Time to cool down over hunting debate
IT is a real pity that Dr John Salvatore, Echo April 22, and others cannot seem to put aside their fixed views that hunting with dogs is totally wrong and that somehow other methods of control are fine.
As someone who has argued from both sides of this debate, I would suggest that a cool-headed examination of the facts might be helpful.
In a man-managed countryside, wild mammals will be controlled whether we like it or not. It is therefore the method that is disputed.
Using packs of hounds is similar to the manner in which wolves hunt, that is by using scent to select their quarry.
The other major animal welfare advantage is that there is no wounding. It is a sad fact that no other control method can make such claims — a point simply ignored by Dr Salvatore.
Given the enormous amount of effort and the £30m it took to get the badly drafted and flawed Hunting Act onto the statute book, it is remarkable that neither the Government nor the anti-hunting groups have bothered to commission any research into the welfare effects of this law.
The independent research that I have seen shows that the welfare of foxes has been made worse, not better.
The "killing for sport" argument is fatuous. Hunting of course contains an element of sport for the riders and those wishing to see hounds work. These people pay for the whole operation, but there is also a management aspect to hunting — controlling certain wild mammals to an acceptable level and, importantly, choosing the individuals that are ailing, injured or aged, thereby keeping the population healthy.
This is different from pest control, which usually seeks to eradicate particular animals and which can involve enormous suffering. Therefore, to say, as many people do, that pest control is fine, but sport is wrong is sheer nonsense in animal welfare terms.
A new report published by the Middle Way Group and the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management seeks to explain the crucial differences between management and pest control. It is available at on the websites: www.vet-wildlifemanagement. org.uk or www.themiddleway group.org.uk
James Barrington
The All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group
(by email)
8 Comments
by Towny McFoxy, Safely in my earth.
Tuesday, January 25 2011, 6:07PM
“The truth is that if fox-hunting was carried out by chavs on inner-city sink estates with their Staffies, this Tory government would ban it in a heartbeat.”
by Towny McFoxington, My Earth.
Tuesday, January 25 2011, 6:07PM
“The truth is that if fox-hunting was carried out by chavs on inner-city sink estates with their Staffies, this Tory government would ban it in a heartbeat.”
by bec, Exeter
Tuesday, January 25 2011, 1:54PM
“Killing for food is ok though, yeah? Especially when the animals have been kept indoors their whole lives in cramped conditions, fed on pellets and routinely injected with antibiotics.
Most people are anti fox hunting because they already don't do it. It's so much easier to have a go at others than address your own actions, isn't it?”
by skamon, exeter
Tuesday, January 25 2011, 1:10PM
“James
So would you have any problem if all the fox population was completely wiped out by a marksman shooting a gun?”
by kelvin thomas, narberth
Monday, January 24 2011, 9:47PM
“Anyway....what about the other animals that are killed for fun? Not just foxes. Take a look at "A Minority Pastime"”
by Yvonne Pinnington, England
Monday, January 24 2011, 6:09PM
“Mr Barrington is part of the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management . . . otherwise known as Vets for Hunting !!!!!
His comment about controlling numbers is completely fatuitous . . . it has been proven already that in areas where no hunting takes place, the fox population does not increase. The most important point to raise here is that if the sole purpose of hunting is to regulate fox numbers then why did the hunting fraternity find it neccessary to introduce foxes to areas such as The Isle of Wight, The Isle of Man, Eire and even Australia, where there was no indigenous fox population? I am sure that those of us with some knowledge of the issue will also be familiar with the practice of "artificial earths" constructed by hunters and their equally abhorrent cohorts, terriermen, to encourage breeding among foxes and therefore increase their own success at the hunt.
Vets who take part in this sort of barbaric ritual should be barred from practice they are a shame to their profession.”
by RS1301, London
Monday, January 24 2011, 5:38PM
“IT is a real pity that hunters cannot seem to put aside their fixed views that hunting with dogs is totally right.
As for your argument concerning wolves - that really does not apply. Wolves are hunting for food - hunters are hunting for sport, with very little regard to the suffering the animal has to bear. They die in an unspeakably cruel way, how dare you say that this is an acceptable means of 'wildlife management'.
If the same treatment were eked out to a human being, it would be called brutal murder. Different species - same crime.”
by AR2048, London
Wednesday, April 29 2009, 10:17PM
“There is no 'middle way', foxhunting is killing for entertainment not 'wildlife management' and killing for entertainment is immoral - no ifs, no buts, no 'middle way', it is immoral.
Foxhunting is the worst of human nature, a pack of bloodthirsty humans with a pack of dogs versus one 'ailing, injured or aged' fox......it is the 21st century, the Hunting Ban is very welcome moral progress.”