Re: Yesterday we received the great news that the Hunting Bill will be reintroduced to the Commons next week.

From: Martin Willett (ignoredmailbox_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 09/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:06:24 +0100

Oz wrote:
> In article <amboqk$jmt$1@helle.btinternet.com>, Charlie
<Charlie@Farm-
> direct.co.uk> writes
>
>> As for hunting itself I have never been for it when they come
>> crashing over your fields, but never really thought about the foxes
>> as round here there are far more foxes killed on the roads than are
>> ever caught by the hunt it is just an excuse for people to tear
>> around the country on horses which they could just as easily do
>> without going after a fox.
>
> 1) I don't ride a horse.

Neither do I. I don't agree with animal cruelty, I can't imagine any
horse enjoying carrying me around.
>
> 2) I don't allow the hunt on my land.

Good for you. Neither do I, even though a fox ate our pet rabbit.
>
> 3) I rather like foxes, as long as they keep well away from people
and
> chickens (which they never do).
>
> 4) I have asked a lot of people who have seen foxes killed by the
> hunt, both people for and neutral (bordering on anti) foxhunting.
> They all report death as near instantaneous (which is more than you
> can say about the foxes victims).
>
> 5) There is no doubt in my mind that horses love the hunt. Far too
> many people who have had horses that have been in a hunt have
> reported this.

Who said anything about stopping horses having a gallop over some
hedges? You're not suggesting the horses actually like to see foxes
ripped apart, are you? If it's all about fun for riders, horses and
hounds then what's wrong with a drag hunt? Only nutters think drag
hunting should be banned. Why is it so vitally important to rip a fox
to pieces (or to have that as a possibility) to make it a worthwhile
day out?

>
> 6) In general the anti-hunt people seem not to be country folk and
do
> not seem to understand nature at all well.

That's right, people who don't live in the country are an inferior
species who shouldn't be allowed to vote. You wouldn't catch Tory MPs
from the leafy shires voting on matters concerning the inner cities
would you? That would be hypocritical. Tory MPs from the shires never
complain about what goes on in inner city council estates, do they?
Class war is only a bad thing when the lower orders fight back, isn't
it?

>
> 7) Given the many and unpleasant ways that foxes would die in the
> wild I believe the hunt is more humane than nature, and by a long
> way. The natural way for a fox to die is slowly, thirsty and
> starving, of disease, injury or old age. Quite frankly this is a
very
> slow and unpleasant way to die.

So chasing them and tearing them apart is a mercy? Silly me, I was
thinking fox hunters liked to chase the fittest fox that gave them the
best sport when all the time they have been picking out the elderly
and infirm foxes for mercy killings. They should get medals for their
humanity. Do the RSPCA give grants to the hunts?

>
> 8) I have used a rifle on rabbits. Like soldiers who can operate
with
> missing limbs for a surprisingly long time, and seriously wounded
> people who can live with serious injury for days it's quite hard (I
> would say impossible) to guarantee to kill humanely with a rifle. I
> thus do not believe that shooting is a humane alternative.

Can you tell me, off the top of your head, you needn't be too precise
here, how many countries have introduced hunting with dogs as a humane
approach to culling problem wildlife?

>
> 9) Generally, IMHO, foxhunting is not about eradicating foxes and
> never has been. It basically maintains the population at about the
> level where the fox does not need to predate on human stock for
food.
> Any that do appear to be specifically hunted down in areas where
this
> facility is required frequently.
>
> 10) The anti's seem to be uniformly in three groups:
> A) Those that through ignorance believe differently to the points
> above and who are relatively easily convinced otherwise.
> B) The class warrior who has pretty well no knowledge of nature or
> hunting but who sees the hunt as comprising the 'ruling classes' and
> thinks by fighting the hunt he is fighting the ruling classes. This
is
> something the 'ruling classes' are very happy to allow to continue
as
> it keeps them out of their hair.
> C) Animal rights activists who simultaneously want things natural,
> want no introduced species and who oppose the removal of introduced
> species. They are seriously ignorant, seriously schizophrenic and if
> exposed to nature would soon leave the gene pool.

And this accounts for the majority of the British population?

What the hell is nature? The natural state for the man is to live in a
social setting, the number of lone hermits is vanishingly small. The
modern agribusiness farm is no more natural than the suburban
housewife who thinks food comes from Sainsbury's, neither could last
very long on their own.

What is inconsistent about opposing the introduction of new species
and the removal of those which have already arrived? It seems fully
consistent to me, if people don't like the idea of eradicating animals
why wouldn't it make sense to avoid introducing one which might later
give rise to a call for eradication?

>
> 11) I support the right (and it is a right) for people to do what
they
> wish on their own land so long as it doesn't harm other people.

The very nature of a hunt is that it charges about the countryside
willy-nilly wherever the hounds think the trail is leading. Hunts
regularly trespass on lands they have been forbidden from hunting over
and foxes are chased and killed on common land or private land to
which no hunting permission has been given.

Very few actions have no impact on other people. Many people see the
hunt as bloodthirsty and obscene. You simply cannot ignore twenty
people on horses and a pack of dogs.

>
> 12) Fishing and shooting is next.
> Longer term the banning of livestock and pets.
>

Of course, it is the old slippery slope. First you stop hanging them,
then you stop imprisoning them, then you stop discriminating against
them and next week sodomy will be compulsory. It's amazing how quick
we shot down that slippery slope from banning bear baiting and then
*** fighting to banning fox hunting, isn't it? At this rate we'll be
hearing calls for the banning of shooting by the middle of the twenty
second century, maybe even sooner.

Remember the slippery slope arguments about the minimum wage,
abortion, the welfare state, the National Health Service? No, most of
them would be before your time. How about the slippery slope that
started when votes were extended to servants? Why, before you knew it
not even a century later they were allowing women to vote too. Good
gracious. And then teenagers! Next week pets? 

-- 
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/