Mr Bradshaw, in the Huffington Post, begins with some comments on his online poll, so I will begin in the same way. Online polls are frivolous at best and do not reflect an accurate cross section of society. A scientific poll like the one commissioned by the League against Cruel Sports recently is a more accurate indicator of the mood of the people. The result of the League’s poll showed unequivocally that 80% of the population do not want to see a return of hunting with scenting hounds. Scientific polling uses sophisticated research methods and random sampling to make predictions about a population. It can be used both in academic research and to gain an insight into how the majority of the public feel about a chosen topic. Random sampling is used in scientific polling because it allows small sample sizes to produce accurate population estimates. The accuracy of scientific polling is assured because the group who are surveyed are selected at random. This is the key factor if we want to produce an accurate result. Polls, as in the one described by Mr Bradshaw, in which people CHOOSE to participate, such as Internet polls, are not scientific, and their results must be largely discounted. An Internet poll on a newspaper website, in which readers decide whether to participate, can be said only to reflect the responses of readers who care enough to vote, and not the general population. With Mr Bradshaw’s poll in mind it can also be said that others who would vote against animal cruelty in the form of digging out foxes, will have no knowledge of the poll therefore won’t get to vote. Conversely, those who are in favour of this cruel pastime may organise a secret memo to get like-minded people to vote in favour.
The point Mr Bradshaw made about the abusive comments inciting violence from the anti-hunting side of this issue is also invalid, because we have no way of knowing whether those comments did indeed originate from the ‘antis’ or from pro-hunting agent provocateurs pretending to be antis. That last statement is not as petty or far-fetched as it sounds. There are many incidences where pro-hunting sympathisers have tried to infiltrate or take on anti-hunting disguises in order to cause trouble for those of us against blood sports. An example of this kind of occult behaviour occurred several years ago when a hunter was caught planting a bomb under his own car. It is also alleged that an erstwhile CEO of the Countryside Alliance advised hunters to complain of harassment and violence from hunt saboteurs in order to spoil any video footage of hunts behaving illegally. This advice allegedly came originally from a police officer who felt that was the best way to negate any evidence the ‘sabs’ may have obtained. Mr Bradshaw is keen to portray those of us against blood sports as violent thugs who would happily see hunters dismembered and their animals killed. This is nonsense. Normal people when presented up close and personal with acts of extreme cruelty to people and animals often lash out verbally and may say things they would never wish in a million years. I have personally never met anyone who cared about animals who didn’t care about people too. The same cannot be said for the hunting fraternity who have among their number some of the most thuggish anti-social people in the country. I won’t take up space by providing examples here, but anyone who cares to research this for themselves may wish to take a look at the hunt saboteurs video footage which can be found online on their website. There is also a ‘Real Countryside Alliance’ website with all kinds of useful information and videos showing exactly what the gentlemen in red and their henchmen get up to when they think no cameras are running. Violence on either side is to be abhorred and the incident described in Horse & Hound in 2012 when a group of people wearing balaclavas beat up a hunter in front of his 12-year-old daughter is not condoned or sanctioned by the majority of us against hunting. I would point out that no one was charged because the victim could not identify his assailants, and this has led to calls for the wearing of face covering clothing to be outlawed. Saboteurs who cover their faces do so to prevent reprisals if they live close by or are known to the hunt. It is not the first time dead foxes and other animals have been left on the doorsteps of anti-hunt people, and there is always the worry that property may be damaged or the hunt heavies may lie in wait for an unsuspecting saboteur on his/her own. Hunt supporters also cover their faces, but that is so they can attack people and vehicles without fear of being caught. Peruse the POWA (Protect Our Wild Animals) website, there are plenty of stories about balaclava-wearing terrier men and hunt followers beating up sabs. Is it surprising that these people are violent towards others when they get their kicks out of killing harmless, defenceless animals? The hunting Act is a good piece of legislation and it is working in spite of what the hunting fraternity would have us believe. They are actually incredulous that the law as it stands applies to them too, and it is not there to be merely used by them as they see fit. Mr Bradshaw’s imagined flushing loophole is just that, ‘imagined’. The flushing exemption is there to provide for the humane removal of deer which are causing serious damage to crops or protected woodland. It does not mean all deer have to be shot on site, and neither does it mean he is breaking the law if he doesn’t kill a deer he shoos from his coppice. The law is to prevent stag hound packs from making sport by terrifying and chasing an animal for miles and then killing it when the poor creature can run no more. Hunting wild animals with dogs is banned under the Hunting Act 2004. The League Against Cruel Sports fought tirelessly for over 80 years to obtain this landmark piece of legislation to protect wild animals in England and Wales, with similar legislation already in place in Scotland. Unfortunately, some politicians and the Countryside Alliance want to see the Hunting Act repealed and so it is under real and considerable threat. The process of repeal was started with the inclusion of a promise of a motion vote to repeal the Act which was included in the Coalition agreement. To this end all hunting apologists are working hard in a two pronged attack. First there is the campaign to discredit the Act by pretending it’s not working and attacking the anti-hunting charities by all means possible including dirty tricks, smears and lies in the pro hunting press and even in Parliament. The second attack comes in the form of anti-fox propaganda and periodically we see lurid stories of foxes attacking babies and people in the street. Not a single one of these stories has ever been proven to be true, and in fact there has never been a verifiable fox attack recorded in living memory. Thousands of people are attacked by pet dogs each year and some children have actually been killed, so let us get this into proportion. Next we are told that fox numbers are increasing and they are killing hundreds of lambs and farmers are at their wits end and are desperate for the hunters to come and be allowed to save them from these marauding killers. DEFRA say that lambs die from lack of proper care and that foxes MAY be responsible for less than 2% of lamb deaths. It has never been proven that the lambs the foxes eat were actually killed by them, it is far more likely they were found and scavenged after the lambs had died of other causes. Hunters never did control fox numbers. Shooting was always the preferred method used by those who would never be persuaded that foxes don’t pose a great problem to farmers. Foxes are beneficial to farmers and those in urban areas because they eat rabbits and other rodents. Foxes are not vermin and their numbers are not increasing. The population depends on availability of food and suitable habitat. During the foot and mouth outbreak when hunting was suspended, the fox population did not increase. There are a quarter of a million foxes in Britain and that number has remained static over the years. Hunters kill less than 3 foxes out of every hundred, and most of those are killed during the cubbing season. (Something else people who are undecided should perhaps investigate along with the myth of the quick nip on the neck.) Foxes are either torn apart or dug out if they manage to go to ground. Neither death is pleasant or humane. Mr Bradshaw wants debate without bigotry. The issue has already been debated and a law has been made to ban hunting with scenting hounds. The hunting dinosaurs have had their day it is now time to stop the tantrums and start obeying the law and leave our wildlife in peace. Resources: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/hunting/briefguide.htm http://www.league.org.uk/
3 Comments
Nigel
2/3/2014 04:51:03 pm
Mrs Miggins,
Reply
Nigel
2/3/2014 08:49:32 pm
Is this your comment Mrs miggins? "What have we learned since the English badger cull started approximately six weeks ago?
Reply
Nigel
2/3/2014 08:53:07 pm
The whole purpose of fox control is to PREVENT livestock losses by using continual widespread fox control with a variety of methods most suited to the particular landscape in a kill the fox before the damage is done scenario. This is logical only a fool would sit around waiting for the damage to be done before they acted. (Would an anti leave the front door unlocked knowing he can call the police if burgled?) This is acknowledged in all the main scientific reports including the peer reviewed study by Heydon & Reynolds in 2000. Its spectacular success in reducing losses is acknowledged by all the main anti-hunting organizations they all agree livestock losses are low. It therefore can be concluded fox control is working as intended and the fox is not deemed a pest by farmers as they have not lost livestock to them.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
|