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.
Cruelty is causing unnecessary, or gratuitous suffering, through acts of either commission (intent) or omission (neglect). Gratuitous suffering implies disregard to animals through human depravity.
The intention to inflict unnecessary suffering implies a wanton disregard for the interests of animals. It may involve acts of commission, such as the infliction of pain for the pleasure of inflicting it - i.e. bear baiting. Alternatively, it may relate to acts of omission, such as the failure to provide adequate food and shelter for domesticated animals to which a duty of care is owed.
Suffering aligns with negative conscious feelings but can never be entirely eliminated in management that inevitably involves culling.
Poor welfare occurs when the animal has difficulty in coping with its environment. It will be a matter of degree and may be consciously experienced as, for example, pain, fear or distress. However, poor welfare can occur with no unpleasant associated conscious feelings.
Poor welfare can be used synonymously with distress. Distress is distinct from stress. A stress response is designed to allow an animal to cope with an emergency situation, but is only rarely associated with serious difficulty in coping.
All wild animals live and, indeed, survive under fear in the sense of arousal from environmental threats. They cope through their natural mechanisms such as flight. Animals that have no fear are unlikely to survive in the wild. However, human fear is different from animal fear and is greatly magnified by conceptual thought that allows reflection on past happenings, worrying about the future and an understanding of death. Foxes lack the potential for conceptual thought and live in the present, unburdened by past worries and future fears. That animals when disturbed run away is simply an instinctive act of avoidance. Many everyday examples can be given of wild animals running away from people or events and then quickly returning to their ordinary condition, once the perceived danger is passed.
Positive welfare is where animals flourish in accordance with their natural environment.
The Council of Hunting Associations (CHA) has produced a Code of Practice for Hunt Kennels in light of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and in so doing have imitated the style of codes that are already in place for other domesticated and farmed animals.This code of practice provides advice for Masters and Hunt Staff on the necessary standards for hound husbandry and the veterinary treatment of kennelled hounds. In producing the Code, The Council of Hunting Association has sought advice from experienced veterinary surgeons and kennel huntsmen on the content of the code of practice, please follow this link to read/download the Code (PDF format).