Foxhunters head for marginals in pro-hunt election strategy

Pro-hunting campaigners are to target marginal seats in a high-profile attempt to get cruel sports legalised

by Marcus Papadopoulos
Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Members of the hunting community are poised to gallop into action to support pro-hunting candidates in marginal seats at the general election in the knowledge that a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act will be held in Parliament if the Conservative Party wins power.

Hunt masters have been laying the ground for supporters of hunting to pour into 140 constituencies across the country and campaign on behalf of pro-hunting candidates there, mostly Conservative, in a bid to oust incumbent Labour MPs who voted in favour of banning hunting with dogs.

The plan to secure a Labour defeat at the general election is the conception of Vote-OK, a so-called “politically independent” organisation which campaigns for hunting to be made legal again and maintains close links to David Cameron’s Conservatives.

Commenting on the revelations about the deployment of the “Barbour brigade” in key marginals, Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said the hunting community is preparing to deploy its supporters in an “utterly desperate attempt” to bring back bloodsports, for which the public has “no appetite”.

Indeed, consecutive opinion polls commissioned by the League and the Countryside Alliance, which supports repeal of the Hunting Act and has close ties to the Conservatives, have shown that the vast majority of the public oppose hunting.

According to the results of an Ipsos-MORI poll conducted last September,

75 per cent of people support the ban on fox hunting, while 84 per cent and 85 per cent favour the ban on stag hunting and hare hunting respectively.

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

  • Giles Bradshaw

    According to an ORB poll 57% of people believe that the Hunting Act is not working.

    What we need is a sensible debate on the way forward.

    One option that should be looked at is it’s replacement with an effective law against cruelty.

    The RSPCA have recently claimed that flushing out with more than two dogs is legal. The Countryside alliance have welcomed this view.

    If the RSPCA are correct it will make the law even less enforceable.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    According to an ORB poll 57% of people believe that the Hunting Act is not working.

    What we need is a sensible debate on the way forward.

    One option that should be looked at is it’s replacement with an effective law against cruelty.

    The RSPCA have recently claimed that flushing out with more than two dogs is legal. The Countryside alliance have welcomed this view.

    If the RSPCA are correct it will make the law even less enforceable.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Here is a letter I wrote to Hillary Benn’s staff member Peter Featherstone I have jusy got a reply from Mr Benn

    Dear Peter ,

    Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me today regarding a question that I would like The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Mr Hilary Benn to answer.

    I noted during our ‘phone conversation that Mr Benn sees fit to repeatedly email me and that I feel that as a British Subject I was entitled to a direct answer from Mr Benn to my question regarding the Hunting Act a subject that is clearly dear to his heart and concerning which he is currently spear heading the ‘back the ban’ campaign.

    We also discussed the difference between a response to a question and an answer. You were kind enough to assure me I would receive a response but were unable to guarantee an answer. You also noted how busy Mr Benn is. I pointed out that this issue has taken up a lot of my own time. I would also point out that both my MP Nick Harvey and the Prime Minister Mr Gordon Brown’s office have also spent time in trying to get an answer to my question.

    I will not stop asking this question until I receive an answer so it would save a lot of everybody’s precious time if one could be given without the need for further repetitions.

    I have written to Mr Benn several times both personally and through my MP Nick Harvey. He has been kind enough to ask Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP to respond on behalf of the Government. Mr Fitzpatrick has concentrated on defending his departments varying interpretations of the law. However as Mr Fitzpatrick points out several times it is not for the Government to give a definitive interpretation of the law that is a matter for the courts. What I am seeking to get the Government to address is not what the law IS but what as a matter of public policy it SHOULD be with regard to my activities. I am sure Mr Benn would agree that what the law SHOULD be with regards to canine based wildlife management practices falls very much within the policy area which is his department’s remit.

    For many years now I have used my dogs to flush wild deer out of cover in my areas of woodland in Devon. I currently employ three dogs for this purpose. The reasons I flush deer out of cover are manifold but they include:

    1) The reduction of damage to my coppiced woodland by reducing but not eliminating the presence of deer in them thereby increasing their ability to regenerate after coppicing without becoming too overgrown .

    2) Fun.

    My method of flushing is very simple. I go down to the woods with my dogs with the deliberate intention of flushing deer. I allow the dogs to roam freely round the woodland. When they encounter a deer the natural interaction between deer and hound causes the deer to be flushed out of cover and there may or may not be a chase I then take no steps whatsoever that would kill or harm the deer in any way. I would note that I am very much against my having to kill or harm the deer in any way and that although I do recognise the general need to control wild deer populations I personally wish to use a management technique which does not harm them.

    My question to Mr Benn is as follows:

    Does the British Government believe that unless strict conditions are met it SHOULD be a criminal offence to deliberately flush wild mammals out of cover by entering dogs into it where there is no intention to catch harm or kill them?

    I re iterate this is not a question about what the law IS which is rightly a matter for the courts it is a question as to what the law SHOULD be which is rightly a matter for politicians.

    I would also ask that if Mr Benn does not wish or is unable to provide an answer he makes that fact clear in his response.

    Thank you again for your very kind help in this matter.

    Yours sincerely,

    Giles Bradshaw

    cc
    James Barrington All Parliamentary Middle way Group
    Douglas Batchelor League Against Cruel Sports
    Joshua Kaile League Against Cruel Sports
    Tim Bonner Countryside Alliance
    Nick Harvey MP

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Here is a letter I wrote to Hillary Benn’s staff member Peter Featherstone I have jusy got a reply from Mr Benn

    Dear Peter ,

    Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me today regarding a question that I would like The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Mr Hilary Benn to answer.

    I noted during our ‘phone conversation that Mr Benn sees fit to repeatedly email me and that I feel that as a British Subject I was entitled to a direct answer from Mr Benn to my question regarding the Hunting Act a subject that is clearly dear to his heart and concerning which he is currently spear heading the ‘back the ban’ campaign.

    We also discussed the difference between a response to a question and an answer. You were kind enough to assure me I would receive a response but were unable to guarantee an answer. You also noted how busy Mr Benn is. I pointed out that this issue has taken up a lot of my own time. I would also point out that both my MP Nick Harvey and the Prime Minister Mr Gordon Brown’s office have also spent time in trying to get an answer to my question.

    I will not stop asking this question until I receive an answer so it would save a lot of everybody’s precious time if one could be given without the need for further repetitions.

    I have written to Mr Benn several times both personally and through my MP Nick Harvey. He has been kind enough to ask Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP to respond on behalf of the Government. Mr Fitzpatrick has concentrated on defending his departments varying interpretations of the law. However as Mr Fitzpatrick points out several times it is not for the Government to give a definitive interpretation of the law that is a matter for the courts. What I am seeking to get the Government to address is not what the law IS but what as a matter of public policy it SHOULD be with regard to my activities. I am sure Mr Benn would agree that what the law SHOULD be with regards to canine based wildlife management practices falls very much within the policy area which is his department’s remit.

    For many years now I have used my dogs to flush wild deer out of cover in my areas of woodland in Devon. I currently employ three dogs for this purpose. The reasons I flush deer out of cover are manifold but they include:

    1) The reduction of damage to my coppiced woodland by reducing but not eliminating the presence of deer in them thereby increasing their ability to regenerate after coppicing without becoming too overgrown .

    2) Fun.

    My method of flushing is very simple. I go down to the woods with my dogs with the deliberate intention of flushing deer. I allow the dogs to roam freely round the woodland. When they encounter a deer the natural interaction between deer and hound causes the deer to be flushed out of cover and there may or may not be a chase I then take no steps whatsoever that would kill or harm the deer in any way. I would note that I am very much against my having to kill or harm the deer in any way and that although I do recognise the general need to control wild deer populations I personally wish to use a management technique which does not harm them.

    My question to Mr Benn is as follows:

    Does the British Government believe that unless strict conditions are met it SHOULD be a criminal offence to deliberately flush wild mammals out of cover by entering dogs into it where there is no intention to catch harm or kill them?

    I re iterate this is not a question about what the law IS which is rightly a matter for the courts it is a question as to what the law SHOULD be which is rightly a matter for politicians.

    I would also ask that if Mr Benn does not wish or is unable to provide an answer he makes that fact clear in his response.

    Thank you again for your very kind help in this matter.

    Yours sincerely,

    Giles Bradshaw

    cc
    James Barrington All Parliamentary Middle way Group
    Douglas Batchelor League Against Cruel Sports
    Joshua Kaile League Against Cruel Sports
    Tim Bonner Countryside Alliance
    Nick Harvey MP

  • N Bryant

    I would act that the poll that was conducted had so called loaded questions and was instigated by the LACS who probably set the questiond so no surprise what the result had of been, and good for any Party that can get any number of troops on the ground to help them, what has Gordon Brown got to offer, debt for all of us, soldiers being killed because they don’t have the best gear, increased prices on everything, who is that going to motivate.

  • N Bryant

    I would act that the poll that was conducted had so called loaded questions and was instigated by the LACS who probably set the questiond so no surprise what the result had of been, and good for any Party that can get any number of troops on the ground to help them, what has Gordon Brown got to offer, debt for all of us, soldiers being killed because they don’t have the best gear, increased prices on everything, who is that going to motivate.