Fox Hunting

[jim]

This issue always reminds me of school as whenever there was a debate or we had to pick a topic to speak about somebody would always choose this old chestnut; and being townies (more or less) the argument was always the same: oh how terribly cruel, vicious hounds tearing poor cuddly little foxes limb from limb etc etc.

As I've got older I have become I think more socially liberal in most things but over this particular argument I have contraversially gone the other way. At school I would definitely have been in the "this house believes foxhunting should be banned" camp. Now my view is that if the mad buggers want to charge around the countryside in pursuit of the odd fox (which are hardly an endangered species) then why not let them.

It seems now that the Government are going to try to force a bill banning fox hunting completely through Parliament in order to prevent a backbenchers revolt! Are these people mad? Attack Iraq and polarise the entire Arab world against us - no problem. Preside over the destruction of our environment by failing to deliver a viable public transport system - I know, let's build a few more runways. But allow a few odd bods to practise their centuries old tradition of chasing vermin around the countryside and we'll revolt. Twats!

[Wavid]

I'm with jim on this one. I think legislating over this sort of thing is a total waste of time.

It's actually a pretty ludicrous way to spend your time, and it's impossible not to be slightly nauseated by the sight of a load of toffs prancing around in daft outfits on horseback, but if that's what they want to do, then let them. I don't want to come across all Jeremy Clarkson (now there's an image) here, but I don't really give a stuff about foxes. There are other things to worry about.

The other way of solving the problem, although again it would be giving it more time and thought than it deserves, would be to allow local areas to decide for themselves. That way, the metropolitan areas could (pointlessly) ban it and feel good about themselves, and the country folk who like it can keep it, without feeling that they have been interfered with. Of course, some rural areas might want to ban hunting. Fair enough. But I don't think it's up to the generally metropolitan types to ban something they don't like the sound of, despite the fact they've never actually come across it before in their lives.

[amner]

The importance levelled at this issue in the media is absurd, ditto the inability of the Government to tackle the damn thing and remove it from the radar.

I care not a jot either way (this will change if one of the wee ginger buggers has it away on his toes with my chickens), what I think is the bigger issue is whether the hunt is executed responsibly. Take a dekko at the growing trend in DIY hare coursing (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/search/dispstory.asp?id=52987&db=1) and reasses what's being done here. Bloody wide-boy Essex types 4x4-ing it across muddy fields with starving mutts and nary a care in the world. Mental.

I don't think the toffs have quite the same lack of pastoral respect, somehow, despite the lack of burberry, Argos gold chains or strong chins.

[Colyngbourne]

I am no zealous animal lover but fox-hunting would seem to exemplify a certain wanton cruelty that is in small, what we inflict on others in macro-situations: accepting cruelty for entertainment is not good for our moral health, and our moral health impacts on how we view conservation of the countryside, the environment, etc. and our attitude towards suffering in general.

[Wavid]

A good point Col.

I mean, I wouldn't ever want to be involved in a hunt myself. The idea of it appalls me.

But I think that if people really want to, then fair enough. The idea of foxes being torn asunder by a pack of crazed dogs is pretty unpleasant, but then, it probably goes on in the wild all the time.

After all (and to be honest I am not sure whether I am being facetious or not here - if I am, then apologies all round) wildlife programmes regularly show the gruesome deaths of animals on TV - over and over again. If this were for purely educational purposes, then why show these things more than once?

[jim]

I am no zealous animal lover but fox-hunting would seem to exemplify a certain wanton cruelty that is in small, what we inflict on others in macro-situations: accepting cruelty for entertainment is not good for our moral health, and our moral health impacts on how we view conservation of the countryside, the environment, etc. and our attitude towards suffering in general.

I can see where you're coming from but I don't think the cruelty element is the point otherwise they would presumably just put the fox in a cage and stick pins in it or something. And many of those involved in hunting being farmers and landowners are directly responsible for the conservation of the countryside.

Also the Government's original proposal was to licence hunts which would have had the effect of allowing traditional hunts to continue whilst outlawing the eminently undesirable practices referred to in Amner's link.

The fact is that we are cruel; battery hens are raised in appalling condition, calfs live in darkness to preserve the colour of their flesh, geese are force fed. These practices involve millions of animals and as I am not a vegetarian it would be hypocritical of me to get upset about what is by comparison a tiny number of foxes.

[amner]

It is, without doubt, for me, the least of New Labour's "issue" pieces of legislation. The column inches attached to it, you'd think, put it on a par with WMD and the Euro. It's not even the biggest of the conservation issues (can we surely not genetically modify mixymatosis and zap the grey squirrel population, encouraging reds back where they belong? Just a personal thing, there).

All in all, further evidence of the Government's uncanny ability to put off making an actual bona fide decision yet again. We've been waitying for this since '97 haven't we?

[jim]

It is, without doubt, for me, the least of New Labour's "issue" pieces of legislation. The column inches attached to it, you'd think, put it on a par with WMD and the Euro. It's not even the biggest of the conservation issues

And that is my point - that some backbenchers would threaten to revolt on this issue whilst other much more crucial issues are not addressed. It really ticks me off.

[Colyngbourne]

I suppose the cruelty aspect is not the purpose of the hunt (oh, of course not!), but it *is* conducted with an attitude that doesn't care less about the torment of the animal involved. Farmers and hunt folk care very much about the countryside but they also care more about the fun of chasing an animal than about culling it by some other, less brutal, method.

Eating animals for food, and their appropriate welfare, is another matter. I have no problem with meat, but would prefer far more humane conditions for livestock - eg. Amner's hens in the back yard.

[Wavid]

With amner's reputation, I wouldn't have thought those hens would be too safe from cruelty...

[amner]

With amner's reputation, I wouldn't have thought those hens would be too safe from cruelty...

What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean??! :shock:

[jim]

What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean??! :shock:

You shag chickens I would say

[Wavid]

I'll rescind that comment. Amner has never, to my knowledge, interfered in any way with a chicken, or indeed any kind of wildlife. I believe his intentions are entirely honourable in keeping the chickens, and they will no doubt be looked after properly and that sort of thing.

[Colyngbourne]

Look here, :x they're not chickens - they're hens. I'm the despot on hen terminology as well as spelling.

[Wavid]

So is chicken the general term for males AND females then?

Don't you need a male to get the hens to lay eggs?

Am I missing the point entirely?

[John Self]

Don't you need a male to get the hens to lay eggs?

No. The eggs we eat are unfertilized - aren't they? - otherwise we would have fluffy ickle chicks popping out whenever we cracked one open.

[Colyngbourne]

Chicken is a young domestic fowl (sex not specified); and the meat
Hen is a female domestic fowl
Cock/erel is the young male fowl

A 'hen' is what it is; it may also be a chicken but its classification is as a hen, just as a cow is a cow. 'Chicken' is just used as a common-or-garden word.

[Wavid]

So the eggs just keep coming whether or not there's a Cockeral (thanks Col) about to do his business? I see.

[John Self]

Just as with human females, the eggs keep coming (but the kiddies don't) even if there's not a, ahum, cock about to do the business.

[Wavid]

I suppose you are right, but I'm not prepared to take the analogy any further, despite the temptations.

[Jerkass]

(can we surely not genetically modify mixymatosis and zap the grey squirrel population, encouraging reds back where they belong? Just a personal thing, there).

Any time you please, as far as I'm concerned, mate. I only have the grey ones here, and the cute little buggers have p***ed me off to no end. I'd rather live with no squirrels at all.

I'm about as unamerican as they come when it comes to guns...but the things these creatures have done to my gardens have made even my trigger finger itchy.

Er...wait...so what are we talking about?

[amner]

Just as with human females, the eggs keep coming (but the kiddies don't) even if there's not a, ahum, cock about to do the business.

Just so, albeit it at a rather accelerated rate. You can introduce, if you wish, a male duck into the brood to give them a sexual frisson without fear of fertilising the eggs, but ... oh OK, too much info.

As for squirrels, the grey ones we have here are American and have bullied our cute little redheads all the way to Scotland and North Wales. Typical bloody globalisation. Gits. When you come over in a couple of weeks you can bloody well take some back with you.

[amner]

I'll rescind that comment. Amner has never, to my knowledge, interfered in any way with a chicken, or indeed any kind of wildlife. I believe his intentions are entirely honourable in keeping the chickens, and they will no doubt be looked after properly and that sort of thing.

Hens. Oh, hang on, we've done that.

They'll be looked after very well, I can assure you. When the time comes for dispatch - you only get a couple of years max of premium egglaying - it'll be done swiftly and neatly, not by me dressing up in a red kagoule, toot-tooting on a toy trumpet and chasing the poor wee thing to the next village before tearing it to shreds with my pack of hunting tortoises. No, humane and respectful it shall be, Wavid, believe me. I may even come to you for advice, knowing as you do, so much about choking the chicken.

[amner]

Perhaps we should go back to the point of the thread...?
.

[Colyngbourne]

If Jerkass is coming over here in a couple of weeks, he can bring a few jars of lightening bugs. Please?

[amner]

If Jerkass is coming over here in a couple of weeks, he can bring a few jars of lightening bugs. Please?

...which are?

[Colyngbourne]

Fireflies. On summer evenings they float about in the gloaming, rising into the air emitting tiny dots of light. You can catch them in a breathable jar for a while and let them out all at once for a big lighting effect. Very pretty 8)

[gil]

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" Oscar Wilde

I am against all forms of animal cruelty, as, I'm sure, are we all. I know we cannot eliminate it all, but fox hunting is an obvious target because:

o People do it for fun. (The number of foxes actually dispatched by hunts makes no difference to their frequency. It is NOT vermin control.)

o It "legitimises" animal cruelty (to the hounds as well as the foxes), in a way that no other animal cruelty for sport is legitimised.

o People wanting to do it is not a reason for allowing it.

[Eve]

Ban ALL hunting and fishing. Unnecessary and cruel. Scum


Next?

[jim]

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible" Oscar Wilde

I am against all forms of animal cruelty, as, I'm sure, are we all. I know we cannot eliminate it all, but fox hunting is an obvious target because:

o People do it for fun. (The number of foxes actually dispatched by hunts makes no difference to their frequency. It is NOT vermin control.)

o It "legitimises" animal cruelty (to the hounds as well as the foxes), in a way that no other animal cruelty for sport is legitimised.

o People wanting to do it is not a reason for allowing it.

Hmm. Bullfighting? Fishing? I realise fish aren't animals but they are sentient beings.

Have you ever eaten foi gras or veal or even a non free range chicken (or should that be hen?). You can't say that you ate it out of necessity really. Particularly in the case of the first two these are eaten for pleasure. Surely people wanting to eat it is not a reason for allowing its production?

What I don't understand is why fox hunting is picked on. Presumably its a class issue.

[Wavid]

Scum

We're pretty liberal round these parts as to what can and can't be posted, but I think this might have been a bit strong, Eve (not so much so that it had to be censored though!)

Sorry to have to be dull. :oops:

[Eve]

I didn't mean it possibly quite how it came across, had to always tell intent/feeling on the ole 'puter but since the issue has been raised I will issue an apology. Like on the bad authors thread - finding the phrase
'shot in face' funny.

If I offended anyone who enjoys killing animals for pleasure by calling you scum I apolgise. You are not scum but in fact salt of the earth types who wouldn't hurt a fly (maybe a fox or gypsy if they're on my land).



Sits back and awaits a spanking off the mods. :?

[Wavid]

You won't be getting one from me, Eve.

For a start, the phrase 'shot in the face' is funny...

The problem as I see it not offending people, Palimpcity being populated with an unusally highminded bunch who tend to be able to see the humour in everything if it's intended (and often if it isn't), as a quick read of A Slice of Parsnip will show. But the word scum always makes me flinch, unless it is directed at people who wear baseball caps...

[Eve]

aghh..in that case have you visited?

http://www.chavscum.co.uk

[Wavid]

Indeed. Living as I do in King's Bling (thanks amner) it's a phenomenon thats pretty hard to avoid.

[gil]

Hmm. Bullfighting? Fishing? I realise fish aren't animals but they are sentient beings.Absolutely against bullfighting. Same reason. Yes I know people at least eat the beef afterwards, but that's no reason for tormenting it to exhaustion before the slaughter. I've been to a bullfight. It's barbaric.

I am also against fishing when you don't intend to eat the fish. OK. You can be fishing for trout and catch the occasional pike, and I can see you might want to throw that back (though I have accidentally caught a pike, and we ate it... not a good idea), but coarse fishing, where nothing you catch is palatable, and you are only interested in the weight... No.

Have you ever eaten foi gras or veal or even a non free range chicken (or should that be hen?). You can't say that you ate it out of necessity really. Particularly in the case of the first two these are eaten for pleasure.True. I avoid foie gras since I found out about it. Seldom eat veal, and aim for non-crated variety. Always go for organic free-range chicken these days. I've seen the other process, and free-range tastes better.

Surely people wanting to eat it is not a reason for allowing its production?It's a much better reason than torturing something for pleasure. Nobody's perfect, and, hopefully, standards of rearing and slaughter are improving, so that one can eat meat with a clearer conscience.

What I don't understand is why fox hunting is picked on. Presumably its a class issue.Not in my case. I am arguably quite upper class, and a country dweller, and many of our friends are supporters of hunting, but we just don't see it.

[bradyguido]

"I don't think the toffs have quite the same lack of pastoral respect, somehow, despite the lack of burberry, Argos gold chains or strong chins.[/quote]"

What? This isn't about a lack of pastoral respect. Its about a lack of evolution and probably inbreeding shared by the hare coursing Essex boys and fox hunting toffs resulting in col hearted blood-thirsty abuse of another living thing for fun. Ah, the merging of class boundaries we all hoped for....

Of course, i agree that there are more pressing matters for the government to deal with at the moment (and as usual), but don't give me that its good for the countryside crap. Cruelty is bad for the human race, in any form. Scarily, these are the people who end up in the army.......

[amarie]

I think it's a bit of a generalisation to say that all people who participate in fox-hunting end up in the army.

[bradyguido]

I didnt exactly say that....I meant the type of people... and the hare coursers. Officers and soldiers.... I am probably hugely generalising. I don't mean to offend, but without taking it too literally, you get my point.

[jim]

I don't mean to offend, but without taking it too literally, you get my point.

Not really. Soldiers are generally blood thirsty and cruel? I don't personally know many but I wouldn't say that this is particularly true of those that I do know.

[Eve]

didn't offend me enough :D Go for it.

Isn't Prince Big Ears some headsperson for the World Wildlife Fund (whatever they are called now) the same Prince who goes hunting and shooting, oh yeah he was in the army to.

[bradyguido]

you think soldiers aren't bloodthirsty and cruel?

[amarie]

As with Jim, I'm afraid that I don't get your point at all.

[Eve]

I don't mean to offend, but without taking it too literally, you get my point.

Not really. Soldiers are blood thirsty and cruel? I don't personally know many but I wouldn't say those that this is true of those that I do know.

killing. You don't think it's bloodthirsty?

[bradyguido]

respect.... eve. Is my kind of place after all.

[bradyguido]

Dont get the point at all? The army is made up of fox hunting toffs, bossing around hare cousing thick blokes. They go abroad and kill. Whats not to get?

[Eve]

LOL :shock: :mrgreen:

[Wavid]

The army is made up of fox hunting toffs, bossing around hare cousing thick blokes. They go abroad and kill.

Is it? I had no idea.

[bradyguido]

God, my generalisations are getting out of control!!!!!!

[Wavid]

Quite.

It's also a load of nonsense, as you well know.

These debates can can pretty heated, so it isn't really necessary to be deliberatley provocative.

[bradyguido]

I actually don't believe its a "load of nonsense"...which is pretty submissive of someones opinion dont you think? and I am not being deliberately provocative. Do you really think its so untrue?

[amner]

I actually don't believe its a "load of nonsense"...which is pretty submissive of someones opinion dont you think? and I am not being deliberately provocative. Do you really think its so untrue?

I've kind of lost the plot here. What is it that's true again?

I thought jim's initial post was going to die a death after a few responses, then we get 4 pages. Nice one, jim.

What next in politics, I wonder...

[bradyguido]

Please dont take my huge generalisations literally meant.... and I can see how i've seemed overly provocative.... and on my first day....Apologies to any offended. HAve to go and do some work now.......

[amarie]

The army is made up of fox hunting toffs, bossing around hare cousing thick blokes. They go abroad and kill.

Is it? I had no idea.

How stupid of me not to realise that the army was entirely composed of 'fox hunting toffs' that are 'bossing around hare cousing[sic] blokes'.

And of course, all the army ever do is go abroad and kill. Even in peacetime.

[Wavid]

I actually don't believe its a "load of nonsense"...which is pretty submissive of someones opinion dont you think? and I am not being deliberately provocative. Do you really think its so untrue?

It is, and you are. When you yourself state that your 'generalisations are getting out of control', that seems to be an admission that you yourself are aware that what you are typing is not necessarily what you genuinely believe.

And I am not being dismissive of your opinion. I just think that the way you are expressing it is not necessarily condusive to an intelligent discussion of the topic - based as it is on wild generalisations and the odd prejudice. Read some of the other Politics topics, follow how the arguments progress, and you'll get the idea.

And of course it is untrue. I very much doubt there has ever been a survey into attitudes towards hare-coursing amongst the lower ranks of the army, but if there were I can't think of any reason why people doing that job would be more sympathetic than any other. Likewise with officers and fox hunting. And where's the logic that if people like killing hares and foxes, then they must also like killing humans?

I can't believe I am actually responding to this.

[bradyguido]

Accepted....

[amner]

Perhaps we should move away from fluffy little things (a description that sums up Wavid perfectly). Check the Gay Marriage thread out instead. No strong opinions there... :shock:

[Wavid]

Accepted....

Good. I just like to keep things civilised, that's all!

I concur with amner. Lets put the foxes to bed. (And then slaughter them when they are asleep, ha ha ha. [cough])

[bradyguido]

he he....... yes, goodnight.

[gil]

There's not much relationship between soldiering, certainly in the British Army, and animal cruelty.

What you are trained to do in the army is to disable or kill enemy soldiers. Cruelty takes too much time, and distracts you from the objective. If a member of your unit is detected as being cruel, they are likely to be got rid of. He/She is a liability - vide Abu Ghraib (sp?).

There is an element of torturer and rapist in all of humanity, and war situations sometimes give these individuals the opportunity to behave badly, if discipline breaks down.

And even then, there is a tendency to be nicer to animals, who are not your enemy, than people, who may be.

[bakunin_the_cat]

There's not much relationship between soldiering, certainly in the British Army, and animal cruelty.

What you are trained to do in the army is to disable or kill enemy soldiers. Cruelty takes too much time, and distracts you from the objective. If a member of your unit is detected as being cruel, they are likely to be got rid of. He/She is a liability - vide Abu Ghraib (sp?).

There is an element of torturer and rapist in all of humanity, and war situations sometimes give these individuals the opportunity to behave badly, if discipline breaks down.

And even then, there is a tendency to be nicer to animals, who are not your enemy, than people, who may be.

I don't know about the British army specifically but Abu Ghraib has been more or less been shown to be a form of institionalised brutality and inhumanity going right the way to the top of the American Government. Not as they would prefer us to think, a few ill-disciplined rotten apples spoiling the barrel. A few junior scapegoats have been punished but while the same people are in charge, the same ethos of cruelty and humiliation will remain. Indeed this is such an accepted part of US tactics that they refuse to sign upto an International Court, as their soldiers would be tried for war crimes.

I'd like to think that the British army are more professional and that situation couldn't arise here but isn't that being a little naive. After all, are we really that different?

[rick green]

Increasing the tangential vector, historically, cruelty and interrogation seem to go hand in hand. I have little doubt that the higher military planners are to blame.

[John Self]

The hunting-ban Bill is going through the House of Commons today and will be voted on tonight. I visited the Countryside Alliance's webpage (http://www.countryside-alliance.com/) just now (it looks quite professional but has the incredibly annoying feature that when you move your mouse over a link, the words enlarge, thus shoving aside everything beside or below it) to see if I could see the source for one of their banners I saw on the news last week. It stated "59% of people support hunting." I was interested to see the source for this as it would be diametrically opposed to all the polls I've seen reported in the past. I suspect a good deal of qualification and conditionality is included in that figure. Anyone know where it came from?

[Eve]

It stated "59% of people support hunting." I was interested to see the source for this as it would be diametrically opposed to all the polls I've seen reported in the past. I suspect a good deal of qualification and conditionality is included in that figure. Anyone know where it came from?
Funny, last night on our local news channel they did a phone vote and about 75% were against hunting 8)

As you know it all depends on how you phrase something.

If you gave people options, again it dilutes the figures. If a straight question is posed then time and again it comes back - ban it.

An interview with the guy who looks after the dogs. He was saying how much they care for the animals, how he knows each by name, their mood. The reporter then asked what would happen to them if a ban was put in to place. Oh they'd all be put down.

Nice caring folk.

[Wavid]

An interview with the guy who looks after the dogs. He was saying how much they care for the animals, how he knows each by name, their mood. The reporter then asked what would happen to them if a ban was put in to place. Oh they'd all be put down.

Nice caring folk.

Yes, I head someone say something similar on the local news. They don't exactly do themselves any favours, do they, these people?

[Colyngbourne]

The worst misleading poster by the Countryside Alliance (including that same 59% figure) is the one of a nurse in hunting pink, then in uniform, with the caption, 'Now you hate her, now you don't'.

Setting aside the idea of whether the viewer does actually actively 'hate' people who hunt (as opposed to the hunt itself), I see no reason why I should be expected to approve of a nurse's leisure pastime, just because I approve of her profession. Should the image be of a male teacher and the same man at a cockfight, or spearing a bull, it shouldn't convince us to support said "pastimes".

I also feel cross that the Countryside Alliance claims to speak on behalf of the countryside people, on this and every other countryside issue. I've lived a good number of years in the country and they don't speak for me.

[Eve]

Yes, I head someone say something similar on the local news. They don't exactly do themselves any favours, do they, these people?

Not IMO.

but I'm one of those anti hunt anti meat types anyway.

[Eve]

I also feel cross that the Countryside Alliance claims to speak on behalf of the countryside people, on this and every other countryside issue. I've lived a good number of years in the country and they don't speak for me.

I live in a semirural area. Always have done.
What exactly does it claim to be for? if we're anti them does that mean I'm pro concrete and urban sprawl?

[amner]

Outside Ely, just before you come to the city sign and the speed restriction notices, there's a lovely big field, enclosing a perfect Impressionist's view of the cathedral. Catch it at the right time and it is flooded with poppies. People stop and take photos it's so breathtakingly perfect.

Now, for ages the owner had a massive banner in there, conscientiously removed from the main money-shot view, supporting the Countryside Alliance. I can still remember it: The Countryside Alliance - "Never underestimate a minority," Sir Winston Churchill

Go past there now and it's a building site ('sold for residential properties'). All of which means that someone is considerably richer, the countryside is a tad smaller than it was, and certain views didn't mean quite so much as fat wodges of cash.

[gil]

An interview with the guy who looks after the dogs. He was saying how much they care for the animals, how he knows each by name, their mood. The reporter then asked what would happen to them if a ban was put in to place. Oh they'd all be put down.

Yes. In one of my previous posts I mentioned cruelty to the hounds. The Masters of Foxhounds have a very abrupt way with any old, injured or persistently misbehaving hounds. Putting them "to sleep", as it's called, costs vet bills. Some Masters just shoot them or knock them on the head. I gather one Master was prosecuted for feeding such casualties to the other hounds.

I don't think fox hunting is the biggest animal cruelty issue. Factory farming probably is.

I don't believe it's a class issue either. I'm equally against hare coursing and dog fighting.

[Eve]

I don't think fox hunting is the biggest animal cruelty issue. Factory farming probably is.

I don't believe it's a class issue either. I'm equally against hare coursing and dog fighting.

Agreed. But it's the good ole divide and conquer routine.

As someone who walked in to a situtation where 3 men were sending dogs after foxes on a greenway I can with hand on heart say they were not farmers, landed gentry or otherwise members of the upper classes.

[amner]

As someone who walked in to a situtation where 3 men were sending dogs after foxes on a greenway I can with hand on heart say they were not farmers, landed gentry or otherwise members of the upper classes.

They were all *&^%s though, I'd suggest.

[jim]

The worst misleading poster by the Countryside Alliance (including that same 59% figure) is the one of a nurse in hunting pink, then in uniform, with the caption, 'Now you hate her, now you don't'.

Setting aside the idea of whether the viewer does actually actively 'hate' people who hunt (as opposed to the hunt itself), I see no reason why I should be expected to approve of a nurse's leisure pastime, just because I approve of her profession. Should the image be of a male teacher and the same man at a cockfight, or spearing a bull, it shouldn't convince us to support said "pastimes".

I also feel cross that the Countryside Alliance claims to speak on behalf of the countryside people, on this and every other countryside issue. I've lived a good number of years in the country and they don't speak for me.

They are clearly suggesting that some of the antipathy directed towards fox hunting is based on class prejudice. And judging by some of the comments on this thread they may well have a point vis Wavid's comment about it being impossible not to be nauseated by the sight of a bunch of toffs in funny outfits on horseback.

And so far as Amner's spoilt view is concerned, the farmers that I know have a pretty much hand to mouth existence. I am by no means an expert but the worst effects of the Common Agricultural Policy together with the rapaciousness of the supermarkets driven by our own insistence on paying the absolute minimum for everything no matter what the environmental costs cannot help. Whether this lay behind the decision to sell the land for development or not we don't know but I imagine that in many cases it is hard to place the responsibility for the protection of our countryside on the shoulders of the farmers whom we do so little to support.

I see Tony Blair is jumping on the environmental bandwagon again as we run up to the election but judging by the way in which it has pursued environmental issues during its term so far this is merely lipservice. Returning to my original point, it worries me when the Government will expend such energy in banning a minority pursuit but does nothing to tackle more important but less populist issues. Frankly I find it hard to care about the plight of a few foxes given what we are intent on doing to our environment at a local and global level.

[John Self]

Apropos of the phone votes mentioned above, these are of course nonsense as they are self-selecting and people can ring as often as they wish. Teletext, for those of us still doing the analogue thing, have hilariously populist votes on those money-spinning 090 lines, the same sort of ridiculous issues that you get on junk faxes to the office: "Do you think paedophiles should be given IVF treatment at the taxpayers' expense?"

For some reason the Teletext poll results always reveal an amusingly Daily Mail-like profile to their readership (it's actually owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust which also owns the Mail). A recent one found that 82% of (self-selecting, vote early vote often) people think that the Tories have the best team to run the country. I look forward to that being found to be truly representative at the next general election.

[Eve]

As someone who walked in to a situtation where 3 men were sending dogs after foxes on a greenway I can with hand on heart say they were not farmers, landed gentry or otherwise members of the upper classes.

They were all *&^%s though, I'd suggest.

Put it this way, they weren't about to sit down and discuss Newsnight with me.

[Colyngbourne]

Farmers may or may not do well out of farming in this country. They do get subsidised to a great degree; they also get diddled out of fair price for their products (milk, eg.); they also can be living hand-to-mouth, but also there are those who made an absolute killing out of the compensation for foot-and-mouth. It is a mixed bag.

[amner]

Put it this way, they weren't about to sit down and discuss Newsnight with me.

Indeed. Just watched Newsnight and the rather chaotic scenes outside Parliament today inevitably took centre stage. Some floppy-haired fool points to his rosy-cheeked kids and says [paraphrasing here]: "I'm prepared to go to prison and send my children to prison...blah, blah...basic human rights...blah, blah...some guff about freedom...blah, blah"

Clearly not a man who's ever seen a prison, let alone been inside one. I would wager, given twenty four hours detained at HM's pleasure he'd soon hold jim's the-fox-ain't-worth-it viewpoint.

[Wavid]

Yes, that kind of belligerence is unappealing. However, the scenes outside Parliament at least showed the rest of the country just how strongly these people feel about the issue.

The trespassers in the Commons, however, was ridiculous. What could they have possibly achieved by doing it? Furthermore the increased security that will now be in place in the Palace of Westminster could have a detrimental effect, if only symbolically, on democracy in the future.

Plus, one of the more ludicrous parts of our parliamentary democracy was exposed, when the Tories promised that as soon as they are in government, they will lift the ban - so hunting hasn't gone for ever. Has it?

[amner]

Plus, one of the more ludicrous parts of our parliamentary democracy was exposed, when the Tories promised that as soon as they are in government, they will lift the ban - so hunting hasn't gone for ever. Has it?

Going to sound ignorant here, but if, say, New Labour were in for two more terms, wouldn't the hunting infrastructure have been effectively dismantled by that point?

[Wavid]

Obviously this is all conjecture, but I wouldn't have thought so. The idea that it could be legalised at some indeterminate point in the future would mean most people would keep things in tact, and of course many hunts are planning on carrying on anyway, and taking the fines and whatnot as they come.

[Eve]

Obviously this is all conjecture, but I wouldn't have thought so. The idea that it could be legalised at some indeterminate point in the future would mean most people would keep things in tact, and of course many hunts are planning on carrying on anyway, and taking the fines and whatnot as they come.

That'll be a bizarre countryside scene. Hunt sabs attempting to perform citizens arrest on huntsmen. :?

Wavid - was it a particular Tory who came out and said that they could repeal the law?

[Wavid]

I think it was their rural affairs spokesman James Gray - though looking through the BBC news site I can find no mention of him saying this, though it was deffo on the 10 o'clock News last night. I'll have a dig about.

Of course, if the Tories do one day end up with a majority in the Commons they will be quite within their rights to repeal the ban.

[Eve]

Quite, the deal of not being able to bind your successor.

Hopefully when they get in, opinions would have softened a little and some of the pro hunt will have moved on to less bloody hobbies.

[bakunin_the_cat]

Typical Tory tactic these days. A passing bandwagon. People on the streets against the Government. One, two ,three, jump!

[amner]

I hope you're not suggesting the Conservative Party is in any way populist, bak? Little William rejected that accusation, and I dare say scary old Michael would too.

[pandop]

The trespassers in the Commons, however, was ridiculous. What could they have possibly achieved by doing it?

Well, seeing as New Labour's 'right to roam' has pretty much legalised trespass ...

Hazel

[Eve]

The trespassers in the Commons, however, was ridiculous. What could they have possibly achieved by doing it?

Well, seeing as New Labour's 'right to roam' has pretty much legalised trespass ...

Hazel

apologies, not followed this one as I should have.
Wasn't it about the status/access of public rights of way?

[pandop]

Yes, but the definition has been so stretched that it can be very difficult to keep ramblers off any part of your land - as the right of way no longer has to be a 'recognised' footpath

Something those with animals (in particular) and not best pleased about

Hazel

[Eve]

Yes, but the definition has been so stretched that it can be very difficult to keep ramblers off any part of your land - as the right of way no longer has to be a 'recognised' footpath

Something those with animals (in particular) and not best pleased about

Hazel

I see. So unadopted footpaths/establised through access are now legally 'firmer' to wander over?

[pandop]

Yup

Hazel

[Wavid]

So, the bans in place. But...how will it be policed?

What's the difference between a bunch of toffs riding around the countryside in red jackets with their dogs, blowing on a horn now and again; and actual fox hunting?

In other words, will it only be a crime if a dog is found with a bit of fox in its mouth?

[gil]

I don't see what all the fuss is about from the hunting lobby. You can still ride around with a pack of dogs if you like. If drag hunting isn't as good as the real thing, it can only be because the real thing includes fox dismemberment. Only 6% of the foxes killed were as a result of traditional fox hunting. Of the remaining 94%, most were roadkill and most of the rest were farmers with guns, so it's not REALLY the pest control. Nope. What the hunting lobby refuse to say is that it's the blood and the screams that they like.

[pandop]

And more foxes have been killed post ban in Scotland than were, so neither side is winning the arguement!

Hazel

[John Self]

It's interesting that the pro-hunting lobby have such a limited notion of what people will tolerate. Some members - but not all - are calling for civil disobedience and are saying "the government will rue the day they took us on." Well, first, the government was - for once - only doing something that it was elected to do in 1997 under a specific manifesto pledge, so it's not the government that has taken you on, it's the electorate. Also, the last time we had 'civil disobedience' (which is a nice euphemism, since it invariably means criminal disobedience, eg by blocking roads etc) was during the petrol 'crisis' in September 2000. There, the general public had a broad support for the gripes of the campaigners - that the government was taxing fuel too heavily - if only on the selfish basis that if they won their case, we would all benefit. But even so, when people started having to queue at pumps for hours because tankers weren't being allowed out of depots, support dropped off pretty swiftly. The hunting lobby doesn't even have that goodwill to begin with, so there is no prospect at all of the public tolerating any disruption to their lives in that cause. How many hunters are there in the UK? Fewer than 100,000? So it's them against the other 59-million-odd of us. Bring it, as George W Bush said, on.

[NottyImp]

I suspect their civil disobedience will mainly be in the form of continuing to hunt foxes.

I also wonder how many of them would have opposed any kind of law-breaking during the miner's strike, or the poll tax protests, say. Still, our rural middle-class has never fought shy of shameless hypocrisy, has it?

[wshaw]

If drag hunting isn't as good as the real thing, it can only be because the real thing includes fox dismemberment.

If only drag hunting were what it sounds like it should be, then it could really take off.

[Colyngbourne]

I didn't witness any of the hunting community supporting the miners or steel workers when they lost their jobs either.

[NottyImp]

I didn't witness any of the hunting community supporting the miners or steel workers when they lost their jobs either.

Well indeed. They were too busy raking in their EU subsidies for growing things we don't eat and voting for Maggie.

[amner]

Oh don't call her 'Maggie', for crying out loud. It makes her sound almost human.

[NottyImp]

My apologies: Thatcher, the old witch.

[amner]

Much better. F**k me, it's the Eighties!

[Colyngbourne]

I've just had to spend the afternoon (a solid 2 ½ hours) chatting to someone who is a fox hunter and very pro, warning me in conspiratorial tones of what the community are going to do when it comes to the February ban - refusing the dumping of sewage on their land, for one (apparently 90% of sewage goes onto/into farm land) and intimations of 'other things' which will cause chaos to the dreadful urbanites who have forced this on the country-dwellers.

I did confess I would have voted against fox-hunting but I was told it *would* have a devastating effect on the country dwellers. I chose not to push the argument, as this person was a guest in my house, but I struggled to relate to what they were saying.

[gil]

Wimp, Col. We've had guests like that and they've left with a clear idea of my opinion. Mind you, Beryl does object to my use of the "Hooray Henry" defence, especially when applied to people who are clearly HH material.

I shouldn't worry about the sewage ban. There'll be few enough farmers turning down free fertiliser.

[Colyngbourne]

I wasn't really in a position to be forceful about my opinion... (edited)

[gil]

Now you've fascinated me. Just what position WERE you in, then?

:o)

[Colyngbourne]

That of a host to a guest, more or less.

[pandop]

How many hunters are there in the UK? Fewer than 100,000? So it's them against the other 59-million-odd of us. Bring it, as George W Bush said, on.

But how many more of that 59million are going to be willing to go out in the cold to stop them, than have been bothered to.

I am neither pro nor anti hunting enough to stand about in the cold, when there are many better things for me to do

Hazel

[Wavid]

Chap in Scotland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4083361.stm) has been cleared of hunting with hounds.

Apparently, using dogs to 'flush out' foxes and then shooting them is ok.

[NottyImp]

Although the Scottish law may be different to the English one, I'm not sure. It has also been reported on the news that 20 hunts are assembling "as normal" the day after the ban comes into effect next February. That should present the various regional forces with a pretty problem of public policing.

[gil]

I gather that magistrates have all received a letter saying that if they don't agree with the law banning hunting, they must resign.

[NottyImp]

"I gather that magistrates have all received a letter saying that if they don't agree with the law banning hunting, they must resign."

Hmmm... surely they should be free not to agree with it if they are still prepared to enforce the letter of the law? Interesting question, that.

[Colyngbourne]

It seems nonsensical that they should have to 'agree'. Surely they should agree to abide by the decision made (though maybe not with its process etc.) but they shouldn't have to change their minds about hunting per se if they are ethically/morally/whatever in favour of it.

[NottyImp]

Rather more accurately put than I, Col.

[gil]

Precisely. I think this is the first time I've heard of magistrates being enjoined to BELIEVE in the laws they administer. Although I agree with the hunting ban myself, I think that The Government put it through unfairly and are being extremely manipulative in this and every other matter.

[NottyImp]

All governments are manipulative, it goes with the territory. The Tories were just as bad, and would be again given the chance. And the Lib-Dems would find power just as corrupting as everyone else, for all their "clean" image in opposition.

[amner]

Amner's hens in the back yard.


I know you'll all be fascinated to hear this, but unfortunately a fox had it away on his toes with all my chickens this week. I am sans poule.


:cry:

[Wavid]

Am I right to assume you shall be donning a red coat this weekend and borrowing next-door's hounds for a quick hunt for the culprit?

[amner]

Nah, it's nature, innit? Plus, it's not my livelihood. Good luck to 'em.

[Digger]

I'm sorry amner, they were nice chucks. I bet you'll miss the eggs, will you get new ones? :-(

[amner]

No, I don't think so. Too much other stuff to deal with, it's not a priority.