Last Saturday I was one of the 70 odd sabs which disrupted 2 driven Grouse shoots in Yorkshire. There has been plenty of coverage on this on social media as well as the local press. The excellent Raptor Persecution UK site also ran a short piece on it as well and the comments make interesting reading.
I won’t go over all the details again (you can read about it here) but needless to say it was a successful day, many Grouse are no doubt still flying about now which would have otherwise been blasted from the sky and there may be the odd Stoat or Weasel still lurking in the heather which won’t suffer a painful death in a fen trap. However the estates which got visited are no doubt seething having lost money and the ignominy of being targeted and having no way to respond.
What was interesting was one of the comments which came from one of the shoots in question and typical of how these organisations respond when their sordid minority death sports are pushed into the public eye. It was reported in the local paper, the Richmondshire Today
Dalesport, which runs shoots, said the saboteurs tried to stone shoot vehicles and intimidate shoot staff. A spokesman said:
“It was a shocking encounter in this tranquil area of the national park. Half the sabs were dressed in black with balaclavas in an attempt to prevent their identity. The police arrived to disperse them but not before further threats were made to the shoot staff.”
To be honest this is utterly laughable. The standard starting point for these comments is always to paint a picture of peace and tranquillity in the area, but lets face it, lots of ruddy faced men in tweed with guns blasting away at unfortunate birds is anything but tranquil and if indeed sabs were stoning cars surely there would be evidence of this, broken windows, dented body panels etc. Oddly enough, this evidence seems to be completely missing. Where were all the arrests the police made for this threatening and loutish behaviour?

Estate lacky didn’t want his face on the internet. Oh well never mind.
It’s clearly fake news, an utterly feeble and poorly imagined lie in an effort to gain support by those less well informed, a fairly standard response and straight out of the CA’s manual. Amusingly a spokesperson for the fun day in the village of Reeth reported that the sabs had spent a lot of money and the event had been a great success. So there you have it, sabs are good for the local economy!
The other point of interest was the attempted detention of sabs and the level of effort in which the estate staff and farmer went to in an effort to prevent the sabs from leaving. When we arrived in the area of Bransdale moor the shoot was in the process of already packing up. The track we used was a gated road and clearly marked on the OS map as being open access. Arriving at the top of the track we were confronted by 3 shoot vehicles which blocked the track. We were informed that the police had been called and were on their way. This was fine by us. No laws had been broken and we were just monitoring the shoot vehicles leaving.

Gotta love the 19th century attire.
At this point we decided to carry on further down the track to where it joined the road at the other end. We were followed some of the way by one of the estate vehicles however they were clearly planning something and this was revealed when we arrived at the other end of the track and faced with a recently chained and padlocked gate with an estate vehicle parked in front of it to prevent us from leaving.
Turning around we proceeded back to our original position to be faced once again with another locked gate and a further 2 estate vehicles, both refusing to move. It seemed a somewhat odd tactic, surely they would want those who had scuppered their days shoot to leave as soon as possible? We has some discussion with the staff who, it has to be said weren’t the sharpest tools in the box but seemed happy to be detaining us. With sketchy phone signal we just managed to get a call out to both the police and another sab group however it seems we would be stuck there for some time.
3 hours later and finally the shoot staff decided to leave, we took our chance and proceeded back to our original entry point. It seemed the bumpkins had been busy!
Tree sized logs from the forestry work had been strewn across the track, the next gate had been locked with a large chain and a heavy agricultural trailer parked behind it. The next gate 50 metres further along had been treated in the same manner, chained up with a trailer blocking. What amazed us was the shear effort they went to for this and the sense of entitlement that they could detain us in this (illegal) manner. It beggars belief.

Farmer forced to unlock gate on the unpaved byway – photo courtesy of North Cambs Hunt Sabs
Needless say the first set of obstacles were moved quickly, and with some ingenuity, team work and a capable sab vehicle both gate and trailer were soon dealt with and we were on our way to tackling the next one fairly quickly. The red faced angry farmer arrived at this point with the police a short distance behind and then the fine sight of around 50 sabs for some moral support. Angry farmer was sent to get his tractor and directed to move the trailer and unlock the gate. Despite protestations to the contrary the police confirmed that the area was indeed open access and no crimes had been committed. Once again they had failed in their somewhat strange plans and we were free to continue our journey.
I know the Countryside Alliance had issued advice to shoots and estates in the event of disruption but I’m fairly certain this kind of reaction wasn’t part of that. You have to wonder what they were trying to achieve as it was only even going to end in one way. For us the day was a 100% success, shoots were prevented from killing, no-one was shot or arrested, we got some nice PR by just walking on the moors and the local economy got a nice boost with the influx of sab money.
Finally, while we were waiting for our chance to leave a ruddy faced shoot employee asked if we get paid, then proclaimed our employer was none other than Paul McCartney! They never seem to get it, what we do is based simply on the combined desire to save lives and right the injustice of those who take delight in abusing our wildlife.
The Kimblewick Conviction
Posted: November 7, 2019 in CommentTags: Andrew Sallis, Animal Welfare Act, David Martin, Hunt Saboteurs Association, Ian Parkinson, Kimblewick Hunt, Mark Vincent, Stephen Lomax, Thames Valley Police
You may remember back in January I blogged about the Kimblewick being caught red handed pulling a fox from an artificial earth and throwing it in front of the hounds (see here). The pair involved were the hunt’s terrier man Ian Parkinson and the hunt President Mark Vincent. They were subsequently charged with causing unnecessary suffering to a fox under the Animal Welfare Act.
On Wednesday 30th of October they stood trial at Oxford Magistrates Court with District Judge Kamlesh Rana presiding.
I wasn’t at court on the day (I’ve seen enough of courts for the time being) but I have received detailed notes from someone who was so I’ll try and put together a straightforward account of the proceedings and highlight the relevant points so grab a cuppa and settle in.
First off a bit of background to the case. Undercover footage was supplied to the Hunt Saboteurs Association which clearly showed 2 men, forcing a fox from an artificial earth using drain rods and then dragging it by the tail before throwing it to be chased by the hounds of the Kimblewick hunt. You can clearly hear the huntsman making “hold hard” commands, waiting for the fox to be released. There is clear communication between the pair in the video and the huntsman.
It is unknown what became of the fox.
The law states: It is an offence to; cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal or, if being responsible for a protected animal, to permit any unnecessary suffering to be caused to any such animal (Section 62, Animal Welfare Act 2006).
As this is an animal welfare case it was clear a large majority of the court time would be spent arguing about the context of what happened and if indeed the welfare of the animal was compromised. This would come down to the 2 expert witnesses, both veterinary surgeons, David Martin in the case of the prosecution and a certain Stephen Lomax who also acted for the defence in the South Herefordshire Hunt case and was also prosecuted for careless driving, someone who’s credibility would seem to be in doubt even before the start of the case.
The incident all happened on land know as the ‘Big Willows’ and belonged to a Robert Stevens. His statement confirmed he was aware the hunt were using his land but not what they were up to. Whether this was actually the case or not is open to speculation but his answer is realistically the only one he could give, admitting you knew an illegal act was taking place and with your tacit knowledge is likely to lead to your own prosecution through joint venture. One has to consider whether any land owner would know what is taking place on their land and indeed the presence of artificial earths, a structure which needs significant work and disruption to the ground.
As Lomax explained in court, artificial earths are used to encourage foxes into an area with the idea that they will take up residence in the earth. He went on to explain that there would be 2 possible reasons for someone to pull a fox from an artificial earth. Firstly so a gamekeeper can shoot it for pest control reasons and secondly so it can be hunted.
Before we cover further testimony of the expert witnesses we should hear about another witness who’s identity is being withheld for security reasons. The witness had gone to the town square to see the hunt on the day in question. They noted there were about 30 riders and of course the hounds. It was here they overheard a conversation between Andrew Sallis (joint master and huntsman on the day in question as well columnist for Horse and Hound) and a hunt supporter. Sallis had told this supporter there will be a “fox out” Moreton way so that’s where they should go. Up to this point the witness believed that they would be seeing a genuine trail hunt. They saw the hunt leave and head towards Moreton.
Andrew Sallis – Horse and Hound
This is of course pretty damning as it clearly implies that the whole episode was planned well in advance, several people were aware of what was going to transpire and they were telling people where the action would be.
When the video came to light Vincent and Parkinson were identified and interviewed under caution by PC Darren James, a Wildlife Crime Officer with Thames Valley Police. Both defendants confirmed they worked for the Kimblewick but then offered no comment interviews. This isn’t surprising as most people when arrested will be advised to give a no comment interview by any decent legal representative.
PC James visited the site of the artificial earth and took photos for evidential purposes however the photos of the earth submitted by Lomax appeared to be significantly different. These photos showed that the earth had been completely destroyed, someone had clearly been there in an attempt to hide the evidence. The fact the earth had been destroyed clearly put significant doubt in the judge’s mind as to the validity of the report which was submitted by Lomax on the subject.
In terms of the welfare of the fox several points must be proved, firstly if it was to be considered protected it must be under the control of man. As the earth was blocked at both ends the fox was effectively being held captive and no longer in a free state. Therefore it would indeed be under the control of man, whether this state is permanent or temporary.
We now have to consider the potential suffering of the animal and this is where the expert witnesses came in.
Lomax stated that foxes were resilient and tolerant of adverse circumstances. He admitted that holding one by the tail is not ideal however also said that holding the tail and hind legs would be fine and the best way to avoid being bitten. He went on to claim that while the fox may have been in some discomfort it was not suffering unduly. He believed the fox was being handled in this way in the video as it was hanging vertically and saw it’s legs come down once it was released.
He went on to state that the hounds being close by would not have scared the fox or caused it any suffering, even adding that he had seen foxes going into hunt kennels although he did admit that it was entirely possible that it was being released to be hunted. When questioned further on his dislike for foxes Lomax stated “I like foxes more than badgers”. He also admitted that he was a hunt follower.
The prosecution expert witness David Martin obviously saw things differently. He stated that the handling in the video would have caused both mental and physical suffering. As the fox was pulled out quite forcefully by its tail there was the potential for dislocation and the stretching of nerves which would lead to further suffering.
Neither Parkinson or Vincent took the stand.
The court finding were very clear.
1. The video showed that the fox was trapped by man.
2. Audio confirmed the drain rods made contact with the fox which was then pulled by its tail and thrown.
3. The court accepts the animal was under the control of man and therefore protected.
4. The testimony of Mr Martin was more detailed, whereas Mr Lomax was vague and more concerned with minimizing the offence.
Any sentence has to adhere to guidelines set out in law. In this case the judge will have to consider:
1. The deliberate and pre-planned nature of the offence.
2. The aggravating circumstances, in this case why the fox was held and then released – to be hunted with hounds.
3. The actions to assist an illegal activity (hunting with hounds).
Regardless of the fact neither defendant had any previous convictions (they’d just never been caught before) the judge took the view that this would cross the threshold of sentencing guidelines necessary for a custodial sentence.
They will be sentenced on the 26th November.