h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yep it's as simple as it sounds, stop using dogs...

The "hunt" is the "sport" or "it's about the event of a hunt" as I've herd people claim. So be it, keep the event, revert to using people to start the hunt, since people tend not to rip a fox apart in packs of 30. Stick to all the rest of the hunt.

People go fishing, not just to catch fish, but to sit for hours in the hope of catching a fish, the time spent doing 'nothing' is as important as the time and effort in set-up. So why does a 'hunt' have to result in a dead fox? It's a social event as much as pest control.

As for "lamping" well, why not, if it is more difficult, then there is more "sport" to it, the thing some that hunt make claim.

You can't hunt animals without hounds. You can stalk them. But not hunt them.

It is very simple. You have the horses for speed and the dogs for direction. I think there were at odd times and in odd places people who hunted on foot, (though that would not have been foxes with foxhounds, and I might be making it up).

Stalking is not hunting. Stalking is a small group of people, a large mountain, rifles, a fog-bank and some deer.

The nearest thing to hunting without hounds would be steeple-chasing.

Jab - I am curious. Is it ok to slaughter 10,000 foxhounds?

B

Do you know what lamping is?

B

"I think there were at odd times and in odd places people who hunted on foot"

The odd times are right now, and the odd places are the Lake District. A foxhunt in the Lake District is an impressive sight - horses can't handle the terrain, so the hunters go on foot. I invite readers to imagine the level of toughness and fitness this requires, RUNNING up mountains in pursuit of foxhounds. Not for the fainthearted or loose-kneed.

Now, in answer to post 1:

"10,000 foxhounds to be slaughtered to save a few hundred foxes a year..."

The decision to slaughter or not to slaughter the foxhounds is down to the owners. I suggest you take it up with them. If they're so heartless as to slaughter these animals because they're no longer useful, isn't that THEIR cruelty, rather than the government's?

"The democratically mandated promise of government, but 69% say 'keep hunting'..."

Even the pro-hunt posters and banners I've seen put the number at 59%, and hardly ever attribute the figure. I'd be FASCINATED to see the questions leading up to the "should we keep hunting?" question on that survey. My guess?

1. Should the countryside be preserved?
2. Do you agree that the people who live and work in the country are those best placed to know how best to preserve it?
3. Do you agree pests should be controlled?
4. Do you agree that every effort should be made to safeguard jobs in low-income rural areas?
5. Should the traditional country practice of pest control, which preserves the rural environment, which keeps 16,000 people in jobs, be allowed to continue?

"House of Commons broken into for the first time in 350 years. By Bryan Ferry's son, for goodness' sake!"

Merely proving this is about nobs versus townie scum.

"Would you break the law for the right to do something you believe in?"

It depends. There are, actually, very few things I "believe in" to that extent. I don't believe in many of our so-called "rights" for instance. I believe they are a confection of civilisation, a veneer over our natural tendencies. And so few people are prepared to accept the concomitant responsibilities that they are made a mockery in many cases anyway.

I don't believe I have a "right" to speed in my car. I don't believe I have a "right" to smoke cannabis, or to grow it for that matter. I DO believe I have a right to campaign, peacefully and democratically, to have the law changed to allow me to do so if I wish. I believe I have the right to defend myself, and by extension my home (when I'm in it) from intruders using whatever means are available to me...

So yes, it seems I'd break the law. In heartbeat, and without a thought for the consequences, to protect my life. "Reasonable force" is a concept in British law for which I have no use.

"Have you ever taken drugs, for example?"

I have, but not because I believed I had the right to. I did so out of juvenile rebellion and curiosity. Nothing so high minded as "rights".

Ultimately this is an issue of class and democracy. And what it comes down to is - the working classes want the nobs' hobby banned. And there are more of us than there are of you - so tough. It's taken over seven years, but it's finally going to happen.

If it was really about animal welfare, we wouldn't be looking at an 18 month delay before bringing it in, and we'd also be banning the most popular working class pastime - coarse fishing. That, I predict, will never happen.

H.

>> If they're so heartless as to slaughter these animals because they're no longer useful, isn't that THEIR cruelty, rather than the government's?


It isn't a matter of heartlessness. It costs a lot to run and maintain a pack of foxhounds, that is one of the the things hunt subscriptions pay for. The hounds are fit, healthy, athletic, need substantial amounts of long distance exercise on a regular basis, and have not been socialised to live in domestic environments.

If hunting is banned, there will be no subscriptions coming in to finance the kennels.

You can't rehome foxhounds.

What else can you do, other than slaughter them?


>> 59%

Typo. Good catch.


>>

1. Should the countryside be preserved?
2. Do you agree that the people who live and work in the country are those best placed to know how best to preserve it?
3. Do you agree pests should be controlled?
4. Do you agree that every effort should be made to safeguard jobs in low-income rural areas?
5. Should the traditional country practice of pest control, which preserves the rural environment, which keeps 16,000 people in jobs, be allowed to continue?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I don't think it is worth trashing all those things so that a couple of hundred foxes a year are gassed instead of having their necks broken.

Do you?



You are right. It is about class. To be honest I don't give a flying f**k about class, as well you know Hoo. I also can't ride, and have therefore never hunted.

The reason I get het up is because the effect of it is to further trash an already trashed rural economy. Oh, and dishonesty and disenfranchisement.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens. My prediction is that it will be nasty for a while - rather like the cottages in wales thing was in the 1970s and 80s - then after ten years or so it will die down.

*sigh*

B

'Townies' may *perceive* hunting as a class issue, but it isn't really. I know butchers and bakers who hunt. Sadly I don't know any candlestick makers who do.

"Oh, and Hoo darling, the son of an - ah - rock star would be just the littlest bit Neuveau, don't you think? Of course Lucy Ferry is lovely, and the greatest fun. But they are rock stars. Fabulously wealthy, lucky beggers. But not quite our class."

The English class system is bizzare as buggery, isn't it?

B

Simupost Ben.

I've been trying to think whether or not I know any candlestick makers, and whether or not I could persuade them to go hunting and then whether or not I could persuade them to meet you.

Unfortunately candlemaking seems to have gone down the pan, like dairy farming and cattle-breeding. Rapidly to be followed by huntsmen, kennelmen, farriers, livestock merchants, and all the rest of them.

Did I tell you that my friend C, who used to do the books for a number of rural businesses, is still suffering the economic after-effects of foot and mouth?

B

Bruce made an interesting comment whilst watching the news last night. He noted that Labout MPs seemed so surprised that people are prepared to get violent over the issue of hunting, and that they seem to forget that people's livlihoods are at stake. They weren't surprised by the action of the NUM in the 1980s, were they? In fact, they seemed at times to be actively encouraging them...

Yeah, it is the double standards and sloppy thinking that *really* stick in my throat.

B

Kerr, I know an electician who hunts. Will that do?

Perfect Updated version of a candlemaker.

"If hunting is banned, there will be no subscriptions coming in to finance the kennels.

You can't rehome foxhounds.

What else can you do, other than slaughter them?"

Nothing. The question is - why should I care? We're talking about a population of what are essentialy farm animals which are going to be humanely killed. I eat meat. I wear leather (or I would if I could f**king find my leather jacket. Did I leave it in that pub in Bridgnorth do you think?). I simply do not see the problem with humanely killing large numbers of working animals. It happens every single day.

"[5 questions]

Couldn't have put it better myself. "

I could. How about:

1. Do you agree that deriving entertainment from the suffering and killing of animals is wrong?
2. Do you agree that democracy and social equality is a more desirable state of affairs than feudal society with authority deriving purely from family position?
3. Do you agree that in a democracy, *everyone* has to live with laws that they do not personally agree with, for the greater good?
4. Do you agree that if a party promises in an election manifesto to enact a law, that it is the responsibility of that party to do so if wins the election?
5. Foxhunting is a feudal tradition of using animal suffering for entertainment, the banning of which would upset a tiny minority of the population, but which the Labour party explicitly promised to put before the house in not one, but TWO manifestos on which it won consecutive landslide victories. Do you agree that it should be banned?

It's all about how you lead up to the question.

"I don't think it is worth trashing all those things so that a couple of hundred foxes a year are gassed instead of having their necks broken."

Personally, I don't see the intrinsic value in those things. Precisely the same argument could be made to save cock-fighting, bear-baiting or dog-fighting. The funny thing is, those were all working class bloodsports, so the "tradition" argument for some reason did not apply.

Frankly, I think it IS worth trashing those things so that we can more honestly claim to be a 21st century civilised country. Foxhunting is a throwback to a forelock tugging feudal past and has no place in modern Britain, any more than other "traditional" country practices which are or should be illegal, such as s**gging sheep or morris dancing.

"The reason I get het up is because the effect of it is to further trash an already trashed rural economy."

But when the effect of government policy is to trash an already trashed URBAN economy - e.g. Liverpool in the 80s - the House of Lords waves it through. Why is the rural economy so deserving of special treatment? The cities adapt or die. I say let the countryside do the same.

"Oh, and dishonesty and disenfranchisement."

I dispute the first and absolutely REJECT the second.

Who is being dishonest? Possibly disingenuous, in not admitting the obvious - that it's not about animal welfare, it's about class war. Fair enough.

But do not, please, give me any of your bollocks about disenfranchisement. The Labour party have VERY specifically framed this legislation so as to make sure any ban happens AFTER the next general election. This is very specifically giving those who oppose a ban the opportunity to register their protest properly - at the ballot box. This is the very opposite of what you suggest is happening.

Of course - all the pro-hunt protesters would never have voted Labour anyway. And all the pro-hunt protesters put together will be buried under a tide of Labour voters who outnumber them probably 5 to 1 or more. But that's democracy for you. Disenfranchisement? Pah!

"It is going to be interesting to see what happens."

It certainly is.

H.

"Frankly, I think it IS worth trashing those things so that we can more honestly claim to be a 21st century civilised country. Foxhunting is a throwback to a forelock tugging feudal past and has no place in modern Britain,"

As discussed, however, Hoo, it's only the antis that consider hunting a 'class issue'. Town v. country issue, maybe, but hunters come from all walks of life. And yeah, maybe some of them *were* Labour voters, before the Parliamentary Labour party started trying to destroy their way of life.

If you believe the miners were right to march and riot in protest at the closure of the mines, then you have to give hunters the same right, when they are threatened in the same way.

Quite right.

And to go back a few posts, the hounds are not vicious animals. Go to any country show and you'll see a 'meet the hounds' slot in the main show ring. Children from a wide age range come charging accross the ground at speed and stroke, mall and generally make a huge fuss of the hounds; ok the odd todler's ice-cream might be eaten but no one gets attacked or bitten.

When out hunting they are working dogs doing what comes naturally to them, they are not savage.

I’m interested to know how those in favour of a ban feel about the other methods of fox control that will be used. Gassing, trapping- no discrimination about what animal happens to be the first into the trap, and can lead to a slow death from loss of blood or starvation. Shooting, if the animal is ‘winged’ again this will lead to a slow death from either blood loss or starvation due to the injury preventing the fox from hunting. Poisoning – indiscriminate again; any animal or bird could pick up the poison and that includes family pets. At least if a fox is caught by the hounds the final end for the creature is swift and certain.

"10,000 foxhounds to be slaughtered to save a few hundred foxes a year...

The democratically mandated promise of government, but 69% say 'keep hunting'..."

Well when you put it like that.... however it is not the numbers but the principle that most people object to. You know killing of animals for fun.

69%? I would be interested to know the source, how the question was framed, and to whom? 69% of Oxbridge Barristers living in Hertfordshire? Possibly. But probably no a comproble number of say people living in centraL Manchester.

Personally I do not particularly care about fox hunting as an issue. My main feeling on it is that it takes up *far* too much of parliamentary time that the government could be using to fulfil its promise to refore licensing laws ...

But the thing is this is a question about Democracy as anything else, Labour have promused twice to ban fox hunting and won (convincingly I might add) both of these elections. It is not like they were quiet about this issue either. Not like it can be claimed it was hidden away and no-one noticed the claim until now.

"Would you break the law for the right to do something you believe in?"

Well I have been on several anti globalisation marches that did not have permission, however if I tell the truth I was younger then and it was as much about rebellion and adrenaline trying to wind up the law as it was about my beliefs....

"Have you ever taken drugs, for example?"

Yep lots for years. Had a damn good time. Then it messed my life up and I dont do it anymore.

Andrew marr put the argument very succintly last night on the news - the essential dichotomy here is democracy vs liberty.

This is just about the first manifesto pledge that this government has actually delivered on. That pledge was in the manifesto, clear as day. The Pro-hunting lobby had more than enough chance to make their point during the last seven years. They haven't suceeded. That's democracy. And let's be honest, these are the same berks who try and stop anybody from crossing their land on designated footpaths stating that they are preserving the countryside for all and that they will break the law to carry on doing it whilst using every legal weapon in the book to stop others from living their lives. Gypsies near my land? Never!

On the other hand, their is an issue about where a governments responsibilities end, and how far they are at liberty to intefere with the liberties of those it governs.

I am actually torn on this issue. I've never met a member of a hunt that I actually liked. In my experience (in a professional capacity), they are arrogant, self-serving and disdainful of any who do not share their views. Instinctively, I know that this is the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, and that democratically speaking, the government has the right to do this.

On the other hand, the timing sucks. Blair has reversed his promise to take into account the opinions of the committe he set up, and it looks very much like the fox hunters have been thrown to the back bench like a piece of raw and bloody meat.

And then there's the Spanish Question. Actually, the links between fox hunting and bull-fighting are tenous at best. The scale of economic damage done DIRECTLY by ending fox hunting is actually miniscule. To end bull fighting, particularly in Southern Spain would would risk economic disaster for the entire region. Besides, bulls raised for the fight are kept better and probably have a cleaner and quicker death than anything you've ever eaten in MaccyD's.

Having said that, there are moves afoot in catalonia to end bull-fighting in that region, because it is felt to be barbaric and because it is not felt to be a Catalan tradition. In Seville they recently stopped chucking a goat from a church tower.

Is this really about class war? Maybe it is. On the other hand, as Socialist Worker used to point out, the difficulty with the class war in this country is that only one side knows it's being fought. perjhaps this is the sound of the working classes finally awakening.

>> >> You can't rehome foxhounds.

>> >> What else can you do, other than slaughter them?"

>> Nothing. The question is - why should I care?

No reason why you should.

What I am doing is pointing out the illogic in the argument that means that 10,000 foxhounds will be slaughtered so that a few hundered cutsie wutsie ickle wickle foxy woxies a year are gassed, shot, or whatever, rather than having their necks broken.


>> Did I leave it in that pub in Bridgnorth do you think?

Well, you weren't wearing it later in the day, so maybe. Incidentally, I still have the how to speak Klingon tape. Remind me about that.



1. Do you agree that deriving entertainment from the suffering and killing of animals is wrong?

Depends on what you mean by entertainment. It isn't something I would choose to do myself, and I am wary of legislating against other people's activities. There is a difference between pest control and shooting / hunting game. Foxes, rabbits and pidgeons need to be killed. There are also issues of herd management for deer. Not sure about the Wessex Stag hunts though.


2. Do you agree that democracy and social equality is a more desirable state of affairs than feudal society with authority deriving purely from family position?

The relevance of that is what, precisely?

Authority has not derived purely from family position since the 1832 reform act, and it ceased to do so with the first Labour government. (Was that 1945 or 1929? Can't remember).


3. Do you agree that in a democracy, *everyone* has to live with laws that they do not personally agree with, for the greater good?

No.

There are such things as bad laws. Those laws should be protested against.


4. Do you agree that if a party promises in an election manifesto to enact a law, that it is the responsibility of that party to do so if wins the election?

Yes. However I also believe that their mandate to do so is based on the turnout in the polls and the proportion of that turnout, not to the number of seats they hold in the house of commons. Thatcher's landslide resulted in arrogance and bad legislation, and so has Blair's. I have issues with the electoral system in this country.


5. Foxhunting is a feudal tradition of using animal suffering for entertainment, the banning of which would upset a tiny minority of the population, but which the Labour party explicitly promised to put before the house in not one, but TWO manifestos on which it won consecutive landslide victories. Do you agree that it should be banned?

It is not a feudal tradition.

It involves animal suffering and entertainment but there is not a causal link between the two. It also involves animnal pleasure (hounds love to chase things, horses love to jump hedges). That is irrelevent, but it serves to point out the speciousness of the connection between animal emotions and human emotions.

Landslides are not mandates.

I do not agree that it should be banned.


>> the same argument could be made to save cock-fighting, bear-baiting or dog-fighting.

No it couldn't. Cocks, bears and dogs are not now and never have been pests.



>> Foxhunting ... has no place in modern Britain,

Other than providing jobs and business in a flagging rural economy, other than being an adequate but not particularly effective method of pest control, other than giving farmers and other landscape custodians an incentive to manage landscape in ways that favour wildlife (horses cannot see wire - hedges provide much needed refuges for birds and small mammals). So other than those things it has no place in modern Britain. I happen to prefer a Britain with those things than one without them. One of the reasons I live in the Cotswolds and not in the Fens.


>> But when the effect of government policy is to trash an already trashed URBAN economy - e.g. Liverpool in the 80s - the House of Lords waves it through.

And your point is?


>> Why is the rural economy so deserving of special treatment? The cities adapt or die. I say let the countryside do the same.

In which case it will die.

Actually of course what is happening is that the rural economy has been shifting to middle-class mail-order and other non-geographically based businesses for years, most recently involving running internet businesses from home. (I know this. I was doing it in the late 1990s).

Most people who were born in the country are having to live in towns. Myself included. I cannot afford £300k for a two bedroom cottage. What concerns me most is a combination of landscape management, biodiversity, and side-issues such as the size and viability of the national herd, the genetic diversity of the national orchard, things like that.


>> But do not, please, give me any of your bollocks about disenfranchisement.

Fairy nuff. I feel disenfranchised, but that is a personal issue, not a general one. I felt massively disenfranchised by marching with 400,000 people in defence of the countryside and then, a few months later, marching with 1,000,0000 people against the war in Iraq. Disenfranchisement is my s**t, and you are right, it is irrelevent to the debate as a whole.


>> Of course - all the pro-hunt protesters would never have voted Labour anyway.

Not necesarily so.

Up to and including the 1997 general election many - maybe most - working people in the countryside voted Labour. It is the working people who will be the hardest hit.

B