Login Register

'Move on, hunting has had its day', MPs tell campaigners

By Western Morning News  |  Posted: February 22, 2014

Hunting with hounds

Hunting with hounds

Comments (54)

A group of Tory MPs have urged hunt supporters to forget about campaigning for a fresh Commons vote and “move on”.

Conservatives Against Fox Hunting have marked the ninth anniversary of the Hunting Act, which came into force in February 2005, banning hare coursing, fox, stag and hare hunting with dogs.

The Coalition agreement contains a pledge to stage a free vote on repealing the controversial law but David Cameron has shown little enthusiasm for the issue.

However, the Prime Minister has expressed sympathy with recent calls to amend the Bill to allow farmers to use more than two dogs to flush out foxes.

The back-bench anti-hunt group, also called Blue Fox, said a December poll on the issue shows that eight out of ten people want to keep the ban with opposition equal in both rural and urban communities.

More importantly, it claims two thirds of respondents who said they would vote Conservative at the general election in 2015 do not want to see a repeal.

“Calls for a relaxation or repeal of the hunting ban perpetuate an outmoded image,” the group said.

“Times change and politics change. It’s time to say that hunting with dogs has had its day and it's time to move on, leave the past behind and look to the future. We need to move forward as a nation, not backwards on matters of animal welfare.”

The Countryside Alliance, which has been campaigning against the “failed” law, admits a vote during this Parliament is unlikely and with Labour leading the polls, scrapping the act this decade now appears a distant hope.

Alliance spokesman Charlotte Cooper said the Government had other priorities at present but vowed to continue pressing for reform. “To hail the act the most successful piece of wildlife legislation ever passed is a gross distortion of the facts,” she added.

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters

54 comments

  • Charlespk  |  April 17 2014, 8:07AM

    "Some of the most extreme contemporary animal rights activists tend to share are an implacable self-righteousness and misanthropy. . . Advocates of "good causes" all too often confuse the justice of their cause with their own moral worth." . . . Mark Almond- Lecturer in Modern History, Oriel College, Oxford. http://tinyurl.com/6fp4hp3 (open in new window)

    Rate   1
    Report
  • Charlespk  |  April 12 2014, 9:22PM

    Hunting with hounds is much more than simple tracking and pursuit. The scenting power of the dog enables it to locate and track the quarry and the period of pursuit reproduces the natural selection process. It is natural for both the hunter and hunted. Opponents of hunting tend to attribute human characteristics to wild animals which is not supported by science. Indeed, were wild animals to have these characteristics it would compromise their very survival. Quarry species have developed various tactics to avoid being caught by predators. Their instinct is to remain alert at all times. Without this instinct they would cease to be wild and if their natural flight response were to be based on a human conception of fear they would live in a permanent state of terror. Comparative neuroscience has demonstrated that wild animals, apart from possibly the primates and cetaceans, almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear and death. . . . . . . . . The Chase. . . .l "Anxiety is a state of mind that is initiated and perpetuated with very little external assistance. Anxiety, one might think, is far closer to fear than is pleasure, but in brain terms, it could be the exact opposite. After all, pure fear, as pleasure, is very much in the here and now. Anxiety, on the other hand... depends on the ability to forsake the present moment and anticipate an uncomfortable future. It is hard to imagine that the rabbit in his burrow dwells on past times when it manages to escape a fox and is now worrying about whether a fox is going to pass that way once more.". . . . . Neuroscientist Professor Susan Greenfield, . . . 'The Private Life of the Brain', 2000

    Rate   4
    Report
  • Charlespk  |  April 12 2014, 9:18PM

    You are getting pretty desperate with your libel and lies aren't you Lou Houston. But that's in character so don't worry about it. . Tally Ho!!! . . . . . . . As we continue to see, "some of the most extreme contemporary animal rights activists tend to share an implacable self-righteousness and misanthropy. . . Advocates of "good causes" all too often confuse the justice of their cause with their own moral worth." . . . Mark Almond- Lecturer in Modern History, Oriel College, Oxford. What matters is how quickly death occurs. When a fox or other small quarry is caught, it is killed almost instantaneously. This is made possible by the considerable power to weight ratio of the dog over the quarry, similar to a terrier compared to a rat. There is no chance of the quarry being wounded and escaping. The subsequent breaking up of the carcass, if it occurs, is not a welfare consideration as the animal is already dead. . . . . . . In assessing the means by which wild animals are culled, whether using dogs or other methods, it must be appreciated that death in the wild, in the absence of natural predators and without hunting, involves protracted pain, sepsis, gangrene, starvation, hypothermia for days or even weeks before death. . . . . "Arguably the precise cause of death is irrelevant. What is more critical is how quickly insensibility and death result. . . There seems little doubt that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds. " . . . . . . . The Burns Report, June 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6fp4hp3 (open in new window)

    Rate   4
    Report
  • Lou16  |  April 12 2014, 8:40PM

    The Conservative hunting fanatics have been working out all sorts of ways, behind the scenes, to bring back hunting through the 'back door', because they know full well they will not get enough support to reverse the hunting ban - and Cameron is too much of a coward to go for a free vote on full repeal, because him and his cronies know full well they will lose. Thus we get this old chestnut about the hill farmers - yet again. This lot should credit the public with more intelligence. These people who devised this set-up know full well that restoring the right to use a full pack of hounds to chase a single fox would be open to abuse, with 'accidents' happening and for it to be difficult to prove otherwise. All these hunts would have to do is to get anybody to stand there with a rifle, and when the hounds set upon the defenceless fox, which inevitably they will be allowed to do, the barbarians will say it was an accident, and it will be difficult to prove otherwise, thus making the law as it stands, unenforceable. So Wilson, Hawthorne, Hicks and Co should stop treating the public like idiots. Fox predation on lambs is so tiny that it is statistically negligible; lamb mortality is undeniably caused by lazy farmers and bad husbandry. Back in 2001, during the Foot and Mouth crisis, there was a temporary hunting ban, and these very same 'Welsh farmers' came out with the same old spiel, saying there had been a fox explosion due to the temporary ban, which resulted in increased fox predation on lambs. This was proved to be a pack of lies. The Mammal Society had done a survey before and after the ban, where they found that there had been no increase whatsoever in the number of foxes, after the temporary ban. The Society's findings were so conclusive that they appeared in the world acclaimed 'Nature' magazine. Unlike the joke of a 'survey' done by the updated Mickey Mouse outfit, the Federation of Welsh Farmers' Packs' (now adding the word 'Farmers' into the title) a little known group, who 'commissioned' the 'survey' which was nothing more than a pdf document, created by some race horse trainer and pro-hunt vet and pathetically set out to look like a scientific paper, with an 'abstract' and lots of graphs. Of course it has never been published in any scientific journal or reviewed by peers so as such, it is worthless, void and in a nutshell, complete nonsense. Well, it's said the results desired are achieved by those who pay for them. And what about the so-called secretary of the 'Welsh farmers' etc, etc, a, 'David Thomas' ? He is best described as a hunting fanatic of the first order; at a pro-hunt rally in 2002, just after he had made the same lying claim about a fox explosion resulting in an increase in fox predation on lambs, which was totally dismissed by the Mammal Society findings, he was mentioned in the Guardian, making hysterical comments about hunting; "David Thomas, spokesman for the federation of Welsh packs, from Llandrindod, mid-Wales, warned there would be a revolution if Westminster tried to copy Scotland's lead"." "We are prepared to fight for our way of life and even die for it. You will not need to send envoys to Palestine or go to Africa to sort out problems there, Mr Blair, because there'll be too much trouble here," he said. "There'll be rivers of blood in the countryside just because I want to get on a horse and hunt a fox." And this is the person that the Government is listening to ? Anyone with a functioning brain can see what this hunt madman is up to. You really couldn't make it up. It's time the Tories and their fellow neanderthal's were dragged, albeit kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century and moved on from the abomination that is hunting wild mammals with dogs.

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • Lou16  |  April 12 2014, 8:31PM

    Animal In question, Burns couldn't sadly get the view of the animals involved!

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • Lou16  |  April 12 2014, 8:30PM

    Change the record Charlespk. Burns himself made clear that he was impartial and so could not say one way or t'other whether hunting was 'cruel'. However the inquiry found that it severely compromised the welfare of the animal being questioned. As any fool could recognise. This repetitive copying and pasting illustrates your inability to justify what is an ILLEGAL activity generally undertaken by only the most inadequate individuals. If those 'animal rights activists' are self righteous then good on 'em I say, at least their sentiments are coming from feelings of compassion and empathy. Whereas sociopaths lack the ability to empathise and are so selfish that their own wants override the wishes of others. Sound familiar?

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • Charlespk  |  April 03 2014, 8:33AM

    As we continue to see, "some of the most extreme contemporary animal rights activists tend to share an implacable self-righteousness and misanthropy. . . Advocates of "good causes" all too often confuse the justice of their cause with their own moral worth." . . . Mark Almond- Lecturer in Modern History, Oriel College, Oxford. What matters is how quickly death occurs. When a fox or other small quarry is caught, it is killed almost instantaneously. This is made possible by the considerable power to weight ratio of the dog over the quarry, similar to a terrier compared to a rat. There is no chance of the quarry being wounded and escaping. The subsequent breaking up of the carcass, if it occurs, is not a welfare consideration as the animal is already dead. . . . . . . In assessing the means by which wild animals are culled, whether using dogs or other methods, it must be appreciated that death in the wild, in the absence of natural predators and without hunting, involves protracted pain, sepsis, gangrene, starvation, hypothermia for days or even weeks before death. . . . . "Arguably the precise cause of death is irrelevant. What is more critical is how quickly insensibility and death result. . . There seems little doubt that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds. " . . . . . . . The Burns Report, June 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6fp4hp3 (open in new window)

    Rate   4
    Report
  • Lou16  |  April 03 2014, 12:43AM

    Charlespk, what a load of tosh! After all that typing of lies, sweeping statements and generalisations not to mention not a drop of scientific evidence you have hardly a huge readership. Who would want to wade through your rants? You've no chance of bringing back hunting, indeed the savagery and law breaking that hunts indulge in up and down the country will be their own undoing as a toughening up will be the only viable outcome. So you'd better start looking for another cause to attempt to bash over people's heads, ultimately we all know that hunting is vile and all the strong evidence supports that view!

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • Lou16  |  April 03 2014, 12:38AM

    Ha ha

    Rate   -4
    Report
  • Charlespk  |  March 13 2014, 2:19PM

    It's time to join the real world. "some of the most extreme contemporary animal rights activists tend to share are an implacable self-righteousness and misanthropy. . . Advocates of "good causes" all too often confuse the justice of their cause with their own moral worth." . . . Mark Almond- Lecturer in Modern History, Oriel College, Oxford. http://tinyurl.com/6fp4hp3 (open in new window)

    Rate   4
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES

       
       
       

      MOST POPULAR