What’s Wrong With Fox Hunting?
Fox hunting is back in the news. Last week Labour reiterated its pledge to crack down on the ‘sport’, including ‘trail hunting’ which it described as a smokescreen for the real thing.
The hunting of foxes is fervently championed, not only by its practitioners, but by many who regard it as a noble rural tradition. To examine this claim, I want to test the argument postulated by the late Roger Scruton, a philosopher I have long admired. His defence presented in his short monograph, On Hunting, is among the most elegant and beguiling. If he can’t convince us through reason that fox hunting is morally acceptable, who can?
Describing his love for the ‘sport of kings’, he expresses the commonplace that it represents an essential feature of English country life. He describes its beauty, its contribution to the preservation of the countryside and the social equality it sustains. There is, however, little compassion for the quarry to which he contends the hunter adopts a “quasi-religious attitude”:
The hunted animal is hunted as an individual. But the hunted species is elevated to divine status as the totem, and a kind of mystical union of the tribe with its totem seals the pact between them for ever… For the brief moment of the chase [the fox] is an individual… Once killed, however, he returns to his archetypal condition, reassuming his nature as The Fox, whom the huntsman knows and loves, and whose eternal recurrence is his deep desire. (Pages 73,76)
It may seem somewhat incongruous to love a creature whose violent death you ardently pursue. But, in lyrical prose, he declares that to relate to animals “as wild things” we must see them “as we see nature when the divine idea shines through to us”, and this is never more likely to happen than when hunting amid the herd and the pack, “on the lively scent of a fox who streams through the hedgerows, staking out the landscape with a matrix of primeval desire” (p. 79). He describes too the love between huntsman and the animals — horses and hounds — that are accessories in the chase.
The terror, distress and killing of the fox are, of course, secondary to the claimed virtues of the activity. But, for Scruton, animals have neither rights nor duties. If they did, “lions would be murderers, cuckoos usurpers, mice burglars and magpies thieves”. Moreover, the fox would be the worst of criminals worthy of the death penalty because it kills not only for food, “but with a wanton appetite for death and destruction. … [T]o treat animals as moral beings is to mistreat them – it is to make demands which they could not satisfy, since they cannot understand them as demands” (p.132). It does not follow, he allows, that we have a licence to treat animals as we wish:
When a beaten fox, driven from covert into the open, sees that he cannot cross to safety and so turns back to his death, his despairing movements are utterly pitiable. His eyes are no longer alert, his crafty expression has vanished… In that moment the individual is all: for unlike the species he must die. If you could save him you would. (p.132). But he will not be saved because the pleasure of hunting comes in spite of death, and not because of it. (pp.132-33)
Scruton’s scruples
Scruton’s spirited defence is largely, and unashamedly, humancentric. His genuine love of hunting is almost palpable. But in seeking to justify the practice he commits at least four unexpected and uncharacteristic fallacies.
- He rightly condemns trophy hunters and the cruelty of fishing and factory farming; he does so in order to demonstrate that, unlike these activities, the hunted fox is “given a chance” to escape his fate. To justify X by asserting that Y is worse is the logical fallacy of relative privation. It is, of course, true that there is no shortage of practices that cause animals pain, suffering and death. It is also true that shooting a lion from the safety of a vehicle “and to gloat in triumph as the victim drops to the ground in agony” (p.138) is repugnant, but does the fox really have a fair prospect to escape his killing when pursued by a pack of crazed dogs and a group of eager hunters on excited horses?
- He says hunting “awakens a lively and unsentimental sympathy for animal, of a kind unknown to the lover of pets”.(p.83). Are all pet lovers really incapable of an unsentimental attitude toward their animals? Here he perpetrates the informal fallacy of hasty generalisation.
- He asserts that “the fox will gain nothing from the abolition of hunting… [which] might offer the fox the best form of coexistence with humans who have no other motive to protect him or to conserve his habitat … [and] hunting discriminates against the old and diseased. For it is not easy to catch a healthy fox” (p.134). This is surely mere speculation, and the “might” is an appeal to probability: the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of a proposition because it might possibly be the case: possibiliter ergo probabiliter.
- He declares that apart from hunting the fox, “humans… have no other motive to protect him or to conserve his habitat”. (p.135). This is far from uncontentious, and surprisingly constitutes the logical fallacy of ipse dixit: an assertion lacking proof.
It is disappointing that one of our leading philosophers should be culpable of dodgy reasoning. Might it suggest that, as David Hume maintains, reason is indeed “the slave of the passions”?
Raymond Wacks is a Professor of Law.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I know very little about the subject. In general, people who oppose hunting seem more likely to be on the “madleft” as one of our fellow posters calls them, and people who support it seem saner. On that basis, I tend to think it’s fine.
It has always struck me that if you oppose hunting then you ought to be a vegan and if you’re not then you oppose hunting just to wind up “toffs and Tories” (or you are just hopelessly inconsistent and think that meat etc comes from a factory). But I am happy to be corrected!
What an absolute crock. I oppose fox hunting because I oppose animal cruelty, in the same way I oppose non-stun animal slaughter, in the same way I oppose fur farming, in the same way that I oppose torturing and killing animals as a means of entertainment, e.g bull fighting, because ‘it’s our culture’. F**k such ridiculous platitudes and f**k the hypocrites with their selective outrage.
If a species requires culling for whatever reason from time to time, as with deer, are you seriously telling me there’s no better way to perform the task more humanely than getting your kicks from terrorising an animal around the countryside then watching gleefully as it gets torn to shreds?
Anyway, this barbaric past-time has been illegal for years, but since when has the law mattered to sick, entitled individuals who behave like they’re above it?
Isn’t killing animals for food or exploiting them to produce milk, eggs, leather also cruel then?
You’re seriously bringing up how our ancestors survived and ate since the year dot, and how we managed to evolve over many millenia, as your basis for a defence? Is that the sound of a barrel being desperately scraped…?🙄
Lots of people are vegans now. It’s quite doable, though I don’t think it’s a great idea personally. It just seems inconsistent to me.
I take the view that it is the wealth we have today that allows veganism and vegetarianism to be so common and that these people have never been hungry. If and when mad Ed and his lot succeed in their net zero madness and food becomes scarce, omnivore diets will return, and those who today decry fox hunting will be out looking for a neighbours cat.
And we will be fighting with migrants and locals to get at the Swans. Some think the boat people are being brought as some sort of security army to keep order.
Lots of people are now brainwashed nutcases – no recommendation that.
Indeed – seems like a terrible idea but my point was that it’s entirely doable so if you think fox hunting is “cruel” then it seems to me that you should think farming animals is also cruel.
I usually but free range eggs rather than battery hen eggs.
There’s no doubt that factory farming is cruel but I’m not sure how you can reasonably compare the fate of a fox ( and the lead-up to it’s terrible end ) being hunted by a pack of dogs to a farmer who prioritises the wellbeing of his livestock, adhering to the required animal welfare standards. That’s quite a stretch.
Maybe. I still think it’s a bit odd to eat dead animals and object to fox hunting but I guess we’re all different
But it’s to do with the manner in which it’s killed, isn’t it? Much like how I’m against non-stun slaughter, not that I’m under any illusions that animals in abattoirs are completely free of suffering, certainly there’s stress and psychological suffering involved, but we have to trust this is kept to a minimum.
The world has to eat, at the end of the day, and the population’s nutritional requirements are not going to be optimally met using refined carb-heavy, processed meat replacement, ‘Beyond Burgers’ or ‘Quorn’ types of foodstuff.
Regards to the dispatching of pesky foxes, as I’ve said below, is it somehow unreasonable to expect farmers to use a different method, such as trapping then shooting them? Way more efficient than the whole palaver of a hunt, just not so exciting, I guess, but it at least ensures a swift and effective kill first time. You can use snares and cages according to this;
https://www.lancashire.police.uk/faqs/wildlife-crime/what-are-traps-and-snares/
It certainly seems plausible that there are other less dramatic ways to kill them. I guess I’m an insensitive sod because I don’t really feel strongly that fox hunting is terrible.
Urban foxes are easy to trap. Rural foxes, particularly those predating livestock, are not.
About 1% of problem foxes in the countryside are caught in traps.
If it was easy, made sense, everyone in the countryside would be doing it but they do not. For centuries, the most effective means of control in the countryside has been hunting. Now it is the far less humane method (as I have evidenced) of shooting that predominates, not a good result (in fact a criminal result) for wildlife welfare.
Is it unreasonable to expect householders to use traps rather than cats to remove rodents from the premises?
They will be coming for your cat next….
Anyone who doesn’t realise that the biggest cruelty to animals today is perpetrated by the food industry should have a wonder around an abattoir, a pig factory or a poultry farm.
Just as a matter of logic if someone really wanted to have the biggest impact on the welfare of the biggest possible number of animals they would spend all of their time campaigning to reform industrial meat production which affects billions of animals annually (and to drastically reduce meat consumption) and wouldn’t spend a single minute arguing about a handful of foxes.
Anything else is ignorance and/or hypocrisy.
It’s only cruel if it’s solely being done to inflict harm.
BTW, do you think salads are very fond of being torn to pieces alive and then eaten? Or that the stems and leaves of a carrot plant look forward to being thrown away to die of thirst because some human dug out its root in order to boil it to death?
“It’s only cruel if it’s solely being done to inflict harm.”
I suppose that could be a way to approach it. I guess some people think fox hunting IS done solely to inflict harm and the pest control bit is a smokescreen?
If the point was inflicting harm, this could be accomplished much easier: Go to the next pet shop and buy some rats. Put them in a box and run over it with a car several times. Harm inflicted!
I tend to agree.
The thrill of the chase is what it is about. They have a good time with a meal after. As a youth I went beating for a shoot and had a great banquet of a meal after.
I imagine hacking over hedges at a gallop is exhilarating
By your ‘logic’, then, you must have zero problems with halal/kosher animal slaughter? After all, they’re not doing it to “inflict harm”, but they can’t eat the meat without saying the prayer. Right? The exact same ‘logic’ can be applied to fur farming or testing cosmetics/skincare on animals.
“We’re not doing it to inflict harm, but we need to do it in order to sell the fur and apply the face creams.”
I didn’t write anything about my opinion on any of this but just gave an IMHO sensible definition cruelty: Cruelty is violence as an end in itself. Further, I also pointed out that this compassion for other living things is usually rather selective. Plants are alive, too. But nobody much cares for that.
And of course, Rats are seen as vermin so are down the scale in acceptable cruelty. I have to shoot a few to keep the population down. I try to get a clean head kill so there is no pain but some manage to escape to a painful death no doubt.
Churchill said that rat shooting was the most difficult so well done you if you get a clean kill. (probably in his Young Winston book).
Mogwai, how do you stand on dispatching rats?
Get a cat. Mine’s a very effective mouser.
So that’s hunting, right?
Cats another story, convenient pets turfed out the homestead to kill an estimated 60 million song birds a year. That’s the soft option for them.
ok so your happy that your feline friend prays on sentient creatures….
I hear you….” well that’s natural” ……touché nothing deeper ingrained in a lot of humans than to hunt.
very quick end for Reynard, hound 7 times average fox weight Bosch….
over in an instant.
definition cruel doesn’t come into it.
The probable reason why fox hunting is effective is that it frightens the whole fox population, and they tend not to come back! Strangely this is the way the whole animal kingdom operates, kill or be killed. Badgers sometimes attack foxes if there is no food about, and the fox is careless (they can run faster). Shooting foxes is hard for farmers, you need a rifle, night sight and a high level of skill because they will always be several hundred yards away. Anyone who can hit a moving target at that distance in the dark is pretty good. I have a friend who is a world class marksman, and he can do it most of the time, but then he can hit a target a mile away better than nearly all the other competitors! (top 3 several times!).Why not let the hunt have some enjoyment riding at speed over rough country and jumping the fences? If you want to see cruelty, the are videos of Halal killing on YouTube which are decidedly nasty, particularly to ex. farmers!
As omnivores, we’re natural predators, just like foxes. And foxes also don’t attack lions or elephants because it would be more chivalrous but target animals which are much smaller and weaker than them. This doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.
Do you oppose foxes tearing at a lamb as it is being born, then ripping at the ewe’s vaginal area to get at the placenta?
Any decent shepherd supervises their ewes 24/7 during lambing
You are clearly no hill farmer!
‘In spring 2022 and 2023, post-mortems were carried out on 29 carcasses from the participating farms to determine whether lambs had been killed and eaten (predated) or were fed on after death (scavenged). Predation was confirmed in 48 per cent of lambs
DNA evidence from these 29 carcasses, plus 10 additional dead or injured lambs that were swabbed by farmers, was used to identify the species involved.
Fox DNA was present on 34 of the 39 lambs sampled (87 per cent), including all the lambs that showed evidence of predation.’
Northern Times
‘Herdwick sheep are widely considered to be the most hardy of all Britain’s breeds of hill sheep. Probably 99 per cent of Herdwick sheep are kept in commercial flocks in the central and western dales of the Lake District.
These fells run to over three thousand feet and facing the westerly rain bearing winds they record the country’s highest rainfall.
Herdwicks have a well-justified reputation for foraging ability even in the most difficult terrain. Many of them live their lives without receiving any supplementary feed. Typically they are drafted from the hill after three or four lambings.’
You’ve visited my farm then? And lived for 20+ years on a large estate which hunts?
You know nothing of hill farming so you are clearly not a hill farmer.
‘Foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately £9.4 million in 1999, according to one estimate.
Reducing fox numbers by 43 per cent resulted in a three-fold increase in breeding success for lapwings, golden plovers, curlews, red grouse and meadow pipits.
In a survey of Welsh farmers carried out in 2013, 96 per cent said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income, while 75 per cent said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban came into effect in 2005.
Hare densities at a farm in Leicestershire have declined from a high of more than 50 per km2 when predator control was carried out to less than 8 per km2 at a count in 2006 after a period of several years with no predator control.’
I thought I read once that since the ban, there have been more Fox shootings to cull the numbers, obviously not by enough.
See my comment above. Shooting is very difficult as the foxes are mainly nocturnal! They are very frightened of humans, even the fox in your city garden.
As I’ve posted previously, isn’t the sensible approach in that case to trap the fox then shoot it? This pro-hunt argument is entirely null and void anyway, given that hunting foxes with dogs has been illegal for some 20 years now. It’s only drag hunts going ahead. Which does rather beg the question: what have farmers been doing to protect their livestock for the past two decades? How often did a hunt used to take place? Daily? Nope. Once per week? And bearing in mind they had quite a piss poor success rate. Now compare that with a farmer setting multiple traps in various locations, every single day of the year, then he shoots pesky Mr Fox at close range with a shot gun. Which of those two methods is the most efficient and humane? It’s a no-brainer. Anybody still supportive of fox hunting as an effective means of eradicating problem foxes is confirming my suspicions and showing their true colours. I’m not against killing animals. I eat meat. Hence people could legitimately call me a hypocrite. But I only advocate for them to be dispatched in the most humane way possible. Fox hunting is not it. So how have… Read more »
Hunting foxes with dogs has never been illegal and continues to this day.
Your ignorance disqualifies you from any sensible debate on this subject.
Legal hunting:
Er…News Flash: fox hunting was banned in 2004. Did you get swallowed by a worm hole or something? Your denialist and obsessive attitude, with psychopathic traits aplenty, disqualifies you from further serious debate. I’ve better things to do than go round in circles with somebody who deliberately denies reality and facts: that if it were just about eradicating problem foxes there is a more efficient and humane alternative. You, on the other hand, are somebody who evidently takes great delight in seeing the avoidable suffering inflicted on an animal.
Traps and shotguns, not horses and hounds, are a reasonable means to an ends. Oh, but where’s the fun in that? Where’s the Tradition??🙄
You show your true colours and I think you’re grotesque.
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police/question/Q992
Complete nonsense.
Foxhunting carries on perfectly legally all over the country to this day:
UK Government:
‘You can use up to 2 dogs to chase (‘flush’ or ‘stalk’) foxes out of hiding if the fox is causing damage to your property or the environment.
Your dogs can’t go underground to find the foxes unless they’re threatening wild or game birds kept for shooting – only one dog can go underground at any time.
You must:
Bigotry and prejudice, polemic, is not a convincing, effective or attractive debating style.
Preaching from a position of dumb ignorance is the currency of fanaticism, a small step away from total lunacy.
The only dumbass around here is you, considering only a psychopath would choose a method to kill an animal which ensures cruelty over a more humane, efficient alternative method. ‘Rights’ don’t even come into it as you’re making a ‘choice’. That choice tells me all I need to know about the likes of you. And as you’re evidently obsessed with getting the last word in on the matter, due to your arrogance and pompous nature, I’d say you’re the one who’s got “fanatic” written all over them.
As I say, one tiny step away from total lunacy…….
I have already shown, with peer reviewed evidence, that shooting is a great deal less humane than hunting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289724920_Wounding_Rates_in_Shooting_Foxes_Vulpes_vulpes
Read and weep. That is the fate to which you and so many barbaric fanatics have condemned foxes; thousands shot and wounded every year dying unspeakably slow deaths, unrecoverable from thick cover as a direct consequence of the inhuman hunting act that you support.
Evil, intentional or not.
Trapping works in an urban setting. It is ineffective in the countryside and, if traps cannot be/are not checked regularly, desperately inhumane.
Why do you use your cat to hunt mice instead of trapping them?
It’s your responsibility to bait, set and check a trap appropriately. Either that or improve your fencing to stop predators gaining access in the first place. A fox in a trap shot at close range will always be a better way of dispatching it then hunting it down and tearing it to shreds, along with any cubs in the den. You really are one sick and twisted ”fanatic” if you prefer this method, therefore 10/10 for projection because you’re seriously outing yourself as the only ”lunatic” around here with your ”barbaric” choice of eradicating an animal. There are even deterrents on the market, but do keep repeating your narrative to yourself to justify your psychopathic tendencies;
”FoxLights operates by emitting flashes of light in different colors and random patterns, simulating a person walking with a flashlight and creating the illusion that someone is present in the area. Wolves and foxes, being cautious and fearful of humans, avoid approaching areas where they perceive human presence.”
https://blog.birdgard.es/foxlights-protects-livestock-from-wolves-and-foxes/
https://modernfarmer.com/2019/02/how-to-keep-the-fox-out-of-the-chicken-coop/
https://sheepgoatinsights.com/benefits-of-using-guard-geese-for-sheep-and-goat-protection/
Desperate, uninformed, trite and unevidenced nonsense does not constitute any kind of useful contribution.
It is impossible to fence large acreages of steep gradient open hillsides, agricultural land only suitable for certain breeds of sheep.
It is impossible to trap problem foxes on steep open hillsides either, otherwise everyone would be doing it.
The hunting act has led to a wildlife disaster of unparalleled magnitude, thousands of foxes shot and wounded, left to die in agony, unrecovered as a direct consequence of the two dog follow up limit of the hunting act, admitted by the league against cruel sports to be useless in thick cover.
Supporters of the hunting act are accessories to this animal welfare catastrophe; callous, evil, despicable creatures; just a bunch of sick, depraved monkeys…..
Your unwillingness to look at preventative measures, already implemented by farmers in the UK or abroad, just further confirms who you are as a person, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly now so I won’t labour my point. More here…for you to no doubt ignore and scoff at;
https://www.agridirect.ie/article/lambing-season-top-tips-for-keeping-the-fox-away
‘The average (median) Household Share of Farm Business Income in England in 2021/22 was:
The idea that smallholders in their sixties or older earning less than the minimum wage can afford expensive fencing or hi tec alarms, lighting, feed packs of guard dogs or use geese is so exceptionally stupid that it merits no further comment.
The anti hunting campaign has created a brutal wildlife welfare cataclysm; a standing reproach illuminating the uninformed ignorance and bovine idiocy, narcissistic self indulgence of its proponents; sick and pathetic monkeys…..
You finished your toddler tantrum and throwing your toys out the pram, Mr “I’d rather inhumanely kill foxes than even contemplate alternative/preventative measures” Psycho-Obsessive??🤷♀️
It must really jar with your obvious narcissistic fanaticism to acknowledge this is one argument you will never ever win. Your attempts to beat me into submission an epic failure. What a bitter pill to swallow for somebody with such an over-inflated ego. My heart bleeds…🤥😏
For perspective: ‘The gross margin (to simplify – profit) on Neil’s sheep enterprise was less than £500 a year. That’s for all of his sheep – not per sheep. All that work and love that went into sheep produced only c£500 income for Neil and his family. ‘ ‘Here are glimpses of the British countryside most people won’t see in 2024: · a dozen foxes hung up on a farm gate in West Wales by the men who shot them the night before – just to show what they’ve done. · A pyramid of fox corpses outside the back door of a gamekeeper’s house on an intensive shooting estate in Devon. · Fox cubs starving to death in their earths because their mothers have been killed. · Broken gates, damaged crops, terrorised farmers and a pile of dead hares on a farm track in East Anglia – the calling card of the illegal hare coursers who plague the eastern lowlands. · Sick, diseased and injured red deer dying a slow and painful death in forests on Exmoor because huntsmen can no longer use a full pack of hounds to find them.’ ‘In many parts of the country “foxing” has become a field sport in its own right,… Read more »
For perspective: ‘We’ve seen foxes virtually wiped out in some areas as casual shooting has become more prevalent. No longer the weak, the diseased and injured taken by hounds; no close season so that foxes could breed as with hunting. 3000 hares shot on just two estates within days of the Hunting Act being passed to deter gangs of poachers from invading the land; no longer do hares benefit from conservation measures by hunts and coursing clubs, such as providing cover and organising poacher patrols. Deer hunts removed elderly, deformed and diseased stags; they reduced the number of breeding hinds; they broke up large herds to disperse them and observe and recorded deer herds for scientific reasons. Hunts would track and dispatch injured deer, but now all this has diminished due to the Hunting Act For the first time, we have an insight into what has really happened to the fox, brown hare and red deer of Exmoor and the Quantocks post Hunting Act. Basically, the status of these animals has changed in the eyes of some landowners for a variety of reasons, as explained in the book. The bans have diminished a community-based conservation process reducing it to pest… Read more »
For perspective: ‘Based on the testimony of farmers, gamekeepers, conservationists, scientists and hunters, Rural Wrongs tells the story of how and why the hunting ban has failed. “In the 1980s, we’d find foxes everywhere we went,” Philip Hague, huntsman with the VWH, had told us when we met the previous year. “In the 1990s, the number started declining largely because of lamping. But the speed of decline has increased rapidly since the hunting ban in 2004.” We heard similar stories almost everywhere we went. In many areas, “foxing” has become a field sport in its own right, practiced not just by gamekeepers but individuals who take pleasure in killing foxes. Before the ban, hunting had a restraining influence, with landowners often asking their keepers to leave a few foxes for the hunt. That old social contract has gone now. Some of the riders with the VWH were well into their craggy 70s, but there were also plenty of fresh-faced young men and women as well as teenagers and little tots on Shetland ponies. But will their children, and their children’s children, be able to do the same thing, enjoy a field sport which has helped to shape both countryside and rural communities,… Read more »
For perspective: ‘First, some background. Over the past two years, Countryside Alliance animal welfare advisor Jim Barrington and I have explored the impact of the 2004 Hunting Act on the quarry species in England and Wales. Our findings are described in the book Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law. The ban, we discovered, has made life much worse for the fox, red deer and brown hare, not better. The Alliance Party pledged in its manifesto that it would introduce a bill to ban hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland. Their first attempt to do so a little over two years ago failed. Now that Stormont is sitting again, they plan to have another crack. Gary McCartney, Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland director, was hoping that Jim and I would explain to the Alliance Party Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) that a straightforward ban in Northern Ireland could be just as disastrous for wild animals as it had been in England and Wales. Being a conference virgin, I was expecting a fair amount of confrontation. There was none. We began with a very civilised conversation with Robbie Marsland of the League Against Cruel Sports and all the interactions we… Read more »
For perspective: ‘I speak on this issue today as a representative MLA and a keen conservationist and country sports enthusiast. During my lifetime, I have had the opportunity to meet huntsmen and huntswomen and conservationists from Antrim to Kerry, Down to Donegal and everywhere in between. Hunting and countryside management have been an intrinsic part of the rural way of life across these islands for many years. I hope that, in the time afforded me today, I can correct some of the vile attempted character assassinations on many in the hunting community. I thank the Countryside Alliance, BASC and many others for their engagement with me on the Bill. The reasons for proposing legislation along the lines of the Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill appear to be as vague as they are misguided. Has the Member not witnessed the turmoil that has taken place in England, Wales and Scotland as a result of the two laws that seek to ban hunting with dogs — something that is still not resolved all these years later? Has he not listened to judges, legal experts, veterinarians, senior police officers, animal welfare experts, senior civil servants, countless country people and the Prime Minister of the day, who shares his name, all of whom… Read more »
For perspective: ‘I speak directly to Members and to country sports enthusiasts across Northern Ireland: today, by means of this Bill, the anti-hunting lobby seeks to ban the huntsman and huntswoman and their hound. Next, it will be the man or woman with their gun and their dog, followed by the angler and their rod. I realise that that may not be the intention of Mr Blair, but I assure the House that that is the very intention of some of the advocates of the Bill. The only reason that the rat — the common rat; vermin — has been excluded from the Bill is that, frankly, it was not deemed cute and cuddly enough to be included. It did not fit the narrative. As Members, we must do what is right. We must look at the legislation and deem whether it is fit for purpose. If the principle of the Bill is that sport or recreation has no place in the management of wildlife, then, clearly, shooting, falconry and angling will all be on the list for banning in the near future. Make no mistake about that. I come to an important point. All that I have said up until… Read more »
For perspective: ‘When looking at any legislative proposal, a good starting point is asking this question: is the current law adequate? In Mr Stalford’s last intervention, he made the point that: “you do not have the right to be cruel”. Indeed, that is exactly why one of the last Acts of the old Parliament in Northern Ireland was the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, followed through with some updates by this House in 2011. For those 50 years, it has been a criminal offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal in any circumstances, including in the course of hunting. Cruelty itself is defined in that legislation as “unnecessary suffering”. From listening to some in this debate, you would think that we were entering into the novel territory of suddenly embracing the concept of avoiding cruelty to animals for the first time. However, the Bill is not about targeting cruelty; it is about targeting hunting per se. That is the target in the Bill. There does not even have to be a kill to create illegality under the Bill. It is the chase that is to be criminalised by the Bill in a way that is wholly oppressive, because clause 1… Read more »
🤣 🤣 🤣 and thanks for telling me about Herdwicks as I clearly dont know anything about sheep either 🤣🤣🤣
You said it.
And if a ewe that has lamed is lame on unhealthy in any way, the chance of survival of the lamb are next to zero. It is weird to watch sometimes; you get broody sheep that will steal a lamb, confuse the real mother so the lamb ends up being rejected by both, and therefore its life is in danger.
They can’t be there 24/7 of at night.
Here’s a radical notion: you could better guard your livestock.🤯 Here in the Netherlands we have wolves and they’re protected so farmers can’t shoot them. As with other countries, farmers have had to improve their boundary fencing, often using electric fences, but also some have guard dogs specifically bred to live amongst and guard the livestock from predators. This is not rocket science. But speaking of which, if you can explain to me how man can safely fly into space and back but paradoxically is unable to protect their livestock from nature’s predators then I’m all 👂 ears… Outfoxed by a wee fox….sh*t!😳🤭
That is just plain silly.
You permit your cat to hunt mice because they are a pest but cannot see the similarity between that and others using dogs to hunt foxes that are pests.
Get out into the uplands and have a look at some hill farms where fox predation is a major problem.
You cannot use electric fences on the fells nor would guard dogs be effective amongst sheep dispersed across the hillsides where they lamb.
The number of problem foxes is quite small. Hunting them with fell hounds on foot has evolved over the centuries as by far and away the most cost effective method of control. They are now shot on the Fells; unspeakably cruel in the case of the many shot and wounded foxes.
Your ignorance is typical of most who oppose Hunting. The Burns report on which the Hunting Act was based itself ignored available evidence, very much as Lady Halletts inquiry is doing today.
Ah the usual old patronising trope gets wheeled out time and again: “Them ignorant townies don’t understand our way of life out in the country”😴, where apparently the definition of “animal cruelty” is completely different. Well, silly me. But I’m pretty sure, irrespective of where one lives, anyone with a conscience knows the meaning of that term. In what realm would shooting a fox be deemed ‘cruel,’ but terrorising then having one torn to shreds be called “humane”? Absolute codswallop! And by all accounts more hunts than not came back unsuccessful so not the most efficient way of keeping the problematic fox population down at all then, really. So what’s the point? Well the point apparently is that this is more of a social gathering and a jolly old jaunt, more than anything. Churn up the fields, inconvenience people trying to go about their business, all for what? Your aim is to catch the foxes that are attacking the livestock, but that’s hardly going to be the old, sick foxes you might catch, is it? Because they’d be too old and sick to break into a hen house anyway, so you’re catching the wrong foxes and accomishing nothing as a… Read more »
Shooting a fox is humane when you can get a clean shot.to the head.
But can you?
I’ve never tried shooting foxes but they’re not large, their heads are smaller, and they’re quick.
I’d say that hoping to put a bullet through a 2″ moving target at even 20 yds is pretty optimistic to achieve 100 % of the time, which means you will be leaving behind an awful lot of wounded foxes suffering lingering deaths.
So you go for a centre of mass shot, if you hit the heart then you’ll get a more or less instant kill but otherwise you then have to get close quick to perform a kill shot. Might take several minutes depending on the sort of country you are in and the state of the wounded fox. So tell me how is that more humane than a dog killing after a chase?
It seems paradoxical but I am convinced hunting with dogs is probably the most humane or at least the least inhumane solution.
What is wrong with trapping them then shooting them? That way you can be sure of targeting the correct fox plus you get to shoot it close up for the most humane kill?
Nothing wrong with trapping them…but foxes are very difficult to trap.
If it was that easy, that is exactly what everyone would be doing!
I’ve been ‘in at the kill’, mere feet away [by chance]. It was extremely quick, faster than Albert Pierrepoint’s 7 seconds to hang someone
You may or not be a ‘townie’. I have no idea. Nor do I care. But if you cannot see the connection between you having a cat to get rid of household pests, mice, and farmers using dogs to get rid of pests, foxes, in the countryside then you are a great deal worse than ignorant. That is reinforced by your idea that leaving a shot and wounded fox to die a lingering and unspeakable death underground is preferable to a swift, and it really is swift, death by hounds. Shooting kills many of the ‘wrong’ foxes. Hounds hunt a problem foxes in the same way that a Police dog caught the lunatic who tried to burgle my house. They pick up the scent from the lamb ripped to shreds and then hunt the specific problem fox. If you are going to engage in this kind of debate, these are the kind of facts that you should keep at your fingertips. Farmers have a problem with foxes. Others have a problem with cats. ‘…cats are prolific hunters of wildlife in the UK and Europe too. A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a… Read more »
How is having a cat that catches mice comparable to a pack of hounds tearing to shreds a poor fox that’s been run ragged first? What an insane concept. And how would a fox die a long lingering death after being shot? That’s what retrievers are for. Finish the job.
You’ve stated below that hunting kills off the weakest foxes, so you’re now contradicting yourself. The weakest are unlikely to be the problem foxes attacking the livestock, so you’re killing the wrong foxes if you rely on this method.
The way you interact with people who disagree with you, including outright accusing another poster of lying ( without a shred of evidence ) just because they/we don’t agree with your viewpoint on this matter, makes you come across like a pompous, arrogant ass, by the way.
I will never budge in my stance on this topic, so please continue in wind-up toy mode all you like. The floor is all yours.🖖
Take a look in the mirror! You called another poster a ‘grade A psychopath’ You provide no evidence in support of your position but will not admit evidence (peer reviewed evidence I reference above on shooting foxes) that is against you; pure bigotry then. If the other poster was not lying, they had the opportunity to present evidence to that effect. They could not. They were lying. Simple logic. I have seen a shot and wounded fox in broad daylight. It could not see me because it was blind in one eye and moving on three legs. We found it dead several days later. There are many ways of hunting foxes. Problem foxes can be hunted selectively by the simple expedient of laying hounds, often a few of the most capable, onto the scent left by the fox on the lamb that it has ripped to shreds. This is often done on foot. Sick or wounded foxes can be flushed from cover with a pack of hounds and swiftly despatched. Make no mistake, the organised anti hunting elements will be coming for cats sooner or later. That is because cats capturing wildlife, playing with birds, mice, before killing them is… Read more »
Because anybody who gets enjoyment out of the prospect of terrorising and tearing to pieces an animal absolutely IS a Grade A psycho. Simples! I suggest you now take a large inhalation of copium and go lie down in a dark room. You will never beat me into submission with your bullshit. Bloody obsessive!
A real long time ago, I was standing on a certain path behind the church in my home town with a bunch of buddies and a few girls as well. For entertainment, the guys chose to kill a large snail by slowly roasting it to death with their lighters. I didn’t watch this and made sure that I was distant enough that I also didn’t have to smell it but I assure you, me not considering this a particularly enjoyable or appropriate pastime marked me as the odd one out and not the guys who thought it was great fun.
Your ideas about mankind seem to be a bit … well … ‘optimistic’.
I remember the older lads in the village near a pond, throwing toads from a hight and listening to them splash into the drink. Another kid at boarding school liked to catch small fish in the brook and bite their heads off. Then again, he was an Ozzy fan!
I’ve never had any reservations about nailing my colours to the mast. One should always stand up for one’s principles, and to hell with the consequences. Nobody will ever accuse me of toeing the line whilst conforming to popular opinion within the confines of the echo chamber. If that makes me an eternal optimist then I’ll take it. I’ve been called worse.
A bore……
You most definitely are..😴
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone riding to hounds, following hounds on foot, gets any pleasure from the kill.
I most certainly do not, nor do I know anyone who does.
In that context, calling someone a ‘Grade A psychopath’ is, frankly, dotty and diminishes both you and your argument.
Hunt followers are enjoying exercise and fresh air in many different ways as part of a rural/farming community that survives through the welfare of its livestock.
Hunting livestock predators is a key part of that welfare management.
Your cat is not!
I have no interest in you or your ridiculous atmospherics, only evidence.
Of that, you have none!
Oh so now they *don’t* enjoy the gruesome finale of their endeavours then?🥴
“I have no interest in you…”, yeah it totally looks like it. The way you just can’t resist responding to every one of my posts…😏 A tad over-invested in this topic, methinks. A.k.a: “obsessive”.
I am not interested in you, only your arguments.
I am very interested to understand the argument that a cat hunting, capturing, playing with and then killing mice is somehow acceptable but hounds hunting and quickly killing elderly, infirm and no doubt miserable foxes is not?
Those arguments seem unconvincing at best, at worst, unevidenced, plain batshit crazy.
😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴
😴 🐈
You’re quite right.
It seems to me these are luxury opinions formed more from sentiment than reason.
Any decent human being seeks to avoid cruelty to animals, especially sentient mammals.
But hunting a wild fox seems less cruel to me than for instance keeping pigs in enclosures with barely room to turn around for their whole lives.
Even halal slaughter- well tbh I’ve never seen it performed but from the experience I had as a lad on a NZ sheep farm killing sheep with a knife I think the suffering is of short duration and probably mostly offset by adrenalin, but as I say I don’t know for certain.
As for Pigs in a Farrowing House, the crates do stop the pigs rolling over and crushing the piglets, spent some time in those in my youth.
Yes of course while they’re farrowing, but I have read and I may have been misinformed that many pigs spend their entire lives in feeding structures and never get a chance to live as pigs should.
My view is that all livestock should spend as much time as possible outside living more or less as nature intended.
Going back to 1994 it was just the farrowing pigs in the crush, but some of the older piglets are kept indoors. I remember how the place stank. They did have the larger pigs in the field with makeshift straw huts with plenty of room to move around.
Halal butcher near? Unimaginable cruelty!
I have found that the people who support hunting in the countryside, either with horse or gun have a greater understanding and respect for both the natural environment and the quarry they pursue. The vast majority of the people who oppose hunting have little knowledge of the rural life, and how the country side that we have today has come into being. Without farmers and the land owners who utilise this land for food production, and allow hunting, there wouldn’t be this beautiful countryside that you see today.
I have known hunts that have never taken a fox in some seasons, and others that have not bagged a bird or a buck. It is not the indiscriminate slaughter that it is portrayed to be, by those ignorant of the life rural.
Hear, hear
The vast majority of the anti-hunters live in cities and have no idea how our countryside works.
And usually from the town. I was in Boarding school in the country and many boys were from the city and started ranting at a hunt in the next field. Where is Dellingpole, he should be commenting on this.
My wife was brought up in a small village and watched the traditional Boxing Day hunt every year.
She says she has never actually seen a fox being chased, let alone killed.
It was just some crazy sport where people gallopped across the open fields for fun.
All wild animals die either at the claws of predators or of starvation once they are too old to hunt.
Fox hunting seems to me just a part of the natural cycle of life and death.
In practical terms all hunters contribute to the survival of the hunted species mainly by securing habitat, and yes, weeding out the old and weak.
Fox hunting is not to be compared to the loathsome spectacle of the corrida.
Loathsome to those who don’t understand it, much like those who are.fundamentally ignorant about fox hunting.
I have tried to understand it. I have read death in the afternoon, and I have been to several.
But I still find it loathsome. So maybe I am just more stupid than the average Spaniard, dunno.
But I wouldn’t campaign to ban it.
I agree, I much prefer the Spanish Bull Run, some goring scenes on Youtube of people getting trampled, but that is a good risky adrenaline gathering. Something feels cowardly about sticking endless spears into a Bull to the point that he bleeds to death.
The Labour Party’s assaults on Fox Hunting and Private Education have little to do with genuine concerns about the two practices. They are simply relatively painless mechanisms through which Keir Starmer and his cabinet can pander to the traditional Labour Party’s core membership, who are as deeply disenchanted with this shambolic government as the rest of us are.
Tony Blair used the same issues shamelessly whenever his government suffered one of its frequent bouts of unpopularity.
Tony the Liar has recently admitted that his ban was wrong. And I wonder how many Labour members really care that much or have considered what will happen to the wonderful packs of hounds that would die out if there is nothing for them to do. It is always wonderful when the hounds appear in the ring at local shows. Amazing how placid and gentle they are and having mingled with each other they can be called to their packs so easily.
I remember stroking some at my village hunt, I must’ve been around four or five. To think they could’ve tourn me apart but were just passive and crowded me is one of my early memories.
Also there is the Cultural Marxist element where they want to do away with anything British or traditional.
I remember the time when a fox hunting ban was first debated. As a townee I knew little and wasn’t much bothered either way. I did think that Labour had far more important issues to deal with so the huge amount of parliamentary time was for class war purposes rather than ethical reasons.
Yet not all fox hunters were rich toffs. Just as not all pensioners are wealthy and don’t need the Winter Fuel Allowance, only rich people can send their kids to private schools, or that farmers are rich enough for their estates to pay inheritance taxes without being broken up.
Class war is perhaps the poorest justification for change because it breeds resistance.
“The cruelty of fishing”?
So the man was a fool after all.
If you accept that fox populations in the countryside need to be controlled to protect livestock (and smallholders/hill farmers are some of the poorest in the land) then foxhunting is required. Foxes kill thousands of young livestock, poultry every year. Lambs, in particular, are a key part of smallholders earnings. Poultry, eggs, are a key part of smallholders diets. Agriculture typically has an ageing workforce. In England and the UK, around 40% of all smallholders were over the typical retirement age of 65 years. Foxhunting is also required to kill off sick or wounded foxes. It is required to keep foxes ‘wild’ and wary of humans, human habitations, to protect family pets, very young children. It is required as the most humane method of control since it kills off the weakest while the fittest foxes, as anyone who has ever hunted with hounds will testify, generally escape. Foxes in their prime are exceptionally swift, cunning and resourceful as well as being creatures of great beauty and evident spirit. Aged foxes, often afflicted with mange, are not. Shooting wounds a large number of foxes, is not a humane substitute for hunting: https://www.falcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf The wounding of foxes is exacerbated by the hunting… Read more »
Unfortunately you are corre t, fox hunting is undoubtedly doomed and the horses, the hounds, the staff the rural economy and culture generally, and indeed, the fox as a species will be the worse for it.
God I loaththese townie labourite ignorant bastards with a passion.
I lived on a ‘sporting’ estate for many years. Hounds reaching the age of around 5 are routinely shot as they begin to slow down. Fox cubs are dug up and cage fed until they can be released in known spots for a guaranteed chase. Pregnant females are fed by their dens for the same reason. The jolly tooting of the hunting horn may well come from one person on a horse, but is most usually accompanied by half a dozen armed thugs on quad bikes. The horse is shot when it dares get lame / old and is fed to the hounds. These are not nice people and hunting is not a sport.
So what happens in your perfect world? All animals co-exist in perfect harmony and when they get old or ill they pop in to their local NHS and get end of life care? What do you think actually happens to an old/sick fox? How many weeks of do you think it takes for it to die a wretched death? Will you be out in the countryside to help it?
Also what are the rights of ducks and chickens when the fox gets into their pens. Foxes will kill every single one, because they can not because they are hungry. Are you they type that can’t believe anything fluffy can be a pest?
What happens to old/sick foxes? Probably the same thing that happens to old/sick badgers, hedgehogs, squirrels and all other woodland and wild creatures. Why can’t you justify setting the hounds on them? Maybe when our old cats and dogs get to be an expensive burden we can add them to the mix too.🤷♀️
Just another narrative psychopathic hypocrites tell themselves in order to justify their support for cruelty, and it is undeniably cruel. Barbaric and unnecessary.
So…this is your rationale, is it?;
Something BC – man invented the wheel.
Something less BC – man began building, inc fortresses.
17th Century – man invented the steam engine.
1900s – man invented planes.
1960s – man went into space.
2024> – man still cannot fathom how to fox-proof a chicken coop.🤦♀️🤦♂️🤡
So you think that suffering of a longer protracted agonising death should be the norm? Weird. Actually most other animals will be preyed upon in the food chain. Only badgers and foxes don’t really have any predators.
I hope you are a vegan because otherwise it sounds like you could be an A grade hypocrite.
So says the Grade A psychopath, who, like everybody else, has ignored my initial question: if other creatures can be culled in a more humane manner then why not foxes? Why are they alone singled out for especially cruel, barbaric treatment dressed up as ‘cultural entertainment’? Because tradition….
You really are one messed up sicko, aren’t you? Oh and BTW, how does my acknowledging other forms of animal cruelty and condemning those qualify me as a hypocrite? Try making sense next time, eh?
What about the mice that your cat catches and leaves alive to play with?
What about the cats killed by foxes?
‘…we used DNA analysis and detailed post mortem examination protocols, to show the injuries to be consistent with scavenging by a fox after the cats had died. The causes of death were variable, but to our surprise some of them had been predated by foxes.’
I have a farm and take care of my animals properly. Have you seen what a pile of dead hounds looks like?
Have you seen what a ‘pile of dead hounds’ look like?
Did you inform the Police, as you should have?
Get real – police prosecute the owner of a large sporting estate when they have NCHIs to record? The police did nothing, I’m surprised you even asked. An MFH is legally permitted to shoot animals, including dogs and horses.
You get real and give us your crime reference number.
You are saying that you saw ‘a pile of dead hounds’, reported them to the Police?
Then you will have a crime reference number?
You do not. You are lying.
Not sure why you think I should justify myself to a complete stranger, so I won’t. Cheerio.
Arguments require evidence if they are to convince.
Yours have none.
You will not be missed.
We have certain ‘representative animals’ from the whole host of nature that the animal enthusiasts want to protect. The fox is one. Its a bit like a domestic pooch, it is attractively coloured, and we think its babies are cute. We imagine perhaps that Mrs Fox and the little Foxes are sitting round the tea table, laden with scones and sausage rolls, and Mrs Fox says ‘Oh!, your Dads late.’. Walt Disney has much to answer for.
Of course the real reason is the fox as the victim of oppression of the monied and land owning elite who not only have the gall to go and kill the odd fox, but the temerity to dress up in pantomime outfits while they do it. This is ‘not fair’ on foxes or huddled masses alike, therefore it must be stamped out. To be honest, I think we have much more important things to do than worry about Foxy, and we should mind our own business, rather than trying to regulate the lives of people of whom we know nothing.
I am not, never have been, engaged in fox-hunting, although I did own and ride horses some years ago. A good question to ask (Chesterton’s Fence) is why traditionally have foxes been hunted? Foxes are vermin and vicious. They are killers of farm animals, fowl, sheep, particularly attacking pregnant ewes and newborn lambs – sometimes as the ewe is giving birth. They spread disease. Hunting foxes rarely results in catching one, but it does reduce the population somewhat and scatter them across the countryside reducing their density and reducing competition for their prey, and reducing attacks on farm animals. Dead animals are both a cost and a loss to farmers. The foxes caught are usually old, lame, or sick animals, or the less smart ones, and this improves the quality of the fox population. Hunts will take away dead live stock, and help with land management. Hunts provide a significant input into the rural economy: livery yards, feed merchants, farriers & vets, horse tack retailers, etc. Hunt members come from a broad section of society, many working class, not just rich aristocrats. Since fox hunting has been restricted, fox populations have grown, competition for food has increased, the result being… Read more »
Very well said.
My Grandfather, years ago, spotted an injured deer on a hill, hind legs entangled in wire and disabled.
The deer was dragging itself along by its forelegs.
We called the local hunt who arrived swiftly and put the deer out of its misery.
Hunting with hounds was developed over the centuries as a way to control (and keep healthy) a predator such as the fox in an environment which had been artificially transformed into one of intensive agriculture. That’s why it worked well. In this artificial environment foxes have no natural predators or competitors to keep the species in good health and animal rearing protected. Hunting provided the balance.
The hunting ban was always class-hate motivated. If cruelty was the chief motive Labour would have banned religious slaughter of animals.
Sir Roger Scruton is right – the fox has not benefited one bit from the banning of hunting. If anything, his life is worse and instead of the magnificent specimens of my childhood, they are mangey, miserable looking creatures now. Thanks Tony.
As a vegetarian it might be assumed I would oppose hunting but I don’t.