Tories will bring back foxhunting by the back door
Dear William Hague,
As a hugely respected member of the Shadow Cabinet, I always have high expectations of your policies and competence. Unfortunately, if what I read is true then my respect for you will be violently shaken. Rumours are gathering that secret plans to reintroduce hunting foxes, stags and other animals have been drawn up with the backing of senior Conservatives such as yourself and the Countryside Alliance, and this could form a blueprint for the reintroduction of hunting with dogs across the British countryside, which was outlawed by the hunting ban in 2005. I am seriously unimpressed.
Brian Fanshawe, a former master of foxhounds who has worked closely on the project for some time, confirmed that senior Tory figures have now backed the proposal. “What we want to get away from is being accused of being arrogant and not dealing with genuine complaints,” he said. The project also enjoys the support of Viscount Astor (stepfather to Samantha Cameron, the Tory leader’s wife), who attended a recent meeting with the proposed members of the new Hunt Regulatory Authority (HRA) at the House of Commons. Anxious to avoid the anarchic scenes that often occurred when pro- and anti-hunt groups clashed, these individuals insist the new HRA would mean that foxhunting faced stringent controls. Under the new scheme, entire hunts could be banned, packs of hounds de-registered and hunts barred from holding point to points. Stephen Lambert, of the Master of Foxhounds Association, stressed that six key rules would govern all hunting, including hare coursing and terrier work. These included the demand that every hunting activity should avoid “unnecessary suffering” (*cough**splutter**cough* – Ed.), that everybody engaged in any hunting activity must act in accordance with the law, that hunting must respect wild, farm and domestic animals, and property including land, trees, crops and watercourses, that all “reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that hunting is carried out on land with the permission of the owner, tenant or occupier”, that hunting is carried on “in a manner that respects any other lawful activity being undertaken by any other person on the land”, and finally that nobody may carry out any hunting “likely to bring hunting into disrepute”.
Every hunt would have to sign up to the plan, Mr Lambert said. “Under the new system the onus for proper behaviour would fall on the master rather than the staff member. It is one of the things that’s wrong with the Hunting Act, that it can convict a huntsman and not the master. It’s grossly unfair on the staff. If there was some ghastly drama – the hounds accidentally catching a fox in some inappropriate place – it’s not against the law but it most definitely brings hunting into disrepute and the HRA would act,” he said. The new HRA regulator would avoid the criticism of cronyism and having “too cosy” a relationship with the hunting fraternity made against an earlier, similar organisation – the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting – by using independent legal experts, he said. “The Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting did a very good job but the opponents of hunting felt that it – the people on it – were too close to hunting. They weren’t, but that’s what we were accused of – having too cosy an operation. So this time we have been much more stringent about it, using a marvellous chap called Mark Lomas QC who is on the Bar Council and has quite a bit of responsibility for disciplinary procedures.” Mr Fanshawe said it was possible, although “extremely unlikely”, that a hunt could be completely banned.
Clever, very clever. In effect, the plan that you support is working on the basis that if there are rules and regulations in place then foxhunting, hare coursing and other similar activities become acceptable. Sorry Mr Hague but you are living in a dreamworld. Everyone knows that the Hunting Act is a stupid piece of legislation, but do you honestly think that opposition to foxhunting will go away if you put some independent regulator in place? The rules that this group are proposing are utterly shameful. Don’t you understand that from the second a hunt begins, animals will be subject to “unnecessary suffering”? Presumably supporters of foxhunting would tell themselves that stress and pain inflicted during a well-regulated hunt is therefore ‘necessary’. Furthermore, if a hunt trespasses on someone’s private land, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – why should packs of hunters and hounds be given an exemption for trampling through other people’s private property? Are you also suggesting that having a rule stating that hunting must “respect” wild animals is in any way compatible with chasing them down just for laughs, causing them horrific suffering and then probably killing them afterwards?
Stephen Lambert said “We’ve built the car, the key is in the ignition, we’re just waiting to turn it,” which confirms in my mind that the Conservatives are serious about these plans. How ironic that politicians such as yourself think it is possible to give hunting down and killing animals an air of respectability. Foxhunting, hare coursing and all these other activities that your buddies enjoy makes any commitment to ‘compassionate conservatism’ look embarrassingly deceitful. If you were truly compassionate as policymakers, you wouldn’t allow people to tear animals into small pieces.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“These included the demand that every hunting activity should avoid “unnecessary suffering” (*cough**splutter**cough* – Ed.)…”
If animal suffering was their goal, they wouldn’t be petitioning the Tories to repeal a pointles, ill-thougt out law based purely on class hatred.
They’d be campaiging to bring back leghold traps.
Julia – the suffering of animals is a *side effect* of hunters having their fun.
On another note, did anyone see that the execrable Andrew Rossindale MP has the brief for ‘Animal Welfare’?
Julia, I wouldn’t call the animal suffering their “goal” per se but it is an unavoidable consequence of hunting animals for fun.
Shaun, if you want to understand the gross hypocrisy within the Conservative Party about hunting, you could always read this article on ConHome from Mr Rosindell himself, in which he declares that we are a nation of animal lovers and that “it is crucial to communicate the Conservative Party’s new-found enthusiasm and dedication towards the cause of animal welfare.” You couldn’t make this stuff up, you really oouldn’t.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/08/andrew-rosindell-mp-why-conservatives-believe-in-animal-welfare-not-animal-rights.html#more
Shaun, far, far worse things happen in any abbatoir every day – do we accept that the suffering of animals is a ’side effect of eating’?
“…this article on ConHome from Mr Rosindell himself, in which he declares that we are a nation of animal lovers and that “it is crucial to communicate the Conservative Party’s new-found enthusiasm and dedication towards the cause of animal welfare.” You couldn’t make this stuff up, you really oouldn’t.”
But it’s utter nonsense to claim that the two are diametrically opposed! I’m an animal lover (four cats), yet I eat meat, wear fur and have no problem with ethical, properly regulated hunting.
It’s not an ‘either/or’ situation.
Not a fan of hunting, especially as many of those in hunts seem to have fairly fluid views of what constitutes other peoples property.
If the Tories want to bring it back in, fine, just as long as it’s only done on private land, and I’ve got the right to send any huntsman trespassing on my land into the next life.
Yes we do. We have to eat (don’t start off on vegetarianism) and we have evolved as omnivores so meat is on the menu. I say that in an existential them-or-us situation, its gotta be us and mine’s a steak.
(There is an argument that, to my knowledge has never been refuted, that if you want to take an animal off the endagered species list, put it on the menu. Eat tigers or lions and they’ll be farmed like cattle – a point in this argument is that cattle are crap and without farming could never have multiplied to the current extent.)
There is no material benefit to us in this regard from hunting foxes (which we don’t eat). It is purely about the fun of the hunter as the pest control arguments are massively spurious (e.g. if they are pests, why did Hunts introduce them to the IOW? Why do they not control their numbers in towns? etc)
It’s an emotive issue in this country and I’d suggest the fox is more emotive than most. When I had my old style car, its low bumper was forever catching wildlife crossing at night [I did try to avoid it, by the way]. No one cared about the cats, birds and grey squirrels but one night it caught a fox and I was in the doghouse for days.
Julia, I accept that wearing fur and shoddy abatoirs need to be looked at but, like Shaun, I draw a huge distinction between farming animals for food and tearing them into tiny pieces for fun. Abatoirs should not involve suffering and if they do then something is seriously wrong and should be addressed. I’m also not entirely sure how hunting can be “ethical” under any circumstances…..
Ob, I think the invasion of private land should be prosecuted heavily, as I said in my letter. Regardless of what the laws are on hunting, hunters have no right to waltz onto other people’s property and they should meet massive fines (at the very least) if they do so.
“There is an argument that, to my knowledge has never been refuted, that if you want to take an animal off the endagered species list, put it on the menu. Eat tigers or lions and they’ll be farmed like cattle…”
That works with hunting too. Ensure game animals have a value, and they will be conserved. This is especially true in Africa.
If they have no value, besides the occasional tourist of cameraman filming BBC documentaries, then they are either competitors for your own food source or they are the thing granny needs to watch out for when she pops out of the mud hut after being caught short in the middle of the night…
“Julia, I accept that wearing fur and shoddy abatoirs need to be looked at…”
Well, that’s not quite what I meant! And only one of those needs to be ‘looked at’, doesn’t it?
“I’m also not entirely sure how hunting can be “ethical” under any circumstances…..”
Game regulations. Close seasons. Calibre restrictions. ‘Fair chase’ regulations. Licensing.
Need I go on?
Julia, if the Conservatives really gave a toss about animal welfare (which they don’t, but go with me on this!) then how can they NOT look at the fur trade as well as farming practices?
And I’m sorry but all those ‘ethical’ things you mentioned are nothing of the sort, they are merely legal jargon. None of those issues make hunting ‘ethical’ in my opinion, although ethics is always defined differently by different people. On a personal note, I find the whole notion of a ‘fair chase’ grossly distasteful – using packs of dogs and horses to hunt down an individual fox is never ‘fair’. Now, if the fox had a shotgun….
You say it as if it were a bad thing…
Erm, surely the point is that the Hunting Act was a sop to the left but was a completely messed up by the Labour Party.
am not going to debate the merits of hunting on this blog, but politically, it is completely understandable that the Tories would want to reverse a piece of legislation designed to penalise “their people” (read Chris Mullins’ book to see how Labour saw it in terms of the hunting supporters all being Tories anyway or from Tory areas). There is nothing “back door” about it either – in fact, it is important that the Tories are open about these plans to maximise the political support from the hunting lobby – which in terms of providing political foot soldiers for the next election, is far more powerful a force than the antis.
As a veggie I can take the moral high ground on almost everything – which is nice! Shaun you are right we have evolved as omnivores but most of us have also evolved with a conscious and the intelligence to be able to replace meat with other substances such as soya beans. In some places in the third world this is incredibly important because they can’t afford to eat meat. As a veggie Uganda a much better place to eat than in France! But then morals of any kind have never really existed in France
If it was up to me abbatoirs would be closed down, transport of farm animals would be banned and farmers would be able to kill their animals on their own property. Much more ethical except the health and safety crew would have a hernia!
I am not going to vote consrvative if there is even a scrap of a hint of re-instating the ridiculous and archaic blood sports. Even Bolivia has better animal welfare laws than us. They are currently in the process of banning all animals from circuses (apart from human of course!) And yet we have the hideous scaby terrier men and nonces on horses all going after the blood of lovely, iconic and ecologically important animals.
Conservative Party – Regressive politics r’ us
From a very disappointed former conservative voter
Fox hunting is not a sport, but it has to be done to control the numbers, to protect farm animals, they are a pest.
But the first thing the Conservatives should be thinking about bringing back is pistol shooting. As it was banned under the last Conservative government, I as a Conservative have not voted since 1992, that goes for the other 100,000’s who have not voted since.
“Julia, if the Conservatives really gave a toss about animal welfare (which they don’t, but go with me on this!) then how can they NOT look at the fur trade as well as farming practices? “
We no longer have a fur trade in this country, thanks to Labour. Are the Tories planning to encourage its return? If so, I haven’t seen anything about it.
But, that’s not what you meant, is it…?
There are no ’secret plans’, nor is the Conservative commitment to a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act followed by a Government Bill exactly news. Try reading the 2005 Conservative manifesto. Cameron has consistently repeated that commitment in the media since he became leader.
The regulatory authority story was actually in the Times two weeks ago http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6792792.ece and has been openly discussed in rural publications for months.
There is every justification for repealing the Act simply on the basis that it is a stupendously bad law, as even you accept, but if we must revisit the hunting argument then the facts are simple. There has never been any evidence that hunting (in its many forms) is less humane than the other methods of controlling wild mammals that remain legal. Don’t take my word for it –
“Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel…the short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.”
Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs. House of Lords, 12th March 2001.
If you are willing to support a blatantly prejudiced ban in the absence of any “verifiable evidence” on the basis of your own dislike for the activity then in my book you are no Tory.
Oscar
“And I’m sorry but all those ‘ethical’ things you mentioned are nothing of the sort, they are merely legal jargon. “
No, they are regulations set by people genuinely concerned for animal welfare and conservation, and subject to scientific research and reasoning, rather than by the knee-jerk reactions of someone who would ban a sport he finds personally distateful without regard to others’ personal preferences and liberty.
Danvers, the political motivation is obvious enough.
Candid, I doubt that you are the only one who feels that way.
Stuart, shooting is indeed more ‘humane’ in some circumstances but that would stop the hunters from having so much fun….
Julia, I guess it comes down to whether you believe someone can be genuinely concerned about animal welfare while still allowing animals to be hunted and often torn apart for fun. I don’t think the two are ever compatible, you clearly do.
Oscar, let’s talk about the House of Lords inquiry, shall we:
“There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly. There can also sometimes be a significant delay, in “driven” coursing, before the “picker up” reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead). In the case of “walked up” coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer.”
“The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously
compromises the welfare of the fox. Although there is no firm scientific evidence, we are satisfied that the activity of digging out and shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare, bearing in mind the often protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping.”
“Because the fox’s carcass is usually “broken up” by the hounds it is bound to be difficult to obtain conclusive evidence on this matter. But the post mortem evidence which we have seen does at least suggest that – as we had tended to conclude from video footage – it is an over-simplification to say that foxes are almost invariably killed by the leading hound grabbing the fox’s neck. Two post mortems carried out for us by the Department of Clinical Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol showed very few injuries to the head and neck area and indicated that death was caused by massive injuries to other vital organs.”
Need I continue?
@LFAT – of course hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. The purpose is after all is to kill them.
The point you so carefully avoid is that this is a comparative argument. The judgment is not (should not be) whether one method of control is perfect, but whether control is necessary and then whether there is evidence that one particular method is less humane than the alternatives. Snaring compromises the welfare of foxes, so can shooting. Lord Burns made his view on the scientific justification for the ban clear as above.
You have made your position equally clear: you don’t like people enjoying an activity that involves the death of animals, and you don’t like the people who you think go hunting. There is nothing scientific about that and if you can justify this sort of infringement on people’s liberty on the basis of your views then you should shuffle off and join all the other authoritarians in the Labour party.
Oscar
I agree. The Hunting Law is badly drafted and impossible to enforce. It should be repealed and we should go down the line of licensing; enforced standards of behaviour with the Master of the Hunt responsible for upholding them; close seasons; absolute rights for landowners who don’t want hunting to take place on their land; and possibly quotas per Hunt per year. @JuliaM -
I live in a small rural village, next door to the Master of the local hunt, and I can tell you for certain that the local hunt’s activities have not diminished – or even changed much – since the law changed.
There are so many holes in this ill-thought-out law, and the police are so “not bothered” about enforcing it, and the anti-hunting fraternity have lost so much credibility through their stupidity and violence, that the law may as well not exist.
(Incidentally, one side effect of this is that my hens don’t suffer the ‘distress’ of being ‘torn apart’ by foxes. But then who cares about hens – not as cute as foxes, eh?)
So, oddly, debating the welfare and the ‘rights’ (god help us) of foxes and other cute woodland folk is not at the heart of this issue. I would suggest they have not been helped by this law at all.
The ‘real’ issue is unwinding a politically-motivated and cynical law, put in place far more through snobbery and envy than through a desire to protect big red rats.
Oscar, of course there is no perfect solution – shooting and snaring have their flaws too. However, if you are seriously suggesting that tearing a fox into tiny pieces with dogs is the best solution available then you must be living on a different planet. Decent fencing and shooting foxes on or near farms would go a long way to solving the problems that farmers face, as the Lords Inquiry pointed out and I wholly support that. Personally, I couldn’t care less about who goes hunting and I am also amused by the suggestion that not liking “enjoying an activity that involves the death of animals” makes me authoritarian – I suppose that makes the RSCPA evil authoritarians too, seeing as their mission statement is to “by all lawful means prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals.” Shame on them.
Boudicca and CF, of course the current Hunting Act is a joke. No-one can really contest that and it was indeed a cynical law.
Great post LFAT – I have heartilly recommended it over at Soho Politico. I’m surprised that, at a rather sensitive time for the Conservatives (when the media are beginning to ask, much more seriously than they have in the past, ‘Have the Tories really changed?’), this story was allowed to come out. I imagine that it is the Countryside Alliance that has been crowing about it, rather than anyone in CCHQ. But I am starting to think that, if anything can scupper the Tories’ chances at the next election, it will be lack of discipline and loose lips (almost all the negative stories on the Conservatives over the summer break have started this way). Still, as you know, I think that Labour’s political strategists are a bunch of simpletons, so I doubt they’ll make any headway out of it.
Re: the relative merits of hunting versus other means of controlling animal populations: has anyone even seriously tried chemically neutering foxes? It seems to work to keep pigeons under control. In general, I am inclined to the view that, when the landowners commit themselves to spend as much on humane ways of culling foxes etc. as they do on maintaining a hunt, including staff, horses and hounds, then the pro-hunt lobby can talk about how ‘ethical’ fox hunting is. In the Independent, Otis Ferry is quoted as saying: “Every hunt has maintained its pack of hounds and numbers of staff. There are people all over England suffering from bad, shoddy legislation. Hundreds of law-abiding members of society are walking a tightrope when it comes to supporting their local hunt.” Are they even looking at alternative methods of culling?
“…I am also amused by the suggestion that not liking “enjoying an activity that involves the death of animals” makes me authoritarian – I suppose that makes the RSCPA evil authoritarians too, seeing as their mission statement is to “by all lawful means prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals.” Shame on them.”
Apples and oranges…
And it’s not the fact that you don’t like a particular activity that makes you authoritarian. We can’t all like the same things, after all.
It’s the fact that because you don’t like it, you’d seek to ban it for everyone else.
“…has anyone even seriously tried chemically neutering foxes? It seems to work to keep pigeons under control.”
Does it? Not round my way, the winged rats are everywhere!
“Are they even looking at alternative methods of culling?”
Such as? Plenty of people have employed fox removal teams to get rid of the urban fox population, but despite the best efforts of these Black Ops specialists, the biggest predator of the urban fox (judging by the roadkill) is the motor vehicle, as James pointed out.
To reduce the urban fox population, you need to remove their food source. Our waste.
I’ve often disagreed with your letters, first time I’ve been dissappointed by one. Thankfully, ‘compassionate conservatism’ is a grown-up political concept that doesn’t need to include ‘cuddling small furry animals’ to justify itself. It is possible to stop being a ruthless Thatcherite without becoming a care-until-your-eyes-pop-out small-l modern liberal. If Cameron had retained the hunting act I’d have seen it as symptomatic of his ‘heir to Blair’ credentials and been deeply dissappointed.
I’m delighted the conservatives are actually repealing (or at least undoing)a piece of New Labour legislation, and hope it’s the first of many.
“To reduce the urban fox population, you need to remove their food source. Our waste.”
Totally agree. But how does the urban fox problem bear on the question of fox hunting, which is not much practised in built up areas?
“Thankfully, ‘compassionate conservatism’ is a grown-up political concept that doesn’t need to include ‘cuddling small furry animals’ to justify itself. It is possible to stop being a ruthless Thatcherite without becoming a care-until-your-eyes-pop-out small-l modern liberal. If Cameron had retained the hunting act I’d have seen it as symptomatic of his ‘heir to Blair’ credentials and been deeply dissappointed.”
So compassionate conservatism does not have to include any actual compassion. Thanks for clearing that up, MancUnionist!
@JuliaM – LFAT it was a Government inquiry not a ‘Lords inquiry’ and I take you back to the Chairman’s comment:
“Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel…the short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.”
Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs. House of Lords, 12th March 2001.
So unless you, the RSPCA or anyone else is privy to evidence that has been kept secret from a Government inquiry and the rest of the world the “cruelty” you attribute to hunting is nothing but your own opinion. Feel free, if you must, to support the prohibition of an activity on the basis of your unsupported opinion but don’t claim to be anything other than an authoritarian whilst you do it.
Oscar
“Totally agree. But how does the urban fox problem bear on the question of fox hunting, which is not much practised in built up areas?”
I don’t know. You raised it, in the sterilization context of ‘it works with pigeons’ (which I dispute). And if it won’t work within the relatively small confines of the urban environment, it’s not going to work in the wide open country either.
“So compassionate conservatism does not have to include any actual compassion. “
Well, no. What he was saying was that it should be driven by practicality and scientific research, not sloppy sentimentalism. That’s not compassion.
Oscar Peter – Is it then authoritarian to tell people not to kill each other even if they really want to! Shame on the law for stamping on people’s liberties. I am sure that you do not agree with this statement but as you can see there needs to be a line and it is all about where you put that line.
People cannot go around doing everything that they feel they want to because that will tread all over someone else’s rights. And the line between humans and animals might be distinct due to our very small brain that are focused on the greatness of intelligence to the detriment of every other attribute but humans are merely a single species of animal. No more, no less.
JuliaM – why is it every time an animal is successful – i.e. it doens’t go extinct because of us we call it a pest! I have seen so many more foxes in South London in 1 year than I have ever see in rural Lancashire in 25 years! Nature is out of kilter and before we make it worse we should stop and think where our place is in nature not where nature can fit around us. It is the latter attitude that has led us to this point where we are in the 6th Mass Extinction – caused by us and facing the extreme consequences of climate change.
Humans need to stop thinking we can micromanage nature – we can’t.
I disagree. Sometimes you ban things not because you like them or dislike them but because they are wrong.
For example torture is illegal; not only do some claim (as with hunting) that this costs us utility, but it’s also enjoyed by some people (the BDSM ‘community’) who would very much like to watch it. This is because we, as a society, decided that, despite dissenting minority voices from torturers and perverts, intentionally causing suffering is wrong.
This applies both to humans and to livestock who’s welfare is looked after up to the point of slaughter. The kinds of distress deliberately caused to a fox would, without a doubt, be illegal in an abattoir. And you know that Rotties and Pitt Bulls could herd and down cattle.
Either you believe animals can suffer or you don’t. I do, as it happens but eat meat anyway as I enjoy living. If you do also believe that animals can suffer, it comes down to whether you believe we (humans) should inflict suffering simply for our own enjoyment.
Ah, you’ll say, but dogs hunt foxes in the wild! Okay, I’ll respond, why don’t we legalise knife fights between chavvy teenagers in a sporting arena – there’s ample proof that they’ll stab one another ‘in the wild’ from the crime statistics…. Or what about having the disabled try and wheel away from a truck at 40mph? After all they’ll encounter traffic ‘in the wild’, no?
“JuliaM – why is it every time an animal is successful – i.e. it doens’t go extinct because of us we call it a pest!”
Because it’s only ’successful’ due to an introduced foodsource that WE created, exacerbated by the removal of its own predators – wolves, bears – by us. Hence, overpopulation.
” I have seen so many more foxes in South London in 1 year than I have ever see in rural Lancashire in 25 years! “
And that doesn’t tell you ’something is wrong here’…?
“This is because we, as a society, decided that, despite dissenting minority voices from torturers and perverts, intentionally causing suffering is wrong.”
Yes, indeed. These people are wrong and authoritarian, too, to seek to impose their own morality on consenting adults.
“Either you believe animals can suffer or you don’t. I do, as it happens but eat meat anyway as I enjoy living. If you do also believe that animals can suffer, it comes down to whether you believe we (humans) should inflict suffering simply for our own enjoyment. “
Of course I believe animals can suffer! Anyone who takes pleasure in the prolonged pain of an animal is a sadist. Not a hunter.
<“Okay, I’ll respond, why don’t we legalise knife fights between chavvy teenagers in a sporting arena…”
Because (despite their behaviour perhaps leading you to a contrary opinion) they aren’t animals….
@JuliaM –
“Well, no. What he was saying was that it should be driven by practicality and scientific research, not sloppy sentimentalism. That’s not compassion.”
But fox hunting is not done for practical reasons, or because of any scientific evidence regarding its effectiveness. Fox hunting does not have any impact on the fox population. Indeed fox hunts have been known to introduce artificial earths to encourage foxes, so that they have something to hunt. Fox hunting is, and always has been, done purely for enjoyment. How can you seriously argue otherwise? Do you really want to try to claim that, given the cost of maintaining a hunt, the horses, the hounds, the staff, and bussing around all the hangers in their costumes and associated paraphenalia, that fox hunting represents the cutting edge of 21st century, scientific pest control? Really?!
As for ’sloppy sentimentalism’, if you do think that is all that is involved when people say they are concerned to prevent sentient creatures from suffering extruciatingly painful and totally pointless deaths then you are simply immune to ethical argument. There is nothing that one can really say to persuade somebody who believes that it is mere moral self-indulgence to want to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to living creatures.
Aha so it *is* alright to cause or promote suffering for our own enjoyment, then? So long as it’s a non-human species?
Could we please drop the sneering ‘I’m morally better than you because I loves me some fwuffy little foxy-woxys and people who support hunting are immoral sadists’ implications? This is usually a good place to debate, but some things just seem to turn peoples’ brain off…
“…when people say they are concerned to prevent sentient creatures from suffering extruciatingly painful and totally pointless deaths..”
Want to see ‘exruciatingly painful’? Check out a fox poisoned, gassed, or wounded by a poorly aimed gunshot and left to die in agony. Foxes hunted either get away or die.
“Aha so it *is* alright to cause or promote suffering for our own enjoyment, then? So long as it’s a non-human species? “
No. Ethical hunting should be concerned with minimising suffering as much as possible – hence licensing restrictions (on what you can shoot), close seasons (when you can shoot it), calibre restrictions (no plinking Bambi with a .22) and all the other regulations controlling the activity.
You can’t – and shouldn’t – seek to eliminate something via the political process because it makes you feel icky. You open the door to people to do the same thing to your hobbies as soon as they gain power.
@JuliaM –
“Could we please drop the sneering ‘I’m morally better than you because I loves me some fwuffy little foxy-woxys and people who support hunting are immoral sadists’ implications? This is usually a good place to debate, but some things just seem to turn peoples’ brain off…”
Nobody’s sneering. The point is, you have totally failed to justify the practice of fox-hunting, in the face of commenters who have repeatedly asked for a compelling justification for the practice. Sorry, but fox hunting just *is* a sport based around the infliction of needless suffering. You are defending the indefensible. And you seem implicitly to recognise that, because you are now playing the man, not the ball.
“Want to see ‘exruciatingly painful’? Check out a fox poisoned, gassed, or wounded by a poorly aimed gunshot and left to die in agony. Foxes hunted either get away or die.”
But that’s an irrelevant comparison. Because, as I’ve said, people don’t hunt to control fox numbers. It’s just no use for that. And, if you’re really concerned about fox numbers, what about lamping, which is more accurate and painless way of shooting foxes. Your argument is the equivalent of saying ‘cutting off a man’s arm is morally acceptable, because it’s more humane than cutting off his leg.’ To which the correct reply is that *both* are barbaric and unnecessary.
“Want to see ‘exruciatingly painful’? Check out a fox poisoned, gassed, or wounded by a poorly aimed gunshot and left to die in agony. Foxes hunted either get away or die.”
If the political process is not there to stop the infliction of pointless pain, I don’t know what it is there for at all.
If the Hunting with Dog Act and its 750 hours of Parliamentary debate was all to do with animal cruelty then Labour should have
1.Banned using dogs to kill rats
2. Banned using them to sniff out rabbits.
3. Stopped the killing of animals by the Halal or Kosher method.
4. Banned the live transport of live animals for slaughter in Europe.
5. Banned horse racing.
6. Banned the use of poisons to kill all sorts of pest insects, and many more issues that people can find cruel.
But as Labour used the Hunting with Dogs Act as anything but a political sop to its left wing to continue its support and nothing to do with cruelty, we should not be surprised that the Tories, using some of the Middle Way in the original debate, will win support from many people who know that foxes are a pest in the rural areas of the UK and sometimes, the best and most humane way to kill foxes is by dogs.
I notice that the Rat Pack, a prime time TV programme about pest control company in London that uses a terrier to kill rats is still being broadcast, even though the lads who run it clearly enjoy the killing of rats by a dog for pest control purposes.
It seems that a TV show that shows full frontage of a terrier killing rats is no problem to the antis, yet a foxhound killing a rural pest gets them so heated.
Hunting with hounds should never have been banned in the first place. It was all to do with the anti toff ideology of Labour and its anti hunting supporters. I wonder if they know those who hunt come from all levels of society and all levels of income and social status.
Anti Fox hunters seem to have split mentality when it comes to animals. The more fluffy and cute they look the more support they get.
The point is, you have totally failed to justify the practice of fox-hunting, in the face of commenters who have repeatedly asked for a compelling justification for the practice.
Here we see the authoritarian mind in all its unpleasant glory. Everything must be justified to the state, and if it isn’t, it is banned. And, always, rather than those who would reduce freedom having to justify their restrictions, it is always those they persecute who must justify their right to live their life without interference.
I find this ironic coming from somebody who is gay; gays were deliberately persecuted by a state that would not just mind its own business. It is sad indeed that those who in the past suffered from state persecution so readily cleave to the authoritarian state, eagerly seeking to use it to harm those who offend their arbitrary moral sensibilities.
It comes down to; “fox hunting should be banned because it offends me”. Well, that was the argument for banning homosexuality not so long ago. How little we learn, eh?
I think this comes down to how we, subjectively, understand our own individual empathy with animals. Fishing is okay because, in the words of the Nirvana song, ‘fish don’t have feelings’, but dogs, foxes, cats, kittens and pet rodents are different as we identify and anthropomorphise them. Cattle too but people who view livestock with human qualities normally become vegetarians. And finally we are not a cannibal species – we don’t even eat our dead, as a rule – and that predates CJDish health grounds.
I’m aware that I share something like 60% of my DNA with a lettuce, 99% with a chimp and dogs and cats fit somewhere in between. We’re all mammals, right? Well, anyway, that’s how I rationalise not wanting to cause suffering or death to any animal simply to increase my enjoyment. But if you’re a wasp looking to sting me, you’re f*cked, if you’re a dog looking to attack me, I’ll have you but if you’re a rabbit, hare or fox going about your business then have a nice day. That’s my personal philosophy.
That doesn’t make me better or worse than anyone. In hunter societies, it would make me a freak, an outcase. Turning down rabbit/bushmeat suppers indeed. But if you want to go and kill animals for the sheer fun of it, I may dislike you for it, I may consider you a sadist or a barbarian but that doesn’t mean you are ‘worse’ than me. You’d probably sneer at my sedentary cripple videogamer lifestyle and with a certain amount of public-health justification!
We all have barbaric traits – wait unti 10:45pm on a friday night at ANY pub and watch how barbaric we become in an attempt to get served before last orders! But just because you are no *less* than me for enjoying killing lesser species, doesn’t mean that I won’t shun you for it regardless of legality.
I simply believe, however, that the law has a duty to protect those people and creatures that cannot look after themselves. That includes spastics, cripples like me (on occasion), domestic pets and kids like Baby P.
I’d suggest that the point is that if applied correctly, poison kills quickly and relatively painlessly, as does shooting (subject to the skill of the marksman). Being ripped apart by dogs can ONLY be a death by a thousand cuts.
The thing about being ripped apart by the teeth of a few dozen smallish dogs, tho, is the polar opposite of the notional cleanness of a single shot with a .22 (or greater) to the head. It is definitely not clean and compared to the velocity of a bullet, its also not quick. It can take *minutes*. Whereas a hunting dog can expect an instant, painless death when a vet finally puts it down. Surely, Julia, you can see the difference between the drawn out killing of an animal by a pack of small creatures inflicting small bites versus a clinical shot to the head or heart leading to death instantly or in seconds?
It doesn’t make me feel icky, any more than watching the kind of battlefield footage of dismembered people or beheadings that our UK media won’t show makes me feel ill. It makes me angry – angry that the protected (by law, as was) powerful were flaunting their dominion over creatures withing their power (foxes), torturing them (chasing them with a pack of dogs over ground pre-prepared to block their avenues of escape) until they are caught and executed in the most unspeakable way (cornered, scared, driven and then ripped apart by a pack of dogs). I’m english. I was born here. My parents are Irish and my grandparents are mixed. I have a tendency, I acknowlege, to support the underdog.
But this is a rigged match that can only, most of the time, end with a fairly wild animal being ripped appart solely for the enjoyment of the attendant human hunters. Not for their food and survival. Just for shits and giggles.
Maybe I am too sentimental but as an atheist, I feel the world has enough needless suffering without torturing animals in the name of a lame hunting ritual to make ourselves feel good.
@JuliaM -
Although my earlier post is held up in content moderation, it seems, you are correct Ian:
“It comes down to; “fox hunting should be banned because it offends me”. Well, that was the argument for banning homosexuality not so long ago. How little we learn, eh?”
Except, of course, that hunting doesn’t just offend me. It causes demonstrable suffering to animals in ways proscribed in argriculture and medical science (where experiments causing gratuitous suffering are forbidden). If people are people and animals are animals, why should it be wrong to make a cow fear for its life in the UK, not have to run as hard as it can to stay alive fearing every twist and turn but it be legal to make a fox do the same with a pack of hounds and rich fellas in odd clothes behind it? Cruelty is cruelty is the unnecessary infliction of suffering.
Why do foxes need to suffer thusly?
Animals have rights? Well, I’m a murderer then. I’m just about to eat a sheep.
Why did that sheep need to suffer thusly? It didn’t, except I like the taste of sheep meat. That’s the only reason I need, because, well, sheep don’t have any rights. They are only allowed to live so that they may die and grace my table.
And if sheep have no rights, it is hard to see why foxes do.
Ian, we have laws dictating how food animals are kept, transported and slaughtered, all designed to minimise their discomfort.
Ian, we have laws dictating how food animals are kept, transported and slaughtered, all designed to minimise their discomfort.
It’s illegal to wear a suit of armour in the houses of parliament or affix a postage stamp (bearing the monarch’s head) upside down. The fact that it’s on the statute books doesn’t mean it makes any rational sense.
@Ian B –
“Here we see the authoritarian mind in all its unpleasant glory. Everything must be justified to the state, and if it isn’t, it is banned. And, always, rather than those who would reduce freedom having to justify their restrictions, it is always those they persecute who must justify their right to live their life without interference.
I find this ironic coming from somebody who is gay; gays were deliberately persecuted by a state that would not just mind its own business. It is sad indeed that those who in the past suffered from state persecution so readily cleave to the authoritarian state, eagerly seeking to use it to harm those who offend their arbitrary moral sensibilities.
It comes down to; “fox hunting should be banned because it offends me”. Well, that was the argument for banning homosexuality not so long ago. How little we learn, eh?”
What a load of silly (borderline offensive, actually) rubbish. Homosexuality does not cause harm to unconsenting third parties. Protecting the vulnerable and unconsenting from harm and suffering is clearly within the remit of the state. Interfering with consensual, non-harmful personal relationships, meanwhile, is clearly not (at least for liberals). Equating laws against animal cruelty with laws against homosexuality is simply pernicious. A more accurate parallel would be between laws against animal cruelty and laws against child abuse. Because there was a time, of course, when people thought that what you did to your child wasn’t the business of the state either.
“Nobody’s sneering.”
Really? How do I take sentences like:
“I guess it comes down to whether you believe someone can be genuinely concerned about animal welfare while still allowing animals to be hunted and often torn apart for fun.”
“…then you are simply immune to ethical argument. “
Designed to implant the suggestion that, because I happen to hold two contrary (to some) views, I’m either an idiot who doesn’t understand what she’s talking about, or a liar who secretly longs to tear the wings off flies.
It’s a dishonest way to debate when leftists do it, and I think we’d all rightly call them out for it. So why employ it here?
“The point is, you have totally failed to justify the practice of fox-hunting, in the face of commenters who have repeatedly asked for a compelling justification for the practice.”
The point, surely, is that I don’t need to provide a justification. You don’t like hunting? Then don’t hunt.
But don’t seek to ban something you personally don’t approve of and expect to escape being labelled what you are for it…
“And, if you’re really concerned about fox numbers, what about lamping, which is more accurate and painless way of shooting foxes.”
Unless you go lamping with James Bond or Jason Bourne, sooner or later, someone’s going to miss. No matter how good a marksman they think they are.
It really depends on the two views, surely, Julia? I’m one of you’re defenders here on LFAT’s blog, for the most part (seriously, you’ll see upon reviewing comments that we tend to end up on the same side of arguments although sometimes for different reasons) but ultimate I believe that the only ‘right’ animals have, insofar as such language can be applied to creatures outside of our moral and legal code, is to live their lives as freely as they can without interfering with our existence. Accordingly whales, dolphins and rabbis roam wild and free with various degrees of opprobrium attaching to the hunting thereof. They live in the wild.
As do other animals which various western societies hunt restricted by season. The rights and wrongs of each hunt or cull is rightly debated within its own context.
You and I are lucky enough to live in a country that cares enough about non-human animals to actually bother having an argument not only about *if* we should act to restrict the population of animals (foxes) that are an evolutionary peer of the wolf (so a fox is an aunt/uncleish thing to your pet dog – a cousin/brother parallel with a wolf, apparently) in as humane a fashion as possible. Even though I oppose hunting its clear to me that all but the most sociopathic hunter doesn’t hunt to deliberate cause suffering to the fox; that’s far from their mind.
Because this debate involves fluffy animals (and the last one I saw was at 4am after I woke up to find that the small barking dog I’d heard outside my house was in fact a male fox looking for the vixen I’d heard screeching back at midnight…), it is terribly easy to lose fact of what we’re talking about. Nature is indeed red in tooth and claw but we, as humans, deliberately and often religiously, set ourselves apart as above the natural order since we are capable of morality.
Ultimately, while it may be moral to kill in order to live, is it ever moral to kill just to have fun?
@JuliaM – I can’t imagine the hideous chaos that would ensue if everyone was allowed to do whatever they feel to anyone or anything. Would you allow rape because if you penalised the rapist you might offend their liberty! You can’t say if you don’t like raping – don’t rape!
Rape is effectively banned because the moral majority believe it is wrong. So yes believing something is wrong is perfect justification for banning it aslong as there is an undisputable majority.
@Shaun Pilkington –
“Accordingly whales, dolphins and rabbis roam wild and free with various degrees of opprobrium attaching to the hunting thereof. They live in the wild.”
LOL!
Shaun, the problem is, this – like abortion or religion – is one of the hot button issues that just seems to bring out the ‘You’re bad!’ rather than the ‘You’re wrong!’ in people. We had some of the same discussions on LfaT’s seal hunting thread. We won’t change anything by having the same (basic) argument.
Candid, you are talking about humans. We are talking about animals.
They’re lovely, savage, amazing, and all the other adjectives. But they aren’t people in little furry/feathery/scaly/slimy coats.
I’m quite happy to endorse the hunting of rabbis, btw. But just not at Hannukah.
“Ultimately, while it may be moral to kill in order to live, is it ever moral to kill just to have fun? “
Animals, yes. People, no.
But I do like to watch ‘Dexter’, it’s a bit of a guilty pleasure
JuliaM – Homo Sapians ARE animals. Whether you like it or not. We are only different in our wonderful capacity to destroy our own environment on a global scale.
No, that’s not the only reason.
Wow, I step out for the afternoon and look what I find when I return! From what I’ve read, there seem to be a few things emerging….
I think it’s fair to say that banning something just because you don’t like it is indeed authoritarian. However, as some have pointed out above, foxhunting is not so much a case of banning something because you don’t like it – it’s banning something because it’s wrong. Governments have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to harm and suffering as there are certain things that a society should not accept e.g. rape or murder. I believe that causing harm and suffering to animals for fun also crosses that line without any shadow of a doubt, whereas hunting animals for population control (which fox hunting is most certainly not) is acceptable in my opinion. It’s all very well saying that banning things is authoritarian but people and animals should always be protected from cruelty – indeed, if they weren’t then something is seriously wrong.
There is no perfect way of hunting humanely so I agree that there is a debate that needs to be had over how to keep livestock safe and keep foxes out. However, a basic notion of morality would surely suggest that killing for fun (and in a truly horrific manner in some cases) is always wrong. I think ‘animal rights’ is a dangerous concept because it suggests that they are all on a par with humans in terms of ‘rights’, which is obviously not the case looking at the entire animal kingdom. Even so, supporting ‘animal welfare’ is essential and surely on these grounds alone foxhunting is not tolerable. Yes, all forms of hunting reduce an animal’s welfare to some extent, but tearing animals to pieces for fun is without doubt the worst option.
Sorry, LFAT, but this article shows absolutely no concept of ecology. The assumption that allowing hunting with dogs causes net suffering is not only unproven, it is not only unlikely in ecological terms but also research since the Act suggests that it is the reverse of the truth, as foretold by those opposed to the Act.
You do realise that every animal dies, I assume. Have you ever thought how those animals die, and in the specific case of a top predator?
That is without considering the perfectly legal alternatives to hunting by which humans kill foxes, and the difference between that and hunting. They are all more cruel and less selective than hunting. They are all worse for foxes, whether we consider the individuals or the population.
Sorry, but before you assert that “… from the second a hunt begins, animals will be subject to “unnecessary suffering” …” you need to have some evidence. It is not something that can be taken as an assumption, whatever the anti-hunt lot will tell you. That evidence needs to be based on the ecology of the fox and on the change in human-fox interaction under the current anti-hunting legislation.
On what basis do you claim that the killing is sometimes “truly horrific”? I think days in a trap, hours poisoned or hours injured by a bullet is far worse than seconds with the hounds. I think that days of starvation, illness or injury (the only natural way a fox dies) are far worse. Please do not assume things without considering the alternatives! That is what the Left usually do.
In what way is tearing apart the worst option?
P.S. sorry but I missed an important bit. The tearing apart is utterly irrelevant to the fox. The fox is dead by that point. Like any predator the dogs will kill the prey as quickly as possible, with a bite to the neck or throat if they can. Anti-hunt campaigners make a big play of the tearing apart of the fox but that simply shows their dishonesty. It is propaganda; people they are trying to persuade care about that violence, the fox is far beyond caring.
@Soho Politico – I strive for the greatest typos…
@Candid I take it that you never eat meat then, or any animal product, and revile every one of us who does. It is an irrational position, considering the suffering inherent in life regardless of human activity, but at least it is consistent.
@Shaun Pilkington – Balls. You can eat a wild animal. There is no law as to how it lived, and the laws on how it died bear no relation to suffering.
@Richard – To be honest I haven’t eaten meat since I was 5 but that is beside the point. All I am trying to say is there is no distinct line to put ‘humans’ in one group and ‘non-human animals’ in another – biologically speaking. Other animals have communication, tool making and in some chimp communities it is argued that there is culture passed down the generations. There is nothing that makes us completely unique in the animal kingdom.
So there is no us and them there is a grey, misty mix of different species with various traits and we will never truly know exactly what any other animal feels physically or emotionally (unless buddhism is correct and we all get reincarnated – then I suppose we will know!)
Perceived morality has always been a key instrument in creating laws – this is nothing new. And though it is a pants law that is no reason to go back to the old ways otherwise there could be an arguement to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting whilst we are at it! They were banned becuase it is simply cruel from a moral sense.
Personally I can’t stand horse racing and I would love it if everyone went veggie for both welfare and environmental reasons but as the majority of UK citizens are never going to agree with me on that one then I wouldn’t fight it. But the majority of people in Britain find fox hunting an outdated and cruel and that is why the law came in in the first place. Politics always works on majority voters so I am not totally sure Cameron will really fight to repeal this law.
Oh really?
Looks like animal slaughter with respect to livestock, as I specified, seems fairly well defined. Or did you presume I meant ‘livestock’ as in ‘fwuffy wuffy animal’ like a towny unable to differentiate a cow for slaughter from a domestic pet dog?
@Candid – but that is not true – the definition of species applied to humans is such a line, and we are not speaking biologically we are speaking morally.
We always do treat animals differently, and must unless you are going to give guaranteed veterinary care to all animals, wild or domestic, as well as feed them until they die of natural causes. Of course that would be neither possible nor remove their distress because of a fundamental divide that you fail to acknowledge. We can speak to other humans, and allow them to make their own decisions. That is the basis on which they have rights. It is a very distinct line.
@Shaun Pilkington – you didn’t specify livestock. You specified ‘food animals’. Wild animals can, perfectly legally, be killed and eaten.
“All I am trying to say is there is no distinct line to put ‘humans’ in one group and ‘non-human animals’ in another – biologically speaking. Other animals have communication, tool making and in some chimp communities it is argued that there is culture passed down the generations. There is nothing that makes us completely unique in the animal kingdom.”
Oh, this is utter rubbish! I’m sorry, but it is.
Seriously, if this is what you really believe, then you’ve been misinformed by a factor of ten. As Richard points out, we have sentience, which distinguishes us from animals.
Having studied biology, genetics and evolution for 4 years you realise that things are not so clear cut as we as humans so arrogantly believe. We may be the most intelligent of species but that does not give us power over other things. Other animals have sufficient intelligencce to fit in their individual niches. Monkeys outwit pumas for example but pumas don’t need to be intelligent they need to have amazing senses, speed and agility. So if a puma would judge the rest of the animal kingdom it would consider the senses to be most important and we would be way down on it’s list of good animals.
Ever thought why no other animal in 3.8 billion years of evolution has stayed being intelligent? Even our cleverer cousins the ‘Neanderthals’ died out becuase we bred faster. So there is a limit to the importance and function of intelligence. We have a large amount of intelligence because it put us in a distinct niche. Intelligence is not therefore beneficial to all animals otherwise we would have greater competition in the big brain department – and we don’t.
In the long term just remember that dinosaurs once dominated the land, now it is our turn but probably for not much longer if we keep trying to pretend we have infinite resources.
“We may be the most intelligent of species but that does not give us power over other things. “
In the absense of another tool-using primate coming to the fore (and I think you’d have to agree that that is unlikely now) we have power. We’ve created power. We aren’t giving it up, short of nuclear war. In which case, I wish the cockroaches well in their new kingdom…
“So if a puma would judge the rest of the animal kingdom…”
Outside of ‘Narnia’ books, the only judging a puma is ever likely to do is ‘is that edible?’ and ‘can I reach it from here?’.
It’s an animal, not a little person in a fur coat.
“Even our cleverer cousins the ‘Neanderthals’ died out becuase we bred faster. “
Or because we killed them.
“…dinosaurs once dominated the land, now it is our turn but probably for not much longer if we keep trying to pretend we have infinite resources. “
I’m not aware that anyone was pretending. I’m also confident we can resolve that problem. I don’t think you’ll like the answers, though.
@Candid – “Even our cleverer cousins the ‘Neanderthals’ died out becuase we bred faster”
Sorry, but that shows no application of biology at all. First off there is no evidence that we bred faster. More importantly if we did breed faster, then why did we and how did we sustain that extra population?
Breeding faster is irrelevant if a species cannot find the food to sustain the population. Many creatures breed tens of thousands of offspring, but more than 90% die before sexual maturity.
In fact you highlight another line between animals and humans. There is no evidence for specialisation in Neanderthals, but there is for contemporary humans. Since the entire history of human development, in science, technology and economics relies on specialisation and no other species seems to show it so strongly, I think that is important.
This is just what the nation needs, at a time of trying economic depression, the wonderful site of spoilt toffs, explicitly enjoying their wickedest whims, anywhere and everywhere across the country.
Well, I want my share of the fun! *Vomits Blood*
There we go a socialist saying we are in a a time of economic depression, yes it will end when the government changes, but who caused it? broon the loon.
Yes socialism the politics of envy, and wants everyone the same. Nothing wrong with that but excuse me for not wanting to get down to your level in the gutter, I need to go one way and that is up, sadly that means leaving the socialists behind.
@Anon -
@Anon – You are an idiot. This is nothing to do with “toffs”. I’d like you to tell the owner of my local pub that he is a toff without having the whole bar laugh at you. You can stand in front of the photo of him in his red coat if you think it would help, but since half the people there have known him all his life it won’t.
i see the point that foxes can cause a problem but surely there are better, cheaper, more effective, less glamorised, less barbaric and less torturous ways of controlling the numbers of foxes causing a problem in britain’s countryside than dressing up, chasing them – which any honest hunter will not deny is thrilling and pleasurable – and them mauling them with dogs, in the hope of killing them?
dishonest politicians are, surely, more of a threat to the country than the fox and i don’t see anyone supporting a campaign to hunt them down and maul them death… do i?
There are better ways of ridding the ground of foxes.
Shooting is one way,, or rather it was, after the murders at Hungerford, the then Conservative government banned the use of semi-automatic rifles in fulbore, this was the most effective way, hunting with dogs does work, but it seems the regalia that goes with hunting is the problem, the red jackets, all thought of as toffs, etc, well yes, but we also make a party out of a funeral, we dress up, go have eats and drinks, we laugh, (happy times remembering the past one) is there any difference? dressing up over hunting a fox or dressing up over the death of a fellow being?
Also as a farmer quite often while on a tractor one comes across a fox, what better way than dispatch with a pistol.
Only the last Conservative government banned them, along with the 1997 labour government.