Foxhunting is back in the news again as the Scottish parliament votes almost overwhelmingly to ban the sport. I will use the word “sport” throughout the opinion, judge for yourself whether it is a sport or not at the end.

You only have to look at the sheer number of opinions that have been written on Ciao and DooYoo alone on this topic to realise that this is a topic which stirs up the passions. Some would have us believe that this sport is nothing short of barbarism whilst others support the rights of the enthusiast to pursue his sport in the same way as those who follow a football team.

Originally hunting was a noble sport, the pursuit of Kings and their invited guests on Royal owned land. Hunting was the pursuit of deer and boar and, gradually, the sport spread to nobles (bishops et al) and then on to the public landowners. The pursuit of foxes came about as a result of a gradual decline in the stag population and it was a pursuit welcomed by farmers and landowners alike as a good method of ridding the land of the “thief” fox, chief predator of lambs and chickens which were becoming increasingly important. Foxhunting became both sport and pest control rolled into one. This fact alone makes it hard to categorise the pursuit today and serves only to fuel the arguments of the opposing sides.

Foxhunting as a sport today is the hunting of the fox in its wild and natural state with a pack of hounds. A huntleader, leads a band of horsemen together with a pack of hunting dogs (usually hounds or terriers) in pursuit of a fox. The huntleader has overall control of the hunt and is responsible for those (animal and human) in his charge. The season for hunting runs from November to March and hunts outside of this time are banned. The huntsman leads the pack off by sounding his horn and the pack then search for the scent of a fox. This is unpredictable and some would say adds to the excitement and unpredictability. Once the scent is picked up the hunt will go in pursuit and the chase will go on until the fox is killed or goes to ground. Digging out of foxes is only allowed with the express permission of the land owner. The pack of dogs will then be re-cast and the process begins again.

Hunting is not the sole preserve of the British. In fact, one can find evidence in support of the fact that the sport came from France and indeed much of the language common to the sport shows French roots (for example “Tally ho!” is thought to be a corruption of the French word “taiaut” the cry when the stag got away).

In a free and just (or so we would like to believe) society should we be allowing this pursuit or, does the Scottish parliament have the right idea by banning it?

RIGHTS OF THE FOX

Animal rights campaigners will ignore the pleas of the farmer and the huntsman and stand up for the rights of the fox (and in some instances the hounds). Anti-hunting lobbyists will claim that the fox (in its indigenous state) has no natural predators and so we are disturbing the balance that nature herself has set. The natural conclusion that one would draw from this is that as a predator-less animal the fox will not be used to running from any creature, other than man, and thus it is inherently cruel for a pack of dogs to chase a defenceless animal. On that reasoning is it inherently cruel for a man to compete in athletics being chased by other men for the medal positions or is it simply a matter of choice. The man can chose but the fox cannot.

The hunt supporters will argue that the hunting nature of a pack of dogs is completely natural and that the nip to the back of the foxes neck will kill it outright. There is also research that shows that the average duration of a hunt is a mere 17 minutes and that the fox has no chance of anticipating death in that time. They argue that the alternatives of smoking, gassing, trapping and poisoning are far more likely to cause pain and suffering to the fox than the hunt.

The 1949 Scott enquiry is one of the most comprehensive reports on the subject. They started, in my opinion, sensibly, with looking at the question of what suffering is. They have defined it as an act causing unnecessary suffering and went on to conclude that fox hunting did not, thus it was not cruel.

It is further suggested by research that the fox retains its full mental capacity throughout the hunt and that this is indicative of the fact that the sport is not cruel. One could argue that (the beliefs of vegans and vegetarians aside) fishing is inherently cruel as the fish is traumatised as it is forced to breath air on the decks of a commercial trawler. Angling too must be inherently cruel as a fish is conditioned to swim away from trouble, yet it cannot do so if hooked. How about dog racing where dogs are conditioned and reared so as to be faster runners – not natural (my sister in-law has an abandoned greyhound, too small to race, it has been so in-bred that it requires a coat to go to sleep in or it gets too cold).

My own views? It is hard to see that the sport is inherently cruel. Viewing video footage does tend to confirm that the first or second bite is to the neck and that due to the relative sizes of the dog over the fox, death appears to be within seconds, and certainly before the pack is tempted to tear the fox to shreds.

ALTERNATIVES TO FOXHUNTING?

Before this question can be considered I think you need to ask why foxes need to be killed in the first place. If they do not then there is no need to seek an alternative.

Foxes are known to be predatory creatures. They seek out small animals, often chickens and lambs to eat. These creatures have a value to us as humans, over and above their natural value as animals, and many will fight to protect this value. Those whose property is attacked by foxes will always seek to remove the threat and that often means removing the fox.

Foxes are a strong breed, and, in the absence of major disease in the animal community, capable of sustaining a high population. It has been shown, through periods of war (when no hunts took place) and more recently, through the period of foot and mouth when a general ban was placed on hunting (inter alia) that the population increases fairly rapidly and although it will plateau, it does so at a very high level.

I believe that there is a case for arguing that the fox population needs to be controlled and thus the original question, as to whether there are any suitable alternatives, needs to be asked.

It is a fact that more foxes are shot each year than are hunted. Shooting, like hunting, is not guaranteed and whilst there are many admirable marksmen out there there are not enough. The more recent Burns report (2000) into fox hunting concluded that there was a sound macro-economic reason for allowing foxhunting to continue and that foxhunting minimised the disadvantages known of other methods of culling the fox population.

Other methods of controlling the population could include poisoning (no licensed poisons are available in the UK and one could not control what animals took the poison up), gassing (although this has been shown to cause suffering where gas mixes with air and causes the fox to slowly asphyxiate) or baiting (which causes the animal untold suffering and is not guaranteed to kill). Again, I come down on the side of the hunt, run along side shooting and natural wastage (through death, disease and road accidents).

ADVANTAGES TO THE HUNT

Having laid my cards on the table can I back up my belief with other factors and advantages that are borne out of the hunt:

- Protection of the countryside:

The preservation of woods and hedgerows to allow the fox population a home is to be welcomed. It has been seen on the Isle of Man (where fox hunting is banned) that with the demise of the fox population came the demise of the countryside in which it lived. Small coppices and hedgerow have disappeared.

- Impact on the Horse Industry:

Many horses are used primarily for hunting. The banning of the hunt would result in a severe downturn in this industry. Many horses would suffer as a result of their owners no longer having a “need” need for them and there would be knock on effects throughout the horse community.

- Impact on other jobs:

Farriers, feed manufacturers, grooms, vets and drivers would all be affected were hunting to be banned. Many of these jobs rely on the hunts to make a sensible income.

- Sustainability of the fox population:

I strongly believe that if hunts were to be banned, many farmers and landowners would take to indiscriminately killing foxes leading to a decline in the population. They would not be prepared to risk a fox being near their livestock and will instead seek to destroy that risk.

THE FUTURE?

Who knows what the future will hold for the fox hunt and the community that survives around it. It is undeniable that the hunt to date has impacted hugely on society as we know it today. Phrases such as “in the pink” derive from the hunt (a reference to the traditional description of the red colour of the jackets). Many pubs names are derived from the hunt (Snooty Fox, Fox and Hounds etc.) and even works of art and Christmas cards are wont to display hunt scenes.

I believe that hunting has suffered from a lack of understanding and blithe assumptions being made as to its participants. Not all huntsmen and women are conservative bigots. They are no longer all nobility. Some are out for the pleasure of the chase, some for a good ride and others to protect their legitimate interests in their property.

Hunting is not back and white. It is not as simple as saying an animal dies, therefore it is cruel. It is a topic that cannot help but be viewed in an emotive way and yet would benefit hugely from some rational and reasoned thinking by individuals in full possession of the facts. It is not a topic that can fall into the moral/immoral debate. It cannot be viewed on the basis of cultural divide.

I hope that in this opinion I have stimulated some thought. You may not agree with what I say but I have tried to maintain a balance which I hope shows through. I should add, I do not hunt.