EDM 116 'HUNTING ACT 2004'
Protecting Animals in Democracy is calling for the retention of the ban on hunting with hounds, and the thorough enforcement of the ban. Hunting with dogs was consigned to the history books because the majority of the public found it abhorrent, and those calling for repeal are effectively calling for a return to cruelty. Any repeal of the Hunting Act would be barbaric and a backward step for a civilised society.
When hunted, foxes not only endured long exhausting chases, but also the terror and pain of being savaged to death - usually by disembowelment. Foxes that escape can die from trauma. Foxes that went to ground were attacked by the terriermen's dogs and vicious and stressful fights ensued. The Burns Inquiry, set up to investigate the impact of hunting, concluded that 'this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox'. The Inquiry similarly confirmed that deer and hares endure severe suffering as a result of being hunted and killed by dogs.
While dedicated animal protection organisations support the ban on hunting, groups with an interest in hunting for pleasure or economic reasons tried to argue that the ban would lead to an aggregate increase in animal suffering because it is essential to control the population of foxes and that hunting is the most humane way of doing this. However, claims of concern for animal welfare from those who terrify and kill them for fun clearly lack credibility in comparison to genuine animal welfare charities and campaign groups.
In any case, hunting with dogs took place for sport, not for pest control. An artificial earth is a man-made home for foxes. Hunts built and maintained such earths in order to provide a source of foxes for hunting purposes. Caged fox cubs have been discovered in hunting country, and programmes of fox-feeding have also been detected. Historically, hunts have bought thousands of foxes to keep numbers of the sake of their 'sport'. This evidence dramatically exposes claims that hunting was about pest control.
The available evidence also indicates that hunting was not a necessary form of pest control, as foxes do not cause significant predation of animals in agriculture. In any case, it is surely unethical to inflict suffering and death on wild animals simply because they are suspected of causing small economic losses to farmers.
Furthermore, studies have been undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, the Universities of Oxford, Bristol and Aberdeen as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF) (now DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS). This research confirms that artificial efforts at 'controlling' the fox population are largely ineffective and that the damage caused by foxes is insignificant. At public hearings on hunting with dogs held in September 2002, Professor Stephen Harris from Bristol University presented peer-reviewed scientific evidence and stated: 'There is no evidence that foxes need to be controlled' and 'no method of fox control has had an impact on the fox population'. In addition to this, a survey by the Mammal Society during the period of foot-and-mouth disease in 2002 when hunting was banned demonstrated that fox numbers did not rise, indicating that hunting has no effect on the fox population.
There is no evidence that shooting, snaring, and the killing of foxes has increased since the ban or led to an increase in overall levels of fox suffering. In any case, any ongoing persecution of wild animals should be dealt with by an extension of anti-cruelty laws to prevent this. The law itself is clearly enforceable - 140 people have been convicted under the Hunting Act, a greater number than those obtained by other wildlife legislation such as the Deer Act or the Badgers Act.
As the RSPCA states: 'This new legislation reflects modern society's abhorrence of cruelty to wild animals which has, for too long, been veiled in the bloody cloak of tradition and prejudice. To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on another sentient being is intolerable, and for this reason the RSPCA heralds this ban on hunting with dogs as marking a watershed in the development of a more civilised society for people and animals.'
This is the text of EDM 116:
That this House reaffirms its support for the Hunting Act 2004 and notes that there have been almost 140 convictions under the Act; recognises that the vast majority of the public support the Act across all regional, political, social and religious divides; and therefore believes that any attempt to repeal the Act would be a retrograde step and out of keeping with a civilised society.
Click here to lobby your MP to sign EDM
116
^ |
