Published at 12:00, Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Advertising feature. Animal rights campaigners around the country celebrated and rejoiced when, back in 2004, the government finally moved to ban fox hunting. Having been introduced in Scotland two years previously, the act survived opposition from the House of Lords and was implemented to widespread support.

However, it's worth remembering, at the start of another hunting season, that since 2004 a number of organisations have taken advantage of certain discrepancies within the law to continue hunting under a different guise.

One such example is 'drag hunting'. This is when the hounds follow an artificial scent trail; no animal is chased, and it therefore is not classed as hunting in the eyes of the law. Drag hunting is, in principle, a sound alternative to traditional fox hunting; keeping countryside traditions alive and providing a good source of entertainment, even for the most fervent animal lovers. However, a loophole in the law means that if a fox is discovered on such a trip, hunters are within their rights to flush it out using two hounds or a bird of prey before shooting it humanely.

On a few occasions it has been reported that hunters flout the law and pretend to follow a trail, when in actuality they are engaging in a full-scale traditional fox hunt. This was the case with the Great Bowden-based Fernie Hunt, which, upon being discovered chasing a fox, acted as though it was following a pre-laid trail, when no such trail existed.

Hunt members Derek Hopkins and Kevin Allen's appeal against convictions for breaching the ban on hunting was thrown out by Judge Michael Pert QC in Leicester Crown Court in September. Judge Pert told the court that "their conduct amounted to cynical subterfuge. They used a trail hunt as a cover".

There are many individuals and protest groups who feel that there are insufficient deterrents in place to stop fox hunting. The maximum penalty for fox hunting is £5,000 but since the act came to pass, it is rare that the full punishment has been imposed; the first huntsman to be successfully prosecuted under the act was fined 10 per cent at £500.

This is something that Joe Duckworth, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, is keen to address. He wrote recently in the Huffington Post: “I am determined that this season the League Against Cruel Sports will really up our efforts to bring these rural thugs and lawbreakers to justice. And it's not just about those who break the Hunting Act: the anti social behaviour blighting towns and cities might look different to the anti-social behaviour that affects rural communities, but the effects are the same, and so it must be our resolve to do something about it.”

During the 2010 general election, polls were published showing that approximately 75 per cent of the British public were in broad agreement with the ban on fox hunting. Such figures of support would logically suggest that a move towards sterner sentences and stronger deterrents, perhaps even the threat of a spell behind bars, would receive countrywide support. The defence that fox hunting is a rural activity that has been in place for centuries is immaterial. Many traditions have been faded out because of their irrelevance to modern society and hunting should join the list.

The ban was a huge step in the right direction to save foxes. Keeping the pressure up on those who break the law with such a flagrant disregard for animal welfare is essential to continue the diminishment of this cruel practice.

Published by http://www.timesandstar.co.uk