| Ballard
– “There is not absolute proof that wounded foxes suffer”
MPs from the Middle
Way Group have reacted angrily to claims by Jackie Ballard, Director General
of the RSPCA, that “There was not absolute proof that wounded foxes
suffer.” Vets have stated that they are “astonished”
by the revelations.
Mrs Ballard’s
claim came in response to the recent publication of the Middle Way Group’s
research, Wounding Rates of Shot Foxes, in the respected scientific journal,
Animal Welfare. This research, which followed a long peer-review process,
showed high wounding rates involved in shooting foxes and has raised serious
doubts over anti-hunting claims that shooting is the humane alternative
to hunting with dogs.
Lembit Öpik
MP, co-chair of the Middle Way Group, said, “ We have seen evidence
from the Burns Enquiry, Portcullis House Hearings and our own shooting
study ignored by the anti-hunting groups. Now we see the world’s
premier animal welfare organisation defying all reason. This is not just
twisting science to suit a case, but also common sense!”
Peter Luff MP,
co-chair of the Middle Way Group, said, “The RSPCA does a lot of
good work in many areas, but as far as wild animal control is concerned
they appear to have a major blind spot. To argue that hunting with dogs,
which has no wounding, is worse than shooting, which inevitably has some
level of wounding, is perverse. I wonder how the ordinary RSPCA member
will view this statement.”
Baroness Golding,
co-chair of the Middle Way Group, said, “This unbelievable statement
brings into question the charitable status of the RSPCA. What is the point
of a charity dedicated to animal welfare if it believes that a wounded
animal does not suffer?”
Dr Lewis Thomas
and David Renney, of Vets for Wildlife Management, said, “The astonishing
statement by the Director General of the RSPCA that there is no absolute
proof that wounded foxes suffer hardly seems worthy of comment. Most people
would assume that an injured fox with a gangrenous wound or a broken leg
as a result of shooting was suffering, and would not seek proof of it.”
Note to Editors:
Full Veterinary Statement from Vets for Wildlife Management is attached
below:
THE
ASTONISHING STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE RSPCA THAT THERE
IS NO ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT WOUNDED FOXES SUFFER HARDLY SEEMS WORTHY OF
COMMENT. Most people would assume that an injured fox with A GANGRENOUS
WOUND OR A BROKEN LEG AS A RESULT OF SHOOTING was suffering, and would
not seek proof of it. If Mrs Ballard does not herself share this assumption,
one wonders why she would see any role for the RSPCA. HAVING SAID THAT
THERE ARE OF COURSE MINOR WOUNDS TO WHICH THE ANIMAL IS ABLE TO ADAPT
BUT THEY CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED.
Strictly
speaking, there is indeed no absolute proof that animals ever suffer from
any experience at all, and in that sense Mrs Ballard is right to say that
"There is not absolute proof that wounded foxes suffer ...".
However, it is an odd and paradoxical statement for the Director General
of the RSPCA to make.
We know
that people suffer, because we all suffer ourselves and we know that other
individuals have the same neuroanatomical and neurophysiological features
as we do. If there is any question about the matter, we can tell each
other that we suffer, describing our common experiences. But the assumption
that animals suffer in the same way as man
is wrong.
We know
that the part of the brain responsible for our consciousness of pain is
also present in animals. However, the part of the brain that, in man,
is responsible for the anguish associated with pain is little, if at all,
developed in animals. Nevertheless, we normally give animals the benefit
of the doubt and assume that, in some sense at least, pain is distressing
to them.
Mrs
Ballard then compounds the paradox of her statement by saying the RSPCA
"errs on the side of caution" and describing a number of experiences
- essentially those of being hunted and killed by hounds - that she says
are likely to cause suffering.
The
experience of being hunted, which Mrs Ballard describes as "long
chases
by a large pack of noisy predators" is most unlikely to cause any
suffering,
because such suffering would require that an animal should form a
preconception of the outcome and should suffer mental distress in association
with it. The part of the brain responsible for such a process in man,
the prefrontal cortex, is virtually absent in animals. That is why it
is not surprising an animal which has escaped a predator should immediately
revert to its normal behaviour without showing any signs of distress.
The
experience of being "bitten or torn to death" as Mrs Ballard
puts it, is almost instantaneous and any pain involved is not comparable
with the lingering pain of a shooting wound. In fact, there is probably
no pain experienced at all, because neurotransmitters produced in the
brain of an animal being pursued would mitigate any pain associated with
the kill - although they would not persist long enough to mitigate the
pain caused by a shooting wound.
|
