Merseyside Animal Rights and Liverpool Hunt Saboteurs have both been actively involved in the disruption of the ongoing badger cull as well as illegal fox hunting in Cheshire. Two of Britain’s most iconic wild animals are sadly also two of our most persecuted animals. This article aims to provide a brief introduction to the animals and also offer an explanation to why these beautiful creatures are under threat.
Badgers
Badgers (Meles meles) are an unmistakable, yet rarely seen mammal that inhabits most of mainland Britain. Their habitat is a mixture of woodland and open countryside. Badgers are shy, nocturnal animals with a distinctive black and white striped face and short stumpy tail. They are stocky, powerfully built animals. Fully grown adults weigh between 10 and 12 kg with a body length of 90 cm – this makes badgers Britain’s largest land predators.
They are omnivores with the bulk of their diet being earthworms, slugs and other small invertebrates. When earthworms are scarce, badgers will also eat fallen fruit from apple and pear trees as well as elderberries and blackberries. They will even eat small mammals such as rabbits, voles and hedgehogs. They have a keen sense of smell and sharp claws which have adapted well to digging.
A badger’s home, or sett, is an extensive network of tunnels, often found on the edge of woodland. They live in groups of 4 to 7 individuals. They are house-proud creatures, regularly replacing their bedding and having a separate hole dug exclusively to use as a latrine.
Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB)
Like many wild mammals, badgers can carry bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The disease also affects cows and can be passed on to humans through infected milk, however because of milk pasteurisation it is not a significant risk to human health. In the UK, a severe bTB outbreak on a farm can mean large numbers of the herd are slaughtered.
The argument in support of the cull has always been that badgers pose a significant risk to cows by spreading the disease. There is some evidence to support this theory, but it is unclear as to how much of a risk badgers contribute to the spread of bTB in cows. What is clear however is that the primary root of infection is via cow-to-cow contact. 94% of all cases are spread this way. It has been shown that badgers avoid coming into contact with cows. It is just their urine and faeces that could be a possible source of contamination.
The impact of the disease on a herd of dairy cows can be devastating for both the farmer and his animals. Cows which test positive for bTB are immediately quarantined before routinely being slaughtered. As with the human variant of Tuberculosis, bTB is a highly infectious airborne disease, meaning just one infected cow could potentially infect an entire herd. Modern intensive farming practices provide the perfect storm of conditions for the disease to spread and thrive – bTB spreads rapidly in poorly ventilated, cramped sheds and holding pens.
Modern farming practices were also responsible for another major human health scare. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, is a fatal, progressive neurological disease in cows. BSE can be transmitted to humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a fatal prion disease. Mad cow disease in the UK began in the late 1980s due to the practice of feeding cows (which are naturally vegetarians) meat and bone meal (MBM) containing prions and misfolded proteins. This practice used supplementary cow feed, obtained from sheep carcasses infected with Scrapie, inadvertently introducing infected prions into the cow food chain, leading to the outbreak.
Modern dairy farming is extremely detrimental to the health of cows. In unfettered conditions, a female cow will produce around 1,000 litres of milk per lactation and carry only 2 litres in her udders at any one time, but in modern dairies she’ll be expected to produce between 6,000 – 12,000 litres per lactation and carry around 20 litres in her udders. Combine this with being housed for 6 months of the year (or longer in ‘zero grazing’ systems) in close proximity to hundreds of similarly unhealthy cows and it’s not surprising that cows are susceptible to other diseases and infections.
The badger cull
The current badger cull commenced in 2013 as a series of pilot culls in Gloucester and Somerset. There was a public outcry at the time which resulted in over 300,000 people signing a petition calling on the government to abandon the cull. Despite ongoing public outrage, the cull has steadily expanded with more licenses being issued to cover 20 counties. To date a shocking figure of over 230,000 badgers have been killed under licence.
Merseyside Animal Rights, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and badger protection groups up and down the country are vehemently opposed to the cull. We believe badgers are being used as scapegoats for a failed government bTB strategy to appease the farming community. We also believe that the government’s bTB strategy should focus more on cow-to-cow transmission than the insignificant risk posed by badgers.
Krebs trial
‘Professor Lord John Krebs was the government advisor responsible for the scientific review in the 1990s which found that badgers were a “reservoir” of Bovine TB and could transmit the disease to cows. He called for trial culls which were then carried out. Lord Krebs has said recently that the results of the trials showed that culling was “not an effective policy” and would be a mistake and that the trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. “You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cows of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, of a huge number of badgers,” he said, “it doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.”
He said a better option would be to try to develop a vaccine in the long-term, and in the short term to use better bio-security measures to prevent cows from coming into contact with badgers and other sources of the disease, and to prevent them passing it to each other.
Indeed, the trial demonstrated that a reduction in the badger population in any given area because of the cull meant that surviving badgers from outside the area (possibly infected with bTB), would change their territorial habits and move into areas previously occupied by badgers killed in the cull. This perturbation effect would therefore see an increase in cases of bTB in areas subjected to proactive culling.
Wildlife extermination
There is virtually no welfare consideration for the badgers in cull areas. It is estimated that up to 75% of all UK badgers could be killed by 2025, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of those badgers tested show negative for bTB. Despite the large number of badgers already killed it has made little to no difference in the number of bTB infections in cows. There is no longer any reliable science to validate the cull. Doubt has been cast over a paper published by Oxford University that originally supported the cull and it is now believed that the original research was seriously flawed, and no longer supports the notion that the cull is an effective way of stopping bTB in cows. At the time of writing, researchers at Oxford University have reported that the badger cull may have in fact increased the rate of bovine tuberculosis amongst herds in neighbouring areas.
Labour
In July 2024 Labour gained power, ending 14 years of Conservative rule. Leading up to the election, Labour had boldly promised that they would end the badger cull if they came into power. Indeed, their manifesto described the badger cull as ineffective and promised to end it. However, any hopes for a quick stop to the cull were short lived. In fact, an astonishing U-turn took place less than one month after their landslide victory. Steve Reed (Environment Secretary) confirmed that the government would allow existing cull licences to continue until 2026, saying an immediate end to the cull would send “sudden shocks into the system”. The granting of a whole new cull licence in Cumbria left many wildlife campaigners feeling betrayed. The cull licensing authority – Natural England – also authorised licences in late 2024 which allowed for the killing of over 10,000 badgers in intensive culls.
Fox Hunting
Foxes (Vulpes vulpes)
As equally iconic as the badger, the red fox is another unmistakable British mammal that can be found living in both rural and urban areas throughout the U.K. With their russet red coats, bushy tails and pointed ears they typically weigh 4-8 kg and stand approximately 40cm high. The average lifespan for foxes in the U.K. is 3 years. The fox is our only wild member of the dog family. They are omnivores with a varied diet of small mammals such as rabbits and field voles, birds, frogs, beetles, earthworms and berries. Urban foxes will often hunt prey but are also highly dependent on food that has been discarded by humans.
Contrary to popular belief, foxes aren’t solitary animals. They live in a small family group called a skulk, made up of a breeding male and female and their young. Sometimes a vixen cub will stay in the group. They live in underground dens, but can also set up home underneath sheds in gardens and despite there being some competition for food, they can also share accommodation with badgers in a sett. Mating takes place in winter with a litter of four or five cubs being born 53 days later in spring. The cubs will be taken care of by both the parents, and possibly a subordinate female from the previous year’s litter.
The UK’s fox population is thought to be relatively stable (estimates are between 240,000 and 350,000), although large numbers are killed by cars, farmers and gamekeepers as well as illegal hunting. As with the badger, the fox has a long history of being persecuted in Britain.
Fox hunting
Fox hunting as a ‘sport’ can be traced back to at least the fifteenth century. Originally it was probably an adjunct to stag and hare hunting, with the same hounds used to chase each species.
A large pack of dogs is used to pick up the scent of a fox and then chase after it with the intention of brutally killing the fox. The hounds are trained to bark once they pick up a trail and are closely followed by a group of riders on horseback. The ‘master of the hounds’ normally leads this group guiding the horses and hounds after the fox. The last wolf in England was killed in the late fifteenth century. This meant that foxes no longer had any natural predators. It was soon after this that fox hunting grew in popularity and became more organised. Packs of dogs specifically bred to hunt foxes were introduced during the 1600’s.
The Enclosures Acts (1700’s – 1900’s) dramatically changed the geography of Britain, with large areas of common land carved up into smaller fields divided by fences and walls. The Industrial Revolution also brought along roads, railways and canals, further dividing up traditional hunting countries. Despite all this rural upheaval and the advent of two world wars, hunting foxes continued to grow in popularity and very little changed in the way hunts were organised and conducted.
Cubbing (fox cub hunting)
‘Cub hunting, as the name suggests, is the practice of hunting fox cubs with young foxhounds. Contrary to what the hunters say, hunting a live animal does not come naturally to a fox hound. As such the young hounds must be taught how to hunt ready for the main season. This is done by hunting fox cubs over a reduced area, which pushes the fox cubs into the pack, rather than involving a long chase.
Fox cub hunting, also known as cubbing, or in hunt circles as Autumn, remains a dirty secret of the hunting world, and despite the ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs, the practice remains a very important and widely practiced part of hunting.’
https://www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/hunting/cub-hunting/
Opposition to hunting with dogs
The brutality of the First World War led to a significant shift in social attitudes towards cruelty and killing, influencing the growing anti-hunt movement. It was during this time that individuals and small groups started to take direct action against various British hunts.
Opposition to fox hunting in Britain culminated in the 2004 Hunting Act (ban). The ban arose from growing ethical concerns regarding animal welfare, and the perceived cruelty of the ‘sport’. This led to a long fought out battle and a considerable shift in public opinion in favour of banning fox hunting.
In 1963, 21-year-old John Prestige, a freelance reporter from Brixham in Devon was assigned to report on the Devon and Somerset stag hounds. Whilst there he witnessed the hunters drive a deer into the village and kill her. It was this incident that compelled John to set up the Hunt Saboteurs Association. Later that year on Boxing Day, Prestige led a small group of supporters on what would be the HSA’s first ‘hit’. It targeted the South Devon Fox Hounds meet at Torquay. They used hunting horns to distract the hounds, and by all accounts, “caused great chaos”. The association has grown in size and currently has 58 affiliated groups.
The Burns inquiry
In December 1999, the then Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP (Labour) announced the establishment of a government inquiry into hunting with dogs, which was to be chaired by the retired senior civil servant Lord Burns. Its purpose was to inquire into the following:
- The practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales.
- The consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and
- How any ban might be implemented.
It was to report the findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Following the publication of the Burns inquiry report, the government introduced an ‘options bill” which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation. The House of Commons voted for a banning Bill and the House of Lords for self-regulation. After further inquiries, the government introduced a further bill, which was amended to become the Hunting Act 2004.
Sadly however, the report did not seek to “address the ethical aspects” of the subject. The report concluded that hunting with dogs “seriously compromises” the welfare of the species hunted.
The hunting ban
The Hunting Act 2004 came into force on February 18th 2005 and banned the hunting of most wild mammals (notably foxes, hares, deer and mink) with dogs in England and Wales.
Importantly, the act allowed the pursuit of trail hunting to continue. Trail hunting is an equestrian sport where mounted riders use a pack of hounds to follow an artificially laid animal scent (usually fox urine). The vast majority of hunts adopted trail hunting once the ban came into force.
However, it has become clear that trail hunting has become nothing more than a smokescreen which has allowed hunts to carry on as normal despite the ban.
According to the League Against Cruel Sports, ‘over 30 hunt monitors have released more than 4000 monitor reports in which witnesses reported seeing someone lay a possible trail in an average of around only 3% of occasions where hunts were monitored. They believe however, that only an average of around 0.004% of the occasions witnessed were a genuine trail hunting event. The League Against Cruel Sports believes trail hunting is not a genuine sport, but a cover for illegal hunting, designed to deceive the authorities and make the prosecution of illegal hunters extremely difficult’.
Some of the UK’s largest land owners have now banned trail hunting on their land. The National Trust, Natural Resources Wales and Forestry England have all banned trail hunting on their land. United Utilities, The Lake District National Parks and the MOD have all suspended trail hunting on their land. The truth is, 20 years since the hunting ban, hunts continue to operate with impunity, killing some of our most beautiful wildlife.
It’s important to note that trail hunting should not be confused with drag hunting. Drag hunting is similar to trail hunting but there are important differences. The scent used is non-animal, usually aniseed. The laid trail follows a predetermined route which often includes obstacles and jumps and although a similar breed of dog is used, they haven’t been trained to track and kill animals.
The future of trail hunting
At the time of writing, DEFRA Minister Daniel Zeichner has announced that the current Labour government would be consulting on its manifesto promise to ban trail hunting later this year (2025). This is the first confirmation of a time scale for new hunting legislation which could well appear in 2026.