Jim Barrington: The Hunting Act 20 years on

To mark the 20th anniversary of the Hunting Act coming into force, Jim Barrington, Animal Welfare Manager at the Countryside Alliance, writes about "this supposed milestone legislation" for The Critic.

The 18 February is the 20th anniversary of the Hunting Act coming into force. While many will celebrate this supposed milestone legislation, others may want to think a little more carefully about how bad law can have unintended consequences.

Hunting, I used to believe, caused suffering to a wild animal for no other reason than some twisted, sadistic pleasure. I joined the League Against Cruel Sports in the early 1970s and later spent 15 years in its employment — seven years as its executive director. Like many who oppose hunting with hounds, I held a firm view that the activity was inherently cruel and that this should never be questioned. 

As director of the League, however, you are expected to meet and debate with hunting people and, in doing so, you hear about situations that do not quite suit the anti-hunting narrative. Asking what might happen to the fox after a hunting ban brought a curt response from colleagues. “Keep those thoughts to yourself” a committee member said, “otherwise we’ll never ban hunting.” It’s an indication that what comes after a hunting ban isn’t really part of the anti-hunt mindset and it’s the reason I and others decided to leave the League. 

Animal welfare has always been important to me and leaving under such circumstances was not easy, especially when branded a traitor for simply talking to hunting people, but sometimes you have to step away from a group to gain a wider vision of it. 

Since then, I have seen the benefits of using scenting hounds in wildlife management and putting awkward questions to anti-hunting zealots is often revealing. I asked Sir Brian May on BBC’s Newsnight programme which methods of control he advocates rather than opposes, “You’re just a bunch of lying bastards” was the reply from this vice president of the RSPCA.

It would be naïve to think that other factors didn’t play a part in the 2004 Hunting Act. Conservationist George Monbiot admitted how insignificant hunting was in animal welfare terms, “But as a class issue, it ranks behind private schooling at number two. This isn’t about animal welfare.” A sentiment echoed by the then Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, “This has nothing to do with animal welfare — this is for the miners”.

Concerns that a hunting ban would make life worse for the fox, hare and deer were simply brushed aside during the debates prior to the Hunting Act. Despite tens of millions of pounds being spent campaigning for and enforcing the Hunting Act, not one penny has been spent by any anti-hunting group to assess the impact these laws have had on the animals they claim they want to protect.

An anniversary is therefore a good time to ask one simple question: What has been the effect of the Hunting Act? 

For two years, environmental journalist Charlie Pye-Smith and I travelled around the UK, meeting farmers, scientists, landowners, hunters, gamekeepers and conservationists — the people in the front line of wildlife management and conservation who know what has happened as a result of the hunting bans … and it’s not a pretty picture. 

The findings, published in Charlie Pye-Smith’s book Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law, show that in some areas foxes have been virtually wiped out; “foxing” has become a sport for many casual shooters who are indeed killing for fun. This is not to criticise legitimate shooting — different areas of the countryside, such as grouse moors, need gamekeepers rather than hunters — but generally the two got along together. The Hunting Act wrecked that balance.

The hunting ban dismantled a system of hare conservation. Now some landowners and farmers spend tens of thousands of pounds digging trenches or installing heavy gates to deter hare killers or they deal with the problem in a different way: they shoot all the hares to keep poachers away. 3000 hares were shot within days of this law being passed to deter gangs of poachers.

Deer hunting is a sport for the riders and followers, but its motivation is to remove elderly, deformed and diseased animals. Hunts reduce the number of breeding hinds and track and dispatch injured deer, though this is significantly more difficult using only two hounds, as dictated under an exemption in the Hunting Act. Hunts used to disperse large herds of deer, reducing depredations of crops and pasture, but now larger, less mobile herds are seen as an increasing problem. That lack of disturbance has led to higher densities of deer and thereby greater levels of bovine TB. 

The status of the fox, hare and red deer has changed thanks to the Hunting Act and ironically in some areas regulated field sports have now been replaced by unregulated blood sports.

Hunts turned to following a pre-laid false trail, advocated by animal rights groups and politicians as the “humane alternative” where no wild animal is chased. Now, as if to prove the point that it is the people who hunt who are the real targets for these groups, trail hunting is under threat. While some hunts have indeed broken the Hunting Act (only 5 per cent of all prosecutions under this law involve organised hunts) anti-hunting groups claim that trail hunting is a “smokescreen” for hunting live quarry. It’s a poor reflection of this Labour government that they would rather listen to the “evidence” supplied mainly by anti-hunting “monitors” or hunts saboteurs — known for their masked-up, violent attacks on hunt followers, distracting hounds with sprays and submitting false evidence to the police and media.

Once again, Labour’s obsession with hunting ignores the consequences, this time with a manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting. If such a deeply illiberal measure goes ahead and hunts disband — as clearly some hope — it will mean hundreds of hunt staff losing their jobs; it will mean they and their families will lose their homes at kennels; it will mean associated trades, such as feed merchants and farriers, will suffer; it will mean rural pubs and hotels that host hunt events will lose business. Is that something the average Labour MP would want on his or her conscience? 

Now, the choice for the government is to either compound the damage already done by banning trail hunting or consider the wider picture and ignore the demands of single-issue pressure groups.

Either way, the 20th anniversary of the Hunting Act, a law that has achieved precisely the opposite of its stated aims, is nothing to celebrate.

Image: Hattie Austin Photography