1. The submission by William J. Swann on behalf of Deadline
2000 on wounding rates from shooting in foxes (the "Swann submission on shooting"),
contains no new evidence, other than reports of an unpublished study by Professor
Stephen Harris (the "Harris study").
2. The Alliance has the following specific comments on the
results of the Harris study, insofar as it is referred to in the Swann submission
on shooting:
- The Swann submission on shooting states that, "the wounding rate in the
Harris study is consistent with the data from the RSPCA wildlife hospitals".
This is not correct. The data from the RSPCA wildlife hospitals suggests that
fewer than one fox in every 1000 admitted to such hospitals was injured through
shooting. If the sample examined in the Harris study was representative of
all rural foxes, it suggests that one fox in every 40 (not just wounded or
injured foxes) is wounded through shooting.
- This discrepancy indicates that, as the Alliance has previously stated,
foxes wounded by shooting will rarely be found in areas visited by the public,
or that, if they are, the fox is put out of its misery there and then. Further,
a wounded fox is likely to go to ground and not be visible to the public.
The statistics from the RSPCA wildlife hospitals are therefore, as noted at
the Macdonald et al report to the Inquiry, paragraph 6.3.1.a, unlikely
to provide a reliable indication of wounding rates.
- It is self evident that not every fox examined in the Harris study would
have been shot at. The rate of wounding for foxes that had actually been shot
at is likely to be much higher than the rate of wounding in a random sample
including many foxes that have not been shot at.
- If the Harris study is representative, it suggests that one fox in every
25 is wounded through shooting or snaring.
- Foxes wounded by shooting or snaring are likely to suffer prolonged pain
and distress, even if the injuries are not fatal.
- Whether or not the shotgun pellets cause lead poisoning, their presence
as a foreign body can be debilitating, particularly if the shot lodges in
joints.
- None of the foxes examined in the Harris study or treated by the RSPCA wildlife
hospitals appear to have been injured through hunting with dogs. Unlike shooting
or snaring, hunting with dogs insures that the fox either escapes unharmed
or is killed virtually instantaneously.
3. The Swann submission on shooting also states that no
evidence has been published showing that wounding is more likely to result from
the use of shotguns than from the use of rifles. However, it appears from the
Swann submission on shooting that all of the wounded foxes examined in the Harris
study had suffered shotgun wounds. None appear to have been wounded by rifles.
Although the sample examined in the Harris study was very small, this provides
some support for the views set out in, for example, the first submission to
the Inquiry of the National Gamekeepers Organisation, (Questions 6-8). That
organisation is extremely well placed to assess the relative risks of wounding
through shooting with rifles and shotguns.
4. The Swann submission on shooting states that:
"Shooting is a humane method of killing foxes provided
that the shooter demonstrates 'due diligence'. Due diligence, in this context,
as in any other, requires that the operative possesses the necessary skills
and equipment and uses appropriate methodology. Provided that due diligence
had been shown, it is very unlikely that a shot which resulted in wounding
would be judged as cruel; the intent was to be humane" (our emphasis).
5. The Alliance has the following specific comments and
questions about this passage:
- In reality, not all shooting can or will be carried out by trained marksmen. Do Deadline 2000 consider that this is a cruel activity deserving of punishment under legislation aimed at preventing cruelty to animals?
- Even if a fox is shot by a trained marksmen using an appropriate rifle, the fox may not always be killed instantaneously - see the video The Warrener: calling foxes by day and night, submitted to the Inquiry by the Masters of Foxhounds Association.
- If Deadline 2000 assess the acceptability of shooting as a method of control by reference to the actual or presumed intention of the person shooting the fox, why do they adopt different standards when assessing the acceptability of hunting with dogs? Under the draft legislation proposed by Deadline 2000, a person engaged in hunting with dogs could be guilty of an offence even if his intention was to prevent or relieve suffering.
6. The Alliance draws the attention of the Committee to
paragraphs 3.7.3-3.7.6 and 8.11.6-8.11.11 of its Closing Submission, which deal
with the welfare implications of shooting with rifles and shotguns. The Alliance
reiterates that:
- Landholders require all the existing methods of control, each of which has its limitations. No one method is suitable for all circumstances. See sections 3.6 to 3.10 of the Alliance's Closing Submission.
- Shooting of foxes is likely to increase if there were to be a ban on hunting with dogs. See section 3.9 of the Alliance's Closing Submission
- Accordingly, the number of foxes wounded through shooting is likely to increase
in the event of a ban.