Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Hunting Ban - the big lie

09:56 / 12.04.02

The big lie is that hunting is being banned because it's cruel. That, frankly, matters to no one except a brave, but rather fuddled, group of animal lovers who actually care about foxes. The foxes will, by and large, be rather more effectively exterminated by other methods.

The reason most people object to hunting, and the reason it's such a big punch up, is that it's an artifact of the aristocracy. Hunting is irrevocably associated with snobs, horsewhippings, peasants and bastards in Rolls Royce cars who think they're better than the general public.

I have no problem with banning hunting on that basis.

I do, however, have a problem with the whining, duplicitous tone taken by proponents of the ban, who propose themselves as guardians of little furry friends everywhere. This is politics by stealth, by acceptable lie, and we're all backing it. I don't think it's worth doing unless we say why.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:01 / 12.04.02

As I (and others) have said before (though not disagreeing with your aristocratic point), the emotional part of my argument against hunting is not that I think the killing of the foxes is wrong in itself, just that I don't like the fact that it's done for fun. (Okay, let's be honest here- being done for fun by rich people makes it worse. So sue me.)

The Mr E suprise

10:15 / 12.04.02

{de cloaks}
Oh I see, so it's OK to attack the lives and culture of the aristocracy because they deserve it, is it?

Personally, I thought the royal commision's conclusion was that spending a pile of money chasing a fox about until its hear explodes was ratherpointless and unnescesarry, and that it was felt large traps and shotguns would be a better solution.

You aren't going to stop people from spending a pile of time, effort and money riding around in the countryside, and you shouldn't want to.

It is about animal cruelty, or to put it another way, having the tradition of Fox hunting puts us in a awkward position when arguing with other countries about there animal treatment records (and don't get me started on Bull Fighting)

{cloaks}

12:32 / 12.04.02

If a hunting ban was a result of moves against animal cruelty, factory farming would also be banned - far more cruel.

I agree with Stoat's objection, it's the sadism that concerns me rather than the cruelty in itself. (I also dislike the "hunting lobby" for their constant claims that they represent an "authentic rural way of life", rather than, say, just being a bunch of red-coated cunts riding over other people's land; similarly they have hijacked any sort of debate over real rural issues, such as housing, transport, etc. But that's not the reason why I want the activity banned. That's why I don't like the activist movements for it.)

13:56 / 12.04.02

Hmm.

I think that the issue means different things to the class war movement and the animal rights movement. Certainly, I know people who are vehemently anti-hunt to the point of risking arrest but still eat meat, and that backs up your point, Dao. But I also know animal rights activists who are equally vehemently anti-hunt: the difference there is that the issue is a lever to strengthen their central argument.

Both arguments seem to be valid to me. I don't see the problem, even if one camp co-opts the arguments of the other at face value- banning hunting is a tiny step towards doing away with cruelty to animals but it's a step that might make some people actually think about the issues and what's on the end of their fork.

Morlock - groupie for hire

16:22 / 12.04.02

My sister loves to ride, and she went on a hunt once or twice. The impression I got from the one time I saw her off is that that hunt, at least, was a lot more about the chase than the kill. Hell, I'd be surprised if more than half-a-dozen of them actually saw anything other than the horse in front and a lot of mud. Certainly no "hey, lets go find something small and furry and rip it to bits".

Then there's the argument that traps and guns can take a lot longer to kill than getting shredded by dogs, arguably causing a lot more pain.

All in all, I really haven't decided on this. Certainly no easy answer, though I do agree that this form of hunting has some aspects we should have evolved beyond by now. Then again, just because we're the ones safe behind our walss and fences and shotguns doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that 90% of all animals spend their lives trying to avoid behing hunted down and eaten. By other animals.

But what annoys me most of all is the number of people (mostly the ones who shout the loudest, rather than find a solution) who seem to be following this cause only as long as it's on the front page. As has been said, there are more serious cases of animal cruelty to del with as well.

17:10 / 12.04.02

'Brave, but rather fuddled,' Dao?

In what way do you think these animal lovers are fuddling in their sincere belief?

19:17 / 12.04.02

Then there's the argument that traps and guns can take a lot longer to kill than getting shredded by dogs, arguably causing a lot more pain.

Well, nobody really pretends hunting is an effective method of getting rid of foxes. It's mostly a long ride without any success. So, the foxes get shot and trapped just as much.

The difference as I see it is that shooting a fox doesn't entail enjoying the process, and I think sadism is a generally unhealthy trait in society. (I don't agree with a lot of trapping, it must be said.)

21:05 / 12.04.02

Not Me Again:

I tend to be linear in my thinking. I know that there's a chance that learning to treat animals well will lead to people treating each other better. But I can't shake the feeling that all that passion and energy could be spent demanding, for example, more housing and better public services. Or more integrity in international relations. Or less arms dealing. Or...

And ignorance isn't purely the preserve of government. I've heard some amazingly stupid and ill-informed things said by Animal Rights campaigners. I'm not diminishing the importance (much), but I do feel that sometimes people a bit funny about furry things in the UK and the rest of the West.

10:17 / 13.04.02

Well yes, of course they are. The irony of 'dolphin-friendly' tuna, or the fact people are petitioning against the eating of dogs in South Korea during the forthcoming World cup - but not, say, cows - are all pointers to the 'some furry things* are better than others' mentality.

But I don't agree that just because these people are standing up for a cause they believe in that they are fuddled, and I don't think it's fair to suggest that they should be directing their energies towards 'greater evils.'

"More housing and better public services, more integrity in international relations, or less arms dealing" are all very worthwhile causes, and yes, they would improve human life far more than banning fox hunting in Britain.

But to try and set the lines of people's protest worries me.

Surely it's better that these people are willing to voice their dissent? Would you prefer it if they did not?

I'd sooner see a sociey where people are willing to let people know what they care about than one where they just sit and rot in front of televisions. The fact they are protesting at all is good, if you ask me.

Yeah, it would be great if they spoke out about these other things too (presuming, of course, they don't already.) But if we just snipe at those willing to protest, how can we then expect them to take further action on these 'greater' casues?

10:20 / 13.04.02

forgot my footnote for the asterisk:

*yes, I'm aware dolphins aren't furry. Although one of you bastards will probably point out that "they are, really, you know."

17:35 / 13.04.02

I'm not trying to control what people protest about. But I reserve the right to feel that their thinking is fuddled. That's my opinion.

As to 'it's great the protest about anything'...well, no, not really. If they were all going on NF marches or whatever, I'd be deeply hacked off with them. As it is, I'm a bit dubious of the vehemence and rage I've seen displayed, but I can't argue with the point they want to make - in most cases. There are animal rights campaigners who quite simply get no sympathy from me at all.

But I don't really think that the bulk of the public care all that much about animals in general - otherwise there'd be more veggies around. I think they do care about knocking some overfed conservative fuckwit in a red coat on his arse.

Seems fair.

10:56 / 14.04.02

We had a similar debate here.
I remember a few years ago chatting with a flatmate about this. His argument was roughly "Ban it. Who cares what these toffs want" as he munched on a cheap pie.

Jack The Bodiless

21:44 / 30.09.04

There doesn't seem to be anything in the Switchboard about the current furore on banning hunting with dogs. I'm interested in people's views on this - and not on the current protests, before you start, I think it's obvious to anyone (except, apparently the protesters) that the violent and tasteless ways which which they're pursuing the matter isn't helping their cause.

09:47 / 05.10.04

Here is a recent article by George Monbiot in which he outlines his belief that the hunting ban is a class issue rather than an animal rights issue, and he says: "If we want a classless society, banning hunting might be a step towards it".

Tryphena Absent

14:08 / 05.10.04

I'm glad they're banning it for any number of reasons- because it's ridiculous to allow dogs to tear smaller animals to pieces, because I wouldn't want to feel that type of fear if I was a fox, because the majority of working class blood sports have been banned and we should at least attempt to keep society on an even basis and because people can have fun riding horses without chasing and killing inhumanely.

This isn't a government that has declared war on the upper classes and the aristocracy by denying them their sport, this is a government that is legislating to ban a certain type of sport consistently and regardless of the class who practice that sport.

Jack The Bodiless

11:46 / 12.10.04

So what about this? Comment by Tony Wright in the Guardian today, who's Labour MP for Cannock Chase - (mostly articulates my highly mixed feelings about this whole subject far better than I've managed to do to date...

Anyone wanna give me and Tony a rebuttal? The bit where I murmured hear, hear was:

"The loss of proportion is staggering. Whatever progressive politics is about, or worth taking on opposing interests for, it is not about views on alternative methods of pest control. Talk of invoking the Parliament Act is like declaring a state of emergency because of a patch of fog on the M4."

...but I recommend reading the entire thing.

12:03 / 12.10.04

The last time this bill came up, ie the last time Tony wanted something unflattering pushed out of the headlines, I seem to remember reading it was so badly-drafted that it was pretty much unworkable legally anyway. Does anyone know if it's been rewritten since ?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:10 / 12.10.04

Really? Isn't the Parliament Act designed to deal with the (unelected) Upper House attempting to block indefinitely resolutions passed by the (elected) Lower House? To describe the use of an act drafted in 1911 precisely to prevent perpetual vetos by the Lords as disproportionate in a situation where the Lords have made it clear that they wish to exert a permanent veto as disproportionate seems to me to misunderstand how Parliament is intended to function... In fact, it's the weakest argument against the bill, as opposed to the arguments based on the findings of the inquiry.

Ultimately, however, New Labour promised a free vote in their manifesto, they delivered on that manifesto pledge (a confusing occurrence in itself), and the Lords is now blocking the outcome of that free vote. Hence the Parliament Act...

Jack The Bodiless

11:51 / 14.10.04

Since 1949 (after the second amendment to the Act), it's actually been used three times - the War Crimes Act (1991), the European Parliamentary Elections Act (1999) and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act (2000). They sound fairly important, don't they? Conversely, banning hunting with hounds? Not so much. As I recall, Blair didn't even attend the last Commons vote, and hasn't bestirred himself to talk about it afterwards, either, so we can see how important he thinks it is. It's just smoke, to appease the core Labour voters pissed off with him over Iraq, etc, by finally delivering on a manifesto pledge that he and most of the rest of his government were never really that bothered about. And it's not difficult to ram something through the Commons with his majority.

18:30 / 14.10.04

Good point but why is the Civil Partnership Bill on its last legs then, I wonder, despite the clear endorsement of the Commons?

Banning battery farming would do a lot more good than banning hunting, qualitatively and quantitatively, but there isn't the emotional punch of watching Otis Ferry cry because he'll have to donate his hunting pink to Oxfam.

There foxes, right now, within 45 minutes of striking a chicken coop.

Jack The Bodiless

11:31 / 15.10.04

I thought the Civil Partnerships Bill was still moving? The Lords attempted wrecking amendments, so presumably they get their second (and last) shot, and then Blair can consider the Parliamentary Act again? See, seems to me that THIS is the kind of bill the PA should be used for.

I bet you he doesn't use it, though.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:42 / 15.10.04

You can't use the Parliament Act for bills that were originally introduced in the Lords, which I think the Civil Partnerships Bill was.

17:05 / 19.10.04

I am not a hunter, nor do I live in England. However, it is my understanding that foxhunting at least gives the animal a chance to escape, unlike traps or guns (depending on the skill of the shooter).

As for the "no fox should ever live in fear" argument, someone needs to stop watching Disney cartoons and start watching the Discovery Channel. Every wild creature lives in fear of predators, it is part of the natural cycle of life. If a hound doesn't tear a fox to shreds, something else (possibly another fox) surely will.

On the other hand, I do believe that humans have a moral perogative to avoid needless cruelty. Aren't there non-lethal alternatives to Hunting? Where the dogs get to run and the horses get to jump and nobody gets hurt? Couldn't the hounds be trained NOT to kill? Or better yet, just the scent of a fox could be dragged along a pre-determined course, thus insuring the safety of horses, dogs, and riders.

It just seems like there is a happy medium to be found in here somewhere. I simply don't subscribe to the "all rich people are inherently evil" philosophy that I hear among so many 'Lithers. I've met a few upper-class folks that were pretty cool. Then again, what do I know? Maybe all rich people in England ARE snooty pricks.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:06 / 20.10.04

I'm afraid I don't recognise either "no fox should live in fear" nor "all rich people are evil" from the posts to this thread so far - we did have a disparaging reference to "toffs" from a friend of one of our members, but that's not exactly conclusive, and "toff" is only partially about wealth...

However, you've nailed it here:

Or better yet, just the scent of a fox could be dragged along a pre-determined course, thus insuring the safety of horses, dogs, and riders.

These are called "drag hunts", and exist today. There are various ways to exercise dogs and horses and various ways to kill foxes. I think the question is whether the two have to go together - that is, whether the necessary control of the fox population should double up as an entertainment, especially if the method of killing employed by that entertainment ends in more pain (pain rather than fear, I think, is the issue here) for the fox. If, on the other hand, it is not about killing the fox (as hunt enthusiasts will tell you, the fox often escapes), then why not just drag hunt? Hounds can be trained to follow a fair few things - scent, aniseed, other hounds' bottoms - without ptoblems...

Don't get me wrong: I'll miss, on some level, the traditional process of the blooding, the view halloo, the anthropomorphic fox in Oxford bags enjoying a quiet pint with the poacher... but I miss lots of things about Britain's heritage, including servants, monocles, gentleman detectives, murder trials in the House of Lords and, ultimately, shooting arrows at the English. In itself, I'm not sure heritage is a winning argument...

20:57 / 20.10.04

I'm glad they're banning it for any number of reasons- because it's ridiculous to allow dogs to tear smaller animals to pieces, because I wouldn't want to feel that type of fear if I was a fox...

Those were the exact words. I'm afraid I misread them. As for the rich being evil, that was more of a tone that I got, in this and other threads, than anything.

Tryphena Absent

16:45 / 21.10.04

Conversely, banning hunting with hounds? Not so much.

Yeah if you continue to look at it in such a simplistic way. It would be cheaper and in some cases far more practical to bring the death penalty back. If we did that we could get rid of the Harold Shipman's, Fred West's and Myra Hindley's in a nice, clean way. We don't do that, not because it's impractical, after all it would be practical to execute this particular type of criminal, but because ideologically there are reasons to abolish execution and they're the same reasons we ban foxhunting. Because when you ban blood sports or the death penalty or anything that is this uncivilised you ban them for all classes of people, because we should legislate these things right across the board, with equality in mind above all other things. Because we do it for the entire country and do not hold one group of people above another!!! What's flawed about this most basic argument? Of course there are better things to ban but is there a better reason to ban something than making the playing field level and abolishing a discrepancy in who's allowed to make animals fight and who isn't?