Hunting Hearings - Minutes of Proceedings
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
at a
PUBLIC HEARING
on
HUNTING WITH DOGS
held in the
Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, SW1
on
Tuesday 10 September 2002
SESSION C
DAY 2
-------
Rt Hon Alun Michael, MP, in the Chair
-------
(From the Shorthand Notes of:
W B GURNEY & SONS LLP
Westminster House
7 Millbank
London, SW1P 3JA)
In attendance:
MR DOUGLAS BATCHELOR, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
DR ARTHUR LINDLEY, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
MR JOHN ROLLS, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
BARONESS GOLDING, Middle Way Group.
MR PETER LUFF, MP, Middle Way Group.
MR LEMBIT OPIK, MP, Middle Way Group.
MR SIMON HART, Countryside Alliance.
MR JOHN JACKSON, Countryside Alliance.
MR RICHARD LISSACK, QC, Countryside Alliance.
MR BERNARD BENNETT-DIVER, Defra
MR CHRISTOPHER BRAUN, Defra.
MR NIGEL LEFTON, Legal Directorate, Defra.
MR DAVID PRITCHARD, Defra
MR NICHOLAS ROBSON, Defra
DR PETER ROBERTSON, Defra.
DR MATT HEYDON, Defra
(After a short break)
THE CHAIRMAN: For our final session today, we are going to explore the principle, the same principle that we were looking at in the last session, of least suffering in relation to other activities which involve the use of dogs, namely hare coursing, ratting, falconry, rabbiting and deer stalking. I am pleased to welcome the following experts, a number of whom have become familiar faces, but not all. The people we have here now are Dr Robert Atkinson who is the Head of Wildlife Department of the RSPCA, previously of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Newcastle University; Professor Stephen Harris, Professor of Environmental Sciences at Bristol University; Dr Douglas Wise, Lecturer in Animal Husbandry at the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge University; and Professor John Webster, Professor of Animal Husbandry at Bristol University with expertise in the fields we have referred to before.
So, can I invite Dr Atkinson to begin.
DR ATKINSON: I am going to be brief. The key points in my briefing paper are as follows. It is logical that a utility framework based on an sensibility suffering should be designed to test hunting of deer, mink, fox and hare and it must be robust enough that other activities can be judged by it. Crucial to that sort of assessment is evidence. The definitions of utilitarian were discussed yesterday. They can be as wooly as anyone wants to make them, but they need not be and dictionary definition here is of clear utilitarian value. In my opinion, there is ample and sufficient evidence by which to judge the hunting of fox, deer, mink and hare including coursing with dogs, evidence from welfare scientists, from behaviourists, in depth knowledge of the operation of hunting and the biological characteristics of the animals concerned, and the conclusion on that is that a judgment on hunting can be made that it seriously affects the welfare of the hunted animal, which is the Committee inquiry conclusion and that mirrors my own conclusion. The utility, in my opinion, of those forms of hunting is minimal or non-existent. There are however quite simply not enough data out there to make comparable judgments on rabbiting, ratting and falconry involving dogs.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: In trying to address this issue, I have really focused on trying to see if these activities are analogous to using dogs to hunt other quarry species and perhaps what the differences are and I have highlighted five particular issues to consider. First of all, does the species actually need to be controlled? Secondly, is it necessary to use dogs to control the species? Thirdly, where dogs are used, is the kill quick, and I include as part of that process the chase and everything else? Fourthly, are the dogs under the direct control of the handler? Fifthly, are the alternatives more or less humane?
If we look at hare coursing, I think many of my points have already been made. It is a species where both mountain hares and brown hares are actually coursed, there is no close season for this species. Much of the coursing and other forms of hunting are actually done during the key part of the breeding season of hares, so that heavily pregnant hares are pursued and orphaned leverets are left. Neither process appears to me to be acceptable on welfare grounds. I also make the point that the National Trust has a presumption against issuing licences to hunt hares on its property since it considers it inappropriate to hunt a BAP species. As I have already argued, where there is the need for control, it can be done effectively by shooting with rifles by day or by night or by shotguns during driven shoots.
Therefore, the answers to the five questions I have set are that generally you do not need to control hares, that it is not necessary to use dogs, that the kill, when dogs are used to kill, is not quick, that dogs are not under the direct control of handlers and that there are humane alternatives.
When we look at ratting, generally a variety of dogs can be used for ratting though terriers are most common. It is not a very widespread use of rat control but the most common method is to use anticoagulant poisons. This causes death by extensive haemorrhage at multiple sites and death is usually delayed for up to five to eight days after the onset of feeding and up to four days after the onset of symptoms. The Pesticide Safety Directorate describes anticoagulant poisons as 'markedly inhumane' and unknown millions of rates are killed this way. So, there clearly is a major welfare issue with the type of poisons currently in use. In comparison, the use of dogs is small scale, death is quick, it is entirely comparable to normal predation event and the normal process is that a dog grabs a rat as soon as it bolts from cover, so effectively there is very little chase, and the rat is then killed by crushing whatever part the dog has hold of, the head, body or chest. I have also made the point that good farm hygiene is perhaps the most effective way to deal with the population of rats.
In answer to the five questions: yes, the species does need to be controlled; no, it is not necessary to use dogs; where they are used, the kill is quick; the dogs are generally under the direct control of the handler; and the commonest alternative means is actually markedly less humane.
If we look at falconry, falconers do use dogs, usually on open moors or to flush prey, and the way they use dogs is entirely analogous with dogs being used to point or flush game to shooting. The main point that falconers have stressed to me is that the dogs they use have to be more highly trained; it is vital that the dogs do not chase the game because if the bird of prey then grab the game, there is a risk of injury to the valuable bird of prey. So, falconers use highly trained, very obedient dogs and the dog is trained to drop as soon as the game is flushed. There is a limit to actually how many dogs are used; generally there is only one dog but, if you have a big field, there may be two or three dogs, each being used by their own handler. Many of the species being hunted by falcons do not need to be controlled, rabbits and corvids possibly do.
So, in answer to the five questions, generally the species do not need to be controlled; they do need to use dogs in many circumstances; the dogs are not involved in the kill; they are under the direct control of handlers and are very highly trained and it is as humane and comparable to natural event.
When you look at rabbiting, I think the process here is very different from coursing. The first is that the quarry species is much smaller, on average a third or so of the size of a brown hare, and that means it is much easier for a dog to kill a rabbit quickly. Secondly, the difference is that the hunt is very short. Rabbits and hares spatially separate themselves in the countryside: hares remaining in the middle of open spaces and rabbits living along the edges of fields. Hares' approach is to outrun their prey; they do not head for cover; basically they do not have a hole and they have no natural predators that chase them over long distances. Rabbits, in comparison, normally do not stray far from cover, most movements are less than 10 metres from cover, and their means of escape is a short dash to their warren. So, the pursuit is extremely short and the aim is to catch the animal quickly, otherwise it escapes. When caught, the rabbit is generally killed quickly, again usually by crushing whatever part the dog gets hold of and, for a small animal, that is usually a vital part. Whilst the aim of rabbiting with dogs is primarily pest control, as opposed to hare hunting which is sport, it probably makes a small contribution to population control and the vast majority of rabbits are killed by ferreting, gassing and shooting. It is unlikely that rabbiting is markedly less humane than any of these forms of control. It might be slightly less humane than shooting, but there is probably not too much in it.
So, in answer to the five questions, yes, they do need to be controlled; no, you do not need to use dogs but it may be a useful adjunct to other methods of control; where dogs are used, the kill is quick; dogs are under the direct control of their handler; and there is probably little difference in levels of humaneness for killing rabbits and other forms of control.
For deer stalking, I think I have covered most of the points already. It is the standard way to control deer and it is as efficient a process as can probably be achieved, but the key thing is that standards can always be improved and one of the key differences perhaps between Britain and the rest of the Europe is that we do not actually make people go through a training course before they are allowed to shoot deer. Most countries actually make you go on through a training course and we could actually further increase standards by improving issues such as that. As far as we can establish, the wounding rates are generally low with trained stalkers, though of course with illegal shooting at night, they are likely to be higher. I have already quoted data on that. The two situations where a dog needs to be used for stalking is to follow wounded deer and I have made the point that you only need one or two dogs, they are highly trained to follow a scent trail, they do not pursue the deer and the aim is simply to allow the stalker to get close to the deer and to shoot it without disturbing it. There is also the issue which some members of the Deer Society have raised that there is potential use of dogs, a single dog, to move deer slowly out of cover so that there can be a clear shot. That is not widely practised but it may be a potential use particularly in times of achieving cull quotas.
In answer to the five questions, yes, deer need to be controlled; it is essential to use dogs for stalking; and there may possibly be a potential use, which has yet to be approved, to walk deer out of cover; the dogs are not part of the kill; they are directly under the control of the handler; and stalking is the most humane method of control of the species.
DR WISE: In the previous session, I made the point that most wild animal deaths involve a degree of suffering and so called natural deaths were often worse than those produced by man. I think we have agreed that the only suffering free death available is to be shot in such a way that insensibility is almost instant. However, this can in no way be guaranteed. The suffering anyway of a killed individual must be balanced against the overall welfare of the population from which it comes as well as against the possible welfare benefits that may accrue to non-target species by control of quarry species. Where conservation is important, as in bio-diversity action plan species such as hares, there is a possibility of considering that it may be desirable on occasions to subordinate welfare concerns and conservation interests, which is the point that Patrick makes and himself has come up with. This all amounts to saying that matters are seldom black and white and that what at first sight may seem humane is often not. It is for this sort of reason that many wildlife managers are amazed that so much attention is being focused on hunting with dogs and so little on the genuine wildlife interest. Why, for example, is the unrestricted access to the countryside of nine million domesticated carnivores in the form of cats tolerated? What genuine concern is there for the fate of rabbits subjected to anticoagulant poison? I am all in favour of attempts being made to improve the lot of wild animals, but it needs a careful deliberation both in respect of welfare and conservation. A so called welfare equation will be needed to look at the duration in intensity of suffering at death and throughout life with different control methods and for the abandonment of control. This could never be precise. How, for example, should the short period of moderate suffering probably experienced by all animals killed by hunting be balanced or judged against the very severe and possibly extended suffering of the few animals that escape wounding having been shot? Nevertheless, I believe all recreational hunters could accept some sort of judgment in this way as being reasonable. What they cannot take is the immorality and cruelty by those who probably have less understanding and empathy for wild animals than they themselves do.
Now into slightly more detail. It is my view that hares gain from beagling and coursing activities for the following reasons: where habitat may be improved for their benefit and their principal predators, foxes, reduced in number. Very few hares are actually killed in either activity and it is the weak and the sick who are disproportionately killed. Furthermore, death by site hounds will on average be quicker than death by shotgun even if one counts in the period of pursuit.
Rats can be poisoned, gassed, trapped, killed by cats or bolted to terriers and killed by them. Obviously cat control is probably the worst method because of the huge unintended by-catch and the fact that, by the process of neoteny, the cat is kept in an immature state of wild carnivore and therefore closes in and tortures its prey. Rat control actually provides an interesting case into the muddle that surrounds welfare legislation. Spring traps are judged one against another for humanity but not against poisons or gassing. Any poison that causes rats to vocalise or convulse is deemed inhumane regardless of how quick the death. Notwithstanding, anticoagulant poisons that kill slowly by haemorrhage, which would be very painful in man, are acceptable. The possibility of the market being entered by more welfare friendly poisons is prevented by high entry costs which have really escalated since the introduction of the Bysize(?) Directive. A possible case, perhaps, for Government intervention and one that would do more for animal welfare than any legislation that I can think of.
I will next consider rabbits. Myxomatosis deliberately introduced has been a very effective but scarcely humane method of control. I do not know if viral haemorrhagic disease was another virus that was deliberately introduced or not, but it is controlling rabbits in some areas. Rifle, shotgun and airgun used day or night are common methods of control. Shotgun wounding is possibly at a less high level than with hares but the probability of animals getting to ground before retrieving dogs can get them is a serious risk. Cytones(?) and the use of lurchers day or night is both recreational as well as having a pest control function and is quite efficient. Ferreting and long netting are further methods but ferreting has its limitations due to the fact that breeding rabbits do not often bolt very well. Trapping, snaring and gassing are also used. In fact, the Government's own scientists have developed a carbon monoxide gassing system which has not got onto the market, again because of the high entry costs, but it is nevertheless considerably better, probably, than the cyanide or the aluminium phosphate that we work with at the moment.
I do not think I need say anything about falconry.
As far as deer stalking is concerned, we have discussed wounding rates. I agree that it is important for stalkers to have dogs. They currently tend to exaggerate the numbers of dogs they have. At the Burns inquiry, one was led to believe that 30 per cent of stalkers had dogs but I am sure they included their pet poodles! Very few dogs are capable of following up, although the number is growing and people are training dogs for this purpose, which is a very good thing. Actually, the greatest man induced welfare problems for deer are road traffic accidents and wire fence entanglements and in fact the casualty service operated by the stag hunts is the best way of dealing with this particularly in areas where there are stag hunts. Perhaps, Minister, you would consider recommending the spread of stag hunts throughout the rest of the country. If you fail to do that, then I do believe that stalkers should be encouraged to have dogs, but obviously they are not going to be as effective as stag hunts which draw through the country and, by dint of their searching, find animals which are not known about and equally they can follow up mobile deer although often a trained stalker's dog will be able to locate deer that are down, alive, wounded or very mobile. The chance of coming up with one that is walking wounded is ...
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: I restate first of all my principles: that we need to consider both the welfare of the hunted individual and the lifetime welfare of quarry species and other sentient life in other areas. Suffering must be defined by both intensity and duration. In considering the least suffering, we cannot consider individual methods in isolation but they must be considered in the context of alternative control methods.
With regard to hare coursing, the three facts are that less than 15 per cent of those raised are killed, which means - and I say it again - that hares "expect" to escape. That is to say, the experience of a hare, until the last time, is that it will escape. Most, but not all, are killed quickly and some are injured and picked up later and presumably some who are injured are not picked up later, but the intention of coursing is not population control - the fraternity say that the intention is not actually the killing of the hare but to test in a competitive way the skills of the dogs. So, this raises two important questions and concerns. First of all, could the killing be avoided, for example by muzzling, and I say that in full knowledge that the coursing community will say that is not an option but I do ask the question, if not, why not? One of the answers, of course, would be that it might increase the wounding incidents and that would be an acceptable answer. If the answer were that dogs would not try as hard, that, in my view, would not be an acceptable answer. The second one is what, if any, is the justification on grounds on utility and stewardship? At the time of preparing my written submission, I had asked those questions of the hare hunting community, both the beagling and coursing community, and they have responded since I in fact wrote to you and you have that evidence before you. I am not going to go through it in detail. I would just point out that they have made a response there, though I would say that, at the moment, there is an argument there that it lacks evidence.
The next point is ratting. I would agree with what has been said before. The function is strictly utilitarian, to destroy rats that are in the wrong place. The speed and effectiveness of killing are high and therefore the suffering is likely to be less than almost all alternatives.
Falconry, is a concern. Whether the dogs are or are not involved in the killing process is, I think, of complete irrelevance. The objective of falconry, as I understand it, is rather like coursing: it is to develop and admire the skills of the rat to bird. In that regard, one must consider the element of unnecessary suffering that might be involved and, in that regard, I have to say that the sentience of the prey species for the rat to bird is something on which quite a lot of work has been done as to cognition and emotion. It suggests that both emotional and cognitive responses are really similar in degree to that of hunted mammals, so the fact that they are a hunting bird I do not think is a sufficient argument to distinguish them. Again, I am not aware of any evidence for utility.
Rabbiting. Again, I have nothing else to say beyond the fact that I believe the methods are effectively the least suffering methods and quite clearly there is strong evidence for utility in this regard, both in the context of population control and of course food.
Finally, I do not really wish to say much about deer stalking because much of it was dealt with as a comparison with hunting deer with dogs. Deer stalking is quite clearly the most humane procedure when there is an absolutely and instantaneous kill. When it is rapid, it is not too bad. The element of wounding we discussed before and I do not wish to go into it again; I have just given you a range of figures and I am persuaded by the argument that the real numbers are closer to the lower level of three per cent than to the upper extreme of 20 per cent. Nevertheless, in the context of each deer's death should move us to some degree. The small number of animals that may be wounded and suffer for a long period of time before they die by this method does concern me a great deal.
THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I could take up one point. I had hoped that it might get dealt with elsewhere. If I can ask Professor Webster - and obviously anybody else who wants to comment may - you referred in earlier evidence to a 10 per cent likelihood of being killed leading to a sort of ten-to-one expectation of escape and you repeated that point in relation to hares now where you referred to 15 per cent. I must confess that I do not understand how that conclusion is reached and what evidence it is based on and if I can just explain why evidence leads me to question it. Having for a number of years dealt with issues of crime and crime reduction where the figures are very well known, we also know that people's fear of becoming a victim of burglary is vastly greater than the likelihood and the fear of becoming a victim of street crime or of wounding is infinitely greater and there are other crimes that people's fear has nothing to do with the evidence of likelihood. I would like to know that there is some evidence of thinking that animals are actually working out the percentage chances in a far more rational way than it would seem human beings are.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: May I come back on that, please? The fear of many things, as we all know - of GM crops, nuclear disasters etc - is that there is no correlation to actual experience in relation to crimes or deaths on the things you have just mentioned.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is my point.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: The point with hares and foxes is that they are having experience of being hunted. Some of them are getting killed on the first run, so that does not apply, but others are not having the constant fear that they might one day suffer from a fox hunt or some similar weapon of man's destruction, but they are experiencing the hunt and experiencing that they are getting away with it. It is analogous - may I finish - to when somebody has a house with wonderful burglar proofing and people keep on trying to break in and fail. In those circumstances, my fear level would go down.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would it really? The fear might be that they would succeed in getting in.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: But if they did not, in my experience.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is a proxy for the question which is, what evidence is there that there is a learned behaviour as a result of the experience? What research, what information is there that leads you to that conclusion?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: The evidence is very limited and I accept that point, but a certain amount is from the behaviour of hunted animals, not only by dogs but again wild species in the African bush and the like, which is that they return to normal maintenance behaviour as soon as they effect an escape.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is quite an important point because there are points that were both made and challenged earlier, for instance about the likelihood of change of behaviour of deer, which is very relevant to some of the questions with which we have to deal, but I am still not clear about the evidence. Is there published evidence that would support the assertion?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: There is anecdotal evidence relating to the behaviour of deer sometimes running with hounds or hunting foxes and it is all anecdotal but, in my opinion, the balance of evidence is very limited. It is not sound evidence. The balance of evidence is that having made the initial escape, this, on balance, is not inducing a chronic sense of anxiety in the animals. If it were, I would be very concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: But you cannot go into specific evidence?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: No.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: I would simply add to the point that not only is there no evidence but actually the absence of evidence is not actually particularly useful in this case and if you are looking at a fox or a deer that is being hunted, when it stops being hunted, what can it do? It cannot go down the pub and have a pint and relax. It has to carry on doing what it is doing and because it carries on doing what it has been doing does not mean that it is not still stressed through a highly stressful situation.
The only other point I would make is that with regard to the figure of 15 per cent that Professor Webster quoted to us for hares, remember - and we discussed this at length yesterday - what hare coursing really means. With most hare coursing, the game is actually to catch and kill the hare. It is not a case of being subjected to only one action and you suddenly get caught, it probably means that the vast majority get caught and I think that figure relates to a range of coursing activities.
DR WISE: I think, Minister, that you have put your finger on the most important single discussion point in this whole issue and it does relate to the difference between the human and the animal in mind. There is a huge body of evidence growing all the time that suggests that animals are not going to behave in the irrational way that humans do in getting over-worried about theoretical things that they think up. They are going to react in a totally spontaneous manner. There is evidence that they can learn this, but I agree with Professor Webster that there is probably very little evidence for what he claims has happened in respect of hunted animals because, outside of a laboratory situation, it would be very hard to find such evidence but, in terms of research that has been done with rats and with animals of the same brain capacity, if you want, as the hunted animal, we know extremely well that they are not going to have these irrational fears because they lack the pre frontal cortex that we have. They will have a degree of consciousness but it is not going to be of the type that leads them to have fears of the future and I believe we heard yesterday that Susan Greenfield was quoted on this point. If you want a whole body of data on this, I can give you more than you would care to read.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are very kind! It would be nice to have some.
DR ATKINSON: I do not really have much to say except that I hope you do not take this as a trivial story but my own experience as a small boy being pursued by fourth formers was that it was pretty unpleasant the first time even though I got away, it was even more unpleasant the second time and the third time!
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but that is about the rationality of human beings and I have been told that, on the one hand, animals are more rational and on the other hand less rational.
DR ATKINSON: We have been told that there is a huge body of evidence to this effect but we have not heard it today.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have asked the question because I think it is a significant question in making the distinction and, having flagged it up, if any member of the panel would like to comment by pointing to specific evidence, I would be grateful.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: There is one piece of evidence and that is in relation to rodeo with both bronco-riding, horse riding, and bull riding. The objective of the cowboy is to stay on for nine seconds; the objective of the bull or horse is to get the cowboy off. In the mind of the bull or horse, it always wins. Notwithstanding the apparent stresses of that, it is not aversive to the horse or the bull, the old professionals, just walking to the crates on a regular basis and, having knocked the cowboys off, they walk out. The evidence is that rodeoing is not aversive to the professional cowboy horses and bulls.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that may count as a sound post. As I say, I would be grateful because I think this is one of those issues where actually quite an important flag has been put up, but I remain to be persuaded of its veracity and significance and it would be helpful.
MR OPIK: If I can just ask a small point following on from what has just been said. Just for my clarification, am I right therefore in assuming that, in reality, it is very, very hard for us to rely on what we think is going on in the bird or mammal's head and therefore effectively, to use Professor Harris's word, it is really conjecture, it is assertion, and it sounds to me as if no one can really say more than as a matter of opinion what they think animals feel?. Is that right? I just want to check that I understand.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: Of whom are you asking that question?
MR OPIK: Silence hopefully indicates assent.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: I do not disagree with what you have said. I do agree.
DR WISE: I do not think that I would be able entirely to agree in that I do not think we can judge from animal behaviour what the animal is feeling, but there are certain things that we can be pretty certain they cannot feel because of the missing parts, but I shall be ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this on the same point?
DR LINDLEY: Specifically on the points you raised on the expectation of escape. There are still some other points that I am wrestling with. It seems to me that, amongst other things, that belief is predicated on the assumption that an individual animal is chased many times in order to build up a body of experience. I do not know of any evidence to demonstrate that that is the case. Even if it is the case, that does not take into account the state of mind of the animal during the first learning phases on its first experience when it has a base of information. The third point is that I believe that there is plenty of evidence that many wild animals deliberately hide their state of vulnerability to a predator and that Professor Webster's assumption that an animal resumes normal behaviour immediately means it is all right may not be justified.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody want to respond specifically on that, otherwise I will add that to the question of what is the evidence on the ...
DR WISE: It is something of a Morton's fork, is it not, Minister, that if they show adverse behaviour they are frightened but, if they do not, they are equally frightened and they are covering it up. You cannot win on that one.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you would have to ask what evidence there is of a particular behaviour being evidence of particular responses and I think the question of 'please point me in the right direction if there is evidence which supports the assertion' is reinforced. I think that is the main point.
MR OPIK: May I suggest that it might be useful for yourself or your staff to talk with Susan Greenfield who has been mentioned a number of times who, as neuro-scientist in Oxford, may have a response on that matter
I have to say something that will be quite shocking to Professor Stephen Harris which is that I actually agreed with most of what he said.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: May I go home now then?
MR OPIK: You are welcome to go if you want and we will carry on without you! I thought that the document was very helpful. Nevertheless, that has caused confusion and I hope it is useful in us going through really deep into this issue and maybe beginning to find the underlying logic which would need to underpin legislation to put together everything that we are discussing, bearing in mind that we are discussing suffering and not utility which will be put together tomorrow. The question I really have for you is given that I understand that rabbiting and ratting would, under the terms you are describing in your document, be acceptable, why is it that fox hunting is not acceptable in the same terms? The reason I ask that question and the reason that I think it is relevant for this section is because the weight ratio and the power ratio between a dog hound and fox is very comparable to that between, for example, a terrier and a rat.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: There are two issues which I put in that equation because I was actually trying to look first of all at the whole process and part of it is that, between the rat and the rabbiting, I said there was extremely short pain because it is a quick death and either you are caught or you are not. The advantage of that is that generally, particularly for ratting, I do not think the ratio is there. I think that the power ...(inaudible)... particularly for things like rabbits and rats; they are actually quite smaller, the chest wall and the body wall. I think generally the kill is quick. The other thing is, is the dog under the immediate control of the person and, yes, you are literally extremely close to it. So, if the dog makes a poor job of killing your prey, you are there to finish it off quickly. It is not as if the pack may be fields away and not under very good control. So, that is the other key issue there, that there is a handler there who can deal with any problem. I think that the other final point is that if you are out in the fields and you want to kill something, if it is a rabbit or a rat, then, yes, it is very easy to kill them. Even if it is a rat, it is quite easy to break its neck. I think the difference with a hare is - and you have experience of it with coursing - that it is the devil of a job to actually kill the hare. It is much easier to do it with a gun, but it is actually not very easy to do when you are taking it from a dog. So, I think there is a broad spectrum of differences there that make the processes very different in terms of least suffering.
MR OPIK: It will be interesting to hear from Dr Wise as to what he thinks about this as well. That was a very helpful response to the question, Professor Harris, but it leaves me seeking a number of clarifications. Firstly, it sounds to me as if the chase element is important when it comes to ratting because it is a short chase and a very quick kill and that is more or less what your document says, is it not?
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: That is what I believe.
MR OPIK: If it can be shown that the chase in itself is not necessarily a key element in suffering - and I am not attempting to try and convince you of that now but if it can be shown that it is not necessarily a key element in suffering - then would you accept that it is more similar in comparison between the fox situation and the rat situation and, within that, if it could be established similarly that the actual kill itself was quite quick with the dog, even with the larger animals, would that cause you to change the equation that led you to the conclusions about fox hunting?
PROFESSOR STEPHEN HARRIS: No because I think the key difference is that you are not going to convince me that the chase is not the important part of the overall equation. I think we have heard the argument that it is not, but I do not see that as the case. I have seen no evidence that that is the case. More importantly, you have to have a process whereby it is under the immediate control of the handler who has to sort out any problems quickly and simply and I do not see that there is a comparable situation with a pack of dogs and the fox.
MR OPIK: I think that is a useful area of discussion because we now have one point that is worthy of further investigation, that is the question about the chase. It sounds to me that I have not convinced you - I am not trying to put words into your mouth today - and at least there is one question of suffering that ...
DR WISE: I do not think that I really need to add anything. The idea of terriers being 100 per cent more under control than hounds tickles my sense of humour but, other than that, I do not think I need to mention anything.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: I have nothing to add.
DR ATKINSON: The question of the terrier killing the rat and the dog killing the fox is a question of simple physics. An ant can lift 10 or 20 times the same weight and I cannot.
MR OPIK: You are trying to say that you do not think that the power ratio is comparable?
DR ATKINSON: It does not apply.
MR OPIK: So you disagree with what I have said?
DR ATKINSON: Yes.
MR JACKSON: We have two tidying up questions, one of which is very relevant to the discussions taking place.
MR LISSACK: I share Lembit Opik's interest in the issue of consistency as between these species and use of dogs in connection with them and the issues we were discussing earlier on. Dr Atkinson, could I ask you first of all to look at your written paper you submitted in evidence for these proceedings and at the background first two paragraphs, which say: "Any framework designed to test the acceptability of hunting deer, mink, foxes and hares with dogs, based on considerations of utility and cruelty, should be of such rigour that other, at least superficially, similar activities may be judged by it. The activities of hare coursing, ratting with dogs, falconry using dogs, rabbiting and deer stalking using dogs should therefore, I believe, be judged within the same framework of utility and cruelty as hunting of hares, mink, fox and deer. Crucial to such considerations is evidence". Can I say I agree with you?
Going on to the next page in your evidence, in the fifth paragraph on the page under the heading "Ratting, rabbiting and falconry using dogs", you say, "As I stated above, evidence is crucial to the fair and consistent application of the principles of cruelty and utility. There appears to be little or no published evidence on the operations of ratting, rabbiting and falconry using dogs that enable such an assessment to be made. Nor do we have evidence on the welfare effects of such activities... We should withhold judgment, therefore, awaiting further evidence."
What I would like to ask you is this, please: if you should withhold judgment awaiting further evidence in those areas, what is the evidence that permits you to form a judgment now in respect of the others?
DR ATKINSON: There is ample evidence - that is what we have been discussing - in terms of the welfare effects of the chase, the welfare effects of the kill, the operation of hunting, the length of the chase, any conservation benefits, any control benefits, any social or cultural benefits that can be replaced by something else, the post mortem evidence of the kill, the physiological evidence of Bateson and Professor Harris and many others. We cannot go over the whole thing again but I am convinced there is enough evidence to draw such conclusions and you would disagree.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was a specific question but I would like to keep to the topic of this session.
MR JACKSON: My question is about something different but is very relevant to this session. In the context of suffering, how does the practice of illegal hare coursing differ from legal hare coursing? Perhaps, Minister, there has been some confusion left over from yesterday as to what coursing actually means so it is an opportunity to clear that up. Perhaps somebody might point out that since animals in pursuit escape the chase and the kill, it is perfectly sensible to consider them separately.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would somebody like to define terms in terms of hare coursing, hare hunting and illegal hare coursing?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: Shall I try? I thought we covered it yesterday. I had trouble with illegal hare coursing because as far as I am concerned that is poaching; beyond that we have a variety of different forms of coursing and you can either have matched pairs of greyhounds at a meet that is either a stationary meet or a walked up meet - they are different in their approaches; you can have a variety of other organised events with two dogs, between salukis, bigger forms of lurchers and so on; or you can have coursing where there is a single dog used, or perhaps two, where the aim is to catch and kill the hare. They are all, as far as I see, coursing. They are all hunting with game hounds in one way or another and the only legal aspect is whether you have permission to be there or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to comment further?
DR WISE: There are more differences. Under the rules, for example, of the National Coursing Club, they have taken note of the Burns Inquiry and you have obviously seen the submissions. It is the slip distance that makes a lot of difference to the proportion of hares that are going to be killed. They currently kill a small number of hares; they are proposing to slip at a greater distance; therefore one thing that is going to be the effect of that is a smaller proportion of hares will be killed. It is true that because they kill so few hares they are less expert than those lurchers which are trained to kill and are slipped at shorter distances to rabbits and occasionally to hares. They are not so good at killing because they hardly ever kill, and to answer Professor Webster's question I understand they have done trials with muzzles and have found that, although it results in less hare deaths, there are hares that are damaged which have to be killed with their feet - they do not kill them properly - so it makes it worse for those that are killed. But the illegal coursers which operate in my part of the world, and I see evidence of them many weekends, are effectively terrorists. I agree you should not call them coursers at all - they are very intimidating people and the police are usually frightened of dealing with them, let alone land owners. They are not doing it for any particular sporting purpose - I think it is mainly betting. They do not care about the distance they slip but they drive all over the crops, they drive everywhere, and are very intimidating.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
DR LINDLEY: Professor Webster, a point of clarification on a matter of principle, in your paper you have said, and I think in one of your slides, that suffering for the hunted individual is determined by both intensity and duration. I wanted to be clear that you are not suggesting there, are you, a different definition of cruelty? Cruelty equals unnecessary suffering regardless of duration or intensity. You are not suggesting we should dilute the definition of cruelty to one that is a matter of levels of suffering?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: Not at all. I keep going back to the principle of least suffering. How one establishes the product of intensity, duration and incidence again, talking about the individuals within the population, is ultimately for people to make valued judgments. It is not a scientific judgment in this regard but I say again that I am concerned about control methods which may permit small numbers of individuals to suffer greatly for a long time, but the principle should be the principle of avoiding unnecessary suffering.
MR BATCHELOR: Professor Webster in his reply focused on what for us I think is a key issue in terms of avoiding unnecessary suffering, so it is not just least suffering but unnecessary suffering, and I think my supplementary in a sense is we have tended to focus on the methodology of either chasing with dogs or killing with dogs. Would it not also be true to say that the principle of avoiding unnecessary suffering or least suffering could be just as well met by management changes, assuming that you accept that there is a need for management? I wonder if all of the panel would like to address that particular issue.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: It is an unfortunate fact of life that we care for animals in proportion to their value to us. It is very sad; we should not but we do. Rightly or wrongly, and I am going to avoid the morals of this, the quarry species matter to the hunting community and my objective is to seek to have respect for as wide a population of scented animals in the countryside as possible. It is one thing to say we should look after all the animals in the countryside but somebody has to do it, and any means that can, without causing unnecessary suffering, increase the value of wildlife to those people who actively value them is likely to be to the welfare advantage of those species.
THE CHAIRMAN: In that case you are talking about the species generally?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: The coursing community will say that they value the hare. Now in a sense my argument to that was, "If that is what you mean, then demonstrate it" - because nobody else will, and that is the worry.
MR BATCHELOR: The concern I have with that answer is twofold: firstly, that it suggests that the only people who care about the wild animals are the people who hunt them and kill them for sport and, secondly, when you talk about managerial issues that could deliver better welfare, and we heard examples about deer tangled up in fences, there are options about whether you fence or not and there are welfare implications in relation to those issues, and to put the principle of care purely on the people who sport with animals I think is taking a very narrow view of the 14 million plus who live and work in the countryside and care about animals.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: Yes, but whether they add value to the lives or populations of animals is another matter. Everybody cares about farm animal welfare but less than 10 per cent do anything about it.
DR ATKINSON: I think a wildlife management strategy that preserves animals simply so they can be killed by hunting is morally bereft and I could not possibly justify or support that.
DR WISE: I think it is a moral question because this is exemplified first by in a sense Dr Lindley's question. He very correctly asks are we deviating from suffering by tolerating a little bit of suffering rather than a lot at the point of death, whereas I would prefer to see the life of the animal judged in its entirety and it is my view that deer on Exmoor benefit from hunting. It was your view when you gave evidence to Professor Savage's committee on behalf of the RSPCA that you would prefer to see all deer killed than for hunting to continue.
The other point I would make to the other question is it was suggested that you could do more by fencing than control by other methods, and I think in the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals' submission they suggested that woodland could be protected from deer by fencing it off, so presumably you would suggest that you effectively fence on the deer farmer's property, would you, so they could pay for them and that trees would grow?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be helpful, if you do not mind, if we could ask the experts to refer to the evidence which supports their view rather than trying to cross-examine the panel. I am not going to allow the members of the panel to start giving evidence. I understand that it is tempting to make points on a number of occasions and a number of people have left questions hanging in the air, but I am not going to allow a debate to start.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: Perhaps I can go back to the question which was the issue of unnecessary suffering as compared to least suffering. I tried in my submission to address the question of least suffering because the question of utility and necessary suffering is tied up in (inaudible) and some of the sections are separate and have tried to deal with them. I have tried to deal with the question of least suffering, not unnecessary suffering, so I think we have to bear in mind what is said there in relation to utility as well and that is what the question was, if I understood it.
DR LINDLEY: I do not know whether it is appropriate but Dr Wise made a specific allegation of some evidence I gave to an inquiry ten years ago and I have to say it is untrue.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you wish to clarify and point to the evidence you gave at that time I shall be happy to hear that, otherwise I have to let everybody have a response to balance it and we would end up hearing very little from our experts.
MR OPIK: I am finding this a very useful session - perhaps the most useful. It sounds to me that we have already established there were differences of view about the impact of chase on the suffering of an animal but we do not really know what a mammal thinks and that was really conjecture, and nobody is unequivocally convinced that they do know. There is also a debate about the power and weight ratios where Dr Atkinson took a different view from me, and perhaps we need to investigate that further.
I would like to pursue this in a fourth direction which I hope is within the terms of this session. It is quite obvious to me that people do enjoy the activities we are discussing now, in other words, they derive some recreational pleasure from it. Therefore, the question is simple: is it reasonable to establish that all four of our witnesses will accept that the fact that people enjoy that activity is not a salient consideration on whether it is allowed or not?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: It is irrelevant to the argument I have been putting forward at the moment. I have been looking for the principle of least suffering and maximum stewardship and the moral position of the humans in this debate is not of concern to me. The welfare of the animals is the limit of my personal brief.
DR ATKINSON: I would agree with that.
DR WISE: I agree.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I agree as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I congratulate Lembit on posing a bonding question to the panel!
MR OPIK: Thank you very much. I think that is very useful, and clearly has implications for other areas we have been discussing too.
MR JACKSON: If I can revisit the same ground, I would like to hear each member of the panel on this: is it really useful, in the light of the knowledge and evidence that is available, to consider these activities which we are considering in this session separately from the whole question of the quarry species that we were considering in the previous session and is it a valid distinction, or is it in essence simply a convenient and general distinction?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: Very briefly, the only valid distinction I have made so far is the distinction between those forms of hunting that have a utility element and those that do not.
DR ATKINSON: I think these alternative activities should be considered alongside hunting for all these species.
DR WISE: Yes, I would agree, Minister, but I would also say that I cannot agree with Professor Webster regarding activities that cause a certain amount of human pleasure. We are hunter gatherers, we enjoy the activities we do; people are, after all, animals and we should be allowed to enjoy ourselves as well so I would call it recreation and utility.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I am not sure I understood the question so I am not sure I can answer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can try and pose it. In a sense essentially we have tried to divide the whole agenda over the few days into pieces which can be assimilated and we have put some very specific issues in relation to a specific group of species actually quite different in this session. As I understand it John is saying, at the end of the day, do you not then have to go back and apply the same principles to the group of activities considered in this session and the group of activities considered in the last session?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: Thank you for the clarification. My answer would be, and I think I have argued this all the way through this session, that we should be looking for a uniform approach not only across species but also across other welfare legislation we have applying to mammals in Britain, so we should look for uniformity, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Having moved from Lembit getting agreement from the whole panel to John getting agreement from the whole panel, do you want to have a go?
DR LINDLEY: I would like to ask a question of clarification possibly looking at ways forward, if I may, of Dr Wise. I think you said at the beginning of your session that you hoped we were all agreed that the best method of achieving least suffering if an animal has to be killed is that the animal should be shot so as to achieve instant insensibility but I think you said unfortunately that is not always achieved.
DR WISE: Yes.
DR LINDLEY: Is not then the conclusion from that that the best way forward is to develop methods for improving the success rate in achieving instant insensibility in shooting rather than trying to pursue a whole range of other activities which are not intrinsically the best method of achieving the suffering?
DR WISE: It is a good question but I think it is naive to suppose that training necessarily makes much difference, in the same way when Roger Harris in the previous session said you could test people's marksmanship by going out and accompanying them you immediately change the way they are going to react with a rifle in their hands and a deer up the other end. If they are going to be judged they are going to be a lot more careful than when they are not.
The evidence from Richard Prior who is involved in training and running courses was that the standard of marksmanship of professional stalkers was extremely poor, but I think there is a difference between training on a range - clearly training is a good idea for shooting but at the end of the day, if the animal moves at the wrong instant, there is a twig in the way, or a professional wants to get home for his tea and he has a certain amount of animals to cull, they are not going to be as careful or as successful as one might hope, however much they are trained. But I accept the fact that shooting is quite clearly an instant death if it is in the head, for example. We have already heard that is the only place to do it if you want an instant death but we have also learned from evidence from the British Deer Society that the last place you want to shoot a deer is in the head. You aim for the engine room because you cannot afford to take the high risk of wounding by missing such a small target in the head.
When a deer is shot in the chest it may take several minutes to die. These days, because of carcass values and everything else, people are being encouraged to avoid going through the shoulder and in fact neck shots are being taken more for the purposes of carcass value. This is dangerous as well but consider the life as well as the death of the animal.
I thought you were going to come to the moral question. Do you agree with the statement that stalkers shoot - sorry, I am doing what you told me not to, Minister!
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you asking yourself the question?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: No. I was sinning again. Sorry!
PROFESSOR HARRIS: The answer is, I think, much clearer than that. All the evidence shows that, yes, training does improve standards and that is why the British Deer Society and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are not only increasing the number of courses they are doing but also the complexity of the stalking courses they do because there is real benefit in doing that, and I think logic dictates that it is easier to improve stalking standards than welfare standards associated with hunting and that is based on conclusions. So I think the answer is yes, improving stalking standards does have distinct welfare benefits, and perhaps we can go back to the only other issue: if there is a question that some people can not achieve those required stalking standards, then we have licences like most other countries in Europe do.
DR ATKINSON: The simple answer is yes. I think these issues of twigs and tea are much easier to address than are issues of chases and hunting with dogs.
THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I can just ask one question here, because essentially we have just looked at the question of what can be improved in relation to the management of deer and the minimising of suffering. Could members of the panel just say if there are any pointers that they might suggest in relation to the other activities we have here - I am not sure it applies in relation to falconry but in relation to ratting and in dealing with hare populations, for instance, as there was a reference earlier to the fact that the options available for instance in dealing with rats are all fairly unpleasant and one or two suggestions were thrown out of that earlier stage about avenues that might be pursued in relation to more humane ways of killing. Have the panel any suggestions on that?
Obviously at the moment legislation has to deal with what is available but as we are in the field of making suggestions where improvements might be made, do you have suggestions on that?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I think for the hare I repeat what I said, a lot of which involves closed seasons as part of that overall management strategy, and I have made those points and there are clear issues on what you can and cannot shoot and the weapons used. We stipulate weapons for certain species and there is no reason why we cannot do it for both hares and foxes although foxes are not on your list.
For rats, yes, I think there is a serious welfare issue there. Anticoagulant poisons are inhumane. We should be looking at developing a more fast-acting, more humane poison. Whether it is economic to do that I suspect is unclear at the moment but with the increasing existence of rodenticides that may happen anyway.
In terms of falconry, the point made by I think Professor Webster was the question of moral use of birds, using one bird to hunt another. I did not address the moral issue but I agree there is an issue there that needs to be considered.
For rabbiting, again, it is not clear at the moment how much suffering is involved in gassing and other activities. There may be a need to look at that but I am not quite sure whether that is a number one animal welfare issue to address at the moment.
DR WISE: I have already suggested that you could help the Biocides Directive because there are alternatives to rat poisons. I think you have good Ministry scientists and laboratories and they have developed this extremely good carbon monoxide gassing system as well for rabbits. The Ministry cannot be seen to commercialise one of its own research products; it needs a company to take it on but nobody appears willing to take it on because of the cost of entering the market these days.
Now in the veterinary medicines directorate there used to be ways for small minor use licensing which was much less costly, and I think it could well worth be looking in those sort of areas.
As far as deer stalking is concerned I have mentioned encouragement of dogs to accompany stalkers. I think any use of a dog usually adds humanity to the culling process with wild animals.
DR ATKINSON: I do not think there is much I can add.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: I have one point: in the context of these I do not think there are any obvious ways of improving it.
In the context of hunting deer with hounds, there is a suggestion in the hunting communities that the early stage of the season, in hind hunting where there is a utilitarian perceived need to kill quite a lot of hinds possibly in one day, they are bringing them to bay quicker which suggests to me that it is possible.
MR BATCHELOR: On a supplementary to this, the emphasis of this discussion in a sense has been on management by death and I think imposing the question I was seeking to say two things: firstly, whether there are alternatives to death by managing the habitat and, secondly, if you take a very specific example of deer coursing, if the objective as is often stated is to train the dog, then in Ireland I know for a fact there are plenty of drag coursing events that are used for training dogs, so if you talk about utility of coursing as a method of training dogs then why not do it without a live quarry because that will improve the welfare of the hare.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: All the time I have tried to make the point that population control, culling - which is a euphemism - is a recognised part of population management. I entirely support your principle of enhancing habitat and improving the overall welfare of the lot. A culling method that is a selective culling method, a policy of selective culling, is as essential to the management of wildlife populations as it is to the management of a garden, and therefore one cannot avoid it altogether.
If one goes, for example, for a contraception type policy you are prolonging the suffering of some of these geriatric wildlife.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I largely concur with what has been said. I have rather pushed the habitat stuff already so I had not included that in this equation but in the overall equation one has, putting all the sessions together, that is an important component of reducing suffering.
DR WISE: If you are running under National Coursing Club rules you have to run on an estate with a lot of cars with good habitat and fox control so to some extent the hares gain in very small number but may lose it in consequence.
DR ATKINSON: I would just question whether that was good conservation.
MR OPIK: I was interested that Professor Harris and Dr Atkinson made what seems a reasonable point that training of shooters improves standards and that training already exists there. We have already established that under certain circumstances the panel would see an acceptability to controlling the species or at least on the species we are discussing at the moment using dogs.
Would it therefore be reasonable to conclude that training individuals who are using dogs in this way could also improve standards? It is not a rocket science question.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I think the problem is you have to train the dogs and I am not quite sure you can train the dogs to obey the rules you want to so that is the difference. It is much easier to train people to work to standards and you have some action against the people if they do not meet those standards ie. they can lose their licence or whatever system you might introduce. I do not think it is as easy to do the training of the dogs in the way you want.
MR OPIK: Presumably you would agree that at least we should consider it because there may be some things we can do to train individuals who use dogs to improve their standards. Perhaps they think about the quarry in a more inciteful way and so forth and it could be that we can train the dogs?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I am not sure. I cannot think how you could do that and I am not being awkward; I just cannot visualise that. I think the words Lord Burns used in the opening session was that a pack of dogs could be a long way away from the person and under gradual control, I think his phrase was or some such phrase, and I do not see how you can train when the dogs and the person are separated and potentially out of contact.
MR OPIK: Fox hounds can and do tend to be trained not to attack other quarries so fox hounds can be trained.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I think that is a contentious statement because if you read all the early hunting literature the great advice was do not hunt in woods where you have got deer because you cannot stop your dogs chasing other species, and that is often seen to be the case. I think it is very hard to train a dog to do one thing or another. The same case has been expressed by others trying to stop mink hounds from hunting otters and so on.
DR WISE: I have trained dogs professionally for other people and I do compete dogs. What is said about the ability to train dogs to be species specific and, quite frankly, what Professor Harris has to say is not my personal experience.
DR ATKINSON: It is much easier to control and train humans than dogs and if control has to be carried out then --
THE CHAIRMAN: From many years of youth and community work I am glad you said that!
MR OPIK: Are you saying that we should not even try to train people to use dogs?
DR ATKINSON: I am saying the use of dogs is inevitably linked with suffering to the animal that is being chased because of the nature of chase, of the bite and so on, and those things cannot be done away with.
MR LUFF: I have a light hearted comment for Professor Webster in the light of his comments at the beginning which is what is the research on animals experienced at hunting, animals repeatedly hunted over and over and --
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: It is comparable to a rodeo animal. They are professionals, yes.
MR LUFF: So it might be possible to do some research in that area.
I have a specific and factual question for Dr Atkinson which is that speaking as somebody who shoots I find the RSPCA's endorsement of good shooting practice on the back of the kill game licence very helpful and I welcome it. Are there in these areas we are talking about of suffering any other examples of the RSPCA offering guidance on best practice in the control and killing of animals, or other species who are not covered by it, and if so I would love to see it.
DR ATKINSON: I am not here representing the RSPCA. I could recommend you to the RSPCA spokesmen. Would that be acceptable?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think if it is a question left and members of the panel would like to see advice in those fields then that is probably straightforward.
MR JACKSON: Having come second in the race to get the panel to agree, I am dying to put a question but I need your permission to put it because it bridges from today into tomorrow.
The panel having agreed on this point that the same principles ought to be applied as to whether the agenda gets broken up, do they have any views as to what should be done about the application of those principles, particularly those people who at some time in the future are going to have to make up their minds whether and to what extent this can be appropriately dealt with by legislation.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is going into tomorrow's topic but perhaps just briefly, if any members of the panel have something in relation to today's topic that they think would be helpful, they could say so.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: No. I am reluctant to go into that one.
DR ATKINSON: No.
DR WISE: I would have thought that if you want a statutory authority to look at things it should consider wildlife management in general. I would favour that approach rather than just a statutory instrument for hunting as if it is different. If you are asking to discriminate or not between hunting and other things, I suspect it would be quite sensible to broaden it, if you wished to. That is your option across the board.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I repeat what I said before: that I think they should be applying the standards already established across species and different approaches. That would be my view.
MR BATCHELOR: I think our preference would be to hold this debate tomorrow. My view is I do not wish to ask a question of this panel because they have been asked to comment on the issues in this particular session.
MR OPIK: In relation to today, I think Stephen Harris said something very interesting about the benefit of consistency in how we handle the principles and I guess the legislation across all the species. Therefore I would like to ask the panel if they can think of criteria which we can apply with regard to establishing the use of dogs, for example, with the suffering across species without actually mentioning the species themselves. The reason is, if we can describe criteria without describing the animals, then we might be getting quite close to what the Minister needs in order to establish legislation which, indeed, is based on the kinds of principles which could be applicable just as Stephen Harris has said.
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: The principle is the principle of humane management involving least suffering. Whether or not a dog is involved in the hunting process or the killing process is completely and utterly irrelevant, except in that context.
MR OPIK: Irrelevant because -- ?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: Because to the animal who is killed the suffering depends upon how long the chase took and the nature of the killing. Whether or not that does directly or indirectly involve the dog is completely irrelevant to the animal that is killed.
MR OPIK: You are basically making it animal focused rather than -- ?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: Dog focused? Absolutely, yes.
DR ATKINSON: Intuitively I feel your suggestion makes a lot of sense but I would from the point of view of practicality suggest that it is limited to dogs because that is much easier and more practical to deal with, and one could establish a model, if that is what was needed.
DR WISE: I think I agree with Professor Webster.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I guess the principles I worked to were the consistency of having closed seasons across all species, the need to have clear and considered advice, ways of killing animals, the need for utility, whether you need to do it, and obviously to address the principles of least suffering. I think that is what I would be looking for and it goes back to what I said yesterday. The problem we have for mammals in Britain is we do not have a comparable Act to the one that they had fifty years ago. We need an overall way of addressing the management of British animals and hitherto the problem of having not achieved that is the continued presence of hunting. All attempts to achieve some level of uniformity of approach and standards for animals have been thwarted by the presence of hunting with dogs.
MR OPIK: Obviously one of the reasons for this dispute is that we have different views about the levels of suffering caused by the use of a dog to kill an animal. I know you said you would like to see it. Do you feel we could perhaps find a set of criteria which would be common rather than species varied, or maybe wider than that?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I do not know whether you could achieve it. I tried in the document to give you some guidelines of how I view it from a couple of species and whether you manage to achieve some standard - it was a suggested guideline. Beyond that I do not think I can add very much.
DR WISE: I was wondering about closed seasons for rats and I was also thinking it would be rather difficult to limit damage to ground nesting birds if you prevented yourself targeting foxes on shooting estates at certain times of the year, but I would go along with Professor Harris that if you do so I would prefer to use a method which did not leave dependent young, which almost for certain is going to involve terriers but may also be shooting at the breeding earth and then using terriers to kill the young.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I would go back to the 1954 Birds Act. I do not think anyone has argued a closed season for rats. That Act says there are species of birds you can kill the year round and that is exactly what you would do, and rats may or may not have a closed season.
THE CHAIRMAN: So your argument would be a closed season where that is relevant and beneficial?
PROFESSOR HARRIS: And where it needs to be applied because things like muntjac may or may not have a closed season so you have a problem there. I think you have to look at these species on a case by case basis and that is what was done for the 1954 Birds Act and that laid down those principles. I think the question of whether you need to cull foxes for ground nesting birds is very unclear, but if there is an issue whereby you have to cull a fox in a breeding pen, there are very easy ways to get round that that do not involve the use of dogs. This is a myth and the simple system is like in Germany where the law is you cannot kill an adult unless you have killed the dependent cubs first, and the normal way to do that is shoot them then you are free to kill the adult rather than killing the adult and then saying "Now I have to use a dog to sort the cubs out". So there are simple ways of getting round those issues which would still allow an effective way of dealing with problems as they arise on a case by case basis.
MR JACKSON: The fact I asked the last question is an indication that we think it would be extremely helpful and constructive for there to be a consistent approach in respect of cruelty/welfare to all wild mammals.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are supposed to be asking questions so perhaps I could turn that to the panel and ask would the panel agree, and do they have any final points they would like to make in suggesting how that might be achieved?
PROFESSOR WEBSTER: I would agree with that principle, I think. It should be common to wildlife and animals but the killing process must be considered in the context of utility and stewardship and those have to be built into the equation.
DR ATKINSON: I do agree with the principle, the problem being that necessary to the exercise of that principle is evidence and then one has to decide whether one has enough evidence and I would suggest that for some people that day would never come; that there never would be agreement and that day is therefore now - there is sufficient evidence.
DR WISE: I would agree.
PROFESSOR HARRIS: I have largely said this but I think the problem is the presence of hunting with dogs is a part of achieving that, and it is not possible to achieve that necessarily all in one go.
THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot end sessions always with points that everybody would agree with but we have had a number of points of agreement and I think it has been a very helpful session in running over a number of issues. Although we isolated the issues of hare coursing and rabbit and deer stalking to this session, they have been examined in relation to the earlier evidence as a result of the questioning and I think that has proved quite helpful.
Can I thank our four experts for their contribution and the way they have responded to questions and to the discussion? I think in many ways today has shown an increasing approach through discussion to the issues and that has been generally very beneficial. Can I thank the members of the panel as well for the way they have posed their questions and look forward to the third day.
I would repeat something I have said earlier which is that no single session on its own can be satisfying and complete; it leaves loose ends. It isolates one part of a much bigger equation, but added together certainly I feel we are making a lot of progress and I hope that the third day will be as productive as the first and second.
Thank you all very much indeed.
# 9
Page last modified:
19 May, 2005
Page published: 10 December, 2002