Hunting with Hounds
Protecting Animals in Democracy is calling for the
retention of the ban on hunting with hounds, and the thorough enforcement
of the ban.
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 escaped could die from trauma. Foxes
that went to earth were attacked by the terrier men's dogs and a
vicious and stressful fight could ensue. 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 suffer as a result of being hunted
and killed by dogs.
While dedicated animal welfare organisations support the ban on
hunting, groups with an interest in hunting for pleasure or economic
reasons have 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 kill them for self-interested reasons, 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 in 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.
The suggestion that shooting, snaring, and the killing of foxes
in other ways will increase with the ban is not based on evidence.
Research by White et. al. in 2003 (Journal of Environmental Management
67) found that a ban on hunting is extremely unlikely to have any
significant impact nation-wide in terms of increasing culling levels
on any of the four hunted species. In any case, any ongoing persecution
of wild animals should lead to an extension of anti-cruelty law
to prevent this.
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.'
Our question to candidates in the 2005 General Election
was: Will you support the ban on hunting with hounds,
and the thorough enforcement of the ban? YES / NO
Further information:
^ |
