When a hunt ban is put in place many problems are expected to arise. Conservative MP James Gray one of the leading voices of the pro-hunting lobby in Parliament, highlighted one of the potential problems for police – hunts simply carrying on. With the Royal family, especially Prince Charles vowing to continue hunting to the very moment it becomes illegal, the pro hunting world have all the encouragement they need to continue hunting, as James Gray also said,
There are a million people involved in hunting – and to them it is as important, if not more important than football.
Loopholes exist within many laws of the English justice system, and it is guaranteed people are going to look for loopholes for ways in which hunts can continue. Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman Jim Hollis said “Ultimately it will be down to local police forces as to how they manage it.” With the large number of hunt participators loopholes will be just the start of the problems. Alan Stewart a police wildlife protection expert claims,
It is not like dealing with a disturbance in the middle of town on a Saturday night. Officers would need specialist training, expertise and – very probably – specialist equipment, which would be of great expense.
This expense is only one in a long list. The Bill currently on the table is contrary to the Human Rights Act in that it does not offer compensation. This is not legal, so the Bill itself is illegal, if they amend it, they will have to pay compensation to farmers and others because it removes a legitimate means of pest control and that means the compensation will cost millions. This will not be the only cost.
Whatever the moral issues surrounding the 'sport' of fox hunting, there have been arguments put forward by the pro hunters with regard to the extent of the economic impact of a ban on hunting. The key aspects of the debate on the effect on the rural economy centre on jobs, the impact on farmers, the destiny of the landscape and the effects on businesses associated with hunting - either directly or indirectly involved.
Within hunting itself there are several main areas of employment: those directly employed by the hunts themselves, direct imployment by those who follow the hunt, those employed in work related to supporting the hunt, and those whose employment is in part dependent on the expenditure of those involved in hunting. The Burns Report estimated that there were between 6,000 and 15,00 jobs dependent to some extent on hunting, this employment as a direct result of hunting is valued at around £15.6 million. Hunt followers also spent considerable sums of money on horses which gets fed into the local economy in some way. This can be in vets bills, farriers, feed, stabling, transport and so on, therfore the total sum could amount to over £70 million.
A ban on hunting would also have a great impact on farmers. The threat to livestock is an obvious argument, chickens, sheep, calves and other animals are attacked or killed by foxes every year. The greatest worry to farmers, should the ban be put into place, is the cost of the disposal of nearly 0.4 million carcasses. The enviroment and our landscape could also be greatly effected by a ban on fox hunting. Fox hunting encourages conservation and habitat, woods, fields, tracks and bridle ways are all well kept for the hunting season.
In conclusion the proposed ban will cost the goverment millions. Jobs will be lost, the police will require special training to control hunts and tens of thousands of horses and dogs will be made redundant and most will have to be put down. With the sole aim to reduce cruelty to the fox, the Hunting Bill will still allow hunts to use hounds to flush foxes into open fields where they will then be shot.
Britain's population of foxes has soared during the foot and mouth crisis,
and a massive hunting campaign is needed to control them.
(www.guardian.co.uk: 2004)
The need to control the fox population will still be an issue, and it is very
doubtfull that the proposed ban will be made to work. It will be far to
difficult to prove someone was hunting when they can simply say "we were out
riding and found ourselves in the middle of an illegal hunt." If police cannot
moniter and control gypsy lurching groups which is already illegal, how are they to
control sixty to a hundred people upon horseback and the large number of
'followers' a hunt contains.
If the Hunting Bill is passed, hunts will turn to drag hunting. If hounds were to kill a
fox while in 'covers' and nothing could be done to stop this, would this be illegal if
there was honestly no intent. Therfore is the Hunting Bill not a minefield of
misinterpretation and opinion? Hunting is a traditional sport and as such people
will go to any lenghts to preserve it.
