Act seeks to remove management aspect
I MUST take issue with Helen Weeks' letter Take a stand against cruelty of the hunt, April 7. She states that I am trying to mislead the public and implies that what I do is 'cruel and barbaric' — nothing could be further from the truth.
Hunting with dogs as practiced before the ban was a sound form of wildlife management. People who oppose hunting often complained that it was not efficient enough.
This is because they confuse wildlife management, the aim of which is to maintain a healthy population of wildlife at a sustainable level with pest control, which simply aims to reduce or eliminate a species.
Hunts have an interest in maintaining a healthy population of their quarry. This is why they and other country sports devotees do such a huge amount of conservation and wildlife monitoring work.
The Hunting Act seeks to remove the wildlife management function of hunts and force them into only pest control.
A key aspect of fox hunting was the fact that only about one in six foxes were caught by the hounds. The length of time between a fox first being found and either escaping or being caught is on average about 20 minutes (not the 'hours' that anti-hunt propagandists falsely claim). It is this period which gave healthy and fit foxes a better than even chance of escaping. Good wildlife management targets sickly animals who spread diseases and whose welfare is compromised. Hunting alone performs this function.
In comparison the law which Helen Weeks supports demands that the animals are shot as soon as they are flushed out. Unlike with traditional hunting there is a high chance of wounding when attempting to shoot a fleeing fox or deer. This causes more suffering than hunting does. Moreover, there is no tendency to select sick animals.
Stag hunting used to involve the selection of a deer to kill on management grounds. Judges have ruled that under the Hunting Act that 10 guns must be mounted when deer are flushed from a wood in order to eliminate the entire herd if one is present.
Driving a herd of deer into a hail of lead from a line of guns is in my book completely disgusting. It may be more 'efficient' as the anti-hunters demand but it is also infinitely more cruel, barbaric and contrary to good wildlife management.
I know that my methods of dealing with the deer on my farm using dogs causes less suffering and works better than the pest control enshrined in the Hunting Act. This is an ignorant and bigoted law and I refuse to obey it.
Helen is very welcome to come to my farm and witness what I do at first hand.
Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash
(by email
2 Comments
by George Dixon, Wirral
Monday, April 13 2009, 4:04PM
“If we all chose to disobey laws with which we disagree, where will that take us? Civil disobedience? Anarchy?
Campaign for a change in the legislation if you want to, but this is a democractic country and Parliament decides the law, Giles, not you.”
by Jon Burgess, Worcestershire
Sunday, April 12 2009, 2:34PM
“Giles, you have explained brilliantly the real advantages of traditional hunting with hounds. Animal welfare, conservation and the rural community all gain because of hunting. You have based your argument on personal experience and science and used clear terms that can be understood by those not versed in the language of hunting.
The only thing that you will have failed to do is convince the real anti hunting people like Helen Weeks. She like LACS, POWA, IFAW and the RSPCA have invested so much time, effort, money and sometimes spite to admit they are wrong and the Hunting Act should be repealed.
Finally, I bet you a pound to a penny you will never get Helen Weeks to your farm to witness your dogs shifting the deer on, but it's worth a try.”