WHY  THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS FOXMAN HAS RECEIVED IN E-MAILS FROM  ANTI'S ARE WRONG 

The arguments used by the much respected RSPCA seem strong. How can they be wrong?

The  RSPCA, like so many people, has a greatly over simplified view of the  life of foxes and the ways they affect us and we affect them. The case for Hunting rests on details rather than the simplified view used against Hunting people. Let me explain why the points the RSPCA and most Anti's make are wrong.

We exaggerate when we say that foxes are pests.

This statement is based on figures that show that foxes cause only a small part of the deaths of lambs, piglets etc. Yes, BUT imagine how upset  you would be if your kitten or puppy etc. had been killed by a fox.  Farmers feel the same way.

(This  sort of use of figures, while ignoring the feelings of people, is typical of large organisations like the RSPCA or any Government. The real world is very poorly described by a mass of figures.)

Hunts kill so few foxes that they do not achieve any control of numbers compared with deaths on roads or shooting by gamekeepers etc.

Yes, as a simple figure; BUT look at the details. Foxes are territorial; so what matters is where the control is taking place. Near motorways and main roads control is indeed by vehicles hitting them; sometimes  only wounding to be followed by slow death from injuries. Near shoots control is indeed mostly by gamekeepers shooting. Gamekeepers will admit that they do not always kill outright and that their dog does not catch all they wound. Around farms and areas where other methods do not operate, control is by the Hunt or by shooting by farmers. Farmers will admit that they are often poor shots. This means that around farms foxes may  well die slowly in pain from wounds unless the Hunt can control fox numbers by enough to satisfy the farmers. In towns many foxes learn to avoid traffic. Thus there is not a lot of control and there can be too many of them. This causes outbreaks of mange because towns are places, which are highly unnatural for a woodland dweller.

Foxes limit their own numbers.

Yes, BUT the number reached before the limit sets in is so high that farmers would not be prepared to put up with them. Please see, link,  which shows how Government introduced a fox bounty after the 39-45 War  because the number of foxes had got very large due to a marked reduction  in Hunting, Shooting etc. during the War.

Hunting is not humane, it is stressful and frightening for the  fox, humans would not like to be chased by hounds, there is video evidence  that hunted foxes die horrible deaths.

Please see, (Suffering of Foxes.html),  which explains why Hunting is the least inhumane method of control. I have seen hundreds of kills and the fox has never survived for more  than a very few seconds under the mass of hounds, which virtually always occurs as shown in the clip.  This clip is from a video taken by an Anti'. It shows a worst case.  Except in very rare instances, death is virtually immediate as a large  number of hounds over-run the fox simultaneously. Even in the rare case  shown, death occurs within 10 seconds of the first hound seizing the fox. This is not a horrible death because it is so quick. It is much  less horrible for the fox than a slow death from wounds received after being inexpertly shot. A human witness may see it as more horrible than  a death from wounds; but what matters is the effect on the fox, rather than on the human witness. Many allege that Hunting is worse than other methods because it involves a chase which a human would find terrifying. However, there are respected scientists, who claim (chase.htm) that; unlike the mind of a human, a fox's mind is prepared for a chase.  These scientists say that foxes appear to flee as a natural reaction.  They do not imagine their coming death. They are, therefore, not terrified by this prospect, which is the source of the terror of a human chased  by carnivores. I have seen foxes run towards Hounds almost like inviting them to a game of "chase me Charlie". I have also seen a hunted fox stop, kill and eat a small mammal in the middle of fleeing from Hounds. I would stop Hunting immediately if anybody could prove to me that a fox was scared witless when being hunted.

Hunting is not effective

I  have explained that it controls foxes only around farms or where other  methods do not operate. Hunting has succeeded in keeping the number of foxes in these areas at the highest level that farmers are just prepared  to put up with. This requires a strong motive to preserve fox numbers (we enjoy The Chase). It also needs close working with farmers to understand just how many foxes can be put up with before their killing of lambs etc. becomes more than the farmers can stand. In the places that really need it, Hunting is effective. BUT it is not shown to be effective if you use only over simplified figures.

Farmers  often enjoy Hunting or have friends that do, so they put up with some foxes. Now that Hunting has been stopped, many farmers have no reason to put up with foxes taking some lambs etc. and they will shoot at  virtually all of them. Thus stopping Hunting will eventually reduce the number  of foxes and many more will die slowly in pain after being wounded by inexpert shooting.

Carnivores have to hunt to survive.

Yes, but controlled so that they do not nip down to their Supermarkets (the local farms) more often than the farmers can put up with.

Hounds do not kill immediately.

Only an accurate shot in the head can do this. BUT any shooting except at  very close range (impossible with a wary animal, like a fox, unless  in the act of bolting from a refuge) can lead to wounding and a slow  painful death from wounds. I have explained already how hounds achieve a certain kill in a very few seconds after the fox is first caught. Normally hounds instinctively bite the spinal cord and death is virtually  instantaneous. However, in rare cases, the spinal chord may not be severed cleanly and flesh might be bitten and torn in the few seconds a fox  survives under a mass of hounds. But surely this short agony is better  than minutes, hours or days of pain after being shot.

Hunts kill only a few foxes, so how can Hunting be a control.

For  the last about 200 years, Hunting has controlled the number of foxes around most farms, which are in Hunting Areas. The number of foxes around these farms has remained at a level which farmers can just accept. Mercifully  in order to keep numbers at this level, relatively few foxes have had to be killed. However fox numbers are kept very low

• by Gamekeepers shooting, where a farm is close to a highly organised shoot or
• by foxes being run over, where a farm is close to a main road.
• NOTE, Both these controls  cause many slow painful deaths. Mercifully most farms are well away  from main roads or organised shoots.

OK, so Hunting is the best way of controlling foxes. But why do so many La-di-das (and all dressed up) have to follow the Huntsman?

 It is expensive to maintain a pack of hounds large enough to have a  good chance of killing a fox often enough to satisfy the farmers. The  Hunt must also maintain enough horses to mount the Huntsman and the Whippers-in. Any government would be unlikely to be prepared to fund  these high costs just to ensure that foxes are controlled in the best  way. The treasury, in particular, would be likely to insist on a less  expensive method like that used on Badgers (gassing), which involves  indiscriminate killing of young and old equally, together with a risk  of slow death; as in shooting. If farmers were asked to pay all the  costs of control by Hunting, most would not be prepared to afford it and would shoot foxes instead (sometimes wounding, leading to slow painful  death). So, the money to fund the Hunt has to come from those who enjoy  The Chase. Very few people are deliberately cruel to animals, tame or wild. I believe that if people who would be inclined to enjoy the challenge of riding to hounds, believed that Hunting was cruel there would have been  far fewer people Hunting. We Hunt with a clear conscience because we know that foxes are not scared witless while being chased and that death by being caught by 20, or so, hounds is very sure and swift. We prefer that they die this way rather than run the risk of dying slowly after wounding by shooting. We also appreciate that our relatively natural and selective method of control, where and by just the amount that is needed, is more in keeping with nature than the relatively unnatural  and indiscriminate alternatives. Few of those who follow hounds are La-di-das. Our Hunt is followed by, for instance; more nurses, social  workers, doctors, old age pensioners, shop floor workers, farmworkers  etc. than landowners, stockbrokers etc. Many of us are the farmers that  need to have foxes controlled.

Most Anti-Emails I have had are full of abuse couched in foul language.

These, the actions of some sabs and the statements of some MPs have convinced me that many antis must be acting as much from hatred (of what they perceive as "toffs") as from feelings for foxes. Frequent references to "La-di-das" etc. shows that many antis are imbued with the English tendency to indulge in a class struggle. In my view this is wholly destructive of our society and a blot on our reputation.  I know this because I live abroad for a significant part of the year.

If foxes did not sense danger they would not run! Feeling endangered makes a fox suffer.

All wild predators including foxes, sense danger many times each day and run. Thus they are adapted to sensing danger and running. Therefore, they do not suffer mentally when being chased. It follows that in Foxhunting  the chase is not cruel. The kill in Foxhunting is over in less than  15seconds. Now that shooting has become the main control, a significant number more foxes will be wounded and many will die slowly from their wounds,  for instance by starvation if they can no longer hunt for food. Surely this is a much less humane form of control than Foxhunting.

I don't see that it is healthy to turn killing life forms into a pleasure......... that is sadistic and I cannot comprehend it.

We get absolutely no pleasure out of the kill as such, thus we are not sadistic.  Our fun comes from using the skills of hounds, huntsmen, horses and riders in the chase. For the reasons given above the chase itself is  not cruel, so we are not being sadistic when we are chasing a fox.

A load of 'la-de-da's' getting dressed up with their horses and  dogs and making a grand day out it will NEVER make it accepted by antis.

The view expressed here seems to be at the root of most objections to Foxhunting.  "La-de-das" is plain wrong. Many of us are towns people, with little money and education, who love the true "country-way-of-life" or are country people born and bred, with rural accents, also with little money and education. What you are really objecting to is the "ritualisation" of Foxhunting. Have you ever asked yourself "why do they go to all the trouble of dressing up, to chase a fox?"

There  are several good reasons arising from some of the precepts upon which the "country-way-of-life" is founded:-

1. One of them is "why change when there is no need".

In other words we set tradition very high. Therefore, we see no reason to change the dress we have used for 200 years. It is the smart version of the everyday dress of people of the 18th century, when Foxhunting began. In those days people rode just to get about, rather like using a car today. They rode in all weathers. The dress is excellent for riding, as we often have to when hunting, in cold or anything but heavy rain.

Another  reason for keeping our dress is to show respect for foxes and the  farmers without whose co-operation the chase would be impractical.

2. Another of the precepts of the "country-way-of-life" is to "accept  the animal in our nature".

Hunting, not only for food but also as a ritual for keeping in communion with our origins in the animal world, lies deep in the genes of the human race. Humans have always hunted and have ritualised it and/or dressed up  for it from the earliest times.

It is unfair that lives are wasted because of sport

Fishing kills fish.  Shooting kills birds and stags. Eating beef kills cattle. Why not ban  all these and make it compulsory for everybody to be Vegans. Please live in the real world, which is full of death. Most animals and birds and fish die naturally in ways which are normally unpleasant to the urban-minded: Ripped apart slowly by domestic cats etc. Ban cats?

Action should be taken to prevent suffering taking place.

Foxes do not suffer  mentally while being hunted. See"cruelty" link.

 Dingos and Wolves hunt naturally because they are wild animals. It is unfair to Beagles and other domestic dogs, that are trained by people to  kill, because they are made cruel. Domestic dogs should not kill foxes as they are related. You would not like it if your relations killed  you.

 All Dogs naturally enjoy hunting. It is not "unfair" to them. All dogs (including domestic dogs), particularly when in a pack will chase and attempt to kill other animals. Hounds  are in a pack when hunting. Young foxhounds will chase rabbits, hares, deer etc before being entered to Hunting. Foxhounds are not trained to kill foxes. Foxhunts have to train foxhounds not to hunt animals other than foxes. Staghunts have to train staghounds not to hunt rabbits, hares and foxes.

But that doesn't necessarily mean we are acting responsibly by getting domesticated animals to hunt other animals for our pleasure.

 Hounds are not domesticated.  Domestication means teaching them to behave in a "domus" ( Latin for a house). Hounds live as a pack in kennels.

Foxes feeding habits are not detrimental to farming

They kill lambs etc. Every lamb or other animal possession is precious to the farmer, not just in the economic sense. Foxes  kill domestic cats sometimes. Would you like your cat killed by a fox?

You shouldn't stress pregnant foxes.

Huntsmen can tell if hounds are on a pregnant fox, she has very little scent. They always  take hounds off a very weak line.

If fast running dogs like Grey Hounds or Lurchers were used to  hunt foxes the chase would be over very quickly

Greyhounds and Lurchers hunt mostly by sight. Foxes dive into hedges, clumps of grass etc. very quickly  and it would be nearly impossible to control foxes by day with such dogs. However by night, a skilled dog-handler (with a lurcher bred for  the task) can mesmerise a fox in the beam of a lamp. The dog then has  a good chance of catching the fox before "he" can reach the security of cover. Persons and dogs with these skills are rare. Therefore, the method is not practicable as a large scale substitute for conventional Foxhunting despite its advantage of not incurring the high risk of wounding  when guns are used instead of dogs.

If we don't do something about hunting there will be no foxes left.

Hunts are never going  to exterminate all the foxes. Hunting would then have to stop.

 Fishing does not always kill fish and we are told that they don't  feel pain in their lower jaws. If fishermen do kill fish then they usually  eat them, whereas when foxhunters kill foxes they don't eat them.

 Your statement that fishing does not always kill fish implies that you see the moral issue  in fishing and hunting arising out of the killing rather than out of the chasing. Foxhunting does not always kill foxes. Therefore, on your reasoning, it is no more blameworthy than fishing. If you do not object to killing for the sake of humans getting pleasure out of eating fish  (except in rare tribes, humans do not need to eat fish to live) why do you object to humans getting pleasure out of following foxhounds  chasing a fox? Pain is a red herring in this debate. Humans experience pain when stressed in sport. What is relevant is mental suffering. The scientific evidence I quote shows that mental suffering does not arise from pain to which the human or fox has become adapted; say that of a Runner during a Marathon or a Fox while being chased. They show that mental suffering does arise when the natural response to being chased or trapped is thwarted. That  is when flight or escape is prevented. A fox can run from hounds. When and if caught he is dead within a very few seconds; see this clip.  A fish cannot run from being hauled in by net or line and it takes longer than a few seconds. Seeing fishing as acceptable and hunting as unacceptable  is wholly illogical.

 Isn't it true that foxhunters kill foxes for sheer pleasure?

The pleasure is in exercising and observing the skills used in following the foxhounds  and by the foxhounds and Huntsman in hunting the fox. The Huntsman (the person with the horn) is the only person who actually hunts the fox.  Nobody takes pleasure from the kill itself. Foxhunting also plays a  useful part in preventing excessive numbers of foxes building up where  (when in excess) they kill farmer's possessions, such as lambs and piglets.

Killing animals for a sport is unfair.

 Is a fox fair to the  farmer when he kills a lamb? A fox can always find food elsewhere. But,  when there are lots of foxes about, it will take more effort than killing  a lamb.

You support Foxhunting why do you not also support badger baiting and/or dog fighting?

Unlike Foxhunting, there are no reasons for such baiting other than to entertain the onlookers. The baiters or attenders gain pleasure from a battle where the fighters  cannot run away, even though one may have reached the point when it  would if it could. By the arguments in chase.htm , this thwarting of the natural instinct to flee imposes mental suffering  on the badger/dog/cock for at least several minutes. Throughout a foxhunt the fox can and does flee. Thus he does not suffer mentally until the  kill which does not last longer than a very few seconds. Therefore, I oppose badger baiting and dog/cock fighting and have a clear conscience when foxhunting.

The Labour Party support the ban on fox-hunting, why if fox-hunting is an effective way to keep the fox  population down?

I believe that many  "labour" activists (misguidedly) think that Foxhunting is  morally wrong and, therefore, should be banned; even if it means more  "nuisance" from foxes. For the reasons I have given in this website;  I believe that, at best, the moral arguments are dubious. Certainly not enough to incur all the disadvantages of a ban. Foxhunting is effective in controlling foxes deep in the countryside  near farms and shoots where they do most harm. It is not effective in controlling the total population. Motorists play the main role in this by killing hundreds of thousands of foxes each year on the roads.

Has any evidence been provided by experts, e.g. animal psychologists, to back up your claim that Foxhunting is not cruel?

Please read chase.htm

I am saddened that you contribute to the destruction of another  living creature.

 I ask "do you contribute to the destruction of fish, fowl and mammals  by enjoying food?"

The majority of people in England are against Foxhunting, you know this; so why do you persist in defending Hunting?

 Democracy is government vested in all of the people. This includes protecting  the interests of minorities, however unpopular they may be. Do you believe  Halal slaughter should be banned because most people think that it is barbarous?

Why do people oppose Hunting? It is not because they do not know the facts, it is because they are hard working, honest, caring people  who have a respect for ALL life.

 Yet most eat fish, fowl and meat, not because they would die without  it, but because they enjoy it.

 I am from the country. I have no respect whatsoever for farmers  - I have seen them hunt, kill, spray their fields with endless chemicals which have polluted OUR country, reap subsidy after subsidy for food which is left to rot, have little or no respect for other peoples opinions or rights, and regard themselves as above the rest of us.

 Their land is theirs or their landlords. It is not OURs. Do you believe  houseowners should be banned from using similar chemicals on their land, (their  gardens). For the same reasons as farmers use them; that is to let what  they plant flourish against the competition of nature. Farms are factories for the raw material of some food and other products. Factory owners also get subsidies. Farmers are no more intolerant than those who would  not tolerate hunting.

The country way of life? Conservation? Wildlife protection? I don't  know any farmers who are interested in this, all they seek is profit and barbaric entertainment.

 Many farmers in the Severn Vale, where I live, are members of the Countryside  Stewardship Scheme. Even though they get subsidy for reduced productivity,  they have accepted reduced profitability from their "factories" (their  farms). Just like factory owners who have had their profitability reduced by introducing partially subsidised environmental protection filters  etc. If by "barbaric" you mean "enjoyment of killing" you are wrong. Hunt followers do not enjoy the kill. They do enjoy using and watching the skills of the chase.

They're entertainment is at the expense of OTHERS. It is NOT you're right to kill any other living creature. They are as much mine as they are yours - it is an affront to MY RIGHTS that you take away something that gives me pleasure.

Foxes  are categorised by Government as pests, thereby conferring the right to kill them. In the case of some birds, fish and mammals; the Game  Laws give us that right, except where the creature is protected. Nobody  owns wild creatures. We only reduce the fox population by enough to keep it at a just tolerable level around farms where an increased population would cause disproportionately more theft by foxes of farmer's possessions.  If you seek to view foxes at night in any country area, you will not  find them absent because of the Hunt. Absence will be due to road deaths,  shooting and other ways which involve relatively high risks of wounding  and slow, painful death.

 We live in a democratic society, one which you should be proud of, and the will of the people will keep Foxhunting in the history  books of shame.

 Foxhunting will revive just because we live in a democratic society. That is one where government is vested in all of the people. That is  one which protects the interests of minorities, however unpopular they may be. Thank god that all of the culture of this country (the urban and rural sub-cultures together) will never allow a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to survive for long . Karl Marx advocated it and you appear to go along with him, but look at what has happened to nearly all states which allowed suppression of minority interests. A majority wanting something done does not mean that it is necessarily right to do it; except for "purely political  gain seeking".
 

A GOOD QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What are your main reasons for participating in hunting?	To enjoy the skills of "The Chase", the houndwork, the skill of the Huntsman and Whippers-in, riding across country etc. Equally; to help farmers control foxes.
2. What does hunting mean to you?	My "Way of Life".
3. With over 200,000 people regularly following hunts throughout the UK, hunting is more popular than ever before, why do you think this is?	More people, more than ever, want a change from the urban "Way of Life" and a challenge.
4. What do you consider the most enjoyable part of hunting?	Riding well over a difficult jump.
5. The media often portrays the hunting community as upper class  toffs, do you think this is an accurate portrayal?	No: I hunt with farm labourers, retired production line workers  and many tens of "ordinary people".
6. Do you consider Foxhunting to be a "sport"?	Yes: It is definitely not a game.
7. The view of anti-hunting groups is that the killing of the  fox is "cruel", "unnatural" and even "barbaric". What's your opinion  of such a view?	It is wrong. At the end of "The Chase" the fox either escapes  unhurt or is killed within a few seconds. Even skilled marksmen say that they cannot always shoot a fox dead. They often only wound when the fox is likely to die slowly of his wounds or recover  from his injuries but starve because he is partially disabled and cannot hunt properly. Hunting differs from other methods of  the control of foxes, that the DEFRA says is necessary, because the fox is chased before it is killed or escapes. The chase itself  is not cruel. A large number of scientists who study animal behaviour  believe that foxes are fully in control of their wits while being  chased. Furthermore, observation by country people over hundreds  of years shows that:- (a) They appear not to anticipate their possible death. (b) They seem not to be tortured by being chased. A large body of authoritative opinion has good reason to assume  that their genes, together with inherited and acquired learning, have adapted them to the chase.There is evidence that living things only panic when their instinct to flee is frustrated by a physical constraint. No such frustration occurs while the fox is being chased. However, the "Cruelty Argument" will remain sterile because  it is subjective, either way, until it becomes possible for a human being to know objectively what a fox is thinking. I am surprised that some people believe that a slow death after wounding by shot is less "cruel, unnatural and barbaric" ----from the fox's viewpoint--- than a chase followed by a swift and certain death or an escape unhurt after being hunted. Humans may feel that death by being  ripped apart under a pack of hounds is "cruel, unnatural and barbaric"  but the feelings of foxes are what matters here, not the susceptibilities of humans. Is a shot from a gun less unnatural than death in the  way nature has killed for millions of years?
9. How do you perceive the fox in terms of its worth?	A glorious wild animal worthy of preservation. Unfortunately  it is a threat to the economic welfare of many farmers because  it kills their possessions. They would therefore virtually exterminate it as they did in the Isle of Man when hunting stopped there. Hunts  have built up a rapport with many farmers and the farmers allow  the Hunt to kill foxes rather than having to remove them themselves.  Thus Hunts are able to maintain the populations of foxes in farming  country and on sheep rearing moors at a level that is just tolerable  to the farmers and shepherds. Without Hunts there would be fewer foxes in these areas.
10.Why do you think the Labour Party has continually - for the  last 60 years - tried to outlaw Foxhunting?	Hunting is associated with the "Upper Class". The Labour Party cannot shake off its Socialist roots. Socialism is founded upon Class Strife on the way to a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The  "Upper Class" (as exemplified by the Hereditary Peers in "The  House of Lords") blocks that way. Labour wishes to erode that  blockage. Two of many ways to achieve this are to rid "The Lords of Hereditary Peers", to ban Foxhunting.
11. Do you think there is still a place for Foxhunting in "modern" Britain?	Yes. To preserve a method of controlling foxes that has grown by experience to become the most humane and practicable. There  is room for tighter supervision to preclude rare cases of disobedience  of the Masters of Foxhounds Association's rules.
12. Issues of 'cruelty', 'class envy' and 'urban societies misunderstanding of rural traditions' are all disputed within the media. Why do you think the general public; people who have never before been hunting, are so against the activity?	Incitement by emotive propaganda such as use of phrases like "ripped apart under a seething mass of dogs", "would you like  to be chased by a pack of dogs"; pictures of disemboweled foxes;  allegations that Huntsmen are "upper class twits".
13. What is your opinion of hunt saboteurs?	A few genuinely believe that foxes do not need to be controlled or that shooting is more humane. Many are indulging in "Class  or Anti-Establishment Warfare" or are out for a "good punch-up". All are guilty of taking direct action instead of legal means of acting against hunting
14. What does the landscape in which you hunt actually mean to  you?	Something close to my soul.
15. How do you feel when you are out on the hunt? (what goes through your mind).	How well or badly I had used my skills. How well or badly we dealt with a particular fox.
16. How would you describe a good days hunting?	No disappointment by the farmers in the number of foxes killed.
17. Is there any element of Foxhunting, which you dislike?	Yes, digging out or bolting a fox. The fox's natural instinct to flee has been frustrated and it often takes too long.
18. With regards to the Commons vote - on the future of Foxhunting, do you think hunting with dogs will be banned in the near future?	No. The Government will put forward a compromise to avoid disruption of business from a lengthy confrontation with "The Lords". After  all, several members of the government and two members of Lord  Burns' Inquiry voted in "The Lords" for a compromise. I was wrong because bigots in The Commons used the Parliament Acts to force through the ban and thereby override the interests of a minority ( I.E. The MPs were undemocratic.
19.What would your life be like without hunting?	Hollow.
20 How would you summarize your view of Foxhunting in a single sentence.	It is a humane means of avoiding large decreases in the population of foxes in farming country and sheep rearing moors, it is not a stick with which to beat the "Upper Classes".

Moving with the times, Foxhunting should be banned

You  say, "times change, only a few years ago women could not testify against  their husband in a court of law... Women didn't even have the vote...  Times changed. Culture moved on and realised that that was not right.  Some still argue it was wrong... but it had to change."

 I agree, the status of women was wrong. But change should not be made  for its own sake; only if it is improving.

You  say "I feel foxhunting should (change?)too."

 I know that banning Foxhunting would not be improving because a ban  would make matters worse for foxes. I also know that there are bad things about Foxhunting that should be corrected. But on balance, the case  to continue allowing Foxhunting is strong PROVIDED IT IS PROPERLY CONTROLLED to remove all its faults. Yes, Foxhunting  should move on too.

You  say "Britian is now the place to be for young hip things, not stuffy huntsman (or toffs as I believe people call you)."

Go to a meet of hounds. The followers are not all stuffy nor toffs. You  would be welcome.

You  say "At some point, the past has to be let go of. Why not move with  the times?"

I  say: Why let go of the good from the past? I believe that a REFORMED Foxhunting preserving the good parts from the past but eliminating the  bad WILL MOVE WITH THE TIMES.

 Matters as complex as Foxhunting should not be seen as "black or white". It is "grey" and should be "whitened".

 IN SUMMARY
 

IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING  THAT THE RITUAL OF FOXHUNTING  IS UNACCEPTABLE  TO THOSE THAT LIVE BY AN OPPOSITE  SET OF PRECEPTS, SUCH AS:

Our "way-of-life" should always move on from earlier ways (for movement's sake?).

We should reject the animal within our nature.

BUT WE HAVE IN COMMON A TRADITION OF DRESSING UP FOR OUR PLEASURABLE  ACTIVITIES. DO YOU DRESS UP TO GO TO DANCING?

A PLEA
 

 WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY IF PEOPLE WHO LIVE BY ONE SET  OF CULTURAL PRECEPTS CEASED TRYING TO IMPOSE THEIRS ON OTHER SETS?

 MATTERS AS COMPLEX  AS FOXHUNTING SHOULD NOT BE  SEEN AS "BLACK OR WHITE". THEY ARE "GREY". THE BURNS INQUIRY  HAS EXPOSED THIS FACT. THE DEBATE SHOULD  NOT HAVE BEEN "BAN"  OR "LEAVE ALONE".  IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT LEGISLATION  TO SET UP A REGULATORY/SUPERVISORY SYSTEM FOR FOX HUNTING WITH THE POWER TO BAN PRACTICES  FOUND TO BE BAD AND TO PRESERVE  THE GOOD.

PROPAGANDA The opponents of Hunting use propaganda to mislead; particularly about the facts of the more emotional aspects and about the politics of a ban. First I will examine a typical advertisement  to see how facts are misrepresented. It contained the following picture. I could not reproduce the actual advert clearly enough to read the words. However, I have quoted them verbatim in my analysis.    The picture  The script leads you to believe that it shows a fox killed  recently by disembowelling by hounds. But notice the eyes, which are typical  of an animal which has been dead for some time, and the absence of a brush on the tail. It seems to me that this fox has received the attentions  of somebody intent upon Taxidermy pobably for the fashion trade. A very  similar, if not identical, fox carcase and text appeared in advertisements  placed by the RSPCA. The Countryside Alliance complained to the Advertising  Standards Agency, who adjudicated that the RSPCA:  Used a photograph that was "not genuine".  Misrepresented official government policy.  Made false implications about the way in which hunting is conducted.  The text Please see comments alongside a true  transcript of the text.  EXAMPLE OF PROPAGANDA  TEXT OF IFAW ADVERTISEMENT It's a disgusting habit. But one that fox Hunters seem loath to give up. In an average year, they get through around 20,000 cubs,  dog-foxes and vixens. Even heavily pregnant vixens are considered  fair game. Selective with the truth. some fox hunters maintain there is no cruelty. Post-mortem examinations of foxes savaged by hounds prove otherwise. Typical findings include,"Extensive wounds to abdomen and thorax, intestine hanging out" and "death caused by pathological shock:' A 'quick nip to the neck' it isn't. Foxes that manage to go to ground during  a hunt face a terrifying and protracted ordeal. Escape routes are blocked, and terriers sent in to corner their prey. The ensuing underground battle is nasty and brutish. It is not short.The fox may well die underground fighting for its life. (The terriers also sustain injuries.) If it's still  alive, the hunters' digging will expose it. The best the poor creature can hope for now is a gunshot. Those animals that escape the necessarily escape the suffering.  The stress and exertion of the chase is traumatic beyond imagination. This, the fox hunters insist, is sport. 71% of the British people disagree. They think hunting with dogs should be banned (MORI).  COMMENT "Cubs" are mentioned as quarry without pointing out that by the start of Autumn Hunting most are already adept killers of small mammals and birds. We are accused of killing "Heavily pregnant vixens". But they have so little scent that on nearly every occasion that hounds seek to follow it in the spring, the Huntsman will soon realise that they are on a pregnant vixen and will call them off. The advert claims that Hunting is cruel because "post-mortem findings  include extensive wounds to abdomen and thorax,  intestines hanging out, death caused by pathological shock".  But most caught foxes have FIRST received a nip to the neck which has severed the spinal cord. The fox, therefore  felt nothing during the short time while the wounds and shock mentioned  were inflicted. It is easy to mislead about anything by quoting rare exceptions to the normal. IFAW claims that terrier work results in an"underground battle that is nasty and brutish" and not short, also that a fox "may well die underground fighting for its life." In fact, with rare exceptions, the fox is brought to bay by barking  and dug down to as quickly as possible or bolted; so that it may be shot certainly at close quarters. The rules for Terrier-work state that terriers that fight their fox must never be put to ground again. The advert states that "the stress and exertion of the chase is traumatic beyond imagination". In fact foxes are conditioned to being chased. I have seen them catch and eat a small mammal in the middle of a hunt. For more detail  on the cruelty issue please see some academic views on suffering of animals while being chased. The implication here is  that if 71% of the British people think that hunting with dogs should be banned then Parliament should ban it. In other words that the will of the majority should prevail in all circumstances. This position is dangerously undemocratic because "democracy is defined as government vested in all of the people". That is on behalf of small minorities (such as people imbued with "Rural Culture") as much as the  urban majority. In truth, Parliament is elected to govern wisely.  This requires it to balance the sensitivities of the majority against  the interests of all minorities in the light of the well-being of the  nation as a whole. HOW MUCH WOULD THE WELL-BEING OF THE UK BE IMPROVED BY BANNING HUNTING? I CANNOT SEE ANY, BUT THE DAMAGE TO THE INTERESTS  OF THE COUNTRYSIDE (INCLUDING THE FOX POPULATION) WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.