| Back to the List of Submissions |
11 April 2000
Dear Lord Burns
The Burns Inquiry
The Surrey Union Hunt
about: Surrey Wildlife Preservation Group
I would like to bring to your attention a number of inaccuracies in the submission to you from the Surrey Wildlife Preservation Group.
Attached is a paper written on behalf of the Surrey Union Hunt where I have been a Joint Master since 1993, have been on the Committee for twenty-five years and have hunted with the Surrey Union for thirty-one seasons.
If you or your Committee members require any further information I should be pleased to assist you.
Yours sincerely
Ian Gilchrist
Joint Master
Surrey Union Hunt
The Burns Inquiry
SURREY UNION HUNT (SUH)
Introduction
In response to the Surrey Wildlife Preservation Group (SWPG) submission to the Bums Inquiry;
Reference is made to the submission on behalf of the SWPG by Graham Richards (real name Thayne Rich evidenced in the Daily Telegraph some years previously) advising on incorrect statements of facts made about Surrey Union Hunt.
It is to be noted that Thayne Rich also takes an active position in hunt saboteur activities, in that he is present at most meets "sabbed" and carries tape recordings of hounds, video camera, hunting horn and other equipment to disrupt hunting, and is involved with the letting off of firecrackers which, inter alia, frighten all wildlife, which would seem contrary to a wildlife preservation group's activities.
Facts about hunting with dogs
The SWPG statement concerning the use of the Surrey Union Hunt country is incorrect, as approximately 50% of the country (as stated in the National Survey of Hunts - January 2000) is actually hunted, and we are welcomed on land by some 90% of landowners and tenant farmers - the latter whose, and we hunt only with their permission
The Surrey Union Hunt spends very little time on roads as stated in the SWPG submission, and the land hunted on is in private ownership with a proportion owned by the National Trust, Forestry Commission, English Nature, Ministry of Defence and the Woodland Trust
The SWPG's reference to the country known as "The Hurtwood". being publicly owned is incorrect as this is in private ownership and the Hunt has permission to hunt on this land.
The Hunt always respects the wishes of the landowners and in farming areas will indeed respect the land by riding around the edges of fields, particularly when they are sown or are new lays, and every effort is made not to interfere with farming activities or disturb livestock.
There are very few incidents, if any, during, the season where the Hunt has been asked to have land they did not have permission to be on, and the reference to a Mrs. Sheila Padley of Bentworth Hall Lodge, Bentworth, is incorrect as this is not in the Surrey Union Hunt country.
Over the last decade the SUH has had a good reputation for hound control, which is in the hands of professional hunt employees, and it does not block roads and does not trespass and it is to be noted that the blocking of roads and criminal trespass is regularly perpetrated by the hunt saboteurs, which includes members of the SWPG.
Rural economy
The SUH employs three people fulltime and one part time and there would be a significant effect on local businesses associated with equine matters and indeed some might well be forced to close down if the SUH ceased to exist
There are certainly livery yards, which would be forced to dose if hunting were banned in Surrey.
The SUH has not been banned from Surrey County Council or any borough councils' land, but for environmental reasons hunting on this land is not now generally viable.
The SUH is swan, that hunt saboteurs lay false trails, and ensures that hounds ~ kept away as sometimes the routes used by saboteurs are designed to draw hounds on to land where the hunt should not be and near roads and railways, which is a serious danger to the public.
Drag hunting would not be an acceptable alternative m actual hunting to the landowners and farmers of SUH country as advised to the SUH.
Drag hunting already occurs in SUW country and it is very much purely an equestrian activity. The SUH has been informed by the drag hunts that most of the SUH country would be unsuitable for their purposes.
Agriculture and pest control
The Surrey Union Hunt does not have a "target of kills" predetermined at the beginning of a season, as per MFHA rules: "Foxhunting as a sport is the hunting of the fox in his wild and natural state………." and therefore there can be no predetermined plan in this respect
The SWPG's reference to the number of foxes accounted for by the Surrey Union Hunt is incorrect, as of the number of days hunted this season (1999-2000) which amount to 74 including autumn hunting, hunt saboteurs/SWPG members were only present on approximately 15 days, and therefore the SWPG have no idea of the number d foxes accounted for by the Surrey Union Hunt during a season
The SWPG's reference to monitors checking the hounds at the end of the day for "bloodstains on their muzzles" is incorrect as bloodstains would not exist and hounds are kept away from hunt saboteurs who if they are in the vicinity of hounds often spray antimate into the hounds' faces.
It would be interesting to review the survey of 385 farms in the area hunted by the Surrey Union, as the SUH has no knowledge of this survey and therefore it is suggested that the SWPG should produce the results of 223 returned questionnaires.
The SUH has not been advised of any landowner suggesting that the Surrey Union Hunt was ineffective, caused damage to properties and had any negative effect on livestock, nor expressed undue worries over the spread of disease by hounds. If fox control is ineffective, why do landowners allow the SUH on their land?
The SWPG reference to Wicklands Farm in Forest Green and as ownership is incorrect, as it has never been owned by a Hunt committee member nor does the chairman of the Hunt own Waterland Farm in the same village (a previous chairman was a tenant there), and the Hunt is welcome on both farms.
Social and cultural life of the countryside
The SWPG's reference to a large number of followers coming from London is incorrect as most of our supporters live in the Surrey countryside and we would point out that the reference to a deceased masters comment in 1990 is somewhat out of date, could well be out of context, e.g. a reference to lawn meets refers to hospitality given by land/property owners, and certainly the Surrey Union does not go through people's garden.
The SUH has tremendous support from all age groups and walks of society, and such support is increasing year by year including from the younger generation, and the numbers of these attending meets and hunt functions speaks for itself.
It is to be noted that the SUH has so many requests for meets and for the Hunt to hunt over areas of land that it is unable to fully accommodate all such requests in any one season
Management and Conservation of Wildlife
It is confirmed that the SUH generally accounts for old, injured or sick foxes during autumn hunting and also the season. Pregnant foxes carry no scent and therefore are free from the interest of hounds, and one of autumn hunting's main aims is to disperse litters of foxes to minimise damage to land/livestock.
The reference to the fox killed on 12 February should be read in context, in that hounds caught this particular fox because of the activities of the saboteurs, in that hounds were hunting the fox in a wood, the fox left the wood to cross a held and was confronted by a number of saboteurs running up the field towards it, shouting and yelling, at which point the fox turned back into the wood and was instantaneously killed by the hounds. It has to be said that if the fox was healthy there was a distinct likelihood it would have escaped the hounds were it not for the activities d the saboteurs.
The Surrey Union hounds are trained not to hunt deer and do not do so in the Surrey Union country and it should be noted that foxes and deer often nun side by side which can cause confusion to observers.
It is unlikely that Mrs. Goodchild, a former SUH Master made such a comment, and it is probable the quote is out of context.
Animal Welfare
The SWPG's reference to being "often in at the kill" is incorrect as they are very rarely if ever present at the kill, and as stated, only attend a small number of meets carried out throughout the season, and in a day's hunting are often only with the hunt for, say, two out of four hours.
The SWPG refer to foxes killed by terrier men, and in respect of the SUH approximately 50% of foxes are caught by hounds and approximately 50% accounted for by terrier men at the request of and with the permission of the relevant landowner.
If a terrier is used by permission of the landowner, neither the fox nor the terrier suffer "terrible injuries" and a dig does not last several hours as stated by the SWPG.
If a fox is killed by a hound this is instantaneous and the SWPG's reference to the killing of foxes by hounds is somewhat colourful and wildly exaggerated.
The reference to he Horse and Hound magazine report of a hunt lasting 35 minutes should be read in the context of being exceptional, thus the fact being reported in the magazine.
The reference to "death and injury to pets/livestock" is another example of exaggerated comment without any foundation
Implementing a ban
References in this SWPG paragraph are for the comment of the Countryside Alliance.
Date uploaded to website 31 May 2000