Naive? Not at all, no. I wanted facts. I have since checked on other sites detailing the hunts, what goes on, who attends, and have found that the information I have pasted above, when cross referenced, is correct.

There *is* a cub hunting season, the deaths of the foxes are *not* usually caused by a 'quick nip', they *are* prevented from escape by many methods, most of which I did not mention, etc.

I have read the Burns Report. It seems to be very concerned with the job losses that banning hunting will entail.

I still say ban fox hunting.

---

by Miss Edith
(quotes)

May I just clarify exactly what I meant by "peaceful" Foxes prefer to be left well alone they are not naturally aggressive towards people and will rarely approach. Maybe I used the wrong word, but I think that qualifies as peaceful. As for the Hen's, well most of us probably rip Cows to pieces every Sunday with a knife and fork, different tactic same aim.

No offence to you Barbara, but I would rather boil my head than go to a ball full of these toffee nosed snobs.

---

no offence taken! (not everyone there were actually hunting folk)

I should think that the goverment has more to worry about than deabting fox-hunting in the curremt state of affairs?

---

by Incandenza
(quotes)

I have never invited Joe the milkman to Nos either, but I am sure if he was sufficiently interested he would be able to find out about attending.

Equally, why should Gladys the cleaner get 'cheap' membership to a club. If a club is providing an expensive service, why shouldn't it charge those who can afford to pay for it?

For the record, a hunt does not exclude anyone. It is easier to follow the hunt if you have a horse (but then it is easier to snowboard on a snowboard). It costs £40 or so to join a hunt as a non-member. I am sure that if Joe or Gladys were interested in going, they could find this out and if they really wanted to go they could probably afford it too.

As for living in a world of your own, doesn't any social group? I know a bunch of people who dress up in black leather or as vampires before going out for 'drinkies'.

---

While it may be affordable now, and therefore have few class barriers to it, isn't fox hunting one of those things that you'd only consider fun if your parents did it and your grandparents did it, and their grandparents--well, you get the idea. Even if there theoretically aren't class barriers to it now, my point is that history and tradition has placed class barriers to it. I can't imagine it would occur to Gladys the cleaner to think of it as an entertainment option. Wouldn't occur to me, as an American, to saddle up and fox hunt if I found myself in England. Because you know? It just doesn't sound like a good time to me.

Isn't there some significance to the fact that the House of Commons passed the ban, while the House of Lords is agin' it?

Inc., I think you're great, but I disagree with you about all social groups living in their own little world and therefore all being equally okay. I don't think there's anything wrong with "living in a world of your own" or flocking with birds of your feather if membership in that world is based upon affinity, interest or merit--characteristics that are mutable, and meaningful, for lack of a better word. The thing that offends me about most exclusive clubs, hobbies, or groups is that membership or participation is often based upon arbitrary, unchangeable characteristics, like race, gender, family tree, social class, bank account, good looks, etc. etc. If these characteristics are unchangeable, people on the outside never have a shot at getting in, which is what makes them truly exclusive.

If Nobel Laureates want to get together and chew the fat, and want to turn the rest of us away, I'm fine with that; they earned their place in that circle. But as someone who was born poor and looks darn likely to die poor, I am somewhat irritated by clubs whose memberships are based upon social class and money.

Sorry--I know this is a nervy post because as an American, I know jack about fox-hunting and English social classes. However, I hope that nerviness is outweighed by the fact that I don't mind being educated about it.

Fox-hunting repulses me.
Interesting that (and I do live in the countryside now, although originally a townie!) there are a significant number of farmers around here who dislike hunting, both because of the destruction to the land and because they view it as ineffectual.
I used to know someone who hunted, who always maintained "oh but it's OK, we never catch anything anyway!". Which begs the question....!!!!!!

Actually, Diandra, it's refreshing to have an 'outside' outlook on this passionate topic. I often wonder how people from overseas view topcis such as this and provide a unique perspective

Ok, just so you know where I'm coming from, I've grown up in the country, I've been invited on hunts and I've kept chickens and ducks, all of which were killed by a fox. I'm still totally against fox hunting. It's cruel and from what I can gather pointless. Chasing a man in a dress (errr....drag hunting har dee haar) is a much more humane way of keeping hunting going without having to kill foxes. People claim that foxes are a problem that must be dealt with, but then say that not that many foxes get killed anyway, so what's the point? I'm sure I read that something like 2% of the population of foxes is actually killed by fox hunting (could be very wrong). As for the humane nip on the back the neck, the fox has still been running for it's life from an army of animals several times its size. Hardly unstressful. Bah, that's my scattered argument. After years of arguing against it, you'd think my argument would be a bit better. Oh well.

---

by Whistler
Actually, Diandra, it's refreshing to have an 'outside' outlook on this passionate topic. I often wonder how people from overseas view topcis such as this and provide a unique perspective

---

Ah, and now you've gone and encouraged me, Whistler, and I have to stick in my feelings about hunting in general.

Don't like it, solely because I like the personalities of most animals I've met better than the personalities of most people I've met. And yes, that feeling may be mutual.

That's unscientific, sentimental and no doubt philosophically, logically and theologically unsound. But I don't see myself changing any time soon.

---

by Diandra
That's unscientific, sentimental and no doubt philosophically, logically and theologically unsound. But I don't see myself changing any time soon.

---

Works for me

OK, time to add another dissenting voice and probably upset quite a few people…

I personally believe that the BANNING of foxhunting would be morally repugnant and am glad that the House of Lords rejected the bill, whatever their reasons.

Now I better explain myself...

I detest foxhunting. It's cruel and ineffectual. However, I have a bigger problem with one section of society telling another how to live its life. I believe it is wrong for laws to be passed that tell me who I can sleep with, who I can talk to, what I can believe in, or how I choose to have fun. So long as everyone involved consents, it is nobody else's business what I do. If I expect that right, then I have to allow it to people I disagree with. That includes foxhunters.

Now, before anyone starts talking about foxes not consenting, there is a reason why the consent of animals is irrelevant. If we stretch to animals the rights afforded to humans the matter becomes impossible. You've just banned the eating of meat and the wearing of animal products. You've banned non-human milk and eggs from human consumption. All predatory animals are now murderers (cats, dogs, and the aforementioned fox, for example). Animals are not aware of the rules we live by and live by their instincts. Nothing wrong with that. We as humans can discuss rules and our treatment of other species, but our anthropomorphic tendencies should not mean that we treat 'cute' species as humans in law.

What we should be doing is trying to win the cultural battle by persuading pro-hunters that their actions are cruel and unnecessary, and that there are other ways of keeping their culture alive. Why, when we disapprove of something, we always scream 'ban it!' I just don't understand.

Actually, I do. It's because it is easier for a majority to force their morality on others by 'banning it' than by winning the argument and persuading others to change their ways. But that’s called Fascism and I’ll have none of it, thank ye very much.

But that's just my less-than-humble one.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I think it's time I cleared a few points up...

---

by Callum
Perhaps another pertinent question would be why is the govt devoting so much time, effort and money to getting hunting banned (banned, not debated, inspite of the spin), when the countryside has been socially and economically crippled over the last few years, and when there are one or two other things that the public would rather the government focused on (health, education, the economy, transport, wars, etc).

---

The government has spent not a single penny, or spent a single second of its time, on the foxhunting issue. All bills on this matter have been private member bills. The issue has not had any affect, detrimental or otherwise, on the issues of 'health, education, the economy, transport, wars, etc'. It has lead to several miles of wasted column inches, but nothing of importance has been derailed.

The government has at no time made any statement on its position on foxhunting. Tony Blair has revealed his own personal feeling on the matter, but despite popular (and quite often Tony's) opinion, Tony Blair and the government are not one and the same. One is a member of the other, nothing more.

And it is quite clear (including from this thread) that the banning of foxhunting is not only popular, but also an important issue for a large, and possible majority, group within our society.

As for the Parliament Act, there maybe a few machiavellian reasons why the government might do this (but then that's politics - live with it) but the reason it might be used is a little more prosaic than that. The purpose of the second chamber (or House of Lords) is administrative, not legislative. It cannot, and should not, reject or approve a bill based on its personal views. It should only be concerned with the effective wording of the bill, and whether it conflicts with other preceding acts. There may be an argument that banning foxhunting contravenes the Human Rights Act, but I've not heard that mentioned in the Lords' rejection of the foxhunting bill. Probably because most of the people who oppose the bill also oppose the concept of a legislated list of Human rights. As such, the second chamber is failing in its role and is actively challenging the first house in its constitutional role. It would therefore be right and proper for the government to invoke the Parliament Act.

Of course, I don't want them to, however, because I'm opposed to the bill in the first place...

While I'm in rant mode, I might as well make it three in a row.

There have been some posts that seem to suggest that animals kill to survive and not for pleasure. This is pure hogwash.

Anyone here ever watched a cat hunt a mouse? They play with their prey. They clearly enjoy the sense of power and the invigoration of a good hunt. And it is not uncommon for them to not eat the mouse once killed, or to even get bored and allow the mouse to escape alive. The dominant instinct here is pleasure, not survival.

This phenomenon has been documented in many predatory species. It seems odd to me that when people talk about foxes acting on instinct, that they forget that those dogs chasing the fox are also acting on instinct. And they also clearly enjoy the hunt as much as the fox enjoys ripping open the throats of chickens and lambs.

Gaining pleasure from the hunting, killing and torturing of other animals is not a solely human pastime. The difference is that we are mentally developed enough to bypass such instinctive pleasures, if we choose to, or even to have moralities that override such instincts and replace them with revulsion. Which is why I believe it is right to oppose foxhunting, but through discussion rather than jackboot.

fox hunting should be banned,definatly. other cruelties to animals aren't being ignored its simply this has become bigger news. one of the reasons i voted for labour was because they said they'd ban fox hunting. this they haven't done. i hope they finally get their behinds in gear.labour are threatening to use there right to over throw a lords judgement because it'll never be passed in the lords, because the majority of the lords hunt.i for one hope they do use it, because the house of commons is supposedly there to instigate the law of the people(sorry had to laugh there) but in theory it is, so the majority of the british public want it banned, the goverment try to put it through and are stopped each time by the minority lords because they hunt! what can you do but use that right?

Foxes kill chickens,yes they do, mainly because farmers insist on killing off the natural food of foxes, rabbits,rodents and then complain when foxes seek out alternative food. if farmers do not want to have their chickens eaten,they'd better keep them in more protected conditions.

i was once a sabouter myself during my more emotional teen years. i never hurt an animal wether controlled by a hunter or running free along side. i used scented cloths to distract the hounds,blocked roads,banged lids to confuse horses (tho never did it in their face, any one who did was thrown out) blew horns etc. i was spat at,i was kicked many times,had a landrover driven at me, had horses pushed at me and dogs were directed at me. many times the horses were terrified at what they were being forced to do and this upset me as much as what the hunters were there for in the first place.
we were often asked by some farmers to protect their land from hunters as they have often had their crops damaged or livestock panicked,often resulting in animals miscarrying their young or dieing from shock.
i have had the sad oppertunity to see first hand what happens at a 'kill' at it isn't efficent and it isn't quick. you have 20-30 hounds that have all been starved for at least 4 days to make them killer hungry going after a terrified exausted fox, which is usually no older than a year old (this is sorted out by the diggers and scouts, they don't want a willy old fox who could most probably get away. they want a young naive fox who hasn't a clue what is going on)the hounds all pile in on the foz trying to do their masters bidding as they know if they do they will be treated the best afterwords. a fox is usually the rope in a tug of war, till it dies. then the barbaric trophys are taken, if there is anything left to take! did you also know that if a hound isn't good enough for a hunt, or is ill, it is shot, they do not treat their hounds well.i've seen hounds beaten because they lost the scent and starved if they did not get a kill. such compassion!
sorry but this is still a passion of mine, senseless cruelty in all it forms is wrong, not matter what the reasons. we don't have bull baiting,dog fighting (legal that is),cock fighting, public hangings, etc because we believe our selves to be more civilised. yet we can not call ourselves more civilised till we learn that we should respect animals that we eat, farm, use and live amongst. and not abuse!
oh and Mon i'd like to see a man hunt now and then, maybe thats the only way they'd understand their disgusting nature. i guess we can't because we would be as bad as they are. shame. hopefully karma will come back on them and they'll be a fox in their next life!

{edit for inappropriate language: please bear with us until we have a confirmed policy for this! Thanks }

(Edited by Desire 29/03/2002 11:50)

---

by nemesis
.. because the majority of the lords hunt.

---

I'd be interested to see if there was any evidence to back this up.

---

by nemesis
... so the majority of the british public want it banned, the goverment try to put it through and are stopped each time by the minority lords because they hunt! what can you do but use that right?

---

I can't help but have that sentiment replayed in my head, but replacing the references to hunts with homosexuality, or forced expulsion of non-whites from the UK. Fascism is Fascism, whatever the target of hate is.

I'd also like to point out that the House of Commons does not have the right to overturn any decision of the House of Lords. What there is is an act of parliament that says a decision by the House of Lords can be overturned should it be proven that the decision challanges the House of Commons as the sole legislative body. It is because the basis of the rejection by the second house is for political rather than administitive or legal reasons that the Parliament Act can be invoked.

---

[b]by Incandenza[/b
I started this thread because I was interested in what people thought and because I supect there is more to the debate than a gut instinct (which incidentally I share) that hunting is abhorrent.

Unfortunately, it has turned into an exercise in class prejudice and flippant remarks so I think I will leave it be now.

---

I understand that you wanted this thread to address the issue of foxhunting, rather than class. Nevertheless, Red's posts make it plain that the class issue won't go away, and needs to be addressed, if only to avoid future diversive melees which ultimately cloud the issue. Not necessarily in this thread, sure, but the damage is done, so...

I have heard hunt supporters claim that many protesters are a lot less concerned concerned with the welfare of the fox than they are with class war. My short answer to that would be 'Yes, and..?' My longer answer would be that it's a disingenuous argument. Fox hunting will (eventually) be banned over the cruelty and utility issues, and not because Tony Banks has a chip on his shoulder about toffs (the irony being that the same people who advance this criticism are usually quite happy to think the worst of coloured people, for example, even when they've committed no crime).

If I were to see two boys torturing a cat, I would try to stop them, regardless of class. All that the hunts have in their defence is 'tradition', but there are good traditions and bad ones. Though when I start trying to sabotage Henley Regatta, or Royal Ascot, I might concede that they have a point..

---

by Joe
All that the hunts have in their defence is 'tradition', but there are good traditions and bad ones.

---

That isn't true though is it.

The class argument is a disingenuous one and one ignored by the Burns report which at 222 pages is a bit of a stodgy read but which does give an impartial appraisal of all the issues involved.

If hunting is banned, it should be because the cruelty involved outweighs any benefits derived from the practice. To deny there are any benefits is not to do justice to the complexity of the issue.

I cannot see the benefit in painting a stereotype of the participants which panders to an inverted class snobbery. Surely the question revolves around the nature of the act and not the nature of those who participate?

---

by Incandenza

the Burns report which at 222 pages is a bit of a stodgy read but which does give an impartial appraisal of all the issues involved.

---

There is no such thing as complete impartiality.

I'm agin it... I wish I could remember where this quote cpomes from:

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible."

'nuff said.

---

by Incandenza
(quotes)That isn't true though is it?

---

Not entirely true, but not without substance, either. 'Tradition' is not a good argument, in my book. I do believe there are good and bad traditions, like for example, the British tradition of tolerance, or the American one of insularity, but inasmuch as traditions are not enshrined by law, you can't rely on them. Not much tolerance for immigrants in this country, and the Americans can be so generous to less developed countries that they can't quite believe their government has managed to make their own country so unpopular abroad.

So 'tradition' is a poor argument, but I never said the pro hunt lobby had a good one. In fact, I'm agreeing with you on the above points

NB Andy Hamilton said on R4's 'The News Quiz' yesterday (repeated in half an hour from now): "Oscar Wilde is supposed to have said 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit', but what he actually said was 'Oh, sarcasm is the highest form of wit... I don't think!'"

---

by Alibi
I'm agin it... I wish I could remember where this quote cpomes from:

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible."

'nuff said.

---

Coincidentally... Oscar Wilde

I guess I am coming late to this topic, which for me is a very emotive topic. Basically on a personal level I would love to see a ban on fox hunting-to me it is abhorrent how anyone can gain pleasure from abusing an animal or any living creature.
I do not and cannot agree with the argument that on a fundamental level we should all have the right to do whatever we choose; do we therefore allow people who take pleasure in rape, paedophilia, murder and the like to continue as they choose because they have the right to free will? I think not; so why should we allow people to continue abusing animals? Because they are not human-well I do not think that parading our 'superiority' as a species is well exemplified by maiming and killing other species.

---

by Incandenza
I cannot see the benefit in painting a stereotype of the participants which panders to an inverted class snobbery. Surely the question revolves around the nature of the act and not the nature of those who participate?

---

I totally agree, the class of participants is not the problem in question-their apparent belief system that cruelty to animals is what is in question. People do not think that dog fighting (which is actually still quite prevelant where I live) is wrong because it is a show of working class snobbery-it is wrong because it is cruel and untimately wrong.
OK, I am stopping now