Yet MORE evidence of DEFRA and Owen Paterson lying about science to suit their campaign to repeal the ban. Read on for the full story! On 27th March 2014 Owen Paterson stated in the House of Commons that we received an interesting report from a number of Welsh farmers, which presented a reasonable view that there is an increased problem of fox predation on lands since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force. In response to a Freedom of Information request [1], DEFRA revealed that the report he was referring to was a study funded by the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs and carried out by pro-hunt JRJ Naylor (a racehorse trainer) and JG Knott [2]. Leaving aside the credentials and obvious biases of those who conducted this study, it does not mention or present ANY evidence for increased fox predation since the hunting ban. In fact, the only sources cited in the report that address the question of fox predation actually suggest that the opposite is likely to be the case. According to the authors, the study is purely about whether there are any differences in terms of effectiveness and potential welfare indices between the use of two dogs and a pack of dogs to flush foxes. In other words, Paterson LIED. The report he sought to base an amendment to the Hunting Act on simply does not conclude what he said it does. DEFRA yesterday admitted in response to another FOI request [3] that their original statement (hence Patersons claim) was incorrect. The Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs [4] separately claim that they have undertaken some research at the local markets in Wales where farmers were asked if they have seen a difference in the number of lambs taken by foxes since hunting was banned in 2005. 75.1% of farmers polled said that they had seen an increase in lambs taken since 2005. Lets put this into context... In 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) calculated that just 5% of UK lamb losses were due to misadventure and all forms of predation [5]. Over-reporting is common and Natural England [6] state that [i]t is difficult to tell whether or not a new-born lamb has been killed by a fox, or if it has died as a result of the sudden onset of bad weather or mis-mothering and been subsequently scavenged by a fox,” something which is more likely in exposed areas such as the Welsh hills than elsewhere. Poor husbandry is the predominant cause of lamb mortality. So if basing government policy on an unpublished study by pro-hunt scientists (which doesnt even conclude what Paterson said it does!) wasnt bad enough, relying on the highly dubious results of a survey of farmers conducted by a pro-hunt lobby group would only add to the deceit. Fox hunting does not and never has had anything to do with pest control. This is a smokescreen used to fool people who are not familiar with the true motivations of bloodsports enthusiasts and a convenient attempt to amend the Hunting Act so as to make the prosecution of hunts even more difficult. SOURCES: [1] https://gov.uk/government/publications/fox-predation-on-lands-since-the-hunting-act-2004 [2] https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/308553/FOI_Hunting_-_27_March_14_6454_Annex_A_Research.pdf [3] https://whatdotheyknow/request/fox_predation_since_the_hunting#incoming-543272 [4] fedwfp.co.uk/ [5] Anon. (1998) Improving lamb survival. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London. [6] publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/130010
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:55:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015