11th January 2017
Did you hear about the bang-to-rights evidence of illegal hunting which the police and/or CPS weren’t interested in? Apparently it happens all the time…
It’s beyond doubt that there’s an institutional disinterest in Hunting Act cases and the authorities seek any excuse not to proceed with matters. In court, experience shows Defence teams seizing any opportunity to subvert evidence or witnesses against them. If you want your evidence to withstand close and vindictive scrutiny you need The Money Shot and, for fox sake, make it a £5er;
£1; The fox (hare, deer or mink) fleeing….
With no quarry in the frame, the Defense will argue that there is no chasing of a live animal. Establish the identity of the quarry species with your camera. You’ll need much more than film of fleeing quarry to get the offenders into court but without this you have nothing.
£2; …being chased by a pack of hounds….
A kill is not essential for an offence to be committed under the Hunting Act (2004). Chasing with dogs is illegal. Once evidence of the quarry has been secured, pan back to the hounds to show what they’re doing and how many are involved.
£3; …in view of the Huntsman or Whipper-In….
These days hounds are often allowed to range way ahead of the Huntsman. If quarry is found and chased then those responsible can claim to either not know or that it was an “accident”. Evidence which shows somebody in charge of the hounds was well able to view events makes it harder to cry “accident”.
£4; …who is not trying to stop them….
Film the behaviour of anyone at the scene including body gestures (such as pointing) and any use of horn and voice. “Accident” is far less plausible if hunt staff can be shown to have done nothing to stop the hounds. If hunt staff are filmed actively encouraging the chase (such as by cheering hounds on or doubling the horn), or by taking and acting upon information communicated to them by others then even better. This will show an intent to break the law which is hard to deny.
£5; …for a considerable time or distance.
It’s not possible to state what constitutes “considerable” but obviously the longer the chase goes on with nothing being done to stop it, the stronger the evidence of illegal hunting being an intentional thing.
When filming either Huntsman or Whipper-In take the earliest opportunity to zoom in as close as possible because identification is absolutely essential for proving who did what. Hunting Act cases will fail due to weak ident even if the actual illegal hunting is obvious. These days hunt staff often wear anonymous matching jackets and ride horses with similar colouring and features; tactics which conspire to make evidence gathering even more difficult. The smallest detail could be a clincher so be alert to capturing on film anything, anything, which could help with positive identification.
Other things: keep cameras running as long as possible; use GPS readings to verify time, date, location; don’t commentate or remonstrate whilst filming (bite your tongue if you have to – let your film do the talking); guard good evidence with your life until instructed otherwise by a professional person you trust.
The £5 Money Shot is intended to provide helpful guidance for property owners and individuals involved with law enforcement. It’s one of many wider conversations around the Hunting Act (2004). If further debate and discussion about evidence gathering of illegal hunting is prompted then good. If anyone finds it useful, applies it in the field and succeeds in court then even better!
Recommended further research:
© Joe Hashman
Founder, Hounds Off
29th August 2016
The Hounds Off way of thinking is based on decades of experience. It's realistic and doable. This diagram shows how it can work (there are other ways). Use in conjunction with the resources on www.houndsoff.co.uk
In Spring 2010 a Tory landslide seemed imminent and, naturally, fears about the future of the Hunting Act occupied much of my mind. The challenge was (and remains) to find a way to stop hunting which can be effective regardless of what the law says. What became Hounds Off was an idea. Or rather, a collection of ideas.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ‘COUNTRY’
The hunting community knows full well that having land to tally-ho over is essential. “Country” (as they call it) is central to everything they do and having access to it is jealously guarded. Despite hunting with hounds truly being a minority pastime, the unspeakable minority operates a well oiled machine which facilitates their animal abuses of choice even though technically they’re outlawed.
Back to the idea.
“Hounds Off Our Wildlife“. The Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) used to have a black and white poster with those words on complete with images of deer, fox, hare and otter. It was straight-forward and simple poster but struck a chord the first time I saw it.
“Hounds Off Our Wildlife“. That’s HOWL, the radical, informative, inspirational, ground-breaking, often entertaining voice of the HSA.
Hounds Off Our Wildlife. Hounds Off. This is what we want. Short, sharp, to the point. Does what it says on the tin, kind of thing. Did the HSA object? I asked the Committee. “No,” they said. “Carry on.”
CREATING HUNT-FREE ZONES
After quite a lot of meetings with colleagues and close friends it was decided that a website would be the best vehicle for delivering the Hounds Off message. Our plan was (and remains) to create as many No Hunting nature reserves as possible, including all sorts of land; from whole estates and farms to smallholdings and back yards. We wanted easy, universal access to the information needed to do this effectively, autonomously and with no-strings. The Internet provides an ideal platform and so www.houndsoff.co.uk was born.
The concept of creating hunt-free zones is not new. The League Against Cruel Sports started buying sanctuary land in the West Country in the 1950’s, principally to disrupt staghunting. The counter-concept of preserving hunting rights had earlier seen the formation of companies who sole purpose was to support bloodsports. In reality, Royalty has been dictating over hunting preserves for centuries. Today a whole structure exists to exert the power and control of that influential, criminal minority who like to hunt. Not everybody knows about this ‘system’ but it’s real. Anyone who has crossed their line knows about it, that’s for sure; the bullying, the ostracising, the undermining, the dismissing, the evicting. Rural peer pressure can be intense.
TOOL IN YOUR KITBAG
So where does Hounds Off come in? Well, Hounds Off empowers people. We will stand with anyone affected by hunt trespass (or the threat of it). Our motto is, “You Are Not Alone”. www.houndsoff.co.uk provides the information and tools needed to protect property, livestock and pets. Alongside bringing together a community of related minds to stand united on this issue in real life and via social media, the aims and objectives of Hounds Off today genuinely are as simple as this. Looking to the future, if you believe as we do that “available country” is a major factor in deciding whether or not a Hunt can exist, then squeezing them in that area makes perfect sense.
For Hunt Sabs, Monitors and other front-line campaigners, Hounds Off is another tool in your kitbag which can be used to scupper bloodsports and save lives. You’re meeting the outraged public, disgruntled locals, beleaguered landowners and farmers who have had enough. Please use www.houndsoff.co.uk as a resource where you can suggest folk go to find support and solutions to the problem of hunt trespass. The Action & Advice pages (Warn Off Your Local Hunt) are especially crucial!
Last autumn I was working in a wood which belongs to a Hounds Off landowner. One of my fellow volunteers told me he was living off-grid in a bender under a hedge on land owned by friends who were new to the area. The local Hunt had run their hounds through his encampment and the new owners could do nothing to prevent it. Turns out that, deep within the conditions of sale, rights to hunt over that land were protected. You can be sure similar arrangements are being made elsewhere. Aside from ongoing efforts to repeal the law, I’ve no doubt that anything and everything which could obstruct hunting in the future is being ‘dealt with’ or neutralised, often quietly and behind the scenes. This includes ensuring access to as much land as possible via sporting rights, deeds and covenants. Remember, without available country any Hunt is knackered.
HOUNDS OFF IN ACTION
The best thing we can tell you is that, since launching in September 2010, Hounds Off has helped folk across the UK and thousands of new acres of hunt-free land has been established. Where hunt-related problems persist so our support remains ongoing. The Hounds Off philosophy is simple and based on people power. Hounds Off is about being strong at our roots, resolute, standing with our friends united and, yes, these tactics are effective!
Have a look at the accompanying diagram called “How To Make Friends & Influence People”. It’s not theory – it comes from real-life experiences of how Hounds Off is working on the ground and shows how cultivating relationships between Sabs, Monitors and the public can benefit us all, including (most importantly) abused wildlife. See what you think and how you could make it relevant for your situation. Most importantly, personalise it. Make Hounds Off your own and www.houndsoff.co.uk an asset which you use.
© Joe Hashman
Feel free to reproduce appropriately and, please, always with a link to www.houndsoff.co.uk
20th February 2016
If you’re affected by hunt trespass and contact Hounds Off for support we can often put you in touch with people who will help you on the ground. For example, one landowner in Cheshire has established a great relationship with local Hunt Monitors. When the Hunt is around they get together to keep the hounds off her land. It’s a great example of how we all work as a team.
This is the message we received from the landowner after a hunt on Saturday 20 February 2016:
Hi it’s been a wet and soggy day following the Cheshire forest hunt round, the Cheshire monitors were absolutely great and I’m pretty sure it was a no kill day, they will confirm that though, they did stop them getting 2 foxes.
On their Facebook page, Cheshire Monitors reported the day like this:
We were out with the Cheshire Forest Hunt today, supporting some lovely locals who have had problems with this hunt in the past.
We caught them up to no good not long after they set off from the meet (which they weren’t happy about) and had to work hard to keep on top of them all day.
As usual there were more hunt thugs out with them than riders, it looks like this hunt are going down in popularity.
We had 7 quads with masked heavies careering about causing havoc.
At one point one of our team was filming the hounds in full cry, then marking where a fox had gone to ground. Their car was blocked in by supporters and their wing mirror kicked in by riders ( the police are dealing with this) who were clearly very upset that we were spoiling their fun.
This didn’t deter our monitor and suffice to say that eventually the huntsman called the hounds off. He did however leave the scene screaming his head off. There were no signs of a kill all day. Job done!
Remember, you are not alone! You can protect your property, livestock and pets from hunt trespass. Get hold of Hounds Off via Facebook, Twitter @HoundsOff or via the Contact Us page on this website.
© Joe Hashman
18th April 2015
Guest blogger Jaysee Costa explains why he’s cool with being labelled an “anti” by the foxhunting brigade who continue to cling on to a dark past.
Who are these “antis” we often hear about?
Do you know who you are?
You probably think you do, but other people may have other ideas based on just a pinch of truth and a barrowload of negative stereotypes. They may have put them all on a label that could be stuck on you forever.
I got many labels stuck on me over the years and one of them is the label “anti”. It’s not a term of endearment.
The label “anti” as a label has been used by those who regularly abuse animals – or are against laws and regulations that aim to stop animal abuse and suffering – to describe anyone that oppose what they do. “Anti” was a word used by bear baiters to describe politicians who voted for the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 which banned their bloodsport; it was used by vivisectionist to describe those who erected the ‘brown dog’ statue at Battersea in 1906 in honour of all the dogs that had been tortured in scientific experiments; it was used by terriermen to describe the campaigners who lobbied for the Protection of Badgers Act 1992; today it’s the word used by foxhunters to describe anyone supporting the hunting with dogs ban. So, it is meant to be a negative term used to insult (equivalent to “scum”) or simply a term to warn others in their fraternity that this person “is not one of us”. It is the nasty version of the condescending “bunny hugger” or “tree hugger” which looks down on animal protectionists and environmentalists and is often embellished by claiming that it means “anti-freedom”, “anti-countryside” or “anti-tradition”.
However, this label, which most of us wear as a badge of honour, has a dangerous side. Propagandists of animal abuse fraternities have been relentlessly using it to influence the general public – plus the police, CPS and the Courts – into believing that there is something wrong with being someone that does not want animals to be abused. Animal abusers have been quite successful in getting into journalists’ minds, who then write reinforcing the negative stereotype, creating a vicious circle. For instance, people or organisations who believe in the philosophy that all animals have the right to a life without abuse are immediately labelled by cheap journalists as “animal rights activists” with the implication that there is something extreme and dangerous in such beliefs. The term “animal rights”, as opposed to “animal welfare”, is actually an old 20th century cliché. These days most animal protection organisations, despite their names and logos which were created last century or earlier, have gradually converged into a philosophy of rights and a morality of welfare where the intrinsic value of animals is recognised at the same time that pragmatism is used to resolve human-animal conflicts.
“Anti” as a derogatory label is not only used against hunt saboteurs or volunteer hunt monitors. Organisations such as the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports or IFAW employ inspectors and investigators to gather evidence for Hunting Act prosecutions (among other wildlife crimes) and the negative label affects them too. Despite the fact such investigators technically work in ‘law enforcement’ as they are paid to gather evidence of crimes in a lawful, peaceful and respectful manner, and such evidence is primarily used in criminal prosecutions – not campaigning – they are not treated as such by the police and the Courts. Their evidence is treated as suspicious just because it comes from “antis”. To compensate for that they need to work on a ‘belt and braces’ approach to prove every single event which demands far more evidence than would be required in any other type of crime, and they cannot rely on their testimony or expertise because the defence will claim that they are not credible.
Investigators who take to the field to enforce and reinforce the Hunting Act have to endure the harassment and violence of hunts supporters who behave as if part of organised crime rings that prevent evidence of illegal hunting being secured. Hunting Act enforcers and reinforcers hardly ever have an adequate response from the police if they call them when they have been obstructed, attacked or robbed. All that, because they have the “anti” label. It does not matter if they explain what their job is and show that their teams include reputable ex-policemen and ex-military. They still call them “antis” and do not take their testimony and evidence as seriously as they should. This explains why there are not many prosecutions of illegal foxhunters. The police and CPS don’t take allegations of illegal hunting seriously and believe false alibis such as ‘trail hunting’ without checking they hold water. To cover for this lack of proper enforcement ‘”antis” are forced to spend valuable resources and time operating in a hostile environment full of pressures and difficulties.
Despite the fact that we’re now in the 21st century and our society has evolved so animal welfare principles form part of our modern lives, our opponents (who by nature are people that live more in the past than in the present) continue to be obsessed with these old labels, thinking that they offend us when using them. They don’t.
So yes, I am an “anti”. I am anti-violence, anti-cruelty, anti-bullying, anti-abuse, anti-crime, and this is why I support people who try to help animals in need. And I am proud of it, as most people with the same beliefs are. Naturally, as in all walks of life, there have been some who turned violent unnecessarily and who crossed the line of decency with the misguided idea that this would actually help our cause. There are so many of “us” that it would be impossible to prevent this happening since we are a very diverse bunch where all races, genders, cultures, creeds and even states of mind are represented. But you know how propagandists work. They pick on the exception and they make it a rule. You can see this all over the press and internet these days. Personally, if asked to identify just a few people to represent an entire group, I would have chosen any of the following “antis”: William Wilberforce, Mahatma Gandhi, Saint Francis of Assisi, Leonardo Da Vinci, Gautama Buddha, Pythagoras, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, Frances Power Cobbe, or Frank Kafka (it’s nice to think that I could be seen as belonging to the same ‘club’ as them!).
Here is what happens when those who do not have any problem with violence became activists against those who do: the “anti-antis” are spawned. For quite some time people who want to continue hurting animals regardless of whether their activities are legal or ethical have organised themselves to hunt down the “antis”, so they can intimidate us away, or even worse. For those who are aware about how foxhunting works, the euphemism ‘hunt steward’ would have come to mind when reading this paragraph. Yes, these are the heavies who may have been contracted or simply volunteered to go out looking for people opposed to hunting (it does not matter who; hunt saboteurs, Wildlife Crime Investigators, charity inspectors, bystanders, etc) and ensure they cannot become witnesses of the hunt’s activities.
There seems to be a recent revival of these type of anti-antis. They sometimes don’t even hide their violent disposition, with masked faces and signs on their shirts which unequivocally advertise their cruel intentions.
So really, if there is any negative connotation to the word “anti”, this is now attached to those who created the label in the first place, because their actions reinforce the stereotype, not ours. They are the ones that want to stop people having the freedom to protest, they are the ones who want to stop people having the freedom to speak, they are the ones who want to stop people knowing what happens to the innocent animals they victimise, they are the ones who actively disrupt legal activities in favour of crime, and they are the ones who add violence where there was peace.
Sometimes, though, in this ocean of violence, propaganda and mis-labelling, there is a gust of fresh air. Recently, a district judge who was presiding a case where two “antis” had been prosecuted for aggravated trespass because of their attempts to help an injured deer that had been attacked by a hunt’s hounds, seemed to be able to see clearly through the mist. He acquitted them.
In his summing up of the case, the judge criticised the hunt and police, and praised the hunt saboteurs saying: “All of you contribute immensely to society not only in your working lives but in your free time. You deserve high praise for managing yourselves and your behaviour.”
I am proud to know who I am.
14th February 2015
Jordi Casamitjana, Campaigns & Enforcement Manager IFAW UK says:
There are many organisations in the UK that work to protect British wildlife from the cruelty of hunting with hounds, but not that many are international with headquarters in another continent. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is an exception and I am proud to be leading the team that deals with this issue.
IFAW joined the campaign to ban hunting with dogs as far back as 1989, and it was the coordinated efforts of the RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports and IFAW working in coalition which proved vital in finally securing a ban. However, all of us soon realised that getting the Hunting Act 2004 passed was not going to be enough, because the hunting fraternity was quite clear in its intention to challenge the ban. Creating the false alibi of ‘trail hunting’ instead of converting to drag hunting was early evidence of this.
So, since 2005 IFAW’s work on this issue has been mainly focused on two tasks: to help with enforcement of the Hunting Act and to protect the hunting ban. However, we never expected that we would be so busy on these two fronts for so long. In fact, for the last 10 years, we could never lower our guard because enforcement of the Act by police and CPS has been, to say the least, quite poor, and the threat of a repeal or weakening of the Act has never gone away (and today, only weeks from the General Election, this threat is sadly as real as it ever was).
On the enforcement front we have come a long way, though. We started monitoring hunts with a couple of hunt monitors, but the enforcement team grew and grew and we can say that we currently have one of the most sophisticated and efficient Wildlife Crime Investigator teams in the country, which uses state-of-the-art equipment and complex forensic techniques that have already produced significant results. Indeed, after many years of countless allegations of illegal hunting and not much progress by the authorities in addressing the problem our enforcement team, together with the RSPCA’s prosecution team, managed to secure the first conviction of a member of a Dorset hunt. A second prosecution of members of another hunt is in progress.
On our work to protect the ban, last year we managed to expose the Government’s plan to weaken the ban by modifying the ‘flushing to guns’ exemption of the Act. We believed this would result in ‘repeal by the back door’ as it would make enforcement even more difficult. We alerted media and public to this, campaigned against the plan and gathered support from other organisations that joined with us on the issue. Soon those plans were postponed, for now at least.
There may be a time when we can all relax and allow the Hunting Act to be applied effectively as other bans are but we are not quite there yet, so we still need to be “working for the ban”.