Most people don’t much like hunting, so the more they complain about their lost rights, the more opposition to their cause hardens.
Our guest writer is Liam Raftery, campaigner at the League Against Cruel Sports
Today’s revelations in The Independent that the hunting community is being cajoled into supporting pro-hunting PPCs in marginal constituencies on the promise that a Conservative Government has promised a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act, proves just one thing: the hunters’ own naivety.
The hunters set up “Vote OK”, a pretty innocuous sounding front for election campaigning by bloodsports enthusiasts, after the Hunting Act was passed in 2004, motivated they claim by Alun Michael MP who said that “…if people wish to continue their opposition to legislation, they have the option of the ballot box through which to express their views”. By supporting PPCs who promise to vote for repeal of the Act, Vote OK claim on their own website to have had impact in recent by-elections and are organising hard for the forthcoming general election.
The problem for the hunters is that public opinion is so far removed from their motivations, a fact highlighted by the Independent. Monthly polling by YouGov on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports shows that support for repeal of the Hunting Act averages just 24%, with a further poll by ORB commissioned by the Countryside Alliance showing that just 19% support repeal. As the Independent said this morning:
“Most people don’t much like hunting, so the more they complain about their lost rights, the more opposition to their cause hardens.”
Vote OK claim to be promoting democracy but at the same time their website states their clear aim to “take country sports off the political agenda” which, by stifling debate and discussion, is fundamentally undemocratic. They claim to be politically independent and yet they are only working to oust anti-hunting Labour MPs in favour of pro-hunting Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. One of their key campaigners is an agent for a Conservative MP in Wiltshire. This is not political independence.
Their campaign also fails to acknowledge that there is support for the hunting ban right across the political spectrum. A grassroots campaign, Conservatives Against Fox Hunting, launched in January and data collected for our Keep Cruelty History campaign shows that a good number of Conservative PPCs would not support repeal. Amongst Liberal Democrats, support remains high and in some constituencies, such as Torbay, an anti-hunting Liberal Democrat is facing a challenge from an anti-hunting Conservative. Vote OK do not like to be beside that seaside.
Visitors to the Keep Cruelty History website can find out how PPCs in their constituency say they would vote on repeal of the Hunting Act, and many thousands of visitors are doing so. Savvy anti-hunting PPCs around the country are using hunting to raise other animal welfare issues, whilst pro-hunting PPCs are – predictably – tending to keep quiet.
Hunting might not be a key issue alongside health, education and law and order, but it does have a resonance with the public who firmly want to see hunting remain a thing of the past. The Independent leader this morning got it bang on in their “election advice to hunters: let sleeping dogs lie”.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Six years on, public even more opposed to hunting”
Derek
I’ve never seen anyone actually explain what the point is of the shooting requirement? It strikes me that it is complete madness to have it in the Hunting Act.
I think Giles makes a very good point. If he wishes just to flush the deer then he should not have to kill them.
We should support not criminalise such alternatives to killing animals.
giles bradshaw
Despite the claims of Labour’s ‘Back the Ban’ campaign the Hunting Act did not ban hunting with dogs, it modified it. Stag Hunts used to flush out deer with dogs, pursue them until they turned and faced the dogs at which point the deer was shot in the head at point blank range.
In terms of animal welfare there was a trade off between the most humane means of shooting the deer and the previous pursuit. This contrasted with stalking where a lung shot is used which means a higher chance of wounding but where there is no pursuit unless the animal is wounded and needs to be followed up with dogs.
The key change that the Hunting Act brought into force was that the deer can no longer be pursued till they stand at bay but must be shot as soon as possible after the animal is flushed out. This means that the deer has to be shot while it is fleeing the dogs. This carries a massively higher risk of wounding in which case the deer will be followed up with the dogs until a second shot is possible.
A court ruling obtained by the League Against Cruel Sports means that when the dogs flush out deer the hunt must have enough guns to slaughter the entire herd if one is flushed. Prior to the Hunting Act the hunts could select just one deer to be killed. This replaces wildlife management with pest control.
A further bizarre consequence of the law is that whereas previously landowners could take their dogs into woods to flush deer in order to disperse them without killing them now if they do that they have to shoot the deer.
Banning Stag Hunting completely could have even worse consequences for the deer population. Red Deer roam as herds across many small holdings. It is essential that a component of the management of the deer is carried out in a coordinated manner with a view to the structure of the whole population. The Hunt with the support of local landowners represents one such system.
Exmoor and the Quantocks have such fine populations of truly wild Red Deer precisely because they are hunted. The fact that the deer are quarry means that individual landowners are far more tolerant to them and tend to leave their management to the hunt. Non hunted areas of the Westcountry do not have substantial herds.
Implementing an alternative system of coordinated deer stalking across many holdings would require far ranging and highly controversial legislative changes. If no such system was put into place it is quite possible that the Red Deer population would collapse in the event of a ban on Stag Hunting.