Talk:Fox hunting/2006 Rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: The first part includes some rewriting, but the main thrust is STRUCTURAL. For simplicity I have removed all pictures for now. 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Moved the first portion of this rewrite into the main article, reserving this space for older bits to be sorted into more modular structure. Rorybowman 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The dramatic nature of fox hunting and its strong associations with tradition and social class have long made it a source of great controversy.

[edit] Opposing

People may oppose fox hunting for a number of reason, opposing it through legal means such as fox hunting legislation or illegal means such as sabotage, on behalf of animals, humans or both.

[edit] Animal cruelty

Animal welfare activists have long objected to hunting in general but fox hunting in particular as manifestly unfair and unnecessarily cruel to animals, most especially the fox. Although some animal rights activists may oppose hunting and use of domestic animals entirely, most are concerned about undue stress to the fox, but also horses and foxhounds who participate in the hunt. The vigorous nature of training and breeding animals to the high levels of skill that fox hunting requires may involve what they perceive as cruel treatment or unnecessary pain and risk.

They argue that if wildlife management is the main goal of fox hunting, simpler and less dramatic methods such as capture or sterilization would work just as well, or better. Many assert that many hunts are not as "sporting" as hunters claim, and that animals are not always left alone once they have "gone to ground" in their burrows, and may be killed inhumanely or even thrown alive to the hands, to be torn apart whilst still alive.

Hunt saboteurs are the most controversial of anti-hunt activists, and may actively interfere in hunts by various means, legal and illegal.

[edit] Class issues

Since before Oscar Wilde famously referred to fox hunters as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible,” much criticism of foxhunting has been couched in terms of social class. Even those who eat meat and express no concern at the "factory farming" of industrial agriculture may be opposed to fox hunting as conspicuous consumption and elitism, fundamentally opposed to the egalitarian ideals of a modern democracy. They may cite the enormous amount of resources spent on the activity as inefficient and even inhumane in the face of limited resources.

The British anarchist group Class War has argued explicitly for disruption of fox hunts on class warfare grounds, and The Telegraph once ran headline "Government finally admits: hunt ban is part of the class struggle," quoting Peter Bradley.

[edit] Supporting

The most vocal supporters of fox hunting tend to be directly interested, but those who support fox hunting may do so for a variety of reasons.

[edit] Economics

The oldest economic defense of fox hunting is that such hunting is necessary to control the population of foxes, lest they prey upon domestic animals such as livestock. With no larger predators to control them, except for humans, it is a matter of self-interest and humanity to kill a few foxes rather than allow them to kill many other animals.ʢʢʢ

A more recent argument is that fox hunting is a significant economic activity, providing legal recreation and many jobs for those involved in the hunt and supporting it.[][][][][][][[]][[]][[]][[]][[]][[]]

Hunting with hounds is the keast cruel way to end a foxes life, foxes injured by shooting take days to die.ʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢʢ

[edit] Tradition

Many supporters of British fox hunting recognize it as a distinctive part of British culture generally, the basis of many traditional crafts and a key part of social life in rural areas, an activity and spectacle enjoyed not only by the riders but also by others such as the "unmounted pack" which may follow along on foot or by bicycle.

They point out that the social aspects of hunting reflect the social make-up of the area it takes place in, that the Home Counties packs are very different from those in areas of North Wales and Cumbria where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt is sometimes used as an example, though its membership is by no means limited to miners.

[edit] Personal Choice

So long as an activity is legal and does not hurt other people, it should be allowed. For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong, be it from racial distaste, religious discrimination or any other lifestyle choice, such as fox hunting.

[edit] Fox hunting legislation

Like most hunting, fox hunting is regulated in most countries, if not explicitly. Please see fox hunting legislation for more detailed discussion of these rgulations, but hunting laws are generally designed to regulate what animals may be hunted, in what areas at what time and with what techniques.

[edit] References

Various studies have been conducted and cited by both sides in the fox hunting contoversy. Among these are

"The Henderson Report," a 1949 Labour Government report into fox hunting by Scott Henderson, found that "So far as general cruelty is concerned, we are satisfied that there is less cruelty in fox hunting than in most other methods of control."

The Burns Report of 2000, general Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales.

Ideally references to sites should be done in "footnote" syle [1]

[edit] See Also

A: Animal rights, Animal welfare
B: Blood sport (hunting)
C: Coursing
E: Equestrianism
H: Hare coursing, Hunt saboteur, Hunting
S: Scent hound
V: Vermin
W: Wildlife management

[edit] External Links

Do these need to be divided up as well? I should hope not, but that might be simplest, given the polarized nature of so many.

[edit] Historical

[edit] Supporting

[edit] Opposing

[edit] Ambivalent

[edit] MATERIAL BELOW HERE GOES INTO SECTIONS ABOVE

[edit] United Kingdom: England and Wales: The Hunting Act 2004

Main article Hunting Act 2004.

Anti-hunting protests became more prevalent during the Great Depression, and after the Second World War the British government held the Scott Henderson inquiry about cruelty to British wild mammals. That report judged that shooting, gassing, trapping and poisoning caused greater suffering than hunting, and therefore hunting should continue.

The Labour Party manifesto of 1997 pledged "a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation". A private member's bill which would have banned all hunting of wild mammals with dogs was introduced by Michael Foster, Labour MP for Worcester, and won the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons. The bill later ran out of time before clearing the House of Commons. Had the Bill reached the House of Lords it would have faced strong opposition there.

In 1999 Home Secretary Jack Straw arranged for a six-month government Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. Chaired by Lord Burns, the Committee presented its Final Report to Parliament in June 2000. It was not part of Burns' remit to support or oppose a ban on hunting, but to clear up some of the disputed issues surrounding the issue. Among his other findings, Burns found that banning hunting would have little effect on the number of foxes, and that the number of jobs likely to be lost by a ban was about 700. On the issue of animal welfare, Burns reported that hunting "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox" but that alternative methods of fox control were worse, with the 'tentative' exception of lamping in areas in which that method was possible. The report is available in full at http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/.

The 2001 Labour manifesto contained a promise to allow "Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue". In 2003, the government introduced its own Bill which would have instituted a system of licensing and regulation of hunting. However, anti-hunting MPs passed a series of amendments to introduce a total ban on hunting with exemptions only for rats, rabbits, and bird of prey falconry. The government initially described these as 'wrecking amendments' but later accepted them as the will of the House of Commons. This Bill did not complete its stages in the House of Lords.

In an attempt to raise animal welfare standards at the same time, allow an escape from legislation that specifically targeted hunting, Lord Donoughue proposed the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill. This would have made it the case that "any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence." A matching bill was introduced in the commons with the support of The Middle Way Group (see below). Both bills failed to become law as they were blocked by Labour members who wanted a specific hunting ban.

In the next session in 2004 the government re-introduced their Bill in exactly the same form and it passed through the Commons in one day in September, together with a 'suggested amendment' under the Parliament Act procedure that would have delayed the ban for 18 months until July 31, 2006, if accepted by the Lords. This Government argued for such a delay as an opportunity for hunts to wind down or adapt before the ban came into force; hunt supporters believed that its primary purpose was to prevent the ban and associated protests from coming into effect a few months before the expected general election in May 2005.

The House of Lords passed a series of amendments to return the Bill to the original government Bill of 2003 for licensing and regulation. Under this proposal, hunting would only be able to take place if they could show "utility" (a need to reduce the local fox population) and "least suffering" (lack of any alternative procedure involving less suffering to the quarry than hunting). The Lords amendments included delaying the Bill coming into force until at least December 1, 2007 after the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had reported on whether hunting involved more or less suffering than the alternatives.

The Commons disagreed with those amendments and insisted on the total ban bill. On November 17 the Lords insisted on its amendments to the main bill, though it varied their suggested delay until 2007 to decouple it from any RCVS report. This time it was presented as a fairer opportunity for hunts to wind down than the 18 month delay. The next day was the last day of the Parliamentary session. In the Commons, the government's last-ditch attempt to compromise on a delay until July 31, 2007 won the support of only 46 MPs, although the delay until 2006 was inserted in the Bill. The Lords would have had to have accepted the Commons' other amendments (including the principle of a ban on hunting) in order for this delay to have been approved, and therefore rejected them by 153 to 114.

When the Lords and Commons were unable to come to agreement by the end of the Parliamentary year on November 18, the Parliament Act was invoked, and the banning bill received Royal Assent that evening, becoming the Hunting Act 2004. With no agreement on the 'suggested amendment' to delay the ban, it came into force three calendar months after Royal Assent on February 18, 2005.

[edit] The Middle Way group

The Parliamentary Middle Way Group was formed by three Members of Parliament from the three main Political Parties to represent, in Parliament, those who favoured a 'Middle Way' - that is a solution somewhere between a total ban and maintaining the status quo.

The Parliamentary Middle Way group favours the continuation of hunting under a strict licensing scheme managed by a statutory authority; they argue for this position on both animal welfare and civil liberties grounds. They state that each hunt should apply for a licence to and show that their method of quarry control involves less suffering than any alternative method.

They have commissioned research into The Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes, showing the wounding rates caused by different types of fox-control with guns.

[edit] United Kingdom: England and Wales: The Hunting Act 2004: legal challenges

There have been a series of declarations by various groups of hunting activists that they will still go hunting in defiance of the law. According to the Hunt Facts website some 56,000 people have signed a declaration that they will do this. A part of that statement reads that they "do not take such action with any expectation of escaping punishment, but rather in the hope of persuading both the legislators and our fellow citizens of the injustice of a ban." It is expected that many will hunt in defiance and then offer themselves up for prosecution.

The Countryside Alliance released a Hunting Handbook on 27 December 2004 which states their position.

The Countryside Alliance has mounted legal challenges to the Hunting Act 2004 (both in the British High Court and European Court of Human Rights). These challenges include a ruling on the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 and a quite separate challenge as to whether the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On 17 February 2005 the High Court ruled against the Countryside Alliance, holding that the Parliament Act 1949 is valid. The Alliance has said it will appeal to the House of Lords. An appeal was brought before the the Law Lords and, on the 13th October 2005, the original decision was upheld.

[edit] Updates

Since the ban came into force, Hunts continue to meet and hunt within the law and the anti hunting groups now have a self styled role as hunt monitors.

Despite an actual ban now being in place; both sides of the Hunting debate continue to hold and demonstrate their strong views.

[edit] United Kingdom: Scotland

In February of 2002 the Devolved Scottish Parliament voted by 83 to 36 to ban hunting with dogs. MSPs decided not to give compensation to those whose livelihoods or businesses might suffer as a result of the ban. An article in the Guardian on 9 September 2004 reports that of the 10 Scottish hunts, 9 have survived the ban, as it is still possible to use hounds to flush foxes to guns (however, this is strongly opposed by people against hunting). As a result, the total number of foxes killed by hunts has been said to have doubled because even the healthy foxes rarely escape the bullets. This has not been proven though, as the 9 surviving hunts have lost more that half of their income and membership. Two of the hunts have started training bloodhounds for drag hunting rather than the traditional methods.

[edit] Further Reading

[edit] The Cruely Question

For many people the crux of the debate about fox hunting is the question of cruelty.

Is being chased for several hours to be killed by a pack of dogs cruel?

Hunt supporters say no. They say that the pack’s natural instinct prevails and a “quick nip” to the back of the fox’s neck kills the fox outright.

Research by Dr David McDonald of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University suggest that the average duration of a hunt is 17 minutes. The research states that the fox doesn’t anticipate death and so is not unduly traumatised by the pursuit. The alternatives to hunting with hounds – gassing, snaring, shooting or poisoning – would all inflict more pain and suffering on the foxes. The research suggests that, at present, 10 times as many foxes are shot each year than are hunted. That figure would rise should a ban in hunting be put into place.

Yes it is cruel say animal welfare groups, activists and campaigners.

The claim that because the fox has no natural predators except man and isn’t accustomed to being chased. Though it has to be considered that it is the natural instinct of most mammals to run when threatened by any predator.

Many disagree with the widely held view that foxes are pets. They say that if there is a specific problem with a fox in one area, then shooting by a trained marksman is the only humane way to deal with the problem.

The definition of cruelty must first be established in before looking at the issue, according to the Countryside Aliance.

The 1949 Labour Government commissioned a report into fox hunting by Scott Henderson.

The Henderson Committee considered cruelty to be "an act causing unnecessary suffering", and, "So far as general cruelty is concerned, we are satisfied that there is less cruelty in fox hunting than in most other methods of control."

The group's Website reads: "To this day, the Scott Henderson inquiry remains the most thorough and impartial investigation of hunting issues.

The committee found that the hounds mass of 70 to 80lbs is roughly four or five times that of the fox and it is because of this, they say, that a single powerful bite is all that is required to kill the fox.

The website continues: "There is no doubt that the fox population has to be controlled, and hunting with hounds is not only effective, but it is also the method which involves the least cruelty."

They also say that foxhunting is crucial to conservation of the species. Figures on the Foxman website show that during the Second World War, when fox hunting ceased, the fox population went into decline, because farmers took to shooting them all.

In 1996, Professor Bateson's study for the National Trust indicated that average length of a stag hunt imposed physical stress to the extent that the animal suffered unduly. In other words, that stag hunting was cruel.

The Hunt Saboteurs Association argue that a “quick, clean death” is in the majority of cases not true.

Many of the groups that are anti hunting say also that the fox is not a pest. They argue that “killing wild animals for pleasure should be unacceptable in this day and age” Attributed to the RSPCA.

Supporters do not deny enjoying the hunt: "It is a sport, and it is one that is very much enjoyed - but it's enjoyed for the chase rather than the kill. We are doing the farmer a service, we are getting rid of the fox that would kill his lambs or chickens - and we get a good day's riding out of it." Attributed to Jeremy Barnfield, Hunstman.

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes.

The remainder of this article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can.

There are many arguments on all sides of the debate. Not all arguments are used by all advocates of each view, and almost all views stated are disputed by the opposing party.

[edit] Civil liberties

It is argued that no law should curtail the right to do as you wish so long as it does not harm others. The counter argument is that animals are included in the 'harm others' and that interfering with the liberties of non-human animals is as unacceptable as with the liberties of human animals. This counter argument is not accepted by those who consider humans to be morally superior beings.

All sides can agree that it is bad for the State to make anything illegal without purpose. Parliament has on several occasions in the recent past passed Acts whose purpose was to improve animal welfare or reduce animal cruelty without being faced with large demonstrations arguing that these Acts represented an unreasonable curtailment of liberty, so it seems that most people feel that reduction of cruelty to animals is a worthwhile purpose of legislation, and the only question remaining is whether outlawing fox hunting is sufficiently effective for that purpose to justify the cost in curtailment of liberty (among other costs).

This usage, however, is a dilution of the term "civil liberties"; one more usually hears the term used to refer to those liberties whose curtailment threatens the functioning of democracy itself, such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. By comparison, one may find many references to drug prohibition resulting in unreasonable curtailment of civil liberties (by eg resulting in unreasonable search and seizure powers), but it is rare to hear it argued that it is a curtailment of civil liberties in and of itself, because while it may be seen as a form of liberty it isn't seen specifically as a civil liberty.

Again, however, there is a danger that an argument described as being the democratic will is simply an exercise of the majority's wishes over those of a minority: the so-called 'elected dictatorship'.

[edit] Utility

[edit] Should we control the fox population?

There is a view to the effect that "We are a part of nature, not apart from it" which, though certainly not agreed to by all people does have a good many adherents. The British countryside is far from natural, fox predators like the wolf or bear were eliminated a long time ago. The only predator left are humans, with or without dogs under their control. In such an unnatural landscape, however, predation is far from the only process at work. Wildlife populations, including foxes, are very significantly impacted by death under the wheels of road vehicles. No part of England or Wales is very far from a major road.

Lord Burns report found: "2.4.2.2 National trends in the number of foxes killed

It is estimated that in Britain 285,000 foxes are killed annually by people (Pye-Smith 1997). Dividing this figure according to the different culling methods the numbers killed are estimated as follows: 100,000 killed on the roads, 80,000 shot, 50,000 dug out with terriers, 30,000 snared, 15,000 killed by foxhunts and 10,000 killed by lurchers. A very small (unknown) number will also have been poisoned. In addition to these anthropogenic factors, an unknown number will have died from natural causes and from disease. Because of the high turnover of foxes in Britain, it is likely that the number dying from old age is very small (e.g. Harris & Smith (1987) estimated that in London and Bristol, where anthropogenic mortality is reduced, only 8-12% of foxes make it to their third year). Until recently, it was also plausible that the number dying from disease was also very small, but the recent increase in the incidence of sarcoptic mange (Anon. 1999a; Wilkinson & Smith unpublished data) has meant that the number dying from disease has probably increased dramatically. However, there are no figures on the magnitude of deaths caused by mange in rural areas, but in Bristol it caused the population to decline by over 90% in two years (Baker et al. 2000).

The only other estimates for the number of foxes killed in Britain each year are from Edmund Marriage. These estimates are based on an estimated pre-breeding population of 400,000 adults producing 500,000 cubs annually. Marriage states that 200,000 foxes die from natural mortality, 135,000 are shot, 80,000 are killed by vehicles, 35,000 are snared, 28,000 are killed by terriermen, 17,000 killed above ground by packs of foxhounds and 5000 are killed by lurchers. However, these figures appear unrealistic in comparison with other estimates of rural fox densities (e.g. Harris et al. 1995; Heydon et al. 2000).

Natural rates of mortality are extremely hard to estimate. The only quantified data are for Bristol, where roughly 20% of all the known causes of mortality were due to natural causes, mainly disease (10%), fights between foxes (5%) and a variety of accidents (3%). These figures only relate to animals more than four weeks old, when they first emerge above ground. In addition, there are an unknown number of deaths of cubs below ground prior to emergence; comparisons of placental scar counts and post-emergence litter sizes in London showed that 17% of cubs die underground in the first six weeks of life (Harris 1977). Thus, roughly 40% of all mortality is due to natural factors, and it is plausible that the same applies to rural lowland Britain, where the fox population is not suppressed by culling pressure (Heydon & Reynolds 2000a). However, further research is required to validate this estimate, as well as the estimates for the other causes of death."

Finally there is the issue of controlling foxes in order to protect the farm livestock and other species they predate. The Burns report found (1.4.2.1.2 Predation on poultry) "In conclusion, as with lambs, the impact of foxes on commercial poultry production is significantly less than popularly supposed. And predation by foxes can easily be prevented by adequate housing. However, as with all current rates of loss these must be viewed in the context of current levels of control, although it is unclear how changes in culling will affect levels of damage experienced by farmers."

[edit] "Self regulation of the fox population"

It is put forward by some that population control is not necessary, that the fox population will self regulate. Foxes can exhibit a form of self regulation, when resources are scarce. Pairs of foxes instinctively need to establish a territory and, when they cannot, they simply do not breed. It is a common mistake to assume mammals breed all the time. (See Burns Report). It should be remembered that death in the wild may mean suffering a long slow death through starvation or disease. The most common UK fox disease is Mange, a parasite that causes irritation and hair loss and may lead to death through hypothermia. Mange becomes prevalent when the fox population becomes dense enough.

[edit] Community

Pro-hunt campaigners have suggested that hunting is an integral part of rural communities, and that it is a prime example of co-operative working. These views are not universally agreed. It should be noted that anti-hunt activists dispute both the likely job losses resulting from a ban and the likely effect on community put forward by pro-hunt organisations.

[edit] Class issues

Pro-hunters believe that that there is a popular perception in the UK that Hunting is elitist and costly, only accessible to wealthy aristocrats. They claim that this view is held by and motivates a large part of the anti-hunt lobby, above and beyond any welfare issues. Whilst the main stream anti-hunt campaigns do not often use the class point, the pro-hunt lobby has felt that class war is a major driver for the wish to ban hunting, and that it needs to respond to it (eg Baroness Mallalieu: "[the Bill's] foundations are naked prejudice and wilful ignorance"). The Countryside Alliance's "Pure Prejudice" campaign is in part an example of this.

Hunters point out that people of all social backgrounds and wealth take part in hunting, not just "toffs". Indeed, historically, fox-hunting has been somewhat looked down upon by some areas of the aristocracy.

It has been claimed that at the end of the final vote on the Hunting Bill, back bench MPs on the Government side were heard to shout "That's for the miners". This is a clear indication that for some that this bill is based upon a foundation of class, though it is disputed whether the incident ever took place.

Hunt supporters say that on the hunting field everyone is considered on their ability to ride, and on their "hound sense" rather than on their social background.

All hunts have a large turn out of "un-mounted" followers i.e. not on horse back. They may follow on foot, or by vehicle or bicycle. The majority of packs do not use horses at all. For the packs that do use horses, the mounted followers contribute a sum of money "a cap" to the days hunting, but the unmounted followers are not usually asked for any financial contribution at all. For the unmounted packs, known as foot-packs, everyone pays a cap.

Cap for the mounted packs will start at around £20 but can be much higher for certain packs. For the foot packs cap will be around £5. Farmers and supporters of the pack will pay a nominal sum only. Tea and sandwiches are often thrown in.

In response to claims that cock fighting and badger baiting were only banned because they were working class, and hunting survived as it was upper class; they state that animal baiting and fighting sports was outlawed because they are cruel whereas hunting is not (see welfare section). They also point out that fishing is not threatened with a ban whereas hunting is directly because hunting is seen as a minority upper-class pursuit, whereas fishing is enjoyed by persons of all classes, and is reportedly the most popular participation sport in the UK (see also welfare section for welfare implications of fishing vs hunting).

Perhaps some of the hostility towards fox hunting does stem from public perception of fox hunters as typifying a disliked aspect of the upper classes. Oscar Wilde once characterised hunting as "The English country gentleman galloping after a fox—the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable", and the British anarchist group Class War used to argue explicitly for disruption of the hunt on class warfare grounds.

Peter Bradley wrote on 21 November 2004 in this article in The Telegraph shortly after the Hunting Act 2004 was passed that "we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war." This statement was cited by hunt supporters as evidence of class motivation, and was widely reported as such. The same newspaper published a front page lead article in the same edition titled "Government finally admits: hunt ban is part of the class struggle". Bradley wrote a letter in response insisting that he had not meant this. He stated that he had meant that the struggle over the bill had "become a clash of political cultures", moving beyond the debate over animal welfare and personal freedom.

Most supporters of a ban on hunting however, claim that they are not concerned with class issues and that the pro-hunt supporters' arguments that it is not an upper class pastime is a straw man argument. In support of this view, they cite for example their lack of opposition to drag hunting. They also point out that opponents of hunting are drawn from across the social spectrum, and include many people who are not left wing in any way.

The subject of banning fox-hunting has sparked many heated debates on usenet. Here is an example which runs to over 400 threads: http://tinyurl.com/cvd56