Hunting is the Tories’ Achilles heel

When Gordon Brown spoke at last year’s Labour Party conference and reeled off the list of the Government’s achievements since 1997, I felt proud to be a part of the labour movement. Some of these achievements have been seismic: the Human Rights Act, the national minimum wage, the repeal of Section 28 and winter fuel payments. But there was something missing from the Prime Minister’s list and it is a massive Labour achievement: the Hunting Act.

by Tribune Web Editor
Friday, March 5th, 2010

When Gordon Brown spoke at last year’s Labour Party conference and reeled off the list of the Government’s achievements since 1997, I felt proud to be a part of the labour movement. Some of these achievements have been seismic: the Human Rights Act, the national minimum wage, the repeal of Section 28 and winter fuel payments. But there was something missing from the Prime Minister’s list and it is a massive Labour achievement: the Hunting Act.

This is a landmark piece of legislation. As we mark its fifth anniversary, Labour should be proud of it and should promote it as evidence of the importance the party attaches to animal welfare. Rarely does an Act of Parliament make it so clear what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. The Hunting Act did just that. It was Labour’s commitment to the principle of what’s right and wrong writ large for all to see.

Of course, the Hunting Act is not without its critics, so it is worth remembering why some of us fought so hard for so long to get it onto the statute books.

The hunting ban is about animal welfare. It’s not about wrecking the countryside, knocking toffs off their horses, avenging the miners or any other fanciful and ridiculous claim put forward by the hunters. They bleat about their “human rights” and “civil liberties”, but it was this Labour Government that, through the Human Rights Act, enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. And it has always been Labour that has stood up for civil liberties and personal freedom. The Labour Party believes no genuine human right or civil liberty can be cruel – and the European Court of Human Rights concurred when it threw out the hunters’ case in December last year.

It was interesting to hear Government minister Angela Smith’s view when she addressed a conference fringe event organised by the League Against Cruel Sports (for which she worked before becoming a Labour MP) and the Labour Animal Welfare Society. Facing criticism about the Government’s record on animal welfare, she drew an analogy with Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” scene. She had a point. Some criticise Labour for not abolishing vivisection or outlawing some of the cruellest farming practices and banning live animal circuses. They have a point, too. But the Government has banned hunting – a fundamental step in animal welfare policy.

The debate has moved on since the fraught days which marked the passage of the bill through Parliament. Now it is vital to face down those who want to reverse the legislation and see a return to hunting.

The Hunting Act exists to put a stop to the hunting of wild mammals for sport. It isn’t designed to stop a farmer dealing with a fox that is attacking his livestock. It is not intended to stop pest control. The purpose of the Hunting Act is to stop people using an animal as an object of fun, as an expendable resource to be killed for “entertainment”.

The Countryside Alliance insists that hunts abide by the law. It says that only four registered hunts have been prosecuted since the Hunting Act came into force. But does that mean other hunts are breaking the law and getting away with it?

Some say the Hunting Act is ineffective, because it is used to prosecute people other than “hunters”. Certainly, hare coursers, for example, have been prosecuted. That is the point – stopping cruelty to animals. If someone is prosecuted under the Hunting Act, that suggests it is working.

Opponents of the legislation claim its effects of are entirely negative. They say it diminishes respect for Parliament. In fact, Parliament upheld the views of the majority by banning hunting. The legislation’s opponents say it puts “law-abiding people at risk of prosecution”. That’s as absurd as it would be to apply that preposterous claim to the Theft Act and burglars. The Hunting Act “diverts police attention away from real crime”. Dangerous drivers say something similar. Those who want to see the end of the Hunting Act describe it as  “a blatant example of political prejudice”, but they have no evidence for this. Finally, they say the act does nothing for animal welfare. How can a law that bans the hunting and killing of animals for “sport” have no discernible impact on their welfare?

The Labour Government was so concerned that a hunting ban might have adverse affects on the countryside and rural economy that it commissioned Lord Burns to conduct an independent inquiry into hunting with dogs (which counters the suggestion that the ban was pursued without any consideration). The Burns inquiry heard many hundreds of hours of oral evidence and took reams

of written evidence before reaching its conclusions.

One of the most interesting submissions came from the hunters and concerned the number of animals they killed. Given that the figures are their own, they may be an under-estimation. However, according to the hunters, they used to kill somewhere between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes every year.

That means they have been unable to cause the deaths of more than 125,000 foxes for sport since the Hunting Act came into force five years ago. If we include the figures for hares and stags, many more animals have been spared the suffering that hunts inflict.

On Boxing Day last year, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn launched Labour’s “Back the Ban” campaign to highlight the fact that the Tories want to repeal the Hunting Act. The Conservative Party is willing to ignore public opinion and bring back hare coursing, stag hunting and fox hunting. It is the champion of bloodsports. This is depressing, but not surprising.

Tory leader David Cameron is a former foxhunter. He is the descendent of hunters. He married into a major hunting family. Former leader William Hague, now the Shadow Foreign Secretary, has appeared in a pro-hunting DVD talking about the need for the Hunting Act to be repealed. He has been seeking active support for the Conservatives from the pro-hunting lobby in key marginal constituencies through the “Vote-OK” organisation.

Nick Herbert, one-time political officer for the British Field Sports Society, later of the Countryside Alliance and now Hilary Benn’s Tory shadow, travelled to India last year with the International Fund for Animal Welfare, but apparently still thinks it’s acceptable

for dogs to chase and kill wild animals

in the name of “sport”.

Tory parliamentary candidates throughout the country are signing up to this bloody manifesto – perhaps thinking it will ingratiate them with their party leadership. The majority of voters may feel differently.

Louise Bagshawe, the “chick lit” novelist standing for the Tories against Labour’s Phil Hope in Corby, Northamptonshire, appears in a “Vote-OK’” DVD to promote pro-hunting candidates in marginal seats. Yet she’s remarkably quiet about the hunting issue on her own website. The demographic of her constituency may have something to do that. Given Phil Hope’s bad press in the scandal over MPs’ expenses, it is clear that Labour in Corby is missing a trick by not highlighting his opponent’s desire to bring back hunting.

The silence in Corby epitomises what Labour is doing wrong nationally. The party should be proud of the Hunting Act and take advantage of the massive public support the legislation has, not tiptoeing around the issue.

We must take the stag by the horns, defend the Hunting Act and expose the same old nasty party as pro-hunting enthusiasts for bloodsports who don’t give a damn about the views of the voting majority.

Chris Williamson is Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Derby North. He is a trustee and former chair of the League Against Cruel Sports. The League is an independent charity and does not support any political party or candidate

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

  • Robert

    Well we have happy foxes, who then tear to bits cats and small dogs, chickens and rabbits, but heck thats OK they need food. Yet we still have child poverty in the UK after 13 years of a labour government, we still have people earning poverty wages, never mind the public like furry animals put a bet

  • Robert

    Well we have happy foxes, who then tear to bits cats and small dogs, chickens and rabbits, but heck thats OK they need food. Yet we still have child poverty in the UK after 13 years of a labour government, we still have people earning poverty wages, never mind the public like furry animals put a bet

  • Giles Bradshaw

    As it applies to me the Hunting Act is a deeply absurd piece of legislation.

    I use my three dogs to flush deer from my coppice. The while point of this method of wildlife management is that it does NOT harm the deer but still reduces their presence in the woodland hence allowing it to regenerate while also preserving the ecological benefits that deer can bring.

    Under the Hunting Act flushing out is exempt hunting but conditions have to be met including that reasonable steps are taken to SHOOT the deer.

    This is absurd. I have been openly breaking this law for the law for the last 5 years. There is absolutely no way I will obey such a stupid piece of legislation.

    What is the benefit to these deer to be shot, or to me if I do not want to shoot them.

    The truth is that the MPs whop drafted this law were incompetent.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    As it applies to me the Hunting Act is a deeply absurd piece of legislation.

    I use my three dogs to flush deer from my coppice. The while point of this method of wildlife management is that it does NOT harm the deer but still reduces their presence in the woodland hence allowing it to regenerate while also preserving the ecological benefits that deer can bring.

    Under the Hunting Act flushing out is exempt hunting but conditions have to be met including that reasonable steps are taken to SHOOT the deer.

    This is absurd. I have been openly breaking this law for the law for the last 5 years. There is absolutely no way I will obey such a stupid piece of legislation.

    What is the benefit to these deer to be shot, or to me if I do not want to shoot them.

    The truth is that the MPs whop drafted this law were incompetent.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Regarding the Burns enquiry it did NOT conclude that hunting with dogs was necessarily any crueller than other forms of wildlife management.

    A sensible law would regulate all forms of wildlife management on the basis of need, effectiveness and animal welfare rather than targeting one particular method.

    I will NEVER obey this law.

    The Hunt will be here tomorrow sticking two fingers up at the Labour Government.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Regarding the Burns enquiry it did NOT conclude that hunting with dogs was necessarily any crueller than other forms of wildlife management.

    A sensible law would regulate all forms of wildlife management on the basis of need, effectiveness and animal welfare rather than targeting one particular method.

    I will NEVER obey this law.

    The Hunt will be here tomorrow sticking two fingers up at the Labour Government.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    “How can a law that bans the hunting and killing of animals for “sport” have no discernible impact on their welfare?”

    Because hunting has important welfare benefits to the hunted population. The reason for this is that it partially replaces the effect of the foxes predators which have been removed.

    Prey populations live in balance with predators and predation actually benefits them because it tends to target weak and sick animals who would otherwise die more painful deaths.

    Remove apex predators and you have a negative effect on the rest of the ecosystem. A classic example is the herds of the African plains. You see very few weakened animals. This is because as soon as they become weak they are killed.

    Hunting with dogs is the only form of wildlife management that replicates this effect.

    Other forms which are now more widely used do not target weaker animals and actually produce more wounded animals.

    It is widely recognised that if practical restoring wolves and Lynx would have a beneficial effect. This is a similar effect to that of hunting.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    “How can a law that bans the hunting and killing of animals for “sport” have no discernible impact on their welfare?”

    Because hunting has important welfare benefits to the hunted population. The reason for this is that it partially replaces the effect of the foxes predators which have been removed.

    Prey populations live in balance with predators and predation actually benefits them because it tends to target weak and sick animals who would otherwise die more painful deaths.

    Remove apex predators and you have a negative effect on the rest of the ecosystem. A classic example is the herds of the African plains. You see very few weakened animals. This is because as soon as they become weak they are killed.

    Hunting with dogs is the only form of wildlife management that replicates this effect.

    Other forms which are now more widely used do not target weaker animals and actually produce more wounded animals.

    It is widely recognised that if practical restoring wolves and Lynx would have a beneficial effect. This is a similar effect to that of hunting.

  • http://www.walesagainstanimalcruelty.org.uk Judi Hewitt

    I can’t believe the idiotic comments from the likes of Robert (whoever he is). Does he really believe that foxes kill cats and dogs? Then perhaps he and that other brainless nerk Bradshaw should check out my website to see a fox snuggling up to a pet cat. You know what, if these people had brains they’d be dangerous!!!!

  • http://www.walesagainstanimalcruelty.org.uk Judi Hewitt

    I can’t believe the idiotic comments from the likes of Robert (whoever he is). Does he really believe that foxes kill cats and dogs? Then perhaps he and that other brainless nerk Bradshaw should check out my website to see a fox snuggling up to a pet cat. You know what, if these people had brains they’d be dangerous!!!!

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Judi you can call me a “brainless nerk” all you like but the simple fact is that I will not obey this idiotic law and you will not stop me.

    I enjoy flushing deer with my dogs and it is sound countryside management. I have been openly breaking the Hunting Act for the last five years.

    The simple fact is that The Labour Government cannot enforce its own laws.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Judi you can call me a “brainless nerk” all you like but the simple fact is that I will not obey this idiotic law and you will not stop me.

    I enjoy flushing deer with my dogs and it is sound countryside management. I have been openly breaking the Hunting Act for the last five years.

    The simple fact is that The Labour Government cannot enforce its own laws.

  • mhayworth

    As Giles knows very well, the hunts wouldn’t need to ‘manage wildlife’ in such a cruel and inefficient manner if they would just stop breeding foxes for their so called ‘sport’.

    The Burns enquiry did in fact find that hunting with hounds ‘seriously compromised the welfare of the fox’ and suggested that lamping was the most human method of control. The mis-quote that the hunters like to use is where they asked if hunting with hounds was less cruel than shooting and wounding, gassing, or poisoning and of course you know the answer to that one. There is no need to shoot and wound and they know it!

    Drag hunting is legal, hunt numbers are up all over the country, the pageantry goes on, the jobs intact and yet these disgraceful people still can’t enjoy themselves without terrifying and killing animals.

    M. Hayworth
    Campaign For Decency

  • mhayworth

    As Giles knows very well, the hunts wouldn’t need to ‘manage wildlife’ in such a cruel and inefficient manner if they would just stop breeding foxes for their so called ‘sport’.

    The Burns enquiry did in fact find that hunting with hounds ‘seriously compromised the welfare of the fox’ and suggested that lamping was the most human method of control. The mis-quote that the hunters like to use is where they asked if hunting with hounds was less cruel than shooting and wounding, gassing, or poisoning and of course you know the answer to that one. There is no need to shoot and wound and they know it!

    Drag hunting is legal, hunt numbers are up all over the country, the pageantry goes on, the jobs intact and yet these disgraceful people still can’t enjoy themselves without terrifying and killing animals.

    M. Hayworth
    Campaign For Decency

  • http://foxinparliament.wordpress.com/ Gary Hills

    The hunting ban has indeed been a landmark law for animal welfare. It is hugely important to our society that this law remains and is enforced.

    Animal cruelty in the name of fun can never be accepted. There are endless excuses given by David Cameron and the hunting lobby in the form of the Countryside. Yet none of them stand up.

    The arguments are now not if a ban is needed but how it will be enforced. The ban is working out of the 318 hunts there are some 75 who think they are above the law. These hunts try to bend or break the law.

    That however still leaves 232 that are staying within the law. Now you will hear often from the hunting lobby that the law dose not works. They will claim again and again the need for repeal.

    Yet if the law was as weak as they claim why then would they be seeking repeal at all? Hunting apologists like Mr Bradshaw talk the talk but mislead the public. He is a hunt supporter and anything he adds should be treated with extreme caution.

    Labour MPs over decades made this ban a reality. Their dedication to this issue had nothing to do with class. It was not revenge for the miners strike. It was also nothing to do with a sop over Iraq as some have tried to imply.

    It was to do with animal welfare. That was the motivation and in listening to the wishes of the public.

    People who seek to tear animals apart for fun are criminals. They are not the law abiding people they claim to be.

    Now in any hunt there will be those who are just there for the ride and the social side. They have little interest if the fox is caught.

    They are the majority. Yet there are always 3-7 members of the hunt who can’t stand not killing a fox. You can always tell who they are because they get that glazed look the closer they get to a kill. This group of people is obsessed with killing.

    They are normally the hunt master, the Whipper ins and those that want to be in that position. They care not a jot about the suffering they seek to inflict on our wildlife.

    Now that very odd behaviour is also where David Cameron has positioned himself? His obsession over this issue and his arrogance to ignore the public shows he is one of the 7.

    Now former Tory leaders have supported hunting. Its goes hand in hand. Yet it is Cameron who has made this issue an election issue. He cares nothing for the 75% of the population opposed to lifting the hunting ban. Which is roughly 44 millions people.

    He only sees his desire to bring back hunting. To have a person who sees nothing wrong with the extreme pain and suffering of animals as a potential Prime Ministers is abhorrent.

    Not only is this wrong in so many ways but it goes against the very fabric of our society.

    For in his support he is showing he cares not for wildlife. Has no sense of fairness and believes that his view alone is more important then decent society.

    He must never be the PM…His lack of moral fibre and love of killing for fun is shocking and disturbing.

    He has made the Conservative Party the Countryside Alliance Party. Such is his commitment to hunting that he has allowed in the hunting lobby at senior levels.

    Nick Herbert, the Tories shadow Defra Minister. Who would have the animal welfare remit if the Tories won. Used to be the Communications Director for the British Field Sport Society (BFSS) before they formed the Countryside Alliance was known for extremist views in support of bloodsport.

    Simon Hart who is standing for Parliament for the Tories in South Pembrokeshire is the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance and there are more…

    When it comes to rural policy it is not decided by the Tory Party, it is the hunting lobby that calls the shots. Vote OK which again is funding by the Countryside Alliance. All be it through the Countryside Management Group. Yet another front for the CA. Has one remit and that is to get pro hunting Tory MPs elected to win the election.

    They trundle around bussing in large numbers of pro hunting volunteers to help in key seats. They will carry out typical campaigning from leafleting and canvassing. They will wear blue rosettes, yet they will never tell the public the real reason they are there.

    They will have no logo for Vote OK to declare their support for hunting. This underhand and snide way of campaigning for the Conservative Party is fully supported by David Cameron.

    The hunting ban must stay; it’s a vital piece of legislation that says nobody has a right to kill our wildlife for fun. We owe its introduction to having Labour in office.

    Cameron deserves to lose the election because his whole way of thinking is flawed.

  • http://foxinparliament.wordpress.com/ Gary Hills

    The hunting ban has indeed been a landmark law for animal welfare. It is hugely important to our society that this law remains and is enforced.

    Animal cruelty in the name of fun can never be accepted. There are endless excuses given by David Cameron and the hunting lobby in the form of the Countryside. Yet none of them stand up.

    The arguments are now not if a ban is needed but how it will be enforced. The ban is working out of the 318 hunts there are some 75 who think they are above the law. These hunts try to bend or break the law.

    That however still leaves 232 that are staying within the law. Now you will hear often from the hunting lobby that the law dose not works. They will claim again and again the need for repeal.

    Yet if the law was as weak as they claim why then would they be seeking repeal at all? Hunting apologists like Mr Bradshaw talk the talk but mislead the public. He is a hunt supporter and anything he adds should be treated with extreme caution.

    Labour MPs over decades made this ban a reality. Their dedication to this issue had nothing to do with class. It was not revenge for the miners strike. It was also nothing to do with a sop over Iraq as some have tried to imply.

    It was to do with animal welfare. That was the motivation and in listening to the wishes of the public.

    People who seek to tear animals apart for fun are criminals. They are not the law abiding people they claim to be.

    Now in any hunt there will be those who are just there for the ride and the social side. They have little interest if the fox is caught.

    They are the majority. Yet there are always 3-7 members of the hunt who can’t stand not killing a fox. You can always tell who they are because they get that glazed look the closer they get to a kill. This group of people is obsessed with killing.

    They are normally the hunt master, the Whipper ins and those that want to be in that position. They care not a jot about the suffering they seek to inflict on our wildlife.

    Now that very odd behaviour is also where David Cameron has positioned himself? His obsession over this issue and his arrogance to ignore the public shows he is one of the 7.

    Now former Tory leaders have supported hunting. Its goes hand in hand. Yet it is Cameron who has made this issue an election issue. He cares nothing for the 75% of the population opposed to lifting the hunting ban. Which is roughly 44 millions people.

    He only sees his desire to bring back hunting. To have a person who sees nothing wrong with the extreme pain and suffering of animals as a potential Prime Ministers is abhorrent.

    Not only is this wrong in so many ways but it goes against the very fabric of our society.

    For in his support he is showing he cares not for wildlife. Has no sense of fairness and believes that his view alone is more important then decent society.

    He must never be the PM…His lack of moral fibre and love of killing for fun is shocking and disturbing.

    He has made the Conservative Party the Countryside Alliance Party. Such is his commitment to hunting that he has allowed in the hunting lobby at senior levels.

    Nick Herbert, the Tories shadow Defra Minister. Who would have the animal welfare remit if the Tories won. Used to be the Communications Director for the British Field Sport Society (BFSS) before they formed the Countryside Alliance was known for extremist views in support of bloodsport.

    Simon Hart who is standing for Parliament for the Tories in South Pembrokeshire is the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance and there are more…

    When it comes to rural policy it is not decided by the Tory Party, it is the hunting lobby that calls the shots. Vote OK which again is funding by the Countryside Alliance. All be it through the Countryside Management Group. Yet another front for the CA. Has one remit and that is to get pro hunting Tory MPs elected to win the election.

    They trundle around bussing in large numbers of pro hunting volunteers to help in key seats. They will carry out typical campaigning from leafleting and canvassing. They will wear blue rosettes, yet they will never tell the public the real reason they are there.

    They will have no logo for Vote OK to declare their support for hunting. This underhand and snide way of campaigning for the Conservative Party is fully supported by David Cameron.

    The hunting ban must stay; it’s a vital piece of legislation that says nobody has a right to kill our wildlife for fun. We owe its introduction to having Labour in office.

    Cameron deserves to lose the election because his whole way of thinking is flawed.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    The idea that wildlife only needs to be managed because people are ‘breeding’ wild animals and hence creating an imbalance is preposterous nonsense.

    Even Douglas Batchelor the Chief Executive of LACS acknowledges the fact that wildlife management increases animal health. In His article Countryside Mismanagement he acknowledges with regard to deer:

    “If populations are marginally reduced by culling, deer condition improves and more survive”

    That’s right wildlife management by culling can IMPROVE species health.

    Mr Batchelor however opposes any culling on ‘moral’ grounds his prescription for the control of wildlife populations is as follows:

    ” stand aside and let the population resume its normal cyclical pattern of boom in numbers followed by starvation and bust. That is nature’s way of ensuring the long term survival of the fittest.”

    Allowing deer numbers to explode and then be dramatically reduced by mass starvation and disease has dramatically bad effects for the ecology and animal welfare as well as human farming and forestry interests. Mr Batchelor’s only suggestion for preventing damage from deer is expensive deer fencing. If Deer numbers were allowed to expand until they start starving en masse as he proposes we would not only have to fence off all woodland but also all our arable crops. When the crash finally came we would be faced with potentially millions of starving animals and a decimated ecology outside of the fenced off zones.

    Such a prescription is sheer madness.

    http://cruelsports.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/countryside-mismanagement/

    With regard to drag hunting, it is simply not a suitable form of hunting for many people because it is fast and dangerous and does not involve the hounds and huntsman casting around and following a tortuous and sometimes tenuous scent.

    I am not an especially good rider and would never go drag hunting as it would be far too dangerous.

    Regarding the ‘need’ to shoot and wound. Peer reviewed scientific research done post Burns demonstrates that wounding rates from widely used and legal shooting regimes are far higher than otherwise thought.

    The law should apply equally to all forms of wildlife management/ sporting activity/ pest control that involve killing animals. It is wrong to single out one method which is not necessarily any crueller and can be considerably less cruel than other legal ones.

    This law is unjust and I will continue to openly break it on principal.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    The idea that wildlife only needs to be managed because people are ‘breeding’ wild animals and hence creating an imbalance is preposterous nonsense.

    Even Douglas Batchelor the Chief Executive of LACS acknowledges the fact that wildlife management increases animal health. In His article Countryside Mismanagement he acknowledges with regard to deer:

    “If populations are marginally reduced by culling, deer condition improves and more survive”

    That’s right wildlife management by culling can IMPROVE species health.

    Mr Batchelor however opposes any culling on ‘moral’ grounds his prescription for the control of wildlife populations is as follows:

    ” stand aside and let the population resume its normal cyclical pattern of boom in numbers followed by starvation and bust. That is nature’s way of ensuring the long term survival of the fittest.”

    Allowing deer numbers to explode and then be dramatically reduced by mass starvation and disease has dramatically bad effects for the ecology and animal welfare as well as human farming and forestry interests. Mr Batchelor’s only suggestion for preventing damage from deer is expensive deer fencing. If Deer numbers were allowed to expand until they start starving en masse as he proposes we would not only have to fence off all woodland but also all our arable crops. When the crash finally came we would be faced with potentially millions of starving animals and a decimated ecology outside of the fenced off zones.

    Such a prescription is sheer madness.

    http://cruelsports.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/countryside-mismanagement/

    With regard to drag hunting, it is simply not a suitable form of hunting for many people because it is fast and dangerous and does not involve the hounds and huntsman casting around and following a tortuous and sometimes tenuous scent.

    I am not an especially good rider and would never go drag hunting as it would be far too dangerous.

    Regarding the ‘need’ to shoot and wound. Peer reviewed scientific research done post Burns demonstrates that wounding rates from widely used and legal shooting regimes are far higher than otherwise thought.

    The law should apply equally to all forms of wildlife management/ sporting activity/ pest control that involve killing animals. It is wrong to single out one method which is not necessarily any crueller and can be considerably less cruel than other legal ones.

    This law is unjust and I will continue to openly break it on principal.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    “it’s a vital piece of legislation that says nobody has a right to kill our wildlife for fun. ”

    This is complete BS as it applies to me.

    I don’t want to kill the deer I flush out.

    The Hunting Act clearly states that I can only deliberately flush deer if I then kill them.

    The law is absurd.

    Incidentally Gary Hills has gone on record as opposing this section of the law.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    “it’s a vital piece of legislation that says nobody has a right to kill our wildlife for fun. ”

    This is complete BS as it applies to me.

    I don’t want to kill the deer I flush out.

    The Hunting Act clearly states that I can only deliberately flush deer if I then kill them.

    The law is absurd.

    Incidentally Gary Hills has gone on record as opposing this section of the law.

  • Graham Lindsay

    With regard to the shooting of flushed out animals Giles Bradshaw is very annoying but actually very right. The law is quite clearly wrong in this area.

    On that basis I think we should all wish Giles the best of luck with his illegal flouting of the hunting Act.

  • Graham Lindsay

    With regard to the shooting of flushed out animals Giles Bradshaw is very annoying but actually very right. The law is quite clearly wrong in this area.

    On that basis I think we should all wish Giles the best of luck with his illegal flouting of the hunting Act.

  • terence patrick hewett

    What I and many others find distasteful about this debate its vindictive and obsessive nature. This characteristic is not only confined to hunting; but to smoking in pubs, drinking in pubs (the concept of passive drinking is quite frankly certifiable); fishing, climate change and a start has now even been made on meat eaters. Now; a perfectly respectable intellectual position can be made regarding the banning of Association Football which certainly kills more people than hunting annually, but a regard for personal safety would preclude anybody from ever doing so; only soft targets are apparently chosen. There is no end to the list of human activities that some will find distasteful so it would be wise to embrace, without casuistry, the Harm Principle, as articulated by John Stuart Mill and John Locke; that is each individual has the right to act as he wants so long as these actions do not harm others. That will upset the intolerant, but I for one can live with it.

  • terence patrick hewett

    What I and many others find distasteful about this debate its vindictive and obsessive nature. This characteristic is not only confined to hunting; but to smoking in pubs, drinking in pubs (the concept of passive drinking is quite frankly certifiable); fishing, climate change and a start has now even been made on meat eaters. Now; a perfectly respectable intellectual position can be made regarding the banning of Association Football which certainly kills more people than hunting annually, but a regard for personal safety would preclude anybody from ever doing so; only soft targets are apparently chosen. There is no end to the list of human activities that some will find distasteful so it would be wise to embrace, without casuistry, the Harm Principle, as articulated by John Stuart Mill and John Locke; that is each individual has the right to act as he wants so long as these actions do not harm others. That will upset the intolerant, but I for one can live with it.

  • Paul Rathbone

    Shouldn’t breaking the Law involve a jail sentence???
    Who has the right to be above the Law?
    Advocating hunting with dogs to re-create conditions in the wild to keep numbers of deer & other wild animals down is crazy logic. It was farmers etc who killed off all other top predators such as wolves in the first place… so they could then take over that position…
    It is an excuse by a small number of lunatics who love the blood lust and the fear inflicted on these animals… sadly these psychopathic tendencies can play out in their personal lives also.

    The wildlife of this country belongs to the whole country, [75% of uk population oppose this crulety] not just a few people who like to inflict pain and suffering on helpless animals. There is no room for this outdated ignorant attitude in a modern world.

    More and more people are waking up to the fact that animals, just like us, feel pain, fear and suffering and in a caring modern society they should be protected from those who would inflict such torture for pleasure.
    Some Tories see it as their crusade to beat those who care about the welfare of all animals (including humans)at all costs. Their use of violence to achieve their violent ends is blind to them – these people are not needed in a modern uk and have no right to be in power.

    All life has a right to be free from harm and suffering and to live peaceful contented lives – don’t trust those who support violence and hate.

  • Paul Rathbone

    Shouldn’t breaking the Law involve a jail sentence???
    Who has the right to be above the Law?
    Advocating hunting with dogs to re-create conditions in the wild to keep numbers of deer & other wild animals down is crazy logic. It was farmers etc who killed off all other top predators such as wolves in the first place… so they could then take over that position…
    It is an excuse by a small number of lunatics who love the blood lust and the fear inflicted on these animals… sadly these psychopathic tendencies can play out in their personal lives also.

    The wildlife of this country belongs to the whole country, [75% of uk population oppose this crulety] not just a few people who like to inflict pain and suffering on helpless animals. There is no room for this outdated ignorant attitude in a modern world.

    More and more people are waking up to the fact that animals, just like us, feel pain, fear and suffering and in a caring modern society they should be protected from those who would inflict such torture for pleasure.
    Some Tories see it as their crusade to beat those who care about the welfare of all animals (including humans)at all costs. Their use of violence to achieve their violent ends is blind to them – these people are not needed in a modern uk and have no right to be in power.

    All life has a right to be free from harm and suffering and to live peaceful contented lives – don’t trust those who support violence and hate.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Paul there is no way my breaking the Hunting Act will ever result in any kind of sentence, Jail or otherwise.

    I break the law openly with the full knowledge of the police and the Government they cannot enforce the law because it is absurd.

    My deer management techniques do not harm the deer however they do involve flushing and pursuit with dogs.

    To make them legal I would need to gun down the fleeing deer. Shooting a deer as soon as possible after it has been flushed by dogs is insane from an animal welfare point of view. people that advocate that as ‘humane pest control’ are quite simply ignorant prejudiced fools. Ie the majority of Labour MPs.

    I cannot put this any more clearly. I will never obey the Hunting Act. Stuff you stuff Labour and stuff your law.

    We’ve had some beautiful weather down here in the west country and I am going to get up tomorrow morning and seek out and flush any deer I can find with my dogs.

    Who are you going to call to enforce your petty law? The police? Don’t make me laugh!

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Paul there is no way my breaking the Hunting Act will ever result in any kind of sentence, Jail or otherwise.

    I break the law openly with the full knowledge of the police and the Government they cannot enforce the law because it is absurd.

    My deer management techniques do not harm the deer however they do involve flushing and pursuit with dogs.

    To make them legal I would need to gun down the fleeing deer. Shooting a deer as soon as possible after it has been flushed by dogs is insane from an animal welfare point of view. people that advocate that as ‘humane pest control’ are quite simply ignorant prejudiced fools. Ie the majority of Labour MPs.

    I cannot put this any more clearly. I will never obey the Hunting Act. Stuff you stuff Labour and stuff your law.

    We’ve had some beautiful weather down here in the west country and I am going to get up tomorrow morning and seek out and flush any deer I can find with my dogs.

    Who are you going to call to enforce your petty law? The police? Don’t make me laugh!

  • John Eves

    “…a massive Labour achievement: the Hunting Act.” That just about sums up why the Labour Party should never be allowed to form another government. Their “massive achievement” was nothing more than a spiteful, shoddy piece of legislation, based upon ignorance and prejudice. The day the Hunting Act was passed marked the low point in British Parliamentary history: the day something was banned in Britain simply because some people didn’t like it. I believe that only a lousy parliament could ban hunting but it would take a lousy government to actually do so.

  • John Eves

    “…a massive Labour achievement: the Hunting Act.” That just about sums up why the Labour Party should never be allowed to form another government. Their “massive achievement” was nothing more than a spiteful, shoddy piece of legislation, based upon ignorance and prejudice. The day the Hunting Act was passed marked the low point in British Parliamentary history: the day something was banned in Britain simply because some people didn’t like it. I believe that only a lousy parliament could ban hunting but it would take a lousy government to actually do so.

  • GB

    Rarely does an Act of Parliament make it so clear what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. The Hunting Act did just that. It was Labour’s commitment to the principle of what’s right and wrong writ large for all to see.

    Sadly for Mr Williamson and his ex-LACS colleagues, far from what he claims, what the Hunting Act 2004 actually does is enshrine in British Law the principle that Hunting Mammals with Dogs is a [b]perfectly acceptable[/b] activity.

    The hunting and killing of Rats and the hunting and killing of Rabbits with as many dogs as you like is protected by this law.

    Well, sadly for the high-falutin claims of the moral crusaders, hunting is hunting is hunting. There is no veterinary of taxonomic justification for claiming that rats or rabbits should feel less pain or stress or fear than any other form of mammal. None whatsoever. In fact, rats are generally acknowledged as being amongst the more intelligent of mammals.

    So there it is. Hunting of mammals with dogs is now [b]Officially Sanctioned[/b] as being an acceptable activity in the eyes of the Law – and presumably, therefore, the Electorate. Admittedly, they have stopped you from hunting some species of mammals on some arbitrarily chosen basis, but that’s bye the bye. Hunting mammals in principle is now definitely ok.

    Whoops…

  • GB

    Rarely does an Act of Parliament make it so clear what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. The Hunting Act did just that. It was Labour’s commitment to the principle of what’s right and wrong writ large for all to see.

    Sadly for Mr Williamson and his ex-LACS colleagues, far from what he claims, what the Hunting Act 2004 actually does is enshrine in British Law the principle that Hunting Mammals with Dogs is a [b]perfectly acceptable[/b] activity.

    The hunting and killing of Rats and the hunting and killing of Rabbits with as many dogs as you like is protected by this law.

    Well, sadly for the high-falutin claims of the moral crusaders, hunting is hunting is hunting. There is no veterinary of taxonomic justification for claiming that rats or rabbits should feel less pain or stress or fear than any other form of mammal. None whatsoever. In fact, rats are generally acknowledged as being amongst the more intelligent of mammals.

    So there it is. Hunting of mammals with dogs is now [b]Officially Sanctioned[/b] as being an acceptable activity in the eyes of the Law – and presumably, therefore, the Electorate. Admittedly, they have stopped you from hunting some species of mammals on some arbitrarily chosen basis, but that’s bye the bye. Hunting mammals in principle is now definitely ok.

    Whoops…

  • Cynical

    13 years in power and the greatest achievement they can think of is a ban on hunting with hounds. An Act that hasn’t saved the life of a single animal, has wasted the time of the courts and caused huge disengagement amongst the rural populace.

    In the meantime the country is close to bankrupt, social divisions are greater than ever before and we have a parliament that stinks worse than rotting fish headed by a weak, indecisive bully.

    Whatever happened to things can only get better???

  • Cynical

    13 years in power and the greatest achievement they can think of is a ban on hunting with hounds. An Act that hasn’t saved the life of a single animal, has wasted the time of the courts and caused huge disengagement amongst the rural populace.

    In the meantime the country is close to bankrupt, social divisions are greater than ever before and we have a parliament that stinks worse than rotting fish headed by a weak, indecisive bully.

    Whatever happened to things can only get better???

  • Giles Bradshaw

    The Red Deer tend to come through as a herd.

    I am not saying that they could not be successfully managed by stalking what I am saying is that to do that in an area like North Devon where there are hundreds of small holdings you would have to get lots of Landowners working together co operatively.

    This is because the herd of red deer exists on a completely different scale than individual holdings and you need a co ordinated and consistent approach.

    There is no such system for stalking at present but there is for Stag Hunting.

    It’s no good me doing one thing when the deer are on my holding and then someone else adopting a completely different strategy on another holding.

    The point I am making is that they should not have banned one method without sorting out its replacement.

    As for stalking deer for my purposes it makes no sense.

    I want to reduce the presence of deer in my coppiced woodland. When the red deer are here they spend a lot of time in the coppice and at the wrong time of year they can completely destroy freshly cut sections.

    Proper deer management through culling might involve taking out say for the sake of argument 20% of a herd each year. If I did that to the red deer herd when it comes on to my land it would reduce the damage they do by 20%.

    What’s the point of that? I need to reduce it by say 80% so what do I do? Massacre 80% of the herd? That would be crazy. The situation with deer is very different to foxes. My neighbour kills all the foxes on his land because he has a pheasant shoot but it makes very little difference to the local fox population because they are territorial animals. Deer wander in herds and use our land as a coridoor hence what I do to them when they are on my land has a much wider impact.

    I have a method that works much better for me it simply involves taking my dogs down to the woods when the herd of red deer are around and flushing them without killing them.

    If the deer regularly encounter what they consider to be predators in a location they tend to congregate somewhere else.

    I am not saying that all deer can or should be managed like this but on my small holding it works for me and I have never killed or harmed a single deer by doing it so I don;t see the problem.

    The Hunting Act makes it illegal for me to flush deer out of cover unless I take steps to shoot them. It’s been ruled in court that if I am flushing an entire herd then I have to have enough guns present to kill the entire herd. That’s crazy and would turn a bit of fun and harmless deer management into a blood bath.

    Do deer get stressed by being chased by dogs? Well yes I am sure they do but it is worth remembering that they have evolved for millions of years to be chased and all around the world in ecosystems which are complete wild deer are regularly not only chased but also bought down and killed by canines.

    The best form of deer management albeit one that is impractical in lowland Britain would be to have packs of vicious wild canines scouring the countryside for them. Not stag hounds but wolves.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    The Red Deer tend to come through as a herd.

    I am not saying that they could not be successfully managed by stalking what I am saying is that to do that in an area like North Devon where there are hundreds of small holdings you would have to get lots of Landowners working together co operatively.

    This is because the herd of red deer exists on a completely different scale than individual holdings and you need a co ordinated and consistent approach.

    There is no such system for stalking at present but there is for Stag Hunting.

    It’s no good me doing one thing when the deer are on my holding and then someone else adopting a completely different strategy on another holding.

    The point I am making is that they should not have banned one method without sorting out its replacement.

    As for stalking deer for my purposes it makes no sense.

    I want to reduce the presence of deer in my coppiced woodland. When the red deer are here they spend a lot of time in the coppice and at the wrong time of year they can completely destroy freshly cut sections.

    Proper deer management through culling might involve taking out say for the sake of argument 20% of a herd each year. If I did that to the red deer herd when it comes on to my land it would reduce the damage they do by 20%.

    What’s the point of that? I need to reduce it by say 80% so what do I do? Massacre 80% of the herd? That would be crazy. The situation with deer is very different to foxes. My neighbour kills all the foxes on his land because he has a pheasant shoot but it makes very little difference to the local fox population because they are territorial animals. Deer wander in herds and use our land as a coridoor hence what I do to them when they are on my land has a much wider impact.

    I have a method that works much better for me it simply involves taking my dogs down to the woods when the herd of red deer are around and flushing them without killing them.

    If the deer regularly encounter what they consider to be predators in a location they tend to congregate somewhere else.

    I am not saying that all deer can or should be managed like this but on my small holding it works for me and I have never killed or harmed a single deer by doing it so I don;t see the problem.

    The Hunting Act makes it illegal for me to flush deer out of cover unless I take steps to shoot them. It’s been ruled in court that if I am flushing an entire herd then I have to have enough guns present to kill the entire herd. That’s crazy and would turn a bit of fun and harmless deer management into a blood bath.

    Do deer get stressed by being chased by dogs? Well yes I am sure they do but it is worth remembering that they have evolved for millions of years to be chased and all around the world in ecosystems which are complete wild deer are regularly not only chased but also bought down and killed by canines.

    The best form of deer management albeit one that is impractical in lowland Britain would be to have packs of vicious wild canines scouring the countryside for them. Not stag hounds but wolves.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    For example in Dartmoor where there is no Stag Hunting there is no significant herd of red deer. This is because they are wiped out by landowners and poachers.

    being a quarry is currently an essential factor in the maintenance of a healthy herd of red deer in the stag hunted areas of the west Country.

    There are approximatly 2000 red deer roughly 500 are culled every year, 150 by hunts. The hunts portion can be varied depending on numbers and also is carried out selectively which is crucial to maintaining herd health.

    If you want to ban Stag Hunting and preserve the deer herds you would have to

    a) institute an alternative means of co-ordinated deer management spanning the hundreds of holdings across which the deer roam.

    b) provide a motivation for local landowners/poachers not to start wiping the population out.

    Simply banning people from killing deer would be a disaster both for the deer population which would expand until it starved and also for the ecology because of the impact on the large area of fragmented and unfenced wooodland in the west country.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    For example in Dartmoor where there is no Stag Hunting there is no significant herd of red deer. This is because they are wiped out by landowners and poachers.

    being a quarry is currently an essential factor in the maintenance of a healthy herd of red deer in the stag hunted areas of the west Country.

    There are approximatly 2000 red deer roughly 500 are culled every year, 150 by hunts. The hunts portion can be varied depending on numbers and also is carried out selectively which is crucial to maintaining herd health.

    If you want to ban Stag Hunting and preserve the deer herds you would have to

    a) institute an alternative means of co-ordinated deer management spanning the hundreds of holdings across which the deer roam.

    b) provide a motivation for local landowners/poachers not to start wiping the population out.

    Simply banning people from killing deer would be a disaster both for the deer population which would expand until it starved and also for the ecology because of the impact on the large area of fragmented and unfenced wooodland in the west country.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Mr Giles Bradshaw mentions stress in mammals under pressure from carnivores. All mammals including man, feel stress when under threat. If they decide to run for it they start to shake and vibrate; if they decide to make a fight of it the shaking ceases. This shaking may be identified as “fear” but actually it is a muscular control device to overcome bodily inertia, thus enabling a quick getaway. The phenomena can produce some prodigious physical feats from mammalarian muscle. The Common Eland, an African antelope whose weight and size resemble domestic cattle (a male can weigh 1000kg or 2200 pounds) can easily jump a 2 metre (6.5 feet) game fence from a standing position. We engineers use it in order to gain a fast response for the servo-mechanisms operating tank turrets, which are vibrated to overcome their large inertia.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Mr Giles Bradshaw mentions stress in mammals under pressure from carnivores. All mammals including man, feel stress when under threat. If they decide to run for it they start to shake and vibrate; if they decide to make a fight of it the shaking ceases. This shaking may be identified as “fear” but actually it is a muscular control device to overcome bodily inertia, thus enabling a quick getaway. The phenomena can produce some prodigious physical feats from mammalarian muscle. The Common Eland, an African antelope whose weight and size resemble domestic cattle (a male can weigh 1000kg or 2200 pounds) can easily jump a 2 metre (6.5 feet) game fence from a standing position. We engineers use it in order to gain a fast response for the servo-mechanisms operating tank turrets, which are vibrated to overcome their large inertia.