The Fox Hunting Ban

I should say that I suspect some of my more animal rights supporting friends may be disappointed in me for some of what I am about to write. I am not an animal rights person but I do believe that unnecessary cruelty, whether it is to a human or an animal, should be avoided. To put it mildly.

My objections to fox hunting are specific. I don't have a problem with 'hunting' in the best sense, which involves tracking, stalking and the quick dispatch of the prey. There's a certain amount of admirable skill in that. This is especially true if the hunter intends to eat what he or she catches.

So this blog will focus purely on fox hunting, which requires an animal to be noisily chased for miles before being torn apart by a pack of dogs. That seems to me to be an combination of terror and pain that is both gratuitous and unnecessary.

I'm not stupid enough (or perhaps City enough) to think that foxes are all Basil Brush in the wild. Nature isn't like that. Foxes kill things it is true, although if you listen to pro-fox huntsfolk you'd think foxes were responsible for the death of virtually every lamb or chicken not killed by humans. There might be an argument for managing their numbers but I don't think chasing a creature for miles before allowing it to be torn apart by a pack of hounds is a particularly efficient way of managing a pest problem.

Pro-hunts-folk admit this themselves. They say that not every hunt catches a fox. So why bother? Why not just shot them or poison them? At least try and be humane.

Ah well we're told. The fox's death is pretty quick and painless. Really? You don't think that having been chased for miles across the British countryside that an exhausted and cornered fox doesn't feel something akin to terror. Otherwise why run? Then the fox gets ripped apart by hounds. Which might, just might, be quick but I'm willing to bet it isn't painless. Perhaps we can find a pro-hunt lobbiest willing to run a half-marathon before being set upon by dogs in order to test the theory.

Well, says the fox hunter we don't like it for the cruelty. We like it for the thrill of the chase. There's probably some truth in that. Dashing round the countryside on horseback does look pretty exciting and you probably need to catch something at the end to justify what you've been doing otherwise it just looks like a glorified canter. You can meet up with your friends, have a drink and a chat. Lovely. In which case what is wrong with drag hunting? Because if you need to catch something alive at the end and have it torn apart by hounds then I think what you're in it for isn't the thrill of the chase it is the thrill of the catch. It implies to me that you're in it for the sight of blood, which means you're in it for the killing.

Finally there's the argument that the fox hunting ban is motivated by 'class war'. That it is an attempt to stop the upper classes doing what the upper classes have done since time immemorial. There is a sort of truth in that but it isn't stopping the upper classes for the sake of it. The class element lies more in the fact that fox-hunting managed to survive the elimination of most animal killing 'sports' that came about after the 1835 Cruelty To Animals Act. All we're asking is that the 'toffs' catch-up with what the rest of us have been expected to do for almost two hundred years.

In 1835 the 'Cruelty to Animals Act' banned most sports involving animal cruelty: bear-baiting; dog fighting, cock-fighting and bull-baiting. They didn't mention fox hunting. I wonder why? They banned those sports that didn't involve the wealthy country gentleman riding in his smart coat. They banned those blood sports that were enjoyed mainly by the working-classes. So a belated fox hunting ban just asks for you the fox hunter to catch up with the rest of us. All those blood sports were perceived to be cruel. What is the difference with fox hunting?

I'm sure I'll be accused of not understanding country ways but in that case I think those of you who support fox hunting need to have a word with the 72% of people living in the country who, apparently, don't support the repeal of the ban (according to a site called Conservatives Against Fox Hunting). The national support is 75%, which doesn't imply a huge difference in opinion between urban and country dwellers does it?

As I said at the beginning I don't have a problem with hunting per se. I have a specific problem with fox hunting. I think it is a cruel and vainglorious way to kill an animal. If you have to kill foxes in order to manage their numbers then you should do so in a humane a way as possible. What will happen if the ban is repealed is that once more a group of people will be legally allowed to inflict cruelty on an animal.

So keep the Fox Hunting ban.