1.1 This report provides a comprehensive submission on hunting with dogs and animal welfare. It is a report which takes the refreshing view that it is better to promote and educate empathy toward animals, rather than sympathy.

1.2 The first section of the report discusses an investigation into ‘the dog’, and evidence is provided to support the view that it is natural for the dog to hunt. To demonstrate this, the report explores the predator - prey activity of wild animals, with the aim of enabling evaluation by comparison.

1.3 The report further describes how the role of people in hunting with dogs, plays a positive ‘animal welfare role, and how the hunting rules and codes of conduct provide additional animal welfare benefits.

1.4 The effects of cat predation are discussed by comparison to dogs, and evidence is provided that the cat predation is an animal welfare concern which is of understated significance.

1.5 The second section of the report investigates the role of the ‘flight or fight’ response, and the resulting role of adrenalin. (The fundamental effects of both are taught to students of physiology.) The discussion provides the view that ‘Nature’ is not cruel. The ‘flight or fight’ response is a mechanism which has specifically evolved to prevent suffering for the quarry species.

1.6 The final section of the report discusses ‘The View of the Opposition’. Based on the views published in a national and in a local newspaper, as these reveal the public reasons which support a ban. Underlying evidence of ‘social prejudice’ is clearly identified, and this is discussed as ‘significantly detracting’ from the case for a ban.

Back to top

1.1 Introduction

This section of the report will investigate and discuss the effects of both canine and human interaction in relation to hunting with dogs. Specifically, this section will also seek to explore predator-prey activity, investigate animal welfare issues, the role of humans, the effects of canine predatory activity, and the resulting outcomes of these interactions.

1.2 Animal welfare and hunting

Given "most animals are predators of one sort or another" (Barnard), it would be useful, in order to consider hunting with dogs in that context, to take a closer look at the hunting behaviour of some members of the principle Order of predators: Carnivora. Nowak cites that: " Most species of the Canidae, Mustelidae, Viverridae, and Felidae live solely or mainly on freshly killed prey. Their whole body organization and manner of living are adapted for predation. The diet may vary by season and locality. Hunting is done by scent and sight, and the prey is captured by a surprise pounce from concealment (Panthera pardus), a stalk followed by a swift rush (Mustela frenata), or a lengthy chase (Canis lupus).

1.3 ‘A lengthy chase’. The length of the chase, particularly in relation to hunting with hounds as opposed to other breeds of dog, is perhaps the most prominent animal welfare factor cited against hunting. The average length of chase, for a lowland foxhunt has been estimated to average approximately seventeen minutes (Macdonald and Johnson). Canis lupus - the wolf, is widely accepted to be the closest relation of the domesticated dog. Although some have argued that the Golden Jackal (Wendt discussing Lorenz) has played a significant role in the ancestry of the dog. Perhaps Mech provides the best perspective; "Delve into any dogs genes and you will find a wolf". Indeed to this day they both continue to hunt many of the same wild prey species. So how does the length of chase for the wolf’s prey, compare with that of the domestic hunting dog?

1.4 A renowned wolf expert, Mech has researched and published many accurate, and undisputed, observations on the hunting behaviour of wolves, and their prey. It is stated in Mech’s work that the wolf is an animal specifically adapted for hunting large, hoofed prey. Lawrence describes moose and deer as the "generally preferred prey", but acknowledges that they will also hunt beavers, rabbits, hares and other small rodents. Both of these authors support the wolf’s method of hunting to be effective at culling old or diseased animals, often those suffering from ailments which are not discernable to the naked eye, such as arthritis and lung cysts (Mech). But what of the duration of the chase?

1.5 Nowak reports that an average chase usually covers 100-5000 meters, but notes one case of the pursuit of a deer which lasted for 20.8 kilometers. In a separate observation, Mech observed one wolf chasing a deer for thirteen miles. Pipe also teaches that "wolves will run for 10 kilometers to wear out a deer. Nowak supports Mech in the observation that many hunts do end after a short pursuit, when if unsuccessful, the wolf or wolf pack will cease running and search for other prey. This is thought to be testing the prey for fitness, if it is a particularly healthy animal, it is more likely to evade capture, and the wolf would simply waste energy were it to continue the pursuit. Domestic hunting dogs, especially those which prefer to hunt by sight such as the greyhound, are also seen to exhibit this behavioral trait.

1.6 Having provided published evidence that the length of chase is often ten, and has been observed to be as long as twenty kilometers, it is comparatively considered that the length of chase with either stag hounds or fox hounds, does not exceed this. A report, which appeared in the October issue of Hunting With Country Illustrated, from the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, concluded that a hunt on September 21st, 1999, came to a point after 10 miles. A further report from the Morpeth foxhounds, which appeared in the January Issue, described a hunt which lasted 5 miles as the hounds ran, while in the same issue, the Pythley noted that the hounds had traveled 4 miles in twenty minutes, before concluding that particular pursuit.

1.7 Mech also observes that wolves will harass musk oxen for hours, and this supports the previously cited example of the Canadian Timber wolves, which took over two hours to harass a bison cow into submission. Of the role of humans in the context of hunting with dogs, as soon as the prey animal is brought to a point, an experienced person will step in and ‘humanely’ despatch the animal. There are many methods of killing animals which are employed by human hunters, ranging from using their hands for the swift breaking of a rabbits neck, to the gun which is employed to despatch a stag after it has been brought to bay.

1.7 (i) However, it is not always practicable for people to intervene to ensure that the kill is instantaneous. Sometimes, as in the case of foxhounds and foxes or terriers and rats, death is as near to immediate as is possible. In other cases, specifically the apparent ‘tug of war’ with two coursing dogs and a hare, (which has been made much of by those who oppose the activity,) the following quotation from an American college lecturer, is considered extremely relevant:

1.7(ii) It is very interesting to note that the intervention of humans almost always occurs where the prey is edible; deer, hares, rabbits, and that hunting has evolved in a manner that dogs usually kill inedible quarry; foxes and rats. It would appear that the selective 4

breeding of the dogs used for inedible quarry, has not perpetuated the willingness to retrieve small prey, which, for rabbits in particular, is the factor which ensures a ‘humane despatch’. The comparison between the fox hounds and their kill, against stag hounds standing off their edible quarry, also supports this view.

1.8 It is clear that that the length of pursuit equates to no more, and often less, than that which the quarry has evolved to withstand, and that it may also be accepted that hunting with dogs is a natural and a selective method of control, in ways that cannot be equaled by any other. This is because it is the only method available which can possibly ensure survival of the fittest. Thus resulting in a breeding nucleus of optimum health. This is a clear benefit, in animal welfare terms, of hunting with dogs.

1.9 In order to fully demonstrate that hunting with dogs is both a natural and, where practical, a ‘humane’ method of culling wild mammals, we must compare it with the actual killing methods of wild predators. The reason for this is that the activity of hunting with dogs cannot be deemed ‘unnatural’, ‘perverse’, or ‘cruel’, unless it can actually be shown rather than ‘interpreted’, to be so. Perhaps the best single coverage, in laymans terms, can be found in Desmond Morris’s book: Animal Watching A Guide to Animal Behaviour. Page 94/5 describes the cheetah, which is the swiftest mammal on four legs, concluding it’s successful chase by "it knocks it to the ground and then grabs it’s throat in it’s strong jaws, killing it by suffocation". This is an example of one of Nature’s quicker methods of killing, yet it cannot reasonably be judged to be as fast as any human method previously described.

1.10 Morris provides us with a further example, African hunting dogs, it is worth noting that these hunters operate remarkably similarly to hound packs: "African hunting dogs

attack their prey in a pack, pursuing it for miles if neccessary. Their secret is stamina rather than speed and when they have worn down their prey, the kill is clumsey but efficient. They simply tear at the flesh of the victim until the animal is weak from loss of blood, when they pull it over and start to devour it. Smaller prey are disembowelled and then eaten while still alive". Clearly, while wild canids can and do tear their prey apart, the main role of humans in the hunt is to step in and despatch the quarry as quickly as possible. The rules and codes of conduct state this as compulsory, and are strictly adhered to. Hunting with dogs is, therefore: more HUMANE.

1.11 The preferred prey of the Genus Canidae has previously been identified in the discussion of Mech’s work, and confirmed by the observations of Lawrence. It is very important to note that in respect of hunting with dogs not only do these species correspond totally with Britains surviving endemic species, but that none of these species appear on the list of ‘protected’ mammals. A testament to the success of a sustainable system. When considering aspects of the conservation of such species, a direct comparison with the predatory activity of domestic cats is considered essential.

1.12 The fact that cats kill many rare and protected species has already been mentioned in A View of the Opposition. The specific species killed, and the numbers of rare and protected species involved are detailed in full, in Brown’s report, Appendix I. A Previous study on the predatory behaviour of cats, discussed by Budiansky, calculated that "the 5 million cats in Britain are responsible for the deaths of about 70 million sentient creatures a year", but Budiansky noted that the actual figure may well be higher as cats rarely return home with even half their catch. This unavoidable methodology flaw may clearly result in a low estimate, compared with Browns 300 million.

1.13 Regardless of the true figure, the 12,000 to 13,000 foxes annually killed by foxhunts (L.A.C.S.), is considered to be minute by comparison, both in terms of the number of animals assumed to ‘suffer’ from predation, and in terms of the animal welfare interests relating to the conservation of species. Budiansky went on to discuss further findings of Churcher and Lawton. Who concluded that "Well fed and apparently contented cats are often ruthless killers". This is scientifically confirmed by Barnard who observed that cats who had not been without food are still stimulated by the trigger of animal movement, to stalk and catch prey.

1.14 With the astronomical animal welfare repercussions regarding the predatory behaviour of cats, remembering that cats do physically torment for varing lengths of time before killing. It is considered that the regulated predatory actions of dogs is minute in significance in terms of animal welfare. Especially in respect of cats being unregulated predators and of the predation by cats on rare and protected species.

1.15 Of the ecological need for British predatory species to be controlled, but not eradicated, could be discussed simply in terms of Brown’s report on cats or by the evidence that the R.S.P.B. control foxes on conservation reserves where endangered birds are in residence. However, it is important to be generally aware the ecological impact from predation. Foxes are not the only British predator, others of notoriety include: corvids (magpies, etc.,) mink and grey squirrels. It is widely accepted that, in

terms of numbers, the songbird population is decreasing. Agricultural practices and the use of certain chemicals, including slug bait, is not the sole cause. Predation is undoubtably a more significant factor. Grey squirrels for example, are relentless nest robbers, yet this and the results of cat predation is not a widely discussed concern amongst the British public.

1.16 Britains landscape, including it’s flora and fauna, is a managed landscape. Of necessity, that management must include predator control. If it does not, the majority of species will suffer and some will be lost. Hunting with dogs and shooting are currently responsible, nationwide, for this function. It is done on a voluntary basis, at no cost to the tax payer, and at considerable personal expense to participants. To ban any, or all of these activities, without a viable and pragmatic alternative wildlife management plan, would be reprehensible.

1.17 Furthermore, while it may be readily accepted that species such as the rat, rabbit, hare and deer are natural prey species of the dog, it has been argued that the fox is not. The League Against Cruel Sports, for example clearly state that "Foxes are not a natural prey species". But is this correct ? Macdonald, An Oxford Research Fellow and leading aurthority on the red fox remarks; "there is evidence that wolves kill foxes whenever the opportunity arises". He goes on to explain; "This enmity appears to be a characteristic of interactions between red foxes and other members of the dog family. It may arise because, apart from differences in their size, members of the dog family are very similar. It is a basic principle of ecology that competition will prevent two species from occupying the same niche." Macdonald substantiates this by observing the significant spread and population increase of the American coyote since the corresponding demise of the wolf. Macdonald’s work not only confirms that it is natural for members of the dog family to kill foxes, but that it is usual.

1.18 The evidence thus far, demonstrates that hunting with dogs compares well, in animal welfare terms, with predator prey activity in the wild, and that in many respects it exceeds the animal welfare benefits of other methods of control. Should any further predator-prey comparisons be required it is recommended that the reader view an appropriate selection from the BBC’s Natural History Series. A more indepth view of Mech’s work on wolves may also provide further understanding.

1.19 However, is it enough to demonstrate that the hunting behavior of wolves and other wild canids, without an accompanying evaluation of the role of the modern day dog as a predator? Before addressing this, and after such graphic description of predator-prey activity ‘au naturel’, it is considered appropiate to include a comparison of hunting ‘sports’ and baiting ‘sports’. The comparison was specifically requested by John Rolls, R.S.P.C.A. Director of Communications in a letter to Countryman’s Weekly. This comparison is provided in full, in figure 1, Appendix II. The reader will note that the illustration clearly defines the role of people in both activities.

1.20 It also states that it is ‘natural’ for the dog to hunt. Wendt discusses that the dog has been our domesticated hunting partner for 80,000 years, (the last 100 years since the birth of the anti-hunting movement, rather pales into insignificance). But has the dog really retained the desire or instinct to hunt?

1.21 A laymans view of our domesticated ‘best friend’, was most effectively illustrated in the T.V. programe ‘The wolf in your livingroom’, narrated by Desmond Morris. Unfortunately Morris remarks during an opening scene; ‘reduced by selective breeding is the urge to hunt, but it is still there in modified form’. Fortunately, Morris was only discussing the average, ‘modified’ pet dog in respect of the behaviour exhibed by dogs being taken for a walk, and the programme went on to depict many incidents of pet dogs worrying farm livestock (...large, hoofed animals...) and Pipe confirms that "domestic dogs still have their hunting skills".

1.22 However, Morris does goes on to compare the behaviour of working collies to the hunting tactics of wolves. Sparks also makes the following obseration on this: "Controlling flocks of sheep is a tiring business, so shepherds enlist the help of domesticated wolves -dogs- to do much of the leg work for them. They exploited the wolf’s natural hunting behaviour. Often working in pairs, their dogs worked as though the sheep were deer or caribou. They stalked and circled them, crouched if the sheep looked to alarmed, and, if necessary, jumped at their throats in order to turn the ‘quarry’. The dogs’ behaviour remains the same to this day". If the pursuit of the prey of hunting dogs is genuinely considered to be unduly stressful, to a lesser or greater extent, so must be the stress of repetitively herded farm livestock. Though this report considers that this is not the case for either.

1.23 Leading geneticist, Dr Malcolm B. Willis, supports Morris and Sparks: "The border collie is going through the same instinctive steps as the wolf when hunting". A well known, and respected, dog trainer, John Holmes, confirms that hunting is an instinct by listing it under that very definition in his index.

1.24 It is clear that despite centuries of selective breeding, even dogs which are not provided with the opportunity to hunt, will quickly revert and exhibit their true selves. This is, as mentioned, demonstrated by the occurance of livestock worrying in Britain. Italy has a particularly infamous problem with packs of feral dogs, who both hunt and scavenge. While the dingo of Australia is a taxonomically recognised example of the domestic dog.

1.26 Perhaps a little discussion is also required regarding the effects of ‘selective breeding’ on the domesticated dog. Robinson is probably the leading aurthority on this, and in his discussion of the evolution of breeds, he remarks of the breeding of hunting/working dogs, a "type was necessary for purpose of hunting, sometimes of a specialized nature. Some hunting dogs had to be fleet of foot, so as to out-run the quarry, while others had merely to indicate the position of the quarry or to retrieve shot game." Man has simply moulded the appearance of the dog, without losing the essence of it’s genre.

1.27 With regard to the ecological role of the different ‘types’ of hunting dog, each has it’s own particular specialization. For example; the hound, whose actions mirror the wolf pack and the African hunting dog, in it’s ‘lengthy chase’ tactics, is used for selective culling. While the lurcher as the fastest, most efficient and controllable, natural predator, is used for culling vermin such as rabbits which require significant annual culls.

1.28 That the dog has not succumbed willingly or without difficulty to a lack of predatory action is also evident. The appearance of the dog psychiatrist is testament to this. But it is also commonplace to know of pet collies pursuing vehicles, German sheperds destroying their home interiors and toy breeds angrily venting their frustrations on anything that moves or squeaks. That many canine ‘play’ exercises, participated in by pet dogs, simulate hunting behaviour, should be evident to all. Alas, for many pet dogs, love is not sufficient without understanding, and many develop problems ranging from behavioral quirks to dangerous aggression. But dogs are not alone in exhibiting behavioral problems if not allowed to express the need to hunt.

1.29 Budiansky discussed a study of wild olive baboons. Observed in an area where food was abundantly plentiful, which reduced the need to hunt and forage; with the luxury of plentiful resources and free time, the animals devote themselves to distressing one another....violence itself is rare, but the hint of violence is ever present." Modern, ‘civilized’ human society can certainly be recognized in this observation. Budiansky goes on to discuss the behaviour of baboons who lose a fight, in that they "often seek a subordinate on whom to vent their frustration, and they are likely to displace aggression on an innocent bystander without warning". Perhaps the view of an anthropologist could be considered...however, it may simply be sufficient to observe that the actions and acitivities of those who oppose hunting with dogs, are markedly more aggressive than those who do hunt. The Appendix of letters to the press provides evidence to support this view. Please note the personal insulting attacks stated, such remarks only appear in the letters of those who oppose the activity.

The hunting behaviour, and actions, of wild predators has been discussed, described and defined, comparitively, with hunting with dogs. The role of people in the activity plays a positive ‘animal welfare’ role in the ‘humane despatch’. The rules and codes of conduct have also been demonstrated to provide additional benefits to the welfare of hunted animals, in respect of aiding survival of the fittest, by giving a greater ‘chance of escape’.

1.31 The comparison between hunting with dogs and animal baiting, is also helpful. It provided a contrast to views such as those identified in ‘A view of the Opposition’, and it defined the essential role that hunting with dogs plays in the welfare of wild mammals which must, of neccessity, be controlled in Britain. However, the relevance of the impact of cat predation, in all repects relating to animal welfare, is of understated significance.

1.32 Finally it provided established evidence that the dog retains it’s instinct to hunt, and allowing dogs to hunt complies fully with Websters ‘Five Freedoms’, Section 3.5, in that it has been clearly shown that this is natural behaviour for the dog. And that even in its purest, unregulated manner, does not conflict with the prey species expectations of life as they have evolved specifically for this role.

Back to top

2.1 Introduction.

In respect of the welfare of all animals, both predator and prey, involved in the activities of hunting with dogs, the role of the ‘fight or fight’ response and it’s resulting effects must be of significant importance. The role of the response, and of the effects of the ‘flight or fight’ hormone adrenalin, will be discussed in two very different contexts. The first being scientific research and fundamental knowledge, and the second being anecdotal evidence. This section of the report will investigate and evaluate both.

2.2 Fight or Flight.

That hunting with dogs is cruel is a widely accepted,but unsubstantiated, ‘fact’, not only with those who actively oppose the activity, but also to the casual observer.

It is very understandable that hunting with dogs is preceived to be cruel. The demise of any sentient creature can rarely or never be viewed as pleasant. Yet predator - prey hierarchies support the vast majority of ecosystems throughout the natural world. Can ‘Nature’ really be so cruel as it is often perceived to be ?

2.3 What of the ‘flight or fight’ response’ ? Adrenalin is defined by Blacks Veterinary Dictionary as the "flight or fight hormone". It is a major factor in a recognised physiological response which is well developed in all mammals, ourselves included. It is a defense mechanism for the body, described by some physiologists as a way of preparing for an ‘emergency’. In terms of evolution, this is perhaps something of a misnomer, as ‘flight or fight’ actually prepares the body for instigating or responding to an attack.

2.4 ‘Flight or fight’ is an instantaneous physiological mechanism. Adrenalin is the major component of the process, and, should any trauma result as a result of the ‘emergency’, the process continues with the result that endorphins are released throughout the body which have the effect of blocking all pain.

2.5 Scientific knowledge on this fact is fundamental and undisputed, figure 2 page 12. Of existing research papers, the Medway Report is worth noting, perhaps because it relates to people and can therefore be readily identified with: "As scientific instances with the non-correlation of injury and suffering, Professor Wall cited his studies of Israeli military casualties of the October 1973 war - all persons who lost limbs, 70% of those victims felt no pain at the time of the amputation. All felt extreme pain the next day. These people were almost uniformly surprised at not feeling any pain in spite of the obvious injury."

2.7 ‘Uniformly surprised at not feeling pain.’ Perhaps they should not have been, tales of soldiers returning injured from war, having not felt pain during battle, are legendary. However, surprise was, and is shown at not feeling pain in many circumstances. Perhaps this is because the imaginative part of the human mind is so powerful in contemplating the worst horrors of any given situation, and the suffering and agony of any trauma can be imagined to be as real as if one were to reach out and pinch oneself - hard. A view of the Opposition, Section 3.17, will discuss how support for a ban on hunting with dogs has amassed support with the preposition of how it would ‘feel’ to be pursued and caught by dogs. In light of the ‘flight or fight’ response , (to be discussed next,) and it’s resulting effects, it is realistically apparent that the chase is far more likely to feel euphoric, due to the effects of adrenalin, and that any trauma is not likely to be felt at all, due to the effects of endorphins.

2.9 Anecdotal evidence to support this is commonplace. In respect of the animals involved in hunting with dogs, it is often stated of a dog who has received an injury during the chase, that the dog showed no sign of distress or even awareness of the injury. The same is considered to be true for the hunted animal. Anecdotal evidence to support this would perhaps be more appropriate if it were to come from those involved in the rescue of wildlife casualties of traffic accidents. Even animals suffering from severe traumas are notoriously difficult to catch and ‘recsue’ as they continue to attempt to run as though no trauma has occurred.

2.10 Human experience of adrenalin and the effects of endorphins is also of interest and relevance. Victims of car crashes, rock climbing falls, sports injuries, clashes between football supporters, etc, etc, etc., will all provide testimony that at the actual time of the injury, pain was either minimal or non-existant in relation to the trauma suffered. The fact that shock may afterwards occur is not considered relevant in relation to hunted animals, as death is the immediate conclusion of a successful pursuit. Of no pain being ‘felt’, is clearly a result of endorphins. However, the effects of adrenalin are even more interesting.

2.11 Again we may rely on human experience and anecdotal evidence - and plain common sense. Why do children laugh and squeal with delight when chased ? The flight or fight hormone adrenalin results in a feeling of euphoria. While this may not be the only reason children laugh when chased, the euphoric effects are a fact that is considered irrefutable. If it were not, why would so many people actively participate in activities which result in the body and it’s senses enjoying an adrenalin rush ?

2.12 Active sports, including jogging, are an example. Boxing is a better one, but even frenzied disco dancing can, and does, produce the same adrenalin induced buzz. Some people can become so psychologically addicted to the ‘buzz’ of an adrenalin rush that they will go to extremes in order to enhance the euphoria felt. Aerobic exercise addicts are a common example as they push their exertion efforts, but what of the modern trend for bungee jumping and the nationwide love of ‘white knuckle’ rides at theme parks ? All of these activities , and others like them, simulate an ‘emercency’ situation, and the body reacts accordingly with the ‘flight or fight response’. The vast majority of the population will testify to feeling intense enjoyment. This is all as a result of the effects of adrenalin and the resulting enjoyment.

2.13 That this knowledge has not been previously discussed in relation to hunting with dogs is, perhaps, amazing. Especially if one considers that it also provides a complete explanation of why people instinctively hunt for ‘enjoyment’. This is one of the most common factors cited against those who hunt with dogs. Yet the enjoyment is clearly not a sense of ‘fun’ as is commonly stated, but the euphoric feeling of an adrenalin rush, produced in circumstances which are natural, instinctive, and fundamental.

2.14 That the Scott Henderson Report and particularly the Phelps Report, omitted to fully include, consider and evaluate the effects of the ‘flight or fight’ response in their Inquiries into hunting with dogs, is an understandable omission, as the case for it was not fully put to them. But this report has provided a substantiated view that the effects of the ‘flight or fight’ response, result in no pain or suffering for hunted animals. Therefore hunting with dogs cannot constitute cruelty. That Bateson placed out of context significance on cortisol, a minor chemical involved in the ‘flight or fight’ mechanism, places that piece of research in an untenable position.

2.15 Summary

The main factor or function, of the flight or fight response is the release of the hormone adrenalin. Although physiological understanding of this mechanism may not be common knowledge, the effects of adrenalin are. Many people, if not the vast majority, can readily identify with having personally experienced an adrenalin rush. Anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly conflicts with the perceived ‘pain and suffering’ of hunted animals, which are, without doubt, in this physiological state. Rather than traumatic suffering, an adrenalin rush may often be more akin to euphoria.

2.16 The protagonists may be aghast at the suggestion of hunted animals experiencing euphoria during the chase, and a death during which little or no pain is felt, due to the effects of endorphins, This report has provided evidence for that to be the case.

2.17 Nature is not cruel. The ‘flight or fight’ response is a mechanism specifically evolved to prevent suffering. Hunting with dogs does not result in pain or suffering for the prey species. It cannot, therefore, constitute cruelty. In light of this, hunting with dogs should not be banned on animal welfare grounds.

Back to top

An investigation into the animal welfare aspects of the debate on hunting with dogs, would not be complete without an assessment of the views of those opposing the activity. This section will seek to demonstrate an awareness of those views and will discuss the issues and summarize those which require further investigative analysis.

Several organisations derive occupation as protagonists with the movement to ban hunting with dogs. The League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund For Animal Welfare both constitute a ban on hunting with dogs as a primary objective. However, it is worth noting that other, more reputable, animal conservation organisations, have remained neutral on the hunting issue. These include the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wildlife Fund. Other animal welfare organisations have taken up this cause alongside their everyday business. The Royal Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals being a public example. But several other groups, including some trade union movements have also lent their support to this cause. Perhaps what is most interesting, with regard to the latter, is that a ‘committee’ has been responsible for agreeing and declaring the ‘anti’ hunting support, rather than a members ballot.

3.3 The case against hunting with dogs has been widely publicised in many documents and leaflets, an example being the ‘Deadline 2000’ document. It is not the intention of this report to re-iterate discussion regarding the professionally composed information circulated by any of the above organisations, detailed analysis of such is the responsibility of the organisations and groups who are directly responsible for protecting and supporting hunting with dogs. It is therefore considered that a brief snapshot to illustrate the reasoning behind the support for anti-hunting views can best be provided from the ‘letters pages’ of national and regional newspapers, as this is one of the few public meduims through which unadulterated anti hunting views are published.

3.4 The following examples were published in the Independent newspaper on August 10th, 1999, the basic assertion of cruelty being commonly backed up with the following view of hunting as; "...a barbaric and unnecessary sport", (C. Grainger), the aim of which is to..."torture wild animals", (P. Little), and it is an activity which is conducted by an... "overly influential mob of animal abusers" (J. Wood). All of these Independent contributors were referring strictly to the "Elitist pastime of foxhunting" (N. Elsdon), rather than to the much wider spectrum of hunting with dogs.

3.5 Only one contributor to the Independent on August 10th, 1999, raised the subject of ‘animal rights’. P. Allen discussed only domestic and farm animals, but interestingly his letter referred to the ‘Five Freedoms’ which are promoted by animal rights campaigners. The ‘Five Freedoms’, which were written by Professor John Webster, promote the following ‘rights:

3.6 The anti - hunting views published in the Independent are both supported and expanded upon by remarks made during an ongoing debate which has amused the Opinion page of the Derby Evening Telegraph toward the end of 1999 and which has continued into the year 2000.

3.7 One contributor, to the Derby Evening Telegraph , J Hibbert, states simply "It is barbaric, unnatural, inhumane and outdated", another, C. Williamson, describes it as "killing wildlife for fun". C. Lee says "I can never fail to be amazed how people can justify acts of cruelty in the name of sport". B. Pattisons adds that "because the victim of torture during a hunt is non-human, it does not lessen the offensiveness or the immorality of the sport". Of the letters, contained in full in Appendix VI, a few did concede that it was "It is a known fact that animals eat other animals for food and to feed their young" (A.P. Northedge), Foxes, cats and mustiliads being good examples of this, but the contributor refused to accept hunting with dogs in this context, nor did he argue that the animals should not be killed at all, but he continued; "That is no reason for these barbaric sports". B. Pattison, questions how "pleasure and gratification" can be derived from the act. Sport was defined as ‘fun’ by J. Dean, who also promoted sympathy for the hunted animals by use of the common phrase ‘torn apart’. Several writers drew anthropomorphic comparisons with how this would feel, including J. Dean, P. Slater and P. Wadsworth.

3.8 One contributor, questioned "what is the difference between fox hunting, bear baiting, dog fighting and badger baiting". Another views hunting as "People wearing silly clothes on horse back, racing through fields and over busy roads with total disregard for anyone not involved", and went on to state that "foxhunting is one of the last exclusive pursuits of the social elite". A further contributor, D. Hale, expands on the previous views by adding "fox hunting has little to do with fox control...this kind of hunting appears to me to have more to do with status and social elevation - paralleled physically by ; I’m up here on this horse looking down on you." Sympathy for the fox was finally demonstrated by J. Dean in his perceived empathy for "the defenseless fox", and by Dr S, Kavina "helpless fox" and "innocent fox"....

3.9 No correspondence from advocated that the animals should not be controlled, nor did any detail any complete or otherwise, alternative management systems. Although letters supporting hunting, which are also contained in Appendix VI, did discuss alternative methods of control including; shooting, snaring and gassing.

Hunting is perceived as torture; a cruel, barbaric form of animal abuse. The projected image of hunting as a blood sport is provided with claims added credibility and strength from the stated comparisons to illegal baiting sports.

3.11 It is very understandable that hunting with dogs is perceived by some as cruel. It does, after all, result in the death of some animals. But is it cruel ? Consider the commonly known phrase; ‘Nature is red in tooth and claw’. Predator - prey activity is found throughout the natural world, and hunting with dogs is, without doubt, predator versus prey. The role of animals is summed up by zoologist C.J. Barnard, A University lecturer, stated in a book on animal behaviour that "most animals are predators of one sort or another".

3.12 It may therefore be considered reasonable that hunting with dogs constitutes a natural relationship. Especially as it may be demonstrated that the dog has lost few, or none, of it’s natural desire, or ‘instinct’ to hunt. Allowing freedom of choice for hunting with dogs also supports the first order of Webster’s ‘Five Freedoms’: The freedom to express natural behaviour. But what of the last freedom: ‘The Freedom from fear, pain and distress’? It is vital to acknowledge that complete ecological systems are based on a hierarchy of predator - prey relationships, even ‘anti’ contributors to The Derby Evening Telegraph conceded this. So does hunting with dogs, or any other predatory mammal cause pain and suffering ?

3.13 It is not the aim of this report to re-iterate previous discussion on this issue. However two previous Inquiries are relevant. The Phelps Report concluded that "in the absence of any hard scientific evidence one way or other, we feel unable to conclude at this time that the typical chase which results in the fox being caught and killed by hounds above ground, constitutes cruelty". The Scott Henderson report differed slightly to this by finding that fox hunting "involves less cruelty than most other methods".

3.14 The Scott Henderson report may be interpreted as an admission that hunting causes some cruelty, simply by the implication that it is ‘less cruel’. Perhaps the Phelps report is the most significant; ‘in the absence of any hard scientific evidence’. Is this actually correct ? It is true that, until the Bateson report, now challenged by the JUS Report, there had been no specific scientific research, but what of basic scientific knowledge ?

3.15 The Bateson report, claimed that hunted deer suffer physiological stress, however, the claims were made by attributing significance to a narrow range of chemical indicators. In Burke’s discussion of the Bateson’s work and the JUS Report, it was commented of Bateson and the methodology errors made; ‘It was the science he didn’t do, and the science he didn’t understand’. A further media report on Bateson quoted a professional colleague stating that Bateson ‘had not played by scientific rules’, (The Times, 3/1/00). It is probable that Bateson had joined Phelps in disregarding fundamental scientific knowledge.

3.16 Empathy Not Sympathy

On Thursday, December 30th, at 8.30pm, BBC 2 screened a Natural History Series programme which studied the hunting behaviour of Canadian Timber Wolves. The programme described, as the wolves took over two hours to harass a bison cow into submission, how, during ‘flight or fight’ the brain triggers the release of endorphins which block all pain. This remark did not stem from individual research, as did the Bateson report, it was a simple physiological truth.

3.17 It is clear that the ‘flight or fight’ hormone, adrenalin, and it’s resulting effects have yet to be fully considered in the debate on hunting with dogs. No pain may well equate to no ‘cruelty’, therefore, if fundamental physiological knowledge were to be acknowledged, it is probable that both nature and hunting with dogs could not be cruel as some would perceive. ‘Perceived’ is a key word to the hunting debate. Those opposing hunting with dogs do so because of how they perceive the activity. This includes the following:

The latter view must be wrong, simply because although mammals may differ between species in their intellectual capabilities, in terms of physiology, they all have sufficiently similar endocrine and nervous systems. All mammals, ourselves included, benefit from the ‘flight or fight’ response. Therefore, although it is a view to which I disagree, if greater intelligence means that more pain and suffering is felt, then the rat will feel more pain and suffering than the much larger, but considerably less intelligent, red stag.

3.18 With regard to ‘cruelty’, it becomes increasingly apparent that the protagonists base their case on; If you don’t like the thought of being torn apart by dogs, then you must support a ban. To a population which is largely out of touch with a realistic view of animals, this has been a widely supported view. It is further considered, in the lack of supported scientific evidence, that hunting or predator - prey activity, causes ‘cruelty’, that the projected pain and suffering has been understandably, but grossly misinterpreted and exaggerated.

3.19 The perception of the quarry as ‘innocent’ or ‘defenseless’ must also be questioned. Foxes themselves live by preying on other species. Labour recognises that ‘there will always be a need for pest control and species management’(Poland). Therefore, there is no doubt that foxes and other species will always be controlled. The point of contention is whether hunting with dogs is an appropriate method. A further consideration in the ‘Protection of (Some!) Wild Mammals’ scenario, is that dogs are not the only domestically kept animals which kill wildlife. A study by the Mammal Society, resulted in the reasonable estimate that cats kill 300 million mammals each year. This was reported on by a local Wildlife Trust expert, Nick Brown, (Appendix 1), who drew particular attention to the many rare and protected species which are killed by cats.

3.20 Perhaps those opposing hunting with dogs simply do not like dogs. They are clearly selective in their other mammalian likes and dislikes. Ignoring the wildlife ‘crimes’ of cats whilst degenerating the actions of dogs being one example. Demanding protection for the hare, whilst ignoring the rabbit, a fellow Lagomorhp, being another. Animal welfare and/or animal rights should not be species specific. It must therefore be questioned why the 13,000 foxes controlled by fox hounds generate so much discussion, while the infinitely greater number of rabbits controlled by lurchers, rarely merits a mention.

3.21 The clearly stated perception of foxhunting as "an elitist pastime", must also question the motivation of those who support a ban on hunting with dogs. As an activity, it was described in a speech made by Tony Blair during the 1999 party conferences as; ‘A force of Conservatism’. This remark was not supported by any substantiated statements regarding animal cruelty. While it may be true that it does require a certain amount of finance to ride to hounds, it is also true that many participants follow on foot, and indeed, there are several ‘foot’ packs which have no horse riders at all.

3.22 It is clear that social prejudice does play a significant role behind the motivation for the support to ban hunting with dogs, even though it may be demonstrated that hunting with dogs is participated in by people from all social backgrounds. It is considered that the displays of social prejudice, as identified previously, significantly detracts from the oppositions case. Social prejudice being considered as morally unacceptable as any other prejudice. The dress codes or attire of hunting participants is also demonstrated to be a cause of offense, as is the word ‘sport’, but this can have no possible bearing on the animal welfare issue. Indeed, as a motive for requests to ban the activity, it is considered to place greater accent on the motivation being ‘social prejudice’.

3.23 That the term ‘sport’ is so offensive to opponents of hunting merits further discussion. It is reasonable that this is because ‘sport’ is perceived in current terminology, as entertainment. Yet the relevance to the word in relation to hunting with dogs is the strict compliance with the rules and codes of conduct to which the participants adhere to. In respect of every method of hunting with dogs, the rules and codes of conduct serve only in the animals best interests, and show particular regard for the prey species interests. An example of this is the head start or ‘law’ given to hares under National Coursing Club rules. Without the significant head start, the majority of hares would be caught, but with the head start, only a small percentage are caught. Thus the rules ‘sportingly’ assist the process of natural selection by ensuring survival of the fittest.

A view of the opposition has provided evidence to support the view that the support for a ban on hunting with dogs does not simply stem from concern to prevent animal cruelty. Underlying evidence of social prejudice has also been identified, this was further supported by the clearly stated objections to the apparel worn by participants and by the objections to the activity being termed ‘sport’. In view of the latter, a realistic comparison of hunting with dogs and animal baiting, in animal welfare terms, has been useful, as the term ‘blood sport’ does rally support for a ban.This is Provided in Appendix II.

3.25 In animal welfare terms, these issues should have no relevance to the debate on hunting with dogs. However, they do have relevance as an important factor behind the motivation of those who support a ban. However, the identification of social prejudice must detract significantly from the case of the opposition.

3.26 The repetitively stated objection to hunting with dogs on the basis that it is ‘cruel’, is the only possible objection which can support the demand for a ban on animal welfare grounds. This can be the only valid reason to legislate against the activity. But does hunting with dogs constitute a natural relationship, and should the dog merit the freedom to express natural behaviour ?

3.28 It is considered that the role of the dog as a predator has been demonstrated, and we have considerd and investigated if the freedom of allowing a dog to hunt, conflicts with the freedom of the prey species from fear, pain and distress. The predatory hierarchy has been explored, and it has been questioned question how predatory activity complements or conflicts with the best interests of Britains ecosystem. Hunting with dogs is considered to be both natural and humane.

3.29 A view of the opposition has further identified that supporters of a ban can, and do, perceive the ‘cruelty’ by anthropomorphic comparisons. But in animal welfare terms, unless scientifically substantiated, such a view may not only be regarded as insignificant, but as totally irrelevant. The welfare of the species is paramount, but the welfare of the individual must also be of concern. This must not be judged on human perception, but on science fundamentals. Clearly, the role of the ‘flight or fight’ response and the effects of adrenalin, is fundamental. This is considered to be of great significance to the animal welfare debate on cruelty and hunting with dogs.