Professor Sir John Bell (pictured), a member of the Vaccines Taskforce, has expressed his optimism that “the horrific scenes that we saw a year ago”, which he says involved the NHS being pushed to breaking point along with mass deaths from the virus, “is now history”. For this reason, Bell supports Boris Johnson’s decision not to tighten Covid restrictions in England before next year. MailOnline has more.
The message came as a leading vaccines expert backed Boris Johnson’s refusal to toughen England’s Covid restrictions to bring them into line with the other home nations, saying that mass deaths and hospitalisations from the deadly disease are “history”.
Professor Sir John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University and a member of the Vaccines Taskforce, said the public had been “pretty responsible” in its response to the spread of the Omicron variant.
Speaking to broadcasters about New Year celebrations this afternoon, Care Minister Gillian Keegan said: “We have always said ‘act cautiously’ since this new variant came among us.
“It is highly infectious and many people will know people who have caught this over the Christmas period.
“So do be cautious, take a Lateral Flow Test (LFT) before you go out. Go to well-ventilated areas; I have been to a couple of outdoor parties actually, people have moved things to outside.
“So just be cautious, but do try to enjoy yourself as well but cautiously.”
It came as new figures showed the number of people in hospital with Covid in England is less than half the same time last year – despite cases being three times higher…
Johnson, who is at his Chequers country retreat, left it to Health Secretary Sajid Javid to face the cameras to announce the decision, although he later tweeted advice to Brits to exercise caution at the new year.
“The Health Minister has taken advice and looked at the data. I think his judgment where we should go in the next few days is probably fine,” Bell told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
“There are a lot of people who are aware that we are in the face of this large wave of disease. The behaviour of people in the U.K., in England in particular, has been pretty responsible in terms of trying not to go out and spending a lot of time exposing yourself to the virus.”
He added: “The horrific scenes that we saw a year ago – intensive care units being full, lots of people dying prematurely – that is now history in my view and I think we should be reassured that that’s likely to continue.”
Boris’s decision last night not to follow the lead of the other home nations in bringing in harsher Covid restrictions ahead of the new year has also been welcomed by Tory MPs who have been at odds with the Prime Minister.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I know very little about the subject. In general, people who oppose hunting seem more likely to be on the “madleft” as one of our fellow posters calls them, and people who support it seem saner. On that basis, I tend to think it’s fine.
It has always struck me that if you oppose hunting then you ought to be a vegan and if you’re not then you oppose hunting just to wind up “toffs and Tories” (or you are just hopelessly inconsistent and think that meat etc comes from a factory). But I am happy to be corrected!
What an absolute crock. I oppose fox hunting because I oppose animal cruelty, in the same way I oppose non-stun animal slaughter, in the same way I oppose fur farming, in the same way that I oppose torturing and killing animals as a means of entertainment, e.g bull fighting, because ‘it’s our culture’. F**k such ridiculous platitudes and f**k the hypocrites with their selective outrage.
If a species requires culling for whatever reason from time to time, as with deer, are you seriously telling me there’s no better way to perform the task more humanely than getting your kicks from terrorising an animal around the countryside then watching gleefully as it gets torn to shreds?
Anyway, this barbaric past-time has been illegal for years, but since when has the law mattered to sick, entitled individuals who behave like they’re above it?
Isn’t killing animals for food or exploiting them to produce milk, eggs, leather also cruel then?
You’re seriously bringing up how our ancestors survived and ate since the year dot, and how we managed to evolve over many millenia, as your basis for a defence? Is that the sound of a barrel being desperately scraped…?
Lots of people are vegans now. It’s quite doable, though I don’t think it’s a great idea personally. It just seems inconsistent to me.
I take the view that it is the wealth we have today that allows veganism and vegetarianism to be so common and that these people have never been hungry. If and when mad Ed and his lot succeed in their net zero madness and food becomes scarce, omnivore diets will return, and those who today decry fox hunting will be out looking for a neighbours cat.
And we will be fighting with migrants and locals to get at the Swans. Some think the boat people are being brought as some sort of security army to keep order.
Lots of people are now brainwashed nutcases – no recommendation that.
Indeed – seems like a terrible idea but my point was that it’s entirely doable so if you think fox hunting is “cruel” then it seems to me that you should think farming animals is also cruel.
I usually but free range eggs rather than battery hen eggs.
There’s no doubt that factory farming is cruel but I’m not sure how you can reasonably compare the fate of a fox ( and the lead-up to it’s terrible end ) being hunted by a pack of dogs to a farmer who prioritises the wellbeing of his livestock, adhering to the required animal welfare standards. That’s quite a stretch.
Maybe. I still think it’s a bit odd to eat dead animals and object to fox hunting but I guess we’re all different
But it’s to do with the manner in which it’s killed, isn’t it? Much like how I’m against non-stun slaughter, not that I’m under any illusions that animals in abattoirs are completely free of suffering, certainly there’s stress and psychological suffering involved, but we have to trust this is kept to a minimum.
The world has to eat, at the end of the day, and the population’s nutritional requirements are not going to be optimally met using refined carb-heavy, processed meat replacement, ‘Beyond Burgers’ or ‘Quorn’ types of foodstuff.
Regards to the dispatching of pesky foxes, as I’ve said below, is it somehow unreasonable to expect farmers to use a different method, such as trapping then shooting them? Way more efficient than the whole palaver of a hunt, just not so exciting, I guess, but it at least ensures a swift and effective kill first time. You can use snares and cages according to this;
https://www.lancashire.police.uk/faqs/wildlife-crime/what-are-traps-and-snares/
It certainly seems plausible that there are other less dramatic ways to kill them. I guess I’m an insensitive sod because I don’t really feel strongly that fox hunting is terrible.
Urban foxes are easy to trap. Rural foxes, particularly those predating livestock, are not.
About 1% of problem foxes in the countryside are caught in traps.
If it was easy, made sense, everyone in the countryside would be doing it but they do not. For centuries, the most effective means of control in the countryside has been hunting. Now it is the far less humane method (as I have evidenced) of shooting that predominates, not a good result (in fact a criminal result) for wildlife welfare.
Is it unreasonable to expect householders to use traps rather than cats to remove rodents from the premises?
They will be coming for your cat next….
Anyone who doesn’t realise that the biggest cruelty to animals today is perpetrated by the food industry should have a wonder around an abattoir, a pig factory or a poultry farm.
Just as a matter of logic if someone really wanted to have the biggest impact on the welfare of the biggest possible number of animals they would spend all of their time campaigning to reform industrial meat production which affects billions of animals annually (and to drastically reduce meat consumption) and wouldn’t spend a single minute arguing about a handful of foxes.
Anything else is ignorance and/or hypocrisy.
It’s only cruel if it’s solely being done to inflict harm.
BTW, do you think salads are very fond of being torn to pieces alive and then eaten? Or that the stems and leaves of a carrot plant look forward to being thrown away to die of thirst because some human dug out its root in order to boil it to death?
“It’s only cruel if it’s solely being done to inflict harm.”
I suppose that could be a way to approach it. I guess some people think fox hunting IS done solely to inflict harm and the pest control bit is a smokescreen?
If the point was inflicting harm, this could be accomplished much easier: Go to the next pet shop and buy some rats. Put them in a box and run over it with a car several times. Harm inflicted!
I tend to agree.
The thrill of the chase is what it is about. They have a good time with a meal after. As a youth I went beating for a shoot and had a great banquet of a meal after.
I imagine hacking over hedges at a gallop is exhilarating
By your ‘logic’, then, you must have zero problems with halal/kosher animal slaughter? After all, they’re not doing it to “inflict harm”, but they can’t eat the meat without saying the prayer. Right? The exact same ‘logic’ can be applied to fur farming or testing cosmetics/skincare on animals.
“We’re not doing it to inflict harm, but we need to do it in order to sell the fur and apply the face creams.”
I didn’t write anything about my opinion on any of this but just gave an IMHO sensible definition cruelty: Cruelty is violence as an end in itself. Further, I also pointed out that this compassion for other living things is usually rather selective. Plants are alive, too. But nobody much cares for that.
And of course, Rats are seen as vermin so are down the scale in acceptable cruelty. I have to shoot a few to keep the population down. I try to get a clean head kill so there is no pain but some manage to escape to a painful death no doubt.
Churchill said that rat shooting was the most difficult so well done you if you get a clean kill. (probably in his Young Winston book).
Mogwai, how do you stand on dispatching rats?
Get a cat. Mine’s a very effective mouser.
So that’s hunting, right?
Cats another story, convenient pets turfed out the homestead to kill an estimated 60 million song birds a year. That’s the soft option for them.
ok so your happy that your feline friend prays on sentient creatures….
I hear you….” well that’s natural” ……touché nothing deeper ingrained in a lot of humans than to hunt.
very quick end for Reynard, hound 7 times average fox weight Bosch….
over in an instant.
definition cruel doesn’t come into it.
The probable reason why fox hunting is effective is that it frightens the whole fox population, and they tend not to come back! Strangely this is the way the whole animal kingdom operates, kill or be killed. Badgers sometimes attack foxes if there is no food about, and the fox is careless (they can run faster). Shooting foxes is hard for farmers, you need a rifle, night sight and a high level of skill because they will always be several hundred yards away. Anyone who can hit a moving target at that distance in the dark is pretty good. I have a friend who is a world class marksman, and he can do it most of the time, but then he can hit a target a mile away better than nearly all the other competitors! (top 3 several times!).Why not let the hunt have some enjoyment riding at speed over rough country and jumping the fences? If you want to see cruelty, the are videos of Halal killing on YouTube which are decidedly nasty, particularly to ex. farmers!
As omnivores, we’re natural predators, just like foxes. And foxes also don’t attack lions or elephants because it would be more chivalrous but target animals which are much smaller and weaker than them. This doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.
Do you oppose foxes tearing at a lamb as it is being born, then ripping at the ewe’s vaginal area to get at the placenta?
Any decent shepherd supervises their ewes 24/7 during lambing
You are clearly no hill farmer!
‘In spring 2022 and 2023, post-mortems were carried out on 29 carcasses from the participating farms to determine whether lambs had been killed and eaten (predated) or were fed on after death (scavenged). Predation was confirmed in 48 per cent of lambs
DNA evidence from these 29 carcasses, plus 10 additional dead or injured lambs that were swabbed by farmers, was used to identify the species involved.
Fox DNA was present on 34 of the 39 lambs sampled (87 per cent), including all the lambs that showed evidence of predation.’
Northern Times
‘Herdwick sheep are widely considered to be the most hardy of all Britain’s breeds of hill sheep. Probably 99 per cent of Herdwick sheep are kept in commercial flocks in the central and western dales of the Lake District.
These fells run to over three thousand feet and facing the westerly rain bearing winds they record the country’s highest rainfall.
Herdwicks have a well-justified reputation for foraging ability even in the most difficult terrain. Many of them live their lives without receiving any supplementary feed. Typically they are drafted from the hill after three or four lambings.’
You’ve visited my farm then? And lived for 20+ years on a large estate which hunts?
You know nothing of hill farming so you are clearly not a hill farmer.
‘Foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately £9.4 million in 1999, according to one estimate.
Reducing fox numbers by 43 per cent resulted in a three-fold increase in breeding success for lapwings, golden plovers, curlews, red grouse and meadow pipits.
In a survey of Welsh farmers carried out in 2013, 96 per cent said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income, while 75 per cent said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban came into effect in 2005.
Hare densities at a farm in Leicestershire have declined from a high of more than 50 per km2 when predator control was carried out to less than 8 per km2 at a count in 2006 after a period of several years with no predator control.’
I thought I read once that since the ban, there have been more Fox shootings to cull the numbers, obviously not by enough.
See my comment above. Shooting is very difficult as the foxes are mainly nocturnal! They are very frightened of humans, even the fox in your city garden.
As I’ve posted previously, isn’t the sensible approach in that case to trap the fox then shoot it? This pro-hunt argument is entirely null and void anyway, given that hunting foxes with dogs has been illegal for some 20 years now. It’s only drag hunts going ahead. Which does rather beg the question: what have farmers been doing to protect their livestock for the past two decades?
How often did a hunt used to take place? Daily? Nope. Once per week? And bearing in mind they had quite a piss poor success rate. Now compare that with a farmer setting multiple traps in various locations, every single day of the year, then he shoots pesky Mr Fox at close range with a shot gun.
Which of those two methods is the most efficient and humane? It’s a no-brainer. Anybody still supportive of fox hunting as an effective means of eradicating problem foxes is confirming my suspicions and showing their true colours. I’m not against killing animals. I eat meat. Hence people could legitimately call me a hypocrite. But I only advocate for them to be dispatched in the most humane way possible. Fox hunting is not it.
So how have farmers been managing this ongoing issue all these years since the ban?
Hunting foxes with dogs has never been illegal and continues to this day.
Your ignorance disqualifies you from any sensible debate on this subject.
Legal hunting:
Er…News Flash: fox hunting was banned in 2004. Did you get swallowed by a worm hole or something? Your denialist and obsessive attitude, with psychopathic traits aplenty, disqualifies you from further serious debate. I’ve better things to do than go round in circles with somebody who deliberately denies reality and facts: that if it were just about eradicating problem foxes there is a more efficient and humane alternative. You, on the other hand, are somebody who evidently takes great delight in seeing the avoidable suffering inflicted on an animal.
Traps and shotguns, not horses and hounds, are a reasonable means to an ends. Oh, but where’s the fun in that? Where’s the Tradition??
You show your true colours and I think you’re grotesque.
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police/question/Q992
Complete nonsense.
Foxhunting carries on perfectly legally all over the country to this day:
UK Government:
‘You can use up to 2 dogs to chase (‘flush’ or ‘stalk’) foxes out of hiding if the fox is causing damage to your property or the environment.
Your dogs can’t go underground to find the foxes unless they’re threatening wild or game birds kept for shooting – only one dog can go underground at any time.
You must:
Bigotry and prejudice, polemic, is not a convincing, effective or attractive debating style.
Preaching from a position of dumb ignorance is the currency of fanaticism, a small step away from total lunacy.
The only dumbass around here is you, considering only a psychopath would choose a method to kill an animal which ensures cruelty over a more humane, efficient alternative method. ‘Rights’ don’t even come into it as you’re making a ‘choice’. That choice tells me all I need to know about the likes of you. And as you’re evidently obsessed with getting the last word in on the matter, due to your arrogance and pompous nature, I’d say you’re the one who’s got “fanatic” written all over them.
As I say, one tiny step away from total lunacy…….
I have already shown, with peer reviewed evidence, that shooting is a great deal less humane than hunting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289724920_Wounding_Rates_in_Shooting_Foxes_Vulpes_vulpes
Read and weep. That is the fate to which you and so many barbaric fanatics have condemned foxes; thousands shot and wounded every year dying unspeakably slow deaths, unrecoverable from thick cover as a direct consequence of the inhuman hunting act that you support.
Evil, intentional or not.
Trapping works in an urban setting. It is ineffective in the countryside and, if traps cannot be/are not checked regularly, desperately inhumane.
Why do you use your cat to hunt mice instead of trapping them?
It’s your responsibility to bait, set and check a trap appropriately. Either that or improve your fencing to stop predators gaining access in the first place. A fox in a trap shot at close range will always be a better way of dispatching it then hunting it down and tearing it to shreds, along with any cubs in the den. You really are one sick and twisted ”fanatic” if you prefer this method, therefore 10/10 for projection because you’re seriously outing yourself as the only ”lunatic” around here with your ”barbaric” choice of eradicating an animal. There are even deterrents on the market, but do keep repeating your narrative to yourself to justify your psychopathic tendencies;
”FoxLights operates by emitting flashes of light in different colors and random patterns, simulating a person walking with a flashlight and creating the illusion that someone is present in the area. Wolves and foxes, being cautious and fearful of humans, avoid approaching areas where they perceive human presence.”
https://blog.birdgard.es/foxlights-protects-livestock-from-wolves-and-foxes/
https://modernfarmer.com/2019/02/how-to-keep-the-fox-out-of-the-chicken-coop/
https://sheepgoatinsights.com/benefits-of-using-guard-geese-for-sheep-and-goat-protection/
Desperate, uninformed, trite and unevidenced nonsense does not constitute any kind of useful contribution.
It is impossible to fence large acreages of steep gradient open hillsides, agricultural land only suitable for certain breeds of sheep.
It is impossible to trap problem foxes on steep open hillsides either, otherwise everyone would be doing it.
The hunting act has led to a wildlife disaster of unparalleled magnitude, thousands of foxes shot and wounded, left to die in agony, unrecovered as a direct consequence of the two dog follow up limit of the hunting act, admitted by the league against cruel sports to be useless in thick cover.
Supporters of the hunting act are accessories to this animal welfare catastrophe; callous, evil, despicable creatures; just a bunch of sick, depraved monkeys…..
Your unwillingness to look at preventative measures, already implemented by farmers in the UK or abroad, just further confirms who you are as a person, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly now so I won’t labour my point. More here…for you to no doubt ignore and scoff at;
https://www.agridirect.ie/article/lambing-season-top-tips-for-keeping-the-fox-away
‘The average (median) Household Share of Farm Business Income in England in 2021/22 was:
The idea that smallholders in their sixties or older earning less than the minimum wage can afford expensive fencing or hi tec alarms, lighting, feed packs of guard dogs or use geese is so exceptionally stupid that it merits no further comment.
The anti hunting campaign has created a brutal wildlife welfare cataclysm; a standing reproach illuminating the uninformed ignorance and bovine idiocy, narcissistic self indulgence of its proponents; sick and pathetic monkeys…..
You finished your toddler tantrum and throwing your toys out the pram, Mr “I’d rather inhumanely kill foxes than even contemplate alternative/preventative measures” Psycho-Obsessive??
It must really jar with your obvious narcissistic fanaticism to acknowledge this is one argument you will never ever win. Your attempts to beat me into submission an epic failure. What a bitter pill to swallow for somebody with such an over-inflated ego. My heart bleeds…
For perspective:
‘The gross margin (to simplify – profit) on Neil’s sheep enterprise was less than £500 a year. That’s for all of his sheep – not per sheep. All that work and love that went into sheep produced only c£500 income for Neil and his family. ‘
‘Here are glimpses of the British countryside most people won’t see in 2024:
· a dozen foxes hung up on a farm gate in West Wales by the men who shot them the night before – just to show what they’ve done.
· A pyramid of fox corpses outside the back door of a gamekeeper’s house on an intensive shooting estate in Devon.
· Fox cubs starving to death in their earths because their mothers have been killed.
· Broken gates, damaged crops, terrorised farmers and a pile of dead hares on a farm track in East Anglia – the calling card of the illegal hare coursers who plague the eastern lowlands.
· Sick, diseased and injured red deer dying a slow and painful death in forests on Exmoor because huntsmen can no longer use a full pack of hounds to find them.’
‘In many parts of the country “foxing” has become a field sport in its own right, practised not just by gamekeepers but by individuals who take pleasure in killing foxes and boasting about it on social media. The scale of killing (and wounding) is undoubtedly greater in some areas than it used to be, leading to a significant decline in fox numbers.’
‘Staghounds in the West Country can only use two dogs under the 2004 Act. This has made it much harder to find and dispatch deer which have been hit by vehicles or wounded by shooters than it used to be with a full pack of hounds. As the hunts can no longer go out with a full pack they are failing to disperse herds across the landscape. As a result, red deer are now congregating in larger numbers and becoming more vulnerable to infectious diseases like bovine TB. More red deer are now being shot, both legally and illegally, than in the past and an increase in poaching has led to more deer being wounded.
‘During the first three days after the hunting ban came into force in 2005, over 3000 hares were shot on two estates in East Anglia, not to make jugged hare but to ensure that the estates would not be targeted by illegal coursers. We heard frequent stories of farmer shooting all the hares on their land to keep the illegal coursers away. This is a fine example of the unintended consequences of bad law.’
For perspective:
‘We’ve seen foxes virtually wiped out in some areas as casual shooting has become more prevalent. No longer the weak, the diseased and injured taken by hounds; no close season so that foxes could breed as with hunting. 3000 hares shot on just two estates within days of the Hunting Act being passed to deter gangs of poachers from invading the land; no longer do hares benefit from conservation measures by hunts and coursing clubs, such as providing cover and organising poacher patrols.
Deer hunts removed elderly, deformed and diseased stags; they reduced the number of breeding hinds; they broke up large herds to disperse them and observe and recorded deer herds for scientific reasons. Hunts would track and dispatch injured deer, but now all this has diminished due to the Hunting Act
For the first time, we have an insight into what has really happened to the fox, brown hare and red deer of Exmoor and the Quantocks post Hunting Act. Basically, the status of these animals has changed in the eyes of some landowners for a variety of reasons, as explained in the book. The bans have diminished a community-based conservation process reducing it to pest control or commercial gain. This isn’t a case of preferring one method over another – it highlights that a balance between shooting and hunting was wrecked by the Hunting Act.
This awful situation, unseen by many, is due entirely or in part to the consequence of laws based upon ignorance, prejudice, emotion, naivety and the clever spin of animal rights groups. For years, the public, politicians and media have been conned – it’s a simple as that.
Whatever people think of hunting and whatever they may think these hunting bans have achieved – an attack on political opponents, getting at toffs, revenge for the miners, a twisted animal rights philosophy or whatever – the one thing that now cannot be said with any credibility is that a ban on the use of hunting dogs in wildlife management is good for animal welfare. These bans have not improved animal welfare, instead they have made life far, far worse for the fox, hare and red deer of the West Country.
The RSPCA, LACS and IFAW all campaigned long and hard for the Hunting Act. They have claimed for years that this law has improved the lives of the fox, hare and red deer of Exmoor without the slightest effort to substantiate that statement. These groups were approached to supply their evidence and they refused.
We now have the findings of the first in depth investigation that shows a truly harrowing picture, for animal welfare and genuine conservation.
And so, to all those who campaigned for a ban on hunting with hounds – the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports through to the masked-up thugs of the hunt saboteurs, to the gullible, virtue-signalling politicians who do their bidding and to the Mays, Monbiots and Packhams of this world – the fact is, the Hunting Act has failed… and these findings prove it.
So where is their evidence to the contrary? Up to now, their tactic is the usual one of not responding in the hope that these uncomfortable truths will go away.
That will not be allowed to happen.’
Jim Barrington, Ex Director, League Against Cruel Sports (LACS)
‘when I and others at the LACS voiced our concerns about the consequences of a hunting ban, we were told to keep quiet.’
For perspective:
‘Based on the testimony of farmers, gamekeepers, conservationists, scientists and hunters, Rural Wrongs tells the story of how and why the hunting ban has failed. “In the 1980s, we’d find foxes everywhere we went,” Philip Hague, huntsman with the VWH, had told us when we met the previous year. “In the 1990s, the number started declining largely because of lamping. But the speed of decline has increased rapidly since the hunting ban in 2004.”
We heard similar stories almost everywhere we went. In many areas, “foxing” has become a field sport in its own right, practiced not just by gamekeepers but individuals who take pleasure in killing foxes. Before the ban, hunting had a restraining influence, with landowners often asking their keepers to leave a few foxes for the hunt. That old social contract has gone now.
Some of the riders with the VWH were well into their craggy 70s, but there were also plenty of fresh-faced young men and women as well as teenagers and little tots on Shetland ponies. But will their children, and their children’s children, be able to do the same thing, enjoy a field sport which has helped to shape both countryside and rural communities, a generation or two hence?
The 2004 Hunting Act is a testament to ignorance and bigotry. Many MPs voted for it simply because they wanted to ban an activity carried out by people they despised – snobs and yobs, as Labour MP Elliot Morley (who later served time for fiddling his expenses) memorably called them. But at least most hunts have been able to continue the tradition of hunting, either because of exemptions under the Act or because they are allowed to follow a pre-laid trail. If the Labour Party carries out its threat to ban trail hunting, it would mean that the innocent would be punished for crimes they have not committed.
Not only would this be staggeringly illiberal, it would destroy one of great cultural traditions in the British countryside, condemn many thousands of hounds to an early death and have a significant economic effect not just on hunt staff, who would lose their jobs and often their homes, but on the ancillary trades related to the use and care of horses.
A way forward
In the closing pages of Rural Wrongs I suggest how the current legislation could be replaced by a law which would protect wild animals from unnecessary suffering and restore hunting with hounds as an important form of wildlife management.
We already have a legal precedent in the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. This granted protection not just to domestic and captive animals but to all animals, included hunted species such as the fox. Under the 1972 law, hunting, coursing and fishing were exempt, unless they involved activities which caused “unnecessary suffering.” This meant that any individual or organisation who believed hunting was responsible for causing unnecessary suffering was free to test the evidence in court. Unfortunately, the 1972 Act was superseded by legislation which removed the clause about unnecessary suffering and thereby the route to prosecution.
There is absolutely no reason why something similar to the 1972 Act couldn’t be introduced in Westminster for England and Wales, and in Edinburgh for Scotland. But this will only happen if hunting organisations campaign for the repeal of the 2004 Hunting Act and its replacement with something along the lines suggested in Rural Wrongs. And it will only happen if politicians set aside their prejudices and agree to make law based on evidence. Our evidence demonstrates that the current law has failed and that hunting with hounds is one of the most humane methods of control.’
For perspective:
‘First, some background. Over the past two years, Countryside Alliance animal welfare advisor Jim Barrington and I have explored the impact of the 2004 Hunting Act on the quarry species in England and Wales. Our findings are described in the book Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law. The ban, we discovered, has made life much worse for the fox, red deer and brown hare, not better.
The Alliance Party pledged in its manifesto that it would introduce a bill to ban hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland. Their first attempt to do so a little over two years ago failed. Now that Stormont is sitting again, they plan to have another crack. Gary McCartney, Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland director, was hoping that Jim and I would explain to the Alliance Party Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) that a straightforward ban in Northern Ireland could be just as disastrous for wild animals as it had been in England and Wales.
Being a conference virgin, I was expecting a fair amount of confrontation. There was none.
We began with a very civilised conversation with Robbie Marsland of the League Against Cruel Sports and all the interactions we had with the MLAs and delegates were conducted in a friendly spirit, even if our views differed.
The first person I sat next to in the conference hall told me he was astonished to see the Countryside Alliance stand. “You wouldn’t want to be seen carrying one of their bags with its logo!” he said. He was in favour of the party’s plan to ban hunting. “For me it’s a class issue, and the hunts are so arrogant.”
He was astonished when I told him that I had recently read a study which suggested that over half the people who hunt in Northern Ireland earn less than £20,000 a year (admittedly, the study was over a decade old) and many come from a working-class background. That certainly wasn’t the image that hunting projects, he said: “Maybe they should do more to get those people into the public view.” Maybe they should.
Three of the other delegates and one of the MLAs told me a similar story. They were particularly aggrieved by what they saw as the arrogance of certain hunts and they claimed that they sometimes trespassed on private land, ignoring the wishes of landowners. But the interesting point here is that most of the people I spoke to seemed more concerned with poor behaviour by the hunts than with the crucial issue of animal welfare.
During the course of the day, Gary, Jim and I spoke to several MLAs. Some were prepared to have lengthy conversations and listen to the arguments we put forward. Others were keen to hot-foot it to other stands promoting less contentious activities. John Blair, the architect of the original bill, was generous with his time. “I hope I’m smiling in that photo!” he said at one point. “I don’t want to look angry!” He didn’t, but he was adamant about pushing forward with his plans for a ban. “I want to be absolutely clear, I am opposed to any form of killing for sport.”
So here we are, once again: the ban is as much about proscribing certain sorts of human behaviour, rather than furthering the welfare of the wild animal. As far as the hunted fox is concerned, it makes not the slightest odds whether the people pursuing it are enjoying themselves or not, are upper or working class, are on horseback or on foot. As the fox might say, channelling Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind: frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
The main hall was packed for the speech by Naomi Long, the Alliance Party leader. I wondered whether we were actually going to get away without a mention of fox hunting when some two-thirds of the way through her speech, Ms Long said that John Blair was pressing on with issues that he was passionate about, “like banning hunting with dogs.”
So there you have it. The banning bill will be back on the floor of Stormont before too long. But as Gary McCartney and Jim Barrington pointed out to visitors to the Countryside Alliance stand, things have changed. With Rural Wrongs, we now have evidence that the hunting ban has been bad for wild animal welfare.’
For perspective:
‘I speak on this issue today as a representative MLA and a keen conservationist and country sports enthusiast.
During my lifetime, I have had the opportunity to meet huntsmen and huntswomen and conservationists from Antrim to Kerry, Down to Donegal and everywhere in between. Hunting and countryside management have been an intrinsic part of the rural way of life across these islands for many years. I hope that, in the time afforded me today, I can correct some of the vile attempted character assassinations on many in the hunting community. I thank the Countryside Alliance, BASC and many others for their engagement with me on the Bill.
The reasons for proposing legislation along the lines of the Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill appear to be as vague as they are misguided. Has the Member not witnessed the turmoil that has taken place in England, Wales and Scotland as a result of the two laws that seek to ban hunting with dogs — something that is still not resolved all these years later? Has he not listened to judges, legal experts, veterinarians, senior police officers, animal welfare experts, senior civil servants, countless country people and the Prime Minister of the day, who shares his name, all of whom have criticised those laws? Does he casually dismiss the view of the senior parliamentary counsel who was asked to draft the Bill that became the Hunting Act 2004?
He said:
“All government legislation ought to be about pursuing a public policy that the party in government is pursuing because it forms part of their policies for the betterment of the state, but this wasn’t that. A moral judgement was being imposed on a minority — and I thought we didn’t do that, except in extremis.”
Does the vast cost to the taxpayer in police and court time not make the Member think again about following that path, or does he believe that an opinion poll that supports his Bill, in which, literally, anyone, anywhere in the world, could take part, and which received a paltry 18,000 responses, is a sound basis for enacting legislation? I saw responses from as far away as Arizona in the United States of America and from other European cities. Do they understand the unique circumstances and nature of the Northern Ireland countryside? I ask Members to think about that.
To argue that a ban on the use of hunting dogs is somehow justified simply because the rest of the United Kingdom has enacted similar disastrous laws is as pointless as it is ill-founded. We should be learning from the mistakes that other parts of the United Kingdom have made, not blindly following for some dubious virtue-signalling reason. However, the legislators here in Northern Ireland resolved the issue many years ago, when legislation that protected animal welfare and the right to hunt coexisted. The law permitted the prosecution of anyone, including hunt supporters, if unnecessary suffering to an animal had been caused. It is highly significant that, during those years, not one prosecution was brought forward. It has been argued by the Alliance Party and others that that was because the legislation was flawed, but how? If the evidence of unnecessary suffering, such as what we have heard today from some in the House, had existed, there would have been no bar to legal action. Could it be — I dare to suggest it — because the scientific and veterinary evidence against hunting with dogs simply does not exist? I know that some Members might not like to hear this, but the veterinary evidence is in support of hunting.
The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management states:
“Hunting is the natural and most humane method of controlling the fox population. It is humane for a number of reasons; perhaps the most important is that it is intrinsically certain and leaves no wounded survivors.”
Hunting with scented hounds adheres perfectly to the aims of genuine wildlife management. It leaves a smaller but healthier quarry population and achieves that in a way that is natural for the hunter and the hunted. The Bill ignores all those points. Quite frankly, it is so poorly drafted that, under it, every dog owner in Northern Ireland could become a criminal for simply letting their dog do what dogs do. In other words, the Bill attempts to legislate against a dog’s most basic and natural instinct: to scent and hunt.
The Bill also ignores peer-reviewed research that shows that flushing foxes to guns using a full pack of hounds is more effective than using just two dogs, as the Hunting Act in England and Wales demands. That point was emphasised by the law lord Lord Bonomy in 2016, when he commissioned the Scottish Government review of the law there. Why it was ever thought that limiting that process to just two dogs was better than three or four dogs, or, perhaps, a pack, is unclear. There is certainly no scientific or veterinary basis for that number, apart from the very obvious fact that it curbs the use of hounds.
Dogs are used in a variety of country sports. The Member said that he has no desire to stop any activity other than the killing of wild mammals by dogs. I take his sincere point in that regard. However, the Bill, as drafted, bears no relation to that promise. Shooting will be affected through the work of gamekeepers and dogs, which are used in numerous ways in other sports. The Bill seeks to ban trail hunting, which was the point that I tried to raise to my colleague and friend Mr Stalford.
Quite how the police will be expected to distinguish between the different types of scent that are used by a legal drag hunt and an illegal trail hunt is anyone’s guess. That point has not been explained in the House today.’
For perspective:
‘I speak directly to Members and to country sports enthusiasts across Northern Ireland: today, by means of this Bill, the anti-hunting lobby seeks to ban the huntsman and huntswoman and their hound.
Next, it will be the man or woman with their gun and their dog, followed by the angler and their rod.
I realise that that may not be the intention of Mr Blair, but I assure the House that that is the very intention of some of the advocates of the Bill. The only reason that the rat — the common rat; vermin — has been excluded from the Bill is that, frankly, it was not deemed cute and cuddly enough to be included. It did not fit the narrative. As Members, we must do what is right. We must look at the legislation and deem whether it is fit for purpose. If the principle of the Bill is that sport or recreation has no place in the management of wildlife, then, clearly, shooting, falconry and angling will all be on the list for banning in the near future. Make no mistake about that.
I come to an important point. All that I have said up until now would be diminished or, indeed, irrelevant if the welfare of the animals that were previously hunted in England, Wales and Scotland had improved. Yet, with all the significant sums of money that have been spent on campaigning for laws to ban hunting and the subsequent cost to the public purse for police and court time, not a single penny — not one — has been spent by any anti-hunting group to assess the impact of those laws. That, in itself, speaks volumes.
Surely, such critical and crucial research would put an end to the hunting controversy once and for all. Do those groups suspect what is really happening to the wild animals that they supposedly care for and that their case is fundamentally flawed? Such evidence that we have indicates that previously hunted species in many areas are viewed very differently by farmers and landowners, with the result that a community-based conservation process has now just become one of pest control, often with healthy animals being killed instead of the weak, injured or diseased and in far greater numbers.
That is not productive wildlife management; again, it is virtue signalling.
The hunting bans in the rest of the United Kingdom are not only detrimental to animal welfare but damaging to conservation. I can well understand why members of the public, who, in the main, are unfamiliar with hunting and might not like the idea of that activity — Members may not like it — will sign petitions or respond negatively to public opinion polls. However, such surveys only reflect a perception and do not explain other methods of wildlife management or pest control, which would inevitably increase and which the public would find equally offensive.
The job of an MLA is to analyse the issues in detail, study the Bill in detail and legislate on the basis of evidence and fact, not prejudice or perception.’
For perspective:
‘When looking at any legislative proposal, a good starting point is asking this question: is the current law adequate? In Mr Stalford’s last intervention, he made the point that:
“you do not have the right to be cruel”.
Indeed, that is exactly why one of the last Acts of the old Parliament in Northern Ireland was the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, followed through with some updates by this House in 2011. For those 50 years, it has been a criminal offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal in any circumstances, including in the course of hunting. Cruelty itself is defined in that legislation as “unnecessary suffering”.
From listening to some in this debate, you would think that we were entering into the novel territory of suddenly embracing the concept of avoiding cruelty to animals for the first time. However, the Bill is not about targeting cruelty; it is about targeting hunting per se. That is the target in the Bill.
There does not even have to be a kill to create illegality under the Bill. It is the chase that is to be criminalised by the Bill in a way that is wholly oppressive, because clause 1 creates a strict liability offence, as Mr Blair intends. The starting point and the finishing point in the Bill is that you shall create a strict liability offence. What is a strict liability offence? It is one in which you do not have to bother with showing intention, for which there is no excuse and which, if it happens, is an offence, no matter the circumstances.
Let us take some examples. Driving with no insurance is a strict liability offence. It does not matter that you forgot to renew or thought you had renewed your insurance. It does not matter that you told the wife to renew it and she did not do it. It does not matter. No excuse will stop a prosecution for driving with no insurance, for the good reason that it is critically of public interest importance that you do not allow any leeway for circumstances in which other members of the public can be injured by your acts. Therefore, you cannot have any excuse for not having insurance. Strict liability offences are few and far between in the law.
Another example is statutory rape. If someone has intercourse with someone aged 14 or under, it does not matter what consent, excuse or belief as to age there was; it is statutory rape. It is a strict liability offence. Mr Blair seeks to create the strict liability offence where, if you are out walking a dog and that dog chases a mammal, it is an offence. I say that because of the marriage between clause 1 and clause 6(3). Clause 6(3) is clear.
The proposed section 1 makes it a strict liability offence to participate in the hunting of a wild animal with a dog. Clause 6(3) states:
“In section 1 the reference to participation in the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog includes a reference to participation in another activity … in the course of which a dog hunts a wild mammal.”
The other activity could be walking the dog. Many’s a Sunday afternoon, when I had a golden retriever, I walked by the banks of the Kellswater River. Under this legislation, had my dog run off and killed a rabbit — not even killed it but chased and hunted it — I would be guilty of an offence. How absurd is that?
It is not just loose, careless drafting. Clause 6(3) is there for a purpose. It is there to underscore the strict liability of clause 1. It is there, deliberately and consciously, to make it a strict liability offence if you are engaged in an activity such as walking your dog and your dog merely chases or hunts a mammal. In that instance, you have committed an offence.
What happens to a farmer in the community when he is convicted of an offence such as that and he holds a firearm certificate? The first knock at the door will be from the PSNI on foot of a criminal conviction, asking him to hand over his shotgun, all because Mr Blair thinks that it is right to create a strict liability offence out of a dog doing the natural thing of chasing a rabbit.
That is why I say that this is absurd legislation in its reach and in its intent. As Mr Blair told the Agriculture Committee, he wanted to create a strict liability offence.
That is what he wants the House to vote for — to create such a strict liability offence.
That is why I will not vote for the Bill.’
You said it.
And if a ewe that has lamed is lame on unhealthy in any way, the chance of survival of the lamb are next to zero. It is weird to watch sometimes; you get broody sheep that will steal a lamb, confuse the real mother so the lamb ends up being rejected by both, and therefore its life is in danger.
They can’t be there 24/7 of at night.
Here’s a radical notion: you could better guard your livestock.
Here in the Netherlands we have wolves and they’re protected so farmers can’t shoot them. As with other countries, farmers have had to improve their boundary fencing, often using electric fences, but also some have guard dogs specifically bred to live amongst and guard the livestock from predators. This is not rocket science. But speaking of which, if you can explain to me how man can safely fly into space and back but paradoxically is unable to protect their livestock from nature’s predators then I’m all 
ears… Outfoxed by a wee fox….sh*t!
That is just plain silly.
You permit your cat to hunt mice because they are a pest but cannot see the similarity between that and others using dogs to hunt foxes that are pests.
Get out into the uplands and have a look at some hill farms where fox predation is a major problem.
You cannot use electric fences on the fells nor would guard dogs be effective amongst sheep dispersed across the hillsides where they lamb.
The number of problem foxes is quite small. Hunting them with fell hounds on foot has evolved over the centuries as by far and away the most cost effective method of control. They are now shot on the Fells; unspeakably cruel in the case of the many shot and wounded foxes.
Your ignorance is typical of most who oppose Hunting. The Burns report on which the Hunting Act was based itself ignored available evidence, very much as Lady Halletts inquiry is doing today.
Ah the usual old patronising trope gets wheeled out time and again: “Them ignorant townies don’t understand our way of life out in the country”
, where apparently the definition of “animal cruelty” is completely different. Well, silly me. But I’m pretty sure, irrespective of where one lives, anyone with a conscience knows the meaning of that term. In what realm would shooting a fox be deemed ‘cruel,’ but terrorising then having one torn to shreds be called “humane”? Absolute codswallop! And by all accounts more hunts than not came back unsuccessful so not the most efficient way of keeping the problematic fox population down at all then, really. So what’s the point? Well the point apparently is that this is more of a social gathering and a jolly old jaunt, more than anything. Churn up the fields, inconvenience people trying to go about their business, all for what? Your aim is to catch the foxes that are attacking the livestock, but that’s hardly going to be the old, sick foxes you might catch, is it? Because they’d be too old and sick to break into a hen house anyway, so you’re catching the wrong foxes and accomishing nothing as a result. You only tell yourself you are in order to justify your actions but your argument doesn’t stack up. It is noteworthy that foxes also prey on rabbits and hares, that can be quite the pain in the butt for farmers. Like any predator they’re going to go for the easiest prey first, not decide to go all ‘Mission Impossible’ and break into a chicken coop.
Shoot them or learn to protect your animals better. What on earth difference is catching a fox once in a blue moon going to make in the grand scheme of things, especially if it’s the wrong damn animal?
And as for cats and mice, if I’m in and see mine with a mouse in the garden I’ll always try and distract her with cat treats or meat and take her indoors, allowing the critter a chance to escape, because I hate the way cats torment mice for ages prior to killing them. With feral cats it’s a matter of survival though, so I can’t fault them.
Shooting a fox is humane when you can get a clean shot.to the head.
But can you?
I’ve never tried shooting foxes but they’re not large, their heads are smaller, and they’re quick.
I’d say that hoping to put a bullet through a 2″ moving target at even 20 yds is pretty optimistic to achieve 100 % of the time, which means you will be leaving behind an awful lot of wounded foxes suffering lingering deaths.
So you go for a centre of mass shot, if you hit the heart then you’ll get a more or less instant kill but otherwise you then have to get close quick to perform a kill shot. Might take several minutes depending on the sort of country you are in and the state of the wounded fox. So tell me how is that more humane than a dog killing after a chase?
It seems paradoxical but I am convinced hunting with dogs is probably the most humane or at least the least inhumane solution.
What is wrong with trapping them then shooting them? That way you can be sure of targeting the correct fox plus you get to shoot it close up for the most humane kill?
Nothing wrong with trapping them…but foxes are very difficult to trap.
If it was that easy, that is exactly what everyone would be doing!
I’ve been ‘in at the kill’, mere feet away [by chance]. It was extremely quick, faster than Albert Pierrepoint’s 7 seconds to hang someone
You may or not be a ‘townie’. I have no idea. Nor do I care. But if you cannot see the connection between you having a cat to get rid of household pests, mice, and farmers using dogs to get rid of pests, foxes, in the countryside then you are a great deal worse than ignorant.
That is reinforced by your idea that leaving a shot and wounded fox to die a lingering and unspeakable death underground is preferable to a swift, and it really is swift, death by hounds.
Shooting kills many of the ‘wrong’ foxes. Hounds hunt a problem foxes in the same way that a Police dog caught the lunatic who tried to burgle my house. They pick up the scent from the lamb ripped to shreds and then hunt the specific problem fox.
If you are going to engage in this kind of debate, these are the kind of facts that you should keep at your fingertips.
Farmers have a problem with foxes. Others have a problem with cats.
‘…cats are prolific hunters of wildlife in the UK and Europe too. A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a quarter of them birds. The real figure is likely to be even higher, as the study used the 2011 pet cat population of 9.5 million; it is now closer to 12 million‘
The anti hunt lunatics will be coming for your cat next….
How is having a cat that catches mice comparable to a pack of hounds tearing to shreds a poor fox that’s been run ragged first? What an insane concept. And how would a fox die a long lingering death after being shot? That’s what retrievers are for. Finish the job.
You’ve stated below that hunting kills off the weakest foxes, so you’re now contradicting yourself. The weakest are unlikely to be the problem foxes attacking the livestock, so you’re killing the wrong foxes if you rely on this method.
The way you interact with people who disagree with you, including outright accusing another poster of lying ( without a shred of evidence ) just because they/we don’t agree with your viewpoint on this matter, makes you come across like a pompous, arrogant ass, by the way.
I will never budge in my stance on this topic, so please continue in wind-up toy mode all you like. The floor is all yours.
Take a look in the mirror! You called another poster a ‘grade A psychopath’
You provide no evidence in support of your position but will not admit evidence (peer reviewed evidence I reference above on shooting foxes) that is against you; pure bigotry then.
If the other poster was not lying, they had the opportunity to present evidence to that effect. They could not. They were lying. Simple logic.
I have seen a shot and wounded fox in broad daylight. It could not see me because it was blind in one eye and moving on three legs. We found it dead several days later.
There are many ways of hunting foxes. Problem foxes can be hunted selectively by the simple expedient of laying hounds, often a few of the most capable, onto the scent left by the fox on the lamb that it has ripped to shreds. This is often done on foot. Sick or wounded foxes can be flushed from cover with a pack of hounds and swiftly despatched.
Make no mistake, the organised anti hunting elements will be coming for cats sooner or later.
That is because cats capturing wildlife, playing with birds, mice, before killing them is quite clearly a great deal more cruel than hounds quickly despatching elderly or infirm or wounded foxes.
And the scale of wildlife killing by cats is, as I have shown, quite simply industrial in scale.
Because anybody who gets enjoyment out of the prospect of terrorising and tearing to pieces an animal absolutely IS a Grade A psycho. Simples! I suggest you now take a large inhalation of copium and go lie down in a dark room. You will never beat me into submission with your bullshit. Bloody obsessive!
A real long time ago, I was standing on a certain path behind the church in my home town with a bunch of buddies and a few girls as well. For entertainment, the guys chose to kill a large snail by slowly roasting it to death with their lighters. I didn’t watch this and made sure that I was distant enough that I also didn’t have to smell it but I assure you, me not considering this a particularly enjoyable or appropriate pastime marked me as the odd one out and not the guys who thought it was great fun.
Your ideas about mankind seem to be a bit … well … ‘optimistic’.
I remember the older lads in the village near a pond, throwing toads from a hight and listening to them splash into the drink. Another kid at boarding school liked to catch small fish in the brook and bite their heads off. Then again, he was an Ozzy fan!
I’ve never had any reservations about nailing my colours to the mast. One should always stand up for one’s principles, and to hell with the consequences. Nobody will ever accuse me of toeing the line whilst conforming to popular opinion within the confines of the echo chamber. If that makes me an eternal optimist then I’ll take it. I’ve been called worse.
A bore……
You most definitely are..
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone riding to hounds, following hounds on foot, gets any pleasure from the kill.
I most certainly do not, nor do I know anyone who does.
In that context, calling someone a ‘Grade A psychopath’ is, frankly, dotty and diminishes both you and your argument.
Hunt followers are enjoying exercise and fresh air in many different ways as part of a rural/farming community that survives through the welfare of its livestock.
Hunting livestock predators is a key part of that welfare management.
Your cat is not!
I have no interest in you or your ridiculous atmospherics, only evidence.
Of that, you have none!
Oh so now they *don’t* enjoy the gruesome finale of their endeavours then?
A tad over-invested in this topic, methinks. A.k.a: “obsessive”.
“I have no interest in you…”, yeah it totally looks like it. The way you just can’t resist responding to every one of my posts…
I am not interested in you, only your arguments.
I am very interested to understand the argument that a cat hunting, capturing, playing with and then killing mice is somehow acceptable but hounds hunting and quickly killing elderly, infirm and no doubt miserable foxes is not?
Those arguments seem unconvincing at best, at worst, unevidenced, plain batshit crazy.
You’re quite right.
It seems to me these are luxury opinions formed more from sentiment than reason.
Any decent human being seeks to avoid cruelty to animals, especially sentient mammals.
But hunting a wild fox seems less cruel to me than for instance keeping pigs in enclosures with barely room to turn around for their whole lives.
Even halal slaughter- well tbh I’ve never seen it performed but from the experience I had as a lad on a NZ sheep farm killing sheep with a knife I think the suffering is of short duration and probably mostly offset by adrenalin, but as I say I don’t know for certain.
As for Pigs in a Farrowing House, the crates do stop the pigs rolling over and crushing the piglets, spent some time in those in my youth.
Yes of course while they’re farrowing, but I have read and I may have been misinformed that many pigs spend their entire lives in feeding structures and never get a chance to live as pigs should.
My view is that all livestock should spend as much time as possible outside living more or less as nature intended.
Going back to 1994 it was just the farrowing pigs in the crush, but some of the older piglets are kept indoors. I remember how the place stank. They did have the larger pigs in the field with makeshift straw huts with plenty of room to move around.
Halal butcher near? Unimaginable cruelty!
I have found that the people who support hunting in the countryside, either with horse or gun have a greater understanding and respect for both the natural environment and the quarry they pursue. The vast majority of the people who oppose hunting have little knowledge of the rural life, and how the country side that we have today has come into being. Without farmers and the land owners who utilise this land for food production, and allow hunting, there wouldn’t be this beautiful countryside that you see today.
I have known hunts that have never taken a fox in some seasons, and others that have not bagged a bird or a buck. It is not the indiscriminate slaughter that it is portrayed to be, by those ignorant of the life rural.
Hear, hear
The vast majority of the anti-hunters live in cities and have no idea how our countryside works.
And usually from the town. I was in Boarding school in the country and many boys were from the city and started ranting at a hunt in the next field. Where is Dellingpole, he should be commenting on this.
My wife was brought up in a small village and watched the traditional Boxing Day hunt every year.
She says she has never actually seen a fox being chased, let alone killed.
It was just some crazy sport where people gallopped across the open fields for fun.
All wild animals die either at the claws of predators or of starvation once they are too old to hunt.
Fox hunting seems to me just a part of the natural cycle of life and death.
In practical terms all hunters contribute to the survival of the hunted species mainly by securing habitat, and yes, weeding out the old and weak.
Fox hunting is not to be compared to the loathsome spectacle of the corrida.
Loathsome to those who don’t understand it, much like those who are.fundamentally ignorant about fox hunting.
I have tried to understand it. I have read death in the afternoon, and I have been to several.
But I still find it loathsome. So maybe I am just more stupid than the average Spaniard, dunno.
But I wouldn’t campaign to ban it.
I agree, I much prefer the Spanish Bull Run, some goring scenes on Youtube of people getting trampled, but that is a good risky adrenaline gathering. Something feels cowardly about sticking endless spears into a Bull to the point that he bleeds to death.
The Labour Party’s assaults on Fox Hunting and Private Education have little to do with genuine concerns about the two practices. They are simply relatively painless mechanisms through which Keir Starmer and his cabinet can pander to the traditional Labour Party’s core membership, who are as deeply disenchanted with this shambolic government as the rest of us are.
Tony Blair used the same issues shamelessly whenever his government suffered one of its frequent bouts of unpopularity.
Tony the Liar has recently admitted that his ban was wrong. And I wonder how many Labour members really care that much or have considered what will happen to the wonderful packs of hounds that would die out if there is nothing for them to do. It is always wonderful when the hounds appear in the ring at local shows. Amazing how placid and gentle they are and having mingled with each other they can be called to their packs so easily.
I remember stroking some at my village hunt, I must’ve been around four or five. To think they could’ve tourn me apart but were just passive and crowded me is one of my early memories.
Also there is the Cultural Marxist element where they want to do away with anything British or traditional.
I remember the time when a fox hunting ban was first debated. As a townee I knew little and wasn’t much bothered either way. I did think that Labour had far more important issues to deal with so the huge amount of parliamentary time was for class war purposes rather than ethical reasons.
Yet not all fox hunters were rich toffs. Just as not all pensioners are wealthy and don’t need the Winter Fuel Allowance, only rich people can send their kids to private schools, or that farmers are rich enough for their estates to pay inheritance taxes without being broken up.
Class war is perhaps the poorest justification for change because it breeds resistance.
“The cruelty of fishing”?
So the man was a fool after all.
If you accept that fox populations in the countryside need to be controlled to protect livestock (and smallholders/hill farmers are some of the poorest in the land) then foxhunting is required.
Foxes kill thousands of young livestock, poultry every year. Lambs, in particular, are a key part of smallholders earnings. Poultry, eggs, are a key part of smallholders diets.
Agriculture typically has an ageing workforce. In England and the UK, around 40% of all smallholders were over the typical retirement age of 65 years.
Foxhunting is also required to kill off sick or wounded foxes. It is required to keep foxes ‘wild’ and wary of humans, human habitations, to protect family pets, very young children.
It is required as the most humane method of control since it kills off the weakest while the fittest foxes, as anyone who has ever hunted with hounds will testify, generally escape. Foxes in their prime are exceptionally swift, cunning and resourceful as well as being creatures of great beauty and evident spirit. Aged foxes, often afflicted with mange, are not.
Shooting wounds a large number of foxes, is not a humane substitute for hunting:
https://www.falcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf
The wounding of foxes is exacerbated by the hunting act which only allows for two dogs to be used to follow up a poor shot, useless in thick cover.
So, as a direct consequence of the inhumane and barbaric hunting act, thousands of shot and wounded foxes, unrecovered, die an unspeakable lingering death underground. Countrymen across the land can bear witness to this. I have certainly seen shot and wounded foxes in poor condition in the countryside.
‘does the fox really have a fair prospect to escape his killing when pursued by a pack of crazed dogs and a group of eager hunters on excited horses?’
Yes, a very good chance indeed. Foxhounds are not ‘crazed’ any more than foxes killing multiple chickens are ‘crazed’. There are sound reasons for their behaviour. Hunt followers are eager to exercise their horses across challenging ground and the horses thoroughly enjoy themselves as well.
But fox hunting is doomed.
Doomed by the very same bigotry and ignorance that banged pots and submitted to the imposition of illiberal regulations, arguably risky vaccines: stupidity, the tyranny of the majority.
Shameful!
Unfortunately you are corre t, fox hunting is undoubtedly doomed and the horses, the hounds, the staff the rural economy and culture generally, and indeed, the fox as a species will be the worse for it.
God I loaththese townie labourite ignorant bastards with a passion.
I lived on a ‘sporting’ estate for many years. Hounds reaching the age of around 5 are routinely shot as they begin to slow down. Fox cubs are dug up and cage fed until they can be released in known spots for a guaranteed chase. Pregnant females are fed by their dens for the same reason. The jolly tooting of the hunting horn may well come from one person on a horse, but is most usually accompanied by half a dozen armed thugs on quad bikes. The horse is shot when it dares get lame / old and is fed to the hounds. These are not nice people and hunting is not a sport.
So what happens in your perfect world? All animals co-exist in perfect harmony and when they get old or ill they pop in to their local NHS and get end of life care? What do you think actually happens to an old/sick fox? How many weeks of do you think it takes for it to die a wretched death? Will you be out in the countryside to help it?
Also what are the rights of ducks and chickens when the fox gets into their pens. Foxes will kill every single one, because they can not because they are hungry. Are you they type that can’t believe anything fluffy can be a pest?
What happens to old/sick foxes? Probably the same thing that happens to old/sick badgers, hedgehogs, squirrels and all other woodland and wild creatures. Why can’t you justify setting the hounds on them? Maybe when our old cats and dogs get to be an expensive burden we can add them to the mix too.
Just another narrative psychopathic hypocrites tell themselves in order to justify their support for cruelty, and it is undeniably cruel. Barbaric and unnecessary.
So…this is your rationale, is it?;
Something BC – man invented the wheel.
Something less BC – man began building, inc fortresses.
17th Century – man invented the steam engine.
1900s – man invented planes.
1960s – man went into space.
2024> – man still cannot fathom how to fox-proof a chicken coop.
So you think that suffering of a longer protracted agonising death should be the norm? Weird. Actually most other animals will be preyed upon in the food chain. Only badgers and foxes don’t really have any predators.
I hope you are a vegan because otherwise it sounds like you could be an A grade hypocrite.
So says the Grade A psychopath, who, like everybody else, has ignored my initial question: if other creatures can be culled in a more humane manner then why not foxes? Why are they alone singled out for especially cruel, barbaric treatment dressed up as ‘cultural entertainment’? Because tradition….
You really are one messed up sicko, aren’t you? Oh and BTW, how does my acknowledging other forms of animal cruelty and condemning those qualify me as a hypocrite? Try making sense next time, eh?
What about the mice that your cat catches and leaves alive to play with?
What about the cats killed by foxes?
‘…we used DNA analysis and detailed post mortem examination protocols, to show the injuries to be consistent with scavenging by a fox after the cats had died. The causes of death were variable, but to our surprise some of them had been predated by foxes.’
I have a farm and take care of my animals properly. Have you seen what a pile of dead hounds looks like?
Have you seen what a ‘pile of dead hounds’ look like?
Did you inform the Police, as you should have?
Get real – police prosecute the owner of a large sporting estate when they have NCHIs to record? The police did nothing, I’m surprised you even asked. An MFH is legally permitted to shoot animals, including dogs and horses.
You get real and give us your crime reference number.
You are saying that you saw ‘a pile of dead hounds’, reported them to the Police?
Then you will have a crime reference number?
You do not. You are lying.
Not sure why you think I should justify myself to a complete stranger, so I won’t. Cheerio.
Arguments require evidence if they are to convince.
Yours have none.
You will not be missed.
We have certain ‘representative animals’ from the whole host of nature that the animal enthusiasts want to protect. The fox is one. Its a bit like a domestic pooch, it is attractively coloured, and we think its babies are cute. We imagine perhaps that Mrs Fox and the little Foxes are sitting round the tea table, laden with scones and sausage rolls, and Mrs Fox says ‘Oh!, your Dads late.’. Walt Disney has much to answer for.
Of course the real reason is the fox as the victim of oppression of the monied and land owning elite who not only have the gall to go and kill the odd fox, but the temerity to dress up in pantomime outfits while they do it. This is ‘not fair’ on foxes or huddled masses alike, therefore it must be stamped out. To be honest, I think we have much more important things to do than worry about Foxy, and we should mind our own business, rather than trying to regulate the lives of people of whom we know nothing.
I am not, never have been, engaged in fox-hunting, although I did own and ride horses some years ago.
A good question to ask (Chesterton’s Fence) is why traditionally have foxes been hunted?
Foxes are vermin and vicious. They are killers of farm animals, fowl, sheep, particularly attacking pregnant ewes and newborn lambs – sometimes as the ewe is giving birth. They spread disease.
Hunting foxes rarely results in catching one, but it does reduce the population somewhat and scatter them across the countryside reducing their density and reducing competition for their prey, and reducing attacks on farm animals. Dead animals are both a cost and a loss to farmers.
The foxes caught are usually old, lame, or sick animals, or the less smart ones, and this improves the quality of the fox population.
Hunts will take away dead live stock, and help with land management. Hunts provide a significant input into the rural economy: livery yards, feed merchants, farriers & vets, horse tack retailers, etc.
Hunt members come from a broad section of society, many working class, not just rich aristocrats.
Since fox hunting has been restricted, fox populations have grown, competition for food has increased, the result being foxes scavenging in villages and towns, in gardens, even entering houses attacking pets, children and people.
This has resulted in pest-control companies being hired by local authorities and foxes being poisoned, trapped or shot. Shooting foxes is difficult, often missing or wounding with a slow death following: ditto poisoning.
Those concerned about cruelty don’t care about this nor do they extend their concerns to those avians slaughtered in their thousands by windmills and more recently whales killed by off-shore wind installations.
It’s the usual class-warrior hubris.
Very well said.
My Grandfather, years ago, spotted an injured deer on a hill, hind legs entangled in wire and disabled.
The deer was dragging itself along by its forelegs.
We called the local hunt who arrived swiftly and put the deer out of its misery.
Hunting with hounds was developed over the centuries as a way to control (and keep healthy) a predator such as the fox in an environment which had been artificially transformed into one of intensive agriculture. That’s why it worked well. In this artificial environment foxes have no natural predators or competitors to keep the species in good health and animal rearing protected. Hunting provided the balance.
The hunting ban was always class-hate motivated. If cruelty was the chief motive Labour would have banned religious slaughter of animals.
Sir Roger Scruton is right – the fox has not benefited one bit from the banning of hunting. If anything, his life is worse and instead of the magnificent specimens of my childhood, they are mangey, miserable looking creatures now. Thanks Tony.
As a vegetarian it might be assumed I would oppose hunting but I don’t.