Index to this page: A proposed LONGER TERM SOLUTION Cruelty Ethics Foxman's Proposed system of Regulation A proposed "Hunting Authority". Detailed Bans Conclusion COMPROMISE Foxhunting has nothing to fear  (except some increased  regulation) from fair minded and  truly democratic  consideration of "Burns" by parliament. "The commons"  has shown itself  to be bigoted and prepared to  stamp on minority interests in relation to hunting. The  other part of parliament "the  lords" has  shown itself to  be open minded  and to protect  the interests of individuals  and minorities. The dictatorial  anti-hunting stance of a majority of "New Labour"  MPs and many MPs  from other parties  is not likely to change while  well funded "animals  rights "  groups continue to use alarmist  propaganda to incite against hunting. This  propaganda is not going to stop. It seems likely  to succeed in sustaining indefinitely  a majority of the left wing  of the commons  voting for an outright ban.  Until the right wing of the commons  returns to a majority,  the resulting impasse between  the "commons" and the "lords"  would prevent the Ban being  repealed. Even  if the "Banks Bill" was  to be found unlawfull  the bigots would  ensure that another Bill was put forward  and that it was as near a ban  as could be arranged  within the constraints of Human Rights  legislation. It follows that  time is no longer on our side. The cultural conflict  between "Animal  Rightists"  and Country People  is not going to cease. In the  event of a repeal or the "Banks  Bill" being deemed unlawfull, an "acceptable solution"  for Hunting must  be found otherwise  UK Governments  of any Party would  continue to be  pressured into yet further Anti-Field Sports Bills.  In Foxman's view the longer term  risks of outright bans to all Field  Sports arising  from such future  Bills are likely  to be greater than those from getting a compromise resolution in  the reasonably  near future. The  socialist loathing  of privelege which  imbues the left wing will make it ever more likely  that "the priveleged house:  The Lords" will be reformed to lose its power  to stop Commons Bills. Thus the  UK will lose a  powerful protection of the human rights of individuals and minorities against abuse  by the self seeking  politics, inevitable  in the "commons". In the long run, the "lords"  is likely to become a "poodle" of "the commons" or the government.  Hence it would  merely be another tool of the majority and/or of the  political expediency  of government.  If this "reform" happens it would be ever more likely  that while the  left wing is in power in the "commons",  "the lords" would turn hostile  to hunting. A proposed LONGER TERM SOLUTION  In devising an "acceptable solution" discussions should not be clouded with issues that are not pivotal. In other words the drafters should concentrate on how to  ensure that there is no unnecessary suffering ( i.e. no cruelty ) and nothing done which is ethically unacceptable ( i.e. hunting does not degrade "the good order of society" ). Foxman's thoughts on cruelty and ethics.  At an opportune time a government  should be pressed to resolve the  "hunting  issue" by DEFRA regulation. THE SYSTEM OF REGULATION PROPOSED BY FOXMAN (comparisons with The Dec 2002 Government Bill are in italics) In view of the logic outlined above, the "acceptable compromise" should be  for the Government to instruct the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  (DEFRA) to introduce a regulation that establishes a means of control to ensure that the  sport behaves in a proper manner. That is to say "does not inflict unnecessary suffering  ( is not cruel) and "does not interrupt the good order of Society" (is ethical). It should also put forward proposals for further research into the issues of cruelty and  welfare.( It does not do this ).The regulation would: In the context of the The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996,  require the "hunter" to hold a licence from the department before a wild  mammal can be deemed to have been killed "in a reasonably swift and humane manner". Please see Exceptions from offence under the Act  para 2(b). Such licences would ensure that any "hunter" abided by the  relevant Code of Conduct, enforced by the sanction of withdrawing a Licence to Hunt. Use of any deliberate means (e.g. a dog, a gun, a ferret) to kill a Wild Mammal while  hunting without a licence would be an offence under The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Each code (specific to a species of Wild Mammal)  would preclude unnecessary suffering by rules which ensure that killing must be carried out in a reasonably swift and humane manner.  Set up a Hunting Authority (The Registrar and Tribunal) responsible to DEFRA and charged with: Putting before the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) proposals  for a STATUTORY CODE OF CONDUCT banning the aspects (practices, methods, traditions etc) of Foxhunting (inter alia) that the "Hunting Authority" finds to be cruel or "contrary to the good order of Society." (The Statutory Power to  impose and enforce such a code would lie with DEFRA) ( Licences will be issued  by The Registrar on a "case by case basis" who will have powers of revocation.  Enforcement would arise from making unlicensed Hunting a criminal offence ) Putting to DEFRA proposals for: ( Such proposals could be put to The Registrar ) A "mechanism" for enforcing such bans; for example, by licencing organised Hunts and sanctions (e.g. revocation of licence) initiated by DEFRA  ( The Registrar ) and implemented through the Hunting Associations (the governing bodies for each form of hunting). The Research needed to investigate the alleged cruelty and "compromise  of welfare"and how this research should be sponsored. The funding required for all the above. A proposed "Hunting Authority". This must be constituted so as to be seen by: The Public to be truly balanced between those representing Hunting and those representing animals rights . The Hunting world as fully in possession of all relevant facts about the details of Hunting. The Animal Welfare world as fully in possession of all relevant facts relevant to the WELFARE of the hunted species. A "Hunting Authority" (HA) ( "The Tribunal" ) might consist of a group of Voting Members and an "Experts Group" of permanently coopted Non-voting Members. The Voting Members would be chaired by an eminent member of the judiciary experienced in "Human Rights" ( no such requirement is in The Bill) and appointed by  Government. He would have a casting vote. He would be supported by an equal number of representatives, on the one hand, of Pro--Hunting Organisations and, on the other, of Animal Welfare Organisations. The Nonvoting Members would be drawn from experienced practitioners of: Relevant sectors of Agriculture and businesses significantly involved culturally or economically with Hunting. Each type of Hunting (Huntsmen etc.) Maintaining the Welfare of wild animals (Vets, Zoologists, Environmentalists etc.) The Government Bill proposed "The tribunal will be a national body with a president  at its head appointed by the Lord Chancellor. A panel will have a legally qualified chair, normally sitting with two other members; one with land management experience and the other with animal welfare experience.". This would be far too narrow a representation  to give confidence in the impartiality of its decisions. Detailed Bans Because of the complexity of the vital detail, decisions on acceptability of particular  practices, in particular places under particular circumstances should be left to the "HA". ( The Registrar ) (One conceivable regulation is a total ban near built up areas; on the basis of Foxhunting having, on balance, a detrimental effect on "the good  order of Society" in such crowded areas. BUT football is no less disruptive.) Clearly such decisions should not be taken before the "HA"  has: Commissioned and examined the detailed results of the "missing research", so often alluded to in the Burns Report. Examined the details of Foxhunting more thoroughly than "Burns"  was able to do in the limited time available to the Inquiry. ( The Government proposal for a Registration Scheme makes no mention  of the need for such an appraisal before it is to start----However pressure could  be applied to The Registrar and The Tribunal where there is temptation to act without  incontrovertible evidence, )  In  a Democratic society  it is essential that Government  legislation achieves compromises between  the interests of the majority and all minorities,  however unpopular.  Only in this way  can a government come close to  "True Democracy"  the Democratic Ideal of "Government vested in all  of the people". Any other way  leads to a Government's eventual downfall  from every man's  underlying hatred of Dictatorial Rule; even if  it has had a brief  honeymoon with  "the people". By December 2000 there were disturbing  signs that the  New Labour Leadership is verging on the dictatorial. A particular danger  to the present  UK Government (from the eventual unpopularity of  dictatorial actions) arises from the  ban on Foxhunting.  Foxhunters are  an unpopular minority.  The Burns Inquiry conclusions are  broadly favourable to Foxhunting, although they  seem to have, in effect, recommended  closer regulation,  the banning of  some practices  and a total ban  near built-up areas. Eventually  New Labour is likely to lose more support by  acting dictatorially  than it has gained by banning Foxhunting. ( The Liberal  Democrat's loss of Taunton in 2001 is a case in point). It  is in any political party's long term  interests, therefore, to introduceat an opportune moment a lasting solution to the Hunting Debate by a bill drafted strictly on the basis of  "Burns" and compliant  with legal precedents ensuring that  democracy and Human Rights are not abused.   Jack Straw said that it is for Parliament to decide whether  hunting is right or wrong. But "Burns" supports Foxman's contention that the  issue is not as simple as that. Hunting issues are a complex balance of detailed conflicting  factors. "Burns" and the research they commissioned did not have time to examine  most of the minutiae in a totally comprehensive manner. Furthermore, they found that insufficient research had been concluded on the alleged cruelty.Therefore, their findings have  had to reach broad brush conclusions on many subjects; in particular, some spurious reasoning about Animal Welfare. As always "the devil is in the detail". It is not surprising, therefore, that "Burns" does not provide enough information,  or offers premature conclusions, on many matters of detail. For instance, a condemnation of all terrierwork on the basis of lengthy "dig outs". The report appears to largely ignore the rapid "bolt". There are several other shortcomings ( in no way the fault of "Burns" but the result of the very limited time they were given).  Therefore, the report does not provide enough fully researched information to enable Parliament and/or any Regulatory or Supervisory Body to decide logically and dispassionately on the detail of the changes to Foxhunting that may be necessary to make it acceptable in terms  of cruelty and maintenance of "The Good Order of Society". Nevertheless, "Burns" provides enough information for fair minded people to decide on the general principles of such changes. "Burns" has shone some light on current practices and has gone some way towards indicating those that might, after further examination, be found to cause unnecessary suffering or to be contrary to "The good order of Society". The findings are  a sound starting point for reaching a wholly logical resolution of the vexed issue  of Hunting with Dogs. For the sake of the fox population and of the survival of "minority  rights" in the UK it is vital that a sensible resolution of the Hunting Issue is implemented. A driving force in this direction could come from the Government seeking to remove delays to legislation on more important matters. Cruelty "Burns" fought shy of reporting on cruelty because they found that several crucial aspects of the alleged cruelty and degradation of welfare had not been thoroughly researched. Furthermore, the Inquiry did not have time to initiate this "missing research", nor to await its outcome before reporting. Instead they made assertions  (unsupported by research) about the welfare of hunted individual animals. There conclusions are at this link , with Foxman's reactions shown in red. The anti-hunting world seized on the statement "this experience {being hunted} seriously compromises the welfare of the fox" to allege that this meant that hunting was cruel. However during the parliamentary  debate, two principal authors of the Burns Report set out to explain precisely what they meant by the expression. Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry, said on the issue of cruelty "Naturally,  people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to each views about cruelty." Lord Soulsby, one of the most senior vets in the UK, went further, condemning those organisations who claimed that the expression equated to cruelty and thus justified  an end to hunting "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 clealy demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that." Thus the only argument used by opponents of hunting following the Burns Report had been dismissed by the very people who wrote it. From this analysis it is clear that: Logically, any ban on "Animal Welfare" grounds is untenable.The assertions that hunting with dogs "inflicts unnecessary suffering" (i.e. is cruel) and degrades the welfare of foxes are, therefore, at best premature and at worst likely to be wrong. Certainly they are unproved and would not stand  up to legal examination. Therefore in the light of precedents within the law, the only  possible lasting legal justification for bans would be that certain "aspects" (that is particular practices under particular circumstances in particular places) are  "contrary to the good order of Society" or are proved (after exhaustive research)  to be cruel. In the absence of such further research and if a degree of urgency in coming  to decisions on hunting is desirable, it seems wise to make use of some earlier research. A particularly useful "yardstick" is provided by two British zoologists at the  University of Nottingham, (Chris Barnard, professor of animal behaviour and Jane Hurst,  a behavioural ecologist) in 1996. They argue that it is  cruel to frustrate a hunted animals natural instinct to flee. Hunting normally allows  a fox to flee from Hounds or Terriers without being artificially impeded. However, there may be particular practices of hunting under particular circumstances in particular places that do frustrate escape. These should be examined by my proposed Hunting  Authority with a view to defining such particularities and banning them in a CODE OF CONDUCT. Please note that several eminent lawyers hold the view that bans should never be used to  enshrine in law (in the guise of supposed "morality") the dislike by one culture  for a practice of another culture, unless that practice is counter to "the good order  of Society". In this context "Burns" states that a ban might be open to  challenge on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. If hunting with dogs is believed to be cruel and to degrade welfare, so must Fishing, Shooting, Falconry, Ferreting  etc. (More detail on the alleged cruelty and degradation of welfare) Ethics Unfortunately, the Burns Inquiry was not allowed to look at these. However, now that the  debate has returned to the political "arena", the ethics of banning hunting should come to the foreground. The UK claims to be a Truly Democratic Country. If this claim is to be more than a hollow posture, the views of both the majority and all minorities  must be subjected equally to the rigour of The Law before enacting legislation. There is no evidence that hunting is so fundamentally unethical that it should be totally banned  (i.e. ALWAYS degrades "The Good Order of Society"). May be there are specific circumstances when it is unethical (e.g. galloping down a busy street, blocking a road  for more than a few minutes, persistent invasion of a private property) but such abuses  can be eliminated by proper regulation and supervision.   THE "DONOUGHUE/ÖPIK BILL" These bills are known as the Wild Mammals Protection (Amendment) Bills and are proposed amendments to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Please see an outline of the "Donoughue  Bill". Lord Donoughue (Lab) introduced his bill in the 2002/2003 session of the House of Lords. The Bill received its Third Reading on 17th November 2003 and has therefore  completed all its stages in the House of Lords. Due to the lack of parliamentary time,  it was unable to secure a First Reading in the House of Commons before the end of the session. At the start of the 2003/4 session, Lord Donoughue introduced a similar bill in the House  of Lords and Lembit Öpik (LibDem) introduced the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) (No.2) Bill in the House of Commons as a private members' bill. These two bills are almost identical. They have the support of the CLA and NFU. This proposed legislation would make an offence of intentionally causing unnecessary suffering  to any wild mammal. It is broadly similar to Foxman's proposals except that: No licencing system is proposed. It would be a criminal offence for an individual  to contravene the relevant code of practice. A person guilty of an offence would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,  or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Rather than the proposed Hunting Authority, there would be an authority covering all  activities involving potential cruelty to Wild Mammals. This would recommend to the Secretary of State codes of conduct for each such activity and amendments to them as required. It would consist of— (a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; (b) one member nominated by each of the following organisations or group of organisations— (i) The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, (ii) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, (iii) The Country Land and Business Association, (iv) The National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, (v) The British Association for Shooting and Conservation in conjunction  with the National Gamekeepers' Organisation, (vi) The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.   The primary offence is the intentional infliction of unnecessary suffering. It seems to refer to actions within legal methods of control, rather than questioning the legitimacy  of the activity itself (e.g. Hunting). These Bills seem to be intended to encourage adherence to recognised codes of practice which are written to ensure the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. Properly conducted Hunting should not be afraid of such regulation. In introducing his Bill, former Minister for Farming, Lord Donoughue told the House "The  Bill has clear advantages. It would enhance protection of wild mammals from undue suffering. It sets a consistent standard covering all offences and all mammals. It establishes an authority that is independent, expert and balanced, recognising governing bodies and approving their codes to ensure that best practices are observed in the management and conservation  of wild mammals." The Committee Stage of Lord Donoughue's Bill in the House of Lords took place on Wednesday  11 February 2004. The Second Reading of Lord Donoughue's Bill took place on 16 January 2004.  Lembit Öpik introduced his private members' bill to the Commons on Wednesday 7 January 2004. It was on the Order Paper to receive its Second Reading on Friday 6 February 2004, however it was 'talked out' by anti-hunting Labour MPs and as such it has effectively  been killed. The remainder of the debate for Second Reading took place on 5 March 2004 but it did not receive its Second Reading as it automatically went to the bottom of the pile of private members' bills for debate on that day. During the debate, Lembit Opik commented on the fact that neither the RSPCA nor the League Against Cruel Sports support his or Lord Donoughue's Bill, "Do they regard the banning  of hunting with dogs as being more important than improving animal welfare, or do they feel so concerned about their arguments in favour of banning hunting with dogs that they do not believe that they would stand up in court?" The Minister for Rural Affairs, Alun Michael entered the debate stating that "Everybody  should share the desire to protect wild mammals from cruelty", however failed to agree that the Bill would achieve this desire. He argued that "the Bill would not  improve protection afforded to wild mammals, but would make things worse" and that central to this issue was the use of the word 'undue'. Lembit Öpik asked; if The Minister does not allow the Bill to proceed to Committee,  can he confirm that it is his intention to stifle debate on a serious proposal to improve animal welfare by talking my Bill out? Although these bills had no chance of becoming law at the time they were introduced (spring 2004), they are worth bearing in mind for use in “putting the hunting issue to bed” after the ban has been deemed unlawful or repealed. CONCLUSION The outright ban throughout England and Wales  is not only contrary to legislation on Human Rights  but is also   undemocratic political opportunism and  perpetuation of "class warfare" and "Old Socialist" aims wholly contradictory  to the aspirations  of New Labour to govern for  "all the  people" in  a modern manner. Furthermore, the Bill which bans  particular aspects  of "fox control"  is wholly premature before further research. REGULATION Eventually,  therefore, a Government should instruct  the Department of the Environment,  Food and Rural  Affairs (DEFRA) to introduce a regulation that  establishes a means of control to ensure that  the sport behaves in a proper manner.  That is to say  "does not  inflict unnecessary suffering ( is not cruel) and "does not  interrupt the good order of  Society"  (is ethical). It should also put forward proposals  for further research  into the issues of cruelty and welfare.( It does not do this ).The regulation would: In the context of the The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, require the "hunter" to hold a licence from the  department (DEFRA) before a wild mammal can be deemed to have been killed "in  a reasonably swift and humane manner". Such licences would be liable to revocation in the event of any infringement of Codes of Conduct (specific to species). Use of any deliberate means (e.g. a dog, a gun, a ferret) to kill a Wild Mammal while hunting  without a licence would be an offence under The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. wildoldact Initiate Further Research into matters of alleged cruelty, compromise of animal welfare and disruption of "The Good Order of Society". Establish a confidence inspiring body (such as the Hunting Authority described above) to advise DEFRA (The Registrar and The Tribunal),  on the Codes of Conduct, the granting of licences, on methods of Enforcement and on matters for Further Research. If a future Government cannot be persuaded  to adopt the proposed resolution by simple regulation, an attempt should be made to persuade them to support  a version of the "Donoughue/Opik  Bill",  which is rather similar to Foxman's  proposed system of regulation.