Poll shows 59 percent oppose ban on hunting (From Gazette Series)

Poll shows 59 percent oppose ban on hunting

SIR - I feel it important to answer letters to you from both Mr J Freeland and S R Grimes concerning their apparent disbelief at the legitimacy of the 59 of the public who do not want to see hunting with dogs banned.

The figures were taken from an NOP poll which asked adults aged 15 + "Looking at the Hunting debate over the last few years do you believe that .....A) Hunting should be allowed to continue as it is now because it is essentially a matter of civil liberties....18 percent. B) Hunting should not be allowed to continue at all as cruelty is more important to me than liberty...36 percent. C) Allowing hunting to continue under regulation would strike a balance between civil liberties and animal welfare...41 percent. D) None of these....2 percent. E) Don't know....3 percent

If the figures from A and C are added together it makes a total of 59 percent who do not want hunting banned. In 1997 when the first poll was carried out at the start of the present bid to ban hunting there was a massive 73 percent who wanted hunting banned. The latest figure of 36 percent shows that the evidence put into the public domain and the hard work that hunts have done to promote hunting has had a huge effect on changing peoples perception of hunting with dogs. From a local perspective it was wonderful to see up to 3,000 people come to Thornbury to support and watch The Berkeley Hounds on Boxing day. I would like to pass on my thanks to everyone who came to offer their support.

It is interesting to note that the Mori poll that Mr J Freeland quotes in his letter is currently under investigation by the Market Research Society following allegations that it breaches their Code of

Conduct. The poll describes hunting as 'a traditional sport where dogs are set upon wild animals', and compares it to the cruel and illegal practice of badger baiting. The phrasing of this question is a blatant attempt to influence the result of the poll. None of the last six polls carried out by NOP, ICM and YouGov which offer the three options which the Government have consulted on - a ban, licensed

hunting, or the status quo - have shown a majority for a ban.

I would like to make one final comment on S R Grimes's supposition that hunt staff not only take a six-month holiday but also draw on social security. Hunt staff work seven days a week looking after, in the case of the Berkeley Hunt, 75 hounds. They need constant, daily care. They also carry out a dead stock collection from farms in the vale. This offers a reliable and cheap method of disposing of fallen stock for the farmers. There are also 14 horses at the kennels, all of whom need constant looking after. Hunt staff also carry out many conservation jobs throughout the year from coppicing and hedge laying to covert planting and ride clearance. These staff are paid for by the hunt and certainly do not draw on the social security. Scurrilous accusations like that should have evidence presented with them before going into print.

Henry Berkeley, Berkeley