Introduction
Hunting is a controversial topic although it is a common practice around the world. Fox hunting is a tradition in the UK where hunters on horseback track down a fox using dogs with the aim of killing it. The tradition dates back to the late 1600s where dogs were bred to hunt and used in packs to track down foxes in England, and the tradition contributed to the formation of other sports such as steeplechasing. Fox hunting with dogs is now against the law in England and Wales through the Hunting Act (HA) 2004 and in Scotland through the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002. Hunting raises many concerns especially when it is for sport and the debate had led to the lack of protection for wild animals in the UK. The HA 2004 was introduced with a majority vote of 356 to 166 to protect wild animals from dog hunting. The act is enforced in England and Wales banning the use of dogs in hunting wild animals and hare coursing. The act allows circumstances where hunting can occur as set out in Schedule One of the HA 2004. Hunting can occur on land for stalking and flushing wild animals out with up to two dogs with the landowner’s permission, while more than two dogs with the intention to hunt is against the HA. The use of dogs can be allowed in situations to protect shooting birds by using dogs underground and instances of retrieving hares. Circumstances involving recapture, rescue and research can involve the use of dogs. If a person is caught using dogs for hunting against the HA, then they can be fined up to £5000 along with their dogs and equipment being confiscated. It was outlined by the High Court that the defendant must prove that their actions were part of the exemptions set out in Schedule One of the HA 2004. To secure a prosecution under the HA a wild animal must have been pursued by hounds and providing evidence of this does not require the animals to have died. The issue is that the people involved must have intended to pursue the animal which means that hunters could claim they never intended to hunt an animal and escape responsibility from the HA.
History of the Hunting Act 2004
The HA 2004 entered into force in February 2005 and restricts the hunting of animals. The HA came into force through the campaigns of many animal right groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports. The act was pushed by many people and campaigners who believed that hunting animals using dogs should be prohibited by law. Banning fox hunting was investigated in 1949 by a committee put together by the Labour government but the committee concluded that hunting is needed to control fox populations and are less cruel than other methods used to reduce wildlife populations. Tony Blair declared his plan to ban fox hunting in 1999 following the failed attempts at introducing a bill to Parliament through private member bills. There was controversy as to whether this promise was linked to the large donations made by The Political Animal Lobby who are against hunting, however, the labour party denied these allegations. The Scottish Parliament banned hunting in 2002 for Scotland with a vote of 83 to 36 in favour of the ban, while the HA was being scrutinised and passed from the House of Commons and the House of Lords eventually being passed in 2004 and entering into force in 2005. Tony Blair initially wanted the act to come into force in 2006 allowing people involved in the hunts time to adjust, however, it was insinuated that this delay was to influence voters as the general election was coming up and Blair was trying to win back voters. However, this delay was not implemented, and the act came into force in 2005 making it against the law to hunt a fox with hounds. Hunting supporters and campaigners tried to fight the act being introduced and took the issue to court but subsequently lost. Pro-hunters tried to claim that the act infringed on hunters civil liberties, however, violently harming wildlife is not something that is for the good of the community and the act does not affect a persons right to participate in the ceremony of a hunt as long as no animal is harmed. The Hunting Act makes it an offence to assist a hunt, for example under Section 3 it is an offence if a person knowingly allows their land or dog to be used in a hunt and can result in prosecution.
The Cause
The HA 2004 was supposed to enhance the cause of animal protection and promote the idea of animal welfare for wild animals. Fox hunting is a cruel sport as the animal is hunted and killed in a very violent and unnecessary way. The hounds will catch the fox and kill it by mauling it to death, and if the animal escapes death it is usually left mentally and physically harmed by the chase. A post-mortem was conducted to demonstrate that a fox died from severe trauma caused by numerous dog bites. The arguments for allowing such an activity is the tradition of the sport and the fact that foxes are classed as pests. England is known for upholding traditions; however, it cannot be an excuse to allow the continuation of harmful behaviour towards animals. Drag hunting allows the tradition to continue without causing harm to animals, as it uses an artificial scent planted in a planned route for the hounds to follow. The idea that a tradition allows foxhunts a status that means it cannot be cancelled or restricted is absurd, for example, bear baiting was once acceptable but is now viewed as another cruel way humans have mistreated animals in the past and there would be an uproar if the sport was to be reintroduced. The argument that fox hunts allow the fox population to be managed and controlled does not alleviate the fact that the animal suffers severe harm and it was illustrated by the Governments investigation in hunting with hounds that the sport does not contribute to the methods taken in controlling wildlife populations. The argument of pest control does not relate to the situations where foxes are being bred for hunts to ensure that the dogs can find foxes during the hunting season. Campaigners have been working towards a legislation that enforces the cause, for example, the League Against Cruel Sports has been campaigning for a hunting ban since 1924. The hunting act was a huge success for campaigners who have been lobbying government and protesting hunts for years with no success, however, securing the HA has not had the desired effect on hunting in England and Wales. The Act has many flaws and pro-hunt campaigners continue to support weakening the act further and aim to have the act overturned. The act allows too many exemptions and lacks sufficient enforcement. Class is a big issue in the enforcement and the effectiveness of the Act, which is evident in the long battle in achieving the HA.
Class issue
The Labour Government denied class as an issue relating to the introduction of the HA and claimed that the focus should be on the protection of animals and not on whether class played a role in the act’s development. However, class has impacted the HA and continues to affect the enforcement and success of the act. Throughout history rules regarding hunting and protecting areas of wildlife were usually to protect Lords and Kings hunting grounds from the poor who were likely to hunt for food. The laws were enacted by the wealthy who sought to maintain their own lands for hunting without considering the social and environmental issues that were linked to the laws being enacted. The upper class were the developers of the law and used it to maintain their status in society and the harshness of a punishment usually represented the class of that person. For example, a peasant caught poaching on private land could be sentence to death by hanging, and this was not to criminalise the act of hunting but to protect the upper classes property. During the year 1154, the reign of Henry the Second, the majority of English forest was owned by the King, leaving communities little to no public access to areas to hunt for food. The big difference between the poor hunting for food is that the people were desperate and hunted out of necessity while the King desired the thrill of the hunt. The luxury of conducting the hunt for the thrill is demonstrated in the ceremony of a hunt today which represents the status and upper class of those involved. The roles taken by people in the hunt are based very much on class, from the Masters of the Hunt to the terrier men, the roles were dependant on the persons status. The ceremony was expensive as the uniform and riding gear was to ensure that people who participated in the hunt were able to afford the sport and were from a high class. This also meant that they could pay farmers and owners of private land to be able to conduct the sport and links to why it is hard to catch hunters today as they have the means to bribe people and private land owners. The deep integration of laws ascertained by class can be linked to the lack of enforcement and success surrounding the HA today. The issue resurfaced when former Prime Minister David Cameron campaigned for the overturn of the hunting ban and a survey of parliament at the time identified that 84% of Conservatives were against the hunting ban while 98% of Labour candidates were in support of the ban. The class issue is still ongoing and evident in the lack of enforcement and power supplied by the HA. A recent example is evident through the covid-19 restrictions in England allowing hunts to continue while lockdown took place. It was suggested by the Labour Party that the Conservative Government and Prime Minister made this judgement due to the £1 million collective donation from pro-hunters. This illustrates the lack of enforcement of rules for the upper class, while many of the public suffered during the Christmas period and many had to spend the holiday alone while the Boxing Day Fox Hunt was allowed to go ahead despite the covid rules. This illustrates that the rich have a much greater influence over the rules compared to people in a working class, illustrating that the HA is not just focused on an animal rights issue.
Enforcement
The HA has many enforcement issues relating to illegal hunting and the fact that the act includes many exceptions. The issue is that the HA is not a complete ban on hunting which means it can be hard to enforce the rules on hound hunts. There are convictions for crimes against the HA, however, the investigation into alleged illegal activity is not always efficient. This is why many campaign groups like the League take matters into their own hands and execute private prosecutions. The act has many limits as Parliament wanted to ensure that the act did not impact activities that were not intended to be banned, instead it has limited the effectiveness and enforceability of the HA. The act was not supposed to hinder research projects, so it is an exemption under Schedule One and fox hunters have been known to use the falconry exception when conducting a hunt by carrying birds of prey.[28] Drag hunting is allowed under the act and was originally designed in the 1800 as a way to test the dog’s ability at tracking scents over a trail. Drag hunts are set up by outlining a planned route and applying an artificial scent to a drag, usually a chemical or aniseed scent, and planting the scent at different location for the dogs to follow. It was stated by the High Court in 2009 that conducting a search is allowed under the HA but once an animal is found then it can amount to a hunt. This means that the ceremony of a hunt can occur and not breach the HA but once a fox is found then it can be classed as a hunt. The issue with this is that it does not satisfy the intention element of the hunt under the HA, as they must have intended to hunt a fox to be guilty under the act. Trail hunting developed after the HA as a way of allowing a hunt to occur without the risk of being prosecuted under the HA as it did not satisfy the intent aspect. The process is similar to drag hunting but uses the scent of animals, such as fox urine, and conducted in areas where a fox is likely to be present. This means that the dogs are likely to pursue a fox instead of the planted fox urine laid by humans. This means that hunters can claim they intended to have a trial hunt which unfortunately led to a fox being killed, but it was not their intention. Section 4 of the HA sets out the defence of reasonable belief by the defendant that the activity they were undertaking was allowed or excepted under the HA therefore alleviating guilt.
Strengthening the Hunting Act 2004
The HA lacks enforcement and is heavily infiltrated with the parasite of British class weighing the effectiveness of the act down, but there is still hope. The development of trail hunting and the way it has been used to avoid the ban on fox hunting has led to the National Trust, Forestry England, and the Lake District National Park to ban trial hunts to ensure that illegal hunting will not be conducted on their land. Investigations have been undertaken and made public by ITV and the police have been looking into trial hunts and illegal activity. The campaign to strengthen the HA is growing, for example, the city council for Peterborough and Nottingham county council banned hunts on the city’s land ensuring that no hunts will occur with hounds in the area which will guarantee that no accidents can occur to wildlife. Similar bans and acts of solidarity have occurred across private landowners demonstrating their support to ban fox hunts, the public support could push the development of the HA by limiting its exceptions and strengthening its enforcement of hunting activities like trail hunts. The issue is proving that the hunters intended to hunt the fox due to all the allowances made by the HA which the hunters can use to exclude themselves from guilt. Therefore, allowing the act to criminalise reckless behaviour of hunters by not taking proper action in ensuring the fox’s safety and control over the hounds they are trail hunting with. There are countless videos taken by animal right groups proving that hunters are using trail hunts to disguise their fox hunts from the law. There is also evidence that hunters encourage dogs to attack when they find a fox by ‘accident’ or make no effort to control their dogs when this occurs. By introducing the recklessness aspect of intent would ensure greater caution when conducting a hunt in the future and highlight people who are repeat offenders.
Conclusion
The labour party are calling for the Government to strengthen the HA by removing the loopholes and being harsh on hunting offenders, however, there has been no action by the Government as they claim the act is conducting its purpose. The HA has too many exemptions and did not foresee the development of sports like trail hunting which acts outside the HA and allows hunters to avoid responsibility. Pro-hunters have claimed that the ban on foxhunts is fuelled by a hatred of the wealthy and is limiting their rights to conduct a sport that has been a tradition for families for generations, however, this ignores the real issue of the protecting animals. Fox hunts are a class symbol and banning them may have been motivated by a class divide, however, the aim of the ban by campaigners and Parliament was to ensure the safety of wild animals such as foxes and deer’s by ensuring they do not die in a cruel and unnecessary way. The issue of class must be recognised to fully understand why the HA has not been successful and to ensure that amendments can be made to ensure its success. The issue of the upper-class enacting laws in their favour is still occurring despite the UK being a democratic state and class is one of the reasons behind this. The covid-19 restrictions reflected this due to members of Parliament disregarding the lockdown rules. Therefore, class in a bigger problem in this current age than we give it credit for and identifying the problem can highlight the reason and issues surrounding the limits of environmental legislation working effectively. There is no need to uphold a tradition that is sceptically proven to cause animals distress and lead to their death in the name of a sport. It is widely accepted that domestic and tame animals are entitled to a level of protection from the law, therefore, wild animals should be provided that same protection. An issue of class should not be preventing animals from receiving adequate protection, especially in times where environmental issues are becoming urgently required to be addressed to prevent everlasting damage to the planet. Overall, the HA has made a big contribution to animal protection, however, it could be more efficient and effective in protecting wild animals and still had a long way to ago in achieving the cause set out by campaigners.
References:
Comments