Prosecutions and priorities

Last week the RSPCA published its prosecutions report showing that convictions for cruelty to animals had risen in 2012 by almost 34%.  A sickening statistic, but sadly one that is in line with every single year since the passing of the Hunting Act in 2004. It makes a mockery of the statement that banning hunting was a “watershed in the development of a more civilised society for people and animals”, a claim made by the charity on the very day this law was passed.

The catalogue of cases reported is appalling, ranging from acts of sadism towards amphibians and birds captured on mobile phones just for fun to the unwanted puppies buried alive to evidence of horrific neglect and cruelty to equines and other pets. Few would doubt that there is certainly something very wrong with the human psyche that allows, let alone enjoys, such acts.

All the people found guilty of these crimes deserve the punishments meted out to them and many would argue that they deserve far more. However, the judicial system works within rules and guidelines and the punishments and fines handed down in these cases generally reflect the severity of each case, the degree of suffering caused and the attitude of the perpetrator.

Common sense would also say that prosecution costs should be roughly in line with those factors too and yet nowhere in the report can these figures be found. In situations such as those in which animals are found to have been caused severe suffering for a considerable amount of time, and incidents in which the gathering of evidence has been difficult and time consuming, one would naturally expect and accept that prosecution costs would be high. In other words, that the money spent is proportionate to the end result, but that is not always the case as can be seen by the inclusion of the Heythrop Hunt case in the prosecution report – a ‘landmark’ case that cost the RSPCA £326,000, causing the judge to refer to the amount as “staggering” and question the RSPCA’s priorities.

The  later ‘justification’ that the evidence was obtained by “independent hunt monitors” is sheer rubbish, as the self-appointed ‘monitors’ involved are totally biased against hunting. The prosecution costs were increased by using highly paid lawyers to view the filmed evidence and act for the charity– a point never fully explained by the RSPCA and certainly not mentioned in TV advertisements.

Cruelty figures continue to rise and the RSPCA resources are stretched

The fall-out after that case brought the prosecution role of the RSPCA into the media spotlight, prompting a parliamentary debate and a warning from the Charity Commission. Since then further cases brought by the RSPCA against hunts have collapsed, with costs running into tens of thousands of pounds usually being picked up by the tax payer. The most recent case against the Avon Vale Hunt just this week saw the judge criticise the charity for such an enormous waste of money and court time.

It would appear the no lessons have been learned. At a meeting of the All Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare last month, RSPCA officials gave a presentation on the society’s prosecution work. During a Q&A session at the end, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question, “Given that money is limited and that cases of cruelty have to be prioritised, that the Association of Chief Police Officers place breaches of the Hunting Act at the level of a fixed penalty offence and given that there is a question mark over the future of the Hunting Act with the government raising the possibility of repeal, what was in the minds of the RSPCA prosecution team in being prepared to spend an enormous amount of money in prosecuting the Heythrop Hunt?”

The response from Phil Wilson of the RSPCA’s Prosecutions Department revealed more than a little prejudice against hunting, “If people like you, or the people you work for, have a problem with us prosecuting people who break the Hunting Act, I don’t really care.”  He compared the Heythrop Hunt costs to those incurred in bringing to trial individuals involved in the Amersham/Spindle’s Farm prosecution, described in the media as Britain’s worse case of horse abuse.

What he and those representing the RSPCA can’t seem to grasp is that the genuine suffering relieved by the removal and treatment of the animals in this horse case, and indeed those cases mentioned earlier, can in no way compare with the ‘benefit’, such as it was, by prosecuting members of the Heythrop Hunt. Days, weeks or even years confined in appalling conditions is in a different league altogether to the hunting of a wild animal that is in its own environment and is used to hunting and being hunted by a natural means i.e. scenting hounds.

There is a certain attitude within some animal groups that makes them think that they can simply take on the world of cruelty – or what they see as cruelty – regardless of any practicality. Bold comments about ‘standing up for all animals’ may bring in the donations, but in reality they mean little and with limited funding priorities have to be made.

Huntsman Tony Wright with the Exmoor Foxhounds – young and old

Yet the RSPCA and its ‘sister’ organisation, the League Against Cruel Sports, would rather prosecute someone like Tony Wright, Huntsman with the Exmoor Foxhounds. In 2006, Tony was the first hunt staff member to be found guilty under the Hunting Act following a LACS prosecution. Hailed as another ‘landmark case’, it took three years for the criminal conviction hanging over Tony’s head to be finally dismissed on appeal. It would be hard to find a more gentle and kindly man than Tony Wright, who allows his old hounds that have passed their hunting days to live out their lives pottering around the kennels. So what was the animal welfare gain in his prosecution? Zero.

The two judges sitting in the High Court which ended Tony’s years of worry described the Hunting Act as, “a most unusually formulated bundle of diverse exemptions.” And that’s exactly right. The Hunting Act doesn’t include any animal welfare provisions – it simply creates technical offences. To see this law as a genuine welfare measure and worse, to take prosecutions under it as if by doing so one is achieving a valid welfare outcome, is as misguided as it is wasteful and deceitful.

That RSPCA presentation in parliament concluded with a quote by founder Richard Martin MP, “If legislation to protect animals is to be effective, it must be adequately enforced.”  Very true, but that legislation must be clear, proportionate and be based on a principle – three important criteria missing from the Hunting Act.  Also missing was the word ‘foxhunter’ after Richard Martin’s name.

With incidents of animal abuse rising, we need the RSPCA. But we need an RSPCA that can tell the difference between genuine cruelty and political headline grabbing. We need an RSPCA that knows the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. We need an RSPCA that is true to its past and doesn’t pander to obsessive anti hunting fanatics.

Grandstanding on the Grand National

If the journalists who covered this year’s Grand National had been horses in that race, a sizeable number would have fallen at the first fence. Why? Because they are lazy.

As so often happens with issues that are seen as controversial, many journalists go for the sensational headline grabber and that means publicising the views of those on the extreme. “We always want to embrace the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare and organisations like that, that we can have constructive dialogue with and work alongside them” said John Baker, who manages Aintree as the Jockey Club’s regional director. “That’s an impossibility with Animal Aid. They are a campaigning organisation, not a charity and they have some very extreme views.” He added, “We think Animal Aid get far too much air time from certain broadcasters… That’s just lazy journalism, dealing in extremes to see what happens and get a reaction from people instead of having a sensible and balanced debate.”

A sensible and balanced debate is the last thing many in the animal rights world want – it’s one of the major differences between animal welfare and animal rights. Yet, when every issue is reduced to a ‘ban or no ban’ option, it usually doesn’t reflect reality or prove to be helpful.

At one level, the message put out by various organisations regarding this year’s Grand National was clear –  horses shouldn’t be put at excessive risk – but at another level the call was confused precisely because the groups involved have different agendas and aims…or at least they say they do. Animal Aid wants the race banned; the RSPCA bizarrely threatened a ‘yellow card’ before the race, then gave a cautious welcome to the modifications. The League Against Cruel Sports appeared to be somewhere between the two. Yet all cosy-up to each other.

The difficulty in this debate is determining exactly what those animal groups want. How can a campaign operate when its supporters want to see the race modified and banned at the same time? Do they wish to see all horse racing banned? Indeed, do they wish any event that involves animals to be abolished?  There will be people in these groups who fall into all of these categories. So, unlike say a political debate, in which the major parties have laid out their views and policies in order that everyone knows roughly where they stand, this doesn’t happen with some animal rights campaigns. Consequently, while we know what they dislike, we don’t know what they will find acceptable. If the parameters of an argument are unknown it’s no wonder there is mistrust of such groups in many quarters.

As it turned out, Baroness Mallalieu, a supporter of World Horse Welfare and President of the Countryside Alliance, has for some time expressed her concerns about this race and I suspect that it was her voice and others like her that had just as much influence, if not more, on those race organisers who have made modifications to the Grand National.

No one denies that there are problems in the wider horse breeding world and the horse meat scandal continues, with traces of bute (which also means horse) found in a supermarket brand product just this week. One good thing that has come out of this is that a light has been shone on how meat products are produced as well as the plight of many horses both in this country and abroad.

A few weeks ago I was contacted by a former Countryside Alliance stalwart, Janet George, who spoke of her concerns about horse welfare and what steps she felt should be taken. She is now the patron of Equine Market Watch, a small charity that works to improve conditions at horse sales and also runs an equine sanctuary (http://www.emwuk.org.uk). Janet highlighted problems with the horse passport scheme, echoing issues that Baroness Mallalieu has also raised about the breeding, abuse and abandoning of equines. More on these issues later.

 

Two EMW residents

The point being made here, however, is that Ann Mallalieu and Janet George are both from a world that isn’t supposed to care for animals if you believe the nonsense trotted out by the animal groups mentioned earlier. Yet through their contacts and knowledge they quietly get on with the job without seeking praise, recognition and certainly without any grandstanding. Indeed, the Countryside Alliance, through its ‘Rural Oscars’ awards has probably achieved more in genuine animal welfare terms than some of the campaigning, banner-waving groups. The promotion of local butchers, where the origin of the animals is known, how they lived and where the animals concerned have not had to travel across several different countries must be a good thing. Such thinking is in line with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s River Cottage pledge to seek out the provenance of the meat being bought. Even as a vegetarian, I can see that these moves must be in the interest of animal welfare, as well as being good for the local (and British) economy.

Think about what you’re eating

So where does this leave those groups that claim animal welfare is their exclusive domain? A major part of the problem is that those in charge of these groups will never admit that they might be wrong or that those in organisations promoting different views also wish to see animal welfare improved. It leads to simplistic ‘solutions’ that are inevitably flawed, the Hunting Act being a prime example. Will the LACS ever admit that failure, even though we know they are fully aware of this law’s major defects? They see the benefit of a genuine wild mammals welfare law based on evidence instead of opinion, but realise that it would make their ridiculous Hunting Act redundant and so reject it. Will the RSPCA ever admit that it was wrong to bring the enormously expensive prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt?  They can’t even understand the criticism that followed in the national press and took the Daily Telegraph to the Press Complaints Commission for its coverage of the case.  This week that complaint was thrown out, with the RSPCA spokesman saying that the decision gave, “the green light for critical and politically motivated attacks on charities by hostile media”.  Could he not take a step back and see that the prosecution itself was a politically motivated attack, as well as being a very expensive publicity stunt?

Unfortunately, the answer to all these questions is ‘no’, because, for some in the animal rights world, publicity is obviously more important than progress.

In praise of dogs

The name Laika probably doesn’t mean much to many people.

Laika was a three year old dog who made history by being the first animal to orbit the earth – and she was also the first animal I can remember feeling desperately worried about. Taken as a stray from the streets of Moscow and sent into space by the Russians in 1957, she made news around the world and to a young boy this was incredibly exciting. It was only when I asked if she had come back unharmed that my excitement turned to sadness. Answers varied and seemed to avoid a full explanation, but it was only many years later that Laika’s true fate was revealed – she had died shortly after take-off in a painful combination of over-heating and stress. “The more time passes, the more I’m sorry about it. We shouldn’t have done it…. We did not learn enough from this mission to justify the death of the dog.” admitted the senior scientist, Oleg Gazenko. A statue to Laika now stands in Moscow.

Statue to Laika outside a military research facility in Moscow

Man’s relationship with the dog, formed over tens of thousands of years, has become far more than that of simply a companion animal. Forged initially through hunting, it has been, and still is, a truly remarkable bonding, sometimes to the detriment of the individual animal as with Laika, but often to the benefit of both man and dog. Of course there are still the cases of cruelty through neglect, abandonment and deliberate attacks that hit the headlines in the UK almost daily. So-called ‘status dogs’, usually a Staffordshire Bull terrier type, can be seen in any large town along with their stereotypical owners, but despite this the British undoubtedly love their dogs.  It would seem that something very special has happened between man and dog over thousands of years. Indeed, there is now a scientific view that the brain of the domesticated dog is actually changing to become more like that of the higher primates because of dog’s proximity to man.

The many ways in which dogs help humans is truly staggering: search and rescue dogs, guide dogs, hearing dogs, dogs for the disabled, guard dogs, police dogs, drug sniffer dogs, explosive sniffer dogs, herding dogs, dogs that can detect cancer, dogs that can predict an epileptic fit and dogs that can tell when a diabetic person’s blood sugar reaches a dangerous level. Then, there are the simply amazing deeds of companion dogs. A three year old girl who recently went missing over night in Poland was found alive thanks to her pet dog, who kept her warm overnight in sub-zero temperatures.

It is the truly astounding scenting power of the dog that has given it the ability to perform most of the remarkable functions mentioned above and this raises an interesting question. If dogs can be used in so many beneficial ways, why then has their use in wildlife management been interrupted by law in the UK?

Scent is something that is little understood and aspects of it are still being discovered, but if dogs can detect the minute changes in the human condition, is it not reasonable that the scent of an ailing or injured animal can also be detected? Wolves catch the old, weak and diseased animals in the main when they hunt and scenting hounds have evolved to do the same. Brian Fanshawe, a highly experienced former Master and Huntsman, explained how rewarding it was for hounds to find the scent whatever the conditions. “Dogs love to please and be pleased. Finding scent pleases dogs be they sniffer dogs or hunting hounds and rewards their handlers. Such successes cement the working relationship between man and dog”. It doesn’t matter at all that humans are involved in organising a hunt – this is man using the selective function of nature.

There appears to be a mental block in the minds of certain animal organisations when it comes to dogs doing what they do naturally i.e. hunt. During the committee stages of the Hunting Act and previous similar bills, anti-hunting MPs found great difficulty in wording the main clause outlawing “hunting with dogs” for the simple reason that it is the hounds that “hunt” rather than the humans.

The rhetoric of anti-hunting groups referring to dogs “attacking” wildlife and lumping the activity of hunting in with badger baiting and dog fighting is all designed to create an impression in the public mind of rampaging killer animals. Yet, as anyone who has had contact with the various breeds of hounds will know, they are truly friendly and faithful animals that have a remarkable attachment to the hunt staff, as John Griffiths, Environment Minister for Wales discovered when he visited the Glamorgan Hunt kennels last year. The bond between the Master, Jackie Thomas, and his hounds when he took them for a short walk was obvious and the fact that such a number could be controlled by one man was not lost on the Minister.

Hounds, Master and Minister

It is this relationship that many in the anti-hunting world will never understand. Of course, just because dogs are used does not automatically make any activity humane or justified, but to point to the relatively few abuses in the hunting field as if they are the norm and ignore the greater picture is to grossly distort what hunting is.

Yet the obsessive drive to ban hunting with dogs, something that has cost literally tens of millions of pounds of private and public money, continues as if it is the very worst thing wildlife can face, when in fact it is the most natural.

The LACS proudly announced at the weekend that their ‘investigators’ would use cameras mounted on drones to “catch wildlife criminals” and by that they mean those hunting with hounds. Yet it was only in 2010, following the tragic death of hunt supporter Trevor Morse in an incident with a gyrocopter belonging to a ‘hunt monitor’, that the LACS said it did not support the use of gyrocopters or any other form of airborne monitoring.

So, change of policy aside, doesn’t anyone at the LACS, RSPCA or any other group opposed to hunting ever stop to think about the disproportionate measures they are taking? The obsession with ‘infiltration’ and ‘investigating’ hunts, like some self-appointed rural police force. The enormously costly legal actions. The need to portray all hunters as sadists. The ridiculous suggestion that there is a “war in the countryside”. Do they really see hunting with hounds as the very worst thing that can happen to wild animals and something that must be stopped at all costs?

It would seem that these anti-hunting groups have forgotten precisely what their real aim should be and in doing so they not only betray animal welfare, they denigrate man’s best friend.

Guest blog – Giles Bradshaw

The Hunting Act came into force exactly eight years ago. Due to its flawed drafting, there were unintended consequences. Here, West Country farmer Giles Bradshaw explains how this law has affected him.

During a recent debate with James Barrington, the current Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, Joe Duckworth, was challenged to justify the illogical exemptions in the Hunting Act. He replied that maybe the exemptions should all be scrapped. Afterwards on twitter he suggested a ‘review’ of the legislation might be required.

This could well mark a major shift in LACS policy towards the Hunting Act, which up until now has been to fully support the law. It should be borne in mind that the exemptions which LACS now appear to oppose make up almost half of the law. Their position on the Hunting Act appears now to be at the very least ambivalent.

When the Act was passed I became concerned that it meant that I would no longer be allowed to chase wild deer from my woods with my five collies. I find that doing this disperses and deters the deer, thus reducing the level of damage they do to my coppiced woodland. I contacted Defra and although initially they told me it would be legal for me to ‘chase away’ wild deer they then later decided that I could no longer do this unless I used only two dogs and shot the deer.

The law has since been clarified by the courts who, in a case against the Quantock Staghounds, ruled that deer can be flushed using dogs but enough guns must be deployed to shoot them all.

The reasoning behind wildlife having to be shot in this manner was explained at the time of the ban by minister Alun Michael, who stated at the time that it was to ‘prevent the possibility of an extended chase.’ This reasoning was further expounded by the Government in the human rights challenge bought against the Hunting Act by the Countryside Alliance and amongst others myself. They, with the formal support of LACS, the RSPCA and IFAW, stated in court with reference to my case that my actions were illegal unless I limited the number of dogs to two and took steps to kill all the wildlife I flush.

I am writing this blog in an attempt to persuade people from both sides of the hunting debate that in my case it should not be necessary for me to kill wildlife. I appreciate that there is an argument for deer to be lethally managed, however if required this should be on a landscape scale. Wild deer, especially wild red deer, roam far and wide and for the small landowner dispersal and deterrence techniques can be enough to reduce unacceptable levels of damage to property.

The knee jerk response to wildlife problems to reach for a gun is very deeply entrenched especially amongst members of the League Against Cruel Sports and many anti hunt MPs and so much so that in their case they believe that it should be a criminal offense for me not to shoot the deer that I flush from cover.

The Labour MP Tom Harris recently explained the logic behind the Hunting Act when I questioned him on twitter. “They are pests, they have been pursued, they must be shot. Simple.”

I think there is another point of view. A pest is after all just an animal in the wrong place. Move the animal to another place and it is no longer a pest. I find my collie dogs are ideal for this.

Given that flushing from cover involves using a dog to chase animals out of cover there are several reasons why shooting them is a rather stupid way to prevent them being chased. These include:

a) The animals already have been chased, being also shot does not reduce their suffering.

b) Shooting running animals is far more likely to wound them than shooting stationary animals.

c) If one waits till the animals are stationary so it won’t be wounded it will no longer be being chased, so why shoot it to prevent something that isn’t happening?

d) Deer often come in herds, it’s quite likely that you won’t manage to gun down the entire herd and if you don’t then the one’s you do kill will have died in vain as the remaining animals could still be chased.

e) It’s often easier and more effective to just call the dogs off.

I have talked to various people in the movements for and against hunting and it is clear that not everybody agrees with the current legal situation. Three RSPCA inspectors have raised doubts. One telling me that what I do is a ‘pretty good way to move deer out of a wood.’ Another told me in writing that ‘I have read plenty blogs/letters by you on this subject. I don’t have any argument with you on this one.’

Jim Barrington, the ex chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, wrote to me to say: ‘You’re right. When you think about how stalking is carried out (careful lining up on one static animal etc) the thought of ten shooters all taking aim at a running herd doesn’t bear thinking about.’

Perhaps even more importantly Richard Benyon MP, a Defra minister, recently voiced his agreement that the Hunting Act should not require wildlife to be killed.

This is just one of many ways in which the Hunting Act as it stands does not make sense. In my opinion the Hunting Act does need to be reviewed. Not only by LACS but by Parliament and the sooner the better. We need an open and honest debate in which its obvious shortcomings are acknowledged and a democratic decision is taken on a legislative route to rectify the current situation which is unsatisfactory to all parties, not least the nation’s wildlife.

In my opinion the legality of my actions should be based on one factor and one factor alone, not my class, the number of dogs I use, nor indeed whether I use any dogs at all, whether people like or dislike me nor on whether or not I am prepared to shoot wildlife.

What to me is important is whether or not through my actions I am causing cruelty to animals.

Blind faith

I’m sure that most people involved in animal welfare, particularly those who donate their money or time to the myriad of different organisations, have the relief of suffering as their core motivation. The frustration often felt at the speed (or lack of it) of change is understandable. Look, for example, at the flouting of EU rules by numerous countries on ending battery cages and sow stalls, (not to mention the British farmers who are then undermined by cheaper, poorer welfare imports).

Every new generation seems to want to achieve what the previous one failed to do. The problem is that ‘the cause’ of animal welfare/rights sometimes attracts those with a more blinkered and bigoted attitude and this can lead some campaigns down the wrong route – one, I would argue, that is more about making them feel good, rather than achieving any real improvement.

The Hunting Act is a perfect example. A piece of legislation that has been criticised by a wide range of people unconnected to hunting, yet is still regarded as ‘iconic’ by its supporters, some of whom say it’s working well, some saying it requires amending, others saying it has had virtually no effect. Whatever the truth of the matter, their precious Hunting Act must not be condemned and must be obeyed.

It’s against this background that a parliamentary debate took place last week, secured by MP Simon Hart.  It was the prosecution role of the charity that was to be placed under the spotlight, prompted by the Heythrop Hunt case, its “staggering” cost and the fact that the Charity Commission had, as a consequence, written a letter to the RSPCA cautioning the organisation. Though the commission did not consider that the trustees had breached their duty of prudence, they were nevertheless asked to review their current arrangements for prosecutions. Some MPs felt that the high degree of consternation the action had caused both inside and outside parliament warranted scrutiny and felt it right to debate the role and wisdom of the charity’s decisions. Yet, in true ‘them and us’ style, certain anti-hunting MPs chose to see this debate as an attack on the RSPCA as a whole, despite the opening comment from Simon Hart that the organisation “can be, and often is, a huge force for good.”

There was the usual string of emotionally charged descriptions spattering the anti-hunting MPs’ contributions, “We are asked to believe that the apostles of cruelty, who for many years have campaigned in the House to keep gratuitous killing as part of hunting, now want to be compassionate to animals…” and “Rather than worrying about whether the RSPCA is misusing its funds in bringing the prosecution, should we not as taxpayers be criticising the CPS for not being prepared to spend its funding on bringing fox-hunting prosecutions?” All designed to emphasise that if you hunt or are a member of the Countryside Alliance, you are on one side and the RSPCA is on the other – because no hunting person could possibly be concerned about animal welfare. Total rubbish of course, but a line that is constantly sold to the public by anti-hunting groups and MPs for their own ends.

Just consider for a moment, is it really feasible that no hunting person, for example, was shocked by the disgusting, brutal scenes of horse cruelty that took place at the Red Lion abattoir recently? Are they all so hardened, from five year olds upward, that they are immune to such images? This situation suits certain people who have a particular attitude when it comes to animal welfare. They suffer from a form of blind faith, meaning that anything said or done in the name of their ’cause’ must be right. So the RSPCA’s prosecution is justified… for no other reason than they are the RSPCA. The League Against Cruel Sports wins debates…because they are the LACS.

Conversely, anything remotely critical of ‘the cause’ is wrong and must be attacked at every level, even if that means being personal, irrelevant, threatening, untruthful or obscene, something that is now infinitely easier thanks to Twitter and the like. So Simon Hart was “abusing his position as an MP” by simply calling for a debate on the RSPCA. Worse, Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, can even receive death threats for the proposed badger cull to curb bovine TB.

So back to that ‘iconic’ Hunting Act. Certain MPs – some of whom were quite happy to break the law when it suited them – delight in reminding us about how it is now the law of the land. True, but an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) document, circulated to chief constables shortly before the Hunting Act was passed, stated that it regards breaches of the Hunting Act as “low level wildlife crime” usually dealt with by a fixed penalty. One police force claimed that Alun Michael, the then Rural Affairs minister, had “tried to cajole groups such as the RSPCA to enforce the law…”.  This puts the ₤327,000 spent by the RSPCA on prosecuting the Heythrop Hunt into some perspective and, in the eyes of many, totally justifies the parliamentary debate. Of course this will not be accepted by those who blindly follow their own propaganda and can never be objective.

One can’t help thinking that much of the support for the RSPCA’s prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt was more about seeing “posh hunters” in court, rather than what was actually achieved in terms of animal welfare. If the RSPCA and other groups were truly concerned about wild mammal welfare, they would be supportive of the wider, more principled measure proposed by Lord Donoughue. It prompts the question “Is this about animal suffering or is it really about you?”

Having come through the ranks of animal rights groups and then the League Against Cruel Sports, I am convinced that a considerable number of people actively involved in animal rights are more concerned with how they feel (and perhaps their standing with like-minded colleagues) than what they can actually achieve in welfare terms.  Their’s is the view of the fundamentalist. This would explain to a degree why any sort of compromise, agreement or understanding with those they oppose can never be acceptable. That view is strongest in the case of hunting. It also means that there can be only one way forward – their way – and anyone who may hold a different view is, in effect, the enemy, regardless of what good works may have been done for animal welfare, or indeed human welfare, in other fields.

Before I became an employee of the LACS, I worked with adults who had mental and physical disabilities, though I was already involved in an animal rights group. My superior at the time, someone for whom I had considerable respect, came along to one of our meetings and afterwards, when I asked him what he thought, said, “There are causes that need people… and then there are people who need causes”.

I couldn’t see it then, but now I’m sure he was right.

Debatable tactics

Perhaps I might be a little old-fashioned, but I always thought that compliments were supposed to be passed to others, rather than given to oneself.

So to hear Joe Duckworth, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, ‘tweeting’ how he supposedly won a debate with me is odd. The debate, entitled “The rights and wrongs of hunting” was organised by the School of Law at Middlesex University and I spoke as an animal welfare consultant to the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations. I say it’s odd because while I’ve witnessed all forms of hunting with hounds in the UK and abroad, apparently Mr Duckworth has never seen a hunt and so has gained all his knowledge from sitting watching films shot by other people who presumably don’t like hunts either.

There was no vote at the end of this debate, so unless he was somehow aware that the majority of people in the room were his supporters, he couldn’t possibly claim he’d won. Maybe that’s why he brought some of his LACS staff with him as insurance and in any case, in this world of social media, all that matters is getting your message out quickly, ‘retweet’ it and soon it becomes the truth.

But in reality the aptly named Mr Duckworth ducked a number of relevant questions. He argued that the Hunting Act was good legislation. What then was his response to the list of critics of the Act, including politicians from all parties, journalists, police, animal welfare experts, legal experts, veterinarians, senior civil servants and even former Prime Minister, Tony Blair? No answer.

What was his explanation for the numerous illogical clauses in the Hunting Act? No answer.

He described terrier work in graphic detail, but when asked why, if it is so bad, is it legal under the Hunting Act? No answer.

Why, when literally millions of pounds have been spent supporting and enforcing the Hunting Act, not a penny has been spent on researching its effects on wildlife? No answer.

Was wildlife management acceptable or needed? No.

What about the illogical, unprincipled exemptions in the Hunting Act? Get rid of all the exemptions, said Mr Duckworth.

One of the LACS staff members wanted to know why terrier work was legal under the Hunting Act. (One would have though she should know) It was due to the Labour Party’s original promise to deal with hunting, but not to affect shooting. When it became apparent that gamekeepers sometimes use terriers to flush out and kill foxes to protect birds to be shot, an exemption had to be made. Once again very odd if, as the LACS claim, they oppose killing for sport.

I made it absolutely clear that all the activities involving wild mammals, (hunting, shooting, gamekeeping and aspects of farming) could be done well or they could be done badly. So would Mr Duckworth accept a law prohibiting cruelty to all wild mammals in all circumstances, based on evidence rather than opinion? No answer, though he was soon on Twitter seeking to stir up concerns within the shooting world about my comments. He should try to understand that debating is not just about pontificating on what you believe, but answering questions too.

The manner in which he conducted his argument was predictable. It followed the same, tired old lines about “bloodsports fanatics”, how morally reprehensible hunting is, how the people who take part conspire to break the law and even how those undertaking terrier work were often involved in other serious crimes. Ironic really when one recalls that it was only last year that the LACS’ head of campaigns and communications was jailed for 16 months for fraud.

All designed to stir up anger… and all from someone who has never seen a hunt.

The pro hunting people in the audience could not have been further removed from the image Mr Duckworth and his supporters wish to create and it isn’t surprising that many simply don’t bother talking to those antis who have closed minds and have swallowed their own propaganda.

The issues involved in hunting and wildlife management are complex, a fact acknowledged and emphasised by the organisers of the debate. The American writer, Henry Mencken once said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat…and wrong.”  That succinctly describes the Hunting Act. Those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves.  

 

Boxing Day – the meets and the media

If Boxing Day 2012 proved anything it is that the debate over hunting has not been resolved.

Some 300 hunts met across the country, not because they are somehow satisfied with the way in which the Hunting Act has changed their activity, but as a show of defiance against a law that was introduced on the back of ignorance and prejudice and indeed one that is detrimental to animal welfare. All this should have been seen as inevitable when such legislation criminalises a substantial number of decent people who are also key to making the law work.

For an issue that affects relatively few people and animals, hunting seems to stir passions way beyond the actual reality of what a particular group of people sometimes do to certain animals. Clearly there are some people who, no matter what evidence is presented, will never see hunting with dogs as acceptable, but put them to one side for the moment. It is worth considering why so many people seem to show such a high opposition to hunting. Why do individuals who have never seen a hunt, never spoken to a hunting person and never considered life in the wild hold the view that hunting with dogs is so wrong that abolition by law is the only answer? Furthermore, how is it that these same people see anyone who supports hunting as some sort of blood-lusting monster? Understandably, most do not like the idea of animals being killed, but why limit that concern to just one activity?

Part of the answer lies in the propaganda put out by certain groups. Rather than reflect a true picture, it’s obviously easier to demonise your opposition and the idea of ‘toffs killing animals for fun’ is an absolute gift. So there is no such thing as a reasonable hunt supporter who might care for his or her animals – there are only “extremist hunt criminals” rampaging around the country “ripping our wildlife to shreds with their packs of hounds”. I suppose that hunt supporter I saw on Boxing Day taking his elderly dog for a slow stroll and gently putting him up into his vehicle was a figment of my imagination. I must have dreamt about the kindness of other supporters genially offering around sandwiches and drinks. Was that really the Duchess of Cornwall visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home the other day after having given a home to two unwanted Jack Russells? No, can’t have been – she’s been hunting.

The Duchess of Cornwall with Beth, one of her adopted Jack Russells from Battersea Dog and Cats Home

Odd how that these groups somehow manage to categorise everyone into good or bad, based solely on their views about hunting, regardless of what sort of person they might be or what they may do for humans or animals. Certain sections of the press are little better. Look at the way in which some in the media have portrayed hunting and used it for their own ends. Take the front page of the Daily Mirror last week. Does anyone on the reporting staff understand the process of hunting with hounds or indeed considered the alternative methods of wildlife control? Do they understand the Hunting Act itself? Don’t they know that hunts can still legally kill foxes under this law? Do they really think that foxes aren’t being killed by other means? Probably not. Just like the majority of the public, yet they feel absolutely qualified to write utter garbage because they know few of their readers will question their version of events.

A few years ago, the former MP and minister Ann Widdecombe held a press conference for anti hunt ‘monitors’ who spoke of intimidation from hunt supporters. Ms Widdecombe sympathised with them, saying that she understood the fear they experienced as she too had been in a similar situation, but making it clear that her event was nothing to do with hunting. However, the Daily Mirror journalist present saw it differently. The next day this headline (complete with a misspelling of her name) appeared, “Tory Anne Widdecombe told yesterday of the “terrifying” moment her car was kicked by pro-hunting bullies.” A dramatic story that absolutely suited the newspaper’s stance on hunting, reinforced that prejudiced view about hunting people … and was totally fabricated.

Nonsense headline

The comments by Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, were also given a media spin over Christmas. Mr Paterson said that there would not be a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act in 2013. That comment was then reported by some newspapers as no vote at all in this Parliament and that the government had conceded defeat on the matter. Does that mean nothing will happen before 2015? Perhaps we should just wait and see.

The result of all of this propaganda and media hype has provided the bedrock for the antis’ case – the public’s opposition to repeal of the Hunting Act. It’s a claim that is stated endlessly because public opinion polls have said so and they must reflect the truth. But do they? Much depends on what and how questions are asked.

On the face of it, the Leveson Inquiry into the activities of the press has little to do with hunting, but two public opinion polls on the future of the press produced an interesting situation. One poll found 79% of the public agreed that an independent organisation backed by law should control the press. Yet another poll found that only 24% of the public were in favour of press regulation by law. This was all the more notable as both polls were undertaken by the same polling company (YouGov) and in the same month.

The first poll was commissioned by the Media Standards Trust – a body strongly in favour of press regulation. The second poll was commissioned by The Sun newspaper. Both can’t be right, but it is a good example of how figures can be manipulated in polls by asking questions in a particular way so as to get the answer you want and thereby claim public support.

Now take the case of a widely quoted poll on hunting with dogs commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which was undertaken by Ipsos MORI in 2009. Before being questioned about hunting, those taking part in the poll were asked if they wished dog fighting and badger baiting to be made legal. Did those who drafted the questions clarify that baiting and hunting are different activities? Did they describe hunting with hounds as a selective, non-wounding part of wildlife management, whereas the baiting and fighting activities serve no purpose other than giving pleasure to a sick few who care nothing about animal welfare? Did they explain that nothing replaces the fighting ‘sports’ when they stop, as opposed to the various other methods that fill the vacuum left by a hunting ban? Did they hope that those questioned might even think that baiting and fighting activities were part of the repeal debate?

This poll raised serious issues surrounding the manner in which the questions were constructed and thereby the validity of the results they produced. In particular, why were questions about dog fighting and badger baiting were included at all? Moreover, who on earth is calling for dog fighting and badger baiting to be legalised? It can only be that fighting and baiting were included to set the tone of all those questions and, unsurprisingly, the desired results were achieved.

Despite a cross-party group of senior MPs and Peers highlighting this discrepancy in a letter to the Market Research Society, the body governing polling, the complaint was dismissed. The Parliamentarians sought a review and appeal by an independent lawyer who found that the above points in the complaint had not been properly addressed. Nevertheless, the MRS refused to change its position and the poll results continue to be used.

If the hunting debate is ever to be resolved it must be through a measure based on evidence, principle and fairness – a view strongly supported by senior hunting people. They know that hunting can be done well, but can also be done badly, just as there can be good shooting and bad shooting, good game-keeping and bad game-keeping.

This is the situation which should be addressed if animal welfare is to be genuinely improved, not the simplistic and prejudiced attack on one particular method, fuelled by loaded public opinion polls and cheap, ill-informed headlines.

All it takes is for the majority of people to think for themselves and leave the real extremists on the edge, where they belong. Not an easy task, but the means to achieve a principled and workable solution are there for Owen Paterson and the government when the time is right.