Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs

in England and Wales

Submission of Evidence : Second Stage

Wessex Wildlife

Many of the arguments contained in the submissions of evidence from pro-hunting organisations have already been addressed and refuted in my first submission to the Committee of Inquiry, therefore this note will restrict itself to a small number of specific points.

Each evidential section commences with a general impression of the totality of evidence submitted to the Inquiry, and is followed by comments on specific referenced submissions.

Rural Economy

The general impression is that all the submissions from pro-hunting organisations and their allies from the worlds of agriculture, equestrianism and country shows, grossly exaggerate the economic importance of hunting – they well and truly over-egg the pudding!

Reference:

Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC).
The Economic Effects of Hunting with Dogs.
Draft report for The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs (Contracts 2 & 3), May 2000.

Comment:

The overall impression is that this is a sound piece of research clearly presented in a well-written report. My only comments are as follows:

No account appears to have been taken of the negative economic effects of hunting on businesses. As a consequence the economic impact of a hunting ban is viewed as entirely negative, whereas in reality a ban will have some positive economic effects. For example, many consumers boycott businesses and areas that are known to be strongly supportive of hunting. Therefore, in the event of a hunting ban there are public houses, shops and areas of the country that would actually gain new customers and visitors. I fully accept that in many cases this new business will be out-weighed by lost business, but nevertheless it does exist and should, ideally, be included in any analysis.

In Section 6.2.3 it is stated the vast majority of Hunt Masters are of the opinion that, following a hunting ban, fallen stock will no longer be collected by hunts. Quite apart from the obvious comment that this service could continue if the hunts switched to drag hunting or similar, the fact remains that the farming community's need to dispose of fallen stock will continue in the absence of hunting. Therefore, the demand for knackermen will increase, rejuvenating a source of rural employment that has declined by 40% since 1987 (Reference: The BSE Inquiry / Statement No 437, Mr Alastair Jackson, Issued 07/06/1999; see www.bse.org.uk/witness/htm/stat437.htm). Thus loss of employment in hunt kennels will be offset by increased employment in knacker yards.

Section 6.2.3 (with Table 6.1) reports that the vast majority of Hunt Masters expressed the opinion that most hunt-related social and equestrian activities would probably not continue independently in the event of a ban. Well, they would say this wouldn't they? I can see no reason why point-to-points, gymkhanas and other social events should not continue in the absence of the hunt itself. I regularly witness such events and it is apparent that they attract many people from outside the hunting fraternity and, furthermore, the horse-racing and breeding industries are forever stating the importance of point-to-points to their foundations. Moreover, these are money-making events, and even now there are point-to-points that function independently of any hunt. Consequently, there is every incentive and reason for these hunt-related events to continue.

Section 6.2.4 reports that most hunt followers expressed the opinion that in the long run they would not retain their horses in the event of a ban and, as a consequence, some 90% of the stock of horses for hunting would disappear. I do not believe this for one second. Again, it appears that the supporters of hunting are providing answers that are designed to protect hunting rather than accurately predict the consequences of a ban. (What adjustments, if any, were made to the questionnaire answers in order to correct for the unavoidable bias of the participants?) My experience of followers is that the principal reasons why most hunt are that they enjoy riding their horses and they enjoy the social occasion. These desires will continue to exist in the absence of hunting. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of hunt followers will continue to ride after a ban, although I accept that a small minority may require fewer horses. Moreover, even now most hunt followers do use their horses for equestrian activities other than hunting. Consequently, the figure of 90% quoted above is a gross exaggeration – the true figure will be far lower.

In conclusion, the estimates for job losses given in the Draft Report should be viewed as upper bounds, rather than most likely values. Thus, in the worst-case scenario job losses nationally are likely to be no more than 3,000. Whilst if a serious and concerted effort was made to switch to drag hunting and other equestrian activities, such as ‘Le Trec’, then the number of jobs losses would be a few hundred at most.

Social and cultural life of the countryside

It is very disappointing that the many equestrian bodies that have expressed their opinions to the Committee of Inquiry have allowed their tribal loyalties with the hunting fraternity to dominate their viewpoints. The impression gained from this is that most horse riders and enthusiasts are fanatical supporters of hunting, not only is this very untrue, but it can only tarnish the public image of horse riding more generally.

Opinion surveys of horse riders have consistently shown that their opposition to hunting is little different from that of the British population as a whole. Over the years I have seen many letters in the local press from horse riders expressing their opposition to hunting. For example, two very brief extracts from much longer letters that appeared earlier this year:

Reference:

Paul Milbourne, Andrew Norton & Rebekah Widdowfield (Cardiff University).
The Effects Of Hunting With Dogs On The Social And Cultural Life Of The Countryside In England And Wales
Draft report for The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs (Contract 4), May 2000.

Comment:

Another interesting and well-presented report, but what is its purpose? The report is clearly not a survey of rural opinion en masse since it concentrates on four small areas that are very untypical of the majority of rural England and Wales. As a consequence its results are largely predictable.

Section 5.8 (with Table 13) and Section 5.31 (with Table 17) report that 52% of respondents in the four study areas were in favour of hunting with dogs, whilst 25% were opposed, and that 59% of respondents were opposed to a ban on hunting with dogs, whilst 22% were in favour. The report contrasts these figures with previous opinion polls in which the findings were qualitatively the exact opposite. (A national poll by MORI in October 1997 revealed that only 8% of those interviewed supported hunting with dogs. A MAFF funded survey in 1999 of opinion in five areas of rural England and Wales found that only 29% of respondents supported hunting wild animals. A national poll by MORI in September 1999 revealed that only 18% expressed any opposition to a ban on hunting, whilst in rural areas this figure was still only 25%.)

This apparent discrepancy between the results of the study and previous opinion polls is clearly due to the unrepresentative nature of the four study areas. All four were (intentionally) focused on specific hunt countries, two of the four (Cumbria and Powys) were very remote areas, whilst another (Exmoor) is not only relatively remote but is probably the most intensively hunted area of Britain (due to the unique combination of fox, deer and hare hunting). It is noticeable that the study area most typical of rural England (Leicestershire) had the weakest support for hunting (with just 39% of respondents in favour), although since Leicestershire is regarded as the Mecca of traditional English foxhunting even this area is far from being genuinely representative of rural England.

Three of the four study areas (Cumbria, Powys and Exmoor) are very sparsely populated and, as a consequence, it is not surprising that the presence of a local hunt takes on greater significance in terms of social events. It is not so much that hunting per se is of greater importance, it is more that there is an absence of alternative sources of entertainment. As a consequence there can be little doubt that in the event of a hunting ban other local organisations will expand or be created to fill the social vacuum. (In ecological terms the demise of the local hunt will create a vacant ecological niche within the community which will subsequently be exploited by other organisations.) A positive benefit of this is that these new organisations are likely to be genuinely inclusive and attract the entire community, in sharp contrast to local hunts, which are exclusive and alienate large sections of a community (the study itself showed that even in the strongest hunting areas a significant proportion of the population is opposed to hunting). Thus, in the long-term, the abolition of hunting is likely to be socially beneficial to these areas, not detrimental.

It is inevitable that in the four study areas the samples will be statistically biased in favour of hunting. Firstly, since the areas are well-known hunting strongholds (especially so in the case of Exmoor), supporters of hunting are actually likely to move into the areas from elsewhere in order to indulge in their hobby more easily. Proof of this was provided in an edition of the HTV West television programme West Eye View (broadcast Tuesday 28 March 2000), which included interviews with residents of Exford – part of the Exmoor study area. Secondly, local residents who are strongly opposed to hunting are likely to feel alienated and intimidated (many hunt supporters are classic bullies) and, as a consequence, decide to leave the area and move elsewhere. (I understand that this action was forced upon the Mayor of Yeovil in Somerset, who is well known for his anti-hunting views, and was physically intimidated into moving house. Similar yobbish tactics were employed to intimidate the naturalist and pioneer wildlife film-maker Eric Ashby MBE who lives in the New Forest and is well known as an opponent of hunting.)

In addition, since all the survey areas (by design) include the immediate environs of a hunt kennels, then the likelihood is greater that the respondents either personally know hunt employees and hunt participants or that they are associated with businesses with a commercial interest in the continuation of hunting. As a consequence, the respondents are more likely to have an opinion founded upon sentiment or self-interest rather than the objective assessment of hunting.

Consequently, given all of the above, it is not surprising that levels of support for hunting in the four study areas appears to be much stronger than the levels of support in the rest of rural England and Wales, as revealed in previous opinion polls. Indeed, for Somerset as a whole (which includes the majority of Exmoor – the study area where support for hunting was strongest), I suggest that it is the earlier opinion polls that most accurately reflect the level support for hunting, such that the majority of residents are opposed to hunting and support its abolition.

Outside of Exmoor, the numerous hunts that exist in Somerset have very little local importance. This is indicated by the fact that according to the study (Section 3.16) the ten social events organised by the Exmoor hunt appear to have significant value to the local community. In contrast, elsewhere in Somerset a mere ten events annually are swamped into insignificance by the multitude of events organised by other bodies, charities and institutions – see my first submission for an indication of the number of events organised over a four month period by non-hunt bodies in South Somerset.

As a further indication of the general lack of support for hunting in Somerset, it was very noticeable that following the widely publicised vote by Liberal Democrat controlled Somerset County Council to ban deer hunting on its land in 1993, the Liberal Democrats went on to make substantial gains throughout the West Country in all subsequent elections. (Unfortunately the democratic vote by the democratically elected Council was subsequently overturned by an absurd decision by a High Court Judge, elected by no one.) In the years immediately following the attempt by the Liberal Democrats to ban deer hunting, they gained many seats in the district council elections and they gained their first Member of the European Parliament by winning the Somerset and North Devon Constituency. Furthermore, in the 1997 General Election the Liberal Democrats gained several seats from the Conservatives, including Taunton and Somerton & Frome, where both the newly elected MPs (Jackie Ballard and David Heath) had previously been County Councillors who voted for the hunting ban in 1993. Moreover, at every opportunity the Conservatives had publicised the anti-hunting credential of the Liberal Democrats and the money 'lost' by the County Council defending its hunting ban in the High Court. If the feelings in support of hunting are as strong and widespread as the Draft Report suggests then the above election results would not have happened.

Clearly the Draft Report is not a survey of rural opinion en masse, rather it is a survey of rural opinion in four specific and small areas that are very untypical of the majority of rural England and Wales. But to be fair to the authors of the report they do not claim that their findings are representative of rural areas more generally. In Section 6.1 they state:

The second point made here by the authors deserves to be emphasised, since the pro-hunting lobby has very successfully confused a hunting ban with wider rural issues, most especially the current economic problems in agriculture. The financial plight of our farmers has been fully exploited in an attempt to broaden support for hunting. In truth, this can only harm agricultural interests since it will drive an unnecessary wedge between farmers and their customers, most of whom do not want to buy food that is produced on land where the wildlife is cruelly persecuted.

Unfortunately the media has failed to understand the nature of the findings presented in the Draft Report. For example a recent newspaper report ("Rural areas oppose ban on hunting", The Times, 5 May 2000) commenced:

WRONG! This newspaper report flies in the face of the first point made by the authors of the Draft Report in Section 6.1 (and reproduced above).

Reference:

"By Invitation Meeting" with the Countryside Alliance, Dulverton, Friday 31st March 2000.

Comment:

In the section entitled ‘Consequences of a Ban’ it states: "Banning hunting would lead to a dramatic increase in stress, depression, suicide and also serious illness. Comparison with mining communities where the heart was torn out of communities. There is no economic necessity to do this in the case of field sports."

Do the supporters of hunting not realise that the existence of hunting is itself responsible for a great deal of "stress, depression, suicide and also serious illness"? Not only do many anti-hunt landowners and rural residents suffer stress and depression due to the physical presence of local hunts, especially when that presence takes the form of trespass and harassment, but many people who are removed from day-to-day contact with hunts still suffer severe stress and depression due to their knowledge of what the hunting fraternity are doing. They feel the pain of the tormented fox and of the tormented deer, and these feelings are as real and as strong as any that may be felt by hunt supporters in the event of a hunting ban.

It should not be forgotten that people have lost their lives whilst defending the victims of hunting, such was the strength of their empathy and kinship with the quarry. For example, Michael Hill was killed in 1991 whilst protesting against hare hunting by the Cheshire Beagles and Thomas Worby was killed in 1993 whilst protesting against foxhunting by the Cambridgeshire Foxhounds.

Furthermore, others have been so depressed by the cruel abuse of non-human animals that they have been driven to suicide. For example, the wildlife consultant Stefan Ormrod, who specialised in the treatment of captive animals in zoos, took his own life in 1995 (for an obituary see BBC Wildlife, 13(5), page 81, May 1995). Earlier this year 22-year-old Tanya Shrigley-Fiegl took her own life because she "could no longer stand the cruelty inflicted on animals by humans" (Reference: "Animal lover, 22, takes her own life", The Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2000).

Consequently, I deeply resent, and totally reject, any suggestion that the sensibilities, feelings and health of hunt supporters are of greater concern or importance than are the sensibilities, feelings and health of hunt opponents (or, indeed, vice versa).

The second part of the above extract is very telling – "Comparison with mining communities where the heart was torn out of communities. There is no economic necessity to do this in the case of field sports." The implication of this is clearly that hunt supporters believe that stopping something on humanitarian grounds is a weaker reason than stopping something on economic grounds. That just about sums up their sense of values! Why do they think Britain stopped the manufacture of land-mines or the use of veal crates for calves? The reasons were entirely humanitarian, not economic. The humanitarian argument for stopping bloodsports is far stronger than was the contrived economic argument for the localised stopping of coal production.

Animal welfare

Perhaps most surprising has been the manner in which those arguing in support of hunting have so readily dismissed the notion that deer and foxes suffer significant distress during the chase and, potentially, capture myopathy after the chase. They react as if in a ‘state of denial’!

A review of the literature on capture myopathy (exertional rhabdomyolysis, azoturia, etc) reveals that it has been observed in most taxonomic families, is often fatal and is induced in a wide variety of circumstances. This was discussed in my first submission; in addition Curry (1999) provides a good set of references to observations and studies of capture myopathy.

It is known that capture myopathy occurs when the body temperature of an animal is raised (hyperthermia), the animal is stressed and there is muscle fatigue. The overexertion of a prolonged pursuit, which raises body temperature and results in muscle fatigue, provides the 'ideal' conditions for the onset of capture myopathy. In addition, stress that the animal experiences in terms of fear and anxiety during the pursuit is also a very important contributing factor. This can result in severe muscle damage and muscle necrosis, which is very painful and may result in altered behavior and chronic pain (caused by tiny tears in the muscles).

It is well established that racing greyhounds can suffer fatal exercise induced myopathy, despite the fact that they are bred, habituated and trained to handle such exertion. And it is recognised that wild canids can suffer fatal capture myopathy when chased, for example (Henke & Knowlton, 1995):

Given the wealth of reported incidents (both anecdotal and in the scientific literature), it is truly astonishing that any reasonable person can seriously doubt that foxes and deer hunted for prolonged periods will not suffer some degree of debilitating capture myopathy, and that on some occasions the consequences will be fatal. Especially since it is apparent that in traditional hunting with hounds both foxes and deer are chased for distances far in excess of their natural ‘flight distances’. They are clearly being forced to exert themselves well beyond their evolutionary boundaries.

Finally, I note from a recent newspaper report ("Post-mortems to reveal how hounds kill foxes", The Times, 4 May 2000) that:

If this report is correct, I hope that the Committee of Inquiry has taken measures to ensure that the bodies of foxes recovered for post-mortem really are the foxes killed by hunts and that all kills over a continuous period of time are collected to ensure that there is no pre-examination selection that may bias the findings.

In addition, the newspaper report states that: "Even where hounds bite near the fox's neck, [Deadline 2000] claim that the neck is not dislocated and that death is not instant." I completely concur with Deadline 2000 on this point. The claim by the hunting fraternity that, when caught by the hounds, 'the fox is instantly killed with a quick bite to the back of the neck from the lead hound' is unfounded nonsense.

As explained in my first submission, packs of wild dogs normally kill prey by disembowelling and, since the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) is descended from the grey wolf (Canis lupus), this would be the expected manner in which foxhounds kill foxes. However, species of Canidae that do not hunt in packs, such as the foxes (vulpes lineage), kill small prey by using a bite in the region of neck or shoulder combined with a violent side-to-side shake. This fact has led the pro-hunting lobby to claim that "foxes are killed cleanly with a nip to the neck", but this is not so, since they are confusing the neck bite of a dog with that of a cat.

The Felidae (cats) have a highly developed 'killing-bite' with canine teeth to match, whereas the Canidae (dogs) do not. When a cat delivers a bite in the region of the nape of the neck its canine teeth are driven in and the cervical spinal cord, or even the hind brain, is cut through and death is almost instantaneous. Thus, the neck bite in the cat is intended to kill, however the neck bite in the dog serves an entirely different purpose.

In dogs, the canines are less specialised and the neck bite less accurately oriented, therefore to be effective it is accompanied by the violent side-to-side 'death shake'. Ewer (1968), citing studies by Leyhausen, states:

Thus, in the case of dogs, the neck bite combined with a violent shake is not intended to kill the prey. Rather it is intended to throw the prey off-balance and prevent it striking back, thus giving the dog the opportunity for a second bite, then a third and so on. The prey is killed by multiple bites, not a single lethal bite as delivered by cats.

Consequently, if a foxhound does bite a fox on the neck and administer a shake, in general, this serves only to unbalance the fox. The foxhound then has time to repeatedly bite at the more vulnerable groin and belly without risk of the fox striking back. It would be purely fortuitous and exceptional if the initial neck bite happened to kill the fox outright. Thus, for the fox, death is normally by disembowelment, not the proverbial "quick nip to the neck" as claimed by the supporters of hunting.

Reference:

Wessex Wildlife.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

Section 6.1.3 of my first submission discussed the studies of chased and trapped foxes conducted by Dr Terry J. Kreeger of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. There I stated that "the details of Kreeger's work needs further clarification". Subsequent to writing this, I discovered that there is additional uncertainty and controversy surrounding his findings (as outlined in: A veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds; written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000). Consequently, I contacted Terry Kreeger directly to obtain a correct account of his research (Kreeger, 2000). This confirmed that the summary in my first submission is correct (apart from a couple of very minor points of no material consequence). Accordingly the following is an accurate account of Kreegers research:

1. During the period 1984–1988 Kreeger (then at the University of Minnesota) and his colleagues were funded by the Fur Institute of Canada to determine the pathophysiological response of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) when caught in different traps. In order to determine the response to stressors other than traps, six foxes were chased with dogs for approximately five minutes. Other foxes were cleanly shot to act as a control group.
2. For each stressor (chasing with dogs, unpadded leghold traps, padded leghold traps, box traps and shooting) all aspects of the foxes’ pathophysiological responses were examined – heart rate and body temperature, blood chemistry and pathology.
3. The findings for trapped and shot foxes were subsequently published in full (Kreeger et al., 1990; White et al., 1991). Because the primary purpose of the research was the response of trapped foxes, the research findings for chased foxes were never published in full – only the heart rate and body temperature measurements appeared in print (Kreeger et al., 1989). In addition, all the published results were presented in Kreeger’s PhD thesis of 1988.
4. However, the blood chemistry and pathology of chased foxes were discussed at meetings and, as a consequence, reference to the findings appeared in a US Federal Government document (United States Department of Agriculture, 1993), thus:

5. Kreeger (2000) has confirmed that the USDA document is correct and that the cited reference refers to his PhD thesis of 1988 (in which case the "et. al." is presumably an error). Unfortunately, due to the length of time that has passed since this research was completed, it transpires that the original data has been discarded or mislaid. However, according to Kreeger (2000): "The serum chemistries, hematologies, and hormones of the chased foxes were equal to or greater than trapped foxes as I recall."
6. For all stressors, Kreeger concluded that the observed histopathological changes were not life-threatening. Thus in all cases Kreeger reported the absence of fatal capture myopathy. However, it must not be forgotten that the foxes were chased for only 5 minutes whereas foxes were trapped for 2-8 hours, and it is the considered opinion of Kreeger (2000) that if the foxes had been chased for 2 hours (the minimum trapped time) then there would indeed have been significant histopathological changes, such as congestion, haemorrhage, etc.

Reference:

A veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

I am genuinely saddened by this submission – over two hundred members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons arguing that hunting with hounds is not cruel. However, I am not entirely surprised since in the past I have encountered first-hand the strong tribal loyalties that exist between the hunting fraternity and the veterinary profession. It appears to be an historical anomaly due to the nature of veterinary training in this country and the social background of many vets. Fortunately the situation is slowly changing and experience suggests that there is an increasing number of vets who do not support hunting with dogs. Indeed, the current submission by 208 vets is put into perspective when it is recalled that there are about 10,000 vets currently practising in the UK (and presumably members of their governing body, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons).

Reading this submission brings to mind a newspaper report of a few years ago ("Vets split in the debate on ethics", The Daily Telegraph, 28 September 1996). The first four paragraphs of this long and interesting article are pertinent to the current debate:

Further, it should be pointed out that at least one of the two authors (Professor W.R.Allen) is an active participant in foxhunting (reference: BBC Wildlife, 15(12), page-34, December 1997), which raises the question of the implied objectivity of this submission.

There is much that I could take issue with, however, following on from the previous section, I will restrict myself to their comments on the work of Terry Kreeger. In the section headed 'Discussion' it is stated that: "There are no reports of unexplained deaths in healthy foxes shortly after hunting that might be ascribed to severe physical exhaustion." Whilst, there may be no causally proven deaths, there is anecdotal evidence of such instances, as outlined in my first submission.

The submission then goes on to dismiss the findings of Terry Kreeger with astonishing ease! Although what is written is correct, it tells only half the story. I fully accept that Kreeger did not find "irreversible myopathy in hunted foxes", however he did find that in foxes chased for a mere 5 minutes:

1. The heart rates and body temperatures were raised to levels considerably higher than those induced by any other activity or stressor, including unpadded leghold (gin) traps. And the duration of these elevated measures were longer in chased foxes than in trapped foxes (the peak heart rate of the latter lasted only momentarily after the moment of capture and within minutes it fell back to more normal values).
2. All blood measures indicative of stress – serum chemistries, haematologies and hormones – of the chased foxes were equal to or greater than the equivalent measures in trapped foxes.

Consequently all the available evidence indicates that a fox chased by dogs for approximately 5 minutes does suffer a level of (di)stress comparable to that suffered by a fox held in a leghold (gin) trap. And gin traps were banned in England and Wales in 1958 because they were considered to be unacceptably cruel.

The heart rate evidence alone (which has been published) is highly significant, since as stated by Kreeger et al. (1989): "We have viewed situations in which the outward appearance of a fox was unremarkable, but its elevated heart rate indicated quite a different internal state." And Dr Valerius Geist (written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000) wrote: "We pioneered heart-rate telemetry on free-living ruminants in order to understand how natural and man-made events affected these animals and found heart-rate a more sensitive indicator of excitement and distress than behavioural observations".

The elevated heart rate (and body temperature) and the consequential high blood pressure in chased foxes will, in time, lead to significant congestion and haemorrhage in the adrenals, lungs, and heart. Moreover, it is inevitable that foxes chased by dogs will experience far greater exertion than foxes held in traps, which may bring about the myoglobinuria and muscle necrosis that was missing from Kreeger's analysis of trapped foxes.

Consequently, although fatal myopathy may not have been found by Kreeger, bearing in mind that in his studies foxes were chased for only 5 minutes whereas the average foxhunt in England lasts in excess of 30 minutes (with an hour or more not uncommon), I suggest that it is highly likely that hunted foxes will suffer from capture myopathy. Indeed, it would be astonishing if they did not.

Two final comments: First, the submission states: "The importance of the selective element of hunting, already mentioned above, whereby the weak, the diseased and the injured are detected and killed cannot be emphasised too strongly." Where is the evidence for this in the case of foxhunting? I suggest that the vast majority of foxes killed by hunts are young and healthy – they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Second, the submission states: "The intrinsic humanity of allowing the fox a close season during the spring and summer for breeding is self evident." So foxes breed in the spring and summer do they? I refer the authors to any reference work on fox biology!

Reference:

Geist, Dr Valerius: Written Submission prepared by.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

Dr. Geist’s discussion on the evolutionary history of red deer and the degree to which they are equipped by nature for severe exercise is very interesting, however in the context of traditional English deer hunting it begins to assume the proportions of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle. (An expression that is perhaps appropriate in the current context since it is believed to have originated as a jest against St. Thomas Aquinas who insisted that animals lack moral status and who was largely responsible for the historical blindness of the Christian church over man’s treatment of animals.)

In the West Country, deer are hunted over distances and for times that are well in excess of anything they would experience during encounters with natural predators. Therefore, in this context, I consider Dr. Geist’s criticisms of Professor Bateson to be entirely ill-founded, despite their academic interest.

Dr. Geist suggests that one of the benefits of hunting vis-à-vis shooting is that the latter is more damaging to the surviving deer of the herd because stalking (shooting) is the more ‘noxious stimulus’ of the two. Thus, it is argued, the additional harassment due to shooting is a source of suffering both to individuals and the population as a whole. Based upon my observations of the reactions of non-hunted deer to the close presence of hounds (plus all the followers) I consider this argument to be very dubious from the outset. But in any case it is largely academic, since the vast majority of deer are already culled by shooting despite the existence of hunting with hounds. If it was a question of 100 per cent culling by shooting versus 100 per cent culling by hounds then this argument might be worth pursuing, but in practice this is not the choice under debate. Consequently, even if Dr. Geist’s claims are correct, then at present the deer face the worst of both worlds – the harassment of shooting and the extreme cruelty of the chase.

On the question of capture myopathy, Dr. Geist writes: "we find the carcasses of once captured and restrained animals in the field. Such mortality, I can assure you, is not difficult to detect, as the carcasses are readily given away by crows, magpies, ravens, hawks and eagles." I suggest that Dr. Geist is being far too optimistic over the ease with which dead deer may be found on Exmoor. Anyone who has walked on Exmoor, or indeed in any of the British countryside, knows that is not uncommon to accidentally come across the carcasses of dead sheep, however their presence is very rarely given away at a distance by scavenging birds. Moreover, if somebody did come across a deer carcass, why should they suspect that it has died of myopathy? They are more likely to assume that it died from some cause and continue on their way!

Finally, in his conclusion, Dr. Geist suggests that "natural justice and proverbial British fair play" were casualties in the decision of the National Trust to ban deer hunting on its lands. This is nonsense – it is precisely because of "natural justice and proverbial British fair play" that the people of this country wish to see a total ban on hunting as soon as possible. Hunting epitomises bullying at its worst. Dr. Geist should remember that most British people do not simply regard mammals as ‘targets with legs’, which appears to be the prevailing attitude in north America.

Reference:

The Kennel Club.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

In their submission the Kennel Club expresses concern regarding the possible fate of hunting dogs in the event of a ban on hunting. As a member of the RSPCA and ‘dog-lover’ I share their concern. However, is the Kennel Club not equally concerned by the several thousand hounds killed by hunts every year? Is it not unacceptable to routinely kill perfectly healthy dogs at 6 years of age – half their natural lifespan – or even younger if they fail to perform in the hunting field? Is the Kennel Club not concerned by the terriers that suffer horrendous injuries in fights with foxes or the terriers that are lost underground and never recovered?

In addition, perhaps the Kennel Club needs reminding that foxes are a species of wild dog – just because they do not live in a kennel is their welfare of no concern? As a 'dog-lover' I am concerned for the fate of all dogs – wild or domestic, mongrel or pedigree. All are equally capable of suffering and of feeling pain. If it unacceptable (and illegal) to encourage a domestic dog to fight and kill another domestic dog, then it is equally unacceptable to encourage a domestic dog to fight and kill a wild dog (which is, sadly, perfectly legal).

Hunting with dogs will be banned, so I suggest that the Kennel Club begins to investigate alternative homes for the dogs, possibly in cooperation with the RSPCA and other bodies interested in the welfare of domestic canines. In addition to existing suggestions, such as rehoming as pets or retraining for drag hunting, another possibility that may be worth investigating is 'houndtrailing'. Houndtrailing is a competition in which several dozen dogs follow a pre-laid aniseed trail over 10 or so miles of countryside and the first dog to reach the end of the trail wins. Clearly it requires reasonably open countryside that is free of roads and other dangers. It is already very popular in Cumbria, but it could be encouraged on Exmoor, Dartmoor and elsewhere, and variations could be developed that require less space. Perhaps most pertinently, trail hounds (such as those in Cumbria) have been bred from the foxhound.

Reference:

Countryside Animal Welfare Group

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

According to their submission, the Countryside Animal Welfare Group (CAWG) is a group of RSPCA members who support the objects of the Society with regard to domestic and other dependent animals but who believe that the Society is wrong to campaign for a ban on hunting with dogs. As a long-standing member of the RSPCA, I totally reject all their criticisms of the Society. Further, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the British people would regard it as absurd if the Society did not campaign for the abolition of hunting.

For the record, the East Somerset Branch of the RSPCA debated this issue at their 1998 AGM. A resolution was proposed (by a Master of the local foxhunt) that the RSPCA should immediately abandon its opposition to hunting – the resolution was heavily defeated (11 per cent of those at the meeting voted for the resolution, whereas 89 per cent voted against).

In several places the submission refers to 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare', however since nowhere is the distinction between these terms defined it is not possible to comment on why the submission considers the former to be unacceptable and the latter acceptable. It is a fact that animals in Britain already have legal protection ('legal rights') in a great many circumstances, so in practice the distinction between 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' is largely a pointless distraction – an argument of semantics and philosophy.

The submission states that: "The CAWG's evidence is based on the premise - as made clear in Section 98 of the 1947 Agriculture Act - that the fox, deer, hares and mink need to be controlled as part of wildlife management." Clearly the Act is out-dated and wrong. In particular, the fox does not need to be controlled. Fifty years ago, understanding of fox biology, ecology and ethology was virtually non-existent, yet the two mainstays of CAWG's submission appear to be the 1947 Agriculture Act and the Scott Henderson Inquiry into Hunting in 1949–51.

I totally reject all CAWG's claims that hunting is not cruel (most have already been addressed in my first submission), however I share their concern on the use of snares. Consequently, the use of snares should be made illegal, as is already the case in most other western European countries.

I do not accept CAWG's distinction between hunting and baiting (Section 4) – for the animal that is the victim of these acts it matters not one jot that its persecutors are conforming to a set of rules and procedures or that they are motivated by higher things! None of this lessens the animal’s suffering and pain. Hunting is just an inefficient form of baiting, because the victim often escapes. But for those animals that do not escape the experience is the same.

Implementing a ban

I have seen nothing in the evidence submitted to the Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs to alter my opinion that hunting is unacceptably cruel and should be banned in totality and without delay. Indeed, in this respect my views have hardened, largely because of the evidence presented but also because of the selfishness and callousness contained in many of the pro-hunting submissions. They have amply demonstrated that the need to strengthen the laws protecting free-living wild mammals from abuse and exploitation go well beyond hunting with dogs.

The evidence submitted by the supporters of hunting contains a multitude of feeble excuses for their anachronistic activities but not one genuine and credible justification. In particular, it is very notable that they are unable to provide any concrete evidence that foxhunting reduces agricultural losses to foxes, which is, supposedly, its entire rationale! The frivolous and spurious arguments advanced in support of hunting do not even begin to counter-balance the fact that hunting is responsible for the cruel (and usually unnecessary) killing of tens of thousands of sentient mammals each and every year.

The fact that so many businesses and organisations claim to be dependent on the existence of hunting with dogs is a damning indictment of their business ethics and the laissez-faire attitude of past Governments towards animal cruelty. Their dependency is most certainly not a justification for the continuation of hunting. Indeed, it only serves to reinforce the charge of "institutional cruelty" made in my first submission.

More firmly than ever I am of the opinion that the presumption in law should be that all species of mammal are protected, with certain exceptions. Farmers who suffer significant economic losses due to foxes or deer should be required to apply for a limited pest-control licence, which would be issued on a strict case-by-case basis. In particular, the blanket and indiscriminate killing of foxes that is the norm today is no longer acceptable and should end.

Of all the submissions that I have read the most impressive in terms of striking directly at the heart of the issue has been that of The Mammal Society (written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000). The fundamental problem is that the treatment of mammals in Britain is governed by a mishmash of antiquated and largely arbitrary laws, many of which have been weakened and distorted by legal exceptions inserted at the behest of the hunting lobby.

Consequently, I urge the Committee of Inquiry to base any proposed legislation on the submission of The Mammal Society. In particular, what is required is "comprehensive legislation to protect mammals comparable to that afforded to birds". A simple hunting ban is not enough.

When the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, announced the establishment of this Committee of Inquiry I was displeased (since it runs contrary to the pre-election promise made by the Labour Party to ban hunting with dogs and it thus represents a betrayal of both democracy and the will of the British people as expressed at the ballot box in May 1997), however I now hope that it will prove to be beneficial. In particular, I hope that the Committee will use the opportunity of its final report and recommendations to move the debate on from a simple hunting ban.

There can be little doubt that hunting with dogs will be banned in the not too distant future (from my experience even many supporters of hunting, when in private, accept this, albeit reluctantly). Thus I hope that the Committee of Inquiry will acknowledge this likelihood and propose a comprehensive package of legislation that will ease the end of hunting for all concerned – the hunters, their communities, the horses and hounds, and (above all) the quarry species. If this Committee does not administer a humane killer to hunting now then when its inevitable death is finally brought about by the will of the electorate, the end is likely to be messy and leave a lot of unresolved problems. The Committee should ensure that those problems are resolved now.

Finally, a recent newspaper report ("Ministers try Tory way out of hunting fix", The Times, 5 April 2000) stated:

If there is any truth in this report, then I hope that the Committee of Inquiry will recommend the addition of a fifth choice – the comprehensive protection of mammals (as discussed above). Not only is this the rational choice for legislation (as argued in the submission from The Mammal Society), but it also serves to emphasis that a mere ban on hunting is itself a compromise.

Alarmingly, the newspaper report continues:

I sincerely hope that there is no truth in this whatsoever. This so-called "halfway house" proposal would solve absolutely nothing ("half-baked house" is a more appropriate description). If the Committee does recommend this then it really will be a huge cop-out and a huge opportunity missed to settle this issue cleanly and comprehensively once and for all.

Reference:

The Middle Way Group.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

The first sentence of the submission from the Middle Way Group states: "This document outlines the Middle Way Group’s proposals for an independent hunting authority to regulate standards for hunting with dogs and so provide a long-term solution to this controversial issue that most people would find acceptable."

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that the proposal of an Independent Hunting Authority to regulate hunting is totally unacceptable and, if implemented, would most certainly not "provide a long-term solution". Where is the evidence to support the assertion that "most people would find [the proposal] acceptable"?

Hunting live quarry cannot be sanitized or made acceptable by a new set of rules enforced by a supposedly independent authority. The proposals of the Middle Way Group will not settle this issue. Even if the proposals were to be embodied in law, do they really believe that the campaign for total abolition would stop? In truth nothing would change – the campaign would continue unabated. Thus, the proposals of the Middle Way Group are not a long-term solution, but they are a time-wasting distraction.

The submission continues: "Whether we like it or not foxes and some other wild mammals do need to be controlled. There is a broad consensus on this point. The debate is, then, not about whether we kill foxes, but how." This is incorrect in every respect – foxes do not need to be controlled; there is not a broad consensus on this point; and the debate is about whether we kill foxes.

The submission states: "A ban would also have important implications for the rights of a minority to make choices about their own lives." This is true of practically all legislation; there is nothing unique about a hunting ban in this respect. Moreover, the Middle Way Group expresses concern about the rights of citizens "to make choices about their own lives"; in that case what is it proposing in order to give individuals the choice of not buying food produced on land where the wildlife is cruelly persecuted?

Whilst the Middle Way Group bends over backwards to protect the supposed ‘rights’ of the hunting lobby, it proposes nothing to increase the rights of the ethical consumer – why do we not find this surprising ("'Middle Way' group is front for hunt lobby", The Observer, 15 August, 1999)?

Reference:

Liberal Democrat Forum for the Countryside.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000.

Comment:

Despite appearances to the contrary, this submission is totally at odds with Liberal Democrat policy. It is my understanding that the abolition of hunting with dogs is official party policy and that it was a manifesto commitment at the last General Election. (Although since hunting is arbitrarily classified as ‘an issue of conscience’ MPs are allowed a free vote in the Commons.) I have little doubt that the majority of Liberal Democrat supporters would be ashamed to be associated with this submission.

The argument that those who hunt with dogs are an ethnic group is quite absurd, as any analysis of hunt followers and the origins of the different forms of hunting would demonstrate. Just because a group of people share the same pastime it does not automatically follow that they form an ethnic minority. The opponents of hunting are often (wrongly) accused of ‘political correctness’, but this submission really is ‘political correctness’ gone mad!

The campaign to abolish hunting has nothing to do with the persecution or oppression of a misunderstood minority. There is no desire to remove anybody's source of employment or pleasure, no matter how eccentric, provided that it is innocent pleasure, but hunting does not fall into this category. It is blatant and contrived cruelty – the motivation to abolish hunting is to stop this cruelty and to move conservation into the 21^st century.

In this respect the submission does contain one assertion that is inexcusably offensive. The final sentence of Section 3 states: "The anti hunting lobby's objection is to the cultural and national tradition of hunting with hounds and not consideration for the welfare of the quarry."

The arrogance of the author, Brian Friend, is staggering – how dare he presume to know why I object to hunting. Mr. Friend is perfectly entitled to support bloodsports if he so wishes, and to criticise the arguments of those who want to see hunting abolished, but he has no right to misrepresent their arguments and motives.

For Mr. Friend’s information, I consider the "cultural and national tradition of hunting with hounds" to be totally irrelevant. Contrary to Mr. Friend’s claim, my desire to ban hunting is entirely motivated by consideration for the welfare of the quarry. I abhor all forms of animal cruelty and every aspect of hunting is cruel.

References

Curry, B.E. (1999).
Stress in Mammals: The Potential Influence of Fishery-Induced Stress on Dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-260 April 1999. (Available at: http://swfsc.ucsd.edu/mmd/congress/congress.htm).

Curtis, S.E. (1985).
What Constitutes Animal Well-Being? In: Animal Stress, (ed. G.P. Moberg), American Physiological Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1-14.

Ewer, R.F. (1968).
Ethology of Mammals. Elek Science, London.

Harlow, H.J., Lindzey, F.G., Van Sickle, W.D., & Gern, W.A. (1992).
Stress response of cougars to nonlethal pursuit by hunters. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70, 136-139.

Henke, S.E. & Knowlton, F.F. (1995).
Techniques for Estimating Coyote Abundance. In: Coyotes in the Southwest: A compendium of our knowledge, (eds D. Rollins et. al.), Symposium Proceedings, December 13-14, 1995, San Angelo, TX. (Available at: http://texnat.tamu.edu/symp/coyote/p15.htm – accessed 10 April 2000).

Kreeger, T.J., Monson, D., Kuechle, V.B., Seal, U.S. & Tester, J.R. (1989).
Monitoring heart rate and body temperature in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67, 2455-2458.

Kreeger, T.J., White, P.J., Seal, U.S. & Tester, J.R. (1990).
Pathological responses of red foxes to foothold traps. Journal of Wildlife Management, 54(1), 147-160.

Kreeger, T.J. (2000).
Personal communication, 6 April – 14 April.

Nellis, C.H. (1968).
Some methods for capturing coyotes alive. Journal of Wildlife Management, 32(2), 402-405.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1993).
Animal Damage Control Program: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, Washington DC.

Webster, J. (1995).
Animal welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

White, P.J., Kreeger, T.J., Seal, U.S. & Tester, J.R. (1991). Pathological responses of red foxes to capture in box traps. Journal of Wildlife Management, 55(1), 75-80.

Back to top

Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs

in England and Wales

Submission of Evidence : Second Stage (Part 2)

Wessex Wildlife

I am the voice of the voiceless;
Through me the dumb shall speak,
Till the deaf world's ear be made to hear
The wrongs of the wordless weak.

And I am my brother's keeper,
And I will fight his fight;
And speak the word for beast and bird
Till the world shall set things right.

– Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919)

Since submitting our Second Stage written evidence to the Government’s Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs there have been many further additions to the publicly available evidence on the Inquiry’s website (www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk). This note comments on a few of these recent additions. An initial section highlights a few of the key findings that, in our view, encapsulate the crux of this issue.

Key Findings

According to Macdonald et al. (2000), White et al. (2000), Bateson & Harris (2000) and the totality of evidence submitted to the Inquiry, it is evident that:

1. Hunting with hounds as practised in lowland Britain is totally ineffective as a method of controlling the fox population. It is a ‘sport’ in which the fox is an unwilling accessory.
2. Hunting with dogs as practised in upland Britain can have a suppressing effect on the fox population, however this requires the extensive and vigorous use of terriers and gun-packs.
3. Even in those areas where the fox population is suppressed there is little or no evidence that this actually reduces agricultural losses to foxes to any significant degree.
4. Suppressing the fox population can reduce predation of game birds, however on shooting estates foxes are typically killed using rifles and snares, not hunting with dogs.
5. Fox populations can and do regulate their own numbers in the absence of culling by man or when the culling is light, such as in those areas where 'traditional' foxhunting predominates.
6. Every aspect of ‘traditional’ foxhunting causes the fox to suffer – the chase, the kill and the digging out of foxes that go to ground all inflict suffering on the fox.
7. There is no genuinely humane method of killing foxes in order to suppress the fox population over a large region – the blanket killing of foxes is inherently cruel.
8. The most humane and selective method of killing specific problem foxes is shooting by rifle or, where circumstances permit, live cage trapping.

Four specific findings that are particularly damning of the manner in which foxes are treated in Britain are:

1. Game Conservancy Trust (2000b; Table 2): The age structure of culled foxes – the fox population of Britain is unnaturally youthful. Vast numbers of young (and most likely) healthy foxes are being slaughtered each and every year – they are effectively born to be killed and are being denied ‘their time under the sun’. (This fact should be contemplated whilst looking at the photograph entitled Dead foxes by William Osborn – Wildlife Photographer of the Year Portfolio accompanying BBC Wildlife Magazine, 17(11), November 1999).

2. David Macdonald et al. (2000; Executive Summary):

[The vast majority of foxes are killed simply because they are foxes, not because they, as individuals, have harmed man or his agricultural interests.]

3. David Macdonald et al. (2000; Section 1.3.2.a):

[Fox populations will regulate their own numbers if given the opportunity to do so.]

4. Richard Course (Written Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, February 2000; Section 3.6):

Conclusions

Unlike Richard Course (Written Submission to Inquiry), we are not prepared to submit to the "solid wall of bigotry and prejudice that has bedeviled mankind throughout history" and accept the current unjust treatment of the fox as inevitable. Wherever a "solid wall of bigotry and prejudice" exists it deserves to be smashed, whether it is the wall constructed by racists or the wall constructed by the supporters of bloodsports.

The frivolous and spurious arguments advanced in support of hunting do not even begin to counter-balance the fact that hunting is responsible for the cruel (and usually unnecessary) killing of tens of thousands of sentient mammals each and every year. This abuse must stop, now.

The key findings of this Inquiry have totally vindicated the opponents of hunting and the arguments that they have advanced in recent years. For example, foxes are not killed ‘instantly by a quick nip to the neck’, ‘traditional’ hunting with hounds is totally ineffective as a method of fox control, hunting is economically insignificant to rural Britain, and so on. The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, should apologise to Deadline 2000 for putting them through this time-wasting exercise, he should apologise to those organisations that decided to boycott this Committee of Inquiry due to its biased composition and, most importantly, he should apologise to the British electorate for his failure to honour the Labour Party's pre-election pledge to ban hunting with dogs.

The laws protecting all free-living wild mammals from abuse and exploitation need to be comprehensively strengthened. In particular, the blanket and indiscriminate killing of foxes that is the norm today is no longer acceptable and should end. The presumption in law should be that all species of mammal are protected, with certain exceptions. Farmers who suffer significant economic losses due to foxes or deer should be required to apply for a limited pest-control licence, which would be issued on a strict case-by-case basis. A problem fox should be killed by an experienced marksman with a rifle (see, for example, the Written Submission to the Inquiry by Peter Frenette).

It is evident from the above findings that if all blanket fox killing were to stop it would not be a disaster for British agriculture and there would not be an unbounded explosion of the fox population.

In lowland England, away from the large shooting estates of East Anglia, the fox population is already very close to saturation, therefore an end to fox killing would have negligible effect on fox numbers and agricultural losses.

In eastern England, where large numbers of foxes are killed on shooting estates, there would be a significant increase in the fox population and predation of game birds would increase. However, the ethics of killing one wild animal merely to allow the killing of another wild animal in greater numbers is highly questionable. Indeed, in the case of introduced game birds, such as red-legged partridge and pheasant (both of which are reared in captivity and released for shooting in large numbers), it is most definitely unethical and unacceptable to kill an indigenous animal in order to protect a non-indigenous animal.

In the upland areas of England and Wales, there would be an increase in fox numbers and, probably, agricultural losses to foxes, however we consider that the size of these increases have been greatly exaggerated. The foot packs, terrier men and, most especially, the gun packs in Wales kill large numbers of foxes in commercial softwood plantations, yet many of these foxes are of no threat to agriculture. It is known that foxes based in large forests often feed within the forest (on rodents etc) rather than on the surrounding hillsides used for sheep rearing. In the case of smaller plantations (that are unable to contain entire fox territories), foxes range between the forests and the adjacent agricultural land (Chadwick et al, 1997). Further, even if lamb losses were to double, this would still be dwarfed by the number of lambs that are lost due to poor nutrition, disease, over-grazing and bad weather. In this context it should be recalled that on the island of Mull, where there are no foxes, production of lambs is no better than on similar ground on the mainland (Chadwick et al, 1997), suggesting that predation by foxes is part of, rather than in addition to, the normal scale of lamb losses.

In addition, it must not be overlooked that of these three regions the only one in which hunting with dogs does appear to suppress the fox population it requires the widespread use of terriers to kill foxes. Yet it is widely acknowledged, even amongst many people who are not anti-hunt, that of all types of foxhunting with dogs, terrier work is the most blatantly cruel. It is clearly a form of baiting. Moreover, being pursued and confronted by a terrier underground is an entirely unnatural experience for a fox – it is an encounter that would never take place naturally and it is therefore beyond the evolutionary boundaries of the fox. Terriers (literally 'earth dogs') are the creation of man's breeding. Their progenitor, the wolf, was physically too large to pursue a fox underground. If terrier work were to be stopped on welfare grounds, yet ‘traditional’ hunting with foxhounds allowed to continue, as has been suggested by some, then this will well and truly destroy any claim that hunting with dogs is an effective method of fox control.

All blanket fox killing should stop and the fox population of Britain should be allowed to regulate its own numbers by means of density-dependent biological mechanisms and territorial competition (this is discussed further below). Agricultural losses to foxes should be accepted as an unavoidable overhead of farming in this country – the red fox is an indigenous species of Britain. Rather than continually fighting a losing battle against the fox, its presence should be accepted, tolerated and accommodated.

The supporters of hunting tell us that its existence is responsible for many social and cultural events and for much valuable habitat conservation. This may or may not be true, but whatever, there is no reason why any of this should come to an end when hunting is banned. If these hunting-related activities are really so valuable and if the supporters of hunting really do care for local communities and for wildlife conservation as much as they repeatedly claim, then they should be eager to continue these activities in the absence of hunting. Throughout the country far more people organise far more activities without the ‘incentive’ of killing wild animals. Many charities and conservation bodies would welcome the services of experienced organisers to hold money-raising social and cultural events and to restore wildlife habitat. Indeed, if these activities do come to an end when hunting is banned then the blame will rest entirely with the supporters of hunting, and it will prove that all their claims of caring for their local communities and for wildlife are phoney, and that their real motives are purely selfish and hedonistic.

Likewise, if hunting participants fail to switch to drag and bloodhound hunting and other equestrian events then blame for any economic consequences will lie entirely with them. The opportunity will be there to switch and for the participants to alter the nature of these activities to meet their needs and demands. No one is suggesting that drag and bloodhound hunting are exact equivalents of hunting live quarry, they are obviously different, but nevertheless they are genuine alternatives.

The future of social, cultural, conservation and equestrian activities that are currently hunt-related rests entirely in the hands of the hunting community. The decision as to whether they die or thrive is theirs to make, but for sure those of us who are opposed to hunting are not prepared to be blackmailed and submit to their intransigence over these activities.

Comments on Recent Evidence

There is very little with which we agree in the Second Stage Written Submission from the Countryside Alliance, which seems to rely more upon semantic nit-picking than rational argument. Given time we have no doubt that most of its arguments could be countered, however we will focus briefly on just three specific points.

Reference:

Countryside Alliance.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs (Second Stage), May 2000.

Comment:

Section 3.2.4 states:

The Countryside Alliance then attempts to justify its opinion by citing the Game Conservancy Trust’s Written Submission to the Inquiry (First Stage, Document B3) – here referred to as (Game Conservancy Trust, 2000b), where it states:

First, it is not clear why the Game Conservancy Trust (2000b) states: "We refute empirically the assertion of Baker & Harris (1997) that fox populations regulate their own numbers." We can only assume that this disagreement is due to a difference of interpretation of the words of Baker & Harris (1997), who state in the Executive Summary (point 3):

We assume that this is intended to be a description of an idealised fox population – a 'natural' population that is free from the attentions of man and his predilection for killing. In contrast the Game Conservancy Trust (2000b) appear to assume that this is intended to be a description of the actual fox populations of Britain as they exist today. Therefore we consider that Baker & Harris's description is entirely accurate.

As Baker & Harris imply, if all fox killing were to stop, fox numbers would rise until density-dependent factors come into play and the population becomes self-regulating. Thus the Countryside Alliance are wrong to deny that foxes regulate their own numbers, if they are given the opportunity to do so. Indeed, the implication of the above extract by the Game Conservancy Trust (2000b) is that the fox population in region B (east Midlands) was self regulating through suppression of breeding and was likely to be at an equilibrium determined by resources.

Moreover, on the Game Conservancy Trust's website ('Predation Control Studies' section) it previously stated (Game Conservancy Trust, 2000a – this web-page has since been replaced by the Game Conservancy's Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs):

And this was qualified by:

However this qualification is surely a statement of the obvious. It is akin to saying that if the taps of a washbasin are turned on, but the plug is removed, then the ‘regulatory mechanism’ of the overflow is ‘demonstrably inoperative’! However, if the plug is inserted (the culling is stopped) and the taps are still on (the breeding continues) then the water level will rise (the population will increase) until the ‘regulatory mechanism’ of the overflow becomes operative and the water level is constant (the population is no longer suppressed).

As Hugh Kolb (1996) stated:

It is apparent from the 'three-region' study of the Game Conservancy Trust and other related studies that the 'saturation conditions' referred to by Kolb exist in most of lowland England away from extensive shooting estates.

The true nature of fox self-regulation was summed up by John Barrington (1984), a shepherd in charge of 750 Blackface ewes on 2000 acres near Loch Katrine in Perthshire:

Population self-regulation through density-dependence, as described by Macdonald et al. (2000), is a long established principle (Lack, 1954; Russell & Russell, 1968; Ardrey, 1970), which makes it all the more surprising that it is still being questioned by organisations such as the Countryside Alliance. However, the density-dependent mechanisms for a particular species may not come into play until the population reaches a density that is incompatible with human interests. It is apparent that this is the case with red deer on agricultural land and, moreover, since deer may be killed relatively easily and humanely by rifle, there is a strong case for culling deer in order to control their numbers. However, in the case of foxes it is evident from the situation in lowland England that density-dependent mechanisms come into play at densities that are compatible with human interests. Moreover, since there is no genuinely humane method to kill foxes over a large area, the case for culling foxes in order to control their numbers is very weak.

Reference:

Countryside Alliance.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs (Second Stage), May 2000.

Comment:

Section 8.3.2 states:

We do not accept the implication that the fox is not under constant pressure to run during the chase. The fox is undoubtedly aware that it is being pursued regardless of whether or not it is "out of sight of the hounds". Foxes have good hearing and they can obviously hear the distinctive sound of the hounds and mounted field. Moreover, the fox is primarily a nocturnal animal so in normal circumstances in daytime there would not be a scent trail for the hounds to follow for "20 minutes or more". If the fox were not under pressure to run it would normally spend the daytime lying-up in thick cover. In truth, the fox leaves a long scent trail because it is forced to run and finds all its bolt-holes blocked by the hunt's earth-stoppers.

The fact that the fox is often seen to stop during a pursuit and return to its normal (unhunted) behavioural patterns is a clear indication that the fox has not evolved to be the quarry in a prolonged pursuit – hunting with hounds as practised in England is a totally unnatural activity. In addition, in this context it is perhaps pertinent to recall the following:

Kreeger et al. (1989):

Valerius Geist (Written Submission to the Inquiry, First Stage):

Hunting with dogs is contrived cruelty from beginning to end. Against its instincts, the fox is forced to stay above ground and run in order to provide 'good sport' for the mounted followers of the hunt.

Reference:

Countryside Alliance.

Written evidence submitted to The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs (Second Stage), May 2000.

Comment:

Section 8.7.1 states:

Further, the Countryside Alliance attempt to justify their claim by citing Macdonald (1987; page 129), thus:

We do accept that pregnant vixens are not hunted and we do not accept that they cannot be hunted because of a lack of scent. The Macdonald quotation is highly misleading and has been used out of context.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence that pregnant vixens are hunted and killed (for example, see our First Stage Written Submission). Further, it is misleading to simply say that pregnant vixens "are likely to be underground", since of their 53 day gestation period vixens will lie below ground for only a few days prior to giving birth (and for two to three weeks afterwards) (Lloyd, 1980). Thus for the vast majority of their pregnancy vixens will be above ground. Moreover, being underground will not afford vixens protection from terriers, and nationally as many foxes are killed below ground with terriers as are killed above ground with hounds.

Returning to the Macdonald quotation, it is highly disingenuous of the Countryside Alliance to suggest that the odour referred to is that of the vixen per se, when in fact the odour is that of the vixen's urine used for territorial and social scent marking. And since this is an important means by which foxes communicate, it is of little surprise that its pungency varies during the breeding season. The Macdonald quotation has nothing to do with the scent that is followed by hounds, and in this context it is completely irrelevant.

As is made clear elsewhere by Macdonald (1987; page 125):

There is no evidence whatsoever that the pungency of the scent from these foot glands varies during the breeding season. Thus, there is no evidence that pregnant vixens cannot be hunted because of a lack of scent.

Reference:

Macdonald, D.W., Tattersall, F.H., Johnson, P.J., Carbone, C., Reynolds, J.C., Langbein, J., Rushton, S.P. & Shirley, M.D.F. (2000).

Management and Control of Populations of Foxes, Deer, Hares, and Mink in England and Wales, and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs. Report to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, May 2000.

Comment:

This is an excellent report that will, without doubt, be of interest for many years to come. Our only concern is that some significant comments present in the Draft Report have been omitted from the Final Report. (It appears to have been ‘watered down’ in terms of its findings that are damaging to the pro-hunting lobby; indeed, this is something that is noticeable in some of the other draft/final reports commissioned for the Inquiry.)

For example, Section 6.2.2.b of the Draft Report (‘How humane is killing by the hounds?’) includes:

This has been omitted from the corresponding section (6.2.1.b) of the Final Report. However, we consider that this is an important point that should be made. It is discussed in greater detail in our previous Written Submissions to the Inquiry – First Stage and Second Stage (Part 1).

It is apparent that hounds kill a fox by multiple bites, and that the initial bites (to bring the fox down) may be anywhere on the body. No doubt, given the opportunity, a hound will shake a fox by the neck, but since dogs do not possess a 'killing bite', this will, in general, only unbalance the fox (in accordance with the studies of the German mammal ethologist Paul Leyhausen). In some cases, purely by chance, death may be quick because the spinal cord is severed or the heart penetrated, but such instances are entirely fortuitous (for want of a better word). In general death will be by multiple bites and dismemberment. Of course, when the entire pack is present this is likely to be quick, but when just one or two hounds are well ahead of the rest of the pack, which is often the case, the kill is likely to be more prolonged. To describe such a kill as "instantaneous" is particularly inappropriate.

One final comment in the present context. Some newspaper reports have focussed on the absence of scientific proof that hunted foxes suffer distress and pain, for example a report in The Sunday Telegraph ("Hunt ban inquiry says 'only' 5,000 jobs will go", Sunday 28 May 2000) included:

The Committee of Inquiry should not forget that absence of evidence is most certainly not the same as evidence of absence. Indeed, is it actually possible to prove pain and distress in any animal, even humans? We can interpret that an animal is distressed from monitoring its behaviour, blood chemistry, pathology and other physiological changes, but actually proving the existence of a subjective sense of pain is very different. When a hunt supporter falls off his horse and breaks a limb can he prove that he suffers pain?

Reference:

‘Committee Visits’ & ‘By-Invitation Meetings’, Hunting Inquiry Website. (http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/huntingframe.htm – accessed 18 May 2000).

Comment:

We would like to express our dissatisfaction that the supporters of hunting have clearly been given greater opportunity to meet the members of the Committee of Inquiry than have the opponents of hunting.

According to the Hunting Inquiry Website:

1. The supporters of Hunting were granted four ‘By-Invitation Meetings’ and eighteen ‘Committee Visits’ to events where live quarry were hunted, which we understand were arranged and coordinated by the Countryside Alliance.
2. The opponents of Hunting were granted three ‘By-Invitation Meetings’, three ‘Committee Visits’ to Deadline 2000 events and two ‘Informal Meetings’.
3. There were three ‘Committee Visits’ to drag hunting events, which, we assume, may be regarded as neutral.

First, why was the Countryside Alliance granted four ‘By-Invitation Meetings’, whereas Deadline 2000 were granted only three? (And this was despite the fact that demand for places at the Deadline 2000 meetings out-stripped availability.)

The two ‘Informal Meetings’ with Deadline 2000 supporters were (in the words of the Hunting Inquiry Website) "intended to provide the kind of informal opportunities that hunt supporters have had to talk to Committee members during hunt visits". If this was the case, why were there only two informal meetings with Deadline 2000 supporters, whereas there were fifteen additional ‘Committee Visits’ to hunting events (after discounting the three ‘Committee Visits’ to Deadline 2000 events)? (And there was demand for further ‘Informal Meetings’.)

Moreover, there was one Committee member (Lord Soulsby) who was absent from both ‘Informal Meetings’ and all three ‘Committee Visits’ to Deadline 2000 events! The same Committee member was only present at one of the three ‘By-Invitation Meetings’ with Deadline 2000. So not much opportunity for talking there!

We attended the ‘Informal Meeting’ held at the RSPCA Wildlife Hospital, West Hatch near Taunton, and were very disappointed that only two of the five committee members were in attendance. We would have particularly welcomed the opportunity to talk to Lord Soulsby.

Given the background to this inquiry and the widely held opinion that the Committee is inherently biased in support of hunting (which has led several anti-hunt organisations to boycott its proceedings), one would have thought that the Committee would have made every effort to ensure that its evidence gathering procedures were scrupulously fair and beyond reproach. But nothing could be further from the truth – in terms of the balance of meetings, could the bias be more explicit or blatant?

~oOo~

References

Ardrey, R. (1970).

The Social Contract: A personal inquiry into the evolutionary sources of order and disorder. Collins, London.

Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997).
How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox population? School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol.

Barrington, J. (1984).

Red Sky at Night. Michael Joseph, London.

Bateson, P. & Harris, R. (2000).

The Effects of Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales on the Welfare of Deer, Foxes, Mink and Hare. Report to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, May 2000.

Chadwick, A.H., Hodge, S.J. & Ratcliffe, P.R. (1997).

Foxes and Forestry.

Technical Paper 23, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Game Conservancy Trust. (2000a).

Does fox culling govern fox numbers?

http://www.game-conservancy.org.uk/research/pcs/pcsnews1.html (accessed February 2000).

Game Conservancy Trust. (2000b).

Demography of rural foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to cull intensity in three contrasting regions of Britain. Heydon, M.J. & Reynolds, J.C., pre-print of paper to be published in: Journal of Zoology, 251, July 2000.

Kolb, H. (1996).

Country Foxes. Whittet Books, London.

Kreeger, T.J., Monson, D., Kuechle, V.B., Seal, U.S. & Tester, J.R. (1989).

Monitoring heart rate and body temperature in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes).

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67, 2455-2458.

Lack, D. (1954).

The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. Oxford University Press.

Lloyd, H.G. (1980).

The Red Fox. Batsford, London.

Macdonald, D.W. (1987).

Running with the Fox. Unwin Hyman, London.

Macdonald, D.W., Tattersall, F.H., Johnson, P.J., Carbone, C., Reynolds, J.C., Langbein, J., Rushton, S.P. & Shirley, M.D.F. (2000).

Management and Control of Populations of Foxes, Deer, Hares, and Mink in England and Wales, and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs. Report to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, May 2000.

Russell, C. & Russell, W.M.S. (1968).

Violence, Monkeys & Man. Macmillan, London.

White, P., Baker, P., Newton Cross, G., Smart, J., Moberly, R., McLaren, G., Ansell, R. & Harris, S. (2000).

Management of the Population of Foxes, Deer, Hares and Mink and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs / Methods of Controlling Foxes, Deer, Hare and Mink. Report to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, May 2000.

Back to top

Date uploaded to website 21 May 2000