RI-DRY CLOTHING
The ultimate in wet weather protection clothing for horse and rider! Manufactured to meet the rider’s specific needs, the Hunter coats are fully waterproof and breathable. The Hunter has a 7oz nylon PU-coated fabric for optimum all-weather protection. The coat features the deep Ri-Dry pleat at the back, deep pockets with overlap flaps, a storm flap and stud fastenings. It are lined with a navy tartan polycotton twill, and have a plain navy anti wicking at the hem For the horse in your life. Mud Protector Hoods offer a practical solution to a mud coated neck and mane.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL DETAILS

"Endangered Exmoor ...... an organisation formed by local people to fight for a traditional way of life under threat on Exmoor."Secretary Pat Bawden, PO Box 35, Minehead, Somerset TA24 7YD 01643 831129 info@exmoor.org.uk

Countryside Alliance wins major political award
The Countryside Alliance has been declared the most "inspiring political personality" of the last ten years in the Channel 4 News political awards. The organisation won the title “for its campaigns against the fox hunting ban and its defence of rural life.”

The Alliance was declared the winner at a ceremony in London on Wednesday 23rd January. Founding President Baroness Mallalieu QC and Chairman Kate Hoey MP accepted the award from actor Jeremy Irons. Ann Mallalieu quoted Shakespeare in describing her own Government as being guilty of the ‘insolence of office’ and warned future administrations – of whatever colour – that there is ‘unfinished business’ in the countryside. The “inspiring” award was a special category in the annual political awards to mark Channel 4 News’ 10th anniversary, and other shortlisted candidates included Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone. Votes were accepted by phone, text and email and the poll closed last week.

Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Simon Hart, who also attended the ceremony, commented: “This win is a great shot in the arm for the Countryside Alliance at the start of 2008. It is clear that we were short listed primarily because of the hunting issue and our vocal campaigning style. Our ongoing tenacity and support for the hunting community will remain at the core of what we do, but Channel 4 also acknowledged our broader reach, naming our ‘defence of rural life’. The Countryside Alliance believes that, when it comes to that defence of rural life, it’s ‘all of us or none of us’. This belief in unity makes last night’s victory all the sweeter; the acclaim is for all of us. Everyone who has marched, signed petitions, written to their MP, volunteered or worked for the Alliance and stoically continued to participate in and defend country sports and the rural way of life for the past decade can rightly claim this award as their own.”

Full details are available on the Channel 4 News website: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/political+awards+and+the+winner+is/1391547

This is a prestigious award and we are in interesting company! If we do well, then our campaigning effectiveness, especially in the context of repeal of the Hunting Act, will be greatly enhanced. If you think countryside interests should come out on top of those listed above, then please use your vote and make sure as many people know about this as possible– the competition is decided by public vote all details of which can be found at

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/political+awards+how+to+vote/1300447

The number to vote for The Countryside Alliance: Call 09011 27 27 05

Very many thanks,
Simon Hart

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “This verdict is an absolute vindication of Tony Wright and the Exmoor Foxhounds and another nail in the coffin of the Hunting Act. While we celebrate this judgment, however, we must not forget why an innocent man faced with a vindictive private prosecution has had to spend over two years and two court cases to clear his name. The Hunting Act is not only a pointless and prejudiced piece of legislation, it is also a very bad law. If the courts cannot be sure what is hunting and what is not how on earth can anyone else? Only by scrapping the Act can we ensure that other innocent people will not be persecuted and today’s result adds to the clear case for its repeal.”

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe. The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare. To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the Government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated. We believe that the European Courts will support this view, even if the Law Lords were unable to.”

Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Simon Hart commented: “We remain convinced that Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant believed what they were doing on that day in February 2006 was legal hunting. Surely it cannot be reasonable to have expected these men to have interpreted a law, which even its supporters describe as ambiguous, in exactly the same way as a High Court Judge. It does seem ridiculous that huntsmen have been convicted of not killing enough deer.

“But we also asked that the judge gave a framework for future exempt hunting and he did. The court has confirmed that, with adaptation, the Quantock Staghounds, and others who use this exemption, can continue to hunt. The Hunting Act may be prejudiced and pointless, but this judgment means that the Quantock Staghounds can continue to operate until the Act is repealed.”

A clear, concise and powerful argument for the repeal of the Hunting Act is detailed in the “Case for Repeal”, a new document by the Countryside Alliance setting out why the Act is flawed and why it believes repeal is inevitable.

The Alliance’s document tackles the Act from four different angles:
The Hunting Act is a confusing law: the series of “exemptions” are both illogical and unclear, and their definition has ultimately been left up to huntsmen, the police and the courts.
The Hunting Act is an illiberal law: more parliamentarians voted against the Act than for it, and despite years of consultation and debate, and a Government Enquiry, there was never any evidence that hunting caused a demonstrable harm.
The Hunting Act is a cruel law: it does nothing to protect wild animals from unnecessary suffering, nor does it promote their conservation – the impact of the Hunting Act has actually been that more foxes, deer and hares are being killed.
The Hunting Act is a divisive law: when historians come to judge Tony Blair’s legacy for the countryside one issue will dominate their thoughts: the long wasteful and irrelevant battle over hunting legislation.

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “The Hunting Act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to “protect”.
“The Hunting Act is a law that fails at every level, and scrapping it need not be complicated or time consuming. The “Case for the Repeal” is the justification that any Government, of whatever colour, will need to consign the Hunting Act to the dustbin of history.”

New research published on the second anniversary of the Hunting Act suggests that fox and deer numbers have fallen since it came into force.

The survey was carried out by over a third of the 184 hunts registered with the Masters of Foxhounds Association and recorded the observations of the hunts themselves, as well as farmers and gamekeepers in their areas. Key findings include:

36% of hunts reported that there were less foxes than before the Hunting Act
44% of hunts reported that fox numbers were the same
20% of hunts reported that there were more foxes

The highest proportion of hunts reporting the same or greater numbers of foxes were in upland areas. Hunts reporting the greatest decrease were in the South and South West of England. The survey also recorded observations of foxes with sarcoptic mange, a disease caused by parasitic mites that causes hair loss, lacerations and eventually death. A lower incidence of mange was reported in the West Midlands, but there was an increased prevalence in East Anglia. Two new outbreaks, in Cheshire and on the Isle of Wight, were also reported.

New research from the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society Consensus has revealed a 20% decrease in deer numbers in 2006 against a trend of steady rises over a ten year period.

In 2005 - 2978 deer were monitored
In 2006 - 2398 deer were monitored

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “In the two years since the Hunting Act came into force it has been exposed as illogical and unworkable, and this research shows that it has also had a negative impact on the status and welfare on both the fox and the deer populations. It is shocking to think that 700 hours of parliamentary time were spent, supposedly in the interests of animal welfare, devising a law which has failed at every level. The case for the repeal of the Hunting Act is unanswerable, and its eventual demise increasingly inevitable.”

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “When the ban came into force our first priority was to maintain the infrastructure of hunting until the law is changed. This year there are more hunts meeting on Boxing Day than there were last and more people are hunting than before the ban. “The next task was to show that the Hunting Act is bad law. A recent poll* showed that less than three in ten (29%) of UK adults think the Hunting Act is working and from left to right the media has poured scorn on the Hunting Act and those who made it law. The final part of our campaign is to scrap the Hunting Act. The case for repeal is unanswerable, and will be made consistently over the coming year. Hunting will outlast the Government that tried to ban it, and it is inevitable that a future parliament will seek a resolution to the hunting issue based on principle, not prejudice.”

The debate was much shorter and much less contentious than the Trust had anticipated. There were well over a dozen of members prepared to oppose the resolution, supporters were very thin on the ground. This made for a rather one-sided debate so the Chairman limited his call for speakers to those who had specific expertise, who were not members of any staghound pack, and who lived and worked well away from Exmoor. This left several powerful arguments against the proposal undelivered. There were four speakers against the resolution. The first was John Young who is a non-hunting member of the Trust’s Working Party on the potential welfare impact of the Hunting Act 2004. He urged members to oppose the resolution. Then came Edmund Marriage of British Wildlife Management who spoke persuasively on the value of scenting hounds and their ability to find and follow a line and urged members not to suppo rt a policy which would “promote cruelty and prevent kindness”.

Lewis Thomas, a retired veterinary research pathologist, reported on research carried out by the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management. He asserted that “injured deer can not be found without the use of scent hounds and to deny such animals a humane and rapid death because of this resolution is quite frankly a disgrace”.

Jim Barrington spoke next. In his own words he is: “one of four executive directors of the League Against Cruel Sports who have changed their minds about banning hunting with dogs after it became apparent that banning hunting was very different to improving animal welfare”, spoke next. He added that: “it seems extremely odd that the very people who supported and campaigned for the Hunting Act now argue against it. The Hunting Act is their product. Banning hunting in every possible way is to them more important than the relief of animal suffering and improving animal welfare”.

Following these submissions the Chairman could not find any speakers to support the proposal so he called on Peter Nixon and Douglas Batchelor to conclude and then called for a show of hands from the floor. It appeared that about 40-50 hands were raised in support of the proposal, while some 10 times as many were raised against. It was a convincing defeat for LACS. The Chairman felt that as it was not unanimous, and because it had been historically such a contentious issue, he would call for a poll which meant that the postal vote from the membership at large would be added to the votes in the hall to give a definitive result. The total vote including the postal vote was: 12,768 members voted in favour of the resolution that "no exempt hunting of deer should be permitted on NT land", and 20,182 voted against.
Charles Collins of Friends Of the National Trust (FONT) co-ordinated the opposition to the motion. He said: "FONT exists to assist National Trust members through the complexities of the Trust's voting arrangements.

To receive information from FONT send your email address to - fontgroup@gmail.com - and ensure your vote is an informed one next year".

This year the auction celebrates its fifth year and the Alliance hopes it will be its most successful year ever. This year’s auction goes live on the Countryside Alliance website www.countryside-alliance.org on Monday 27th November but keen bidders can view the lots and register to bid from Friday 10th November.

Jessica Garton, Events Organiser for the Countryside Alliance, said: “Last year we had 150 lots and it raised more than £20,000 for the Countryside Alliance. It’s a great opportunity to buy yourself or your friends something quite unique and support the Countryside Alliance at the same time. “We have many fantastic lots including many days fishing, hunting and shooting as well as a week’s holiday in a Swiss chalet, £100 worth of quality toiletries, a clay pigeon shooting lesson, a Barbour jacket, a side of smoked salmon and a Cartier silver fountain pen. There really is something for everyone so why not log onto www.countryside-alliance.org and see what takes your fancy!“But we’re always looking for more items so if you have something you’d like to donate, please do give me a call on 01672 419470 or email me at jessica-garton@countryside-alliance.org.”

Bidding for the auction lasts for almost two weeks – from 9am on Monday 27th November until 8pm on Thursday 7th December – and the winning bidder will be notified within 48 hours of the bidding closing.

It must be emphasised that today's judgement sets no legal precedent and other courts in England and Wales would be able to take other views. This is not case law. In addition few, if any, hunts are making use of this exemption and hunts operating under other exemptions are largely unaffected by this judgement. If anything, the verdict adds strength to the case for repealing the Hunting Act - it clarifies nothing and only serves to confuse. It is a bizarre situation that renders the exemption worthless, which surely wasn't the intention of Parliament. No right-minded person thinks that Tony Wright should have been branded a criminal. If people were confused about the Hunting Act before today they will be a lot more confused now. We believe that he was trying to comply with the law as he understood it and will be supporting his appeal. This is a piece of legislation which took seven years and 700 hours of parliamentary time to get onto the statute book and yet is illogical and unclear. Any law which can put a man like Tony Wright through nine months of court action, and tell him he is a criminal for doing something he believed was entirely legal, clearly isn’t working. May I finally pay tribute to Tony Wright and Exmoor Master Felicita Busby for their conduct during this legal process. They have set an exemplary and courageous example to the hunting community and we will continue to support them.
Simon Hart

First on the stand was our old friend Prof. Stephen Harris of Bristol University who repeated his claims that foxes do not cause serious damage to livestock and added a new twist with his views on ‘fox shoots’. Apparently driving foxes to shotguns was the preferred method for urban fox control until the 1980s and the 1969 Camberley Rabies outbreak is a model for fox shooting. Prof. Harris’s evidence was certainly not decisive, but Tony Wright’s may have been.

Tony spent four hours on the stand firstly taken by his own barrister, David Williams Q.C., through the day in question. He then faced lengthy, detailed and increasingly desperate cross-questioning from the prosecution. His evidence was clear, consistent and convincing. He explained the plans for the day, which were agreed with his Master and the Exmoor’s marksman. Five foxes were found and hounds were stopped on four occasions. On a fifth the Exmoor’s marksman shot a fox.

The Exmoor’s Master, Felicita Busby, was the final witness. She confirmed that they had permission to be on the land they hunted and were doing so at the request of farmers who had lost lambs to fox predation.

The defence case may be completed tomorrow or on Thursday morning with David Williams’ closing address. There may also be further representations from both defence and prosecution counsel on points of law.

The District Judge has indicated that he may be able to give a written judgement and verdict on Friday.

The Council of Hunting Associations has issued a document entitled ‘Securing the future’ which gives detailed advice on the strategy to ensure that hunting survives. Please click here to read the document, which should be compulsory for everyone involved in hunting.

Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles - http://www.amhb.co.uk/