The NYBC, who infected these chimps for decades with deadly diseases like hepatitis and others, promised to pay for their upkeep for the remainder of their lives. But now, after using and abusing them in vivisection labs, and in spite of their assets running into hundreds of millions of dollars, this callous and unethical organisation has turned its back on the chimps saying they are the responsibility of the Liberian government.
Doctor Brian Hare, an anthropologist and primatologist at Duke University notes, “Never, ever have I seen anything even remotely as disgusting as this.” Kathleen Conlee, Vice President for animal research at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) says “Our long-term goal is to provide these chimpanzees with true sanctuary. You cannot just use chimps like this and just abandon them and get away with it.” Most of the chimpanzees were bred in captivity, but some were captured from the wild. It has been reported that botched sterilisation of the animals has led to some births on the islands. This heart-breaking and unethical situation is being monitored by a collection of conservationists, including the Jane Goodall Institute and Born Free Foundation. Without this help, the sixty or so chimps will most certainly die. They are existing at the moment on a reduced feeding schedule paid for by rapidly dwindling emergency donations. The Charities have launched a Go Fund Me page and a petition asking people to sign and send letters to NYBC asking them to re-establish their lifesaving support. A recent visit to NYBC by Dr Hare, who went to ask for clemency for the chimps and to present a petition with over 200,000 signatures, ended when NYBC locked its doors and refused to speak to him. There has been no communication whatsoever despite Dr Hare leaving the petition in NYBCs doorway. Below are the links to the petition and a contact form to write to NYBC about your concerns. There is also a link to the FaceBook page where you can find updates on the plight of the chimpanzees. http://nybloodcenter.org/about-us/contact-us/ https://www.change.org/p/new-york-blood-center-don-t-abandon-chimpanzees-for-whom-you-promised-to-provide-lifetime-care/u/11494492 https://www.facebook.com/abandonedchimps/
3 Comments
An open letter to EFRA, Mr David Cameron, Simon Hart MP and Mr Neil Parish MP A great many of us are seriously concerned that the EFRA [Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] committee is using its position in government to curtail or remove the right of the RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty cases, and that the motive for this move is more about preventing fox hunting prosecutions than any real concern for animal welfare.
It will be impossible to prosecute if the Charity is not allowed to investigate, and it will be difficult to investigate if the Charity then has to rely on the CPS to bring up the thousands of cases in Court. It should also be remembered that it is the right of every private citizen to seek justice through the UK Courts. Of course there will be times when the RSPCA gets it wrong, but in the thousands of abuse cases which reach Court, there is only a handful which have been stopped and deemed not to be in the public interest. I would point out that for every case which does go to court, there are hundreds more that don’t. The problems are sorted out with RSPCA support and education and the cooperation of the animal’s owner. Sometimes the animal’s owner is reluctant or refuses to improve or take advice and that is when the RSPCA must step in for the sake of the animal. The Charity spends around 5p in the £1 on prosecutions and the rest of the money is spent on animal housing, veterinary treatment, education and of course paying inspectors salaries. The RSPCA also saves the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds every year which it is doubtful could be matched by the CPS, especially in these times of austerity and swinging cuts to services. The pro hunting press, ably abetted by the Countryside Alliance, are also guilty of a steady build-up of accusations of RSPCA misuse of power. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail are particularly aggressive in accusing the RSPCA of radical campaigning, promiscuous legal actions and the underhand use of funds. Yet this is at odds with ALL of the RSPCA reviews which have found the RSPCA to be acting within its remit, which is to prevent animal abuse. The Charity Commission has said on at least two occasions that the RSPCA has no case to answer. The Heythrop prosecution is often cited by Mr Hart as a scandalous waste of money, which he claims was undertaken for political motives to embarrass the Prime Minister who has associations with the hunt. But it has never been political to uphold the law, nor is it political to prosecute cruelty. Perhaps if the Heythrop themselves had been more mindful of Mr Cameron’s reputation by association, they would have not broken the law in the first place. (Oddly the Charity’s prosecution of cruelty to horses in 2008 on Spindles Farm cost over £2,000,000, and the RSPCA was praised for their dedication and compassion.) It is of especial concern that animals will not get the protection they need after reading Lord Ashcroft’s expose of David Cameron, who he claims, when in opposition, used his influence and asked the CPS to drop a hunting case against a member of the Heythrop hunt, and if that allegation turns out to be true, not only was Mr Cameron’s action undemocratic, but it could also be viewed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The CPS dropped the case against the hunter, which in the light of recent news reports of Mr Cameron's personal intervention does not give people confident in the CPS or the law. The RSPCA is as respected and it is respectable, it is also unique. Britain has a reputation of being a nation of animal lovers and the majority who care do not want to see the RSPCA rendered useless because another backdoor attempt is being made to prevent hunt prosecutions. If the EFRA committee rule that the RSPCA can no longer investigate and prosecute animal abuse, then perhaps EFRA would tell us what it intends to put in place of the Charity, and where the money will be found to carry out the investigations and to fund the court costs so that no animal is left to suffer. Sources and resources; Politics Youtube Wikipedia Western Daily press
“On Saturday the 28th February 2015 West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs attended a meet of the Atherstone Fox hunt at Sibson, Leicestershire. They were there to gather evidence of illegal hunting and to intervene if necessary to save hunted foxes.
From the start of the day it was clear that the Atherstone were illegally hunting as they repeatedly put their hounds through areas likely to contain foxes with no evidence that a trail had been laid. The attached video shows a fox being closely pursued by the Atherstone hounds. The huntsman and whipper in are present at the time and neither do anything to stop the illegal hunting. Their only concern is to impede and assault the saboteurs who are filming their law breaking. The huntsman in the red coat can be seen using his horse to ride at a sab and pin him against a wall. The video also shows the saboteurs being assaulted by hunt supporters who try and steal their cameras. One female saboteur received nasty cuts to her face after a hunt supporter dug her nails into her face. We can confirm that the CPS have decided not to prosecute the huntsman for illegal hunting, despite the video showing the fox running across the path of the hunters, closely followed by two fox hounds. No attempts were made by any of the hunt staff present to stop the hounds. In fact the first thing the Huntsman did after seeing the fox, was to ride his horse violently into the nearest person, pinning them up against the wall.” The police have separately charged the woman in the footage for two accounts of assault, yet oddly it seems the huntsman will face no charge for his actions. Kelly Watson, spokesperson for West Midland Hunt saboteurs, stated: “Although this video clearly shows illegal hunting and assault we are shocked that no charges have been brought against the huntsman. The hounds were clearly out of control and yet no charges have been made. Despite clear evidence of hunting and assaults, no-one faces any charges, yet when members of the Atherstone Hunt make allegations with no evidence the police are happy to act and issue Police Information Notices to the two saboteurs in this footage.” There is a petition circulating asking the CPS to reconsider charging the Huntsman with common assault contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There is also clear evidence of the illegal hunting of a fox and no attempts made by any members of the hunt or their stewards to call off the hounds. This is contrary to the legislation set out in the Hunting Act of 2004. September 25, Facebook Saboteurs say once again they caught the Atherstone hunt chasing another fox. A spokesperson for the saboteurs had this to say, “Thanks to a tip off we found the Atherstone Hunt at High Cross. A small group attended this meet and this is what happened......the driver found herself in the right spot at the right time. She could see hounds in full cry charging up a field close to the A5. Knowing this meet well from main season she drove up to the lane (ironically the same lane where a sab was wrongfully arrested for causing chaos and mayhem last hunting season) to find the hunt causing real chaos and mayhem. As she approached she could hear hounds in cry and suddenly a fox appeared. He turned quickly in front of the hounds back into the hedge. One of the hunt supporters was very close to the fox but he did nothing to turn the hounds way. He just stood there watching as if the horror of the situation was entirely normal. The fox then jinked back out of the hedge and ran straight across the road closely followed by two lead hounds. Facebook Timeline The driver leaped out of the car and at this point the whipper in knew what was happening and when she realised a camera was pointing straight at the road, she panicked. If the driver hadn’t been there it would have been business as usual for the hunt and their dogs would have carried on chasing and killing the fox.” How many hours of footage will it take? How many witness statements? How many saboteurs have to be injured before the police do what they are supposed to do and uphold the law? What are the police doing exactly, apart from harassing the saboteurs? It seems like they are acting as private bodyguards for lawbreakers and the CPS, when presented with irrefutable evidence, decide there is no case to answer. Change Petition Youtube https://vimeo.com/wmhuntsabs/videos/rss
Op-Ed: Who would have thought that after such a build-up, David Cameron would back down over his Statutory Instrument (SI) which, although it was a small change in the legislation, would have led to gargantuan changes in the English law on hunting with dogs? A backdoor repeal in fact.
The Countryside Alliance, formerly the British Field Sports (blood sports) Association, is understandably disappointed because they saw the SI as a way of bringing back old style hunting with a full pack of dogs. It would not have been a full repeal, but it would have been so significant a change in the English law that those who like killing UK wildlife for the fun of it could have resumed that activity with little fear of prosecution. As the law stands at the moment, the mounted hunts in England have nothing whatsoever to do with fox ‘control’. They are allowed to trail hunt or drag hunt, and nothing else. The law is constructed that way to prevent animals being chased and pulled apart by dogs, although a loophole of two dogs to flush to guns was included at the Act’s inception to placate the farmers and gamekeepers who said they needed to be able to kill foxes to protect their livestock. (This is in spite of the studies which have shown that foxes are not a huge threat to farm animals, including lambs and free range poultry) There is a different arrangement in the Scottish Act, where a full pack of dogs with mounted huntsmen can flush a troublesome fox from cover to waiting guns. The fox is not to be chased under Scottish law and the animal can only be flushed if the farmer or land owner gives specific permission for an animal to be killed who is perceived to be a danger to his livestock. Mr Cameron was intending to bring English law into line with Scottish law and the idea was enthusiastically embraced by the Countryside Alliance, in spite of previous supplications that there should be full repeal because shooting foxes was hideously cruel in their view, they saw immediately how aligning themselves with Scottish hunters would be a great advantage, and they threw their cruelty argument about shooting those animals straight out of the window. Like the fox in the bag, Cameron thought he had his quarry well and truly secured. Unfortunately for the hunting set he was arrogant enough to discount the strength of public opinion against hunting, and he set aside the 15th of July for the 90 minutes allowed for discussion in the firm belief that chasing foxes once more was on the cards. His SI would have been a stroke of pure genius, and it didn’t give those of us against hunt cruelty much time to mobilise. It was also snuck in on the day of the budget too. Nevertheless, people all over Britain, town and country alike, began to contact MPs on social media and by telephone and email. A concerted effort was made to beg the SNP to use their compassionate vote, and it paid off. Angus Roberson, who has always been against the cruelty of hunting, and Nicola Sturgeon announced that the SNP would break with tradition and vote NO along with Labour and the forty or so compassionate Conservative MPs who see hunting as a moral issue not a political bun fight. Ms Sturgeon told the BBC that she had received an unprecedented amount of communication from people in Scotland, and also English and Welsh anti-hunting supporters too, urging her to speak up for wildlife on both sides of the border Once the SNP had declared their intentions, David Cameron knew that his free vote would not go the way he wanted, so he cancelled the debate. The Scottish branch of the Countryside Alliance immediately turned the issue into one of Scotland versus England and the long knives were out for the SNP. Mr James Barrington (Welfare Officer for the Countryside Alliance) said, Quote: It is important to understand that there had been discussions between the government and the SNP prior to the introduction of the amendments, and that they would not have been brought forward had the SNP signalled that it was going to enter the debate. End of Quote. I think the public understands very well that David Cameron intends only to allow a vote when he knows he can win. He doesn’t seem to mind that this is undemocratic and unconstitutional and hardly constitutes a free vote in the true meaning of the word. The Countryside Alliance has changed tack again and its propaganda machine is now trying to convince the rest of us that failure to embrace the Scottish law will signal the death knell for many UK species, and foxes will suffer in ways unimaginable. In fact it is quite possible the sky may fall down. Perhaps they have forgotten that hunting traditional style has been banned or the last ten years and nothing untoward has happened as a consequence of that. What of the SNP in all of this? They have given Mr Cameron the bloody nose he deserves and they have promised a review of their own hunting laws after the League against Cruel Sports showed video evidence of Scottish hunts killing foxes against the rules. We all know it’s always been business as usual here in England and most hunts flout the ban, but at least with the hunting Act intact, if evidence can be provided there is some hope of a successful prosecution following on. The hunters know this, as do the saboteurs and monitors who risk their lives to gather evidence of illegal hunting and, with the cubbing season about to start in the next couple of weeks that evidence gathering would have been practically impossible if Cameron had altered the Act to allow a full pack of dogs to operate. There is also the law of aggravated trespass which was specifically brought in by this government to curtail the activities of the saboteurs. It is a criminal offense, which carries a huge fine and a possible spell in prison, if a saboteur enters private land even to obtain evidence of illegal hunting. What now? Cameron’s climb down has given those against hunt cruelty breathing space, but it’s not over. A free vote was promised in the Tory manifesto, and this is one promise Cameron intends to keep. He and his bloodthirsty parliamentary big guns are determined to give his friends what they want. He is willing and eager it seems, to ignore three quarters of the population and he is even prepared to damage the reputation of the Conservative party as a whole. The war against animal cruelty goes on, and those of us who give a damn must keep fighting until we have enough MPs onside to remove once and for all this horrible threat that hangs over out precious wild animals. Who would have thought that after such a build-up, David Cameron would back down over his Statutory Instrument (SI) which, although it was a small change in the legislation, would have led to gargantuan changes in the English law on hunting with dogs? A backdoor repeal in fact. The Countryside Alliance, formerly the British Field Sports (blood sports) Association, is understandably disappointed because they saw the SI a way of bringing back old style hunting with a full pack of dogs. It would not have been a full repeal, but it would have been so significant a change in the English law that those who like killing UK wildlife for the fun of it could have resumed that activity with little fear of prosecution. As the law stands at the moment, the mounted hunts in England have nothing whatsoever to do with fox ‘control’. They are allowed to trail hunt or drag hunt, and nothing else. The law is constructed that way to prevent animals being chased and pulled apart by dogs, although a loophole of two dogs to flush to guns was included at the Act’s inception to placate the farmers and gamekeepers who said they needed to be able to kill foxes to protect their livestock. (This is in spite of the studies which have shown that foxes are not a huge threat to farm animals, including lambs and free range poultry) There is a different arrangement in the Scottish Act, where a full pack of dogs with mounted huntsmen can flush a troublesome fox from cover to waiting guns. The fox is not to be chased under Scottish law and the animal can only be flushed if the farmer or land owner gives specific permission for an animal to be killed who is perceived to be a danger to his livestock. Mr Cameron was intending to bring English law into line with Scottish law and the idea was enthusiastically embraced by the Countryside Alliance, in spite of previous supplications that there should be full repeal because shooting foxes was hideously cruel in their view, they saw immediately how aligning themselves with Scottish hunters would be a great advantage, and they threw their cruelty argument about shooting those animals straight out of the window. Like the fox in the bag, Cameron thought he had his quarry well and truly secured. Unfortunately for the hunting set he was arrogant enough to discount the strength of public opinion against hunting, and he set aside the 15th of July for the 90 minutes allowed for discussion in the firm belief that chasing foxes once more was on the cards. His SI would have been a stroke of pure genius, and it didn’t give those of us against hunt cruelty much time to mobilise. It was also snuck in on the day of the budget too. Nevertheless, people all over Britain, town and country alike, began to contact MPs on social media and by telephone and email. A concerted effort was made to beg the SNP to use their compassionate vote, and it paid off. Angus Roberson, who has always been against the cruelty of hunting, and Nicola Sturgeon announced that the SNP would break with tradition and vote NO along with Labour and the forty or so compassionate Conservative MPs who see hunting as a moral issue not a political bun fight. Ms Sturgeon told the BBC that she had received an unprecedented amount of communication from people in Scotland, and also English and Welsh anti-hunting supporters too, urging her to speak up for wildlife on both sides of the border Once the SNP had declared their intentions, David Cameron knew that his free vote would not go the way he wanted, so he cancelled the debate. The Scottish branch of the Countryside Alliance immediately turned the issue into one of Scotland versus England and the long knives were out for the SNP. Mr James Barrington (Welfare Officer for the Countryside Alliance) said, Quote: It is important to understand that there had been discussions between the government and the SNP prior to the introduction of the amendments, and that they would not have been brought forward had the SNP signalled that it was going to enter the debate. End of Quote. I think the public understands very well that David Cameron intends only to allow a vote when he knows he can win. He doesn’t seem to mind that this is undemocratic and unconstitutional and hardly constitutes a free vote in the true meaning of the word. The Countryside Alliance has changed tack again and its propaganda machine is now trying to convince the rest of us that failure to embrace the Scottish law will signal the death knell for many UK species, and foxes will suffer in ways unimaginable. In fact it is quite possible the sky may fall down. Perhaps they have forgotten that hunting traditional style has been banned or the last ten years and nothing untoward has happened as a consequence of that. What of the SNP in all of this? They have given Mr Cameron the bloody nose he deserves and they have promised a review of their own hunting laws after the League against Cruel Sports showed video evidence of Scottish hunts killing foxes against the rules. We all know it’s always been business as usual here in England and most hunts flout the ban, but at least with the hunting Act intact, if evidence can be provided there is some hope of a successful prosecution following on. The hunters know this, as do the saboteurs and monitors who risk their lives to gather evidence of illegal hunting and, with the cubbing season about to start in the next couple of weeks that evidence gathering would have been practically impossible if Cameron had altered the Act to allow a full pack of dogs to operate. There is also the law of aggravated trespass which was specifically brought in by this government to curtail the activities of the saboteurs. It is a criminal offense, which carries a huge fine and a possible spell in prison, if a saboteur enters private land even to obtain evidence of illegal hunting. What now? Cameron’s climb down has given those against hunt cruelty breathing space, but it’s not over. A free vote was promised in the Tory manifesto, and this is one promise Cameron intends to keep. He and his bloodthirsty parliamentary big guns are determined to give his friends what they want. He is willing and eager it seems, to ignore three quarters of the population and he is even prepared to damage the reputation of the Conservative party as a whole. The war against animal cruelty goes on, and those of us who give a damn must keep fighting until we have enough MPs onside to remove once and for all this horrible threat that hangs over our precious wild animals.
The Telegraph story was pretty similar adding that the man who fell off his bicycle lost his glasses and the club members had to barricade themselves in the building as the fox stalked them outside. The woman who was bitten tried to distract the fox with food so the others could escape apparently. A pest controller was called but when he tried to approach the animal it "went for him" and chased him back to his car. The animal was eventually caught and destroyed but there is no comment on how or when that happened. The only pictures supplied were a generic picture of a fox totally unrelated to the story, and another picture allegedly of the offending fox taken through the window of the sports centre. Apparently the terrified crew inside the building watched the animal casing the joint on the CCTV but no footage has been supplied as yet. The May / Portillo interview was equally bizarre, with Dr May explaining carefully why hunting should stay banned and Mr Portillo replying that hunting and bull fighting were both great traditions and as such should be allowed to continue as before. He even went on to claim that his practising Catholicism impelled him to hold that view. Animal souls, Mr Portillo said, were not as important as human souls. Of course we know that those in favour of blood sports twist what has gone before to suit their arguments too, but I have never heard the Catholic Church cited as a reason for enjoying eviscerating those small red cousins of our dogs. The excuses the hunting fraternity come up with for continuing fox hunting are quite similar to the excuses put forward by the slave owners when the Abolitionist movement first came into being, and indeed tradition, when deployed in this manner could be a cover for almost any disgusting and oppressive fetish held by those in power. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves so why can’t we have slaves etc.. Hunters frequently assail us with similar reasoning, stating that because Richard Martin (a founding member of the RSPCA) was a fox hunter, it makes it okay for us to be fox hunters too. Traditionally apparently two wrongs always make a right. I wonder how Mr Portillo feels about defenders of slavery righteously quoting that in the Old Testament, Abraham had slaves. They even cited the 10 commandments saying, ‘Thou shalt not covert thy neighbour’s manservant, nor his maidservant.” So of course that must mean having servants, i.e. slaves was okay. The New Testament was also hauled up to bear witness that Paul returned a runaway slave and Jesus never uttered a word about slavery. Just like animals today, slave owners said black people, (not just slaves) had no legal rights. They were property, and being property meant rights were not bestowed upon them. They could be used and abused as their masters saw fit. The slavers fought the Abolitionists in the courts and the Judges ruled in their favour. The slave owners were adamant that they had God on their side. I’m getting a strange feeling of Déjà vu here. Welfare is another claim made by the Countryside Alliance to persuade the rest of us that they are killing animals not just for fun, but mainly for their own good. Hunters are apparently saving the hunted from growing old and dying from natural causes. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery was a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, “Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.” That is almost something James Barrington could have included in his pro hunting blogs as he often infers that hunters are doing foxes a massive favour by killing them. The slave owners also said that they would protect and assist the slaves when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves. Now here I think the slave owners had one up on hunters morally, because hunters never claim to protect the old sick animals. In fact chasing and killing old sick animals is doing the species as a whole a great service according to the Countryside Alliance. (I’m minded here that Dr Shipman had the same idea about the elderly under his care in the NHS) It’s not mentioned of course that there won’t be many old foxes because although they can live as long as our dogs in captivity, a wild fox is lucky to see his second birthday. Next we come to the labels. James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860, “One party to this conflict are not merely Abolitionists they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins. The slave owners are the friends of order, religion and regulated freedom.” Similar insults ring in my head about those of us against hunting cruelties today. We are supposedly not just against blood sports, we are also jobless, scroungers who don’t wash and who spend our time thinking up terrorist plots to thwart the innocent hunters who after all are only abusing animals for their own good. We are called ignorant townies, which is meant to convey great insult. Only those who live in the countryside should have any say in what is allowed to live and what must die. Throughout history, when a society forms around any institution, as the South did around slavery, it will formulate a set of arguments to support it. That those arguments don’t hold water didn’t seem to matter to the slave owners at all, and similarly the hunters don’t care that their reasons for the continuation of their barbaric and outdated tradition don’t hold water among the more empathic of their contemporaries. Hunters talk about horrific cruelty to animals not associated with hunting, and in those cases proudly carry the RSPCA banner, then in the same breath they want that organisation cast down for prosecuting hunting abuse. A bizarre situation where it’s impossible to know if the hunters have managed to brain wash themselves, or if they are hoping that by repeated repetition of a lie, the rest of us will come to believe it to be the truth. If hunting is a tradition that must be upheld, then it’s only fair that that great old RSPCA tradition of prosecuting those who kill for fun must be upheld too. The Countryside Alliance disputes this compassionate act by claiming that they are confident that the hunt knew nothing about the cubs and the hunters are innocent of any crime. However, the League states on its website that the male in question is shown on the 2015 voters register at living at the hunt kennels, which are 200 metres away from the barn. The Middleton Foxhounds are registered as an incorporated non-limited business with a registered address of the kennels. (Incorporation date 1/1/2010). The company number is 4058254’. The League Against Cruel Sports says the young foxes were captured for cruelty. The League claims that their video was part of an investigation on a tip off in May. The footage shows a shed fitted out to mimic a fox earth and the cubs were fed on dead chickens by an employee of the Middleton hunt. They had access to dirty water and were living in a drainpipe and an upturned milk churn. There were no adult foxes present although cubs of that age would have had both parents in the wild. This suggests they were forcibly removed. Sixteen cubs together like this also suggests they have been taken from more than one litter. Dr Toni Shephard, Head of Policy and Research for the League Against Cruel Sports, said that the League had alerted the police who removed the foxes and arrested a hunt employee. The foxes, one of which died shortly after the rescue, are being kept at a secret location. A statement from Dr Shephard on the League’s website says, "This blows apart the argument that hunting is ‘wildlife management’. Why would people working for a hunt be keeping young foxes? The answer is simple but terrible – they capture foxes so there is always a ready supply of animals to be chased by the hunt. Put bluntly, these foxes were kidnapped for cruelty.” She went on to say, "We’re sure that there will be a denial that these captured foxes are linked to the local hunt, but the evidence is right there. The other footage, the intelligence we have received and testimony from people who have been involved in hunts all show that raising foxes to be hunted was, and still is, a common practice among hunts.” This find makes a lie of the claim that hunting is essential fox control and that using dogs to regulate fox numbers is a vital service for farmers. A powerful and highly vocal minority are doing their best to convince the rest of us that repealing the hunting Act is a humane step forward to prevent foxes overpopulating and causing havoc in the UK countryside. However the League’s footage now blows apart that claim and anyone seeing the plight of those little animals can see plainly this is a despicable and totally fake argument for repeal. Fox hunting never did provide a service because foxes, like all predators, control their own numbers according to food supply and habitat. Most foxes only live to see a couple of birthdays in the wild, and out of a litter of four cubs it is likely only one will survive to adulthood. These facts negate another claim the hunters make that their hounds only kill the old and the sick thus ensuring a healthy population left alive. They say its good animal welfare and essential for the species as a whole. Fox hounds are bred for stamina over speed. If in the unlikely event there are any old foxes in the wild they won’t give the dogs or the riders a good run. Similarly a sick fox will be easily and quickly caught which is not much fun when you think of all the effort that went into pulling on one’s boots etc. and saddling up for the occasion, and in any case there is something decidedly unsavoury about chasing and eviscerating an old or sick animal. It’s not the first time the Middleton hunt has been in the public eye. In August 2013 footage taken by anti-hunt monitors shows a terrified vixen hiding in a tower of hay bales as hunt staff use terriers and sticks to force her out. She manages to evade her tormentors for nearly half an hour but is eventually caught and thrown to the dogs. The film was turned over to the police and four members of the hunt were prosecuted. They were given a paltry fine. Tim Holt, from Leavening, North Yorks, was fined £200, Shaun Marles, of Titley, Herts, was fined £100, terrierman Lee Martin from Birdsall, North Yorks was also fined £100. All were told to pay a £20 surcharge and £85 costs. So where does that leave the hunting issue? Hopefully the Government will be persuaded that the rest of us see through the ruse that fox hunting is essential country management. Even some of the hunters themselves admit it’s a sport. Pre ban there was no pretence that hunting was anything other than fun. Chris Ogilvy, ex MFH at Coniston hunt said on TVs Face the Public that hunting was for entertainment, and the morality of the sport was no one else’s business. Edward Duke, currently Joint Master of the Middleton Foxhounds, is a former Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance. He is often reported as saying that banning "foxhunting" would not save the life of a single fox. He has said that ‘it is an inefficient way to control fox numbers’ and says that "we do it (foxhunting) for a bit of fun". David Cameron has promised a free vote on repealing the hunting Act. It is vital that we contact our MPs and tell them we want them to vote against bringing back hunting in any form. Many Tory MPs are pro hunting but that is not a reason not to let them know how we feel. They are supposed to represent us; they were not elected to further their own interests or to promote the interests of their bloodthirsty chums. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/middleton-hunt-pictures-video-horrific-2172935 http://www.league.org.uk/news-and-opinion/press-releases/2015/jun-15/kidnapped-for-cruelty-16-fox-cubs-found-in-a-barn-linked-to-high-profile-hunt-claims-charity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7PjfphDsc0&feature=youtu.be http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Reference-material/Kidnapped-for-Cruelty-briefing.pdf |
Animal mattersCountry lover, amateur naturalist and fox lover fighting to preserve the ban on hunting Archives
September 2016
Categories
All
|