It’s been a long time coming, but finally an investigation into the animal welfare impact of the Hunting Act (and its Scottish equivalent) has been published. Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law by environmental journalist Charlie Pye-Smith is the first step in exposing exactly what these hunting bans have achieved and it doesn’t look good for those wild animals involved.
For all the time, money and effort expended on the endless debates surrounding hunting with dogs, there is one glaring omission: what exactly has been the effect of these bans on the quarry species?
One might have thought, given the millions of pounds spent by the coalition of anti-hunting groups, that at least some effort would have been made to answer this question. Let’s, for a moment, imagine that just such an investigation had been commissioned by the coalition of the RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports and International Fund for Animal Welfare and that, as they so often claim, the animals that were previously hunted could be shown to have benefited.
At a stroke, such findings would put an end to the whole hunting argument. If a ban proved that welfare had actually improved, there could never be any realistic justification for continuation of the use of dogs in wildlife management. Why then hasn’t this work been done?
One possible answer is that the antis simply don’t have the contacts within the land managing conservation world, without which they have no access to people who can provide the information required. Another reason is that they have been convinced by their own propaganda – that banning hunting with dogs cannot possibly be anything other than a positive move.
But a far more likely explanation for antis avoiding this area of research is truly damning; that they know full well animal welfare has not improved. Certainly, during my time at the League Against Cruel Sports the emphasis was always primarily on banning hunting, rather than improving animal welfare.
That’s why, when I and others at the LACS voiced our concerns about the consequences of a hunting ban, we were told to keep quiet. It’s the same situation with those politicians of all parties who raised similar worries. They too were dismissed because their views couldn’t be substantiated.
Well, that’s now changed.
We’ve seen foxes virtually wiped out in some areas as casual shooting has become more prevalent. No longer the weak, the diseased and injured taken by hounds; no close season so that foxes could breed as with hunting. 3000 hares shot on just two estates within days of the Hunting Act being passed to deter gangs of poachers from invading the land; no longer do hares benefit from conservation measures by hunts and coursing clubs, such as providing cover and organising poacher patrols. Deer hunts removed elderly, deformed and diseased stags; they reduced the number of breeding hinds; they broke up large herds to disperse them and observe and recorded deer herds for scientific reasons. Hunts would track and dispatch injured deer, but now all this has diminished due to the Hunting Act.
For the first time, we have an insight into what has really happened to the fox, brown hare and red deer of Exmoor and the Quantocks post Hunting Act. Basically, the status of these animals has changed in the eyes of some landowners for a variety of reasons, as explained in the book. The bans have diminished a community-based conservation process reducing it to pest control or commercial gain. This isn’t a case of preferring one method over another – it highlights that a balance between shooting and hunting was wrecked by the Hunting Act.
This awful situation, unseen by many, is due entirely or in part to the consequence of laws based upon ignorance, prejudice, emotion, naivety and the clever spin of animal rights groups. For years, the public, politicians and media have been conned – it’s a simple as that.
Whatever people think of hunting and whatever they may think these hunting bans have achieved – an attack on political opponents, getting at toffs, revenge for the miners, a twisted animal rights philosophy or whatever – the one thing that now cannot be said with any credibility is that a ban on the use of hunting dogs in wildlife management is good for animal welfare. These bans have not improved animal welfare, instead they have made life far, far worse for the fox, hare and red deer of the West Country.
The RSPCA, LACS and IFAW all campaigned long and hard for the Hunting Act. They have claimed for years that this law has improved the lives of the fox, hare and red deer of Exmoor without the slightest effort to substantiate that statement. These groups were approached to supply their evidence and they refused.
We now have the findings of the first in depth investigation that shows a truly harrowing picture, for animal welfare and genuine conservation.
And so, to all those who campaigned for a ban on hunting with hounds – the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports through to the masked-up thugs of the hunt saboteurs, to the gullible, virtue-signalling politicians who do their bidding and to the Mays, Monbiots and Packhams of this world – the fact is, the Hunting Act has failed… and these findings prove it.
So where is their evidence to the contrary? Up to now, their tactic is the usual one of not responding in the hope that these uncomfortable truths will simple go away; that will definitely not be allowed to happen.
And to those who wish to continue this battle in the political world by tightening an already detrimental law, as some in the Labour Party do, they should take note, because the same demand for their evidence in the light of these findings will be asked of them…unless, of course, they are happy to confirm that animal welfare was never the true motivation behind the Hunting Act.
Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law, £20 + £4 p&p,
published by the R S Surtees Society (http://www.rssurtees.com/product/ruralwrongs/ )
James Barrington 