CA reaction to the collapse of the RSPCA's final hunting case

Yesterday the RSPCA dropped its last outstanding case involving a hunt when it discontinued a Hunting Act prosecution involving Will Bryer, Master and Huntsman of the Cattistock Hunt. There is no need to linger on the RSPCA's tortuous explanation for its U-turn other than to note that it should be no surprise to any prosecutor that it might have to prove its case.

The animal rights group, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), which provided the 'covert surveillance evidence' on which the prosecution was based, has reacted with unsurprising inelegance and decided that a failed prosecution means that the law needs to be amended. This from an organisation which also somehow manages to argue that the Hunting Act is a successful piece of legislation.

The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) has already taken this view and gone further by admitting that the failure of the law is that it has not caused hunts to "vanish". For that reason LACS now even wants trail hunting banned.

The RSPCA has reached an important point. It needs to decide whether it is going to follow its erstwhile partners at IFAW and LACS down an ever more insane road calling for legislation that would criminalise dog walkers, or whether it chooses the path of animal welfare.

We still await news of the appointment of a new RSPCA Chief Executive over 12 months after the departure of Gavin Grant, but that should not preclude an outbreak of common sense. There is far more interest and concern about the welfare of animals in the countryside than there is amongst the tiny number of extremists in the animal rights movement. The RSPCA must decide whether it wants to work with the sensible majority or continue the slide into irrelevance alongside the lunatic fringe.

Read the Telegraph's report on the Cattistock case here.

Follow Tim on Twitter @CA_TimB