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

Any thoughts?

They said on the news this morning that it's been banned in the UK (I think).

Yes, the MPs in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to ban hunting with hounds. However, it is unlikely to get through the House of Lords. Therefore, the only way to get the bill passed would be to use the Parliamentary Priviledge to over-rule the House of Lords, however, this should only be done to pass 'vital' bills and, bearing mind the MPs were given a free vote on this, is could in no way be deemed to be 'vital'.

I totally agree with the ban, despite having a largely rural background. This is because I cannot see any actual moral difference between fox hunting and bear baiting...and I don't want the latter reintroduced.

The argument that we shouldn't ban it because it creates employment is a nonsense argument - after all, the slave trade created employment.

The argument that we shouldn't ban it because it is traditional is similarily nonsense - it is a statistically insignificant section of the UK population and not the average citizen.

I can't see why hunts can't convert to following a dragged scent. It would keep the jobs and the pageantry wouldn't it?
btw there are already huge numbers of urban foxes. The next question is how to control foxes humanely. Those of us who insist on free-range eggs will probably be paying more for them?

Why control foxes at all?
The primary food of foxes is leveretts, which grow up to be the biggest threat to agriculture in many parts of England. They hares the grain which would otherwise be used to feed chickens thus pushing up the prices of eggs as much as the statistically minor losses to foxes would push them up.

With urban foxes the primary food source is not leveretts but the waste produced by people. In certain parts of the UK urban councils revery now and again round up the foxes and release them in the countryside. That is one thing that should be stopped.

What I'm more worried about is how the majority is dictating what can be done by a minority. That is not a good way to go. If this does become law, unlkely given the probable timing of the election, what will happen next? All those campaigners will have to find something else to do. Angling perhaps.

Historically it is much worse when the minority dictate what can be done by the majority than vice versa. One of the pillars of a democracy is rule by majority.

And that majority should respect and protect the rights and freedoms of the minority.

Absolutely - but I don't think fox hunting is a right.

As in my earlier post - if there is a fundamental reason why the hunting of foxes is allowed but bear baiting, or cock fighting, or badger baiting or fighting pitbulls isn't I'd consider supporting it....but there isn't.

Living in Gloucestshire, I am surrounded by Hunts. Basically hunting in no way controls the number of foxes. A few years ago, one of the nearby hunts only managed to kill one fox in an entire season. People who hunt do so purely for their own pleasure and not out of some personal desire to manage the fox population. Hunts around here are even know to have areas where they actually bred foxes to hunt.

On the other hand, I agree with Phil that banning a sport because those who don't partake object is the worrying 'thin end of the wedge' - I can see shooting and fishing being targeted soon, followed by horse racing, three-day eventing etc. - oh and of course boxing....

Lots of things are banned by those who do not partake - class A drugs, all the other bloodsports that have been banned in the past, etc.
What is more worrying to me is that there are people who genuinely believe that they are exempt from the common standard on cruelty to animals because of their wealth, background or class. The majority of our current society believe that causing undue cruelty to an animal is wrong and the law reflects that.

Ban pest control companies then.
Surely the laying of poisoned traps to capture and kill innocent animals who haven't done anything to harm you is more than cruel. These people are paid for it!

If you want to see real animal cruelty go to a livestock market or pony sale, the way the animals are handled and treated is sickening.

"The majority of our current society believe that causing undue cruelty to an animal is wrong and the law reflects that."

Can you tell me why it's ok then for animals to be kept as pets then. Especially dogs who need lots of exercise and free space to be kept in a highly urbanised environment. Rather cruel to take them out of their natural habitat and subject them to modern cities isn't it.

I'm sure that where the keeping of dogs in urban areas results in their injury or death that is already illegal. There are rules against negligent pet ownership. Similarily there are rules about mistreating livestock and race horses.

But since we are in "reducto ad absurdum" mode, why should it be OK for me to cause a hound to kill a fox in a public place but not OK for me to bludgeon a fox to death with a claw hammer in a primary school?

Firstly, I'd like to announce that I would like to start selling crack cocaine to small children. Does the majority have the right to stop me (the minority) from doing it?

Secondly, household dogs and cats have been bred over thousands of years to be totally reliant on man. They would find living in the wild very difficult. We shouldn't have domesticated them in the first place, but we did so we have a responsibility to look after them. Also research has shown that cats and dogs *may* have approached humans before humans approached them. I read it in New Scientist a good few months back I think.

I am wholeheartedly behind the banning of foxhunting and all bloodsports at the earliest opportunity.
Despite what the countryside alliance and the rest of the pro-hunting lobby would have you believe, fox hunting is not humane. They say that the dogs will be shot if the hunts have to stop - well they do it anyway when a dog is no longer fit to run with the pack. Hardly a humane bunch of people eh?
I agree with the comment about the fox's main source of food not being farm animals - they do an excellent job at keeping the rabbit population under control. Foxes do enter chicken coops and kill as many as they can. This is part of their natural instinct. They will kill to eat, and then they will kill more as they know that dead chickens can't run away. Lets face it - they live in the wild and know that food can often be scarce. Unlike the huntsmen who kill for pleasure (rather than out of duty like they say - why not have a humane cull if the fox population gets out of hand?)

Urban foxes have adapted very well, because they are intelligent animals. I like urban foxes. When I lived in Wimbledon I caught one stealing a shoe from my bedroom (it had climbed in through a window). When it saw me it dropped the shoe and stood watching me. Eventually it came over to me and licked my hand. A truly beautiful creature.

Thats my rant over. Just don't get me started on stag hunting...

Oh, and my mum's cat got torn to shreds by a pack of hounds. The huntsmen were hardly apologetic. Some even found it funny.

There's a big difference between boxing and fox-hunting. In boxing, both of the contestants agree to it in advance. I considered boxing to be a form of slow suicide, but I won't stop people committing suicide if that's what they want to do. Fox-hunting is more like murder.

Re Post 13:

I know that pest control companies kill animals. By law they must do this humanely.
I know that abattoirs kill animals - ditto, and I am a meat eater
I know that vets put down animals that are ill or cannot be rehomed.

The difference is that none of these people HAVE FUN while doing it. They don't have a big party afterwards. That's creepy