|
In
fact, during the period of those debates, a reported 50,000 hunt members
and supporters publicly signed a ‘Declaration’ threatening civil disobedience if the hunting of wild animals was
outlawed. Therefore the widespread flouting of the ban on hunting is not surprising. More surprising is the fact that the leader of the opposition has pledged to
reward the law-breakers by repealing the Act!
In truth
the Hunting Act is indeed flawed. In an attempt to specifically target the ‘mischief’,
ie the use of dogs to chase and kill wild animals for entertainment or ‘sport’, still regarded by the majority
of the public as ‘cruelty’, Parliament provided ‘exemptions’ in the Act to ensure that people using
dogs in other countryside activities such as genuine pest control, shooting,
falconry or the study and rescue of wild animals, need not fear the anti-hunt legislation. The
undisputed targets of the legislation were ‘sports’ in which wild animals suffered the terror and exhaustion of
a lengthy chase by dogs, or were savaged to death by dogs when they could run no further.
Thus, under
a lengthy list of provisions and safeguards, certain forms of ‘hunting’ were declared ‘exempt’, such
as using no more than two dogs to flush out a wild mammal into the open so that it could be immediately shot or using dogs
to flush out wild mammals from cover for the ‘sport’ of falconry. Similarly,
using dogs to hunt rabbits and rats was declared ‘exempt hunting’ because a chase of such species is short and
any kill virtually instantaneous.
Once the
Hunting Act became the law of the land, the hunting lobby did not offer themselves up for martyrdom by openly disobeying the
law but declared that they would now ‘test’ it by using the ‘exemptions’ provided for other non-target
dog users.
Stag hunters,
for instance, could use pairs of hounds in ‘relays’, by flushing a deer out of cover, but not quite managing to
shoot it before the deer ran into more cover, when two more hounds could be used to get it on the run again, not quite managing
to shoot it, and so on and so on until the deer was hounded to exhaustion and then shot at point blank range with a sawn-off
shot gun - the very practice which Parliament voted to outlaw.
Hare hunters
could exploit the ‘exemption’ in the Act that permits dogs to be used to retrieve a shot hare by reportedly using
packs of hounds to hunt and kill hares, and in the unlikely event of being challenged, simply claim that they are on a ‘mercy-killing’
expedition to ‘save’ a hare suffering from wounds caused by shooting.
Mink hunters
saw that their summer ‘sport’ of hounding mink to death on rivers, could be preserved by claiming that their pack
of hounds was hunting rats – a completely ridiculous concept, but not easy to disprove.
Fox hunters
exploit the ‘falconry’ exemption, by taking out a captive bird of prey with their pack of hounds. True falconers sometimes use a dog, possibly two, for flushing out rabbits or other small mammals to a
trained bird of prey. No falconer would ever use a pack of hounds, and no bird
of prey would fly at a mammal in the presence of baying and boisterous dogs. The
birds of prey taken out by the hunters are usually Eagle Owls or Harris Hawks, neither of which would be likely to hunt foxes.
The official
falconry bodies have openly derided and condemned fox hunters for bringing falconry into disrepute, as well as putting the
birds at risk from being killed by the hounds. But if challenged, the fox hunters
can merely produce the miserable bird and defy anyone to prove they were not using the pack of hounds to flush out a fox for
the bird to hunt.
The
great bulk of fox hunts, however, are using an exemption that is not even mentioned in the Hunting Act – so-called ‘Trail
Hunting’. They claim that their hounds are hunting a ‘trail’ laid across the countryside. It could be argued
that this is merely ‘drag hunting’ - a harmless hound sport that has existed in Britain for as long as fox hunting
- but drag hunting is a long way removed from ‘trail hunting’.
Packs of hounds registered with the Masters of Drag & Bloodhounds Association follow
an artificial scent trail deliberately laid across open country to avoid places where their hounds would be likely to come
across wild animals.
‘Trail
hunting’ on the other hand is defined as ‘simulated fox hunting’ and the hounds are taken through fox coverts,
copses, crops and hedgerows in exactly the same manner as they previously hunted foxes.
 |
|
In
the three hunting seasons since the legal banning of hunting, Fox Hunts have been observed hunting and killing foxes. However, when such incidents are reported by members of the public or recorded by hunt
monitors, the hunters merely claim that it was an ‘accident’ and that the fox jumped up in front of the hounds,
and before they could be stopped, the fox was ‘unfortunately’ killed – wink,wink!
But
what about the foxes that sense the hounds are nearby? Don’t they pop down their ‘earth’? Yes but every Fox Hunt still has the brutal ‘spade and terrier’ brigade accompanying them,
even though using dogs to hunt foxes underground is illegal. They are exploiting
the ‘gamekeepers exemption’ which allows a single terrier to be used to flush out a fox to be shot for the purpose
of ‘preventing serious damage’ to game birds being kept or reared for shooting.
There
is no provision in the Hunting Act for the hunters to prove that foxes have been causing such ‘serious damage’
- unlike the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which states that this defence must be accompanied by evidence of such damage. So the hunters simply point to the local tame landowner who only has to say he invited
the terrier-men to flush out the fox and shoot it because he likes to have a few pheasants to shoot for the pot.
Thus
Fox Hunting, in all its gore, continues almost unchanged, in defiance of the clearly expressed will of parliament and public.
In
order to successfully prosecute someone for hunting wild animals with a dog, the current Act demands proof that the person
in charge intended the dog to chase and kill the wild mammal concerned, regardless of the activities of the actual dog or
dogs. This is because words such as ‘caused or permitted’, which
are common in legislation outlawing acts of cruelty or killing, have been omitted.
If
it was an offence to ‘cause or permit a dog to hunt, attack, injure or kill a wild mammal’ and a hunter enters
hounds into cover where he knows, or ought to know (because the hunt had found foxes there for decades before) they were likely
to find and chase or kill a fox, then he could be charged with ‘causing or permitting’ the offence, i.e. recklessness.
The
court would not have to prove that the hunter intended the dogs to hunt a fox (one cannot prove what is in the mind of a person)
it would be enough to prove recklessness. Many motorists are convicted
of causing death in accidents involving reckless behaviour, whether it be driving under the influence of drink or drugs, speeding,
talking on a mobile phone etc. The courts don’t have to consider whether the driver intended to kill someone. Similarly, someone who causes their child or domestic animals to suffer can be convicted of cruelty by
neglect, or even ignorance, irrespective of whether they intended that child or animal to suffer.
The Hunting
Act 2004 was intended to prevent certain wild animals being unnecessarily hounded and savaged to death by dogs. It has been used successfully to convict more than two dozen offenders – mostly hare-coursers, badger
diggers and poachers caught by the police acting on information supplied by members of the public. There have even been a few successful prosecutions of members of Hunts, mostly either through private
prosecutions by animal welfare societies, or through evidence supplied by voluntary hunt monitors brave enough to risk the
threats, violence and intimidation of hunt supporters.
The Hunting
Act has, however, so far largely failed to curb the powerful and organised group of criminals whose activities were the target
of the entire democratic and Parliamentary action. Parliament now needs to demonstrate that its authority cannot be thwarted by any group of people –
no matter how well-funded, no matter how highly placed their friends and no matter how much land they control. The Hunting
Act needs to be amended so that it does what it was intended to do – prevent the unnecessary suffering of wild animals
in the name of bloodsports.
John Bryant
POWA Animal Welfare & Wildlife Consultant
Section 4
|
