Trail hunting ban is another raid on the countryside - Emma Ryan
In the time I have been working on this special report about the proposed banning of trail hunting, another announcement has been made by the government which will hugely impact farmers and the countryside.
Government plans to reform the water industry will expand a system of environmental permits used for pig and poultry farms to cattle farmers to police how they manage waste from herds.
Under the proposals, beef farmers will have to pay up to £9,500 for the licence and a further £2,500 each year after with a visit from a government inspector to identify pollution risks from their herds and slurry storage.
Nobody argues with a need to protect water sources and water quality but again, we are raiding the countryside, placing another tax burden on a sector struggling as it is - while demanding it feeds us.
Will the government be making motorists pay seeing as petrol, oil spills, tyre and brake wear runs into water courses. What about going harder on fly-tippers or people discarding litter into watercourse and water companies?
It may sound like a trivial connection to make but it seems like farming and the countryside is being targeted again.
The same argument can be made for a blanket ban on trail hunting.
The animal welfare bill itself states, the government is looking at “Banning trail hunting amidst concerns it is being used as a smokescreen for hunting”.
The key here is ‘concerns’. Shouldn’t this be based on facts and evidence?
Does this mean we are going to ban the use of laptops, phones and computers because some people use them to distribute indecent images of children? Are we going to ban cars and driving because some people use vehicles as part of organised crime like drugs running?
Are we going to stop the UK benefits system because some people are blatantly milking it?
Are we going to ban dog walking in the countryside because some people can’t control their pets and they chase, worry, injure and kill livestock?
Doubtful.
Now, just for the record - I do not support fox hunting. I do support trail hunting with hounds and horses as a past time.
Should a trail hunt, chase and kill a fox, I support the necessary legal action being taken.
What does need to be taken into consideration with this issue is a fair approach to the facts, evidence and science.
The YouGov statistics, which on the face of it say people support a trail hunt ban and don’t think trail hunting contributes to the local economy, were overwhelmingly collated in urban areas.
It’s like asking an upland farmer if he thinks pollution from rush hour traffic is a priority for him.
And if you do know anything about rural communities, whether you live in one or not, it is difficult to see the argument which says they don’t benefit from hunts.
The local butcher who gets trade every week providing pies and sausage rolls, bar staff in the village pub getting shifts on a Wednesday in December when the hunt returns for a drink or hosts a hunt ball, the tack shop and country clothes store getting business each season.
These are real people, with kids to feed and mortgages to pay who will suffer from this ruling.
The social isolation will be huge when the young and elderly have less of a reason to come together, when that bingo night or coffee morning they look forward to as their reason to see other people is called off. These aren’t even people actively hunting.
This aside, what does the future hold for the hounds and horses? How can it be that an animal welfare bill will potentially lead to the culling of 12,000 hounds and thousands of horses?
Emma Ryan is a freelance writer and former Yorkshire Post agricultural correspondent.