Jim Barrington: Citronella, trails and the video clip that exposes how hunt saboteurs think

Hardly a week goes by without an MP, almost always a left-wing, inner-city member, raising a Parliamentary question about tightening the Hunting Act to prohibit trail hunting.

Clearly, these politicians have been completely taken in by the propaganda and ‘evidence’ pumped out by anti-hunting groups that claim trail hunting – following a scent laid by a human, rather than a live animal – is just a smokescreen for live quarry hunting. That argument succeeded in the Scottish parliament when passing the new hunting law. This is odd considering that throughout the countless debates before and after the Hunting Act was passed, the antis argued hunting such a trail was the humane alternative.

MPs who continue to obsess about hunting have their own reasons for doing so, some of which have nothing to do with improving animal welfare, but they sometimes rely on so-called evidence supplied by various groups, including hunt saboteurs. This is where the discerning observer should take a step back and seriously question the reliability of such evidence.

Whether it be attacking elderly hunt supporters, defacing property with graffiti, perverting the course of justice by falsifying evidence or vandalising cars, these are the masked-up, thuggish people whose ‘evidence’ we are expected to believe. Last year, Wrexham University published a report into the policing of hunting in North Wales and referred to the difficulties in obtaining sound evidence, particularly from hunt saboteurs. Why, then, does anyone, let alone politicians, trust the provenance of information from such a biased, law-breaking source?

No one would pretend the hunt saboteurs (or indeed the so-called ‘hunt monitors’) are unbiased. I’ve witnessed first-hand that visceral hatred of hunts, even while out with a drag hunt and a bloodhound pack, so how far are some saboteurs willing to go to see hunt members in court and provide ‘evidence’ for politicians?

As if to prove the point, an interesting piece of video footage has emerged showing an incident at a hunt in Essex. Saboteurs were spraying hounds with a substance called citronella (which can affect scenting ability) on what they knew to be a hunt-laid trail. In an exchange between a hunt official and saboteur you can hear the latter admitting this had occurred, while the rider states, “We are hunting within the law. We’re trying to lay trails and your guys are spraying hounds with citronella and stops them. If they then go off the trial, what happens then?” The saboteur admits, “Well, I personally thought it was a trail.” The point about hounds being sent off the pre-laid trial is again made by the rider, to which the saboteur says, “People think OK, let’s say you’ve laid the trail, you’ve laid it though a wood and they go well there could be a fox laying there.” The rider rightly says, “There could be a fox anywhere in the countryside.” A ridiculous but revealing statement from the anti, presumably because he wants to see all forms of hunting, including drag hunting, ended.

What’s revealing about this clip is that it exposes how saboteurs think. In their minds, obtaining ‘evidence’, no matter how fabricated, is all part of the campaign to end hunting with hounds at any cost. It doesn’t matter that the hunt is following a trail, the people are the same and they are the real target.

Whenever a politician of whatever party demands a tightening of the Hunting Act to ban trail hunting, they should be reminded of this and similar incidents; this is not the first time saboteurs have been filmed interfering with a pre-laid trail. Out all day videoing a hunt acting completely within the law is definitely not what the antis would regard as a good day’s work.

If saboteurs are prepared to falsify evidence, use violence and vandalise property, the only relevant question about diverting hounds off a pre-laid trail to gain footage of law-breaking is: Why wouldn’t they?