| Back to the List of Submissions |
COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HUNTING WITH DOGS
Written evidence/second stage
RESPONSE FROM: Dr J.C. Horton
Facts about hunting with dogs
References:
Comment:
In recent years, the opponents of hunting have made much of drag hunting and bloodhounding. Although they are sure that draghunting is a good thing, they seem to know very little about it. (How many take part in draghunting themselves one wonders.) The inclusion of a picture of French quarry hunters – deer hunters, as I recall – in an advertisement lauding the merits of drag hunting was a spectacular example. The submissions from the draghunting authorities have not only described how there is very little more scope for draghunting in this country, but have also explained why. I have yet to see those who favour draghunting replacing quarry hunting refute the mathematics of the case.
The drag hunting authorities have also explained that drag hunting is essentially an equestrian sport –galloping and jumping are a defining part of it. It does not take place in poor weather (I.A.M.B., paragraph 7); it is only suitable for some of the riders who follow quarry hounds because it requires a fit horse and able rider (M.D.B.A., paragraph 3.3.1.7); it is more expensive that quarry hunting (I.A.M.B., paragraphs 5 and 6); and it is of virtually no interest to foot followers.
The authorities also intimate that, in one sense, a ban on quarry hunting might even reduce the amount of draghunting available because some farmers and landowners are likely to associate the draghunters with those who advocate a ban:
"it would certainly be said that the existence of draghunting had contributed to the downfall of foxhunting" (I.A.M.B., paragraph 2).
Management and conservation of wildlife
References:
Comment:
The Rev. Sydney Smith is reported as saying, "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so". Certain of the anti-hunting submissions display another aspect of this – "Never learn anything about a subject; it undermines one’s prejudices so". The case from Wildaid Foundation Trust is an astonishing example:
"The Wildaid Foundation Trust has received an invitation to submit written evidence to the Committee of Inquiry. We very much wanted to submit evidence but have found it practically impossible to provide factual evidence. Our area of expertise lies with rescuing, caring for and rehabilitating wildlife casualties and assisting wildlife sanctuaries and hospitals with their work.
"We have never had any dealings with a hunt and although we have both lived in the countryside all our lives, a hunt never made up a part of our community. But we wanted to take this opportunity to state our viewpoint.
"Needless to say, we and the Trust are bitterly opposed to hunting with dogs [etc., etc.]"
and so the submission goes on. The fact that the authors saw fit to emphasise the word "factual" is telling in itself. What is disturbing about such attitudes is that they portray wild animals essentially as pets. The authors seem to have no concept of wild animals being representatives of their species. It is a short step to believing that managing an animal population consists solely of keeping the numbers down. That it is the stronger animals that should be allowed to live and breed is a subtlety clearly not understood by those who advocate shooting foxes for instance. A strong fox will escape from hounds: a strong fox can not outrun shotgun pellets.
Social and cultural life of the countryside
1. How Hunting People are Likely to Respond to a Ban
References:
Comment:
In my original submission, I noted:
"… a ban would tell me that I am now in a minority – perhaps the only minority in this country – that can be persecuted. Worse than that though, I already see a tendency in the official imagery of the countryside to displace real country people and values by those found in such television programmes as "Countryfile". These are replacements which have been sanitised and adjudged fit for a nation which rejects the realities of nature in favour of anthropomorphism and of life in front of the television screen."
Since I wrote this, a number events have happened that have reinforced my views. I will continue this theme in "Implementing a Ban". In the present section, however, I would like to note that the Countryside Agency’s recent report State of the Countryside
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/research/state/report.pdf
which runs to 48 pages, not only ignores hunting and shooting, but fails to mention even fishing – a sport which is the biggest recreational pursuit in the country. From the report, we can learn what percentage of rural communities have a badminton club or a branch of the British Legion but not how many people hunt, shoot or fish. Similarly, I find no mention in the report of agricultural shows, such as the Leicestershire Show I attended last week-end (April 30th and May 1st). I see no explanation for these strange omissions. I can only presume the report’s authors want to see the rural way of life replaced in the countryside by the (approved) urban way of life. To advance this aim, practices that are not a part of the urban way of life are simply passed over – so much for our much vaunted multi-cultural society.
The well known writer and broadcaster, Mr Robin Page has recently published a book called The Hunting Gene. I hope the Members of the Committee have read this. If not, I commend it to them. Mr Page is not only a former vegetarian but he has also reared abandoned fox cubs. To gather information for his book, he visited a number of hunts in different parts of the country. For this reason, even if no other, the Members of the Committee may well wish to compare his experiences with their own. Mr Page writes with a passion about the fundamental role hunting plays in the lives of hunting people.
2. Hunting Songs
References:
Comment:
I am particularly glad that the submission from the Central Committee of Fell Packs has touched on hunting songs so far as to include extracts from two (paragraphs 1.2 and 9.1). These songs, though frequently referring to one particular hunt and its country, tend to be well known throughout the land. Thus, Joe Bowman is familiar to us here in the Shires while I am sure Drink Puppy Drink, written by that arch Meltonian, Whyte-Melville, is known in the Lake District. They constitute one further piece of evidence (if more were needed) that hunting folk constitute a community – an ethnic group even – in their right.
Implementing a ban
References:
Comment:
In "Social and cultural life of the countryside" above, I have noted how recent events have confirmed me in my view that we now live in a society where rural discrimination is not only the one form of discrimination which is perfectly legal but also one which is positively encouraged. Encouraged in the highest circles too.
All country groups have noted that there are very few policemen in the countryside nowadays. When added to the fact that hunting takes place on private property, it is difficult to see how any ban on hunting can be implemented without great difficulty. Hunting’s opponents, however, make light of this fundamental objection by making the extraordinary claim that their supporters will ensure that the ban is implemented. I need hardly remind Members of the Committee of one event that has dominated the news over recent weeks viz the conviction of a Norfolk farmer for killing a burglar he found in his house. Like many other occupants of isolated country dwellings, he had been the victim of numerous burglaries in the past – burglaries which the local police force seemed unable to solve or prevent. When the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the judicial system be rebalanced
"with a strong presumption that the state will be on the side of people who protect their homes and their families against criminals"
he was met with claims that he was encouraging vigilantism.
If killing a burglar in one’s home constitutes vigilantism, how much more must invading private land, probably miles away from one’s own home, to search for instances of a new law being broken be defined as vigilantism? However, in to-day’s anti-rural society, perhaps such logic cannot be applied as inexorably as I believe. The author of The Hunting Gene notes how favourably anti-hunt protesters have been treated by local police forces. He records individual officers as having no doubt that those who appear without invitation on private property and dressed in balaclavas and armed with baseball bats are thugs. The officers’ actions, however, are determined by orders from above. Shall we one day see a document analogous to the Macpherson Report recording that the British police force is "institutionally urban"?
When balaclava-clad figures appear in cities – as they did only a few days ago (May 1st) – things are very different. The Prime Minister tells us such people are "mindless thugs" and "beneath contempt". Can anyone be surprised, therefore, if many country people now believe they are no longer accorded the same rights under our legal system as other people? I believe that any attempt to implement a ban on hunting will be seen by many as the last straw; it will lead to civil disorder throughout the countryside, quite possibly with sporadic outbreaks of violence. What is likely to be worse in the long run, though, is that country people will feel alienated. They feel strong loyalty one to another and however hard policing the countryside is at present, it will become a lot harder following any ban.
Other matters
1. Domestic and European Legislation, and International Conventions
References:
Comment:
A number of submissions have stated that any ban on hunting will contravene various pieces of domestic and European legislation besides certain international conventions. Section 4 of the submission from the Liberal Democrat Forum for the Countryside gives an extensive list.
I understand that attempts to ban bull fighting in Spain some years ago failed under such circumstances – bull fighting was adjudged to constitute a part of the heritage of Spaniards regardless of some Spaniards having no interest in it.
2. Opinion Polls
References:
Comment:
When hunting is discussed, the results of opinion polls are invariably brought up – a figure of c. 70% being quoted as opposed to hunting. However hunting is not compulsory in this country – it has no affect on those who have no interest in it – a simple majority of this kind can therefore have no relevance. A more pressing reason would be necessary to justify a ban. However, I believe that even the figure of 70% is suspect.
When the Sunday Mirror held a poll on banning hunting in 1997, it announced the poll with a major article leaving little doubt that the newspaper was strongly in favour of a ban. When the result of 52% opposing a ban emerged, the paper chose to hide this result away in a minor paragraph. I quote this as an example of what I suspect to be the explanation of the widely varying results from different polls.
When a poll is conducted by pollsters in the street, there is a certain amount of pressure to give the "politically correct" answer … even in front of an anonymous pollster. Only those who are strong supporters of the opposite view will be willing to be seen supporting it. The "politically correct" view thus mops up the agnostics. However, when a vote necessitates ringing a telephone number (say), those not interested in the topic simply don’t bother and the poll becomes a straightforward contest between those who hold strong views on either side. A very different result then emerges.
3. Opponents of Hunting are Opposed to those who Hunt
References:
Comment:
When they lose the argument over the quarry and its welfare (which they frequently do), the opponents of hunting often revert to abusing the people who hunt. Thus the League Against Cruel Sports tells us:
"Engaging in hunting … morally corrupts all those engaged in it"
I have never seen a single organisation provide even one piece of evidence to back up such a claim. In their travels around the country, I trust the Members of the Committee are completely satisfied that such claims are utterly false. I hope they will always bear in mind, therefore, that when this claim is advanced, hunting’s opponents have conceded the argument. I can think of no instance of a democracy restricting the activities of a group of people simply because of who the people are rather what the activities are.
Date uploaded to website 5 June 2000