The Boxing Day meets this year, being the 10th anniversary of the hunting ban, showed that those who disagree with the Hunting Act have not gone away and, if anything, are stronger than ever.
National and local newspapers ran numerous stories of town squares and high streets up and down the country packed with people coming out to support their local hunt. All this despite that show of bravado by the League Against Cruel Sports years ago when they claimed that everyone would wonder what all the fuss was about just a couple of months after a hunting ban.
It poses a dilemma for anti-hunting groups who, on one hand, like to claim this is a dying sport, but then faced with the images of hundreds of thousands of hunt supporters quickly change their tune to say this is because hunting has now been made ‘cruelty-free’ by the Hunting Act. However, that creates another problem, which is the apparent contradictory claim made throughout the year that many hunts have been breaking the law, hence the recent calls for the Hunting Act to be strengthened.
But hold on a minute…this new demand runs counter to what was said many times before by the LACS and others that the Hunting Act is a highly successful and workable piece of legislation which, if true, begs the question, “Why are you calling for it to be amended?”
Perhaps part of the answer lies in this example, given that if you don’t understand a complex activity, you won’t be able to draft legislation robust enough to ban it. I took part in a number of radio interviews over the Christmas period and in one, while debating with a senior LACS spokesman, it transpired that he had never even seen a hunt, arguing that an act does not have to be witnessed to outlaw it. The argument goes something like this: you don’t have to see a murder or a sexual assault to know it’s wrong and therefore you don’t have to see hunting to know this is wrong too. No one could really dispute the first point, but the second?
Can this view apply to all issues, especially activities that have significant support from a sizeable number of respectable, law-abiding individuals? If we take that LACS’ proposition to its logical conclusion it will inevitably result in decisions being made and laws being passed on little more than snapshot opinions. Anyone with a degree of first-hand experience and detailed knowledge of a subject would simply be swept aside by the far greater number of individuals who can now be asked loaded questions in opinion polls or via social media, shown edited films and told that hunting has no purpose other than ‘killing for fun’. This is the modus operandi of the anti-hunting groups and, with a general election looming next year, politicians will undoubtedly be targeted relentlessly with these messages.
The likelihood of repeal of the flawed Hunting Act being included in at least one political party manifesto has made some people a bit jumpy, even to the point where the antis have to get their tame journalists to create scare headlines, as the Daily Express did with “Top Tories warned that attempting to repeal the hunting ban could be toxic”, though it doesn’t say who in the Conservative Party is making the call. (If it is the so-called Blue Foxes group of anti-hunting Tories, it might be a sobering fact to note that they couldn’t find even one Conservative MP speaker at their fringe meeting this year who was solidly behind the Hunting Act).
The twists and turns of the antis’ arguments, often put by people who, by their own admission, haven’t even seen the activity they so vehemently condemn or indeed those things that may replace it, should make any serious politician or commentator think carefully about who and what they believe. Unless, of course, the aim is to simply score political points in the same cynical way in which the anti-hunting groups do business.
The media and, more importantly, politicians should remember these facts when being bombarded with e-mails, postcards and phone calls in this pre-election period. They should also be made aware of the way in which the hunting debate can be properly settled in a manner that addresses genuine cruelty to wild animals, while accepting the need for wildlife management. Labour Peer Lord Donoughue has proposed a principled, fair and workable law, which would prohibit all deliberate unnecessary suffering to any wild mammal. Any conviction under such legislation would be based on sound evidence and not opinion or prejudice, as in the Hunting Act. (see Wild mammal welfare and the Donoughue principle )
In its coverage on the Boxing Day hunts, the Independent said hunting was a “tradition that refuses to die” and nor will it until a sensible conclusion is reached. So while the media and political debate revolves around repeal of the Hunting Act, the way in which it will finally be brought to an end is by following the Donoughue principle and putting something far better in its place.
If the groundwork is laid for this to happen in 2015 it will indeed be a very good New Year.
If your claim is that people who who haven’t seen the actual act of hunting and witnessed the end result should not have an opinion then this should also apply equally to the alleged thousands of hunt “supporters” whose only experience of hunting is to come out on Boxing Day to see the hounds being paraded through their local towns and villages. This being the case, the perceived support for hunting can simply be ignored.
That is a rather arrogant statement -“the perceived support for hunting can simply be ignored” Really? Do you not think that the people who do go to a hunt meet just might consider the whole process, even if they have never witnessed a kill? The trouble with antis is that they simply cannot accept that there are many people who know that wildlife management is necessary and that hunting with scenting hounds forms an important part of that process. While on that point, what form of wildlife management do you find acceptable?
I rest my case. Read what you have said in this blog then read it back to yourself and then read it again.
While on theat point, what forn of wildlife are you referring to?
“I took part in a number of radio interviews over the Christmas period and in one, while debating with a senior LACS spokesman, it transpired that he had never even seen a hunt, arguing that an act does not have to be witnessed to outlaw it” Did I misinterpret this?
Yes. It’s written in plain English, but if you want to act like a child, you interpret it any way you like.
It’s quite a serious point so I’ll ignore that you are now resorting to insults. You have stated in previous tweets and in this blog that the opinion of individuals who are against blood sports can be ignored if they have not witnessed first hand the act of hunting. You have also stated that this standard doesn’t apply to hunt supporters. Either the standard applies to both or it applies to neither. That’s quite a simple concept.
I note that you simply fire questions and avoid any attempt at answering my serious point about a genuine wild mammal welfare law being infinitely preferable to the Hunting Act – legislation that has been criticised by numerous people unconnected to hunting. Why, if you think the case against hunting with hounds is so strong, do you not accept such a law and prove your case by evidence? At least that would move the debate on, instead of playing silly word games.
The mention of the Conservative Blue Fox group in this blog reminds me. Lately theres been some mention of a small but very active group of pro-hunt supporters who are looking at taking on a number of the Blue Fox MP’s at the ballot box. One example is the Rt Hon Esther Mcvey a Conservative Minister and MP for West Wirral. With a majority of only 2460 odd votes, a swing of less than 1% could see her out of office and unemployed. The method is simple at face value but could be very affective. The pro-hunt supporters will offer their help and support to the Labour candidate Margaret Greenwood by leafleting, door to door calling and back room work in the run up to the election. At the last election hunt supporters made a big difference in marginal seats and helped several Conservatives win. This concept seems a bit crazy at first with Margaret Greenwood like Esther Mcvey being positively anti-hunting but whichever one wins the seat at the General Election they will vote against repeal of the Hunting Act. In the end one will cancel out the other but at least if it works Esther Mcvey will be worrying about job hunting rather than fox hunting the day after the polls close. A definite warning to the rest of Blue Fox
Parliamentary group.
Hi Foxy
this looks like a plan, most of the blue fox people like LACS IFAW RSPCA POWA have little if any practical knowledge of hunting but are just supporting in the hope of getting a few more votes. If what you say is correct marginal constituency held by blue fox mps maybe in for a nasty shock when the polls close.
PS Foxy
before the antis start moaning this democracy ! if the people speak parliament must listen
I think Mr Barrington makes a very valid point. If one wishes to have a view on some thing, whether that be for or against without seeing the activity first hand is one thing. But if you wish to be part of the mechanism to outlaw that activity then that is another ball game. If you are to be part of that mechanism to outlaw an activity I feel it should be a must to see the activity first hand, and gather all evidence to weight it up objectively. Furthermore they should also witness first hand the alternatives that will replace the activity and measure how they compare. It is obvious with the hunting act this was never done. Methods of fox control far more detrimental to animal welfare have been left unmentioned, untouched and by many unseen. This leaves me with one conclusion; the hunting act is based on political point scoring and social prejudices. The fact the act does not protect other agricultural pests is further proof of this. Why do they not deserve the same protection?
Andrew
You make very clear the relevant animal welfare points that the anti hunting fraternity wish to hide from view. As has been stated many times before hounds do not wound they either kill their prey or it escapes. Also you bring out the other fact they wish to cover up and that is why are some species protected by the Hunting Act and others not. Why is it acceptable to hunt a rat or rabbit with dogs but not a mouse, all are recognised as pests in the eyes of the law and most people. This may give us a clue as to why many anti hunting activists resort to shouting at their opposition or worse.
RAT RABBIT OR MOUSE perhaps someone with an an anti hunting point of view will join us in debate.
Our local Hunt was targeted by 100 plus antis (hunt saboteurs, they called themselves) just before Christmas. Most were dressed in black and wore black facemasks to conceal their identities. They perpetrated a variety of activities, ranging from trespass aimed at the disruption of a lawful activity, through road blocks to hold up car followers, to the assault of a mounted Joint Master by slashing him across his back with a stick.
I spoke to one of them (but I didn`t see the camera which recorded our discussion at the time). I asked him where he was from and he said West Sussex – and we were then in Dorset! I said “Why do you do this?” and he replied that he believed in the sanctity of life. I said that in which case it was just as well he wasn`t a rabbit. “Ah,” he replied, “but foxes have to live”.
I then tried to explain that in a comparatively small country such as this, where there is very little by way of natural England, our countryside is mostly manufactured by man. We therefore have a duty to manage it and by extension, the wildlife within it.
I tried to explain the operation of the food chain and how foxes, and for that matter, badgers, were at the head of their food chain and thus without natural predators. If we do not take the responsibility for keeping their numbers in balance, we will be overrun by them with the consequent implications for disease, pressure on food supplies and the health of the species concerned.
He said that he believed shooting was the best and most humane method of dealing with excess numbers and I then tried to explain the limitations of this approach. That indeed preying and being preyed on was part of natural life and that man could be seen as the next stage above both species in the food chain.
His hang-up about that was his perception that gratuitous enjoyment was experienced by the people carrying out the culling exercise so I suggested that neither the badger nor the fox would be aware of this aspect and it was irrelevant to them.
We agreed to disagree but I believe it was a useful exchange of views. I subsequently discovered that it had been recorded on film and posted on the saboteurs` facebook website! While I have not seen it myself, I understand that I didn`t compromise the pro-hunting position.
While we had a perfectly amicable discussion, where I tried to make clear I felt his position was similar to mine – neither of us was espousing any truth, rather we were expressing our own opinions. However I also tried to make it clear that whatever we said, trying to put one`s case based on a tissue of lies was neither helpful nor of any moral worth. To try to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible public, politicians or anyone else was the way forward only of the morally bankrupt. I hope that enough people will realise this when it comes to deciding the future of the hunting banning legislation, which has offered nothing of any worth to our wildlife nor has it achieved anything other than a rupture in the social fabric of this country merely to gratify the urges of those who parade their prejudices in this way. I classed the saboteurs` antics as the equivalent of “moral masturbation” – and that really did get a reaction!
Hmmm. A Hunting Regulatory Authority chaired by the pro-hunting Lord Donoughue, proposed and supprted by hunting interests, where the rules are made and policed by people who have over the past ten years demonstrated quite clearly that they cannot be trusted.
You can mock Lord Donoughue all you like, but I, and many people across the political spectrum, know and respect him. I know him to care deeply for animal welfare.
For some strange reason you are obsessed with hunting and appear to think it is the worst thing a wild animal could face. By that you show your ignorance. You also seem quite happy to accuse me of insulting you, while at the same time doing exactly that on Twitter. Once again, you have avoided answering my questions, so I suggest that you find someone else to pester…or try to grow up.
“For some strange reason you are obsessed with hunting …” Isn’t that exactly what you are yourself? First on one side and then in a ‘Quisling’ move over to the other side. You are a joke.
I wish we could move away from politics and consentrate on animal welfare instead. For ballance I believe the first to attempt to champion this bill was a Liberal, Limbit Opic. The thing for me is this bill will protect in law all wild animals, not just a selective few. As it stands people can go out with a pack of terriers and hunt rats with no legal boundaries. Now I dont particularly have an issue with controlling rats with dogs, but what I would like to see is a bill that affords all wild animals protection not just those pursued by the red coats. Now I don’t care from what side of the political spectrum that should come, but as it stands this is the only one to attempt to address this shortfall. On your last point, I imagine anyone who has been convicted of stepping outside the law would not be part of any new law making
Hear hear!
(I think, and might be wrong, that Donoughue made the proposal and Opik tried to bring it as a private member’s bill)
antiecon, I do not feel Mr Barrington has changed camps. He is and always has been a champion of animal welfare. In my view he has only revised his opinoin. This is no surprise to me. When faced with all the evidence it is difficult not to. I am led to belive there is quite a list of persons with anti hunting view points who once seen all the evidence there conscience has forced this revision.
The fundamental question is surely
“should it be legal to be deliberately cruel to an animal?”
If one’s answer to that is “no” then one should support the law making any deliberately cruel act illegal.
After discussing this recently with an anti, they’d only support such a law if a new definition of ‘cruel’ which explicitly includes hunting with hounds be used.
Predictably they couldn’t explain how the usual definition would allow a cruel activity to be misclassified, but because this was being proposed by supporters of hunting (who are, of course, all sadists) there must be a loophole to allow hunting, even if it were cruel.
Andrew
Again you hit the nail on the head. In the case of James Barrington he did not change sides but spent a great deal of time, years in fact, looking at all the evidence as regards hunting. After much consideration he came to the reasoned conclusion that to simply ban hunting with hounds detracts massively from animal welfare. Sadly party politics wastes so much time when it come to animal and human welfare. Science, clear evidence, experience and good common sense are so easily pushed aside to please the crowd and grasp a few more votes. Tony Blair took us into a war that has cost tens of thousands of human lives. He forced the Hunting Act on us with more lies. That legislation has not saved the life of one fox, it has only caused suffering.