for other wildlife. Woodlands are planted, improved, coppiced and maintained as a consequence of pheasant rearing". He then goes on to argue that the impact of pheasant rearing on the countryside is significant.

5. We also refer you to the DETR; they are currently the organisation responsible for most tree and woodland planting in Britain. They are carrying out an extensive planting scheme on roadside verges to improve habitat diversity, landscaping, etc. In addition, there are around twenty large community forest schemes in Britain, and these will lead to extensive areas of new forest next century. All of these schemes are independent of hunting and make any landscape contribution attributable to foxhunting totally insignificant. An end to hunting would have no measurable impact on habitat quality in Britain.

1. Foxhunting causes extensive damage to badger setts, and we refer you to the reports on this issue compiled by the National Federation of Badger Groups. Two national badger surveys have confirmed the extensive blocking of badger setts by foxhunts: between November 1985 and December 1987 nearly 16% of main setts, 9% of annexe and subsidiary setts, and 5% of outlying setts had holes blocked, predominantly by hunts ^viii. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 protected badger setts for the first time, with provisions to allow hunts to stop setts so long as the conformed to certain rules. Yet the next national badger survey, between October 1994 and January 1997, showed that the level of sett blocking had not changed, nor had the level of hard stopping. This survey also showed that the extent of blocking badger setts varied with the intensity of foxhunting ^ix. The National Federation of Badger Groups have files on the damage done to badger setts by foxhunts and prosecutions for offences by hunts under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, and we refer you to these. Thus, foxhunts do not conform to the current law, and this clearly negates the argument that their activities can be licensed or regulated in some way: they do not obey the law, let alone codes of conduct.

2. We have already referred you to the problems caused by deer hunting. Hunting during the rut causes extensive social disruption, and it was for this reason that the New Forest Buckhounds, when they still operated, ceased hunting during the rutting period. Stag hunting selectively hunts the large breeding stags during the rut. During the rut, the stags do not eat and can loose up to 20% of their body weight ^x, and so the hunts are chasing animals that are often exhausted by the rut.

3. Hare hunting with packs of hounds and by organised coursing meets is undertaken through the winter, and ends in February or March, depending on the hunt. We have already explained that the period from January to late spring is the critical part of the hare breeding season. Hunting with hounds is undertaken during this critical period: whilst it is argued that hunting has little impact on the total hare population ^xi, but such analyses take no account of the loss of young, or disruption to breeding, at this critical part of the hare's breeding season.

4. We have already addressed the issue of mink hunting. This activity, undertaken in the summer, damages habitats when birds are nesting, and disturbs otters and leads them to abandon favoured holts and rest sites. Hunting literature also shows that it is not possible to control packs of otterhounds, and so it is also likely that otters continue to be hunted by hounds that are not under control.

5. We must also remember the legacy of foxhunting on conservation and management of the British countryside. Less than 200 years ago, rabbits were rare in the British countryside, as were foxes ^xii. Both species were extensively stocked by foxhunts, the foxes to provide a source of animals suitable for hunting, and the rabbits to provide a prey base for the foxes. By the latter part of the nineteenth century, this had led to a substantial increase in the number of foxes able to be hunted ^xiii. The legacy of these actions is that rabbits are now so widespread that they are the most serious pest facing farmers today ^xiv. Attempts to manipulate populations for the benefits of any field sport will invariably lead to adverse consequences, and often not for those people who undertake the stocking programmes.

Conclusion

1. We return to our basic argument. There is clearly no evidence that hunting with dogs plays any significant role in the conservation and management of wildlife or their habitats. Even if it did, inflicting cruelty on around 200,000 wild mammals. This is the total number of foxes (20,000), deer (200), hares (6000) and mink (6000) killed by recognised packs of hounds, the number of foxes estimated by Wildlife Network to be killed by terriers (50,000) and lurchers (10,000), and the number of hares killed by lurchers and at all types of coursing meets ^xv (100,000).

2. We also return to one of our basic arguments. A ban on hunting with dogs would enable a rational management plan for British mammals.

ⁱ Barr, C.J., R.G.H Bunce RGH, Clarke RT, Fuller RM, Furse MT, Gillespie MK, Groom GB, Hallam CJ, Hornung M, Howard DC & Ness MJ (1993) Countryside survey 1990: main report. Department of the Environment, London.

Back to top

1. IFAW does not believe that a ban on hunting will have any adverse impacts on conservation, since any contribution of hunting with dogs to wildlife or habitat conservation is, at most, marginal. This view is supported by the Baroness Young, Chair of English Nature, the government's Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation. In November 1999, the Linnean Society and The Mammal Society organised a symposium entitled Farming and mammals. In her closing address, Baroness Young said that she saw no evidence that hunting with dogs makes any significant contribution to conservation.

2. Should there be any negative impacts to conservation, we have shown that these will be more than offset by the continuing expansion of agri-environment schemes.

3. There are also numerous claims that, in the absence of hunting, populations of foxes and deer will decline. We have already presented evidence to show that these claims are totally unsupportable. Both deer and fox numbers are continuing to expand, despite extensive control operations.

4. We have also shown that fox predation on other species is not a major conservation issue, and that where problems arise hunting with dogs is not a solution. We have also discussed the impact of deer grazing on conservation interests, and mink predation on native wildlife. Whilst these are serious conservation problems, hunting with dogs plays no role in mitigating the problem.

5. Many writers on hunting assert that the British fox population only survives because of hunting. In the past this may have been at least partly the case, and stocking with foxes (often called "bagmen" because they were released from a sack just before a hunt or "Leadenhallers" because they were bought from Leadenhall Market in London) was widespread: many thousands of foxes are believed to have been imported from Europe for this purpose. In addition, many hunts recommended breeding foxes to stock their country ⁱ. Both practices led to an increase in the number of huntable foxes in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The experience of hunts over a century ago are the basis for the present assertion that the fox owes its current existence to foxhunting ⁱⁱ, for instance, "if hunting ended, man would exterminate the fox just as surely as he exterminated the wolf". We have already explained that this is clearly arrant nonsense, and that fox numbers are rising despite extensive control operations. The situation over a century ago is very different to the situation today.

6. There are frequent claims that hunting is the only humane method of fox and deer control (the argument is not applied to hares and mink), and that other forms of control cause more suffering and/or leave wounded animals. Again, there is no evidence to support these assertions. Marriage (no date, a) ⁱⁱⁱ, for instance, makes a number of unsupported claims about the levels of fox mortality and suffering. First, it must be remembered that his figures for the total number of foxes in Britain are greatly inflated, and bear no relation to the generally accepted fox population estimate for Britain ^iv. He then goes on to argue that shotguns and light and heavy rifles cause anything from seconds to many weeks of suffering. There is no basis for these claims, nor the frequent assertion that many shot foxes die a lingering death. It should be remembered that there are around a thousand wildlife rehabilitation centres in Britain, receiving up to a quarter of a million wildlife casualties every year ^v. Foxes feature frequently in these casualties, yet very few have shot wounds. For instance, since 1991 the RSPCA has received 1028 foxes at its three hospitals; of these, only one was admitted with wounds from shooting ^vi.

7. The arguments presented by Marriage (no date, a) ^vii and Fox, who respectively compared hunting with hounds with the level of suffering imposed by other forms of control and domestic cats when hunting birds and mammals, are also fundamentally flawed. It is not a rational argument to say that although hunting is cruel, it should be allowed to continue because there are other or greater forms of cruelty. If they are correct, then the solution is address these other forms of cruelty as well as, not instead of, hunting. As it is, we do not accept their arguments, which are not supported by the facts. There is currently no evidence to suggest that other forms of fox control are more inhumane than hunting.

8. We make one other comment on the assertion that the health of British foxes (or the red deer on Exmoor) is maintained through hunting. We have already addressed this issue. We will simply add that there is no evidence that fox populations that are not hunted are any less healthy, and there is no evidence that the red deer populations in e.g. East Anglia and the New Forest, are any less healthy as a consequence of not being hunted. Equally, you can extend the argument to other species. Otters are no longer hunted with dogs, but are making a spectacular population recovery despite hunting. There is no basis to assert that the otter population is suffering as a consequence of an end to hunting, or is now any less healthy, and all the evidence points to the contrary: otters are flourishing in the absence of hunting. Arguments that hunting maintains the health of the quarry species are simply nonsense: there is no one jot of evidence to indicate that the health of the fox (or deer) population is increased through hunting.

9. Bateson (1997) ^viii has already compared the wounding rates in red deer from shooting with the suffering imposed by hunting, and concluded that "the level of total suffering would be markedly reduced if hunting with hounds were ended". Arguments to the contrary ^ix are not based on hard data, and are unsupportable. The other issue to bear in mind is that, at present, there is no legal requirement for people who shoot deer in Britain to be trained or certificated, although the British Deer Society do run excellent training courses, which many stalkers already attend. Should there be any concerns over the quality of stalking in Britain, and at present there is no evidence to suggest we should be concerned, it would be relatively simple to require all stalkers to be trained before they were issued with, or renewed, their firearms certificate. With the passing of the Deer Act 1963, and subsequent legislation, there have been huge advances in the management and welfare of deer in Britain. This process is continuing, and we refer you to the work of the British Deer Society in furthering improving standards for the management and welfare of deer in Britain.

10. One argument frequently presented against stalking is the issue of safety. We simply report that so far no one has ever been killed or injured by a deer stalker, despite the fact that up to 200,000 deer are culled in Britain each year. Clearly, stalkers are extremely careful and there is no basis to believe that this situation will change with the cessation of hunting.

11. All the evidence is clear: an end to hunting with dogs will have no adverse effects on the management or conservation of wildlife or habitats in Britain. However, in the absence of hunting, it will be possible to have a rationale debate on the merits of different management practices, and this may lead to considerable benefits to British wildlife.

__________________________

ⁱ Ridley, J. (1990) Fox hunting. Collins, London.

ⁱⁱ Lloyd, H.G. (1980) The red fox. London, Batsford Watson, J.N.P. (1977) The book of foxhunting. Batsford, London.

^ix Marriage, E. (no date, b) The red deer welfare equation - simple sums and solution. British Wildlife Management, Cirencester.

Back to top

Question 13:

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?

1. The issue of whether hunting is beneficial in improving the health of the quarry species has already been addressed. There is no basis for such assertions; hunting does not benefit the quarry species by selectively culling weak animals.
1. The issue of whether hunting red deer selectively removes older stags has also been addressed. Again, this is not the case, and autumn hunting in particular selects the prime breeding stags. The Committee should also remember that red deer (and foxes, hares and mink) have well-defined strategies to ensure that only the best animals breed. Thus hunting does not benefit natural selection, a process that has evolved over millennia.
2. The issue of the welfare of animals hunted with dogs will be addressed in two ways: from both a commonsense, and a scientific, point of view.
3. Some 40 minutes of video footage were submitted in support of statements made about the facts about hunting in response to Question 1. With one exception, the footage was filmed by just two of the many people over the past few years who have recorded the reality of hunting wild animals with dogs. The two hunt monitors started using video cameras only in 1993 when this equipment became more practicable and affordable. They can recall many similar incidences taking place before the cameras were available. Many hundreds of hours could be spent watching similar incidences recorded around the country. The footage will show what the majority of Britons well understand: hunting wild animals with dogs is inherently cruel.
4. The suffering caused by to wild animals by hunting with dogs may be clearly perceived from the following incidences:

• 10:00:25 – 10:00:37 - injuries inflicted on a fox by a pack of hounds

• 10:02:58 – 10:05:55 - terrier and fox with jaws locked.

• 10:08:31 – 10:09:27 - the heading and holding up of cub that is driven back towards hounds.

• 10:15:23 – 10:15:37 – hunters stand on deer’s head, deer in river.

• 10:15:38 – 10:17:03 - deer running in river, headed by riders into trees, escapes from woman into river again, captured, held underwater.

• 10:19:57 – 10:20:57 - stag kill botched, shot several times before being wrestled in river and finally killed

• 10:22:30 – 10:24:43 - stag with part of leg missing being chased.

• 10:24:44 – 10:26:13 - stag shot in left side of the head from close range after it had laid down in deep bracken, following a chase of approximately 23 km after 4 hours. The shot broke the upper, vertical section of the jaw. The stag immediately leaps to its feet and ran off into a nearby woodland. It was killed between ten and fifteen minutes later. ⁱ

• 10:29:34 – 10:29:43 - injured hind held by ears whilst hound attacks rear.

• 10:35:25 – 10:36:28 - hare being hunted by beagles

• 10:33:13 – 10:35:04 - hare coursing at last year’s Waterloo Cup.

1. Photographic evidence and further information arguing the urgent requirement for wishing legislation to prohibit hunting wild animals with dogs on the grounds that the practice is cruel, may be seen in various campaign leaflets, booklets and videos. These are submitted as Annexe 18. An excellent summary of concerns appears in the enclosed CPHA ‘Deadline 2000’ report.
   
   
2. Section 2 of Question 1 considered the nature of the chase and kill for deer, fox, hare and mink and briefly covered welfare concerns relating to terrier work, cubhunting, deerhunting and hare coursing. Further points relating to these and other aspects of the hunt not previously covered are now examined.
   
   
3. Cubhunting, now euphemistically called Autumn Hunting, although since it commences in late July or August, it is hard to understand how this name was chosen (other than for PR reasons), since rational people consider July and August to be the middle of summer, not autumn. It is argued by the blood sports lobby that cubhunting serves either to "disperse the young foxes through the country", to "reduce the number of foxes in the countryside", or to "weed out the infirm foxes". The last of these points has already been addressed. The argument that it reduces the number of foxes in the countryside has partially been addressed; about half the foxes killed by hunts are killed during cubhunting. Killing up to 10,000 foxes from a total population of around 500,000 does not reduce numbers to any significant degree. The dispersal issue, however, is in reality a major welfare problem. The hunts argue that by the onset of cubhunting, these are full grown young adult foxes. ⁱⁱ This is not true; most cubs are born in mid-March, and do not reach adult size until the end of the year; see the growth curves in Lloyd ⁱⁱⁱ and elsewhere. By the onset of cubhunting, they are still cubs, and little more than half-grown. They are still dependent on the adults for all their food until the end of June ^iv, and for the rest of the summer are learning to hunt for themselves. When not hunted, most cubs do not start to disperse before the end of the year. ^v Breaking up fox family groups before the cubs are independent, or able to hunt effectively, and when they are only half-grown, is hardly good welfare. It may also account for many of the problems reported by farmers and gamekeepers at this time of the year: inexperienced foxes forced off their natal range have no option but to take the easiest prey available, such as domestic stock. Cubhunting is clearly totally unacceptable by any reasonable standards of animal welfare.
   
   
4. The Committee of Inquiry should also consider current anomalies in the law. Whilst it remains legal to inflict deliberate cruelty on a wild mammal living in the wild, doing exactly the same to the same animal after it has been brought into captivity would be an offence. Even chasing a wild mammal with a pack of dogs in the name of research would require a licence from the Home Office, and with current ethical guidelines it is unlikely that such a licence would ever be granted. This was exactly the problem faced by Harris et al. (1999); they applied for a licence for a hunt to pursue a marked deer so that they could study the effects of the hunt: the Home Secretary refused the application. Similarly, licences to study predation or killing behaviour in controlled conditions are rarely if ever granted, because they are considered unethical. Yet there are no restrictions on people doing exactly the same in the wild when they use dogs to hunt and kill 200,000 foxes, deer, hares and mink in Britain each year.
   
   
5. It became illegal to dig for badgers in 1981; it was considered cruel to use a dog to bait a badger underground. Yet this activity remains perfectly legal for foxes, and the injuries received by foxes are generally more extensive than those inflicted on badgers, which are stronger and better able to defend themselves against the terrier(s). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that foxes suffer less than badgers, and since they generally receive greater injuries, it would be reasonable to assume that they suffer more. Yet fox baiting remains legal. A comparable analogy with terrier work is dog fighting; foxes are wild dogs, and are equally sentient. Yet dog fighting is illegal under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Whilst dog fighting is to be abhorred and no case should be made for it, it must be said dog fighting may actually be less cruel than baiting foxes. At least with dog fights, the animals are more closely matched, and the fight is controlled in that as soon as one animal receives significant injuries, the owners intervene and the fight is ended. This is not possible underground; often the fox is dead or nearly dead from its injuries before the diggers can get to the fox. Fighting animals one against the other is so abhorrent to society that the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1988 created new offences of being present at animal fights or publishing such an event. However, this only applies to fights where both opponents are domestic animals or where one (or more) is a wild animal brought into captivity. Thus, it is illegal both to set a dog on a fox in captivity, to watch such an event, or to publish details of it. Yet it remains perfectly legal to do all these activities if a domestic animal (a dog) is set to fight a fox in the wild, and accounts of particularly long or bloody fox digs are still reported in terrier club magazines and blood sports magazines. In the past, there were numerous books extolling badger digging and terrier work generally e.g. King ^vi ; such books are still being published e.g. Harcombe ^vii, although the activity now is generally more clandestine. It is clearly anomalous that badger digging and baiting are illegal, whereas it remains perfectly legal to do exactly the same to foxes, but only so long as they are in the wild.
   
   
6. Similar arguments apply to deer. For deer farmers and researchers, there are clear guidelines on capture and handling of deer; these have been developed over the years following the landmark work of the Nature Conservancy Council. ^viii Current protocols stress that deer should not be chased for long distances or stressed, because of the high risk of myopathy or handling fatalities e.g. Chapman et al. ^ix There are also clear guidelines for handling wild mammals for rehabilitators and others e.g. Harris & Jefferies. ^x Again, the way wild deer are hunted is at variance with accepted welfare standards adopted by deer managers, farmers and researchers. It should also be remembered that under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, it is illegal to hunt deer with dogs in Scotland. At the time the Act was passed, there was no deer hunting in Scotland with dogs (other than coursing by poachers), and provision to allow hunting to resume was not included in the Act because the practice was considered to be inhumane. It is clearly anomalous that a cruel activity that has been illegal in Scotland for over forty years remains legal in England and Wales.
   
   
7. Quantifying the suffering of quarry species is difficult. The work commissioned by the National Trust (Bateson, 1997 ^xi; Bateson & Bradshaw, 1997 ^xii) was groundbreaking and provides the first quantified assessment of the cruelty involved in hunting. Details of the Bateson conclusions relating to the suffering caused to deer by hunting were given in both sections in the response to Question 1. Subsequent work by Harris et al. (1999) largely confirmed these findings. ^xiii The Committee should note that the briefing paper prepared by the Countryside Alliance on Harris et al.'s work, entitled ‘A guide for scientific commentators and policy makers’, makes a number of claims that do not appear in the report. It is suggested, therefore, that the Committee of Inquiry relies on the report itself and not the interpretation prepared by the Countryside Alliance. We would refer the Committee instead to the summary paper prepared by Professor Bateson entitled ‘The stag-hunting debate’. This provides an objective assessment of the areas of agreement and the differences between the two studies. Finally, we would refer the Committee to the reviews of the JU study undertaken by Professor J A Lee and Dr. P A Morris on behalf of the Council of the National Trust. Both these scientists, neither of whom are involved in the hunting debate, are highly critical of the quality of Harris et al.'s (1999) report: it is statistically naive and this makes it very difficult to interpret the results. Similar comments are made by a number of leading scientists who wrote to support Professor Bateson's work. For instance, we refer you to: the letter of support from Professor Stephen Harris, who said that the data in the JU study would "greatly benefit from being reanalysed in a much more rigorous manner. That would greatly facilitate interpretation of the findings of the JU study by the scientific community. The results should then be published in a scientific journal of international standing".
   
   
8. Professor Schmidt-Nielson, Member of the US National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Member of the Royal Society, Department of Zoology, Duke University is described by Professor Bateson as ‘the name to conjure with in comparative physiology’. He also wrote in support of Professor Bateson’s work: "It seems clear that the JU study had much the same results as yours and can only be interpreted as confirming your results. Your study was a rigorous scientific investigation, and minor differences in no way invalidate your results, which showed the physiological status of the animals at the end of the hunt … One further comment. I am struck by the naïve comparison of deer hunting with human footballers. Human athletes are self motivated and the pursued deer is frightened to death. Imagine instead the mind of a human running for his life, pursued by a pack of baying predators ready to kill him. To me it seems that driving a frightened deer to total exhaustion for the entertainment of human hunters is not worthy of a civilised society." ^xiv
   
   
9. There are some data on the suffering to foxes from hunting. These come from America, where Kreeger et al. compared the heart rate and body temperature of foxes under a variety of conditions: one of these was being chased by a dog for about five minutes in a 4.1 hectare (10 acre) outdoor pen. Even with the low levels of chasing used in this study (much shorter than the average foxhunt), the foxes showed dramatically increased physiological measures, and these were higher than normal running i.e. when not being chased. ^xv These physiological changes were similar to those reported earlier by Kreeger et al for foxes held in leghold traps for up to eight hours. ^xvi Thus, the data suggest that a short chase with dogs produces the same level of stress to that caused by leghold traps. This trap was condemned as long ago as 1863 by Charles Darwin. The use of the leghold trap to catch foxes was made illegal in England and Wales in 1958, yet over forty years later an equally cruel method of killing foxes is allowed to continue.
   
   
10. It should also be noted that these data for foxes are entirely consistent with those recorded for red deer by Bateson. ^xvii It is important to note that these data are based on very short chases, and were from animals held in pens that were used to various behavioural procedures. It would be reasonable to assume that the stress for the wild animals would be higher.
    
    
11. There are no comparable data on the welfare of hunted hares and mink. However, it should be stressed that whilst these studies on red deer and foxes are useful, they simply confirm what is obvious to all: hunting with dogs is cruel. Not only is it cruel, it is a spectator sport, not a means of population control, and so is no different from other spectator sports, such as dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting and badger baiting, all of which were banned without any need for physiological studies to confirm the obvious suffering to the victims. We do not need any more physiological studies on hunted species to confirm the obvious. We have all the data we need to ban hunting now.

Independent Review of the Scientific Literature by Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre

1. As mentioned in the Introduction to this submission, an independent review of the scientific literature was commissioned by IFAW in a bid to assist the Committee of Inquiry with its Questions 13 and 14. The review ‘The welfare of deer, foxes, mink and hares subjected to hunting by humans: a review" by Professor D.M. Broom was produced within a short space of time and the author is continuing to work on the document. The document dated 18 February is submitted as Annexe 19.
   
   
2. The review states "In most cases there is little scientific data upon which to base conclusions about the extent of any poor welfare caused by the hunting method. However, absence of evidence about the extent of poor welfare, should not be mistaken for evidence of absence of poor welfare. A recent extensive field study of deer and a follow-up study have provided sufficient direct evidence that the welfare of deer is very poor when they are hunted with hounds. In the case of foxes, mink and hares there are few data available from field studies involving dogs. However, there is considerable information relating to their basic biology, including the mechanisms which affect welfare and it seems likely that the welfare of these animals would also be poor when they are the subject of a chase."
   
   
3. The methods used in the report to assess the welfare of hunted species are based on current animal welfare science: "Animal welfare science is a scientific discipline which has developed rapidly in recent years. Much of the research has been carried out on domestic animals but the basic methodology is the same for all species including wild animals (Broom 1999). Welfare refers to the state of an animal at a specific time and can be good or poor irrespective of what people think about the moral or ethical use of the animal concerned. If the individual is having difficulty in coping with its environment, or is failing to cope, then its welfare is poor (Broom & Johnson 1993; Broom 1996). When assessing welfare a wide range of indicators of welfare should be used. The selection and interpretation of welfare indicators should be based upon the knowledge of the biological functioning of such animals especially the systems used by them to cope with adversity (Nimon and Broom 1999). There are various physiological welfare indicators (e.g. stress hormones and other blood and physiological parameters) and various behavioural indicators (e.g. the performance of abnormal behaviour such as stereotypes). In a paper discussing the assessment of pain in animals Bateson (1991) concluded that human interpretation of what is observed should be based on good observational data about their normal behaviour, their requirements, their vulnerability and the ecological conditions in which they live. Thus it is important to consider the physiology, behaviour and ecology of a species when considering if their welfare may be poor under certain conditions."



4. The review examines the recent physiological evidence of poor welfare in deer and the resulting debate. The Committee of Inquiry will note that the Broom considers that "any statements that the study of Bateson (1997), Bateson and Bradshaw (1997) and Bradshaw and Bateson (2000a) has been disproved by Harris et al (1999) (JUSDH) are incorrect". The author states: "Using the assessments normally used in conventional animal welfare science it is clear that the welfare of hunted deer is very poor." Broom concludes that controlling deer by shooting "can be conducted in such a way that the welfare of the vast majority of animals is very much better than that of hunted deer. If high standards of shooting are achieved, this will result in a considerably lower extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs".



5. The review refers to a second recent publication by Bradshaw & Bateson (2000a) entitled ‘Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer’: "In this paper they compared the welfare costs of two culling methods: stalking (culling by rifle) and hunting (with hounds). They identified various common stressors for deer such as proximity to humans and hounds, active pursuit, noise, obstruction and physical restraint prior to despatch. They compared their findings from the hound-hunted deer with deer which had been put down due to injury and stags which had been stalked in the rutting season, when they could be expected to be somewhat stressed. Deer hunted with hounds did not differ from severely injured deer in measures of muscle disruption. Red blood cell damage and hormonal indicators of poor welfare were higher in the hunted deer. Stags being hunted during the rut showed higher measures of blood and muscle disruption and fat reserve mobilisation than stalked stags."



6. "Bradshaw and Bateson (2000a) then turned to the issue of stalking. In their study an average of 11% of the deer that had been shot required two or more shots before death. Information based on human stalkers revealed that none of the animals killed with two or more shots took more than 15 min to die. It was concluded that all available evidence suggested that hunting with hounds posed a greater welfare problem for individual deer than stalking. Disturbance to non-target deer from stalking activity, without hounds, appeared considerable but was likely to be of short duration and unlikely to raise a welfare issue. However, when red deer were hunted with hounds, the suffering was likely to be very great. Stalking is therefore preferable to hunting with hounds providing it is carefully managed.
   
   
7. The independent review states that there have not been any studies analogous to the physiological work on deer for foxes, hares and mink and therefore assesses their welfare using other measures.



8. With respect to foxes, the report states "foxes have a complex social organisation and ecology and it is likely that the welfare of a fox which is the subject of a chase will be very poor. Animals in the proximity of a hunt involving dogs may also be the subject of considerable disruption. It is also important to consider the effects of the chase and related disturbance to domestic and companion animals because foxes territories are often adjacent to farms and urban environments."
   
   
9. When assessing how humane each method of control is that might be used if hunting with dogs were banned, the review says of trapping and shooting foxes: "Trapping has also been used as a method for controlling fox populations. White et al (1991) documented the physiological responses of captive-raised red foxes to capture in box (i.e. live) traps. The behaviour of the foxes was videotaped and heart rate and body temperatures were recorded during an 8-hour restraint period. Responses of foxes caught in box traps were compared with the responses reported by Kreeger et al (1990) for untrapped foxes and foxes caught in padded and unpadded jaw leg-hold traps. Heart rate and body temperature increased after foxes were caught in box traps but never significantly exceeded mean pre-trapped levels. They were active for 35% of the time during which time they mainly paced in the trap. Numerous physiological measures were made and foxes in traps had higher adrenocorticotrophin and cortisol values then untrapped foxes and lower beta-endorphin and cortisol levels than foxes in leg-hold traps. It was concluded that factors associated with limb restraint directly contribute to the trauma experienced by trapped red foxes and, therefore, foxes caught in box traps undergo less trauma than foxes that are restrained by a limb in a padded- or unpadded-jaw leg-hold trap. The best killing traps are selective for the target species and they kill instantaneously (Broom 1999). Cage-traps for live capture offer a reasonable alternative if traps are checked regularly, which is crucial, and the animals are humanely destroyed." Broom concluded: "Snares with a stop which are checked after a few hours, or after a capture is detected, can be accepted. Cage-traps for live capture offer a reasonable alternative if traps are checked regularly and the animals are humanely destroyed. An accurate shot with minimal disruption to the quarry species is unlikely to cause poor welfare. Careful shooting or trapping will result in a lower net extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs."



10. With respect to mink, the review refers to the considerable research conducted on the welfare of mink, which have been bred for farming (see Nimon and Broom 1999 for a full review). Broom reports that only one study (Birks 1981, 1986, 1989) has addressed the effectiveness of hunting as a means of controlling mink. "This analysis involved Cornwall and Devon Minkhounds from 1976 – 1980 during which time the pack hunted on 156 days and caught 84 mink (two-thirds of the mink located by the pack evaded capture)."
    
    
11. The independent review reports extensive information on the "mink's complex sensory biology, habitat requirements, patterns of activity, movements (home range), activity and social behaviour." Broom concludes: "Mink exhibit a complex set of behaviours and live within an established home range. Since mink are able to learn simple tasks in laboratories (Poole and Dunstone 1976), exhibit complex social organisation and live in established areas it can be assumed that hunting with hounds may cause considerable disruption of their usual behaviour patterns as well as fear and distress."
    
    
12. Concerning humane methods of killing mink, Broom concluded that "Instantaneous killing traps, or frequently checked cage traps, or careful shooting will result in a lower net extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs.
    
    
13. There is little direct information on the welfare of hares during hunting with dogs or the other techniques that are used for hunting hares, namely shooting and trapping. Broom concluded, "It is likely that hare coursing or other hunting with dogs will cause very poor welfare in hares. Careful shooting, or frequently checked cage traps, or stopped snares will result in a lower net extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs.
    
    
14. The overall conclusions of the review regarding the welfare of the four quarry species are therefore:

• Deer: "The welfare of hunted deer is very poor"

• Foxes: "Thus the fox is an animal with a complex social organization, 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 becomes the target of a chase. A hunt using dogs would be bound to cause extreme fear and distress in the hunted animal."

• Hares "It is likely that hare coursing or other hunting with dogs will cause very poor welfare in hares."

• Mink: "Mink exhibit a complex set of behaviours and live within an established home range. Since mink are able to learn simple tasks in laboratories, exhibit complex social organization and live in established areas it can be assumed that hunting with hounds may cause considerable disruption of their usual behaviour patterns as well as fear and distress."

15. The overall conclusion of the review with respect to methods of control for these species is: "Cage-traps for live trapping are a reasonable alternative if traps are checked regularly and the animals are humanely destroyed. Shooting does not cause poor welfare if the hunter is careful and shoots accurately so the animal is killed rather than wounded. In overall conclusion there should be a preference for careful, accurate shooting or traps which are selective of the target species and kill instantly or restrain without poor welfare. On average, hunting by chasing with dogs will result in considerably poorer welfare than these methods."

Welfare Impact of a Ban on Hunting Wild Animals with Dogs

1. There is no evidence that a ban on hunting wild animals with dogs would have an adverse impact on animal welfare. Broom’s independent review of the scientific evidence advocates the available legal alternatives of live trapping and shooting as those that should be preferred. Shooting of deer, foxes and hares is already a method in widespread use and live trapping of mink has been shown to be effective. As addressed above "hunting by chasing with dogs will result in considerably poorer welfare than these methods".
   
   
2. Illegal methods such as gassing, leghold traps, some snares and poisoning should not be used. Hunting wild animals with dogs should join this list of cruel, illegal control methods.



3. Even if other means of control were found to be more inhumane than hunting with dogs then the answer would be to ban them as well. Deliberate cruelty is not excused simply because some of the alternatives are even worse: all forms of cruelty are unacceptable.

The welfare of other wild species

1. We have already addressed the adverse impacts of hunting with dogs badgers, particularly the damage to setts, and the adverse impacts of mink hunting on otters and other riparian species. Besides damage to setts, foxhunts also kill badgers. Hunt monitors have filmed a freshly killed badger being removed by hunt staff. In the annual hunting diaries published before the last war, each hunt gave an account of the hunting season and the number of foxes and other species killed. These showed that many badgers were being killed each year, even though at that time badgers were comparatively rare. ^xviii What is less clear is how hounds catch and kill badgers. Dispersing badgers will lie up above ground ^xix and they will even breed above ground ^xx, so they are vulnerable to foxhounds. However, it is probable that sett stopping exacerbates the problem. Traditionally, stopping was done at night to prevent the fox returning to its earth in the morning, and "stopping" is an abbreviated version of "stopping out" ^xxi. Clearly, when badger setts are stopped, whether at night or early in the morning, badgers will be stopped out, especially since badgers are active during the day in quiet areas. ^xxii Thus, badgers forced to sleep above ground in cover or in a drain are vulnerable to hounds and are being killed, even though they are a protected species.
   
   
2. It is clear that dogs hunt and kill other species; this is such a frequent event that there is a specific hunting term to describe the event - "riot". ^xxiii Many of the earlier hunting books describe hounds rioting, especially on deer. Edwards, for instance, said that the smell of deer is "sweet to foxhounds" and that deer "frequently seduce hounds from their legitimate quarry". ^xxiv He also said that the scent of roe deer was "especially sweet" to foxhounds. Lionel Edwards was a leading hunting writer; since this account, there has been a dramatic expansion in the number of deer in Britain, especially roe deer and muntjac ^xxv, the latter being rare when he described the problems deer pose to foxhunting. So today the problem must be much worse than in Edwards' time, although the problems are no longer discussed openly. It is difficult to monitor how many deer are hunted and killed by hounds, but undoubtedly many smaller deer, especially muntjac (which hide in cover and cannot run for more than short distances) are killed by packs of foxhounds. The Committee of Inquiry should also bear in mind that foxhunting starts in late July or August; muntjac give birth throughout the year, roe deer are born in mid- to late May, and fallow deer in mid-June. ^xxvi Thus, there will be large numbers of young vulnerable deer at the time that foxhunting commences. The problem is made worse because this is the period of cubhunting, when coverts are surrounded to prevent foxes escaping. This also prevents deer from escaping, and so the young deer are confined in the woods where they are most at risk from the hounds. Clearly, foxhunting poses significant welfare problems for wild deer. An example of an episode where foxhounds killed a deer is shown on the submitted. This incident took place earlier this month in the New Forest. A former master of the New Forest Buckhounds was also quoted under section 2 of the response to Question 1. The Committee of Inquiry will recall, he said: "A deer is a more natural quarry for a hound. After all, you have to teach it to hunt a fox." Several examples of hounds attacking deer will be seen on the video.

Effects on hunting dogs, domestic pets and farm animals

1. Incidences of hounds attacking pets and farm animals have been detailed under responses to Question 1 and Questions 9 and 10. Further details are given in the submitted booklets and video on the issue of hunt havoc. The League Against Cruel Sports has also documented such incidences over the years and will no doubt provide detailed information. The Committee of Inquiry will recall the comments of Sam Butler, the joint Master of the Warwickshire Hunt and chairman of the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign on Hunting regarding the killing of cats: "Hounds hunt by scent. That is a problem we have to deal with. Cats are occasionally killed".
   
   
2. Dogs are also attacked by hounds. Once such incident was reported in the Daily Mail in 1997. Sixty year old Moira Lamb was walking her 12 year old dog Candy on a lead near her home when hounds from the local hunt attacked. Moira covered Candy with her body: "I put my head down and held Candy close to me as t he hounds swarmed over us. I could feel them grabbing her and pulling her from under me. I thought I was going to have a heart attack but I held on tightly because I knew that if they got hold of her they would rip her apart…..Eventually a hunter arrived and the dogs were called off. I demanded that they take me to a vet. They seemed reluctant and asked if I had a car myself. I wrapped her up in my coat. Her underbelly was ripped to shreds and she was covered in blood." The dog was under anaesthetic for four hours while the vets tried to stitch up her badly lacerated underbelly. Her teats had been torn off by the attack. She put up a fight for life for a week but her wounds became infected and vets advised she would need more operations and skin grafts. The kindest option was to put her to sleep.
   
   
3. Terriers also suffer injuries. In the response to Question 1, details were given of a terrierman who was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to his dog by forcing it to reenter a hole after it had already been injured during a fight with a fox. The Committee of Inquiry’s attention has already been drawn to footage of this incident on the submitted video. As mentioned under Terrier Work in the response to Question 1, scars inflicted by foxes on terriers are described in hunting literature as ‘wounds of honour’. Indeed, until recently hunts had "most scarred terrier classes" in their annual shows because extensive bite wounds to terriers were considered a sign of a good terrier. The adverse public opinion caused by such events no doubt led to these being abandoned.
   
   
4. Hounds are also put in the path of danger by hunts. There are regular reports of hounds being run over by cars and trains. In the first month of the current hunting season, the CPHA recorded the deaths of fourteen hounds. Of these fourteen:

• three were hit and killed in Cumbria after running out of control onto a road
• seven were killed in the New Forest after being electrocuted crossing a live rail
• four were killed by a train after running across a track near Llandow in South Wales

5. According to Robin Mackenzie, an official of the then British Field Sports Society and Master of Fox Hounds, the average hunt breeds six litters with six pups in each year. 300 hunts would therefore produce 10 800 hounds annually. There are some 60 hounds in the average pack. These are normally shot at about six years of age, which is half a normal dog’s life expectancy and replaced by young hounds. About a fifth of each pack is destroyed annually which means that 300 hunts kill some 3,600 older hounds ^xxvii. Therefore of the 10 800 pups born, only 3 600 are needed to replace old hounds. More will be needed to replace hounds killed in accidents during the hunting season. Some will die because of disease or illness. Others may be killed, for example, young foxhounds that do not show interest during cubhunting, hounds that are ‘delinquent’ for some reason, hounds that are the wrong colour for the pack. It is difficult to see however, that all of the 10 800 borne a year are required by the hunts.
   
   
6. The hunting lobby has claimed that a ban on hunting would mean that the "only humane choice would be to put down 20 000 foxhounds, harriers, beagles, bassets and minkhounds". If hunts refused to retrain their hounds for draghunting or to permit the RSPCA to rehome them and were to kill 20 000 hounds, this would represent the same number of hound deaths that occur currently during two years of hunting. ^xxviii
   
   
7. The hunting lobby has claimed that "If hunting is banned, up to one million horses will be destroyed". However, there are only approximately 600 000 horses in the UK and as has been mentioned, and only a tiny number of these are used solely for hunting. MORI opinion polls have also been cited that show that the majority of riders support a ban on hunting wild animals with dogs. Furthermore that equestrian activities that do not involve hunting with dogs are burgeoning. It is not believed therefore that a ban on hunting wild animals with dogs would have adverse effects for horses. It should be noted, however, that horses may become injured during hunting with dogs - one incident of a horse that was killed on a road is shown on the submitted video at time code 10:38:57 – 10:42:24. Such traffic injuries may be avoided during drag a hunt where a course can be selected that is safe and suitable for different standards of riders and horses.

____________________________

ⁱ Incident recorded by Professor Bateson, op.cit.

^vi King, H.H. (no date) Working terriers badgers and badger-digging. The Field, London.

^vii Harcombe, D. (1985) Badger digging with terriers. Fieldfare, Porth.

^xx Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996) Badgers. Poyser, London

^xxi Hare, C.E. (1949) The language of field sports. Country Life, London.

^xxiv Edwards. L. (1949) The fox. Collins, London.

^xxv Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D. (1995) A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

^xxvi Corbet and Harris, 1991

^xxviii ibid

back to top

Question 15:

What form would the ban take and what would be the implications?

Question 15: What form would the ban take and what would be the implications?

The proposed legislation

The Inquiry will be aware that Ken Livingstone MP, who came eighth in the private members’ ballot in the Autumn, has presented a bill. At this stage only the short and long titles have been finalised. The bill itself is still in draft form. The short title is again the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. The long title is:

‘An Act to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being hunted by the use of dogs; and for connected purposes’.

The intention is that the bill will be similar (though not identical) to the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill (‘the Foster bill’) introduced by Michael Foster MP in 1997.

It is likely that a bill – the Protection of Wild Mammals Bill (‘the Scottish bill’) – will shortly be presented in the Scottish Parliament. Again, it will be similar, but not identical, to the Foster bill. Its presentation has been held up by legal manoeuvres by hunt supporters in an attempt to prevent it being considered by the Parliament, They allege a breach of parliamentary rules by the sponsoring MSP, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. These manoeuvres have so far been unsuccessful but show that hunt supporters will stop at nothing to prevent the exercise of democratic will.

A limited measure

It is important to appreciate that the bill will be a strictly limited measure (just as the Scottish bill will be):

• it will only ban hunting by the use of dogs. Other forms of hunting – such as shooting or humane trapping – will be unaffected

• it will only prohibit the hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The use of dogs in draghunting, and for other activities, will still be permitted.

• it will only prohibit the deliberate hunting (by people) of wild mammals with dogs.

there will be a number of exceptions (see below)

• the bill will not extend to Scotland.

In other words, the bill’s supporters are very keen to ensure that the mischief it is designed to cure is narrowly confined. It will be carefully targeted, tightly drawn and easily understood.

Note: for ease of reference, in what follows we normally use the term ‘hunting’ to mean ‘hunting of wild mammals with dogs’. Sometimes the full description is needed and therefore used.

A penal measure

The bill will create criminal offences. This is, of course, in line with all other animal welfare legislation, indeed with anti-cruelty legislation generally. The primary offence will be the intentional hunting of wild mammals with dogs. In addition, as elsewhere in criminal law, those who facilitate others to commit the primary offence will themselves be guilty of an offence.

So, owners or occupiers who knowingly allow another person to use their land to hunt will commit an offence. So will owners or keepers of a dog who either intend it to be used to hunt a wild mammal or who knowingly permit someone else to use it to hunt a wild mammal.

In each case, the prosecution will have to prove intention or knowledge, as appropriate, to the criminal standard of proof. This lays to rest the nonsensical argument raised by the hunting lobby that people out walking their dogs will commit an offence if their dog chases a rabbit or squirrel.

The exceptions

The scope of the bill, already narrow, will be further narrowed by the exceptions it will include. For example:

• an occupier of land (or his agent) will be permitted to use a single dog above ground for pest control purposes (i.e. to protect livestock, birds and crops), provided the quarry is either shot as soon as possible or escapes

• similarly, an occupier (or his agent) will be able to use a single dog above ground to hunt a rabbit or hare for human consumption, with the same proviso

• any person will be able to use a single dog above ground to (a) retrieve a rabbit or hare which has been shot; (b) locate a wild mammal which has escaped or been released (provided it is then captured or shot); or (c) to locate a wild mammal which is seriously injured (other than as a result of being hunted with a dog)

• it will be a defence for someone facilitating commission of the principal offence to show that he reasonably believed that the principal offender came within the scope of one of the other exceptions.

Why regulation of hunting is neither right nor feasible

Some people have suggested that, rather than ban the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, it should instead be regulated. Prominent amongst proponents of this approach is the so-called Middle Way Group.

This group claims to be independent of both sides to the debate – those who want to see hunting banned and those who want to preserve the status quo. It is clear, in fact, that the group has close links with the Countryside Alliance, which has given it substantial sums of money. ⁱ The Alliance no doubt sees the writing on the wall and would prefer to keep something of hunting as currently practised than lose everything, and yet cannot be seen publicly to signal that it is willing to compromise.

The false premise

The links which the group has with the Countryside Alliance do not, of course, by themselves invalidate the arguments it advances. What does invalidate them is the false premise on which they appear to be built. This is that, because (it is said) there are arguments on both sides, a compromise must be sought.

This is misconceived. With a great deal of legislation, there may be arguments for and against the central propositions. That does not mean that Parliament has to cobble together a compromise on those propositions. Very often it has to come down on one side or another. It may be possible to limit the scope of a measure to take into account various concerns – in the way that the bill will do. But that is very different from compromising the fundamental tenets of the measure.

In a sizable booklet ‘Fox-hunting; beyond the propaganda’ published by the group, the author, Charlie Pye-Smith, summarises the arguments for and against foxhunting . The arguments against it centre around cruelty (including the cruelty of terrier work). The arguments for it range from the need for pest-control and the importance foxhunting holds for the economy and the social fabric of the countryside.

He concludes that each side’s arguments have some merit. Therefore, the solution must also be balanced, so that each side takes something away. We have shown elsewhere that the arguments advanced in favour of hunting, including foxhunting, are spurious, exaggerated or in the final analysis irrelevant. More importantly, however, the various arguments for and against are not of equal weight. Most people believe that cruelty involved in hunting should simply not be tolerated, that the cruelty issue trumps all others.

So, even if – for example - a ban would lead to some loss of jobs (clearly in itself undesirable) that does not mean that continuation of cruelty can be justified. No doubt the abolition of the slave trade led to job losses. Hangmen lost their jobs when hanging was abolished. Some people predicted that the abolition of apartheid would lead to a deterioration in South Africa’s economic situation. In none of these cases could fear about economic consequences justify retention of inhuman practices.

Similarly, even if a ban had adverse consequences for the social fabric of the countryside, that could not justify retaining a cruel and unnecessary practice. When the abolition of slavery was mooted in the USA, people in the slave-owning states argued that abolition would destroy the social fabric there. It did not, of course, but even if there was any realistic prospect that it would, it would not have justified the continuation of a cruel practice.

For most people, the cruelty issue is the most important; indeed it is decisive. This is clear from the MORI polling evidence referred to earlier and supplied as Annexe 20. That evidence also shows that most people do not accept that hunting (with dogs) is needed for pest control purposes. Once it is established that hunting is cruel, and there are more humane ways of exercising any necessary pest-control, that is the end of the matter for the majority of people.

Of course, society should address any undesirable consequences flowing from a ban – such as any job losses – but the fear of such consequences cannot by itself be a reason not to get rid of unnecessary cruelty.

Cruelty and regulation

Once avoidable cruelty is recognised as the key issue, it becomes as nonsensical to say that one can regulate hunting as it is to say that one can regulate any other case of avoidable cruelty - paedophilia, dog fighting or bear-baiting, to give just three examples.

No amount of regulation can remove the cruelty from these practices. Paedophiles may promise to be caring and tender, but their behaviour would still be abhorrent; children should not be sent up chimneys even if the worst excesses of the exploitation are removed; bears should not be baited in any circumstances. So it is with hunting.

Even if one adopts a human-centric approach, simply to say that a group is a minority cannot possibly determine the civil liberties question. Paedophiles are a minority, a highly unpopular minority. Should society therefore protect their ‘right’ to abuse children? The answer, of course, is ‘no’, because it is more important that children should be protected from cruelty; so it is with foxes and other wild mammals. (We are not, of course, equating hunters with paedophiles, or any other reprehensible group, here or elsewhere in this submission. The analogy is simply to illustrate that the unpopularity of a minority is irrelevant to the debate).

A simple issue

Mr. Pye-Smith says that hunting is a ‘fiendishly complicated’ issue. It is not. For most people, it is simply a question of avoidable cruelty. There may be a myriad of arguments raised by hunters as to why avoidable cruelty should not to be the decisive argument, and there may be complications underpinning those arguments; there may be indirect consequences of a ban which are not easy to predict. But at its heart it is a moral issue, easily stated, easily understood and easily dealt with.

People opposing social reform always claim that the issue is far more complicated than at first appears. They seek to muddy the waters with spurious and irrelevant arguments and in the process deflect attention from the central moral issue. Pro-hunters are simply the inheritors of this dishonourable tradition. Unfortunately for them, most people can see through their tactics.

Particularly cruel features of hunting

There are particularly cruel features of hunting. Even the Middle Way Group comes close to condemning terrier work (although even then they will not quite bite the bullet). Deerhunting, hare hunting and coursing and terrier work are perceived by many to be particularly cruel. But, even if all these activities were prohibited and all one was left with was the foxhunting chase and kill, there would still be avoidable cruelty. As we have seen, an independent review of the scientific evidence relating to foxes has led to the conclusion that "a hunt using dogs would be bound to cause extreme fear and distress". No amount of regulation can alter this central truth.

Unenforceable

It is, in any event, extremely doubtful that regulation could be effective and enforceable.

We explained in answer to question 1 that most hunting is by unregistered groups. Even monitoring of those hunts which are currently registered would be impractical. There are some 300 of them in England and, quite apart from the coursing meets. A comprehensive licensing system would be extremely bureaucratic and expensive to administer. Moreover, many groups engaged in hunting would not bother to register. Terrier work would by its very nature be particularly difficult to monitor. Regulation would simply not work, even if were the morally correct response.

The implications of a ban

Clearly, the primary implication is that the deliberate use of dogs to hunt wild mammals will generally be prohibited. This will include foxhunting, deerhunting, hare coursing, mink hunting and so forth.

Hunters claim there will be two consequential implications. They say that (a) it would infringe their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’); and (b) it would infringe their civil liberties. In fact, it would do neither. There is some overlap between the two issues but we will deal with each separately.

A. The Convention

The UK is, of course, a signatory to the Convention. It is due to be incorporated into domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Act’) in October this year. It has already been incorporated in relation to those matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Even for England and Wales, legislation must already comply with it. Incorporation simply enables people who allege that their rights have been infringed to rely on the Convention in domestic courts, rather than having to take their case to the European Court on Human Rights (‘the European Court’) in Strasbourg. The Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals has therefore been careful to ensure that no bill with which they are associated is contrary to the Convention.

A private member’s bill does not have to be accompanied by a ministerial statement under section 19 of the Act that it is compatible with the Convention. Nevertheless, it will have to be compatible. The CPHA has received clear legal advice that the bill is.

In order to establish a breach of the Convention, a complainant would have to show that he had a relevant right under it. Even if he could do this, his complaint would fail if the Government was entitled to rely on one of the many exceptions.

The primary argument raised by the hunting lobby is that a ban would breach Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention:

‘Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payments of taxes or other contributions or penalties’.

Someone claiming that a ban would fall foul of this provision would first have to show that he had a relevant ‘possession’ – in other words, some relevant economic interest. The vast majority of people associated with hunting would be unable to do that. However, landowners who wish to hunt, or allow others to hunt, over their land argue that a ban would represent ‘control’ over how they use their land. A ban would not, of course, ‘deprive’ them of any possession.

Even if someone was able to establish that a ban represented control of a relevant possession, there is a wide exception set out in the second paragraph of the article. Under the caselaw of the European Court, contracting states have a wide discretion in applying the exception, on the reasonable basis that they are much more attuned to the conditions in, and needs, of their country than a reviewing court can be.

In considering the compatibility of a ban on hunting with dogs with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and any other relevant Convention right, the following factors are important:

• the fact that there is clear public support for a ban. For numerous years, opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the population wishes to see hunting banned. Crucially, this includes a large majority of people living in the countryside, which gives the lie to claims made by the hunting lobby that hunting unites rural opinion. The MORI evidence already referred to shows, indeed, that most people living in hunt areas, and most horse-riders, are opposed to hunting. If the hunting lobby can not command support from even these two sections of the population, their case must be feeble indeed.

• the fact that there is clear support for a ban in the House of Commons, the democratically elected chamber. The Foster Bill achieved, by a very considerable distance, the largest ever vote in support of a private member’s bill (411 MPs) and the largest ever majority (260). The fact that so many MPs stayed behind on a Friday, when most of them are normally in their constituencies, was testimony to the strength of feeling on this issue. The only reason the bill did not progress was because its opponents blocked it by tabling numerous spurious amendments, thus ensuring that it would be ‘talked out’. This is symptomatic of their contempt for democracy.

• in each case – general public and MPs – it is significant that overwhelming majorities not only disapprove of hunting but wish to see it banned. This is also crucial for the civil liberties arguments (see below).

• the supporters of a ban recognize that the only way to deal with the cruelty of hunting is to prohibit it by legislation. They recognize that the cruelty cannot be regulated out of hunting.

• the bill will be a strictly limited measure and will therefore be a proportionate response to the social ill which has been identified. Indeed, it could legitimately go much further. Every effort has been made to take on board the concerns which have been expressed by those opposing a ban.

• the hunting lobby has had every opportunity to put its case, not least through this Inquiry. It has disproportionate support within the media, particularly newspapers. If it fails to persuade public opinion to its viewpoint it can only be because of the paucity of its arguments. Similarly, if Parliament passes the bill, it will do so with a very clear understanding of the arguments advanced by those opposed to it and having taken full account of the conclusions of the Inquiry.

• the bill will be clear in its scope. No one will be left in any doubt as to what behaviour is permitted by the law and what is not.

The clear legal advice received by IFAW is that, even if a complainant could show that he had suffered interference with a relevant possession, the exception to Article 1 of Protocol No 1 would apply. We have also been advised that the bill complies with Article 6 (right to a fair trial). None of the other rights protected by the Convention is engaged.

In particular, it is extremely unlikely that Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life – extends to hunting. But, even if it does, there is, once again, no doubt that the UK would be able to rely on the exception, in this case ‘[measures] for the protection of … morals, or for the rights and freedoms of others’:

• as to ‘morals’, the fact that a huge majority of both public and MPs see this as a moral issue and consider legislation to be the only way of addressing their moral concern is highly significant. There is no doubt that concern for the welfare of animals is a moral issue in the UK and elsewhere, because that is how the vast majority of people view it, whichever side of a particular argument they favour. Indeed, supporters of hunting by implication accept that the animals they hunt are deserving of moral consideration by arguing, albeit disingenuously, that hunting is justified because it is the most humane way of controlling animals such as foxes.

There are numerous pieces of animal welfare legislation based on the premise that it is wrong deliberately to inflict suffering on animals unless there is a very strong justification for doing so. No one has ever suggested that such legislation unlawfully infringes the right one would otherwise have to treat animals in a cruel way. There is more and more recognition in EU legislation of the need to protect animals.

As to ‘protecting … the rights and freedoms of others’, we have detailed earlier the way in which hunts ride roughshod – literally – over the rights of landowners and pet owners, as discussed.

Similarly, in the past the hunting lobby has argued that Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly and association) would be breached. Again, our clear legal advice is that Article 11 is not engaged in the first place. A ban would not prevent people from assembling or associating with each other. It would simply prevent them from then engaging in one particular sort of activity. The Article 11 argument is as nonsensical as complaining that the law prohibiting unruly behaviour has the effect of infringing the right of assembly and association of football hooligans.

Civil liberties

Hunters complain that if they are prohibited from hunting wild mammals with hounds, it will infringe their civil liberties. By this they mean that they will not be permitted to behave as they wish. In fact, what they advance is an argument for libertarianism, not civil liberties. However, we will adopt their terminology.

It is true that a ban would prevent hunters behaving as they choose. But every law restricts the freedom of some or all people, either by requiring them not to act in a way in which they may wish to act or by requiring them to act in a way they may not wish to act. So, the law prohibiting murder restricts the freedom of those who may wish to commit murder; the law requiring the wearing of seat-belts restricts the freedom of those who may not wish to wear seat-belts. To say that a ban will infringe liberties takes the argument as to whether there should be a ban no further forward. Even the most rabid libertarian accepts that, in a civilized society, there have to be some rules, and therefore restrictions on personal freedom. The question is whether a rule banning hunting can be justified. IFAW believes strongly that it can.

It is important to reiterate why the majority of people wish to see the hunting of wild mammals with dogs banned. It is because they have concluded that the central aspects of the various forms of such hunting - foxhunting, deerhunting, harehunting, hare coursing and so on – are cruel. The central aspects are: (a) the chase; (b) the kill; and (c) associated activity such as terrier digging. Proponents of a ban have reached this conclusion after listening to the arguments of hunters that these activities are not cruel (or no more cruel than other forms of culling). IFAW believes that they are right to reach this conclusion, but for the purposes of the civil liberties argument it is irrelevant that opinion may not be unanimous. Opponents of hunting – the majority - are clearly entitled to conclude that the practice is cruel. Indeed, the contrary view can properly be described as perverse. A democracy ultimately has to accept the majority view when it is of central significance to the question whether to legislate.

The hunting lobby also argue that foxes and other wild mammals are pests and have to be culled. They argue that hunting with dogs is the most humane way of controlling these pests. The vast majority of people accept that pests have to be controlled. As detailed earlier, IFAW does not believe that there is any great need to control the fox population. However, it may be that most people assume that foxes are pests and that they therefore need to be controlled. But they have clearly not been persuaded that hunting with dogs is the most humane way of doing this. If they had, they would reluctantly accept that it should be allowed to continue. Again, the majority view must be allowed to prevail.

What, then, is the ‘liberty’ which hunters wish to preserve? It can only be the liberty to pursue an activity which most people think is cruel, and unnecessarily cruel in the sense that pest control (if it is needed) can be achieved in a more humane manner. The freedom in question is therefore the freedom to be unnecessarily cruel. One only needs to state the proposition to reveal how absurd it is.

Are foxes and other wild mammals deserving of moral consideration?

IFAW believes strongly in the freedom of the individual. But it also believes in the basic principle that freedom should stop at the point at which its exercise interferes to a substantial extent with the freedom of others, in particular where it causes them physical suffering. There is almost universal acceptance of this principle. We have little doubt that hunters would say that they accept it. It is perhaps best summed up in the Golden Rule in St Matthew’s Gospel:

The real fault-line between those wishing to preserve hunting and those who wish to ban it is whether the interests of wild mammals count at all, or count to more than a minimal degree. In other words, do they qualify as ‘others’ in the Golden Rule? Most people think they do. They believe that the interests of (non-human) animals are a relevant consideration in the moral debate. It is not only the interests of humans which count. Clearly, if one thinks only in human terms, it is inevitable that one will conclude that people should be allowed to treat animals as they wish, unless that has to give way to some human sensibility. In other words, how one marks out the moral playing field is crucial.

An unpopular minority

John Jackson, the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, in an article in The Times on 23 September 1999, said:

‘It is accepted by most of us, I believe, that an important hallmark of a civilized society is the extent to which the rights of the minorities they contain are respected’.

That is particularly so, it is said, with unpopular minorities. No one could disagree with this as a general proposition. However, it is very significant that, when hunters talk about the importance of protecting the interests of minorities against the overburdening will of the majority, they always mean human minorities, never animal minorities.

Foxes are a minority, too (as are deer, hares etc.). Foxhunting is concerned with man’s relationship to foxes. There are more people than foxes. And, not only are foxes a minority, with some sections of the population they are an unpopular minority, even a demonised one. Adopting the hunters’ own argument, society should be anxious to protect the interests of this unpopular minority against their numerical superiors. But, of course, hunters never see things in this way. They define the debate in a way that means only they can win it.

And, even if one adopts a human-centric approach, simply to say that a group is a minority cannot possibly determine the civil liberties question. Paedophiles are a minority, a highly unpopular minority. Should society therefore protect their ‘right’ to abuse children? The answer, of course, is ‘no’, because it is more important that children should be protected from cruelty; so it is with foxes and other wild mammals.

Minorities, or indeed majorities, should only be allowed to behave as they wish as long as it does not inflict physical suffering on others, and that includes sentient animals. That is not only IFAW’s view; it is also most people’s view. That is why they want to see hunting banned.

In any event, the CPHA does not disregard the interests of the hunting minority. As explained above, it has been careful to frame the bill in a way that takes account of those interests to the maximum extent possible. For example, only one form of hunting is to be banned. Indeed, the use of dogs to follow a scent will be preserved via draghunting. The essence of hunting with dogs will therefore remain. There is a historical precedent. Clay-pigeon shooting has survived, indeed thrived, following the ban in the 1930s on releasing live pigeons from traps and shooting them.

For the vast majority of people involved in hunting with dogs, a ban need affect them very little. According to Mr Pye-Smith of the Middle Way Group:

‘The mounted field, and followers in car and on foot, are kept some distance away from the hounds by a field master. Most of them seldom if ever see a fox being killed, and the pleasure they get comes not from the act of killing, but from riding across the open countryside, watching the hounds at work, and other less tangible things, such as the making and renewing of friendships’. ⁱⁱ

If this is right, conversion to draghunting will not adversely affect them: they will still be able to ride across open country, watch hounds at work and make and renew friendships.

To argue, as hunters do, that they must be allowed to pursue their chosen activity in the precise way they choose is akin to a car driver saying he must be allowed to pursue his activity in the precise way he chooses – at 100 mph, down either side of the road, when inebriated. The reason he is not is because such an exercise of his free will would adversely affect others; so does hunting with dogs.

Tolerance

A linked argument advanced by the hunting lobby is that it is the hallmark of a mature society that we should tolerate behaviour which the majority of people may not wish to copy. To do otherwise is illiberal. As a general proposition, that is again unobjectionable. But, once more, this cannot be determinative of the issue. There is clearly some behaviour which a civilized society should not tolerate. That is why we have laws. Cruelty to children, to the mentally ill and to other vulnerable groups should not be tolerated. Nor should cruelty to animals. It cannot matter whether the animals are wild or domesticated.

It is not illiberal to protect the interests of the weak, even if the only way to do so is to attack the interests of the strong. Hunters like to portray themselves as the victims in this debate. They are, in fact, very much the oppressors.

Lord Devlin, one of the great judges of the last century, put the issue of tolerance this way:

‘Not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust, they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of a society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice. I suppose that there is hardly anyone nowadays who would not be disgusted by the thought of deliberate cruelty to animals. No one proposes to relegate that or any other form of sadism to the realm of private morality or to allow it to be practised in public or private’ ⁱⁱⁱ.

In one respect, Lord Devlin was wrong. Hunters do seek to relegate cruelty to animals – or at least one form of cruelty to animals - to the realm of private morality.

The public interest

In the same article, Mr. Jackson said:

‘The alliance believes that there should be a presumption in favour of individual liberty unless it is clearly in the public interest that it is overturned’.

IFAW entirely agrees. But, once again, formulating the issue in this way gets one no nearer to finding the answer. The key question is: what is the ‘public interest’? In a democracy, the answer can only be that the public –the demos – decides what it regards as being in its interest.

In the context of hunting with dogs, the public view about the public interest can be summarised as follows: hunting is cruel; if pest control is necessary, there are more humane ways of doing it; hunting should therefore be banned. The public has a clear interest in building a society based on compassion, not cruelty; a society which is sensitive to the needs of all those - including animals - who are capable of feeling.

Once again, it is highly significant that the public sees its interest as only being respected by a ban, not by mere expressions of disapproval.

Consistency of approach

Supporters of hunting put the freedom of the (human) individual to pursue his chosen ‘sport’ above animal welfare considerations.

However, if one defends the cruel ‘sport’ of hunting with dogs on civil libertarian grounds, one must also, if one is consistent, defend the cruel ‘sport’ of bear-baiting, of dog-fighting, or of cock-fighting. Indeed, one must permit any cruel sport. Hunters rarely address this argument. Significantly, precisely the same civil libertarian arguments were raised by opponents of legislation banning those other cruel sports.

Responsibility

The flip side of freedom is responsibility. Freedom is a precious thing, and it is to be exercised with due consideration for the interests of others. Proponents of hunting with dogs dismally fail this test. It is not only the interests of wild mammals they ignore. They also ignore the interests of landowners over whose property they trample uninvited, and the interests of pets and their owners.

The civil liberties issue takes the arguments for and against hunting no further. Where the line between individual freedom and the common good – the public interest - should be drawn is always a matter of judgement. There is no template of weighted criteria to be applied, no mathematical formula to be followed. In a democracy, the ultimate arbiter has to be the opinion of the majority.

This can be judged either by seeking to ascertain what the public at large thinks or by leaving it to their elected representatives. In the case of hunting, either approach leads to the decisive conclusion that the freedom of an individual to behave in this particular cruel fashion should be curtailed. Opinion polls may not be a perfect way of ascertaining public opinion. But when every poll, in town or country, has for as long as anyone can remember shown that most people not only disapprove of hunting but want it removed from the rural landscape, there can be no doubt what public opinion is on this issue. Indeed, supporters of hunting implicitly accept this with their talk of unpopular minorities. They seek to make a virtue of the fact that most people disagree with them.

Similarly, the vote on the second reading of the Foster Bill demonstrates that there is an overwhelming majority of elected representatives in favour of a ban. Another bill will only succeed if that is what Parliament wills.

In each case, opinion has been informed by a lengthy and intense debate in the media. Hunt supporters get better access to influential sections of the media than hunt opponents. Most newspapers, in particular, oppose a ban. There is no doubt that people understand the broad issues. Hunt supporters nevertheless argue that most people, particularly ‘townies’, do not understand their ‘sport’. Their opinion should therefore be discounted. In his Times article, Mr. Jackson referred to ‘incompletely informed and emotionally charged public and parliamentary opinion’. Such an elitist approach is typical of people who do not respect the democratic process. It is, of course, true that most people are not experts on hunting. But most people – and indeed most MPs – are not experts on most issues. On that basis we would never have laws about anything.

The point is that people know enough to understand that hunting is a barbaric and unnecessary practice which should have no place in a civilized and compassionate society. They know instinctively that hunting is inherently cruel. They do not need scientific evidence to prove the case, any more than they demand scientific evidence before concluding that terrifying and beating a child is cruel. When such evidence is produced, it merely confirms what was already obvious.

Most people consider it an affront to their common sense to suggest that the most humane way to control foxes is to chase them with a large cavalcade of dogs, people and horses until they are caught and torn apart or followed down holes (when they can find one not blocked up); or to suggest that chasing deer over huge distances into a state of terrified exhaustion is the most humane way of controlling their population; or to suggest that hare coursing is anything other than a triumph of barbarism over compassion and decency.

Supporters of hunting have shown themselves to be contemptuous of the democratic process. They subjugate the will of the overwhelming majority of MPs by talking out the Foster bill; in the House of Lords, they will no doubt try to ignore the will of the House of Commons, the elected house; in Scotland they try to stop the Parliament even debating the issue; and they threaten civil disobedience if the bill should ever become law. Their behaviour is arrogant and outrageous. They have as much respect for democracy as they do for the feelings of foxes and other wild mammals. Having lost the argument, they indulge in guerilla tactics to get their own way..

We leave the final word on this issue to John Stuart Mill, one of the great moral philosophers of the 19th century:

‘The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children apply no less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind – the lower animals. It is by the grossest misunderstanding of the principle of liberty that the infliction of exemplary punishment on ruffianism practised towards those defenceless creatures has been treated as a meddling by government in things beyond its province; an interference with domestic life. The domestic life of domestic tyrants is one of the things which it is the most imperative on the law to interfere with’. ^iv

_________________________________

ⁱ "‘Middle Way’ group is front for hunt lobby’", The Observer, 15.08.99

^iv Political Economy (1848)

Back to top

How might such a ban be applied and enforced?

Implementing a ban

Question 16: How might such a ban be applied and enforced?

Implementation

It will be for Parliament to decide when any ban should come into force. IFAW favours early implementation. If the bill passes through Parliament, it will be because parliamentarians, reflecting the view of the populace at large, believe that hunting with dogs is unacceptably and unnecessarily cruel. It would therefore be intolerable if such cruelty were allowed to persist one moment longer than necessary. Moreover, a ban has been on the agenda for a long time. The Labour Party signaled its support for a ban prior to the last election. The Prime Minister made it clear last year that a ban would be introduced in the course of this Parliament. The hunting community has therefore had sufficient time to make any contingency plans which may be necessary.

Whenever implementation occurs, we believe that it must be clear-cut. A phase-out will not work. In particular, it would not be practical, or right, to have different implementation dates for different forms of hunting, or in different areas of the country.

Civil disobedience

Once a ban came into force, everyone would, of course, be expected to comply with it.

Regrettably, some supporters of hunting have been making thinly-veiled threats that they, or people they know, will ignore any ban. For example, John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said this in The Times article referred to above:

‘… laws resulting from a process which flies in the face of natural justice are often unenforced and unenforceable.

So far, the countryside community has behaved extremely well, but into the extreme it could be provoked to civil disobedience. That poses a threat to the rule of law – the bedrock of a civilized society’.

There is extraordinary logic at work here. ‘Many of us will disobey the law and the rule of law will thereby be undermined'. The alternative, of course, is to obey the law and the rule of law will then not be undermined.

Supporters of hunting like to raise the spectre of large numbers of law-abiding citizens suddenly becoming criminals. This is nonsense. Prosecutions will only take place where the Crown Prosecution Service is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of proving both a guilty mind and a guilty act to the criminal standard of proof. They will not be lightly undertaken. And, of course, if someone does deliberately engage in criminal activity, he or she will, by definition, not be law-abiding.

Mr. Jackson’s reference to ‘civil disobedience’ is, for this reason, disingenuous. People who continue deliberately to use dogs to hunt wild mammals in defiance of the law would be conducting criminal disobedience.

Hunters will not be alone in having to obey a law they do not like. We all have to obey laws with which we may disagree, perhaps passionately disagree. That is in the nature of democracy. The rule of law is fundamental to the proper working of democracy and indeed to notions of a free society.

Non-violent civil disobedience has a long and, some think, honourable tradition, in this country and elsewhere. Sometimes conscience may, it is thought, dictate allegiance to higher values than man-made law. But what is particularly objectionable about the threats made by the hunting lobby is that they are designed to persuade the Government not to bring in, or support, a particular law in the first place. This is an appalling example of moral blackmail. Were the Government to cave in to such pressure, it would have very serious implications for democracy itself.

The threat of illegal behaviour by some hunters cannot be relevant to whether there should be a ban. The threat is particularly nauseous given that the ‘higher value’ hunters wish to preserve is the right to inflict cruelty on defenceless, sentient creatures.

If a ban is introduced and is ignored by some people, society must expect the police to enforce the law against them, in the same way as they do at present against hunters and hunt saboteurs who transgress. Indeed, it is of the very essence of true civil disobedience that its practitioners accept that they will be punished according to the law.

In any event, as we explain below, the opportunity for civil disobedience will be strictly limited.

Will the law be enforceable?

The answer is yes. This is partly because the bill will contain measures enabling the courts to ensure that people who continue to hunt with dogs will have the means to do so taken away from them.

So, if someone is convicted of the offence of hunting, the court will have the power to confiscate his dogs (and articles used for hunting). Whether it exercises this power is likely to depend on its judgement as whether the person is likely otherwise to continue to use dogs to hunt. The power would not be used routinely, but its availability would be a crucial deterrent to anyone proposing to engage in persistent flouting of the law. In particular, it will be too risky for hunts to continue to use their dogs to hunt wild mammals because they will know that they risk losing their dogs, thereby disabling them from using them for draghunting and other legal activities.

Similarly, the court will have the power to disqualify an offender from owning or keeping a dog.

Such powers will not, of course, be peculiar to anti-hunting legislation. They are a feature of much criminal legislation, and international conventions.

Hunting with dogs is, of course, often an organized and high-profile activity, requiring large numbers of dogs and personnel. A ban will to that extent therefore be much easier to enforce than activities such as dog-fighting and badger baiting.

In any event, the likely enforceability of a proposed law is, at best, only a minor factor in deciding whether it should be introduced. Domestic violence is very difficult to police; so is child abuse; only 10% of recorded rapes lead to a conviction. No one would suggest that domestic violence, child abuse and rape should therefore be decriminalised. The criminality of each sends an important message about the behaviour which society is prepared to tolerate, and about the values which underpin it.

Back to top

Implementing a ban

We have explained why we believe that a ban on hunting will have few adverse knock-on consequences for the hunting community. However, to the extent that such consequences are thought to be possible, it is clearly a matter for the Government how it addresses them, as part of its overall rural policy. For example, it might want to encourage draghunting and the many other equestrian sports; IFAW would fully support that.

No doubt there are many improvements that could be made to rural life – economic, social, education, leisure, wildlife management, wildlife welfare etc. But, where these are needed, they are needed irrespective of a ban on hunting with dogs. They will not be needed because of such a ban. Hunting with dogs is, because of the avoidable cruelty it involves, an important issue. But, as we have shown, its place in the whole rural landscape is marginal.

IFAW believes that the countryside and the diverse social and ecological environment it represents should be a priority for any government. For that reason, economic and other measures to protect rural communities are very important. Many people argue that there are serious difficulties facing people living in the countryside at present. If that is so, they clearly need to be addressed. But to place hunting at the epicentre of rural issues, rather than at the periphery where it belongs, would simply lead to an inappropriate governmental response. So, for example, rural unemployment as a whole needs to be tackled, not simply any job losses arising out a of a ban on hunting

The RSPCA has kindly offered to assist with the rehoming of any redundant hounds, which removes that concern. With any other concerns, the hunting lobby must make its case to government. But, whether they are real or not, they cannot be used as a reason for denying the majority of people what they want : a legislative ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs.

Back to top

APPENDIX 1

IFAW Video Footage Submission to the Committee of Inquiry on Hunting with Dogs

Fox Hunting

New Forest Foxhounds, whip treading on fox’s neck.

Taunton Vale Foxhounds, injuries inflicted.

Taunton Vale Foxhounds, dead fox dumped in watercourse.

Terrier Work

Taunton Vale Foxhounds, netting and digging. Fox shot with rifle. 11/01/00

New Forest Foxhounds, fox shot in hole. 10/02/96.

New Forest Foxhounds, terrier being pulled out of hole. Fox put into bag.

New Forest Foxhounds, terrier entered into water filled pipe to bolt fox. Terrier eventually pulls out fox after they both lock jaws. 09/10/93

New Forest Foxhounds, a court case decided the terrier man was guilty of causing unnecessary suffering.

Cub Hunting

Cattistock Foxhounds, cub killed after several attempts. 16/08/99.

Cottesmore Foxhounds – attempt to head fox cub back into maize towards hounds.09/09/99

Duke of Beaufort Foxhounds, heading and holding up, cub driven back towards hounds.20/08/99.

New Forest Foxhounds, cub running amongst heather and then killed. 1998/1999 season.

Cottesmore Foxhounds, fox headed into maize field.09/09/99

Badger sets

New Forest Foxhounds – hunting with dogs and badger setts. 1997/1998 season.

Artificial Earth’s

Scenes of artificial earths discovered by hunt monitors in summer 1999.

Deer Hunting

New Forest Buckhounds. Buck exhausted, jumped on, held down, shot. 04/11/95

Stag savaged by hounds.1995/1996 season.

New Forest - Buck held down in river. 15/09/95.

New Forest Buckhounds – Hunters stand on deer’s head, deer in river. 13/01/95.

Deer running in river, headed by riders into trees, escapes from woman into river again, captured, held underwater. 30/11/96.

Exhausted deer gets up to face huntsman.24/02/97

Buck lying down exhausted, shot.17/03/97.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Stag attacked by hounds.03/04/99.

Quantock Staghounds. Stag headed by riders and followers.11/10/99

Quantock Staghounds. Stag running up stream. Lies down in front of riders and followers. Runs off when gun man about to shoot him. 13/09/99.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Stag kill botched. Shot several times before being wrestled in river and finally killed 29/09/94.

Quantock Staghounds exhausted stag, stag engulfed by hounds. 29/08/95

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Stag with part of leg missing hunted and shot 03/10/95.

Quantock Staghounds. Stag shot and wounded, runs away, eventually shot again. 25/04/96.

Stag caught in river.27/09/94.

Tiverton stag hounds. Stag shot in garden without owner’s permission.26/10/92.

Quantock Staghounds. Exhausted hunted deer.01/04/96.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Hind chased into fence.13/12/94.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Hind hiding near riverbank.20/12/94.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Injured hind held by ears whilst hound attacks rear.10/94.

Quantock Staghounds. Exhausted stag hiding behind fuel tank for five hours after hunt.1995/1996

Quantock Staghounds. Dead stag. 1995/1996 season.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Carving of stag 1992/1993 season.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Hind falling heavily during hunt.07/01/99.

Devon and Somerset Staghounds. Chasing deer and heading tiny calf.09/12/99

Beagling and Hare Coursing

Spectators and beaters preparing for race. Hare being chased, caught and killed. February 1999.

Drunken spectators.

Boy with badger tail

Eton College beagles.

Hunt Havoc

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.

8 hounds electrocuted on railway.

Hound having fit in freezing bogs.

Cottesmore. Horse killed on road. 9/99.

Quorn - unattended hounds on road. 11/11/99.

New Forest Fox hounds, deer killed by hounds. 05/02/00.

Back to top

Back to top

Annexe 1: Is the fox a pest? The ecological and economic impact of foxes in Britain. R McDonald, Baker and Harris, University of Bristol, 1997.

Annexe 2: The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer. Report to the Council of the National Trust by Professor Patrick Bateson.

Annexe 3: Foxing The Nation: Competing claims about the economic impact of a hunting ban, 1998/The economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds, Journal of Rural Studies 15, 1999. Dr Neil Ward, University of Newcastle.

Annexe 4: Changes in the British hare population between 1993 and 1999. Temple, Clark and Harris, University of Bristol.

Annexe 5: Mink. Published by the Environment Agency.

Annexe 6: Out of Control in the Countryside – The 1998-9 Hunt Season. Countryside Protection Group 1999. Video and leaflet.

Annexe 7: After fox-hunting: the potential for alternative employment, Douglas Macmillan, University of Aberdeen, 1999.

Annexe 8: Drag hunting – ‘A family sport’, published by the League Against Cruel Sports, 1996.

Annexe 9: Economic effects of a ban on live animal hunting. A report for IFAW, 1997.

Annexe 10: Wildlife Guardian magazine Autumn 1999 Special Edition.

Annexe 11: Review of the estimates of the employment impact of a ban on hunting with dogs. Segal Quince Wicksteed, 1997.

Annexe 12: Riot! – The Facts. A report published by the League Against Cruel Sports

Annexe 13: The economic impact of a ban on fox-hunting with dogs in Scotland. Douglas Macmillan, University of Aberdeen, 1999.

Annexe 14: Track record, A Report by The League Against Cruel Sports, 1995.

Annexe 15: A review of the diet of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and an assessment of their impact as a predator. Baker and Harris, University of Bristol.

Annexe 16: A review of the impact of red foxes Vulpes vulpes on the breeding success and survival of ground-nesting birds. Seymour and Harris. University of Bristol.

Annexe 17: How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox population? Baker and Harris, University of Bristol, 1997.

Annexe 18: Campaign material produced by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.

Annexe 19: The welfare of deer, foxes, mink and hares subjected to hunting by humans: a review. Donald M Broom, Cambridge University, 2000.

Annexe 20: Public attitudes towards hunting, summary of Mori research 1996-1999.

Annexe 21: The Impact of Sport Hunting: a Case Study. Macdonald and Johnson, Oxford University, 1996.

Annexe 22: What The Hunters Say. League Against Cruel Sports.

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 23 March 2000