Four former directors of the League Against Cruel Sports have changed their minds about hunting. Jim Barrington explains why he is one
If “bloodsports” are an emotive issue snapping at the ankles of David Cameron, as Kevin Maguire states (Tribune July 24), their abolition is certainly some sort of holy grail for many on the left. For all the talk about Cameron’s confused priorities, remember it was those obsessed with banning hunting
who consumed more than 700 hours of parliamentary time discussing the Hunting Act – 10 times longer than debating going to war in Iraq.
Instead of quoting opinion polls that show a percentage of people against hunting, a more productive finding would be how much of a priority the issue is to voters. A recent private survey in marginal constituencies shows that hunting hardly registers as a deciding factor in voting intentions.
And what has been the result of this massively-funded campaign to outlaw hunting with dogs?
A principled law? No, hunting was singled out, yet causes no more suffering than other methods of control.
A scientifically-backed law? No, there is no scientific research that shows the use of dogs causes excessive suffering. Indeed, with dogs, there is no wounding.
A logical law? No, because only two hounds are now be used to flush out an animal, which must then be shot. Using three hounds and not shooting the animal is against this “animal welfare law”. Terriers can still be used on foxes underground to protect birds that are to be shot, but a farmer cannot use this same method to protect a lamb or rare ground-nesting birds.
A workable law? No, because a fundamental oversight by anti-hunters is that it is the dog that hunts, not the human. All dogs will hunt to one degree or another.
An enforceable law? No, as the High Court recently ruled, hunting has to be “intentional” on the part of the human. As good as the police are, they are rubbish at mind-reading.
Dogs evolved from wolves and use similar hunting strategies. The quarry species have also developed tactics to avoid being caught and, rather than being traumatised as is so often thought, the process is crucial to their survival and health in the wild.
The scenting power of the dog is more than a simple tracking ability. This “search and catch” capability enables weak, old, ailing, injured animals or animals who constitute a high parasitic burden to be caught – precisely the animals that need to be removed, not only for the sake of relieving their suffering, but also to keep the population healthy.
So, if hunting with dogs is a useful weapon with which to bash the toffs, fine – although people should be honest about it. If class war is your thing, go ahead and fight it. However, if you are serious about improving animal welfare, first understand the activity and the consequences of its abolition for the animals involved. The Hunting Act has made animal welfare worse. It is simply a bad law at every level and should be repealed.
As a former director of the League Against Cruel Sports, I campaigned to see hunting abolished. Understanding hunting was part of that process and, in trying to do so, I began to see it in a different light. I was not the only one; three other former directors of the League also changed their minds on the abolition of hunting with dogs. One has to ask: why?
Jim Barrington is animal welfare consultant to the All-Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, the Countryside Alliance and the Council of Hunting Associations
