CHAPTER 4

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS

4.1       This chapter considers the impact of hunting, and of a ban on hunting, on the "social and cultural life of the countryside".  We have taken this to include sporting and social events associated with hunting.

4.2       Although in the last few years the economic arguments about hunting have come to the fore, its proponents have also continued to stress its importance to the social, cultural and sporting life of rural communities.  Indeed, it has often been argued that organised hunting plays a vital role in binding rural communities together.  The Countryside Alliance, in their evidence to us, said that "hunting provides the social glue in many communities because it provides a valid purpose for socialising".¹  By contrast, opponents of hunting have argued strongly that hunting, far from engendering social cohesion, is divisive and gives rise to social tensions within rural communities.²

4.3       What was less clear to us, though was what were the views of people living in rural communities.  How important is hunting to the social lives of those who participate?  And what about people who do not take part?  How were their lives affected, if at all, by hunting and its related activities?  Were there, for example, other social networks which operated in their case?  What would be the impact on them if hunting was banned?  We were also aware that some of those opposed to hunting felt that their lives were adversely affected by hunting, especially if conflict arose because they refused to allow hunts on their land.

4.4       In the following paragraphs we begin by setting out what we see as the broader social and cultural context in which hunting, especially organised hunting, takes place.  We then describe some of the social, cultural and sporting activities which hunts and their supporters arrange.  We summarise the ways in which, it is argued, they contribute to life in rural communities and the views of those who believe that hunting has a detrimental effect on the lives of people in these areas.  We then go on to describe the findings of some research which we commissioned on these matters from Dr Paul Milbourne and his colleagues in the Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University.³  Their report has helped us to reach a better understanding of the complexities which, as so often, underlie issues of this kind.

4.5       We think it is important, both for the purposes of this chapter and for our report as a whole, to set out what we have come to see as the wider context in which hunting - in particular, hunting by the registered packs - takes place. We believe that appreciating the social and cultural significance of hunting, especially in its organised forms, may be helpful in understanding why it seems to assume greater significance than an analysis of the sum of its parts may suggest is warranted.

4.6       We think that the key to this is two fold: that it is a highly co-operative activity and that, as we emphasised in the previous chapter, it takes place essentially in a rural setting.  It is clear from the figures which we give in Chapter 2 and Appendix 7 about the costs of the registered packs that a good deal of the traditional mounted hunting which takes place is not cost effective - in the sense that no one individual would be likely to pay these sums to kill a single fox, deer or hare.  This confirms that these activities are seen as serving a wider purpose and providing different 'outputs' which are of value to different participants. Indeed, there are few other activities which involve such an extensive degree of co-operative effort.

4.7       Farmers (and landowners) are at the heart of this activity.  As a group, they are clearly in favour of hunting.  They participate in significant numbers. They provide the land on which hunting takes place.  They benefit from pest control to the extent that it matters.  They believe that they understand best what is good for the countryside.

4.8       It is clear from the letters we received that others enjoy participating for a variety of reasons.⁴  Some like riding horses and are willing to pay subscriptions and daily charges ('caps') to take part in the hunt: about 60% of the hunts' income comes from subscriptions, donations and caps.  Some like watching hounds work. Some simply enjoy the social life and being out in the countryside.  Some do not actively take part but support hunting in various ways because they see it as part of the local community and as a traditional country pursuit.  This includes attending hunt social events: about 30% of the hunts' income comes from various fund-raising activities.  Even those who hunt essentially for recreational purposes, though, usually believe their enjoyment is ultimately in a good cause managing the population of the animal concerned.  However, there are no doubt a few people - mainly away from public gaze and often illegally – who hunt simply because they enjoy using their dogs to kill animals.

4.9       Organised hunting also gains support from a whole host of other interest groups who benefit in some way from it: the equestrian trade, the farriers, rural pubs and so on.

4.10     Organised hunting is therefore an intricate and complex social activity which is intimately linked to other features of rural life and which rests on a foundation of overlapping mutual interests, with the farmer/landowner at the hub.  As we indicated in the previous chapter, though, farmers in particular see themselves as a group facing great pressures as a result of the recent serious decline in the agricultural sector.  The fact that hunting is under threat simply adds to the sense that they are an embattled, isolated group, whose interests and way of life are not really appreciated by central government and the urban majority.⁵

4.11     But we also need to recognise that, as we noted in the previous chapter, rural communities are diverse and are changing in character. Many, especially those near urban centres, have experienced major changes in recent years as agriculture has declined in importance, communications have improved and new people, and new types of employment, have moved in from the towns.  As the research by Dr Milbourne and his colleagues tends to confirm, the part played by hunting in the social and cultural life of rural communities varies greatly, depending on factors such as their proximity to urban centres and the type of hunting which takes place.

4.12     Living, sometimes uncomfortably, in rural communities - or visiting the countryside - are those who are opposed to hunting.  They fall into several categories.  There are those who have a moral objection to hunting and who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of people gaining pleasure from what they regard as the causing of unnecessary suffering.  There are also those who perceive hunting as representing a divisive social class system.  Others, as we note below, resent the hunt trespassing on their land, especially when they have been told they are not welcome.  They worry about the welfare of the pets and animals and the difficulty of moving around the roads where they live on hunt days.  Finally there are those who are concerned about damage to the countryside and other animals, particularly badgers and otters.

4.13     Hunting is, of course, a social event in its own right, as we have already mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3.  For those who participate, organised hunting has a strong social - even ritual - element.⁶  This social element takes on a formal character at the opening meet but, as we have seen on our visits, it is also an enjoyable and valued part of the rest of the day.  This social interaction can take many forms, including the opportunity for the mounted field to chat while the hounds work and for car followers to pass the time of day by the roadside as they scan the hills trying to follow the course of the hunt.

4.14     We do not underestimate the importance, for those who take part, of the opportunities for social interaction provided by hunting.  Especially for those living in remote rural areas, it can help to counter the isolation that is often felt by farmers and others, particularly during the long winter months.

4.15     The hunts organise numerous social events, many of which are designed to raise money to defray their costs.  In their evidence to us, the Countryside Alliance and the hunts gave many examples of the events they organise.  These included dinners, dances, discos, hunt balls, barbecues, dog shows, hunter trials, coffee mornings, coach trips, point-to-points, pantomimes, hedge-laying competitions, cricket matches, pub evenings, talks/presentations, barn dances, darts matches, midnight steeplechases, horse trials, quiz nights, antiques days, skittles evenings, wine and cheese evenings, garden parties, hunt suppers, clay pigeon shoots and young supporters' parties.⁷  The Produce Studies report on the National Survey of Hunts estimated that hunts organise nearly 4,000 functions a year, which are attended by over one and a quarter million people.⁸  The Produce Studies separate survey of hunt supporters’ clubs estimated a further 800 events each year, with a total attendance of between 250,000 and 500,000.  As the Farmers' Union of Wales also pointed out, the use made by hunts of local facilities, such as village/church halls and local pubs, helps to maintain these facilities.⁹

4.16     Many of these social events, such as coffee mornings and barbecues, are not exclusive to the hunts.  They are typical of the kind of event organised up and down the country by a whole host of groups such as pubs, churches, football clubs and the Women's Institute.  We discuss below, in the context of the research outcomes, the respective part played by hunts and other groups in organising such events.  However, some of the events that take place are, by their nature, much more closely linked with the hunt.  The most notable examples are point-to-points, puppy shows, pony clubs and country fairs and shows.

4.17     We have already noted, in the previous chapter, the potential implications for point-to-point racing of a ban on hunting. Point-to-point races are regulated by the Jockey Club but are run almost exclusively by the hunts.  The Countryside Alliance told us that, of the 209 listed point-to-point meetings, 189 are organised by the hunts.¹⁰  Some 700,000 people attend events each year.¹¹  The most important aspect of the hunts' involvement is that much of the voluntary labour needed to run point-to-point meetings is supplied by the hunt.  There is, of course, an incentive for hunt members and supporters to offer their services, since point-to-points are an important source of funds for the hunt.  Another aspect, though, is that landowners or farmers will often charge a reduced fee for the use of their land because they themselves support the hunt.

4.18     The organisation of puppy shows is another activity which is strongly linked with the hunts, providing an opportunity to show the young hounds as part of a social gathering.  These shows are popular social events, for example in the Fells.¹²

4.19     Most hunts run pony clubs.  These provide an opportunity for children to learn to ride under the guidance of people associated with the hunt.  The cost tends to be lower than attending a riding school.

4.20     The Pony Club has stated that its origins are in hunting and that nearly all branches of the Pony Club are named after the hunt in their area.  Although Pony Clubs might be able to survive in the event of ban, hunting with dogs sustains them by offering a non-competitive equestrian activity for children and in fostering equestrian skills.¹³

Country and Agricultural Shows

4.21     Country and agricultural shows seek to promote the countryside and encourage the link between the rural and urban populations.  Horses, horse breeding, horse showing including jumping, both show jumping and working hunter, and farrier work are an integral part of shows, as are the many country pursuits such as hedging, conservation and forestry which are all part of the countryside and its way of life.

4.22     Evidence submitted by the Association of Show & Agricultural Organisations, which has just over 200 members, and by several individual show societies, suggests that certain events other than the display of hounds by hunt staff, such as horse classes, both breeding and jumping, and farrier classes, might be affected by a ban on hunting.¹⁴  In addition, the take-up of trade stands from equestrian suppliers would decline and sponsorship might suffer.  Many shows emphasised that they depend on hunts and their followers to provide the stewarding of such events and other vital volunteer labour.

4.23     Show societies varied in their estimation of the extent to which a ban on hunting would affect the number of people attending their events as spectators, participants, volunteers and traders.  The Newbury and District Agricultural Society quoted as much as a 50% loss to their programme of events, and the Tavistock Country Show stated that it would be forced to stop in the event of a ban on hunting.

4.24     Our evidence suggests that there is a reservoir of hunting people who contribute to running and assisting in the management of all of the above activities and that, although it is difficult to quantify the effects of a ban on hunting on such contributions, there would be likely to be at least a temporary reduction in such volunteer labour.

Cultural matters

4.25     The Countryside Alliance and others also drew our attention to the contribution which hunting has made to literature, art, music and architecture.  This is perhaps best known through the work of Stubbs and, more popularly, the work of numerous other artists who have made, and continue to make, paintings, pictures and prints focusing on hunting scenes.  Many of these adorn the walls of pubs and restaurants in rural areas.  Hunting has also featured in literature through the centuries.¹⁵

4.26     Deadline 2000 and its supporters provided evidence of a very different nature, both in its formal submissions and at the meetings we attended with opponents of hunting.¹⁶

4.27     This evidence fell into two broad related categories. The first consisted of complaints about trespass, disruption and disturbance and the way in which hunts responded to representations made about these matters. We discuss this aspect in greater detail in Chapter 9 of our report.  The second reflected concern about the tensions and divisions in rural communities that can be caused by hunting and the fact that those opposed to hunting could be ostracised if they complained or could feel that they could not speak openly about their views.  This is touched on in the research undertaken by Dr Milbourne and his colleagues.

4.28     A national survey undertaken for IFAW by MORI, and submitted to us just before we were due to report, revealed that only 28% of those living in the middle or the edge of the countryside (as defined by respondents themselves) were aware of hunting taking place in their local area.  However, nearly all of that group (25%) were aware of one or more listed types of hunt havoc taking place locally (ranging from 4% awareness of trespass on railway lines to 12% awareness of trespass on private land).  In the absence either of any information on the actual geographical locations of respondents or of what is meant by awareness of particular activities, it is hard to assess the full meaning of these figures.  In particular, the respondents were not asked whether their awareness was based on personal experience, newspaper reports or hearsay.

Methodology

4.29     The research focused on a number of parishes/communities in four rural areas in different parts of the country, all of which are covered by particular hunts.  The areas chosen were in West Cumbria, Devon and Somerset (Exmoor), Leicestershire and Powys.  None of the areas contained any towns and the hunt kennels were located in one of the parishes/communities in each area.¹⁷  Interviews were conducted in 17 parishes in total.  In three cases entire hunt countries were covered in the survey.  By contrast, in Leicestershire, where the villages have larger populations, a portion of the hunt country was covered.

4.30     Although all the study areas were rural, they differed in a number of respects.  For example, the West Cumbria area is very remote, while the Leicestershire area is relatively close to urban centres.  Hunting is a significant part of the local economy in the Devon and Somerset study area, but much less so in the others.¹⁸

4.31     As part of the research, MORI carried out face-to-face surveys of about 150 households in each of the study areas.¹⁹  These were followed up by in-depth interviews with a selected number of respondents.²⁰  This information was supplemented by telephone interviews with Chairs of parish/community councils and by examining the relevant returns from a survey of hunts carried out by the Countryside Alliance.²¹

Findings

4.32     It is important to bear in mind in considering the research findings that the research was carried out in four areas only and that it was deliberately designed to focus on areas in which organised hunting actively takes place.  The study areas were not typical of rural districts as a whole, which include many large villages and market towns. As we have just noted, one of the areas - Devon and Somerset - is known to have a particularly high involvement in hunting.  Deadline 2000 expressed strong concerns at the research seminar and in subsequent submissions that the research “was always likely to conclude that most people who agreed to be interviewed were opposed to the abolition of hunting due to the areas selected”,²² which they suggested were strongly pro-hunting.  We are not persuaded that the research was biased in the way suggested.  On the contrary, the response rate to the survey (77% agreed to be interviewed) was high and was commended as such by the independent scrutineer, Professor Keith Hoggart, and the comparisons with the 1991 Census results for the parishes concerned showed no obvious bias.  Only one of the areas (Exmoor) was chosen because of its strong associations with hunting.  All the others, like the majority of rural land in England and Wales, were located in areas hunted over by registered packs, but there were no grounds for supposing them to be either typical or atypical of other rural areas.  In a number of respects, such as the high levels of in-migration, they would seem to be typical of many rural parishes, although there was a higher proportion of people engaged in agricultural occupations than might have been expected.

4.33     Allowing for some inevitable over-simplification, we think that it is worth highlighting the general picture which emerges:

• there was a high degree of awareness of organised hunting
• there were higher levels of support for hunting (and opposition to a ban on hunting) than previous surveys have suggested
• support tended to be based not so much on importance to the individual - although this was true for hunt participants and some farmers - but a belief that hunting had greater significance for the community as a whole and for others living there
• hunt-based social activities play a significant part in the social life of these communities, but are not as significant as those of the local pub or church
• support for hunting, and a belief in its importance to individuals and to the local community, was particularly strong in the Devon and Somerset study are
• a significant minority was opposed to hunting and would welcome its abolition.

We discuss these findings in greater detail in the following paragraphs.

Support for hunting

4.34     One of the key messages which emerges is that, in these study areas at least, people are more supportive of hunting than previous surveys in rural areas have suggested.  Overall, about half of respondents were in favour of hunting with dogs, with the remainder almost equally divided between those who were opposed to it and those who were neither for or against.  Support was strongest in the Devon and Somerset study area, where around two-thirds of respondents favoured hunting, and weakest in the Leicestershire study area where just over a third were in favour.²³  Even amongst those who had not seen a hunt or who had not hunted in the last twelve months, there were more people in favour of hunting than against it.²⁴

4.35     Broadly speaking, support was highest in all areas amongst men, older people, those who had lived in the area for a long time, people working in rural occupations and those in lower social class bands.²⁵  But even amongst incoming residents, workers in non-rural occupations and those in higher social classes more people were in favour of hunting than opposed to it.²⁶

4.36     Similarly, the research revealed that nearly 60% of respondents in the four study areas were opposed to a ban on hunting.  This is a much higher figure than that reported following a MORI poll undertaken in September 1999.  In the latter survey only 25% of those polled in rural areas expressed any opposition to a ban on hunting.²⁷

4.37     The two main reasons put forward for supporting hunting were its perceived role in controlling pests and its traditional role in the countryside.²⁸  The former was mentioned by about two-fifths of supporters, and the latter by a third.  Interestingly, only some 15% of supporters mentioned its economic importance, with a similar proportion mentioning social and recreational benefits.²⁹

4.38     These findings about people's attitudes to hunting are interesting in their own right.  But they also provide an important backdrop and context for the assessment of the significance of hunting, especially organised hunting, to the social and cultural life of the countryside.  They indicate that people in the areas concerned were, for a variety of reasons, generally supportive of hunting and therefore viewed hunting and its activities in that light.

The importance of hunting at individual and community levels

4.39     Another message which emerges from the research - and which ties in with the findings on the level of support for hunting - is that people tended to accord a higher significance, at the community level, to hunting and hunt-related activities than they did at a personal level.  For example, although only a quarter of respondents in the four areas felt that hunting played an important part in their day-to-day lives, almost two-thirds felt that it played an important part of life in their local area.  Even in West Cumbria, where only one in ten respondents considered hunting to be important in their daily lives, over half of all respondents thought that hunting played an important role at a community level.³⁰

4.40     The reasons put forward for thinking hunting important at a community level differed in certain respects from those advanced in support of hunting in general.  Contribution to local employment was mentioned most often - by a quarter of all respondents.  The other reasons mentioned most often were hunting's position as a traditional part of rural life, its social role and its part in pest control.³¹

Hunting's contribution to social and cultural life

4.41     As is perhaps already clear from this discussion, hunting's contribution to social and cultural life was not the main factor underlining support for hunting.  Nevertheless, it is clear that organised hunting plays an important role in the social life of these communities.  Nearly a third of respondents had attended at least one social event organised by the hunt in the last 12 months, with the figure reaching just over half in the Devon and Somerset study area.³²  But hunting's importance is less significant - even in the Devon and Somerset study area - than that of the local pub or church.  In the West Cumbria, Powys and Leicestershire study areas pub-organised activities had been attended by more than twice as many respondents as those organised by the hunt, the same being true for church events in the first two areas.³³  The importance of pub-organised events was accentuated if one measures frequency of attendance.  A third of respondents said they had attended pub-organised events at least once a month, compared with half that number in the case of church and hunt events.³⁴  More generally, it was clear that there was a wide range of other activities taking place, organised by different groups,³⁵ and other individual pursuits such as walking, gardening and going out for the evening.³⁶  It is plain, therefore, that any claim, even in respect of strongly rural areas where support for hunting is high, that hunting is the main source of social activity is exaggerated.  In other rural communities, particularly larger villages and market towns, it is likely to be even less significant.

4.42     The finding that hunt-based social activities were not the main reason why hunting was perceived as important at a community level tended to be borne out in follow-up interviews.  Only a fifth of interviewees thought that these activities represented the hub of the local community.³⁷  Nearly half thought that any community function was confined to particular groups such as farmers and hunt participants.³⁸  About a third thought that these activities contributed either little or nothing to the local community.³⁹

Devon and Somerset study area

4.43     On all measures, support for hunting and a belief in its importance to individuals and the community were substantially greater for residents and interviewees in the Devon and Somerset study area than was the case in the other three areas.  For example, a half of all respondents in the Devon and Somerset study area thought that hunting was very important or fairly important to their daily lives.⁴⁰  This compares with one in five in the Powys study area, which had the next highest rating.⁴¹  These findings are not really surprising, given that it is generally recognised that this particular area is the heartland of hunting in England and Wales.  But they do bear out the fact that, even amongst rural areas, Devon and Somerset, particularly the Exmoor area, is something of a special case.

Opposition to hunting

4.44     The research findings do not really support the claim that is sometimes made that, even in rural areas with a strong hunting tradition, there is much greater opposition to hunting than is generally supposed.

4.45     As we have already noted, only 25% of all respondents were opposed to hunting, the highest figure being in Leicestershire.  But even there the numbers were lower than those who favoured it.⁴²  Those who opposed hunting with dogs tended to do so because they thought that it was cruel and unnecessary and because they considered that there were better and more humane ways of controlling foxes and other pests.  A much smaller proportion of respondents justified their opposition to hunting in relation to the practice of hunting with 8% of opponents considering hunt participants to be either arrogant or elitist.  Thus, nuisance and social divisiveness, whilst not apparently of great importance, were mentioned by some of those who opposed hunting.  These views tended to emerge more strongly in the follow-up interviews⁴³.  For some people (approximately 10% of those interviewed) hunting represented an inconvenience to their everyday lives, with several examples provided of dangerous driving and roads being blocked by hunt followers.  Others (around 16% of interviewees) pointed to the arrogant behaviour of some followers; the damage caused to fields and verges; gates being left open or damage caused to dry stone walls and fences; problems caused if hounds reach more densely settled areas; and the offence that ‘messy kills’ or incidents can cause to passers-by.  We discuss these issues in Chapter 9 of our report.

4.46     About a fifth of those residents who held mixed views or an anti-hunting viewpoint tended not to discuss their opinions with others, either because of what they perceived as the local support for hunting or because it was not sufficiently significant as a local issue to warrant discussion.⁴⁴

4.47     It was put to us that the Countryside Agency's report, State of the Countryside 2000, confirmed that hunting plays little role in rural life.⁴⁵  The report⁴⁶ lists a wide range of social activities in rural communities but hunting is not included, even though the report lists activities supported from between nearly 60% of the rural communities (Women's Institute and Mothers' Union) down to 3% to 4% (swimming club).  It is clear, however, that the differences result entirely from the fact that the Countryside Agency’s report and the study by Dr. Milbourne and his colleagues had very different purposes. In particular, the Countryside Agency's report was concerned with facilities, rather than activities, in a particular parish.  It is interesting to note that angling does not figure in the Countryside Agency data either, despite its being a significant leisure activity in the countryside.

4.48     The research findings largely mirror our own perceptions of the complexity - even, perhaps, the contradictory and paradoxical nature - of views on hunting and its importance to individuals and local communities.  An obvious example from the research is the finding which we have already noted that, while nearly two-thirds of respondents thought that hunting played an important part in the life of the local area, only a quarter thought it important to their own day-to-day lives.  The complexity of views is not particularly surprising.  Hunting takes many forms; there are different traditions in different areas; the topography, geography and farming activities can vary greatly; and rural areas are not uniformly "rural" - some are extremely remote, while others have strong urban influences.  People too are influenced by their backgrounds, the views of their families and neighbours and their perception of community interests. What will be important to one person will be of no importance at all to his or her neighbour.

4.49     There are good reasons, therefore, to be cautious in extrapolating from any particular set of findings.  It also needs to be borne in mind that this particular piece of research deliberately set out to study the social and cultural role of hunting in areas of the countryside in which organised, visible hunting takes place.  The findings are, at most, representative of different types of hunting areas.  They are not necessarily representative of all hunting areas or of rural areas more generally.  As the researchers pointed out too, their work was carried out at a time when the debate about hunting is to the fore and when other rural issues are causing great concern.⁴⁷

4.50     Our feeling from this research, the evidence presented to us and other research findings is that hunting plays a central social role in the lives of many hunt participants and supporters.  Many feel too that there is a culture associated with hunting that would be lost to the equestrian industry and to the countryside in general in the event of a ban. In particular, they feel that there is a set of social mores and body of knowledge and understanding associated with hunting which has ramifications extending beyond the hunting field, linked with the proper care of horses, the countryside and other riders and users of the countryside.

4.51     While it is hard to over-estimate the importance of hunting to the lives of those people who are very actively involved in hunting, it is important to recognise that they comprise a relatively small proportion of residents in rural areas and that the effects of a ban on hunting would be felt most acutely by those living in the more isolated rural areas. Here, population densities are lower and there is less interface with towns and cities as a source of alternative activities. In the less isolated areas, and where the population is more socially diverse, a ban would not have the same impact.

4.52     Rural communities are diverse.  Many, especially those near urban centres, have experienced substantial changes in recent years as agriculture has declined in importance, communications have improved and people have moved in from towns.  The part played by hunting in the social and cultural life of rural communities varies greatly, depending on factors such as their proximity to urban centres and the type of hunting taking place.

4.53     The social activities organised by the hunts form an important feature of the social life of those communities in which hunting is actively pursued.  For a significant minority, notably hunt participants and farmers in more isolated rural communities, the hunts play a dominant role.  The loss of these activities, if that were the outcome of a ban on hunting, would be keenly felt.  For those who take part, hunting is itself partly a social event, particularly during the winter months when alternative activities are scarce.  For others, the social activities organised by the hunts are significant, but less so than those organised by other groups, in particular the pub and the church.  Even those who would not feel greatly, at a personal level, the loss of the hunts' social activities consider that it would have a detrimental effect on the social life of others and on community life in general.  A number would also feel that it would mark the end of an important, living cultural tradition.  The precise balance between these different responses would vary from region to region and area to area.  Generally, however, the impact would be felt most strongly in the more isolated rural areas.  In areas of greater population density where there are more alternative activities available, and where the population is more socially diverse, a ban would make less of a social impact.

4.54     It is clear that, especially for participants in more isolated rural communities, hunting acts as a significant cohesive force, encouraging a system of mutual support.  Farmers and other landowners - many of whom feel increasingly isolated - are both the linchpins and the main beneficiaries of the system.  Many of them also value hunting as an expression of a traditional, rural way of life and would strongly resent what they would see as an unnecessary and ill-informed interference with it.  As a result it would increase their sense of alienation.

4.55     For another group, the hunt itself seems divisive, intrusive and disruptive.

4.56     Because the organisation of point-to-points relies heavily on voluntary labour supplied by hunt followers and supporters, there could be difficulties in running these events.  Pony clubs also often depend heavily on hunt followers and supporters.  To a lesser extent these too could be affected by a ban.  These activities should be able to continue provided alternative forms of organisation develop.

1 CA1, 9.2

2 League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) 1, 9

3 The effects of hunting with dogs on the social and cultural life of the countryside in England and Wales.  Paul Milbourne, Andrew Norton and Rebekah Widdowfield, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University. (‘Milbourne et al’)

4 See Appendix 3 for analysis of the letters we received from members of the public.

5 Professor Peter Midmore of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, argued in written evidence that economic pressures are contributing to increasing psychological morbidity in farming and rural communities.

6 Dr Garry Marvin , an anthropologist who provided us with an interpretative account of foxhunting, has examined these ritual aspects in detail.  See ‘The problem of foxes: legitimate and illegitimate killing in the English countryside’.  Forthcoming in Knight J (ed) 2000 The Politics of Wildlife: Anthropological Perspectives, Routledge, London.

7 CA1, 99

8 CA1, 10.4

9 Farmers' Union of Wales 1,46

10 CA1, 9.13

11 The British Bloodstock Agency plc 1, un-numbered

12 CA1, 9.11

13 CA1, 9.19

14 Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations 1, un-numbered

15 CA1, 9.35

16 IFAW 1,9; Hunt Havoc LACS 1, 9; RSPCA 1, 9 & 10; notes of ‘by invitation’ meetings in Taunton, Wrexham and York.  (On CD Rom).

17 Milbourne et al, 2.1–2, 3

18 Ibid

19 Ibid, 2.4

20 Ibid, 2.87

21 Ibid, 2.10, 2.11

22 Research seminar: Social and Cultural Aspects, 8 May 2000, Session One.  LACS 2, un-numbered

23 Milbourne et al, 5.8

24 Ibid, 5.9.  This compares with a survey of 750 households in five case study areas of the English and Welsh countryside in 1999, which found that just under a third of respondents supported hunting wild animals.  The highest level of support was 40% in a group of rural parishes in West Devon, followed by 36% in Hampshire villages,  27% in Norfolk, 25% in Cheshire and 19% in Powys.

25 Milbourne et al, 5.10, 5.11

26 Ibid, 5.10

27 Ibid, 5.31

28 Ibid, 5.12, 5.13

29 Ibid, 5.14

30 Ibid, 5.17, 5.19

31 Ibid, 5.20

32 Ibid, 4.20

33 Ibid, 4.22

34 Ibid, 4.24

35 Ibid, 4.25, 4.26

36 Ibid, 4.27

37 Ibid, 4.28

38 Ibid, 4.29

39 Ibid, 4.30

40 Ibid, 5.17

41 Ibid, 5.17

42 Ibid, Table 13

43 It should be recalled that the follow-up interviews were not with a representative sample of residents and that therefore the percentage figures need to be viewed in that light.  They are included to indicate that these opinions were not confined to one or two respondents but represented a significant body of minority opinion within the study areas.

44 Ibid, 6.11

45 Research Seminar: Social and Cultural Aspects, Session One 8 May 2000

46 The State of the Countryside 2000. Countryside Agency

47 Milbourne et al, 6.1

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 12 June 2000