The difference between sitting behind a desk writing propaganda and the reality of life in the wild could not be more stark than in the case of the Hunting Act and its implementation.
Brought into law through a strange cocktail of good and bad intentions, it always had the potential to fall flat on its face when put into practice. That’s not to say that there haven’t been successful prosecutions – there have – but the vast majority of these cases could have been brought under pre-existing legislation. The Hunting Act wasn’t needed to catch these people.
But what about the people who haven’t been caught? ‘Animal abusers’ like West Country farmer Giles Bradshaw, for example, who consistently breaks the law by using his dogs to chase away deer from his woodland and then compounds his criminality by viciously not shooting those deer as the Hunting Act requires. His excuse for this cruel act is that he doesn’t want to see deer killed unnecessarily. Yes, funny that, isn’t it? An animal welfare law that makes you shoot an animal when you would prefer not to. Don’t believe me? Well, here’s the wording from the Act:
“Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied”…one of which is…”the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs”…and another is…”reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person.”
In fact, reading the whole Act would be an interesting exercise for many anti hunt people, who simply assume that this law is a good thing and might be surprised by the strange and illogical nature of its drafting. Of course most won’t do that and it is this ignorance that is exploited by the anti-hunting groups.
Giles is not an animal abuser; he doesn’t even own a gun and for years has used his dogs to humanely move deer and foxes away to protect his woodland and livestock. These animals are not killed or hurt in any way and most people are happy…apart from those who think that he is breaking the law and making their precious Hunting Act look ridiculous. As recently as September last year the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall said in a letter to Giles, “…such activity would amount to an offence under the Hunting Act unless it is covered by an exemption provided by the Act.” Quite what the animal welfare benefits are in those exemptions has never been properly explained by anyone associated with the Hunting Act and why Giles’ actions should be regarded as illegal must be a mystery to most people.
Even before the Act came into force, DEFRA appeared to be a little confused in their response to Giles’ actions when they were reported in the Daily Telegraph at the end of 2004. Was it against the law or not? Here’s how DEFRA reacted:
- 24th November 2004 – DEFRA states that ‘chasing away’ a wild mammal with dogs is illegal under the Hunting Act.
- 26th November 2004 – DEFRA officials change their minds and state that ‘chasing away’ is not hunting and therefore not covered by the Act.
- 15th December 2004 – DEFRA officials change their minds again, stating that the deliberate use of dogs in chasing unwanted wild mammals from land is illegal. However, using a barking dog to scare away animals is not illegal.
- 9th February 2005 – DEFRA officials change their minds yet again, stating that using a barking dog to frighten away a wild mammal is actually illegal under the Hunting Act.
- 14th February 2005 – DEFRA officials change their minds once again to say that, “The Hunting Act does not make it an offence for a dog to chase or otherwise hunt a wild mammal. It makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog (unless his hunting is exempt)”
So that’s clear then.
DEFRA isn’t the only body that appears confused about the Hunting Act. On the RSPCA’s Twitter response service @RSPCA-Frontline, Giles Bradshaw recently asked the following question, “do you support me refusing to shoot the deer that I use my dogs to disperse?” The reply was honest, if a little surprising, “Not expert on the Act but agree it’s clumsy.” How does this sit with the “law works perfectly well” and “the Hunting Act is an effective piece of animal welfare legislation” lines spun by the League Against Cruel Sports?
Perhaps the RSPCA is slowly coming to its senses on how the hunting issue might be resolved. A second question from Giles on the subject of wider wild mammal protection from cruelty prompted this, “all wilful cruelty is not only morally wrong, it should be species non-specific & illegal”, precisely the grounds on which the Wild Mammals Welfare Bill is based (see Wild mammal welfare and the Donoughue principle). Again, contradicting the LACS who perversely say that such a bill does not improve animal welfare.
All of this is the inevitable result of the fact that some legislators allowed their petty prejudices and personal dislikes to rule their decisions. In their minds the anomalies and difficulties now faced by people like Giles Bradshaw were always secondary to winning a silly political battle.
Yet ironically, in doing so, they have created a situation that is a constant day-to-day reminder for many people in the frontline of wildlife management as to why the Hunting Act should be repealed.
LACS,RSPCA etc are clearly in a holding pattern with respect to the Hunting Act. They know full well that the law is flawed and indeed they allow it to be openly flouted for that reason. However they are politically incapable of admitting the obvious. Moreover they are forced to oppose the criminalisation of all deliberate cruelty for cynical political reasons.
Talk to individuals as the RSPCA twitter feed demonstrates and you get a very different picture.
Its interesting that since the coming of the hunting ban the populatiion of the wild red deer stags has plumetted until at the last count only one stag was seen in a large area which would previously held up to twenty. Shots are frequently heard at night but no one seems to know much about that. Shot for meat or heads maybe? But that probably is o.k within the terms of the hunting act!
What an excellent blog; accurate, clear and to the point so could never have been written by RSPCA, RSPB, LACS or any of the other such groups. What a pity that relevant knowledge of the real facts of countryside management seems always to be lacking in the utterances of all the antis. The Hunting Act was clearly a disaster brought forward for political and biased reasons and enacted by one of the worst governments this country has ever had to endure.
Please copy Mr Barrington’s complete article and send it off to your local newspapers, with his permission. The farcical and unworkable Hunting Act is a sad reminder of the prejudice and ignorance displayed by Messrs. Banks (RIP), Foster, Alun Michael, and their comrades, when they pushed the Act through against all the evidence. Even their leader Tony Blair expressed his regret. Repeal of the Hunting Act will serve the best interests of
the countryside, and the welfare of its animals and its people. RSPCA and LACS have much to learn.
The Hunting Act is the most confused and stupid piece of legislation OUR parliament has dumped on us in many a long year. The Act has had a totally
negative affect on conservation,animal welfare and our countryside. Both the
Act and the arguments put forward for a ban fall apart when scientific peer
reviewed evidence is produced and our arguments for repeal of the Act are clearly explained as in James Barrington’s blog. Too often we assume that ordinary people have an understanding of wildlife management and conservation when in reality their grasp of the facts is limited or none existent. When a work colleague claimed that shooting red deer in Scotland was cruel and should be banned I asked to state two things that red deer do with regularity, he could not answer. So I explained they eat and breed. I continued to ask the question several more times, eventually he understood this concept. Then I asked him what was he going to when the Highlands were over run with starving deer which his desired ban on stalking had achieved. Though not a complete convert he did start to appreciate the importance of proper wildlife management and the part country sports play in achieving that goal.
Three cheers for Jim Barrington! The impression I got from reading many past press reports and letters (to the editor), as well as the personal correspondence from my then (LibDem) MP, was that organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports were at best misguided and probably more concerned with recruiting subscribers and protecting regular subscriptions. Perhaps it’s a power/control thing they have. Hitler banned fox-hunting and tried to make his dog vegetarian, I believe.
Looking into this a little further when the courts found members of the Quantock stag hounds guilty of breaking the Hunting Act in 2007 it was ruled that they should have had enough guns to shoot ALL the deer that emerged from the wood. As deer often come in herds they specified 10 guns.
The reason for the shooting requirement was explained by Alun Michael MP just after the law was passed. He said it was to ‘prevent the possibility of an extended chase’. Following this logic it would be pointless to shoot and kill just one or two members of a herd as the hounds might chase the rest. It is only if all the deer are gunned down that none of them can be chased because hounds will not chase dead and dying deer but only live ones.
To my mind gunning down deer while they are running at speed is cruel because of the high risk of wounding. Gunning down ten deer in such circumstances is ten times as cruel. It’s not just me that thinks this. The BASC and IFAW advise against shooting running deer because of the high wounding risk.
From the point of view of sensible wildlife management shooting entire herds is not good practice.
As a means of preventing hounds chasing them it is also likely to be ineffective because with all the good intentions on the part of the shooters it is probable that some individuals will escape and need following up in order to comply with the requirement to shoot them as soon as possible.
Why then do the League Against Cruel sports insist that what the Act allows for is ‘humane pest control’. the answer is that they have a bizarre concept of cruelty which holds that an activity is only cruel if it is done as part of a sport and shooting deer by the herd load is not what any one would call a sport. therefore in their view it is humane.
This is of course nonsense. Cruelty is the causing of undue suffering to wildlife and it is that that should be illegal. Unfortunately LACS oppose proposed amendments to the wild mammals protection Act that would make all such cruelty to mammals illegal on the grounds that this would not allow them to persecute people who were not being cruel.
John Cooper QC has been discussing this issue with a Judge on Twitter. His conclusion is “He’s a laugh isn’t he”. The professor is absolutely right. As well as being great fun it’s also a good laugh. We should not forget that wildlife management should be fun and that there is a light hearted joyful side to these issues as well as a serious one.
What better reason to break the Hunting Act than for a giggle!
As an idealistic teenager I sympathized with the anti hunt brigage, but I admit that I had no particular interest in the welfare of foxes, rather I was reacting against a bunch of dressed up toffs on horseback invading my village.
Today I can see that this legislation is simply an unfair, petty, law that is intended to discriminate purely on the basis of class. It has to be asked why these working class heros have not moved on to pushing anglers into the canals and breaking fishing rods, I think the answer is all too clear. I still have no particular interest in the welfare of foxes, but much more interest in the welfare of my fellow man. I hope someday that this law can be repealed.
Thank you for your comment, Ian.
You’ve hit the nail on the head by using the word ‘idealistic’. Things often look ‘black or white’ when young, but the reality can be very complicated. It is is pity that some of those who oppose hunting can see nothing other than a ban, regardless of what then fills the vacuum.