COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HUNTING WITH DOGS

RESPONSE FROM: Mrs. Flora Joyce Johnson.

Facts about hunting with dogs

References: Oral Evidence - 6 April 2000 - Session 1

Pages 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, and 18.

Comment:

Page 4: It is my belief that the term "autumn hunting" was adopted to replace "cub hunting" when the likelyhood of a ban on fox hunting became apparent, and in so doing tried to disguise the fact that cubs that are being hunted and killed.

Cub/autumn hunting takes place as soon as the land has been cleared of crops, which in a great deal of instances is from early August onwards. This "normally starts in September, sometimes a little later" quoted by Mr. Hart is not consistent with the hunts centred around Leicestershire.

Page 5: The term "holding up", as I have witnessed over the past years, is that of making sure that any fox cub lucky enough to escape the blood thirsty melee, is frightened and chased back into the hounds for a certain death.

I read with interest about the ISAH and the disiplinary committee that has been formed to deal with instances that may put hunting into disrepute.

To put it bluntly I find this all rather laughable, bearing in mind that after many years of suffering hunt trespass, I wrote to the sec MFHA in March 2000 to ask for his help to ensure this blatent disregard for my wishes stopped. His written reply told me that the matter that I had raised was entirely between myself and the Masters of that particular hunt. I had already on numerous occasions complained to the Master in charge on the day of trespass, but to no avail. In my ignorance I believed that the MFHA was the master body to whom all Masters of Fox Hounds were responsible! They showed no interest in my complaint.

Page 10: With reference to artificial earths:

I can not accept that artificial earths are necessary. If the purpose of fox hunting is to remove problem foxes that are classed as pests, how can one say that the foxes sheltering in the articial earths are of such nuisance value?

All the credit claimed by fox hunts, for creating pockets of woodland conservation, must surely be just a cover up for encouraging foxes to breed, and therefore by doing so, create more fox related problems than there would otherwise be.

With reference to earth stopping:

For Mr. Hart to say that only 5 to 10% of earths, available to foxes on a days hunting, are stopped is totally unaceptable. In my experience, I have witnessed that it is the majority of earths that are stopped, accounting for a very high %. Indeed, it is only the undiscovered few that remain unblocked.

The badger setts around where I live are continually blocked, and most of the time the stopping of these setts verges on being illegal, having heavy Leicestershire clay rammed tightly inside the entrances, and evidence of spading having also taken place. These setts are not unblocked after the days hunting, which results in, at best the badgers encroaching further onto the surrounding farmland, and at the worst, suffocating entombed inside.

When the 1992 Badger Act came into being, I believe that all Hunts were supposed to keep a register of earth stoppers, and in so doing, this would enable those who did abuse the law to be taken to task for their misdemeanour. I should like to know what has happened to these registers.

As for Mr. Fanshaw saying that if earth stopping was limited or banned, there would be an increased call for terrier work to control foxes: to put terriers into a badger sett where a fox may be harbouring, would be breaking the law.

Page 12: Mr. Fanshaw reiterates that it is the Master in charge on the day, that is solely responsible for everything that happens on that day. However, on page 16, he contradicts this statement by saying that the control of the hounds on the day is solely the responsibility of the huntsman, and his whippers in.

Page 18: With reference to people interfering with the quarry species:

I do not allow anthing to do with fox hunting onto my land, part of which has been turned into a 4 acre nature reserve, on which I, my children and my grand children can watch and enjoy every aspect of natural history, including foxes. I find it most distressing that the foxes we watch and give sanctuary to, are stopped from entering onto my land by a line of people on horseback frightening them back into the hounds.

I object strongly to trespass, which takes place on a regular basis from hounds chasing onto my property.

I have written to everyone possible to try to stop this trespass, which I find emotionally upsetting, but the hunt in question always seems to be able to ride the law, stating that the Master of the day is solely resonsible, and as he usually doesn't hold his position for more than a season or two, it all gets swept under the carpet until the next trespass, with someone else in charge, takes place.

I have written to the home secretary in the past asking if the new " law of trespass" that came into being in 1995, which protects the hunt from anyone interfering with their pastime, would likewise protect people such as myself from the hunting fraternity interfering with my pastime i.e. my nature reserve. Unfortunately, the answer was no, I had no protection.

I strongly feel that the huntsman should call the hounds off my property when they trespass. They are aware of my wishes but blatently disregard them.

Animal welfare

Comment: I should like to put forward that when fox hunting, many hounds suffer horrendous injuries when out in the hunting field, due to their extreme eagerness to follow their quarry come what may.

Having worked in a large country veterinary practice I witnessed such injuries, and it was not uncommon for foxhounds to have some of their toes or their tail amputated due to infection of injuries gained in the field.

Mrs. Flora Johnson.

Back to top