The nature of fox hunting, including the killing of the quarry animal, the pursuit's strong associations with tradition and
social class, and its practice for sport have made it a source of great controversy within the United Kingdom. In December 1999, the then
Home Secretary,
Jack Straw MP, announced the establishment of a Government inquiry (the
Burns Inquiry) into hunting with dogs, to be chaired by the retired senior civil servant
Lord Burns. The inquiry was to examine the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact, how any ban might be implemented and the consequences of any such ban. Amongst its findings, the Burns Inquiry committee analysed opposition to hunting in the UK and reported that: There are those who have a moral objection to hunting and who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of people gaining pleasure from what they regard as the causing of unnecessary suffering. There are also those who perceive hunting as representing a divisive social class system. Others, as we note below, resent the hunt trespassing on their land, especially when they have been told they are not welcome. They worry about the welfare of the pets and animals and the difficulty of moving around the roads where they live on hunt days. Finally there are those who are concerned about damage to the countryside and other animals, particularly badgers and otters. In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman,
Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."
Anti-hunting activists who choose to take action in opposing fox hunting can do so through lawful means, such as campaigning for
fox hunting legislation and
monitoring hunts for cruelty. Some use unlawful means. Main anti-hunting campaign organisations include the
RSPCA and the
League Against Cruel Sports. In 2001, the RSPCA took high court action to prevent pro-hunt activists joining in large numbers to change the society's policy in opposing hunting. Outside of campaigning, some activists choose to engage in
direct intervention such as
sabotage of the hunt. Hunt sabotage is unlawful in a majority of the United States, and some tactics used in it (such as
trespass and criminal damage) are offences there and in other countries. Fox hunting with hounds has been happening in Europe since at least the sixteenth century, and strong traditions have built up around the activity, as have related businesses, rural activities, and
hierarchies. For this reason, there are large numbers of people who support fox hunting and this can be for a variety of reasons. while others consider them an ally in controlling rabbits, voles, and other rodents, which eat crops. A key reason for dislike of the fox by pastoral farmers is their tendency to commit acts of
surplus killing toward animals such as chickens, since having killed many they eat only one. Some anti-hunt campaigners maintain that provided it is not disturbed, the fox will remove all of the chickens it kills and conceal them in a safer place. Opponents of fox hunting claim that the activity is not necessary for fox control, arguing that the fox is not a pest species despite its classification and that hunting does not and cannot make a real difference to fox populations. They compare the number of foxes killed in the hunt to the many more killed on the roads. They also argue that
wildlife management goals of the hunt can be met more effectively by other methods such as
lamping (dazzling a fox with a bright light, then shooting by a competent shooter using an appropriate weapon and load). There is scientific evidence that fox hunting has no effect on fox populations, at least in Britain, thereby calling into question the idea it is a successful method of culling. In 2001 there was a 1-year nationwide ban on fox-hunting because of an outbreak of
foot-and-mouth disease. It was found this ban on hunting had no measurable impact on fox numbers in randomly selected areas. Prior to the fox hunting ban in the UK, hounds contributed to the deaths of 6.3% of the 400,000 foxes killed annually. The hunts claim to provide and maintain a good habitat for foxes and other game, It is also argued that hunting with dogs has the advantage of weeding out old, sick, and weak animals because the strongest and healthiest foxes are those most likely to escape. Therefore, unlike other methods of controlling the fox population, it is argued that hunting with dogs resembles
natural selection.
Economics As well as the economic defence of fox hunting that it is necessary to control the population of foxes, lest they cause economic cost to the farmers, it is also argued that fox hunting is a significant economic activity in its own right, providing recreation and jobs for those involved in the hunt and supporting it. The
Burns Inquiry identified that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time jobs depend on hunting in the UK, of which about 700 result from direct hunt employment and 1,500 to 3,000 result from direct employment on hunting-related activities.
Animal welfare and animal rights Many
animal welfare groups, campaigners and
activists believe that fox hunting is unfair and cruel to animals. In the United States and Canada, pursuing quarry for the purpose of killing is strictly forbidden by the Masters of Foxhounds Association. There are times when a fox that is injured or sick is caught by the pursuing hounds, but hunts say that the occurrence of an actual kill of this is exceptionally rare. They further argue that, while hunting with hounds may cause suffering, controlling fox numbers by other means is even more cruel. Depending on the skill of the shooter, the type of firearm used, the availability of good shooting positions and luck, shooting foxes can cause either an instant kill, or lengthy periods of agony for wounded animals which can die of the trauma within hours, or of secondary infection over a period of days or weeks. Research from wildlife hospitals, however, indicates that it is not uncommon for foxes with minor shot wounds to survive. Hunt supporters further say that it is a matter of humanity to kill foxes rather than allow them to suffer malnourishment and
mange. Other methods include the use of
snares,
trapping and poisoning, all of which also cause considerable distress to the animals concerned, and may affect other species. This was considered in the
Burns Inquiry (paras 6.60–11), whose tentative conclusion was that
lamping using
rifles fitted with
telescopic sights, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, had fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting. The
Court of Appeal, in considering the British Hunting Act, determined that the legislative aim of the Hunting Act was "a composite one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical."
Anti-hunting campaigners also criticised UK hunts of which the
Burns Inquiry estimated that foxhound packs put down around 3,000 hounds, and the hare hunts killed around 900 hounds per year, in each case after the hounds' working life had come to an end. In June 2016, three people associated with the South Herefordshire Hunt (UK) were arrested on suspicion of causing suffering to animals in response to claims that live fox cubs were used to train hounds to hunt and kill. The organisation Hunt Investigation Team supported by the
League Against Cruel Sports, gained video footage of an individual carrying a fox cub into a large kennel where the hounds can clearly be heard baying. A dead fox was later found in a rubbish bin. The individuals arrested were suspended from Hunt membership. In August, two more people were arrested in connection with the investigation.
Civil liberties It is argued by some hunt supporters that no law should curtail the right of a person to do as they wish, so long as it does not harm others. In contrast, liberal philosopher,
John Stuart Mill wrote, "The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal parts of mankind—the lower animals." The UK's most senior court, the
House of Lords, has decided that a ban on hunting, in the form of the
Hunting Act 2004, does not contravene the
European Convention on Human Rights, as did the
European Court of Human Rights.
Trespass In its submission to the
Burns Inquiry, the
League Against Cruel Sports presented evidence of over 1,000 cases of
trespass by hunts. These included trespass on railway lines and into private gardens. Some
hunt monitors also choose to trespass whilst they observe the hunts in progress. The construction of the law means that hunt saboteurs' behaviour may result in charges of criminal aggravated trespass, rather than the less severe offence of
civil trespass. Since the introduction of legislation to restrict hunting with hounds, there has been a level of confusion over the legal status of
hunt monitors or saboteurs when trespassing, as if they disrupt the hunt whilst it is not committing an illegal act (as all the hunts claim to be hunting within the law) then they commit an offence; however, if the hunt was conducting an illegal act then the criminal offence of trespass may not have been committed.
Oscar Wilde, in his play
A Woman of No Importance (1893), once famously described "the English country gentleman galloping after a fox" as "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable." Even before the time of Wilde, much of the criticism of fox hunting was couched in terms of
social class. The argument was that while more "working class"
blood sports such as
cock fighting and
badger baiting were long ago outlawed, fox hunting persists, although this argument can be countered with the fact that
hare coursing, a more "working-class" sport, was outlawed at the same time as fox hunting with hounds in England and Wales. The philosopher
Roger Scruton has said that the analogy with cockfighting and badger baiting is unfair, because these sports were more cruel and did not involve any element of pest control. More recently the British anarchist group
Class War has argued explicitly for disruption of fox hunts on class warfare grounds and even published a book
The Rich at Play examining the subject. Other groups with similar aims, such as "Revolutions per minute" have also published papers which disparage fox hunting on the basis of the social class of its participants. Opinion polls in the United Kingdom have shown that the population is equally divided as to whether or not the views of hunt objectors are based primarily on class grounds. Some people have pointed to evidence of class bias in the voting patterns in the
House of Commons during the voting on the hunting bill between 2000 and 2001, with traditionally working-class Labour members voting the legislation through against the votes of normally middle- and upper-class Conservative members. ==See also==