The Most Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Concerning Hunting With Hounds
Q. Quite simply, hunting is cruel, and should therefore be banned.
A. Cruelty is defined as “causing unnecessary suffering”.
Labour Party Rural Policy Documents and those involved in the management of the countryside (farmers) recognise the need for predator (fox) control. The 1947 Agriculture Act classifies the fox as a pest, requiring landholders to control them. Once that is accepted there needs to be an assessment of the suitable methods to achieve control. Every form of death inevitably involves some suffering. Nature itself is harsh - there is no old people’s home for foxes. The fox has no predator so without control by humans the fox will die from either accidents, disease or starvation in old age.
Scott Henderson, para 172 “We are satisfied that there is less cruelty in foxhunting than in most other methods of control”. Phelps, para 4.8.2 “Death is instantaneous”. Lord Burns, House of Lords debate, 12th March 2001 "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no” . Lord Soulsby, House of Lords debate, 12th March 2001 "At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously--I repeat the word "erroneously"--quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that."
Q. Aren’t foxes torn apart alive?
A. No. A fox is killed within seconds. Burns carried out detailed post mortems on hunted foxes, in each and every case the fox died within seconds. The average hound weighs some 75lbs - five times heavier than the fox at 15lbs. After the fox has been killed, hounds may or may not tear at the carcass.
Q. The majority of the nation and MPs indicate that they oppose hunting. Therefore in a democracy it should be banned.
A. There is nothing democratic about a majority imposing its prejudiced beliefs on a minority. Democracy generally allows for minority interests to take place in a tolerant society, even if there is a large proportion of that society which may not care for the particular activity. The Government’s own independent inquiry into hunting, the Burns Inquiry, found absolutely no justification for a ban on hunting. The majority of Mps refuse to be informed by the facts and haven’t even read the report.
Q. The nation is united behind the anti-hunt campaign.
A. Support for a ban on hunting is at a 10 year low from 73% in 1997 to below 50% in 2002. The largest ever anti-hunt march in 1997 attracted only 3,000 people, compared to the 400,000+ strong Liberty & Livelihood March. On Boxing Day 2001, anti-hunting protestors were outnumbered 1000:1 by hunt supporters. The majority of the people in county, when given the same 3 options as Parliament choose a form of Licensing, not an outright ban.
Q. Foxes don’t need controlling, they will regulate their numbers according to the natural food supply?
A. No. Fox predation can cause significant lamb losses. Scientific estimates vary from 0.5% to 5.2%. Even at 2%, the cost to a typical hill farmer with 1,500 ewes is over £1,000 p.a. Without control, predation would increase considerably – during the suspension of hunting due to Foot and Mouth Disease the Farmers Union of Wales reported increased lamb losses. The fact that estimates from independent sources show that lamb losses do not exceed 5.2% per annum is proof that the existing methods of control work very well. Should those statistics have shown a higher proportion of lamb losses then there might be an argument that hunting is ineffective? The current system, which allows the legal methods of control to take place in this country, clearly strengthens the case rather than weakens it. Similarly what must not be overlooked is the contribution hunting makes to the dispersal element of fox populations. This dispersal process alleviates pressure on individual parts of the country where fox damage may be a problem. Therefore, the encouraging figures are achieved not necessarily through huge numbers of foxes being killed, but by the management contribution that the activity achieves.
Q. Surely, a ban on hunting would be better for the fox?
A. “The trouble is people see pictures of cowering foxes, feel sympathy for the fox, and then immediately conclude that foxhunting should be banned. There’s no real thought about what effect such a ban would in fact have on foxes. Of course, what would happen would be that far more would be shot, trapped and gassed” (Jim Barrington, former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports).
The Burns report also recognised that a ban on hunting would not save the life of a single fox. "If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means. The number of deaths isnot likely to be reduced by banning hunting." (Lord Burns, House of Lords debate, 12th March 2001)
Q. What would be the consequence of a ban on foxhunting on rural jobs and economy?
A. Burns found that between 6-8,000 FTE (full time equivalent) jobs would be lost. Following the Burns Report, The British Equestrian Trade Association commissioned David Corbett of Produce Studies and Ralph Cobham of Cobham Research Consultants to re-examine more precisely what the implications would be from a ban on hunting, with particular regard to the equestrian industry. They concluded that in the region of 14,000 FTE jobs would be lost, although something nearer 30,000 jobs would be adversely affected. Some 24,000 hounds would have no future, as these working pack dogs would not make suitable pets. There would be less incentive for farmers to conserve wildlife habitat.
The economic importance of hunting to the rural economy was also acknowledged in the Governments Veterinary Risk Assessment into hunting: VRA No. 26, 3(ix) "The long term cessation of hunting has economic consequences for the organisations involved and for those businesses which depend on it."
Q. Isn’t foxhunting declining in popularity?
A. No. There are 184 registered packs of foxhounds in the UK followed by more than 50,000 riders and over 110,000 foot or car followers. In addition there are numerous packs of harriers, beagles, bassets, lurchers, mink and staghounds as well as many terriers. In Wales there are a number of ‘gun packs’ a proportion started only recently. Hunts across the country are reporting up to 25% increase in subscribers.
Q. Is it not true that the primary purpose of most forms of hunting with dogs is to give pleasure and enjoyment to the participants by prolonging the chase, and that there are many more humane and selective solutions to the problems of pest control?
A. Which methods are considered more humane or selective solutions? Hunting with hounds will take out the old, sick, and wounded. It is therefore the most natural method of fox control. Unless a clean kill with a gun is achieved, it is also the most humane.
There are four legal methods of fox control: (1) hunting with hounds, (2) shooting, (3) trapping with snares or live cage traps, and (4) digging using terriers. No one method is suitable or adequate for all circumstances. While people do hunt for enjoyment they can only do so only because farmers welcome them, believing that hunting performs an important role in managing foxes. The Game Conservancy Trust Rural fox Management Project 1995 – 1997 shows that in the three research areas – Powys, East Leics. and Norfolk:
“Hunts affiliated with the MFHA are allowed rights to cull foxes on 50%-90% of rural land area, with exclusive rights on 10% - 60% dependant on region”
“The proportion of the total fox cull taken using hounds and/or terriers varies among the three (research) regions from 11% to 75%”
“Hunts may vary the size of the cull by choosing the location and number of meets, and by allowing or disallowing digging”
In many hunting countries, hunting is the principle method of fox control. It is the only control method that recognises a ‘closed’ season and is selective. Foxes are either killed outright or escape unharmed; there is no risk of wounding. Hounds are bred for the specific qualities of speed, stamina and “nose” (ability to scent), as well as their ability to be handled in the field. Dr. David MacDonald (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University) has shown that 17 minutes is the average length of the chase.
Statistics taken from 12 diverse hunts across the UK involving 115 hunting days in January and February 1997 showed that of 421 foxes found, 61 were caught in an average time of 21.7 minutes. These statistics compliment MacDonald’s in that chases are likely to be at there longest in February. The fox is hunted in its own environment, which it will know well. It will use its own network of paths and routes. For much of the chase it may not be aware it is the target quarry, and if it has been hunted before and not been caught, it will have no reason to fear for its life. (The duration of pursuit by hounds is much less than the period a fox may be held in a snare, and much less than the time a fox may take to die from bullet or gunshot wounds.)
Q. People who go hunting are often challenged, “go on admit it, you enjoy it”.
A. Of course hunting people enjoy it. Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the support for hunting is made up of people who are motivated only by a willingness to take part in responsible pest control. People hunt for a variety of reason - they like the gathering, the ride, the people, places, the danger, the uncertainty, the thrills and the spills. They love being close to nature; being part of one of the few remaining activities which brings all classes to the same level. That has never been a secret but something that all hunting people are proud to boast about. Why else would they buy books, paintings, cover their houses with photographs, mementoes and anecdotes of their hunting lives? However, it should be remembered that enjoyment is the principal motivation of the people who go hunting. The principal motivation of those who allow it is pest control.
Q. Autumn (cub) hunting is “secret” and the purpose is to blood young hounds by killing small cubs?
A. No, fixtures are not secret. Many hunts publish their meets in the sporting or local press and all hunts now have their own website. However, many fixtures may be arranged at two or three days notice dependent on farming reasons, such as unharvested crops. Foxes will reach maturity at six months. The foxes born the previous Spring will be hunting and fending for themselves by the Autumn which is the time of year when the adult fox population is at its highest. It is also probably the most difficult time of year to hunt any animal by scent, because there is still a huge amount of summer growth, which makes the progress of hounds difficult and laborious. Often the weather is not conducive to hunting with sometimes only an hour or two in the early morning when it is cool enough to be satisfactory.
The objectives of Autumn hunting are:
- To cull a reasonable number of foxes.
- To disperse the concentrations so leaving an even spread of foxes across the country.
- To introduce the young hounds (12-18 months old) into the pack and teach them to hunt the fox only. Hounds hunt naturally – they learn expertise from the older hounds and through experience gained during Autumn hunting.
Hunts will arrange fixtures with regard to the requirement of culling foxes. For instance, if they know of an area where excessive litters of foxes have been born, they will concentrate on that area. They will also try to hunt shooting land before reared pheasants are released, or in good time before the shooting season starts.
Hunting’s governing bodies Rules state that “’holding up’ (surrounding a wood to prevent the fox from getting onto adjacent property) is only permitted on the specific instructions of the Master and at the request of the landowner, farmer or shooting tenant, due to the proximity of roads, railways or built up areas, or for farming or fox control reasons.” It is only permissible for those followers who have been appointed by the Hunt to help in the process of “holding up”.
Q. Once a fox has outwitted the hounds by ‘going to ground’ surely it would be the decent thing to concede defeat?
A. Terrier work is not a sport, but it is an important part of the pest control service provided free of charge by hunts. Once a fox has run to ground it is for the farmer to decide whether it is dug out and humanely destroyed. (MFHA Rules ) In some cases, farmers demand this and in other cases they forbid it. The hunt is providing a service to the farming community and it is their duty to carry out a farmer’s request.
Q. Does terrier work provide enjoyment?
A. Owners of working terriers enjoy breeding, training and working their terriers to provide a pest control service which is much valued by farmers and gamekeepers. A terrierman requires a good working knowledge and appreciation of the countryside and the natural predatory nature of the wild animals that live there.
Q. Isn’t it cruel to make terriers go underground, where they could become trapped or injured?
A. It is impossible to force a terrier to go to ground. It is something terriers do instinctively. The use of modern electronic locator collars reduces the likelihood of a terrier being lost underground.
Q. I have heard that some digs take many hours with the terrier and fox fighting underground.
A. Often when a fox goes to ground particularly in a large complicated, network of underground tunnels, it can take a very long time for the terrier to locate the fox. In addition to this it can take a long time for the fox to then settle in one position enabling the dig to commence. Terrier men do not want to dig a large hole only to find they have to move a few metres and dig another one. It is often necessary to wait for up to an hour or more to get an exact fix on the location of the terrier and fox. The fox faces the terrier underground and the terrier stands off at a safe distance and bays, which enables the terrier men to locate it by use of an electronic bleeper.
Q. If pests have to be controlled; there must surely be a more humane way of doing it, without all the ceremony?
A. There are various legal methods of controlling pests, but the only alternatives for pests underground are either gas and poison - neither of which is as humane or selective as terrier work, and which are illegal for fox control. All responsible terriermen ensure the necessary culling of pests is carried out as efficiently and humanely as possible, in accordance with the National Working Terrier Federation Code of Conduct. All terrier men have to be licensed by their appropriate governing body and carry an ID card and license whenever they are performing this service for hunts. Furthermore they have to be properly trained and attended an annual refresher course so that they are sufficiently up to date with current legislation and working practices. Any body who fails to work to the required standard is struck off the register of terriermen kept by the governing bodies.
Q. Hunts build secret artificial earths across the country thus destroying the argument that hunting is about control. How can you possibly argue that hunting is a control method when you breed foxes to enable it to happen?
A. Allegations about artificial earths have been around for many years. There is absolutely no secret about the fact that they exist in many places. However, their purpose is often misunderstood. It is a perfectly reasonable management argument to provide attractive habitat for foxes in areas where they are most likely to do the least damage. For example, artificial earths were often built on the fringes of large estates to attract foxes to reside well away from those areas where livestock damage or perhaps predation of game birds could be a problem. It also enabled the hunt to know the part of the country in which they were most likely to find a fox so that hunting could be effective. Hunting has never been a method by which the total destruction of the fox population was an objective. It is simply to manage that population. Management can perfectly well include the distribution and re-alignment of the population.
Allegations are also frequently made that because there are artificial earths it means by definition that the foxes that live in them are bred in captivity or purely for the purpose of hunting. This is a ridiculous assertion. Artificial earth does not in any way mean artificial fox. All over Britain artificial badger setts have been created where original setts have had to be destroyed for development or road building operations. Wildlife Trusts have created many artificial otter holts. The wild badger and otter population appear more than happy to be relocated into such places. This does not mean that they are bred in captivity and does not mean that they are any less wild than their brethren that live in natural refuges. The same applies to foxes. The creation of artificial earths simply provides a habitat in which foxes can live in much the same way as the planting of woodlands provides a habitat for thousands of other species. It is not possible to insist or force foxes to reside in such earths. They do so by their own choice or not. Many artificial earths have been in place for hundreds of years. They do not alter the population, only its location.
Q. You can still have the ride, and excitement of hunting by chasing a scent i.e. draghunting, and thus not kill anything.
A. Anti-hunt campaigners say that draghunting is an alternative to foxhunting in that it would provide sport for people who presently hunt live quarry, and thereby save the 14,000 jobs that are threatened by a hunt ban. These claims are not true.
The Masters of Draghounds & Bloodhounds Association has stated:
“We strongly refute claims that draghunting is an alternative to foxhunting. Draghunting is an alternative to foxhunting. Draghunting is an exciting equestrian sport in its own right, but is totally different to any other type of hound sport. It plays no role in the management of the red fox, which many farmers regard as a pest.
The Burns Report concluded
Draghunting fails for the following reasons:
1. Draghunting is a different and solely equestrian activity that can only appeal to a tiny proportion of those who currently hunt. Draghunting has been in existence for 150 years. It has always been a popular equestrian sport for the young and bold, seeking an exciting cross-country ride for a comparatively short day. The essence of draghunting is galloping and jumping – it will frequently attract competition horses. The old, the very young and people who cannot afford high performance horses will be excluded. Perhaps 20% of mounted followers would switch after a hunt ban, if there were a draghunt to switch to. What’s more, the majority of hunt followers are on foot. Draghunting has little interest for them. Attractions to the followers include the art of ‘venery’ (the huntsman’s skill in working the hounds.) Many packs of hounds have no mounted followers, (i.e. footpacks).
2. There is too little land to accommodate an expansion of draghunting. A normal foxhunt country might measure ten by fifteen miles. Much of the terrain hunted by foxhounds would be entirely unsuitable for draghunting. Upland areas such as the Lake District and/or Wales where a large number of hunts exist would be impractical for topographical as well as agricultural reasons. A draghunt needs a much larger territory. For example, the Berks and Bucks Draghounds hunt over five shire counties and the Cambridge University Draghunt covers country hunted by no less than ten foxhound packs. The arable land, which now prevails in most lowland hunting countries, is neither suitable nor attractive for draghunting. The MDBA recognise that with the existing thirty Drag and Blood packs, that most of the suitable land south of a line between the Mersey and the Wash is already registered and reserved to them.
3. Why should farmers accommodate any new demand for draghunting?
Farmers obtain two important services from quarry hunts: vermin control and fallen stock collection. Draghunts do not control foxes. With their smaller need for hounds, draghunts cannot be expected to collect dead livestock and dispose of it by feeding to hounds with the efficiency that farmers need. The draghunters themselves are worried about the pressures increased numbers of followers would put on their existing facilities. Sir John Aird, Joint Master of the Farmers Bloodhounds says:
“We are welcomed by farmers over whose land we hunt because we only come once a year with a small field. If we were to come several times a year with a much larger field, the farmers’ attitude towards us would be very different” . Most foxhunts hunt at least twice a week, with a number hunting four times.
4. What about the hounds?
A pack of draghounds has a requirement of approximately twenty hounds. An average foxhunt pack has 80 hounds. There are approximately fifteen thousand hounds in foxhound kennels, and some three thousand are bred each year. Foxhounds are instinctive in as much as they require no training to hunt the scent left by a fox in much the same way, as a sheepdog puppy instinctively understands its purpose. However, what both breeds require is experience and direction. I.E. these instincts need to be harnessed and honed for them to perform their task with the maximum effectiveness.
Anti-hunting campaigners suggest that all the hounds currently used for fox hunting could automatically convert to draghunting. No evidence has been made available to the wider public about how this could possibly be achieved and those involved in both draghunting and foxhunting could quite easily prove that this is simply not possible.
Bloodhounds are a separate breed and this form of hunting provides no opportunity for any of the quarry hounds, so a ban on hunting will leave over fourteen thousand foxhounds redundant, and that is before any consideration is given to harriers, beagles and bassets.
5. If draghunting would inevitably replace foxhunting, then is it not true that hounds could simply convert to this form of hunting?
Foxhounds are like any special breed of dog. They are bred instinctively to hunt their quarry, but require training and experience to hone them into a disciplined fashion. To suggest that an animal, which is bred to follow a particular scent, can practically over-night be converted to hunt another one is a massive miscalculation. The idea that these animals bred for several hundred years to hunt fox would then apparently ignore foxes that they would undoubtedly encounter during a day’s hunting is unrealistic.
6. What about employment?
Fewer hounds mean job losses in kennels. Most draghunt packs are privately owned. They are mostly hunted by ‘amateurs’ who provide and look after their own horses. Many of the draghounds are now kennelled with quarry packs. Currently quarry pack kennel establishments provide 910 full time jobs. Even with the assumed doubling of existing drag packs, full time kennel jobs are unlikely to reach sixty. Thus a loss of 850 jobs at kennel establishments alone would occur. Additionally, the bulk of the remaining 13,000 jobs in industries directly dependent on hunting would be lost.
Produce Studies survey (1996) for the British Equestrian Trade Association shows that hunting provides the following:
Fodder, Bedding, Saddlery, Clothing, - 3,514 jobs
Vets, Farriers, Livery Yards – 5,846 jobs.
Hotels, HorseBox Builders, Garages – 1,000 jobs.
Stable Staff of Hunt Followers – 3,000 jobs.
Total = 13,910 jobs
Q. Less than 1000 jobs depend on hunting.
A. The League Against Cruel Sports claims that pro-hunting campaigners cite inconsistent figures on how many jobs depend on field sports. They claim that pro-hunting campaigners "admit" that the "real" figure for jobs is 910. The only available research on employment levels in country sports comes from The British Equestrian Trade Association and from Cobham Resource Consultants - a research unit commissioned to report its findings to 89 bodies including the British Deer Society, the Forestry Commission and the Home Office. 910 is the Cobham Report figure for all the hunts’ own waged kennel employees. Obviously, far more people than that are employed on behalf of hunts in outside firms such as livery stables, and employed thanks to expenditure on hunting. The Cobham study says that they total 15,200. Anti-hunt crusaders have clearly seen and studied the research but misrepresented it in a clumsy way, which can be easily rebutted by referring to the original research.
The Burns report stated that between 6-8,000 full time equivalent jobs depend on hunting. BETA (British Equestrian Trade Association) research found that 14,000 jobs in the equestrian industry would be lost in the event of a ban, but the total number affected could be considerably higher.
Q. If draghunting is so attractive to hunt followers, or capable of expansion, why aren’t more quarry hunters doing it already?
A. It is estimated 1,500 mounted people follow draghounds regularly at present in 30 packs. There are 40,000 regular mounted followers. (Source: British Equestrian Trade Association survey 1997.) Draghunting has been around for 150 years, and if it were a viable substitute for quarry hunting, more crossovers would surely have taken place already?
208,100 people (mounted and unmounted) participate in quarry hunting. (Source: Cobham Resource Consultants 1997.)
Opponents of hunting constantly claim that there is a large element of the horse owning population who dislike quarry hunting and are waiting for the opportunity to go out draghunting. Why are they not doing so already when packs of draghounds exist across most of the UK which is suitable for that activity? If they are that keen and that competent surely they wouldn’t have waited till now to take it up?
Q. Hunters frequently use the argument that a large number of hounds would need to be put down if hunting was banned. However hunters don’t care about hounds anyway as they shoot them age 6 or 7, well before their normal life expectancy.
A. 1. This is nonsense, a visit to any kennel in Britain would reveal that the men and women in charge of their welfare are deeply passionate about their animals. Campaigners against hunting have got no evidence whatsoever to suggest this is not the case whereas there are thousands of cases weekly across the UK of dog owners charged with cruelty and neglect of their animals. Why is it therefore that the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports are not campaigning for a ban on pet ownership as this is clearly an area of enormous suffering? When hounds become too old to hunt regularly with their pack they are frequently passed on in their retirement to other packs of hounds who either do not breed their own or the requirements of pace etc may not be so noticeable.
However, when hounds reach an age where their quality of life really is no longer, they are treated in exactly the same way as any responsible dog owner in the UK would treat their dog. They are put down before the animal begins to suffer and become miserable. Can any responsible dog or cat owner in the UK say that they would not do the same?
Q. Don’t the R.S.P.C.A. and The League Against Cruel Sports say it would be quite simple to re-house foxhounds in the event of a ban.
The National Canine Defence League announced that over 22,000 stray dogs were put down in the last year, as there were no homes for them – 10% more than the previous year. An average foxhound weighs over 70 pounds, and requires a phenomenal amount of exercise. The idea of attempting to find homes for 25,000 such animals is ludicrous and the welfare issues it raises astonishing.
Q. What about the welfare of the horses used for hunting?
The BETA 1999 National Equestrian Survey estimates that 63,000 horses are kept primarily for hunting – hunting is now the largest user of horses and ponies of any equine activity in Britain. The likelihood is that a significant number of the horses used for hunting would become redundant, even if 20% of people took up draghunting that would still leave over 50,000. Such a massive amount of horses coming onto the open market would inevitably lead to a sharp drop in horse prices – as the value of horse decrease, so the chance of that horse being neglected or mistreated increases.
The International League for the Protection of Horses submission to the Burns Inquiry said “It is our view highly significant that, whereas the ILPH receives over 1100 complaints of cruelty or neglect each year, not one substantiated complaint has related to an equine known to be used in hunting over the six years that records have been held”
“ Unlike riding school horses, competition horses and trekking horses, the ILPH has no record of hunting horses being neglected or abused”
Q. On the one hand hunting people argue that foxes need controlling and theirs is the best and only method to do it, and yet on the other hand claim that if hunting were banned foxes would become extinct. Surely this is a contradiction in so much as those who have a problem with pest control would surely welcome a ban on hunting on the basis it would lead to extinction of the pest which is causing them a problem in the first place?
A. This is an often quoted but somewhat simplistic assertion. One of the principal arguments for the continuance of hunting is that it serves a management purpose. That and other methods of control resulted in a fox population in Britain which is relatively high, relatively healthy and which impacts minimally on livestock, pets and other wild animals. Clearly and openly hunts do not wish to be responsible for the extermination of the fox because in so doing they would exterminate themselves. It is therefore in a hunts' interest to ensure that there is a population available for next season that is to the level which is acceptable to hunting’s farming hosts. We see no difficulty in that balance and acknowledge the place of the fox in the rural ecosystem.
Q. Hunters cannot decide whether they are thinning out or conserving foxes?
A. Hunting helps to reduce the fox population to a level that agriculture and wild species can tolerate. The RSPB uses limited fox control on its bird sanctuaries. Nobody wants the fox wiped out. The culture of hunting saves the fox from demotion to vermin status, when it would be controlled more ruthlessly, like the rat. Hunting thins out and conserves. Simple, isn’t it?
Q. If hounds are really necessary as part of fox control surely you can simply use them to flush the foxes out of undergrowth to enable a group of shooters on the outside to kill the foxes? Wouldn’t this be quicker and more humane?
A. This system is used in parts of Scotland, Wales and the West Country. In these areas huge tracts of forestry, (up to 50,000 acres in one block) are almost impossible to hunt by traditional means and other forms of fox control are virtually impossible, and certainly ineffective. Packs of foxhounds are therefore used to hunt these foxes and ‘guns’ stand on tracks through the woodlands in order to shoot the foxes. In places this system is effective, but in areas of open mountain and hillside it is often either dangerous or impractical. Those who practise this form of hunting also acknowledge that it is not necessarily selective (i.e. a healthy fox or vixen is as likely to be shot as an unhealthy one or dog fox) and that foxes can frequently be injured owing to the fact that ‘guns’ are only often able to take a shot as the fox gallops away from them. Therefore, the most likely area of a ‘hit’ is across the back and hindquarters. In these circumstances hounds are essential in tracking the injured animal in order to dispatch it. Furthermore injured foxes like this frequently find the first available earth to go down following which is necessary to use terriers to locate it and quickly dispatch it in the normal manner.
Q. Foxhunting is really no different from bear baiting, cockfighting and bull baiting and should be banned.
A. There isn’t now, nor have there ever been any similarities between those forms of activities and legitimate country sports. Those activities involved taking a wild animal, disabling it, placing it in unnatural circumstances and baiting it in circumstances where death was inevitable. There was also financial gain via betting. There is no financial gain from the death of a fox or other quarry species. The activity takes place in those animals’ natural surroundings where its chances of escape are extremely high, (in the region of 80%). The death of a quarry species in hunting is not an incentive for participants, and their enjoyment of the activity can be as great where the death does not take place, as when it does. The same cannot be said of bear baiting, cockfighting and bull baiting.
Q. Hunts frequently trespass on property where they are not allowed, and kill or disturb domestic pets or other animals.
A. In an average season, 22,500 days hunting take place across Britain, hounds being in the open on average 135,000 hours. That is the equivalent of something like 17,000 working days. During the course of those days inevitably some things go wrong – we are all fallible. A dossier attached to this document sets out what is known by our opponents as ‘hunt havoc’, over the past two hunting seasons. Every effort is made when planning a days hunting to take into account the needs and wishes of the farmers in the district where hunting is to take place. These wishes may involve the need to avoid land which is freshly planted or where sheep or cattle are shortly to lamb or calve. Other farmers may simply not wish hunting to take place, but others are adamant that it should. All of these factors must be taken into account when the hunt plans its calendar. In addition to this, account must be taken of major roads, conurbations, villages and railway lines.
Nevertheless, events can conspire to interfere with these plans. A change in weather conditions such as the veering of the wind, can result in the hunt staff being temporarily distanced from the hunting pack of hounds. When scent is very good the hounds therefore hunt quickly, pace can vary enormously. Also the fox is an unpredictable animal and has no respect for boundaries or hazards, (indeed it is the fox’s unpredictability which makes the sport such a fascinating one). The result can be that the fox and the hounds can outmanoeuvre the mounted followers and find itself in an area where it should not be. In those circumstances it is up to the hunt staff to quickly get to the hounds, retrieve them and retreat to a ‘neutral corner’ to reassess the position.
The assertion that during these moments the hounds are out of control, is not so. People believe that because the hounds are unaccompanied that they are automatically out of control. The hound is bred and trained to hunt the scent of the fox. In order to prevent them doing that the huntsman or whipper-in needs to get “to their heads” in order to ensure they can notice and hear his instructions for them to stop hunting. Simply blowing a hunting horn when a mile away with the wind in the wrong direction, is a complete waste of time, but is sometimes interpreted as lack of control.
Hunting people have recognised that hunting can and should only take place where it is physically possible to do so. Hence why enormous lengths of motorway and railway have been fenced against hounds, (e.g. the M4 and M5 in Gloucestershire) to avoid exactly this scenario. The Governing bodies of hunting are continuing to address the amalgamation of hunts and realignment of boundaries to avoid such accidents occurring. Hunt Masters are constantly reminded of the need for watertight organisation to avoid giving offence of irritation to those landowners who may not be keen to see the hounds.
It is of course, a requirement for hunts to be fully insured, so that in the worst case scenario those people adversely affected by the presence of their local hunt can and should be fully recompensed for any disturbance they have suffered.
There have also been incidents where a domestic pet such as the cat, has been caught by the local pack of hounds. Such incidents are heart rending and devastating for everybody, (including the hunt staff) concerned. Nevertheless dogs and indeed foxes, do occasionally kill cats. The fact that the numbers killed by foxhounds are thankfully, minimal, is a credit to the skills of the huntsmen. Over 10,000 cats were either killed or seriously injured in 1998 by use of airweapons across the UK, whereas 5 were killed as a result of foxhunting. Although it makes no difference to the need for hunts to exert discipline, cats are frequently killed as a result of a number of human activities. Hunting appears to be the only one which activists have suggested is made illegal.
Finally, there have also been incidents where hounds have got onto railway lines and either been killed by electric current or by passing trains. Masters are instructed annually that it is illegal to get on railway lines, and that they must at all times contact their local Railtrack manager or British Transport police officer when they have been responsible for a breach of rules. Huntsmen who have had hounds killed on the railway have described the horror and despair of such an accident. They do not need to be told so by opponents. Again thankfully, it is negligible in global terms compared, for example, with the 126 human deaths on railway lines in 1997/98, (which excludes suicides and station deaths). Nevertheless, the need to minimise and reduce the risk of railway accidents is of critical importance and is addressed in separate evidence.
Q. Foxes are bred for hunting.
A. They are not, the fox population being relatively high in all parts of Britain. There is no evidence to support this allegation despite copious references to it by the opposition.
Q. Why is it necessary to have such a large number of people and hounds to chase one fox?
A. Only the hounds hunt the fox and it needs a number of those to act as a team. Firstly, to find a fox in thick undergrowth or on open hill needs a pack to spread out and “work up” to their quarry. Once the hunt is underway different hounds will be able to follow the line with different skills i.e. some may be better on a dusty track, others on a ploughed field. When one loses the scent another may pick it up and their cry binds them together.
Q. It is simply wrong to take the life of an animal.
A. This is an honourable position but one which if adopted has far reaching implications. Not only would hunting, shooting, fishing and other country sports be condemned, but also all forms of meat eating and even the use of working dogs or racehorses, which are at risk from injury or death as part of their daily activities.
Q. On certain Scottish islands there are no foxes yet lamb mortality is much the same as the rest of the UK.
This is inconsistent. Other factors apply in the Western Isles such as weather and conditions. The fact is that sheep farmers and others in the UK accept that foxes are pests and they are even deemed so under the 1947 Agriculture Act.
Q. Hounds are deliberately bred to be slow so as to prolong the chase.
A. Hounds are bred for stamina, nose (i.e. ability to follow a scent) among many other attributes. Any visit to a hound show or glance at a reference book will explain that the last thing hunts want their hounds to be is slow. They are designed to be as fast as ground and hunting conditions allow them. If hunts wanted them to be slow it would be much simpler to feed them until they were fat or simply ensure that they are not properly fit.
Q. It has been said that foxes can escape from hounds and then die from either exhaustion or other injuries.
A. No evidence exists to support this, only speculation, and some of that is hundreds of years old. There has been one example recently where hunt saboteurs interfered with the process of hounds killing a fox, dragging it from a hole, putting it in a sack and driving it a considerable distance to a vet who then declared it was stressed. This was hardly a surprise and insufficient scientific grounds upon which to generalise. Compared with any other method of fox control, hunting is the only method that guarantees escape (totally unharmed) or death.
Q. Most farmers in this country are the tenants of rich and powerful landlords and dare not say no to hunting.
A. Surveys taken at various locations across the country of both tenant farmers and owner-occupiers do not support this theory. Frequently the decision as to whether hunting should take place is left with the tenant. However, in the case of some County Councils, this decision has been removed from their gift. Many tenant farmers hunt themselves.
Q. Hunting has not prevented a loss of wetlands, hedgerows, moorlands or SSSIs in this country.
A. It is impossible to make this judgement. Although there has been a decline in these areas it has been definitely less pronounced where organised and recognised field sports take place. It is impossible to say how the landscape would have evolved without these activities. What is provable is that in many if not all areas, they contribute to the bio-diversity of the land. Equally, the three most vociferous opponents of hunting in the UK (IFAW/RSPCA/LACS) have barely planted a tree between them.
Q. It has been said that hounds defecating in public places are a health risk not only to humans but agricultural animals also.
A. All hounds are regularly dosed with recognised wormer for all forms of round or tapeworms. Again there is no evidence to suggest that there is any greater risk to public health than there is from domestic dogs. Hounds like any other animal are bound by the Dogs (Fouling of Public Places) Act 1992.
Q. It has been said that where foxes are scarce hunts bring them in and release them on the day of the hunt.
A. This is strictly against the rules of all recognised hunting bodies. It was a practice in the nineteenth century but anybody caught engaged in that sort of practice now would be banned from taking part in organised hunting.
Q. Neither the fox nor the hare is naturally suited to the chase.
A. Whose judgement is this? Both have been hunted for many centuries and neither species has suffered as a result.
Q. Hares are transported to coursing meetings.
A. This is untrue. Farms where coursing is practised often encourage hares to reside there by careful farming practises and good predator control, which not only benefit the hare, but also a huge variety of other wildlife – encourages bio-diversity. The idea of transporting a hare into a strange area is ridiculous and illegal.
Q. Hunting has nothing in common with shooting and fishing.
A. The common link between these activities is that it involves a human being taken an animal life in the name of sport. That cannot be disputed. The fact that in certain circumstances the quarry may be eaten is really irrelevant if we are addressing this from the point of view of animal welfare. If fish were not sentient beings, fishing would be barely attractive as a sport. The thrill of fishing is the bold fight that the fish puts up. If it felt no pain it is unlikely that it would fight? Shooting is more complex. If it is to be perfectly legal to shoot a hare, (and of course, there are some risks attached to this) then why should it be illegal to course or hunt it? Why should it be illegal to hunt a fox and not kill it and yet legal to go out and shoot ten or eleven foxes at any time of year under no particular restrictions?
Q. LACS lies and Videotape
A. Anti-hunting campaigners claim to have an overwhelming case, and have been collecting "evidence" on film and video for years. So why are they using doctored photographs in their advertising? An advert showing a smirking huntsman with a fox has been enhanced with a stand-in's face, according to its advertising agency, Euro RSCG. Another advert uses a picture of an injured fox to demonstrate the fate of pregnant vixens. It is a male fox. The picture has been used in anti-hunting literature since 1982, captioned as having been taken in October, when foxes cannot possibly be pregnant.
In 2001, the Advertising Standards Authority ordered the LACS to withdraw an advertisement about coursing when the ASA concluded that it was misleading. The LACS have also fallen foul of the ASA regarding another advertisement over the effectiveness of hunting in terms of pest control. The RSPCA have also been condemned by the ASA for using misleading poll data. The League Against Cruel Sports has used video footage of animals being subjected to banned practises that do not reflect organised hunting in Britain. The camera does not lie. The editing suite can.
Q. Barbaric and perverted, hunting people gain a sadistic pleasure from hunting.
A. Very few people accuse anglers of taking a sadistic pleasure in catching fish or shooters from killing game. People accept that the sports of angling and shooting are not about the death or distress caused to fish or pheasants. Neither is the sport aspect of hunting anything to do with the death of animals. Hunt followers include vets and grooms, doctors and nurses - people who spend their lives caring for animals and other people.
Q. Many farmers do not allow hunting on their land.
Every farmer who does not invite a hunt onto his land because there is no local hunt, or because his land is unsuitable for hunting is counted by anti hunters as a farmer who has "banned" hunting. Hunts affiliated with the MFHA are allowed rights to cull foxes on 50-90% of rural land area, with exclusive rights on 10% - 60% dependant on region. The Game Conservancy Rural Fox Management Project shows that in Powys and in East Leicestershire, 90% of farmers give permission to hunt. Even in Norfolk with its intensity of game shooting and lower fox population, 73% of farmers allow hunting.
Q. Country people reject hunting too, according to the polls.
A. Not the case. Burns carried out detailed research into attitudes towards hunting. The research revealed that only 25% of people that live in rural areas are opposed to hunting.
Q. Professor Bateson has proved that hunted deer suffer terribly.
A. Prof. Bateson's conclusions for the National Trust have been strongly criticised by leading scientists, including those with more experience of studying deer. They dispute his description of deer as "sedentary animals," and there are concerns over Prof. Bateson’s choice of data, and the use of untrained amateurs to collect blood samples. His contention that hunted deer enter a worse physical state than deer run over by cars defies common sense, seeing that escaped hunted deer recover, and deer hit by cars do not. He never attempted to examine a live deer specimen after a real or simulated chase. Anti-hunt claims that Bateson is "conclusive" betray deep ignorance about scientific method. In science, no one study is ever considered conclusive.
Q. In staghunting, deer are killed by the hounds.
A. Anti-hunt campaigners like to imply that deer are killed by hounds through their artful choice of words and pictures. Hunted deer are killed with a licensed firearm at the point where they "stand at bay" - an instinctive behaviour well known to naturalists, meaning that the deer has decided to fight a predator that it has failed to escape by running.
Q. It is frequently said that hunting shouldn’t be banned because this is an infringement of civil liberties. Was not the same said about bear baiting, cock fighting and other forms of animal abuse? Surely this would mean that no laws could ever be passed that somebody’s freedoms would be infringed by them?
A. The difference between unregulated activities such as cock fighting and bear baiting and regulated field sports has already been answered. The litmus test for legislation of this nature must surely be that it is either in the public interest, or that the activity either damages people who do it, the areas in which they do it or that the nation would immediately and substantially benefit from legislation of this nature. None of these conditions are proven.
|
