If you look up the word “masterful” in the Oxford Dictionary it gives two definitions. The first is “powerful and able to control others” and the second “performed or performing very skillfully”. Since neither definition reflect the Master of Foxhounds Association’s recent performance I’ve been wondering whether the organisation’s title should be reconsidered as part of the “review” it is currently undertaking.
As with many other bodies that promote themselves as keen conservation and animal welfare enthusiasts, the MFHA is undergoing an internal naval-gazing exercise not, as it would like you to think, because it’s a progressive, forward-looking, in-line-with-the-public-mood organisation but because its hand has been forced. It hopes to engage with the likes of Forestry England and other major landowners who have temporarily suspended, or permanently banned, issuing licenses to allow trail-hunting on the land they own. These bans and suspensions have not come about through the MFHA, or its members, coming forward and admitting any shortcomings or, in some cases, wildlife crimes but through the exposure of such activities by the much maligned and underrated Hunt Saboteurs Association and it’s own member groups as well as the League Against Cruel Sports.
The scope of the MFHA review is not known. At least, if it is, I’ve not been able to find any terms of reference or timeframes at all. The review was, of course, largely prompted by the conviction of MFHA Director Mark Hankinson in October for encouraging, and coaching, illegal fox-hunting during a series of webinars in 2019, the contents of which were leaked to the Hunt Saboteurs Association and then ITV News. I’m aware that Hankinson is appealing his conviction and one assumes the MFHA will remain quiet until the result of that appeal is known before presenting itself as an organisation ready and willing to embrace the changes it needs to make to start rebuilding confidence in its tarnished brand.
As if that challenge wasn’t already steep enough, since the Hankinson case the MFHA has suffered two further setbacks of note. The first is November’s raid by the RSPCA and North Wales Police on Cwmbowydd Farm in Blaenau Ffestiniog, home of the Dwyryd Hunt and one David Thomas, the hunt master. A number of dogs were removed from the property during the raid and it was reported that fox and badger remains were discovered along with a live fox which had to be euthanised. David Thomas had been convicted in 2018 of badger-baiting and dog-fighting and sentenced to 22 weeks in prison. He was also banned from keeping dogs for 8 years.
Astonishingly, the MFHA allowed Mr Thomas to remain affiliated despite his 2018 conviction. In fact, he remained affiliated to the MFHA during his time in prison, after his release and was still affiliated when the combined forces of the RSPCA and North Wales Police knocked on his door on the 21st November this year. This was despite Thomas, the registered hunt master of the Dwyryd Hunt, being banned from keeping dogs until at least 2026 and a convicted wildlife criminal.
Publicly, the MFHA has uttered not one word of denouncement about the Thomas case or offered any explanation for his affiliation remaining intact once his 2018 crimes had been revealed and sentence passed. A prosecution is underway following this year’s arrest and it is perhaps understandable that the organisation wants to wait to see if he is now convicted again for keeping dogs unlawfully. Either way, an explanation is overdue as to how the MFHA allowed a convicted criminal to remain an affiliate of its organisation both during and after his prison sentence and why it did not question how a hunt master was operating without his hounds or why he still had them.
Had the MFHA arrived at this realisation itself, perhaps the alleged cruelty perpetrated by Thomas since his release from prison might have been ended sooner. In fact it was the League Against Cruel Sports that contacted the authorities and prompted them to act last month.
The second setback since the Hankinson verdict was the conviction earlier this month of one John Lanyard Sampson of Buryan outside Penzance, Cornwall. Sampson was, and still appears to be, the Master of the Western Hunt, affiliated to the MFHA. He was convicted earlier this month at Truro Magistrates Court under the Dangerous Dogs Act after his hounds attacked and killed a domestic cat on its own front lawn in a residential area last March. Appallingly, Sampson’s son, who was accompanying his father as they exercised the hounds, attempted to hide the crime by throwing the cat’s remains over a nearby fence but was caught on video by an alert neighbour. Even more shockingly, Sampson pleaded not guilty to the charges put before him but was summarily convicted in the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence. I’ve been waiting for a press release from the MFHA expressing its outrage at the actions and behaviours of one of its hunt masters and members but, instead, the organisation has remained silent on the issue. Embarrassment or denial? It’s impossible to know.
There are many other factors with which the MFHA must also be concerned. In addition to the convictions mentioned above there are hundreds of videos on social media of hunt members verbally and physically abusing members of the public, beating their own hounds, shooting their own hounds, beating, kicking and shooting their own horses, flooding en masse onto roads with subsequent danger to both animals and members of the public, illegally hunting foxes, being warned by police officers that they are hunting illegally and RSPCA investigations into canine malnourishment and the delay, or denial, of veterinary attention to their animals. As a result, the MFHA finds itself with very few friends, even in high places and it is no surprise that all considerate and responsible landowners want nothing to do with “trail-hunting” and its associated crimes, risks and reputation.
Whether the results of the MFHA “review” will be made public is anyone’s guess. On past form it seems unlikely but disclosing and acknowledging its failings and shortcomings would be a step in the right direction for the organisation. Better still, the publication of a robust, meaningful disciplinary code, and censures, would give some confidence that it holds its membership to high standards, is monitoring them and will publicly condemn perpetrators of crimes going forward and remove them from its membership for life.
Are you watching Forestry England, the Church Commissioners, the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust, United Utilities and the National Park Authorities? Because the rest of us are.
ecolelogical 