Hunting: the other face

terence patrick hewett

The introduction of the Hunting Act 2004 is, in microcosm, an illustration of why politics is in such trouble. The Labour Party has set itself up as a moral arbiter, and presumes to dictate to us how we should conduct our lives. It presumes to tell hunters they cannot hunt. It presumes to tell Jews who is a Jew. It presumes to tell Catholic Adoption Agencies how to conduct themselves. It presumes tell us when and where we can smoke tobacco, thus destroying pub life and a whole industry. Catholics, Jews, Smokers and Hunters are not going to vote Labour. Abortion, Eugenics, Euthanasia, the de-stabilisation of the family, the rubbishing of the churches; the list goes on and on. The Labour Party has abandoned its Methodist inspired, roughly Christian set of moral principles for a rag-bag of single issues, drawing inspiration from such people as H G Wells and Marie Stopes, and all hidden by cloaks of respectability labelled “Equality” and “Caring.” So Susan, Butt Out.

Avudale

It is a pathetic excuse that foxes cause "carnage". If farmers want to protect their livestock against predators then build a better fence.

Claiming that foxes "spread disease" is the whine of last resort. Farmers tried to say the same about badgers, falsely claiming they spread TB.

Only a callous, immoral human can put profit before the life of a wild animal.

I live in the country and let me assure you, there are no packs of feral, savage foxes roaming the countryside. The odd fox here and there is a splendid sight. If they eat a few chickens now and then, it is wholly the fault of the keeper for not adequately securing the housing.

Mercilessly savaging foxes with crazed dogs is not civilised in any sense of the word.

barbaar Brown

Nice information provided here which is very useful to everyone...Let me know more about this one.....
Barbara
fsbo

Anne Wotana Kaye

Avudale: You are in my opinion correct concerning the way badgers are maligned when accused of spreading TB to cattle. British farmers are primitive and backward in not innoculating their herds against TB. This is customary in many countries which have a highly developed, educated agricultural population. Rather than accusing the poor badgers, it would be as baseless and foolish to blame humans spitting and hawking as they walk across pasture land in spreading this disease.

mhayworth

Susan,
I have to say this is the worst plea for support that I've ever read - not to mention the most mis-informed. First you need to look up some facts about fox behaviour and fox populations that hasn't been written by the Countryside Alliance.

Your point about the way foxes kill hens
and chickens is just ridiculous. If your cat killed 10 mice and left them lying there for a later meal, would you start hunting down cats with attack dogs or describe the scene as some sort of bloodlust?

Fox hunting is the one of the cruelest forms of 'so called' pest control and actually does little to affect fox populations. In fact if you read all the pro-hunting arguments against the original ban, you will find that the hunts openly claimed to be providing the very environment for fox populations to flourish. Over 60% of the hunts said they would flout the law and have never stopped fox hunting either - so foxes are certainly not on the increase due to the ban.

Fox populations are growing in towns and cities because fast food takeaways and the food litter that follows them, is being tolerated, sadly. The endless sprawl of housing development that is now moving into our countryside (in some insane desire to overpopulate this country) is also dislodging rural foxes.

In rural areas many farmers tell us they depend on foxes to keep down the rabbit and vole populations that can decimate their crops. Many poultry farmers tell us that electric fencing has been very successful in eliminating fox problems. Where fencing solutions are not possible, foxes can be caught easily with bait in cage traps and shot cleanly and humanely.

So - you've just managed to alienate the anti-hunt community by spouting some nonsense that seeks to justify cruelty to certain animals that you don't happen to care about - and yet we are the very people who would find Beagling equally abhorrent and would seek to further your cause. Unbelievable!

JK

Although I agree entirely with the comments about the hunting of hares, I am astounded by the ignorance shown regarding the other blood sports mentioned. The one and only reason for fox hunting is the vile bloodlust of the participants.
Hare coursing is not a form of racing - how can it possibly be a race when trained dogs are placed in a field with one wild hare, every escape route for the terrified animal blocked off in advance. The sole purpose being to watch the dogs rip the hare to pieces.
With regard to foxes taking chickens,if the chickens are kept in a suitable environment the fox will not gain access to them, it is a question of good animal husbandry.
The fox kills to eat not as a form of sport. The only animal to view the hunting down and ripping to pieces of another animal as sport, is man.

Kevyn Bodman

'Vicious and unnecessary' it may be.
It's not something I do or want to do; it seems very unpleasant.
But, if I may quote Ed Balls on this page, 'So what?'

That I, or you, dislke it or disapprove of it is not a good reason to ban it.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Kevyn B: It's not a question of whether you and l like it or not. The reason hunting should be banned is because it is people getting excitement and pleasure from the suffering and torment of another living creature. Sadism. The only justification for hunting is when food is not available, no shops, nothing, a life outside teh framework of civilisation. Then foraging and hunting for food is a necessity to maintain life not just to get 'thrills'. People who delight in seeing creatures die, torn apart and covered with blood are the lowest of the low, and I cannot believe a civilised country should tolerate it. Hunting, like dog fighting, bull fighting bear baiting and all other horrors should all go the way of the 'Games' that were once on show in ancient Rome.

Avudale

Quite right, Anne Wotana Kaye.

Any individual with any morality has to, in all good conscience, protect the vulnerable from those who would cause deliberate suffering. The clearest way for this to occur is with the creation of a law. Rescinding the ban on fox hunting would be a major step back to the dark ages of animal cruelty - all in the name of a terrible sport.

windswept

Re the anti-hunting people who have swarmed down on this post. I agree about beagling and hare coursing. Never liked either sport. Foxes, however noble and attractive they might be, are nevertheless killers. I have neighbours who have had chickens and ducks massacred by these creatures, no matter how many defensive barriers they put up. By the way, foxes do not necessarily eat all they kill. They just like killing. Foxes are and will be shot, poisoned, gassed and so on by country people to keep the numbers down and save the lives of at least some poultry and, occasionally, lambs. To ritualise that necessary slaughter, to turn it into a kind of violent pleasure, is in the nature of fox hunting. I have never hunted and don't want to. But I don't have much against it.

Dirty Euro

Kevyn Bodman to claim that that is an argument to defend murder and rape.

Fergus Pickering

I do not hunt. Horses scare me and I know I should fall off the bloody things. But Anna Wotana Kaye are you seriously telling me that everyone who follows the hunt is filled with sadistic bloodlust. Few of them ever see the kill anyway and if the torturing of animals is what they want to see, then I should have thought dog-fighting or badger baiting would be much better value for money. Or indeed a clandestione visit to anywhere chickens of pigs are kept in bloody great sheds. I like hunting because it is pretty and a link with great literature. Not, as itr hppens, that I have ever SEEN a hunt though I do live out in the sticks.

It is surely true, as many a correspondent has said, that foxes won't kill your hens if you remember to shut them up securely at night.

Bhaskar Mitra

Are you Susan Hill the ghost story writer? As a lover of this genre I must say your stories are among the most entertaining and chillig I have read. It comes as a surprise therefore to realise that you are also a writer on 'Middle England' issues. Nothing wrong with this, offcourse. Slightly worried that if this transforms you into one of those ranting raving Daily Mail columnist, you may end up dissipating all your creative energy and us lovers of creepy tales will forever be left waiting for the next instalment. By the way, if you are not Susan Hill the ghost story writer, please accept my sincere apologies.

Bill Old

It is, of course, a piece of tacitly accepted propaganda that hunters enjoy seeing a 'defenceless' animal torn apart and covered in blood. Anyone who took the trouble to find out would find this is simply not true. Meanwhile, why can't you leave other people alone do do as they please in their spare time? It doesn't harm other people - and don't tell me that killing a fox is 'murder', please. And how many anti-hunt anthropomorphicist activists use slug pellets? Go on, hands up. Why aren't you fighting to protecting slugs? Is it just because they're slimy? That's 'slimism' - next on the list of sins to 'racism' I expect. So, get over it, butt out, mind your business, stop peeping over the garden fence, shut the curtains, get a life. By the way, I don't like hunting one bit - so I don't do it. But my neighbour is free to do as he pleases.

Andre

It is not for you, a novelist, to tell us, the hunters what to do and to project your own tortured morality onto us. Hares are routinely shot and snared for meat and to avoid a glut - they eat whole fields of young corn and crops. Beagling has gone on since Roman times. We will be here long after you are gone and forgotten. If you don't like hunting, don't do it. That is the moral issue of the Hunting Act - it seeks to impose the will of a minority onto another minority. How about banning halal butchering or deep sea fishing or rat poison? No, didn't think you'd be interested. It is not the kill but the thrill of the chase that encourages people to hunt - now in record numbers thanks to the ban. Repealing the act is the cornerstone of rolling back state intervention in the lives of ordinary folk and reasserting our ancient and historic liberties. You as a writer ought to understand this.

Dirty Euro

Should their be a freedom to abuse and hurt. I do not think so.
It is not a right or freedom to abuse and hurt.

Peter

Hunting hares, on foot, by scent, is the purest form of hunting, and was around long before fox hunting. It has, in fact, gone on since the time of the ancient Greeks. Far from being endangered, hares can be so common in some areas as to, themselves, constitute pests, I can assure you of that from personal observation.
Hare shoots kill many hundreds of hares, beaglers only a small number, which, at the moment, are those left injured following shoots, as permitted by the Hunting Act. Like deer (see above) and all wild animals, there is no care for terminally ill hares, they day of exposure or starvation.
Like all forms of hunting, beaglers come from all walks of life. Unlike foxhunting however, you need no specialist equipment, just warm, waterproof clothing and a stout pair of boots, or wellies.

monty_python

I was always under the impression that a journalist should at least bother to get the rudimentary facts correct before penning an article. Mrs Hill has failed in this most basic of tasks.

Firstly hares cause damage to agricultural enterprise by nibbling developing crops, this can result in a devastating loss of yield for farm businesses already struggling with low returns.

Secondly packs of beagles are followed by all types of people from very young children, to elderly people of both sexes and all backgrounds. Pre-ban when the hare was killed by the pack it has always been a quick event and certainly was not accompanied by cheers as you seem to believe.

Thirdly all packs of hare hounds in the England & Wales comply with the Hunting Act - this permits them to trail hunt, search and dispatch hares wounded by shooting and to hunt rabbits. Casting aspersions as to law breaking is inaccurate at the least and possibly libellious.

Finally you claim that the police are not enforcing the act, this is totally incorrect - there have been some notable public prosecutions for breaking the hunting act, the CPS has now thrown the bulk of these out for lack of evidence and as a result ACPO have stated that it will not be a policing priority for overstretched budgets. By no stretch of the imagination is this turning a blind eye.

I have beagled for four years and I am proud to have played a part in managing the countryside naturally.

judith

Oh dear, another of those ill informed articles going on about animals being 'torn apart', the inference being that this happens while the animal is still alive. As the law stands beagles may only hunt for hares wounded after a shoot (although they can hunt as many rabbits and rats as they like - silly, isn't it?). Such a wounded hare would be dispatched with a single bite, more merciful than bleeding slowly to death. The huntsman may allow the beagles to eat the corpse. This is the only point at which any tearing apart takes place.

Kevyn Bodman

Anne Wotana Kaye:
Thank you for your thoughts, I can follow your reasoning although I continue to disagree with it.

On the other hand Dirty Euro, your comment about condoning murder and rape is ridiculous.
The most obvious reason is that humans are not to be treated the same as other animals.
It is pointless to discuss further with you if you don't agree with that.

Pete

We have foxes at the end of our SE London garden - we're quite happy to have them there. They're not, after all, the most prominent vermin in London. They cause far less damage than the local squirrels, keep the rats away and are preferable to domestic cats. I haven't heard of any problems with diseases but as we don't go near them and they don't come near us, is there really a problem? I'd much rather watch a fox sitting on the old armchair on the summerhouse veranda than have the stench of a pet dog in the house. A dog after all is simply a companiable idiot for those who feel the need for such things.

It always seems strange to me when those who would rather not see foxes slaughtered for sport are condemned as sentimental by the very same people who then go into paroxysms of grief when chickens (essentially cheap lumps of living meat held up by antibiotics) are killed by foxes. Its fatuous and inconsistent to say the least - perhaps the result of all that country air blowing away reason and rational thought.

Farms are businesses surely? That's what the rural 'community' keeps telling us. In an intelligently run business one makes sure one's property and premises are entirely secure and one gets insurance to cover any damage that may occur.

It is the foxhunting mob who seem to be stricken with an unrealistic sentimentality regarding rural industry - if farmers run their businesses properly, foxes would not be a problem - if in fact they actually are anyway.

Kenneth Bartlett

As someone who has been hare hunting with beagles all his life, it is my love of the hare that instils the respect that I have for the quarry species, a paradox that is lost on opponents. The fact that we now hunt a trail within the Hunting Act 2004, until we win repeal of this odious legislation, has in no way dimmed my admiration for an adaptable and successful quarry; Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust figures clearly show an increase in hare numbers, where there has been a sporting interest in the species. The article and the comments I read here are riven through with anthropomorphism and double-standards...no-one has mentioned coarse fishing. It took 700 hours of parliamentary time to railroad through the Hunting Act 2004, in a flagrant abuse of the Parliament Act 1911...yet it took only 70 hours of so-called "debate" to go to war in Iraq. Whither the moral argument? I am proud of my hunting and my hounds; there are many aspects of society that I hold no time for, but as they are legal, I would not see them banned for that is the start of despotism.

Nick Kaplan

Which part of hunting (Hares or Foxes) is cruel precisely?

Presumably it is the bit where the Dogs catch the Fox or Hare and kill it and then proceed to tear it to pieces. But if this is what is cruel should we not, for the sake of consistency, both ban fox hunting and ban foxes from hunting?

As far as I’m aware foxes also hunt their prey and upon catching it kill it and proceed to tear it to pieces. The level of cruelty is exactly the same. Perhaps then we should muzzle wild foxes to prevent the harm done to poor little rabbits and alike, by nasty cruel foxes.

Now you may object to this, admittedly sarcastic argument, that what is objectionable about Fox hunting is not the level of cruelty per se, but the fact that it is unnecessary, whereas for foxes it is entirely necessary that they hunt or else they will starve. But if this is the argument we must now note that it is being put forward on entirely different grounds, with the concept of necessity doing all the work.

If this is so it seems we should, for consistency, act to ban all unnecessary cruelty to animals which would include a ban on fishing and, more significantly, a ban on eating meat.

It therefore seems to me that one cannot, in consistency, hold the following three beliefs:

(1) Fox hunting should be banned.
(2) Wild Foxes themselves should be allowed to continue to hunt.
(3) We should not ban meat-eating.

Since (2) is evidently absurd and (3) is evidently too extreme, it seems to me, for the sake of consistency, people should give up belief (1).

Now how many of you anti-hunters are also meat eaters? Should you perhaps reconsider?

Nick Kaplan

Sorry,that penultimate paragraph should read:

Since abandoning belief (2) is evidently absurd and rejecting (3) is evidently too extreme, it seems to me, for the sake of consistency, people should give up belief (1).

Andre

I keep coming back to the point that we should leave each other to get on with life instead of interfering. Stop imposing your view on someone else. A vegetarian doesn't have the right to insist we all follow her lead. Nobody has the right to impose religious belief. I am aware Londoners have the most peculiar personal habits but they're not my business so I would not seek to legislate against them. Live and let live, I say.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Well some of us abhor hunting, whilst others on this forum support it. Apart from an extreme nutter, who always likes to childishly shock, although he/she just disgusts (who will remain nameless)there are interesting arguments. I am completely against any hunting, or so-called sport involving living creatures, and find the argument that hunting is picturesque and part of our ancient culture rather weak. Heads on spikes, visits to Bedlam to view the mentally ill, women ducked in village ponds, all were are part of the culture, and I am sure many would find the severed heads most picturesque. Also, the corpses, drawn and quartered on proud display must have been especially prized. The argument that we should be able to do what we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, falls down on the very fact that pain is being aimlessly administered. In a civilised society, nobody can do what they like. Laws are made and have to be respected. If oen objects, then they must legislate against it, otherwise there would be anarchy. Personally, I would like to subject hunters and their ilk to the exact same treatment they apply on animals, but of course I cannot. The veneer of civilisation is thin on many of us, but we must obey the laws and try to be decent and moral humanbeings.

Nick Kaplan

Anne Wotana Kaye do you eat meat?

Peter H

As a convert to beagling, the reality of 30 years experience of the activity bears no relationship to the tenor of the article. No one has greater interest in the conservation of the hare than the beagler and beagling plays a vital role in ensuring that the hare retains its qualities as a wild animal and in aiding the survival of the fittest.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Nick Kaplan: I do eat a small quantity of meat. I know it is unfashionable (or even prohited under Nu Labour) but I try to follow the Bible. It states that all was put on earth for the use of Man. Hence, I do eat animal products without a sense of guilt, only free-range, and only to sustain life. I believe we should treat the animals we use for food with respect and kindness. Hope that answers your question.

Noa Zrk

Pete
"We have foxes at the end of our SE London garden - we're quite happy to have them there. They're not, after all, the most prominent vermin in London".
Are you, like me, happily contemplatling the establishment of a Westminster Hunt, its purpose being to eradicate the foxes from the HoP coops? I'll get my red coat.

Nick Kaplan

Anne (I hope you don't mind if I call you that);

Why, following my earlier post, do you think it is acceptable to kill animals for food, but not hunt them for pleasure? It is not out of necessity that you eat meat, you presumably eat it for enjoyment?

Anne Wotana Kaye

Nick Kaplan: Please call me Anne, just don't call me rude names! (Joke) It is acceptable to kill for food, because we are all living reatures who need nourishment. I believe, despite months when I go vegetarian, that the human body needs a certain amount of Class One protein which is only found in meat. In actual fact I derive more pleasure from eating fruit, vegetables and nuts than I do from the measly amount of meat I eat. I repeat that animals killed for food are a part of the chain of life, hunting for pleasure alone is an indulgence or blood lust which isn't part of a civilised person.

G S

What an odd article.

I would be very interested to know where the asertion comes from that most beagle packs are breaking the law; personal observation? I suspect nothing of the sort.

As somebody who has spent a large amount of time hunting with beagles and basset hounds, I can say that the impression you give of harehunters as being bloodthirsty, violent people covertly carrying on some shameful activity is entirely false.

My own experience is that beaglers are some of the most open, decent people I have ever met, with a true admiration for the wonderful animal that is the hare. Even pre-ban, only rarely would the field ever see a kill. The main attraction was the chance to see hounds hunting well, something almost impossible to describe but utterly unforgettable once witnessed.

We no more hanker after the death of a hare than you celebrate the fate of the pig that provided your bacon sandwich. The only destinction; beaglers could have a very enjoyable day without killing a thing.

Bill Old

An interesting series of posts and it's very clear that the anti-hunt arguments just don't bear careful analysis. "Yes I eat meat - but only a little" is the same thing as yes, I eat meat. The main piece of wilfully dishonest and ignorant propaganda parrotted out by every anti-hunt type is that hunters get some kind of thrill out seeing an animal 'torn to pieces'. I do not enjoy hunting, I dont'hunt - but I know this is pure tosh. We might as well have a witch-hunt against people who buy meat in the supermarket and are presumed to 'get a secret thrill from seeing pieces of severed lamb wrapped in clingfilm' - there must be a few you know. Anti-hunt people, please stop repeating this exhausted old chestnut and get out more and do something creative for Heaven's sake.

Bill Old

An interesting series of posts and it's very clear that the anti-hunt arguments just don't bear careful analysis. "Yes I eat meat - but only a little" is the same thing as yes, I eat meat. The main piece of wilfully dishonest and ignorant propaganda parrotted out by every anti-hunt type is that hunters get some kind of thrill out seeing an animal 'torn to pieces'. I do not enjoy hunting, I dont'hunt - but I know this is pure tosh. We might as well have a witch-hunt against people who buy meat in the supermarket and are presumed to 'get a secret thrill from seeing pieces of severed lamb wrapped in clingfilm' - there must be a few you know. Anti-hunt people, please stop repeating this exhausted old chestnut and get out more and do something creative for Heaven's sake.

Bill Old

Anne WK says "I repeat that animals killed for food are a part of the chain of life, hunting for pleasure alone is an indulgence or blood lust which isn't part of a civilised person." So lets imagine we have a cow and a fox lined up for the chop. The cow is assured that, whilst no pleasure will be had despatching it, its ribs, roasted and served in gravy, will bring enormous pleasure to hungry diners. The fox is promised that no-one will eat it, but enormous pleasure will be had chasing it with hounds and if caight will be killed. Anne WK has it that the first situation is entirely acceptable, but the second is entirely unacceptable. Anne WK is comfortable but I wonder how the cow and fox would view it?

SUSAN HILL

I`m sorry but I do know about the carnage foxes cause. I had them get into our hen enclosure by digging underneath twice and the results were so appalling and exactly as I describe that I gave up keeping hens for good. This is something I do know about from first hand experience.
I also wonder how beaglers can possibly care about the preservation of hares if they regularly hunt them down with packs of dogs and watch them being torn apart. Please enlighten me as to how those two things are not mutually contradictory.

Oliver Nicholson

Mrs. Hill might wish to contemplate the dictum of Mr. Jorrocks: "I loves the Fox and I loves the 'Ound, but on the 'ole I loves the 'Ound a little bit more". The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of beaglers, and for that matter of otter hunters. I have never met anyone better informed about the natural history of the otter than those who hunted it until its numbers were decimated by mink, DDT and wet winters in the 1960s.
And frankly I am amazed at the patience of hunting people who have put up with half a century of obloquy, misrepresentation and physical assault. Not all hunting folk are lacking in self-knowledge; some of them even live examined lives and would be aware of it were their motives vicious or cruel. Frankly a novelist ought to be able to do better in analysing human motivation than to fall back on the sort of caricature which fuels the actions of those animal lovers who set off firecrackers under the tails of horses.