My view is this: Foxes are not really different than a dog or cat in that respect. They have similar physiology and intellect, and are capable of social attachment although they don’t form packs. They’re hard to domesticate (though it has been done), but also pretty friendly regardless. People sometimes keep them as pets, actually.
If I wouldn’t do something to a pet (or at least, a wild dog), I wouldn’t do it to a fox.
Well, not really. It’s not being done for ecological management, but for entertainment and sport. Wildlife managers kill in simplest and most efficient ways they can. Foxhunting is pretty much the exact opposite. I have no problem with people riding crazy about the countryside following dogs. But there’s just no need to tear foxes apart in the process.
No, not really. The ban may not be 100% effective but I doubt that’s it had “the opposite effect”. If that were the case, why are so many groups lobbying for a repeal of the ban?
As for the appeal to tradition, I disagree. Whether something has been practiced for a thousand years or a week has no bearing on our evaluation of whether it is humane or effective.
I used to follow a local hunt (US) because I knew people in it. In the US the hunt only goes over land where it has permission to ride. The hunt is responsible for maintaining the paths and the jumps. The US hunts are no-kill hunts. They don’t block dens. They do go out cubbing with the young dogs to break up the fox dens so the cubs get spread around the area, and the hunt will feed some of the foxes in bad winters. So the US regards the foxhunt as more of a recreational sport, rather than a kill sport. I heard of hunts where the fox got killed, but the usual rationale is that it was old or ill, which seemed reaasonable to me. A pack of dogs basicallly get in each others way, the foxes are quick and wily.
I think I can speak to the expense. You can buy all your tack second hand (replacing your leathers annually) and you can buy your jacket, jodphurs, and boots second hand too. Don’t buy a second hand helmet. As for a horse, you can either ride a loaner or lease a horse. The idea that horses are expensive is only half true. There are places where you can get a decent horse for close to free and places where you’d pay thousands of dollars. Leasing is common and where a lot of people start. The big cost are the stable fees, shoeing and vet bills.
It’s a costly sport, but I know people that pay $5-$10k a year for their kid in hockey.
I have no idea where the hunter-gatherer thing comes from (I find it just as bizarre a claim as you do, hence my previous snark), but he’s more or less describing the process of enclosure - consolidation of small parcels by big landowners (who typically did not work their own lands) and the taking over of the Commons by the same landed gentry - typically accompanied by mass evictions, abject poverty, desperate peasants dispossessed of their lands and homes reduced to work for a brass farthing…
Ultimately it led to increases in agricultural productivity and freed up labour for the soon-to-be industrial revolution, but it was an ugly process.
Okay, so apart from you living in the 80’s and there only being statistics of fox numbers available since the 60’s, can you ensure all of the millions of animals kept on farms - under a variety of conditions and not allowed to roam freely - and then slaughtered for their flesh, feel no pain?
(my embolden) Earlier in the thread was posted this; “Foxes are vermin and predators, in Australia, over several days a single fox once killed eleven wallabies and 74 penguins, eating almost none.”
That’s not the act of your usual wild predator such as a tiger or wild dog, let alone a domesticated cat or dog. People have been known to keep tigers for pets, that doesn’t make foxes (or tigers) in the wild all ‘cuddly’, and it’s dangerous to spread those lies. Foxes have been known to attack small children, as well as many more pet cats and dogs.
So you’re saying that a ban making it more popular cannot be true because so many people are calling for the ban to be overturned?
Yes, that’s what I was referring to and, we didn’t cover this period in history in school (nor have I read about it before) my terminology was partially incorrect; the common heathland was used by the poor for rabbiting and also to allow their sheep and/or cows to graze, plus gathering wild berries and fungi. Some still is, a friend of mine goes out to find ‘special’ mushrooms at certain times of the year and another friend goes rabbiting during the season, although I think that is more for population control on private grounds (he uses a gun, not dogs), more than in the public countryside.
It was said at that time, just after the Restoration, that “There are fewest poor where there are fewest commons” which I find is stretching the truth, somewhat, to aid an agenda - in fact enclosure put the value of improved land up by as much as three times.
apologies if my snark to your snark was misdirected
To find hunter-gatherering societies in England, you have to go back to prehistoric times. The land has been settled, farmed and managed for millennia.
Feudalism was a system of rule by land owners introduced by the Normans into England in the 11th century. The Barons and Lords had a contract with the people who lived on the land they owned. Serfs worked the land in exchange for food during famines and protection in times of war. There were rights and obligations on both sides and it worked well enough until the 18th century when agricultural technology changed and later the industrial revolution.
In the argument over fox hunting, we can see echoes of some of the political tensions that have persisted over the centuries. There are still Lords who suppose themselves to be Normans and presume to rule the land over the English peasantry. There is still a tension over land ownership and who has rights of access.
The Enclosures were a change in the ancient rights to the use of ‘Common’ land. This was key to Agricultural reform and the introduction on new farming methods. Some of the losers ended up emigrating to the US, where a similar tension arose between the immigrants and natives who had quite different concepts of land and property ownership.
The English remain very preoccupied with property and titles, much to the detriment of the economy. The small minority of the population that live in countryside in this country like to think that they have some divine right to say how it should be run. There are many amongst the 99% of the population who live in cities, who would challenge that right and many who would seek to confront them over the fox hunting issue.
In the UK sentiments over the treatment of animals became an extremist political issue that pitted anachronistic wannabe Lords against anarchistic wannabe revolutionaries. It got quite nasty from time to time. Some groups verged on terrorist tactics and there have been some bizarre revelations about the activities of undercover cops.
I don’t think anyone wants to see that unpleasantness flare up again, the horsey set still enjoy their dressing up parties without killing foxes. I suspect most politicians would regard it is a useless distraction.
The James Burke TV series is very good, he certainly whets the appetite for delving deeper into some of these pivotal moments in history.
Pretty much, yes.
While humans don’t always act rationally, it stretches credulity that the foxhunting groups would be lobbying so hard, while they were in rude health, knowing that reopening the debate means risking potentially harsher legislation / better enforcement being put in its place.
But then there is the report quoted by Measure for Measure, and you alluded to, that apparently said that the incidence of foxhunting has increased.
But alas, a quick look at said report shows that Measure for Measure cut out an important part of the quote, which I’ve underlined here:
Saying that feudalism “worked well” for serfs sure is glossing over a lot. Also, feudalism in England as a system of agricultural production didn’t really survive the Black Death – once the number of laborers was reduced to the point where small groups of them weren’t easily replaceable, they had enough economic leverage to end their ties to the land and negotiate wages. So you’re off by about 400 years.
All of this has nothing at all to do with the fox hunting ban, which was pushed by a very modern, limousine-liberal notion of “animal rights” as part of the New Labour concern with hip, symbolic issues.
I’ve never heard of, referenced or alluded to that report, or am I aware of any important quote it has cut out. In fact I never mentioned how many foxes had been killed before or after the ban came into place, it was the record number of people who were now taking part and the two new hunting ‘packs’ which had formed, for the first time in centuries.
One thing I do know is that the number of groups lobbying for a repeal of the ban before it came into force would’ve been many fewer than it is today. I expect there is a chance that their lobbying will have detrimental effects, just as there is when ‘interests’ are lobbying for big oil companies, big pharma, agriculture, motoring, tobacco, arms dealers etc.
I expect the RSPB to be on the side of wild birds, as am I which is why all domestic cats I’ve had in the family have had bells on their collars. I’m keenly aware cats are predators but it seems “there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide”.
Some birds have shown significant changes in population, the RSPB says “Those bird species that have undergone the most serious population declines in the UK (such as skylarks, tree sparrows and corn buntings) rarely encounter cats, so cats cannot be causing their declines. Research shows that these declines are usually caused by habitat change or loss, particularly on farmland.”
So, just as human actions (but not hunting) kill the most animals - especially with cars killing 100,000 foxes on UK roads each year - we also kill the most birds, just by our unlimited growth that doesn’t live within our environment, and instead by trying to control it.
Are you saying you would like hunting by cats to be made illegal?
They obviously do, and industrial raising of animals is its own nightmare. But they’re not meant to feel that pain because it’s fun-fun-fun was my point. Even before the 60s, peasants and knackers have tried to limit that pain to the best of their ability and understanding, if only for safety reasons. The bull will only allow you one free swing :p.
You might make the vegan argument that meat eating is not stricto sensu necessary to human life and therefore meat eating is ultimately done “for fun” and morally indefensible. Which I kind of agree with, even though I’m not vegan because mmmBacon. But even if we accept this as true, the violence itself still is not committed for the fun of the slaughterer.
Beyond that, you need to pick a side, mate. Either farming animals is wrong because it makes animals feel pain - in which case you should perforce be against all forms of hunting too, hunting for pest control wrt animal breeding even more so - or quit with the bollocks :). Most people condone animal suffering in some contexts. Animal rights activists disapprove of *gratuitous *suffering. It’s not hypocritical of them.
Well, it’s technically correct (a.k.a. the best kind of correct) : since the poor were all evicted at swordpoint, there were precious few of them left in the enclosures :p.
Otherauthorities disagree. And hell, yes, they can have an impact.. Not everywhere is Merrye Olde Englande
Totally besides the point anyway - who’se to say those wallabies and penguins would have seen another summer, either? I thought the point was the killing and not eating.
No, I’d like hunting cats to be made legal. Fair’s fair…
Well to me you said: “As proved above, the banning of fox hunting - just like the ‘War on Drugs’ and prohibition, has had the opposite effect” – I had to infer what thing you were referring to.
So OK now I know what thing you were referring to. Well, it doesn’t “prove” the ban has had the opposite effect. It was a symbolic stunt soon after the ban had been enacted. If such numbers of people were turning out now to watch hunts it would have some relevance (even then though, the number of people watching hunts =/= number of hunts increasing).
Good. That implies that it’s having some effect.
Furthermore I can’t find any examples of animal rights groups campaigning for a repeal (just better enforcement and/or clarification), which I would expect if the ban, somehow, as you keep suggesting, had been beneficial to foxhunting.
I don’t have to ‘pick a side’. I’ll try to explain the juxtaposition; The countryside does and has provided food for the cities since the industrial revolution, the farmers and country folk - to the best of my knowledge - treat the countryside as their own and care for it as people do their own back gardens. Why wouldn’t they? It’s their livelihood as well as their ancestors’ and the next generations’.
Now some (many) practices in the countryside have been outlawed, as the treatment of animals by farmers has not been as humane as we’d like, or diseases like BSE have highlighted bad practices to serve us - via behemoths like Tesco or Sainsbury - food for the cheapest rate going.
So you, I and most meat-eaters want cheap meat, raised in nice environments where the animals feel no pain, don’t suffer from disease and any practices we don’t think are correct - from our positions of moral authority, should be outlawed because we know better than those country folk who’ve only been raising cattle for generations. I went all the way to Asda and chose a cheap piece of lamb, that makes me an authority on how farmers and country folk live their lives, hey?
We know better than country people who see death, birth, and slaughtering every week of the year? We know better than country people who’ve had their chicken numbers decimated, or lambs killed by a fox on numerous occasions? People get upset if their own pet gets sick, or worse.
And when a fox comes into your coop and slaughters dozens of birds, while only eating one, I imagine they take it pretty fucking personally. As said up thread my sister keeps geese, ducks and chickens in a coop in her front garden - they live in a tiny hamlet in the countryside but aren’t farmers.
They’re all her pets, all have names, and provide fresh eggs in return for lots of nice food and a decent environment to live in - let’s face it, without human intervention many fowl wouldn’t survive in the wild. A fox came in one night, digging under the chicken wire, and slaughtered them all, taking out one for dinner and leaving the rest. So my sister and her family had to clear up all the carcasses, dispose of them and make a new coop which was safer.
That’s why I take exception to foxes - and only foxes - being hunted. It isn’t just because of my sister, it’s because literally hundreds of thousands of country folk are happy about fox hunting even when, as you say “Even before the 60s, peasants and knackers have tried to limit that pain to the best of their ability and understanding”. Just as I’d trust any other professional that they’re doing their job correctly if they have generations more experience at it than I do, so do I trust countryside dwellers that they’re doing this for a good reason - even at the risk of being arrested.
Yes, your point about supercats killing US animals is totally besides the point when we’re talking about the UK countryside, and no, no one can say the 11 wallabies and 74 penguins - killed by one fluffy, cute, little fox - weren’t on their last legs.
The Wikipedia page I’d used before which said the number of hunts had increased by two since the ban has mysteriously changed and that information is now not there. But you can still read about it here (warning PDF): [According to the article, for the fist time in centuries, two new packs have formed. One of these new additions is known as the Private Pack, set up by a financier named Roddy Fleming in Gloucestershire, and operates on an invitation-only basis. According to Melissa Kite, “Young people are taking it up, enticed by the element of rebellion and the mystique of what actually happens as hunts attempt to keep within the law.”18
An important fact highlighted by the articles is that no hunt has gone out of business, instead 34% report an increase in subscribers; while 10% say their numbers have decreased. Surprisingly the article reports that 115 new masters registered with the Mater of Foxhounds Association during the 2006-2007 season, and packs in England and Wales carried out more that 32,000 days of hunting between enforcement of the Act, in 2005, and 2007.](http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2010/agriculture-rural-development/12310.pdf)
I can’t speak for all animal rights’ groups, but my WAG would be that they’re fundamentally opposed to any blood sports or hunting of any kind.
Just what has any of this to do with fox hunting in silly clothes and using dogs to run foxes down to exhaustion and to do it all merely for pleasure?
You make a case for control of numbers, but you make no case whatsoever for doing it in the most inefficient and controversial manner possible.
So we now get this distinction by you, that we city folk ‘don’t understand’ your ‘country ways’
Well I have news for you we do understand, we understand all too well and that’s exactly why we object to the use of dogs and fox hunting in the old picture postcard method, because we all know it is needlessly cruel not only to the fox, but to humans who degrade our kind by taking great pleasure in such cruelty.
Thing is, there is no need at all for it, you ‘country folk’ seem to believe your right to inflict and enjoy pain and suffering trumps the rights of animals, and trumps the rights of the rest of us to hold ourselves to account with a code of ethics and decency.
Well it does not, whilst we need to control pests, predators and slaughter other animals for food, there is a very extensive and significant amount of legislation based upon our collective recognition that we set higher standards of humankind - just because a fox kills a lot of hens, this does not somehow justify a revenge type attitude, with an old biblical attitude of ‘an eye for an eye’ - it really does show you up for the Romanesque savage that you truly are.