So dismayed

If you had never visited the countryside and simply read about the carnage, rioting and criminality in rural areas, as described by Louise Peters (Reading Chronicle 22nd February), it would be totally understandable if you avoided ever going there in the future. Thankfully, that exaggerated and false description is nowhere near reality, but it is how some animal rightists like to spread their propaganda about hunting with hounds.

Just days after the Hunting Act came into force on the 18th February 2005, claims of illegal hunting were made. Some people had mistakenly thought that the whole activity of hunting with hounds was now banned and that they would never see such scenes again, which is surprising given that it was anti-hunting groups and politicians opposed to hunting who drafted the law. At the time of its passing, the Hunting Act was hailed as sound legislation, allowing for the use of hounds in certain circumstances including hunting a trail laid by a human. Just as they were wrong in targeting an activity that is unique in the management of wildlife, anti hunters were also wrong in thinking that wild animals would benefit from this law. Hunting is selective through the scenting ability of the hound, testing the quarry animal via the chase and, importantly, is non-wounding. This is the process employed over millennia by wild canines, such as the wolf, removing the old, weak, injured and diseased while leaving the prey population smaller but healthier. No other method of control can make this claim.

As one of four former executive directors of the League Against Cruel Sports whose views changed as we learned more about hunting (and the alternatives), I am confident in saying this law has been a disaster for the species that were previously hunted. The fox population nationally is thought to have dropped by about one third, the Red deer herds on Exmoor are slowly deteriorating due to disease and other factors; as a direct result of the Hunting Act, tens of thousands of hares were shot out. If anyone thinks the Hunting Act has been good for animal welfare, they had better think again.

The real problem with this law is that it was brought in on the back of ignorant animal rights thinking, coupled with the prejudice of those who opposed hunting for political reasons. Having sat through every committee stage of the Hunting Act as it passed through parliament, I was utterly dismayed at the lack of knowledge of wildlife management, of the process of hunting with hounds and what would fill its place if removed, as well as the sheer bigotry of some politicians disguising their campaign as something good for animal welfare.

Ardent anti-hunters will always see illegal hunting at every turn. It raises the question why, when there are so many claims of law-breaking, is this not reflected in successful prosecutions? Another question that must always be asked of anti-hunting groups is that while they are very good at saying what they dislike, they rarely can tell us what methods of wildlife management they actually support.

Jim Barrington

Animal Welfare Consultant

Countryside Alliance

1 Spring Mews

Tinworth Street

London

SE11 5AN

0207 840 9200

Heading here

On behalf of our respective Parish Councils we would like to thank residents for giving such overwhelming support to the Neighbourhood Plan at the referendum on 6 February.

Through the excellent work of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee, led by Laurence Heath, the views of residents formed the basis of a ‘Plan by the Community for the community’. The result was that ninety-four percent of those voting in the referendum supported the plan which now forms part of planning policy for the area.

The Arborfield and Barkham Joint Neighbourhood plan will be adopted formally at a special meeting of Wokingham Borough Council’s executive on 26 March. It will mark the end of a long road, but only the beginning of work to ensure that the two parishes retain their identity while welcoming sustainable change.

Barkham Parish Council