“V hard to argue the point bN. I've looked through Mid Devon Gazette archive and can't see any such letter.

Overall deaths from hunting could well be approximately 6% maybe that is what he was saying.

Do you have a date for this 'letter'.

I certainly think misrepresenting it as the position of 'the pro hunt lobby' is rather misleading :D”

“Actually Giles - irellevant of whether I believe his statistics - no. Your premis is built on faulty logic.
Because I state that both side corrupt statistics does not mean that I believe that all quoted statistics are corrupt.

As for your statistics; you have kindly proven the point by producing a set of figures totally at odds with those presented as fact by the pro lobby. Though anything which stated 'estimate' is generally to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.”

“"The point was you can't accuse one side of misrepresenting statistics when the other is equally corrupt."

John Phelps figure clearly has no basis. Of course I can point that out. You yourself accept this when you state he is 'equally corrupt' I take it?”

“According to PTES

Foxes - 100K Estimated annual road fatalities
¿ Deer - 50K Estimated annual road fatalities
¿ Badgers - 50K Estimated annual road fatalities
¿ Hedgehogs - 15K Estimated annual road fatalities

I understand hunts killed about 20K and a further 100K are shot.

Does that help?”

“Yes Giles, we've heard this before.
The point was you can't accuse one side of misrepresenting statistics when the other is equally corrupt.
BTW I slow down for foxes and speed up for hunters - hunters should have the intelligence to know to keep off the road!”

“Whether hunting is effective or not really depends on what you want it to do. My interest is in replacing the lost and beneficial effect of wolves and lynx which used to predate on foxes. Such predators have the effect of mopping up weak animals.

Car accidents and shooting produce wounded animals. When a hunt comes across a wounded fox it is quickly located and killed.

It's interesting that the anti Hunt Lobby are now trying to get 'accidental hunting' made illegal. Despite the fact that according to the government hunting is an intentional activity and there can be no such thing as accidental hunting.

Why make just accidental hunting illegal when other accidents cause so much more harm and suffering?

Personally I'd like to see more hunting and less shooting because hunting is a more effective form of wildlife management and causes less suffering.

Less foxes hit by cars would be a bonus too. Mind you speed on country lanes!”

“Well Giles
If you like stats - according to a letter from a pro hunter in the Mid Devon Gazzete a few weeks ago - only 6% of all fox kills were by hunts - the rest were by cars.
The pro lobby are as guilty as anyone of manipulating the figures to either show themselves as an effective control or 'not really that bad' because 'they don't catch many' depending on the spin!
Pots and kettles spring to mind”

“I just wrote the following letter to Dan Norris MP minister for Rural Affairs and a keen supporter of this absurd legislation

Dear Mr Norris,

For many years now I have used my dogs to flush out wild deer from my
coppiced woodland in North Devon. Deer can cause a lot of damage to
coppiced woodland because they eat the re growing shoots preventing
regrowth. However in limited numbers they can also be a benefit because
they keep the undergrowth down and also slow regrowth providing a window
which accommodates the lifecycle of woodland butterflies.

As a strong supporter of the Hunting Act you will no doubt be aware that
it is now illegal to use dogs to flush out wild deer unless reasonable
steps are taken to shoot the deer. This has also been confirmed to me
by your department who wrote to me some time ago to inform me I am now
committing a crime if I refuse to kill the deer I flush.

I feel very strongly that I should not have to kill the deer that I
flush out. The whole point of what I do is that it is a non lethal
welfare friendly means of dispersing the deer.

I would like to ask you three questions about your personal views on
this matter.

1) Do you think it is right that I should have to shoot the deer that I
flush out?

2) Do you think that there are instances where allowing flushed out
deer to escape causes them less harm and suffering than shooting them?

3) Given the fact that I do not want to shoot these deer do you think
that shooting them would serve the interests of a) me b) the deer or c)
the public?


Finally. I have gone to considerable lengths to question MPs as to the
reasons for this aspect of the legislation. Thus far I have been unable
to find a single MP that actually supports it. The only reason for it
furnished by an MP was from Alun Michael who has stated that the deer
must be shot in order to 'prevent the possibility of an extended chase'.
If you were out with dogs in the countryside and thus caused a deer to
pop out of some undergrowth and run off would you consider shooting that
deer to prevent your dogs chasing it to be a sensible course of action?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Kind regards


Giles Bradshaw”

“Peter has it not perhaps occured to you that James Barrington has changed jobs because his opinion changed rather than the other way round?”

“It moist certainly isn't. Where's the evidence that all of the vets who aren't members of VAWM don't support hunting?

This is just the kind of rubbish use of statistics that is typical of the anti hunt lobby.

My vet is pro hunt but he isn';t in that organisation.

LACS has about 5,000 members, does that mean that the rest of the UK population aren't anti hunt?

Total nonsense!”