Withdrawing from the UN Paris Climate Accord is one of more than a hundred electoral campaign promises that Donald Trump made. By delivering on that promise, the US now joined Nicaragua and Syria, the only countries that did not sign the agreement. Nicaragua did not sign due to indifference or denialism of climate change – it’s reason was the contrary. Nicaragua’s decision was based on its view that it is not enough to address the climate crisis. Syria is in the middle of civil war and under US and European sanctions.

Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement is undeniably wrong, narrow-minded, irresponsible, and destructive. It is right that concerned people all over the world are appalled and world leaders are condemning the normalisation of climate denialism by the current United States administration. But, let us also be reminded of the important facts about the UN Paris Agreement and look at how this affects the status of the US as a world leader.

Climate justice campaigners in the Global South, alongside many in the US, know that the US, even before Trump’s election, is quite far from being a ‘climate leader’. The US is the biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter and source of almost a third of the global carbon emissions. Despite that, it has weakened the Kyoto Protocol and has consistently used its power in the climate negotiation, together with other rich countries, to water-down or reduce the ambitions of the process. The market mechanisms and the overall climate politics of the process favoured climate profiteers or global corporations and the interests of rich countries.

The Paris Agreement is non-binding and falls far short of what must be done to even reach the already-weak target of keeping global average temperature increase to under 2 degrees or even the more ambitious 1.5 degrees in the preamble of the agreement. The international climate regime perpetuates the subordination of the Global South and many solutions that come out of it at best, do not match the scale of the problem or at worst, are false solutions. Telling the rest of the world that the US will no longer do what it intended to as its contribution in the 2015 accord is the height of irresponsibility and arrogance.

The UN climate process has been frustrating for many developing countries which attend it in the hope of pushing for globally-binding and appropriate solutions to climate change. Poor and vulnerable countries that have contributed very little to the current level of greenhouse gasses are already experiencing tremendous climate-related catastrophe. The people of Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea have already been dislocated and have become the first climate refugees, while farmers in many countries in sub-saharan Africa are already finding it difficult to farm and are losing their livelihoods. Archipelagic countries like the Philippines are increasingly visited by severe storms. Many cities are facing the possibilities of sinking under the increasing sea level rise. Even the US is not spared from flooding.

Trump’s action on the climate front definitely disturbs the climate regime, however, the ecological equilibrium of the planet does not rest on the current process as it is now, nor on the success of the Paris Agreement. The bigger implication of Trump’s action is on how the world should now see the US. For better or worse, the world looks up to America’s leadership in problem solving. It is the cornerstone of current global economic, political, financial, and climate regimes. Trump’s short-sighted and ill-informed reasons for walking away from the climate accord is an aggressive act of shattering the very world order that it has painstakingly built. In its anxiety of losing its status as the world’s richest economic superpower, it is retreating to insularity.

An insecure superpower is a dangerous superpower. Diplomacy is about harmoniously using power and ethical credibility. Under the Trump presidency, the US is fast losing its credibility to lead. Trump’s action reveals his total disregard for the fate of humanity – his refusal to understand facts and accept scientific findings about climate change expose his limitations and weakness.

Theresa May has been strongly criticized for her earlier refusal to join European leaders in a chorus of condemnation of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change while the leaders of Germany, France and Italy jointly expressed their stronger views.

For social movements and climate justice campaigners, the US abandonment of the agreement is disappointing, but there is also a unity in understanding that the future of humanity on this planet does not rest on leaders alone. In the US, big protests are already happening and the scientific community has already collectively criticised their President’s lack of regard to science. It is expected that massive protests in different countries will continue to express opposition against Trump, as well as the more important efforts to propose alternatives.

*This article has been shared with the Ecologist by www.globaljustice.org.uk

I remember about three years ago, whilst on a run through the Somerset countryside I spotted what I thought was a dog in a field. When it heard me approaching, a lofty creature sprang off into the hedgerow far quicker than I could run; it’s cover was blown. It wasn’t a dog, but in fact a brown hare, and that was my first and likely last sighting of one in the wild.

In the South-West it’s possible that this beautiful creature is now completely extinct, and according to the Hare Preservation Trust the brown hare has declined by more than 80% over the past 100 years.

Hares don’t hibernate and rely entirely on biodiverse landscapes for their food but as a result of the intensity of modern agriculture this biodiversity has been lost in many areas across the countryside, playing a big part in the hare’s demise.

Now researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Hull and the Open University have been looking into how important crop type is to the preservation of these creatures.

Hares feed on wild grasses and herbs, but 150,000 miles of hedgerow has been destroyed over 50 years of farming, cutting off the hare’s source of food and shelter. And with so many farmers planting single crop types, alongside other factors, hares are struggling to find the food they need.

There is hope for this graceful animal, but it relies on a complex understanding of biodiverse planting, a willingness by farmers and landowners to plant a mixture of biomass energy crops, and the subsidies for them to do so.

Dr Silviu Petrovan of the University of Cambridge, has carried out a study showing that the native brown hare may benefit from exotic, non-native crops growing across Britain’s farmland. Published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research the new study, funded by wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES), shows that the way crops are planted is just as important as to which crops are grown when it comes to the impact on animals.

The research team, when tasked with investigating what effects biomass energy crops might have on the survival of the hare, discovered that certain crops – one of which is the Asian grass also called ‘elephant grass’ – provide an excellent habitat when interspersed with other typical cereal crops, wild grasses and herbs. When elephant grass is planted as a monoculture across large areas, however, it has the opposite effect and discourages hares, which will avoid elephant grass as a food source, but use it instead for rest and shelter.

Dr Petrovan says: “As part of a mixed agricultural landscape and planted at the right scale, elephant grass provides many of a hare’s habitat requirements in a very small area. We think that hares use elephant grass for cover and then forage around its edges. They also take advantage of the fact that it isn’t sprayed with herbicides, so in places there will be quite a rich ground cover of other plants, not unlike a small area of young woodland, which hares will then feed on,.”

Scientists point out that planting biomass crops enhances farmland biodiversity and will not further compromise wildlife already facing huge environmental pressures, plus they are positive that it can encourage an increase in brown hare populations.

Dr Phil Wheeler from the Open University, who led the research said: “In some respects, although these biomass crops are alien to the UK, they mimic unfarmed or unintensively cultivated bits of farmland, many of which have been lost as farming has intensified. Our research suggests that for hares, diversifying farmland by planting biomass crops in small chunks might replace something of what has been lost.”

One particular reason for the decline is grazing pressure – particularly that of sheep grazing. Dr Petrovan explains that large areas of intensive sheep pasture prove to be poor habitats for hares, though quite the reverse for rabbits.

The solution? Well managed agri-environment grassy field margins, small blocks of woods and some arable crops. Elephant grass can also provide great opportunities for improving farmland for hares and other species but only if it is well managed.

So the question is, will I see another hare in the fields of the Somerset countryside, or will hare populations continue to decline?

At the moment the hare seems to favour the east of the country – particularly the meadows around East Anglia, but its overall decline remains worryingly steady. That said, the biomass crop – with some well thought out implementation across farmlands of the UK – may hold some hope for Britain’s fastest land mammal.

• PTES supports projects in the UK and all over the world, funding conservation organisations, scientific researchers and wildlife experts. Find out more at https://ptes.org

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

I remember about three years ago, whilst on a run through the Somerset countryside I spotted what I thought was a dog in a field. When it heard me approaching, a lofty creature sprang off into the hedgerow far quicker than I could run; it’s cover was blown. It wasn’t a dog, but in fact a brown hare, and that was my first and likely last sighting of one in the wild.

In the South-West it’s possible that this beautiful creature is now completely extinct, and according to the Hare Preservation Trust the brown hare has declined by more than 80% over the past 100 years.

Hares don’t hibernate and rely entirely on biodiverse landscapes for their food but as a result of the intensity of modern agriculture this biodiversity has been lost in many areas across the countryside, playing a big part in the hare’s demise.

Now researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Hull and the Open University have been looking into how important crop type is to the preservation of these creatures.

Hares feed on wild grasses and herbs, but 150,000 miles of hedgerow has been destroyed over 50 years of farming, cutting off the hare’s source of food and shelter. And with so many farmers planting single crop types, alongside other factors, hares are struggling to find the food they need.

There is hope for this graceful animal, but it relies on a complex understanding of biodiverse planting, a willingness by farmers and landowners to plant a mixture of biomass energy crops, and the subsidies for them to do so.

Dr Silviu Petrovan of the University of Cambridge, has carried out a study showing that the native brown hare may benefit from exotic, non-native crops growing across Britain’s farmland. Published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research the new study, funded by wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES), shows that the way crops are planted is just as important as to which crops are grown when it comes to the impact on animals.

The research team, when tasked with investigating what effects biomass energy crops might have on the survival of the hare, discovered that certain crops – one of which is the Asian grass also called ‘elephant grass’ – provide an excellent habitat when interspersed with other typical cereal crops, wild grasses and herbs. When elephant grass is planted as a monoculture across large areas, however, it has the opposite effect and discourages hares, which will avoid elephant grass as a food source, but use it instead for rest and shelter.

Dr Petrovan says: “As part of a mixed agricultural landscape and planted at the right scale, elephant grass provides many of a hare’s habitat requirements in a very small area. We think that hares use elephant grass for cover and then forage around its edges. They also take advantage of the fact that it isn’t sprayed with herbicides, so in places there will be quite a rich ground cover of other plants, not unlike a small area of young woodland, which hares will then feed on,.”

Scientists point out that planting biomass crops enhances farmland biodiversity and will not further compromise wildlife already facing huge environmental pressures, plus they are positive that it can encourage an increase in brown hare populations.

Dr Phil Wheeler from the Open University, who led the research said: “In some respects, although these biomass crops are alien to the UK, they mimic unfarmed or unintensively cultivated bits of farmland, many of which have been lost as farming has intensified. Our research suggests that for hares, diversifying farmland by planting biomass crops in small chunks might replace something of what has been lost.”

One particular reason for the decline is grazing pressure – particularly that of sheep grazing. Dr Petrovan explains that large areas of intensive sheep pasture prove to be poor habitats for hares, though quite the reverse for rabbits.

The solution? Well managed agri-environment grassy field margins, small blocks of woods and some arable crops. Elephant grass can also provide great opportunities for improving farmland for hares and other species but only if it is well managed.

So the question is, will I see another hare in the fields of the Somerset countryside, or will hare populations continue to decline?

At the moment the hare seems to favour the east of the country – particularly the meadows around East Anglia, but its overall decline remains worryingly steady. That said, the biomass crop – with some well thought out implementation across farmlands of the UK – may hold some hope for Britain’s fastest land mammal.

• PTES supports projects in the UK and all over the world, funding conservation organisations, scientific researchers and wildlife experts. Find out more at https://ptes.org

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

Under the climate leadership of President Obama there was a (misguided) feeling that with America in the driving seat we could probably all take it a bit easy.  Now the world has woken up from that dangerous fantasy and people are realising that everyone needs to pull their finger out.

Already we’ve seen a thundering response from China and the EU – both reinforcing their commitment to the Paris Agreement and accelerating their coordination to take on the leadership role that America has vacated.  That is a powerful duo, and has been followed by other leaders around the world rallying to the cause. We can expect more of this when the G20 meet at the end of the month.

By pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump has initiated a four-year process which will culminate right around the next US Presidential election.  Not only does this open the way for a swifter return to the fold for America under a new President, it also will likely make climate change one of the key issues of the next election campaign.  That is a huge platform to educate and inform the American public about, not only the reality of climate change but also the benefits of international cooperation, the value of ever cheaper, clean, renewable energy and the skilled jobs that it brings.

Trump spoke fondly of the US coal miners in his White House speech last Thursday but if he really wanted to act in the long-term interests of American coal miners he would invest in retraining so these communities can benefit from the jobs of the present and future, rather than watch those of the past dwindle away.  Already there are more jobs in US renewables than in extracting coal, oil and gas combined. Coal is dying, market forces have seen to that. If Trump doesn’t think turning US coal miners into wind farm technicians is feasible then he should take a look in Carbon County, Wyoming, where the Chinese are planning to do exactly that.

Often a politician’s ignorance and hubris on climate change is likened to the story of King Canute demonstrating his inability to command the incoming tide. However the tide Trump cannot avoid is the decarbonisation of the global economy. Technological advancement, increased public awareness, international determination and market forces are arrayed against him. The 20^th century was a century powered by fossil fuels and America dominated it. The 21^st century will be powered by clean energy and in this self-defeating act Trump has rung last orders on American supremacy. The low-carbon industrial revolution is up for grabs.

Trump’s actions have also proved just what a robust and cleverly designed instrument the Paris Agreement is. In the past had America pulled out like this the likes of India and China would have probably followed suit within hours. But by being built from the bottom up, with each country pledging to do it own’s bit and promising to increase this over time, instead of doing a runner, other nations are holding the line and condemning the US as a pariah state. India and China have not only announced their recommitment to the pact, they are also on track to overshoot their own predicted commitments.

Not only has Trump created a shockwave through the international community he has also stirred up a reaction within the US as well.  City mayors, Governors, business leaders, campaigners and civil society groups have reacted with outrage and fury at his attempted environmental sabotage. It even got the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, to tweet for the first time ever.

Already efforts are under way to meet the US pledges of the Paris Agreement through non-federal means and people are being motivated and mobilised across the country and the world. As the writer Malcolm Gladwell has noted, often the reaction to a social or political event is much more significant than the action. Had Trump remained technically inside the Paris Agreement, deceived the world with mixed messages and idle promises and slowly undermined its potency, then we would have really been in trouble. But by nailing his colours to the mast as an enemy of the planet we know what the stakes are and what we’re up against. 

Christiana Figueres, the former General Secretary of the UNFCCC who oversaw the signing of the Paris Agreement tweeted: “Thank you Trump.  You have provoked an unparalleled wave of support for Paris and determined resolve on climate action. Deeply grateful.”

As Winston Churchill is reported to have said: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”  Trump has created the crisis, we now need to make the most of it.

This Author

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a New Voices contributor to the Ecologist.   Follow him on twitter @wareisjoe. To find out about Christian Aid’s Big Shift campaign to get our banks to shift their investments from fossil fuels to renewables visit www.christian-aid.org.uk/bigshift

Theresa May recently reconfirmed her support for fox hunting¹ and previously expounded her arguments in a 2015 letter², demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the welfare and disease risks involved. She states that “hunting with hounds results in almost instantaneous death”, without any supporting evidence, although the Burns report³ concluded that hunting with hounds has “serious welfare implications” for quarry animals such as foxes, deer, hares and mink. Pathological examinations of wildlife killed illegally by hunts, show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering⁴.

She cites a “need for wildlife management to protect vulnerable animals”², views which are out of step with recent conservation science proving the lack of efficacy of such attempts at predator control⁵⁶ and demonstrating that hounds are not a suitable method for dealing with diseased wild animals. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, fox populations across the UK have remained roughly stable⁷. While foxes do take some livestock, they do not have a significant impact on farming incomes⁸, obviating the need for human interference.

She cites support from “over 500 Members of the RCVS” although no such list has been published. Indeed, if death by hunting with hounds really were humane, the few remaining veterinarians who support hunting could offer that as a euthanasia option for the humane destruction of their clients’ pets, which of course they do not.

The running of hounds over extensive areas of farmland has biosecurity implications for the control of diseases, particularly that of bovine TB⁹, recently discovered in the Kimblewick Hunt’s hounds^10, with potential implications for the health of domestic animals and people over six home counties ¹¹.

Hunting with hounds was stopped during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001. A reinstatement of the biohazard presented by hunting with hounds would be totally inappropriate given the government’s failed badger culling and TB policies, which have resulted in epidemic spread of bovine TB in cattle to new areas of the country previously unaffected by the disease¹². In April there was a new cattle herd TB breakdown near Theresa May’s own Maidenhead constituency, which also falls within the Kimblewick hunting range, at Henley-on-Thames¹².

The Government’s promised Disease Risk Assessment of the Kimblewick hound outbreak, and results from disease investigations both locally and nationally in hounds, need to be made public before the General Election. Theresa May has made hunting with hounds an election issue, but her arguments are evidence light, prejudice heavy, and take no account of the disease risks. Her support is based on ignorance of the scientific facts and the objective cruelty involved. Such a lack of empathy casts grave doubt on the suitability of Mrs May to negotiate animal welfare and protection policies under Brexit.

We urge voters to ask Theresa May to explain the reasons she is supporting such a regressive and high-risk policy as a return to hunting with hounds.

Dr Iain McGill BSc (Hons) BVetMed MRCVS. Director, Prion Interest Group, Director VATC, Lead author VVNABC

Dr Mark Jones BVSc MSc (Stir) MSc (UL) MRCVS

Professor Andrew Knight MANZCVS DipECAWBM (AWSEL) DACAW PhD MRCVS SFHEA. Director, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; American Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare

Dr Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc DipECAWBM (AWSEL) MRCVS. European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law

References

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

2. Letter by Theresa May to a constituent, explaining her views on hunting with hounds. (2015) Vets & Vet Nurses Against The Badger Cull

3. Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

4.Wildlife killed by illegal hunts show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering

5. Treves, A., Krofel M. & McManus, J. (2016) Predator Control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 14, 7, 380-388.

6. Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Macdonald, D.W. & Reynolds, J.C. (2006). Effects of culling fox

populations at the landscape scale: A spatially explicit population modelling approach. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1102-1110.

7. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act fox populations have remained roughly stable

8. McDonald, R., Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997). Is the fox a pest? Electra Publishing, Cheddar,

Somerset.

9. Jahns, J. J. Callanan, M. C. McElroy, D. J. Sammin, H. F. Bassett (2011) Post-mortem Findings in Irish Culled Hounds. J. Comp. Path, Vol. 145, 59-67.

10. Foxhounds euthanised after becoming infected with bovine TB

11. McGill, I, Abraham M, Boscolo S, Eastwood B., et al (2017 in press) Veterinary professionals oppose any return to hunting mammals with hounds (The Veterinary Times, June 5^th 2017)

12. http://www.ibtb.co.uk

This letter, released today, coincides with the publications of an article by this author and some 20 of his colleagues in the Veterinary Times (see ref. 11 above) and was offered exclusively to the Ecologist for online publication today

Theresa May recently reconfirmed her support for fox hunting¹ and previously expounded her arguments in a 2015 letter², demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the welfare and disease risks involved. She states that “hunting with hounds results in almost instantaneous death”, without any supporting evidence, although the Burns report³ concluded that hunting with hounds has “serious welfare implications” for quarry animals such as foxes, deer, hares and mink. Pathological examinations of wildlife killed illegally by hunts, show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering⁴.

She cites a “need for wildlife management to protect vulnerable animals”², views which are out of step with recent conservation science proving the lack of efficacy of such attempts at predator control⁵⁶ and demonstrating that hounds are not a suitable method for dealing with diseased wild animals. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, fox populations across the UK have remained roughly stable⁷. While foxes do take some livestock, they do not have a significant impact on farming incomes⁸, obviating the need for human interference.

She cites support from “over 500 Members of the RCVS” although no such list has been published. Indeed, if death by hunting with hounds really were humane, the few remaining veterinarians who support hunting could offer that as a euthanasia option for the humane destruction of their clients’ pets, which of course they do not.

The running of hounds over extensive areas of farmland has biosecurity implications for the control of diseases, particularly that of bovine TB⁹, recently discovered in the Kimblewick Hunt’s hounds^10, with potential implications for the health of domestic animals and people over six home counties ¹¹.

Hunting with hounds was stopped during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001. A reinstatement of the biohazard presented by hunting with hounds would be totally inappropriate given the government’s failed badger culling and TB policies, which have resulted in epidemic spread of bovine TB in cattle to new areas of the country previously unaffected by the disease¹². In April there was a new cattle herd TB breakdown near Theresa May’s own Maidenhead constituency, which also falls within the Kimblewick hunting range, at Henley-on-Thames¹².

The Government’s promised Disease Risk Assessment of the Kimblewick hound outbreak, and results from disease investigations both locally and nationally in hounds, need to be made public before the General Election. Theresa May has made hunting with hounds an election issue, but her arguments are evidence light, prejudice heavy, and take no account of the disease risks. Her support is based on ignorance of the scientific facts and the objective cruelty involved. Such a lack of empathy casts grave doubt on the suitability of Mrs May to negotiate animal welfare and protection policies under Brexit.

We urge voters to ask Theresa May to explain the reasons she is supporting such a regressive and high-risk policy as a return to hunting with hounds.

Dr Iain McGill BSc (Hons) BVetMed MRCVS. Director, Prion Interest Group, Director VATC, Lead author VVNABC

Dr Mark Jones BVSc MSc (Stir) MSc (UL) MRCVS

Professor Andrew Knight MANZCVS DipECAWBM (AWSEL) DACAW PhD MRCVS SFHEA. Director, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; American Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare

Dr Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc DipECAWBM (AWSEL) MRCVS. European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law

References

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

2. Letter by Theresa May to a constituent, explaining her views on hunting with hounds. (2015) Vets & Vet Nurses Against The Badger Cull

3. Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

4.Wildlife killed by illegal hunts show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering

5. Treves, A., Krofel M. & McManus, J. (2016) Predator Control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 14, 7, 380-388.

6. Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Macdonald, D.W. & Reynolds, J.C. (2006). Effects of culling fox

populations at the landscape scale: A spatially explicit population modelling approach. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1102-1110.

7. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act fox populations have remained roughly stable

8. McDonald, R., Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997). Is the fox a pest? Electra Publishing, Cheddar,

Somerset.

9. Jahns, J. J. Callanan, M. C. McElroy, D. J. Sammin, H. F. Bassett (2011) Post-mortem Findings in Irish Culled Hounds. J. Comp. Path, Vol. 145, 59-67.

10. Foxhounds euthanised after becoming infected with bovine TB

11. McGill, I, Abraham M, Boscolo S, Eastwood B., et al (2017 in press) Veterinary professionals oppose any return to hunting mammals with hounds (The Veterinary Times, June 5^th 2017)

12. http://www.ibtb.co.uk

This letter, released today, coincides with the publications of an article by this author and some 20 of his colleagues in the Veterinary Times (see ref. 11 above) and was offered exclusively to the Ecologist for online publication today

Theresa May recently reconfirmed her support for fox hunting¹ and previously expounded her arguments in a 2015 letter², demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the welfare and disease risks involved. She states that “hunting with hounds results in almost instantaneous death”, without any supporting evidence, although the Burns report³ concluded that hunting with hounds has “serious welfare implications” for quarry animals such as foxes, deer, hares and mink. Pathological examinations of wildlife killed illegally by hunts, show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering⁴.

She cites a “need for wildlife management to protect vulnerable animals”², views which are out of step with recent conservation science proving the lack of efficacy of such attempts at predator control⁵⁶ and demonstrating that hounds are not a suitable method for dealing with diseased wild animals. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, fox populations across the UK have remained roughly stable⁷. While foxes do take some livestock, they do not have a significant impact on farming incomes⁸, obviating the need for human interference.

She cites support from “over 500 Members of the RCVS” although no such list has been published. Indeed, if death by hunting with hounds really were humane, the few remaining veterinarians who support hunting could offer that as a euthanasia option for the humane destruction of their clients’ pets, which of course they do not.

The running of hounds over extensive areas of farmland has biosecurity implications for the control of diseases, particularly that of bovine TB⁹, recently discovered in the Kimblewick Hunt’s hounds^10, with potential implications for the health of domestic animals and people over six home counties ¹¹.

Hunting with hounds was stopped during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001. A reinstatement of the biohazard presented by hunting with hounds would be totally inappropriate given the government’s failed badger culling and TB policies, which have resulted in epidemic spread of bovine TB in cattle to new areas of the country previously unaffected by the disease¹². In April there was a new cattle herd TB breakdown near Theresa May’s own Maidenhead constituency, which also falls within the Kimblewick hunting range, at Henley-on-Thames¹².

The Government’s promised Disease Risk Assessment of the Kimblewick hound outbreak, and results from disease investigations both locally and nationally in hounds, need to be made public before the General Election. Theresa May has made hunting with hounds an election issue, but her arguments are evidence light, prejudice heavy, and take no account of the disease risks. Her support is based on ignorance of the scientific facts and the objective cruelty involved. Such a lack of empathy casts grave doubt on the suitability of Mrs May to negotiate animal welfare and protection policies under Brexit.

We urge voters to ask Theresa May to explain the reasons she is supporting such a regressive and high-risk policy as a return to hunting with hounds.

Dr Iain McGill BSc (Hons) BVetMed MRCVS. Director, Prion Interest Group, Director VATC, Lead author VVNABC

Dr Mark Jones BVSc MSc (Stir) MSc (UL) MRCVS

Professor Andrew Knight MANZCVS DipECAWBM (AWSEL) DACAW PhD MRCVS SFHEA. Director, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; American Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare

Dr Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc DipECAWBM (AWSEL) MRCVS. European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law

References

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

2. Letter by Theresa May to a constituent, explaining her views on hunting with hounds. (2015) Vets & Vet Nurses Against The Badger Cull

3. Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

4.Wildlife killed by illegal hunts show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering

5. Treves, A., Krofel M. & McManus, J. (2016) Predator Control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 14, 7, 380-388.

6. Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Macdonald, D.W. & Reynolds, J.C. (2006). Effects of culling fox

populations at the landscape scale: A spatially explicit population modelling approach. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1102-1110.

7. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act fox populations have remained roughly stable

8. McDonald, R., Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997). Is the fox a pest? Electra Publishing, Cheddar,

Somerset.

9. Jahns, J. J. Callanan, M. C. McElroy, D. J. Sammin, H. F. Bassett (2011) Post-mortem Findings in Irish Culled Hounds. J. Comp. Path, Vol. 145, 59-67.

10. Foxhounds euthanised after becoming infected with bovine TB

11. McGill, I, Abraham M, Boscolo S, Eastwood B., et al (2017 in press) Veterinary professionals oppose any return to hunting mammals with hounds (The Veterinary Times, June 5^th 2017)

12. http://www.ibtb.co.uk

This letter, released today, coincides with the publications of an article by this author and some 20 of his colleagues in the Veterinary Times (see ref. 11 above) and was offered exclusively to the Ecologist for online publication today

Theresa May recently reconfirmed her support for fox hunting¹ and previously expounded her arguments in a 2015 letter², demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the welfare and disease risks involved. She states that “hunting with hounds results in almost instantaneous death”, without any supporting evidence, although the Burns report³ concluded that hunting with hounds has “serious welfare implications” for quarry animals such as foxes, deer, hares and mink. Pathological examinations of wildlife killed illegally by hunts, show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering⁴.

She cites a “need for wildlife management to protect vulnerable animals”², views which are out of step with recent conservation science proving the lack of efficacy of such attempts at predator control⁵⁶ and demonstrating that hounds are not a suitable method for dealing with diseased wild animals. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, fox populations across the UK have remained roughly stable⁷. While foxes do take some livestock, they do not have a significant impact on farming incomes⁸, obviating the need for human interference.

She cites support from “over 500 Members of the RCVS” although no such list has been published. Indeed, if death by hunting with hounds really were humane, the few remaining veterinarians who support hunting could offer that as a euthanasia option for the humane destruction of their clients’ pets, which of course they do not.

The running of hounds over extensive areas of farmland has biosecurity implications for the control of diseases, particularly that of bovine TB⁹, recently discovered in the Kimblewick Hunt’s hounds^10, with potential implications for the health of domestic animals and people over six home counties ¹¹.

Hunting with hounds was stopped during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001. A reinstatement of the biohazard presented by hunting with hounds would be totally inappropriate given the government’s failed badger culling and TB policies, which have resulted in epidemic spread of bovine TB in cattle to new areas of the country previously unaffected by the disease¹². In April there was a new cattle herd TB breakdown near Theresa May’s own Maidenhead constituency, which also falls within the Kimblewick hunting range, at Henley-on-Thames¹².

The Government’s promised Disease Risk Assessment of the Kimblewick hound outbreak, and results from disease investigations both locally and nationally in hounds, need to be made public before the General Election. Theresa May has made hunting with hounds an election issue, but her arguments are evidence light, prejudice heavy, and take no account of the disease risks. Her support is based on ignorance of the scientific facts and the objective cruelty involved. Such a lack of empathy casts grave doubt on the suitability of Mrs May to negotiate animal welfare and protection policies under Brexit.

We urge voters to ask Theresa May to explain the reasons she is supporting such a regressive and high-risk policy as a return to hunting with hounds.

Dr Iain McGill BSc (Hons) BVetMed MRCVS. Director, Prion Interest Group, Director VATC, Lead author VVNABC

Dr Mark Jones BVSc MSc (Stir) MSc (UL) MRCVS

Professor Andrew Knight MANZCVS DipECAWBM (AWSEL) DACAW PhD MRCVS SFHEA. Director, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; American Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare

Dr Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc DipECAWBM (AWSEL) MRCVS. European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law

References

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

2. Letter by Theresa May to a constituent, explaining her views on hunting with hounds. (2015) Vets & Vet Nurses Against The Badger Cull

3. Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

4.Wildlife killed by illegal hunts show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering

5. Treves, A., Krofel M. & McManus, J. (2016) Predator Control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 14, 7, 380-388.

6. Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Macdonald, D.W. & Reynolds, J.C. (2006). Effects of culling fox

populations at the landscape scale: A spatially explicit population modelling approach. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1102-1110.

7. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act fox populations have remained roughly stable

8. McDonald, R., Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997). Is the fox a pest? Electra Publishing, Cheddar,

Somerset.

9. Jahns, J. J. Callanan, M. C. McElroy, D. J. Sammin, H. F. Bassett (2011) Post-mortem Findings in Irish Culled Hounds. J. Comp. Path, Vol. 145, 59-67.

10. Foxhounds euthanised after becoming infected with bovine TB

11. McGill, I, Abraham M, Boscolo S, Eastwood B., et al (2017 in press) Veterinary professionals oppose any return to hunting mammals with hounds (The Veterinary Times, June 5^th 2017)

12. http://www.ibtb.co.uk

This letter, released today, coincides with the publications of an article by this author and some 20 of his colleagues in the Veterinary Times (see ref. 11 above) and was offered exclusively to the Ecologist for online publication today

Theresa May recently reconfirmed her support for fox hunting¹ and previously expounded her arguments in a 2015 letter², demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the welfare and disease risks involved. She states that “hunting with hounds results in almost instantaneous death”, without any supporting evidence, although the Burns report³ concluded that hunting with hounds has “serious welfare implications” for quarry animals such as foxes, deer, hares and mink. Pathological examinations of wildlife killed illegally by hunts, show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering⁴.

She cites a “need for wildlife management to protect vulnerable animals”², views which are out of step with recent conservation science proving the lack of efficacy of such attempts at predator control⁵⁶ and demonstrating that hounds are not a suitable method for dealing with diseased wild animals. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, fox populations across the UK have remained roughly stable⁷. While foxes do take some livestock, they do not have a significant impact on farming incomes⁸, obviating the need for human interference.

She cites support from “over 500 Members of the RCVS” although no such list has been published. Indeed, if death by hunting with hounds really were humane, the few remaining veterinarians who support hunting could offer that as a euthanasia option for the humane destruction of their clients’ pets, which of course they do not.

The running of hounds over extensive areas of farmland has biosecurity implications for the control of diseases, particularly that of bovine TB⁹, recently discovered in the Kimblewick Hunt’s hounds^10, with potential implications for the health of domestic animals and people over six home counties ¹¹.

Hunting with hounds was stopped during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001. A reinstatement of the biohazard presented by hunting with hounds would be totally inappropriate given the government’s failed badger culling and TB policies, which have resulted in epidemic spread of bovine TB in cattle to new areas of the country previously unaffected by the disease¹². In April there was a new cattle herd TB breakdown near Theresa May’s own Maidenhead constituency, which also falls within the Kimblewick hunting range, at Henley-on-Thames¹².

The Government’s promised Disease Risk Assessment of the Kimblewick hound outbreak, and results from disease investigations both locally and nationally in hounds, need to be made public before the General Election. Theresa May has made hunting with hounds an election issue, but her arguments are evidence light, prejudice heavy, and take no account of the disease risks. Her support is based on ignorance of the scientific facts and the objective cruelty involved. Such a lack of empathy casts grave doubt on the suitability of Mrs May to negotiate animal welfare and protection policies under Brexit.

We urge voters to ask Theresa May to explain the reasons she is supporting such a regressive and high-risk policy as a return to hunting with hounds.

Dr Iain McGill BSc (Hons) BVetMed MRCVS. Director, Prion Interest Group, Director VATC, Lead author VVNABC

Dr Mark Jones BVSc MSc (Stir) MSc (UL) MRCVS

Professor Andrew Knight MANZCVS DipECAWBM (AWSEL) DACAW PhD MRCVS SFHEA. Director, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; American Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare

Dr Andre Menache BSc (Hons) BVSc DipECAWBM (AWSEL) MRCVS. European & RCVS Veterinary Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law

References

1.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

2. Letter by Theresa May to a constituent, explaining her views on hunting with hounds. (2015) Vets & Vet Nurses Against The Badger Cull

3. Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales

4.Wildlife killed by illegal hunts show injuries consistent with prolonged suffering

5. Treves, A., Krofel M. & McManus, J. (2016) Predator Control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 14, 7, 380-388.

6. Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Macdonald, D.W. & Reynolds, J.C. (2006). Effects of culling fox

populations at the landscape scale: A spatially explicit population modelling approach. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1102-1110.

7. Since the introduction of the Hunting Act fox populations have remained roughly stable

8. McDonald, R., Baker, P. & Harris, S. (1997). Is the fox a pest? Electra Publishing, Cheddar,

Somerset.

9. Jahns, J. J. Callanan, M. C. McElroy, D. J. Sammin, H. F. Bassett (2011) Post-mortem Findings in Irish Culled Hounds. J. Comp. Path, Vol. 145, 59-67.

10. Foxhounds euthanised after becoming infected with bovine TB

11. McGill, I, Abraham M, Boscolo S, Eastwood B., et al (2017 in press) Veterinary professionals oppose any return to hunting mammals with hounds (The Veterinary Times, June 5^th 2017)

12. http://www.ibtb.co.uk

This letter, released today, coincides with the publications of an article by this author and some 20 of his colleagues in the Veterinary Times (see ref. 11 above) and was offered exclusively to the Ecologist for online publication today

Published on June 1^st to coincide with London Tree Week [London Tree Week] The Tree Line: Poems for Trees, Woods & People is not only a beautiful and generous anthology of 60, specially commissioned poems, it has also been published with the support of the Legal Sustainability Alliance [Legal Sustainability Alliance]to celebrate the 800^th anniversary of the Charter of the Forest and a new Charter for Trees, Woods and People [Tree Charter]

As Clive Anderson, President of the Woodland Trust, writes in his Foreword, this is ‘A sylvan anthology to enjoy rather like a walk in the woods – the eye attracted by a variety of shades and tomes of subtly different subject matter, style and form: wit and irony intertwined with eulogies, effusions and epiphanies.’.

It’s an anthology of diverse, vibrant and considered reflections, ideas and styles that bear witness to the vitality of trees in our daily existence, whether it’s D. M. Black’s observation that, ‘Trees have more DNA/than you or I.’; Peter Carpenter’s reflection on the unknown identity of a tree bought from a long defunct Woolworths that, ‘down the London Road, gives its pick/and mix shadows, like Pissarro in Norwood.’; Alison Brackenbury’s reminiscence of a childhood spent in trees, ‘The beech trees straining to their light/sighed in my blood.’; or Andy Brown’s Committal, in response to John Burnside’s Nocturne: Christmas, 2012, where he writes: ‘I also wish to carry on, here’s how:/inter me deep in loamy woodland soil,/then plant a sapling oak above my head,/so hair and skin and bone my be reborn’ – the anthology is a skilful and engaging mix, well edited by Michael McKimm, whose own poem Love Poem with Beech Coppard is included.

But the anthology is more than a sylvan walk. It stems from an urgent necessity to engage with and protect our environment, and this conversation lies at its heart. In the ways of artistry, this necessity is expressed by these poems and those wisdoms they embody, and with which we want to engage via our own, personal landscapes, represented not least by the enduring resilience of the tree, a living thing that can both predate and outlast us all.

I think in particular of the Ankerwycke yew tree in Surrey, said to have witnessed at least 2,000 years of history already. Here, apparently, Henry Vlll conducted some of his first liaisons with Anne Boleyn, which ultimately led to the break with Rome and creation of the Church of England. Often planted in churchyards, the Celts in particular considered the yew a holy tree, symbolising death and resurrection; and in that endurance lies our ecological hope.

More apposite to this anthology, perhaps, the Ankerwycke yew is said to be the spot at Runnymede where King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Two years later, in 1217, all the rules that related to forests that were included in the original Magna Carta were brought together in a dedicated Charter of the Forest. It is this 800 year-old charter that the Woodland Trust, along with numerous other organisations [The Charter Story] is celebrating with a new Charter for Trees, Woods and People for the 21^st century.  What is also brilliant is that for every signature, they’ll plant a tree – at the time of writing, over 60,000 people already have: join them here [Sign The Tree Charter Petition] and make history, too. 

It’s not just individuals that have signed up to this. The Legal Sustainability Alliance (LSA) is a network of leading law firms committed to working collaboratively to encourage all employees of law firms to measure, manage and reduce their carbon footprint and to take action for a more sustainable future. In supporting and commissioning this unique poetry anthology, the LSA has created another platform for promoting awareness and commitment to good environmental practice.

In promotion of this commitment, the anthology’s publication, the Charter for Trees and the LSA’s 10^th anniversary – and, really, in celebration too of the way industry and commerce and art can work together to the greater good – the Worple Press is hosting numerous events over the rest of the year in London, Bristol, the New Forest, Nottinghamshire and Winchester, further details are available here [Tree Line Events]

This Book

The Tree Line: Poems for Trees, Woods & People, is published by the Worple Press, price £10.00 [http://www.worplepress.com]

This Author

Harriet Griffey is the Ecologist’s London-based Cultural Editor and is also Editorial Consultant at One Hand Clapping magazine [https://www.onehandclapping.online]