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

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this fox hunting business, and I've looked at it from both sides. Tell me, is it the enjoyment of the participants you object to?

It's more the needless cruelty that I object to.

However... well, put it this way, I wouldn't want someone as a friend if their idea of fun was getting on a horse, chasing an animal across some fields and then watching it being torn to pieces.

Yes and yes. I'm not *for* fox hunting but I'm certainly not for banning it either. The reasons stated don't seem strong enough, as banning fox hunting won't stop needless cruelty to foxes, it just won't be done so obviously.

It's difficult to imagine how foxes could be disposed of more cruelly than being chased across fields until they're exhausted and then torn to bits by dogs.

How about: half mangled by a car and left to die; half mangled by a trap and left to die; half poisoned and left to die; peppered with shotgun pellets and left to die. The actual pain part of these goes on for longer than the exhaustion part of hunting with dogs, at the end of which the actual death is relatively quick and totally organic. Not much comfort for the fox, I grant, I merely illustrate some other hazards of the fox's life which won't end with hunting.

How about: half mangled by a car and left to die; half mangled by a trap and left to die; half poisoned and left to die; peppered with shotgun pellets and left to die. The actual pain part of these goes on for longer than the exhaustion part of hunting with dogs, at the end of which the actual death is relatively quick and totally organic. Not much comfort for the fox, I grant, I merely illustrate some other hazards of the fox's life which won't end with hunting.

Drat, didn't mean to repeat the point.

Fair point, I suppose. But what you've also just illustrated is that the argument about hunting being 'necessary' to cull foxes is totally spurious. I heard on 'Question Time' last night that hunting only accounts for about 6 per cent of the fox population.

Actually, I think I should come clean and admit that yes, I do object to the pleasure people get from hunting. Hunting, like boxing, is violence and the deliberate infliction of pain presented as sport and entertainment. It appeals to a very low part of human nature that should not, I think, be encouraged.

You're right, the argument about culling *is* spurious. I wish both sides of the debate could come clean about their motives as you just have. I also take your point about violence as entertainment but I've often wondered whether it's in some way healthy to keep in touch with that primal side of our nature, but in a controlled fashion, or whether, as you say, it should be denied and therefore snuffed out. I abhor violence but yet, of course, am aware of it dwelling in my own nature (easily accessed when watching the idiotic action flicks in which I occasionally indulge, or flying off the handle in private at some errant inanimate object which is misbehaving). I think of myself as civilised because I control it, but to do that I need to know it's there. I can't help but feel that at this stage in our species' evolution, which isn't very far, it might be useful to hang onto the beast for awhile and see if we can't tame it. Why aren't there boxing hooligans, for instance? Better that the monkeys dress up in monkey suits and watch willing fighters, than slog it out on the streets.

But all this aside, is it right to ban something which is relatively harmless (only 6% of the fox population) just because people enjoy it? If we could get our cod fisherman to dress up in red jackets would there be a better chance of stopping overfishing?

I suspect that the answer to your last question is 'probably! The pomp and circumstance that surrounds fox hunting is part of what I - and, I'm sure, many others - dislike about it. I dislike what it symbolises as much as what it is.

I firmly believe that the abuse of power is the root of all evil. In fox hunting, you have priviliged and powerful people turning dozens of s against one small creature. The smug, bullying spirit of the thing is a big part of what is so offensive.

Boxing hooliganism... hmm, an interesting notion! I'm sure that I have heard of cases of violence in boxing crowds, but all I could find with a web search was a story from over 20 years ago - the third one on this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/other_sports/newsid_1144000/1144684.stm . (Strange that the Beeb should list that night as an all-time highlight of televised boxing! )

But your argument about keeping in touch with our inner is a powerful one. I'm a football fan of the strictly non-violent kind, but I freely admit that part of the game's great attraction for me is as a means of letting out repressed aggression. I am, I think, a quiet and reasonable fellow most of the time, but I can shout and sing and be totally biased about the footie, and it's very theraputic!

Clearly, also, when I cheer on my beloved Bradford City, part of what I'm hoping for is the public humiliation and frustration of the opposition, and for their fans to go home disappointed. The difference is, I think, that I genuinely don't want to see anyone, or any creature, get killed or physically injured. And that, to me, marks the dividing line between what is acceptable as sport and what is unacceptable as sport. In a nutshell: bloodlust is bad.

I certainly take your point about mankind being at an early stage of evolution - I know how popular wrestling and tabloid newspapers are. But we've left behind gladiatorial combat, public executions, bear-baiting, cock-fighting and many other blood-drenched 'entertainments' of times gone by. I don't think it's being too ambitious on behalf of our species to believe that we could move on from fox hunting too.

Do you know, I practically agree with everything you say. Actually, the best, and most succinctly put, argument for banning fox hunting that I've heard came from Muriel Gray, and is what you've been saying too, that a civilised nation would not allow people to derive entertainment from death. Absolutely, and yet... there's something about the vociferous voices calling for a ban that gives me the willies. While it may be a good thing that so many people want to end something which symbolises an old order of privelege, it is still little more than symbolism and the fuss seems unduly out of proportion. When I hear the words 'ban it!' repeated relentlessly I can't help but wonder where it might end. I don't think we should be removing freedoms, even dubious ones like hunting with dogs. We're coming to the thin end of my argument, for I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. Of course badger baiting, cock fighting et al should be banned, so why not fox hunting? I think it's that the fox is in open territory and has a good chance to escape. When it's caught the end is quick. For me it comes down to those simple facts. (Of course there are abuses, I don't condone those.)

Wouldn't do it myself (like watching football) but don't object to others doing it.

Your boxing story is odd, and the fact that it's odd is odd. There again, why is it football that attracts the brunt of hooliganism? My mum tells a good story of being dragged to wrestling by my dad in the early days of their relationship. She said it was a complete hoot in the end: one old girl got up and threw a cup of tea over her man because he was losing. Probably had her pension stacked on him.

There were many more people shouting 'Keep it!' than 'Ban it!' last Wednesday...perhaps something to do with which type of occupations many people on the two sides have, and which find it easier to get off work mid-week...?

Open to comment...

spimcoot, I am a fierce defender of civil liberties (just see the links on my Personal Space). But of course, the problem with defending 'freedom' is that in so many cases, one person's freedom is another person's oppression. The recent h2g2 Talking Point debate about smoking in public is a great example: do you defend smokers' freedom to smoke, or others' freedom to breathe clean air? Hunters want to be free to hunt. I'd like to be free from the depressing knowledge that killing-as-entertainment is tolerated in the country where I live.

Cloviscat: I don't doubt the truth of what you say, but I think you're probably right about the reasons why the balance of opinion outside the Scottish Parliament (I presume that's what you're talking about) might have been that way. I'm sure that hunt workers wouldn't have had much trouble getting time off work to demonstrate.

What might be more to the point is that it was pretty obvious what the Scottish Parliament was going to do: and people who object to a government's plans clearly have more reason to demonstrate than people who agree with those plans.

In any case, there's surely no argument about the fact that British public opinion favours a ban on fox hunting... is there?

Depressingly, no probably not. I merely call for a sense of proportion. I mentioned before, in contrast, the industrial overfishing and total lack of management of fish stocks anywhere but in the waters around Iceland (where they know what they're doing). But cod fishermen are earning a living and providing us with fish suppers so there's no general outcry (and they think the quotas are just as ridiculous as I do). Likewise, when I walk down the street, it is cars and their fumes which pose me a real danger, not smokers, but cars are 'convenient' and the general populus seems ever more obsessed with the dratted things so: no outcry. I just fail to see that fox hunting is *this* important an issue and I don't think things should be banned for no particular reason other than how emotive they are.

I didn't mean to doubt your stance on civil liberties, Ormondroyd; I read your Notes in agreement and admiration every week. I only started this thread because I thought that if anyone would help me to the bottom of this fox hunting question, it would be you.

I think that, sooner or later, fox hunting will be banned and the difference to my life will be unnoticeable, as it will be to the lives of foxes. And then we can start on sport fishing...

Well, spimcoot, I hope that in some way I have helped you get to the bottom of the fox hunting question! I do absolutely agree that the intense attention paid to the question of whether or not to ban fox hunting might be better applied to, say, the daily global death toll from starvation and the underlying reasons for it.

I have to confess that I'm quite ignorant about the ing quotas issue. I must look it up!

'Course, it's pretty hypocritical of me to complain as I don't lift a finger to help anyone. Hum. Good discussion, though, thanks; if nothing else, writing my arguments clarified them in my own mind.

The short version of the fishing saga is: Iceland finally won the cod war (because of wise and careful management they have some left and Britain doesn't, and so has to import from them).

World starvation, fishing quotas, vs fox hunting.

No contest as you say, except that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on the former two issues. It is a specific area of responsible, set out through the Scotland Act 1998 to deal with issues like environment, culture and education. So far, in less than 3 years, it has passed 28 Acts, another 15 are in progress and hundreds of items of subordinate legislation have gone through. More important buisness could be dealt with - it has: those acts deal with housing, safety for those with mental health problems, protection from abuse, etc etc. As you say, Ormondroyd, they just don't make the news in the same way.

Funny thing the media... funny priorities.

No good news is news.