Fox hunting, banned.

[ESpy]

I don't go on foxhunts. I've no particular interest in it, and I don't have any particular fondness for what I do know about them.

HOWEVER - that is not an adequate justification for banning the sport. I am sick and tired of a minority group dictating how the country at large will & will not behave. They have no right so to do.

I might have a word with the nearest hunt to me as a result of this despicable piece of behaviour by the government.

 

[george]

I live and work in the countryside and personally I have no problem with hunting either way (it's been banned in Scotland for some time now and there have been enough loopholes in the legislation to ensure that all the horror stories about the "death of country sports" didn't come true ) - except, and this is a big except, to me its banning seems like the thin end of the wedge. It's very easy to demonise an activity, individual, or group of people for whatever reason, especially if it's seen as being a minority that are involved, and the rest of us breathe a sigh of relief that it's not us. (like Buckshot's illustration of handgun shooters and rifle shooters).

Who's next?

This year the "Right to roam" access laws come in to effect in Scotland. Some of the big landowners are lining up to test it in law. Expect to see expensive publicity machines spinning wildly over different "countryside pursuits", expect to see the wedge being banged in further.

I hate jet ski's - but jet skiers have as much right to benefit from the new access legislation as I do in my canoe. Already there are mutterings about "acceptable" country pursuits and jet skiers are being demonised. Who decides what's acceptable? There are already enough laws in place to deal with irresponsible folk out there without adding specific blanket bans to individual activities.

I never liked the idea of fox hunting, seems like a waste of energy and time, but to me it's banning is just another illustration of the wedge being banged in further.

George

 

[Oakleaf]

Thought I should add, whilst present incumbents are the ones at specific issue, previous Conservative administrations have pushed through 'daft' legislation. Intent was not to slight a particular political party, but a political mindset and societal drift.

For those who havent seen, THX1138 is a view of a future society - where everything is controlled and planned. Emotions are controlled by daily drug issues etc. Liked it because it also showed 'goofs' in the system - the human element. Thought it a nice touch!

At one point the hero is fleeing the police ( robots ) as the chase continues, the scene cuts to the control room and a dollar counter clicking upwards on a screen. The pursuit is terminated when it goes 'over budget'! Was an enjoyable film for entertainment when I saw it - early 80's I think. Thought no more of it.

In the late 80's I had the pleasure of being ( as one of the 'good guys'!) a passenger in a UK police force vehicle, wont say the area. We enjoined pursuit of a vehicle through the city and out. This was before widespread helicopter support days. Then I had a 'Roy Schneider moment' ( on the beach in Jaws, when he has the close in zoom ). Control came on and terminated pursuit - because it was uneconomic to continue! That incident burned the film premise into my mind and is the root of why I droned on about the process side of things so much. Sorry! :?:

Buckshot - is there any doubt? No pressure

 

[Wayne]

I wonder why the question of civil liberties is often cited about Fox hunting. There were many traditions that we now consider unpleasant or even immoral. Should we bring back serfdom after all it served the country well for many a year. In a democracy the majority make their views known and the minority generally gets pushed around. Our civil liberties have been seriously eroded by this government for years on an almost daily basis. information about my habits and friends what websites i visit the content of my emails etc can all be subject to government scrutiny yet very few of us complain. however when MPs on a free vote chose to ban what many consider a cruel and needless act ie killing a fox with hounds. We are screaming about our rights. In the good ole days when i felt insulted or disagreed strongly with someones attitude i had the right to run them through with a yard of sharp steel. Should we campaign to restore Duelling.

There is some weight to the argument about the ban being a thin edge of the wedge. However we have let the government ban too many activites that some consider strange. Many Ninjutsu tools were banned in the 80s did you say hey wayne trains with them we must invade parliment to prevent his loss of freedoms, no. When hand guns were banned the silence was once again thunderous. I have never owned a hand gun and had no plans to do so but i wrote to my MP in gun owners defence.

How many here complaining about the ban have actually bothered to vote in the last round of elections? The british suffer from a poverty of desire.

Ssorry to rant you are all fine people :You_Rock_

I just happen to be very pleased to see a ban on fox hunting. Imo the only decent deed Tony has done his coming to office.

 

[Andy]

somebody said that nature is cruel, whilst this is trun other animals hunt to eat and survive if that means a nasty death to another animal that doesn't bother them. humans don't nned to hunt in such a way. I can't see any benifits of hunting with dogs over with guns. someone also pointed out that foxes aren't left injured after a hunt with dogs but some always will be from guns. I have seen people walking with a rifle and a pack of dogs, surely this is the best option

some people need laws to stop them doing things which are wrong.

 

[Ginja]

On any other forum I think this post would have lasted all of 5 minutes before being axed for expletives, etc ... we're a damn fine bunch, it has to be said!

Anyhow. Very tricky issue this one. I personally support the ban for the following reasons:

1) There are much easier, quicker and more humane ways in which to kill agricultural 'vermin', as the fox is often dubbed. It's called a shotgun.

2) There's no reason at all why the hunts can't carry on galavanting across the countryside in their nice little uniforms, blowing their horns and having a jolly good time - they simply have to replace the fox with something else - like a scent bag (as used by dog trainers), or some other substitute. Having to spoken to hunts-people in the past, the majority of the 'fun' to be had seems to be in a social/dressing up/riding context - not in the actual kill.

3) I don't buy for one minute that thousands of jobs are going to be lost in rural areas as a result of banning hunting. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a rural hunting area, and I don't know one person who's livelihood was solely based on the hunt. And as mentioned in point 2) ... there's no reason why the hunt can't continue anyway.

4) It is, and always was by tradition, a rich person's sport. A sport for toffs, as my late grandfather would have it. Sure us 'commoners' do get involved - shovelling horse sh*t, running about on foot, getting the tea ready, etc. Compare it to more 'working class' bloodsports, such as hare coursing, badger baiting, cock-fighting, dog-fighting, etc ... and you get a VERY different reaction from people. But then they're 'poor peoples' pursuits - dirty, mucky activities involving burly, unshaven men ... you get the point (PS: I don't support any of these blood sports either, by the way).

5) Rubbing the blood of a dead animal on young childrens' faces is just wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong.

6) ... but is was funny watching the news and seeing a load of plumby Ya's with their heads bust open by police battons ... sorry, getting bitter here - I appreciate that people got hurt ... but it did tickle me ever so slighty. I'm sure the BBC news crew were seeking out the poshest peeps they could find, just to make a point. "I was standing there next to Tarquin and Rupert, when some ghastly policeman reached over and bashed me with his batton, the damnable rotter!" Sock it to 'em, lads ...

Right. That's that off my chest ... apologies if I've offended anyone here! But really, there are bigger and badder things to worry about in the world.

G

 

[Oakleaf]

Several interesting points. And good to see balance of views.

Agree about erosion of Civil Liberties - recent history can trace that process back to the first 'modern' firearms legislation, which was largely instituted to remove arms from 'disgruntled' WW1 veterans in the face of the growth of Communism.

Maybe indicative of the times, but in terms of the level of protest, does seem to be a function of money and PR! The Countryside Alliance organised things ( over simplification ). Amnesty International et al simply didnt do the same for the miriad of other infringments that have gone through.

Societal interia plays a big part. I talk to a lot of American shooters. They frequently quote 'Freedom' etc and fly off about 'From my cold dead fingers' etc etc. But they have more firearms restrictions than we do! It is hard to translate perception of a threat into positive action. I group myself very squarely in here! :roll:

I wrote to my MP after Hungerford, went to meet him. I did the same and marched at the handgun ban. I marched twice in London and once in Edinburgh. I dont fox hunt and have no interest in doing so. I can see arguments for and against. But there was a principal at stake and I was content to march for that.

I wrote to complain about the dangerous dogs bill.

We live in a democracy - thats supposed to mean certain things. OK, in theory there is the premise of the majority holding sway. But our ancestors recognised that public mood of the moment was not always for the good. The Lords were established for many reasons - good and bad. But one of the best was to serve as a keel for the ship - to steady her in rough water. That process has been eroded. Follow the analogy through...

There appears to be a majority view against fox hunting ( I dont know the basis of the CA claim that 59% were in favour of retaining ), but much of it ( with genuine respect to views of others ) is based on a class argument and sterotype. In the whole argument there are valid items, but the thrust as a whole here seems to keep coming down to a dislike of the way other people are. That is not a acceptable basis to hold majority sway.

History shows us over and over that acts based upon personalised demonisation - whether 1930's National Socialism and the Jews, 1980's Arab - Isreali conflict, 1990/ 2000 Islamic extremism/ The Terrorist Threat; always result in bad decisions.

The chinless wonder brigade ( sic ) are just as demonised in this latest process. If their activity is wrong, that is a valid point. If you dont like the way they talk, thats another matter entirely.

The last poster ( I am sure in humour ) made comment about Ruperts etc being beaten by police. I was not there so dont know the facts, I am cognisant of the position of the people on both sides of that barrier. But my initial reaction was of horror. When the state ( apologies to the boys in blue, but in that circumstance, you are the state ) has to resort to beating its citizens into submission, there are serious problems for us all.

I do not know enough about the fox hunting fraternity to say how they are made up. I stalk and am in a syndicate - both these also attract the steroetype of being the sport of toffs etc.

I know no toffs in my experience. I do know an awful lot of car mechanics, labourers, dustmen, nurses, teachers etc.

Judge us by what we do, not by who you think we are. If I hold that view, doesnt it behold me give others the same respect?

 

[dataphage]

I was always taught that you should not kill anything you aren't going to eat. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of fox on anyone's menu...

My objection to fox hunting is based on this and the damage hunting does to the horses, the countryside and actually the people. Crashing around the country on a horse is quite a hazardous execise and several broken backs, necks and legs that I have seen are attributeable to hunt injuries. Horses are quite like people in that they get a group mentality. In this state they are hard to rein in when they bolt and try to go too fast over obstacles that are too big for them. They fall over, often on their riders. This is no good for horse or rider (surprisingly enough).

Some farmers even refuse hunts permission to cross their land because of the damage they cause. A farmer round where I grew up that did this and was "payed a little visit" by the local hunt. We are not talking about people with a great deal of reason or understanding here they just presumed they had a right to go over someone else's property causing untold damage and had to have it carefully explained to them by a local magistrate that they did not.

The estate on which I used to ride horses refused the hunt permission to cross its land and for money turned instead to keeping pheasants which turned out to be far more profitable for them - seen the price of a shooting weekend lately? This means gamekeepers with rifles control the fox population if it gets too large. Over-expensive losses of game to foxes are easily avoided with buried fences and the like. The estate is also managed to create cover for the birds and so providing cover for other wildlife. Made much more sense to me.

Surely thundering around the countryside on horseback from pub to pub, blowing a horn and sipping brandy is excitement enough? If that is all hunting entailed then people would have less of a problem with it. You don't need the additional kick of killing something at the end of it to motivate you. Hunting could still take place, scent trails and the like have been used for years. You wouldn't have to give up the hounds even. I just don't understand why you need to chase a fox.

As for hare coursing, this is so close to things like badger baiting and dog fighting I needn't even start on that...

 

[ESpy]

Many Ninjutsu tools were banned in the 80s did you say hey wayne trains with them we must invade parliment to prevent his loss of freedoms, no. When hand guns were banned the silence was once again thunderous.

Fair point. More legitimate martial arts tools were banned on 6 June this year too.

 

[Ginja]

Hi Oakleaf - yes, my reference to "Ruperts being battoned" was an attempt at humour (though admitadely very dark homour at that ...). Inappropriate, I agree, and apologies if any offence was caused - I mean that sincerely.

But it did happen ... my point being that when the same thing happened over, say, anti-war protest (of which I was a part - though not violently, I;m happy to say), the crowd was portrayed in certain press (ie. Daily Mail et al) as wild, rampaging thugs. When in this case, the crowd is portrayed as good, decent people fighting for their rights. It's just the hypocrisy that gets my goat, that's all.

Unfortunately, this whole argument DOES boil down to issues of class, and associated stereotypes, because it IS and always been a class-related 'sport'. Hence, my point about other bloodsports having such a bad reputation - point blank, no question - while fox hunting is held aloft as a precious 'way of life' for rural people. So 'class' or whatever you want to call it does play a part here - though of course, not everyone involved in fox hunting is landed gentry - quite the opposite in my experience - the bulk of people involved are quite happily 'normal'. But more often than not, you'll find it's the 'toffs' who ride aloft ...

Hence, I'm not saying that fox hunting should be banned because it's the preserve of the rich. I'd be saying the same about owning a yacht, if that was the case (joke!). Rather, I'm saying that it should be treated the same way as any other bloodsport, and banned - or rather, 'modified' - so that the social traditions, the thrill of the hunt, the drinking, the costumes, the dog-keeping and everything else can be preserved, while satisying the overwhelming public demand for the killing of foxes in this way to cease (the latest MORI poll shows that 7 out of 10 people are in favour of the ban). Scent trails and sacks of butchers' offal are the solution here in my opinion - you could even rub it in some child's face, if you wanted ... ! (not you personally, of course).

And yes, the issue of civil liberties and rights is very difficult. Though I whole-heartedly believe that in all cases - gun law, dog law, whatever - that rightly or wrongly, the majority rules the day and that's that. If our society was run any other way, then we'd all be keeping guns and 'dangerous' dogs at home to fight off the bandits ... !

G

 

[Ginja]

PS: quick note on the martial arts wepaons thing ...

I've been a self-defence instructor for nearly 10 years (and that makes me feel sooo old!) - karate and kung fu - and I too practice with many weapons (such as nunchaku) that urban myth would suggest are illegal. In many cases they're not ... it's the handling and transportation of such items that's the tricky bit - ie. you're not advised to go swinging 'em about in your local park, or carrying them open on the bus, for instance. Though practising with them at home, or in your local dojo is permitted.

The so-called ban was enforced mainly to cut down on the number of dodgy little shops that were basically trading as 'muggers outfitters'. If you're unsure, contact your local police station and have a chat about it ... you'll be surprised.

G

 

[EdS]

I'll nail my colours to the mast - Ban hunting with dog. The legisation will not stop terrier work, ratting etc. But it will stop fox and deer chaseing (we all agree its not hunting if you don't eat it) and coursing.


If we didn't ban fox "hunting" should we bring back badger/bear baiting, cock fights etc. These were banned many, many years ago as cruel. Strange isn't how the common mans blood sports were banned and the ruling powers (at the time) past times where kept legal.

Foxes do kill fowl, but 90% of hens in this country are battery caged - you cann't say its the least cruel way to control them when the live stock you protecting a locked away in such conditions where foxes cann't get at them.

It not just a class issue - yes that does come in to it, but a question of ethics. How can he as a country condone bull fighting etc if we allow fox hunting. To kill for pleasure not food is wrong. I have shot, snare, fished but have eaten what I caught/killed, the skill can be fun but killing isn't.

As for the minority dictating to the majority - most poles show the majority of the British people are against it fox hunting. Sorry, most people live in the urban area but it is the rule of democracy. Also bear in mind that urban majority are the people that allow most true country people to live where they do by providing a market for farm produce and taxes to pay subsidies.

We cann't/shouldn't a city: country divide. Urbanites have got to realise that the countryside is our biggest asset but it needs looking after and rural areas do have major issue. Banning fox hunting will get rid of this one and allow people to consentrate on the real issues such as isolation, lack of facilitiesand housing. The CA orginally wanted to address these but got hijack by the hunting issue -that why I stopped having anything to do with them. At the same time coutry people must understand that they can only live in a nice country area because most people live in cities and 'subsidise' them one way or another (market, taxes tourism etc.).

And I'm not even going to start on the horse and dog welfare issues.

i'm not a townie or a country "bumpkin" i've lived in the inner city, suberbia and the countryside (where most of my family are) - now live on an old estate on the edge of a big city 10 minutes from the moors

Rant over

 

[ESpy]

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041271.htm
For side-handled batons, read "tonfa".

 

[Ginja]

Hi Peter - yeah, I agree it's a shame that things like this (ie. tonfa) are being included as part of this bill. Still, as mentioned before, it's primarily aimed at stores that make a living marketing these kind of tools to dare I say the 'wrong' people - ie. young urchins that are likely to put them to ill use (I'm trying to be tackful here!).

The bill itself focuses on - "any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person" - ie. there's a grey area here if you already own one, or use one for martial arts training purposes. It's very similar to the law on carrying knives - I can explain the need for a 'dangerous' weapon when hiking on the moors, but if I carry that same tool on the high street then I'm a heap of trouble - it's all a question of context.

I own numerous tools that could, under certain circumstances, cause me all kinds of legal problems - nunchaku, katana, Chinese machete, etc. If you are practicing martial artist and member of a recognised association (BKA, etc) then you have a firm footing to justify these tools as part of your 'sports' equipment - and rightly so (I used to teach a police officer, and even he couldn't give me a straight answer on this one!). If in doubt, then ask your local bobby, or contact your martial arts association for advice.

They'll be banning the sale of javelins, snooker cues and screwdrivers next (joke!). But if it means that I don't get a nasty weapon pulled on me the next time I get jumped, I'm all for it. The greater good, and all that.

Though I share your frustration ... :-(

G

 

[Lurch]

Mind you I think it needs to be said-where was support from the countryside people when Thatcher closed down pits and factories in the early stages of the globalist revolution that has poisoned our country so severely????

Of all the points/arguments/whatever this is the one that has me utterly and completely bemused.
What on earth has the closure of industry got to do with banning hunting with hounds (and this is what the ban is - not just fox hunting)?
Bigoted Labour MP's were actually motivated into voting for a ban as 'revenge' for the miners.
Seriously, I don't get it.

 

[Kim]

I'm a little confused myself... :roll:

I mean apart from the usual.

 

[mr dazzler]

Its not my fault you dont get it lurch.
Thatchers globalist revolution opened the way for a lot of damage to our country. Wether the miners and mr scargill liked it or not they had to put up with the consequences of having their community and way of life irevocably altered, finished in fact, then being forced to change and adapt to new jobs/industries etc, due to thatchers beloved free market forces. To hear the peeved fox hunters talk the ban will have a similar calamitous effect on rural life, so the hound masters, saddle sellers, and all their colleagues from the other "dependent industries" etc, 'll have to go to college (like miners had to) and learn hairdressing, or leisure management or something won't they, and be happy with the change or lump it. In fact most everybody has had to adapt and change to the new global worldview, with its attendant stress and uncertainty.
How many "country folk" offered any support to the miners when they were being forced to accept change at the whim of an earlier pompous govt?? They more likely sat back amused and thought the miners are getting just what they deserve. At least mining was and is an honourable profession, wheras fox hunting is a perverse hobby. :roll:

 

[masongary44]

Pest control is is normally done by sensible people, quickly and humanely. Not people wearing bright red outfits, thrilled by the fact it is taking longer than usual for the poor fox to drop from exaustion... If the fox died from that it would be one thing, but to be ripped to pieces by a load of dogs is a bit different.

Why have all those people on horseback at all... If that was the chosen method of pest control, one person on one horse, wearing normal riding gear, with no horn and a couple of dogs would be able to achieve the same outcome.

I expect that similar feelings of displeasure form fans of bear bating and dog fighting were felt, but how many people would be happy at seeing those sports back on the allowable past-times list.

I agree that sometimes the state legislates to interfere a little too much in our day to day lives, but in this case they are acting on the wishes of the majority of the UK population, on behalf of an animal unable to stand up for its rights as a living being.

I am a big believer of only killing for good reason, and sport / fun can never be a good reason!!

(My grey squirrels caused more than £1000 damage to my house before I took matters into my own hands!!)

 

[JakeR]

Whew! That took me a while. Right then, people have made a good few points. Myself, i hold an anti-hunt stance, killing an animal for (fun) is in my books cruel. But of course, i have no problem with eating the animals you kill.

What horrifies me is that so much parliamentary time has been devoted to this issue when road and rail is a mess, the environment is being critically damaged and people are dying waiting for hospital treatment. I really would have thought that that there were more pressing issues for the government ...

Not sure if i agree with that, it wasnt a full house when it was being debated (if that is a representation of importance :?: ), and i think the only reason it was taken out of proportion was that there was 100's of 1000's of people there protesting! Quite an extreme effect! But i think an illusion of its actual importance nonetheless. But crikey, there are more important things for Tony to be worrying about. But a decision always had to be made on the topic, and there was always going to be the unwelcome reception outside the house of commons.

I agree with what Gary said.

One thing that does bother me is the fact that it is apparently an undemocratic decision. With the Pro-hunt people sporting "59% say keep hunting". Well, for one, i wasnt asked, my father and mother were not asked. None of my friends were asked. In fact i dont think i can name anyone who was asked in an official inquiry "do you agree with foxhunting?". So, i think a majority of the people would disagree with this blood-sport, making the decision democratic.

It doesnt bother me about other country-side related practices being banned, as i think any sane person would see that it was taking it too far.

My biggest political fear is the possibility of 4 more years of Baby Bush.

Anyways, again, i believe we are a fine bunch of people in this forum, there is not one person who i remotely dislike :biggthump

thanks.

Jake

 

[Frogo]

If this had been a poor man's sport, it would have been banned years ago, without any debate.

Frogo