The Conservative Anti Hunt Council was formed some 20 years ago by leading members of the party to provide a forum for Conservatives opposed to hunting with hounds.

We seek to achieve our objective by peaceful campaigning and by co-operating with other like-minded organisations and MPs, of all parties.

While full membership, ie with voting rights, is restricted to members of the Conservative Party, we are not an officially affiliated organisation within the Party.

You will have received a very detailed submission by Doreen Cronin, Secretary of another organisation of which I am chairman, the Devon & Somerset Residents' Association for Deer Protection (D&SRADP). I am conscious of the large number of papers which the Committee will have to study and I propose, therefore, not to rehearse those particular arguments but to refer to them within this text where appropriate.

The Conservative Anti Hunt Council is opposed to all hunting with dogs, which we regard as cruel, inefficient and unnecessary. We would strongly dispute the hunts' claims that they are controlling numbers in the most natural way - what other example is there in nature of animals, individually or as members of a pack, pursuing their prey for hours on end? - or that hunting has any relevance to conservation. We believe that such claims, as we hope to prove in this submission, are not sustainable. Indeed, we would go further and ask :whether if hunting did not exist, anyone would now suggest it as a sensible method of addressing either of these issues?

Far from being the picturesque activity the hunt would have us believe, we regard using a pack of dogs to terrorise another animal as nothing more than legalised animal abuse enjoyed by a tiny minority, a long out-dated pastime which the majority of the public (in town and country) find unacceptable and wish to see ended.

In November, 1997 Members of Parliament, clearly reflecting the views of that majority, gave overwhelming support to Michael Foster's Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Since then there has been endless procrastination by the government. We share the concerns of other anti-hunt organisations that in setting up, at this late stage, a Committee of Inquiry the government is employing yet another delaying tactic. MPs received massive amounts of information, from both sides, before making their decision. We feel that it is wrong that having won the argument we should now have to make our case all over again, especially as the Committee is not to consider the "ethical issue" of cruelty which is absulutely central to our belief.

FACTS ABOUT HUNTING WITH DOGS

Probably the most revealing fact about the way hunting is organised is that the dogs are bred for stamina and not speed, thereby ensuring a long chase and causing unnecessary stress and suffering to the hunted animal. This fact alone destroys any claim that hunting with a pack of dogs is a responsible and humane system of management and reveals it for what it is, a mere "sport" - although we would regard this as a singularly inappropriate word to describe such an uneven contest. As to "the frequency and nature of kills" you will I am sure have received a large amount of photographic and video evidence, but we will touch on this issue in succeeding sections.

A continuing problem is what has come to be known as "hunt havoc" and in this connection may I refer you to items 5 and 6 (pages 9-18) of the D&SRADP paper. I was born and brought up in the West Country so am all too familiar with the examples given, but I know from press reports and through contact with our members that such incidents are far from being unique to this part of the country.

Hounds are supposed to be under control at all times, yet each year there are reports of them crossing busy roads, straying onto railway lines and invading private property, Prosecutions are conspicuous by their rarity, if not total absence.

An item on BBC South West Ceefax (21 November, 1998) highlighted another problem:

"The NFU is calling for a change in the law to force dog owners to clear up after pets in rural areas. The crackdown on dog fouling in towns has resulted in people taking their pets to the countryside. Dog fouling has increased on farmland and along paths causing concern for the health of livestock" If true of pets, how much more so of hounds?

Finally, hunt supporters will cite "freedom of choice" and "the rights of minorities" but what of the freedom of the majority who oppose hunting and their right to enjoy the countryside in peace without being caught up in activities which they find repellent? Effectively, there are parts of the countryside which for them become "no-go areas" on hunt days.

RURAL ECONOMY

I was for twelve years a county councillor in Somerset. During that time I cannot recall hearing any suggestion that the existence or not of hunting was of relevance in dealing with rural problems of any kind.

Estimates of possible job losses resulting from a ban have varied from the "fewer than 1,000" you mention to a statement that "16,500 jobs depend solely on hunting, 63,000 more rely on it" (1) However, such an estimate has to be seen in perspective: "At the end of the war UK farms employed nearly a million people. By the mid-1960s there were half a million regular staff. But by 1994 the number of farm jobs had fallen to 120,000 of which one-third were part time.... Throughout the 1990's farmworkers jobs have been disappearing at an average rate of 12 per cent a year." (2)

The Rural, Agricultural and Allied Workers Branch of the Transport and General Workers Union, which supports a ban on hunting, believe there is no firm evidence for the claim that thousands of jobs will be lost, and have said "If the Countryside Alliance is so concerned about the loss of rural jobs, what were they doing about the tens of thousands of jobs lost in agriculture since 1990? (3) (When considering the motives of the Countryside Alliance, it should be remembered they were formed from an amalgamation of pro-hunting organisations in direct response to the Foster Bill: "Wrap hunting up in the wider rural fabric. Because everyone loves the countryside and hates hunting." (4)

The suggested job losses in associated undertakings such as farriers, feed merchants, etc are predicated on the assumption that all or most of those who ride to hounds will cease to ride at all, but is this really credible? A report published in 1993 for the National Trust found that while "hunting provides the principal reason for 49 per cent of horses kept by subscribers (to the West Country deer hunts) and is a part reason for another 7 per cent, that does, however, leave 44 per cent principally kept for other reasons.' (5) If drag hunting and/or other equestrian activitierss were to be encouraged this number could well increase.

Another commercial activity which it has been suggested might suffer after a ban is tourism. However, the same report found that opinion was divided, some hoteliers claiming their business would suffer, while others disagreed, one stating that he had lost business "because our guests have encountered the hunt on their first visit" and another "Stag hunting is a complete turn off for 99 per cent of our visitors. Given the strong antipathy to hunting amongst the majority of the population, is it not not unreasonable to suggest that a ban might have a positive effect on tourism?

We are not unsympathetic to the problems of unemployment, but since the war thousands of jobs in manufacturing and other industries have been lost, often with devastating consequences for entire towns. The days when anyone, whatever their status or occupation, could be assured of a job for life have long gone.

There have been suggestions that if hunting is banned property prices would slump, as the people who buy houses in rural areas purely because they wish to hunt would no longer do so. However, a report in the Western Daily Press (30 June, 1999) following a pro hunt rally on Exmoor quoted one local farmer as saying "Look around this crowd and you will see an awful lot of people who don't live here but who keep houses here for the hunting. If as they say property prices fell if hunting was banned that wouldn't be such a bad thing, as at least local people would be able to afford to buy property."

AGRICULTURE AND PEST CONTROL

We agree that there are circumstances in which animals have to be culled, but this must be done efficiently and humanely. We do not believe that hunting with dogs meets either of these criteria.

This claim sits oddly with evidence of artificial fox earths in hunting country to ensure that there are sufficient foxes to be hunted, and with the statement: "We are not a pest destruction society. I would rather account for a fox at the end of a good run than 'chop' it at the beginning." (6)

So far as lambs are concerned, research has found that as many as 95 per cent die from other causes (stillbirth, abortion, exposure, starvation, disease and congenital defects) leaving only 5 per cent from misadventure and predation including that by dogs and foxes. (7)

The majority of hens have to endure life in battery units. Free range flocks, which are vulnerable to other predators as well as foxes, can be protected by better housing and electric fencing.

Research has concluded that the main factor in controlling fox numbers is the availability of food, which determines the size and shape of fox territories and the size of social groups, thereby influencing the number of adults and the survival of offspring.

To put hunting in context as a form of control: to maintain a stable population, approximately 425,000 foxes (64 per cent of the Spring fox population) must die each year. This figure could be as high as 70 per cent without bringing about any reduction in the breeding population each year.

Foxhunts kill between 15,000 to 17,000 foxes each year, i.e. no more than 4 per cent of annual fox mortality. (8)

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HUNTING WITH DOGS IS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE FOX POPULATION

Deer:

Again, I would refer you to the paper from the D&SRADP, but would wish to emphasise the following points:

Deer are hunted with hounds only in the West of England.

There are healthy herds in parts of the country where there is no hunting, and it was of course banned in Scotland in the 1950's.

Nationally, 99 per cent of deer are culled by shooting, a total of around 80,000 annually.

The West Country cull is 1,000, of which the three hunts account for well under 200, leaving a minimum of 800 to be shot. Both the Forestry Commission and the National Trust have long employed their own skilled marksmen.

Despite their claims to be "managing" the deer and thus responsible for the health of the herd, hunt reports tell of the selected animal sometimes escaping and the hounds chasing another, unselected, which may or may not be killed. This is hardly effective management.

During the course of research undertaken on behalf of the National Trust, Professor Patrick Bateson found that "the hunts kill red deer on half the days on which they hunt, and on average those deer have been chased for twelve miles over three hours." (g)

WE DO NOT ACCEPT THAT HUNTING WITH DOGS IS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE DEER HERDS.

Mink

These small creatures are hunted between the end and the beginning of the fox hunting season, effectively replacing otterhunting. (in 1978 it became illegal to kill, but not to hunt otters).

Despite their reputation as destroyers of wildlife, and chickens, there is evidence to suggest that this may not be wholly deserved. In 1989 a report indicated:

"Despite many predictions of mink induced extinctions, Devon's waterways still support a rich and varied wildlife 30 years after the mink's arrival", (10) and as in the case of fox predation, better protection would be effective for flocks of free range hens.

Perhaps of greater concern is the disturbance caused to otters during mink hunting. As long ago as 1987, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation wrote "If mink do need to be controlled, trapping so long as it is a part of a co-ordinated programme of control and research, is a better method than hunting which is very inefficient."

WE AGREE.

Hares

are hunted on foot with beagles and bassets, and on horses with harriers. Britain is the only EU country in which there is no close season for hares. There is some uncertainty as to whether numbers are still declining, but generally hares are not considered a major nuisance by farmers, and they can if necessary be controlled by shooting.

Coursing has no control or management excuse and is solely entertainment, the purpose being to test the skill of one dog against another with points being awarded for various "turns" and of course a kill.

The claim that this is always swift and clean has been proved, by photographs and video, to be far from accurate and witnesses have spoken of the hare screaming as it is fought over by the dogs.

In 1951, the Scott Henderson Committee (viewed as biased in favour of hunting) concluded in relation to hare coursing: "The suffering which is caused to hares coursed at such meetings comes within the definition of cruelty which we have accepted."

NEARLY 50 YEARS LATER WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THIS POINTLESS ACTIVITY TO END.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COUNTRYSIDE

Forgive me if I ask whose "rural way of life" are we looking at: that of the minority who support hunting, or the majority who regard it as repugnant?

Undoubtedly, hunt supporters will find that their shared interest provides a focal point for social activities. However, given all the population changes that have occurred in rural areas I doubt whether those who do not share this enthusiasm would feel "excluded". This letter appeared in The Times (July, 1997):

"In saying 'a ban on hunting ... changes forever the rhythm of rural usage' (leading article, July 10) you exaggerate the importance of country sports to the majority of country people.

I have lived in the country for nearly 20 years and get around my county quite a bit. The nearest I have come to a hunt is seeing an injured horse lying by the roadside waiting for the vet.

It would be Heaven help most of us if we relied upon the hunt to 'bring rural communities together'. We are brought together by individual hospitality and neighbourliness, parish council work, the annual village dance, carol service, harvest festival, etc. And some of us are even daring enough to venture into towns for evening classes, concerts, theatres and to visit our urban cousins.

Whether hunting is banned or not will make not one whit of difference to the 'rhythm' of this country person's life. "

As to the importance of hunting in helping to preserve local amenities, author Graham Harvey commented in The Mail on Sunday, (13 July):

"Even in those village streets that regularly echo to the yelp of hounds and the clatter of hunters' horses, shops and pubs continue to close. Whatever the claims of the countryside marchers, field sports have failed to arrest the decline of rural communities.

MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE

We would agree that management of the quarry populations should involve "weeding out weaker individuals", but this is not compatible with the hunts' wish to have a good day's "sport", ie a long chase.

Certainly in the case of deer hunting this can lead to an imbalance between hinds and stags whose antlers are much prized as trophies.

In addition, there is the oft repeated threat of "no hunting, no deer" meaning that if deprived of their "sport" the deer would no longer be tolerated but would be shot indiscriminately and in unspecified numbers, with no suggestion of proper management.

On the question of conservation of habitats, according to figures released a few years ago by the Nature Conservancy Council we have already lost 150,000 miles of hedgerows, and 50 per cent of ancient woodland, plus almost all traditional hay meadows, lowland heaths, chalk downlands, fens and lowland ponds - irreplaceable parts of the landscape which the existence of hunting has failed to preserve. .Whether or not in the event of a ban such destruction would continue is problematic, but the idea that animals, and their habitat, are only worth preserving if the particular animal is available to be hunted is one which we find deeply immoral. The countryside is, of course, already subject to damage caused by hunt horses and followers; and even SSSls are not spared - despite the hunts' claims to be "guardians of the countryside".

ANIMAL WELFARE

I note the Committee's wish to achieve as much consensus as possible under this heading. However, you will I hope understand that because of our belief that hunting is inherently cruel we could not agree that it is in any way compatible with animal welfare

Supporters of hunting obviously would not agree, and indeed in 1989 the chairman of the Quantock Staghounds was reported as saying: "A deer does not suffer as it is being chased......Deer have developed psychologically and physiologically over millions of years and they have adapted to being chased by canines.....Being hunted by canines is a perfectly natural pastime for a deer." (11)

Fortunately (for the deer) wiser counsels have since prevailed, notably with the acceptance by the National Trust of Professor Patrick Bateson's research on "The behavioural and physiological effects of culling red deer" which caused them to ban deer hunting on their land and which concluded in respect of animal welfare "Hunting with hounds can no longer be justified on welfare grounds, taking into account the standards applied in other fields of animal welfare." (9)

While it is not possible to extrapolate these findings in respect of other species, we would contend that the degree of suffering inflicted in the chase, even if one ignores the actual kill, is sufficiently great to contradict any suggestion that it is being done for the welfare of the animal.. It is significant that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, 1996 was passed only after, at the insistence of the hunt lobby, the word "torture" was deleted from the list of offences.

Thousands of hounds are put down each year, having lived for only half their natural life span, because they have simply out-lived their usefulness; we find it hard to take seriously the hunts' professed sorrow at what they claim will be the mass slaughter of packs if hunting is banned.

Other animals may be caught up in hunting, eg farm animals who can be so traumatised by the hunt that they are injured or lose their unborn lambs or calves, and there are regular reports of pets being attacked by hounds running out of control through private property. The fact that sometimes the animal, even one as small as a cat, survives albeit for a short time, does cast fresh doubt on the hunts' claim that the kill is always clean and instantaneous.

WE BELIEVE THAT WHERE CULLING IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IT SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY THE MOST HUMANE METHOD, WHICH IS BY THE CORRECT GUN IN THE HANDS OF A SKILLED MARKSMAM

IMPLEMENTING A BAN

We are in no doubt that hunting should not be allowed to continue, and that a total ban must come about through legislation in Parliament, preferably by way of a Government Bill which would not be as vulnerable to wrecking tactics as is a Private Members' Bill.

We do not believe that the idea of local referenda is viable, partly because of the problems of enforcement.

We do not believe that any of the various suggestions which appear from time to time that hunting could in some way be "reformed", e.g. by limiting or banning terrier work, or placing restrictions on the length of the chase, are acceptable since they do not address the inherent cruelty in hunting.

We are aware that after the introduction of the Foster Bill, there was a series of threats from hunt supporters, such as:

There will be a riot in the countryside and I really don't think we can stop it." (12)

If a law were passed it would not be accepted. We would not lie down and disappear. It would be the start of a very big headache for the government which would not go away." (13)

"If Labour simply hands over hunting to the politically correct it will create a backlash of bitterness which will make governing some rural areas especially difficult and unpleasant. It is no good passing laws that are virtually unenforceable." (14)

I am not sure whether these are the "implications" you mention but the only comment I would wish to make is that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, where our laws are determined not by marches and rallies but by our elected representatives. Democracy does not, of course, give absolute rights to the majority to ignore the rights of minorities, but equally it does not give absolute rights, in perpetuity, to all minorities. Times change, society hopefully progresses, and what was acceptable in the last century is no longer so. Many of the same arguments used to defend slavery are being used again to defend hunting.

Nor do I feel we should be swayed by pleas for "freedom of choice". Any society has to set standards, and it has long been recognised that there are issues which cannot be left to individual conscience but which have to be subject to Parliamentary legislation.

We believe that setting a pack of dogs on to another animal for no reason other than to provide entertainment is such an issue, and the government should make clear its intention to ban it without further delay.

Diana Wilson

CHAIRMAN

SOURCES USED:

(1) Baroness Mallalieu, speaking at the Countryside Rally, Hyde Park, July 1997.

(2) Graham Harvey, "The Killing of the Countryside"

(3) Barry Leathwood, Secretary, Rural, Agricultural and Allied Workers Branch, TGWU

(4) Janet George, The Guardian newspaper, August, 1998

(5) Centre for Rural Studies, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, April, 1993

(6) Captain R. E. Wallace, MFH, Countryweek Hunting April, 1993

(7) Robbie McDonald, Phil Baker, Stephen Harris, University of Bristol, "Is the fox a pest? ", October, 1997.

(8) Phil Baker and Stephen Harris, University of Bristol, "How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox population?"

(9) Professor Patrick Bateson, summary of report in the National Trust magazine

(10) Dr. J. D. S. Birks, Nature Conservancy Council "Nature in Devon" No 10, 1989

(11) Anthony Trollope-Bellew, Chairman Quantock Staghounds, Taunton Star newspaper February, 1989

(12) Janet George, The Guardian newspaper, 17 March, 1997

(13) Trevor Adams, Joint Master, Buccleuch Hunt, The Independent newspaper, July, 1997

(14) Horse and Hound magazine 1997

Back to top

Date uploaded to site 31 March 2000