Sunday, January 02, 2022

BOJO'S BEAUX
UK
Carrie Johnson-backed animal welfare group seeks trail-hunting ban in move that may anger rural Tories


Helena Horton
Sat, January 1, 2022

Carrie Johnson seen holding her dog - AFP

An animal welfare group supported by the PM's wife Carrie has called for a ban on trail hunting in a move that risks angering rural Tories.

MPs, who are part of the influential Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation (CAWF), are in January putting forward an amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill that would ban the laying of real animal scents, after evidence foxes were killed by accident on Boxing Day hunts this year.

Under proposed new legislation, those who lay the scent of real animals for hounds to follow would potentially be jailed.

Mrs Johnson has always been a vocal opponent of fox hunting, and previously said: "I am against fox hunting. Always have been. I even campaigned against it when I was much younger by dressing up as a fox. That’s why I’m a patron of Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation."

The proposed new legislation is likely to cause irritation to many senior Conservatives. Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg's family enjoyed a day out on a trail hunt with the Mendip Farmers' Hunt this year, and many in rural constituencies get involved in the traditional country pursuit.

However, Sir Roger Gale, who along with Mrs Johnson is a member of CAWF, argues that current laws on hunting do not go far enough and put foxes at risk of being torn apart by hounds.

A New Year's Day meet in the Scottish Borders - Charlotte Graham

He said: "Trail hunting has developed into a new recreational activity, which if done correctly should cause no harm to any fox or wild mammal. But `accidents` seem to happen time and time again; harm is caused to wildlife, and the law broken.

"There is no logical reason for the recreational sport of trail hunting to continue to use animal-based scents if the hunt seriously and genuinely wishes to avoid accidentally chasing or killing a fox."

He argued that training hounds to follow the scent of wild animals causes them to chase after mammals while on a hunt, and inevitably some die.

"For seventeen years generations of working hounds have been trained to follow the scent of a fox. Totally illogical. In simple terms, if you don’t want hounds to chase a fox, don’t use something that smells of a fox.

"So to protect wild mammals, and to preserve and protect the sport of trail hunting in its chase and kill-free form, I have laid amendments to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, currently at Report Stage in Commons. My amendment calls for the intentional or reckless participation in laying or following an animal-based scent for hunting activities to become an offence, liable to a fine, imprisonment, or both."


Foxhounds in their kennels before a hunt - Chris Strickland

Co-sponsors of his bill include Conservative MPs Tracey Crouch, who is a great friend of Mrs Johnson, and Henry Smith.

Countryside groups have criticised the proposed legislation, arguing it would stop dogs from finding wounded deer in order for them to be dispatched humanely, and that hounds will always give chase, whether or not they are trained to follow a scent.

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: “This proposal only reveals the confusion and lack of understanding of its proponents. It would do nothing to stop the few unfortunate cases where hounds do chase mammals. As any dog owner knows the hunting gene is deeply embedded in canines and from poodles to fox hounds they will give chase when the opportunity appears.

"More than that it would outlaw the training of dogs to carry out important roles, most obviously to follow deer that have been injured in road traffic accidents and culling. The RSPCA estimates 200 deer are injured, but not killed, every week in road traffic accidents. The only way of finding and euthanising those deer is with dogs trained to follow animal scents. It is sad that a group that purports to be focused on animal welfare is so ignorant of the consequences of its proposals.”

No comments: