Huntsman cleared of firearms offence

A JUDGE has told a Northumberland hunt master to consider himself “fortunate” after he was cleared of a firearms offence.

Frank Houghton-Brown, joint master of the Tynedale Hunt, found himself in trouble with police during a cross-country vermin-shooting expedition.

Officers found the weapon when they broke into his car in York, following a call from a concerned passer-by who spotted his pet Labrador locked in the Subaru Forester vehicle on a warm day.

Mr Houghton-Brown, of Nesbitt Hill Head, Stamfordham, left his car to attend a hearing at the nearby county court on April 29 last year, leaving his dog in the caged rear of the vehicle and the rifle on the back seat under layers of clothes.

The gun’s safety catch was on but there was a round of ammunition in the weapon breech.

A police officer aided by an animal health officer, broke into the car and noticed one of the windows was open to provide ventilation. They also spotted the lethal firearm.

Mr Houghton-Brown was charged with breaching his firearms certificate.

The 45-year-old, who campaigned against the former Government’s controversial hunting ban, claimed he took the rifle with him while out rabbit-shooting at the country homes of friends and family. He said he had been asked to do some pest control for friends near York, shooting crows and grey squirrels on their land.

Mr Houghton-Brown then said he had intended to travel with the weapon and ammunition to his parents’ home in Banbury, where pest control was also needed.

York Magistrates cleared him of the offence in November last year, claiming he had taken “reasonable” precautions to safeguard the weapon.

But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) challenged York magistrates’ decision in London’s High Court.

CPS barrister Jerome Silva said the verdict sent out the wrong message on firearms safety.

He told the court that Mr Houghton- Brown could have neutralised the weapon, which could have been stolen, by removing its bolt before leaving the car.

But Mr Justice Silber said the prosecution had failed to prove Mr Houghton-Brown did not take reasonable precautions to ensure safe custody of the firearm and ammunition.

Dismissing the case, he said: “I must stress there are many others who might have reached a different conclusion and convicted Mr Houghton-Brown.

“Many people would regard him as having been fortunate.”

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/11/27/huntsman-cleared-of-firearms-offence-61634-27725886/

‘Fox in a box’ rumours quashed by hunt

North Shropshire joint-master Andy Wheals has silenced rumours concerning why hunting was cut short at the pack’s opening meet.

Hunting was abandoned on Saturday, 30 October shortly after 1pm. Since then, rumours have circulated that saboteurs produced a “fox in a box” to try to catch the hunt out.

One member of the field wrote on H&H’s website forum: “After about an hour, I had just started to get my horse settled when the day was cut short. Someone turned up with a live fox in a box with some others with cameras. The master called the day off as it became evident that they were going to let the fox free and film it.”

Another contacted H&H to say the story of saboteurs had been “fabricated to hide the real reason”.

But Mr Wheals said that hounds were sent home early due to a “disciplinary matter” between the master of the day and huntsman Martin Jarrett.

“It wasn’t one of the North Shropshire’s greatest days,” he admitted. “But there were no outside incidents, so it’s a case of Chinese whispers.”

Mr Wheals said the field was offered an apology, but no explanation. But he added that a “lump of money” was put behind the bar after hunting to make up for the short day.

“We know hunting is expensive, so if anyone is still unhappy, we would be pleased to reimburse them or offer another day’s hunting,” he said, adding that the pack has had some great days out since.

Mr Jarrett, who has hunted the North Shropshire hounds since 1985, declined to comment, other than to say the incident had been “blown out of all proportion”.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/304002.html

Badger Protection League

In an unprecedented move wildlife rescue and conservation groups across the UK are banding together to fight the Coalition Government’s proposed badger slaughter, and they have won the backing of some of the country’s best known conservationists and campaigners – among them Sir David Attenborough, Simon King, Joanna Lumley, Chris Packham, Virginia McKenna and Brian May.

Working together as the Badger Protection League, the wildlife groups – which include the RSPCA, Badger Trust, Viva, League Against Cruel Sports, and Secret World – have launched a website which highlights five ways in which everyone opposed to the controversial consultation plan can fight the proposals.

The stark message is that unless the Government listens to and accepts the anti-cull argument, thousands of healthy badgers could be shot as they emerge from their setts or while they forage in fields and that could happen as early as next May.

Other celebrities backing the Badger Protection League’s campaign include Alan Titchmarsh, Michaela Strachan, Tony Head, Jilly Cooper and Dick and Dom (CBBC). Many have been involved with wildlife for most of their lives and are not giving their names lightly to this campaign.

Action by the wildlife groups comes not long after a meeting held at the Zoological Society of London at which leading scientists and ecologists described the proposed badger cull as flawed and said that the science—opposing a badger cull—had been misrepresented in the Government’s consultation plan.

An advertising campaign encouraging the public to oppose the slaughter of badgers has already started and will be continued this Saturday (November 27) in national papers and regional papers in the South West with a circulation of over 5 million.

Dave Williams, chairman of Badger Trust said : “We welcome this initiative, it will add strength to our campaign to stop this unjust proposal from the coalition government. Vaccination is an alternative which does not come with the high risk that the government’s proposal carries. If the government can ignore the science on this subject, we should ask ourselves whether they will take the same attitude on other important subjects?”

Visitors to www.badgerprotectionleague.com will get all the information they need to try to save the badgers, and a full list of all the groups backing the campaign.

BBC News – Huntsman first to be convicted twice under Hunting Act

Richard Down Quantock Staghounds huntsman

A huntsman from Somerset has become the first person to be convicted twice under the Hunting Act.

Richard Down, 47, from West Bagborough, was found guilty at Taunton Magistrates Court of hunting a wild mammal with more than two dogs.

He was convicted for chasing an injured stag with three hounds. Under the act, only two are allowed if the purpose is to relieve the animal’s suffering.

The Quantock Staghound huntsman was first convicted in June 2007.

On that occasion he was found guilty of chasing deer with hounds.

‘Slap in the face’

The latest conviction was based on video footage gathered by the League Against Cruel Sports.

The video showed an injured stag race across the combe in the Quantock Hills while being pursued by three hounds.

The defence said that when Down entered the combe, he was looking for the stag and under the Act, more than two hounds were allowed.

But as soon as the injured stag was found, the prosecution said only two dogs were allowed to gather the mammal which then had to be shot straight away to relieve suffering.

Down, who was described as one of the most experienced huntsmen in the country with 21 years’ experience, said he was not in a position to stop the dogs once they had found the stag.

Prosecuter Kerry Barker said the chase caused the stag “great distress”.

District Judge Martin Brown said he was “in control of the hounds and could have called them back”.

He was ordered to pay a total of £2,920.

League chief executive Douglas Batchelor said: “This is a real slap in the face for anyone who claims the Hunting Act is not working.

“Let’s hope this steep bill he faces in paying back the court costs will act as a deterrent to him in the future.”

Since the Hunting Act came into force in February 2005, 154 people have been convicted however the Countryside Alliance said of those, only four were for hunting, the rest were for offences such as poaching.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11816450

New legal info

Hunt sabs and the law part 1 – what sabs can and can’t do – legally speaking (first featured in HOWL 94, Spring 2010)

Hunt sabs and the law part 2 – what can hunts get away with – legally speaking (first featured in HOWL 95, Summer 2010)

Know your rights – an activists guide to the law

The arrest process and your rights

Police search and seizure powers

A guide to possible offences

Guide for legal observers

Control landowners, not badgers – that’s the real answer to bovine TB

Control landowners, not badgers – that’s the real answer to bovine TB

Culling badgers risks spreading TB, government research concludes. But the NFU wants blood

George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 November 2010

It’s one of those issues, like mad cow disease, that begins at the distant margins of public life, then explodes into the centre ground of politics. Anyone can see it coming – except, perhaps, the government. Tuberculosis in cattle is spreading rapidly: moving east and north from the south-west of England and south Wales. Isolated outbreaks are sparking up all over the country – in some cases hundreds of miles from the reservoirs of the disease. The white plague wrecks the lives of farmers. It cost the government £63m last year alone in England, £120m since 2000 in Wales. Contact with badgers is one of the means by which cattle catch the disease.

The governments of both countries believe they can help arrest TB by killing badgers. The Welsh government will do it by sending in its own contractors; the Westminster government will do it by licensing farmers to kill badgers on their own land and at their own expense. Both governments’ consultations on the killing end next month.

There is only one rigorous scientific trial of badger culling. This is the work carried out by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, led by Professor John Bourne. It took nine years and cost us £49m, and it is now being comprehensively ignored. Both administrations claim to be basing their culls on the outcome of this trial. Both are doing anything but.

You don’t have to read far to discover this. Bourne attached a covering letter to his report, in the vain hope that this would prevent anyone from misrepresenting his findings. Here is what it says: “Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better.” The main source of infection, it continued, is transmission not from badgers to cattle, but from cattle to cattle. “The rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.”

At an electrifying meeting in London Zoo last week, Professor Bourne and one of the other scientists who conducted the trial, Dr Rosie Woodroffe, attacked the misuse of their work by both governments. Badger culling, they pointed out, reduces the proportion of cattle herds with TB inside the kill zone, but temporarily raises it outside the zone. It breaks up the badgers’ social structures, pushing them out of their territories, which means that they spread the disease to healthy populations, and to cattle. Even when carried out rigorously, culling does very little to help. But the Westminster government has chosen the worst of all possible options: licensing farmers to kill badgers. This, Professor Bourne’s report points out, “would entail a substantial risk of increasing the incidence of cattle TB and spreading the disease”.

While the badgers in the scientific trials were trapped in cages before they were shot, the government, to reduce their costs, will allow farmers to shoot badgers as they roam around freely. There has been no trial to test this kind of culling, but models suggest that it will kill a smaller proportion of badgers than the trapping and shooting method. This means that it’s unlikely to control the disease even within the kill zone.

Worse still, the government appears to have understated the costs. Woodroffe estimates that the government’s projections would be accurate only if skilled marksmen were paid £3.23 an hour – just over half the minimum wage. Stuffed so far down the appendices of the consultation document that it takes major surgery to locate it (appendix F, par 6.3 if you’re interested) is an admission that, even on the government’s optimistic figures, the killing will cost farmers more than it’s likely to save them in disease costs. When they discover that the price is higher than they thought, the kill rate is lower and the trouble they get from animal rights activists more than they can bear, they’re likely to give up. This would create the worst of all conditions – spreading infected badgers far and wide while doing nothing to control the disease even in the killing fields.

As Bourne points out, the two governments are ignoring not only the science but also the history of bovine TB control. In the 1960s the disease was almost eliminated through rigorous testing of cattle herds and strict quarantine. It was when these measures were relaxed, at the behest of the industry, that the disease began to spread. Tests with a low sensitivity, which were designed to detect TB in a herd, are now misused to clear individual animals. The quarantine period has shrunk from one year to 120 days. (The safe period, Bourne says, should be two years, as the successful Australian programme shows.) The infections springing up far from the hot zone are caused not by badgers but by cattle movements.

As for the badgers, they should continue to be trapped in cages, but vaccinated and then released, as this prevents their social structures from being disrupted. By 2015 an oral vaccine for badgers could be ready to roll, which will be far cheaper than the current options. The best means of controlling the disease is to bring in more rigorous tests and longer quarantine periods now, and wait for the oral vaccines to arrive. Instead the two governments have chosen to launch a programme whose best possible outcome is to make “no meaningful contribution”, at high risk and great expense.

So why commission £49m of research then shred it? Because the National Farmers’ Union wants to see blood, and it is neither prepared to wait nor to accept measures as tough as Bourne proposes. Up and down the country it is whipping up farmers to demand that badgers are killed. Yesterday I spoke to a tenant farmer who had just attended an NFU meeting that unanimously supported the cull. A question revealed that not one of the farmers in the room had read the consultation document: they simply accepted the NFU’s word that the killing had to happen.

Under this government, the NFU rules. According to the small farmers I know, it tends to be dominated by the biggest and most arrogant landowners – rather like the Tory party. Last week the government quietly abandoned its commitment to stop the de-beaking of chickens and to stop game birds from being kept in cages. The badgers are just another lump of meat to be thrown to the beast. The cull might help to destroy the industry these bloody-minded dolts claim to defend. But they don’t seem to care, just as long as something is done other than imposing rigorous controls on their business. Killing wildlife will do just fine.

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot’s website

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/15/control-landowners-badgers-bovine-tb

Shocked by terrible massacre of ducks

Monday, November 15, 2010, 09:00

AS the shooting season is upon us, I feel that I must give my concerns and views on the following:

I and my partner have been walking for the past six months or so on a public footpath in the Wolds across farmland near Louth.

The very pleasant footpath takes us past two man-made lakes on which there are many ducks.

In the spring we would watch the ducks nesting and raising their offspring.

By the summer time there must have been around 30 or 40 ducks of various sizes and breeds on the pond. We would watch the parents feeding the ducklings and then they would feed by themselves. We marvelled at the lovely sight.

Three weeks ago we were walking along the same path and several Land Rovers appeared with about 10 men with guns (which was obviously a shooting syndicate).

They shouted at us that they were about to shoot the pond and we moved on. We looked back to see several men who were making the ducks fly and then there was an almighty massacre. All the 30 or 40 ducks on the pond were blasted at and one by one fell out of the sky.

We went back on our walk again this week to find that there were absolutely no ducks at all on the pond.

We heard that apparently there is no shooting on the other pond in the valley, as this is classed as a conservation pond, so it appears to be the duck’s luck on the day as to which pond it happens to be on.

I am not an animal rights campaigner and realise that it is private land and the landowner is within his rights to organise shoots etc, but to just massacre the whole lot I thought was absolutely terrible.

I wonder what other readers’ thoughts are. I have since heard that shoots do not always eat the birds they kill and instead they are put on a rubbish pile.

Mrs R Wilson, Humberston Avenue, Humberston.

The Telegraph says

The country sports follower would defend these actions absolutely saying the animals were bred for that purpose and suffered no pain. While others would completely see this as a callous and cruel sport that has no part in modern society!

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/viewpoint/Shocked-terrible-massacre-ducks/article-2893282-detail/article.html

Welsh Badger Consultation: suggested responses

The closing date for this consultation is 17th December 2010. Below are some suggested responses to the consultation questions. Please do put these in your own words if possible.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

How to respond

Please submit your comments by 17 December 2010, in any of the following ways:

Online form

Respond using the online form

Email

bovinetbconsultations@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Post

TB Team
Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer
Department of Rural Affairs
Welsh Assembly Government
Cathays Park
CF10 3NQ

Question 1: Do you object to the culling of any wildlife for the purposes of controlling disease in farm animals? If yes, please explain why.

Yes. I don’t believe it is ethical to kill wild species in order to appease the animal farming lobby, the primary aim of which is also to kill animals and market their flesh, milk and eggs. Wild species should be protected and respected, not persecuted and blamed for a disease not of their making.

 

Question 2: In view of the fact that a licence for an injectable vaccine for badgers is now available, do you think that vaccination of badgers in bovine TB endemic areas is a viable alternative to culling to prevent disease transmission? If yes, please explain why?

Yes. It has been reported that models and field trials prove that vaccination protects badgers from TB, and can reduce the incidence of disease in both badgers and cattle.

 

Question 3: Do you believe that culling badgers can achieve a reduction in bovine TB incidence in cattle, to justify its use? If no, please explain why?

No. The Independent Scientific Group of scientists this year re-stated that ‘badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain’.

I believe that stressed animals living in appalling conditions are much more likely to suffer from bTB. There are many cases of dairy cows who do not suffer from bTB, even though cows on neighbouring farms do because of better husbandry and improved biosecurity.

A June 2007 Farm Animal Welfare Council report indicated a significant problem of dramatically declining ‘stockmanship’ skills with less than 1 per cent of farm workers taking up training and certification opportunities. In the report, FAWC stated that: there is a ‘lack of formal training, and poor quality training’. And the instruction that is on offer often produces mere paper qualifications that do ‘not equate with competence in the work place’.

Bovine tuberculosis is already declining, unlike other painful and debilitating conditions that affect dairy cows, including mastitis, diarrhoea, infertility and lameness. It is cynical of farmers and the WAG to ignore these conditions, which could be eased significantly by improving the lives and environment of cows, and instead to focus on bTB and blame a wild animal. Farmers need to get their house in order.

 

Question 4: Do you agree that the Intensive Action Area has a high incidence of bovine TB in cattle which needs to be dealt with? If no, please explain why?

The rate of bTB is declining and must decline further using movement restrictions, improved biosecurity, improved housing, ventilation and welfare.

 

Question 5: Do you believe that access to land for culling badgers should be enforced? If not, why not? Please give reasons for your answer.

No. It is draconian of the state to force entry onto anyone’s land, and shocking that it would even consider doing so, especially for such a nefarious activity.

 

Question 6: On balance, do you think the benefits of culling outweigh the harm caused to the badger population in the Intensive Action Area? Please give reasons for your answer. Would you include other factors in the balance of harm and benefits? If so why?

No. A cull would obviously harm badgers, risk spreading bTB further and won’t help cows. It is an utterly pointless and unethical scheme.

 

Question 7: Do you agree with the prohibitions under the draft Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2010? If not, why not?

No. The prohibitions, which include protecting wild badgers to prevent their destruction or helping someone else to do so, are vicious and immoral.

English Badger Consultation: suggested responses

The closing date for this consultation is 8th December 2010. Below are some suggested responses to the consultation questions. Please do put these in your own words if possible.

Please send responses to:

TBBC mailbox, c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR or

e-mail tbbc@defra.gsi.gov.uk or

Fax 0207 238 6431

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Question 1: Comments are invited on the options, costs and assumptions made in the Impact Assessment.

I oppose the killing of all wildlife on ethical grounds. Additionally, the scientific opinion does not support a cull.

Culling badgers could make matters worse. The proposed scheme cannot be effectively monitored and outcomes cannot be assessed. It is deeply flawed, as well as inhumane and unethical.

Bovine tuberculosis is already declining, unlike other painful and debilitating conditions that affect dairy cows, including mastitis, diarrhoea, infertility and lameness. It is cynical of farmers and the government to ignore these conditions, which could be eased significantly by improving the lives and environment of cows, and instead to focus on bTB and blame a wild animal. Farmers need to get their house in order.

 

Question 2: Do you agree with the preferred option?

No. For all the reasons above.

 

Question 3: Do you agree that this approach, of issuing licences to farmers/landowners, is the most appropriate way to operate a badger control policy?

No. A more flawed scheme would be hard to imagine. Farmers will be allowed to shoot free-running badgers who could flee and – if infected with bovine TB – infect other animals further afield. This method is likely to increase the spread of bTB, not limit it. Shooting at a free-running animal – who is unlikely to even have bTB – can never be described as ‘appropriate’.

 

Question 4: Do you agree with the proposed licensing criteria for culling and vaccination?

No. The licensing scheme is a mess: farmers can join together or work solely to shoot or vaccinate badgers. They do not need to kill all badgers, nor do they need to test to see whether the killed badgers have bTB. The effects of perturbation should be limited only ‘where possible’. Badgers will not be tested for bTB. The licensing criteria are meaningless.

 

Question 5: Do you agree that the proposed methods of culling are effective and humane?

Culling is neither effective nor humane. Many MPs, when writing about the Hunting Act, claim that shooting free-running foxes is cruel. Clearly, this is also true in relation to shooting free-running badgers (unless the government is deliberately cherry-picking arguments to suit its own agenda?)

Alan Haselhurst MP, for example, writes that shooting foxes may not cause instant death and so he feels it can be ‘very cruel indeed.’

Damian Collins MP writes: ‘Where a fox is shot but not killed, it will die in great pain.’

Zac Goldsmith MP writes that the use of guns to kill foxes ‘has increased animal suffering’.

Clearly, shooting free-running badgers is not humane. The scientific research has also shown that culling badgers is not effective.

 

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed use of vaccination, particularly its focus on mitigating the perturbation effects of culling?

No. Scientific studies have shown that culling badgers causes perturbation. There is no evidence that vaccination in combination with culling can curtail this. There should be no cull.

 

Question 7: Should anything further be done to encourage the use of vaccination?

Vaccination on its own would be beneficial. The development of an oral badger vaccine should be a priority. The coalition government’s decision to cut the vaccination programme from six areas to just one is a huge mistake. The full programme should be reinstated immediately.

 

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed monitoring?

The proposed monitoring is inadequate and cannot reveal inconsistencies or non-compliance with licensing conditions.

The great animal rights betrayal

No wonder people get pissed off with the political system and all that entails

Government scraps protection for hens, game birds, pigs, cows, sheep – and circus animals

Millions of hens will have their beaks mutilated; game birds will remain in cages; pigs, sheep and cows in abattoirs will lose crucial protection from abuse; badgers will be culled and lions, tigers and other wild animals will continue to perform in the big top.

In a series of little-noticed moves, the Coalition has scrapped or stalled Labour initiatives to improve animal welfare some weeks before they were due to come into force.

The Agriculture minister James Paice, who part-owns a farm in Cambridgeshire, has been behind most of the moves – which have infuriated welfare groups. In the latest of a series of controversial decisions, Mr Paice this week delayed by five years a ban on beak mutilations of laying hens due to come into force in January.

Millions of hens have part of their beaks sliced off to stop them pecking at each other in confined units, but campaigners say there is no need for this if flocks are well managed.

The delay in the beak-trimming ban emerged in a press statement headed “New safeguards for chickens”, which hailed the introduction of a limit on overcrowding of meat chickens which will have little impact. The RSPCA said it was “extremely disappointed” by the decision, describing beak trimming as “an insult to hens’ welfare”.

Another policy reversal, affecting hundreds of thousands of game birds, was taken following lobbying from the Countryside Alliance and other shooting groups. Mr Paice rewrote the new game-bird farming welfare code to remove a ban on keeping them in cages.

In an additional move, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) halted a series of prosecutions of abattoir operators based on secret footage which caught slaughterhouse workers kicking cattle, pigs and sheep. Tim Smith, head of the Food Standards Agency, which enforces slaughterhouse standards, said of the images: “The cruelty on show is the worst I have seen.” Defra said the prosecutions would have failed because the footage had been obtained by trespass. Animal Aid, which shot the film, described the decision as “political”.

Furthermore, the Government is reducing the presence of official veterinarians at livestock markets, to the concern of the British Veterinary Association. According to the BVA, Mr Paice has also expressed doubt over plans compulsorily to label kosher and halal meat from animals killed without being stunned.

Defra has been stalling on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, which Labour indicated in March it would introduce, keeping 40 tigers, elephants, zebras and other animals performing tricks. Defra says it will announce its plans “later in the autumn”.

Mr Paice again pleased farmers and angered welfare groups by overturning Labour’s opposition to a badger cull and proposing farmers trap or shoot the protected mammal in order to curb the spread of bovine TB, which can be spread by badgers. He downgraded a research programme into vaccination, an alternative method of controlling the disease that killed 25,000 cattle last year. A cull is likely to provoke widespread protests.

Another Conservative proposal – to hold a free vote on overturning the ban on fox hunting – will be fiercely opposed.

Current concern, however, is greatest about the U-turns on farm animals because of the huge numbers involved. While there are no authoritative figures, the proposed game-bird cage ban would have improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of the 40 million game birds bred annually for shooting. Beak trimming is estimated to take place on 20 million of the UK’s 29 million laying flock. Tabling plans to limit the keeping of broiler chickens to 39kg per square metre, a more crowded level than the industry’s basic standard of 38kg, Defra revealed it would ban trimming by hot blades but allow the less brutal but still painful infra-red method.

The Government’s vets on the Farm Animal Welfare Council had recommended allowing infra-red trimming because of the egg industry’s failure to prepare for the ban, which had been scheduled for eight years.

Compassion in World Farming was “deeply disappointed” by the decision. Its chief policy adviser, Peter Stevenson, said: “It is frustrating that the egg industry has not managed to meet the 2011 deadline. At the same time as the British industry has been failing to phase out beak trimming, the Austrian industry has successfully reduced the practice so that now less than 2 per cent of hens are beak trimmed.”

Animal Aid’s campaign manager Kate Fowler said: “The Coalition Government has wasted no time in removing a raft of popular measures that provided important protection for farmed and wild animals.

“It seems the Lib Dems can’t or won’t rein in the Tories. The commitment to repealing the Hunting Act is the most high profile part of the Government’s anti-animal welfare package. But badgers, animals at markets, game birds and animals in circuses are also under threat. As for slaughterhouse cruelty, if this Government’s vets can’t or won’t take action and the Government won’t prosecute, then there is no one to stop slaughterhouses becoming a free-for-all.”

Mr Paice said: “These comments are surprising and disappointing. Cutting bureaucracy doesn’t equate to poorer welfare for animals – we listen to expert groups and always base decisions on robust scientific evidence, including that of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. As far as bovine TB is concerned, these groups appear to ignore the welfare of cattle.”

The Betrayals

Game Birds

Issue: Keeping of game birds such as pheasants in cages.

Number of animals: affected Hundreds of thousands.

Last government policy: In one of its last acts in power, on 15 March 2010, Labour introduced a new Code of Practice for “game bird” production which in effect would have banned the use of battery cages for breeding pheasants within months.

What the Coalition has done: Animal Welfare minister James Paice withdrew the code and replaced it with a new version which allowed “enriched” cages to remain. The decision followed lobbying from shooting organisations, such as the Countryside Alliance and the Game Farmers’ Association.

RSPCA comment: “The RSPCA is concerned that the Government has overturned expert recommendations against the use of cages to breed game birds in England. The Society is calling for proper scientific research to establish how to best meet the birds’ needs under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act. In the meantime, the aim is to persuade the industry to act in accordance with the scientific principles of welfare and avoid using cages.”

Circus Animals

Issue: Use of performing wild animals such as tigers and elephants.

How many animals affected: Around 40. Four British circuses use wild animals: the Great British Circus, which has tigers, lions, camels and zebras; Peter Jolly’s Circus (camels, zebras, snakes and crocodiles); Circus Mondao (camels and zebras); and Bobby Roberts Circus (camels and elephant).

What was going to happen?: On 25 March 2010, Labour’s environment minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, said he was “minded” to ban performing wild animals after research showed that 94 per cent of the public supported a ban.

What the Coalition has done: The Coalition said it was considering whether to proceed and would announce its position “in the autumn”. James Paice told the Commons he was sympathetic to a ban but said his colleague Lord Henley was mulling over issues.

RSPCA comment: “The RSPCA believes the circus is no place for a wild animal. It does not believe that wild animals should be subjected to the confinement, constant transportation and abnormal social groups associated with circus life. The UK Government promised three years ago that wild animals in travelling circuses would be banned – yet lions, tigers, elephants and other animals still tour the UK. We want to see the urgent introduction of regulations under the Animal Welfare Act.”

Slaughterhouse Cruelty

Issue: Cruelty against pigs, sheep and cattle by abattoir workers.

Number of animals affected: 29 million.

What was going to happen?: Prosecutions had been started against four operators at five abattoirs, and nine workers, following an undercover investigation by an animal welfare charity, Animal Aid. It found poor conditions at six of seven slaughterhouses it investigated between January 2009 and April 2010: footage showed animals being kicked, slapped, stamped, and picked up by fleeces and ears and thrown into stunning pens. Some sheep had their throats cut while not properly stunned.

What the Coalition has done: The Department for Food and Rural Affairs dropped the prosecutions, saying it had become aware of legal precedents where courts had refused to accept “unlawfully obtained video footage”. Instead, the Food Standards Agency has asked the 370 slaughterhouses in England and Wales to install CCTV cameras.

RSPCA comment: The RSPCA does not wish to comment on specific court cases.

Badger Cull

Issue: Spread of bovine TB from wild badgers to cattle.

How many animals affected: 6,000 badgers could be killed in the first year.

What was going to happen: In July 2008, the then Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, ruled out a cull, saying a cull would worsen rates of bovine TB outside of culling areas. Instead he committed £20m more into trials of a vaccination programme for badgers in six areas.

What the Coalition has done: Proposed that farmers in areas of heavy TB infestation cull badgers by cage-trapping and shooting them, or by “free shooting” as animals emerge from their setts. It has scaled back trial vaccinations to one area.

RSPCA comment: “On the basis of the current science, welfare concerns and practicality, any decision for a widespread cull of badgers would be totally unacceptable. Farmers or any non-statutory agency carrying out a cull… would make the welfare issues involved in killing badgers worse. It would be near impossible to police or monitor such a cull and could make enforcement of the Protection of Badgers Act very difficult.”

Beak Trimming

Issue: Mutilation of laying hens.

Number of animals affected: 20 million.

What was going to happen?: Labour decided to end beak trimming, which is carried out to prevent laying hens pecking and cannibalising each other in cramped battery cages. A ban enacted eight years ago was due to come into force on 1 January 2011.

What the Coalition has done: After the egg industry said it was not prepared for the end of beak trimming, the Coalition will delay a complete ban by at least five years, until 2016. Instead, the Government banned trimming with hot blades and allowed another technology which still causes pain – infra-red.

RSPCA comment: “The RSPCA is extremely disappointed that no specific date has been set for a ban on beak trimming for laying hens. The mutilation of all livestock is undesirable.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-great-animal-rights-betrayal-2132827.html