Report of Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

CHAPTER 9

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF HUNTING: THE CONCERNS

9.1 Many people represented to us that their main concern about hunting was that it was cruel. We discussed this issue fully in Chapter 6. We were also asked to look at “the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs”. Accordingly, we examine in this chapter the evidence we received which pointed to concerns about particular aspects of the way in which hunting and coursing are carried out. We also mention various areas which might form the subject of further research, if a ban on hunting was not introduced.

9.2 There are a number of aspects of the way that hunting is carried out which give rise to particular concern.

The practical aspects of hunting

Trespass, disruption and disturbance

9.3 We mentioned in chapter 4 that we had received a fair number of complaints about trespass by hunts. These were usually from farmers or landowners in rural areas who objected to the hunt and/or hunt followers going onto their land. We were told that this happened frequently even where the individual concerned had previously made it clear that they objected to the hunt's presence. We also received complaints from those living in villages and on the edge of towns about the invasion of residential property. These complaints often drew attention to the fact that these events could be frightening or distressing for those involved, especially if pets were put at risk or actually attacked or if a fox was killed in front of them or members of their family.

9.4 We also received a number of complaints about the general disruption and disturbance which hunts can cause to those going about their daily business. A particular problem in some areas seems to be the blocking of roads and lanes, as well as access to people's property, by followers' vehicles. Trespass on roads and railway lines also occurs: there have been a number of well-documented cases in which hounds have been killed or injured and considerable disruption and inconvenience has been caused to travellers.

9.5 The sense of grievance which was felt was compounded in some cases by what was said to be an arrogant, high-handed and unsympathetic response from some of the hunts. We were also told that those who complained were sometimes threatened physically, had their property damaged or were warned that their businesses might suffer if they continued to cause difficulties. Another criticism was that there was no easy means of seeking redress and that it was difficult to identify with whom responsibility lay. There was a lack of confidence in the hunts' procedures for dealing with complaints.

9.6 We must also record that we received evidence that hunt followers and supporters are themselves sometimes subjected to abuse, intimidation, threats and physical violence by those opposed to hunting. We deplore behaviour of this kind, from whichever quarter it comes.

9.7 We must emphasise that we have no reliable means of assessing the validity and extent of the various complaints. We have no doubt that incidents of trespass do occur, not least because (as we have witnessed) it is difficult to keep control of hounds when they are in hot pursuit of their quarry. We also recognise that some of these incidents can arouse strong feelings. But we also accept that serious incidents of trespass and disruption are probably not numerous in relation to the number of days' hunting which take place each year. We are also aware that there have been a few convictions for attacks on hunt supporters and hunt opponents.

9.8 There are too many cases of trespass, disruption and disturbance. These are most common where hunts operate too close to residential areas and interfere with the movement of traffic on roads. We do not want to exaggerate these problems but they can cause distress to the individuals and families involved. To some extent hunts could avoid these problems themselves, by being more selective about the areas in which they hunt. This would be likely to lead to fewer hunts. Steps that might be taken, in the absence of a ban, include: restricting hunting in certain parts of hunts' countries; reducing or amalgamating the number of hunts; requiring permission to be obtained in writing on a regular basis from farmers and landowners; penalising trespass, or repeated trespass, over land where permission has not been given; and improving means of seeking and obtaining redress.

Openness

9.9 The concerns which some people have about hunting are undoubtedly exacerbated by a sense that it is not really open to public scrutiny. The hunts have taken some steps in recent years to make themselves more accountable. It is nevertheless the case that many of their activities take place on private land and that, as a matter of practice, events like the killing of the fox or the deer are usually witnessed by only a few people. It is unfortunate, too, that some of those who do try to observe hunting behave in such a way as to make themselves very unwelcome. This serves only to increase any defensiveness on the part of hunts.

9.10 In the absence of a ban, organised hunting should be conducted on a more open basis than at present in order to provide greater reassurance that approved procedures are being followed. One possible option would be the appointment of individuals as independent monitors who would have the freedom to take photographs and video evidence. Their task would be to observe organised hunting and to take up with the hunt, and others as necessary, any concerns that they might have about the way in which it is being conducted. They might also serve as a channel for complaints by others. It would no doubt be helpful if monitors were appointed by a reputable, independent body.

Autumn/cub hunting

9.11 We described in paragraph 2.29 the practice of autumn/cub hunting of foxes. The MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, in their evidence to us, argued that autumn/cub hunting serves a number of useful purposes. They pointed out that a survey of hunts carried out in January 2000 showed that some 40% of the foxes killed by the registered packs were killed during autumn/cub hunting and that it takes place at a time when the fox population is at its highest and most concentrated.¹

9.12 It is also argued by the hunts concerned that autumn/cub hunting is useful in dispersing the fox population, thus reducing their concentration in any one area.²

9.13 The third purpose served by autumn/cub hunting, in the view of the MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, is that it serves as a very useful means of introducing young hounds to hunting. Autumn/cub hunting takes place in a comparatively confined area and with fewer riders and other followers around to distract them.³

9.14 It does not seem to us, from the evidence we received, that these arguments are wholly persuasive. As we noted in paragraph 5.36, there is little evidence that, in spite of the numbers killed, this activity is particularly effective in reducing fox populations or that dispersal has the benefits which the MFHA claim. It is clear too that it is not necessary to practise autumn/cub hunting in order to train young hounds. A number of packs, including the Fell Packs and the Welsh gun packs, use other methods.

9.15 Those who object to autumn/cub hunting also point to the practice of "holding-up" i.e. the steps taken to prevent the escape of foxes from the wood or coppice. We are aware of the concern which some people feel about this practice and, more generally, about the principle of using young foxes (whether fully grown or not) to train young, inexperienced hounds.

9.16 In the absence of a ban, consideration could be given to a number of options for responding to the concerns about autumn/cub hunting. These options include: prohibiting the practice entirely; introducing a closed season for hunting foxes, so that hunting would start at a later date than it does at present; permitting it only in those areas where it was clearly necessary as a means of controlling fox numbers; and prohibiting the practice of "holding up".

Digging-out and bolting/Terrierwork

9.17 Digging out and bolting foxes with the use of terriers was a topic which also aroused strong feelings on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, it was argued, especially by hunts, farmers in upland sheep-rearing areas and gamekeepers, that digging-out or bolting (see paragraphs 2.23 to 2.25) was very important in controlling the number of foxes.⁴ It was pointed out that, in some areas, well over half of the foxes killed by hunts resulted from digging-out and that it was the only legal means of killing foxes underground.⁵ Moreover, as we noted in paragraph 5.27, it seems likely that an even larger number are killed as the result of terrierwork by other groups and individuals. There is also the issue that terriers may be used to dispatch orphaned cubs.

9.18 On the other hand, many opponents of hunting clearly felt that it was wholly unacceptable that a fox, having gone to ground, whether in a natural or artificial earth, should be dug-out or bolted. Their concerns were exacerbated by reports of injuries received by foxes and terriers fighting underground.

9.19 Another point which needs to be borne in mind is that the fact that digging out foxes is a legal activity makes it more difficult to take action to combat badger-baiting since those who appear to be intent on the latter can argue that they are planning to dig out foxes.

9.20 Digging-out and bolting foxes is a complex issue because of the perceived needs in different parts of England and Wales. In the absence of a ban, serious consideration could be given as to whether this practice should be allowed to continue and, if so, under what conditions. Possible options would be to ban it altogether; confine it to those areas where it is considered necessary as a means of controlling fox numbers or in the interests of animal welfare; make the practice subject to the general legislation on cruelty by removing the present exemptions for hunting; or improve monitoring by the hunts and by any independent monitors.

Stopping-up

9.21 Another practice which gives rise to particular concern is that of stopping up foxes' earths, badger setts and other possible refuges before a foxhunt begins (see paragraph 2.20). As we noted in Chapter 7, we received a good deal of evidence about this activity, especially from badger watch groups.⁶ They argue that there are still far too many instances in which hunts and others are illegally stopping-up badger setts by using hard material or soil cut back from the sett itself.

9.22 The Countryside Alliance argued that there was no evidence of any malpractice.⁷ Whilst we accept that there is a lack of firm evidence linking malpractice to the hunts, we do not think we can disregard entirely the written and oral evidence we received from badger protection groups and their supporters on this issue.

9.23 We recognise that badgers are now more numerous than at the time when they were first given legal protection. We also recognise that, if hunts were not permitted to stop up badger setts, foxes would be more likely to go to ground there and would have to be left. Similarly, we recognise that if the same prohibition applied to foxes' earths many more foxes would escape unscathed. However, consideration could be given to both of these issues in the absence of a ban.

9.24 There have been many suggestions put to us that, at times, hunts and others contravene the law relating to the stopping-up of badger setts. One option, in the absence of a ban on hunting, would be to remove the present exemption for hunts. In the case of stopping-up of foxes' earths, there are a number of possible options which could be considered in the absence of a ban. These include: prohibiting the practice entirely; confining it to those areas where it is considered necessary in the interests of controlling fox numbers; or otherwise limiting the circumstances in which it may be done or the way in which it can be carried out.

Use of artificial earths

9.25 It is clear that it used to be common practice, especially in the case of hunts in lowland England, to provide artificial earths for foxes, particularly when planting new coppices or coverts. We received no firm evidence that this is still being done but we were told that some existing earths were still being "re-furbished" and even that foxes were being encouraged to use them by, for example, providing food.⁸

9.26 The Countryside Alliance told us that, given that the purpose of hunting in many areas was to preserve a sustainable and healthy fox population, they did not consider that the practice of providing artificial earths was objectionable if the particular locality did not already offer suitable habitat. They argued that this balance between preservation and control was seen in other contexts such as game shooting and fishing.⁹ It was also put to us that artificial earths could be useful in helping to ensure that foxes' earths were in suitable places: for example, away from chicken runs. We consider, however, that it is hard to reconcile any use of artificial earths by the hunts with the argument that foxes are a pest and that their numbers need to be controlled through hunting.

9.27 The active use of artificial earths, with a view to hunting, is inconsistent with the stated objective of controlling fox numbers through hunting. In the absence of a ban, hunts could be required, or encouraged, to end this practice.

Deliberately interfering with the quarry's flight

9.28 Deliberately interfering with the flight of the quarry takes place in a number of situations, for example:

preventing the flight of young and adult foxes during autumn/cub hunting (see paragraph 9.15 above)
attempting to prevent the quarry from going onto land where the hunt does not have permission to go
trying to keep the quarry - and therefore the hounds - away from areas such as roads and railway lines
attempting (on the part of hunt saboteurs) to rescue the quarry or to help it make its escape.

9.29. The research which we commissioned on the welfare of hunted deer indicated that close contact with human beings, including attempts at interfering with its flight, had a noticeable effect on the deer.¹⁰ Such interference, whether in relation to deer or other animals, also seems to sit uncomfortably with the notion that hunts usually embrace of hunting an animal in its "wild and natural state".

9.30 There is concern about deliberate direct interference by people with the quarry's flight. In the absence of a ban, action could be taken to amend, where necessary, the rules of the relevant associations and to ensure that such interference does not take place unless it is in the interests of the safety of the people or animals involved. In particular, provision could be made to ensure that there was no interference with the flight in order to prolong the chase, prevent the quarry escaping or to prevent it entering land where the hunt did not have permission to go.

A closed season for hares

9.31 We noted in paragraphs 2.48 and 2.54 that there is no legally-prescribed closed season for hunting and coursing hares but that the rules of the relevant associations forbid hunting after the end of March and coursing after 10 March.

9.32 We also noted in paragraph 5.78 that hares breed from February onwards - and, indeed, we understand that hares sometimes produce leverets in January.¹¹ In our view there is a case for having a legally-prescribed closed season for killing hares. This ought, logically, to apply to all forms of killing, including shooting.

9.33 There is understandable concern that the seasons for hare coursing and hunting are too long in relation to the hare's breeding season. In the absence of a ban on hunting, an option would be to introduce a closed season. Consideration would also need to be given to whether a closed season should apply to shooting.

Hunting hinds with calves

9.34 Concern was expressed to us about the practice of hunting hinds with calves. It was argued that, at the start of the season, hinds may have a totally dependent calf at foot; that calves have great difficult in keeping up with a chase; and that eventually the hind is forced to abandon it.¹² The MDHA argued, on the other hand, that by November last year's calves are able to thrive without their mother and said that any hind with a late-born calf would not be hunted.¹³ We simply record that, whatever the precise degree of dependence, a number of people clearly find it distressing to see a hind and calf being chased and to observe the apparent dilemma of the hind about whether to stay with the calf or to pick up speed and leave it behind.

9.35 Hunting hinds with a calf gives rise to understandable concern. It puts the hind in a position of having to choose between saving itself and staying with the calf. We are not able to say how often this situation occurs but action could be taken to end this practice in the absence of a ban.

Legislative action

9.36 All these concerns about these practical aspects of hunting would be resolved, in principle, by a ban on hunting, subject to any exemptions or exceptions which were considered necessary.

9.37 We have indicated that, in the absence of a ban, consideration could be given to amending the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and to introducing a closed season for hares - which would presumably have to be done through legislation.

9.38 Some of the other practices which we have discussed, such as deliberate interference with a quarry's flight, would not seem to be particularly amenable to legislative action but might best be considered, in the absence of a ban, in the context of changes to the hunts' rules or through some form of public regulation or licensing. We discuss this issue below. One other possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemptions for hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This would give an important signal that hunting should be subject to the same standards as apply to other organisations and individuals. And it would give a clearer opportunity to test views about cruelty in the courts. In practice, though, it might have only a limited effect, since the principal offence in that Act bites only on certain activities, namely, "mutilating, kicking, beating, nailing or otherwise impaling, stabbing, burning, stoning, crushing, drowning, dragging, or asphyxiating with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering". Few of these activities appear to apply to hunting.

9.39 In the event of a ban on hunting, the various concerns would be resolved, in principle, subject to any exemptions or exceptions permitted in the legislation. There would be no need, therefore, to consider separate action. In the absence of a ban, one possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemptions for hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This would be an important signal and give opponents of hunting a clearer opportunity to test their views about cruelty in the courts. In practice, this might have only a limited effect since the activities penalised by that Act have little relevance to hunting.

Hunting practised outside the registered hunts and coursing clubs

9.40 As we have noted at various points in our report, a great deal of hunting takes place which is not regulated in any way by the rules of the various hunting and coursing associations. Some of this involves trespass and, as we mentioned in paragraph 2.57, it is sometimes associated with threats and intimidation to farmers and landowners. We suspect too that a number of those taking part in such activities do so for base motives and have little regard for animal welfare. Finally, because they take place in rural areas, they are difficult to police.

9.41 We have suggested possible changes which could be considered in the absence of a ban. These ought to apply, where they are relevant, to other forms of hunting as well as to regulated hunting. Some of those changes - in particular, those relating to autumn/cub hunting and the use of artificial earths - are almost entirely directed at hunting by the registered hunts and coursing clubs and are therefore matters which could largely be implemented by amendments to their rules. But the possible changes relating to interference with badger setts and a closed season for hares could not be implemented satisfactorily by this means. Consideration would no doubt have to be given, as we have suggested, to amending the existing legislation. The appropriate means of implementing any changes in respect of digging-out and bolting/terrierwork would depend on the nature of the changes being made.

9.42 If action is taken to address any of the concerns about the way hunting is carried out, it would be important to consider whether, and if so how, it could be applied to hunting undertaken by those operating outside the registered hunts and coursing clubs.

Licensing and regulation

9.43 Our discussion of the possible means of regulating digging-out and bolting/terrierwork and the stopping-up of foxes' earths brings us to the question whether, in the absence of a ban on hunting, some form of public licensing or regulation of hunting might be considered.

9.44 We noted in paragraph 2.9 that there is no body of legislation in England and Wales which is specifically concerned with hunting. Appendix 8 to our report summarises such provisions as do exist and which, as will be seen, are scattered in various Acts, few of which are of recent origin. Nor is hunting controlled through any public licensing or regulatory system. There is, of course, a system of self-regulation through the rules of the various Masters' associations, the main provisions of which are summarised in Appendix 6. This is being strengthened by the establishment of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, whose role we describe in that appendix.

We have not been able to study the existing arrangements closely, although we became aware of some lack of confidence in the procedures for dealing with complaints.

9.46 There is a lot to be said for an effective self-regulation system since it avoids having to set up such a system at public expense. However, the system applies only to hunting which takes place under the auspices of the various associations. It does not impinge on the activities of the unregistered packs and coursing clubs. Nor, of course, does it cover the activities of all the individuals who go out hunting singly, or in small groups, with their dogs.

9.47 The fact that such control as exists over hunting is largely through self-regulation contrasts markedly with the position in a number of countries where licensing or similar systems are common, often covering all forms of hunting, not just hunting with dogs. The latter is the case in, for example, Germany, France and the Nordic countries.

9.48 We think it is perhaps surprising that, without a greater measure of regulation, hunts should be able to go into the countryside with the responsibility for a pack of hounds that are often not under close control, and which can have a marked effect on the lives of other people.

9.49 We consider that it might be productive, in the absence of a ban, to explore the possibility of introducing some form of licensing system, possibly on the lines of those which exist to regulate hunting in some other countries. Because this takes us rather a long way from our original terms of reference we have not considered this issue in any depth. But we could envisage a system in which licences would be issued only to recognised hunts or to individuals, such as gamekeepers, who satisfied certain requirements. For example, an applicant might have to satisfy the relevant authority that he or she was a suitable person; that they did not have convictions for offences involving cruelty to animals; and that they had the requisite training and knowledge. In the case of terrier work, another requirement might be membership of the National Working Terrier Federation and adherence to its code of conduct.

9.50 An important aspect of a licensing system, in the context of the complaints which we received about various aspects of hunting, is that, in the absence of a ban, it could enable action to be taken where hunts or individuals had acted improperly. For example, it would be open to the licensing authority to withdraw a hunt's or an individual's licence, or to attach conditions to it, in the context of a breach.

9.51 A system of this kind would also assist, in the absence of a ban, in tackling illegal hunting. In particular, it would make it easier to deal with those intent on illegal coursing, or on badger baiting, since they would require a licence to hunt.

9.52 The fact that hunting (of all kinds) is not subject to some form of licensing contrasts markedly with the position in a number of other countries.

9.53 The existing self-regulation operated by the various hunts and coursing associations has been adapted over the years to deal with emerging concerns and evidence of damage to animal welfare. It will be strengthened by the establishment of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting. None of this regulatory activity applies, however, to hunting carried out by those outside this regulatory framework. It is a reasonable assumption that any adverse impact on animal welfare is greater in the case of the latter than it is with hunting under the auspices of the various self-regulatory bodies. In the absence of a ban, consideration could be given to strengthening the supervision of these forms of hunting. It is for consideration whether, in that event, there would be advantage in establishing some form of licensing system to control all forms of hunting with dogs.

Further Research

9.54 We have noted, in earlier chapters, a number of issues on which there appears to be a lack of firm information. A good many of these would probably lend themselves to further work, and could be considered as possible research studies, if a ban on hunting was not introduced. A number of them would be of considerable relevance even if there was not a ban.

9.55 The following are the main topics which we think might benefit from being pursued in this way:

Foxes

the numbers of foxes that are killed by different forms of human intervention in different areas and, the impact of this mortality on their populations and on the damage they cause
elucidation of the interaction between natural mortality and culling
the incidence, and effect, of fox predation on lambs and the consequences of attempted fox control on these losses
the role of dispersal in fox populations
the comparative welfare implications of different methods of killing foxes

Deer