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

Thing is ?gilford? the hunts in Scotland still chase the fox with dogs to flush it out, they then sent out people on quads to shoot it so it is conversly probably worse than the original arrangement.

As for shooting being a nasty alternative it is, if you use a shotgun; using a high calibre rifle or even better tranquiliser darts would be far more effective. I think I've said it before if you miss with a tranquiliser no problems, if you hit you can collect said fox the dispose of it how you wish.

Okay, some thoughts on the ten points...

>1 Ensure any hunting legislation is based on the evidence, is just and respects the rights of local communities as set out in the Rio Declaration.

The Rio Declaration (http://www.unep.org/unep/rio.htm point 22 I presume) is a red herring. It's about environmental management and sustainable development. There's nothing in there that's inconsistent with banning hunting.

But as I've said, I don't care about hunting. I suppose I'd rather that people didn't enjoy that kind of thing, but I can't get really upset about it. As Uncle Heavy (I think) said, "perspective".

2 Put the needs and aspirations of country people at the forefront of rural change, and make their consent of paramount importance.

Okay, what is meant by "rural change"? Most change (I think) is a result of the market. Consent, unfortunately, isn't always important. Also, it's a mistake to isolate the rural from the urban, as the two are linked and the government funding comes from the same account. I think "paramount importance" is way too strong. No-one else in the UK has that kind of say (effetively a veto) over what happens in their area.

3 Enable British farmers to move away from subsidy dependence and support their ability to make a fair living in fair markets.

Fine. How? (rhetorical question - I know there's few farmers or rural economists around here)

4 Instigate re-examination of competitive practices of supermarkets in the food chain.

Fine. This is in everyone's interests.

5 Demonstrate a commitment to the reduction of social exclusion by rolling out broadband IT in rural areas to the same level as other EU countries.

This ought to be possible, as the UK is presumably less remote than other countries becaues of relative population density etc. But not all urban areas have this either. And who's going to pay for it? I assume the desire for this is to bring new business and work-from-home types into the area, but won't that raise house prices?

6 Ensure public spending planning reflects the higher cost of providing services in rural areas.

This is very difficult. See below.

7 Equality of provision of healthcare, education and public security between rural and urban areas.

I don't understand what "equality of provision" means.

There will be fewer school, hospitals, and cops in rural areas. Country people will have to travel further to access these services. That's because they live in the country. There are corresponding benefits - much lower crime, open space, fresh air, low pollution, (generally) better schools, sense of community and so on. Urban or rural, you pays your money and you takes your choice. So equality of provision cannot mean same number of cops / teachers / nurses per square mile, as this would be absurd. So does it mean per head of population? If so, I would strongly suspect that the country is well ahead already by this measure. If there are shortages, then that case needs to be made properly, not through abstract talk of "equality".

8 Ensure that all Government legislation and action is rural proofed and all rural proofing is transparent.

What does "rural proofed" mean? If these means "consider the impact on rural communties" in much the same way that equal ops and environmental impact must always be considered, then fine. But it sounds rather like it means that rural interests can never be damaged or harmed in any way. Which is not on, as there has to be give and take over time.

9 Reverse disintegration of local communities by enabling them to manage their own affairs through empowered parish councils.

Why not? More devolution for everyone. But there's no content here.

10 Require ALL Government agencies involved in rural affairs to reflect social and cultural issues and needs throughout their work.

Fair enough. Not sure what it means, but sounds harmless enough.


Perhaps I'm just a curmogeonly philosopher who over-interprets, but this list seems to be very unclear. Many of the points seem to imply (but may not mean) conceding far more to the countryside than I think is reasonable.

Otto

Here's another thought to throw into the mixer....

Are the problems of the countryside the result of inequality between country rich and country poor? More rich people = more with cars = more restaurants and less pubs = more services concentrated within easy reach of cars = fewer local shops.

The urban working class have developed trade unions, because it's easy to communicate and to feel part of a larger group than it is in the countryside. And it was much rarer in the towns for the boss to also be the landlord (although it *did* happen), so strikes were rarer. Is the real problem that inequality and landlordism and hangovers from feudalism have never been properly confronted? Is the greatest trick the rural rich ever played is to convince the rural poor that it's all the fault of the townies?

Otto

Why do you all accept the lie that hunting's all about pest control?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4357811,00.html

The honest hunters admit that they're in it for the thrill of the chase. It's a sport and the pest control argument is a smokescreen.
I also find it ironic that the hunting lobby always put forward a female spokesman to say how horrible it is to see 'a little defenceless lamb with its entrails spilling out' when the goal of the hunt is to see a fox torn up by braying hounds. It's a blood sport.

And as to the argument about why hunting is allowed while dog fighting, badger baiting, et al are not? It is all based on a single word: class.

Hunting is one of those arguments where one side will never convince the other, which is why it is one of those arguments I avoid. I am going to ignore the anti-hunting posts which are either emotional or trolling. Anyway, as I said, I am not strongly pro-hunting, just strongly anti-antis of all descriptions. (This means that half my friends won't talk to the other half, but hey ho).

I need to read the stuff that Otto and others have written about rural poverty.

I would say that there are two groups of people with money in the coutryside: locals and in-comers. These days I probably count as an in-comer...

One of the many things I dislike about country life is - as I have already said - the narrowmindedness. Incomers are not welcome because they tend to behave like un-housetrained puppies for the first two or three years. If you cant take the heat...

Anyways, I gotta get some work done. This functional analysis won't get itself done.

a hybrid called Ben

I was an in-comer for 23 years. Mostly because I dared to question things, understood what words like 'existentialist' meant. Because I didn't blindly accept that the Handsworth riots were about uppitty damn ******* who didn't want to work for a living. Because I listened to the Pistols and the Clash. Because I, and a few others, were seen as a bad influence on the village youth because they learnt to ask questions from us.

Stuff like that.

Sorry about my slow replies, I'm sure you all know how it is when RL gets in the way of the important stuff ...

Ekki (Re: taxes, and to expand on Otto's reply to Point 7): The fact is that people living in cities pay more tax than people living in the countryside. As you say, Council Tax in Wimbledon has no bearing on the level of services in Lanarkshire - yet your public service spending already gets topped up by the government (because it's fundamentally more difficult to provide policing etc. to a disperse population), and where do you think that extra money comes from? No, of course I don't have a 'right' to better services because I choose to live in the city, it's just that £1 spent on services in the city will provide more than £1 spent in the country. Do you have a 'right' to more spending because you choose to live in the countryside? And more importantly, how much more? I didn't see any placcards saying 'higher taxes' on Sunday, certainly not 'higher taxes in the countryside'.

Why use rat poison? Why not gas the foxs' lairs? To throw your point back at you, if hunting is the 'most humane' way of killing foxes, and that's why hunters do it, why do they not campaign against the use of poison to kill rats? Are they only concerned with 'cute' critters too? Or is it just that hunting foxes is fun and hunting rats isn't?

KA: I've never seen a cute ickle bunny-wunny eat a dead fox. You've watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail once too often Can you think of a reason for not poisoning foxes that doesn't also apply to rats? Besides, as I mentioned above, you needn't use rat poison.

In fact, given that the fox population has increased steadily over the last century, can you even make a case that hunting with dogs is effective at controlling foxes?

I also dispute that shooting something leaves an undamaged corpse. Trapping need not damage or injure the animal in any way - there are traps other than snares. These also have the advantage that if they do trap Mrs Higgin's prize pooch, you can just let it go again.

a1k: Are tranquiliser darts accurate over a distance? I thought they were quite short-range, hence their not being used much. btw, I thought the law in Scotland banned 'hunting with dogs'? They stil meet up on horseback and in dress, but are they allowed dogs? Or are they just prevented from letting the dogs touch the fox?

Gif

Hi Ben,

Believe it or not, that was a simulpost (so I'm a slow typer!), not a complete disregard for you not wanting to discuss hunting.

(Which is not to say I wouldn't have posted it anyway, cos I don't mind discussing it!)

btw, what do you define as 'an anti'? Anti-racism, for example?

Gif

How easily governments conspire to control us. This country v towny debate is classic "divide and conquer". While the people of Britain fight among themeselves, the government can get on with its own thing. Clever clever clever.

Firstly in response to Andy. I've already replied to the difference between fox hunting and the others, and I quote ...

"...the difference between fox hunting and the others you state: badger BAITING, dog FIGHTING, cock FIGHTING, bear BAITING ... when fox hunting, the intent is there to kill the fox - yes pleasure is derived by those who take part (incidentally I don't hunt) but the fact is, the fox, if caught is killed - if not then nothing. In all of the others, the animal is dug from its hole, psyched up, armed or chained down and pitted against in a one-sided fight for the sole end of 'entertainment'. These should be banned and if they weren't already I would stand up and ensure that they were - it is cruelty of the utmost extreme. "

And Gif, I don't know enough about taxes and their distribution to start debating this so I'm not even going to try.

I never said that hunting with hounds was the most humane method of hunting foxes I merely stated that over the alternative you offered (ie poisoning) it was more humane. How using a tranquiliser would help I don't know - the fox's welfare is still at stake. You shoot it, (I don't know how long it takes for a tranquiliser to take effect, but it certainly isn't instantaneous), it collapses and then you kill it - the fox still ends up dead.

Gassing, ok, it works but then you're left with a countryside with a foundation of dead foxes or are you suggesting they get gassed and then the dens are dug up and the carcasses removed. Has anyone done any research on the effect on the fox of being gassed?

In the countryside where there are god only knows how many rats you will find that poison isn't used purely and simply because of the risk to other wildlife. Terriers are used and they kill the rat by grabbing it at the neck and shaking it to death. Ratting, as it's called, can kill more rats in an evening than poisoning can ever hope to. The argument re poison applies equally to rats as it does to foxes.

As for the rabbit eating a fox, I think you'll find KA was referring to a rabbit eating the poison meant for rats.

The fact that of all the foxes killed in britain the majority are killed on roads or shot does indeed prove that as pest control, hunting with hounds is ineffective. The fact is there are times when a juggernaut is impractical and unpredictable as a method of killing foxes, and equally areas where shooting is not a practical alternative. Yes you can use traps but the trauma that the fox suffers from being incarcerated for god knows how long before it's dispatched, is hardly an argument for the foxes welfare. Incidentally, the rise in the fox population is due to the number of foxes found in cities rather than in the countryside.

And the hunts in Scotland do exactly as they always have with dogs, spectators, etc all taking part it's just the huntsman shoots the fox rather than letting the hounds kill it.

As Ben said, this is a black and white argument - some people see it one way, others see it another and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Gifford:

"btw, what do you define as 'an anti'? Anti-racism, for example?"

Absolutely. As I have said the xenophobia and general white-ness of rural areas is one of the things I *don't* like about where I come from. It is something I have argued about with the rednecks I used to drink and shoot with.

I am also in favour of the legalisation of canabis. I defend both smoking and the provision of clearly defined smoking and non-smoking areas in public places.

I fully agree with Clare Short's recent statement about the coming war in Iraq, and last year I marched against the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately I cannot march in the UK against the war with Iraq this weekend.

I am in favour of Trades Unions and the right to workers' representation. I am probably against the closed shop. I am in favour of open markets, though I have major issues with 3rd world sweat-shops. I know that open markets will apply a different set of pressures on the countryside, btw.

Regarding homophobia I was told a couple of months ago that I was an 'honorary dyke' by a lesbian friend.

What else is there to take a stand on?

Freedom of speech - absolutely. Freedom of speech is not about protecting my right to say what I think, it is about other peoples' rights to say things I disagree with. Oh, and I have major issues with the culturally-insensitivity and political brutality of the way in which refugees are treated in this country. I send money regularly to Amnesty and the Refugee Council.

I believe that food should be accurately tracked and labled so that consumers can choose to buy or not to buy GMO foods, organic foods, and free-range meat and eggs.

I believe in the right of immigrant communities to have a significant part of their education in their native languages, (though I am open to discussion on who pays for this). I think that Scotaland and Wales should be allowed to govern themselves though I think that there should be a national referendum on this. I believe in freedom of religious belief and practice.

All in all, I think it is accurate to say that I am anti antis of most descriptions.

a bleeding heart liberal called Ben

One thing I should reiterate. I am against sexism for example, but I am in favour of freedom of speech. So if someone is being sexist I will argue with them, but I would not seek to silence them. This gets nasier with racism and homophobia of course.

Difficult stuff.

Ben

Gilford- Yes they still hunt with dogs, except the dogs are used to flush out the fox; i think the law states that the dogs cannont kill the fox (unless of course it were by accident). I am lead to belive (according to the sunday herald newspaper), that when the kill is about to happen men are sent forward (on quads or such like) with guns and dispatch the fox.

So basically its a loophole, and for once in my life I agree that the current situation is possibly worse than it was before the ban (in terms of fox hunting). The law in scotland is not a ban on fox hunting per se, it is a ban on hunting with dogs (so hare coursing is also banned, but gun dogs are not).

I must say i find it interesting (though I hesitate to draw conclusions from it) how much of this debate has centred on the fox hunting issue, despite the fact that it clearly wasn't what was intended by the originator of the thread.

Ben, I assume from your stance about the clear labelling of foodstuffs that you would agree that the major culprits of the BSE debacle are not the farmers (having thought about it for a long while yesterday i reached the conclusion that i can't side with a man sueing McDonald's and against farmers) but with the foodstuff producers? Mayhap we should be sending them the bill fior BSE and the clear up, and the subsequent long term cost to British agriculture. It's as plain as can be that although the French have finally lifted the ban on British Beef, the French consumer isn't going to topuch it with a bargepole, for example.

Hi Ben,

I'd certainly agree with at least 90% of that list - I was just puzzled by the 'anti-anti' phrasing. Being anti something is just being pro the alternative isn't it?

Is 'honorary dyke' a compliment? If you'd told her she was an 'honorary straight', would that have been a compliment?

a1k: It does sound like they foxed up the law in Scotland then. I was under the impression that they weren't allowed dogs and thus tended to chase the fox for only a few minutes before getting a shot in. At any rate, they are clearly not simply trying to kill the fox, or they'd shoot it much earlier. Whatever happens, at least we should be spared a similar loophole in England in whatever legislation gets debated. Unless the Lords put it in deliberately.

Ekki: Yes, you did say that before (about the difference between hunting and other blood-sports), but since then others have made several points that indicate that foxhunting is ineffective as a means of pest control and is simply there so that hunters can enjoy themselves. You don't have any response to them?

I'm not sure what the problem is with 'a countryside with a foundation of dead foxes'. Can you explain?

I seriously doubt that being caged for a few hours or a day is as stressful to a fox as being hunted - but until someone does some clever experiments with heart monitors or something, that's only speculation. I note that no other country finds hunting with hounds to be an economic or non-damaging way of controlling pests.

"As for the rabbit eating a fox, I think you'll find KA was referring to a rabbit eating the poison meant for rats." - ah yes, that would make more sense!

Gif

"Being anti something is just being pro the alternative isn't it?"

Not at all.

I have moral issues with abortion. However I believe that it is a moral decision which should be taken by the woman, not by the government. So on abortion I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

Is 'honorary dyke' a compliment? - Hell, I don't know. In the context of the conversation I took it as such. Maybe it was in acknowledgement of my services to ball-breaking feminism! (That is a JOKE, btw)

Ben

I agree that hunting with hounds isn't overly effective as pest control and methods such as shooting, gassing, poisoning, trapping and snaring are more so but they to have their down sides. I also have no doubt that the hunters do indeed enjoy themselves but then it doesn't matter whether they achieve a kill or not. It may not be an effective means of pest control but it is still a means of pest control.

"I seriously doubt that being caged for a few hours or a day is as stressful to a fox as being hunted ..." as you say, this could be debated until the cows come home but how you can say it is less stressful than being hunted I don't know ...

Have you ever smelt a rotting corpse? Personally I'd rather not have to live with that smell at all hours of the day and night all because a fox was gassed and left in its den.

As BS said, this thread has been taken over by the hunting debate which really is only part of the issue ... the fact is I don't think the march on sunday will have made the blindest bit of difference to President Tony's plans, certainly not to any proposed hunting with hounds legislation. The fact that he can ignore 400,000 people all of whom felt strongly enough to march for a multitude of reasons should be a cause for concern for anybody.

And, Andy, the class comment is one that holds no water at all so I'm not even going to bother to start.

I'd totally agree that this thread has been hijacked by the hunting debate whist ingnoring some of the real issues, in that sense it mirrors the actual demonstration. I think lots of people have stated this.

I think that that is because we almost all agree on the other issues (ie we all want better NHS, schools, public transport, affordable housing etc etc) but opinions on hunting are polarised.

Its easier to argue/debate with someon who disagrees with you than to fill up a thread with everyone saying "I totaly agree"

I've certainly said my piece on hunting, so I'm happy to drop the subject.

As to whether the march will change anything - well, probably not much. A ban on a certain issue I just promised I wouldn't mention looked certain before but not so much now. But as I have said before, the marchers have failed to convey any other complaint, so even if Blair is listening (and since he has based his policies on popularism up to now, I suspect he is listening, regardless of what others might think) there is really nothing he can do to respond.

Gif