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.