^{New Forest West Constituency Labour Party}

Local Issues:

Hunting With Dogs

Detailed below are answers to common myths & exaggerations put forward by the "pro-hunting" lobby.

Hunting is necessary to control deer populations
There are 1.25 million deer in Britain. Of these 300,000 a year are culled and approximately 150 are hunted with dogs. Only 2,500 of the total deer population live in areas which are hunted with dogs. Therefore, the vast majority, more than 99% of deer in this country, live in areas where hunting with dogs does not take place. And there is no difference between the health of these herds and the minority which are hunted.

Hunting is necessary to control foxes
A recent scientific study published in the scientific journal "Nature" proved that hunting plays no part in the control of fox numbers. In 1km square areas across the country fox faeces were counted to assess the size of the fox population in three consecutive years. The second count showed numbers to be virtually the same as the first count after a year of full hunting. The third count was also virtually the same as the first two after a year in which hunting had been suspended due to the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. So with or without hunting, fox numbers stay the same. Their populations are regulated by the availability of food supply and territory, not by hunting.

It's our civil right to go hunting/ a ban on hunting would breach our civil liberties
There is no right to inflict cruelty on wild animals. It is insulting to the millions of people around the world who have fought for rights such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful protest, to add to this list the right to torture small animals. The hunters claim they are fighting for their liberty. What about everyone else's liberty to peacefully enjoy the countryside without hunts rampaging through gardens, over roads and railway lines and causing huge disruption. What about the liberty of people to express their opposition to hunting without facing of intimidation and abuse for doing so?

We would all have to shoot our horses if hunting were banned
Of the 600,000 horses in this country, less than 7% ever go hunting. Hunting is a very small part of the total equestrian sporting activity. And if hunts converted to drag hunting where they follow an artificial scent all horses could continue to be kept and used.

We would have to put down all the hounds if hunting were banned
Hounds can be retrained to go drag hunting, to follow an artificial scent so that the hunts can continue and the hounds kept without torturing wild animals. Also hunts breed more puppies each year than they need to replace the older hounds that they shoot. Any puppy which doesn't show a liking or talent for hunting is routinely shot. Even if hunts refused to convert to drag hunting and shot every single one of their hounds, this would be as many hounds destroyed as would take place in just a couple of years of hunting as it is now.

A ban on hunting would destroy the important social role in rural communities that hunting provides
The importance of hunting to rural communities is massively overstated and there will be no ban on point to points, pony clubs, puppy show, hunt balls, other social activities and, importantly, drag hunting. All the hunts' activities can continue except chasing and killing wild animals.

Hunting is important to the rural economy/ jobs would be lost if hunting were banned
If all hunts simply closed and did not convert to drag hunting there could be a gross loss of between 1,000 and 3,000 jobs. However, unless those who go hunting now simply burn the money they would have spent on hunting, they will spend that money in other areas of the rural economy, creating jobs in other areas. Therefore any net loss of jobs would be minimal, but if hunts convert to drag hunting, the economic impact to the rural economy would be virtually nil.

A hunted animal always either escapes or is killed, if this is replaced by shooting, more animals will be wounded and die a horrible extended death from gangrene
Foxes which do escape from the hunt after a long chase may die of trauma long after the hunt. Currently far more foxes are shot than hunted and there is no evidence of large numbers of foxes dying after being wounded. Professional and competent shooters will kill their target either instantly or despatch it very quickly thereafter in the vast majority of cases. Where an animal is wounded but able to run away, the previous hunting bill would have allowed scenting dogs to be used to quickly find and despatch that animal in the most humane manner.

A ban on hunting would be townies dictating to country people how to run their lives
A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus humanity.

The police have enough trouble dealing with crime in rural areas already without having to deal with illegal hunting too/ a ban would be impossible to enforce
The police currently use some of their stretched resources in rural areas in policing hunts to protect protestors from often violent hunters and to deal with some of the wrong and illegal activities of a minority of extremists who oppose hunting. If hunters abide by a new law banning hunting and convert to drag hunting, police time spent on hunting would be reduced. Only if hunters refuse to abide by the law would the current level of policing hunts need to be maintained.

Banning any activity which harms no one else would be wrong
If the people who argue this really believed it then they would be leading campaigns to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, whaling, the ivory trade, and to repeal all animal welfare legislation giving people the right to cruelly mistreat any animal as long as they don't affect any people while doing so.
It has long been accepted that laws protecting animal welfare are perfectly legitimate and are almost universally accepted. A ban on hunting would give wild animals the protection from cruelty that domestic animals currently enjoy.

A ban on hunting would inevitably lead to bans on shooting and fishing
The reason that hunting should be banned is that a large majority of the public, and a large majority of Members of Parliament have been convinced that this is the right thing to do. Shooting and fishing are completely separate issues and could only be reformed or abolished with a similar will from the public and from MPs. Angling is the biggest sport in the country in terms of the numbers of people who take part. Anyone who suggests that a majority in the country or in Parliament wishes to ban fishing is clearly living in "cloud cuckoo land".

The fox is killed by a quick nip to the back of the neck
When the hounds catch a fox above ground, they will bite at the nearest part of the fox available, usually the hind legs or rear quarters. Many post mortems on hunted foxes have shown extensive and massive injuries to the abdomen, lungs, heart and hind quarters but have found no evidence of injury to the head or neck. The fox will die quickly, often in a matter of seconds or a minute or two, but death is very rarely instant. This only deals with the actual kill at the point where the fox has been chased and suffered sometimes for hours beforehand, causing immense cruelty.

Hunting weeds out the old and the sick helping to keep a healthy population
About 40% of foxes killed by hunts are cubs killed during the cub hunting season - hardly old and sick. In stag hunting, old or sick stags do not provide a long and enjoyable chase. Stag hunts use a hunt servant known as a 'harbourer' who's task is to find a strong fit stag which will give the hounds and riders a long chase often lasting 5 hours or more and covering more than 20 miles. No old or sick stag could flee for its life for this long and over these distances.

Foxes do immense damage to farming and kill large numbers of newborn lambs
A recent study from the University of York has found that lamb losses to fox predation is 0.4% of lambs born, or one in 250. The vast majority of lambs lost die of malnutrition, hypothermia and disease. The cost of carrying out fox control far outweighs the minimal losses to fox predation. Half of our farmland is grazed by cattle, where foxes are no trouble. The other half is predominantly arable; foxes kill three of the major pests to arable farmers - rabbits, voles and mice. So over much of Britain, foxes are actually a benefit to farmers.

Foxes sometimes kill all the chickens in a hen house just for the fun of it without eating them
Foxes are not unique in killing more, sometimes much more, than they can eat at the time. This entirely natural phenomenon known as surplus killing, is widespread among other carnivorous animals such as wolves lions and tigers. If a predator is able to catch an animal it will do so, even when it is not hungry, because the meal can be saved for another day when food is short. When this happens with foxes in a hen house it is an unfortunate but entirely natural response to an artificial situation.

Hunting is not in the same category as bear bating, cock fighting, and dog fighting in which an audience paid to witness the spectacle. In hunting participants are rarely present for the kill so there is no bloodlust.
Cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting are setting one animal on another for the purpose of entertainment. So is hunting. It doesn't matter whether people are present for, or revel in the killing of an animal, the cruelty exists whether people are there to watch it or not. And if so few hunters ever see the kill, and are not interested in it, then they should convert to drag hunting where no kill takes place.

Just because you do not like what we do is insufficient reason for banning our activity. For a ban you have to show that it is injurious to the public good and you have singularly failed to do so.
We do not call for a ban on hunting with dogs because we do not like it. We want this activity to end because it is cruel and exists for no other reason than entertainment. This is an affront to public morals in the same way that allowing cock fighting or bear baiting would be. Therefore there is plenty of justification for a ban.

There are far more important things for the government to be dealing with, like health, education and housing. MPs shouldn't be wasting their time on hunting.
There are indeed many more important issues that the Government must deal with. But this does not mean that they cannot also ban hunting, which is important to many people. Our parliamentary system allows many issues to be discussed during one session of Parliament. Nobody in 2000, for example, argued that fur farming was the most important issue facing the country, but it was still banned. The Act which banned fur farming was one of 45 pieces of legislation passed in that Parliamentary session. The other 44 Acts of Parliament in the year 2000 included Acts on education, health, crime, local government, Northern Ireland, warm homes and energy conservation, countryside and rights of way etc.

New Forest - National Park Status 

We believe that the New Forest desperately needs the better protection and support that a National Park will bring. Whilst current laws help to protect the Forest's heaths, bogs and ancient woodlands, they fail to sufficiently protect the rest of the Forest's special qualities and way of life.

A National Park is needed to:

• curb the urban development creeping into the Forest’s countryside;

• enable farmers and commoners to be better supported and rewarded for the work they do to protect the Forest

• manage the various pressures that threaten to overwhelm the qualities that make the Forest special.

Labour supports the call for the following:

• the establishment of a  National Park that upholds existing Forest laws and respects ancient institutions such as the Court of Verderers;

• the membership and staff of the National Park Authority to reflect the special qualities of the Forest including expertise in commoning, nature conservation, landscape, cultural heritage, quiet enjoyment, visitor management and other issues that are important in the Forest;

• sufficient resources for the National Park to ensure it can fulfil its purposes;

• the National Park to be given the highest status of planning protection and the National Park Authority to be given full planning powers;

• the National Park Authority to augment the work of organisations currently working for the Forest

Top  | Home |  Constituency Profile | Quotations  | Tory Talk 

Govt Achievements | Local Party Details  

Labour History | Links | What's New