Act just panders to ignorant prejudice
SINCE my letter about The League Against Cruel Sports' allegations of illegal hunting against the East Devon and Axe Vale Hounds (League allegations misrepresent proof, April 5) the RSPCA has issued some extremely important guidance regarding the Hunting Act.
In response to a question about the deliberate use of more than two dogs to flush wild mammals out of cover the RSPCA has published official advice that they no longer consider this to be covered by the law.
If the RSPCA is correct, then even if the hunt had deliberately flushed a fox out of cover with a full pack of hounds the law would not have been broken.
The Government has previously ruled that such flushing was legal, then decided it was illegal.
Its latest letters to my MP, Nick Harvey, on the subject demonstrate that they don't know, they don't care and they do not want to talk about it.
The RSPCA is our largest animal welfare charity and issues its advice with the help of an army of lawyers.
However, it is highly likely that even if the RSPCA's advice is wrong people would be able to argue on the basis of it that they had reasonable grounds to believe their flushing was exempt and this would escape a guilty verdict.
It has been suggested to me that the RSPCA is deliberately misinterpreting the law because it is embarrassed that one of the conditions under which flushing out is exempt is that the animal is shot.
I cannot believe that it would do this because it would effectively be encouraging people to break the law.
The Hunting Act, already in tatters, just got even less enforceable. Surely the time has come to replace this badly-thought-out law with a new one which is based on the prevention of cruelty, and does not pander to ignorant prejudice?
Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash, South Molton
Comments
by Will, Exeter
Thursday, April 15 2010, 11:43AM
“If a pack of hounds is "allowed" to enter a wood and flush out a fox and chase it, is that legal or illegal? Or is it only illegal if they kill the fox?
I watched this happening in a small wood overlooked from my home. There was not a horse or huntsman in sight for about 5 minutes while the hounds entered the wood and eventually flushed the fox out. Both fox and hounds disappeared from my view and it was several minutes later that I heard the horn blowing. During the whole episode I could hear the horses moving along a road which skirted the wood at some distance from it - and out of site from most of it.
My son said he heard two shots at about the time the horn was blown, but I didn't hear them myself, having gone round the other side of the house by then.
I am pleased to say that a fox had returned to the wood a few days later (when it's calling resumed) but I don't know if it was the same one.
Was this illegal activity or not (ignoring the possible shots)?”