Most people would think twice about sanctioning an experiment on animals in
the wild that might lead to suffering. And in civilised nations, most government
officials would see only trouble and strife in approving such research. Yet
there are times when such experiments are justified and it is cowardly not to
sanction them.
A case in point has emerged from research looking at what happens to the
physiology of deer as they are hunted with hounds
(see 鈥淭he chase is on鈥�). In Britain, the key
issue has become whether it is鈥攐r isn鈥檛鈥攗nacceptably cruel.
Last year, things looked bleak for the hunters. A study found biochemical
evidence of extreme and prolonged muscle stress in hunted deer and concluded
that animals which escaped the hunt might die from their muscle injuries. But
the new research challenges this interpretation. So who鈥檚 right?
Advertisement
The answer is that nobody knows because the experiment that might have
settled the matter hasn鈥檛 been done. To complete the latest project, the
researchers intended to fit radio collars to deer so they could study what
happens to them out in the wild if they are not killed at the end of a hunt. The
government, however, refused to grant the necessary licence鈥攁t first,
apparently, because the research would be against the 鈥渨ill of Parliament鈥�, and
then, when the team appealed, because of the earlier study鈥檚 claim that hunted
deer might suffer if not killed at the end of the chase.
Two facts seem not to have entered the calculations. First, it was precisely
this claim that the experiment was designed to test. Secondly, a small number of
deer already escape hunts in an exhausted state as a result of normal
hunting鈥攕o the research wouldn鈥檛 have introduced any new causes of
suffering.
The inevitable suspicion is that politics has been allowed to unduly
influence a decision that should have been based on scientific and animal
welfare considerations alone.