HUNTING WILDLIFE
Content Updated:
5th September 2012
CONTENTS:
Fox Hunting with hounds:
-- A Very Brief History of Fox Hunting in England
--
Opposition to Hunting with Hounds
-- Loopholes You Could Ride a Horse
Through?
-- Response to the Ban
-- The Control of Foxes
-- Do We Really
Need to Regulate Fox Populations?
-- Control Methods
-- The Cost of a
Ban
Hunting Deer with hounds
Badger baiting
Shark and Ray over-fishing and finning
Conclusions
 Fox Hunting with Hounds
Unless you happen to be a hermit living atop the
Himalayas -- in which case, you're an unlikely reader for this site --
I'd wager that you've heard something of the furore that has erupted
over Fox hunting with hounds here in England. At 6pm (GMT) on Thursday 18th November
2004, MPs voted 321 to 204 in favour of an outright ban on hunting with
hounds in England, ending some seven years of Political ping-pong
between MPs and the House of Lords. Moreover, the ban -- which came into force on 18th February 2005 -- saw disturbing threats of civil
disobedience from hunt supporters, who claimed they will break the law
to keep their tradition alive.
The ban has sparked challenges from all sides (pro and anti-hunt) as
they fight to make it workable, or challenge it in the courts. A
considerable bone of contention with the passing of this bill was the
use of the Parliament Act to push it through the House of Lords - the
Lords have repeatedly rejected the bill, not least it has been
suggested, because many of them hunt.
For those who haven't been keeping up with all
this chaos and confusion, I would like to fill you in on the basics of
the ban, as well as looking at some of the facts and misapprehensions
surrounding fox hunting.
A Very Brief History of Fox Hunting in England
Fox hunting has taken
place in the UK for almost 700 years. The first accurately recorded fox
hunt -- during which a farmer in Norfolk used his dogs to chase down a
fox suspected of killing some of his livestock -- was in 1534, although
there are
references to hunting foxes in England dating as far back as AD43.
Following the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, hunting grew as a
sport, although game was the primary quarry. The first British hunt
was established during the 1670s in Yorkshire and, since then, a further
317 hound packs have been registered. The fox hunting season in the UK
was from November to April, with autumn (or ‘cub’) hunts starting
in August. (Back to Menu)
Opposition To Hunting with Hounds
Perhaps the first
co-ordinated opposition to the
practice of hunting foxes with hounds was brought by the Humanitarian
League, which was founded by Henry Salt in 1891 to campaign against
suffering in all its forms, including
hunting. Despite being the oldest British animal welfare charity
(founded 1824), it was not until 1972 that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (RSPCA) came out in favour of a ban on fox hunting; two years
later, the Labour Party included an opposition to hunting in their
manifesto for the first time. Probably the first real attempt to get
hunting with dogs banned was a bill proposed by the Labour MP Kevin
McNamara in 1992, which failed on its second reading. In 1993, Labour MP
Tony Banks failed to get the hunting bill passed and, in 1995,
McNamara’s bill passed its second reading, but failed in the House of
Lords. More recently, hunting with hounds was outlawed in Scotland in
2002. In February 2003, a new hunting bill for England was ‘shelved’
owing to the ongoing conflict in Iraq. A crowded parliamentary program
caused further delays to the bill and it was passed over into the autumn
session of Parliament. In 2004, the Labour government reintroduced the
bill, intending to apply the 1949 Parliament Act in order to force it
through the House of Lords. Finally, Michael
Martin (the Speaker of the Commons) overrode the Lords opposition by
invoking the Parliament Act on the 18th November 2004 and the Act came into force
three months later. Despite the success of the bill, things have not gone strictly as the
Government had planned. Tony Blair (the Labour Prime Minister at
the time) had
originally hoped to delay the implementation of the ban for two years
(so it came into effect in July 2006) - Labour stated that this delay
was to give the hunting community time to adjust to the closure of their
pastime. Those of a more cynical persuasion suspected it had more to do
with the up-and-coming election, for which Labour had surely lost much
of the rural vote.
For those interested in reading more about the campaign to ban fox
hunting, there is a more detailed history on the
League Against Cruel
Sports' website, while the
Support Hunting Association provide the pro-hunt history and view on their
website. (Back to Menu)
Loopholes You Could Ride a Horse Through?
There is much contention
over the implementation of this ban, with many claiming that various
loopholes and the already stretched budget of our nation's police force,
are going to make the law a logistical nightmare to enforce. There are
also claims that this ban 'will not save any foxes' and -- while missing
the point somewhat -- if the situation in Scotland is anything to go by,
this certainly seems probable.
On Wednesday 14th February 2002, Scottish
MPs voted 83 to 36 in favour of an outright ban on fox hunting; the ban
subsequently became law on the 1st August as the Protection of Wild
Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. This ban carries a penalty of six months in
prison and a fine of up to £5,000 (about US$9,270 or €7,140). While the ban technically forbids the practise of hunting with hounds,
it is worded such that mounted huntspeople are allowed to chase the fox,
provided they have no more than two hounds and that the fox is either
shot or killed by a bird of prey. Moreover, the ban still permits the
use of terriers to flush out foxes that have "gone to ground", because
the hunt is seen as a form of pest control. Indeed, not only has fox
hunting continued (with slight modification) in Scotland, but the number
of foxes killed per season by the hunts has almost doubled. According to
data published by the Scotland on Sunday newspaper in November 2004,
the number of foxes killed by Scotland's 10 registered hunts has
increased from 500 to 900 per season - in light of the aforementioned
loopholes, this is only to be expected, given that we now introduce guns
into the hunting equation. Indeed, according to the Daily Telegraph
newspaper: "The hounds are used to flush foxes from cover to be shot by
waiting marksmen and the system has proved far more efficient than
traditional hunting, in which the fittest foxes often escaped."
Some anti-hunt campaigners have said that, far from protecting foxes,
this ban has merely encouraged new ways of killing them - again, this is
missing the point of the bill. It strikes me that
this ban on hunting was never really intended to 'save the foxes';
rather, its aim was to try and legislate the manner in which they were
killed (i.e. outlawing methods deemed "cruel" or "barbaric"). In other words, the bill is not
designed to stop the killing of foxes, but instead it is there to
try and ensure a humane death for the animal. Some have, however, suggested that it has actually increased suffering, largely owing
the effect of shotguns on moving targets! The jury is, however,
still very much out on that. (Back to Menu)
Response to the Ban
 As you might imagine, each warring faction has
its own way of dealing with the bans implementation. Most of those who are un-moved by
the plight of either the fox or the hunting fraternity have greeted the
ban with widespread indifference, although some have suggested that the
government should stop wasting Parliamentary time debating these
"trivial" issues and focus instead on the "real issues" (i.e. sorting
out the National Heath Service, policing, school class sizes, etc.).
Those who oppose fox hunting greeted the news with cautious enthusiasm, realising
that while the ban represents an attempt to champion their cause, it
also has many pitfalls and the fight is far from over. It was, of
course, the hunt supporters from whom the most vehement
protests came. Across the country, the hunt supporters received the news
with palpable dismay and threats of considerable civil disobedience -- in
other words, many have said they will continue to hunt as normal,
ignoring the ban -- although some of this was, I suspect, just an off-the-cuff
venting of frustration.
The debate between pro- and anti-hunt supporters has raged in the
press and online. On one Internet message board, a user posted to say
that: "The hunting ban will create criminals out of law-abiding
citizens." The response to this comment was: "Yes, in the same
way that a law prohibiting stealing has turned otherwise law-abiding
thieves into criminals". Now, while such retorts are largely
counterproductive, both comments serve to highlight some of the strong
feelings echoed throughout both factions. One supporter wrote to The Sun
newspaper, branding the ban on hunting: "yet another sad example of this
Government's determined erosion of our liberties and freedom of choice"
- in this particular instance, the gentleman was also referring to the
British Government's policy on banning junk food adverts and smoking in
public places. Animal Welfare supporters note that a line must be drawn
between what is and what is not an acceptable choice. In this instance,
people are still able to eat junk food if they so wish and can still
smoke (although not around others in restaurants or pubs), but people
are not allowed to chase and kill an animal with a pack of hounds. With this in mind, it is difficult to see how
the ban on fox hunting is any more an erosion of freedom of choice or
civil liberties than the Protection of Animals Act (1911 - with
subsequent amendments) that makes it illegal to mistreat or cause "unnecessary
suffering" to your cat or dog. Unfortunately for the fox hunting
fraternity, simply because some people consider an animal to be "vermin"
doesn't automatically negate all animal welfare laws and allow free
access to "control" the species as one sees fit.
Some pro-hunt supporters have suggested that they may rally farmers
to stop spreading human manure on their land as fertilizer. If they
succeed it could cause widespread problems for the Government and waste
treatment industries. Currently, it is estimated that in Scotland, some
13% of human sewage is spread on agricultural land, while across Europe
and North America, 30% to 60% of sewage sludge ends up on fields.
According to their 1998 estimate, the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) set a target of 60% of waste to be spread
on agricultural land by the end of 2005, which equates to nearly 900,000 tonnes
(nearly 1 million tons) per year. I'm not aware of a projected saved
cost -- as compared to treating and disposing of the waste via landfill,
sea dumping, etc. -- but I suspect that this represents a significant
figure. With this in mind though, farmers obviously benefit from the
current arrangement, gaining a cheap fertilizer in considerable
quantities from a source that is likely to be around as long as there
are humans.
Threats have also been made -- largely by the Countryside Alliance --
to challenge the ban in the courts, although many consider this a rather
futile venture. If the British Government follow the Scot's decision not
to offer any compensation for the ensuing loss of jobs -- the Scottish
Parliament rejected three different compensation schemes -- then the ban
may be challengeable under The European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms treaty of 1950. How successful any such challenges
will be, remains to be seen. Regardless, the government have come under
fire from anti-hunt supporters and rival politicians for failing to
oppose the alliance. A spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports
(LACS) told the BBC that LACS were: "...appalled that Downing Street is giving into threats of
violence, bullying and intimidation instead of defending the decisions
of Parliament and doing everything within their power to uphold the
Hunting Act." Similarly, Conservative Party peer and Old Berkshire Hunt
chairman Viscount Astor told the BBC that the government's response to
the challenge was a "cynical ploy to avoid a hunting ban in the run-up
to the general election". John Jackson (chairman of the Countryside
Alliance) said that people who think that fox hunting is going to stop
in February 2005 had "better think again". (Back to Menu)
 The Control of Foxes
The debate on hunting with hounds has thrown
various supportive and rebuking arguments into the forefront. One of the
pivotal arguments used to justify the continuation of the practice has
been that fox hunting serves to regulate fox numbers and even
serves as a form of Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a term
proposed by the late 'Father of Evolution', Charles Darwin, to describe
the 'struggle for existence' (frequently referred to as 'survival of the
fittest') and centres around the differential mortality and reproductive
success observed in wild populations. Natural Selection is actually a
rather complex process in which the environment as a whole determines
which individuals of a population live to pass on their genes to the
next generation. The idea is that, for whatever reason -- and generally,
as a result of random mutations in the genome -- some animals will be
better adapted to a given environment (or will be better adapted to
survive a change in environmental conditions) and these individuals will
tend to produce more offspring than their less well adapted
conspecifics.
It is frequently cited that fox hunting acts as a form of Natural
Selection, because it kills only the 'weak', 'sick' and old foxes,
allowing the fittest individuals to escape and live to fight another
day. Ecologically, there is very little evidence to support this surmise
and its validity is somewhat undermined by the fact that foxes tend to
be chosen based on 'problematic' individuals, rather than their health
or demographic status. The only practical way that a hunt could act as a
selective force on the fox population as a whole, would be to target a
group of foxes, picking out the weakest/sickest/oldest from said group
(akin to wolves chasing a herd of deer, focusing in on the slowest
individuals). Moreover, the practise of digging-out would need to
be abolished, given that it totally undermines any natural selection
justifications.
With regards to the number of foxes killed by hunts and their impact
on fox numbers, the mathematical models that have been used to
investigate fox population dynamics suggest that, in order to achieve a
decline in fox numbers, there must be a population mortality of 64% or
greater. Hunts in the UK currently account for somewhere between 6% and
10% of the foxes killed annually in Britain; in his 1996 book Country
Foxes, Dr. Hugh Kolb describes this contribution as "almost trivial".
Until recently, it had not been possible to assess what (if any)
effect a ban on fox hunting would have on the fox population. The Foot
and Mouth outbreak in the UK during 2001 led to a ten month cessation
of fox hunting and provided an opportunity for the team at Bristol
University to assess the impact of this ‘mortality release’ on the
British fox population. In an oft-cited paper published in the journal
Nature, Phil Baker, Stephen Harris and
Charlotte Webbon report that the ban on hunting during the outbreak had
no significant impact on fox numbers (i.e. fox populations did not
'explode' as some had predicted they would were hunting to be
abolished). The study, which was commissioned by the Mammal Society, analysed the results on a countrywide scale and -- although they did
register a slight increase in fox numbers in the East of England and a
slight decline in foxes in Southern England -- overall, fox scats were
observed to decline by a statistically insignificant 4.7%.
Not everyone agreed with the results presented by Baker et
al., however, and a team of biologists from the Game Conservancy Trust (GCT) and
the Department of Zoology at Oxford University criticised the original
paper's conclusion in a brief communication, also published in Nature.
In their response, Nicholas Aebischer, Jon Reynolds (GCT), Sandra Baker,
David MacDonald and Paul Johnson (Oxford) suggest that Baker et al.'s
analysis did not support their conclusions and accused the Bristol team
of analysing their results with an "inappropriate statistic". Needless
to say, the Bristol team responded to justify their research and, while
one can argue the pros and cons of the statistics ad infinitum, to my
mind, Baker and his colleagues succeeded in justifying their analysis
techniques.
While the debate still rages as to whether hunting with hounds has a
significant impact on fox numbers at the country-wide scale, there is
some evidence to suggest that culling can have a substantial impact on a
more local -- and often highly temporary -- scale. In their 2000 paper to
the Journal of Zoology, Matthew Heydon and Jonathan Reynolds of the GCT
in Hampshire, report that the widely held belief of foxes regulating
their own population numbers may be unfounded. In their study, Heydon
and Reynolds assessed the impact of culling on a regional scale (i.e.
more than 1000 sq-km or 386 sq-mi) at three locations across the UK: mid-Wales, east
Midlands and East Anglia. The biologists found that active culling practises did have a demonstrable effect on the fox numbers in two of
the three study areas (mid-Wales and East Anglia). Furthermore, Heydon
and Reynolds report that in these two regions, fox populations were "demonstrably
not self-regulating through suppression of breeding and were unlikely to
be at an equilibrium determined by resources". In other words, the
foxes were not controlling their own population numbers through resource
competition. Although their data indicates that fox populations were
mediated by resource availability in the east Midlands, the authors
suggest that a reduction in culling effort here would lead to an
increase in fox numbers.
Heydon and Reynold’s data implies that culling can be a substantial
additive component to the total mortality of foxes and is thus an
important factor in the mediation of fox population dynamics. Heydon and
Reynolds put this regional variation in fox dynamics down to differences
in land and livestock management in the various regions. For example,
community motivation and thus effort to control fox numbers is high in
mid-Wales (for sheep farming) and East Anglia (for game hunting), while
sport hunting has claimed preference over the last two centuries and
regular hunting, consistent with moderate fox populations, has been the
objective in the east Midlands. These data, however, take into account
fox control as a broad subject - while Baker et al.'s (2001)
results focus specifically on hunting with hounds and, with gamekeepers
in Britain estimated to kill some 190,000 (a 1997 estimate that some
suggest may be a substantial underestimate) foxes annually, the debate
as to whether hunting with hounds plays a significant role in fox
population dynamics remains to be conclusively demonstrated.
 While Heydon and Reynold’s results suggest that some fox populations
aren’t self-regulating, I suspect that this is only because hunting
mortality is/was maintaining the population below the carrying capacity
(i.e. the total number of a species that a given environment can
support) and, if hunting was terminated, the fox population would
(either with or without an associated increase) enter a self-regulating
state.
Part of this hunting debate is, however, fuelled by the ambiguous
definition of what constitutes 'too many' foxes and whether, if hunting
laws are tightened, fox numbers would enter an acceptable
self-regulating state governed by resources, competitive breeding
suppression and anthropogenic factors (e.g. snaring, road collisions,
etc.).
When it comes to controlling fox numbers, whether or not fox hunting
impacts the population as a whole is perhaps rather incidental, because
many farmers see hunts as a method of removing what they class as
'problematic foxes' (i.e. those that take -- or are perceived to take --
livestock repeatedly) and reducing fox numbers locally during peak
seasons (e.g. during lambing). There are, however, certain rather
inalienable problems surrounding the removal of foxes deemed to be
especially problematic. In a similar manner to a dilemma faced by the
Australian government in late 2004 -- regarding their sanctioning of the
fishing for, and killing of, the Great white shark (Carcharodon
carcharias) responsible for the attack on a surfer in December -- how is
one assured that they have targeted the 'guilty' individual? With foxes,
one may feel confident that they could identify a problem fox from
physical attributes (e.g. coat colour patterns, tail size or shape,
distinctive cuts or other markings), but this is only prudent if you
witnessed the fox taking your livestock (I hope you can see the vastly
greater difficulties involved in targeting the white shark in question). Given that foxes typically hunt nocturnally, however, it is rather rare
for a farmer or landowner to witness one breaking into their hen house. Similarly, it is often difficult to monitor each gravid ewe so as to
constantly keep an eye out for foxes. This said, I suspect landowners
are willing to continue removing foxes until whatever losses they
attribute to them cease. Given that there is a reasonable
amount of evidence to suggest that fox territories rarely stay vacant
for long, with nomadic individuals instigating a coup d'etat in periods
as short as a few days, this may be a rather interminable campaign. (Back to Menu)
Do We Really Need to Regulate Fox Populations?
Well, if you happened to
live in the Firrhill area of suburban Edinburgh when the Act was first
passed, I suspect the answer to
the above is a resounding "Yes!” According to local news reports, the
frequency of fox-human encounters was increasing, with a record number of
people reporting pets lost to foxes and even a few reports of people
having been bitten by foxes. One such incident in August 2004,
resulted in a pensioner getting bitten on her ankle when she
went to investigate a commotion in her back garden at around 11.30pm
(BST); apparently, the fox bit her leg and then ran off. Previously, a
headline in the [Scottish] Evening News, (August 2003), read: "Family
cat dies after savaging by foxes". In this instance, a family were
reportedly woken by a commotion at 3am to find their cat being "savaged"
by no fewer than six foxes. According to the newspiece, the father of
the family went outside to rescue the cat and they then took it to the
vet, where its injuries were sufficiently severe to warrant putting the
cat to sleep. Neighbours of this particular family told the paper
that while the family were at the vet's, the foxes returned and tried to
catch their other cat - which apparently made it under a nearby car,
where it remained until the foxes dispersed. The same newspaper
conducted a reader survey in July 2004 to find out whether people in
their readership had experienced problems with local foxes. The results
of their survey showed that 11 rabbits, 10 cats, 3 guinea pigs and a
peacock had reputedly been killed -- and a further 4 cats, 1 dog and a
tortoise attacked -- by foxes. Much more recently, the subject of foxes
attacking people made the headlines in early June 2010 when twins Lola
and Isabella Koupparis were bitten by a fox while in their cots in their
parents' east London home. This very unfortunate incident, and a string
of other 'attack' stories that followed pushed the debate around whether
we should be culling urban foxes to the forefront. The question has been
raised in Parliament, but currently councils have no obligation to
control foxes in their jurisdictions (see Q/A).
Edinburgh seemed to be experiencing a rather more extreme problem with
foxes than most major cities (where foxes are considered little more
than a nuisance that occasionally take pets and rummage through bins). Typically, instances of foxes attacking pets are rare and unprovoked
attacks on humans are virtually unheard of. The events in Edinburgh have
been put down to the replacement of black bin bags and lift-top rubbish
bins with wheelie bins - locals considered this had cut off a valuable
food source for the foxes. I'm not convinced that such a change in
refuse collection is solely to blame -- especially given that wheelie
bins are now rather cosmopolitan across most English towns and cities
and the same level of fox delinquency is not apparent -- and we are
probably seeing some other, underlying, changes to the ecology of
Edinburgh's foxes that perhaps warrants closer investigation.
Many studies on the population ecology of predators have demonstrated
that predator numbers rise-and-fall cyclically with those of their
preferred prey - albeit that there is an asynchronicity between the
populations. This scenario -- where predator populations crash shortly
after their prey populations experience a crash -- is sometimes referred
to as the Lotka-Volterra Two Species Model. American biophysicist Alfred
Lotka and Italian mathematician Vito Volterra, in the mid-1920s,
developed the Lotka-Volterra Model independently. There are many
examples of this in the field, with species exhibiting cyclic peaks and
crashes in population numbers - larger, longer-lived animals like hare (Leporidae)
and grouse (Tetraonidae) tend to have longer cycles (with peaks every
10-or-so years), while smaller, shorter-lived species like voles and
lemmings have shorter cycles (with peaks every three-to-five years). These cycles may then impact the population dynamics of their main
predator – two good examples are the lynx and snowshoe hare in Canada
and foxes and hares in California. One
problem with this idea, however, is that foxes (and many other predators) are
known to exhibit prey switching - in other words, when one prey becomes
scarce, the predator begins feeding more heavily on an alternative prey
species. This is part of what is known as the ‘Predator Pit’.
The moral to all of this is that saying "Nature will regulate
populations" is correct and yet dubious at the same time. This is
because there is a vast cavern between "Nature will control predator
populations" and "Nature will control predator populations at a level we
find
acceptable". By this I mean that while the abolition of hunting
would invariably lead to a state of self-regulation within fox
populations (through the stochasticity of the natural and anthropogenic
factors mentioned above), it is possible that the carrying capacity for
foxes in a given environment may be sufficiently high to produce an
unacceptable level of vulpid-human interaction, or make small livestock
farming financially untenable. Consequently, while (as city
workers) many of us are inclined to think that foxes should be left alone
to do what they have evolved to do, from a farmer's
perspective -- when foxes equal a loss of income -- fox control is
inherently essential, because even one chicken lost to a fox represents
another step closer to a tightening of the proverbial belt. This is not to say that hunting foxes with hounds is necessarily either
justified or the most practical solution to this situation, however, or even that
control of foxes is a universal requisite. Wild fox populations are
limited by natural factors (i.e. the availability of food, water,
shelter, denning sites, territory, disease. etc.) as well as
anthropomorphic ones (e.g. hunting, road kills, increased food
acquisition through livestock and garbage, etc.) and changes in the
availability of any one (or any combination) of these can lead to
changes in fox numbers. So, in order to get an accurate handle on the
dynamics of fox populations, we must take a broad, synecological
approach, looking at the various prey and habitat types and how they
interact to control predator populations at the local and global scale. (Back to Menu)
 Control Methods
If we
accept the tradition method of hunting with dogs has been criminalised and,
furthermore, we accept that, in some situations, fox control is
necessary, how might we go about it? While trawling the wildlife and
news message boards following the debate on hunting foxes, one comment I
encountered frequently was people saying 'Would you [supporters of a
ban] be happier when the foxes suffer agonising deaths in the jaws of
snares or down the barrel of a gun?' I think that it is important to
remember that far more foxes 'meet their maker' down the barrel of a
gun, or on Britain’s roads than die in the jaws of either snares or
hounds each year. Moreover, I think that one could argue the pros and
cons of each method perpetually. Many of the postings I read mentioned
that shooting was a "cruel" method of control, because foxes are
notoriously tough and getting a 'kill shot' is anything but a simple
case of point-and-shoot. Foxes that aren't killed outright may skulk
away and die a lingering death. Indeed, there is no denying that this is
a possibility, although foxes seem remarkably resistant to gangrene and
heal readily. While many may consider a fox that escapes the hounds is
left to 'fight another day', much of the evidence is unconvincing and
many animal biologists consider that the stresses (here we are talking
purely physiological and biochemical) imposed on the fox during the
chase are significant enough to cause tissue and/or endocrine (hormonal)
damage. Furthermore, there are also instances where foxes have been
found dead after escaping
from a hunt. There can be little doubt that a shot from a competent
marksman, possibly with a long-dog to recover any 'winged' animals,
results in a 'cleaner' death than is afforded by a traditional hunt. Unfortunately, pest control companies will
often refuse ‘fox jobs’ because of the strong public feeling towards
these creatures and the potential negative publicity.
So, to the exclusion of hunting with hounds and shooting, what other
methods can be used; Poisoning? Snaring? Gassing? Well, generally, no to
all three! In the UK, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act (1996) prohibits
the use of poison to kill foxes and, while the act of gassing mammals is
technically legal, there are no legal gasses that can be used on foxes.
Under Section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), it is
illegal to use all but free-running snares to trap foxes and there are
strict guidelines as to where and how these snares should be set and how
frequently they must be checked. One particular problem with snaring and
poisoning is that they tend to be rather catholic with regards to the
species they target and a poisoned bait put down for a fox may just as
easily be consumed by a badger, birds (esp. birds of prey and carrion
crows), hedgehogs or domestic animals (e.g. cats), depending on the type
and positioning of the bait. Such indiscriminate targeting raises the
potential for animals like badgers, wild cats, red squirrels and otters
to fall victim to the snares or baits – the last three of these are now
fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
(1981) and carry substantial fines -- even prison terms -- for their
injury or killing. Badgers are protected under Schedule 6 of the act and
they and their sets are also protected under the Badgers Act (1992).
Given the canid tendency to cache their food, the fact that poisoned
bait is removed by a fox does not necessarily mean that the fox has
consumed it. Indeed, the fox may well have buried it, which leaves the
potential for the poison to have dispersed by the time the fox actually
gets around to excavating the stash, or for the poison to leak into the
soil or groundwater.
With regards to snaring, it is illegal to snare deer and snares are
only permitted for use by “authorised persons” (e.g. gamekeepers), when
carried out in accordance with the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation (BASC)
guidelines. Snaring is also illegal throughout most of Western Europe,
but a lack of any viable alternative has caused its continuation in
Britain.
One final 'control method' is that of so-called "fox dumping", where
foxes are removed from urban environments and "returned to more natural
surroundings". The Abandonment of Animals Act (1960) prohibits the
placing of an animal in a situation where you have reason to believe it
may not survive, effectively making trapping and relocation illegal
unless carried out by a licensed operator with sound ecological
appraisal of the site prior to release. The problem with such dumping of
foxes is not so much a lack of transferable skills -- although some
accounts have reported that dumped foxes just mill around the release
site 'looking confused' -- but that there is terrific potential for the
spread of disease and the fox would almost certainly end up in another
fox's territory, which could cause confrontations and problems with food
acquisition. Despite the handful of illegal fox dumping reports that
crop up every year, there has never been any conclusive proof; the reward for information leading to a successful conviction for
dumping offered by the RSPCA has never been claimed.
So, the question of whether fox control is inherently necessary in
the UK (where rabies has been successfully eliminated) is intrinsically
linked to the question of “what constitutes too many foxes?” There is
invariably a level of fox-human interaction that people consider
unacceptable, but until this level is reached (and perhaps it is close
in Edinburgh) it is difficult to say when fox control is required. Moreover, people’s attitudes to foxes will doubtless vary according to
location and personal experience. When foxes reach sufficient levels so as to interfere
continually with people’s daily lives (e.g. perpetually raiding bins,
killing pets, etc.) I suspect the cry will arise for something to be
done. The burning question then is: should we wait and see if this level
is ever reached (risking possible negative imprinting of foxes in
people’s minds even after populations are brought under control), or do
we act now in a bid to avert such a situation? My own personal feeling
is that the carrying capacity for foxes in many urban areas is probably
higher than most people would find acceptable – however, given current
levels of road traffic mortality, other control techniques (i.e. shooting and trapping) should only be instigated where a problem is
apparent and should be targeted at problematic animals. Given the current levels of fox mortality in rural areas, I
think that additional control need only be implemented where specific
problems arise. The fact that hunting with hounds contributes so little
to the overall management and control of fox populations suggests that the current controls in place (e.g. mainly shooting by farmers and
gamekeepers) are sufficient. Ipso facto, fox control is required in some
instances, but any removal programs should only be instigated where a
problem is apparent. In this case, I believe that prevention is better
than cure. (Back to Menu)
The Cost of a Ban
 Obviously, for those who are involved in the
hunting with hounds industry, there are going to be ramifications to any
ban or tightening of the law regarding the practice. Not only must
hunters contend with the loss of a past time, but many will also face a
reduction in associated incomes and the potential destruction of their
hounds and horses. The destruction of animals -- while not a necessary
requisite in this case -- is always a traumatic experience for those who
care for them. Indeed, this was one of the reasons that the Burns Report
recommended that any ban be delayed by two years (the so-called "lead-in
time"), in order to allow the hunting fraternity time to adjust their
animal numbers gradually (i.e. cease all breeding of foxhounds, which
cannot be re-homed). Many animal welfare organisations point
out, however, that destroying hounds and horses simply because one no longer had
any use for them is rather extreme (some say “deplorable”) and it is to
be hoped that people would still be keen to ride their horses, even if
they aren't in pursuit of a fox. With regards
to the economic impact that a ban on hunting with hounds would have, the
Burns Report estimated that some 6000 to 8000 full-time equivalent jobs
were dependent on hunting (a figure that some hunt supporters claim is a
drastic underestimate), although they do concede that the total number
of people involved in the sport may be significantly higher. Indeed, the
report states:
"In terms of national employment statistics, the short-term loss
would be limited, and extend not much further than those employed by the
hunt, and some employed by those hunt followers who immediately reduced
their horses. In the medium term, say three to five years, more losses
would occur as hunt followers brought their horse numbers into line with
current use."
In the case of the Scottish ban on hunting with hounds, the Rural
Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament concluded that:
"...economic factors are not enough to justify unnecessary
suffering."
Whatever one considers the true cost of a ban to be, the case of the
supportive farmers -- and not all farmers support hunting with hounds,
indeed some are in vehement opposition, not least because of the damage
the hunts can cause to their land -- and pro-hunters is being fielded by
the Countryside Alliance. In my hometown in West Sussex, the local
hounds used to leave for their hunt every Boxing Day afternoon from the
local Carfax (town centre) - in recent years, this has changed and the hunt now
takes place in a small village called Partridge Green, about 20 minutes
drive west of Horsham. On Christmas Day 2004, a friend told me that, during
the drive back from seeing his parents, he came up through Partridge
Green and saw a number of what he referred to as "Support the hunt
posters". So, on Boxing Day, I decided to drive over and see for myself
how the CA were rallying support. I had expected to see Partridge
Green papered with posters saying something akin to 'Support the
Countryside, Support Hunting' or 'Your Countryside Needs You!'. To my surprise and perplexity,
however, I found posters saying "Fight Prejudice,
Fight the Ban". This seemed to me something of a risky use of the term
prejudice, given that it has more than one meaning in the English
language. Indeed, on my initial reading of these signs and for much of
the drive home, it struck me that the Countryside Alliance see the ban
on fox hunting, not as the death of a much-needed pest-control
service, or the looming destruction of a Great British tradition, but
as class discrimination - that the government were only seeking to bring
an end to hunting with hounds because they bore some personal grudge
against those who take part in it.
There is no getting around the fact that foxes are capable of making
a considerable nuisance of themselves, even if such instances tend to be
on a highly localised scale. It is not difficult to see why farmers
often despise foxes, which they view as a source of livestock loss that
can realistically be tackled. Whether or not these views are accurate --
and the available evidence suggests that, based purely on killing foxes,
they probably aren't -- is largely extraneous, because it highlights why
many farmers support the practice of hunting foxes with hounds. (Back to
Menu)
 Hunting Deer with hounds
It is estimated that,
prior to the introduction of the Hunting Act, about 350 Red and Fallow deer
were
killed by hunts in the UK every year, while some 100,000 are shot. In a
1997 paper to the National Trust, Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge
University’s Zoology Department concluded that deer hunted with hounds
were subjected to suffering, especially during the final stages of the
hunt. Bateson states that, contrary to popular misconception, deer are
not natural athletes; rather they are sedentary creatures, adapted to
short athletic bursts and dashes for cover. The conclusions of Bateson’s report were evidence-enough for the National Trust to
implement a ban on hunting with hounds over 675,000 acres (about 70
square-kilometres or 26 square-miles) of its land. A sticking
point with Bateson’s research was, however, that he analysed the
‘fight or flight’ hormone cortisol.
Cortisol -- or 17-hydroxycorticosterone to give it its full name --
is the principal glucocorticoid (a type of chemical that controls
carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism) secreted by the adrenal cortex
(the outer layer of the adrenal glands, which lie just behind each
kidney) and is well known to be involved in the regulation of stress
responses in mammals. The obstacle is that cortisol is also known to be
associated with pleasure. While many anti-hunt supporters questioned how
being pursued by a pack of dogs could elicit feelings of pleasure, this
was a rather significant factor that led the pro-hunting factions to
question the validity of Bateson's conclusions. Indeed, there is a
growing body of people who consider that "suffering" only arises from
stress if the stress is intense, prolonged and unavoidable. To this
effect, a subsequent report by the Joint Universities, led by Professor
Roger Harris, looked at glycogen levels in hunted deer. Glycogen (or
'animal starch') is the form in which the body stores carbohydrate
(glucose) - glycogen is deposited in the muscles and liver to be broken
back down into glucose, thereby providing energy, as and when required.
Harris et al. suggested that hunted deer were only stressed
when forced to exercise beyond the point of glycogen depletion. The hunt
supporters were quick to point out that this condition is well
documented in athletes, who carry on almost regardless. While
this is often correct, it should be remembered that human athletes are
typically subjected to intense training before any major event and are
both physically and mentally prepared for the contest ahead. While some
may opt to debate the ethological evidence for his statement, the
National Academy of Science's Knut Schmidt-Nielsen’s response to the
'deer-athletes' comparison was that “humans are self-motivated and the
pursued deer is frightened to death”. Perhaps most intriguing of all is
that both Bateson’s and the Joint Universities’ studies returned similar
results, the main difference being how each author interpreted their
data.
Bateson’s report also suggests that stags escaping from the hunters
may continue to suffer afterwards and may have degraded immune systems.
It is well documented, however, that many animals appear to recover quickly from
quite extreme exercise and escapee stags are often seen back on their favourite feeding grounds within hours of the hunt finishing. The result
of this is that the verdict as to whether stags do suffer long-term
detrimental effects from hunting with hounds is still very much open to
debate. (Back to Menu)
Badger Baiting
 While there are several arguments for and against both
fox and stag hunting, I have yet to come across any coherent, reasoned
support of badger baiting. This “sport” has been illegal in the UK since
1835 and is currently an offence under the Protection of Animals Act
(1911). The use of badgers for the “sport” of humans is well documented
in our history. Indeed, according to Philippa Waring in her 1995
Dictionary of Omens and Superstitions, the badger was an animal much favoured by old-time gamblers because European tradition told that, if
you kept a badger’s tooth on your person, it made you unbeatable whenever
you made a wager.
Badgers are caught from the wild and pitted against dogs in a ring in
front of enthused gamblers. Typically, the badger has its teeth and
claws removed and often its tendons cut to prolong the fight and
minimize damage to the terriers. Despite such precautions,
however, the dogs are frequently
injured during these fights and -- because a vet would take a very dim
view of treating a dog involved in a badger fight -- the owners often
dispatch them.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) estimated
that a recent upsurge in the popularity of badger baiting led to the
deaths of some 20,000 badgers in 2002. Badgers can fetch £500 (US$950 or
700 Euros) each when dug out and sold to bait organisers, and the RSPCA
has
estimated that as much as £40,000 (almost US$75,300 or nearly 56,700
Euros) may change hands on a single fight in city gambling dens.
Under UK law, the maximum sentence one could expect for a conviction
of badger baiting is six months imprisonment and a £5,000 ($9,400 or 7,000
Euro) fine. The RSPCA also offers a £1,000 (US$ 1,880 or 1,400 Euro) reward
for information leading to a conviction for baiting. People with
information can call the RSPCA on (0870) 5555 999, the Northern Echo’s
Animal Watch on (01325) 505078 or
Crime Stoppers on (0800) 555111 – all
these numbers are presented as dialled from the UK, calling from outside
the UK requires a prefixed dialing code of +44. Further information on
badger baiting can be found at
Save the
Badgers and
Digging
Out (Warning: This page
site contains material some may find disturbing). (Back to Menu)
Shark and Ray Over-fishing and Finning
Over-fishing for sharks is a
serious problem facing almost every country with a productive fishing
industry. The situation is exacerbated because it is very difficult to
obtain any accurate numbers on the quantity of sharks caught globally
each year. This is because so many sharks are taken as by-catch (i.e.
caught unintentionally whilst fishing for something else) and consequently
thrown back un-recorded. Normally, after a night on a longline hook the shark is
either dead (through suffocation) or, those that are released alive,
probably die from stress-related problems. Worse still, some of the
sharks caught may well be landed, have their fins cut off and then the
body will be thrown back. Not only is this practice perceived by
many as cruel (because the sharks are often alive when their finless
bodies are thrown back), but it's also a terrible waste of protein -
finning utilizes only two-to-five-percent of the shark, although the
fins alone can represent more than 70% of the shark's total economic
value. (Photo: A Thornback ray,
Raja clavata, washes up on a
West Sussex beach, minus its pectoral fins.)
 Commonly quoted figures for the number of sharks taken by the global
fishing fleet every year vary tremendously; the lower estimates -- given
by the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization in 1996 -- imply
70 million, based on an estimated catch of some 760,000 tons of sharks. The highest value I've encountered is a staggering 200 million "sharks"
(although I suspect "sharks" should actually read "elasmobranchs" - i.e.
sharks, skates and rays) and
the median figure quoted -- and probably the most accurate -- is around 100
million. While accurate figures for the total number of sharks caught
are difficult to get, the number of sharks finned each year are even
more frustrating to get a handle on. Some authors estimate the number of
sharks caught annually by finners strays into the millions and, at the
very least, the tens of thousands. According to a report by the World Ocean
Campaign, some 60,000 sharks were finned in the Pacific Ocean during
1998 and, with regards to by-catch, a brochure by the Sea Turtle
Restoration Project in California reports that nearly 50,000 sharks are
caught as by-catch annually in the Atlantic/Gulf region alone.
Shark fining is illegal in many waters, but the ban is notoriously
difficult to enforce. According to the information paper published by
the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in June 2003, several shark fishing
states (including Brazil, USA, South Africa and Australia) have
implemented a ban on the retention of fins without their respective
bodies. Thus, at its simplest, the landing of sharks is only permitted
with fins attached; consequently, any vessel found with detached shark
fins is breaking the law.
I have mentioned on my Shark Biology and Ecology page that
elasmobranchs typically have very low rebound potentials, so it takes a
long time to naturally restock a population that has been dramatically
overfished. Disturbingly, the problem of (suspected) overfishing is
evident close to home (i.e. here in the UK). An expedition to look for White
sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) off the Cornish and Devon coasts
recently found very few sharks of any species, despite their chumming
efforts. The biologists aboard expressed their surprise at how few
sharks they came across during the study. Indeed, a team led by Julia Braum and five of her colleagues at the Dalhouse University in Canada
presented a paper to the journal Science recently that registered a
decline in Great white, Hammerhead (Sphyrna) and Thresher shark (Alopias
vulpinus) catches in the Northwest Atlantic by 75% in the past 15 years,
based on almost 215,000 logbook sets from U.S.-registered pelagic longline fleets targeting Swordfish (Xiphis) and Tuna (Thunnus)
in the N.W. Atlantic between 1986 and 2000. The paper makes depressing
reading, reporting a decline in almost all recorded shark species by at
least 50% in the last eight to 15 years. More specifically, they
estimated declines in the number of Hammerheads, Great whites,
Threshers, and Oceanic whitetips (Carcharhinus longimanus) of 89%, 79%,
80% and 70%, respectively. Declines of 65% for the Tiger shark (Galeocerdo
cuvier) and 60% in Blue sharks (Prionace glauca) were also reported. Additionally, Braum and her colleagues highlight the necessity to
carefully plan the location and implementation of any recovery plans. Marine reserves can do more harm than good if poorly devised – if not
properly thought about, marine reserves can merely serve to shift
fishing pressure away from one area and onto another.
More information on the plight of elasmobranchs can be found on the
Shark Trust’s website along with details of how to get involved in
elasmobranch conservation. (Back to Menu)
Conclusions
So, is hunting wrong? The short answer
has to be no, although how the practice itself is perceived depends
heavily on they type of hunting in question. What's worse is that
reasoned debate on the subject is often very difficult to achieve; attempts generally end up as the 'fors' (who typically
hunt) versus the 'againsts' (who typically don't hunt) and each tends to be
passionate about their cause. As Hugh Kolb says in his book
Country Foxes:
“Most people’s attitudes to
hunting are based more than anything else on emotional reactions to
something they are either unfamiliar with or which they have been
brought up to regard as part of normal life.”
As an 'animal lover' hunting that is carried out
purely for sport offends one of
my deepest sensibilities. Idealistically, hunting should only be carried
out if you plan to use the animal in some regard (e.g. for food, fur,
oil, etc.) and as much of this animal should be utilised as possible. At
the same time, however, as a naturalist I’m familiar with
the concept of culling a species in order to maintain a stable
ecological balance within a given ecosystem. With regards to most
wildlife conflicts, I believe that prevention is better than cure. By
this, I mean that wherever possible, people should work to prevent
predators
taking their livestock by securing it appropriately; using bolts
instead of twist catches on rabbit and guinea pig hutches, for example, and covering
the floor of chicken coops with mesh to prevent foxes digging up into
them. Where necessary, advice for specific problems can be sought from
fox research bodies (e.g. University of Bristol, The Fox Project, local
Wildlife Trusts) or local councils. There are several steps that can be
taken to reduce/eliminate the possibility that a fox will take your
chickens, ducks, rabbits, etc. and only after these have been exhausted
should measures be taken to control the local fox population itself. Obviously, money is a finite resource and there will be cases where the
implementation of protection is uneconomical or impractical on the basis of cost or
effort (around bird breeding colonies or with free-ranging livestock, for example); under such
circumstances, lethal control may be the only viable option. Where
such control is required, it should be done by a skilled operator.
Based on the current research, it seems that there is no evidence
that hunting with hounds plays any significant role in the dynamics of
either fox or deer populations. Where control of these species is deemed
necessary, shooting appears to be by far the most effective and
appropriate method.
The passing of the initial anti-hunting bill was certainly only the
beginning of any attempt to curb so-called ‘blood sports’. Unfortunately,
fears that the bill would be largely unenforceable don't seem wide of
the mark. Up to the start of 2011, only 3% of the 181 convictions under
the Act related to registered hunts, with the remainder being for
'casual' hunting infringements (e.g. poaching). Wildlife crime is,
generally speaking, a low priority for the over-stretched British police
force and enforcement is complicated by police being confused as to how to tell a drag hunt (which is legal) from a bona
fide fox hunt and not having the resources to follow the hunt in order to
keep tabs on their activities. Most pack-associated convictions
under the Act have been based on evidence provided by hunt monitors and
saboteur groups. Moreover, since being elected to power during the 2010
general election, the Conservative led Coalition government has agreed
the give the House of Commons a free vote on whether the Act should be
repealed. One thing that does seem certain is that, for supporters
of the Act, the
prospect of a cessation of hunting with hounds seems as far off today as
it did in 2004. For those interested in an up-to-date
appraisal of the Hunting Act (2004) and an accessible comparison to the
Scottish legislation, I would recommend the
WikiPedia
article on the Hunting Act.
My final thought with regards to the hunting of wildlife is that I'm
inclined to agree with King George VI, who said: "The wildlife of today
is not ours to dispose of as we please... We have it in trust and must
account for it to those who come after."
Related Questions and Answers:
Q: How can I protect my pets from possible fox attack?
Q: Is Surplus
Killing and Caching a Waste?
Q: Is there an exception to the 'Fox
Scatter Cache' rule and, if so, what are the benefits of Scatter
Caching?
Q: Is it likely that a fox
will attack me, my family or my pets?
Q: Should we reintroduce large predators to control foxes?
Q: Should we be culling urban foxes?
Q: Are fox numbers increasing in Britain?
Q: Are foxes getting bolder?
Q: Are foxes getting bigger?
Return to TOP
|
