Our views on
                                          Hunting with Dogs

Only Labour is sure
to keep the hunting ban

Tories & Lib Dems will repeal the hunting act

We know from the published details of the Tory-LibDem coalition that they intend to introduce a "great repeal bill" in which the Hunting Act and several other important measures will be removed from the statute books.
(No sign here of the Liberal Democrats being a moderating influence over the Tories!)

Tories and hunting

The hunter's claims

Country Guardians?

Pest Control

The rural economy

Horses and hounds

Sport or barbarism?

What do the Tories say is wrong with the Hunting Act?

• They claim that the Hunting Act is unclear and unenforceable.
  FACT: They choose to ignore the fact that there have been 130 successful prosecutions to date.
  
  
• They claim that it was not introduced for policy reasons.
  FACT: It was Labour Party policy. Almost ALL Labour MPs and members were in favour of stopping unnecessary animal cruelty.
  
  
• They claim the ban was introduced to placate Labour backbench MPs.
  FACT: In the 2004 parliament, the majority of MPs, including a few Tories, RECOGNISED THE PUBLIC REJECTION OF HUNTING. The Act was introduced by proper democratic processes. Some Liberal Democrat MPs came up with an alternative that claimed to restrict hunting but actually allowed it to continue with extra rules.
  
  
• They claimed that the ban was a breach of human rights and infringes civil liberties.
  FACT: The European Court of Human Rights made clear that the Hunting Act does NOT breach human rights. As for civil rights - very few people would accept that torturing another living creature to death is a civil right. Over 70% of the population opposed hunting of wild animals before the ban in 2005 and a recent poll shows that just as many people oppose it now.

Why do the Tories want restart mindless animal cruelty?

It suggests that the Tories in the shire counties exert a very strong influence over Tory policy and finances. We believe that these Tories are infuriated by being told how they had to behave by the rest of he population and by a Labour Government and they regard it as an attack on their way of life.

The hunters claimed that

• they are guardians of the countryside, they keep it nice for our enjoyment
  
• they are acting as (self-appointed) pest control officers
  
• hunting has a beneficial effect on the rural economy
  
• if it was banned there will be thousands of job losses
  
• a ban would result in thousands of horses and hounds being put down
  
• this is a town versus country issue - the townies don't understand rural life
  
• it is just a sport like any other sport.

Guardians of the countryside

In the last 50 years we have lost

• 95% of traditional hay meadows
• 99% of lowland heaths
• 80% of chalk downlands
• 80% of limestone grasslands
• 80% of fens and mires
• 90% of lowland ponds
• 50% of ancient lowland woods
• 150,000 miles of hedgerows.

There are about 80 species of birds, 60 species of plants and 40 species of animals that are classed as endangered.

Many hunters are farmers and large landowners. They claim that they have been protecting the countryside  - but the statistics above show otherwise.

Pest control
By killing foxes, the hunters claim that they are protecting farm animals. In fact, the number of foxes killed annually by the hunt is only about 8%.

DEFRA considers fox predation of sheep negligible. In rough hill areas 1 in 5 lambs die shortly after birth from exposure, starvation and disease - about 3 million lambs. There are no foxes on the Isle of Mull, but the death rate of lambs is similar to that of mainland Scotland.
The death rate of chickens through sickness and other reasons is 9 times higher than through fox predation.

Fox hunting was banned for 9 months during the foot & mouth epidemic but there was no evidence of the fox population getting out of hand and causing problems to livestock.
The ban has NOT resulted us being overwhelmed by foxes.

The rural economy & job losses
The Burns report showed that the 300 or so fox, hare and deer hunts contribute very little to the rural economy.

The maximum unemployment caused by the ban was predicted to be about 3 full-time jobs per hunt.

The reality is that there have been negligible job losses as the change to drag hunting required the same number of workers.

Threat to horses and hounds
The hunters claimed that up to one million horses will be destroyed if there is a ban.

There are only 600,000 horses in the UK of which about 40,000 (6.7%) are used for hunting.

A ban would result in 20,000 hounds being put down - the hunters claimed.
The average pack consists of 60 dogs, which are normally shot at 6 years of age (1/2 their usual life expectancy). So they do not have much regard for their dogs.

Now there is a switch to drag hunting there is NO evidence that more horses or hounds have been destroyed.

It's only a sport
If you regard sport as a contest between equal adversaries, then using 40-60 dogs (specially trained to savage foxes) together with 40 - 80 horses to chase and frighten the life out of one fox is neither fair nor humane.

Add to that the terrier men who dig out foxes that have gone to earth. A further part of the pantomime, now officially banned, is the ceremony of 'blooding', in which new hunters (some quite young children) at their first kill are smeared with the fox's blood. It gives a clear picture of a ritualistic slaughter reminiscent of feudal times, and all this run by characters dressed up in Christmas card costumes.
It is a barbaric amusement not a sport.