CHAPTER 6

ANIMAL WELFARE

6.1       Our terms of reference required us to consider the impact of hunting, and of a ban on hunting, on animal welfare.  We have interpreted this to mean the welfare of the quarry species, that of the dogs and horses involved in hunting and that of other animals which may be incidentally affected by hunting.  We also discuss in more detail here the animal welfare issues which are raised by other methods of control, in particular shooting.

Cruelty to animals

6.2       Both sides of the debate agree that the issue of cruelty is a central question in considering hunting.

6.3       Those in favour of hunting with dogs tend to argue that:

• it is as humane as other methods of culling, and more humane than some
• death is very quick and certain: either the quarry is killed or it escapes.  Unlike shooting, there is not the risk of leaving a wounded animal which may suffer greatly before it dies
• the chase is a natural aspect of life and death in the case of wild animals
• a quick death at the hands of a predator is preferable to being run over or dying from disease or starvation
• hunting can be selective and target the weak, the old and the sick or those animals that present a particular problem for farmers.

6.4       Those against hunting tend to argue that:

• hunting is more inhumane than other methods since it involves inflicting unnecessary cruelty
• animals suffer unnecessary distress during the chase, which can be artificially prolonged
• animals are not killed quickly and cleanly as is often claimed
• some of the quarry species (i.e. foxes and deer) do not have natural predators in this country and that they are not well equipped to cope with hunting by dogs
• even those animals that escape may be damaged in ways which may mean that they continue to suffer afterwards.

6.5       Much of the debate has taken place to date on the basis of opinions, rather than hard evidence.  The only substantial scientific work which has been undertaken so far is in relation to deer.  We deal with this at some length below.

6.6       Before turning specifically to the consideration of animal welfare (which has a broader meaning) it may be helpful to reiterate the legal position in respect of cruelty to wild animals.

6.7       Historically, legislation relating to cruelty involving animals applied only indirectly or partially to wild animals.  In the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as amended, "animal" was defined as "any domestic or captive animal".  It was not until the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 that legal protection was extended to the generality of non-captive wild animals.

6.8      The 1996 Act makes it an offence if anyone "mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering".  As we noted in paragraph 2.9, there is an exception in respect of "the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner if the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of either lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or pest control activity".  There is a further exception in respect of any act done "by means of any snare, trap, dog, or bird lawfully used for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal".

Animal welfare

6.9       Animal welfare is a scientific discipline which has developed rapidly in recent years.  It is essentially concerned with assessing the ability of an animal to cope with its environment: if an animal is having difficulty in coping with its environment, or is failing to cope, then its welfare may be regarded as poor.  This judgement is distinct from any ethical or moral judgements about the way in which the animal is being treated.¹

6.10     Because it is not possible to ask an animal about its welfare, or to know what is going on inside its head, it is necessary to draw up some indicators which enable one to make a judgement.  It is generally agreed that it is better, in judging the welfare of an animal or animals, to use a range of indicators rather than a single approach.^{2 3}  The precise nature of these indicators will vary depending on the animal concerned but they will usually comprise a mixture of physiological indicators (such as damage to muscles) and behavioural indicators (such as the way the animal responds to a certain event in comparison with its normal behaviour).  Use of these indicators requires a thorough understanding of the physiology, behaviour and ecology of the species concerned.⁴  But, because they are only indicators, there is often room for argument, as we note below, about the extent to which a particular finding indicates poor welfare as opposed to, for example, exertion that can be regarded as falling within natural limits.

6.11     We also consider that it is important, in examining the arguments about the welfare of animals subjected to hunting, not to judge them in isolation.  In our view, this means not only considering the relative welfare advantages and disadvantages of different forms of culling - assuming that there is a need to kill the animal concerned - but also taking account of what we know, and can reasonably assume, about the extent to which they would be likely to be used in practice in the event of a ban on hunting.  We do not believe, however, that it is right to justify hunting in welfare terms by comparing it with illegal means of killing animals.

6.12     Animal welfare is concerned with the welfare of the inidual animal, not the management of the wider population.  In assessing the impact of hunting on animal welfare we are persuaded that it is necessary to look at it on a relative, rather than an absolute, basis.  It should not be compared with only the best, or the worst, of the alternatives.  Nor is it right to justify hunting by reference to the welfare implications of illegal methods of control.

6.13     In the event of a ban on hunting, it seems probable that farmers and others would resort more frequently to other methods to kill foxes, deer, hares and perhaps mink.  There would  be a mixture of motives: pest control; the value of the carcass; and the recreational value to be derived from shooting.  It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.

The welfare of hunted deer

6.14     In the light of the controversy surrounding deer hunting in Exmoor and the Quantocks the National Trust commissioned Professor Patrick Bateson to undertake some research into the welfare of deer hunted by hounds.  The report⁵ was based on a study of 64 hunted red deer.  Bateson and Bradshaw concluded that the hunts cause red deer to experience conditions that lie far outside those that would normally be experienced by the species living in a natural environment.  In the light of the report the National Trust decided to ban the hunting of red deer on its land.

6.15     There were subsequently some criticisms of certain aspects of the report and the Countryside Alliance and the Devon & Somerset Staghounds funded further research by Professor Roger Harris and others, known as the Joint Universities Study on Deerhunting.  This sought to replicate, and to extend in some respects, the work carried out by Bateson and Bradshaw.  The report,⁶ which was published in 1999, broadly confirmed the metabolic measurements undertaken in the earlier study but drew different conclusions about the animal welfare implications.  In particular, it concluded that the changes found were similar to those which occurred in horses and humans which had exercised intensively.  The report suggested that deer might suffer for only the last 20 minutes or so of a hunt.

The Bateson and Harris Report

6.16     We were very pleased that Professor Bateson and Professor Harris decided to work together in undertaking research for our Committee.  Their report reviews the previous work in this area and seeks to set out those matters on which there is general agreement; those matters on which there are some remaining differences of view; and those on which further research would be needed before any firm conclusion could be reached.

6.17     We will not attempt in this chapter to summarise in any detail the scientific material in the Bateson and Harris report.  We doubt whether this would be particularly helpful for the general reader of our report, and those who want to study these matters would be better advised in any case to read the Bateson and Harris report.  What we have tried to do, in the following paragraphs, is to summarise for the lay reader the general findings and conclusions.

6.18     In both of the earlier studies by Bateson and Bradshaw and by Harris et al., blood and tissue samples were taken from deer which had not been chased and which were killed by rifles.  These were compared with samples taken from deer killed by shotgun or pistol at the end of a hunt.  These samples were used to carry out a number of tests in order to assess the physiological changes which had taken place.⁷  Field studies were also used by Bateson and Bradshaw to assess behavioural changes in hunted deer.

6.19      Although there are differences among scientists about the interpretation of some of the physiological and behavioural data, there is quite a large measure of agreement about the nature of the challenges presented to the deer during a hunt; the physiological ability of the deer to cope with these challenges; what brings the hunt to a conclusion; and about some of the physiological characteristics of the deer at the end of the hunt.  The main differences of opinion centre round the questions whether, and if so at what point, the challenge presented to the deer becomes so severe that it can no longer cope and whether the deer's welfare can be regarded as being seriously compromised.

6.20     We described briefly in Chapter 2 the way in which deer hunting takes place and referred in paragraph 2.40 to the fact that the chase will usually take the form of a series of intermittent flights by the deer as the hounds approach, followed by periods in which it is less active.  It is necessary to describe this in a little more detail for the purposes of this chapter.  The key point is that the nature of the deer's escape response means that it will always try immediately to put as much distance between itself and the hounds as it feels necessary to do in order for the threat to diminish to an acceptable level.⁸  Because the deer is faster than the hounds over a short distance, it will almost invariably succeed in doing this at the first attempt, often establishing a lead of several kilometres over the hounds (roughly equivalent to an hour's hunting) before seeking cover.⁹  As the hunt continues, it will normally find it increasingly difficult to effect escape to what it perceives to be a safe distance and, unless it escapes for some reason, there will come a point when it stops, unable or unwilling to continue, and it will then "stand at bay."¹⁰  In terms of escaping the hounds, the mistake the deer makes is to exert itself maximally at each stage: a more "measured" response would greatly increase its chances of outrunning the hounds even over a long distance.¹¹

6.21     As we noted in Chapter 2, the average duration of a hunt, in the case of deer that are killed, is three hours and the average distance travelled is over 18 kilometres.  The modal speed is 5 kilometres an hour, confirming that, for much of a hunt, the deer is not moving.¹²

6.22     This is, of course, a considerably over-simplified account of what happens in practice.  The nature of the chase, including its speed and duration, will vary considerably depending, in particular, on the terrain, the fitness of the animal concerned and the ability of the hounds to follow the scent.  But it does describe in outline the course of a typical hunt in which the deer is caught and killed.

6.23     There is some dispute about the extent to which deer are well adapted to a chase of the kind we have just described.  Professor Valerius Geist, in particular, has disputed suggestions that, because deer lead generally sedentary lives, they are not capable of responding to a challenge of this nature.¹³  Deer have at least some of the physiological attributes to enable them to perform repeated bouts of fast sprinting but Bateson and Harris conclude that the amount of activity involved during hunting falls outside their normal experience and that it is believed to be greater than that which would be experienced during natural predation by wolves in other countries.¹⁴

6.24     There is general agreement among the scientists that towards, or at the end of a chase of this kind, there is clear evidence of very low levels of carbohydrate (glycogen) in the deer's muscles and that this largely explains why the deer ceases running.¹⁵

6.25     There is less agreement about some of the other physiological indicators. The research showed that cortisol, often referred to as a stress hormone, increased in hunted deer, but Bateson and Harris conclude that it is not possible on present evidence to say to what extent this was due to the effects of exercise or to psychological stress.¹⁶

6.26     There was evidence of mild to moderate muscle damage at the end of a hunt.¹⁷  It is not possible to say whether this would have affected the welfare of deer that escaped.¹⁸  Muscle stiffness would have been a possibility where damage was more extensive.¹⁹

6.27     There was also some evidence of the break-up of red blood cells.  But problems with the collection of samples meant that it was difficult to interpret the findings.  There was no evidence, however, of any damage of a kind which would be threatening to the welfare of a deer which escaped.²⁰

6.28     The blood temperatures of hunted deer were found to be raised²¹ but it is not clear whether the temperature of most hunted animals reached levels that might cause suffering.²²

6.29     There is dispute about whether the effects of hunting contribute to the death of escaped deer in the following days or weeks by "capture myopathy" or "emotional stress": a condition which has been described in red deer and other species such as antelope.  There is, however, no firm evidence on which to reach a conclusion.²³

Questions raised by the evidence

6.30     As we indicated in paragraph 6.19, the scientific evidence essentially raises two important questions about the welfare implications of hunting deer:

• whether, and if so at what point, the deer ceases being able to cope
• whether, and if so at what point, the deer's welfare can be regarded as being seriously compromised.

6.31     There seems to be a large measure of agreement among the scientists that, at least during the last 20 minutes or so of the hunt, the deer is likely to suffer as glycogen depletion sets in.²⁴  (Bateson had previously suggested that it was possible that this point was reached after 5km, although this would have depended on the nature of the particular hunt).²⁵  However, the disagreement arises because many of the physiological changes which are observed resemble those found in a human being or horse, especially an endurance horse, involved in a prolonged bout of continuous or intermittent exercise.²⁶  It is not clear, though, if it is valid to make these comparisons across species.

6.32     It seems to us that, at this point, the argument ceases to turn purely on scientific evidence but, instead, becomes a broader judgement about animal welfare.  On the one hand, it is argued that, unlike human beings who can choose to desist from vigorous exercise, the deer has no choice: it is driven by increasing fear of being caught by the hounds.²⁷  This forces it to run, beyond its normal experience, until it can no longer do so.  On the other hand, it is argued that there is no convincing evidence that any suffering involved is greater than is present in any other method of culling deer and that, similarly, there is no firm evidence that deer which escape are seriously or permanently damaged.²⁸

6.33      Although there are still substantial areas of disagreement, there is now a better understanding of the physiological changes which occur when a deer is hunted.  Most scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.  The available evidence does not enable us to resolve the disagreement about the point at which, during the hunt, the welfare of the deer becomes seriously compromised.  There is also a lack of firm information about what happens to deer which escape, although the available research suggests that they are likely to recover.

Comparison between the welfare of stalked deer and hunted deer

6.34     Even if one accepted that hunting deer with dogs involves an appreciable degree of suffering, it would be necessary to compare this with the suffering involved in other culling methods, in particular shooting.  This is because virtually everyone accepts that there is a need to cull some of the deer population in Exmoor and the Quantocks.

6.35     An essential piece of information, therefore, is the accuracy of stalkers when shooting deer, since injured animals may escape, leading possibly to a long and painful death.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of reliable information about the accuracy of stalking and the figures which were quoted to us range from less than 2% of deer being wounded and then escaping²⁹ to 15% or more.³⁰  There is also the difficulty that the figures may vary between experienced professional stalkers and recreational stalkers.

6.36      Bateson and Bradshaw³¹ attempted to estimate wounding rates by collecting information from stalkers themselves, game dealers and by looking at the records relating to "casualty" deer.  They concluded, on the basis of these figures, that about 10% of deer required two or more shots and that a conservative estimate was that about half of the wounded deer escaped detection.  In a later study,³² Bradshaw and Bateson estimated that 2% of shot deer escape wounded.

6.37     As Bateson and Harris point out, comparing the overall suffering of hunted deer with that of wounded stalked deer is very difficult.³³  On the one hand, there is the suffering of all the deer which are hunted, including those that escape.  On the other, there is the suffering - for however many hours or days are involved - of a smaller number of shot deer which escape wounded.  There are also other possible factors such as the separation of calves and the risk of orphaning.³⁴  Bateson and Harris conclude that, if the total number of animals that suffer per number culled is taken as the index, the balance of the argument comes down on the side of stalking rather than hunting as the most humane method of culling.  They add, however, that the picture is less clear if one takes into account the length and nature of the suffering involved, together with the hunts' role in locating and dispatching "casualty" deer.³⁵  (In relation to the latter, however, it should be noted that this role is carried out elsewhere in the UK by licensed stalkers, the RSPCA and other groups and iniduals).

6.38     It is clear that more work would be required in order to provide further scientific evidence about the welfare of hunted deer and how hunting compares with stalking.  Bateson and Harris indicate that this would be needed in the following areas:

• the fate of deer that escape during the hunt
• further investigations of the state of deer during hunting
• the accuracy of stalkers' shooting
• the relative impacts of hunting and stalking in terms of the selection of the deer to be culled and the importance of selective culling to the long-term health of the herd.³⁶

6.39      Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective.  In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting.

6.40     A great deal depends, however, on the skill and care taken by the stalker.  It is unfortunate that there is no reliable information on wounding rates, even in Scotland where stalking is carried out extensively.  In the event of a ban on hunting, there is a risk that a greater number of deer than at present would be shot by less skilful shooters, in which case wounding rates would increase.  Consideration should be given to requiring all stalkers to prove their competence by demonstrating that they had undertaken appropriate training.

The welfare of hunted foxes

6.41     The three main aspects of foxhunting which give rise to concerns about welfare are:

• the chase
• the "kill" by the hounds above ground
• digging-out/terrierwork.

6.42      Unfortunately, there is very little by way of scientific evidence to help us in establishing the facts on these issues.  There have been no direct studies, of the kind that we have just described in relation to deer, of the welfare of hunted foxes.^{37 38}  There are data on physiological responses of foxes to various stresses (including being chased with dogs in an enclosure) but their interpretation and relevance to hunting and other forms of control are not straightforward.  It has been argued that, in view of what is known about the fox's ecology and social systems, the hunted fox, whether being pursued by hounds or being dug out, is bound to experience fear and distress³⁹ but others dispute this, arguing that this simply amounts to anthropomorphism and that there is no evidence to support the assertion.

The chase

6.43     The average length of the chase of a fox above ground has been estimated at 16-31 minutes, although it can be considerably longer.⁴⁰  It is not clear whether, as is usually the case in relation to deer, foxes are caught when they tire or whether they are simply overhauled by the faster hounds.  Sometimes they make a mistake, for example by doubling back into the pack.⁴¹

6.44     Some work has been done on measuring physiological changes when captive foxes are chased by a dog, but it is not known whether the results have any relevance to the chase of a wild fox by hounds.⁴²  This is because the captive chases were not very similar to real fox hunts and, as with the studies on deer, it is not clear whether the observed changes were due to exercise or to mental stress.  However, there is evidence from farmed foxes that fear and anxiety are experienced by foxes in response to stressful stimuli: physiological changes were observed which were not accounted for by exercise alone.⁴³  There is no firm evidence about whether those that escape are seriously or permanently damaged in any way.⁴⁴

The kill by the hounds above ground

6.45     There has been a good deal of dispute about the way in which the "kill" above ground occurs.  Those engaged in foxhunting have tended to argue that death is instantaneous or virtually instantaneous and that in the vast majority of cases it is caused by the leading hound grabbing the fox at the base of the neck, or on the back behind the shoulder, and shaking it, causing the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae⁴⁵This view was endorsed by the Phelps Report⁴⁶.  Opponents of hunting have tended to argue instead that the fox is savaged to death or literally torn apart.⁴⁷

6.46      Because the fox’s carcass is usually “broken up” by the hounds it is bound to be difficult to obtain conclusive evidence on this matter.  But the post mortem evidence which we have seen does at least suggest that - as we had tended to conclude from video footage - it is an over-simplification to say that foxes are almost invariably killed by the leading hound grabbing the fox's neck.  Two post mortems carried out for us by the Department of Clinical Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol showed very few injuries to the head and neck area and indicated that death was caused by massive injuries to other vital organs.⁴⁸

6.47     Two post mortem reports do not, of course, amount to a statistically valid sample, but similar findings were reported by a veterinary surgeon, on the basis of three post mortems which he had carried out.⁴⁹  On the other hand, evidence from some other veterinary surgeons tended to confirm that the cause of death was neck dislocation or fracture.⁵⁰  Of course, in a number of these cases there were also injuries to other parts of the body, consistent with a fox having been "broken up" by the hounds after death.

6.48      Arguably, the precise cause of death is irrelevant.  What is more critical is how quickly insensibility and death result and how much suffering, physical or mental, the fox experiences.  Here, again, there is lack of firm scientific evidence to help us.  There seems little doubt, however, that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds, bearing in mind the great disparity between the size and weight of the fox and the hounds.

6.49     The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae.  In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.  There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds.  We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.

Digging-out/terrierwork

6.50     There are two main areas of concern about digging-out/terrierwork from the perspective of the welfare of the fox: the possible distress experienced by the fox as the terriermen dig down - which may take a substantial time - and the possible distress, or even physical injuries, caused by the terrier.

6.51     Once again, there is no firm evidence about the former.⁵¹ But it seems reasonable to assume that a situation in which the fox is prevented from escaping by the terrier will have adverse welfare implications.  As to the latter, the role of the terrier is to hold the fox at bay by barking at it.  As Macdonald et al point out, there is no firm evidence about the frequency with which fights occur or on the severity of the injuries.⁵²  We are aware that terrierwork is better regulated than it used to be and we accept that some of the reports of fights and injuries pre-date those changes.  It seems clear, nevertheless, that fights do sometimes occur during digging-out or bolting and we have no doubt that this is more frequent in unofficial terrierwork than in that linked with the registered packs.  One of the four foxes post mortemed for us by the University of Bristol, which had been dug out, had suffered injuries to its face, head, neck and eye.

6.52     Although there is no firm scientific evidence, we are satisfied that the activity of digging out and shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare, bearing in mind the often protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping.

Comparison with other methods of culling foxes

6.53     We were frequently told that farmers and others consider that they need a range of methods in order to control the fox population.⁵³  This reinforces the need to make a comparison between the welfare implications of hunting and those of other methods of killing foxes.  The only other methods which are legal in England in Wales are snaring, live trapping and shooting.  Although there is not a great deal of scientific evidence, it seems clear that all of these methods raise welfare issues.⁵⁴

6.54     Serious concerns have been voiced about the welfare implications of snaring. Indeed, the UK is one of a minority of countries in Europe which permits snaring.  The concerns include the stress of being restrained and the dangers of starvation, dehydration and hyperthermia or hypothermia.⁵⁵  There is also the additional stress which the animal may experience at the point at which a human being approaches it and dispatches it.  Although experience suggests that snares with a 'stop' carry less risk, even in the case of legal snares, where the stop is required, there is still the possibility of strangulation or serious injury. There is the important point, too, that other animals are commonly caught in the snares set for foxes, with similar implications for their welfare.⁵⁶

6.55     Trapping raises similar concerns, although the fox is not held directly as in the case of the snare, and there is not the danger of strangulation.

6.56     In the case of shooting, it seems to be generally agreed that lamping with a high powered rifle, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, is the most humane way of killing a fox.⁵⁷  But as we noted in paragraph 5.24, there are a number of situations in which lamping is not practicable or safe.  In particular, because of the need for vehicular access, it is not usually suitable in more remote, upland areas.  The use of shotguns, especially in daylight, involves welfare implications.  We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded.  We suspect that this is correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.⁵⁸  There is also the welfare issue of what happens to orphaned cubs when the vixen is shot during the breeding season.⁵⁹  Terriers are used at present by gamekeepers and others to dispatch cubs which have been orphaned in this way.

6.57     On the other hand, shooting does not involve the welfare implications which we have noted in relation to the chase or digging-out.

6.58     It is likely that, in the event of a ban on hunting, many farmers and landowners would resort to a greater degree than at present to other methods to control the numbers of foxes.  We cannot say if this would lead to more, or fewer, foxes being killed than at present.

6.59     None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective.  Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.

6.60     Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out.  However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods.  We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective.  We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern. 

6.61     In practice, it is likely that some mixture of all of these methods would be used.  In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover.

6.62      Similarly, in the case of hares, there is little direct information about the welfare during hunting or coursing or how this compares with other legal methods that are used, in particular shooting and trapping.

6.63     In the case of hunting, chases generally last from about half an hour to a hour and a half.⁶⁰  For a good part of the time, however, the hare may not be aware that it is being pursued.⁶¹  It seems likely that, if the hare is caught by the pack, insensibility and death follow very swiftly.

6.64     We arranged post mortems on the carcasses of twelve hares which had been killed during organised coursing events.  These were carried out by the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cambridge.⁶²  There were difficulties, however, in determining the cause of death in some cases because the neck of the hare is almost invariably broken by the "picker-up" as soon as the hare is retrieved from the dogs.  The findings were that the cause of death in one case was probably fatal injuries caused by the dogs.  In six other cases it was not clear whether the actions of the dogs, or the picker-up, had led to the hare's death. In the remaining five cases the picker-up was judged to have been the cause of death.

6.65     The only previous study of this kind was carried out in 1977-1979 by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.  Of 53 hares killed, 43 had neck injuries, 18 of which were inflicted by the “picker up”.  No clean breaks were believed to have been caused by dogs (where tooth marks were evident).  The UFAW team’s assessment was that all chest injuries would have been quickly fatal.⁶³

6.66     As far as shooting hares is concerned, we received anecdotal evidence of high wounding rates on organised shoots which would undoubtedly lead to poor welfare.  We note that the report of the House of Lords Select Committee which was examining a Coursing Bill in 1976 concluded that "the total physical suffering caused by coursing matches is negligible compared with the suffering of hares wounded by shooting".⁶⁴  Dogs are sometimes used to dispatch hares that are wounded by shooting.

6.67     There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting.  We are satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.

6.68     We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.  It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly.  There can also sometimes be a significant delay, in “driven” coursing, before the “picker up” reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead).  In the case of “walked up” coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer.

6.69     In the event of a ban on hunting and coursing hares, it seems likely that a few more would be shot than at present.  There are concerns about the welfare implications of shooting hares because of wounding rates.

6.70     In the case of mink too there have been no scientific studies of the welfare implications of hunting and little is known about the welfare implications of other lethal methods of control.  There is concern, however, about the welfare implications if traps are placed under water since mink, as aquatic mammals, would take longer to drown.⁶⁵  Traps can also catch other species.

6.71     There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting mink.  There seems reason to suppose, however, that being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds, or being dug out or bolted, seriously compromises the welfare of the mink.  The kill, by the hounds or by shooting, is normally quick once the mink is caught.  In the absence of hunting, more mink would probably be killed by shooting and, mainly, trapping.  These methods involve welfare implications but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude how they compare with those raised by hunting.

6.72     There are two concerns here: 

• the welfare of any wildlife which may be incidentally affected by hunting
• the welfare of farm animals and pets.

6.73     There is no firm evidence about the former.  We mention in the next chapter the particular concerns which have been expressed about the impact of fox and mink hunting on badgers and otters respectively.  More generally, it seems reasonable to assume that other wildlife will be disturbed, if only temporarily, by the hunt.  We see no reason to suppose, however, that, in the ordinary course of events, this will result in any serious concerns on welfare grounds.

6.74     We discuss in Chapter 9 the concerns which have been expressed to us about the attacks by hounds on pets and the distress caused to farm animals.  Although we do not know how frequently these incidents occur, attacks on pets clearly do cause unnecessary suffering to the animals concerned and distress to their owners.

6.75     There is some evidence that hunting incidentally affects the welfare of wildlife.  In particular, we have been informed about the stopping-up of badger setts and a few isolated cases of disturbance to otter – both of which are protected species - and wildfowl during mink hunting.  The frequency of such incidents is disputed.

6.76     The welfare of pets which are attacked by hounds is clearly compromised, and their owners often suffer great distress.

6.77     We received evidence expressing concern about the welfare of the hounds and the horses involved in hunting.⁶⁶  These tended to focus on:

• injuries or death of hounds caused, in particular, by trespass on roads and railway lines
• the common practice of putting hounds down after some six or seven years’ hunting when they are judged to have come to the end of their working lives
• the possibility that thousands of hounds might have to be put down if hunting was banned
• injuries to terriers in the course of terrierwork
• injuries to horses during hunting
• the possibility that horses too might have to be put down, in the event of a ban, or that their welfare would be compromised in other ways.

Injuries or death of hounds

6.78     There have been a number of reported incidents in which hounds have strayed onto roads and railway lines and have been killed or injured as a result.  A well-publicised example was the death of seven hounds in the New Forest in which were electrocuted crossing a live rail.⁶⁷

Putting hounds down

6.79     It is a common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years’ hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives.  The Countryside Alliance estimated that the MFHA packs put down about 3,000 hounds a year in this way.⁶⁸  The Countryside Alliance and the MFHA explained to us that this was necessary in most cases because hounds were not domesticated animals; and that it would be unfair to subject them to the more constrained and solitary life of a pet dog.⁶⁹  In some cases, however, especially with hounds belonging to the Fell Packs, the hounds retire to live with the families who "walked" them as puppies and who have often continued to look after them during the summer breaks.

6.80     The anti-hunting organisations tend to argue that it is unnecessary to put hounds down in this way.  They also argue that hunts breed too many dogs and are too ready to put them down if they are not thought suitable for some reason.⁷⁰

6.81      Whether hounds can be successfully re-homed is clearly an important issue when considering the impact of a ban on hunting.  The hunts argue that the majority of the present 20,000 or so hounds would have to be put down.⁷¹  The Countryside Alliance told us that where re-homing had been tried it had failed because the hounds would not settle and invariably returned to their hunt kennels.⁷² Opponents of hunting contend, however, that many of the hounds could be re-homed; that some could be retrained for drag hunting; and that hunts could anticipate a ban by reducing numbers by natural means.⁷³  The National Canine Defence League’s view was that, while they did not accept that hounds could not be rehomed, in practice this could be successfully arranged in only a very few cases.⁷⁴

Injuries to terriers

6.82     We discussed in paragraph 6.51 the question whether fights occur between terriers and foxes underground in the course of digging-out/terrierwork or bolting (eg from rockholes).  As we indicated, there is no firm information on this, although we are satisfied that fights do occur from time to time and that these would involve some compromise of the welfare of the terrier.

Injuries to horses

6.83            Concern was expressed to us that horses may be injured during hunting.⁷⁵  This is undoubtedly true but we have seen no evidence that hunting involves appreciably greater risk of injury than other vigorous equestrian activities.  Some evidence has raised the issue of the retirement of racehorses and the welfare implications of a ban on hunting.  At present, many flat-bred horses transfer to hunting, point- to-pointing or National Hunt racing once their flat careers are over.  We do not have evidence of the scale of such transfers.  In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that more retired race horses would be destroyed.

6.84     We have received evidence of injuries to terriers during terrierwork.  This clearly involves some compromise of the terrier’s welfare when it occurs.

6.85     We have received no evidence that hunting, in general, raises greater concerns about the welfare of the horses and dogs involved than other activities such as horse racing or greyhound racing, except for small number of deaths or injuries to hounds which result from straying on roads or railways lines.  There are other concerns about the hunts’ practice in putting down hounds which are considered too old to hunt and about the numbers of hounds which might be put down in the event of a ban.  Similarly, there are concerns over the fate of surplus horses if hunting were to be banned, and of retired racehorses.  Strictly speaking, these matters do not raise animal welfare concerns provided that the hounds and horses are destroyed humanely.  Rather, they raise ethical issues, which are outside our terms of reference.  But any need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there was a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented.

¹ Broom 1, The Welfare of deer, foxes, mink and hares subjected to hunting: a review. Professor Donald Broom ('Broom')

² Broom 1,4

³ The effects of hunting with dogs in England and Wales on the welfare of deer, foxes, mink and hare. Professor Patrick Bateson and Professor Roger Harris. (Report on CD Rom) ('Bateson and Harris'),7.1

⁴ Broom 1,5

⁵ Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer (Bateson & Bradshaw 1997)

⁶ The Physiological response of red deer (Cervus elaphus) to prolonged exercise undertaken during hunting.  (Joint Universities study on deer hunting).

⁷ Bateson and Harris, 5.1

⁸ Ibid, 4

⁹ Ibid, 3,2

¹⁰Ibid, 3.2

¹¹Ibid, 5.2.2

¹²Ibid, 3.2

¹³Professor Valerius Geist 1,10

¹⁴Bateson and Harris, 7.2.6

¹⁵Ibid, 3.4

¹⁶ Ibid, 5.2.3

¹⁷ Ibid, 7.2.4

¹⁸ Ibid, 7.2.4

¹⁹ Ibid, 5.2.4

²⁰ Ibid, 5.2.5

²¹ Ibid, 5.2.3

²² Ibid, 7.2.3

²³ Ibid, 3.5

²⁴ Ibid, 3.4

²⁵ Ibid, 7.2.3

²⁶ Ibid, 5.2.3

²⁷ Ibid, 5.2.3

²⁸ Animal Welfare research seminar, 18 April 2000

²⁹ Animal Welfare research seminar, 18 April 2000

³⁰ British Wildlife Management, 2 -  un-numbered

³¹ How often do stalkers wound Red deer? Deer 11: 180-181Bateson and Bradshaw, 1999,

³² ‘Welfare implications of culling red deer (Cervus elaphus)’. Animal Welfare9: 3-24 Bradshaw and Bateson 2000

³³ Bateson and Harris 3.6

³⁴ Ibid, 7.4

³⁵ Ibid, 3.6

³⁶ Ibid, 9

³⁷ Broom 1, 16

³⁸ Bateson and Harris, 8

³⁹ Broom 1, 14

⁴⁰ Bateson and Harris, 8.1

⁴¹ Thomas and Allen 1, 1,3

⁴² Bateson and Harris, 8.1

⁴³ Macdonald et al, 6.2.1.a

⁴⁴ Bateson and Harris, 8.1.4

⁴⁵ CA2, 8.22 and 8.2.3

⁴⁶ Phelps, 4.8.2 i (Report of a Review of Hunting with Hounds, Mr Richard Phelps, Professor W.R.Allan and Professor S R Harrop)

⁴⁷ IFAW1,24

⁴⁸ University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, 'Report on post mortem findings in

hunted foxes'. On CD Rom

⁴⁹ Mr Ian Jones, un-numbered document

⁵⁰ Baskerville 1; Dampney 1; Thomas and Allen 1,1,3

⁵¹ Bateson and Harris, 8.1.3

⁵² Macdonald et al, 6.2.1.c

⁵³ National Gamekeepers’ Organisation 1 & 2 –un-numbered; National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales 1 & 2- un-numbered

⁵⁴ Broom 1, 14–16

⁵⁵ Macdonald et al, 6.4.1

⁵⁶ Ibid, 6.5.1

⁵⁷ Ibid, 6.3.1.a

⁵⁸ Bateson and Harris, 8.1.5

⁵⁹ Macdonald et al, 6.3

⁶⁰ AMHB 1,8

⁶¹ AMHB 1,8

⁶² University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine: Post Mortem Reports on 12 hares killed at Coursing Meetings in March 2000.  (Report on CD Rom)

⁶³ Macdonald et al, 6.2.3.b.ii

⁶⁴ NCC 1,14

⁶⁵ Bateson and Harris, 8.2.2

⁶⁶ Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes 1, un-numbered, British Equine Veterinary Association 1, un-numbered, British Horse Industry Confederation 1, 21, Cotswold Support Groups For the Abolition of Hunting 1, Part 1, West Sussex Wildlife Protection Group 1, un-numbered, Mr Dave Wetton 1, un-numbered, International League for the Protection of Horses 1, 2a, IFAW 1, 104-6, The Kennel Club 1, un-numbered, League Against Cruel Sports 1, 51-53 National Canine Defence League 1, un-numbered, RSPCA 1, 34, Wessex Wildlife 1, 6.

⁶⁷ IFAW 1, 118

⁶⁸ CA, 'Details of number of hounds involved in hunting'

⁶⁹ CA 1, 73; MFHA 1, 10

⁷⁰ IFAW 1, 118

⁷¹ CA 1, 73

⁷² CA, 'Details of number of hounds involved in hunting'

⁷³ RSPCA 1, 42

⁷⁴ National Canine Defence League 1, un-numbered

⁷⁵ IFAW 1, 118

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