Comment: Considering the evidence is there really any logical argument for not imposing a full ban on fox hunting?

On December 26 2005 record-numbers of people joined fox-hunts across the UK in a defiant gesture against the Labour governments ban on hunting with dogs implemented in February that year.
Hundreds of thousands of people turned out in support of a countryside tradition that has split the nation and illustrated the contrasting views of city-dwellers and their country-counterparts.
Rural folk have stood by their ‘right’ to hunt, stating that it is an effective method of pest control and that those living in urban areas do not understand the lifestyle of country living or the true ‘evil’ nature of the fox. Most people living in cities or towns claim that the past-time is arcane and barbaric.
In each case these arguments are simplistic and, in general, avoid the real issues in passing judgement on whether this ‘sport’ should be allowed by law to continue. There are compelling arguments on each side of the debate that are not put forward consistently enough.
The common perception is that the fox is a rural animal and the scourge of our agriculture industries.
Hunt supporters, in particular The Countryside Alliance, have used the argument that the new law banning hunting with dogs has been passed by people from urban areas who simply cannot understand their way of life and how it is effected by foxes.
This argument has a major flaw. Since foxes began colonising urban areas in the 1930s their population has grown, levelled out to an optimum number, meaning the population neither increases or decreases massively, and secured the animal as a permanent urban fixture. In fact, there are now more foxes living urban areas in the UK than rural ones. The majority of complaints regarding foxes come from urban residents.
This is not to say that the fox is not a pest to farmers and other rural workers, causing damage and extra costs to our agriculture industries. There is little argument that it may be necessary by farmers to cull foxes to protect their livelihoods. Unlike the myths perpetuated about foxes they are not dangerous or malicious animals and will not attack humans unless attacked themselves. They are shy and timid creatures who whilst being a pest are not a physical threat or technically ‘vermin’ as pro-hunt lobbyists would have the public believe.
The idea of the fox as a ‘pest’ is central to the reason behind fox-hunting, with it being advertised as an effective means of fox-population control.
In their information booklet ‘Hunting the Truth’ The Countryside Alliance state that, “Above all, those who hunt and manage the land believe that they have evolved the best system for controlling - culling rather than just killing - the quarry which they hunt.”
Mr D. MacDonald, of The Wildlife Conservation Unit would beg to differ. His report ‘Management and Control of Populations of Foxes, Deer, Hares and Mink in England and Wales, and the Impact of Hunting with Dogs’ conducted for the government concluded that ‘Mounted hunting with hounds has no effect on fox populations’ and that ‘shooting’ is the most effective way of killing foxes.
Some forms of hunting, for example shooting, do act as effective controls of animal populations, but in the case of hunting foxes with hounds it has nothing to do with population control.
From this it would appear that fox-hunts are conducted simply for ‘fun’ and MacDonald’s report also adds that these hunts are ‘not effective for any non-recreational aim.’ To back this up the report also shows that whilst farmers do consistently shoot foxes as ‘pests’, they also deliberately spare a number so that they have some to hunt.
The ‘pest-control’ argument holds little water when these facts are introduced, and reduces the power of the arguments for keeping hunting legal. The Countryside Alliance’s claim that ‘What hunting does is to manage fox numbers rather than encourage their extinction,’ seems little more than pointed political propaganda.
The main argument against fox-hunting is that it is inhumane and brutal - this is not the view of the majority of people living in rural areas. MacDonald’s report shows that ‘over 54% of farmers consider hunting humane’.
Again with some forms of hunting this ideal is true, but with fox-hunting with hounds fulfilling no purpose, other than recreation, it can not be in anyway considered humane.
A major argument used for allowing fox-hunting to continue is that a ban is curtailing the ‘human rights’ of a minority group preventing them from carrying out a major part of their lifestyle because of prejudice and misconception.
The campaign group Hunting For Tolerance claim that in a free, democratic country such as the UK we shouldn’t ban the activities of minority simply because the majority of people don’t agree with their actions. However, if a majority believe that something is wrong or detrimental to society there are thousands of examples of minority groups being banned from certain activities.
At present, with the absence of a national vote on the matter, the majority view is hard to quantify. Many polls have been conducted and the results used to back up points from both sides of the debate.
At the start of the current hunting season a poll by ORB, commissioned by The Countryside Alliance, showed that support for a ban on fox-hunting is at an all-time low, falling dramatically from 63% to 45%.
The 63% support figure was taken from a Mail on Sunday poll in July 1999. The Countryside Alliance claim that support has dropped since then and is now at 45% of the UK’s population.
In reality the true figure probably falls somewhere between the two numbers.
The National Student’s poll conducted by Opinionpanel Research, operators of the Student Panel at the end of 2004 showed that 54% of students from 107 universities believed there should be a total ban on the sport.
Not all agreed with a ban and 28% of students thought that licensed hunts should be allowed and 13% thought that people should just be allowed to hunt foxes.
Nothing short of having a full national vote on the matter will settle the public opinion debate and this is not likely to happen. It is therefore the obligation of the government to consider evidence collected on the issue and the fact that current legislation is not working to prevent hunting with hounds and act appropriately in the best interests of society as a whole.
The evidence shows that the fox is no huge threat to rural lives, that hunting with hounds is inhumane and fulfils nothing but a recreational purpose.
Considering this, is there really any logical argument for not imposing a full ban on this barbaric pastime?
If there is I’ve yet to hear it.

James Thornhill