Why the Act must not be repealed
The Conservatives have stated that they will introduce a vote for a repeal of the Hunting Act. The ‘Burns report’ helped lead to this act being put in place, the main findings are shown below. This helps to show why THE ACT MUST NOT BE REPEALED!
Below is a summary of the conclusions in the report by Lord Burns that led to the Hunting Act of 2004.
Basic facts about hunting
The inquiry estimated that the hunts killed between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes every year, some 40% of these kills taking place in the autumn "cub" season. (To read more about this ‘cubbing’ please click here – it contains important information regarding this barbaric practice).
However, outside of the packs, many more foxes were dug out and shot every year by farmers, landowners and gamekeepers.
In Devon and Somerset there were three staghound packs, killing approximately 160 red deer a year.
There were a further 100 packs which hunt hares, killing 1,650 a year.
There were a further 24 registered hare coursing clubs, a smaller number of unregistered groups and some 20 mink hound packs.
Hunting and the rural economy
Burns concluded, "In terms of national resource use, the economic effects of a ban on hunting would be unlikely to be substantial."
Social and cultural issues
While the hunt had a significant social role, it was stated that this was not as important as that performed by a village pub or church and there were some in rural communities who regarded the hunt as "divisive, intrusive and disruptive".
Population management and control
Hunting itself, the report discovered, was responsible for only a small number of the foxes killed every year.
Hare hunting and coursing, the report found, "are essentially carried out for recreational purposes" and have little effect on population.
Animal welfare
The most contentious issue for both sides is whether or not hunting with hounds can be classed as cruel. The inquiry found that:
- "death is not always affected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound",
- "this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".
Candidates that stand FOR a repeal of the act, are choosing to ignore the findings of this report, and go against the views of a majority of the population who stand against hunting with dogs. 700 hours of parliamentary time was spent passing this act and protecting British wildlife. Candidates standing AGAINST a repeal (see our ‘Where They Stand’) are the only ones who would vote in Parliament to save our British wildlife, and maintain the act. Make sure you know where candidates stand before 6th May.
Read about the horrific practice of ‘Cubbing’
