Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that, in the fullness of time, everything will go your way, and I really don't see why it should. Fox-hunting wasn't banned with bear-baiting, yet bear-baiting was clearly an action against animal cruelty, so why wasn't fox-hunting banned? Was it not deemed cruel then? If it wasn't cruel then, why is it cruel now?

There were many factors why bear baiting was banned and fox hunting wasn't ...politics being one of them.

Bear baiting was a "sport" of the masses, the poor ...fairground entertainment. Whereas foxhunting was the sport of the ruling elites.

Politics and politicians being what they are, they obviously saw no need then to ban their own enterntainment and just banned that of the great unwashed.

The question of which "sport" was more cruel than the other played no role in the decision making ...or so I would suspect.


Fortunately, we have moved on as a society and are not ruled by an elite any more (at least that's what they make us believe ) and now is the time to recognise that a foxhunt is indeed just as cruel as bear baiting and to have that banned as well.

It wasn't me!

And politics is why you will not see either hunting or fishing banned here. Both are popular sports, and in non-flawed opinion polls, hunting has garnered great support, while fishing hasn't even been questioned.

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And politics is why you will not see either hunting or fishing banned here. Both are popular sports, and in non-flawed opinion polls, hunting has garnered great support, while fishing hasn't even been questioned.

Unfortunately you are probably right ...but I guess that's why there is a "should ?" in the topic of this thread.

I firmly believe that the governement should ban foxhunting ...whether it actually will, remains to be seen.

It wasn't me!

But the majority rules, and says the government should not.

peasant

I don't think they will do a referendum on it though.

They'll either ban it or ignore it

It wasn't me!

They don't legislate without popular support as a rule. And my money's on ignoring it anyway.

bunny shooter

No ban.

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

In case of the foxhunt, the hound is not the predator (foxhounds are not wild animals), but the people organising the hunt are.

IMHO, the predator is the one who makes the kill.

peasant wrote: »

The difference is, with a gun (and enough practice) a hunter can kill a fox with a minimum amount of suffering.
With a pack of hounds there is always the chance that things go terribly wrong for the fox and that it is torn to pieces by several hounds while still alive instead of being killed quickly and cleanly.

Things can go horribly wrong with a rifle too. Even the most experienced shooter can screw up and rifles, sights and ammunition can all fail to perform to expectations. The light levels, wind and difference between real and apparent distance alter where the round lands. The fox can move unexpectedly at the last moment. All of these things could lead to a fox being wounded but not killed.

peasant wrote: »

Let me put it this way ...you wouldn't deliberatly take a defective/unsuitable gun on a fox shoot if you knew that in all likelyhood that gun would cause terrible injury and a slow, painful death to the fox instead of killing it outright, would you?

I wouldn't, but then people who hunt with hounds don't see their packs as defective or unsuitable. If they did and hunted with them anyway, then yes I would agree with you that hunting with hounds is cruel!

The intent of the hunt is crucial. If they intend to kill the fox swiftly and they or their dogs screw up then it's not cruelty. If they go out with the express intent of killing the fox slowly then it is.

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

Unfortunately you are probably right ...but I guess that's why there is a "should ?" in the topic of this thread.

I firmly believe that the governement should ban foxhunting ...whether it actually will, remains to be seen.

The only thing the government should do is what the people tell them to.

A government imposing its set of morals on the people is a broken one. (Unless of course they can actually prove that they are morally superior to the people they rule/serve. :rolleyes:)

peasant

IRLConor wrote: »

IMHO, the predator is the one who makes the kill.

Without somebody organising a foxhunt there would not be 50 odd hounds chasing after the fox.
Without foxhunts the breed "foxhound" probably never would have existed ...so no ...the foxhound is not the predator, just a tool of the real predator, in this case the members of the hunt.

Things can go horribly wrong with a rifle too. Even the most experienced shooter can screw up and rifles, sights and ammunition can all fail to perform to expectations. The light levels, wind and difference between real and apparent distance alter where the round lands. The fox can move unexpectedly at the last moment. All of these things could lead to a fox being wounded but not killed.

Correct ...but ... a responsible shooter will keep his rifle in good working order and himself trained and skilled to avoid all this happening as best they can.

I wouldn't, but then people who hunt with hounds don't see their packs as defective or unsuitable. If they did and hunted with them anyway, then yes I would agree with you that hunting with hounds is cruel!

This is where I think you are wrong. The odd spectator tagging along at the end of the field (who never sees a kill) may believe the propaganda that the hounds kill swiftly and cleanly ...the huntsmen know full well that that is not the case and that there always is a high chance for a very "messy" kill.

In the gun analogy ...their "weapon" is not reliable and they know it

The intent of the hunt is crucial. If they intend to kill the fox swiftly and they or their dogs screw up then it's not cruelty. If they go out with the express intent of killing the fox slowly then it is.

Well, if you want to nitpick (and give the hunters the benefit of the doubt) you could say that they go out "hoping" that this time everything will go to plan and that the kill will be a clean one ...in the full knowledge that it might not.

This may not necessarily be called "intent" ...but to me the "hope" of there not being any cruelty is just not good enough.

Another factor is that the huntsmen have no influence over how and when the kill is going to happen. A shooter can always opt out at the very last second. The hounds on the other hand, once they are in actual contact with the fox, are unstoppable. If they for example corner a fox, the huntsmen can't call them back and give the fox another run at it ...they just have to stand by and watch as it is ripped to pieces.

peasant

IRLConor wrote: »

The only thing the government should do is what the people tell them to.

A government imposing its set of morals on the people is a broken one. (Unless of course they can actually prove that they are morally superior to the people they rule/serve. :rolleyes:)

I think you will find that in many instances during history governements have made decisions that were unpopular or even opposed to the "will of the majority".

A simple tax increase is the easiest example

In the case of the "moral" decision against foxhunting, I would suspect that the majority of the populace doesn't even know what a foxhunt is exactly, never mind how it works.

The majority of actually voiced opinions may be opposed to a foxhunt ban ...because those affected by it are voicing their objections. I strongly suspect though, that the "silent majority" has no objections to a foxhunting ban, so in my opinion the governement would indeed have the moral right to ban foxhunting.

djpbarry

It wasn't me! wrote: »

However, in terms of participation, that thing that counts, fishing is the most popular sport in the world, and I don't think people would take kindly to trying to ban it.

Fishing is the most popular sport in the world? Please...

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

I think you will find that in many instances during history governements have made decisions that were unpopular or even opposed to the "will of the majority".

A simple tax increase is the easiest example

If the tax increase is not wanted by the population in order to pay for better public services then it's still broken. If the population wants better public services and wants lower taxes then it is the job of the government to prove to the populace exactly why they can't get what they want without a tax increase before doing so.

Tax increases done properly should not be objected to by a majority of the population.

peasant wrote: »

In the case of the "moral" decision against foxhunting, I would suspect that the majority of the populace doesn't even know what a foxhunt is exactly, never mind how it works.

The majority of actually voiced opinions may be opposed to a foxhunt ban ...because those affected by it are voicing their objections. I strongly suspect though, that the "silent majority" has no objections to a foxhunting ban, so in my opinion the governement would indeed have the moral right to ban foxhunting.

Or it could be that the silent majority actually doesn't see anything particularly wrong with fox hunting or at least not wrong enough to warrant banning it. We won't know unless everyone is educated in an impartial fashion (fat chance getting those who do know to agree on what is impartial!) and subsequently polled on the matter.

What I would argue though is that you shouldn't legislate on any matter unless it is clear that a majority (preferably a large majority) actually want the legislation.

peasant

Just to explain a bit more about how exactly the fox is killed:

In an ideal scenario, the running fox is overtaken by a solitary hound who grabs the fox by the neck and shakes it violently, thus breaking its neck and providing a quick and relatively painless death.

This is how the foxhunters would like you to belive that every kill happens.

Problem is, typical animal beaviour is not ideal.

Firstly, he foxhounds don't form an orderly queue, allowing that solitary hound to make the kill. Every hound wants a piece of the action, so chances are that you have several hounds tearing away at the fox from different directions, none of them anywhere near the neck or killing the fox outright ...it will be torn to pieces alive instead.

Secondly, it is not natural behaviour for the fox to outrun its pursuers. It is no gazelle. Instead it usually relies on cunning or coverage to evade its predators. Given half a chance, the fox will take every opportunity to dissapear from out in the open and rather hide in a corner somewhere (if it doesn't manage to disappear into its burrow altogether).
So chances are that the hounds will not come upon the fox out in the open, but rather in a corner somewhere, with the fox with its back against an obstacle, defending itself. Once again the clean bite is difficult to impossible and the hounds will just grab whatever they can, tearing the fox to shreds.

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

Without somebody organising a foxhunt there would not be 50 odd hounds chasing after the fox.
Without foxhunts the breed "foxhound" probably never would have existed ...so no ...the foxhound is not the predator, just a tool of the real predator, in this case the members of the hunt.

You're arguing then that the intent of the parties involved is what defines them as predators? If I keep a cat to kill mice around the house, does that make me a predator of mice? What if I keep the cat as a pet and it kills the mice anyway?

peasant wrote: »

Correct ...but ... a responsible shooter will keep his rifle in good working order and himself trained and skilled to avoid all this happening as best they can.

And the hunters will make the same argument that they keep their hounds well trained and that they do their utmost to control them.

peasant wrote: »

This is where I think you are wrong. The odd spectator tagging along at the end of the field (who never sees a kill) may believe the propaganda that the hounds kill swiftly and cleanly ...the huntsmen know full well that that is not the case and that there always is a high chance for a very "messy" kill.

In the gun analogy ...their "weapon" is not reliable and they know it

I believe that the hunters believe that their hounds are sufficient for the task. Even if they're wrong, that makes them misguided or poorly educated, not necessarily cruel.

To qualify as cruel (at least in my book) they would have to:

1. Believe that their dogs are a poor tool for the the job.
2. Believe that the chance of a botched kill is very high.
3. Elect to use the dogs based on the likelihood of a "bad" kill. (a.k.a. "Malice")

peasant wrote: »

Well, if you want to nitpick (and give the hunters the benefit of the doubt) you could say that they go out "hoping" that this time everything will go to plan and that the kill will be a clean one ...in the full knowledge that it might not.

This may not necessarily be called "intent" ...but to me the "hope" of there not being any cruelty is just not good enough.

A hunter with a rifle goes out hoping that this time everything will go to plan and that the kill will be a clean one in the full knowledge that it might not. Where's the difference?

And why shouldn't we give the hunters the benefit of the doubt? They're humans too, right?

peasant wrote: »

Another factor is that the huntsmen have no influence over how and when the kill is going to happen. A shooter can always opt out at the very last second. The hounds on the other hand, once they are in actual contact with the fox, are unstoppable. If they for example corner a fox, the huntsmen can't call them back and give the fox another run at it ...they just have to stand by and watch as it is ripped to pieces.

I've never shot an animal, so I don't know where the differences lie in those situations. What I do know is that when I'm target shooting, I find out about my mistakes after I take the shot. After you pull the trigger the bullet is unstoppable and you can't call it back, same as the hounds.

peasant

IRLConor wrote: »

What I would argue though is that you shouldn't legislate on any matter unless it is clear that a majority (preferably a large majority) actually want the legislation.

hmmm ...I don't know ....

Take a drastic example: the right for asylum

If you did a poll tomorrow, asking should the governement grant any more asylum, I bet that in the current situation you would get a majority vote saying "no".

Should the governement then turn around and revoke a basic human right?


I know, the example is far fetched, but in my opinion it is time that we as a society grant animals (wild and domestic) some more basic rights ...the right of a cruelty free death being one of them.

From that point of view, the governement does not only have the moral right, but the moral obligation to introduce legislation to that effect.

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

Just to explain a bit more about how exactly the fox is killed:

<Snip Neck breakage vs Death by a thousand hounds>

Do you have any documentary evidence for the time-to-death of the various methods of killing a fox?

Do you have any reliable statistics which show a) the number of fox hunts that end in a kill and b) the number of those kills which you deem to be "clean"?

If the hounds are "tearing the fox to pieces" do you know at what point the fox dies? At the start? At the end? How much of the process can the fox feel?

oscarBravo

Point of order here.

The topic is, "should the government ban fox-hunting?"

In a sense, the question was answered in a single post a little while back: "if the electorate tell them to."

Honestly, this isn't a political discussion. It's a rehash of a cruelty-to-animals discussion and, with the best will in the world, it's just not in any danger of being on-topic here.

Closed, with thanks to the participants for keeping it mostly civil.