For the second time an expert witness used by the CPS in hunting cases has been dropped after his close ties to animal rights groups and campaigners were revealed. Ex-professor of environmental sciences at Bristol University Dr. Stephen Harris claims he is independent and in over 50 years has worked with both sides of the hunting debate. The Countryside Alliance for their part claim Dr. Harris has more bias than a lawn bowl and have extensive documented history to prove it.
Although he is best known for his role in foxhunting, Dr. Stephen Harris also has strong links to other animal rights related issues and this information has been provided to the CPS who maintain Dr. Harris as an ‘independent’ expert. Given hard earned public money helps fund these court cases and Harris’ appearances we will give the public the chance to view some of the evidence provided to the CPS over two years for them to make up their own minds on his independence.
Suggested Modus Operandi of Professor Stephen Harris
The Modus Operandi of Professor Harris was suggested in the late nineties by Dr Jonathan Reynolds of the GWCT in a critique he wrote of a Harris review called ‘Is the fox a pest’. Dr Reynolds noted the review is written in an easy to understand journalistic format rather than a scientific one, thus targeted at non-experts in the full knowledge they are unlikely to follow the citations and judge for themselves the validity of the review.
‘Summarising a complex subject like this involves making many approximations. This is where bias can creep in. Of course, the evidence considered in a review is listed and the reader can potentially get published items through libraries to read and judge for his or herself; but since ‘Is the Fox a Pest?’ is clearly targeted at non-experts, it is disingenuous of the authors to suppose that most readers really will do so.’
Dr. Reynolds investigated the citations:
‘….. while 34 out of 72 citations are to unrefereed publications, unpublished reports or word of mouth. The authors give equal weight to all sources of information. This may sound objective, but it means that the evidence of first class experimental studies is ranked equal with that of poor studies that lack any experimental design at all.’
‘The curious manner of its release (selectively to the press on 27th October, but denied to everyone else until a full week later) also suggested a deliberate effort to achieve publicity without disagreement.’
We can surmise Professor Harris despises fox-hunting and writes reviews with the specific intent of providing animal rights groups with much needed bad publicity for their campaigns against hunting. The carefully worded ‘Is the fox a pest’ allowed charities to manipulate and fool non-experts, politicians and journalists into believing foxes are not pests and fox hunting as a method of control is ineffective.
Foxes are not a pest – ‘Is the fox a pest’ lists low figures for livestock losses due to fox predation and suggests this proves the fox is not a pest. The low figures are in fact the success of sustained year round culling by farmers using a mixture of methods in combination to protect their livestock.
Cynical spin revealed – The UK government had to bring back a huntsman from front-line service during the Second World War as documented in Hansard:
‘One Mr Harry Roberts, the huntsman of the Plas Machynlleth Hunt in west Wales, was called up into the army at the beginning of the war. As a consequence, hunting was totally suspended. Within two years, the fox population had grown to such an extent that farmers were suffering severe losses. The local War Agriculture Executive Committee in Meirionnydd, with the support of Local MPs, including Mr Clement Davies, who, either then or certainly later, was the leader of the Liberal Party, petitioned the Government to release Mr Roberts. He was released in 1941 for six months in the interests of essential food production. Hunting was resumed in that part of Wales and Mr Roberts promptly killed 149 foxes. If any noble Lord wants a reference for that story, Picture Post picked it up in 1941’ Hansard 12 Mar 2001: Column 557
Fox hunting as a method of control is ineffective – Professor Harris knew farmers integrate separate approaches to keep livestock losses to a minimum and he also knew this was the best solution as it was documented in a book ‘Mammals as pests’ written about the discourse and findings from a symposium he received acknowledgement for organising.
‘…….one final and important lesson vertebrate managers might learn from insect pest control is that the most effective management exercises overall are those that integrate a number of separate approaches to the problem.’
Farmers were using the most effective method possible, separate approaches in combination, i.e. (shooting with rifles, snaring) (hunting with dogs, shotguns, snares) (terriers, rifles). Notably nobody complained at the time of fox numbers being out of control, quiet simply Dr. Harris provided information to facilitate groups like the RSPCA & IFAW to invent a problem where none previously existed.
A Timeline Prof Stephen Harris’ involvement in hunting
1996 – Professor Harris attends a League Against Cruel Sports rally and discusses the decline of the Brown Hare.
1997 – Professor Harris co-authors two reports funded by IFAW, the reports are intended to complement the £1,000,000 donation made to Labour by the Political Animal Lobby (PAL), a company set up to make large donations to Labour by IFAW. The reports are called ‘How a ban will affect the fox population’ the other ‘Is the fox a pest’1. The reports are heralded by hunting abolitionists, for instance the League Against Cruel Sports paper the Wildlife Guardian reported:
‘The members of the committee will be encouraged to accept the hard evidence produced by wildlife academics and campaigners, rather than the myths and anecdotes of the blood sports fraternity.’ (Appendix A).
1997 – In October Professor Harris journeys from Bristol to London to be present at the announcement of the Hunting bill put forward by Michael foster. He is photographed alongside League Against Cruel Sports Vice President Kevin McNamara, Michael Foster the bills proposer and the vehemently anti-hunting Jackie Ballard. She went on to be Director General of the anti-hunting RSPCA.
1997 – November, and again Professor Harris has journeyed from Bristol to London to be present at the second reading of the hunting bill supported by 411 MPs, he can be seen applauding Michael Foster, the bill’s sponsor. (He has subsequently told a judge under oath he was just passing and thought it polite to clap)
1999 – Professor Harris, P. Baker and C. Webbon start a research project funded by IFAW to count fox numbers by using the controversial faecal count method. Starting in 1999 the research had nothing whatsoever to do with hunting and was a feasibility study to see if fox numbers could be estimated. The study was due to finish in 2000 but was extended for a further two years once it was established the findings could be used to give hunting bad publicity.
2000 – Professor Harris and his team receives substantial amounts of money for research from IFAW ‘Modelling the impact of a ban on hunting’ and a further £40,000 for ‘Dynamics of the fox population’. (Fig 1)
2000 – While conducting the IFAW/RSPCA funded faecal count study Professor Harris gets rejected by Jack Straw (Home Secretary 2000) for a position on the Government inquiry team to investigate hunting with dogs. Labour MPs forced the Chairman of the inquiry to award a research contract to Professor Harris and others, however such was the concern over his impartiality, Lord Burns, the chairman of the inquiry, awarded the very same contract to Professor David MacDonald to counter bias. Of the five contracts covering various aspects of the debate only the one which Professor Harris was awarded had a counter research contract awarded to validate the research.2
2000 – Professor Harris’ all-important data on cruelty contained in the review he wrote ‘How a ban will affect the fox population’ written in 1997 and used to provide the scientific vehicle for politicians to push for a ban on cruelty is revealed as corrupt. The data had been manipulated to fit the anti-hunting agenda in America and was available via a website. Professor Harris copied the corrupt data directly into his report without validating first. This dereliction of academic duty came to light when the original author of the research, a man called Terry Kreeger, got to hear of how his data was being misrepresented at such a high level in the UK. He wrote to the Government inquiry to set the record straight. (Appendix B)
‘This has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done.’
‘I personally have no stake in this issue in the U.K. other that trying to ensure that the objective truth is disseminated. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.’ – Terry Kreeger
2002 – Professor Harris and his team receive a further payment of £9,800 from the anti-hunting group, the RSPCA. The report into establishing fox numbers through faecal count started in 1999 is finally complete and published in the science journal Nature. (Fig1)
Serious concerns over the peer review process were echoed to the scientific journal Nature by various academics and knowledgeable professionals. They question Professor Harris’ non-scientific reliance on assuming other methods are not used instead to replace the moratorium on hunting over the foot and mouth period. The study was shoe-horned to give hunting as much bad publicity against hunting as possible. Professor Harris’ research findings were announced to the press just before the portcullis hunting hearings were due to take place. This angered the minister in charge, after seeking advice from other impartial academics he called the research by Professor Harris ‘inconclusive’.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1406619/Some-hunting-is-necessary-says-rural-minister.html
2002 – At the Portcullis hunting hearings Professor Harris is asked to represent the anti-hunting groups as their expert, he duly obliges.
2002 – At the Portcullis hearing Professor Harris made the astonishing claim
‘I have already demonstrated in my earlier evidence that hunting makes no contribution to regulating fox numbers, that there is no case for widespread fox control, that there is no evidence that widespread fox control has any significant impact on fox numbers…’
Very astonishing as it was Professor Harris who submitted the below information to the Burns inquiry showing widespread fox control accounting for 43.5% of all fox mortality making deliberate culling by man the biggest single factor in fox mortality.
‘It is estimated that in Britain 285,000 foxes are killed annually by people (Pye-Smith 1997). Dividing this figure according to the different culling methods the numbers killed are estimated as follows: 100,000 killed on the roads, 80,000 shot, 50,000 dug out with terriers, 30,000 snared, 15,000 killed by fox-hunts and 10,000 killed by lurchers.’3
2003 – Professor Harris receives £2,000 (Fig1) from the anti-hunting group IFAW to research wounding rates from shooting foxes. The research is based on checking old records and X-rays for wounds unrelated to shooting to see if a previous wound from shooting has occurred. Professor Harris announced his research will be peer reviewed at the Labour party conference 2003 to counter a peer reviewed study showing higher than expected wounding rates by Dr Nick Fox. The announcement was greeted with tremendous applause by Labour MPs, convinced of his claim they went on to ban hunting. However the announcement was for the moment, the methodology Harris intended to use was fundamentally flawed and the paper never saw the light of day.
2004 – A smear campaign is launched against hunting by the Sunday Mirror, on the October 3rd as the hunting bill ping-pongs between the Houses of Commons and Lords, typical fake news tactics writing of ‘learned letter’ that nobody to this day has ever seen. Professor Harris is available for comment.
‘This admission reveals the hypocrisy of the pro-hunt lobby. They don’t manage the fox population and they don’t control it’.5
2004 – Another report by Professor Harris seeking bad publicity for hunting and funded by IFAW gets published in the Journal of Applied Ecology and claims to provide the most accurate number of foxes in Britain. The resultant publicity involves attributing a false claim over a fox’s population explosion in the event of a ban to the Countryside Alliance, they now suggest they have debunked the Countryside Alliance, who coincidentally stated the exact opposite to a government inquiry.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jul/28/hunting.ruralaffairs
‘This research demolishes arguments by the hunting lobby that foxes need to be killed to prevent a population explosion.’
The Countryside Alliance argued the exact opposite consistently and stated to this effect in their submission to the Burns inquiry.
‘3.11.5 Accordingly, the Alliance submits that there are real grounds for concern that, if hunting with dogs were to be banned, the fox population in lowland areas would decline. Such a decline would be likely to take place with a corresponding decline in the welfare of the species’
2006 – One year after the ban and farmers in upland sheep rearing areas now start complaining about the ineffectiveness of using just two hounds to find a fox. Professor Harris & P. Baker counter with another IFAW funded paper, this appears in the European Journal of Wildlife Research and was again used to generate bad publicity in the newspapers. The conclusion on the report naturally suggests fox culling had no impact on fox numbers in the forestry plantations and woodland areas surrounding the upland lambing fields. Another calculated bluff, stating the obvious as the culling takes place to remove the foxes from the surrounding lambing fields, Harris’ research rather conveniently did not cover these areas.
A table showing the substantial amounts of money from the RSPCA and IFAW Professor Harris and others received for various projects during and shortly after the drive to ban fox hunting.
Professor Stephen Harris’ Other Animal Rights Activities
2013 – Harris co-authors a report funded by the animal rights group ‘The Born Free Foundation’, this called into question welfare standards at zoos. It was not until March 2017 that the Zoo associations became aware of the document and responded accordingly:-
‘As the regional and national zoo associations with strong commitment to ensuring their members have the highest levels of welfare, we are concerned that the report groundlessly conflates the keeping of animals at zoos with the exotic pet trade and travelling circuses.’
2015 – The League Against Cruel Sports want to show a pack of hounds in Scotland is cruel and ineffective, so they turn to Professor Harris with funding. He writes a report to accommodate their narrative called ‘The utility of killing foxes in Scotland’ 6. Harris sees fit to reference a study (Hewson 1990) however in 2000 Professor David Macdonald advised the Government inquiry
‘Overall we consider the study scientifically weak, and not to allow strong conclusions drawn by Hewson and LACS,
2015 – On the same day Professor Harris arranges the scope for his review into the use of wild animals in circuses with the Welsh Government his report against the fur industry was presented in the European Parliament and drew immediate criticism for its bias.
‘The report, The Case against Fur Factory Farming, claims to be a scientific review, but fails on a number of factual errors and misinterpretations. The report is political rather than scientific.’
The case against the Lamerton hunt collapses when Professor Harris’ links to animal rights groups are revealed in court.
2016 – The review into the use of wild animals in circuses is complete and handed to the Welsh Government on the December 15th 2016, by the 23rd it has been severely criticised by the researcher who has published the most refereed journal articles on animals in circuses in the world for the USDA, Professor Ted Friend :-
‘The Welfare of Wild Animals in Traveling Circuses by Dorning, Harris and Pickett also cited my studies many times, and their use of my studies and the literature is similarly biased.’
2017 – The letter Dr. Friend sent to Bristol University and Lesley Griffiths Rural and Environmental Minister for Wales led to the forced early retirement of Professor Harris in February 2017. This forced retirement appears to have caught both Professor Harris and his students by complete surprise and some even held a petition for him to return, but were told he was not coming back.
https://www.change.org/p/conserve-our-lecturer-conserve-our-quality-of-teaching
2017- In March, just one month after his forced retirement, the CPS are using Professor Harris in the trial against the Grove & Rufford hunt, a guilty verdict was obtained largely on the evidence of Professor Harris.
2017 – Professor Ted Friend’s critique of the Welsh review is translated for the Italian senate causing them to step back from an elimination of animals from circuses.
‘I am concerned that very few people have actually read my scientific publications and discovered that Harris’ spin is 180 degrees from what we found.’
http://www.sivelp.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TED-FRIEND-PDF.pdf
2017 – Professor Harris writes a report with reference to the National Trust giving the impression it was somehow linked to them and coincided with the vote on whether to ban fox hunting on their land. The National Trust were contacted about the report and, until that point, were unaware of its existence.
https://www.league.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=1ffe56d3-1494-4b69-af0a-d4380e39d564
2018 – At the appeal in April of the Grove & Rufford hunt the prosecution pull out just as Professor Harris is about to give evidence, subsequently £60,000 pounds in costs is returned to those subject to a serious injustice.
2018 – Despite the CPS knowing of Professor Harris’ bias they still use him in a trial involving the Fitzwilliam Hunt. Professor Harris attempts to set up the accused and secure bad publicity against hunting by suggesting the fox is not a pest and hunting does not affect their numbers. Why the CPS think a debunked argument pitched at non-experts, designed to take money from charities and only ever likely to work with their cooperation is beyond reasoning for most individuals.
2018 – 4th June. A debate on fur imports in Parliament and Professor Harris’ debunked report ‘The case against fur farming’ surfaces as scientific justification for a ban given by Patricia Gibson MP
‘The latest example in the fur industry is an organisation called WelFur. I am sure the Minister is aware of the comprehensive and rigorous “Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’”, which concluded:
“WelFur is not able to address the major welfare issues for mink and foxes farmed for fur…or the serious inadequacies in current labelling and regulation’
The claimed comprehensive and rigorous scientific review was debunked 3 years previously (See 2015)
‘Mr. Harris fails to fulfil the report’s objective of doing a scientific review of WelFur’
Appendices
Appendix A – The Wildlife Guardian reports on ‘How a hunting ban will affect the fox population’ ‘The members of the committee will be encouraged to accept the hard evidence produced by wildlife academics and campaigners, rather than the myths and anecdotes of the blood sports fraternity.’
Appendix B – (Taken from the Government inquiry website – Terry Kreeger’s letter to the inquiry team making them aware of the misuse of his data in the report ‘How will a hunting ban affect the fox population’ written by Professor Stephen Harris’
References
2, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/24/hunting.ruralaffairs
Research contract 6 – REPORT ON CONTRACT 6 METHODS OF CONTROLLING FOXES, DEER, HARE AND MINK Piran White1, Philip Baker2, Geraldine Newton Cross1, James Smart1, Rebecca Moberly1, Graeme McLaren3, Rachel Ansell2, and Stephen Harris2 (2.4.2.2)
4, http://charliepyesmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Rural-Rites-by-Charlie-Pye-Smith.pdf p59-60
6, http://www.nfws.org.uk/The%20utility%20of%20killing%20foxes%20in%20Scotland.pdf
thealdenham 