Should a new Government repeal the Hunting Act?

Add a Comment

Comment by Andres Grijalva on March 1, 2010 at 14:31

To my mind and I'm sure to most of the British public, fox hunting is an issue that has nothing to do with emotion but rather with the logic behind it.

Let’s face it; the only people that are going to agree with repealing the Hunting Act are those that actually enjoy hunting. I've heard a few of those people claim that they are ''environmental managers, land managers, sportsmen'', amongst other things. But let's make this claim clear and let's be honest with each other and most importantly with ourselves. Why does a hunter actually decides to go fox hunting with his friends, his horse and hounds? Is it because they consider the fox they hunt ''food'' to eat? Is it because they feel that there are too many foxes in certain areas and they have clear studies showing that they will need to be culled? Is it because they actually care for the environment and they feel that the foxes' presence will cause an impact that may damage it? Any reasonable person, able and willing to think logically will tell you that the reason a fox-hunter decides to go fox hunting is because they enjoy it. They enjoy the adrenaline rush generated by the chase. They don’t really question whether this is morally correct or not, the philosophy behind their reasons has no real weight, it’s too superficial and that’s how they like to keep it, no depth of thought goes into why they do what they do. They don’t like to question their moral reasons behind their practice and don’t like other people questioning them or their so called ‘’sport’’ which they will defend as heritage when it’s convenient for them. The way they claim that people defending the hunting act are ruled by their sentiments and emotions instead of logic and reason is almost comical if you take into account their reasons for wanting to repel the hunting act and keep their ‘’sport’’ legal. These are the people in denial that are not willing to embrace change for the better, these people are not ready to grow morally as a country. They’re happy to carry on doing what they always have done without questioning themselves or their reasons as to why they do it.

When a hunter has caught the fox or rather when they see the fox shredded to pieces by their hounds, little or no thought will into whether an animal has suffered or not. This suffering, whether is morally excused or not has no relevance in their mind and I will even go as far as to say that they will avoid this issue altogether. They will not question their methods or their morals. They will be happy to have caught the fox or to have ‘’outsmarted it’’ as they will put it. Any person that is concern for their environment can not ignore the animals that live in it as they are part of it as so are we. They can not ignore their welfare or can not be ignorant to their suffering. No sentiment or emotion needs to come into the picture for people to think this way. It is only logical to think that we have the moral duty to do that we do what is right for them if we care about Britain’s wildlife and its conservation. It seems to me that the only people that want the hunting ban to go are those people that have failed to think logically about this issue and their stance in this argument is based on their love for what they call a ''sport'' and not on the logic argument against it. There's no logic or philosophy behind a hunter's mind, they are doing what they have grown up doing and they do it because they have learned to enjoy it and believe me, they will fight for their right to enjoy it and practice it. An honest person that decides to practice fox-hunting will admit that they see this as a sport and as a good day out. They will admit that the fact that a fox has to die or how much they suffer has no place in their mind. They don't hunt with hounds because they believe that it's a more humane method to kill the fox, because after all, they're not really there to control the environment or to keep the number of foxes under control in the first place. They're there to practice their ''sport'' and as a “sport” they want to keep it.

I don’t want the following to be considered an attack on the poster, but rather as an opportunity to logically question the reason why a person feels the hunting ban needs to go. Lets put the following statements under fair criticism and lets come to logic conclusion that makes sense to the majority or people and not just to those that enjoy hunting.

As Mike Turner mentions below in an effort to make fox-hunting seem more reasonable:
‘’The fox is one of the few animals, apart from humans, that also kills for fun & not just food. Ask anyone who has seen what a fox can do in a hen run or amongst a group of lambs’’ This statement is clearly implying that that if it’s ok for the fox to kill for fun, then it should be ok for humans to do so too. Should we judge our actions independently from what we consider wrong in others? Reason and logic from an ethical point of view will tell us that we need to do what is right regardless of the actions of others including animals. Would it be ok to commit murder because someone we know has got away with it? We should also not presume to know why animals act the way they do as we have very little understanding as to why an animal will act a certain way on a given occasion like when a fox kills more chickens than it can eat in a hen run. We can view this logically and come to the conclusion that the fox is not really killing for fun, the fox is not really considering the fact that it will not be able to eat all the chickens that it kills and making a decision to kill them for fun. The fox will act on instinct and kill its prey, If it has the opportunity to kill more prey then it will do it without the ability to come to the conclusion that it may not be able to eat all the chickens that it kills, but let’s not make the mistake to think that just because humans are able to kill for ‘’fun’’, animals are able to make the same mistake, and please lets not make the actions of a fox in a hen-run become an excuse or an example for us to do the same in a given situation. This would be like saying ‘’if it’s ok for a fox to do it then it’s ok for us’’ Surely humans have the ability to reason better than a fox.

Second point:
“To see an animal torn to pieces is gut wrenching, and in hunting the manner of death is visible if you are near the kill. But think about it. The fox is shot in the backside & crawls away. Does anyone seriously believe that the shooter is going to find it & finish it off? It will die a slow, agonizing death. Like wise poisoning or trapping. You just don't see it happen.’’ This is his attempt to make fox-hunting seem acceptable or at least to make it seem more acceptable than other methods of ''managing the environment'' This statement claims that having a fox torn to pieces by hounds is more humane that shooting it. There’s is a level of truth in this statement only if we can assume that foxes are always going to be shot in the backside and left to die a slow and painful death and for this statement to be true we also need to assume that the hounds will always kill the fox quicker after it has run for it’s life until it can not run any more. I think we can all agree that if someone is called upon to shoot a fox for environmental reasons only, it should be done as humanly as possible and the idea of a fox running for its life from humans sitting or their horses and a pack of hounds that will eventually tear them apart seems hardly the humane option. I’m sure that if any of us are given the following two options two die, being chased by people on horses and a pack of hounds only to be torn apart when we are caught or to be shot in the head with the risk that we might be shot somewhere else and die a slower death, we would always choose the latter. The is also a more powerful argument than the simple fact that this is not an ethical way to control fox numbers if they indeed need to be controlled, which is the fact that we have the moral duty to look into the reasons why fox numbers need to be controlled. It’s all well and good to say that they have no natural predators and that’s why it’s up to us to us to control their population, but it would be irresponsible of us to assume that that’s the reason why we need to control their numbers and even more irresponsible to use that as an excuse to hunt them, if in fact they need to be controlled. Lions in the wild don’t have a natural predator either, but they don’t seem to become a problem in the ecosystem or don’t require us to shoot them or chase them with a pack of hounds to control their numbers. The British government is now called upon by its moral duty to do more responsible research into the reasons why the fox population would need to be controlled and instead of chasing them around with hounds and tearing them apart we should prevent their numbers from becoming an issue. If the reason why people want to repel the hunting act is environmental, then preventing the fox population from increasing before they need to be controlled would surely be a better option than trying to control it. But I think we can all agree in that the reason people want fox-hunting to become legal once again is not environmental. The real reason is because these people enjoy hunting and looking into a way to prevent the fox population from becoming an issue is not really in their agenda. The environment matters little to them, what really matters and the only thing that matters to them in this respect is fighting to preserve this so called ‘’sport’’ as a sport.

Britain as a country has the opportunity to show the rest of the world that we are a morally conscious society that respects and cares for its wildlife. We can show them that we are proud of the way we treat our wildlife because we care. We should make an example out of this to deal with similar situation in the future and not give into the minority that does not want to accept change even if it means staying stagnant and not going forward and growing as individuals and as a nation. Britain has always been looked upon and respected as a nation that cares, that will fight to preserve wildlife worldwide so why take a step back now and accept this incredibly irresponsible practice in our own soil? We should look at this as a unique opportunity to show that Britain can deal with environmental issues responsibly and in an ethical manner. Lest this be an opportunity to call upon the government to protect Britain’s wildlife and grow morally as a nation so we can be sure of a brighter future and not become an stagnant nation that is happy to excuse their behavior towards it’s own wildlife with frantic accusations towards those that actually want respect to be shown accordingly.

It is true that commercial farming is another issue that needs to be tackled, but let’s not use this as an excuse not to deal responsibly with the issue at hand. Give the issue at hand its due importance for if we can not address it in a reasonable and responsible manner then we have no hope with the even more controversial issue of commercial and intensive farming.

Comment by Mike Turner on September 27, 2009 at 15:47

Two issues dominate the drive to ban hunting. The fact it is 'sport' and the manner of the fox's death. Both are driven by the heart ruling the head. The fox is one of the few animals, apart from humans, that also kills for fun & not just food. Ask anyone who has seen what a fox can do in a hen run or amongst a group of lambs. The fox's only serious predator in the modern world is humans & it does need control. Making it a sport provides livelihoods for hounds, horses & people. Now lets talk about the manner of death. To see an animal torn to pieces is gut wrenching, and in hunting the manner of death is visible if you are near the kill. But think about it. The fox is shot in the backside & crawls away. Does anyone seriously believe that the shooter is going to find it & finish it off? It will die a slow, agonising death. Like wise poisoning or trapping. You just don't see it happen. At least with hounds it is very very quick & certain. If a hunting ban is unenforceable - and it is - a ban on other control methods is even less enforceable. It is all very well being sentimental & it is even better being against cruelty but----------. Reality has to be allowed to intrude. You are right. Intensive farming inflicts much worse cruelty on many more animals than fox hunting ever did. Now stag hunting is a different matter. The stag is a totally different kind of animal with totally different habits. Its' meat has value as food. Stalking & shooting is the way to control numbers - not hunting with hounds. Practical commonsense not emotion should rule legislation.