Hmm…
Myler Keogh said:
“It is better to worship a white mouse than a superman because there is more virtue in giving succour to weakness than in cringing before strength”
Lord Altrincham
Yes they are. I was just coming into this thread to point out that traditional working class bloodsports like badger baiting, dogfighting etc are all illegal, though sadly they still go on. The class issue in all of this is not so much that fox hunters are being persecuted because of their class as that they have been allowed to get away with it for so long.
When something is done for the pleasure of killing an animal, not for the controlling of a pest, I think that’s wrong.
If the goal is to control fox populations, there are far more efficient and more humane ways than hunting with dogs. So it comes down to the fact that fox hunters are willing to put the fox through more suffering than is necessary, so they can take some personal pleasure from it.
I would like to know, (and I apologize if this was covered–I didn’t see it) just how much the rural ecomony depends on the hunt. If it is significant, then the ban should be rethought. I have come almost 180 degrees on this in the past few years. I used to be totally against the hunt.
IMO, this is a more complex issue than Big, Bad, Aristocracy flaunting their cruelty at certain times of the year.
I keep seeing the tradition/pest control debate–as if they were mutually exclusive.
There is a tradition of pest control that involves a cruel sport. It’s a tradition b/c it’s been around a few hundred years. If enough diseased rabbits (or whatever) survive in Australia long enough (several generations)–then perhaps some type of ritualized event will develope to aid in the culling of the pests. Britain has had the pest problem that long, and it predates fire arms, to my knowledge.
Another example: what of the Paschal lamb? Is that not cruel? Is that not barbaric? Not to those whose tradition it is. What of bull fighting and running with the bulls (organized stupidity to me, but not to those who engage in it).
So the ban hits not just the farming communities (which will still search out and destroy foxes) but also destroys some of the rural infrastructure–something that most folks deplore the passing of.
I would give an American example, if I could think of one. There is practically no American rural network similiar to that in Britain–or if there is, I am not aware of it. People may know each other in small towns, but not for generations back and back.
While I deplore the cruelty of the hunt and want no part of it–I cannot see abolishing it.
Fine - then we city dwellers can stop subsidising the countryside through our taxes, including every penny of farm subsidy through Europe. ‘Gimme your wallet and get orf my land’ - the true voice of the countryside.
I’m more than a little pissed off with the argument to the extent that unless you’re a rural person, you - an ignorant ‘townie’ - can’t possibly understand or comment on the issue - I’m pretty sure this is actually an example of a formal logical fallacy (anyone care to identify it?)
I mean, wouldn’t it be every bit as valid to argue that Unless you’re a city-dweller like me, you can’t possibly understand the perfectly valid objections we have to your disgusting and bestial country ways ?
I hunt foxes in England (with the New Forest Hunt). My wife hunts and my son and daughter have been out with the hunt (although they’re too young to fully follow the field), and in fullness of time (if they want – which so far they do) will be blooded.
I also have absolutely no intention of stopping – and neither does anyone I know. The law as framed is totally unenforceable (and the police have already said that they have no interest in enforcing it). The law is shot through with loopholes (eg you can use hounds to sniff out and ground a fox – but then have to shoot it – how is that enforceable unless the police actually ride with the field?).
However let’s nail a few facts.
Firstly hunting with hounds is a useless way of controlling fox numbers. The fox usually gets away. Shooting or trapping controls most foxes. There is no shortage of foxes either – and lots have moved into the towns and cities.
Secondly the reason that everyone who hunts does so is that it is great fun. Any other explanation is frankly a bit of a fib. We enjoy it and no one gets hurt, so why persecute us?
Thirdly the government couldn’t give stuff about hunting – it’s just a bit of class-war red meat that Blair can throw at his own hard left. After all the government tried to introduce a licensing system.
Fourthly, whilst I might, at a push, be described as a “toff” most hunt supporters aren’t. You need a few bob to stable a horse but not much for a terrier.
So what it comes down to is the class-war prejudices of a few old lefties and a few greens are being used to stop something that has been going on for centuries, simply because they find it distasteful. Many people find homosexuality distasteful – should they be able to ban that?
All in all, it seems to be some sort of class thing that (as a non-Brit) I cannot even begin to understand. Few animals are killed. Many people are made happy.
I would presume a rational political process would solve more important problems before fox hunting bubbled to the top of the pot.
Remarkably silly broo-ha-ha it seems to me.
Just a quick drive-by about the justification for fox-hunting being because it is about food (because foxes kill chickens) – care to cite me an instance in which any hunt, ever, showed a net profit in food and resources? I’m thinking that by the time you’ve weighed up whatever chickens a fox might have killed in its life versus what it takes to feed the enormous number of dogs used to run one down, you’ve got the scales seriously tilted.
. True. A classic instance of the right thing being done for the wrong reasons.
A very honest and principled admission. Just get your fun without setting out to kill a wild animal for no other reason than that you like it, and we’ll have no quarrel whatever.
Sincerely,
Malacandra,
Norfolk village-dwelling Tory voter
You see that’s the problem - the other methods eg drag hunting just aren’t anywhere near as much fun. It’s the unpredictable nature of the fox that introduces the random element which makes it fun. Drag hunting is like kissing your sister. You may find this distasteful - that’s your right, but it doesn’t actually cause you any problems.
I also made it clear that the real reason that almost all people who go hunting do so is that they enjoy it. It’s a useless way of killing foxes. It is at best a nice by product of the hunt that a few foxes are killed, but I could shoot more foxes in a day than a hunt will catch in a decade.
My arguement is simply - no one is hurt, so why stop it?
Owl - london dwelling (Hampshire raised) Tory Voter (and party member).
Hunting has a rather long history, and in nearly all cultures it has always been seen as more than the simple procurement of meat, but rather a manifstation of man’s struggle with and conquest of nature and himself, etc. We surround with traditions and rituals, and incorporate it into our myth and religion. That’s why hunting endures in nearly every culture, millenia after more reliable and safe methods of acquiring protein have been found. Yes, it can be cruel and painful for the prey; but if you’ve ever watched Wild Kingdom, you should know that a cruel and painful competition to survive is pretty much the natural order of things.
That being the case, I think the burden of proof is misplaced. I’ve never really hunted and don’t want to; but I’m not so arrogant to think that I’ve a keener understanding of the deep mysteries that lie behind the circle of life than did the thousands of generations that preceded me. Nor am I so intolerant as to insist that other people not be allowed to enjoy something that does not hurt any other citizen.
If, contrary to the vast majority of humanity, you wish to argue that animals have inherent moral rights (other than what we humans choose to give them), please do so. Otherwise, owlstretchingtime is entirely correct: one group is banning the pastime of another because they find it distasteful.
You’ve hit the nail on the head - it’s a way of attacking the “toffs” by chippy labour types. Except as usual, all the people who will lose their livelihoods are working class, and the “toffs” will simply go to France or Ireland to do it.
Except that by no means all hunters are toffs, and by no means all objectors are tree-hugging vegan lefties.
Arguable, but by that argument (and a good few others advanced by hunting apologists) we’d never have got around to banning bear-baiting, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, badger-baiting, dog-fighting… need I go on?
Certainly among many Natives, hunting is an integral part of the culture.
And in some rural areas, deer hunting has been a young man’s rite of passage for a dozen generations.
Please provide a cite that these things ended because of governmental fiat, and not because they simply lost popularity.
Actually most of them did (at least in the UK). Also dog-fighting, badger baiting and cock fighting still go on in various communities (although they’re not common activities.)
There are a large number of British people who are ridiculously over-sentimental about fluffy animals (Famously we have a ROYAL society to prevent cruelty to animals and only a NATIONAL society to prevent cruelty to children.) There are loads of people in Britain who think that foxes are people in furry overcoats. Beatrix Potter has a lot to answer for.
They couldn’t give a monkeys about fish though.
I’d also be more impressed with the lefties if I saw them picketing Halal slaughterhouses.
So, the solution is simple. Capture a fox and dip its paws in artificial scent, then let it loose. Then just do a draghunt with the hounds following that…
Is it impossible to have fun without killing animals? You say “no one” gets hurt. I assume you mean no humans get hurt, which is of course all that matters, right?
Yes, it amazes me how everyone can turn a blind eye to all those homosexuality-related animal killings.
Wow, I was thinking the same . . . just not animals. But I’m a believer in Darwinism.
Well the fact that they’re illegal is a bit of a pointer, wunchasay? :smack:
Tho’ as owlstretchingtime correctly points out, a number of the easier-to-conceal ones still go on.