The Act of Hunting
- February 2005
This Opinion was featured in the February 2005 issue of the the Anglia Farmer
The case for banning the use of dogs for hunting is really no stronger than that for keeping them for personal security, or indeed their company argues David Walker.
The quarry of justice for humans clearly eclipse mammals listed in the first paragraph of the 2004 Hunting Act. This is why the issue of the ban on hunting with hounds is still very much alive, even after legislation banning it has been enacted.
And, if it is as difficult to gain a consensus as to how justice can be served under the circumstances as it was on whether hunted mammals suffer unduly, then the issue has a famed future ahead of it.
Hunting has, of course, been a target for animal rights activists for decades. But, it was not until the Labour Party, during the run up to the 1997 General Election, included a ban on hunting in its manifesto that it became significant politically.
At the time allowing the anti blood sports people on board would have seemed an innocent enough decision. The expectation, no doubt, was that following due investigation of hunting from the perspective of the hunted, it would be found to be unduly cruel. And a consensus would soon be built that it was in the best interests of society for it to be banned by legislation.
But by 2001 the Labour Party, it seems, was becoming uneasy about this. Its manifesto for the General Election that year had relegated the issue to "free vote" status. It had not been possible to build the consensus as quickly as anticipated. The House of Lords had recognized that more was involved than hunting. But the anti-blood sports backbenchers and lobbyists were baying for the kill.
When in September 2002 more than 400,000 participated in the Countryside Alliance’s "Liberty and Livelihood" march, it should have been evident that more was at stake than hunting. At the time, however, the size of the demonstration was attributed to the very widespread concern over the government’s handling of countryside issues rather than anything more than natural opposition by those directly involved in hunting.
The government strategy seems to have been to put as much time as possible between the demonstration and enacting legislation, but to meet the commitment for a ban before the next General Election.
A Hunting Bill was introduced to the House of Commons in September 2004 and enacted as the 2004 Hunting Act just two months later, despite the continued opposition of the Lords. As the passage of the bill benefited from substantial majority support from MPs in the Commons which was also reflected in opinion polls on the issue, so democracy was seen by some to have triumphed.
But MPs are elected to present the "interests" of constituents and not their "opinions", something that is easily forgotten in the run up to an election when the need for popularity pervades. The Lords, who are not subject to reelection pressures, do not seem to have accepted that undue suffering by the quarry has been proven in any very convincing manner. And hence the case for banning the use of dogs for hunting is really no stronger than that for keeping them for personal security, or indeed their company.
This has highlighted how the powers of the Lords have been diminished over time. Some need to be restored as a counter balance to the self interest of MPs, particularly when they are seeking reelection. The 2004 Hunting Act is the "for instance when..."
February 2005
top of page