Cruel though it may be, there are not many good alternatives to hunting with dogs. Snaring , for instance, is prohibited in most other European countries because of its cruelty as well as its danger to other animals. Life trapping is less cruel but poses the same difficulties as snaring, in that other species are easily caught in the traps, which also makes it less effective than other methods. “Lamping with a high powered rifle, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, is the most humane way of killing a fox”(Burns et al. 2000:118). This is not a perfect solution either. Firstly there are sufficient examples of animals not being killed, but wounded and left bleeding to death. Secondly in upland area’s that are not very accessible, the shooter cannot get close enough to the fox to shoot it properly. It is therefore that the Burns report states that “in the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used”(ibid:119) In these cases however, it is important that measures are taken to reduce the suffering of the fox: by shortening the chase as much as possible and governing the digging out very closely.
Foxes are seen as a threat to the countryside. Thanks largely to the pro-hunt lobby and the farmers’ feud against the animals, many people assume that foxhunting or a replacement of it as a means of fox population control is a necessity. Animal Aid (2001) nonetheless, argues that “the foxes diet of rabbits and rats actually makes it an asset to most farmers”. It also reputes the fox as a danger to flocks: “Only 0.4 per cent of lambs who die do so due to accidents, dog attacks, and all other animal predatation which includes being taken by foxes”(ibid). Some control over the population of foxes is needed to prevent it from growing to pestilent forms, but the role of hunting in this is largely overestimated. For example: the gross total of foxes killed in the UK in 2000 by hunts was only 13,987 (Burns et al. 2000:205) on an average total of 400,000 kills a year by humans – the death of cubs in their first year not taken into account (Animal Aid 2001). A ban will have little impact on pestilence control, so the problem of finding other, more humane, ways to dispatch of foxes is of minor importance.
Furthermore, the control of fox-population seems to be not the most important issue for hunters themselves: eighty-two per cent of hunters claimed in an interview that “the hunt’s main role was as ‘a recreational and social force embodying a traditional rural pastime’” (ibid). Other evidence that puts doubt on the pro-hunt lobbies main argument is the discovery of several artificial earths where hunters feed cubs and foxes. “The earths ensure that foxes are always available for a hunt in a specific area” (Harris 2002). The parties are blaming each other for the existence of these earths. The anti-hunt activists blame the hunters, they in their turn say it is the farmers who put the dens there. A spokesman for the National Farmers Union points out in Harris (2002) that this is very unlikely: “I would be amazed if farmers were involved. If hunts are using artificial earths for foxes, that would anger farmers”.
In spite of the heated discussion it is already clear that the government will not wait much longer with a ban or restriction on hunting of some sort. Collected statistics from Animal Aid (2001) illustrate the general tendency. “Two thirds of MP’s have already voted for a ban. Seventy-seven per cent of rural dwellers and eighty-four per cent of urban people disapprove of fox hunting”. Amongst voters a ban is widely supported too: “it was not just labour voters in favour of an end to this blood sport, forty-two per cent of Tory supporters also wanted an outright ban”(ibid). These statistics point out something in addition: parliament and the majority of voters might support a ban, but there is a small minority that does not. These people are putting up a vigorous fight. For the past few years they have been successful in at least delaying the ban. This part of the argument is indeed influenced by class differences: the aristocrat horsemen and their lobby might be a minority, but they are influential up to the highest ranks – the House of Lords, the financial world, and so forth.
Behind the incoherent argument on animal welfare and pest control, other driving forces are at work. The discussion on the outside of the issue is hardly of any influence anymore: the voters and the government have made up their mind. In the meanwhile there are more pressing matters to be discussed that are perhaps more within the reach of animal activists. “There is more cruelty in ten minutes in a battery farm – debeaking machine and all – than in an entire day of …hunting. But chickens – well, it’s not a terribly sexy target is it?” as Barnes (2002) puts it. Eventually the government will break the defence and push a ban through, with or without the support of the Peers. Until then the power of the aristocrat hunters will remain a more important factor than all the other arguments in the debate.
Bibliography
Animal Aid (2001), “Fox Hunting Q&A Factsheet”, http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/sport/hunting.htm
Barnes, S. (2002), “Hare-coursers take the rap as fox-hunters show their teeth”, The Times, March 16, 2002:10
Burns, Lord, Dr. V. Edwards, Professor Sir J. Marsh, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, Professor M. Winter (2000), The Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/finalreport.htm
Harris, P. (2002), “Hunters ‘breeding foxes’ to provide for the kill”, the Observer, http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,2763,651782,00.html
