Act amendment will stop 'accidental' kills
GILES Bradshaw, Points of View, April 3rd, claims that I suggest that "people be made criminals for taking their dogs into woodland where they might put up a wild mammal". This is a typical hunt supporter's distortion.
Protect Our Wild Animals has drawn up suggested amendments to the Hunting Act 2004, which can be read at the website (www.powa.org.uk). The following amendment would remove the perennial excuse by all hunts caught hunting live quarry that this was an 'accident': "A person commits an offence if, while in charge of a pack of dogs used for the purpose of simulating the hunting of a wild mammal, he causes or permits them to chase, injure or kill a wild mammal of a species which he knows or ought to know is likely to be found and chased, injured or killed by those dogs at that location."
Genuine drag hunts, which have been hunting humanely for many years, are an entirely different matter to "trail hunts", as the fox hunters now smirkingly call themselves. The latter persist in hunting exactly as they always have, foxes being sought, found, chased and killed exactly as before. Just another accident, we are told — every time.
Mr Bradshaw slips into patronising language when he tells me that I "do not seem to understand the countryside is full of wild mammals". I live in the countryside, have three dogs and run a wildlife sanctuary.
Mr Bradshaw's call for a piece of legislation giving a legal definition of deliberate cruelty to wild mammals sounds reasonable — but we have to remember that he is a hunt supporter.
The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 already prohibits such acts of cruelty as burning, drowning, crushing and impaling, but in its original form it also banned the setting of dogs onto a wild mammal, which would have banned hunting.
Mr Bradshaw's hunting friends in Parliament made sure that bit was removed before it was allowed to become law.
Suggestions of any such legislation coming from anyone in the hunting fraternity, including David Cameron, will inevitably exempt their own particular form of sadistic and hideous cruelty — that will be the entire point of it, to reassert hunting in what they will see as an unassailable form, so that they may ride roughshod over common decency for as long as they like.
Be on your guard — that is what the Tories would do, to reward their hunting supporters who give so generously of their money and time to see a Conservative government back in place to look after their interests.
Penny Little
Great Haseley, Oxfordshire
(by email)







2 Comments
by Henry Laurence, Honiton
Friday, April 10 2009, 4:47PM
“There is no chance that the law will target innocent people. It is specifically designed to only apply to organised trail hunts. Other people who merely allow a dog to kill a fox will not be affected.
The current Act is flawed because as hunting is an intentional activity we have to prove that someone is actually hunting in order to prosecute them for hunting. This modification to the law removes that requirement for this proof. It will allow us to prosecute far more hunts without having to prove they are hunting which brings the law in line with its original intention.
Trail hunting cannot be carried out without disturbing wildlife. The vast majority of the British people are against this cruel activity and want it stopped.
This law will give us the power to stop these trail hunts in their tracks. We will be able to dictate where they can and cannot go.
No trail hunt should be allowed where it might encounter wildlife.”
by Sarah, London
Thursday, April 09 2009, 9:00PM
“I've just looked at POWA's website and for some reason can't find, anywhere, any mention of the most significant and important item of news in the past few weeks - that one of its members has been arrested and charged with the murder of a Warwickshire hunt supporter. If POWA can gloss over something as devastating as that then you can't exactly rely on it to provide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about anything else.”