Here are ten of the most frequently asked questions about about Hunting and the League's answers. A full list of Hunting FAQs can be viewed here.
Q: What’s wrong with hunting?
A: Hunting is cruel and barbaric and we don’t believe it has any place in modern society, and we know that the vast majority of the public agree with us. Recent research by Professor Broom of Cambridge University supports this view.
Q: Isn’t this a class issue?
A: Absolutely not. The core argument at the heart of the campaign to ban hunting was animal welfare. This has always been the key motivation behind our support for legislation banning hunting with hounds, alongside public education and awareness.
Q: More foxes are being killed than before the Hunting Act came into force, so surely it’s been detrimental to animal welfare?
A: There is no scientific evidence to support this argument. The Hunting Act is not about preventing the control of foxes; it is about the way this is done. The Hunting Act has taken the worst cruelty elements out of hunting for sport and this is something the public supports. Hunters can no longer allow packs of dogs to chase and kill wild animals for sport.
Q: If a fox is killing lambs and hens, what is a farmer supposed to do about it?
A: The reality is that hunting in its traditional form is not about controlling foxes for the benefit of others. It’s about chasing and killing for sport. Traditional hunting is by no means the most effective or humane way or controlling foxes. Where a farmer has a problematic fox in many instances better husbandry will help. The selective killing of supposedly ‘problem’ foxes can upset well established fox territories and breeding groups and can lead to new foxes entering the vacant but disputed territory.
Q: How many convictions have there been under the Hunting Act?
A: To date there have been over 130 convictions, but because of the delay in the Ministry of Justice reporting system there are currently only 68 convictions recorded under the Act. However, we do not believe the success of a law should be measured in the number of convictions, but rather on the message it sends out that cruelty to animals for sport is unacceptable. A number of new cases have begun in the last few months, based on evidence provided to the police by the League Against Cruel Sports.
Q: Police say hunting isn’t a policing priority, and the CPS say the law can’t be enforced.
We recognise that the police have all manner of problems and crimes to deal with, and that is why we work closely with the police on enforcement and why we provide specialised training and legal services, assisting the police and CPS with law enforcement.
Q: People say the Hunting Act is going to be repealed, so what’s the point reporting hunting crime?
A: Regardless of whether or not the Act is ever to be changed or repealed, it is in force and law enforcement agencies have a duty to uphold the law.
Q: People say it won’t take long to repeal the Hunting Act, so why not do that if it isn’t working?
A: Laws aren’t usually repealed simply because some people choose to break them. To repeal an Act and continue to make progress, something better must replace it. A failure to replace the Act, and a ‘quick repeal’ would mean the return of the cruel sports of hare coursing and stag hunting, which over 80% of the public oppose, and foxhunting to which over 75% of people object.
Q: The Countryside Alliance say that only four people connected with hunts have been convicted.
That’s simply untrue. What they mean is that only four hunt Servants or Masters have been convicted, and that’s because of the hierarchy of the way in which hunts operate. As soon as there is a hint of someone below the Master being prosecuted, the hunts tend to drop them like a hot stone so that they can deny involvement. Dozens of people have been convicted under the Hunting Act.
Q: Hunting was a tradition, though. A way of life. Surely that’s worth protecting?
A: No. Just because something was once a way of life does not mean it is right. We live in a modern, progressive society and allowing dogs to chase and kill wild animals for entertainment is simply not acceptable. This is not just the opinion of the League this is a view which is shared by the vast majority of the public as demonstrated to us by repeated polling. After all, bear baiting was once a ‘tradition’!
Q: What do you suggest as an alternative means of fox control?
A: Let us be absolutely clear, traditional hunting is not about controlling foxes. It is about sport. When hunting was banned during the foot and mouth outbreak evidence showed that this had no significant effect on fox numbers. Foxes are territorial animals and in many cases where one fox is taken out another will move in to take its place. Research has shown that the fox population has remained stable over a long period with and without hunting.
Q: Hunts are carrying on just as they did before the law, so isn’t it clear the law doesn’t work?
A: Just because someone breaks a law does not mean the law is ineffective. There are some hunters who believe they are above the law but the League is working closely with the police and the CPS to ensure that minority is brought to justice. The Hunting Act is a law just like any other and the police have a duty to enforce it.