It has been a while since the hunting ban has been introduced in the UK, but do you think it has really done much good? Since the ban was introduced there has only been one actual prosecution. This could be because people have decided to obey the law and not hunt at all, or that it is very hard to enforce.
I completely agree with the ban, but from what I understand there are so many ways around the law that it is close to impossible to prosecute. You would hope that the ban has stopped law abiding hunters from hunting, but there must be many that are still hunting because they are sure they can get around the law if they are ever caught.
For example if the hunters go out with their dogs without the intention of catching an animal but the dogs catch the scent of a fox, then it is not illegal if the dogs chase and kill the fox, even if the hunters do nothing to call them off. The law seems to be too ambiguous which makes it difficult for the police to enforce.
The law is ambiguous, and while its funadmentals are correct there does need to be some changes. I think it has worked to some extent though, there are a lot less hunts now and on a smaller scale than they used to be.
This is a very interesting question, the answer to which depends upon exactly what the ban was supposed to achieve (I'm still not sure). If it was to protect foxes then I would guess that the answer is no (not that there will ever be an official analysis of the ban's impact, as I think that the results would be unpalatable to those who supported the ban on animal welfare grounds). Apart from those hunts that flaunt the ban, it is still legal to shoot (with a high degree of wounding), gas and snare foxes, and even hunt with birds of prey. It would also be interesting to know whether these alternative methods are also carried out during the breeding season, as there is no reason for farmers to tolerate foxes on their land.
It would be interesting to know whether more foxes are killed now than before the ban. Again, I would be surprised if this question is ever investigated.
Unfortunately, bans on hunting almost always have the opposite effect of what the ban is intended to achieve (in this case, the cruelty of killing foxes by being torn apart by dogs).
In my home state of Washington, the hunting of cougars with hounds was banned. Unfortunately, although cougars are still hunted, the most effective way to hunt them is with a dog. So, there has been an explosion in the number of cougars, with a subsequent increase in the number of cougar sightings. The State of Washington was forced to re-visit the law, and now pays professional hunters to go out with hounds to kill the cougars. So what was accomplished?
Kingfisher
The biggest problem with the hunting ban was that it ignored all investigation findings in coming to its conclusion. A government- sponsored report concluded that, if foxes needed to be controlled then hunting with dogs was the most efficient way of achieving it. The separate cross-party committee also recommended that hunting should continue under licence where there was a proven need (the view that I support, just in case anyone wondered where I stood on this issue). Is it any wonder that the legislation contains more holes that my old man's string vest.
If the government felt that there was no need to control foxes then it should have made it a protected species. The fact that it didn't do this seems to indicate that they wanted to placate the powerful animal rights lobby without actually impacting the ability to kill foxes. The fact that many foxes die a prolonged death (especially in the cases of snaring or a shooting injury) seems to have passed the animal rights lobby by. And I have absolutely no idea what happens to a fox that has been attacked by a hawk.
Another intersting article I read was that urban foxes have become such a nuisance that they are being captured and released into the countryside where, lacking the ability to hunt, they pressumably starve to death.
Meanwhile, if people really wanted to see cruelty to animals they should spend a day with the RSPCA seeing how people treat their own pets - a scandal that makes the plight of a few foxes pale into insignificance.
TimberWolf, I cannot agree with you more.
You have hit every point I made. To expand, the state of California has an absolute ban on the hunting of cougars. Unfortunately, encroachment of housing onto the cougar's territory means only one thing--cougar/human interactions. The cougars are ALWAYS the losers when humans are involved. The state of California sends out hunters under license to destroy the 'trouble' animals. What has been accomplished? Only the self-serving piety of people who feel 'sorry' for the cougars, until their own children are 'threatened'.
The same thing with foxes--we don't want to see hunting of foxes with hounds, but we don't care if they starve to death where we can't see them.
Kingfisher
I agree with both your posts, there does seem to be double standards set with these sort of laws. Killing foxes in one way is breaking the law, while in another way is absolutely fine. Like I said I agree in principle with the ban, but it seems to have been put in place for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to kill a fox.
In my opinion a fox being killed by an another animal such as a dog is better than being caught in a trap or shot where it could have a slow and painful death. The law needs to be changed to stop suffering and painful deaths not just to stop hunting by dog.
i went to a hunting sabotage once! very very funny, we made a fake scent and everything and got the hunters angry
Hunting continues, albeit somewhat reduced - I attended a fine meet on Boxing day this year. The suffering of foxes has increased as more die slow deaths from wounding or in snares, and countryside stewardship by hunting landowners has decreased. A perfect example of government activity having exactly the opposite effect to that intended.
A government- sponsored report concluded that, if foxes needed to be controlled then hunting with dogs was the most efficient way of achieving it.
Whenever interviewed about hunting foxes with dogs, it is frequently stated that this is the most efficient way, yet when questioned about the cruelty of a fox being torn apart by the dogs, the same people will tell you that they rarely catch a fox anyway!!!!
There is no need whatsoever to limit the numbers of any predator in the UK. ALL hunting is merely a throwback to an age when cruelty was an accepted way of life. Those who insist on hunting are living in a past age.
There is no need whatsoever to limit the numbers of any predator in the UK. ALL hunting is merely a throwback to an age when cruelty was an accepted way of life. Those who insist on hunting are living in a past age.
Obviously, opinions on the subject are greatly divided. However, I know quite a few farmers and conservationists who would disagree.
Also, I would say that the hunting of wild meat is a far better practice than supermarket-driven factory farming practices where animals live their entire lives in appalling conditions.
There is no need whatsoever to limit the numbers of any predator in the UK. ALL hunting is merely a throwback to an age when cruelty was an accepted way of life. Those who insist on hunting are living in a past age.
Obviously, opinions on the subject are greatly divided. However, I know quite a few farmers and conservationists who would disagree.
Also, I would say that the hunting of wild meat is a far better practice than supermarket-driven factory farming practices where animals live their entire lives in appalling conditions.
Hunting for meat is a different matter all together. I have no argument about culling deer for instance, as long it's done in the most humane way, which is NOT with dogs. I have shot, gutted, skinned, cooked and eaten rabbits often in the past. I was talking about the unspeakable chasing the uneatable. What farmers believe is irrelevant.
Hunting for meat is a different matter all together. I have no argument about culling deer for instance, as long it's done in the most humane way, which is NOT with dogs... I was talking about the unspeakable chasing the uneatable...
I don't know of anyone who would eat a fox--so why kill one? Foxes are succeeding in niches in towns--hardly a spot where foxes would be hunted with horse and hound anyway.
jim thornton suggests that hunting landowners are no longer practising good stewardship of the land. Why? Because they can no longer hunt foxes with hounds? There's still other animals which can be hunted, and as andrew b 1 said, hounds can still be hunted to scents instead of the actual animal.
Kingfisher
There are signs springing up all down the country lanes near us calling for people to support a campaign to revert the law. They call the law unjust. I do think the law has its problems, butI think in principle it is right and not unjust.