JUBILEE COTTAGE
ENFIELD ROAD
ENFIELD
MIDDLESEX
EN2 7HU

Dear Mr Caffarey

Thank you for your letter of 14th January. Please find enclosed the six copies of my submission which you requested.

If the Committee needs any further elaboration or has any questions, please let me know and I will be only too pleased to oblige.

Yours sincerely

R COURSE

THIS PAPER DEALS WITH THE ANIMAL WELFARE
CONSEQUENCES OF ANY BAN ON HUNTING WITH DOGS PURSUANT
TO THE INQUIRY'S TERMS OF REFERENCE

The paper is prepared in four sections:

Back to top

The campaign for the prohibition of hunting with dogs, which led to the Inquiry being set up, is driven by two, quite separate motives:

1. A laudable objection to cruelty to animals (animal welfare); and

2. A highly principled objection to tormenting and killing another living creature for fun (sport/recreation).

The second of these motives is better described as moral fundamentalism which is rarely a sound basis for legislation. In this particular case, "killing for fun" or "killing for sport" would inevitably put fishing and shooting at the top of such an agenda.

As the Government has recently assured shooting and fishing interests that their "sport is safe", it is clear that moral fundamentalism will not feature in the current political debate.

Indeed the Committee of Inquiry has not been asked to consider "ethical issues".

When it can be shown that some forms of hunting with dogs can be quicker and consequently more humane than, for example, snaring, most prohibitionists, including Members of Parliament, abandon animal welfare as their motive and reveal that an abhorrence of "killing for fun" is the underlying cause of objection.

They switch from how animals are killed to why animals are killed.

The how is relatively simple to deal with: do the other commonly-used methods of killing cause more or less suffering to the animal?

This is clearly an animal welfare issue.

The why is not so simple. Coarse fishing and game shooting are exclusively recreational, but hunting with dogs has a pest-control element attached to it if the quarry is a recognised pest species.

It was a wise decision to exclude the ethics from the Inquiry's report to the Secretary of State but the Inquiry should be aware that the underlying motive of the prohibitionists is, in fact, an ethical motive.

Back to top

It is reasonable to assume that the Inquiry will wish to define what it means when addressing animal welfare. It can be the welfare of the entire species or the welfare of the individual animal.

In respect of the individual animal, the word "welfare" is usually thought of in terms of cruelty by those wishing to open the subject to discussion. Put the other way round, cruelty to animals is usually termed "animal welfare".

I consider that the descriptions in terms of statutory definition of cruelty, found in section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, are comprehensive and a clear indication of cruelty which is described as "unnecessary suffering". I append a copy of that statutory provision to this submission (see appendix 1).

The 1911 Act does not question why an animal is to be killed but it does specify that unnecessary suffering is to be avoided. For example, it would be unlawful (and cruel) to tie a sick dog a to a tree and throw bricks at it to kill it. However, it is perfectly lawful to take a healthy dog to a veterinary surgeon for a lethal injection in order to kill it.

Wild animals are excluded from the provisions of the 1911 Act (see s.15(a), also at appendix 1). If wild animals were included in the provisions of the 1911 Act, the question arises: would hunting with dogs be unlawful? It is a very important question.

The definition of cruelty contained in the 1911 Act (i.e. "unnecessary suffering") sets a threshold and, in my submission, is a criterion that would help answer both questions 13 and 14 in the Inquiry's letter of 19 January 2000. It also goes to some of the wider issues mentioned in the terms of reference. With the definition of cruelty being "unnecessary suffering", the simple question arises: does hunting with dogs cause more or less suffering than other methods used to kill the creature?

I believe that some forms of hunting with dogs on some of the quarry species cause less suffering than other methods employed.

The simple 'hunting with dogs' term of reference is perhaps too wide and impossible to address. It can be safely assumed that the Secretary of State for the Home Office intended the committee to address "organised" hunting with dogs.

Back to top

Currently the following species are subject to organised hunting with dogs:

All of these six species of mammals are widely regarded as, and can be, pest species when their population density is high.

As all six are subject to organised hunting with dogs in one form or another it may be helpful to examine each form of hunting separately. Each species would be caught up in an all embracing prohibition on organised hunting with dogs. In the case of rats and rabbits for example it would be clearly deleterious to pest control operations in both rural and urban environments.

Assuming that it is accepted that rat control is necessary, a cursory examination of the methods employed will assist in the determination of the level of suffering caused by each method. To my knowledge, the most commonly used methods are:

1. Live cage trapping - later dispatched by clubbing or shooting etc., (not widely used).

2. Traps - (designed to kill by breaking the back of the rat, often ineffectual).

3. Poisoning - such as Warfarin etc. (an indiscriminate method).

4. Gassing rats - (possibly illegal).

5. Disturbing and clubbing - (obviously cruel).

6. Terrier work.

Terriers are frequently used on farms and in and around industrial buildings to kill

rats. The dogs kill the rats instantly and clubbing kills some rats whilst fleeing from

the dogs. This clearly is organised hunting with dogs and is arguably more humane

than some if not all of the other methods employed to kill rats.

An all embracing prohibition on all organised hunting with dogs would remove the

most humane method. Why on earth would any legislator wish to do that?

Assuming that it is accepted that rabbit control is a necessary pest control activity, an examination of the methods employed will assist the determination of the level of suffering caused by each method. To my knowledge, the following methods are used:

1. Trapping by snare - If complying with the law - to inspect the snare within 24 hours and dispatch the living creature by clubbing or shooting. Note - snares designed to kill, i.e. the self locking snare, are prohibited under the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Only free running snares i.e. those designed to keep the animal alive for prolonged periods are allowed by law.

2. Bolting, netting and clubbing using ferrets and/or terriers.

3. Shooting - usually by shot gun (often resulting in wounding and not instant death).

4. Bolting by ferret or terrier and using a fast running long dog (whippet, lurcher or greyhound) for catching and dispatching.

5. Night lamping (using a very powerful light) and the use of fast running long dogs for catching and dispatching, usually termed as "lurcher work".

6. Hunting with a pack of hounds (usually beagles or terriers).

Note: There are undoubtedly other methods used such as gassing and poisoning but for the most part, without a licence, these other methods are unlawful.

Terriers and Long dogs are frequently used to kill rabbits as is lamping and lurcher work, the chase is very short lasting a minute or so and the kill is instant. Rabbit hunting is also of quite short duration. The rabbit is either caught or gets to ground or otherwise escapes unscathed.

These methods are clearly organised hunting with dogs and are arguably more humane than some, if not all, other methods employed to kill rabbits.

Wild mink in the U.K. are widely regarded as a pest species by fisheries, nature conservationists and ground nesting bird interests.

Assuming that it is accepted that wild mink control is a necessary pest control activity, an examination of the methods employed will assist in the determination of the level of suffering caused by each method. To my knowledge they are as follows:

1. Live cage trapping - inspection and dispatch within 24 hours (to comply with the 1981 Act).

2. Shooting - usually with a shot gun, risking wounding and not resulting in instant death.

3. Organised hunting with specially trained dogs - initially tracking by scent and finally chasing and killing by sight.

Live cage trapping is humane provided that the cages are inspected frequently.

Shooting - Although a quick clean kill by shooting with a shot gun appears to be the most humane method of killing wild mink, I suspect a dog would have to be used to track down or locate a wild mink in the first instance. Thus even shooting could be caught up with an all embracing prohibition of organised hunting with dogs. Moreover there is a risk of wounding a wild mink with shot gun pellets which may cause it to die in pain days or even weeks later. There can be no guarantee of an instant death using a shot gun therefore a retriever is required to support the killing of wild mink by the use of a shot gun.

Tracking down - chasing and killing by dogs is clearly organised hunting with dogs, thus mink hunting would be caught by an all embracing prohibition of hunting with dogs.

Note - The animal welfare or cruelty aspects of scent-hunting a quarry species is dealt with under fox hunting but that section also applies to mink hunting.

In summary there are no animal welfare benefits to be achieved by prohibiting mink hunting with dogs although habitat disturbance is a factor to be considered under a wildlife conservation paper.

A herd of wild deer causes enormous damage to arable farming and deer, of course, consume grass grown for cattle and sheep. As I know from my years with the League Against Cruel Sports, which owned land near pasture farms in Devon and Somerset, deer can do considerable economic damage as well as physical damage.

Artificial control of the deer population density is essential and inevitable in areas used for farming and agriculture. Even the uplands and moorlands are used for forestry or grazing in most of the U.K. In remote areas of Scotland it is deemed necessary to kill or cull wild deer by rifle shooting.

Assuming that the committee accept that wild deer control is a necessary pest control activity an examination of the two methods employed will assist in the determination of the level or degree of suffering caused by each method.

1. Shooting by high powered rifle.

2. Tracking down, hunting by sight using dogs and dispatch at close range by shotgun or humane killer pistol.

Shooting - Very obviously an expert marksman using a high powered rifle fitted with a telescopic sight is the quickest and therefore the most humane method of killing wild deer. Moreover this method has the advantage of considered selection.

Dogs - Tracking down by scent is a feature of organised hunting with dogs but because deer are the largest wild mammals in the U.K. and are a natural prey species which have evolved for flight, a substantial element of deer hunting with dogs is sight hunting.

Initially a deer has a faster running speed than deer hounds and is also capable of long flight using pure stamina when initial running speed is lost. However, specially bred and selected deer hounds have a higher level of stamina than their quarry.

That equation, which has some complex mathematical graphs associated with it, inevitably means that the dogs can only bring a deer to a standstill when it is exhausted after a prolonged sight-hunting, usually in water at the foot of a hill because the deer is too exhausted to climb yet another hill.

Although wild deer are naturally evolved for flight and stamina it is an inescapable fact that a prolonged intermittent scent and sight-hunt must cause both trauma and exhaustion to the quarry.

An expert marksman can, and usually, does kill a deer instantly and free from alarm and stress. Although it is necessary to kill wild deer, the trauma and exhaustion of an organised hunt with dogs is unnecessary suffering.

It is therefore the infliction of unnecessary suffering as defined by the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, if it applied to wild animals, without the other provisions of that Act.

The Animal Welfare case is therefore made to support prohibition.

However, there is an entirely separate issue that does counter balance the Animal Welfare case against hunting deer with dogs, and that is conservation.

Obviously there could be no deer hunting if there were no quarry. Conversely, but not so obviously, without deer hunting the quarry would disappear. Just as anglers go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the fisheries are stocked with fish, and game shooting interests ensure there are pheasants to shoot, the deer hunters ensure they also have a quarry to pursue.

The main support for deer hunting comes from landowners and farmers in Devon and Somerset.

They cannot, and will not, tolerate the crop losses caused by uncontrolled herds of wild red deer. The deer numbers, for the most part, are controlled by regulated deer shooting by the consent of the land owner. These landowners and farmers ensure that a sufficient number of deer are left for their winter games of deer hunting. They claim that without that interest ALL of the deer would be shot. Farmers and others are likely to use shotguns and low calibre weapons to kill deer unlawfully, resulting in wounding and cruelty from indiscriminate culling (often at night). Few such individuals would bother to be licensed to hold a rifle of sufficient calibre (as required by statute) or do the killing in a restricted but lawful fashion. Red deer should be shot with a .270 calibre rifle.

There is an abundant amount of evidence to support that claim.

For example, in the past when there was a cessation of deer hunting, the red deer were wiped out in Devon and Somerset. That was probably a combination of landowners and farmers protecting their crops with an added financial incentive for venison, and a hungry populace poaching for venison.

However the main evidence to support the "no hunting - no deer" claim is to be found hundreds of miles away from Devon and Somerset. In the times of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I, the Enfield Chase area of Middlesex had a very healthy herd or herds of wild red deer, many accounts of royal hunting on the Enfield Chase exist. With the cessation of hunting and the advent of farming the red deer have totally disappeared from the Enfield Chase. It is still open countryside with a lot of woodland, is it still called "Enfield Chase" but the quarry that gave the area its name has long gone. The deer were all shot.

Similarly when Henry VIII first met Anne Boleyn at Hever Castle in Kent The royals were there, in force, to hunt the red deer that existed around the Castle at that time. These herds went the same way as the Enfield Chase herds - all shot. In fact, this happened across the entire country which was populated by red deer from end to end.

Of course farming interests were the cause of these extinctions, but the same farming interest are present in Devon and Somerset. The wild herds of red deer only survive in Devon and Somerset because the landowners and farmers are prepared to tolerate them. That is an irrefutable fact.

The question is WHY?

It is, almost certainly, the hunting interests of those landowners and farmers which allows the survival of the red deer herds in and around the Exmoor National Park.

This leaves a clear dilemma between animal welfare considerations and deer survival considerations. Personally I believe that the extinction of the red deer in Devon and Somerset is a price worth paying in the cause of Animal Welfare; other people would strongly disagree with such a controversial statement.

However that conflict is very real and the Committee of Inquiry will have to wrestle with it.

It may well be that the Government will see fit to offer a financial inducement to the landowners and farmers to maintain a herd or herds of wild red deer and to suffer the enormous crop losses such deer inevitably cause.

In the past hares have caused substantial damage to horticulture and agriculture. More recently, widespread monoculture and the widespread use of herbicides and pesticides have caused a dramatic decline in the hare population in some areas. There are no easy to find statistics to support this widely accepted knowledge but anecdotal evidence is to be found in almost every rural community. Twenty-five years ago hares were a common sight all over the U.K. and they are not a common sight in every area today.

It follows therefore that the pest status of the hare has greatly diminished.

It is true that in some areas where hare hunting, hare coursing and hare shooting take place the hare is clearly not an endangered species but even in those areas it is accepted that the hare population is in decline. Accordingly I hope that the committee does not accept that hare control is a necessary pest control activity certainly in every area or region of the U.K.

I further hope that the committee will take evidence from independent but knowledgeable and scientifically based wildlife conservation organisations backed by careful research before a finding is reached on the pest status of the hare.

I very much doubt if the hare is a serious pest species in every area or region of the U.K. If the endangered species list was based on a regional rather than a national basis the hare would be, and should be, afforded protection from all forms of killing in some reg1ons.

I very strongly urge the committee to consider using the term of reference No.3. i.e. "how any ban might be implemented" to suggest an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which would provide regional protection to the hare and any other species that is in decline.

Having made a strong point about wildlife conservation whilst dealing with pest control related to animal welfare, the level of stress and suffering arising from shooting, coursing and hunting is dealt with as follows:

1. Shooting with shot guns. 2. Coursing with fast running dogs. 3. Hunting with slow dogs.

Shooting the hare with a shot gun often results in wounding (with consequential screaming by the hare) and not an outright clean kill. It is very difficult to get close enough to a hare to ensure that pellets penetrate the hare with sufficient force to kill it instantly. Moreover if sufficient pellets did penetrate the hare to achieve an instant kill, the animal would be unusable for the pot. This is why hare shooters use a gun dog or a retriever. The use of a retriever is an admission or acceptance that an instant kill by shot gun pellets is not a clean outright kill.

The coursing of hare using fast running long dogs such as greyhounds or lurchers which do not have high stamina can be over in a few minutes. A kill or an escape can be determined by the length of slip given to the dogs in this form of organised hunting with dogs. The long dogs are faster than the hare but not for very long. The hare's superior stamina over a prolonged chase allows it to escape such fast running dogs, unscathed.

If it is deemed necessary to kill hares, the use of fast running long dogs is probably the quickest method of killing and has an unharmed escape or a very quick death as an advantage.

The use of relatively slow running dogs such as beagles or bassets in a traditional hare hunt achieves one result. That is using the superior stamina of the dogs to run the faster running hare to exhaustion. A comparison with hare coursing using fast running dogs is irrefutable evidence of a faster and consequently relatively humane method of killing hares. However very few hares are actually killed by packs of dogs.

The pest status of the hare is worthy of careful consideration. If it is deemed necessary to kill or control hares as a pest control operation the use of slow running dogs to run the victim to exhaustion is causing unnecessary suffering and justifies a prohibition of that method on animal welfare grounds.

As in the case of deer hunting the hare hunters take steps to ensure they have a quarry. The relevant landowners and farmers in the areas where the beagle packs etc., operate, either prohibit or restrict the shooting of hares. The Hare Coursing Clubs also have similar arrangements with landowners and farmers. There is definitely a conservation input to counter balance the Animal Welfare case.

However regional protection against all forms of killing hares will satisfy both the Animal Welfare case and the Conservation case.

It is widely accepted that the fox is a pest to human interests. Foxes will, if access is achieved, kill every bird in a hen house or barn, and every rabbit in a cage without attempting to eat its victims.

Foxes will also kill an undefended or unprotected young lamb but its mother, if fit, is capable of protecting both herself and her offspring against an attack by a fox. Foxes will also decimate ground nesting birds and, in particular, predate on pheasants and partridges much to the irritation of the gamekeepers and the shooting interests.

In respect of organised fox hunting with dogs, a well stocked and closely keepered shooting estate would not want 50 hounds and as many like minded followers charging through the estate in any event. Game Keepers on such estates use a variety of much more cruel methods of killing foxes (and other wildlife such as stoats, weasels and so on) such as snares, traps and shooting and wounding by shot guns. It is also indiscriminate and unseasonal, unlike foxhunting.

It is possible to construct a very powerful case for protecting the fox against all methods of killing but such a case however logical and powerful, would run into the solid wall of bigotry and prejudice that has bedeviled mankind throughout history.

Accordingly, I bring that controversial theory to the Inquiry's attention and accept the inevitable conclusion that the fox will be regarded as a pest species for the foreseeable future and therefore control is a necessary activity. I now turn to address the various methods employed to kill foxes.

1. Shooting by shotgun

2. Snaring

3. Live cage trapping

4. Doping and live capture

5. Lamping and long dog work

6. Night shooting by rifle

7. Bolting by terrier and long dog work

8. Terriers and digging out.

9. Organised fox hunting with dogs

An examination of these above methods will enable the Inquiry to make a comparison and determine which method causes the most and the least amount of suffering to the individual fox and the welfare of the species.

A shot gun at close range leaves a nasty mess but it is a quick kill. However, foxes, forever on the alert during the day and night are highly unlikely to allow a human with or without a gun dog to get close enough to effect an outright kill at close range. What usually happens is a farmer or a gamekeeper out on a random patrol with a shot gun will cause a fox to bolt unless the fox is safely concealed below ground. As a fox bolts, the shooter takes aim and the fox is usually 20 or 30 or more yards away.

This is simply too far to guarantee an instant kill.

The shot gun pellets spread and loose their initial velocity. If a few pellets hit the fox it will only be wounded and often still able to effect an escape - depending on the proximity of undergrowth, hedgerows or woodland.

There cannot be a guaranteed kill and a wounded fox may take days or even weeks to die in great pain. There is no way that a genuine animal welfarist can support the killing of foxes by the use of a shotgun.

Many foxes are caught by gamekeepers, farmers and pelt hunters by using a snare. The self locking type of snare was prohibited under the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Despite a very determined and powerful animal welfare case against all types of snare - the government allowed the free running snare to remain in lawful use.

However the government kindly obliges the users of snares to inspect their snares within 24 hours. Quite how that obligation was, and is, to be enforced remains a mystery. Animal welfarists have mixed opinions in respect of self-locking and free running snares.

For example the self-locking snare caused strangulation and almost cut bodies in half causing great pain and distress.

The free running snare around the neck of an animal, in this case a fox, will choke the victim to unconsciousness and when the body relaxes the snare loosens slightly. This must happen several times or every time the victim struggles to escape. Foxes and other animals can and do bite off a limb if the free running snare catches a leg.

Both types of snares are reprehensible devices and their use is totally uncivilised behaviour. Snares cause great and prolonged stress and pain.

It is not in the committee's terms of reference to recommend the prohibition of snaring but to ban a dog from killing a fox whilst leaving snares in use is perverse in the extreme. That point can and, in my view, should be made in the committee's findings.

Animal welfare minded individuals, local authorities and some pest control operators do trap foxes in cages. If anyone is prepared to go to that expense and to that kind of

trouble - they are bound to be the type of person who would inspect the trap regularly and deal with the captive fox humanely.

Being trapped must cause the animal some distress but that cannot be helped. It is a relatively humane method of catching a fox.

I have no direct experience with this legally permissible method of catching a fox but whilst serving on a local authority as an elected member and chairman of its environment committee, the issue was put forward and discussed with council officers. We did not agree to use it because of the dangers of doping other non-target species.

However it is a relatively humane method of catching a fox and arguably causes less stress than live cage trapping.

A bright lamp at night and the use of one or two fast running dogs is usually used for catching rabbits. However exactly the same process can be, and sometimes is used to kill a fox.

The fox does have to run as fast as it can and, depending on the distance, can use its limited but superior stamina to escape. If the distance is short the lurchers will catch it and kill it instantly.

This is a form of organised hunting with dogs and is a relatively humane catch and kill or, alternatively escape unscathed, method.

It is infinitely preferable from an animal welfare perspective than shooting with shot guns and snaring a fox.

To prohibit this method whilst leaving shooting with shot guns and snaring would be absurd.

There are people prepared to lay in a ditch or hide behind a hedge in the dead of night waiting for a fox to come along. Quite why is totally beyond me but people have strange pastimes.

Armed with a small calibre rifle, usually a 0.222 and fitted with a night sighting device they can, and do, kill foxes instantly. Of course they can miss altogether or simply wound a fox. The possibility of wounding causes concern from an animal welfare perspective but the same applies to shooting deer by rifle. It is however more preferable than the use of shot guns and the use of snares.

It is therefore a relatively humane method of killing foxes.

When it is known or suspected that a fox is in an earth or disused badger sett during the hours of daylight there are people who put a small terrier into the hole which causes a fox to bolt.

Fast running long dogs or lurchers immediately pursue the fox and, because the distance is short, the slower running fox is caught and killed by the dogs within a minute or so.

This is clearly hunting with dogs and is over very quickly. Therefore it is relatively humane, especially when compared to shooting with shot guns or the use of snares.

When badger digging became unlawful (it often led to badger baiting) some ex-badger diggers switched to fox digging. Unfortunately most organised fox hunts are associated with fox diggers, known as "terrier men".

The fox hunts usually have a terrier man or two in tow in order to satisfy the wishes of the farmer or landowner who has allowed the hunt to use his land to get rid of foxes.

If a fox finds a refuge in a disused badger sett or drain and it will not bolt, the terrier men take over the" sport" and enter a terrier into the hole to" bait" the fox whilst they dig down to it.

The fox is killed supposedly with a humane killer but often with a shovel.

These people do not like onlookers and sometimes get violent with protesters.

However fox digging is a "so called sport" in its own right without the organised fox hunt.

Sometimes a vixen will be uncovered in a fox earth with three or four cubs. The diggers will kill the mother and the cubs.

It is form of hunting with dogs in the widest sense which I would like to see prohibited on philosophical grounds.

As I know from my experience, the real target of those seeking a ban on organised hunting with dogs is, of course, the traditional County fox hunts with a whole pack of hounds and colourfully dressed mounted followers.

Little, if any, thought is given to lamping and long dog work or bolting and long dog work which clearly fall into the description of organised hunting with dogs. The publicity and media coverage of the controversial proposal to ban hunting is always directed at the traditional County fox hunts with a pack of hounds and mounted followers.

This is the "mischief" that the legislators seek to prevent. It clearly requires a better and more precise definition.

For the want of a better definition this paper will address it as:

The common misconception of fox hunting is that, from the outset, a small terrified fox is hounded and ruthlessly pursued for several hours until it is exhausted then torn apart by a vicious pack of dogs whilst a semi - drunken pack of toffs look on laughing and smearing each other with blood in some kind of ritual.

I know that because, to my eternal shame, I portrayed fox hunting as just that from 1975 to 1988 whilst leading the campaign to abolish fox hunting.

The truth is very different. I still find it objectionable that people will kill another living creature simply for recreation, including fishing and shooting. However my concern for animal welfare eventually forced me to study the subject of fox hunting very closely and eventually objectively.

To examine a fox hunt properly it must be looked at in three very separate parts

1. Tracking down the quarry

2. Chasing the quarry

3. Killing the quarry

A fox hunt starts at what is termed a "draw". This is where a fox is known or believed to sleep up or reside. Usually the fox earth is blocked up whilst the fox is out and about. The hounds using their powerful scenting abilities usually pick up a fox scent in the immediate area. If the fox lives alone as they usually do, and has its own marked out territory, as it usually does, it is a safe bet that the hounds pick up the scent of the intended quarry. At this point the fox could be miles away.

No one, not even the dogs know where the fox is when the scent is picked up

The important question at this point is "DOES THE FOX KNOW THAT THE DOGS ARE PICKING UP ITS SCENT?" the answer is probably not!

The dogs follow the scent and the staff of the hunt, known as whips and huntsman, try to keep up with the dogs. The mounted followers are obliged to stay behind the officials. The mounted followers are known as the field.

At this point it is helpful to understand just why these mounted followers are there at all.

ARE THEY REALLY THERE TO GET DRUNK AND SEE A FOX TORN APART?

The hunt staff do not often see the dogs actually catch and kill the fox and the "field" are obliged to keep behind the officials.

It is highly unlikely that these mounted followers will in fact see the kill or even what remains of the very dead fox.

It is untruthful and deceptive to describe these people as bloodthirsty savages.

The truth is that they enjoy riding a horse.

They prefer to ride across the countryside, through woods and fields rather than stick to some bridle path where it is dangerous to gallop.

Some of them will admit that it is a rare opportunity to gallop and jump hedges on otherwise restricted land, on a route randomly determined by a fox. If a person likes riding horses it is a perfectly understandable thing to do.

The other important reason that the mounted followers are there is to socialise with their peers and to get to know other people in their peer group. That is a very common thing for all peer groups to do. The opportunities for that are very limited in the countryside unlike the clubs etc., in towns and cities.

In any event, that is why they are there, they are not a bunch of drunken perverts. For the most part these people do not even understand exactly what is going on.

They talk about the "thrill of the chase". The actual chase is over in a minute or two, so they are quite wrong in that regard. Some of them talk about a "four or five hour hunt" which is also totally ignorant of the facts.

A fox cannot run for four or five hours It has evolved naturally for a very short high speed spurt - rather like a cheetah.

They pay quite a lot of money for their cross country horse riding and for their socialising. Most of that money is used to create employment for hunt and stable staff and related trades.

Most of them would achieve the same result by drag hunting - but would the land owners allow access without the pest control element that is present in fox hunting?

Following the scent the hounds are often able to get through undergrowth and thickets whilst the hunt officials and followers have to gallop around such obstacles. This causes galloping and jumping hedges and gates.

THIS ACTIVITY IS THOUGHT TO BE THE "THRILL OF THE CHASE". THE TRUTH IS THAT THE FOX IS BLISSFULLY UNAWARE THAT THESE DOGS ARE TRACKING ITS SCENT.

Meanwhile the dogs have probably picked up the scent of another fox, no one can be sure of that, but after a kill its rather odd that the intended quarry is seen at the earth where the hunt started.

The hounds could, and almost certainly do, follow different fox scents in the course of the day. So much for the four or five hour chasing and hunting. At some point during the day there is a fifty-fifty chance that these dogs catch sight of a fox and vice-versa. A fifty per cent kill rate is deemed a very good score for an average hunt.

This is the point that animal welfare considerations are relevant and the matter becomes serious.

The long tracking down or scent hunting is over. The real relatively short chase begins.

Fox hounds, although bred for stamina run much faster than a fox which has a fast, short burst ability and very little stamina. It soon tires and if it does not find a hole on the ground or a drain, or very thick undergrowth, it is doomed.

THE DOGS EASILY OUTPACE IT WITHIN A MINUTE OR TWO AND KILL IT WITHIN A SECOND OR TWO.

Fox hounds are not as fast as lurchers or greyhounds but the actual chase and kill is very similar to the lamping or bolting with long dogs described under a previous chapter.

If fox hunting is to be banned then these other relatively humane methods i.e. long dogs which are so similar in effect would also be banned, leaving shot gun shooting and snaring as the common fate of foxes.

THE SCENT HUNTING OR THE TRACKING DOWN ASPECTS OF FOXHUNTING CAUSE NO STRESS OR NO TRAUMA TO THE FOX who must be totally unaware of this major part of the hunt. How the fox is located is totally irrelevant to animal welfare considerations.

It took me ten years to realize that irrefutable fact - others will never realize it because bigotry, prejudice, narrow mindedness, class animosity and ignorance blind people to the truth.

It seems to me to be wrong to allow these highly undesirable features of human nature to influence legislation.

IT IS EVEN MORE PERVERSE TO REMOVE THE MOST HUMANE METHOD OF KILLING FOXES WHILST LEAVING IN PLACE METHODS THAT SO OBVIOUSLY CAUSE MUCH GREATER AND TOTALLY UNNATURAL SUFFERING

As previously stated I find it repugnant that some people will kill another living creature for recreational purposes. However it is not at all important to the animal why those humans want to kill it. What is important to both the people who kill, and the animal that is killed, is HOW not WHY. It must be done in the most humane way possible.

That is the clear difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Unfortunately the old animal welfare organisations are slowly tending to veer towards the animal rightist philosophy and oppose hunting with dogs because of its recreational aspects and ignore any necessary pest control element of hunting.

To reiterate, if the motivation for opposing blood sports is an objection to "killing for fun" or for "recreational purposes" then of course fishing and pheasant shooting, which have absolutely no associated pest control justification attached to them, must inevitably achieve the top place on such a moral fundamentalist agenda.

The government has recently assured shooting interests and fishermen that their "sport" is safe - therefore moral fundamentalism does not feature in the current political debate.

That leaves just the degree of suffering caused to the quarry - and not the motive.

As shot gun shooting and snaring cause a great deal more suffering to the quarry it is against the interests of animal welfare to remove a relatively more humane method.

Back to top

I strongly suspect that the evidence examined by the committee of inquiry will indicate that it would be wrong, if not impossible to ban all forms of hunting with dogs and it would not be in the interests of animal welfare to do so.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the committee will look at each quarry species of hunting with dogs whilst considering any justification for prohibition.

It may well be that the committee might want to consider prohibiting SOME forms of hunting SOME quarry species - but not all forms of hunting, all types of quarry species. There are different types of hunting, different types of dogs and different quarry species. It is by no means a simple matter.

There are two Acts which might lend themselves to an amendment to cater for a ban, they are

1) The 1911 Protection of Animals Act.

2) The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

This act falls within the remit of the Home Office who commissioned the inquiry. However the act does not lend itself to dealing with methods or individual species.

It was designed to deal with all species of animals including birds and fish that are" held in custody" by man i.e. "captive animals". By implication and specification wild animals, including wild birds and fish we excluded from the provisions of the Act. It is, of course, possible to amend it to include all wild animals. That would include fish and birds with inevitable consequences for fishing and shooting.

That controversial proposal might still allow" hunting with dogs" to continue if it could be shown to be more humane, or as humane as other methods of killing animals.

Such a clumsy amendment would or might include all forms of hunting of all species as previously dealt with

The term "wild mammals" would exclude fish and birds but still fall foul of the other pitfalls referred to above.

If for example, it was desired to prohibit hare hunting with slow running dogs, which is justifiable on animal welfare grounds. The act would have to specify both the species and the precise method intended for prohibition. That, I submit, would make a pigs ear, or a dogs dinner out of a very clear, widely used and valuable piece of legislation.

This Act falls within the remit of the Dept. of Environment, not the Home Office, which might cause some difficulty.

It is a very wide ranging and detailed Act with lists and schedules and does lend itself to cater for individual species of wild animals and specified methods of killing them. For example it is this act that prohibits the use of the self locking snare to avoid cruelty to wild animals. The precedent for species and methods is built into the act.

It would be required to set out the "mischief, i.e. the reason or purpose the amendment seeks to remedy in the long TITLE of the amendment act but the wording of the act would be clear and exact. The mischief would be to avoid "unnecessary suffering" but in effect the words would say

"Thou shalt not kill species 'X' by method 'Y'.

The courts would not then be asked to interpret and define what is necessary and what is unnecessary suffering. Parliament has already decided that.

The Act currently is used to protect individual species from killing or even disturbance. It also specifies what methods may or may not be used. These lists could be added to. The act could also be amended to protect a species in decline on a regional basis rather than wait for a species to become an endangered species on a national basis.

That amendment would be shutting the stable door before the horse has bolted. The current Act, in effect, shuts the stable door after the horse has bolted.

This paper urges the committee to report a finding that adding a list of species and prohibited methods to the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act is how any ban might be implemented.

I do not approve of hunting, I do not support hunting, but I firmly believe that hunting w~th dogs, m some cases, is more humane than other methods of killing, not under consideration by the government.

Protection of Animals Act 1911

such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act and shall be liable" on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level S on the standard scale, or both.

[Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 15.]

My background related to this subject is as follows:

1975 I became a very active member of the League Against Cruel Sports and active disrupter of fox hunting, hare hunting, hare coursing and other hunting.

I campaigned politically to achieve the protection of the otter which was then hunted extensively by organised otter hunts.

I also organised a one million strong petition against hare coursing which was presented to the House of Commons. These and other activities led to my election to the League's Executive Committee by 1978.

I was also elected by the national membership to the National Council of the R.S.P.C.A.

1979 I organised a national campaign led by the Right Honourable Lord Houghton of Sowerby C.H. to "put animals into politics" and raised the funds for that very expensive campaign (the then costs were £509.000). I worked alongside Lord Houghton for 12 months and achieved, for die first time in history, committments in all three major party election manifesto's on animal welfare at the 1979 General Election. By 1980 I was probably the best known animal welfare campaigner in this country.

1980 I was elected as the Chairman ofthe League Against Cruel Sports.

1981 I was appointed as the League's Executive Director in a full time "hands on" capacity with direct control of the League's day to day activities and in control of policy, strategy and administration I ensured that everyone who participated in debates or was in contact with the media had an in depth knowledge of the subject which had been sadly lacking in the past, even by Members of Parliament who had pursued private members bills to prohibit hunting in one form or other.

1985 By this time I had persuaded many major landowners in particular County Councils to ban hunting on their land and this included the nation's biggest "farmer' at the time which was the Co-operative Wholesale Society.

1986 I was elected as a Labour Councillor for the London Borough of Enfield who own some 2,000 acres of agricultural land within the borough's boundaries. I became the opposition lead on Environment and Planning matters.

1987 I was selected as a Labour candidate in the 1987 General Election and promoted animal welfare in that election.

However by 1998, after visiting a lot of farms subject to County Council and Co-op bans I realised that I had, in fact made a very big mistake. Foxes were being killed by snaring and shot gun shooting in increasing numbers. I actually saw foxes caught by snares and dead foxes that had been wounded but not killed outright by shot gun shooting.

By trying to reduce suffering, I had contributed to increasing it.

Clearly after all that effort for all those years it was impossible to persuade my colleagues to drop the fight against fox hunting. I did not even try but I did try to steer the campaign away from fox hunting and concentrate more on dog fighting and badger baiting but that caused a lot of discontent because the League was a law reform, not a law enforcement organisation.

By 1988 we had to part company. By 1990 I decided to abandon any direct campaigning for animal welfare because most of the issues such as factory farming experimentation - live exports etc., are not all as simple as they initially appear to be. However I have maintained an interest in the past ten years and interestingly the Leagues new Executive Director came to the same conclusions that I did in respect of fox hunting and eventually departed in similar circumstances.

In 1994 Labour won control of my local authority and I became Deputy Leader of the Council and Chairrnan of the Council's Environment Committee.

I have read just about everything there was to read about hunting with dogs and the quarry species. I debated the issue at all the major universities including Oxford and Cambridge. I wrote many features for newspapers and debated the issue live on radio and television on countless occasions.

More importantly I briefed many members of Parliament on the subject and gave evidence to the House of Lords select committee on hare coursing.

I trust my paper will be of help to your committee.

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 15 May 2000