Fox hunting legislation refers to various laws and legislative history related to fox hunting in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Contents |
Hunting has been regulated for many centuries, most often for the benefit of the upper class. The word "paradise", for example, comes from a Greek word for enclosed Persian gardens, where only royalty were allowed and only royals could hunt. In more modern times, hunting regulations have been encouraged by the conservation and animal welfare movements out of concern for wildlife management and alleged cruelty.
The primary law concerning French hunting dates from 1844.
Several UK laws on animal welfare, such as the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 contained specific exemptions for hunting activities, thereby preventing prosecutions of hunts for activities that might otherwise have been considered cruel.
Over recent decades, many attempts had been made to ban hunting. Anti-hunting protests became more prevalent during the Great Depression, and two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons and the other withdrawn. The Labour government appointed the Scott Henderson Inquiry to investigate all forms of hunting, although several of its members came from a hunting background. The inquiry's conclusion was that "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them" (namely, shooting, gassing, trapping and poisoning). It therefore recommended that fox hunting be allowed to continue."
Twice, in 1969 and in 1975, the House of Commons passed legislation to ban hare coursing, but neither Bill became law. Three further private member's bills were introduced by Kevin McNamara in 1992 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill), by Tony Banks in 1993 (Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill), and by John McFall in 1995 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill). The latter won majority support in the House of Commons, but all failed to go on to become law.
After the Labour Party came to power in 1997, with a manifesto pledging "a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation", another private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster MP, received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time.
In 1999, Home Secretary Jack Straw arranged for a six-month Government Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. Chaired by Lord Burns, the Committee presented its Final Report to Parliament in June 2000. The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (The Burns Inquiry, see references below) worked to the following terms of reference:
Following the Burns Inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation. The House of Commons voted for a banning Bill and the House of Lords for self-regulation.
The 2001 Labour manifesto (See references below) contained a promise to allow "Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue". In 2003, the government introduced its own Bill which would have banned hare coursing and stag hunting and would have instituted a system of licensing and regulation of the hunting of foxes, hares and mink. However, the majority of MPs passed a series of amendments to introduce a total ban on hunting with exemptions only for rats, rabbits, and for falconry. The Government initially described these as wrecking amendments but later accepted them as the will of the House of Commons. This Bill did not complete its stages in the House of Lords.
In what he described as an attempt to raise animal welfare standards at the same time, and as an alternative to legislation that specifically targeted hunting, Lord Donoughue proposed the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill.[1] This would have made it the case that "any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence." A matching Bill was introduced in the Commons with the support of The Middle Way Group (see below). Both bills failed to become law as they were blocked by Labour members who wanted a specific hunting ban. Animal welfare groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports criticised the Bill on two grounds. Firstly, they opposed the exemption in the Bill for activities undertaken "in accordance with an approved code of conduct". Secondly, they argued that, if an activity was inherently cruel, it should be deemed as such by Parliament, rather than prosecutors having to argue and prove cruelty in every court case.
In the next Parliamentary session, in 2004, the Government re-introduced their Bill in exactly the same form and it passed through the Commons in one day in September. The House of Commons also passed a 'suggested amendment' under the procedure of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 that would have delayed the commencement of the ban for 18 months until July 31, 2006, if it had been accepted by the Lords (See Hansard 15 Sept 2004 in references below). The Government argued for such a delay as an opportunity for hunts to wind down or adapt before the ban came into force; hunt supporters believed that its primary purpose was to prevent the ban and associated protests from coming into effect a few months before the expected general election in May 2005. Animal welfare supporters also opposed any delay in what they saw as an important law.
The House of Lords passed a series of amendments to return the Bill to the original government Bill of 2003 for licensing and regulation. Under this proposal, hunts would only be able to take place if they could show "utility" (a need to reduce the local fox population) and "least suffering" (lack of any alternative procedure involving less suffering to the quarry than hunting). The Lords amendments included delaying the Bill coming into force until at least December 1, 2007 after the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had reported on whether hunting involved more or less suffering than the alternatives.
During a street protest in the streets approaching Parliament on 15 September 2004, the day of the final vote (third reading) of the The Hunting Act 2004 (c.37), a number of protesters staged the first invasion of the House of Commons chamber since King Charles I in 1641. While it was quickly quelled by Parliamentary officials, it created grave concerns about security as it was the second major protest breaching the direct security of the chamber in four months. (Fathers 4 Justice's famous purple flour protest occurred four months earlier on 19 May 2004, in which the Prime Minister was struck by a thrown projectile).
The Commons disagreed with those amendments and insisted on the total ban bill. On November 17 the Lords insisted on its amendments to the main Bill, though it varied their suggested delay until 2007 to decouple it from any RCVS report. This time it was presented as a fairer opportunity for hunts to wind down than the 18 month delay. The next day was the last day of the Parliamentary session. In the Commons, the Government's last-ditch attempt to compromise on a delay until July 31, 2007 won the support of only 46 MPs, although the delay until 2006 was inserted in the Bill. The Lords would have had to have accepted the Commons' other amendments (including the principle of a ban on hunting) in order for this delay to have been approved, and therefore rejected them by 153 to 114.
When the Lords and Commons were unable to come to agreement by the end of the Parliamentary year on November 18, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were invoked, and the banning Bill received Royal Assent that evening, becoming the Hunting Act 2004. With no agreement on the 'suggested amendment' to delay the ban, the Hunting Act 2004 came into force three calendar months after Royal Assent on February 18, 2005.
A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; at the moment that is 5,000 British Pounds (US$ 8,000). There is no jail penalty.[1]
To clarify their position, the Countryside Alliance released a Hunting Handbook. The League Against Cruel Sports criticised the handbook as misleading.
The Countryside Alliance has mounted legal challenges to the Hunting Act 2004 (both in the British High Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights).
The first challenge was for a ruling on the legality of the Parliament Act 1949. On 17 February 2005 the High Court ruled against the Countryside Alliance, holding that the Parliament Act 1949 is valid, and the Court of Appeal agreed a few days later. The Alliance appealed to the House of Lords and, on the 13 October 2005, the original decision was upheld.
The second, quite separate challenge, argued that the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this hearing, the court also heard arguments from a group of European business people who argued that the ban restricted European law for the free movement of services. The High Court, in Summer 2005, rejected both cases, as did the Court of Appeal in March 2006 and the House of Lords in November 2007.
The Parliamentary Middle Way Group was formed by three Members of Parliament from the three main Political Parties to represent, in Parliament, those who favoured a 'Middle Way' - that is a solution somewhere between a total ban and maintaining the status quo.
The Parliamentary Middle Way group favours the continuation of hunting under a strict licensing scheme managed by a statutory authority; they argue for this position on both animal welfare and civil liberties grounds. They state that each hunt should apply for a licence to and show that their method of quarry control involves less suffering than any alternative method.
They have commissioned research into The Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes, showing the wounding rates caused by different types of fox-control with guns.
Since the ban came into force, hunts continue to meet. On the whole, the majority have claimed to hunt within the law, but anti-hunting groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports say that a minority of some hunts are breaking the law and now have a self styled role as hunt monitors. In 2007, the terrierman of the Flinth & Denbigh foxhounds was convicted for a breach of the Hunting Act. Both sides of the hunting debate continue to hold and demonstrate their strong views.
In February 2002 the Devolved Scottish Parliament voted by eighty three to thirty six to pass legislation to ban hunting with dogs. MSPs decided not to give compensation to those whose livelihoods or businesses might suffer as a result of the ban. The Act came into effect on August 1, 2002. An article in the Guardian on 9 September 2004 reports that of the ten Scottish hunts, nine survived the ban, using the permitted exemption allowing them to use packs of hounds to flush foxes to guns (this is strongly opposed by people against hunting).
A number of convictions have taken place under the Act, two for people hunting foxes and ten for hare coursing. The only prosecution of a traditional fox hunt led to a not guilty verdict, but to a clarification of the law, with the sheriff saying that the activity of flushing foxes to guns "will require to be accompanied by realistic and one would expect, effective arrangements for the shooting of pest species. The use of what might be termed "token guns" or what was described by the Crown as paying lip service to the legislation is not available ... as a justification for the continuation of what was referred to in the evidence before me as traditional foxhunting." [2]
Two of the hunts have started training bloodhounds for drag hunting rather than the traditional methods.
There is controversy over the impact on the number of foxes killed by hunts. Hunts say that the number killed by hunts has doubled because shooting is more effective than chasing with dogs. However, sceptics challenge this, pointing out that the nine surviving hunts have lost more than half of their income and membership.
Fox hunting in Northern Ireland would have been banned had the Foster Bill become law. However, by the time of subsequent hunting legislation in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly had been established and the hunting issue had been devolved to that body. A Hunting Bill was introduced into the Northern Ireland Assembly but rejected in December 2010.
In the United States federal system, the agency primarily responsible for wildlife management is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the United States Department of the Interior, a cabinet-level division, whose director reports directly to the president. Within these federal guidelines, most hunting regulation for non-migratory species rests within wildlife or agricultural departments at the state level. With fifty different states, this lends itself to a wide variety of diversity, especially for an activity such as fox hunting, which is much less common in North America than in the United Kingdom. Much more common is the hunting of raccoons (Ursus lotor) with coonhounds, and where such hunting is practised, the two are often regulated similarly due to the method (which involves tracking or active pursuit by dogs).
The red fox is protected in every state in which it is present (all except Hawaii), in contrast to its status as vermin in the UK. It is variously classified as a furbearer, small game or predator in state hunting and trapping regulations. The open and closed hunting seasons for fox (both red and gray) also vary by state. Pursuit of red fox while in possession of a firearm requires a hunting license (or in some cases a trapping license) in all states, and is generally restricted to a specific season (typically the winter months). In some states (such as Florida) it is illegal to chase fox with dogs while in possession of a firearm, although it is legal to chase them otherwise.
In some western states the coyote is an unprotected species, and there are no restrictions on the methods used in hunting them. In these areas Hunt Clubs often pursue coyote instead of fox.