It would appear that the League Against Cruel Sports has finally begun to recognise the folly of the Hunting Act – though of course publicly the group points the finger of blame at others.
The point in question is the drop in red deer numbers on the Quantock Hills, as reported by the Quantock Deer Management and Conservation Group. LACS claims the report shows only 9 older stags now living there, for which the group blames stag hunting and calls for a moratorium. While the QDMCG report does indeed show a drop in numbers, it actually says, “It is important to note that we do not pretend to achieve a complete count of the entire Quantock red deer herd, as some proportion of those within the count area will always be missed in concealing cover, and others – not least some older stags – tend to move well off the hills from late winter onwards until rejoining mixed sex herds in the autumn.”
It was clearly stated in the numerous debates in the run-up to the passing of the Hunting Act that banning or curbing the organised hunts would allow a free for all…and this is what may have happened on the Quantocks. The QDMCG surveys show a steady decline since 2005 – the year the Hunting Act came into force.
The anti-hunting groups are quite content to claim that the law is perfectly sound – they say it’s just the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that are at fault for not pursuing cases vigorously enough. So sure were they that a ban on hunting would benefit wildlife that they didn’t even need to commission research into the effects of this law. The limited work that has been done in this area certainly shows no improvement in welfare terms. Yet we understand that privately the LACS, and others too, realise the Hunting Act contains serious loopholes that allow certain forms of hunting to take place legally – it’s just that they can’t admit this publicly for fear of losing face and it’s causing internal difficulties. LACS President John Cooper said last year, “To say the Hunting Act needs to be strengthened only serves to support the hunters’ argument that the Act doesn’t work. This is not only incorrect, but puts the entire future of the legislation at risk.”
So what’s to be done? It would seem that plans are underway for a “review” of the Hunting Act by LACS at the law’s 10th anniversary, which, no doubt, will find that there are things that could be changed to ensure that nasty law-breaking hunters can’t get through those loopholes. The “loopholes”, by the way, are the exemptions included in the Act that allow for certain wildlife management practices and were agreed by both sides during the committee stage of the Act. (Anti-hunting MPs were in the majority on that committee, so claims of the hunters hijacking parts of the Act are nonsense) While portraying this as a kind of tidying up exercise, what the LACS would actually like is something far more radical. This was revealed during a debate earlier this year when its chief executive said that all the exemptions in the Hunting Act should be removed.
Of course a major hurdle to achieving this change is a still bigger change – that of the government – and even then it would not necessarily be the view of every Labour MP or supporter that they should rush headlong into another confrontation with the rural community over hunting. Last year’s Labour Party conference saw some delegates eager to ‘build bridges’ after what they felt was an unnecessary (and probably embarrassing) battle that has achieved nothing in animal welfare terms and simply alienated them from rural voters.
The fact is, while the anti-hunting argument has remained virtually the same since well before the Hunting Act became law, the pro-hunting argument has developed and evolved. Much more is now known and explained about wildlife management, about top (apex) predators, middle-ranking (meso) predators and about the differences between domestic and wild animals and their welfare needs. Much credit should go to organisations such as the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management in this regard. The Countryside Alliance understands how hunting with hounds plays a crucial and unique role here and puts this information to good use, coupling it with political acumen and hard-hitting literature to produce the case for repeal of the Hunting Act. Ultimately, a sensible resolution will be reached, but of course it is harder starting from a post-ban position.
So it’s no surprise that some Labour MPs who voted for a ban are keen to avoid discussing hunting, just as Barry Gardiner, the shadow DEFRA minister did at a recent meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Game and Wildlife Conservation Group. Basically, he and numerous other politicians probably know they were conned into thinking that a ban on the use of scenting hounds would be good for animal welfare.
It all started decades ago when Labour was targeted as the party to implement a ban on hunting and for a long time there was no opposing voices at any meetings or conferences. Year after year the antis had an open goal. Of course there were those who jumped on the bandwagon and saw a hunt ban as useful vehicle to attack their class-war enemies and even now it would certainly be a mistake to think that such people have gone away. Yet one can’t help wondering how all this might have been avoided.
One thought takes me back to when I worked for the LACS and how a certain hunting advocate called Ian Coghill scared the life out of us when we had to oppose him in any forum. I remember a debate at Aston University in which the audience, which was overwhelmingly anti-hunting, was charmed and entertained by his knowledge, quick-witted humour, all delivered in his dry Brummy accent. Ian is now the Chairman of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, but I can’t help wondering where we would all be now if the hunting world at the beginning of the 1980s had had the foresight to put him on a stand at every Labour Party conference.
I suspect we wouldn’t be looking down the wrong end of an unprincipled, unworkable and detrimental Hunting Act.
I would thoroughly recommend people to keep writing to ministers and shadow ministers. The best way is to send a letter via your local MP as ministers have to reply to them and shadow ministers should.
Be polite and as well as putting your point forward ask some questions – and put them in bold so they are absolutely clear.
If they fail to answer them properly get another letter copied to them by your MP outlining exactly why their ‘response’ is unsatisfactory.
For me it is simplistic, if you are being advised by an organization or body and that organization loses six of its high ranking officials, all expressing the view from the opposition and you do not have very serious concerns over the advice you had been given then the last place on earth you should be is in a position of power in the houses of parliament. It is with that in mind I conclude the Blair Government contained the most moronic brain dead idiots in parliament we are ever likely to witness. To say they were conned over hunting is an understatement as not one eyebrow was raised at the embarrassing climb down from the antis from claiming to have so much evidence proving hunting is cruel to a position of its our opinion hunting’s cruel around the time of the Burns inquiry. The final folly came when Labour MPS had been conned into thinking they could actually win the last election off the back of a hunt ban and a great many had separate webpages showing their support for a ban with the usually outdated rubbish saying “hunters claim a nip to the neck”, bloody hell it was like the Burns inquiry had never happened.
Looking forward are Labour MPS prepared to stick with the organizations that made them look so moronic and idiotic? Time will tell.
Afternoon Jim
Tightening the Act might be it’s final undoing. Closing every so called “loop hole” would involve criminalising all use of dogs to flush and retrieve ground game.Ratting and rabbiting.Tracking wounded or casualty wild animals(yet another backward step for animal welfare and conservation). It would certainly criminalise anyone who inadvertently allowed a single dog to chase a squirrel in their local park. Once one or two very ordinary, possibly anti hunting, people had felt the wrath of a private prosecution brought by PETA, LACS or the RSPCA the complete stupidity of the Act would be realised by the public who have little or no understanding of the whole issue at the moment.
LACS have certainly jumped on the QDMCG survey to further their aims but not the welfare of the deer herd. The first question to be asked is if LACS are worried about the deer did they take part in the count ? Perhaps if Mr Duckworth follows this Blog he will furnish us with an answer. However I would not have the temerity to ask him why he thought it necessary to twist the results of the survey to suit the aims of LACS. I also notice LACS don’t wish to see any correlation between a possible drop in the number of red deer on the Quantocks since 2005 and the implementation of the Hunting ACT (2004) in the same year.
The LACS policy on deer management seems to be , please Mr Duckworth correct me if I’m wrong, is to allow a large number of deer to harbour on a small area of ground. Permit these animals to over graze the habitat. Allow the high density of deer to infect each other with lung worm and TB. Feed the deer in the winter as there is no grazing left due to over stocking. Allow this feeding to encourage more deer to harbour on the site. Feed these animals drugs in an attempt to control the worm problem. Shoot sick deer from a pickup truck when they are about to die, then finally claim LACS policy is not to interfere with nature.
It’s unbelievable that the likes of John Cooper LACS President and a QC no less, could not see the mess they were making when drawing up the Hunting Act. Presumably they had to ‘package’ things in such a way as to sell the idea to MPs who knew as much about hunting and the countryside as hounds know about standing for Parliament.
Thanks, Giles, Nigel and Jon.
Your comments are always welcome and informative.
Evening all,
Are the anti-hunting groups who claim the hunting act is perfectly alright living on a different planet or just acting plain bloody stupid? We are repeatedly being lied to by people who have never had an interest in managing our wildlife or animal welfare. Deer continue to follow the same precarious route our brown hares have, this time the APPONENTS of legal, well regulated hunting, are bankrolling crueller alternatives?
A good example is that legal, well managed hare coursing only killed a sustainable 5% of brown hares for hundreds of years. Along came the hunting act and an unsustainable 60% of hares have been wiped out in six years? We are told by daydream believers (hunt monitors) they are enforcing the hunting act and that prosecutions are successfully being taken – conveniently forgetting to mention that the vast majority fail. Let me put those idiots out of their misery by telling those who have been lied to, that in reality if a police patrol car parked up on any road for an hour, it would have convicted more motorists on road traffic offences then people prosecuted on hunting over a staggering six years. That’s not a success story, it’s a bloody disaster by interfering busybodies sticking their noses into things they do not understand.
In another six years unless the hunting act (good name for it) is repealed there will be virtually no brown hares left in Britain and the hunting act and those who supported it will be to blame. The anti-hunt theories have been proven wrong time and time again. Yet they refuse to admit when they are wrong, which is a very necessary ingredient before they can engage with us on managing our wildlife after the mess they have made of it?
Perhaps the time is right to engage with their sponsors and enlighten them with what their well-intentioned money is doing to our wildlife?
Thanks, Mike.
Sadly, you’re right, but the consequences never seem to matter to many antis…and of course it will be someone else’s fault.
The lesson I draw out of this thread and the excellent contributions above is that the more we hammer home the importance and beneficial aspects of wildlife management, the clearer our case will be to the wider public. The education programme undertaken by the Alliance is comprehensive and good, but for much of the time seems to be preaching to the choir. One has to think that the majority of those attending Countryside events, Game Fairs and agricultural shows are perhaps already predisposed to hear the arguments in favour of management. The conundrum seems to rest on the need to engage the still wider public who have votes in polls of all sorts, not least those at General Elections.
The media appear to be reluctant to carry our case unless it is associated with a current news story (prosecutions brought by our opponents and similar circumstances) so I think the time has come to see if we can spread our net wider in educating the public
As ever, you’re right, John.
The Hunting Act came about after years of the same old message (“It’s cruel, it’s immoral, just ban it”) being hammered home. A very clever tactic, which forces people into a simplistic ” to kill or not to kill” situation. As we know, most will go to the latter position, so the tactic works.
What we should be asking is “Don’t we all want a healthy, diverse wildlife population in numbers that are acceptable to farmers etc?” Most reasonable people will agree with that concept, but importantly will have moved away from the simplistic to the realistic. Then we can talk about the best methods !
HI Jim
What you say sums up the basics of the animal rights movement anti hunting campaign. Now they have come to realise the Hunting Act is a failure I fear we are only in for much of the same medicine. Sadly I fear such as LACS will never ever step back and look at the big picture. These organisation are run by a small number of pure fanatics who see no other path in life or those who have to maintain their position to keep a job. Just about every time there is a press release from LACS it has to contain some comment about wealthy people shooting or hunting. This general obsession with people rather than the importance of animal welfare and conservation contributes nothing to a reasoned debate . Take it from me not all those who follow hounds are rich. Most of my working life has been spent on farms, building sites or driving a lorry. Your comments regarding the use of phases like “it’s cruel” it’s immoral” are unfortunately true. The whole strategy of the anti hunting movement has been to throw enough mud and hope plenty will stick. The constant attempts to link traditional deer, hare, mink fox hunting, coursing, angling and shooting with baiting badger and dog fighting are a classic example. However it does clearly demonstrate the porosity of the arguments coming from Animal Aid and LACS.
Hi James
A very simple immature argument that gave them the belief what they were doing was right. The trouble is we in comparison had a more complex truthful argument but less easily understood and could easily get twisted around. If we had kept ours as simple as theirs they would not have had a leg to stand on – shooting kills 4 times more than hunting, no its doesn’t your banning hunting with dogs they kill roughly the same amount as shooting. Lamb mortality due to foxes is insignificant, of course it is that’s what we set out to achieve with culling foxes. Two examples easily understood to the point.
“Basically, he and numerous other politicians probably know they were conned into thinking that a ban on the use of scenting hounds would be good for animal welfare.” I think you’re too kind, James; Labour wasted 700 hours on the subject and ignored any evidence that didn’t support what they wanted from the Burns Report. For them it was “totemic” and they ignored hunts like the Banwen Miners in their blinkered belief that only the “toffs” went hunting. For me, listening to the debates in the Commons was an eye-opener, showing staggering amounts of bigotry and ignorance from some MPs.
Thank you, Christabel.
I, too, remember those debates and the ignorance of some MPs was astounding. Even if one could not care less about hunting or animal welfare, people should care about how our laws are made.
Dear Jim,
All quiet on the Western front. It appears no one cares about the hunting ban anymore – can only imagine our opponents are sporting very red faces. This is the beginning of the end for the hunting act and the cruel bastards who brought about its existence.
Thanks again, MIke
Hope the LACS think that the £1 million spent on investigations is worth it for just one prosecution.
Ian Coghill was president of the Country Sports Society at Birmingham University when I was there in the 80s. He was incredibly supportive and I regret that I was too young to fully appreciate everything that he did for field sports. Through his contacts he arranged for a group of us to go boar hunting in Normandy with a French pack that he had sent a draft of hounds to. It was a magical couple of days, almost mediaeval in its rituals, but incredibly exciting, galloping through woods in pursuit of boar, which, once cornered, the huntsmen were required to kill with a short sword as the hounds were too sensible to get very close to it. Rather more than ‘five and twenty per cent of the danger’ judging by some of the scars that they had aquired in the process.
Dear All,
I see the RSPCA has lost another member – Praise be to God?
We know that RSPCA and the Fabian Society worked together early on after the Fabian Society was started by a group that essentially started socialism in the UK. Then we had Richard Ryder, animal rights activist and Ronnie Lee of ALF fame working with the RSPCA at one time, so it may be difficult to not believe that the RSPCA is following suit of animal rights activist instead of animal welfare. We must not place more emphasis on animals than humans. Peter Singer believes in euthanasia of children under two who will never be productive citizens but eating meat is murder? Rather shocking that more money is invested in the welfare of animals than children. Animal abusers should be prosecuted by things are certainly out of hand on what really is animal abuse. RSPCA needs to work with citizens more and less acting like a police force.