THE CASE FOR REPEAL OF THE BAN ON FOX-HUNTING IN GB

Bringing the "Legal Machinery" into disrepute.

The Act is illogical and unclear. For instance it is legal
to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare; a rat, but not a mouse. It is legal to use two dogs to flush to a waiting gun, but not three. It is legal to use any number of dogs in order to flush a mammal (unspecified) for a bird of prey (also unspecified). It is legal to use a terrier
underground to control foxes because they are killing game birds, but illegal to use the same dog to kill the same fox if it is killing lambs. Defining these exemptions has been left
to huntsmen, the police and the courts. Several cases of alleged offence have gone to Court. No consistent definition of these exemptions has emerged and "The Law" has been brought into disrepute. Indeed Law Officers have said "this case has led to the conclusion that that the relevant law is far from simple to interpret or to apply; it seems to us that any given set of facts may be susceptible to differing interpretations.The result is an unhappy state of affairs which leaves all those involved in a state of uncertainty". ( Exeter Crown Court Anthony Wright--v--League Against Cruel Sports Ltd Friday 30 November 2007).

Based on flawed evidence.

In framing Hunting Bills, the government viewed as crucial the evidence given and cross-examined on 9,10 & 11 Sept 2002 in The Westminster House Hearings. Much of the evidence put forward against Hunting was flawed. An example is a study of the effect on fox populations of the cessation of hunting during the foot and mouth epidemic by Professor Harris of Bristol University ( a well known anti-hunting activist ). He claimed that populations had not increased between Feb/March 2001 and Feb/ March 2002. He drew the inference that hunting does not control the fox population. This was clearly a gross over simplification because:

Foxes became more concentrated in some areas and less prevalent in others. This supports Foxman's argument that one of the most important role of hunting is to control the DISTRIBUTION of foxes. Fox Control is not synomous with Fox Killing.
Farmers in several parts of the UK found more foxes about their livestock and shot more. These farms were a natural place for foxes to concentrate.
Any biologist would confirm that a single year is far too short a time to draw conclusions about the impact of a change in circumstances on an animal population. What other factors were relevant?

Enacted improperly.

The Countryside Alliance and a selection of those directly affected by The Ban have taken The Act up the legal ladder to test its propiety. Eventually it reached the highest legal level in the UK, the Law Lords. To summarise: They upheld the Act on the basis, it would seem, that a Ban is proper if a majority of those engaged in the dispute think the subject of the Ban to be unethical. However, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said : "I simply cannot regard the ethical objection of the majority as a sufficient basis for holding the ban to be "necessary"………Most would regard adultery (assuredly a pursuit engaging Article 8) as unethical (and often causing suffering too). But could an intolerant majority therefore ban it and then argue that this was "necessary in a democratic society"? Surely not."
And: "In short, the ban on fox-hunting had two aims: one, to reduce unnecessary suffering to foxes; the other, to give effect to the view of those opposed to hunting that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical." But that: "….if the ban cannot be shown to reduce unnecessary suffering it is difficult to see how it furthers that aim. Indeed there is a case for saying that the ban will increase the suffering of foxes generally. It was clearly for this reason that the courts below laid such emphasis on the ban's second aim: to put a stop to the causing of suffering to foxes for sport which the majority of those engaged in the dispute thought unethical."

In view of the element of variability within their Lordship's views, the Countryside Alliance has in November 2007 regerred it to The European Court of Human Rights.

Found to be unenforceable.

Law Officers have said "this case has led to the conclusion that that the relevant law is far from simple to interpret or to apply; it seems to us that any given set of facts may be susceptible to differing interpretations.The result is an unhappy state of affairs which leaves all those involved in a state of uncertainty". ( Exeter Crown Court Anthony Wright--v--League Against Cruel Sports Ltd Friday 30 November 2007).)

"Parliament’s vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of my fellow officers with dread. Not because the police are pro-hunting - the service is determinedly neutral - but because of the practical implications of enforcing such a ban."
Alastair McWhirter, Chief Constable of Suffolk and ACPO spokesman on hunting,
The Times, 3rd July 2003.

“My officers will be prepared to gather evidence of any breach
of the peace but I will not be diverting resources from other
priorities set by government such as meeting our targets on
burglary, violent crime and anti-social behaviour, and nor is the
community demanding it.”
Paul Kernaghan, Chief Constable of Hampshire,
17th February 2005.

Having a seriously deleterious effect.

1. Over concentration; (as was shown in the 2001 Foot and Mouth Epidemic) removing the dispersal by Foxhunts leads to more frequent concentration near food sources. Hence increased competition for small mammals etc., some hunger and more predation of farmer's and shoot's possesions. Shooting after Flushing does not move foxes on to new locations, the chase is too short.

2. Decreases in Fox Population where this increased predation requires more shooting to contain the threat of loss of property. It is reported that in some former Hunting Countries numbers a\re down by about one third.

3. Increase in suffering by foxes; more shooting leads to more wounding and severely degraded welfare, quite often slow death.

4. Worsening of Fox Environments; Trail Hunting does not require the degree of maintenance of Fox Habitats that Fox-hunting achieved.

5.There is more disease in the Fox Population; apparently due to reduction in selection; shooting, unlike Hunting, does not tend to kill the weak rather than the strong. Also less dispersal by The Chase has caused more pressure on accrssible food. Hence increased competition for small mammals etc. and some hunger.

Failure of The Act

In late 2008, the Government has released new figures on prosecutions and conviction under the Hunting Act. The headline numbers are that 76 people have been prosecuted under the Act and that 56 were found guilty between the Act coming into force in February 2005 and the end of 2007.

On the face of it these numbers could suggest there is a considerable amount of illegal hunting going on and that the Act is in some way working. It does not take much digging, however, to discover that the 'hunting' that people are being prosecuted for is far from the organised hunting targeted by politicians and animal rights groups during the progress of the legislation.

The highest number of prosecutions under the Act was not in Leicestershire or Gloucestershire, but on Merseyside where there have been 20 convictions, seven of which were for hunting rats without the permission of the landowner. The rest were prosecuted for hunting rabbits, hares and foxes again all without the permission of the landowner. Most were also likely to have been liable for prosecution before the Hunting Act was passed under other pieces of legislation, such as poaching.

In fact only three of the 56 people convicted of Hunting Act offences have anything to do with registered hunts and they were all victims of the confusion that surrounds the legislation. The huntsman and whipper-in of the Quantock Staghounds were told by the court that although their belief that their hunting was legal was "honest" it was not "reasonable" and that they were therefore guilty. An employee of the Flint and Denbigh pleaded guilty to not having fulfilled all the conditions of the complex terrier work exemption. Of course, the figures also include Tony Wright who was proceeded against but found not guilty when his conviction was thrown out by Exeter Crown Court. Nor have there been any increase in the number of cases being brought against hunts since 2007.

In Feb 2009 the High Court issued its ruling on complicated points of law relating to 'exempt hunting' after the hearing in Dec 2008 of an appeal to overturn a a successful appeal by the Huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds. Tony Wright had appealed against his conviction by local magistrates just after the Ban became law.

The Court ruled that:

a. 'Hunting' is the pursuit of a mammal with dogs; [BY implication this means that IT DOES NOT INCLUDE SEARCHING FOR A FOX etc]
b.There is to be a presumption of innocence for people involved in legal hunting by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that any hunting is illegal;
c. 'Hunting' can only be intentional - you cannot hunt by accident.

Reason has prevailed in several cases of prominent "Antis" adopting a stance of, at least, compromise. The latest, in early 2009, was James Barrington ( former Director of the League against Cruel Sports and Adviser to the Middle Way Group of MPs) who stated:

"My ex-colleagues in the anti hunting movement are increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Act, but it is their law. After literally decades of campaigning, millions of pounds spent and numerous Bills and debates, they got it wrong. They now expect the police and the courts to sort out this mess. If only some of the many other animal welfare issues, such as the plight of primates in Africa or dog farming in China, could attract such attention.

"The Act is sheer nonsense and I cannot understand or accept the proposition that it even addresses the issue of animal welfare. There is only one answer. The Hunting Act must be repealed. Only then can the welfare of wild mammals start to be properly addressed."

The bottom line, however, is that the Hunting Act, which took 700 hours and the use of the Parliament Acts to reach the statute book, and now has served little more than replace pre-existing poaching regulations.

Back to Menu