Foxhunting – the facts

In the last 55 years three independent inquiries, two of them commissioned by Labour Governments, provided no evidence to conclude that hunting causes cruelty. In fact the evidence pointed the other way. The MFHA reacted to, and implemented, all the recommendations of these inquiries.

Over 500 practising vets and associated academics have publicly expressed their opinion that “Hunting with hounds is the natural and most humane method of controlling the population of all four quarry species.”

Five senior executives, and others, from anti-hunting organisations have resigned their positions having realised the adverse welfare consequences of banning hunting.

All civilised societies accept that man should not cause unnecessary suffering to animals. All supporters of hunting, the vast majority of whom deal with animals in their everyday lives, would agree with this. However, no society has ever organised itself on the basis that any activity which involves any suffering to animals must be outlawed. If it did the eating of meat would be banned. Furthermore, it would mean treating animals better than we treat ourselves. The argument “Hunting with hounds causes suffering: therefore it must be abolished” remains insufficient as a basis for banning hunting. It needs to be shown that hunting either involves unnecessary suffering or that a ban reduces suffering in comparison with other methods of control.

Political parties, farmers and conservationists have consistently recognised the need to control wild animals. So assuming that they (in this case foxes), and particularly those with no natural predator (foxes), are going to be controlled each available method of control should be examined in comparison with their welfare consequences. Only then can it be decided whether banning hunting with dogs causes unnecessary suffering. The question that has to be addressed is:

If the answer is “No”, there can be no conceivable justification for retaining a ban.

Following the ban on hunting with dogs there are now only two legal methods of controlling foxes.

1. Shooting (with (a) rifle or (b) shotgun);
2. Trapping (with legal snares or live cage traps).

In a man made world, the welfare of wildlife (particularly foxes with no natural predator) is better served by management by man rather than left to its own devices. It might be accepted that man has a moral obligation to manage foxes having removed its natural predators.

A glance at any Ordnance Survey map for lowland England shows the effect of hunting on the landscape. The map will show that many woods are named “covert”, especially in the Midlands which has a particularly strong tradition of hunting. This shows that these coverts were planted for fox hunting at any time over the last 250 years.

As stated in Creation and conservation of habitat by foxhunting [link], the work undertaken by hunts benefits wildlife apart from foxes. The research commissioned through the Game Conservancy Trust found significantly higher numbers of butterflies and wild flowers in areas managed for hunting, compared to unmanaged areas. The data supplied by hunts was also compared against other data with regard to butterflies. The analysis found that rare butterflies occur more frequently in grid squares containing woodland managed for hunting.

In rural areas hunting assumes great significance beyond the activity of hunting because of its social contribution to the lives of rural communities. Hunting gives participants a strong sense of “belonging” to their local hunt in following a shared activity. This cohesion of hunting communities became ever more apparent during the foot and mouth crisis. An example being trained hunt staff helping with the contiguous cull – their professionalism was much appreciated by farmers.

Hunting provides over 1000 years of history through literature, art, music and architecture.