WhatsApp being used for betting on illegal hare coursing

Spare a thought for the hares this winter.

Many people get upset at Christmas when the fox hunts put themselves on display to celebrate one of the outdated traditions of the British countryside, but there is another evil traditional “sport” that is gathering pace in the English countryside despite being illegal and that is hare coursing. It has been gaining in popularity over the last few years partly because it now involves black market gambling thanks to modern technology like WhatsApp and organised trophy events.

Somewhere in a field not far from you, (particularly if you live in the eastern counties where the flat landscape makes easy viewing for spectators), there will be a group of people planning or staging an event at this very moment. And it may be streamed nationally on mobile phones via WhatsApp for gambling purposes generating thousands of pounds. Some events even involve trophies such as one called the “Fir Cup” with £6,000 prize money. Owners of prized dogs can earn even more in breeding fees.

Policing illegal hare coursing
Police are unwilling to seize the dogs as they cannot reclaim kennel costs from owners.

Clamping down on illegal hare coursing.

At the beginning of December 2020 there was a debate in the House of Commons on hare coursing which was thankfully well attended, particularly by MP’s from the most affected counties. There was general agreement that the issue needed immediate attention but as always it was a question of what to do. One MP commented that:

“Hare coursing is as far removed from sport as you can possibly get. It is nothing more or less than the cruel use of live hares to train dogs to hunt them down and kill them just to make money”.  Gordon Henderson, Conservative MP, Sittingbourne.

Johnathon Djanogly, MP for Huntingdon, pointed out that farmers have the extreme legal recourse to shoot all the hares on their land to prevent the violence, intimidation and damage caused by being invaded by coursers, but eradicating hares should not be the last resort just because the law cannot be enforced.

This can happen because although hares are included in the UK biodiversity plan they have no protection from being hunted only from being coursed. It is obviously a crazy situation which is not helped by the refusal of the Republic of Ireland to ban hare coursing. Official events akin to horse and greyhound racing still take place involving thousands of live hares.

Clamping down on illegal hare coursing
Thousands of hare involved in hare coursing in Republic of Ireland.

Police powerless and farmers under siege

Hare coursing is one of five priorities of the national wildlife police crime unit, but they are unable to do a great deal because of inadequate and ancient laws. Farmers do their best to barricade their land but the coursers arrive armed with battery powered disc cutters to remove gate padlocks or cut through metal barriers.

The Crown prosecution service admits that:

Hare coursing can cause significant disturbance in the countryside, as well as causing a lot of concern to people living in the wider rural community where the activity takes place.”

The average fine handed out under the Game Act 1831 was £227 between 2014-2018 when the maximum allowable is £1,000 or £2,500 if more than five people are present. MP’s are asking for police powers to make owners pay for kennelling while awaiting trial if their dogs are seized. At the moment the Police cannot reclaim the costs as they can for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and are disinclined to seize the dogs.

It seems that MP’s might at last be sincere in their wish to clamp down on coursing but probably more for the sake of the farmers safety and livelihood than that of the hares, but for whatever reason it will still benefit the hares.

Related Articles:

U.K. cats always lose out at any mention of legal status.

Because lost and stray cats do not pose a public safety risk.

Following the death of her microchipped cat Gizmo in a road accident, whose body was later disposed of by a veterinary surgeon without scanning, the owner began a petition to make it a legal requirement for dead cats to be scanned.

The petition, named Gizmo’s legacy, highlighted the fact that thousands of dead cats are not scanned therefore negating any chance of their fate being made known to grieving owners, many of who search for months or years trying to discover what happened to them. The petition called for a change in the law making it a legal requirement for local authorities and other agencies to scan any dead cats they collected or which were brought to them.

Cats always miss out.

The petition gained over 100,000 signatures and was debated in the UK parliament in 2019. Unfortunately the government did not agree, which is not unusual as it appears they do not rate cats very highly. Time and again whenever laws are considered to control or protect animals it is the cat that always misses out with preference always given to the control and welfare of dogs or livestock.

The government responded that it was unnecessary because local authorities, veterinary practices and rehoming centres are encouraged to do it anyway and they already have scanners because the law requires dogs to be microchipped and scanned. They pointed out that this is done to enable stray dogs to be quickly reunited with owners, but obviously do not feel that cat owners should have the same right. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA):

Whilst microchipping cats is good for their welfare, and it is important to publicise those benefits, lost and stray cats do not pose the same public safety risk as dogs, and therefore making cat microchipping compulsory is not considered necessary at this time. We will continue to work, therefore, with the relevant stakeholders to stress the importance of cat microchipping, and the scanning of stray or lost pets.

The reference to not posing a risk of public safety stems back to the Animals Act 1971 which made owners of livestock and dogs liable for any nuisance or damage but exempted cats allowing cats the freedom to roam. DEFRA also mistakenly pointed out that cats involved in road accidents had to be reported under the driver Highway Code Rule 26 which states drivers must report such incidents involving “animals,” but section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 legally defines animals as livestock, horses and dogs. Cats again miss out.

Number wise cats are just as popular companion pets as dogs and loved just as much by their owners and their deaths grieved just the same so it only seems fair that they should be afforded the same chances of being reunited or to have their owners informed of their deaths to relieve the heartache of their loss. Perhaps it is time for the UK government’s attitude towards cats to change.

Related articles: