I know we've been here before - but it looks like foxhunting has finally got the boot.

Why am I posting? Today's 'Times' has it as front page news. The gist of the item is : in six months foxhunting will be a CRIME!!!! (boo) - something that all classes (YEAH RIGHT) have enjoyed for hundreds of years is being CRIMINALISED by this govt!!!

Well - hang on a mo. If a mob chased a cat through the streets then tore it apart for sport that would rightly be a criminal offence - hmm? So by the same token doing the same to a fox should also be an offence. Yes?

Or is there a difference?

I don't go sending dogs out to shred foxes to bits.

But I do have two cats who have been out and shredded birds/mice/insects to bits in their time.

Am I thus a very bad person?

Also, given that Labour MPs have been enticed to vote for war in iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals etc. in return for the present ban-hunting bill, can we now reasonably conclude that foxes are waaaaaay more important than iraqis, patients and students?

I think the courts will have the last say.

I don't go sending dogs out to shred foxes to bits.

But I do have two cats who have been out and shredded birds/mice/insects to bits in their time.

Am I thus a very bad person?

Also, given that Labour MPs have been enticed to vote for war in iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals etc. in return for the present ban-hunting bill, can we now reasonably conclude that foxes are waaaaaay more important than iraqis, patients and students?

May I respond?

I think that re your first point, there is a difference between one animal killing another, and a human killing or organising the killing of another human, or animal. In the first case, your cat killing a mouse, the cat is behaving instinctively and can't choose not to behave the way it does (eg on ethical grounds). Unlike humans who can. And I see a difference between Lucy-watching-pussy-dissect-a-mouse and Lucy-on-a-horse-chasing-a-fox.

On the second point, I'd say that just because there are other more important things going on in the world it doesn't mean you have to overlook the lesser things.

I am glad this has been brought up as a debate, I think everyone knows my views on this. I think what I will find interesting is the actions of both sides from February onwards.

I honestly did not think it would come to this - so quickly, I suppose with Labour this would have been inevitable. But IMO there are far more emotive issues this government could have tackled rather than hunting.

I could weep for livelihoods that will be wiped out come February, I could weep anyway - this countryside struggles as it is - but when an enourmous chunk of the rural economy is now outlawed, because of the ban - then it is just tragic.

I was always sort of ambivelant about hunting, I was happy for it to take place, because my support was for the jobs, the economy, the way of life, tradition, the sensible and most cost effective way to cull vermin. I do not hunt myself, but my family have, most of my friends do, likewise most of my firends are farmers and landowners who rely on the hunt to keep a track of the foxes killing thier livelihoods, and my chickens too boot!!

The freedom of choice has been taken away from the countryside now - and yes I am angry about it.

Having said all that - I really want to see how on earth hunting is to be policed??? It is a near on impossible situation for the police. How will they know that a hunt is taking place, how are they going to distinguish who is hunting and who is out for an afternoon's hack??

What would they do if a junior hunt took place and all the children were under the age of criminal responsibility?

What effect will the landowners/farmers actions have upon the economy?? Where will all the poo go??

How much are you prepared to pay for your veg, your meat, your flour, your bread, cooking oil??

I just predict unrest and an interesting situation arising in a couple of months time.

And then there is talk of banning shooting and fishing?? Same thing really isn't it?? Killing animals for sport?

I think it all boils down to whether or not fox hunting is cruel in terms of do we think the animal suffers unnecessarily. In my opinion it is, and looked at that way, arguments such as loss of jobs, freedom of choice etc sort of become beside the point.

As far as should other sports be outlawed, I think it is a case of where do you draw the line, I don't know what the answer is but I think fishing and shooting game are just about OK, seeing that the animal is despatched quickly and is eaten afterwards.

However I don't like any kind of hunting that is done just for sport, even if culling is given as a reason. When we stayed in Vermont the locals went bear hunting and I thought that was awful. They said it had to be done to cull the bears but really they were doing it for fun.

I've got mixed feelings about hunting.

I tend to like traditional activities to remain untouched, and there is something unique and spectacular about seeing a hunt gathering. However, on principle I agree with SF. I haven't seen the end results of a fox hunt. I haven't seen what happens when the dogs catch up with the fox. I'm sure it is over fairly quickly, but I would like to ask Flip whether she's been an observer of this and what her impressions are if she has.

The fact remains that fox hunting is the culling of vermin for sport, which I take objection to. BTW - if the ban is on hunting with dogs, does that include drag hunting?

I'm sure people had the same debate over badger baiting, but that's been outlawed because it is cruel and unnecessary and I don't think anyone would support it now. I think ten years down the line, the vast majority of people will look at fox hunting in the same way.

I'm also glad it's happened at last. The same arguments about jobs etc were trotted out prior to the banning of hand guns too, but the gunsmiths found other occupations and I'm sure the keeper of the hounds/master of the hunt will too.


most of my firends are farmers and landowners who rely on the hunt to keep a track of the foxes killing thier livelihoods, and my chickens too boot!!
With respect Flippy, Mr F had to shoot a fox on your land last week, and fox hunting is currently legal, which just goes to show how useful hunting actually is as a form of pest control.

Our local police have vowed to enforce the ban, they say that it will be easy enough to do. Let's face it, a hunt complete with a pack of hounds is not hard to spot.

im a very much live and let live person, i like people for who they are not what they are, but this hunting ban appears to me to be something that the "right on, politically correct" labour party are banning because they think it will win votes from the "working classes" - which is the majority of the country nowadays, the likes of me and you..............foxhunting has its roots in the "upper classes", therefore, it is my opinion that the people who take part will not be labour voters, therefore the labour party will not loose too many votes from passing the rule......but it could be the cybicak old witch in me that make me think like that!

its a darn shame that the muppets that run the country dont put as much time and effort into listening to the important things that people want like making things better for the NHS, Education, Crime reduction, affordable housing etc etc

i think foxhunting is barbaric, just like bull fighting in Spain, although i DO understand that foxes are vermin, there must be a more humane way of pest control.........

by the labour party banning hunting with dogs, will i vote for them - i dont bluddy well think so!

Realistically, the only way forward is for me to be Prime Minister :shock: :D

I have a friend who is asheep farmer and she is anti hunt, I have another with a small holding who does not hunt but feels its ok BUT what they both object to is the hunt coming by there land or through the sheep farmers yard (public bridleway) creating havoc. Neither are rich and I know neither make more than 3-5K a year. Both are commited to raising livestock that are reared naturally and in a non intensive way. They are not registered organic as the soil association fees are too high. For both of them the country side alliance is not about hunting its about selling the food on for a fair price.
Hunting involves a lot of people and like the many unemployed from the industries that have closed those employed will have to adapt.
I would not have voted, though I do wonder if it would be illegal to just let the dogs loose in a massive doggy ramble and let them do what comes naturally.....
Vote for Queenie

I do have two cats who have been out and shredded birds/mice/insects to bits in their time.

Am I thus a very bad person?
Yes. You shoulda put a bell on the cats.

Also, given that Labour MPs have been enticed to vote for war in iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals etc. in return for the present ban-hunting bill, can we now reasonably conclude that foxes are waaaaaay more important than iraqis, patients and students?
One might ask the same question of all the Tory MPs and Peers who voted against the ban, thus prolonging the inevitable. One might ask the same question of those thousands who marched in London in defence of the "right" to tear foxes to shreds but appear not to be so bothered about the thousands of people dying in Darfur.

Just a couple of points that spring to mind - it seems to me that there are actually two areas that concern anti-hunt supporters. One is the way in which the fox is killed and the calibre of the hunstmen [ie Toffs or Nots].

I wholeheartedly respect anyone who supports the anti-hunt campaign if it is from a genuine Animal Welfare POV, I do, however have a huge problem with people who support the AHC on the mistaken basis that all people who hunt are toffs!! And secondly even if the second point even enters the arguement then as far as I am concerned any arguement made to a pro-hunter is invalid and pathetic.

Nox to answer your question, no I have not personally seen a fox killed by the hounds, but I have just rung up a couple of people to ask exactly what happens. And from what I gather their experiences range from an instant kill, to a kill that may last about 2 minutes. And just to cover a point not raised yet, the huntsmen/women/children do not all stand around and watch [and/or enjoy] the kill. It is quite often only one or two riders who may actually witness it.

And Voicey - yes you are right, Mr F did shoot a fox on our land last week or the week before. So you are right in saying the hunt did not do its job in culling the local fox population. But last Saturday was the first time the Hunt have been over our way this season. Our particular hunt generally meet weekly but the area they cover is vast.

And just to cover a point not raised yet, the huntsmen/women/children do not all stand around and watch [and/or enjoy] the kill. It is quite often only one or two riders who may actually witness it.So what about the tradition of 'Blooding' (smearing the forehead with the blood of the kill) that young huntsmen/women take part in? I remember Prince William (or was it Harry?) appearing on the front of one of the newspapers covered in blood following his first hunt. It really does place the emphasis on the thrill being in the kill, rather than in the chase or for purposes of pest control.

Flippy, I'm not asking you to defend this practice btw, it's a rhetorical question really.

So what about the tradition of 'Blooding' (smearing the forehead with the blood of the kill) that young huntsmen/women take part in? I remember Prince William (or was it Harry?) appearing on the front of one of the newspapers covered in blood following his first hunt. It really does place the emphasis on the thrill being in the kill, rather than in the chase or for purposes of pest control.

Flippy, I'm not asking you to defend this practice btw, it's a rhetorical question really.
Not sure about this V or the origin, I have to say sounds a little over the top. Just hazarding a guess here, but maybe it was to introduce the young person to the realms of adulthood in the hunt?? Bit like tribal traditions I suppose - or that even weirder one I have once witnessed smearing chocolate on a new baby and then licking it off????

But back to my comment - I have no doubt that blooding does occur, although I would suspect less now than years ago. But because of the geography of the land, it would be near on impossible for the horses to traverse the land the hounds do. Eg if the hounds caught a fox beside us - the huntsmen would have to hang around in the field or the road, as the woods are just not accessible to the horses, just the hounds. And the foxes are not going to hang around in the open fields waiting fo the hounds, no they will find cover, deep, dense woodland being a fave.

Flip - in reply to your last but one post, your second point - 'toffs' - I think that it is impossible to get it out of the collective psyche that fox hunting is carried out by 'toffs' (probably because it still is to a large part, and the image of a dressed up toff literally on his high horse is a powerful one) and also has something to do with the old system of the priviliged classes being above the law, which is something we as a nation seem to want to get rid of now.

Also - re the quickness or otherwise of the kill - you haven't taken into account the hunting down prior to the kill, do you have any idea of how long that goes on for?

Flip - in reply to your last but one post, your second point - 'toffs' - I think that it is impossible to get it out of the collective psyche that fox hunting is carried out by 'toffs' (probably because it still is to a large part, and the image of a dressed up toff literally on his high horse is a powerful one) and also has something to do with the old system of the priviliged classes being above the law, which is something we as a nation seem to want to get rid of now.

Also - re the quickness or otherwise of the kill - you haven't taken into account the hunting down prior to the kill, do you have any idea of how long that goes on for?
I want to comment on the first bit - but I have got to go out in a mo - so will come back to it. But as far as the second question is concerned, no it is a bit like how long is a piece of string. Hunts often go out and come back hours later without a sniff of a fox.

Sometimes they go out and one is found straight away, the chase can last 2 mins or 20 mins or 2 hours - it depends on the wilyness of the fox, the calibre of the hounds and the terrain. And even if there is a chase - then there is no guarentee that the fox is actually caught. There maybe more than one fox caught on the same day, maybe more than 2?? There are so many varying factors it is an impossible question really.

I dont actually know anything about hunting ... but if hunting is used to cull foxes, how can it work ?

I always assumed that hunts took place maybe once a month (complete guess here) .... and if they kill one fox thats hardly a cull is it ? They would need to kill about 50 (again another guess) in one weekend to cull them surely ?

Do you get my drift ? So because of the above, in my mind it is all about the 'thrill of the chase' and the sport, rather than culling.

Do you get my drift ? So because of the above, in my mind it is all about the 'thrill of the chase' and the sport, rather than culling.

That's how it has always seemed to me too. And I don't understand how it can be considered a cost effective way of eliminating vermin. I mean, you rack up the cost of a hunt, and all that for one fox - why not just get a gun and shoot it if you must kill it?

....but this hunting ban appears to me to be something that the "right on, politically correct" labour party are banning because they think it will win votes from the "working classes" - which is the majority of the country nowadays, the likes of me and you..............

This is exactly how I feel about it Queeenie!

I've tended to avoid the debates on foxhunting in the past because I don't really know how I feel about it. Foxhunting is a very emotive and sensational subject, and I have heard all the arguments both for and against the sport but the fact is, I am a Townie and have never been part of a truly rural community. So, whilst I can empathise with the views of the "anti" camp (mostly Townie's) the fact that I have no experience of foxhunting or rural life does not put me in a good position to challenge the problems that a rural community would face if the sport were banned.

But, the things that bug me most about this ban are the reasons why I think it has occured (as in Queeenie's post above) and the way it has occured.

This Bill has been passed back by the House of Lords several times as they have been unable to agree with it. It doesn't really matter what their reasons are for declining it, for the Labour Party to pass the law in spite of the House of Lords is a gross undermining of our democracy, IMO, no matter how popular it might prove to be with voters.

The House of Lords is there for a reason! They may not be an elected body, but their purpose is to ensure that laws passed by Parliament are sound and reasonable and they basically protect this country from becoming a dictatorship. For the Labour Party to disregard their opinion on this matter purely because it serves them well to do so is awful.

They have used the Parliament Act, which empowers the Government to pass a new law without the approval of the House of Lords, purely to create a vote winner. This act is supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances. And i'm sorry, but no matter how you feel about foxhunting, I don't think that the opportunity to ban it now could be regarded as a exceptional circumstance.

I think its disgusting!

This is exactly how I feel about it Queeenie!

But, the things that bug me most about this ban are the reasons why I think it has occured (as in Queeenie's post above) and the way it has occured.

This Bill has been passed back by the House of Lords several times as they have been unable to agree with it. It doesn't really matter what their reasons are for declining it, for the Labour Party to pass the law in spite of the House of Lords is a gross undermining of our democracy, IMO, no matter how popular it might prove to be with voters.

The House of Lords is there for a reason! They may not be an elected body, but their purpose is to ensure that laws passed by Parliament are sound and reasonable and they basically protect this country from becoming a dictatorship. For the Labour Party to disregard their opinion on this matter purely because it serves them well to do so is awful.


And doesnt it make your blood boil when you think of the thousands of men and women that died during WW2 to PROTECT us from being ruled as a Dictatorship by Hitler??????
And wasnt it a Dictator that was toppled from Iraq with the backing of said Government?????
Talk about double standards and hypocricy!!!!
Too much blummin tosstestorone about if you ask me!

Ohhhhh im going to have to go and get a smoke.......im getting all het up now :ranting:

It doesn't really matter what their reasons are for declining it, for the Labour Party to pass the law in spite of the House of Lords is a gross undermining of our democracy
On the contrary it's the Lords who undermine our democracy. The Labour Party, like them or not, were elected by the voters. The Lords were elected by nobody, and to be honest it'd be hard to imagine a group of people less representative of the general population. The sooner they vanish the better IMO.

I mean, the Government introduces a terrorism act which allows the police to bang people up in Belmarsh without trial on suspicion of being muslim, and the Lords waves it through. But when it comes to people's ancient rights to be cruel to animals suddenly the Lords is the defender of our freedom??? WTF is up with that???

I also have to agree with Mick here. The sooner the Lords are abolished the better off we will all be. Of course the Lords are going to agree with the 'tally ho' of this issue and to say otherwise is truly denying a fact.

What DOES protect our democracy are the fact that the Labour Party alone does not rule the commons. That is why we have opposition parties.

I agree with Tigger & Mikado here, why on earth do we need a roomful of pompous old gits who really have not got a clue about the real world?

It was maybe ok back in historical times but they do not have a place in today's society! There should be a public vote on this measure methinks!

Gosh someone please edit my bad grammar in that last post. Having read it again I am so embarrassed. :blush: It will teach me to read through my posts before actually posting them. :laugh:

Wasn't the Government going to do something about the Lords? I remember hearing something about it a year or so back.

Well, whether or not you agree with the House of Lords is irelevant to the point I was making really. I don't agree with them either, and would much prefer that the members of the House were a fully elected body. And of course, the reason why they are unable to pass through a bill which bans foxhunting is because most of them probably partake of the sport.

I do not disagree with that, but again, it is not the point I was making.

My point was that - like them or not - the House of Lords are there to ensure some level of "checking" for the Government at they are all we have! No bill can be passed as law without their approval, except in exceptional circumstances, when the Parliament Act can be invoked to overrule.

Fair enough! But the Parliament Act should not have been used in this issue. I'm sorry, but no matter how passionate you feel about the subject, foxhunting is not a matter of National Security, it does not affect State Welfare and does not affect the Human Rights of the people of this land.

Whether you agree with foxhunting or not (and I'm not certain where I stand) I deplore the motives for this law (vote winner, rather than genuine concern for fluffy foxes) and the way it has been passed. I am not speaking in favour of the House of Lords, but I am saying that while they are there, the role the play should not be undermined in this way and for these reasons.

But the Parliament Act should not have been used in this issue. I'm sorry, but no matter how passionate you feel about the subject, foxhunting is not a matter of National Security, it does not affect State Welfare and does not affect the Human Rights of the people of this land.


Does a matter have to fit into one of those three categories for the act to be invoked - or can it be anything rejected by the Lords that reflects the concensus view of the people?

Does a matter have to fit into one of those three categories for the act to be invoked - or can it be anything rejected by the Lords that reflects the concensus view of the people?

I'm not an expert on this SF, but I don't think a matter actually has to fit into any specific category at all for the Parliament Act to be invoked. But I do know that it very rarely gets invoked, and the few times that this has happend it has tended to be used for matters of greater national significance than foxhunting. E.g. the Parliament Act was invoked to pass the War Crimes Act and to pass the Bill which lowered the age of consent for gay men.

I'm not suggesting here that the Government have done anything illegal - they haven't. But what I am saying is that have done something quite unethical - they have invoked a rarely used Parliament Act on an issue of negligent national importance purely to pass a law that they see as being a vote winner.

Personally, I think that is a bit scarey. When will they use it to their advantage next?

I'm debating (with myself) wether to bid for a rather attractive oil painting of a hunt scene on ebay. The seller seems to think that seeing the ban has come in there won't be much more of these done....

It's a lovely picture and I know just the spot it would go.....

I'm debating (with myself) wether to bid for a rather attractive oil painting of a hunt scene on ebay. The seller seems to think that seeing the ban has come in there won't be much more of these done....

It's a lovely picture and I know just the spot it would go.....
Go Cat Co!!:)

But if this morning's poll on the BBC is anything to go by - we will continue to see hunts for a long time to come.

The BBC reported on the news this morning that in a recent survey 70% of the GBP do not wish the police to 'police' the hunt ban!! NOw I wonder why that is?? Considering our 'elected' voices of the people [aka MP's] have taken the vote for us and banned hunting!!??

I just don't understand - this makes me think as a few people have mentioned above that this ban was supposed to be an election winner. If this survey is to be beleived then I wonder if the Labour party have got it all wrong - once again??:glare:

The BBC reported on the news this morning that in a recent survey 70% of the GBP do not wish the police to 'police' the hunt ban!! NOw I wonder why that is??

Maybe they don't want their council tax money to be spent this way.

Maybe they don't want their council tax money to be spent this way.

Or maybe they don't care much either way and wonder why the Labour Party have gone to so much trouble to outlaw something of such minor national significance, when there are bigger, more pressing issues worthy of attention.

Or maybe they don't care much either way and wonder why the Labour Party have gone to so much trouble to outlaw something of such minor national significance, when there are bigger, more pressing issues worthy of attention.

I think something like two out of three of the British public are in favour of a ban on foxhunting.

I think something like two out of three of the British public are in favour of a ban on foxhunting.

Yes, but not so much in favour that they want the police to actively monitor the ban, it would seem.

And I can't help wondering whether that 2:3 ratio would change if, for example, the Labour Party had promised to ban foxhunting provided the public would accept an increase in tax to cover the extra cost of policing the ban.

Its all academic, but its my feeling that the ratio may have gone down somewhat if that had been the proposal.

I think something like two out of three of the British public are in favour of a ban on foxhunting.
Well Karen has succinctly put it - although she and I are batting for different teams - why then, do 70% wish that the police would not police hunts??

As Karen so rightly puts this - is that there are far more pressing issues that affect more people in this country than a ban on hunting.

Lets put it this way, and this question is for eveyone, who would be affected by a ban on hunting?? If you answer yes can you give reasons please - just for debates sake!!

I think the arguement that there will always be more pressing issues is an interesting one. For the very reason that it could and always will be used by the pro hunt supporters and others. And yes I can see that there are more pressing issues, but does mean that this will always be put on the back burner due to the 'more pressing issues' and if so is that right? Should things that as less important and not of major national significance always be overlooked.

I think fox hunting should be banned and if my council tax is to rise to police it so be it. I think it is cruel and unnecessary and if farmers need the foxes culled to save their stock then it should be in a more humane way.

Well Karen has succinctly put it - although she and I are batting for different teams - why then, do 70% wish that the police would not police hunts??

I didn't see this survey - did they give any reasons?

I suppose too it depends on who commissioned it and how the questions were phrased.

Mrs SF and I were in a nice little pub in West Sussex yesterday lunchtime, but what put me off was the walls were covered with pro-hunting posters (well, propoganda really). I think what put me off was the implication that all who drank within those four walls were 'part of it'.

I had the distinct impression that if you live in a rural area where everyone is part of the pro-lobby (and the 'Countryside Alliance' whatever that really is) then you would really be cast out if you thought otherwise. You just wouldn't fit in. So I think this is to do with membership of a collective party as much as it is to do with killing foxes.

sf - I think you are being a little bit too paranoid there. Those thoughts were your thoughts - not those around you.

Of course, living in the countryside there are likely to be more pro-hunts than anti-hunts. But it is not an exclusive club, there are plenty country folk who are anti and likewise there are plenty of people who live in towns, cities who are pro-hunt.

There are posters up everywhere and one that caught my attention was of 'Bob' [for arguments sake, can't remember his name], Bob is a plumber from town, he is 57 and he is a pro-hunt supporter - the poster is highlighting the fact that it is not just country people who support the hunt.

But if there were posters in the pub you were in - then the assumption I would put on that would be that the owner or landlord/lady were pro-hunt supporters and that a large proportion of their punters were likewise.

My sister is v.pro-hunt - and has her own pub, she, however, would not put up posters, it is her opinion and she is not one to shove her opinion down other peoples throats, and conversely she doesn't want other people to shove their opinion down her throat. So from a sound business pov and a moral issue - she wouldn't do it. Sadly you do get people [like the owner of the pub you were in] who is not quite so tactful or so considerate.

sf - I think you are being a little bit too paranoid there. Those thoughts were your thoughts - not those around you.

No, I don't think it was paranoia. There was a fair bit of hunting talk going on among the locals. It definitely felt like a club.

Mrs SF and I were in a nice little pub in West Sussex yesterday lunchtime...

Blimey, who let you in?

A thread from 2004???

You must be really bored!

It's Dol's fault Rob. Her and her 'get the road back on the show' thread :thumbsup:

Blimey, who let you in?

THis bloke
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/FoxHunter-web.jpg

Brighton beach is actually in East Sussex. :sleep:

It's Dol's fault Rob. Her and her 'get the road back on the show' thread :thumbsup:

I've read it now - and I understand!!

THis bloke
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/FoxHunter-web.jpg


good grief - is that Paris Hilton's chiwower (sp!). surely the little dawg has suffered enough being stuffed in her handbag as an accessories along with old lipstick and even older tampons to end up being paraded like some macabre doggie handbag!

THis bloke
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/FoxHunter-web.jpg

Before anyone suggests it

:unsure: THIS IS NOT ME :unsure:

I never thought it was, Slipper.You always seem more like a Shih Tzu to me. (Who's the guy in the shorts though?):unsure:

Before anyone suggests it

:unsure: THIS IS NOT ME :unsure:

golly - what's it about "he doth protest too much" or summat!

what on earth made you think we would think it was you Slipper? unless .... :mellow: