5.1 Vivisection
---------------
Argh, too much to comprehend for now. If anyone fancies ploughing through the 
realms of literature on this one or knows of a good precis I can plagarise let 
me know please. Otherwise you'll have to wait. 

5.2 Veganism and vegetarianism
------------------------------
Veganism and vegetarians are not to be confused, though many will blythly lump 
them altogether as being simply not meat eaters. The difference corresponds 
pretty much to the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. Though 
yet again people who follow either creed do so for different reasons and one can 
not simply say that all vegans are animal rights believers, dispite that being a 
pretty good generalisation. There are other reasons such as religious and 
medical grounds for having certain diets. 

Vegetarians can be divided up into several groupings:
a)Lacto-vegetarians which are people who do not eat meat but will have dairy 
products

b)Ovo-vegetarians which are people who do not eat meat but will eat eggs

c)Piscetarians - these are not really vegetarians as they eat fish. Many people 
confuse this with vegetarianism.

People who eat white meat such as chicken and turkey are NOT vegetarians.

Vegans are people who will not eat any animal part or animal byproduct, and even 
extend the definition beyond food to the avoidance of partaking in animal 
cruelty as much as possible. They will not consume products that contain 
lechtin, lactose, whey, etc. Nor will they wear leather.

Some people go further and become what are called fruitarians, who eat only 
organically grown food and avoid food that results in killing a plant in its 
production. Some will only eat fruit that has been allowed to fall naturally 
from the trees. 

Many stories go around regarding the various health issues of these diets and 
really they should be treated no better than most of scaremongering stories 
regarding health that regularly appear on tabloid headlines. The truth be known 
there are studies available showing that vegatarians and vegan have a better 
diet than most people precisely because they care more about their diet than 
those who choose to live off junk food. What matters most is that we have a 
proper balanced and varied diet and that does not demand that we need to eat 
meat. Humans have the body of scavengers/omnivores and not carnivores. A good 
examination of some of the mythology that has grown up around this issue is at 
the following website on the vitamin b12: 
http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/b12.htm


5.4 Pets
--------
It is sometimes claimed that the animal rights movement would do away with pets. 
This is not accurate and comes from a confusion over the use of the word pets 
itself. To many animal rights believers, the word pets implies that the animal 
is merely a possession of the petkeeper. This is of course antethetical to the 
animal rights philosophy. Hence the talk of getting rid of pets. What this 
infact means is getting rid of the attitude that having a pet is the same as 
possession. 

Many animals are domesticated, and removing the relationship between humans and 
animals would be near impossible. It is also well known that the relationship 
has been far from perfect. What animal rights activists prefer to consider is to 
have companion animals where the relationship between human and animal has the 
ownership factor removed as much as possible from it.

5.4 Quarantine
--------------
Two organisations campaigning against quarantine in the UK are: 
Quarantine Abolition Fighting Fund (QUAFF)
P.O. BOX 151
Chichester
West Sussex  PO20 OTS
Tel: 01243 - 264 173
Fax: 01243 - 267 599
        

Passports for Pets
20 Seymour Road
London  SW18 5JA
Tel: 0181-870 5960
Fax: 0181-870 9223

Details of other websites can be found on the geocities homepage for this FAQ

5.5 Intensive Farming
---------------------
Factory farming applies mainly to 4 main areas: cattle, pigs, chickens and 
turkeys. 
Cattle
------
Dairy cows are pushed to breaking point to produce ever more milk.
They are infected with painful mastitis regularly and are often lame.
Most cows produce 2-3 calves and are then slaughtered - worn out years
before their natural time. Typically calves are separated from their
mothers after less than a week. Left to nature, calves would suckle
for 6 months. If you have ever seen cows with calves in a field,
you'll appreciate that there is a strong maternal bond between a cow
and its calf. 60-75% of cows are artificially inseminated, milked 2-3
times a day (and whilst pregnant for 6 or 7 months a year). Instead of
producing the 3 litres of milk a day needed by her calf, she produces
something like 30 litres. Her full udder can weigh up to 50kg (the
same weight as 50 bags of sugar).

A quarter of less of calves actually go on to produce milk themselves.
Most of the remainder go to the Continent where they are often
confined in narrow veal crates - unable to turn round.

20% of cows go lame and 25% get infections such as mastitis. Cow
mortality is due to disease (36%), poor yield (28%) or inability to
calf (36%). Most are slaughtered for burgers etc. when they're between
3 and 7 years old.

[Sources: Compassion in World Farming and The Vegan Society]

Pigs
----
In factory farming, a sow is made to spend her 10-12 weeks each year
tethered to a concrete or metal floor in a farrowing crate with no
bedding. She often gets cut or sore from rubbing against the metal
bars surrounding her. She can only stand up or lie down or step
backwards or forwards a single pace, chewing at the metal bars around
her in frustration. When she farrows (gives birth) she can't build a
nest for her piglets which it is her instinct to do. Neither can she
perform any of her motherly duties other than to feed the piglets from
within her prison. Her piglets are taken away prematurely at 3-4 weeks
so that she can be made pregnant again. 

These methods are due to be banned in 1999 but, for now, in Ireland,
for example, 95% of breeding sows are kept like this.

[Source: Compassion in World Farming]

Chickens
--------
So called "battery" hens are imprisoned for life in a cage. They
space available to them is so limited that they can't even stretch
their wings. In the UK alone, 30 million (85%) egg-laying hens are
kept in battery cages. The incarcertion makes their bones brittle and
these break easily when the hens are removed from the cages to embark
on their only taste of the outside - a trip to the slaughterhouse.
Recent research at the AFRC, Institute of Food Research, suggests that
24% of birds suffer broken bones when being caught for slaughter.

Most hens spend a year in these cages although some are force-moulted
for a second year's egg laying. The wire floors often cause severe
damage to their feet and claws (which aren't designed for such an
environment of course). They'd like to scratch at the ground (the
floor of the cage is wire), perch, dust-bathe etc but they can't. In
frustration they often turn to peck at each other, and cannibalism is
not unheard of. They lay eggs about 5 times a week. When laying they
become aggressive, frustrated by the lack of privacy and their
inability to make a nest. The amount of fighting increases as a
result.

Many diseases and injuries go unnoticed in the gloom of the barn and
the over-crowded cages (a typical cage for 5 hens measures 18" by 20"
and they're stacked 3-5, sometimes more, tiers high). Excrement from
the birds above drops onto those below. Those in the top and bottom
rows fare the worst. Impacted eggs, prolapses and kidney and liver
disorders are common. Infectious diseases are treated with antibiotics
although birds often die before their illness is spotted. With
mortality runningat 6% it is estimated that a 10,000 bird barn (many
are much larger) generates 1 metric tonne of carcases to be disposed
of. Dead hens are often dragged from the cage and left to rot on the
floor - farms where this happens are still passed as satisfactory by
the Ministry of Agriculture.


Broiler chickens are those raised for meat. Tens of thousands of them
are kept in a single, windowless shed. They are forced to grow at
twice their natural rate, which often causes bone deformities before
they are slaughtered at just 6 or 7 weeks old - their legs becoming
too weak to support their unnatural weight. Over 600 million chickens
are reared this way annually in the UK. 45 million die in the sheds
and are either picked out or left to rot - pecked at by the other
birds. 2 million die on the way to the slaughterhouse. What can happen
when they get there is a story for another day.

[Source: Compassion in World Farming, Animal Aid, Chicken's Lib]

Turkeys
-------
In a similar way to chickens, turkeys are crammed into huge,
windowless sheds. Many have their beaks cut off to prevent aggression.
They can suffer from painful breast blisters and ulcerated feet due to
the filthy conditions. Wild turkeys can fly at 50mph and roost in
treetops. Factory farmed turkeys can barely walk. Eye pecking is
common - causing acute pain and sometimes blindness. All turkey
breeding relies on artificial insemination. Many male birds develop
painfully diseased hip joints as they are "plumped up" to weigh as
much as an 8-9 year old child. They rarley live beyond 6 months when
their natural lifespan would be 10 years.

[Source: Compassion in World Farming, Animal Aid]


6. Appendix
===========

6.1 ALF SG Press Release in response to the carbombing of a vivisector
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ALF SUPPORTERS GROUP STATEMENT

 June 1990

 Following the recent actions in which explosive devices were placed under the 
cars of two vivisectors, we feel it is necessary to write this letter in 
anticipation of some confusion that may have been caused.

 These actions were not carried out  by the Animal Liberation Front. The ALF 
has, from its very beginning, carried out actions of rescuing animals and 
causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually by damaging their property. 
The ALF has and has always had, a strict policy which all members adhere to when 
carrying out ALF actions. This policy is to take all possible precautions not to 
harm any human or animal life.

 It does seem that those who carried out the recent actions were intending to 
cause physical harm or fatal injuries to the targetted vivisectors. It is also 
possible that precautions to minimise the risk of harm to the general public, 
and to animals, were not taken. As we all know, a child was injured in the 
second incident.

 Such  actions  are not carried out by the Animal Liberation Front. The first, 
against a vet at Porton Down, was, according to the press, claimed by animal 
rights campaigners. The second was not 'claimed' until after it had been 
well-publicised - including, of course, the publicity about a child being hurt. 
It was only then that somebody, pretending to be speaking on behalf of the ALF, 
'claimed' the action, though both devices were evidently placed at about the 
same time.

 No genuine ALF member would claim to have carried out an action which the ALF 
was clearly not responsible for. The question we have to ask is who would have 
made this claim and why would they have done it.

There are some people in the movement who will support these recent actions, 
some who will condemn them, some who will sympathise with reservations and so 
on. Certainly everyone will have their own varying opinions and we are not 
issuing this letter in order to add our own views. We are, however, condemning 
whoever as deliberately and maliciously attempted to discredit the campaign of 
the ALF by falsely claiming that the ALF has been responsible for an action 
quite clearly outside of its strict policy of nonviolence.

 Of course we know there is no shortage of those who would wish to discredit the 
ALF. The police, the media, animal abusers, and, indeed, some members of the 
animal rights movement itself, seize any chance to attack the ALF. And when the 
actions of last week happened, somebody grabbed the opportunity to try to harm 
the ALF by putting out a false statement claiming that the Animal Liberation 
Front was responsible.

 The important thing is for us all to be aware of this and not fall into the 
trap of  believing the lies. The ALF is saving animals lives. Attempts to 
discredit it should be stamped on NOW!


6.2 How Tom Worby, a hunt sab, was killed
-----------------------------------------

On Saturday 3rd April 1993, about 40 hunt saboteurs were present at the closing 
meet of the Cambridgeshire Foxhounds at Low Farm near Gravesley in 
Cambridgeshire. With the group of saboteurs was Tom Worby, a 15 year old
from Milton Keynes, on his first day out sabbing. His girlfriend had seen the
hunt sab information stall in the city centre some days before and expressed an
interest to join us. She then came with her boyfriend for their first day out 
sabbing.

When we saw the hunt, they had just started drawing in a wood neighbouring
Low Farm. We all went into the fields outside the wood and called the hounds.
Some came out, followed by an irrate Joint Master, Geoffrey Fox. After shouting
some abuse at sabs, Mr Fox went back into the wood. Sabs stayed put and
kept calling with similar success. So, the whole hunting field came out,
including huntsman and the hounds, and just gathered in the fields adjacent to 
the sabs. Some lively discussions went on between hunters and sabs and it soon
became pretty obvious that the hunters had just called police and were
waiting for their arrival.

After a while, one policeman arrived. He went into the fields and spoke for
a long time with the hunters. Then he came over to the sabs and announced
that he felt we were trespassing and should be leaving. Sabs told him that this
was not his business, and that they were just sitting around in the sun and not
really breaking any laws. The policeman then went back to the hunters, and
after some more back and forth, and when it had become clear that the police was 
not able to remove sabs and not willing to put more resources into this 
operation, the hunt suddenly left back to Low Farm.

Sabs followed in a distance. We were not aware then what the hunters were
actually planning to do. However, later in court the huntsmaster said he had 
decided to call it a day and ordered the huntsman Anthony Ball to pack up. Mr 
Ball was a very irrate man, easily blowing his lid and getting very aggressive. 
Just a few weeks earlier he had come off his horse and attacked sabs on foot, 
supported by other hunt thugs. One sab was left unconscious after this attack, 
as he had been knocked on the head by the female hunter who owns Low Farm. There 
were also a number of occasions when Mr Ball had tried to ram or threatened to 
ram or actually rammed sab vehicles with his hound van. We have counted 27 
incidents for which we have video or photographic evidence of Mr Ball using 
violence against sabs in the last years.

In any case, on this particular day, sabs followed Mr Ball and the hounds and
the other hunters back to Low Farm. There we observed Mr Ball loading up the 
hounds and horses into the hound van. While all other hunters were still
hanging around and drinking and chatting, Mr Ball went into the hound van
together with his son Christopher Ball, the main terrierman of the hunt, and the 
kennel groom. Then he drove the track back towards the road.

When the sabs saw this happening, they also went up this track back towards the 
road. They were at the start about 500 yards in front of the hound van. We were 
in two minds about it all, as we did not know whether the hunters were really 
calling it a day, or whether they were just trying to move somewhere else to 
resume hunting. In any case, on the way back to the road on foot,sabs were split 
up. There was a main bulk of sabs furthest behind, then there was a smaller 
group of sabs, and then two sabs furthest up the track almost back at the road. 
I was one of those two.

When the hound van reached the first main group of sabs, the sabs did not just 
leave the track as it was felt it was a good idea to delay the hunters in
case they wanted to resume hunting somewhere else. When all sabs would be back
at the road it would be much easier to follow. So, some sabs even sat down on
the track trying to block the vehicle.

However, Mr Ball's hound van nudged its way through the group of sabs, always 
with a steady slow pace. People who were sitting down just removed themselves in 
the last second, as Mr Ball just would not stop. There was no violence or threat 
of such from the sabs at all. It was just a matter of delaying the van.

After a while the van had managed to pass this group of sabs and gathered speed 
very fast. It was soon approaching the next group of sabs. The track narrowed in 
this place, with a steep ditch to the right and a little one foot high verge and 
a dense hedgerow to the left. Mr Ball sped up more and more and drove straight 
into this group of sabs who didn't even try to delay him at this stage. When 
sabs realized that Mr Ball was not to slow down and was actually driving 
straight at them, they jumped aside down into the ditch on the right. Only Tom 
Worby didn't manage to do that anymore, as he was too far on the left. He 
stepped aside into the only direction he could step, which was between hedgerow 
and van. There was basically no space whatsoever, as the van was so wide.

Tom Worby was caught on to the left wing mirror, and was dragged with the 
vehicle for a good 50 yards. He was screaming at the top of his voice, banging
against the side of the van, against the door. He then lost his grip and slipped 
down, bounced back against the hedge and fell forward again underneath the left 
back wheel. The van went straight over his head. One could see the van lift up a 
bit when it went over his head.

The hound van did not stop. It gathered even more speed and passed the two sabs 
up the road who were just so shocked about what had happened that they couldn't 
move. And then the hound van went straight back to the kennels, where soon 
litterally hundreds of police arrived to protect Mr Ball.

Sabs ran over to Tom Worby and tried to comfort him. He was bleeding out of his 
ears and nose, but was still conscious. Sabs screamed for help. Some hunters on 
foot nearby laughed and announced the whole thing as a victory for them, and 
were actually threatening sabs who expressed the urgency to get an ambulance. 
Eventually, the one policeman present was informed and he called an ambulance. 
Before the ambulance arrived, Tom died in the arms of his girlfriend.

In the aftermath

While we were still at the police station at 6pm, Tom Worby's death was already 
in the news. The BFSS and other hunt organisations had already put out a press 
release blaming saboteurs for what had happened. Geoffrey Fox, a Joint-Master of 
the Cambridgeshire Foxhounds, appeared on Anglia TV saying that the saboteurs 
were threatening to pull Mr Ball out of his van, which is why Mr Ball had to 
drive on through the group of saboteurs.

After being dismissed from the police station, the sabs started to organize
their contacts to the press. The HSA did a press conference with very low
attendance by journalists. The local group had two people being interviewed by 
TV and other media. Nothing more was shown than the statement "We are very
sad about what happened". I myself wrote to all national newspapers and TV and
radio stations, to no avail. I did send out statements to all of them, and I was 
interviewed for 2 hours by The Independent and by Anglia TV and BBC TV. NOTHING 
AT ALL of this was ever published or shown. I was told this
would prejudice the case.

In the meantime every single press release of the hunters was published word for 
word. Many interviews and statements with hunters were shown, always portraying 
sabs as violent and to be blamed for what had happened. The first headline I 
came across read "Hunt saboteurs have killed a boy!" The newspapers cashed in on 
the fact that Tom Worby had only been 15 years old. They claimed sabs were 
recruiting kids as we couldn't find responsible adults to behave so stupid as to 
go sabbing. Then the Today newspaper brought a new headline "Nazi past of hunt 
death saboteur". It was claimed that the woman who had driven the van Tom Worby 
had been in had had a husband some 8 years ago who had fascist links.  This was 
followed up by more newspapers, some of them even claiming that the HSA was a 
Nazi infiltrated organisation as an HSA officer was shown on a photograph 
pushing a van which had got stuck in the mud together with this woman (and 10 
other sabs).

We had tried to contact Tom Worby's parents. It was done very carefully, but
it soon revealed that the hunters had been there long before and had put
all blame on us. An angry father was quoted in the headlines "Hunt saboteurs
killed my boy". Next our AR friendly MP denounced us in TV saying that sabbing
is out of order and she is opposed to it. We contacted her after that, and 
showed her all our evidence on how violent hunters are, and eventually convinced 
her of our sincerety. Too late for the media it was, but at least she managed to 
put us in contact with Tom's parents through an official channel. We met Tom's 
parents then with our MP present, and we could put the truth across. The parents 
had not at all heard anything of our version before. They were much more 
sympathetic afterwards, but still with reservations. Only Tom's grandfather was 
fully on our side.

We called a national sab conference and a memorial rally in Cambridge, which was 
well attended by sabs. We had very heated debates in the conference hall, and 
many sabs expressed an incredible anger with hunters. The memorial was quiet and 
calm, apart from Country Watch people arriving and filming everyone. 
Understandably, sabs got pissed off with that and removed the Country Watch 
folks. Police assisted by threatening to arrest Country Watch for a breach
of the peace. Nevertheless, the only press report on our memorial rally was on
the "violence that flared", which was also the only thing shown on TV.

The Daily Telegraph and other hunt friendly newspapers took the opportunity
to publish so-called "violence reports" of sabbing activity country-wide. The
whole thing was just literally taken from BFFS propaganda and uncritically
published in national newspapers. In one of those reports, for example, it was
claimed that a hunter had been almost killed by me when I had pushed him
off his motorbike. The truth was, rather, that he had at first rammed a female
sab with his bike and then driven straight at me. After pushing him off, he
threatened to attack me but then backed off. He came back with 12 buddies,
armed with sticks and cudgels, and attacked us and hospitalized two of us and
smashed two cameras to bits. There was a LACS infiltrator in the hunt at
the time and this man taped and witnessed that the hunters had started it all
and that one of them had proudly announced how he had punched me in the face.
Eventually, four hunters were bound over for dangereous driving, criminal damage 
and assault, for 200 pounds each for 1 year.

After a while the news died down, without any of us ever having a chance to get 
our story across. Only The Independent and The Guardian had at least one 
sympathetic article each. Everything else, even including in those two 
newspapers, was totally wrong and strongly biased against us.

################################################################################

The Coroner's inquest

Tom Worby's parents, the hunt saboteurs witnesses and the hunter witnesses
were each represented by their own solicitor. The inquest started with an
application brought forward by Tom Worby's parents that the inquest should be 
heard in front of a jury. Their solicitor argued that the law requires a
jury if the circumstances under which the death took place are likely to 
reoccur. Given the fact that another hunt saboteur, Mike Hill, had died under 
similar circumstances in February 1991 on a protest at the Cheshire Beagles, and 
given the increased amount of violence on hunt protests in the last
season, the Coroner "has no option than to allow for a jury". Nevertheless
the Coroner declined.

Then the hunt witnesses were questioned. Some of them, who spoke of about
up to 13 saboteurs hanging on to the hound van just before the incident
occurred, were quickly exposed as having a too vivid imagination. It turned out 
that there was not one single witness on the hunt's side, who had actually seen
what had happened. They all were either far away or on the wrong side of the 
van.

In the van at the time of the incident were three people. First Christopher
Ball, the huntsman's son and a paid terrierman, was asked what he saw. He
said basically that he had been too frightened to have seen anything. He had
felt that they were in imminent danger from being attacked by the saboteurs and
so his father had had no option but to speed through the group of saboteurs.
He had seen Tom Worby level with the window on his side of the van at one
stage, but he didn't care about what happened to him or why he disappeared at 
the time. Next Anthony Ball, the huntsman and driver of the van, was asked. He
said that he had just caught a very brief glimpse of Tom Worby at the
window, but he had driven on when the road was clear. He said he had had no idea
that any accident might have happened. He said he had been just driving slowly
and carefully, and that he was only speeding up when the road was clear.

The next witness was Amanda Sutton, the kennel groom, and the third passenger
in the van at the time of the incident. To the amazement of the audience
she said under oath that Christopher Ball had told his father that he had "just
driven over an anti", meaning a saboteur. She also witnessed that Anthony
Ball had tried to inform a police officer soon after the incident that something
had happened by waving and calling out of the window, before driving home
without any further delay.  Her statement clearly contradicted those of the
other two witnesses in the van, but the Coroner was not impressed, indeed
in his summary he didn't even mention this fact.

Next only 6 out of 27 hunt saboteur witnesses were questioned. They unanimously 
claimed that Anthony Ball drove too fast, dangerously nudging them from behind 
with the van when they were on their way back to the road. Some were pushed by 
the van into the ditch on the side of the track, some narrowly escaped the van 
when it was gaining speed. Overall the picture emerged that the van was driving 
reasonably slow up to a point, when it suddenly roared the engine and gained 
speed. Since the track is just about wider than the van, where it happened, and 
since the track has a hedge on one side and a ditch on the other, it appeared to 
have been very difficult to escape the van. Some witnesses saw Tom Worby being 
caught by the van. They say they saw him hanging on the wing mirror and banging 
on the window to get the driver to stop the van. Some witnessed Tom Worby 
loosing his grip, falling and rebouncing back from the hedge underneath the back 
wheels of the van.

The hunt saboteurs witnesses were very rudely questioned by the hunt solicitor
and eventually told they were lying. In complete contrast to his understanding
and supportive behaviour towards the hunt witnesses, the Coroner questioned
the credibility and consistency of the hunt saboteurs witnesses's statements.
One of them he rejected altogether.

In his summary he basically exactly repeated Anthony Ball's witness
account.He called the hunt saboteurs a "mob" and doubted their compassionate
feelings towards animals since they supposedly had no such feelings for the 
animals inside the van. He also claimed that the Cambridgeshire Foxhounds, and
especially their huntsman Anthony Ball, had generally an amicable relationship
with the usual hunt protesters, which is why it was unlikely for him that
Anthony Ball would have acted out of anger, when he drove over and killed Tom
Worby. Having been myself a hunt protester at the Cambridgshire Foxhounds for
many years before, I can safely say that it was the complete opposite: this 
huntsman always and very easily lost his temper. WE were non-violent and 
friendly towards him, yes, but not the other way round. We of the Cambridge
Hunt Saboteurs have more than 25 documented incidents when Anthony Ball
attacked members of our group or our cars. He also threatened to and actually
did ram us with his van before, the very same van, incidentally, under which 
wheels Tom Worby died.

In summary, the Coroner gave the verdict of "accidental death". The hunt 
saboteurs then announced their intention to appeal against this verdict to bring 
the case to the High Courts, where it should be heard in front of a jury. 
However, Tom Worby's mother refused to have Tom's name used for a fund to 
collect money for this appeal. So, any attempts to appeal the case were dropped 
eventually. It would have taken at least tens of thousands of pounds to run this 
case, and it was considered impossible to collect so much money without being 
allowed to use Tom's name, and doing it all against the will of his parents.


6.3 HSA on Angling (Taken from the HSA website)
-----------------------------------------------
What's wrong with angling?

Angling is Britain's most popular bloodsport and is responsible for causing 
pain, stress, fear and death to thousands of millions of fish every year. 
Everyone can identify with the terror of the majestic stag or wily fox
when hunted for miles, but slimy, voiceless fish don't have the same appeal. 
Please don't let yourselves be open to accusations of speciesism and give all 
living creatures equal consideration. 

Many animal rights campaigners seem to shy away from angling, whether sabbing or 
whatever, because they are not conversant with the necessary facts, especially 
on the pain issue. The  followiny sections explain why angling is as much a 
bloodsports as any other. 

There are three types of angling; coarse, sea and game fishing. Coarse fishing 
is by far the most popular and also the cruelest form of angling. It is carried 
out throughout the year, except during the close season (in most cases) between 
15th March and 15th June, when the fish spawn. Coarse fish are mostly inedible 
and include all freshwater species except salmon, trout and grayling. 

When caught. these fish are not killed instantly upon leaving the water, but 
exposed to an environment they are not designed to cope with. Primarily. they 
can't breathe. Other factors include stress imposed due to the sudden change in 
temperature, noise. vibration, oxygen concentration, light intensity and damage 
to a protective mucous layer. If fish survive this ordeal, they are often put 
into a keepnet. These nets are designed to contain fish underwater, before being 
released at the end of the fishing session. However many fish will receive 
injuries from the net mesh or from being squashed together with other fish and 
many will die due to depletion of oxygen over a period in these devices. 
Keepnets are most popular at fishing matches, enabling each angler to weigh his 
complete catch at the end of the match. Many pleasure anglers use keepnets 
simply as a personal ego boost. 

Sea angling is practiced from piers, beaches, rocks harbor walls and boats. One 
fundamental difference between coarse and sea angling is at a competitive level; 
sea fish are weighed at dead- weight. As most fish caught are edible. it is rare 
for them to be released. Fish targeted includes shark, cod, conger ell, turbot 
plaice and dogfish,to name but a few. The roost brutal form of sea fishing is 
most probably shark fishing. Exhausted and in agony from hooks and gaffs (metal 
hooks on poles used in landing big fish) through  their flesh, the sharks are
dragged aboard and beaten upon the nose until dead. 

Game fishing quarry include salmon, sea trout, brown trout, rainbow trout and 
grayling. These fish again usually end up eaten and the usual method of killing 
is with a club called a priest, although sticks and stones are also used. 
Hatchery-reared trout are used to re-stock game fisheries and a substantial 
degree of "vermin" control is undertaken at both fish farm fishery, including 
the extermination of predatory fish and fish eating birds. Game fishing tends to 
be the most expensive type and is considered rather elitist by its participants. 


FISH AND PAIN.

The Medway report, published in 1980 and sponsored by the RSPCA, proved that all 
vertebrates, warm or cold blooded, are capable of experiencing pain. The 
scientists involved in compiling the report exposed the farcical idea that 
fishing is humane, to be utter rubbish. In fact Dr. McWilliams, fish  biologist 
and member of the National Association of Specialist Anglers, even admitted, 
"avoiding subjecting fish to some degree of stress when fishing is impossible." 

The pure barbarity of angling becomes clear on examining the process of hooking, 
playing and landing a fish. A fish is deceived into impaling itself on a 
(usually) barbed hook, resulting in the infliction of an injury. The angler may 
then "play" the fish in order to tire it and allow it to be landed. On leaving 
the water, a fish is unable to extract oxygen from the air and is subjected to 
extreme stress. During the handling process, a protective mucous covering which 
provides the creatures waterproofing and protects it from infections, is 
damaged. If a fish has swallowed the hook, the hook's retrieval is very 
difficult, the  suffering is prolonged and is likely to result in damage to the 
fish's gut and subsequently death. 

The moment the fish leaves the water, it enters an alien environment in which it 
is ill-equipped to cope. The gills collapse and breathing is virtually 
impossible. After oxygen is exhausted from the bloodstream, bleeding may occur 
from the gills. Combined with the trauma of capture and handling, considerable 
stress is inflicted. Following return to the water, an exhausted fish may remain 
motionless for a long period, during which it is at risk from predators and 
environmental damage. 

People who say that it cannot be proven beyond doubt that fish can feel pain, 
must also admit that the same can be said of any animal other than humans. Only 
the latter can report in words the sensations experienced. However, society at 
large does not accept that the reactions and squeals of warm-blooded animals are 
purely mechanical. Based on our knowledge of fish biology, there is no logical 
reason  why this widely-held belief should not be extended to include fish. 

It has been convenient for anglers that fish have been considered in the past 
not to feel pain. The Medway report noted that the methods used in angling "if 
performed in a laboratory on unanaesthetised fish, without license, would very 
probably be in contravention of the (l876 cruelty to animals) act.." Incredible 
for an act created by vivisectors, not renowned for their compassion for living 
creatures! 


OTHER VICTIMS.

Angling litter includes all types of hooks and weights, and vast quantities of 
nylon fishing line, which is only slowly biodegradable and with or without 
attached hooks and weights is potentially lethal to birds and mammals for a long 
time. Waterfowl especially swans, who are particularly susceptible. They suffer 
lacerated beaks and throats by swallowing tackle and slowly starve to death. 
Entanglement may also result in lost limbs. Other animals too are at risk such 
as wild birds, dogs and cats. 

An RSPCA report from 1990 stated that during just one week in 1990, an inspector 
had to assist 14 swans tangled in tackle. Freddie the dolphin, who lived for a 
long time near Amble in Northumberland, was wounded by fishing tackle at least 
four times. Entangled animals attract considerable  publicity and are frequently
reported in the local press but most incidents will go unreported, due to lack 
of witnesses. 

Anglers maintain that only a minority of their number deliberately discard 
tackle. This may be true, but most tackle in the environment is of the "lost" 
variety. Hooks are snagged on  bankside vegetation, underwater obstructions and 
sea beds-often resulting in snapped lines. The only way to prevent injuries and 
fatalities due to lost and discarded fishing tackle, is to ban angling. 

Fish and tackle victims are not the only creatures suffering at the hands of 
anglers. Any fish eating species which is thought to compete with angling 
interests is at risk. Seals, herons, otters and wildfowl are killed by fish 
farmers, who breed primarily trout and salmon for re-stocking fisheries and 
of course for the meat eating public. As many as 5,000 seals a year are already 
killed by fishery interests and there is pressure for widespread organised 
"culling" to be re-instated in Scotland. Mink, in addition to being  hunted, are 
increasingly being killed by angling bodies and have been branded with as bad a 
reputation as the poor fox had 20 years ago. This year [1992] has seen a new 
victim - the cormorant, a sea bird, which is reportedly moving inland after 
being starved out of its natural habitat by overfishing. No creature is safe in 
the name of profit and the pleasure of dragging fish from the water. 

Lastly, litter must not be forgotten as a huge problem associated with angling. 
Bait tins, beer cans and plastic ring pulls are amongst the piles of anglers' 
trash, disfiguring the bankside and inviting further wildlife damage. Many clubs 
have been banned from angling venues due to the persistent menace of litter. As 
if this isn't enough, banks are left as mudslides, with vegetation hacked down 
to facilitate access to the water. 

Reproduced from HOWL (No 49, Summer 92) - magazine of the Hunt Saboteurs 
Association.

6.4 Foxes And Forestry
----------------------
This is from a report by the Forestry Commission into the issue of foxes on 
their land.

Forest plantations established over the last 70 years, particularly in the 
uplands, present an extensive habitat for foxes, which offers both food and 
shelter. Foxes contribute, with other mammalian and avian predators, to the 
functioning of animal communities and ecosystem processes.

The Forestry Commission (FC) has for many years undertaken fox control on its 
estate to protect neighbouring farming and sporting interests. In the lowlands, 
reliance was placed on local hunts, but in upland sheep-rearing areas more 
intensive and systematic control has traditionally been undertaken by FC 
rangers, often in collaboration with local fox destruction societies.

Past research provides little evidence that extensive and systematic fox killing 
(including that in FC forests) has had any effect on the level of lamb predation 
- the main reason for killing foxes. Accordingly, in 1992 when the FC's policy 
on fox control was being revised, there was a change of emphasis from extensive 
and systematic fox culling to providing a quick and effective response to lamb 
killing by foxes on land adjacent to FC forests. Reaction to this change in 
policy has been supportive from conservationists but more critical from some 
sheep farmers and game managers who were sceptical of the scientific basis of 
the policy. Information on the ecology of predation by foxes is scattered 
throughout the popular, technical and scientific literature and is often not 
easily accessible to those involved in the day to day management of land where 
foxes are present.

Diet
Adult foxes require between 350 and 550 grams of food per day to subsist (Lloyd, 
1980). They feed mainly at night but can be active during daylight, especially 
when not persecuted. Food items are often cached by burying, and then eaten 
later. A large number of studies have investigated diet, usually by looking at 
stomach or scat (droppings) contents. For example: Jensen and Sequeira (1978) 
list 34 studies of fox food from Europe; Lloyd (1980) summarises food items 
taken by foxes from Britain and Sweden (before and after myxomatosis), 
Australia, Missouri (USA), Finland and Bulgaria; and Harris and Lloyd (1991) 
describe some British fox food studies (Table 2.2). Some studies relate the 
analysis of faeces to the quantity of foods eaten (Lockie, 1959) but problems 
such as variability in digestibility may bias the analysis of stomach contents 
and scats (Cavallini and Volpi, 1995). Reynolds and Aebischer (1991) describe 
procedures to overcome many of the problems of faecal analysis. Even so, results 
may not accurately reflect dietary choice, for example, small amounts of sheep 
wool in a fox stomach may indicate searching for beetles in a decaying carcass 
as well as direct feeding on sheep flesh.

Preferences
Foxes are highly adaptable omnivores, their lack of specialised food 
requirements being one key to their success (Harris and Lloyd, 1991). In the UK, 
small mammals and rabbits tend to predominate in fox diet, with birds and 
carrion being locally important (Table 2.3). Foxes show marked preferences for 
some food items and avoidance of others, evidence coming from comparisons of 
ingested items and those found at cubbing dens (Jensen and Sequeira, 1978), 
observation of preferential recovery of cached food items and feeding trials 
with tame foxes (Macdonald, 1977). Among small mammals there are contrasts; 
field voles (Microtus agrestis) are strongly favoured over bank voles 
(Clethrionomys glareolus) and wood mice, (Apodemus sylvaticus), while 
insectivores such as shrews, (Sorex spp.) are almost never eaten (Macdonald, 
1977; Jensen and Sequeira, 1978). This aversion to shrews is common with other 
carnivores such as cats (Churchinfield, 1991) and weasels (Erlinge, 1975). Some 
predatory species such as stoats, weasels, feral/domestic cats and chicks of 
ground-nesting raptors are eaten by foxes.  However, Harris (1986) found that 
the number of domestic cats killed by foxes in Bristol was very low and mainly 
limited to cats less than 6 months old. Moles (Talpa europea) and slugs (Arion 
and Limax spp.) are almost never eaten. Earthworms, fruit and grass are of 
seasonal importance to foxes in many parts of mainland Europe (Ferrari and 
Weber, 1995; Jensen and Sequeira, 1978) and Britain (Table 2.2).

There is evidence that although sheep meat is eaten regularly it is not a highly 
favoured food. Foxes have been observed hunting rabbits in fields where lambs 
were ignored. Lamb carcasses often accumulate uneaten at breeding earths, along 
with other less-preferred foods. Often a fox will only nibble or perhaps chew 
off the tail of a lamb, leaving a lot of perfectly good food uneaten (Macdonald, 
1987). Macdonald presented a hand-reared vixen, her family and eight wild born 
cubs with freshly dead lambs on five occasions. All these foxes either refused 
to eat the lamb or only ate it when they were extremely hungry and had no 
alternative food.

Fox cubs eat essentially the same diet as adults, although in Sweden (Englund, 
1969) and Ireland (Fairley, 1970) there is some evidence that foxes chose hares 
(Lepus spp.) to feed to cubs in a greater proportion than in their own diet. 
This could be because of their large size. Lindstrom (1994a) and Reynolds and 
Tapper (1995b) both showed that foxes preferentially carried larger prey items 
to their cubs.

Regional variations
In the British uplands the main food of foxes is carrion (commonly sheep and 
deer), field voles, lagomorphs and game-birds (Kolb and Hewson, 1979; Lockie, 
1964). In north-east Scotland lagomorphs and game-birds are the main prey items, 
while in the west, field voles are more important in autumn and winter and lambs 
in the spring. In north-west Scotland deer carrion is more frequent in the diet 
(Kolb and Hewson, 1979). In Morven, west Scotland, studies by Hewson and Leitch 
(1983) showed that foxes living in forests ate mostly deer carrion and field 
voles, compared with sheep carrion and field voles on open range. Live prey 
other than field voles was uncommon in both areas.

In lowland rural areas lagomorphs, small rodents and birds are often the most 
important foods, although in some locations insects, earthworms and fish are 
taken regularly, sometimes in large quantities. In towns and rural areas human 
rubbish is widely utilised by foxes (Harris, 1986; Jensen and Sequeira, 1978). 
In Denmark, Jensen and Sequeira (1978) found that domestic pig and poultry 
remains were major food items of foxes living in the Lovenholm Forest because of 
their availability as offal from dung heaps. The diet of urban foxes in Bristol 
consisted of up to 70% scavenged items such as meat, bone and fat (Harris, 
1986).

Local variations in the quantity of sheep meat eaten by foxes are probably 
related to availability of alternative prey. Kolb and Hewson's (1979) comparison 
of west and northeast Scotland (see Table 2.2) suggested that in the west sheep 
and lamb were eaten in large quantities, but in the north-east, where 
alternative prey (hares, grouse and rabbits) were more abundant, sheep and lamb 
were only rarely eaten. Lockie (1964) suggested that sheep carrion in winter is 
likely to determine fox population size in upland west Scotland, because 
populations exist at a higher density than expected from the availability of 
live prey. Hewson and Kolb (1973) support this view, asserting that food 
availability in late winter and spring has an important influence on 
reproductive success or cub survival. Carrion is a particularly important 
component of diet at this time of year.

Over the red fox's global range rodents, particularly voles, often represent the 
most regular food resource (Artois and Stahl, 1989; Lloyd, 1980; Kolb and 
Hewson, 1979), although as generalist predators/scavengers foxes do not show 
specialised adaptations to hunting them. (This contrasts with some other 
carnivores that rely on small rodents, such as the weasel (Mustela niva/is)  
which has a smalJ slim body, allowing it access to narrow vole runs.) 
Interactions between different predator species living in the same area are not 
well understood. Hewson (1983) compared the food of wildcat (Fe/is silvestris)  
and fox in west Scotland and found that foxes subsisted mainly on carrion 
(mainly sheep) while wildcats ate very little carrion; wildcats ate more and 
bigger birds (particularly gulls (Larus spp.)) than foxes but for both, rodents 
(mainly field voles) were the chief live prey. In Scotland both carnivores 
exploit rodents, birds and lagomorphs according to availability but it is 
unclear how much competition there is between them.

Determinants of fox population density
Natural predation does not have a significant impact on British fox populations. 
The larger woodland predators such as lynx  (Lynx lynx), wolf Canis lupus)  and 
brown bear (Ursus arctos), which elsewhere prey directly on foxes, became 
extinct in Britain in the post-glacial period. The only avian predator to kill 
fox cubs in Britain regularly is the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) (Cramp and 
Simmons, 1980).

Neither is a lack of cover and den sites likely to be limiting fox populations. 
The proportion of known breeding dens which were occupied in west Wales during 
1971 was 1 in 15 where there were few available, and was as low as 1 in 80 where 
there were many dens (Lloyd, 1980). At high fox densities, social regulation of 
population occurs (Lindstrom, 1989), although this is unlikely to be a 
determinant of population density in most of rural Britain.

Food supply is the principal natural factor influencing fox density in Britain. 
Highest densities are found in the lowlands where food is abundant, with very 
high densities occurring in some urban areas (Table 2.3). In the uplands food is 
scarcer and fox numbers lower. Being generalist predators, fox density and 
productivity are not necessarily closely related to numbers of any one prey 
species. However, where foxes are dependent on a narrow prey base, fluctuations 
in prey populations can cause similar fluctuation in fox populations. In 
north-east and west Scotland the main cause of fluctuations in fox numbers was 
change in winter mortality, which in the west appeared to be related to the 
abundance of field voles in winter (Kolb and Hewson, 1980b). This suggests that 
where field voles form a major part of fox diet, fox mortality is related to 
cycles of abundance in field voles (Hewson, 1984a). Increased competition 
between foxes in high density populations, brought about by declining vole 
density, may cause more foxes to emigrate to areas where food is more abundant 
(Kolb and Hewson, 1980b). Lindstrom (1989) developed a model to predict how a 
fox population might respond to short-term fluctuations in vole numbers in 
south-central Sweden. This fox population was located between socially regulated 
stable populations to the south and food-limited populations to the north. Food 
supply was the primary factor limiting fox numbers, causing reduced rates of 
reproduction and survival during years when voles were scarce. Density-dependent 
regulation of the population occurred during years when vole densities were 
increasing or high, resulting in larger family groups within territories of 
fixed dimensions.
 
The impact of man in regulating fox population density is uncertain, continually 
debated, and probably regionally variable. Kolb and Hewson (1980b) suggest that 
starvation of foxes is relatively rare in Britain, and that human control may be 
replacing natural mortality as the primary regulator of fox populations. It is 
certainly the case that of 16 foxes (eight of each sex) caught on the Cowal 
peninsula and radio tracked between January 1993 and August 1995, 12 died during 
the study of which eight were shot or snared (Chadwick et al., in preparation). 
Their average life expectancy after tagging was less than nine months. Reynolds 
and Tapper (1995a), in a study in southern England, found that killing by man 
was by far the most common cause of death (Table 2.4). However, this level of 
control, while preventing fox population increase, did not appear to result in a 
reduction of fox population density. It was estimated that the population 
immediately post-breeding would have comprised 38% adults and 62% cubs, implying 
that in the absence of natural mortality, 62% of the population must be removed 
each year to maintain a stable breeding population. In a 5.6 km  study area on 
Salisbury Plain, fox control removed the entire adult breeding population each 
year, but the area was recolonised each winter by immigrating foxes (Reynolds et 
al., 1993). A study of Scottish data showed that the killing of foxes over 
winter did not lead to fewer breeding dens in spring (Hewson, 1986). Although 
some evidence suggests that widespread control of foxes in the north of England 
probably does suppress fox breeding density on a regional scale (J. Reynolds, 
Game Conservancy Trust, personal communication), Fairley (1971) suggested that 
it was unlikely that killing of foxes by man in Northern Ireland had any 
long-term effect on the population size, although it may cause short-term 
fluctuations.

Road traffic may kill large numbers of foxes. Foxes constituted 10% of the 1566 
recorded mammal road kills on an 85 km stretch of the Autobahn BAB2 in Germany 
between May 1992 and April 1993 (Fehlberd and Pohlmeyer, 1993). Frequency of fox 
kills was exceeded only by that of rabbits and mice. There are no comparable 
British studies available and no information is available on the possible impact 
of road kills on fox population density.

The economic impact of foxes
Sheep farming

Some foxes do kill lambs and the fox has therefore gained a reputation for 
depressing the economics of hill sheep farming. The main lambing season in 
upland Britain is March and April which coincides with weaning of fox cubs in 
the uplands when the confined vixen and cubs have a high demand for food (see 
Habitat use, Chapter 2). In many parts of the lowlands lambing is often over by 
the time foxes are producing cubs (Macdonald, 1987; Fairly, 1969a). Furthermore, 
lambing increasingly takes place in sheds, which protects lambs during their 
first few days when they are most vulnerable to predation.

A 1971 survey by The National Farmers Union in Scotland (cited in Hewson, 1990) 
reported that foxes killed an average of 8.3% of lambs born. Macdonald (1984) 
found that in England 30.2% of farmers believed foxes caused them nuisance and 
54% of sheep farmers believed they had been the victims of lamb worrying at some 
time. Clearly foxes are perceived as a problem. However, some anecdotal reports 
and most research evidence is to the contrary. The number of lambs lost reported 
by National Sheep Association members in The Field's survey of predation on 
lambs by foxes (Anon., 1993) was 1% of the average annual lambing, although 11% 
of hill farmers, who 'suffered badly', reported a loss of greater than 30 lambs 
(2.85% of average annual lambing).

In a west Scotland study between 1976 and 1979, foxes killed 1.3, 1.8, 0.8 and 
0.6% of the lambs estimated to have been born in four consecutive years (Hewson, 
1984b) and at Eriboll in north Scotland between 1987 and 1990 the figure was 
'even lower' (Hewson, 1990). On the island of Mull where there are no foxes, 
production of lambs over a three-year period was no better than on similar 
ground on the mainland. This suggested that predation by foxes was part of, 
rather than in addition to, the normal scale of lamb losses (Hewson, 1981, cited 
in Hewson, 1990). Neither has surplus killing of lambs (large numbers being 
killed in a single event but not eaten) been consistently reported although 
there is some anecdotal evidence (Lloyd, 1980). However, surplus killing by 
foxes of large numbers of black-headed gulls and Sandwich terns at breeding 
colonies has been recorded (see The impact of foxes on scarce species, Chapter 
2).
 
The national economic impact of fox predation on lambs is not known and is 
difficult to determine (Macdonald, 1987), but the evidence above suggests that 
the economic impact is generally within the normal range of expected lamb 
losses. However, lamb losses on individual farms can occasionally be severe, and 
it is at this scale that control strategies should be considered.  While loss of 
young lambs represents a loss of potential income, an accurate cost : benefit 
analysis should include any savings in variable cost items such as forage, food 
concentrates or routine medication. Furthermore, the cost of fox control must be 
balanced against the cost of lamb losses.

Poultry
Studies in Northern Ireland show considerable evidence that foxes kill 
free-range domestic fowl, usually at night (Fairley, 1969a). Surplus killing 
occurs in hen-houses and may be a response to the encounter of prey confined at 
artificially high densities. In another study Fairley (1970) found feathers of 
poultry and game-birds in 14% of fox stomachs. In a Danish study poultry remains 
were found in 20% to 35% of fox stomachs, a high percentage compared with other 
European countries (10-20%), although most were scavenged as waste from farm 
dumps (Jensen and Sequeira, 1978). Traditional free-range poultry farms are 
vulnerable to predation by foxes but large-scale indoor poultry farming is 
unaffected. Foxes can be regarded largely as a nuisance to small flocks kept for 
household use but are not a hazard to economic production, although they might 
be a disincentive to expansion in free-range poultry production, demand for 
which has increased since Fairley's work.
 
Game

Throughout Britain wild ground-nesting game-birds are taken by foxes, while in 
lowland areas high concentrations of hand-reared game-birds at release pens are 
particularly vulnerable.
 
Predator removal studies show higher abundance of species such as capercaillie 
and willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus) following complete predator removal 
(Reynolds and Tapper, 1996). Reynolds and Tapper (1995b) showed that hares 
killed by foxes were a substantial loss to the population; mean breeding densitv 
of hares was 15 km-2 with no predator control compared to as high as 60 km-2 
with intensive predator control. In Jutland, Denmark, intensive fox killing (by 
gassing and shooting), in an attempt to eradicate rabies, increased the bag of 
hare (Lepus europaeus)  and pheasant  (Phasianus colchicus)  but not other game 
species (Jensen and Sequcira, 1978). Following the disappearance of rabies, fox 
control was curtailed, foxes increased and hare, pheasant and partridge 
decreased. As the objective was to control rabies, the killing effort was great.

It might therefore, be possible, in certain circumstances, to directly increase 
game-bags by reducing overall fox density (Reynolds and Tapper, 1995b), although 
it seems unlikely that such an effect can be realistically attainable for game 
management purposes in heavily forested parts of Britain in the light of the 
cost and logistical constraints. Reynolds  et a!. (1992) showed that keepered 
estates in Sussex did not have detectably better over-wintering survival of grey 
partridges than unkeepered estates. This suggests that untargeted killing is 
probably becoming increasingly ineffective, particularly where gamekeepered 
areas are more and more isolated in the countryside.

Traditionally, gamekeepers in both the lowlands and uplands have tried to limit 
predation on game-birds by reducing fox density by killing them throughout the 
year. However, this level of control is not necessary to achieve harvestable 
game numbers (Swan and Tapper, 1992). On Salisbury plain, Tapper et al.  (1991) 
demonstrated that large gains in partridge (Perdix spp.) productivity can be 
achieved by killing predators from March to June. During spring and early summer 
predators (crows (Corvus corone), magpies  (Pica pica), foxes, stoats (Mustela 
erminea) and rats (Rattus norvegicus)) were killed at one site, while another 
site was left untouched. After three years the site treatments were switched. In 
the years following the control of predation the spring numbers of partridge 
increased by an average of 11%, while in springs following seasons without the 
control of predation, numbers fell by an average of 24%. The contribution of fox 
predation was not estimated. Hare numbers consistently increased during the six 
summers when there was control of predation.

In the uplands, fox predation can reduce red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) 
production on heather moors, although losses to foxes are often less than that 
due to parasites in high density populations and emigration. Dobson and Hudson 
(1994) demonstrated that small numbers of predators selectively removing heavily 
parasitised grouse may allow the size of the red grouse population to increase 
since predators effectively reduced the regulatory role of parasites. However, 
higher levels of predation did suppress red grouse numbers. Forests do not 
provide red grouse habitat and multiple regression analysis suggested that 
forestry adjacent to grouse moor had no significant influence on grouse bag size 
(Hudson, 1992b; Hudson, Game Conservancy Trust, personal communication). In 
Scottish arctic-alpine areas predation by foxes and golden eagles is the only 
important adult mortality factor for ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) and this was 
found not to limit breeding numbers or appreciably depress production (McVean 
and Lockie, 1969).

Pest control by foxes

Rabbits and field voles can be pests of agriculture and forestry and are 
favoured fox prey species. Voles, which can be present at densities approaching 
1000 ha-1 (Charles, 1956), eat twice their own weight in grass each day. While 
present at much lower density in sheep walks, they do use the same food 
resources as sheep (McVean and Lockie, 1969). Rabbits, since their recovery 
following the ravages of myxomatosis, are a major agricultural pest capable of 
reducing yields of both grass and other more valuable crops such as cereals. 
When present at high density field voles and rabbits can be a serious cause of 
failure of newly planted trees (Gill, 1992).

Whether foxes alone can regulate vole and rabbit numbers is open to conjecture 
but it is likely that generalist predators are an important contributory factor 
in maintaining relatively stable or non-cyclic vole populations in some areas 
(Frunge et al., 1983 and 1984) and limiting certain lagomorph populations (Trout 
and Tittensor, 1989; Lindstrom, 1992).

Trout and Tittensor (1989) conclude that in England and Wales predator pressure 
on wild rabbits may limit increases in rabbit density after rabbit populations 
have been reduced by some other factor, and reduce the rate of spread of rabbits 
into previously uncolonised areas. This assertion is supported by the research 
of Newsome (1990) in Australia who concludes 'carnivores can control mammalian 
pests for long periods, but only after pest numbers have been reduced by other 
means'. In Australia the cause was prolonged dry weather. The consequent low 
populations of rabbits can be regulated by foxes, feral cats (Felis silvestris) 
and dingos (Canis dingo). Further evidence for predator impact on rabbit 
populations arises when natural predator pressure in an area is suddenly reduced 
and rabbits subsequently become more widespread and abundant. On sites where 
there has been continued removal of predators over a number of years, there 
appear to be significantly higher rabbit populations than elsewhere, although a 
causal link has not been proved (Trout and Tittensor, 1989). Therefore, 
predation may contribute to the control of mammal populations in some 
circumstances.
 
Fox control practice

Management strategies
The impact of foxes in forest environments is generally neutral and may be 
beneficial. In some circumstances fox predation may conflict with the protection 
of vulnerable endangered ground-nesting birds. However, the primary concerns are 
generally lamb and game-bird predation on adjacent land. Where predation is 
unacceptable a fox control strategy based on sound understanding of fox 
behaviour and ecology is required to ensure that desired outcomes are both 
realistic and attained with the minimum of effort, killing and suffering.

Targeted control
Where predation is deemed unacceptable, the objective should be to ameliorate it 
rather than reduce fox populations  per se (Tapper, 1992). For impacts on game 
rearing, this means targeting predator control at the most vulnerable point in 
the annual cycle of game production, generally the nesting period. For impact on 
lambs this means targeting control at lambing time. A targeted control strategy 
is most likely to remove the individual foxes responsible for the problem, and 
is more cost effective than trying to reduce overall fox populations. The latter 
is usually unsuccessful due to the high productivity of foxes, their dispersal 
capability and adaptability (see Habitat use, Chapter 2). If fox control 
involves a risk of animal suffering, then minimising the number of foxes killed 
by targeted control has an animal welfare dimension.

Targeted fox control in spring, as recommended by the Game Conservancy Trust to 
improve partridge production and practised by the FC in response to lamb 
predation incidents, are good examples of accurately directed fox control. The 
success of such an approach depends on the ability to react quickly and 
effectively to specific incidents.

Animal welfare
The issue of cruelty to animals is emotive and complicated and some traditional 
practices no longer have widespread public acceptance. When killing animals for 
control, the aim should be for a swift and painless death. The capture and 
killing of foxes in snares, hunting with hounds, using terriers at dens and 
perhaps even shooting will be considered inhumane by many (Dawkins, 1980); 
however shooting cleanly with a rifle is quick, selective and the most humane 
method available of killing foxes.

Bounty schemes
Bounty schemes or systems have been unsuccessful in achieving any long-term 
reduction in fox numbers. There is an overwhelming amount of data to show that 
they rarely work (Hamilton, 1939, cited in Fairley, 1971). In Northern Ireland a 
bounty system ran between 1943 and 1970 with more than 200 000 bounties paid. 
There was no demonstrable decrease in the abundance of foxes. It was unlikely 
that killing foxes had any long-term effect on population size (Fairley, 1971). 
In 1987/88 eight of the 29 Scottish Fox Destruction Clubs were still paying a 
bounty (Hewson, 1990). In some areas this has resulted in a reduction of killing 
of foxes at dens, so that as many full grown juveniles as possible are available 
to be shot over winter (usually with a lamp at night) so that bounty can be 
claimed. This sort of evidence confirms that most bounty schemes are in reality 
sustainable harvesting programmes (Caughley, 1977).

Control methods
Past and present methods of fox control that try to limit predation range from 
attempts to fence them out of an area to the illegal use of poisons.  The sport 
of fox hunting is not discussed as it is not considered to be primarily directed 
at limiting fox impact, although a few well-controlled dogs can be an effective 
tool for flushing foxes from heavy cover.

Shooting with spotlight
The use of rifle and spotlight at night is usually considered to be the most 
acceptable method of killing foxes as it is positive, selective, quick and 
humane . However, it is unlikely to achieve a widespread reduction in the impact 
of foxes, and is only appropriate in suitable terrain. It can be very successful 
when dealing with specific predation incidents. Sometimes these can also be 
effectively dealt with by flushing foxes out of cover towards waiting guns 
(personal observation). While fox shooting can be more efficiently undertaken 
during winter due to better visibility through some vegetation types, it is 
unlikely to be effective in reducing late spring lamb and game-bird predation, 
unless undertaken in an area with inherently low fox numbers (Reynolds and 
Tapper, 1996).

Killing foxes at dens
Predation of lambs appears to be random and unpredictable, although it is 
generally believed by shepherds and some scientists to be associated with 
occupied breeding dens where foxes are feeding cubs (Hewson, 1990; McVean and 
Lockie, 1969). Where lamb-killing occurs, destruction of the offending fox or 
foxes at the breeding den is usually effective in stopping predation (Hewson, 
1986). This suggests that just a small number, perhaps only one or a mated pair 
of foxes, are involved in individual incidents and that the problem can be dealt 
with quickly. Dens may be some distance from the site of predation and sometimes 
difficult to find, particularly in dense forest stands.

In the USA coyotes (Canis latrans) occupy a similar role as predators of sheep 
to that of foxes in Britain. Killing cubs at dens but leaving adults was found 
to ameliorate the majority of lamb predation problems (Till and Knowlton, 1983). 
Hewson (1990) suggests this may be applicable to foxes in Britain, when the den 
can be located, saving time and effort in hunting elusive adult foxes. McVean 
and Lockie (1969) go further and report 'it has been shown that if the cubs are 
destroyed lamb-killing usually stops because the parents are no longer under 
pressure to provide food'. Cubs can be killed after digging down to them in the 
den or by the use of terriers, some of which kill cubs in the den while others 
will bring cubs alive to the surface where they are despatched. Sometimes cubs 
can be enticed from their holes (shortly before dark) with panting noises 
(Lloyd, 1980).

Trapping and snaring
Use of leg-hold traps for foxes is illegal in this country. in the 1960s the 
MAFF Humane Traps Panel (Scotland) ran trials of various alternative methods of 
trapping foxes. In 1968 one trial compared the efficiency and cruelty of 
free-running and self-locking snares. Neither type of snare was significantly 
more efficient nor less cruel than the other (Pepper, 1969). Although external 
inspection of carcasses suggested that locking snares did more damage, 
post-mortem examination showed no significant difference in damage caused by the 
two snare types. Earlier, Lloyd and Jones (1962) asserted that 'the use of 
snares (as replacement for the illegal gin trap) from the humanitarian point of 
view, can hardly be less cruel in many cases than the gin', although Lloyd 
(1980) indicated 'it seems that careful siting of snares can reduce injury, but 
few people setting snares are aware of this aspect'.

It is impossible to exclude non-target species from snares. In a 1968 MAFF trial 
155 foxes and 132 non-target animals were caught. Domestic pets, wildcat, badger 
(Meles meles), pine marten (Martes martes), otter (Lutra lutra) and hare are all 
at risk as they are of similar stature to foxes. Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)  
creeping through a fence hole are very vulnerable to fox snares and birds such 
as capercaillie  (Tetrao urogallus) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) have also 
been caught (MacNally, 1992).

However, it is possible by good practice to minimise capture and death of 
non-target species. Leg captures of sheep and deer can be prevented by using a 
'jump bar' over the snare. 'Stopped' snares which cannot close past a minimum 
circumference set by the stop (about 19 cm/7.5 in) will prevent leg captures and 
death of some species by strangulation due to neck capture. Setting snares away 
from obstructions such as fences which allow entanglement or on runners which 
hold the animal in the open also help to minimise suffering until the snare is 
visited.

The most important rule, and a legal requirement, in the use of the snare is to 
visit them at least once every 24 hours. Common practice in many upland areas is 
to set a series of snares on fox runs, often at fences. In many cases these are 
never checked.  Infrequent inspections cause prolonged suffering of trapped 
animals. Therefore, many argue that snares should be banned (MacNally, 1992). 
Others suggest that removal of snaring as a legal method of fox control might 
lead to an increase in illegal methods such as poisoning, which is even less 
species specific than snaring (Cadbury, 1991; Fletcher  et al., 1991).

In countries where leg-hold traps are legal, techniques have been developed to 
increase their selectivity and reduce injuries (Travaini et al., 1996).
Cage trapping of foxes has been effectively employed in some urban areas (R. 
Brand-Hardy, MAFF, personal communication).

Electric fences
Electric fences can be effective for vulnerable domestic or wild animals if they 
are concentrated in a small area\plain\f4\fs18 , but this control method is 
rarely completely effective particularly when alternative food is short.

In North America electric fences have been successfully used against mammalian 
predators to protect small areas. At Cape Cod, a colony of little terns (Sterna 
albifrons) was protected from red fox predation by a three-strand electric fence 
although at high cost and labour requirement (Minsky, 1980). In North Dakota 
predation on piping plover (Charadrius melodus) by a range of predators, 
including fox, was reduced by protecting nests with a net fence which had three 
electrified strands attached to it (Mayer and Ryan, 1991). However, other 
American reports are more equivocal about excluding foxes and other predators 
from bird breeding colonies with fences, electrified or conventional (Burkett, 
et al., 1990; Lokemoen and Woodward, 1990). While in certain circumstances, such 
as across a peninsula neck, electric fencing can be effective, American wildlife 
biologists are pessimistic about the prospect of generally excluding predators 
in this way (J. Reynolds, Game Conservancy Trust, personal communication).

The British experience is similar. At Rye harbour nature reserve in southern 
England electric fencing is reported as inadequate to protect a colony of little 
terns from fox predation, although some foxes were excluded. Increased 
incursions, following reduced killing of predators on a neighbouring estate, 
prompted the fence specification to be increased to 1.5 m high with 13 wires, 
alternate wires being live and earthed. Some foxes were still getting through 
this fence (B. J. Yates, Reserve Warden, personal communication). At Scolt Head 
Island, Norfolk, foxes did not cross an electric fence separating a colony of 
Sandwich tems (S. sandvicensis) from the rest of the island (Musgrave, 1993). 
However there was obviously little pressure on the foxes to persevere with fence 
crossing in order to gain access to the colony as they easily found their way 
around the ends of the fence at low tide.

The Game Conservancy Trust recommends reinforcement of pheasant release pen 
fences with one to three electrified wires to protect poults from foxes, mink  
(Mustela vison) and domestic  pets  (McCall,  1985;  Game Conservancy, 1991). 
Controlled experiments have not been undertaken but a reduction in predation has 
been noted when electrified wires are added.
 
Gassing
Gassing foxes in their dens with cyanide-producing powder was a practice which 
became widespread after the gin trap was outlawed in Great Britain (England and 
Wales in 1958, Scotland in 1972). Following the introduction of the Control of 
Pesticides Act of 1986 there are now no products approved for such use. Although 
gassing previously offered a potentially quick and humane method of killing 
animals (Lloyd, 1980) there can be practical difficulties which can reduce its 
effectiveness and humaneness. Problems were highlighted during licensed gassing 
of badgers when attempts were made to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis. 
Difficulties include administering lethally high concentrations of gas to 
animals lying in deep dead-end sets or dens, the porous nature of some soils 
that allows gas to escape, and the hazardous nature of the gas to operators (H. 
W. Pepper, Forest Research, personal communication).

Poisoning
It is illegal to lay poison baits for foxes, or any other predator, in Great 
Britain. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Animals 
(Scotland) Act 1912 prohibit the placing of poisonous matter on any land or 
building in Great Britain. The Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962 empowers the 
Secretary of State to restrict the use of poisons for destroying wild animals of 
any description stated. In Northern Ireland the situation is slightly different 
as the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 permits the laying of 
poison baits for foxes under licence, but there are many restrictions such as 
the need to inform the police and erect warning notices. Although there is still 
no general ban on the use of poisonous substances for predator control in 
Northern Ireland, it became illegal to supply strychnine for killing foxes in 
June 1992 and further efforts are being made to stop their use altogether (J. 
Milburne, DANI, personal communication).

The abuse of poisons occurs in Great Britain. Foxes, corvids and raptors are the 
main targets of illegal poisoned baits (Johnson, 1996; Cadbury, 1991; Fletcher 
et al., 1991). During 1979-89, 164 fox poisoning incidents were reported 
(Cadbury, 1991), and 55 were reported between 1990 and 1994 (Johnson, 1996). 
Reported incidents are likely to represent a small proportion of the total kill 
as detection is difficult. Cadbury (1991) indicated that poisoning occurred 
throughout the UK in areas where pheasants were reared and in the uplands where 
there are grouse moors and sheep-rearing. It occurred throughout the year but 
there was a marked increase in incidents during the spring immediately prior to 
the game-bird breeding and lambing. \plain\f4\fs18 Thirty-five different poisons 
were involved, the three most common being alphachloralose, mevinphos and 
strychnine. To tackle the abuse of pesticides, in March 1991 agriculture 
departments in Britain launched a long-term Campaign Against the Illegal 
Poisoning of Animals. The campaign aims to change the attitudes of the small 
minority who abuse pesticides, to publicise the problem, to improve reporting of 
incidents and also publicise legal methods of predator control for those with 
genuine pest control problems.

 In Australia, where poisoning is legal, the use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) 
has risen significantly since the mid 1980s despite much of the literature 
indicating that foxes are an insignificant agricultural problem (Thompson and 
Fleming, 1994). Thompson and Fleming (1994) found a 66 to 73% reduction in fox 
density after professional use of poisoned bait. However, they questioned the 
effectiveness of this technique for protection of sheep flocks when used on a 
small scale and concluded that either continuous control over small areas 
throughout the lambing period or collaborative large-scale campaigns may be 
required to offer maximum protection.

Conclusion

Foxes are effective generalist predators exploiting virtually all of mainland 
Britain In rural areas fox densities tend to be highest in landscape mosaics of 
woodland and agricultural land, particularly where the supply of the food 
staples (rabbits, field voles and carrion) are abundant. Afforestation in the 
uplands has increased habitat diversity and contributed to increasing fox 
densities.

While the largest forest areas may contain entire fox ranges, most foxes range 
between forests and adjacent agricultural land, usually within an area of 
several hundred hectares. Foxes are opportunist feeders and will take lambs and 
game-birds. However, this tends to be a trait only of certain individuals in a 
population, often when feeding cubs, which can nonetheless exploit these food 
resources heavily. Foxes can also have a significant impact on vulnerable scarce 
species, particularly ground-nesting birds.

Annual recruitment to fox populations greatly exceeds the number required to 
replace adult mortality, and juvenile foxes readily disperse considerable 
distances. Efforts to reduce overall fox population density over large areas are 
therefore unlikely to be successful despite the considerable time and expense. A 
targeted fox control strategy is more effective, with foxes being killed in 
response to specific negative impacts at the time when, and in the locality 
where, the impacts are occurring. Where feasible, night shooting with a rifle 
and spotlight is the preferred method of killing foxes.

6.5 Articles on the Bateson Report
----------------------------------
6.5.1 Nature Article on the Bateson Report
------------------------------------------
Hunt supporters have often maintained that a deer being chased suffers no more 
than a human marathon runner or a horse, but this quite clearly isn't the case.
In particular, humans and horses aren't running for their lives - "cortisol 
release during exercise is rarely maximal unless psychological stress is also 
involved". (thanks to Paul Kennedy)

From Nature, vol. 391, 1 January 1998.
news and views

Animal welfare: The physiology of the hunted deer
Georgia Mason

In the summer of 1997 one of Britain's largest landowners, the National Trust, 
banned the hunting of deer with hounds on its land. The decision, which caused a 
wave of protest from hunt-supporters, was based on a two-year study by Patrick 
Bateson and Elizabeth Bradshaw of how hunting affects the biology of red deer.
Late last month, the physiological data from the study were published [1], 
allowing scrutiny of the science behind the debate. They show that the effects 
of extended pursuits are severe - disruption of muscle tissue, the exhaustion of 
glycogen reserves, maximally high levels of cortisol and the breakdown of red 
blood cells. That being hunted with dogs causes stress is scarcely surprising. 
But these data reveal just how poorly adapted red deer are to predation by 
sustained pursuit; they also come at a time when moves to outlaw fox-hunting
throughout Britain are gathering momentum. Few would argue against the view that 
red deer populations need managing. But culling deer by hunting them with 
hounds, the hunters sometimes being mounted, sometimes on foot, is highly 
controversial (the deer are chased, and when captured are shot). Bateson's remit 
was to evaluate scientifically the suffering this causes [2]. But what
data can be used to address the question? Strictly speaking, the 'other minds' 
problem makes it impossible to tell the feelings of another animal, even a 
fellow human being [3]. But human emotions are usually accompanied by changes in 
behaviour and physiology - raised heart rates, sweaty palms, wincing, and so on 
- and it is this sort of correlate that allows inferences about the mental 
states of other species to be made [4].

In practical terms, two complementary approaches are taken. One is to compare 
the behaviour and physiology of the animals under study with animals exposed to 
hunger, electric shocks, illness, injury and the like - experiences that are 
assumed to be unpleasant or already deemed unacceptable by society. The other is 
to use the biological changes that occur in humans feeling fear, anxiety or 
pain, and to look for them in animals. Such changes include depressed immunity; 
gastric ulceration and altered functioning of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal 
system, which is responsible for secreting cortico-steroid hormones (cortisol, 
for example). Bateson and Bradshaw [1] collected blood and muscle samples from 
64 deer hunted over the course of a year. They also sampled 50 deer that had 
been stalked and cleanly shot with rifles. And in a part of the study not 
published here, they examined eight seriously injured deer which had, for 
instance, been hit by cars [2]. These provided cases of suffering deemed 
‘unacceptable’, because deer found in this state are generally euthanized as 
quickly as possible. The physiological differences between hunted deer and those 
that were simply shot proved to be enormous. Not surprisingly, one difference
was in the mobilization of fuel needed for physical exercise. For example, all 
hunted deer showed a rise in plasma glucose, followed by a fall to below 
baseline levels as stored carbohydrates were depleted. Muscle samples further 
revealed the extent of carbohydrate depletion: acidity levels declined the 
longer the hunt had gone on, showing that glycogen (which after death is 
converted to lactic acid [5]) had similarly declined. Indeed, in leg muscles, 
asymptotic levels of alkalinity were reached in any hunt that lasted longer than 
three hours.

From these data, the authors argue that, in at least a quarter of hunts that 
lead to a kill, carbohydrate reserves are at an absolute minimum, and that this 
is responsible for the animals’ state of seeming exhaustion when they are 
captured. Hunted deer also had levels of cortisol 70 times those of shot 
animals, along with tenfold increases in both haem, the pigment released by 
damaged red blood cells, and two enzymes ordinarily at high levels only in 
striated muscle: creatine kinase and a form of lactate dehydrogenase. So what 
does all this reveal about welfare? The interpretation of high cortisol 
concentrations, which are commonly taken to indicate stress, is complicated by 
the hormone’s biological function (promotion of fuel mobilization when large 
amounts are needed [4]). But cortisol release during exercise is rarely maximal 
unless psychological stress is also involved [6]. The values reported here 
resemble the maximum seen in studies of the response of red deer to experimental 
administration of adrenocorticotrophic hormone. They are also higher than those 
seen in deer being transported by lorry for slaughter at abattoirs [7,8], and
similar to those in the badly injured deer. The release of creatine kinase from 
leaky myofibrils is common in humans doing physical exercise, but high levels 
can be taken to be a manifestation of actual pathology. In this study, 6.6 per 
cent of the deer had kinase levels greater than those indicating muscle damage 
in exercising horses [9]. High levels of this and lactate dehydrogenase are also 
symptomatic of a state called ‘capture myopathy’, in which acutely stressed 
animals become reluctant to move, hyperthermic and may die [10,11]. Bateson and 
Bradshaw did not find the extreme acidosis often reported for wild ungulates 
(zebra and wildebeest, for example) which die after capture [11]. But from the 
high levels of myofibril enzyme leakage, and the escape of haem from red blood 
cells (which might reflect hyperthermia), and from studies of white-tailed
deer [12], the authors argue that some 8 per cent of red deer that escape the 
hunt may later die [1,2].

Apart from what it tells us about hunted deer, Bateson and Bradshaw’s paper 
provides a model for investigations into the welfare consequences of other 
traditional British country sports, such as fox-hunting and hare-coursing (and, 
more internationally, big-game fishing, bull-fighting and bull-running). The 
stress physiology of any scientist bold enough to enter these highly emotional 
and political arenas would also make for a revealing study.

Georgia Mason is in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,
South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK..

1. Bateson, P. & Bradshaw, E. L. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1-8 1997.
2. Bateson, P. The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of  Culling
Red Deer (National Trust, London, 1997).
3. Warburton, N. Philosophy - The Basics (Routledge, London, 1992).
4. Mason, G. J. & Mendl, M. T. Anim. Welf. 2, 301-320 (1993).
5. Warriss, P. D., Bevis, E. A. & Elkins, P. J. Br. Vet. J. 145, 378-383 (1989).
6. Mason, J. W. J. Psychiat. Res. 8, 323-333 (1971).
7. Goddard, P. J.  et al. Can. J. Zool. 72, 1872-1880 (1994).
8. Carragher, J. F., Ingram, J. R. & Matthews, L. R.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 
51, 143-158 (1997).
9. Volfinger, L., Lassourd, V., Michaux, J. M., Braun, J. P. & Toutain, P. L. 
Am. J. Physiol. 266, R434-R441 (1994).
10. McAllum, H. J. F.  R. Soc. N. Z. Bull. 22, 65-72 (1985).
11. Harthoorn, A. M., Van der Walt, K. & Young, E. Nature 247, 577 (1974).
12. Beringer, J., Hansen, L. P., Wilding, W., Fischer, J. & Schiff, S. L.,  J. 
Wildl. Mgmt 60, 373-380 (1996).

6.5.2 Bateson and Wise Letter on the Bateson Report
---------------------------------------------------
(note: Douglas Wise is one of Bateson's sternest critics. Also this letter does 
not invalidate the Bateson report but suggests areas were more research could be 
done in order to improve on it.)
From 'The Veterinary Record', January 24, 1998

Welfare of hunted red deer

SIR, - One of us is the author of a report on the welfare aspects of
culling red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Bateson 1997) and the other has sharply
criticised that report (Wise 1997), Even though the first part of the
science on which the Bateson report was based has  now  been  published 
(Bateson and Bradshaw 1997), neither of us believes that any one study
should' be regarded as definitive, particularly when it was the first
attempt to solve a particular problem.
The approach used in the Bateson report was multipronged and attempted to
solve a number of different issues that bear on the welfare of hunted red
deer. The judgments of the report were that: (a) the concentrations of
hormones associated with high levels of physiological and psychological
stress in humans were found in hunted deer; (b) the blood and muscles of
deer were damaged by hunting; (c) the deer's evolutionary and individual
history had not prepared it for being chased by hounds; and (d) the hunted
deer did not differ from  those that had been severely injured on measures
that allowed comparison.
 The critics of the report acknowledge that the welfare of hunted deer is
compromised at the ends of successful hunts, but they believe that the
Bateson report exaggerated the duration and degree of adverse welfare. They
consider that hunting deer with hounds is just as humane a method of
culling as is stalking, given that some wounding occurs, and is  in the
interests of the deer from a conservation perspective on Exmoor. However,
the critics do concede that, if hunted deer escape with severe muscle
injury and haemolysis sufficient to cause kidney damage, their  criticisms
would not be sustainable.
Plans are now being laid for extending the research in question and we felt
that it would be worthwhile pointing to the areas in which fresh
information might either strengthen or alter some of the judgments made in
the Bateson report. Clarification in the following areas would be helpful:

(1)     The evidence presented in the Bateson report suggested that some deer
escaping after a hunt might suffer from muscle damage and a small
proportion of these might have died from myopathy. However, release of
muscle enzymes into the bloodstream  might have represented increased
permeability of muscles rather than actual damage. While minor muscle
'damage commonly 'occurs in human  and  non-human  athletes,  it quickly
heals and is not regarded as a welfare problem. Further work showing
whether or not substantial damage to skeletal muscle occurs during hunting
is, therefore, important.
(2)      The evidence also suggested that red blood cells broke up at the
beginning of the hunts in most red deer. However, escaping deer may recover
rapidly. Haemolysis may not represent as severe a welfare problem as was
originally supposed. If protein from red blood cells (and/or muscle) is
released into the plasma in substantial quantities, the kidneys might be
damaged. Therefore, analysis of hunted deer that escape and are
subsequently killed one to three days later is also important . This study
would have the added value that it would contribute further information on
deaths that might or might not occur in the first few days after escape.

Some or all of the conclusions of the Bateson report may be qualified by
future research. While both of us welcome further work that may clear up
ambiguities in the first study, neither of us supposes that just because it
is possible to suggest alternative interpretations to those that were or
originally proposed, these alternatives are necessarily correct. Moreover,
we both appreciate that the next round of research will have to be
carefully designed and monitored to avoid charges of bias.


Patrick Bateson, Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour, University of Cambridge
Douglas Wise, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of
Cambridge

References
BATESON, P. (1997) The behavioural and physiological effects of culling red
deer. London, The National Trust
BATESON, P. & BRADSHAW, E. L. (1997) Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 264, 1
WISE, D. (1997) Hunting 5, 58

6.5.3 Bateson's letter to The Times, 6 Feb 1998
-----------------------------------------------
From Professor Patrick Bateson, FRS

Sir, May I clarify the purpose of the joint letter, signed by myself
and Dr Douglas Wise, to the 'Veterinary Record' on the welfare of
hunted red deer (report, January 24)?

Dr Wise and I sought to identify further scientific research that
might help clear up some differences of opinion between us following
my report to the National Trust last April on the effect of hunting
red deer with hounds.

If new research demonstrates that hunting deer causes serious muscle
or kidney damage to deer that escape, then the criticisms of my
conclusions in the report to the National Trust would not be
sustainable. What was not said in the letter, but I shall state
publicly now, is that if the new research failed to demonstrate any
adverse effects on red deer, such findings could be open to numerous
alternative explanations; for example, the sample size might have been
inadequate or the hunts might have been less intense than usual. That
is not to say that nothing would change my mind, but merely that
proving a negative is always difficult.

I stand by the conclusions in my report that stag-hunting causes
considerable suffering.

Yours Sincerely

Patrick Bateson
The Provosts Lodge
Kings College, Cambridge CB3 1ST
ppgb@cus.cam.ac.uk
February 2

6.6 Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill
-----------------------------------------
This is the text of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, as presented to 
the House of Commons on 18 June 1997.
ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES:                       
1.Offences.
2.Powers of arrest, search and seizure.
3.Penalties.
4.Forfeiture and disqualification orders.
5.Meaning of "hunt".
6.Interpretation.
7.Citation, consequential amendments, repeals, commencement and extent. 
                      
 
                                                               
                                                               
                                                              A 

                                                          B I L L 

                                                             TO 

Make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being pursued, killed or
injured by the use of dogs; 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:- 
                          
Offences.
    1. - (1) Any person who uses, causes or permits any dog to hunt any wild 
mammal shall be guilty of an offence.
                          
         (2) Any person who in the course of hunting uses, causes or permits any 
dog to enter any structure or place, whether subterranean or not, used or likely 
to be used by any wild mammal for shelter or protection shall be guilty of an 
offence.
                          
         (3) Any person who being an owner or occupier of land, causes or 
permits any person to enter upon or use that land to hunt with a dog any wild 
mammal shall be guilty of an offence.                         
    
         (4) Any person who being the owner or keeper of a dog permits any other
person to use, cause or permit that dog to hunt any wild mammal shall be guilty
of an offence.
                          
         (5) Any person who owns, uses or controls a pack of dogs for the 
purposes of hunting shall be guilty of an offence.
                          
Powers of arrest, search and seizure.
    2. - (1) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has 
reasonable grounds for suspecting is about to commit, is committing, or has 
committed an offence under this Act.
                          
         (2) If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person is 
committing or has committed an offence under this Act the constable may without 
warrant- 
            (a) stop and search that person if the constable suspects with 
reasonable cause that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found 
on that person;

            (b) search or examine any vehicle, animal or article which that 
person may have with him if the constable suspects with reasonable cause that 
evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found on that vehicle, animal 
or article;

            (c) seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act 
any vehicle, animal or article which may be evidence of the commission of the
offence or may be liable to be forfeited under section 4.

    
         (3) For the purposes of exercising the powers conferred by subsections 
(1) and (2) a constable may enter any land including any building not being a 
dwelling house.
                          
Penalties.
    3. - (1) 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 to 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.
                          
         (2) Where an offence under section 1 of this Act is committed in 
respect of more than one wild mammal the maximum fine which may be imposed under
 subsection (1) shall be determined as if the person convicted was convicted of 
a separate offence in respect of each wild mammal.
                          
    
         (3) Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is 
proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director,
manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person
who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate
is guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished 
accordingly.
                          
         (4) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members,
subsection (3) shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in
connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the
body corporate.
                          
Forfeiture and disqualification orders.
    4. - (1) The court by which a person is convicted of an offence under this 
Act may, in addition to any other penalty- 
                          
             (a) order the forfeiture of any vehicle, animal or article which 
was used in connection with the commission of the offence or which was capable 
of  being so used and which was found in his possession; and

             (b) disqualify the offender, for such period as it thinks fit, from 
having custody of a dog and make such other orders with respect to the disposal
of the dog as the court thinks fit under the circumstances.

         (2) Where the court makes an order under subsection (1)(b) above, it 
may- 
                          
             (a) appoint a person to undertake the disposal of the dog and 
require any person having custody of the dog to deliver it up for that purpose; 
and

             (b) order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine 
to be reasonable expenses of disposing of the dog and of keeping it pending its
disposal.

          (3) A person who- 
                          
              (a) has custody of a dog in contravention of an order under 
subsection (1)(b); or

              (b) fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under 
subsection (2); shall be guilty of an offence.
                          
         (4) Where an order is made under subsection (1)(b) in relation to a dog 
owned by a person other than the offender the owner may appeal to the Crown 
Court  or, in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary, against the order.
                          
         (5) A person who is disqualified from having custody of a dog by virtue 
of an  order made under subsection (1)(b) may, at any time after the end of the 
period of one year beginning with the date of the order, apply to the court 
which made the order (or, in England and Wales, any magistrates' court in the 
same petty sessional area) for a direction terminating the disqualification from 
such date as the court considers appropriate.
                          
         (6) On an application under subsection (5) the court may- 
                          
              (a) having regard to the applicant's character, his conduct since 
the disqualification was imposed and any other circumstances of the case, grant 
or refuse the application; and

              (b) order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs of the 
application; and where an application in respect of an order is refused no 
further application in respect of that order shall be entertained if made before 
the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the refusal.
                          
Meaning of "hunt".
    5. - (1) In this Act "hunt" means intentionally to course, search for, 
chase, pursue, harry, bait, attack, injure, or kill any wild mammal (whether or 
not injury or death is caused by a dog) and "hunting" shall be construed 
accordingly.
                          
         (2) The definition in subsection (1) does not extend to- 
                          
              (a) an owner or occupier of land using, causing or permitting any 
dog to hunt any wild rabbit or wild rodent on that land;

              (b) the defence of any person or captive or domestic animal under
immediate attack by a wild mammal;

              (c) the flushing out of a wild mammal from cover on or above 
ground to be immediately and lawfully shot for the purpose of the necessary
management and control of the wild mammal or wild mammals of that species;

              (d) the use by a person of a single dog under his close control to 
track, locate or retrieve any wild mammal which is seriously disabled as a 
result of either- 

                  (i) any lawful activity, or

                  (ii) any unlawful activity to which he was not a party the 
burden of proof of which shall lie upon him, provided there is no reasonable 
alternative and he intends to relieve the suffering of the wild mammal; or

              (e) a draghunt in the course of which a dog inadvertently chases, 
attacks, injures or kills a wild mammal provided that the draghunt is registered 
with a body whose objects and rules expressly forbid its members from using dogs 
for any purpose other than a draghunt.

Interpretation.
   6. In this Act- 
"captive animals" and "domestic animals" have the meaning given in the  
Protection of Animals Act 1911;

"draghunt" means a pursuit in which a person or persons together with a pack of 
dogs follows a man made or man laid scent and which does not involve the hunting 
of a wild mammal;

"occupier" includes any person who has control of land or is the agent of any 
such person;

    
"owner" means any person who has an interest in land including a licensee or the 
agent of any such person but does not include- 

     (a) a mortgagee not in possession; or

    
     (b) in relation to land in Scotland, a creditor in a heritable security not 
in possession of the security subjects; "pack of dogs" means two or more dogs 
hired owned or controlled for the purposes of a draghunt or for hunting wild 
mammals other than wild rabbits and wild rodents; and "wild mammal" means any 
mammal which is living free or is feral or which has been released or escaped 
from captivity.

Citation, consequential amendments, repeals, commencement and extent.
   7. - (1) This Act may be cited as the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Act 
1998.
     
     (2) The enactments specified in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect 	
subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule being amendments 
consequential on the provisions of this Act and the enactments specified in 
Schedule 2 are repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that 
Schedule.
                          
    
     (3) This Act shall come into force with the expiration of the period of two 
months beginning with its passing.
                          
     (4) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
     
6.7 Halcombe Harrier Autopsy Report                          
-----------------------------------

On 18th November 1996, I performed a post mortem on a fox which had died on
16th November 1996. The fox had been frozen since 16th November.

The fox was an adult female. From her dentition it was likely that she was a
middle aged or older fox. A canine tooth and several incisors had been
missing for some time. Her teeth were mildly discoloured, and several were
fractured.

The fox’s general body condition was moderate. Her hair coat was intact with
no gross signs of sarcoptic mange. There was a recent open fracture of the
proximal tibia and tibula, and an older fracture of the distal tibia and
fibula of the right hind limb. The fracture of the distal tibia had healed
which would have prevented any significant weight bearing on the right hind
leg.

Clipping of the hair coat from the lateral and ventral chest and abdomen,
hind legs and neck revealed approximately thirty five puncture wounds. The
puncture wounds were most severe over the right medial thigh area.

There was extensive haemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue of the ventral
abdomen and abdominal wall muscles. A puncture wound extending through the
left abdominal wall into the abdomen was plugged by adherent omental tissue.

The stomach and small intestine appeared empty. The distal colon contained
several faeces.

There was severe haemorrhage in the right sublumbar area. The right kidney
was displaced ventromedially and the right renal artery and vein were
ruptured. The right sublumbar muscles were severely damaged and lateral
processes of the lumbar vertebrae were exposed.

There was a puncture wound in the right lateral thoractic wall into the
thoractic cavity. A small amount of free blood was in the thoractic cavity.
There was no evident pneumothroax.

In conclusion, there were extensive puncture wounds on the fox’s body
consistent with multiple bite wounds. These included puncture wounds into the
thoractic and abdominal cavities. The fracture of the proximal tibia may have
been caused by bites wounds or some other trauma. The injury to the right
sublumbar area was severe, and was most likely to have been the cause of
death. There were no visible external wounds corresponding to the sublumbar
injury, so this must have been caused by some form of major blunt trauma.

With multiple puncture wounds,  thoractic and abdominal injuries, sublumbar
injury and a fractured tibia, the fox would have been suffering severely
until she received veterinary treatment.

Signed: Ivan Holmes BVSc MRCVS  20/11/96

6.8 Times Article on the Health of Racing Horses
------------------------------------------------
Racing gives top horses lung bleeds 
by Jonathan Leake and Rajeev Syal 
4th May 1998

RACEHORSES are suffering from ruptured lungs and nosebleeds because of the 
physical strain of racing, an investigation by leading veterinary scientists has 
concluded. 

The research, which will be seized on by animal welfare campaigners as further 
evidence of cruelty in the sport, has found half of racehorses are suffering 
from multiple lung haemorrhages caused by racing. 

In a study that could have serious implications for Britain's £12 billion racing 
industry, including highlights of the racing calender such as the Epsom Derby, 
Royal Ascot, Glorious Goodwood and the Grand National at Aintree, the 
researchers propose changes in the way horses are trained and raced. These 
include rubber horseshoes to cushion landings and uphill courses to shift weight 
onto hind legs, so reducing the impact of galloping on their chests. 

Bob Schroter, a professor of physiology at Imperial College, London, who led the 
research, said the findings demanded a rethink of racing: "This is of major 
welfare and economic importance worldwide." 

Schroter and David Marlin, of the Animal Health Trust, studied data on 2,000
animals to discover why horses bleed during exercise. The phenomenon has been 
attributed to high blood pressure but the study found that the injuries were 
probably caused by the physical stress of racing. 

The scientists found that when a horse's hooves hit the ground the impact sends 
a shockwave through the legs to the front of the chest and through the lungs. 
The shockwave goes through the back and top of the lungs and intensifies as the 
organ tapers. The result is a fracture of capillaries leading to bleeding. 

The scientists found that more than half the racehorses they examined suffered
from bleeding; the proportion suffering rose if an animal was older - more than 
80% of four-year-olds had blood in their throats. 

One of the first signs that a horse has suffered a major rupture of a blood 
vessel during a race is when it pulls up. After the race a mixture of blood and 
mucus may be seen from its nose. The report found that up to 1 in 50 animals 
suffer from such nosebleeds. 

The traditional explanation that the bleeding is caused by blood pressure is
discounted by Schroter and Marlin who found most of the bleeding at the top of a
horse's lungs - high blood pressure would cause ruptures at the bottom. Marlin 
said last week that race organisers could change the sport to ensure that horses
bleed less. 

"If our theory is confirmed we hope it will be incorporated into the way 
racetracks are designed, how horses are best trained and what can be done to 
alleviate the condition," Marlin said. 

Leading veterinarians said the report suggested that racing could induce 
suffering in horses. James Allcock, a former member of the RSPCA's ruling
council, said: "Ruptures to the lungs can be very serious and can lead to 
long-term damage." 

Animal welfare organisations called for an investigation to make sure animals 
are not suffering from ruptured lungs. A spokesman for the League Against Cruel
Sports said the rules of horseracing should be changed to ensure the minimum 
number of horse casualties from bleeding. 

But leading figures from the racing world claimed that horses do not suffer. 
Jenny Pitman, the trainer known as the queen of Aintree because she has trained 
two Grand National winners, said she has often had horses that have burst blood 
vessels but believes it does them little harm as long as they are frequently 
examined. "Most good horses will have a bleed on them at some point and I will 
not worry if a horse of mine bleeds as long as it is not too often," she said. 

Willie Carson, the former champion jockey, said that horses are not harmed by
ruptured lungs. "Horses have beenbleeding since racing began, and it's a result 
of trying to win and straining themselves. This is just some rubbish theory to 
have a go at racing when we all know that if the occasional horse bleeds it is 
because of pressure from the heart." 

Frankie Dettori, the champion jockey who won seven races in one day at Epsom, 
said the report should be looked at. "From a jockey's point of view it is not 
pleasant to see your horse bleed," he said. 

The report comes amid mounting public concern about the safety of racing 
following the death of three horses during last month's Grand National. The 
fatalities were the first since 1989 when the fences were modified after the 
death of Brown Trix at Becher's Brook. 

"I'm worried that horses are being asked to do things that they're not up to 
doing," said Tony Banks, the sports minister, after the race. The Jockey Club, 
which is investigating the deaths, denies that the race was unnecessarily 
dangerous. 

It is estimated that of the 70,000 horses which annually compete in more than 
7,000 races on the flat, over hurdles or fences, about 200 die. 

7 Further Reading
-----------------
i) `Guide 1' Animal Welfare Information Service. Contact Animal Cruelty 
Investigation Group for details.
ii) `The Red Fox publ. by The Mammal Society', ISBN 0-906282-26-8
iii) `Foxes and Forestry' (Technical paper 23) publ by the Forestry
Commission, most of which can also be found in the FAQ.
iv) `Running With the Fox' publ. by Unwin Hyman
v) `The Complete Fox', publ. by Chatto & Windus ISBN 0-7011-3776-2
vi) `The Red Fox' by Stephen Harris and Piran White, publ. by The Mammal
Society ISBN 0-906282-26-8
vii) `Foxwatching - In the Shadow of the Fox', by Martin Hemmington, publ. by
Whittet books, ISBN 1 873580 31 2
viii) `Urban Foxes', publ by Whittet Books, ISBN 0-905483-47-2
ix) `Country Foxes' publ. by Whittet Books, ISBN  1-873580-29-0
x) `Foxes, Wolves and Wild Dogs of the World', publ. by Blandford ISBN
0-7137-2352-1

See also Cris Wallers article for further references to the scientific 
literature.


On captive animals the following articles are useful:

i) Gregory, N.G. and Wilkins, L.J. 1989. Broken bones in chickens, I.
handling and processing damage in end of lay battery hens. British Poultry
Science, 30, 555-562.
   (found that 29% of hens had broken bones by the time they were stunned
at slaughterhouses. One must assume there was also a paper called "Broken
bones in chickens, II." that might be worth checking out)

ii) Warwick, C. 1989. The welfare of reptiles in captivity, in _Proceedings of
the First World Congress in Herpetology, Health and Disease, Canterbury.
   (found that tortoises which can live for over 20 years in the wild have
an average life expectancy of only 2 years in captivity)

iii) Agger, J.F. 1983. Production disease and mortality in dairy cows; analysis
of records from disposed plants from 1969-1982, in _Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals,
Uppsala, pp. 308-311.
   (found that the life of dairy cows in Denmark was cut in half between
1960 and 1982)

Articles Regarding the link between violence and child abusea with animal abuse: 
from Ione Smith's website http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/abuse.html



1. Arkow, P.: The correlations between cruelty to animals and child abuse and 
the implications for veterinary
medicine.  Canadian Veterinary Journal., 33: 518-521 (1992). 

2. Arkow, P.: Child abuse, animal abuse and the veterinarian.  Journal of the 
American Veterinary Medical
Association, 204: 1004-1007 (1994). 

3. Arkow, P.: Breaking the cycles of violence:  a practical guide.  Published by 
the Latham Foundation, Latham
Plaza Building, Clement and Schiller Streets, Alameda, CA  94501 (1995). 

4. Arkow, P. and F.R. Ascione: Links between child abuse, animal abuse and 
domestic violence.  Latham
Foundation, Alameda, CA, in preparation (1997). 

5. Arluke, A. and B. Sax: Understanding nazi animal protection and the 
holocaust.  Anthrozoos, 5(1): 6-31 (    ). 

6. Ascione, F.R.: Research Review.  in C. Moulton, M.E. Kaufmann, and J. Filip 
(Eds.): Report on the summit on
violence towards children and animals.  American humane Association, Englewood, 
Colorado, (1992).  Reprinted
in Protecting Children 9 (8-9): 30-31 (1992). 

7. Ascione, F.R.: Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of 
animals: generalization to
human-directed empathy.  Anthrozoos, 5: 176-191 (1992). 

8. Ascione, R.r.: Children who are cruel to animals: a review of research and 
implications for developmental
psychopathology.  Anthrozoos, 6: 226-247 (1993). 

9. Ascione, F.R.: Humane education research: evaluation efforts to encourage 
children's kindness and caring
toward animals.  Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123 (1): 
57-77 (1993). 

10. Ascione, F.R.: Battered women's reports of their partners' and their 
children's cruelty to animals.  Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 1 (In press) (1997). 

11. Ascione, F.R., T.M. Thompson, and T. Black: Childhood cruelty to animals: 
assessing cruelty dimensions and
motivations.  Anthrozoos, 10 (  ):      (1997). 

12. Beck, A.: Interrelations between people and pets.  Edited by Bruce Fogel.  
C.c. Thomas.  Springfield, Ill(1981). 

13. DeViney,   ,    Dickert and    Lockwood: The care of pets within child 
abusing families.  Int'l J. for Study of
Animal Probs., 4:321-9 (1983). 

 14. Felthous, A. and H. Bernard: Enuresis, fire-setting, and cruelty to 
animals: the significance of two thirds of
this triad.  Journal of Forensic Science, 24: 240-6 (January 1984). 

15. Felthous, A.: Aggression against cats, dogs and people.  Child Psychiatry 
and Human Development, 10:
169-77 (Spring 1980). 

16. Felthous, A.: Childhood antecedents of aggressive behaviors in male 
psychiatric patients.  Bull Am Acad
Psychiatry Law, 8(1): 104-10 (1980). 

17. Felthous, A.: Childhood cruelty to cats, dogs and other animals.  Bull Am 
Acad Psychiatry Law, 9(1): 48-53
(1981). 

18. Felthous, A.: Psychosocial dynamics of child abuse.  Journal Forensic 
Science, 29: 219-36 (January 1984). 

19. Felthous, A.: Violence against animals and people: is aggression against 
living creatures generalized?  Bull
Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 14(1): 55-69 (1986. 

20. Felthous, A. and S. Kellert: Childhood cruelty to animals and later 
aggression against people: a review. 
American Journal of Psychiatry, 144: 710-717 (1987). 

21. Hellman, D.S. and N. Blackman: Enuresis, fire-setting and cruelty to 
animals: a triad predictive of adult
crime.  American Journal of Psychiatry, 122: 1431-1435 (1966). 

22. Hutton, J.: Animal abuse as a diagnostic approach in social work: a pilot 
study.  in: New Perspectives on Our
Lives with Companion Animals. p. 444-447.  Edited by A.H. Katcher and A.M. Beck. 
 University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia (1983). 

23. Kellert, S. and A. Felthous: Childhood cruelty toward animals among 
criminals and noncriminals.  Human
Relations, 38: 1113-1129 (1985). 

24. Kempe, C.H., Et Al.: the battered child syndrome.  Journal of the American 
Medical Association, 181: 17-24
(1962). 

25. Lockwood, R.: The tangled web of animal abuse: the links between cruelty to 
animals and human violence. 
Humane Society News, Summer 1986, 10-15. 

26. Lockwood, R.: Cruelty to animals and human violence.  International 
Association of Chiefs of Police,
Training Key #392, Arlington, VA (1989). 

27. Lockwood, R. and F.R. Ascione, eds.: Cruelty to animals and interpersonal 
violence.  Purdue University Press,
West Lafayete, IN (1998). 

 28. Lynch, M.A.: Child abuse before Kempe: a historical review.  Child Abuse 
and Neglect 9: 7-15 (1985). 

29. Ressler,   ,    Burgess and    Douglas: Sexual homicide: patterns and 
motives.  Lexington Books, Lexington, MA
(1988). 

30. Rigdon, J. and F. Tapia: Children who are cruel to animals - a follow-up 
study.  Journal of Operational
Psychology, 8: 27-36 (1977). 

31. Siino, B.S.: A shared cry: the abuse of animals is the first step toward the 
abuse of children.  Dog Fancy,
August 1994, 47-51. 

32. Speight, N.: Non-accidental injury.  In R. Meadows, Ecl.: ABC of Child 
Abuse,    ,       . 

33. Tapia, F.: Children who are cruel to animals.  Child Psychiatry and Human 
Development, 2: 70-77 (1971). 

34. Tingle, et al.: Childhood and adolescent characteristics of pedophiles and 
rapists.  Int'l J. of Law and
Psychiatry, 9: 103-16 (1986). 

35. Walker, J.R.: A study on the relationship of child abuse and pet abuse.  
University of Pennsylvania School of
Social Work, Philadelphia, PA: (unpublished professional project) (1980). 

36. Wax, D.E. and V.G. Haddox: Enuresis, fire-setting and animal cruelty: a 
useful danger signal in predicting
vulnerability of adolescent males to assaultive behavior.  Child Psychiatry and 
Human Development, 14:
1512-156 (1974). 

37. White, K. and K. Shapiro: The culture of violence: the animal connection.  
The Animals' Agenda, (March/April
1994) 18-23. 

38. Yudowitz: Approaching a comparative typology of assaultive female offenders. 
 Psychiatry, 40: 270-6 (1977).