If the RSPCA has had a difficult time recently, perhaps it shouldn’t be so much of a surprise when one considers the type of individual it has chosen to be its vice-presidents. Following the refusal of the Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to become a vice-patron, two vice-presidents, Brian May and Chris Packham, appear to be vying for the “Most Outrageous Comment” award.
Given that the four previous Archbishops of Canterbury agreed to become vice-patrons, the decision for Justin Welby must have been, at the very least, uncomfortable. Yet he might have given a sigh of relief when he saw what Brian May then said about those who dare to criticise the RSPCA, “Britain at this point either allows Cameron’s government to propel us back into the Dark Ages of barbarism, or we all stand up and cry “No!” No return to the despicable pursuits of the privileged few in the name of tradition, or hidden under the entirely bogus claim of ‘control’. May then goes on scaremongering about “ruthless toffs” threatening personal freedoms and compares critics of the RSPCA with child abusers attempting to curb the NSPCC!
Brian May correctly makes the link between founders of the RSPCA and NSPCC, but conveniently omits to say that one, Richard Martin, was a foxhunter.
Compounding that gaffe, May then refers to the badger cull as ‘genocide’, a comment that clearly upset sections of the Jewish community and probably many others too.
Such daft comments brought sharp rebuffs from various quarters of the media and countryside organisations, including a vegetarian columnist for the Observer newspaper telling him to shut up. Even the RSPCA distanced themselves from their own vice-president by saying his comments were his personal views.
Then Chris Packham gets in on the act and responds by giving his thoughts on the badger cull to curb bovine TB by saying, “That brutalist thugs, liars and frauds will destroy our wildlife and destroy our reputation as conservationists and animal lovers”.
Certain things become apparent when listening to these two, the first being that while they both agree in opposing the badger cull, they couldn’t be further apart on deer control. When May was exposed in the press in having deer culled on his land in Dorset, he said, “I put a stop to all culling on my land in 2011, as I felt the job of caretaking could be done better in other ways…Eventually, we will look at birth control in the herd, which I now know can be done by vaccination.”
Packham’s view? “We have to play a proactive role and that means killing things. People come to shoot near where I live and they ask me where the deer are and I tell them ‘the deer are over there – go and blast’.” I’ll bet he doesn’t say that too loudly at RSPCA meetings, but more importantly how can a major charity like the RSPCA retain credibility when two of its public figures are so at odds and make such outlandish comments?
Now the RSPCA has set up a ‘wounded badger’ hotline. Very commendable, as no one wants to see any animal injured in this way, but it does smack of hypocrisy when we recall that the same organisation, along with the League Against Cruel Sports and IFAW, claimed that shooting was the humane alternative to hunting with hounds. I don’t recall any ‘wounded foxes’ hotline being set up after the Hunting Act became law. Indeed, quite the opposite, when the RSPCA’s Director General at the time said, “There is not absolute proof that wounded foxes suffer.”
But there is another angle here and that’s how those inflammatory remarks are taken by certain individuals who are quite prepared to break the law through a variety of means, including intimidation and damage to property. The history of the Hunting Act and how it came about is littered with unsavoury illegal acts – and in a way it still is. Already a number of arson attacks have been claimed in the name of groups opposed to the badger cull and just this week four people have been arrested on suspicion of theft and aggravated trespass – one also arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon. It’s no coincidence that animal rights groups that had previously criticised the RSPCA for being concerned only about cats and dogs and too ‘establishment’, now sing its praises.
It is not only ridiculous to use outrageous language in the complex debates about hunting, wildlife management and wildlife disease control, but dangerous too. While I’m sure the Mays and Packhams of this world would not support such actions, their words may lead others to do so.
The trustees of the RSPCA would do well to remember that.
A version of this article first appeared in Countryman’s Weekly http://www.countrymansweekly.com/
Richard Martin, one of the founders of the RSPCA , did so in 1824 when there would have been very little opposition to fox hunting with hounds and it would have been deemed an acceptable practice, no doubt, considering the Victorian way of life in the British countryside was notorious for wiping out any species that had the audacity to compete with farmers. I think the point that Chris Packham raises about Cameron propelling us back to the dark ages is a very good one. Decimating a species simply because it would look pretty to wear in the name of ‘fashion,’ poisoning, shooting, hunting with hounds and destroying anything that might just eat the eggs of a bird that happens to taste nice with game chips. This is the 21st century, an age of conservation, not killing things purely for fun, and when you take a step forward into it, you may actually agree with him!
Conservation of one habitat often means management of certain species, maybe if people were involved more in conservation at a higher level than a days voluntary work they would understand this, its not about thr joy of killing for sport.
Anyway im part of the elite apparently so off i go to feed the hounds and have my man groom the horses. Tallyho
There is a fair degree of conservation work carried out by those involved in fieldsports. Conservation does not mean the same thing as ‘not interfering’. Decimating a species is one thing, but nobody involved in fieldsports (whether hunting, fishing or shooting) would wish to do this? In particular, to say that hunting with hounds involves decimation of a species is purely ludicrous and does not sit well with the other anti argument that hunting has ‘no effect on the fox (or other quarry species) population’. The Victorians probably planted more fox coverts than anyone else!
I almost feel special now, i didnt realise i was part of the select few, the elite, the toffs who engage in countrysports and management. Il be sure to let everyone know and await my country estate and mansion because every hunter needs and owns one.
Really good site keep it up! I feel mr sorry Dr may has slightly well obviously has attention issues, and obviously will do and say anything to get the press and media coverage of his queen days, one wonders what freddie would have made of it all.
Mr packham although sometimes makes sense with comments i feel he to has stsrted the same route as may the more he is in the press the more tv interviews press releases the more media coverage all helps his career and boost his profile, whose the elite now?
Anyway enjoying the site so keep it up
It seems that May has now apologised for causing offence to people over his genocide comments while simultaneously claiming that their offence has been ‘manufactured’ by the sinister pro cull, pro hunt, pro witch burning secret conspiracy that controls the media, government, legal system &c.
It doesnt matter what it is its pro hunt, shoot, management, and farmings fault townies and tree huggers have an ideal from fairy tales and kids programs and because the real rural world isnt like that they blame everyone else for there perverse views not being matched by every rural scene in the uk
Dear A1,
You wrote “this is the 21st century, an age of conservation, and not killing things purely for fun”. I completely agree with you. Trouble is, what is killing for fun? is it acceptable that someone else kills the steer for our burger, while we are happy having fun chomping away, laughing and enjoying ourselves without a thought for the death of an innocent, but tasty animal?
Perhaps you mean that we enforce the hunting act which is operating in compliance with a ridiculous law, despite hunt monitors recently ramming an innocent horse and some old geezer with them deriving immense sexual gratification by grabbing its young lady rider by the throat. You have to ask yourself, how you would feel if a young female member of your family was attacked for no reason by a pervert with his conkers swinging around his knees. The hunting act for this monitor was clearly an opportunity to sexually assault someone he would have under different circumstances been jailed for.
You mentioned conservation, the campaign against hunting got well managed sustainable hare coursing banned because it killed a sustainable five per cent of brown hares. The hunting act under new Labour also looked forward towards the 21st century, whereby they lied about it being good for you and me, it certainly wasn’t for wildlife. Trouble started when we lost an unsustainable 60 per cent of hares, taken by poachers using lurchers running down powerful lamp beams, a sitting target to warm up the lurchers before they start on the deer. No sign of hunt monitors there, probably scared of the dark and the prospect of coming face to face with someone who would gladly give them a few weeks in am intensive care unit. Old conkers would have had trouble running away, I can imagine him screaming for mercy when up against a bad tempered traveller.
The reason we have any wildlife left at all is because country sports enthusiasts put their money where their mouth is on conservation. I except the RSPB do half a job and TV celebrities are two a penny, Jim nailed that one on the head. Our opponents often add something completely irrelevant to the matter they profess to know about – in short they know a great deal about very little. Money bags Grant, May and (not so much) Packham are such people that my mother would sum up as the “men who shout being like lambs that have lost their way”. Ask yourself A1- where are the so called experts who filled your head with a single issue, invited donations and appear to hunger for their own self-gratification. They have all been invited to post a comment here? They clearly dread facing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
In contrast, we country folk have nothing to hide and everything to gain by getting the facts over to the public who welcome them. Hope you will too one day, when you have had the time to consider the complexities of what I have said.
Those of us who post here in support of sensible, humane wildlife management in the UK have no doubts about approved methods of control, designed to keep species numbers in balance. We understand that this means killing a number of wild animals and we also understand the implications of not doing so. Others have already carried out exhaustive assessments of the methods of control that we use and the place of hunting with `scent hounds` in particular has been accepted as an effective way of dealing with excessive numbers within certain species populations. When it comes to the fox population, even the `antis` and those responsible for pushing through banning legislation accepted that control is necessary. But now we come to the key issue; the participation by human beings in the control exercise and the motivation behind their involvement.
The Labour Party supporters of the Hunting Ban made it clear that they opposed hunting more because of the people who took part than ever they did for the welfare of the quarry. Their judgements passed on hunting folk were clearly concerned with what they saw as a tendency to moral depravity that was both reprehensible and that should be stopped. It seemed impossible to them that people could hunt and appear to gain pleasure from what they themselves saw as a cruel pastime where wild animals were hunted to death for the selfish gratification of the hunters.
Having invested anthropomorphic characteristics in the quarry species, the `antis` then attributed human responses to those species; responses which cannot be justified by any known scientific investigation. Fear of being hunted to death requires the quarry species to be able to deduce the outcome of such an experience by using a sense of imagination that no one has ever been able to establish as being present in any animal other than the human species.
This misapplied `scientific` approach has led therefore to the condemnation of a management tool for the balanced control of wildlife, based on concern for the effect it will have on the morals of those humans taking part. Concern for animal welfare is paid lip service in this attempt to resurrect an extinct neo-Victorian image, culled both from fiction and from the fevered imagination of those wishing to take a shy at a social condition that no longer exists. The `antis` approach smacks all to much of the `argument weak here – shout louder` school of logic. Sadly for them, they are beginning to be found out and the wider public seems to be losing patience with their crusading zeal, couched as it is in terms of latter-day Puritanism.
“Doctor” May, well he didn’t finish his PhD, was only given it decades later because he was in Queen. Also he would have totally failed his defense if he made such wild claims which are totally wrong and have absolutely no basis in fact!
These “animal welfare” supporters don’t realise the lies they are being spoonfed and just lap up this propaganda without thinking about the 50k cattle that are killed because they have contracted bovine TB, most from badgers!
Do your research before summing your hypothesis “Dr” May, or you will just be shown up to be totally ridiculous!
How much longer before the fall of RSPCA? after they lose their charitable status which could come soon if they carry on with their political agenda, they will just not be able to survive! And rightly so with this “animal welfare” behavior!
I didn’t know that about his PhD – a lot of people with properly acquired PhDs do not use the title “Dr” out of modesty – hardly surprising that he does call himself Dr
May – a not very good once popular musician – and Packham, a highly self-appreciating man-of-the-country, T V personality of a sort – should stick to what they know about. Quite apart from the rather sad statements they have made which prove their respective ignorances of the conservation problems, they really make their chosen causes look even further out of control than we had previously thought. These ‘publicity pawns’ do not seem even to realise just how much they are being manipulated.
I have had the pleasure of a brief discussion with Archbishop Justin Welby. This ‘own man’ seems entirely aware of the effect of his decision not to patronise the RSPCA; this is not in any way to ‘go against’ what his predecessors may have felt or done. The organisation and its leadership have changed – as completely as has the feeling of the once generous public towards its support of the society. Those who accept the offers of ‘letter-heading’ should consider what they are backing very carefully.
As one who still hunts at 76, since 1945, I am proud to have helped maintain a high standard of quarry in our neck of the woods. We take out the slow, the wounded (often by bad shooters) and the ill. We rarely bother the healthy and strong who know their country, are fitter and infinitely more savvy than that for which their so-called champions give them credit. So, please “Dr” May and Mr Packham, do your self-adulating without making life more difficult for once-respectable charities, and quarry whose raison-d’être has for centuries been to avoid being caught. They have become very good at it.
Like barrie parker, I’m amazed to find myself a toff, having been born in a council house to working class parents, although my father took me hunting on a bike as soon as I was able. Management of the countryside is essential and that means culling. It’s also a welfare measure. What the bunny-huggers ignore is that there is no NHS or old age pension for wildlife.
Off topic I know but to give an idea of the sort of people now invading the countryside to protest about the badger cull (one of the women who has been arrested has come from Pittsburgh, USA!) some of those in the Gloucestershire `Wounded Badger Patrol”sent urgently for the police in a state of panic because “..they were being shot at…”, by implication by the dastardly farmers that were knocking off dear old Brockie…in daylight hours at that..
It turns out that no criminal offence had been committed because the loud bangs were being made by crow scarers. You really couldn`t make it up.
I see also that Mary Creagh, Opposition spokesman for Rural Affairs is demanding an urgent statement from Owen Paterson, seeking to know details of the number of badgers shot so far. It seems the problem is that the answer at this stage is `not very many`. I thought Labour were opposing the culling of badgers. If they`re complaining now that not enough are being shot, this puts them in the same category as those frightened of bird scarers! What a dozy lot they are.
Rather like the argument against hunting with hounds that it doesn’t kill enough foxes.
Thank you John Parkes. As a first time contributor to this excellent site, I feel this will also be my last! Your last post but one expresses the case for the defence more eloquently than I ever could. I look forward in hope, but absolutely no expectation, of a response from those on the other side of the argument that is rational, intelligent and articulately expressed.
Jamie,
I hope that you will continue to air your views here. Jim Barrington does a marvellous job in airing issues of the moment and gives us all an opportunity to contribute to the argument. There will doubtless be responses with which you will disagree and it is good for all of us to question what we think, why we think it and then put our own case in a reasoned way. You might find that `our side` sometimes comes in for a bit of stick but it serves to keep us on our toes and makes sure we bring logic to the discussion, generating more light than heat – the opposite to what our opponents seem to offer!
Keep up the good work and many thanks for your remarks
A most interesting site. thank you. I would be interested in what “Dr” May and or the RSPCA think should be done on the Scottish Island of Canna, now apparently overun by rabbits since rats were exterminated.