The only wild mammal specifically protected from cruelty in Britain is the badger -- first protected under the Badgers Act 1973 which has been enhanced several times by Parliament to increase penalties, close loop-holes and provide for the protection of badger setts. All such improvements have now been amalgamated into the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, there are a handful of wild mammals totally protected because they are endangered as a species, e.g., otters, bats, red squirrels, pine martens, and dolphins. Under the same act there are a number of methods which are totally prohibited (self-locking snares, crossbows, etc.) and some methods which are prohibited (any snare, spring traps, etc.) for the taking or killing of certain "vulnerable" species such as hedgehogs. There are also various laws which prohibit the use of snares to take deer, to kill hares on Sundays and game laws to deal with the poaching of deer, hares and rabbits.
However, there is no legislation which generally prohibits the infliction of cruelty onto wild mammals.
The 1951 Report of the Committee of Enquiry on Cruelty to Wild Animals (otherwise known as the Scott Henderson Committee), set-up by the Labour Government in 1949, stated as its first recommendation "All wild animals should be brought within the provisions of the Protection of Animals Acts...", but went on to state that "field sports" should be exempt from such legislation for which a set of statutory rules should be formulated.
The Committee included several pro-field-sports people, including a Master of Fox Hounds, a vet to two packs of hounds and other field-sports participants. The Committee failed to call for legislation against any "field sport" -- including badger digging and otter hunting. There was no animal welfare representative on the Committee and its Report was widely castigated. The only significant reforms to emanate from the Committee was its recommendation for the abolition of the notorious leg-hold gin-trap, which was banned in England in Wales in 1958 and in Scotland not until 1972.
It is true that it is possible to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (1912 in Scotland) to embrace wild animals. However, the Act was written to apply to cruelties inflicted on domestic and captive animals, including birds and fish. There is no public or political pressure for the protection of wild fish from cruelty and all wild birds are already covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Therefore, the definition of "animal" in the Act would need to be amended to cover domestic and captive animals and wild mammals. Offences under the Act such as "over-riding", "over-driving", and "over-loading", clearly do not apply to wild mammals, and neither do the act's provisions on knacker yards.
The League Against Cruel Sports believes that wild mammals need to be specifically dealt with by a new protection law, to abolish cruelty and unacceptable methods of killing, taking or injuring all wild mammals -- whether they are "fortunate" enough to belong to an endangered species or not.
Kevin McNamara's Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which received huge public and political support before its narrow defeat at Second Reading on February 14th 1992, produced the opportunity to debate and consider problems perceived by various interest groups. For instance, its first Clause would have made it an offence to "intentionally inflict unnecessary suffering onto any wild mammal." This worried many in the farming community who were concerned that indulging in normal pest control could lead to farmers being persecuted and prosecuted by "animal rights" groups.
The new Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, by John McFall, seeks to take such difficulties into account, while preserving the main intentions of Kevin McNamara's earlier Bill.
The new Bill would enable the perpetrators of such mindless cruelty to be brought to justice.
CLAUSE 2 makes it an offence to WILFULLY use any dog to "kill, injure, pursue or attack" any wild mammal. This would outlaw the hounding to death of animals such as foxes, deer and hares as well as hare coursing. It would also outlaw the gruesome so-called sport of "terrier-work", which, within and outside traditional foxhunting, involves sending terriers into the underground refuges of foxes to either "bolt" the fox, or keep it under attack until the terrier-men can dig out and kill the animal. In such encounters both foxes and dogs can suffer horrendous injuries or even death.
The Clause would also outlaw the growing practice of killing foxes with lurchers at night with the aid of powerful lamps -- an activity recently exposed on film as involving a high degree of cruelty and brutality.
The Clause would also would mean that England and Wales would join Scotland in insisting that the only acceptable method of culling deer would be by use of a rifle. There are only four packs of hounds still hunting deer, three in Devon and Somerset hunting Red Deer and one in the New Forest hunting Fallow bucks. The total number of deer killed by all four Hunts only amounts to a couple of hundred deer -- a tiny proportion of those culled by shooting and therefore insignificant in terms of the control of deer numbers. A recent incident filmed by the League Against Cruel Sports, in which a stag hunted with hounds was shot at five times and wrestled underwater by hunt members before it died, was so barbaric that even the Masters of Deer Hounds Association banned the Hunt from operating for five weeks.
The hunting of hares with beagles and basset hounds, and coursing with greyhounds or lurchers would also be outlawed -- which in view of the recent government-funded study of hare populations, could not come at a better time. The Brown hare is in decline in the UK, and may number as few as 680,000 compared to 4,000,000 at the beginning of this century.
Mink hunting with hounds would also be banned and although this alien mammal has few friends in this country, it is significant that the Royal Society for Nature Conservation opposes mink hunting with hounds on the grounds that it disturbs potential otter habitat and takes place in the summer months, thus disturbing riverside wildlife during the vulnerable breeding season. Mink hunting kills very few mink anyway; the recommended method of dealing with them is humane cage-trapping where necessary.
CLAUSE 5 would exempt any person from prosecution under Clause 2 (the use of dogs) if his action was necessary for the IMMEDIATE protection of any domestic or captive animal or livestock which was being attacked or was likely to be attacked AT THAT TIME by a wild mammal. This is needed to cover a situation where, for instance, a farmer hears a commotion in his hen-house because a fox has gained entrance and he wishes to let a dog go to chase off the intruder; or perhaps where someone sees a wild mammal attacking livestock and he lets his dog go to chase off or attack that wild mammal.
CLAUSE 6 exempts from prosecution any farmer, landowner, tenant or their agents, whose dog chases, attacks or kills a wild rabbit or rodent. There are reportedly up to 40 million wild rabbits in Britain and it would be unreasonable to introduce an offence by which a farmer whose collie chased a rabbit, finished up in the courts. It is also significant that dogs which catch rabbits or rodents can kill them easily and quickly, whereas the evidence shows that generally speaking dogs cannot kill wild mammals larger than rabbits without inflicting significant degrees of pain and terror.
CLAUSE 7 provides the usual exemptions from prosecution for the unavoidable killing or injuring of a wild mammal as an incidental result of a lawful action, and for anything done under licensed experiments or research. Incidentally, this Clause is necessary to allow Hunts to switch to drag hunting without fearing prosecution should the hounds divert onto the trail of a wild animal which crossed the scent-line of the "drag".
CLAUSE 10 provides police with powers to stop and search suspects, etc.
CLAUSE 12 allows courts to confiscate dogs, vehicles or equipment used in the commission of offences and to disqualify convicted persons for having custody of dogs.
A BILL
To make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being taken, killed or injured by the use of dogs and snares and from certain other cruel acts; and for connected purposes.
Presented by Mr John McFallOrdered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 14th December 1994.
supported by
Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr Ron Davies,
Mr Elliot Morley, Mr Simon Hughes,
Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr Edward OHara,
Mr Tony Banks, Mr Kevin McNamara,
Mr Roger Gale, Mrs Margaret Ewing
and Helen Liddell.
LONDON:HMSO Printed in the United Kingdom by HMSO
Make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being taken, killed or injured by the use of dogs and snares and from certain other cruel acts; and for connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. If, save as permitted by this Act, any person cruelly kicks, beats or tortures any wild mammal, he shall be guilty of an offence.
2. If, save as permitted by this Act, a person wilfully causes any dog to kill, injure, pursue or attack any wild mammal, he shall be guilty of an offence.
3. If, save as permitted by this Act, a person sets any snare for the purpose of killing, injuring or taking any wild mammal, he shall be guilty of an offence.
4. An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 above solely because he causes a single dog under his close control to track or locate any wild mammal which (a) has escaped from captivity, or (b) is seriously wounded or suffering from a serious disease and he intends to relieve its suffering.
5. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 above if he shows (a) that his action was necessary for the immediate protection of any domestic or captive animal or livestock which was being attacked or was likely to be attacked at that time, by a wild mammal; and (b) that he was the owner of that domestic or captive animal or was acting as the owner's agent or in the owner's interest.
6. An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 above if the wild mammal concerned was (a) a rabbit, or (b) a rodent not otherwise protected by law.
7. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason of (a) the unavoidable killing or injuring of any wild mammal as an incidental result of any lawful action; or (b) doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
8. An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3 of this Act, in respect of setting a snare for a wild mammal not otherwise protected by law, if he is in possession of a licence granted for the purpose of pest control by the Secretary of State.
9. In this Act: "wild mammal" means any mammal which is living free, or which is feral, or which has been liberated from captivity; "authorised person" means, in respect of the land on which the act takes place, the landowner, occupier or any person acting as the agent of, or with the permission of, the landowner or occupier; and "livestock" means any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for use in the farming of land or for such purposes as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
10. Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence under the provisions of this Act and that evidence of the commission of the offence may be found on that person or in or on any vehicle or article he may have with him, the constable may (a) without warrant, stop and search that person and any vehicle or article he may have with him; and (b) seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under any of those provisions anything which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be confiscated under section 12 of this Act.
11. A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both;
Provided that where the offence was committed in respect of more than one wild mammal, the maximum fine which may be imposed shall be determined as if the person had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each such wild mammal.
12. (1) The court before whom any person is convicted under this Act may, in addition to any other punishment, order the confiscation of any vehicle or equipment used in the commission of the offence.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament make provision for the disposal or destruction in prescribed circumstances of any vehicle or equipment confiscated under this section.
(3) Where a dog has been used in or was present at the commission of an offence under this Act, the court, on convicting the offender, may, in addition to any other punishment, make either or both of the following orders (a) an order for the destruction or other disposal of the dog; (b) an order disqualifying the offender, for such period as it thinks fit, for having custody of a dog; and the provisions of subsections 13(2) to 13(8) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 shall apply in the case of any order made under this subsection.
13. (1) This Act may be cited as the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1995.
(2) This Act shall come into force with the expiration of the period of two months beginning with its passing.
(3) This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.