Downing Street Says » Fox Hunting

Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the pro-fox hunting demonstration which had taken place outside his home in his constituency earlier today, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister had met a delegation from the protest to discuss the issue this morning. He understood perfectly that this was a subject about which many people – on both sides – felt strongly. At the same time, it was a matter for a free vote in the House. In his opinion, people had every right to demonstrate their views, as long as it was done in a peaceful manner. He had been pleased to meet the delegation this morning and they, in turn, had told him that they wanted the demonstration to remain peaceful.

44 Comments »

"In his opinion, people had every right to demonstrate their views"

Gee thanks Tony, you’re SO generous!

It really is nothing to do with his opinion – it’s just that he hasn’t been able to completely outlaw it yet, that’s all!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Sep 2004 on 6:17 pm | Link
"a free vote in the House"

WOW [yes shouting] that really is a milestone.
No whips, no party line, a free vote.
Free voting also implies no application of the sledgehammer Parliament Act.

Interesting 😉
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 11 Sep 2004 on 9:22 am | Link
Free voting does not imply no application of the Parliament Act. Free voting means that it is one of the very rare occasions whem MPs get to use their own judgement without the interference of petty party politics.

The Parliament Act will be invoked because the unelected, out of touch, lords are blocking legislation that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the population and elected MPs.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 11 Sep 2004 on 1:11 pm | Link
My problem is, as always, with the construction of two sentences, and the relative truth in both:

1) The Parliament Act will be invoked because the unelected, out of touch, lords are blocking legislation that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the population and elected MPs.

or

2) The Parliament Act will be invoked because the unelected, out of touch, lords are blocking legislation that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the population of major metropolitain areas and their elected MPs.

It all boils down to one question: Does City Mouse make the rules for Country Mouse. Country mouse went to visit the city and protest, and went back to their homes. City mouse lives in the city all year round, and only sees country mouse for holidays. Is city mouse trying to change country mouse’s life and behavior from afar as an act of bigotry or as a common will to change country mouse’s life for the better.

I can’t help but be uncomfortable with the answer – even though I’m technically anti-hunting. Because, in reality, I do believe that it is the city folk extending an iron fist over the country folk, and regardless of my personal opinions on hunting, I find the ban impossible to justify. To the point where I find myself quietly hoping that it fails.
Comment by Gregory Block — 13 Sep 2004 on 4:15 pm | Link
Well, I’m aways asked about this one by anti-hunting friends whenever it comes up because I am by upbringing "Country Mouse", but also anti-fox hunting. My family and (rural) friends are so pro hunting that I have to mumble inaudible words and leave the room when it gets brought up. For fear of being lynched.

As far as i am concerned:

Either
a) Foxes are vermin and should be controlled
or
b) They aren’t

If b) then ban it, if a) ban it because it is cruel, and hopefully it is possible to control foxes more humanely (without also shooting your neighbours, as seems to be happening recently)

If banning it is going to cost jobs and the lives of hunting dogs, sod it. How long can you keep doing wrong in order to prevent wrong? at some point in time, it can’t add up – how can we justify animal cruelty in order to keep an industry alive? if we are worried about the dogs, then hey, paint half of em red and get the others to rip them apart if you enjoy that sort of thing so much.
Comment by Lodjer — 13 Sep 2004 on 4:42 pm | Link
I also think that most of the country "pro" people are more against urban interference in the country than they are pro hunting.

I remember years ago my Dad, a farmer, muttering irritatedly about letting "toffs" on the land for hunting, when all the foxes do is eat the rabbits which eat his crops. Now you would think he personally goes hunting once a week to hear him extoll its virtues (and he has still never, to my knowledge, been any where near a hunt).
Comment by Lodjer — 13 Sep 2004 on 4:51 pm | Link
Does it matter whether the country-folk are pro hunting or anti-citi-centrism? Either way, they’re probably right, by definition. Either the country is widely for keeping it, and therefore can see the issue as a headline of "Merchant Wankers Impose Will; Film at 11", or it’s country-vs-city purely in principle – in which case, the headline is pretty much the same.

The argument can only be lost, IMO, as a result. It’s not even about who’s right – it’s about whose opinion is the one that should matter most. Arguably, it isn’t a bunch of rich bigots living in expensive houses in a place where the largest area of grass for miles is in a park that, during certain parts of the summer, often boasts a larger population than most rural villages.
Comment by Gregory Block — 13 Sep 2004 on 10:53 pm | Link
Fox hunting isn’t about country vs city or working class vs toffs. These are just distractions introduced by the pro-hunting lobby because it is clear that they have lost the debate.

There are no sensible arguments for keeping hunting.

Fox is a pest – so are rats and pigeons but nobody dresses up in silly clothes and chases them on horseback. There are far more efficient and humane methods of controlling pests than hunting. As a side point, if pest control was the real issue why do hunt masters create fox-friendly environmnets to ensure that there are enough foxes to hunt?

Its a tradition – so were heretic burning and the plague, nobody’s asking for them to be brought back. Traditions die out, its usually called progress.

Its a source of employment – so were the mines, the shipyards and the steelworks but I don’t remember the countryside alliance complaining about their closure. Millions of people lose their job in this country every year and millions of people find new jobs every year. It may not always be pleasant but it happens in a dynamic economy.

The hounds will have to be put down – more correctly the hounds will have be put down sooner. Hunts kill off hounds when they’re only a few years old anyway. The sensible alternative is to retrain the hounds for drag hunts, but unfortunately I don’t think that their owners are as adaptable. I still won’t be surprised to see a picture of mounds of dog carcasses at some point following the ban as some petty spiteful hunt master shows how cruel they really are.

The argument for banning hunting is simple – torture and killing are not acceptable behaviours in a civilised society. On a personal level I think that anyone who gains pleasure from torturing and killing things is clearly disturbed and a danger to society.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 15 Sep 2004 on 5:45 pm | Link
"There are no sensible arguments for keeping hunting."

Fine. Let’s agree on that in principle. Hard to disagree with it, on many levels.

However. If that vote were to be taken seriously, every MP in major metropolitan areas should have stepped out of the commons room and not voted; leaving only the countryside MPs behind.

*THAT* would be a vote by the countryside, for the countryside, and would honestly reflect the mindset of those who are meant to be represented by this government.

London riding down on the UK from its moral high ground isn’t democracy, regardless of how you cut it. You’re never going to be able to sell me on the idea that the countryside, with its smaller population, isn’t being sat on by the city folks who have decidedly different lifestyles and viewpoints (as well as education levels, career choices, services and infrastructure, and culture) than the people they’re busy trying to dictate to.

As for hounds – feel free to adopt one. I wouldn’t go near one. They’re often vicious and often feral, and you’d be a fool to keep one as a pet. If your warm, cuddly thoughts prefer to think of them as household pets being butchered, go for it – but I’d suggest that if you’re going to hold the viewpoint that the hunt should end, you open your eyes to the realistic consequences of ending that hunt, and become okay with the fact that you’re asking those animals to be killed off. They’re pack animals; they’re not adaptable. You might as well keep a wolf for a pet. Don’t weaken your own argument by ignoring what ending hunting means.
Comment by Gregory Block — 16 Sep 2004 on 10:50 am | Link
“If that vote were to be taken seriously, every MP in major metropolitan areas should have stepped out of the commons room and not voted”

Why?

The UK parliament passes laws that represent the views of people who live in the UK (theoretically, accepting the many arguments that it doesn’t in practice). The laws passed in that parliament are for everyone in the UK, why should the personal circumstances of the MP make any difference? Are you saying that only MPs with children should be allowed to vote on child welfare issues, only rich MPs should vote on higher rate taxes, only non-white MPs should vote on racial equality issues?

The issue of fox hunting has nothing to do with the ‘countryside’; it’s a moral issue about whether this practice is right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to their view on that. All surveys I have seen recently show that the majority of UK people want hunting banned; all the votes by MPs recently have shown that the majority of them want hunting banned; therefore the democratic result is a ban on hunting.

I don’t understand your point about hounds. I don’t think of hounds as household pets in the same way that I don’t think foxes are cute and cuddly. I didn’t say that the hounds wouldn’t be killed; I was just that saying this is not an argument in defence of hunting.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 16 Sep 2004 on 12:33 pm | Link
Pro hunters believe that the fox does untold damage to farmers and their livestock, including attacks on lambs, poultry and game birds. Mr blair obviously has no understading of this problem as he has probably never been to a farm in his life or probably never even seen a fox.

Hunting is the best and the most humane way of controlling the fox , so i feel we have this problem under control and is hardly an imoprtant subject so also mr Blair should be more concered with the welfare of his country rather than a few foxes being killed a week. There a far more serious problems to deal with before we start worrying about what i think is a trivial and pathetic problem.

The supporters of this sport rubbish the idea that the activity is cruel, saying one nip to the back of the fox’s neck will kill it immediately, and that there is no evidence to suggest that foxes suffer the same effects of fear that humans do. Wheareas there are humans suffering all the time, but i see no move forward to put a stop to this.

Their final arguments are that of the importance of hunting to the rural community. They say if hunting was banned, 16,000 jobs would be lost, not to mention countless hounds and horses that would have to be destroyed. Get your act together TONY!

Kayleigh Houghton

The Youth Pro Foxhunting society.

ypfhs2004@HOTMAIL.COM
Comment by Kayleigh Houghton — 13 Oct 2004 on 12:07 pm | Link
It is a misconecption that Democracy means that the will of the majority must prevail, that is called Mob Rule.
Comment by Colonel Mad — 13 Oct 2004 on 10:56 pm | Link
Wish I could spell misconception
Comment by Colonel Mad — 13 Oct 2004 on 10:57 pm | Link
I will say this very slowly :

T h e r e i s n o t a b a n o n k i l l i n g f o x e s !

No one is denying that the fox is a pest. Although I think the claims about the damage it does do are grossly exaggerated, I don\x92t think anyone is claiming that foxes are not vermin and need to be controlled.

\x93Hunting is the best and the most humane way of controlling the fox\x94 \x96 I\x92m sorry but that\x92s such a stupid statement I can\x92t see why anyone would believe it. Humane is defined as \x93tender and sympathetic; merciful; civilised\x94. I don\x92t see how being chased to exhaustion and then being torn apart by hounds could ever be described as humane. Fast acting poison or a bullet in the head are much more humane.

As for saying that fox hunting is the best way of controlling the fox, that is ridiculous. We struggle to control rat and pigeon populations but I can see anyone suggesting that we would do better if we dressed up in silly outfits and rode on horseback with a pack of hounds. The evidence also clearly shows that hunting has virtually no effect on the fox population. If what you say is true then the foot and mouth crisis, when hunting was banned, would have led to an explosion in the fox population. What actually happened? The fox population remained steady or even fell in some areas.

16,000 jobs sounds a big figure, but only if you\x92ve never looked at the labour market in this country. Every year about 6,000,000 people in this country lose their job and every year about 6,000,000 people find a new job. 16,000 is a drop in the ocean. As employment is at record highs, and rural areas are doing better than urban ones, I don\x92t think the jobs argument holds much weight.

There is no law forcing people to kill hounds and horses. If people do that, then that is their choice and if anything shows how little they know or care about animals.

(P.S. for Colonel Mad: Democracy does mean that the will of the majority must prevail. That is why no country operates a pure democracy and why political philosophers have wrestled for centuries with the problem of trying to allow the will of the people without creating mob rule. Tyranny of the majority is the fatal flaw in democracy that no one likes to mention)
Comment by Uncarved Block — 14 Oct 2004 on 8:07 pm | Link
"Pro hunters believe that the fox does untold damage to farmers and their livestock, including attacks on lambs, poultry and game birds."
So I take it then Kayleigh, from this statement, that you have no more personal experience of this than Mr Blair does?
Comment by Lodjer — 15 Oct 2004 on 12:53 pm | Link
Uh huh, we still appear to be in Iraq, majority verdict?
Comment by Colonel Mad — 16 Oct 2004 on 12:14 am | Link
Actually i do have experience in the damage caused by foxes and the money and time lost due to it. My family owns a small holding and there have been countless times when livestock has been lost due to an attack from a fox. I feel you are not in the position to inform me i have just as little knowledge as Mr Blair. Might i add the youth of this society deserve a say in matters which, some people, think they do not understand. Thankyou Lodjer (whoever you are). But i feel i cant be compared to Mr Blair.
Comment by Kayleigh — 19 Nov 2004 on 2:28 pm | Link
Kayleigh I don’t see why the damage caused by foxes is an argument for HUNTING. It may be an argument for controlling the fox population but that can be done in other ways.

I find the argument about loss of livestock distasteful. It’s just a reduction of animal lives down to their monetary value. Foxes stop you making money therefore they are bad and must be killed. Shameful.

Hunting is a pointless, barbaric practice. It has no cultural value that I can see and has simply brought into sharp relief the huge divisions between the Landed Gentry and the rest of us mere mortals.
Comment by Rachel — 19 Nov 2004 on 5:03 pm | Link
I read the Act yesterday and am getting legal opinion on the legality of Police hunting Humans with dogs after 18th Feb 2005.
It hinges around the -non existent- definition of ‘wild mammals’, given that we were once ‘wild mammals’ and there is no time frame or definition in the Act then we too are protected from being hunted with dogs. If the argument goes the other way that we have become tame then all the hunting lobby need to do is get a definition of how many generations of domesticity constitutes tame and breed to that target.
I foresee lots of redundant police dogs 😉

The drafting of the act is poor when you consider that the government has had 7 years to draft it.

The pro lobby will be driving carts and horses through the holes for years.

And now I can’t shoot mink without some special approval from some vague authority. I guess I shall just have to insist that the RSPCA spend countless hours protecting my boat from mink and then sue them if it gets damaged.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 20 Nov 2004 on 6:42 pm | Link
Ok. . . let me explain, i agree with you on the point of the arguement of loss of livestock is distasteful but its pretty simple really:

I go hunting like many other people because…

I choose to. Of course i appreciate that not everybody would make my choice but- thats the nature of a tolerant society that we should be free to live in.

Hunting is just as humane and other forms of control. Its the method that a lot of farmers prefer.
Uniquely, hunting allows for a balanced control- not too high not too low.

I am supporting a way of life that provides rural areas with irreplaceable social and cultural life.
OUr rural economy needs all the support it can get. Hunting is a vital part of the economy, thousands of rural jobs depend on it.

Finally- I enjoy it, i meet all kinds of different interesting people, i love watching the hounds, riding across country that you woulndt otherwise be able to. I am proud to be part if an acient tradition that means so much to so many people.
Cheers Rachel, i hope this helps your understanding.

Kayleigh- ypfhs
Comment by Kayleigh — 5 Dec 2004 on 6:35 pm | Link
Kayleigh, basically you have just contradicted your entire earlier justification re: the damage caused to livestock, and you have just admitted the real reason why you – and probably many others – are protesting. It’s not about jobs at all, is it? Or money, or a way of life or anything else. It’s because the government has banned something you enjoy! And that having been said, in actual fact I would go so far as to say you’re right in one point – you can’t be compared to Tony Blair. You’re much worse – you like to kill for fun; at least Tony hides under his official mask.

Let’s face facts here. There is NO justification at all, regardless of how ancient the tradition or how much you enjoy it, for hunting animals for sport. Regardless of how many jobs are lost, how may livelihoods are ruined; tough! Firstly it’s happened. Secondly, tough – because it should have happened a LONG LONG time ago. If you are the kind of person who enjoys this barbaric sport, then I (and hopefully the majority of other right-thinking people) have absolutely not a single iota of pity or sympathy for any single person whose life or livlihood is affected by this ban. An industry based on hunting and killing innocent & defenceless animals for sport?!?! What the hell kind of civilisation is it that we are supposed to live in?!

Your claim that there is no evidence that foxes suffer the same sensation of fear as humans do; what kind of argument is that?! Does that then make torture acceptable?! And if they DON’T suffer fear, why don’t they just blithely stand there and let themselves be killed instead of running away – a natural instinct in most animals when they feel threatened.

In answer to the pathetic whinges about people losing their livlihoods; so what? It happens all the time; what about mining villages when the coal runs out, or the steel towns that appeared back in the 50s and 60s that are practically ghost towns now? You adapt, overcome. You get a job elsewhere. And if you can’t because you have no qualifications – tough! Go learn some. The same as the rest of us have to do our whole lives.

The fact that people’s lives will be ruined as the result of banning hunting is no excuse to carry on doing it; if you applied that logic to everything the world would be in anarchy. Half of Afghanistan grows poppies for opium; does that mean that we should turn a blind eye to the world drug trade because of the fear of empoverishing the growers?

As an afterthought, I really do hope that there are proper clampdowns on those who seek to defy the ban; let us hope that this ban turns into something a lot more substantial than mere lip-service. I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough when the landed gentry themselves end up in court. Or not, as the case may be!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 7 Dec 2004 on 12:25 pm | Link
PappaLazzzaru,

We live in a society where humans dominate. We live in a society where we allow 90m animals in england alone to die because we like eating them. Unless you are a vegan you have just lost all leg to stand on.

Now move on to human rights. We do not give animals the same rights as humans. If you don’t like that then tough but don’t go around targeting single groups of people because you don’t like what they do. If you believe animals shouldn’t be killed because they have rights then i hope you don’t have pets because you are impinging on a right to exist free and non chained lives. Yes i know that right doesn’t exist for animals but any bill giving animals rights worth anything will not only ban killing of animals but also the owning of them as pets.

As for the landed gentry in court. The landed gentry make up about 10% of any hunt i’ve ever seen. The rest of it are a group of people from the are getting together to have a hunt. As for ending up in court, the Chief’s of police don’t envisage it happening all that much due to the overwhelming difficulty in getting proof. You need a still frame of a fox being chased by hounds and followed by the person you are trying to charge on horse. Good luck with one of those. How many people have scotland done for hunting since their bill was passed? I believe that i can count on one hand or less.

You and the vast majority of the people that support this bill have gotten wrapped up so much in pulling down the aristocracy that you forgot what the bill was meant to do.
Comment by Sapphrine — 7 Dec 2004 on 4:21 pm | Link
Sapphrine,

Surely you must be able to tell the difference between killing for food and killing for pleasure? There are complex and varied arguments about whether killing animals for food is right or wrong but it is quite clear that killing an animal for pleasure is evidence of a sick and twisted mind. It is certainly not the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged or even allowed in anything claiming to be a civilised society.

Surely you must also be able to tell the difference between caring for an animal that has been neotenised through domesticity (i.e. a pet) and killing an animal. Animals already have \x91rights\x92 under UK law and if you knew anyone involved in animal farming then they would be able to tell you all about the laws governing the treatment of livestock, never mind the legislation against animal cruelty that applies to everyone.

I tend to agree with you somewhat about most hunts not being made up of the landed gentry. Most people I\x92ve met who have gone hunting are people who live and work in cities. Most people I know who own land in the country hate hunting because the hunts charge around the countryside causing all sorts of disruption, killing family pets and being quite offensive to anyone who raises the slightest complaint.

To answer your question about Scotland, according to the Defra website by the end of September there had been a number of high profile prosecutions most recently against the Masters of the Duke of Buccleuch’s and the Jedforest hunts with final rulings on these still awaited. In addition, two individuals have been prosecuted and found guilty of allowing and encouraging their dogs to chase and kill hares. Fines have been imposed on these cases by the Sheriff.

The issue of \x91pulling down the aristocracy\x92 is quite separate but does share similar issues. They are also an outdated relic of the country\x92s past and undeserved privilege similarly has no place in a civilised society. The sooner they are put into rehabilitation programmes to enable them to live a normal life the better. Their accumulated wealth can then be used to benefit everyone else, as some recompense for their ancestors’ abuse of their fellow men and women.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 7 Dec 2004 on 9:06 pm | Link
Uncarved Block is (apart from the odd blind joke) so politically correct it’s tiresome reading his stuff. Has he never savoured goose liver? Has he never eaten a hare? Does he only eat brown rice? DOesn’t he get it that we nurture animals in order to kill and eat them? Isn’t that done for pleasure? Mass production of food requires cruelty to far more animals than the odd fox hunt. Think eggs. How can he be so sure he’s right about what makes a civilised society? What is a ‘normal life’? Why should people who save their money be forced to share it out? WHy should people be forced to ‘recompense for their ancestor’s’ behaviour? Where’s the sense or morality in that madness? I smell envy…wrapped in in a totalitarian redistributive nightmare. This kind of PC attitude makes me pro-hunting! Freedom lies in cultural diversity not common place PC homogeneity.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 7 Dec 2004 on 9:55 pm | Link
Hello, I hope this gets through to you,I have no interst whatsoevever in fox hunting but i do know a bit about wildlife.
How long do you you think it will be before we have a sitiation like the dingo case in australia
with inner city foxes.I would hope this situation would not arise but to be honest can you really imagine a fox ignoring a baby or toddler out in a inner city garden playing around unsusupervised
I am not a scare mongerer,But i will not be ignored, i am going to pass this message on,
Comment by d.condron — 8 Dec 2004 on 12:38 am | Link
I have just spent the last hour reading articles on the net (including those above) about the various arguments ‘for and against fox hunting’, in an effort to understand a little better.

I am I admit, against fox hunting (much to the continued annoyance of my other half\x92s family), but have tried hard to consider all the issues so as to form a balanced opinion; maybe even try and convince myself that pro-hunting wasn’t so bad, so as to avoid conflicts with my other half’s family in future.

I’ve got to be honest though, I’ve not read a single thing that offers even the remotest justification for this apparent ‘tradition’

Can someone please offer me a decent reason, aside from pests, money, slaughter of dogs, tradition, loss of jobs or city interference that makes sense?
Comment by Andrea — 21 Dec 2004 on 4:13 pm | Link
Good question Andrea
Well one can argue either way and have facts and figures to support one’s argument.
The bigger issue is "did we elect a parliament to waste so much time on animal rights issues?"
Now, you may argue that a ‘civilised’ society should care about animal rights – but – should it spend this amount of parliamentary time on such a minor issue when we have crime, education, welfare and many other areas of everyday life that effect humans and there is no parliamentary time to address the issues?
I, for one, cannot find any valid research that supports the knowledge of death in animals. This gives me a problem – because suffering is a mental state whilst pain is a physical state. There is also no research that quantifies the levels of pain felt by a fox that is being killed by hounds. Indeed should one quantify pain in terms of intensity or duration or the product of the two?
If we choose the product of the two (duration in seconds x quantified level of pain) then it is probably fishing on inland waterways that should have been banned – because of the prolonged suffering of swans who have ingested hooks lines and weights, survived for 3 weeks and died. But again do swans feel pain and is it equivalent to anything that we can quantify?
We could probably show that more swans die than foxes in any period so that would support the argument.

Once we (humans) project onto animals feelings that we imagine they have then we are on a slippery slope. Using the (level of pain x duration x number killed in any period) we end up banning cars because the cumulative suffering of dying flies on car windscreens is millions of times more in any period than that of foxes.

This being so and the government concentrating solely on foxes leads many people to believe that the banning of hunting with dogs was not an animal rights issue but a political expedient. Had the government been interested in animal rights the bill would have been much more comprehensive and covered discussions on banning fishing and banning cars. I suspect that the only reason for the bill was because a statistician said it would win more votes than it would loose. The fishing issue would have lost millions of votes as would banning cars which is patently silly. But the logic stands (quantified level of pain x duration of pain x number of subjects in a given period).

Most of the people who post messages on this site do it because they believe that the government is wasting our taxes on silly projects – I believe that they have wasted obscene amounts of money on the issue of fox hunting and it wasn’t for the good of the foxes.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 21 Dec 2004 on 5:54 pm | Link
The essence of the argument against the ban is that hunting is an area of personal morality, and therefore one in which the government has no business telling people how to behave.Government, to my mind, has one purpose only: to protect members of society from other people who would do them harm.

The problem with banning things just because you don’t like them is that there is always a danger that someone else will ban some activity of yours.

Britain is supposed to be a LIBERAL democracy, but I think it is fair to say that this is no longer the case. Read John Stuart Mill "On Liberty". An elected tyranny is still a tyranny.

Best Wishes.

(PS apologies for the CAPS above – don’t know how to get bold on a comment!)
Comment by Monty — 21 Dec 2004 on 8:46 pm | Link
Hi

Thanks for the comments guys. I agree there is no proof that animals suffer, though to be honest the very fact that they run away would seem to indicate they are afraid. Surely it is a little short-sighted to assume animals don’t feel pain in the same way humans do? I figure it’s probably best to kill them quickly, efficiently and sympathetically just in case, and hand on heart, I can honestly say I don’t think death by hounds is that way?

As for the right to choose etc. I see what you’re saying but find myself wondering why other blood sports were banned then? I mean, if you’ve ever watched a bull being slowly killed by the matador for the amusement of others you’ll know what I mean. I’m not an animal activist or anything, but I’ve got to admit it left me feeling pretty sick to think that others might enjoy watching this kind of thing.

The thing that gets me is the animals don’t understand why they’re being killed. I mean, if a human is sentenced to death at least it knows what’s going on (hopefully).

I\x92m sorry, I\x92ve really tried to understand but I just can\x92t seem to get away from the \x91dying for the pleasure of others\x92 thing, so I\x92ll bow out gracefully and leave you all to it
Comment by Andrea — 22 Dec 2004 on 11:17 am | Link
Oh dear oh dear, When will you silly people "against" understand that fox huntnig actually benefits the fox population by moving on the old or infirmed foxes. And what you call killing for pleasure, you obviously don’t understand the thrill of riding and socialising with all sorts of interesting people. I don’t go out thinking "oh yes blood, blood, blood"! thats just weird, i think we’re proving a service to the countryside. And no matter how much you think you’ve won, your wrong, its like trying to stop a fish swim!
Comment by YPFHS — 23 Dec 2004 on 9:34 pm | Link
YPFHS; "And what you call killing for pleasure, you obviously don’t understand the thrill of riding and socialising with all sorts of interesting people" (who are all also hell bent on killing, even to the extent of rubbing handfuls of animals blood on the faces of younger members of the hunt – to "blood" them)

What the hell kind of justification is that when you’re talking at the same time of hunting a poor defenceless terrified animal to its death? You are obviously as sick in the head as the rest of the pro-hunting crowd, and the really really sad thing is you are so removed from normal society you don’t even realise it.

As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to stop fish from swimming – you can dam rivers, which will stop their progress; or you can kill them and eat them!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Dec 2004 on 3:00 pm | Link
So there u go u say "kill" thats your and most others instinct papalazzuru! might i add that the fox actually has a chance of survival where as animals we rear to EAT have none at all, tell me this would u rather have a bigger chance of survival or none atall, its all about the way of life and control and service! and your just gonna have to accept that what you cal "sick in the head as the rest of the pro-hunting crowd" is actually knowledge that you cant handle because you know there is no way to stop us!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by YPFHS — 26 Dec 2004 on 10:33 pm | Link
BOXING DAY HUNT WAS GREAT TODAY, SEE YOU NEXT YEAR! FOR ANOTHER SPECTALULAR EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE READY FOR THE 19TH OF FEBURARY???!?!!
Comment by YPFHS — 27 Dec 2004 on 9:28 pm | Link
Neither side will back down; nor will either side admit that their arguments do have real holes in them. In the end, both sides will wave their standards in the air and proclaim victory.

On the one hand:
– If foxes are pests, stop breeding them.
– Feel free to hunt foxes if you intend to eat them and/or wear their fur. If you want to feed your dogs, try dog food.
– Stop breeding dogs to be rabid animals who have no use other than to viciously tear apart living creatures. The tragedy of those dogs isn’t that they have to be put down once hunting is banned, it’s that they were ever bred to be feral in the first place.
– Hunting is "a good day out". So is fishing, horseback riding, and a host of other things which you probably already do far more often than actually Hunt. If the hunt is your living, this is indeed a tragedy; if the hunt was something you did every other weekend, this means just about nothing, in truth.

On the other:
– Don’t think for a second that those foxes are going to be allowed to live just because you banned hunting; farmers will still shoot them on sight and kill them in any way possible.
– Hunting, of all kinds, is the killing of a living thing for one reason or another. Banning of hunting is just more city-folk stupidity from people who can’t admit to themselves where their meat comes from.
– Foxes aren’t much better than rats or any other vermin. If they were out breeding huge rats and setting them loose, chasing them through the woods with dogs until caught, most of you wouldn’t be sitting here. Thin-skinned Disney addicts seem to think that all animals have some kind of anthropomorphic human rights.

You’re both right, you’re both wrong, and it no longer matters; the days when pro-hunters outnumbered the thin-skinned city-slickers ended long ago, for better and/or for worse.

Rather than complaining about the thin skin of the city folk, ask instead why the whole of the countryside is dying out, in population and power, and find an answer to reverse it. A hint to the solution, which unfortunately could not be included at the time of print, is this: it isn’t by doing what you’re doing right now.
Comment by Gregory Block — 28 Dec 2004 on 2:45 pm | Link
"""!!!YPFHS; "And what you call killing for pleasure, you obviously don’t understand the thrill of riding and socialising with all sorts of interesting people" (who are all also hell bent on killing, even to the extent of rubbing handfuls of animals blood on the faces of younger members of the hunt – to "blood" them)

What the hell kind of justification is that when you’re talking at the same time of hunting a poor defenceless terrified animal to its death? You are obviously as sick in the head as the rest of the pro-hunting crowd, and the really really sad thing is you are so removed from normal society you don’t even realise it.

As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to stop fish from swimming – you can dam rivers, which will stop their progress; or you can kill them and eat them"""!!!- Pappalazzaru 24th dec 2004

PAPPALAZZZARU NEEDS TO CALM DOWN A BIT! RANTING AND RAVING WON’T GET YOUR POINT ACROSS, YOU NEED TO EXCEPT THAT EACH AND EVERY PERSON HAS AND IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN VIEW POINT AND YOU CAN’T FORCE YOURS APON THEM. YOU MAY THINK RIGHT NOW THAT YOUR OPININON IS THE ONLY ONE tHAT COUNTS BUT PREHAPS LOOK AT THINGS CALMLY AND NOT GET SO ANGRY, AFTER ALL YOU PROBABLY HAVE AS LITTLE UNDERSTANDING AS THE NEXT PERSON YOU ARE ABOUT TO ACCUSE OF NOT HAVING ANY. AND BREATH …………….. YOU NEED TO CHILL OUT 🙂
Comment by Victor S — 28 Dec 2004 on 5:51 pm | Link
In my opinion Fox Hunting should not be banned. If it is many hounds and horses will be killed, there will be large amounts of job losses, social networks abolished and a traditional way of life destroyed.What is the difference between foxes being killed, and thousands of horses and hounds being killed if it is banned.Do we really want this to happen?!? What is the government coming to?!?!?!
Comment by Sarah Johns — 4 Jan 2005 on 3:41 pm | Link
Horses and hounds do not have to be killed. They will only be killed because the hunting people are too bloody-minded to switch to drag hunting instead. The animals are adaptable to change but I fear that the owners are not.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 5 Jan 2005 on 9:12 pm | Link
It is a hounds instinct to hunt, i don’t see young pups being trianed to kill. Just like us humans they kill by instinct…….
Comment by Anon — 9 Jan 2005 on 9:20 pm | Link
A fox is a hound’s rival, not its prey. Fighting a fox may be instinctive but hunting it definitely isn’t.

Thankfully most of us humans have evolved beyond relying completely on instinct. After millions of years of evolution I am one of the creatures that has developed the power of rational thought. It would be such a shame to waste it.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 10 Jan 2005 on 10:25 pm | Link
How can u say HUNTING isn’t an instict???? isnt tht what we did for thousands of years since we were apes and still do now???
Comment by Anon — 12 Jan 2005 on 9:38 pm | Link
omfg you cant keep fox hunting you gits go away and suck your mum fox hunters you wankers bye bye you cunts and victor your gay
Comment by aidan — 8 Sep 2006 on 12:49 pm | Link
omfg you cant keep fox hunting you gits go away and suck your mum fox hunters you wankers bye bye you cunts and victor your gay
Comment by aidan — 8 Sep 2006 on 12:55 pm | Link
wow kirsty you have big boobs wow
Comment by kirstys buff — 8 Sep 2006 on 12:56 pm | Link
wow kirsty you have big boobs wow
Comment by kirstys buff — 8 Sep 2006 on 1:00 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Friday, September 10, 2004

Fox Hunting

44 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries