It’s a sure sign Prime Minister Theresa May runs a very tight office that no one leaked the announcement of a general election. It seemed to catch everyone by surprise, not least the anti-hunting groups who normally have time to prepare the ground for their campaigns by a series of predictable steps.
The pattern is a familiar one. Firstly, these groups commission public opinion polls on hunting, complete with loaded questions, for example linking repeal of the Hunting Act to the legalising of badger baiting and dog fighting. This ensures they get the desired answers. Secondly, the results are given to the media implying that this is an issue so uppermost in peoples’ minds that it is highly likely to influence how they vote. Thirdly, on the back of this ‘solid evidence’ of public feeling, the next tactic is to get a question in quick to the candidates, again usually framed in highly emotive terms such as how do they feel about “killing for fun”?; is it right to “terrorise and rip apart wild animals”?; aren’t there more important issues than “bringing back hunting”? Unsurprisingly, those candidates unfamiliar with hunting and shooting sometimes give the answers the antis want.
Finally, once this happens, the candidate’s response is publicised, in effect ‘nailing their colours to the mast’ and, regardless of information that subsequently shows they have been duped, being seen to change your mind appears to be a sign of weakness and so initial positions and statements on hunting tend not to alter. For those who don’t give the compliant answers sought by the antis, their offices will be bombarded with e-mails and their names dragged through the social media mire – a threat no parliamentary new boy or girl wants to face – even though those threatening not to vote for them could well live outside the constituency or even in another country.
Briefly, this is what we’re going to see over the next few weeks, so it would be worthwhile reminding candidates that they can either play along with this silly game or they can look at the facts, both in terms of the issues involved and the totally fatuous claim that hunting plays a part in choosing the next government.
Clearly, anti-hunting groups are worried about this election, given Theresa May’s comments in support of foxhunting and the likely return of a Conservative government with a strong majority. It provides a real opportunity to address the idiocy of the Hunting Act… and this time even those anti pals in the Scottish National Party may not have sufficient numbers to interfere with a vote that has nothing to do with Scotland, despite a call for them to interfere once more. I suppose that will depend on how much money is on offer.
Another reason for the antis to be concerned is that their ‘Conservatives against Foxhunting’ ploy has been exposed as a fraud at this most sensitive time. The organiser of the group is a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports – a body that for decades has openly supported (including financially) the Labour Party. Following an investigation into the group by Conservative Central Office, the CAFH was told to withdraw the use of the Conservative Party logo and recently had to reveal that funds have been received from other Labour-donating groups. Now a prominent member has defected to the Liberal Democrats.
Any genuine Conservative should think very carefully about supporting this group and anyone who is genuinely concerned about wildlife should also be wary of listening to some of the propaganda spouted by anti-hunting groups too. In recent radio debates prompted by Theresa May’s comments, we learned from a representative from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that NO wild animal population needs to be controlled, as they will all control their own numbers. Is there even one conservation or farming organisation that would agree with this view?
The League Against Cruel Sports leans this way too, when in another debate its CEO stated that foxes take very few lambs and that poor husbandry is the real culprit. He forgets to inform the listeners that the extent of fox damage is against existing widespread control by various methods. The only possible way in which that claim could be justified is if every single form of fox control across the country were to be suspended for a year, or possibly even longer, to enable a proper scientific study to be undertaken.
And what about those public opinion polls? Well, while the most recent YouGov poll still shows a majority against bringing hunting back onto the political agenda (67%) – that is a far lower figure than those used by anti hunt groups, so perhaps people are slowly realising that the Hunting Act has done no good whatsoever for animal welfare.
Part of the problem is that even the respectable end of the media spectrum sometimes gets it wrong. Here’s what Clare Foges in The Times says about the opportunity to look again at the ridiculous Hunting Act, “Mrs May can talk all she likes about working people; she can throw the arms of government around the “just about managing” classes and work hard to alleviate poverty — but if a free vote leads to the repeal of the foxhunting ban, and wall-to-wall news pictures of hunters anticipating the disembowelment of a fox with a swig of port from the stirrup cup, the ambition of restoring the Conservatives’ reputation as a party for the many will be truly sunk.” If the writer really believes that people will change their vote on an issue that is so removed from most people’s lives, she really should seek help. She says she’s not a class warrior, but does a fairly good impersonation. Far more relevant is a ORB poll produced a few years back asking what issues influence voting intentions; from a total of a 1509 people, four mentioned hunting with dogs.
Facts and figures always appear to be a little flexible during a general election, so it’s worth reminding everyone of a few facts that we know are absolutely irrefutable.
1. The Hunting Act was claimed to be a watershed in the way we treat animals, yet since 2004 RSPCA cruelty figures have risen year on year.
2. The Hunting Act was claimed to be good law, but because it doesn’t work as intended, antis blame everyone else and now want it strengthened.
3. The Hunting Act was claimed to be simple. LACS said in 1996, “Within a couple of months it would all be over and everyone would wonder what all the fuss was about.” Yet 12 years after the Hunting Act came into force, the hunting debate remains unresolved.
Why should anyone believe anti hunt groups now when they make claims about voting intentions?
The commitment from the Conservatives to revisit the Hunting Act is absolutely the right thing to do, especially as no anti-hunting group has spent even a penny on assessing what effect this law has had on wildlife. One ominous indication came from a former LACS colleague of mine who is now a hunt master. He informed me that in one area near to him virtually every fox has been shot out; so much for this legislation ‘saving lives’ as is so often claimed.
There is one simple and obvious test to see if any of the political assertions made by the LACS, CAFH or any other anti-hunting group are true. If the anti-hunting polls are correct and if most people are indeed opposed to hunting with dogs and if it is an issue on which they are willing to make their choice at this election, then the result is a foregone conclusion – the Conservatives will not form the next government.
But if the Conservatives do win, doesn’t that prove once and for all that the antis’ claims about widespread support for the hunting ban, and the more exaggerated articles in the media, are just meaningless nonsense?
excellent piece, thank you Mr Barrington. I wonder if I could trouble you or some one for a link to the latest yougov poll at 67% please?
My apologies for the delay in responding. The poll results are found at:
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/a997f020-3567-11e7-8a5d-c62e889b3830/question/d1a5d820-3567-11e7-8a5d-c62e889b3830/politics
Thank you very much. Very grateful
Great article. Thank you. Did you see the New Scientist article on 4 Jan 2017 on urban foxes? Dr Philip Stephens from Dept of Biosciences at Durham University stated that there has been an 43% decline in fox numbers in England between 1995 and 2015. This contrasts with five fold increase in foxes in urban areas over the same period. Dr Stephens stated the most likely causes were declines in prey or shooting pressure. He also said there is anecdotal evidence that since the hunting ban “gamekeepers have felt a particular obligation to hammer foxes as hard as they can”. The hunting ban has not been good for the fox population.
Yes, I did see that study, Iona, and thank you for your comment. If public opinion polls would ask questions that included the consequences of the Hunting Act and if politicians would stop allowing polls to make decisions for them, we might be in a better place.
Correct as usual Mr Barrington. You have a wonderful ability to shine a light on the stupidity and ignorance of the anti field sports movement every time.
Still banging that drum Mr Barrington?? There will be no repeal. Everyone except Bonner and co have been able to grasp that. Perhaps get yourself a calculator and do the maths. Even with a landslide there still wont be enough support for repeal. And before you launch, Im a Tory voter, live in the country and ride horses. I do wonder what Bonner et al will do after the free vote fails to bring about repeal… actually, what do YOU plan on doing??
Instead of making sarcastic remarks, perhaps you would explain how the Hunting Act has actually helped wildlife. Leave aside those who break the rules or even break the law – they should be punished. It would be interesting to see on what basis you think the Hunting Act is better than all the other methods of control that remain legal. What do you say about the 100,000s of wild animals shot as a direct result of this legislation? Where is the scientific evidence that backs a hunting ban? What methods of control do you advocate? Until you come up with the answers, your comments are meaningless.
“The arguments to ban hunting are blind to reason,…..blind to the damage done to a society when a minority which has done no harm and no wrong is judged on wholly unsound and untenable evidence and condemned.”
Lord Bragg (Melvyn), Labour Peer
House of Lords 12th March, 2001
It might take a while, John for that message to get through to the latest generation of Parliamentarians, but it most certainly will.
The fox population in the British Isles is an example of mesopredator release. As a species it requires management in ways that are both lethal and non-lethal. Properly conducted hunting’s legitimate and achievable aim, when restored by legislation, will be to promote healthy populations of three indigenous species of wild mammal at levels that are acceptable to land managers and other stakeholders with an interest in wildlife management.
Properly conducted, recreational hunting with scenting hounds, because it both mimicked and, save for hares, substituted for predation in the wild, did not cause deaths that were “cruel and pointless” as alleged by confused and uninformed opponents. It was zoologically similar to the natural predation on foxes and red deer by their extinct predators; wolves and lynxes.
Despite the animal welfare concerns that are cited against hunting, “rewilding” parts of Britain by reintroducing natural predators continues to be advocated by environmentalists who oppose hunting. Scenting hounds will contribute to necessary taxon replacement in the British anthropocene.
Well said, Dominic, and a very good quote from Melvyn Bragg. People like John C, whoever he is, will never give an explanation to the point you raise. Let’s keep on asking what antis SUPPORT rather than what they dislike. The last two responses I’ve had to that question were that “no wild animals need to be controlled.” So we’d better say goodbye to farmers’ crops and livestock, goodbye to vulnerable species and hello to disease.
Stating who you vote for, where you live and what your hobbies are doesn’t add any weight to your point – if you make a good or a bad point, it doesn’t matter who you are.
But to answer your question: if the act isn’t repealed we’ll carry on trying to educate people about hunting. Where we succeed, they change their minds.
Good afternoon John C.
If the Conservative Party fail to deliver their promise of a free vote on the Hunting Act (2004) then they should look forward to the prospect of the next general election. Many a Conservative MP, who does not support repeal will find their infrastructure weakened and their majority well down if not wiped out. This will not only affect rural areas but also urban constituencies where Conservative MP’s hold slim majorities and pro-hunt supporters will be happy to teach them a lesson by helping other parties.
David Cameron as PM did not have a sufficient majority in the House to get
a repeal of the Act. He wisely let it go and looked to dealing with the mess Labour had left behind. Perhaps we all need reminding, the Hunting Act took 700 hours and £30 million to push through. The 2nd Gulf War was dealt with in 7 hours, admittedly there was probably a bit more fraud involved.
Some years ago when hunting was not so much in the news a newly elected MP with little experience of rural affairs was asked if he supported hunting. He simply replied NO. Later he was invited to one of the two point to point meetings in his constituency. At the first meeting it was pointed out to him the crowd well exceeded his majority. After swift reconsideration he changed his mind and backed hunting.
John, if you are a Tory but don’t support hunting, to which other party will you lend your vote ?
Of course, we need to note that ‘John C’ is not a Tory voter who lives in the country and rides horses, but an anti who is being facetious.
Nevertheless, all voters, whether Tory or otherwise, need to have explained to them that the aesthetic argument that hunting celebrates killing is misconceived. The proper way to examine the issue is to consider the contribution scenting hounds can make to wildlife management. The recreational interest of a hunt supporter does not invalidate that contribution, it pays for it.
They also need to understand and be familiar with the following findings in the Burns Report, commissioned by the Labour Government in late 1999, so that they are not misled by the LACS and other confused and misinformed opponents.
(i) The Burns Committee meant that in their opinion, although there is a lack of firm scientific evidence, it is only when a fox (or hare) is closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds – i.e. the final moments where hounds are successful in their pursuit of scent – that its welfare is seriously compromised, not when the quarry is out of sight of hounds and they are looking for or tracking scent.
Further that the hunting and killing by apex predators of mesopredators is a natural process in the wild:
(Wolves hunting a coyote, which is of course much larger than a fox)
(ii) The average duration of a “chase” was found by the Committee to be 15 – 20 minutes, by which they meant hounds finding, hunting and pursuing scent and not ‘close pursuit’. Further, that pursuit of scent is usually much slower than might be imagined due to the “subtlety of and complexity of the scent left by a fox as it moves across the countryside”, as the Committee discovered when comparing foxhunting with draghunting.
(iii) It was their “tentative conclusion” that lamping with a rifle only if “carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances” has “fewer adverse welfare consequences than hunting or digging out”. They were ‘less confident’ that shotguns are preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. A study in 2003 found that, with shotguns, as shooters’ skill rate increased, the kill rate increased, the miss rate decreased but the wounding rates remained much the same.
(iv) The Burns Committee also found that lamping is most ‘effective’ when used to shoot young foxes in autumn, yet the killing of young foxes is something that opponents find upsetting. Further, it was found that “culling cubs has no significant effect on the longer-term population unless it reaches very high levels.”
(v) That the circumstances in which this form of killing can be used are limited.
(vi) That they found hounds tear at “the carcass” of a fox, i.e. break it up “post mortem” and that “there seems little doubt that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds.” Therefore ‘the ripping apart’, is post mortem.
Longer version of same clip which is still available
Wolves vs coyote [HD] – YouTube
Listen to the Spectator podcast hunting debate with Jim Barrington, Sonul Badiani-Hamment (PETA) and Camilla Swift (Spectator) presented by Lara Prendergast.
Mr Barrington you totally outclassed the opposition with your clear, precise and analytical arguments.
There was another fine example of anti hunt mentality, when Jim asked “we all know what you are against but what are you for and what would be your wildlife management strategy?” Sonul Badiani-Hamment had no reply to this. Taking the stance that wild animals do not need to be managed by humans and that nature should be left to take it’s course. Good luck with that. Antis can not think outside the box. They always use the emotional ripping the fox to shreds analogy but never mention the alternatives such as wounding with firearms.
Mr Barrington you were on top form and outshone the others intellectually during this debate. Unfortunately antis just want to keep the ban regardless that there is no evidence that it has improved animal welfare or that it is bad law and affects not just the fox.The listener was challenged to examine the facts during this debate and some might now think twice before they sign any “keep the ban” petitions.
Someone please buy Barrington a pint!
On the subject of debates:
Do you (Mr. Barrington) ever talk to antis who support the reintroduction of wolves?
From my experience the two go hand in hand and it’d be interesting to hear whether they were happy for a fox to be pursued by a pack of wolves.
Once they admit they’re happy about that, add in some people on horses following the wolves…
I certainly do raise the question you mention, but as ever, I rarely get a sensible reply. More usually, irrelevant points about humans being involved and what they are wearing seem to be the only response – neither properly addressing this ‘animal -to -animal’ process. The fact is, there is really no difference – unless, of course, you just don’t like the humans who take part.
Jim,
Your article now available on Conservative Home is as usual top class, relevant and much needed in a forum where the antis seek the last word. It is hard work if one is a lone voice but I do my best. It has been inspiring to have you join in the fight to try to explain to many who refuse to listen what we are about; and to ask what their alternative to hunting is when it comes to wildlife management.
We have our fingers tight crossed for Thursday`s election and hope that we can restore a rejuvenated, properly organised and controlled range of hunting options to further the cause of wildlife management.
Thank you, John, and I suppose all we can do is continue to ask that question, which is what do the antis stand for? We don’t get an answer because we know they can’t agree. Let’s hope for a good result on 8th June.
Just in case anyone in the LACS or the Hunt Saboteurs Association thinks Theresa May’s election result had anything to do with the Tory party’s manifesto commitment to address the Hunting Act, I have a sad message for them. There were a number of reasons for the ICM 12 point lead prediction not being right, but the reason the YouGov poll was right can be demonstrated by the results in Battersea, Putney and Canterbury. It was middle class undergraduates getting together on Facebook, some with posh accents and rich parents, registering to vote for the first time, swallowing Corbyn’s irresponsible manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees, hook, line and sinker. Of course, the next time the nation goes to the Country, this new pressure group will need to be uppermost in politician’s minds. I know because my eldest is an undergraduate. He and his mates really believed Corbyn was going to win. If they had used their energy last year to vote against Brexit, I suppose Cameron would still be Prime Minister.
My thoughts precisely, Dominic.
I suspect that Corbyn, like many people (including his own Labour PPCs), initially didn’t think he had a real chance of winning the election. Consequently, he could promise the earth without the prospect of having to deliver. He also cleverly targeted the young who, by definition, have little experience of similar Left-wing policies causing chaos here and around the world. Too many of these people were thinking more about their own financial situations (not that they would have been improved in reality) and ignored the baggage this man Corbyn carries-support for terrorists, questioning commemoration of World War 1 and the Marxist cronies surrounding him. The fact that Corbyn was even in the running to possibly become the next Prime Minister of the UK is an utter disgrace.
As far as hunting is concerned, he again smartly targeted those who, like himself, know nothing about the issue, nothing about the consequences of a ban, yet understandably dislike it.
Radio silence from Tim Bonner and the CA after the election. Bye bye repeal. Time to accept the hunting act is here to stay.
The Hunting Act is a bad law. If it here to stay it is something that should be regretted. Those who support it, as is obvious from the tone and content of much of what you have written, dislike the type of people who hunt and are either ignorant or deeply prejudiced. Why did you have to pretend that you are a Tory gent who lives in the country, rides horses and keeps livestock, in your first five or so posts? Somebody who has to use deceit to obtain support for his or her arguments is not only dishonest but has no right to preach to others about morality on a public forum. You have made your self look silly ‘John C’ haven’t you?
“As far as hunting is concerned, he again smartly targeted those who, like himself, know nothing about the issue, nothing about the consequences of a ban, yet understandably dislike it.”….. your arrogance is simply breathtaking. Interesting how fox hunting becomes about vermin control when people began to sit up and take notice of what was going on. As a country gent all my life, landowner and an owner of livestock I and many nearby were sick to the back teeth with the local hunt. Rude, obstructive and couldn’t careless attitude to protestations at the the mayhem and anti-social behaviour week in, week out.
As you know, John C, the HA is an amended version of the Michael Bill which was based on the principles of ‘utility and least suffering’. The thinking behind that Bill was that a form of hunting with dogs could be licensed if it made a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage to a number of listed interests in circumstances where another method would not cause significantly less suffering.
So DEFRA in December 2002, when the Bill was published, sought to license hunting for pest control. It banned deer hunting and hare coursing because Alun Michael did not consider that these activities could pass that test. There were a number of flaws in the Bill, which would have been met by the HoL amendment, which added a further interest to the list, namely ‘wildlife management’ and removed the prohibition on coursing and deer-hunting, so long as the hunting registrar was satisfied that these activities satisfied Michael’s test.
One of the reasons I have said you ‘flog a dead horse’ is because hunting people have been prepared to concede that in the 21st Century an activity involving the use of dogs which serves no useful purpose in relation to wildlife management is difficult to justify if it seriously compromises the welfare of the mammal concerned.
Issues do arise in relation to trespass and other unacceptable activity by Hunts. Efforts have been made to meet these concerns. See for example: http://countrysideallianceireland.org/ie/hunting/hunt-protocol-agreed-with-the-ulster-farmers-union, where traditional hunting is still legal.
“It was middle class undergraduates getting together on Facebook, some with posh accents and rich parents, registering to vote for the first time, swallowing Corbyn’s irresponsible manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees, hook, line and sinker”….. you may want to go back and do your homework sir. Such a shame the Tories cannot accept on any level that people generally can’t stomach the entitled, self serving egotistical attitudes. Remember….. they work for us. Not the minority who wish to charge around the countryside terrorising anyone unfortunate enough to get in their way.
I do not understand this response. It seems to be a little irrational?
“and to ask what their alternative to hunting is when it comes to wildlife management.”….. such a shame you still think this is about wildlife management. Interesting research from the year of foot and mouth when it was concluded there was no changer to fox numbers despite hunting being banned…. or will you try and pick holes in that. As a landowner and keeper of livestock I have never had an issue with foxes. Neither have my farming neighbours. I have had many issues with the local hunt upsetting my ewes, rampaging through my fields, letting heifers onto a main A road and destroying fences. You may need to try just accept people do not accept traditional hunting with packs of hounds. It is a centuries old tradition and sport that is fast becoming obsolete.
Jim has dealt with the foot and mouth point. I am surprised that you and the LACs continue to rely upon it when it is obvious that hunting with hounds is only one of many methods that is used to kill foxes. As Jim repeatedly points out, if hunting with dogs stops altogether, other methods are used – for reasons that may be good or bad.
In any event, our justification for hunting as a form of wildlife management is not that it is useful to ‘wipe out’ vermin or to substantially reduce the fox population. If anything, the recreational interest in foxhunting often acts a ;restrainer’ on other methods, as mentioned above. This was recognised in the Burns Report and is one of the reasons why hunting can be a management tool that is ‘non-lethal’.
The modern Case for Hunting is on the CA website. The properly conducted use of scenting hounds can be complementary to wildlife management and sometimes, pest control, in the areas where it is conducted. So why you and the LACS seek to attack an argument we do not use is never obvious to me, and amounts to ‘flogging a dead horse’. Maybe it is because to have no answer to the arguments we do use which, unlike yours, have evolved.
Its is a shame you label my comments as ‘meaningless’ because they are in direct opposition to your own views. As a custodian of the countryside is is perhaps difficult for you to move beyond simply labelling me as an ‘anti’. I can accept that. It is probably an easier road for you to tread given the difficulty the Countryside Alliance has with acknowledging that there are plenty who do not care for the hunts and their antics. I can live with that Mr Barrington. What is clear based on your rather one dimensional dispatches is that anybody who orbits around the self appointed core of a hunting community is not welcome to present their views.
You don’t read a word we say. You just flog a dead horse, endlessly, which I suppose is not cruel for an anti although it is a bit unpleasant.
“You don’t read a word we say. You just flog a dead horse, endlessly, which I suppose is not cruel for an anti although it is a bit unpleasant”
I rest my case. And as for ‘flogging a dead horse’ it would seem I am not the only one with the metaphorical whip Mr Webber. The Hunting Act is here to stay. Accept it and move on. Perhaps time to direct your angst towards a more worthwhile cause.
As a side note, based on some of the comments above i would very much appreciate you or Mr Barrington to direct me to the ‘consequences of the ban’. I have tried and failed to find something a bit more scientifically robust and able to stand up to scrutiny than angry sound bites and figures (100,000’s) pulled out of thin air. I have presented this request on various hunting orientated websites but have been ignored or met with disdain and the usual ‘anti’ blah blah blah. This is a genuine request.
I noticed that you ignored my comment regarding foot and mouth and fox populations.
If Stephen Wooler is right, it is very difficult for anyone to demonstrate scientifically what the consequences of a ban could be. All we can relay upon is anecdotal evidence as discussed by other commentators above.
If opponents of hunting wish to show how the prohibition of hunting could be beneficial to the welfare of the quarry species, why not produce some evidence that stands up scientifically?
Prohibition removes a method which is non-wounding, natural and selective. Have a look at Lewis Thomas’s video clip on the VAWM website. It is common sense really.
http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/
Whoops…… should have added that papers on fox population and hunting ban were published in the journals ‘Nature’ and the ‘New Scientist’
I wonder can one of you explain why the 2015 amendment order emphasised protection of livestock and game birds for shooting as opposed to wildlife management under the remit of ‘welfare’. The reason I ask is because the focus of Mr Barrington’s argument is welfare. Can you also explain why DEFRA and the Countryside Alliance were extremely vocal about shooting being inhumane and yet the CA were more than happy to then explore a third way or middle ground where shooting would have a much more pivotal role. Why the change of heart? I thought it was all about the humane management of wildlife. I had a cry interesting conversation with a hunt employee on a social media forum who claimed that hunting ends in the spring to ensure cubs are protected this supplying enough quarry for the following season. Do you not think that is an odd way to manage wildlife? You claim hunting is more humane and yet George Adams (Fitzwilliam) very honestly described hunting with hounds as below:
‘Being killed by hounds is certainly a gruesome, violent and bloody way to die. And I have no doubt that whilst it is happening it is probably extremely painful’
This was on the FAQ part of the Fitzwilliam’s homepage. It was then subsequently removed. I wonder why. This death would come at the end of a chase where, no doubt, the wild animal would be exhausted and terrified.
Does this sound like a humane way to ‘manage wildlife’? Is it a case whereby both methods are equally inhumane but probably one is more inhumane than the other? Do you really think this is a sound basis for an argument to support repeal? I have always maintained the internet will be the death of hunting and it seems that is now coming to fruition. It is unfortunate that the hunting community are unable to agree the best way to spin hunting to Joe Public. The most obviously example was changing cub hunting to Autumn Hunting. The world is evolving. The hunt community are not.
I am more than happy to send the information referenced above if you can direct me to an email address.
The 2015 amendment was to make the law in England and Wales the same as that of Scotland. Neither law was our idea. The anomalies, such as they are, are entirely down to the confused logic of those who have enacted these bad laws. We have never said that shooting when properly conducted and in appropriate circumstances is inhumane, it is just that it is intrinsically an uncertain way of killing a wild mammal.
The use of dogs is complementary to other methods and not simply a direct alternative. Obviously, if the purpose of using dogs is to assist with finding and shooting an animal, the more that are used the better.
“What do you say about the 100,000s of wild animals shot as a direct result of this legislation”
This is what I say.
Now this is an interesting comment. Notice the plural.
Foxes – estimated 240,000 including urban foxes
Surely you should be concerned with the decimation of these animals by shooting based on the above quote? Current numbers appear very healthy.
Lets now consider other animals covered by the hunting act.
Deer, hares and mink.
Deer – There are only four staghound packs in the UK and all concentrated in the SW. Do you wish to suggest a significant increase in the shooting of deer due to the legislation?
Hares – not considered significant pests unless you are talking about Scottish grouse shooting moors. Again though, shooting is the accepted most efficient and humane way to manage numbers by rural conservation groups. Not hunting with hounds.
Mink – interesting. Otters tend to surpress mink numbers. Otter hunting outlawed. Surely this should have been welcomed by rural conservation groups. Again, most effective form of mink management is trapping, not hunting with hounds.
Now finally going back to the assertion that 100,000’s (plural) of wild mammals are shot each year BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATION. I look forward to your response.
The fact that you feel the need to respond so vigorously indicates that you are not so confident the Hunting Act is here to stay. Furthermore, please try to quote me correctly. I did not say 100,000s of animals are shot EACH YEAR – it is reasonable to claim that this figure is correct since 2005. When the Hunting Act came into force, tens of thousands of hares were shot out, mainly in Eastern regions, when coursing was banned and hare hunting restricted. Briefly, the hare’s status had changed to one that was just a pest and indeed a pest that attracted poachers. In some wider areas where shooting has become more dominant, foxes are shot relentlessly and at times when they are pregnant or nursing. If you want proof, I’m happy to take you to such areas.
I remind you that the anti hunting groups argued shooting was more humane when campaigning for the Hunting Act, but now they have changed their position to one where no wildlife control is needed. The only study undertaken, peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal on the subject of the shooting and wounding of foxes showed much higher incidents of wounded animals. It was supposedly countered by the scientist you now refer to regarding the suspension of hunting during ‘foot and mouth’ disease. That study was highly criticised and did not take into account any other method of fox control that may have been undertaken. It is a nonsense to say that this proves your point about hunting.
Just what methods of wildlife control and/or management do you actually support?
I fail to understand why you are so sure wild animal welfare has improved as a result of the Hunting Act – a law that does not grant any protection for animals and simply prevents or curtails one method. What is so wrong about your stance is that you seem to think hunting exists in isolation – it does not, yet anti-hunting groups will not test their own argument by bringing forward even a scrap of evidence to support the claim that the Hunting Act is good for animal welfare. If they did, that would be an end to this whole debate and the fact that they have failed to do so speaks volumes.
Again, this comment simply proves what I have said above. Properly conducted hunting is complementary to other forms of management. This sort of argument amounts to ‘flogging a dead horse.’
Forgive my typos…..
Poor dead horse!
“Furthermore, please try to quote me correctly. I did not say 100,000s of animals are shot EACH YEAR”
Neither did I
“I fail to understand why you are so sure wild animal welfare has improved as a result of the Hunting Act ”
Neither do you
“Yet anti-hunting groups will not test their own argument by bringing forward even a scrap of evidence to support the claim that the Hunting Act is good for animal welfare”
Neither have you.
“The fact that you feel the need to respond so vigorously indicates that you are not so confident the Hunting Act is here to stay”
I am VERY confident. It is disappointing that you view my comments as such. You want those opposed to hunting to be educated and yet you view any sort of counter argument or commentary as anything but. A strange approach.
“In some wider areas where shooting has become more dominant, foxes are shot relentlessly”
Lamping has been around for a long time. I had no idea this pastime was now described as ‘foxes being shot relentlessly’
“If you want proof, I’m happy to take you to such areas”
This is interesting. Which areas are these Mr Barrington
Mr Webber, how unfortunate that you continue to be incapable of engaging aside from your rather amusing but sadly predictable one line metaphors. At least Mr Barrington has attempted a narrative. I will set you a little bit of homework. Simple but hopefully enlightening. Can you explain why cub hunting was strategically changed to Autumn Hunting?
“Now finally going back to the assertion that 100,000’s (plural) of wild mammals are shot each year BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATION.” Did you not say this?
I am not talking about the usual lamping activity, though that does seem to have increased too. I am referring to areas which in the past restrained the numbers of foxes shot (by either gamekeepers or just shooters offering a ‘free pest control service’) to what is now happening, where basically, as I was told by one gamekeeper, “the reins are off” as far as shooting foxes is concerned.
It was the anti-hunting groups who campaigned and funded the process by which the Hunting Act was passed, yet during that time not one piece of scientific evidence was presented. All that was needed at the time was enough MPs to push this law through. Now, even though numerous people totally unconnected to hunting have criticised this law, you claim it is up to the hunting world to prove its case. The evidence I have seen so far mirrors what the RSPCA said decades ago, which was that a hunting ban would allow worse methods to fill the vacuum.
As an aside Mr Barrington, what are your thoughts on mapping being flagged up as the most effective form of fox control?
I’m sorry, but I’ve never heard of “mapping” foxes. Perhaps you’d care to explain?
What are your thoughts on artificial earths? Or the capture and feeding of live foxes? Would you not agree these are a rather odd method of control?
Our position is that the legitimate and achievable aim of properly conducted hunting is to promote healthy populations of three indigenous species of wild mammal at levels that are acceptable to land managers and other stakeholders with an interest in wildlife management and not to wipe these animals out.
Where fox numbers have become seriously depleted, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons for reintroducing them. The rights and wrongs of artificial earths are matters that need to be considered carefully and there are very good argument for prohibiting anything that does not amount to the hunting of a fox in its wild and natural state,
I am sure that you would agree that it would be wrong for there to be a zero population of foxes in most parts of the UK. It is a species that requires management in ways that are both lethal and non-lethal. Because it is an example of mesopredator release, it can be wiped out by disease or over-vigorous control by a range of land managers or stakeholders who would wish to keep numbers as low as possible.
My apologies Mr Barrington. You are in fact right. My quote from a previous post was made in error when I should have simply stated the figure without any sort of time frame. The hunting world have certainly proved that there is little cohesiveness when it comes to formulating a universal approach to changing people’s attitudes. I believe this is because all avenues have been exhausted. In the cold light of day, hunting is a traditional sport born in the 1600’S as a means of entertainment for the landed gentry and aristocracy at the time. As fox numbers declined more were imported so this pastime could continue. One cannot readily divorce this from the seemingly more ‘palatable’ reasons for hunting spun purely as a means of winning over Joe Public and presenting hunting as a vital rural service with a focus on welfare. As societies evolve it is cheering to see the more distasteful aspects fall by the wayside. The law makers of our country recognise this hence the Hunting Act being one of the most universally popular pieces of legislation in recent times.
Hunting is probably one of the last bastions of a time when clear class divisions and cultural differences were very much evident, and hunting was certainly a preserve of the wealthy. The hunt community indeed like to flag up the class divide as the main motivation for people to oppose hunting. Again, this does nothing but support the view that the hunt community are incapable of reading the overall feeling of revulsion that wild animals are still being hunted down with packs of hounds for sport. I am sure you are party to a whole wealth of historical sources that do nothing but flag up the cruelty associated with hunting. Furthermore while the CA happily direct people to the minorty of vets who believe hunting with hounds leads to a quick death these same vets also concede that there is a significant level of suffering leading up to that point.
It is interesting that you have insinuated hunting needs to prove it’s case. I would disagree. The hunting community need to accept that the Hunting Act is one of the laws of this country and to stop presenting themselves as stewards of animals welfare and trying to undermine it. What we all know is that the hunting community simply wish to use the countryside as their playground and to get on with their sport and indulge in their traditions with no interference from outsiders. To try and shroud that in the respectable cloak of animal welfare simply does a massive disservice to those of us who are in procession of more than a couple of brain cells. There are plenty of laws we may noT care much for. I am sure many are broken time and time again. Does that mean they are bad laws? No. Does that means we should seek to have them repealed. No.
Im wonder if we could go back in time and ask Captain Ronnie Wallace why he hunted would he say it was all about animal welfare. I think we both know that answer to that.
I hope you don’t flog your dead livestock too!.
One final thought, John C (aka Pattie Betty – it is Pattie isn’t it?) why don’t you address the argument that in the British Anthropocene the properly conducted taxon replacement of absent apex predators with scenting hounds is much more practical, and no less beneficial, than rewilding by reintroducing wolves?
It is also more humane. So although hunting has been evolving morally since 1788 when Beckford wrote his famous work, it may well have been on the right lines all along, even though those who have mastered the art of venery may not have understood how important this activity could be as an ethnographic, ecological practice in 21st Century Britain.
What people wear is quite irrelevant and whether it is horses or another kind of herbivore moving swiftly in a herd some distance away, in the background, is also irrelevant. Hunt followers are in truth no different to ‘ecotourists’ and the huntsman could be described as the alpha male in the pack.
I’m not sure that this correspondence will get us much further. You have a view that appears to say the use of hunting dogs is inherently cruel – I do not. Furthermore, the many people and groups I talk to, including student vets, certainly do understand the pro-hunt argument when explained and given they would be the first to reject it if unsound, I take that as an important vindication of the pro-hunt case.
One final point, my position is not one of absolute support for anything and everything that may go on in the hunting field. I hold the view that there is good hunting and there is bad hunting, just as there is good shooting and bad shooting, good game-keeping and bad game-keeping. It is the ‘bad’ in all of these activities that should be addressed and that is a law I certainly do support, as it’s based on evidence not opinion.
‘Briefly, this is what we’re going to see over the next few weeks, so it would be worthwhile reminding candidates that they can either play along with this silly game or they can look at the facts, both in terms of the issues involved and the totally fatuous claim that hunting plays a part in choosing the next government.’
In the context of your comment above and the clear fury you show towards those opposed to hunting ensuring it is as central as possible to voting habits, do you extend the same level of fury towards Vote OK? Whose prime reason for existence is to canvass public support for pro-hunt Tories/MP’s as part of the usual rag tag of door to door volunteers without telling people the group they are aligned to? Double standards perhaps?
You have a lot in common with a nice lady called Pattie Betty. Perhaps the two of you should have a chat on another website.
The LACs is well-known for having paid large amounts of money to the Parliamentary Labour Party and for supporting Labour PPCs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with VOTE UK supporting the local campaigning of an MP, of whatever political colour, who has the good sense to realise that the Hunting Act is bad law.
i might have coined the name for a new organisation accidentally, now that UKIP has lost its mandate!
Are you able to answer my question Mr Webber?
Sadly Mr Webber you are fulfilling the stereotype to perfection. Such a shame you are unable/incapable of responding to my posts and questions.
Perhaps you missed my question to you. Can you explain why cub hunting was strategically changed to Autumn hunting?
Perhaps because people are now hunting within the law. Seams simple to me
It was changed before the Hunting Act became law. I’m surprised you didn’t now that.
I am not a hunter. Just a member of the public who understands the importance of hunting in a wild life management role
As explained in my second post above, the method of killing that abolitionists of hunting with dogs prefer (ed?)is a method that involves wiping out juvenile foxes in autumn. They are not ‘cubs’ at this time of year, so ‘cubbing’ was a misnomer.
It might be an idea to check now that the gates in your fields have not been left open by a careless rambler. You wouldn’t want your livestock to wander onto that busy A road. Have you checked that your horse’s water butt is full?
Can you tell me your thoughts on this from 1987 Mr Webber? Again, you side step my question. Is that because you cannot answer it.
“In a television programme called “Face the public”, Chris Ogilvie, a huntsman of the Coniston Foxhounds, was asked about his fox hunting activities. He stated:
“I don’t hunt foxes to control them and neither does any hunting person”.
The host then asked:
“So what do you hunt them for?”
Chris Ogilvie replied:
“We hunt them for sport.”
The host asked, “For enjoyment?” Chris Ogilvie replied, “Yes.” The host asked, “For pleasure?” Chris Ogilvie replied, “Yes…for pleasure.”
Yes, huntsmen hunt because they enjoy it – I honestly don’t think many of them would be doing it if they didn’t and if it was just for pest control.
But why should the state of mind of the hunter, shooter, trapper or whoever have any bearing on the welfare implications for the fox? It doesn’t.
It is well accepted that foxes need controlling (except by AR fruitloops) and if someone enjoys it and, whether their motives are pure fox control or pure sport, is willing to do it for free (or even pay to do it) when the alternative is someone who a) sees it as a chore and b) whose methods will cause the fox more suffering, doing it, why stop them?
Anyway, I will leave you to ponder my comments.
As an aside Mr Webber, if I have indeed ‘flogged my horse to death’ it is unlikely to need it’s water butt checked.
Good night sir.
That’s a good point.
Everything you have said is addressed in my first two posts above. Bye for now and take care.