Rural terrorism: discrimination and hypocrisy

The race riots we are seeing are the result of intolerance and discrimination incited by misinformation circulating on the social media. Is a ‘multi-cultural society’ just a self-contradiction? This article contains material from Hunting Ethics: A Personal Journey, due out in December.

Whatever you do in life, you will always have detractors. That’s the way of the world. People are driven by envy, spite, ignorance, or by a misplaced sense of virtue. Just across the South Tyne from here is Unthank Hall, home of Bishop Ridley who was burned at the stake with Hugh Latimer at Oxford for heresy, by people purporting to be ‘Christian’. How can people, for whatever ‘higher’ purpose, be so nasty to one another?

Often of course their purpose is not ethically higher at all; it is misinformed and prejudiced. It is also often mis-targeted. As far as fieldsports are concerned, there will always be people who disapprove and we should constantly examine ourselves and what we do, and see if there is any reality behind their claims. Not everything is sweetness and light in the fieldsports scene, but then every sphere of life has some dark side, from drunken drivers to football hooligans. Unfortunately there are always a few individuals doing stupid things, such as throwing live foxes to hounds, who hit headlines and blacken reputations for everyone else.

The Hunting Act

I was Scientific Advisor to the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group on Hunting with Dogs when the Hunting Bill was debated in 2004. I gave evidence at the Public Hearings on Hunting and attended some of the Select Committee hearings. They were so reminiscent of the Ridley and Latimer proceedings of 1555. There is no indignation more powerful than that of people who believe themselves to be in the ‘right’, no greater blindness to scientific evidence or to hypocrisy. The parameters had already been set: the hearings were solely about hunting foxes with hounds, strictly not about any other activity involving killing or capturing wildlife. With no comparisons to set benchmarks, it was not difficult to claim that hunted foxes might suffer. That provided a convenient veil to cover class warfare and political point scoring.

The politicians who initiated the Hunting Bill were overwhelmingly from the Labour Party, championing the urban working classes. As a scientist I was absolutely disgusted at the low intellectual level of the debates, the partisanships, the polarisation, the political manoeuvrings and the media sound bites. The Chairman of the Public Hearing which I contributed to was Alun Michael, Minister for Rural Affairs and a prominent Labour supporter of the ban. I found him totally partisan in his chairing. There was no science, no holistic approach to animal suffering. Instead, it was about ‘acceptability’ and ‘social licence’, posing under ‘principles’ of ‘cruelty and ‘utility’. Hansard recorded the proceedings. It became great copy for the press and media, who revelled in polarising issues, and a battle through social media for votes. It resulted in legislation that allowed dogs to hunt rabbits, but not hares, and was enacted by politicians who themselves could not tell the difference between the two species. It was all about party politics and class warfare, masquerading as concern for animal welfare. As one Labour MP openly admitted, it was ‘payback time for Maggie Thatcher and the Miners’.

Discrimination

The way they approached this was first to ring-fence hunting with dogs from all other forms of hunting, by creating a separate Bill rather than including it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 where it belonged, and then, when the House of Lords objected, over-ruling them by invoking the Parliament Act. There was thus no perspective, no holistic wildlife management approach and no democratic process.

The result was an Act with no welfare benefit (it didn’t protect foxes; it promoted shooting with wounding rates), it had no consistency (it applied to hares but not rabbits or rats) and it didn’t apply to other forms of killing, such as by cats. It didn’t understand that legislation made in Westminster is not enforceable without the goodwill of people in the countryside – the people who own the land and the hunters themselves. Daniel Greenberg, the lawyer who drafted the Bill, was instructed to leave loop-holes, which enabled hunting to continue, despite surveys which were touted to support the ban. The result has been that in 2022/23 season there were about 15,180 public Meets of registered hound packs, (Protectthewild.org.uk data) as well as thousands of hunts by unregistered Hunts and individuals. In 2002, 407,000 of us marched on London over this issue, with the slogan Listen to Us. Labour refused to listen, and now, twenty years later, 407,000 people are not listening to them. This brings the entire legal system into disrepute.

Ethics in hunting

In Hunting Ethics I examine in detail animal welfare in fieldsports and other hunting activities. I look at benchmarks of suffering, and at perceived cruelty in the minds of hunters, be they fox hunters, shooters, cat-owners, or people who set mouse traps. All sorts of things go on in our relationships with animals, with habitats and how we all rub along together on this little planet. But why is there a group of terrorists specifically sabotaging hounds, rather than any other activities? After all, even when hunting was legal, hounds killed only about 20,000 foxes a year, whereas cats kill more than 275,000,000 animals a year. Who are these people?

Commenters on the Northumberland Hunt Watch facebook were 81% female (n=157) and on the Hunt Saboteurs facebook, 75% female (n=159). Most of these were ‘keyboard warriors’ expressing approval on the postings of just a few contributors. Saboteurs active in the field obstructing hunting were mostly dressed in black with balaclavas, but of those identifiable to gender, 54% were female (n=50). As far as could be identified, almost 100% were white Caucasian and most appeared to be in the age groups 20-50. Of those active in the field as ‘terrorists’ there was a significant proportion of men in the 20-30 age group, and they appeared to regard the activism as a sport in itself. The comments on facebook indicated that their main gripe was perceived cruelty to foxes (“These people have warped minds”, “murdering thugs”  etc) causing ‘unnecessary suffering’, and class – ‘snobs’, ‘toffs on horses’ etc. Some underlined that, in comparison, they themselves were from a lower class. There was also a strong cuddly animal theme.

Many have little understanding of wildlife management, or the need for it, even in conserving other wildlife. So they encourage one another to destroy any traps or cages that they find, entering private premises to do so.

Hertfordshire Hunt Saboteurs

𝐒𝐄𝐄𝐊 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘

Nothing humane about it ignore the name

These things are lethal and should never have been invented.

Smashing an animals skull and then resetting to do again to the next animal. (Most don’t get killed outright going by reading reviews online)

Now booted off the tree and humanely dispatched the goodnature trap is now not fit for purpose.

Fuel us with more Kofi to find more if you're able to:

https://ko-fi.com/hhsabs

For most online anti-hunters there is little nuance; it is more about a gut-feeling. The person who destroyed this trap will feel virtuous about ‘saving’ a squirrel or a rat and unrepentant about entering private land and destroying property. What would he or she do if the rat was in the kitchen? Of 39 comments, 27 were from women. Most didn’t know what these traps are, how they work or why they are used. Typical responses included:

Jane Burke

Pity it can’t be recommissioned to work on hunters .

Sue Drake

 so it can also kill red squirrels, pine martens or any other hapless critter.

Linda Grigg

What is it please ? I know it’s an instrument of torture but what’s it called ? Disgusting that things like this are allowed 

Jennie Uden

Please be careful. The enemy may just place cameras nearby.

Debbie Jane

Oh my god this is just disgusting who ever thinks of inventing these vile things needs some serious therapy

These people genuinely and self-righteously believe in what they are doing. They believe that the ends justify the means. Fieldsports people too are also often self-righteous, prejudiced and self-blind. So there is confrontation, violence, terrorism, hatred. Any attempts at communication, mutual understanding or examination of evidence go out the window. This is not a ‘civilised society’. This is primitive tribalism, progressed little from our relations with Neanderthals, or from Ridley and Latimer. Intolerance, prejudice and hypocrisy are alive and well, right here, right now, in our green and pleasant land.

A Hunting Renaissance

Ridley and Latimer died, martyrs to their cause. But hunting hasn’t died. It faces logistical issues caused by increasing urbanisation but numerically it is as strong as ever. Unlike Ridley, it can live to fight back. We now have Hunting Kind dedicated to fighting for Natural Hunters, to fighting the discrimination we face as a cultural minority. The terrorists we face are no different to those currently rampaging in our cities and on the internet. Why should we allow balaclava-clad thugs to hound us, terrorise our children, trespass, and damage private property? They should be dragged before the courts along with all the others.