Repealing ban would simply be barbaric and a step backward
Despite the hunters' and Ian Pedler's claims to the contrary ("The truth has to be faced that the hunting ban hasn't worked", WDP, October 29), the Hunting Act is successfully prosecuting more people year on year than many other wildlife laws.
The latest Ministry of Justice figures on prosecutions under the Act, released on Thursday, October 28, reveal they are at their highest level yet, with convictions almost doubled in 2009 compared to 2008. This brings the total number of successful convictions under the Hunting Act to 145.
-
The Hunting Act's limitations on hunting with dogs has been more successful than protesters would have you believe, according to our columnist
In fact, the Hunting Act has been used to obtain more convictions than other wildlife legislation such as the Badgers Act, the Deer Act and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act. For example, in 2009 there were five convictions under the Wild Mammal (Protection) Act compared with 57 under the Hunting Act.
Banning something does not mean that some people won't break the law. The Theft Act has not stopped everyone from stealing, but – on this basis – few would argue this means we should repeal the law, rather that the law needs to be rigorously enforced.
The hunt ban was introduced because the overwhelming majority of the UK public found it abhorrent that foxes, deer, hare and mink could be chased and killed for "sport". Hunting with dogs was both cruel and unnecessary. The then Government's own inquiry into hunting concluded that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises the welfare" of deer, foxes and hares.
Post-mortem evidence showed that foxes can be literally disembowelled and suffer multiple injuries before being killed by the dogs. Terrierwork, involving the use of dogs below ground to pursue and corner foxes, sometimes resulted in subterranean battles taking place between the dog and the fox with both animals suffering horrific injuries including losing ears, eyes and parts of their faces.
What hunters do not tell you is some hunts even used artificial earths – underground chambers designed to encourage foxes to live and breed in the area – to make sure there were enough foxes to be hunted for "sport". In 2000, the prestigious Beaufort Hunt admitted feeding cubs at the entrance to an artificial earth following an investigation by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).
The cruelty inflicted on deer and hares was also evident with deer being chased for "sport" beyond the distance they would be pursued in the wild. Kevin Hill, an IFAW hunt monitor, described stag hunting, saying: "After 25 miles and six hours, the terror in the eyes and exhaustion of the animal was clear to see. If he was lucky he will be killed by one shot and not the dreadful scene I once witnessed in the River Barle where blast after blast from a shotgun could not kill him. He was eventually wrestled into the water by a follower before dying."
Meanwhile, hares have been filmed and photographed being pulled like a rope in a "tug-of-war" between the jaws of the two dogs until one of the coursing officials reached the dogs and removed the hare.
Public support has remained strong since the ban came into effect. The most recent Ipsos MORI poll (Sept 2009), released by IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports, showed that 75 per cent of people in Britain do not want fox hunting to be made legal again. The polling also found 84 per cent think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place and 85 per cent think hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal. Declarations that it's just "townies" that support the ban are wide of the mark with 72 per cent of rural people backing the ban.
However, despite this support for the ban, the coalition Government has pledged to hold a Parliamentary vote to reopen the debate on possible repeal of the Hunting Act. Polling of MPs, however, shows that more would back the ban than want it repealed but there is no room for complacency. The hunters are trying to legalise hunting by once again claiming that regulation is the way forward.
Regulation is simply a smokescreen to allow dogs to be set on deer, foxes and hares in the name of sport. The fact that hunters are pushing this line is nothing new, it's just the equivalent of the pre-ban Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting (ISAH) rebranded and that did not stop foxes from being chased and torn apart by dogs while they were still alive.
IFAW campaigned long and hard for the Hunting Act and we will not sit back and watch hunting be legalised again. A repeal would be barbaric and a backward step for a civilised society.
10 Comments
by Wendé Anne, Wiltshire
Tuesday, November 16 2010, 11:58AM
“Norman: You keep saying the same thing over and over and over. As if you believe that repeating it will make it true.
There have been 149 successful prosecutions of illegal hunting since the Act - so, in spite of being hamstrung by Tony Blair - the police are successful in getting convictions.
Saying 'black is white, black is white, black is white,) repeatedly, does not make black white.”
by Steph, Derbyshire
Monday, November 15 2010, 6:22PM
“Norman, have a look on Youtube.
There is a film there that clearly shows a fox being held in the jaws of at least five separate hounds, each pulling in different directions. The Hunt Saboteurs pull the hound off and the fox, although severely injured, is very much alive. Any one of these hounds would have had the opportunity to give a 'quick bite to the back of the neck' but everyone knows dogs don't kill like that.
Maybe you should stop fantasising about this 'idealised, nobel image of hunting that you seem to have and actually attend a real hunt.”
by Wayne, Middlesex
Thursday, November 11 2010, 1:07AM
“Sorry, Norman, You seem to have swallowed the CA propaganda that foxes are killed by the lead hound with a quick bite to the neck. This just does not happen.
I've also heard hunt people claim that what foxhounds do is "natural". If it's natural, why have cub hunting (or Autumn Hunting as it's called now) where the hunt TRAINS the animal to kill the fox?
It's been banned, it should stay banned, but the loopholes should be tightened.”
by Karen Evans, Pembrokeshire
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 11:01AM
“Norman, I think you have your facts seriously wrong here! Are you saying that the"Ministry of Justice" have quoted the wrong figures. I think you are still believing the propaganda of the Countryside Alliance. The Act is working and working well, and there is no reason to repeal it. There may be reason to improve it, but certainly it must remain in place
I suggest you go to the Ministry of Justice website & look at THE FACTS for yourself!”
by Karen Evans, Pembrokeshire
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 10:57AM
“Norman, you clearly hven't got your facts right, & must be listening to the propaganda of the Countryside Alliance again. Are you saying that the "Ministry of Justice" have their figures wrong? If so, then obviously you have a problem. The FACTS speak for themselves, enough said!”
by heidi, cornwall
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 10:49AM
“I also want to draw your attention to the Irish group Farmers Against Fox Hunting http://www.scribd.com/doc/17651383/Farmers-Against-Foxhunting-and-Trespass-Leaflet”
by heidi, Cornwall
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 10:47AM
“Norman Bryant-Foxes absolutely ARE ripped apart by packs of dogs, there is SCIENTIFIC evidence which proves this. Dogs attack together and therefore rip at the animal, there is video evidence of this happening. This is lies spread by the CA to justify the cruelty of hunting-as if people would be submissive of the cruelty if they explained a "less cruel" way, which is in fact an untruth.
As for the damage foxes to do chickens I can only say that nature is nature. Foxes kill to stifle and to store, if we did not put food all together in front of them then they would not take out entire chicken pens. I think you will also find many poultry and livestock farmers favour the ban because many farmers livestock is damaged by hunting. Some farmers have reported their pregnant livestock miscarrying because of out of control hounds.
You talk of the danger of someone with a gun controlling animals and you say you favour hunting-But the damage hunting does to rural people cannot be ignored: many people's pets are killed by the hounds, country roads are completely taken over by riders and hounds, people's garden's are destroyed, people are abused by hunter's for disagreeing with what they are doing.
Finally, I am glad this article addressed the issue of artificial earths and addresses the fact that even the Beaufort Hunt have admitted to feeding foxes in order to continue with their "sport".
Also, I would like to point out that if using a muzzle in Hare Coursing solved the problem of the cruelty then why don't many hare coursers use the muzzle? I also know that the muzzle does not actually stop damage being done to the hare.
In all, this comes down to basic humanity, the strange desire to be cruel and treat persecuted animals with contempt, to continue to listen to age old myths about wildlife and a complete dismissal of working with wildlife.”
by Mairi, Cornwall
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 10:46AM
“This article is an excellent and accurate description of the appalling practice of hunting with hounds. Those who choose to believe that the hunting act was some sort of Labour vs Tory issue, need to look at the history and realise that people from all political parties had been trying to get this act in place for over 50 years. The only thing that Labour did was weaken the terms of the act, thanks to the sheer cowardice of Tony Blair and his cohorts.
The hunts do breed foxes via artificial earths across this country and then pretend to be pest controllers. They claim to take out the old and the sick and yet salivate openly about cubbing season each year. Watch any film of a fox being killed by hounds and you'll find there is no first lethal bite to the neck by any means. The hounds attack in a frenzy and go for the fleshier parts of the body first - usually the abdomen. The practices carried out on young fox cubs for the purposes of training the hounds are equally abhorent as is the practice of digging out with terriers. As for hare coursing - you might as well be in a Roman arena if you enjoy watching a terrified animal being pulled apart by the teeth of two dogs. These people really need to move on and evolve with the rest of society.
Lets face it, if this was about anything other than the thrill of the kill, these people would be quite happy drag hunting.”
by Norman Bryant, west sussex
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 10:02AM
“This is such a rubbish story, there has been next to no convictions under this hunting act which would not have happened under existing law.
The Hunting Ban was not introduced by an overwhelming public support but by a bigoted government who basically wanted to hurt Tory voters and to get their own back for closing the mines, which in it's self is rather funny as there are some fox hunts which are run by the miners.
I'm not sure how much truth there is in Kevin Hills statement as deer are always shot at point blank range using a pistol and never a shotgun (unles it was a poacher and he is making out it was hunt people) and he mentions a 25 mile chase, how does he know, did he keep up with the stag and have a pedometer with him to tell him the distance, he would not have been allowed to follow in a car.
Of course to prevent hares being caught whilst coursing muzzles could be put on the dogs however there are very few people that are really interested in this.
The poll that was carried out and instigated by the League against cruel sports also prepared the questions and prepared them in such a way to get the result they got, they first asked questions about intrducing badger baiting, bear fighting and dog fighting then tucked in fox hunting, whereas we all know that the first ones a very nasty and there is no chance of them ever being allowed, as cunnibg as the fox are the LACS.
Finally the last lie is that foxes are ripped apart when alive, the first hound to get to the fox will break it's neck so a quick kill what might or might not happen then is rather immaterial as the creature is dead but as usual they use very emmotive descriptions to try and win people over yet it's funny how they do not describe what happens when a fox get's in a chicken house and kills most of them for fun or chews the head off a new born lamb, the fox, deer and hare need some form of control and I would prefer hunting with hounds where the quarry either gets caught and is killed or gets away completey free with no wounding, I tremble with horror about more people roaming the countryside with high powered rifles that if they miss their target the bullet can easily travel a few miles.”
by NORMAN BRYANT, west sussex
Wednesday, November 10 2010, 9:05AM
“This is such a rubbish story, there has been next to no convictions under this hunting act which would not have happened under existing law.
The Hunting Ban was not introduced by an overwhelming public support but by a bigoted government who basically wanted to hurt Tory voters and to get their own back for closing the mines, which in it's self is rather funny as there are some fox hunts which are run by the miners.
I'm not sure how much truth there is in Kevin Hills statement as deer are always shot at point blank range using a pistol and never a shotgun (unles it was a poacher and he is making out it was hunt people) and he mentions a 25 mile chase, how does he know, did he keep up with the stag and have a pedometer with him to tell him the distance, he would not have been allowed to follow in a car.
Of course to prevent hares being caught whilst coursing muzzles could be put on the dogs however there are very few people that are really interested in this.
The poll that was carried out and instigated by the League against cruel sports also prepared the questions and prepared them in such a way to get the result they got, they first asked questions about intrducing badger baiting, bear fighting and dog fighting then tucked in fox hunting, whereas we all know that the first ones a very nasty and there is no chance of them ever being allowed, as cunnibg as the fox are the LACS.
Finally the last lie is that foxes are ripped apart when alive, the first hound to get to the fox will break it's neck so a quick kill what might or might not happen then is rather immaterial as the creature is dead but as usual they use very emmotive descriptions to try and win people over yet it's funny how they do not describe what happens when a fox get's in a chicken house and kills most of them for fun or chews the head off a new born lamb, the fox, deer and hare need some form of control and I would prefer hunting with hounds where the quarry either gets caught and is killed or gets away completey free with no wounding, I tremble with horror about more people roaming the countryside with high powered rifles that if they miss their target the bullet can easily travel a few miles.”