AT LEAST
TWENTY MINUTES OF
TORMENT
............AND THEN THE REAL PAIN STARTS!
Devon and Somerset Staghounds
WHAT THE LORDS BURNS INQUIRY REALLY SAID ABOUT
HUNTING WITH DOGS.
By Mike Huskisson
(An eyewitness to many of the Burns Inquiry visits,
oral evidence sessions and meetings)
ANIMAL
WELFARE INFORMATION SERVICE, P.O. BOX 8, HALESWORTH, SUFFOLK. IP19 0JL
The tests that need to be applied
concerning the management of our wildlife, and in particular the killing of our
wildlife, are principally is the killing necessary and does the manner of that
killing cause unnecessary suffering?
If the killing is unnecessary and/or
causes unnecessary suffering then the extent to which people gain fun from the
killing, or employment from it, is really an irrelevance. In fact in the case of the
bloodsports considered here, fortuitously, there are readily available humane
replacements that provide as many, if not more, employment opportunities
The reader will note that throughout this abstract from the Burns
report no animal is found to be the victim of cruelty, but plenty have their
welfare “compromised”. What did Lord Burns and his team actually mean by this?
It is clear to me from many hours spent in their company that like the
overwhelming majority of the population they oppose cruelty to animals, and all
the more so when it is unnecessary. However, beside it being outside their
terms of reference to assess the cruelty, it is likely that they balked at
labelling the favourite pastime of our future king as “cruel”. Hence the
concept of an animal having its welfare “compromised”.
To gain an idea of the measure of
suffering and therefore cruelty embraced by this term consider the following
telling words used by the team to describe the occasions when pets are attacked
by rioting hounds:
Page 121 : “6.76 The welfare
of pets which are attacked by hounds is clearly compromised, and their owners
often suffer great distress.”
Those who have had the misfortune to
witness the impact of a pack of hounds on their beloved pets will know the
measure of this phrase as a benchmark for cruelty.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
1) Foxhunting
The welfare of the fox is seriously
compromised. Some compromise to the terriers welfare when the latter are
injured. In the absence of a ban consideration should be given to : banning cub
hunting; introducing a closed season for foxes, allowing cub hunting only where
it was clearly necessary for controlling foxes, banning “holding up” in cub
hunting; banning the digging out and bolting of foxes; limiting it to those
areas where it was considered necessary; making the practice subject to the
general legislation on cruelty by removing the present exemptions for hunting;
or improving monitoring by the hunts and by any independent monitors. In the
absence of a ban consideration should be given to removing the present
exemption for hunts relating to the stopping-up of badger setts; banning the
stopping-up of foxes’ earths; limiting it to where it is considered necessary
or limiting how or why it may be done. The active use of artificial earths is
inconsistent with the stated objective of controlling fox numbers and in the
absence of a ban their use should be banned or the hunts be encouraged to end
their use.
2 Deerhunting
Most scientists agree that deer are
likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting. The welfare of the deer is
seriously compromised but they are unable to resolve the disagreement as to at
which point during the hunt this occurs. Stalking is in principle the better
method of culling deer from a animal welfare perspective. In the absence of a
ban, action could be taken to ban the hunting of hinds running with their
calves.
3 Harehunting
The Inquiry team are satisfied that
the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by a pack of dogs
seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. They are similarly satisfied that being
pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the
welfare of the hare. Furthermore, contrary to all claims from apologists for
coursing the Inquiry are satisfied that not all hares caught are killed quickly
and there can be a significant delay in the dispatch of the hare by the
“picker-up”. In the view of the Committee of Inquiry “there is a case for
having a legally-prescribed closed season for killing hares.” In other words in
the absence of an outright ban on hare hunting there should be a ban on hare
hunting during a closed season The Committee say that consideration should be
given to applying this to shooting hares as well.
4 Minkhunting
The Committee see reason to suppose
that being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds, or being dug out or
bolted, seriously compromises the welfare of the mink.
Throughout the text the words in italics
are direct quotes from the Burns report or some other Government source.
Emphasis in bold replicates the original.
WHAT THE
COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO DO,
The Rt. Hon Jack Straw MP appointed
the Committee of Inquiry in December 1999 to carry out an inquiry into hunting
with dogs with the following terms of reference:-
Page 1 : “To inquire into:
·
the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its
impact on the rural economy,
agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the
countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in
particular areas of England and Wales;
·
the consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and
·
how any ban might be implemented.”
On page 1 of their report the
Committee note:
“We were helped by the terms of reference,
which asked us to concentrate on the factual and analytical background to
hunting. We have addressed those issues and we have not attempted to answer the
question of whether or not hunting should be banned. In particular, we have not
sought to find a compromise solution, which we regarded as outside our terms of
reference.”
On page 7 the Committee clarify
their role further:-
“We were asked to focus on the
hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink. The use of dogs solely to
locate or retrieve quarry was excluded from our terms of reference. We were not
asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned. Nor were we asked to
consider moral or ethical issues.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: The Committee was not
asked to decide whether hunting wildlife with dogs was cruel. The Committee was
not asked to decide whether hunting should be banned nor to look at
hunting in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
FINDINGS.
A) FOXHUNTING.
i) Is it cruel?
Yes!
How many hunts kill how many foxes?
Page 7 : “There are about 200
registered packs of hounds (mainly foxhounds but also some harriers) in England
and Wales which hunt foxes, plus a number of unregistered packs in Wales. Most
packs have mounted followers but a number, including the Fell packs in Cumbria
and the footpacks in Wales, are followed on foot only. The Welsh gunpacks use
dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns.
The registered packs are estimated
to kill some 21,000-25,000 foxes a year. About 40% of the foxes killed by the
registered packs are killed in the autumn/cub hunting season. In Wales and
other upland areas, a high proportion of foxes are dug out, using terriers, and
shot. Outside the registered packs, many more foxes are dug out and shot or are
killed by people using lurchers or other “long dogs”. Some of these activities
are carried out by farmers, landowners and gamekeepers. Others involve
trespass.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Foxes are also
killed by the terriers themselves below ground, in all areas. This is
particularly true during cubhunting either in the late Summer and Autumn or
when newborn cubs are encountered when foxes are hunted in March, April and
May. Terrierwork is not confined to Wales and other upland areas. The
registered packs in lowland areas also use terriers to kill foxes, either
directly or by digging them out and shooting them. Foxes may also be bolted
into nets by terriers and then shot.
The terrierwork that is carried out
outside the registered packs frequently involves the foxes being bolted into
nets and shot, or bolted into the open and shot.
Terrierwork takes time and by no
means always results in a kill! When the terriermen give up and remove their
dogs the foxes that are left alive are usually injured in one way or another.
Many will die a protracted and painful death as a result.
What about cubhunting?
Page 148 : “9.11 The
MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, in their evidence to us, argued that
autumn/cub hunting serves a number of useful purposes. They pointed out that a
survey of hunts carried out in January 2000 showed that some 40% of the foxes
killed by the registered packs were killed during autumn/cub hunting and that
it takes place at a time when the fox population is at its highest and most
concentrated.
9.12 It is also argued by the hunts
concerned that autumn/cub hunting is useful in dispersing the fox population,
thus reducing their concentration in any one area.
9.13 The third purpose served by
autumn/cub hunting, in the view of the MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, is
that it serves a very useful means of introducing young hounds to hunting.
Autumn/cub hunting takes place in a comparatively confined area and with fewer
riders and other followers around to distract them.
9.14 It does not seem to us, from
the evidence we received, that these arguments are wholly persuasive. As we
noted in paragraph 5.36, there is little evidence that, in spite of the numbers
killed, this activity is particularly effective in reducing fox populations or
that dispersal has the benefits which the MFHA claim. It is clear too that it
is not necessary to practise autumn/cub hunting in order to train young hounds.
A number of packs, including the Fell Packs and the Welsh gun packs, use other
methods.
9.16 In the absence of a ban,
consideration could be given to a number of options for responding to the
concerns about autumn/cub hunting. These options include: prohibiting the
practice entirely; introducing a closed season for hunting foxes, so that
hunting would start at a later date than it does at present; permitting it only
in those areas where it was clearly necessary as a means of controlling fox
numbers; and prohibiting the practice of “holding up”.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : It is clear, even
given the diplomatic language used, that the Inquiry team did not altogether
believe the apologists for hunting on this issue! Doubtless if they had had the
opportunity for themselves to witness at first hand the cruelty inherent in
cubhunting they would have been even more horrified.
What happens when foxes are caught
by the hounds above ground?
Page 117 : “6.49 The evidence
which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds
above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or
shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical
vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the
chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow
within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm
scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely
pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied,
nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the
fox.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : There actually
was little evidence that for a fox caught above ground death was ever
effected by a single bite to the neck. There was no assessment of the numbers
of hounds present when the fox was caught. It is my belief that it is more
common for the fox to be caught by a single hound first than by the full pack
at once (the pack is usually strung out). The evidence of hunting literature is
that there can be some fight between a fox and a lone hound.
What did the post mortems carried
out for the Inquiry by the University of Bristol reveal about the manner of
death of foxes caught above ground by the hounds. Was it the “quick nip to the
back of the neck”? [Extracts from CD Rom follow]
“Fox 3 (Royal Artillery Foxhounds,
Salisbury Plain, 3rd April 2000)
This animal was hunted with hounds
for approximately 15 minutes. The fox was killed on the surface by the
hounds.
Cause of death
Profound trauma by repeated dog
bite. Post mortem examination revealed little tissue damage in the head,
neck and shoulder region, pronounced damage to the ribcage and thoracic organs,
and profound damage to the abdomen. It is probable that trauma to the abdomen,
hindquarters or chest were the cause of death in this animal.
Fox 4 (Royal Artillery Foxhounds,
Salisbury Plain, 8th April 2000)
This animal was hunted with hounds
for less than 2 minutes. The fox was killed on the surface by the hounds.
Cause of death
Profound trauma by repeated dog
bite. Post mortem examination revealed little tissue damage in the head, neck
and shoulder region, pronounced damage to the ribcage and the thoracic organs,
and profound damage to the abdomen. It is probable that trauma to the abdomen,
hindquarters or chest were the cause of death in this animal. It is not
possible to determine the time period from first bite to death from this post
mortem material”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Neither fox was
stated to have been killed by the “quick nip to the back of the neck”.
What happens when foxes are run to
ground and then terrierwork takes place?
Page 117 : “6.51 We are aware
that terrierwork is better regulated than it used to be and we accept that some
of the reports of fights and injuries pre-date those changes. It seems clear,
nevertheless, that fights do sometimes occur during digging-out or bolting and
we have no doubt that this is more frequent in unofficial terrierwork than in
that linked with the registered packs. One of the four foxes post mortemed for
us by the University of Bristol, which had been dug out, had suffered injuries
to its face, head, neck and eye.
6.52 Although there is no firm
scientific evidence, we are satisfied that the activity of digging out and
shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare, bearing in mind
the often protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox is
prevented from escaping.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : There is
firm scientific evidence in the previous sentence! There is no consideration
given to the occasions when the fox is killed by the terrier and the exact
manner in which that kill might be accomplished. Nor is any consideration given
to the frequent occasions when the fox and terrier(s) are injured by adverse
circumstances such as the collapsing of tunnels. There is no evidence as to why
fights between terrier and fox should be more common in unofficial terrierwork
than in that linked with the registered packs. The terriers are usually of the
same breed and indeed they are often the same dog and the same man handling
them!
It is naive to accept without
question the claim that terrierwork is “better regulated”. Whether the
terriermen have licences and the numbers watching is almost an irrelevance to
the fox. Where it counts, the interface between fox and terrier, in the dark
several feet below ground, has changed little since the pastime of foxhunting
was first conceived many decades ago.
Terriers cannot read and are notoriously difficult to control, even
above ground on a lead, let alone out of sight below ground!
What did those post mortems actually
reveal?
“Post Mortem findings.
Fox 1. (Cotswold Foxhounds, Miserden
Park, Nr. Cirencester 1st April 2000)
This animal was hunted by the hounds
for approximately 31 minutes. The fox went to ground and a terrier was sent
down. After 9 minutes, the fox left the earth and was shot as it left the hole.
Apparent Pre-death trauma
Haemorrhage in the soft tissues of
the lateral aspect of the proximal right antebrachium (the upper outside region
of the forearm) provide evidence of some trauma before death.
Cause of death
Death was caused by a free bullet
shot to the head with a .22 calibre single shot pistol”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : So it is clear
that this fox was bitten before death. Not the “instant kill” that we
are told.
“Fox 2 (Royal Artillery Foxhounds,
Salisbury Plain 3rd April 2000)
This animal was hunted with hounds
for approximately 7 minutes. The fox then went to ground and a terrier equipped
with a radio collar was sent down. After approximately 25 minutes of digging,
the fox was revealed, the terrier removed, and the fox shot in the hole with a
.22 calibre single shot pistol. Two shots were required.
Apparent Pre-death trauma.
1) Pre hunt
a) Presence of shotgun pellets in
the left side of the head, the left forelimb, the abdomen and the left
hindlimb. These pellets are from a past shooting, from the left side of the
animal. Dissection of individual pellets showed them to be walled off in
fibrous tissue indicating healing of the pellet wounds.
2) Post commencement of hunt
b) Multiple bite wounds on the face
and the top of the head.
c) Damage to the right eye.
d) Bite wounds, haemorrhage and
oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck.
e) A .22 calibre bullet in the
muscle tissue of the left shoulder region and some radiographic evidence of
damage to the vertebra of the neck in the region of the 3rd and 4th cervical
vertebrae. The shooting of this fox was observed, and it was apparent that this
first bullet did not kill the animal.
Cause of death
A second shot with a .22 calibre
bullet caused death.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : This fox met a
particularly squalid and brutal end. Having survived an earlier shooting it was
hunted by the hounds then savaged below ground by the terrier. Being trapped
and mauled in this manner surely amounts to fox baiting. It was then wounded by
a shot in the shoulder/neck region. The pistol was reloaded (how long did that
take?) and then it was eventually killed.
[It should be noted from these post
mortems than one additional fox was caught but was not presented by the hunt
for examination]
What about injuries suffered by the
hunt terriers?
Page 123 : “6.84 We have
received evidence of injuries to terriers during terrierwork. This clearly
involves some compromise of the terrier’s welfare when it occurs.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : No consideration
is given to recent legal judgement that would appear to make it illegal to
expose a terrier to the risk of putting it to ground against a trapped quarry.
What about other activities carried
out by terriermen, for instance the stopping up of refuges?
Page 149 : “9.21 Another practice
which gives rise to particular concern is that of stopping up foxes’ earths,
badger setts and other possible refuges before a foxhunt begins......we
received a good deal of evidence about this activity, especially from badger
watch groups. They argue that there are still far too many instances in which
hunts and others are illegally stopping-up badger setts by using hard material
or soil cut back from the sett itself.
9.22 The Countryside Alliance argued
that there was no evidence of any malpractice. Whilst we accept that there is a
lack of firm evidence linking malpractice to the hunts, we do not think we can
disregard entirely the written and oral evidence we received from badger
protection groups and their supporters on this issue.
Page 150 : “9.24 There have
been many suggestions put to us that, at times, hunts and others contravene the
law relating to the stopping-up of badger setts. One option, in the absence of
a ban on hunting, would be to remove the present exemption for hunts. In the
case of stopping-up of foxes’ earths, there are a number of possible options which
could be considered in the absence of a ban. These include: prohibiting the
practice entirely; confining it to those areas where it is considered necessary
in the interests of controlling fox numbers; or otherwise limiting the
circumstances in which it may be done or the way in which it can be carried
out.”
And what about artificial earths?
Page 150 : “9.26 The Countryside
Alliance told us that, given that the purpose of hunting in many areas was to
preserve a sustainable and healthy fox population, they did not consider that
the practice of providing artificial earths was objectionable if the particular
locality did not already offer suitable habitat. They argued that this balance
between preservation and control was seen in other contexts such as game
shooting and fishing. It was also put to us that artificial earths could be
useful in helping to ensure that foxes’ earths were in suitable places: for
example, away from chicken runs. We consider, however, that it is hard to
reconcile any use of artificial earths by the hunts with the argument that
foxes are a pest and that their numbers need to be controlled through hunting.
9.27 The active use of artificial
earths, with a view to hunting, is inconsistent with the stated objective of
controlling fox numbers through hunting. In the absence of a ban, hunts could
be required, or encouraged, to end this practice.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : It is clear that
the Inquiry team simply do not believe the apologists for hunting on this
point. Most hunting countries in England have artificial earths. Their purpose,
as a former Duke of Beaufort revealed, is for breeding foxes.
What about the future for
terrierwork if hunting itself is not banned?
Page 149 : “9.20 Digging-out
and bolting foxes is a complex issue because of the perceived needs in
different parts of England and Wales. In the absence of a ban, serious
consideration could be given as to whether this practice should be
allowed to continue and, if so, under what conditions. Possible options would
be to ban it altogether; confine it to those areas where it is considered
necessary as a means of controlling fox numbers or in the interests of animal
welfare; make the practice subject to the general legislation on cruelty by
removing the present exemptions for hunting; or improve monitoring by the hunts
and by any independent monitors.”
ii) Is foxhunting
necessary? No!
Just how much of a pest are foxes
really?
Page 83 : “5.10 Although foxes
are widely perceived as a pest, two studies suggested that rabbits, rather than
foxes, were viewed as a more significant problem.”
Page 84 : “5.11 The majority of
farmers and landowners who do control foxes give several reasons for doing so.
Of these, reducing fox abundance is the most frequently mentioned, generally to
reduce predation on livestock and game. Foxes are also considered a pest
because they are thought to transmit disease. There are considerable regional
differences in the reasons for control............Surveys indicate that farmers
in the Midlands often cite sport as a reason for killing foxes.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : There is no reference to the many farmers and
landowners who do not control foxes and their reasons for so acting.
What about fox predation on lambs?
Page 85 : “5.14 The best estimate
seems to be that a low percentage (less than 2%) of otherwise viable lambs are
killed by foxes in England and Wales.
5.15 It is clear that only a small
proportion of foxes kill lambs; otherwise, lamb losses would be much higher.
What about other means of control?
Page 88 : “5.29 The use of snares
is unpopular in sheep-rearing country during the lambing season because of the
risk of lambs being caught and is not advisable near footpaths because
of dogs. About half of the captures made by snares are of non-target species,
but
these are generally released alive.
Page 118 : “6.54 Serious concerns
have been voiced about the welfare implications of snaring. Indeed, the UK is
one of a minority of countries in Europe which permits snaring. The concerns
include the stress of being restrained and the dangers of starvation,
dehydration and hyperthermia or hypothermia. There is also the additional
stress which the animal may experience at the point at which a human being
approaches it and dispatches it.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : It was the
forerunner to the Countryside Alliance, the British Field Sports Society that
fought hard in Parliament and succeeded in retaining snaring against the wishes
of the animal welfare lobby.
What about non-lethal methods of fox
control?
Page 89 : “5.33 Potential non-lethal
methods of controlling foxes fall into three main categories:
·
the use of contraceptives and abortifacients
·
the use of conditioned taste aversion, repellents or diversionary
feeding
·
the use of methods such as fencing in order to protect livestock
5.34 The evidence we have received
indicates that the first two of these methods are still essentially
experimental and subject to a substantial number of practical difficulties.
These include the problem of ensuring that a sufficiently high proportion of
the target population is reached.
5.35 The use of physical barriers
such as fencing, especially electric fencing, can be effective in small areas
but is not practicable on a wider scale.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : There is no
reference to reducing the food supply available to foxes by improving standards
of farm hygiene. For instance the practice of dumping large heaps of dead sheep
and lambs in pits in upland areas is effectively feeding the foxes and thereby
raising their population. There is no mention of the measures taken by hunt supporters in all
areas of the country to encourage foxes by building artificial earths for the
foxes to breed in, constructing log piles for the foxes to shelter in and by
providing food and water for the foxes.
Is there any comparison of the
effectiveness of the different methods of fox control:
Page 89 : “5.36
·
Killing with dogs, in its various forms, accounts for a substantial
proportion of the numbers of foxes killed
·
shooting, however, has a much greater capacity to reduce fox populations
·
the overall contribution of traditional foxhunting, within the overall
total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant
in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole
·
but there are clear regional variations in the importance of the
different culling methods, and hunting by the registered and unregistered packs
may have an effect in some locations, especially in sheep-rearing upland areas
·
population modelling indicates that the main impact on population stems
from culling adults and sub-adults, rather than cubs
·
culling cubs has no significant effect on the longer-term population
unless it reaches very high levels
·
culling foxes does not necessarily have a pro rata effect on the
problem or perceived problem
Page 118 : “6.56 In the case of
shooting, it seems to be generally agreed that lamping with a high powered
rifle, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, is the most
humane way of killing a fox. But as we noted in paragraph 5.24, there are a number
of situations in which lamping is not practicable or safe. In particular,
because of the need for vehicular access, it is not usually suitable in more
remote, upland areas.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Deer are stalked
in some of the remotest parts of Scotland. Vehicular access is needed there
both to allow access for the guns and to enable the removal of the carcase to
be eaten. It seems unlikely that there would ever be a need to lamp foxes in a
more inaccessible environment and what is feasible for deer must be likewise
for foxes, particularly given that there is no requirement to remove the body
of the fox for food.
What did the Inquiry team conclude
about the control of foxes?
Page 119 : “6.59 None of the
legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare
perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare
implications.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Clearly they mean
killing rather than control as stopping the many measures currently taken by
hunt supporters to artificially increase the number of foxes would obviously be
a humane way of reducing fox numbers.
What of the best means of killing
foxes?
Page 119 : “6.60 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.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Given the areas
where lamping using rifles currently takes place there is no reason at all why
it should not take place in every area of the UK, other than the
preference by some in some areas for killing foxes by more enjoyable means. The
Inquiry should have considered the situation in other countries where the use
of packs of hounds for the pastime of controlling foxes is not an option.
What about the claim that in the
absence of hunting there would be no countryside?
Page 127 : “7.16 Hunts and their
supporters’ clubs clearly do carry out important conservation work. For
example, some of the woodlands which they manage are “ancient woodlands” and
therefore of high conservation value. However, a much greater amount of
conservation work and land management is carried out by other landholders and
dedicated conservation bodies.”
Hunting now plays little part in the
rural landscape.
Page 133 : “7.42 Hunting has
clearly played a very significant role in the past in the formation of the
rural landscape and in the creation and management of areas of nature
conservation. Nowadays, however, hunting with dogs is likely to form only a
relatively minor factor in determining farmers’ and landowners’ land management
practices. It still plays a role, though, in certain localities in respect of
woodland planting and management.
7.43 Hunting exerts much less
influence than agricultural market and policy trends, the management of game
for shooting or incentives under agri-environment schemes. With the possible
exception of hare conservation, a ban on hunting with dogs would be unlikely to
have a major impact from a conservation perspective.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT :The legal pastime
of coursing hares with dogs nurtures and to an extent shields the illegal
variety of the same pastime that is illegal only because it involves trespass.
There is an abundance of evidence that to ward off illegal hare coursers
farmers and landowners eliminate the hares on their land.
B) DEERHUNTING
i) Is it cruel?
Yes!
How many hunts kill how many deer?
Page 7 : “There are three
registered staghound packs in the Devon and Somerset area. They kill about 160
red deer a year in total, excluding injured deer which they dispatch. This
probably represents about 15% of the numbers which need to be culled in the
area to maintain a stable population.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Such staghunting
with dogs is already illegal in Scotland.
What about the cruelty of hunting
deer with packs of dogs?
Page 109 : “6.14 In the light of
the controversy surrounding deer hunting in Exmoor and the Quantocks the
National Trust commissioned Professor Patrick Bateson to undertake some
research into the welfare of deer hunted by hounds. The report was based on a
study of 64 hunted red deer. Bateson and Bradshaw concluded that the hunts
cause red deer to experience conditions that lie far outside those that would
normally be experienced by the species living in a natural environment. In the
light of the report the National Trust decided to ban the hunting of red deer
on its land.
6.15 There were subsequently some
criticisms of certain aspects of the report and the Countryside Alliance and
the Devon & Somerset Staghounds funded further research by Professor Roger
Harris and others, known as the Joint Universities Study on Deerhunting.
(Page 110)This sought to
replicate, and to extend in some respects, the work carried out by Bateson and
Bradshaw. The report, which was published in 1999, broadly confirmed the
metabolic measurements undertaken in the earlier study but drew different
conclusions about the animal welfare implications. In particular, it concluded
that the changes found were similar to those which occurred in horses and
humans which had exercised intensively. The report suggested that deer might
suffer for only the last 20 minutes or so of a hunt.”
Page 112 : “6.31 There seems to be a large measure of
agreement among the scientists that, at least during the last 20 minutes or so
of the hunt, the deer is likely to suffer as glycogen depletion sets in.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : So, even the
apologists for hunting concede that there are some 20 minutes of suffering for
deer in hunting them with packs of dogs.
What happens when the hounds catch
up with the deer?
Page 39 : “2.41 ....The hounds
will surround the stag until the Huntsman and gun carrier arrive. The hounds
are trained not to attack the deer but biting occasionally occurs.”
Page 40 : “2.42 Since the last
war, the preferred method of ensuring a quick kill has been a 12 bore shotgun.
A shot to the head is always used, and the marksman will get as close to the
deer as possible. The recommended maximum distance is seven yards in order to
ensure an “instant knockdown”. A second shot is occasionally required. Each
hunt will also have several members who carry, and are trained in, the use of
firearms known as a “humane killer” (normally a .32 pistol). The nearest
available gun carrier will be expected to shoot the quarry if, for example, it
is known to be lying down or otherwise concealing itself in such a manner that
the marksman does not have a clean shot. On occasion, the deer may be held by
the antlers or neck.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : It seems that no
consideration has been given to the many occasions when the deer is unable,
through circumstance, to stand at bay. It may be swimming in a deep pool, may
be caught up in barbed wire or some other entanglements. What is the average
time from first standing at bay to death? What of the occasions when the deer
are whipped on to run further and thereby provide more amusement? How often is
a second shot required? or a third? or a fourth? What is the time lag between
the shots?
It is not only red deer stags that
are hunted, hinds are hunted also. What about the clear and obvious cruelty
caused by making a pastime of hunting hinds running with their calves?
Page 151 : “9.34 Concern was
expressed to us about the practice of hunting hinds with calves. It was argued
that, at the start of the season, hinds may have a totally dependent calf at
foot; that calves have great difficult [sic] in keeping up with the
chase; and that eventually the hind is forced to abandon it. The MDHA [Masters
of Deerhounds Association] argued, on the other hand, that by November last
year’s calves are able to thrive without their mother and said that any hind
with a late-born calf would not be hunted. We simply record that, whatever the
precise degree of dependence, a number of people clearly find it distressing to
see a hind and calf being chased and to observe the apparent dilemma of the
hind about whether to stay with the calf or to pick up speed and leave it
behind.
Page 152 : “9.35 Hunting hinds
with a calf gives rise to understandable concern. It puts the hind in a
position of having to choose between saving itself and staying with the calf.
We are not able to say how often this situation occurs but action could be
taken to end this practice in the absence of a ban.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Hind hunting
takes place from November to the end of February. As to whether or not calves
are dependent when hunted refer to the following from the Burns report
concerning red deer breeding:
Page 92 : “5.47.....Mating occurs
between September and October, with births from late May to early June. Calves
(nearly always one) are weaned at 6-10 months.”
In other words calves are weaned
some time from late November to early April. Calves that are weaned at anything
other that the shortest period, and from an early birth, are clearly liable to
be hunted.
ii) Is deerhunting
with packs of dogs necessary? No!
What about the effectiveness of
hunting with dogs as a means of control?
Page 95 : “5.62 Practical
considerations such as the available number of days for hunting, and its
inherent inefficiency - kills are made on only about half the days on which
hunting takes place - make it unlikely that hunting’s contribution to the
overall cull could increase substantially. Another difficulty with relying on
hunting as a population management strategy is that it is not sufficiently
biased towards culling hinds and calves to achieve the desired reduction in
overall numbers.
5.63 It is also commonly argued
that a secondary contribution made by the hunts to deer management is in
dispersing groups of red deer which may be causing particular problems to a
farmer or landowner. However, census work and observation of deer suggest that
any dispersal effect is only very temporary, although this may be affected by
the frequency of disturbance and the extent of nearby cover.
Page 96 “5.64 As already noted,
shooting/stalking is by far the most important method used to reduce deer
numbers in England and Wales, as in the rest of Europe, and accounts for the
great majority of deer killed in the staghunting area.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : In fact virtually
all the deer killed in the staghunting area are shot. Even those hunted
with hounds first are eventually shot. The point to be determined is whether it
is right for a small minority of deer to be terrified with hounds before being
killed, in order to provide amusement.
How does hunting deer with dogs
compare with other means of culling the species?
Page 113 : “6.34 Even if one
accepted that hunting deer with dogs involves an appreciable degree of
suffering, it would be necessary to compare this with the suffering involved in
other culling methods, in particular shooting. This is because virtually
everyone accepts that there is a need to cull some of the deer population in
Exmoor and the Quantocks.
6.35 An essential piece of
information, therefore, is the accuracy of stalkers when shooting deer, since
injured animals may escape, leading possibly to a long and painful death.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of reliable information about the
accuracy of stalking and the figures which were quoted to us range from less
than 2% of deer being wounded and then escaping to 15% or more.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Perhaps the
stalking fraternity are unwilling to sell their hunting chums down the river, fearful
no doubt of putting themselves in the frontline? It is always hunting fanatics
who highlight the cruelty they believe exists in shooting.
What did the Inquiry team conclude?
Page 114 : “6.39 Stalking, if
carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to
help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of
culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the
need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : That is a clear
enough condemnation of hunting deer with packs of dogs. The tendency by all
concerned to always compare the best of
hunting with the worst of stalking perhaps indicates a subconscious admission
that there is a comparable level of cruelty. But what of the many occasions
when things go wrong at the end of a hunt? There is abundant evidence of
mishaps occurring with the kill at the end of a hunt, perhaps on a comparable
level with the mishaps that occur in stalking.
The admission by apologists for
hunting that there is suffering during the last 20 minutes of a hunt is
telling. 20 minutes is a long while. There is no consideration to the kills,
often of young calves, that take place when hounds break away from the main
pack. These deer are killed not by guns but by bite injuries from the hounds.
What about the hunting of other
species of deer with packs of dogs for fun?
Page 40 : “2.44 Roe deer are also
hunted by at least two unregistered buckhound packs in parts of the staghound countries.
The hounds used to hunt roe deer are usually either basset/harrier crosses or
beagles......The main purpose of roe deer hunting is to provide sport. It is
estimated that about 30-40 roe deer in total are killed each year by the two
packs.”
C) HAREHUNTING
1. With packs of
dogs.
i) Is it cruel?
Yes!
How many hunts kill how many hares?
Page 41 : “2.47 There are 72
registered packs of beagles in England and Wales, 10 packs of bassets and 20
packs of harriers. (Seven of the harrier packs hunt mainly foxes and two hunt
foxes and hares).......The packs have an average income of £17,000 a year and,
on average, hunt over some 50 days a year at an average cost of £325 per day.
Typically, there are reported to be about 30 followers present at weekend meets.
The packs kill about 1,650 brown hares in total or, on average, less than 20
hares per pack.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : By these figures
it seems that a mere 3,060 follow these hare hunts at a weekend meet (the most
popular!). The hunts kill on average some 17 hares a season at an average cost
of some £955 per hare!!! But they have a lot of fun for their money.
Page 99 : “5.78 Hares breed from
February through to October and occasionally in winter.”
“5.82 In some parts of England,
especially East Anglia, hare numbers are maintained at high levels for
organised shooting.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : It is clear that
hares are hunted for sport when they are pregnant, heavily pregnant or nursing.
How long do the hunts last?
Page 119 : “6.63 In the case of
hunting, chases generally last from about half an hour to a hour and a half.
For a good part of the time, however, the hare may not be aware that it is
being pursued. It seems likely that, if the hare is caught by the pack,
insensibility and death follow very swiftly.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Just because the
Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles claim that “the hare may not be
aware that it is being pursued” doesn’t
make the claim true. They would say that wouldn’t they? Why else would the hare
run? What is overlooked is that the
hounds are bred for the pace that ensures the long run, and thereby the fun
that the followers seek. If the shooters were to use lightweight pellets so
that they could have more than one shot at their fleeing victim the nation
would be rightly horrified. Wouldn’t it?
What did the Inquiry conclude about
this game of hunting hares?
Page 120 : “6.67 There is a
lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of
being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are
satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally
follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the
welfare of the hare.”
2 Hare Coursing
i) Is it cruel?
Yes!
Does post mortem evidence prove the
suffering involved?
Page 119 : “6.64 We arranged post
mortems on the carcasses of twelve hares which had been killed during organised
coursing events. These were carried out by the Department of Clinical
Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cambridge. There were difficulties,
however, in determining the cause of death in some cases because the neck of
the hare is almost invariably broken by the “picker-up” as soon as the hare is
retrieved from the dogs. The findings were that the cause of death in one case
was probably fatal injuries caused by the dogs. In six other cases it was not
clear whether the actions of the dogs, or the picker-up, had led to the hare’s
death. In the remaining five cases the picker-up was judged to have been the
cause of death.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Hare coursers
have always claimed that their dogs always kill the hare instantly. These post
mortems expose such claims to be downright lies. But, if we look at the actual
post mortem evidence the cruelty is even worse, if that were possible:-
[Extracts, in italics, from the CD Rom follow]
Of the 12 hares examined 8 were
female and 4 were male. Of the 8 females 5 were pregnant and of these 3 were
lactating. Two of the pregnant hares were assessed as being in “early”
pregnancy, 2 in “mid term” pregnancy and 1 was described as “full term”
pregnant. Three were found to contain 2 foetuses each and 2 contained 3
foetuses.
It was hare reference number 5 that
was assessed as “full term” pregnant. Her reproductive status was described thus
: “Mature Female. Advanced late pregnancy (two large fully-haired
foetuses, weighing 176 and 162g resp. located one in each uterine horn). Milk
in mammary glands.”
Her state was summarised : “This
heavily pregnant female hare was in good condition. The large size of the
foetuses and presence of milk in the mammary glands suggests she was close to
giving birth. Recent severe traumatic damage with local haemorrhage was
present, involving mainly the right side of the thorax. Some of the injury to
the left hindleg was not associated with haemorrhage and may have occurred
after death.”
For this hare it was not possible to
assess whether the hare was killed by the dogs or by the picker-up.
One of the females killed, that was
not pregnant, was judged to be recovering from a previous non-lethal, shooting
episode as she had shotgun pellets beneath her skin.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Note the coursing
and killing of these pregnant hares was not done as some means of pest control,
it was purely for fun. Note also that whilst the animals involved could
obviously not relate the manner of death the “picker-up” presumably could but
appears simply not to be rated as credible.
What of the condition of the males
post mortemed?
Hare number 2 had “Nostril and
genital lesions suggestive of hare syphilis”. Hare number 6 had “Genital
lesions suggestive of hare syphilis”. Hare number 8 had “Area of corneal
opacity in the right eye”. Finally, hare number 10 had “Nostril lesions
suggestive of hare syphilis”.
One of these 4 hares, 1 had been
killed by the “picker-up” and for the remainder it was unclear whether they
were killed by the “picker-up” or by the dogs.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Of the 12 hares
post mortemed 10 were either pregnant, injured by shot, suffering from syphilis
or had impaired vision. Yet they call it “sport”.
What did the Inquiry conclude about
hare coursing?
Page 120 : “6.68 We are
similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during
coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. It is clear, moreover,
that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly.
There can also sometimes be a significant delay, in “driven” coursing, before
the “picker up” reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead).
In the case of “walked up” coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer.”
It is interesting to refer back half
a century to the Scott Henderson report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild
Animals. They gave the following view on coursing where hare numbers were artificially
high : “at for example Altcar, where hares are far more numerous than they
would be if their numbers were controlled by ordinary methods, and the same is
probably true in varying degrees in other places. Consequently, the suffering
which is caused to hares at such meetings comes within the definition of
cruelty which we have adopted.” [Scott Henderson report page 75] That
definition would cover not only the Waterloo Cup and other coursing at Altcar
but also, most likely, the Greyhound 2000 event staged near Newmarket in
December 2000.
ii) Are hare
hunting and hare coursing necessary? No!
Page 119 : “6.62 Similarly, in
the case of hares, there is little direct information about the welfare during
hunting or coursing or how this compares with other legal methods that are
used, in particular shooting and trapping.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : This presupposes
that hare hunting and coursing are necessary means of pest control to be
compared with shooting or trapping. They are not.
How are hares controlled where hare
control is needed?
Page 100 : “5.85 Hare
shooting is the means most frequently used by farmers in arable areas for pest
control. It is estimated that some 200,000-300,000 hares are shot in Britain
each year.”
Does such killing threaten the hare
population?
Page 100-101 : “5.88 One piece of
research estimated that hare shoots on four farms reduced hare numbers by an
average of 50%. Population modelling suggests, however, that, because of the
hare’s reproductive potential, even killing a large proportion of adults or
sub-adults would not have a long-term effect on hare populations.
Is either hare hunting with packs of
dogs, or hare coursing, a pest control measure?
Page 101 : “5.89 No-one argues
that legal hunting or coursing has an appreciable effect on hare numbers.”
“5.90 Similarly, legal hare coursing
has a negligible impact on hare numbers. The average number killed at official
hare coursing events are reported as being some 250 a year. As we noted in
paragraph 2.56, however, many more hares are killed through other forms of
coursing.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : There is
confusion here between legal organised (i.e. National Coursing Club)
coursing, legal coursing (where individuals course with permission), and
illegal coursing.
The latter is
only illegal because it involves trespass.
What would be the effect of banning
hare hunting and coursing on hare numbers?
Page 101 : “5.93 There is no
doubt that, in some areas at present, hare numbers are maintained at high
levels for shooting and hunting/coursing purposes. It seems likely, in our
view, that, in some of those areas at least, the hare population, in the event
of a ban, would be lower than it is now.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Where hare
numbers are boosted, like pheasants, for the fun of killing them it would
probably be better to return to the natural, wild, population levels.
What did the Inquiry conclude?
Page 102 : “5.94 Hare hunting
and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a
relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have
little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.
5.95 Because hare numbers tend to be
maintained at high levels in areas where hunting/coursing occurs, the impact of
a ban might well be that, in the absence of other changes, the population would
decline in those areas. This would partly result from a loss of suitable
habitat but also, in a few areas, from the shooting of hares to deter poaching
and illegal coursing. However, in comparison with the impact of organised
shooting on hare numbers, a ban on hunting and coursing would have a negligible
effect.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Just how
negligible can be seen from taking the lowest estimate of hares shot, 200,000.
Set against that the 1,900 hares claimed to be killed by hunting with packs of
dogs and organised coursing is less than 1%!! How many of the 200,000 hares
shot are shot for fun rather than pest control is not made clear but what is
clear is that with hare numbers being maintained at artificially high levels for
the sport of shooting the loss of the exquisite cruelty that is hare hunting
with dogs will have no effect on overall hare numbers.
What about a closed season for all
killing of hares?
Page 151 : “9.31 : We noted in
paragraphs 2.48 and 2.54 that there is no legally-prescribed closed season for
hunting and coursing hares but that the rules of the relevant associations
forbid hunting after the end of March and coursing after 10
March.
9.32 : We also noted in paragraph
5.78 that hares breed from February onwards - and, indeed, we understand that
hares sometimes produce leverets in January. In our view there is a case for
having a legally-prescribed closed season for killing hares. This ought,
logically, to apply to all forms of killing, including shooting.
9.33 There is understandable concern
that the seasons for hare coursing and hunting are too long in relation to the
hare’s breeding season. In the absence of a ban on hunting, an option would be
to introduce a closed season. Consideration would also need to be given to
whether a closed season should apply to shooting.”
D) MINKHUNTING
i) Is it cruel?
Yes!
What did the Inquiry team conclude?
Page 120 : “6.71 There is a
lack of firm scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting
mink. There seems reason to suppose, however, that being closely pursued,
caught and killed by hounds, or being dug out or bolted, seriously compromises
the welfare of the mink. The kill, by the hounds or by shooting, is normally
quick once the mink is caught. In the absence of hunting, more mink would
probably be killed by shooting and, mainly, trapping. These methods involve
welfare implications but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude how
they compare with those raised by hunting.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT : Members of the
Inquiry team were only able to visit one mink hunt but they didn’t even see a
mink let alone a mink hunted, dug out, bolted or killed. Accordingly it is hard
to see why they should accept the claim by apologists for this pastime that the
kill is “normally quick”. In my experience of witnessing many kills the end
game is usually protracted and gruesome as the small mink is particularly
elusive in the maelstrom of murky water.
ii) Is minkhunting
necessary? No!
Page 106 : “5.117 It is clear
that the contribution made by mink hunts to the control of mink populations
nationally is insignificant. The numbers killed are far too low to make an
impact on population numbers, especially given the high fecundity of mink.
Moreover, hunting does not target the pre-breeding population of mink: those
mink killed from mid-summer onwards are mainly pre-dispersal juveniles, many of
whom would not have become adult territory-holders.”
Mike Huskisson
