It’s not very often I find myself agreeing with the League Against Cruel Sports on the subject of hunting with hounds. So when a press release stated, “We believe those who want to use animals for cruel sports should be prepared to debate why in public” I can certainly go along with the spirit of that comment, even if we disagree on what may constitute a cruel sport.
The press release followed the decision of the South Pembrokeshire Hunt not to accept an invitation from Tenby Town Council to attend this year’s Christmas festivities. Whatever reason lies behind the decision, I doubt it was a reluctance to show their faces in public – in fact, it’s usually those in the anti-hunting world who turn out to be less than willing have their views put to the test of public scrutiny. Note the inclusion of dog fighting and badger baiting in public opinion poll questions, rather than an honest description of what scenting hounds really do.
I can recall numerous debates being cancelled at the final moment when it became known I was going to take part to put a pro-hunting/welfare view from the perspective of a former anti. Indeed, even during my time at the League when I said I had spoken with individuals in the hunting world, this was met with some kind of incredulity. The usual line was, “How can you talk to such people?” and of course it’s precisely that sort of detachment from the activity and its participants that allows for the demonization of hunting folk.
Not so long ago a TV debate on hunting was cancelled simply because of a time restraint, yet the LACS portrayed this as an example of no one in any of the hunting organisations being willing to defend the activity. It was all rubbish and even when the television company issued a statement explaining why the item didn’t go ahead and confirming that it was nothing to do with a failure to find a pro-hunt spokesman, the LACS still refused to apologise for their false claim.
A more relevant example of unwillingness to take part in a detailed public examination of the anti-hunting argument occurred during the period shortly before a government hunting bill was drafted. Jack Straw, then Home Secretary and an opponent of a hunting ban, announced an inquiry into hunting with dogs (resulting in the Burns Report) in order that parliament could be better informed about the activity and the consequences of a ban. The League argued that all this was unnecessary. As is now common knowledge, the Burns Reports did not conclude that hunting was cruel, though anti-hunt groups were quick to cherry-pick quotes to suit their argument.
A general election intervened and the baton dealing with the hunting question was handed to Alun Michael – a minister whose anti-hunting views were well known and whose constituency Labour party had received money from the League. The Portcullis House Hearings were proposed, but that meant bringing opposing sides together to agree the basis of the hearings. Negotiations to get to the anti-hunting groups to attend proved to be extremely difficult for Alun Michael. The RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare clearly did not want to take part and risk their case to ban hunting being scrutinised.
For Michael, it was important to show that there had at least been some degree of investigation to justify a hunting ban; for the antis, hunting was so abhorent that no public analysis or debate was necessary. Consequently the threat of the three anti hunt groups pulling out of the discussions prior to the hearings was ever present. It came to a head when an expert chosen by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, one of the groups involved, was vetoed by the antis. Frantic phone calls to prevent the whole process being derailed eventually saw the expert being given a promise from Michael to see him separately – something that did not happen. To this day, trying to get a anti MP to explain any principled aspect of the Hunting Act in detail or justify the time spent on passing it and the usual answer you’ll get is that there are far more important things to worry about and hunters should just accept their lot. A desire by the antis to openly debate the use of dogs in wildlife management? Doesn’t look like it.
Perhaps the most glaring example of reluctance to properly discuss the welfare of wild mammals is the League’s opposition to the excellent proposal put forward by Labour’s Lord Donoughue. This proposed law would create an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any wild mammal in all circumstances. Such reluctance is understandable, given that a conviction under such legislation would be based on genuine evidence of cruelty, just as it is in domestic animal prosecutions, and the League knows full well that the evidence required to show hunting with hounds to be inherently cruel does not exist. It would also make the flawed Hunting Act redundant.
A consequence of not talking openly and honestly with people who hold differing views is that it’s very easy to spin-off into a little insulated, self-righteous world, believing all your own propaganda and likening hunting to paedophilia, rape or ‘ethnic cleansing’ – all terms that have been used by the LACS to denigrate their opponents. The dishonesty in the League’s press release claim is in the impression it seeks to create, which is that everyone knows hunting is cruel and wrong and so pro-hunters are afraid to argue their case publicly. Yet, as mentioned in the previous blog, the Countryside Alliance is organising fringe meetings on wildlife at the political conferences this autumn and numerous invitations were sent out to various League officials to take part; only one has been accepted for the Labour fringe.
Shortly after I left the position of executive director of the LACS, Jonathan Young, the editor of The Field, wrote that ignorance of field sports was almost a requirement for that job. He was right.
In an odd way, I feel that my period at the League was perfectly timed; long enough to be able to gain some sort of better understanding of the complex issues surrounding wildlife management and terminating before the scent of a hunting ban was so strong as to obliterate all genuine welfare considerations in a mad blinkered rush for a Hunting Act.
Jim,
I draw a similarity to the crisis in Iraq when Labours Prime minister, Tony Blair promoted a “shock and awe” war on news bulletins, with thousands of innocent Iraqi’s having their living flesh blown off them to entertain the British public and topple evil dictator, Sadam. Now fast forward – we witness the unleashing of anger by the families of the deceased copying the western world’s terrifying fear tactics on their opponents and also publicising it on their media. Now everywhere in the world there is conflict and barbarity started by the party that gave us the hunting ban, kindness not cruelty and hatred as a religion.
I can forgive Labour for the hunting ban, but who will forgive Labour for the Armageddon they have caused across the globe?
Hi Jim,
You are very right that many anti MPs refuse to discuss specific aspects of the Hunting Act. As you know I wrote to Maria Eagle and Huw Irranca Davis asking them if they supported the requirement in the law for flushed deer/foxes &c to be shot ASAP. This was when the two dog limit was being discussed.
I forwarded you her reply. She simply refused to acknowledge that there was any requirement to shoot in the law.
They know perfectly well that the law is a nonsense.
People make great play of the need for ‘respect for the law’. Recently Herts police took a statement under caution from me in which I admitted to using more than two dogs to flush deer and refusing to shoot them.
I told them in no uncertain terms that I deliberately broke the law because I didn’t agree with it and that the law was completely idiotic.
The police need to ask them selves not whether I should respect the law but whether they should.
And it’s not just about their respect for the law it’s about their respect for the people that made it and the people that support it. People like Maria Eagle who is unable to defend it and people like John Cooper QC who pay highly dubious unscreened individuals to slink around in bushes filming young children and putting them on the net.
I am happy to say that the police have decided to allow me to continue not shooting wild deer on my property. By doing so they are putting common sense before the need to make people obey the law.
Not complying with this legislation when it clearly does not make sense is a right. It is a right that is obtained and defended by openly flouting the law.
The police cannot stay neutral on this issue breaking idiotic laws such as the Hunting Act is a right and a civic good.
Hi Giles and Mike
Certainly there have been steps taken by the previous government, with regard to the Hunting Act and other issues, in which the consequences simply were not properly considered. What I find so frustrating is the total reluctance to admit it. The way in which Maria Eagle clearly used the attempt to alter the ridiculous 2 dog flushing exemption for party political advantage was a disgrace. She knows full well that the statutory instrument process cannot change the basis of a law, yet she spun this as a return to hunting by the back door.
Hi Jim,
That’s a good point. I suggested to her that one possible change to the law would be to require people to take reasonable steps to stop their dogs chasing mammals rather than require them to take reasonable steps to kill wildlife to stop it being chased. It’s pretty hard what she would object to about that but she just wouldn’t have it. I don’t think their position has anything to do with reason.
Her other line was that the number of hounds that could be used had to be based on peer reviewed scientific research – which of course the current limit of two isn’t.
Its good to talk? Apparently not if you are a scientist and previous Government animal welfare adviser. (No doubt for the Labour party)
“Your quote has no validity unless you reference it. Correct me if I’m wrong but I suspect it relates to the Scott Henderson Report which is now over 60 years old. A lot has changed since then in areas such as an understanding of fox population ecology and animal welfare science and policies should adapt to new information and understanding. The RSPCA appears to have done that and now takes the view that our current understanding of these sciences no longer justifies the long term pursuit of animals such as foxes and deer. It may indeed be the case that those who go hunting believe that their activities benefit the fox population as a whole but that does not make it so. As a scientist and previous government animal welfare adviser I see no persuasive evidence that justifies the case for hunting with hounds”
So I responded thus – A lot changed since the Scot Henderson report, are you having a laugh?
Everybody knew about fox ecology back then, it’s nothing new. Basically to keep numbers down you have to cull intensively on a regular basis that happened back then it happens now. It turns out the only people that did not know were the scientists. Never read such a load of old baloney in my life.
Fingers tap…waiting for response….more fingers tapping……..he is a scientist don’t you know. An ex government animal welfare adviser…….more finger tapping. Give up a complete clueless fool having the ear of government and all along I was paying for this idiot who did not know the first thing about fox control. Charlie Pye-Smith please add this to your cost to the country from AR nutters in you book please.
And so the scientist and Adviser to the labour government said,
“Your quote has no validity unless you reference it. Correct me if I’m wrong but I suspect it relates to the Scott Henderson Report which is now over 60 years old. A lot has changed since then in areas such as an understanding of fox population ecology and animal welfare science and policies should adapt to new information and understanding.
The Scott Henderson report from 60 years ago states?
“Even if a particular area could be cleared of foxes, others would soon come in, as foxes travel long distances. We are therefore, of the opinion that it will always be necessary to take steps to reduce their numbers”
So Mr Scientist, Government advisor and RSPCA apologist what part of fox ecology has recently been discovered and is so relevant to fox control it that it would warrant a ban on hunting, perhaps they are partial to blackberries maybe?
Don’t worry I have found your reasons for you from the Scott Henderson; It was the bigoted spiteful class hating Labour idiots you worked for right?
“These are outside our terms of reference, but some of the evidence that has been submitted to us leaves us in no doubt that there are many who object to fox-hunting only because of the widely held misconception that it exists solely for the pleasure of wealthy people. This is, in our view, quite untrue.”
So the review into the RSPCA prosecution policy is out by the end of the month only 3 months overdue? This is the RSPCA we are talking about and they are largely guided by sociopaths or for the layman, nut jobs. So what skulduggery and deceit has taken place and for what motives. It’s also worth remembering the Nut jobs involved in guiding the RSPCA will see nothing wrong in their actions, they are never wrong. They never feel guilt.
So I suspect they somehow have deliberately prolonged the review to waste time and have a shorter time period from the reviews findings and the next General election in May. They can cover this period of non-conforming to the review by suggesting Woolers`s findings and subsequent recommendations will be implemented by the next newly appointed CEO who surprise, surprise will not be appointed until after the next general election when they hope and pray for a Labour Government. If Labour do get in they almost certainly tell the RSPCA not to bother with Woolers recommendations and continue to prosecute hunts. Shortfalls in donations will be made up by a dog license so the RSPCA will not be too concerned.
Of course I would very much like the RSPCA who are currently nothing more than vile scum of the establishment to prove me wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
It’s good to talk……Apparently not if you want to tell the truth, this comment was removed from the Independent Newspaper comments section from the recent article by Grace Dent and was in response to claimed evidence from a scientist and former Government t Animal welfare adviser.
“………..let’s not forget the RSPCA were telling folk before the inquiry in 2000 they had scientific evidence proving hunting cruel, what happened to that evidence? DESTROYED, by the author of the very study they were using. “There has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently BEGAN with an anti-hunting group in the US. That group`s webpage attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. THIS IS BLATANTLY INCORRECT AND. I SUSPECT, WILLFULLY DONE.” Professor Stephen Harris had copied the corruption into his work and flogged it to IFAW and RSPCA who in turn propagated the rubbish to MPS and public, my what a great Professor he is PMSL, 11+ cheating student at most. What did Burns say about cruelty central to the debate, “Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel… The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to each views about cruelty.”
Anything in there not true? By all means I will apologize.
Let’s not forget the Scientist & Government Adviser who was commenting on the same article said the following,
“A lot has changed since then in areas such as an understanding of fox population ecology and animal welfare science and policies should adapt to new information and understanding. The RSPCA appears to have done that and now takes the view that our current understanding of these sciences no longer justifies the long term pursuit of animals such as foxes and deer”
So the science they have fails scrutiny and is total rubbish but they want to say they have it anyway to deliberately fool the masses. Once exposed to the masses as complete rubbish they take appropriate steps to make sure no one reads about it.
Well I am around for another thirty years at least, good luck with that one scum bags.
For your pleasure Gentlemen, the above point with regard to Kreegars and its misinterpretation by Harris and then the RSPCA has now changed in Patricia’s eyes, it was once point scoring, it now has changed to a small point that has been misrepresented.
“It is utterly absurd to base a defence of hunting on several small points in which one feels certain details have been misrepresented..
So misleading MPs and members of the public is only a small point and no basis for a defence, IE I say Cuckoo Cuckoo
Hi Gentlemen,
For you pleasure from our resident anti posting under another pseudonym. Backs up everything I have said, we are dealing with sociopaths, they don’t know what they are talking about and will argue to the point of logical absurdity. That’s all I have today, anyone want to join me for a spot of day lamping say around midday?
“60 Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern. (Paragraph 6.60)” Read it carefully. It does not say that the use of shotguns is less preferable, it says they are LESS CONFIDENT. So they are confident that lamping is preferable overall but less sure if done in daylight. Nowhere does it suggest that hunting is preferable, a view shared by the majority of people outside the clique where only arguments that support hunting are put forward”
” So they are confident that lamping is preferable overall “. – a “tentative conclusion” is hardly an expression of confidence.
It seems to me that the truth of the matter is that whether animals need to be controlled and if they do what the best way to control them is depends on the circumstances.
You’ve lost me Nigel. To be honest it does seem a little absurd to get into so much detail and the lamping daylight thing clearly meant shooting. I think we lose the argument when we jump on silly little details like this to be honest, what’s done is done and at the end of the day we all know that we’re just waiting for repeal.
The sorry tale of leaping Lord Gullible Mug? His poor Lordship was totally humiliated by the AR brigade in one of the House of Lords debates over fox hunting and it is reported in Hansard to remain as testament to their vile nasty evil ways. Here’s what happened – One of the Lunatics from the AR brigade wrote a letter to his Lordship and contained within the letter was a pack of lies written to ensure he stayed on their side of the debate. The problem was he had been so gullibly duped he actually stood up during the debate and read the letter out convinced the letter was genuine. The letter said similar to – I saw the hounds get the fox near the huntsman who jumped off his horse managed to tussle the half dead fox off the hounds where upon he removed the Foxes penis and fed it to the hounds, we even have photographic evidence of the incident. Of course when folk naturally asked if they could see the photos surprise surprise, there wasn`t any. The CPHA comprising of the LACS, IFAW & RSPCA were seen to fall about with laughter in the public gallery when his lordship read the letter out, natural behaviour from Sociopaths who are playing a vile evil little game. Apologies from them, don`t be daft.