We need to bear in mind that hunting with dogs encompasses the pursuit of wild mammals including stags plus hare coursing. The fox, however, is the one animal that people associate with hunting.
Hunting with dogs has been around since 2000BC and probably originated in Ancient Egypt and Assyria and arrived in the UK in its present form in the late18th century.
All the evidence shows that in the region of 400,000 foxes die each year in the UK mainly for two reasons; natural causes and road accidents. A small percentage has always been shot particularly by farmers protecting stock. When it was allowed in the UK it was estimated that between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes were killed each year by hunting. This activity was made illegal by the passing of the Hunting Act by parliament in 2004. It became law on the 18th February 2005 and was designed to protect wild mammals from being hunted with dogs.
Let’s be honest: the vast majority of the people who called for the ban have never lived in the countryside, never ridden a horse and never even seen a fox. The main opposition was in fact class driven as the general public took the view that the fox hunting fraternity were a bunch of upper class, rich, spoilt, “Hooray Henry’s” and to be honest this hostility had very little to do with animal welfare. Without doubt, none of these townies has ever seen the result of a fox getting into a hen house or witnessed a disembowelled lamb after a fox has made its nocturnal visit and far more to do with that very unfortunate, very British malady of class distinction.
For those that were puzzled at the enthusiastic way hunts were welcomed by farmers, there is an explanation. The Kennel Huntsman was licensed to put down sick and injured livestock on farms and equine premises. The hunt had what was sometimes known as a “flesh wagon”, a vehicle with a winch that served the local large animal community. It has to be remembered that the owners of large animals are always faced with a huge problem when death occurs. This service ensured carcasses were not cremated. An activity that is wasteful, environmentally damaging and extremely expensive.
Even for a small pony, this can start at £500, so for a cow or an adult horse, the cost can be astronomical. So with the huntsman able to dispatch the animal without the use of drugs, arrange collection and use the carcass, meat for the dogs, hide for the tanners etc, it is not surprising that hunts were welcomed by farmers and the horse fraternity. The hunt also took responsibility for ensuring woods and pathways were clear, gates and fences were mended and assisted in pest control. It could be reasonably argued that it was in their own interest to do this, but do it they did and it contributed to the management of the countryside.
A common denunciation of those who hunted was the mantra….
Conversely when I hear supporters of hunting constantly talk of tradition and country “sports” then I realise how big the gulf is between the pro and anti groups. In the past, we indulged in the barbaric “sports” of pig-sticking, cock fighting and bear-baiting. This “normal” behaviour is no longer acceptable. The argument that only very old or sick animals are caught is totally unrealistic and I cannot find that there is any evidence to support this statement. Furthermore the idea that the fox is killed humanely cannot be independently verified unless every hunt contains an independent person that can video the end of the chase. Further condemnation of hunts came from the practice of finding the fox had gone to ground and instead of accepting that the fox had got away terrier men were encouraged to dig the unfortunate animal out.
Unfortunately for the supporters of hunting, there are also those who have been found guilty of encouraging others to use drag hunting as a cover for hunting foxes and this duplicitous behaviour does nothing for the argument that the hunting ban should be overturned. Quite frankly the hunt fraternity have only themselves to blame for the current legislation. Had they made a real effort to show that hunting was in the best interests of the countryside, conservation and good management they might well still be riding. Had they heeded the warning signs, ensuring that the fox was humanely killed, had accepted that a fox that had gone to ground had escaped and taken a more realistic attitude to their public relations they might have got away without a ban.
For those that were opposed to hunting a website was and still is available to hunt saboteurs which explains their well-organized attempts to disrupt the hunt. The site is fairly impressive and paints the “Sabs” as animal lovers although their adversaries complained of tactics that were dangerous not only to riders but frightening to the horses. The saboteurs are now complaining about the lack of police presence at drag hunts on the grounds that they are in fact fox hunts in disguise. A recent court case appears to indicate that this is true.
If an activity is going to be banned because of animal welfare then we must ensure that animals are safer and not exposed to abuse that is even worse than the original cause.
An example of this is the law that bans fur farming in the UK.
This was greeted as a great victory for animal welfare by those who had campaigned so hard for this legislation. There is, however, another way of looking at this issue. Like it or not the demand for fur is on the increase, albeit slowly, and all those animals that would have been bred in the UK with strict animal welfare laws can now be bred in countries where animal welfare has a low priority.
There are those who say that we should set an example, well try saying that to a mink living in conditions that are well below the standards that were provided in the UK in the past.
Sadly the ban on hunting has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is typical of the sort of laws that we repeatedly introduce.
How can this happen? Badly worded legislation!!
You would imagine that before laws were passed they would be examined by people who are authorities on the subject. Not just lawyers but those who have in-depth knowledge and can foresee the problems ahead.
Having laws that are easily broken, ineffectual and cannot be effectively enforced are of no use.
What is actually happening as a result of this ill-thought out legislation is that hunting continues in the UK despite the ban, foxes are now shot and not by an expert marksman with the inevitable consequences for the animal. They are also trapped, snared and gassed. There are further horrendous methods so gruesome that I will not describe them here. Even Tony Blair the Prime Minister at the time when this legislation was introduced has, in his biography, called it disastrous. Sufficient to say that some of the practices that are in use today are far worse than the activity that has been banned.
Yet again we have failed.
Do I personally support the hunting of any creature with dogs?
No. Absolutely not.
If, however, the ban is ineffectual and even greater cruelty is inflicted then I have to ask, what has been achieved?
I am greatly indebted to Carol Fairbairn for her invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article.
“Animals have no voice. They can’t ask for help. They can’t ask for freedom. They can’t ask for protection. Humanity must be their voice.”
Anthony Douglas Williams.
With subtitle or not?