New Page 1

HUNTING, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT and the 
MORAL ISSUE

This document is a revised version of a report first published in 2009 by the Veterinary 
Association for Wildlife Management and the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group.

December 2011

Summary

. Mankind has a responsibility to manage the countryside it has created and the 
wildlife populations that it supports. A balanced wildlife population will not 
result from a „hands off. approach.(2.1.1) 
. The consequences of lack of management threaten vulnerable populations of 
wildlife, biodiversity, habitat conservation and the production of food. (2.1.3) 
. Hunting people are in a unique position to observe changes in wildlife 
demographics by virtue of their numbers, their widespread distribution and 
their commitment.(2.2.1) 
. Wildlife management differs from pest control because it seeks to maintain 
healthy and balanced populations of wild mammals at levels which can be 
sustained by their local environment, and which are acceptable to farmers, 
landowners and the overall balance of all other indigenous wildlife. On the 
other hand, pest control aims to reduce or even eradicate populations.(section 
2.3) 
. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of 
populations: a closed season, dispersal and uniquely a countrywide selective, 
search and dispatch function.(2.4.1) 
. Hunting with hounds is natural to the quarry species, allowing it to use its 
instinctive defence mechanisms. 3.3) 
. There are not, and never were, any scientific grounds for banning hunting with 
hounds on the grounds of cruelty.(4.4) 
. There is no wounding, The quarry is either killed or escapes unharmed.(5.1)


. Advances in comparative neuroscience argue convincingly against the 
anthropomorphic claim that hunted wild animals run in terror of their lives. 
Rather than being traumatised, as is so often suggested, the animal remains 
alert at all times, which is crucial to its survival and health in the wild (5.4, 
5.5 & 5.6) 
. Accusations of hunting being an immoral act are inappropriate and wholly 
unjustified. (section 6) 
. The rules of a civilised society cannot apply in the wild and any attempt to put 
them there demonstrates a profound ignorance of wildlife (6.3) 
. To state that hunting is not morally acceptable in a civilized society is to 
totally misunderstand wildlife. Wild animals do not live in a civilized society 
(6.3) 
. There are clear differences between animal baiting and hunting (6.7) 
. Hunting with hounds does not wound and is selective. In leaving legal other 
control methods that cannot achieve this, while possibly causing far greater 
suffering, it is the morality of the Hunting Act itself that should be questioned 
(6.12)

1 Introduction

Hunting with diverse breeds of dogs has been an integral part of human life since historical 
records began, whether it was for food, clothing, population control or recreation.

Regrettably the proponents of the Hunting Act 2004 either ignored, or misunderstood, 
hunting.s role in wildlife management. The purpose of this document is to:

. Explain the need for and the role of hunting in wildlife management; 
. Distinguish between pest control and wildlife management; 
. Examine the morality of hunting activities; 
. Show that the Act did not simply ban hunting with dogs, but imposed inconsistent 
restrictions to the detriment of the management and welfare of the quarry species.

2 Wildlife management

2.1 The need for management

2.1.1 The British countryside has been created by man over centuries to meet human needs 
and aspirations, such as supplying food, fuel and clothing, for recreation and for aesthetic


benefits. In this man made environment, the welfare of wildlife is best served by management 
rather than left to its own devices. Further, it should be accepted that mankind has a moral 
obligation to manage over successful populations where natural wildlife predators, for 
whatever reason, no longer exist.

2.1.2 A balanced wildlife population will not result from a „hands off. approach. The control 
of an over-successful species is best achieved by a combination of legal methods undertaken 
by farmers, gamekeepers, landowners, naturalists and huntsmen, with their divergent interests 
using the appropriate methods of control for their particular circumstances.

2.1.3 The consequences of lack of management threaten vulnerable populations, biodiversity, 
habitat conservation and the production of food.

2.1.4 Thus the aim of population management should be to maintain healthy and balanced 
populations of wild mammals at levels which can be sustained by their local environment, 
and which are acceptable to farmers, landowners and the overall balance of all other 
indigenous wildlife. Hunting intrinsically has the motive to achieve this aim.

2.2 Monitoring and accountability

2.2.1 Just as anglers are in a unique position to monitor the health of our waterways, hunting 
people are in a similar position to observe changes in wildlife demographics, as highlighted, 
prior to the Hunting Act 2004, by John Webster, Emeritus Professor of Animal Husbandry at 
Bristol University, “The hunting communities have the potential to become the most 
effective contributors to the monitoring, management and conservation of wildlife in 
England and Wales by virtue of their numbers, their widespread distribution and their 
commitment.”

“On the other hand, legislation that simply bans the use of dogs in the killing of foxes, hares 
and deer, will seriously compromise policies and actions that are already making a 
significant positive contribution to the quality of the living countryside, and which have the 
potential to do so much more” (1).

2.2.2 The communal and public aspect of hunting with hounds not only exerts a restraining 
influence on unacceptable activities related to controlling wildlife but because it is a 
collective and public activity held on appointed days, hunting lends itself to accountability. 
Accountability of other methods of culling is impractical and seldom called into question.

2.3 The difference between pest control and wildlife management

2.3.1 Many people and organisations opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted 
the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. 
For example, the former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting 
is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose”(2). Such a view fails to understand the 
crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to


reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain populations at 
sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests.

2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then 
frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 
2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in 
many cases…it appears, across the board, that „pest control. has been the 
justification for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (3).

2.4 The health and fitness of populations

2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the 
health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the 
health and fitness of populations:

. A closed season complementary to the breeding period; 
. Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process whereby weak 
and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the 
health and vigour of the species; 
. Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact 
of local damage.

2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK.s wildlife as an 
indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified 
merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. A zero 
population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable.

2.5 Conservation of habitat and contribution to biodiversity

Dr Stephen Tapper, formerly of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (G&WCT), 
explains biodiversity as an expression of animal and plant abundance which takes account of 
different species in an ecosystem.

2.5.1 A glance at any Ordnance Survey map for lowland England shows the effect of hunting 
on the landscape. Many of the depicted woods are named “covert”, especially in the Midlands 
which has a particularly strong tradition of hunting. These coverts were mostly planted for 
fox hunting at any time over the last 250 years.

2.5.2 The conservation work undertaken by hunts is predominantly coppicing and creation of 
sunny glades and paths, and keeping woodlands stock-proof, which is identical to the work 
done by conservation bodies to promote wildlife and habitat. Keeping woodlands stock-proof 
is essential to prevent disturbance and trampling by livestock.

2.5.3 Hunts are continuing to plant woods, whenever land and resources are available. 
Indigenous, broadleaved trees are nearly always the ones used and it is these trees that are the


most valuable for other wildlife. Planting densities are kept low, to provide optimum 
conditions for thick scrub to develop habitat. Scrub is of high conservation importance for 
many species, but it has largely disappeared in the farmed landscape, where it is of no 
economic value to farmers who have no sporting interests.

2.5.4 Research by the Game Conservancy Trust (now the G&WCT) found, “The area of 
woodlands managed for foxhunting in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares. This is based 
on information submitted by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selection 
of 235 woodlands. This figure is roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries 
of National Nature Reserves in England and Wales” (4).

2.5.5 This research found significantly higher numbers of butterflies and wild flowers in 
areas previously managed for hunting, compared to unmanaged areas. The data supplied by 
hunts was also compared against other data with regard to butterflies. The analysis found that 
rare butterflies occur more frequently in grid squares containing woodland managed for 
hunting.

2.5.6 In 2003, the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE) reported, 
“Nevertheless, landowners who hunt with hounds are more likely to conserve woodland 
habitat and plant more woodland and hedgerows”, suggesting that the perceived recreation 
and social benefits do produce conservation benefits (5).

3 Hunting with hounds

References to hunting with dogs apply either to hunting before the passing of the Hunting Act or to activities 
that currently remain legal.

3.1 A misunderstanding of the Hunting Act is the fact that it is the dog that hunts, not the 
human. This applies to all dogs of all types - potentially they all “hunt” in the sense that is 
encompassed by the Hunting Act. But not all hunting with hounds has been prohibited by 
law. Certain activities of hunting remain legal, for example using two hounds to flush a wild 
animal out of cover to be shot and the use of terriers, under particular conditions, to flush out 
a fox from an underground refuge. However, no evidence has ever been provided to justify in 
animal welfare terms why such exemptions should apply. These illogical conditions not only 
severely restrict the use of hounds, but also cause adverse welfare consequences to the quarry 
species because firstly hounds are prevented from performing their natural search and 
dispatch function and secondly there is an increased dependence on firearms and trapping.

3.2 Although all dogs may hunt individually the method by which a pack of hounds hunts has 
much in common with the method employed by a pack of wolves. Hunting with hounds can 
therefore be regarded as „a natural phenomenon. and this selective „animal to animal. 
interaction in wildlife management uniquely distinguishes hunting with hounds from all other 
methods of wildlife population control, as highlighted by veterinary surgeon Katie Colvile in 
her review The Natural Chase (6).

3.3 Professor Roger Scruton has pointed out that, “Hunting with hounds is entirely natural to 
the four quarry species since it does not use any alien human technology for which the hunted 
animal has no natural defence” (7).


3.4 Hunting with hounds is much more than simple tracking and pursuit. Firstly the scenting 
power of the hound enables it to locate and track the quarry. Secondly the hunting will 
reproduce the natural selection process as portrayed in 2.4.1 above.

3.5 The Chase. In the case of fox hunting, the fox is hunted in territory with which it is 
familiar. It will know where to go to give itself the best chance of escape. For most of the 
duration of the hunt, the fox will be hunted by scent and be out of sight of the hounds and 
even unaware it is the target quarry. For this time the fox will be moving at its own pace 
confident of its ability to escape. Foxes that are hunted, rather than merely disturbed, escape 
far more often than not - in the region of 1 in 6 is killed, but this will have regional and 
seasonal variations. If a fox has been hunted before, it will have the expectation of escaping 
again. Moreover, it is questionable how far foxes can distinguish the initial stages of a hunt 
from the repeated disturbances with which they are regularly faced, unrelated to hunting.

3.6 Prof. David Macdonald and others suggest the average duration of a fox hunt to be about 
30 minutes (8). A survey undertaken by the Masters of Foxhounds Association in January 
and February 1997, involved 12 hunts, 115 hunting days, 421 fox finds with an average 
length of chase of 29 minutes. 61 foxes were caught “above ground” with the longest single 
hunt to a kill being 75 minutes. Two other points are relevant; 30% of the kills were achieved 
within 5 minutes of the find and the longer hunts may well have involved a succession of 
foxes (9).

3.7 The Kill. The fox-hound has a powerful jaw capable of killing on impact. If and when a 
fox is caught, it is killed almost instantaneously through destruction of the neck and thorax, 
made possible by the considerable power weight ratio the hound has over the fox. There is no 
chance of the fox being wounded and escaping. The actual cause of death is largely 
academic; what is important is how quick and how certain. The subsequent dismemberment 
of the carcass, if it occurs, may not be a pretty sight, but it is of no consequence to the dead 
animal. In the case of deer, death comes from a close range shot to the head by a trained 
marksman when the hounds have brought the deer to bay. Hounds do not attack the quarry.

3.8 Though the swift and certain kill by hounds may be unpleasant in the eyes of some 
people, it should be appreciated that death in the wild, in the absence of natural predators and 
without hunting, involves protracted pain, sepsis, gangrene, starvation, hypothermia for days 
or even weeks before death supervenes.

3.9 In the absence of psychological stress (see paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6 below) the 
physiological stress involved in the terminal stages of a hunt is no more than the reversible 
physiological stress endured by the human athlete or racehorse. This compares more 
favourably with the protracted stress associated with snaring and trapping or the pain and 
suffering associated with wounding by shooting.

3.10 Hunting with hounds is organised in a controlled fashion over areas of adjoining 
properties. The majority of landowners and farmers within hunt areas are largely content to 
leave fox management to the hunt, at least in the first instance. The Game Conservancy Trust 
(now the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust) in their report “Fox Control in the 
Countryside 2000” concluded that hunting was the method of control most favoured by 
farmers in two of their three research areas. In the third area hunting ranked second below the


rifle, but in this area shooters and gamekeepers predominate and there is a low density of 
foxes (10).

3.11 The report found that on average “permission to hunt is sought but denied on only 
2% of allotted country” - put another way 98% is available. A survey of Hunts in England 
and Wales reported that of land available for hunting only 1% was not hunted by foxhounds 
because permission is denied (11).

3.12 The report also states, “Several discretionary aspects of present-day foxhunting 
influence the number of foxes killed. The amount of land any pack attempts to hunt, the 
number of meets per season, the distribution of meets in relation to fox abundance, and the 
length of the hunting season all determine culling intensity – as do the decision as whether to 
dig out foxes that have gone to ground, and the proportion of the season run under early 
season rules. For many hunts, current choices on these aspects can only be interpreted as a 
policy of moderation, implying that the impact of hunting could be increased if desired.”

3.13 The utilitarian value of recreation should not be ignored. The majority who ride or 
follow hunts, even under the present restrictions, do so because they enjoy it for many 
reasons unrelated to the control and management aspects of hunting; for the challenge, indeed 
adventure, of following hounds across country in an unpredictable manner; for the fascination 
of seeing hounds at work; for a unique chance to experience and come to understand the 
countryside at large, whether on foot or on horse. It is because of their enjoyment that they 
are prepared to either pay or work for the utilitarian benefits of hunting.

3.14 The sporting or recreational element of hunting is irrelevant to the central issue of 
welfare except in so much as it happens to be what pays for this particular method of humane 
control. It is totally immaterial to the hunted animal whether opponents or proponents of 
hunting regard it as a sport. Hunting must be judged solely on what is best for the welfare of 
the quarry species, not by misguided anthropomorphism or moral prejudices.

4 Efficiency and humaneness

4.1 All civilised societies accept that man should not cause unnecessary suffering to animals. 
However, no society has ever organised itself on the basis that any activity which exploits 
animals must be outlawed. If it did, transportation and the slaughtering of animals for meat, 
exploitation of horses and greyhounds for racing and even guide dogs for the blind would be 
banned.

4.2 An accusation often made against hunting with dogs is that it is “inefficient”, implying 
that efficiency somehow relates to the more humane treatment of the quarry species. The 
effectiveness of control should be judged on maintaining sustainable and healthy populations 
with the minimum of suffering and not merely on the numbers killed.

4.3 There is no direct link between efficiency and humaneness. Indeed, “efficient” methods 
of culling can often cause extreme levels of suffering and cannot be selective in the same way 
that hounds are when hunting.


4.4 There are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting with hounds on 
the grounds of cruelty. Lord Burns, Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with 
Dogs in England and Wales said, “Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that 
hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style we were not prepared to say so 
clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable 
evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty” (12). A view echoed by inquiry 
committee member and veterinary surgeon Lord Soulsby, “At no point did the committee 
conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies 
have erroneously - I repeat the word “erroneously” - quoted the Burns report, stating 
that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs 
caused cruelty. The report did not state that” (13).

4.5 A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds, supported by over 560 members of the 
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons states, “Hunting with hounds is the natural and most 
humane method of managing and controlling foxes, hares, deer and mink in the countryside” 
(14). This opinion is reached after careful consideration of all the various methods of control 
and their implications for the wild animal.

5 Wounding and fear

5.1 A major animal welfare benefit of using scenting hounds is that that the quarry species is 
either killed or escapes unharmed – hunting does not leave any wounded survivors.

5.2 Various arguments against hunting have claimed that “humane shooting” is always 
preferable to hunting. A direct hit will cause near instantaneous death, but shooting is 
intrinsically fallible, even if undertaken properly. Inexpert or opportunistic shots may cause 
protracted suffering by wounding. No amount of training can totally eliminate mistakes by 
the beginner, the reckless, the downright unlucky or even the expert.

5.3 Despite there being virtually no scientific research into wounding rates in shot foxes 
during the passage of the Hunting Bill, claims were made by the main anti-hunting groups 
and accepted by Government that shooting was always preferable to hunting with dogs and 
that wounding rates were very low. This view was proven to be untenable by research 
published in 2003, which showed much higher wounding rates in a number of legal shooting 
regimes and exposed severe technical flaws in previous claims that had shown low wounding 
rates. Subsequently, the research was peer-reviewed and published in 2005 by the 
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in its journal Animal Welfare (15). Yet the use 
of non-peer reviewed information continues to be cited by anti hunting groups.

5.4 Dogs evolved from wolves and their hunting abilities and strategies are similar. It is also 
the case that the quarry species have developed various tactics to avoid being caught by 
hunting packs of wolves or dogs. Rather than being traumatised as is so often suggested, they 
remain alert at all times which is crucial to their survival and, consequently their health, in the 
wild. Comparative neuroscience has recently gone a long way towards demonstrating that 
wild animals, apart from possibly the primates and cetaceans, almost certainly lack the 
complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear and


death. Therefore to advocate a precautionary principle in respect of hunting simply because 
one cannot tell how a quarry animal feels is to deny or be ignorant of this substantial body of 
scientific evidence.

5.5 The neuroscientist Professor Susan Greenfield says, “Anxiety is a state of mind that is 
initiated and perpetuated with very little external assistance. Anxiety, one might think, is far 
closer to fear than is pleasure, but in brain terms, it could be the exact opposite. After all, 
pure fear, as pleasure, is very much in the here and now. Anxiety, on the other 
hand…depends on the ability to forsake the present moment and anticipate an uncomfortable 
future. It is hard to imagine that the rabbit in his burrow dwells on past times when it 
manages to escape a fox and is now worrying about whether a fox is going to pass that way 
once more” (16).

5.6 The following quote from Professor John Webster in his book Animal Welfare - a Cool 
Eye towards Eden is relevant, “Fear is one of the most useful properties of the conscious 
mind because it is conducive to survival. Sentient animals are born curious because they 
need education to survive and acquire this education usually while under the protection of a 
parent or parents. They learn to discriminate between real and apparent dangers and, as they 
mature, become progressively cautious. Having lost the protection of a parent, they rely on 
their own sense of fear to direct their actions towards survival. When the gazelle learns that 
the charge of the leopard is truly frightening but once again, manages to escape, it may come 
to recognize fear as a constructive motivating force that produces its own reward, not as a 
source of suffering” (17).

6 Morality and sport

6.1 Ever since people have debated the hunting issue, there has been one point of contention 
that is outside the scientific field - that of the morality of hunting or, as it is more usually 
described, “killing for fun or sport”. Some hold extreme views on hunting; The Rev. 
Professor Andrew Linzey said in a pamphlet published by the Christian Socialist Movement, 
“Causing suffering for sport is intrinsically evil. Hunting, therefore, belongs to that 
class of always morally impermissible acts along with rape, child abuse and torture” 
(18).

6.2 A more liberal view was expressed by the Lord Bishops in the various debates in 
Parliament on hunting. The Bishop of Peterborough summarised these opinions when he said, 
“In a liberal democracy it is surely right that where there is such genuine 
disagreement about an issue - perhaps, particularly, an issue about the morality of 
which we are divided - we should continue to give people the freedom to make up 
their own minds and legislate only if we are clear that the health of our society is 
threatened” (19).

6.3 To state that hunting is not morally acceptable in a civilised society is to totally 
misunderstand wildlife. Wild animals do not live in a civilised society and those people who 
would put them there do them no favour whatsoever. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of


the true role of hunting in wildlife management and animal welfare. Control of wildlife 
populations cannot be based on such a false premise.

6.4 Clearly, animals are not moral beings, as they have no true sense of what is right and 
wrong, in the way that humans do. Therefore, when a dog hunts and does so naturally, this 
cannot be an immoral act. The human motive, as far as the quarry animal is concerned, is 
totally irrelevant; it simply experiences what is being done to it.

6.5 So, in the moral debate, the focus shifts from the act to the attitude of the person in 
control of the dog. As stated paragraph 3.2, hunting with dogs can be regarded as “natural” 
for both hound and quarry and, crucially, does not involve the possibility of wounding. To 
deprive wildlife of the natural and most humane method of control must therefore itself be 
morally reprehensible.

6.6 It is important to understand exactly what constitutes “hunting with dogs” and the roles 
played by the participants. Hunting is not simply „pest control., nor is it simply „sport.. It 
might accurately be described as a combination of „sport/wildlife management/pest control. 
in that it is sport for most of the riders and followers (who fund the operation) and wildlife 
management and pest control, as undertaken by the hunt staff and terrier men (who operate 
only when the land owner requests the removal of a fox). People will join, follow and support 
hunting for numerous reasons, as prescribed in paragraph 3.13. It is hard, if not impossible, to 
imagine the vast majority of such individuals being corrupted or depraved by the activity. 
There is clearly an enormous difference between those who follow the hunts and those who 
take pleasure in seeing one animal fight another, as in dog fighting or badger baiting.

6.7 The difference between baiting and hunting has been clarified by Dr Lewis Thomas, 
“Cock fighting, bull baiting and dog fighting, which were gratuitous acts of cruelty on a 
captive animal, totally deprived of its natural avoidance strategies and for no other purpose 
than betting, competition, and spectacle, a century or two ago, have rightly been abolished. 
In no sense can the hunting of a free-living wild animal, with all its natural avoidance 
strategies in place, be equated with these practices” (20).

6.8 It is worth noting that one of the foremost campaigners against the baiting of animals was 
a foxhunter. Richard Martin was the MP for Galway in the 19th century and a supporter and 
friend of the anti-slavery MP William Wilberforce. Martin championed the first animal 
welfare law in Britain - indeed the first anywhere in the world - which soon after led to the 
banning of the baiting „sports.. He was also instrumental, along with Wilberforce, in the 
formation of the RSPCA. Yet Martin saw no contradiction in participating in hunting with 
hounds.

6.9 Hunting with hounds was much reduced during World War 2, with the result that 
shooting increased and with it an inevitable increase in wounding. In the late 1940s, the 
abolition of hunting was on the newly-elected Labour government.s agenda, but there was 
considerable concern over the numbers of wounded foxes. The government set up the 
Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals (known as the Scott Henderson Committee) and its 
conclusions to retain hunting with dogs were accepted by the RSPCA because of the 
suffering caused by alternative methods of control (21). The welfare benefits of hunting are


as true today as when the RSPCA endorsed them in their submission to the Scott Henderson 
Inquiry in 1951. Nothing has changed since except the politics of the RSPCA.

6.10 The folly of the hunting ban has been condemned by a former Chairman of the 
RSPCA, John Hobhouse, who said, “The Hunting Act is severely flawed and unworkable... 
For an Act of Parliament purporting to relieve animal suffering to do the exact opposite is 
very sad. That the RSPCA, which does immensely important work on so many animal 
welfare fronts, has been party to this fiasco is a tragedy” (22).

6.11 Accusations of cruelty to animals leading to cruelty to humans have been drawn from 
particular cases of individuals who may have tortured animals earlier in their lives and gone 
on to perform acts of violence against human victims. Extrapolation to hunting of research 
that relates domestic violence with animal abuse is wholly inappropriate and a totally 
spurious allegation. Hunt followers can enjoy a day.s hunting equally whether or not a kill is 
made.

6.12 In banning an activity that does not wound and is selective, whilst leaving legal other 
control methods that can wound and cause far greater suffering, those politicians and welfare 
groups who supported the Hunting Act showed that their desire for a ban on hunting was their 
primary objective rather than the improvement of animal welfare. It is therefore the morality 
of the Hunting Act itself that should be questioned.

7 Conclusions

7.1 The present document attempts to address and correct the considerable ignorance that 
hitherto existed about the use of hounds in wildlife management and the confusion as to what 
management itself means. The difference between the states in which wild and domestic 
animals live is also poorly understood and has been addressed in Life in the Wild (VAWM 
2011).

7.2 The aim of wildlife management is crucially different from pest control. In the latter, it is 
elimination of the target species that is the motive, frequently using unnatural methods that 
can cause high degrees of suffering. Management has the aim of seeking to reach acceptable 
and sustainable levels of wildlife populations. Hunting with hounds, and those many unpaid 
“eyes and ears” of its supporters, are a valuable and natural component of this management 
process.

7.3 On the moral issue, it is the welfare of the wild animal that must be paramount. The 
charge of cruelty is the only legitimate charge to be answered and since hunting is 
demonstrably the natural and most humane method of control, the motives and morality of 
those that go hunting is no business of others in a democratic society and certainly not a 
matter for Parliament. Put another way - can it be credible that the tens of thousands of law 
abiding people from all walks of life that support hunting could be so morally corrupt as to 
require censure by law? Only the supremely arrogant could answer yes to such a question.

7.4 The Hunting Act 2004 has been widely criticised by the media, the judiciary, 
veterinarians, politicians, senior civil servants and the Prime Minister at the time of its


passing and has totally failed to improve the welfare of the hunted species. The Act creates 
technical, rather than welfare-based offences. In part this was because the hunting debate 
attracted some people who saw it as a useful vehicle for their prejudices and partly because of 
a misunderstanding of issues raised here. A re-assessment of hunting with hounds and its 
place in wildlife management should be made. It is contended that the information and 
discussion above allows the activity to be seen in a different light, even by those people who 
would never claim to be supporters of hunting.

8 References

1. Webster, A.J.F. Emeritus Professor of Animal Husbandry, Bristol University, 
Presentation to House of Lords, September 2003.

2. Ann Widdecombe MP, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard) 18th March 
2002, col. 81.

3. Fox N. C., Rivers S., Blay N, Greenwood A. G., Wise D., (2003) Welfare aspects of 
shooting foxes published by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group. 
www.appmwg.org.uk

4. Ewald J. A., Kingdon N., (2002) Habitat management undertaken in support of fox 
hunting in England and Wales, Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hants, UK.

5. Oldfield T. E. E., Smith R. J., Harrop S. R. & Leader-Williams N., (2003) Field Sports 
and Conservation in the United Kingdom, Durrell Institute of Conservation and 
Ecology, Nature 423; 531-533.

6. Colvile K., The Natural Chase (2008) published by the All Party Parliamentary 
Middle Way Group and the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management.

 www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk

7. Scruton R., (2002) Ethics and welfare: the case of hunting, Philosophy 77; 543-564.

8. Macdonald D.W., Tattersall F., et al, (2000) Managing British Mammals: Case 
Studies from the Hunting Debate, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford 
University.

9. Fanshawe B.E, (2003) Two surveys on the length of the chase conducted on behalf of 
the MFHA, Overley Barn, Daglingworth, Cirencester, GL7 7HX.

10. Reynolds J. C., (2000) Fox Control in the Countryside, Game Conservancy Trust, 
Fordingbridge, Hants, UK.


11. A National Survey of Hunts in England and Wales, Produce Studies, commissioned 
by the Countryside Alliance, February 2000.

12. Lord Burns, House of Lords, Official Report (Hansard) 12th March 2001

col. 533.

13. Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, House of Lords, Official Report (Hansard)

12th March 2001, col. 564.

14. Thomas L. H. and Allen W. R., (2002) A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with 
Hounds, www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk

15. Fox N. C., Blay N., Greenwood A. G., Wise D., Potapov E., (2005) Wounding 
Rates in Shooting Foxes, Animal Welfare 14; 93-102.

16. Greenfield, Susan A. (2000) The Private Life of the Brain, Penguin Books.

17. Webster A.J.F. (2005) Animal Welfare - a Cool Eye towards Eden, Blackwell 
Publishing.

18. Linzey A., (2003) Christian Theology and the Ethics of Hunting with Dogs, 
published by the Christian Socialist Movement.

19. The Lord Bishop of Peterborough, House of Lords, Official Report (Hansard) 16th 
September 2003, col. 816.

20. Letter by Dr Lewis Thomas, Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, to 
The Times, 20th September 2004.

21. Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals (1951), HMSO.

22. Letter by John Hobhouse, Chairman of the RSPCA 1967-75, to The Times, 12th 
September 2005.

Other publications by the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management

. A veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds (2002) 
. The use, misuse and abuse of science in support of the Hunting Act 2004 (2007) 
. The Natural Chase by Katie Colvile (2008) 
. Answers to misconceptions about hunting (2010) 
. Life in the Wild (2011)

www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk