Animal Aid

What are Animal Aid's views on this issue?

Animal Aid are opposed to all forms of animal cruelty - and we therefore strongly oppose hunting. Hunting with hounds has no place in modern Britain. It should have ended years ago along with cock-fighting, bear-baiting and dog-fighting.

When animal cruelty is portrayed by some as a 'sport' to get pleasure from it debases society and promotes even more animal cruelty. It is not just foxes and other wildlife who suffer. Horses and dogs are also victims of hunting - viewed simply as 'sporting accessories' many sustain fatal injuries during the gruelling chase.

What is its future?

You only need to look at the opinion polls:

• Almost two-thirds of the British electorate believe the Government should an fox hunting before the next general election (NOP Solutions poll, PA 13/6/00).
• In a recent MORI poll, 65% supported a ban, with support being even higher among Labour supporters at 73% (The Economist, June '01).
• Two thirds of MPs have already voted for a ban.
• 77 per cent of rural dwellers and 84 per cent of urban people disapprove of fox hunting (1997 Gallup poll for the Daily Telegraph).
• A MORI poll conducted on the Countryside March in 1998 revealed that only 40 per cent attended primarily because of the hunting issue.

The bloodsports fraternity are fighting a losing battle. They are grasping at straws with talk of inflated job losses, infringements of their rights and the countryside apparently falling into ruin. At the end of the day they have hundreds of excuses for hunting but not one justification.

It is claimed that opposition to hunting is a left wing, class issue?

People of all social classes oppose hunting. They oppose it not out of class envy but because they can see it is a cruel and perverted pastime. It is, however, true that foxhunting has continued to this day purely as a result of the wealth and influential nature of the minority who partake in.

In an NOP poll commissioned by Channel 4, it was not just Labour voters in favour of an end to this bloodsport, 42% of Tory supporters also wanted an outright ban (PA 13/6/00).

Why do people go hunting?

Hunting is the exercise of power over a vulnerable prey. This is the source of pleasure it provides for those whose own lives and self-image are inadequate. There is also the element of social bonding.

A 10 year Oxford University study found that only half of the Hunt Masters questioned mentioned fox control as any justification for their 'sport'. 82% claimed that the hunt's main role was as 'a recreational and social force embodying a traditional rural pastime'.

How does the hunted fox suffer?

Every part of a fox hunt is cruel - from the chase, to the dig-out, to the kill. There is no 'quick nip to the back of the neck' in hunting. Lead hounds will snap at any part of the running fox, before the pack rip it to pieces. If the fox manages to go to ground, then it will be forced to fight with terriers for hours before being hauled out and, if lucky, shot.

Copper the fox made national headlines. After being chased, and caught, by the Chiddingford, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt hounds, he managed to bolt down a rabbit hole. Luckily, Hunt Saboteurs were close by and physically blocked the hounds from Copper, using a policeman's helmet.

Copper had suffered bite wounds to his rear flanks and was losing blood from his penis due to kidney damage caused during the stress and exhaustion of the long run from the hounds. The vet was able to offer scientific evidence that hunted foxes undergo pathological stress, a level of suffering so intense that they can die even if they succeed in escaping the jaws of the hounds. He was quoted as saying 'I have never seen such trauma in a dog, even a badly injured one.'

Post-mortems commissioned by the Home Office on four foxes killed by hunting revealed that there was evidence of multiple bite wounds to the face, head, rib cage, heart, lungs and stomach. (The Observer, 11/6/00)

What are the humane alternatives - it is claimed that hunting with hounds is necessary to control fox numbers?

The whole point of hunting is that the 'chase' lasts as long as possible. This is why the hounds are bred for stamina, not speed. There have also been numerous cases where hunts have provided artificial earth's to encourage foxes to breed to provide 'sport'. Recently the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) secretly filmed an employee of the Beaufort Hunt feeding fox cubs. (The Observer, 11/6/00)

Furthermore, killing foxes has no lasting results. Foxes are territorial animals - if one fox is killed another soon moves into its place from a surrounding area. Foxes also control their own population.

The fox's diet of rabbits and rats actually makes it an asset to most farmers. A 1996 MAFF booklet stated that only 0.4% of lambs who die do so due to accidents, dog attacks, and all other animal predatation - which includes being taken by foxes.

There are estimated to be 250,000 adult foxes in the UK, producing about 400,000 cubs a year, most of which will die in their first year of life. Humans kill about 400,000 foxes a year so a ban on fox hunting, which kills about 20,000 a year at most, will have little impact.

The pro-hunt lobby claim that a ban would devastate the countryside and lead to job loses.

Countryside Alliance literature claims that '15,900 people whose jobs directly depend on fox hunting would be out of work.'

The Ministry of Agriculture recently declared this figure to be a gross exaggeration. There are about 330 hunts in the UK, each employing about 3 people - making a total of about 1,000 employees.

Hunters claim that once a fox has gone to ground "it is usually left - except to be dug up and destroyed humanely" - is this is true?

If a fox manages to find refuge in an unblocked earth, the hunt employ terrier men who will put their terriers down the earth to force the fox into the open to be re-hunted, or attack the fox underground while the men dig down through the soil to catch the terrified animal. Once they have dug the fox out, the terrier men are supposed to shoot it, but many will simply give it a blow with a spade. It is not unusual (although against fox hunting 'rules') for the fox to be thrown alive to the waiting hounds.

Doesn't the image of hunt saboteurs perhaps negate their cause?

The dictionary gives a definition of sabotage as 'to render useless' and that is precisely what hunt saboteurs aim to do - to render the hunt useless in their attempts to hunt down and kill wild animals.

Hunt saboteurs use non-violent direct action such as hunting horns and voice calls to try and gain control of the hounds. Scent maskers are also used to disguise the scent of the fox.

When it comes down to 'image' - seeing 30 plus people on horse back, in all their regalia, intent on hunting down and killing a terrified animal - we know who has the image problem! Hunt saboteurs may not have PR gurus working overtime for them like the Countryside Alliance, but their aims are sincere and the majority of the public know this.

Whilst the present government quibbles about the ins and outs of a ban, thousands of foxes and other wild animals will be chased to a violent and bloody death. As long as this continues there will be hunt saboteurs prepared to put themselves in the front line to protect our wildlife.

Do Animal Aid believe that the Government will ever ban hunting?

The government cannot withstand the will of the public. Hunting with hounds is one of the main issues on which the present government will be judged. The public will not accept anything less than an outright ban which will see this bloodsport relegated to its rightful place - the history books.