Taking stock

[PaulT]

It's been more than six years since the Hunting Act came into effect. I know many contributors would like to think repeal is on the horizon, but how realistic is this?

Most people accept that if a vote to repeal was held in the Commons today it would be lost. It looks like a significant minority of Tory MPs either agree with the hunt ban or feel there are far more pressing issues for Parliament to be spending time on. Labour MPs appear pretty solidly behind the ban and most Lib Dem MPs also seem supportive of the 2004 Act.

Having done the maths, hunt supporters seem to be biding their time in the hope the balance will tip in their favour towards the end of this Parliament. Unfortunately for them, there will still be more important issues to deal with in four years time (assuming the coalition lasts that long), as repeal will never feature highly on the list of things to be achieved for some Tory MPs - even if they initially opposed the ban.

Some hunt supporters are clinging onto Tory promises to deal with the 'Mid Lothian question', so that only English MPs would be able to vote on legislation which affects England. This could create a majority of MPs in favour of repeal, but it would open a can of worms; there is considerable doubt the Tories will tackle it. For example, the government has variously promised a commission to investigate the issue 'at the end of 2010', in the (2011) New Year and now later this year. They just don't seem to have the appetite at a time when they're doing all sorts of U turns on their packed agenda of reform.

Not sure what other contributors think, but personally I feel the longer the ban is in place the more difficult it will be to repeal it. As the Deputy Political Editor of the Telegraph argues, Cameron's ability to deliver on his promises of repeal look increasingly in doubt.

 

[Herne]

So what is your point?

Repeal with this coalition is going to be more difficult than it would be with a large Tory majority. We all know that.

Personally, however, I share neither your assessment of the current balance in the commons (I think it is much closer than you suggest) nor your view of the willingness of the Conservative party to deliver on its commitment.

However, there's nothing we can do about it; those of us that want to achieve repeal (which hopefully is the majority of hunting people with any common sense) are just going to have to keep working at it. If we have to wait until after the Tories win the next election comfortably, then so be it.


I presume that the mid lothian question is a rather more wishy-washy version of the West Lothian Question..?

 

[PaulT]

Hello Herne. Yes, the 'West Lothian Question' - geography never was my strong point.

The purpose of my post wasn't so much to make a point, it was to find out what others think and how they have reached their conclusions. My comments were intended to explain the conclusions I've reached. I find the political shenanigans which have plagued the issue of hunting for the past fifteen years fascinating.

Your alternative interpretation doesn't surprise me, but I am interested in your suggestion that the willingness of the Tories to deliver on their repeated promises to repeal hasn't diminished. Although not part of any publicly-declared promise, there was much pre-election talk about repeal being quickly introduced by the Tories after the election (within the first year, I believe). I suspect, though I don't have evidence at my fingertips, that this was fuelled by leading Tories. They certainly did little to dampen such hopes.

Don’t you think there are parallels with Labour promises to ban hunting pre 1997? Labour issued bold promises, and even having achieved thumping great majorities failed to deliver on them for seven years – only after relentless lobbying from large numbers of backbenchers. The Tories’ repeal promises ring a similar bell, but they are in a much weaker position. They have already had to make concessions to their Lib Dem colleagues in agreeing to hold a vote on whether legislation to repeal should go ahead. Every now and again a leading Tory makes warm noises to keep hunters on side; no doubt firmer assurances are being made in private more regularly. In reality the issue is kicked into the very long grass.

Your comments about waiting for an outright Tory majority seem to support this theory. Having recognised there is little chance of getting repeal through this Parliament, perhaps the Tories will include a firmer commitment in their manifesto for the next election. After all, as Labour recognised in the past, hunting is an issue which gets activists knocking on doors during an election campaign. The Tories will continue to make full use of this (as they did in 2010), but if the coalition lasts the full five years the Hunting Act will have been in place ten years by the time of the next election.

I agree, no matter how forlorn, there’s not much else you can do other than pin your hopes on an outright Tory victory at the next election. The Tories will need to win many battles if they are to achieve a comfortable majority. I suspect by that time many will be thinking ‘best keep sleeping dogs lie’, if they’re not doing so already. Things move on.

 

[oakash]

An interesting discussion. I am one of the disillusioned previously Tory voters and previously a party member. My real sympathies lie with UKIP, as I consider the liaison with Europe as absolute madness. We spend a thousand years getting to a position where we can make our own laws, and then give it away and have to pay at least 45million a day for the 'privelege'. The Tories MUST deliver on their promise THIS parliament - the next will be too late for them to expect a large majority.

I do not agree with the UKIP policy on hunting ; they want to leave it to local referendums. If something is wrong, as the Hunting Act clearly is - then I expect a government to put it right by repeal. So I am saying goodbye to tactical voting. We need to take to the streets again on a massive march, and remind the decent majority that we want ACTION!

 

[PaulT]

Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.

I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how it’s structured. To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals. Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding.

This isn’t an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and don’t have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[combat_claire]

Although not part of any publicly-declared promise, there was much pre-election talk about repeal being quickly introduced by the Tories after the election (within the first year, I believe). I suspect, though I don't have evidence at my fingertips, that this was fuelled by leading Tories. They certainly did little to dampen such hopes.

The reason that you have no evidence at your finger tips is that this is complete nonsense. It was made clear that while there was a commitment to repeal, there were many more pressing problems that would occupy the coalition post-election. Thanks to the fine mess that Labour promises have left the country in, the priority always had to be on economic recovery.

Your comments about waiting for an outright Tory majority seem to support this theory. Having recognised there is little chance of getting repeal through this Parliament, perhaps the Tories will include a firmer commitment in their manifesto for the next election. After all, as Labour recognised in the past, hunting is an issue which gets activists knocking on doors during an election campaign. The Tories will continue to make full use of this (as they did in 2010), but if the coalition lasts the full five years the Hunting Act will have been in place ten years by the time of the next election.

I would hazard a guess that actually hunting is an issue for the minority of people in an election campaign both voters and activists. It was hunting that got me involved in political campaigning for the Conservative party, but it wasn't just hunting that kept my weary feet trekking through the streets in 2010. We have the added advantage that for once we have ministers from DEFRA who actually have experience of and understand rural issues, whereas Hillary Benn, Margaret Beckett et al had barely been out of London save the odd holiday. I would also argue that simply because legislation has been in place for a long time it lessens the chance of repeal. After all S28 had been in place for 15yrs when it was repealed in 2003.

I agree, no matter how forlorn, there’s not much else you can do other than pin your hopes on an outright Tory victory at the next election. The Tories will need to win many battles if they are to achieve a comfortable majority. I suspect by that time many will be thinking ‘best keep sleeping dogs lie’, if they’re not doing so already. Things move on.

You also ignore the fact that the political argument is just one aspect of the battle for repeal. You can paint a picture of hunting folk hunkered down in some hypothetical bunker waiting for the political No Man's Land to become more favourable or you can acknowledge that as well as working at by-elections and canvassing sitting MPs to get our views heard there will also be hard work at promoting hunting and the role country sports of all types play within a thriving countryside.

I need to get lunch now, but I will tackle the other issues you posed later.

 

[Fiagai]

Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.

The Hunting Act was nothing about banning hunting - it was more a kneejerk reaction in favour of self interest groups who's lobbying were at best based on raw emotion, percieved class bias and notable lack of objective thought.

I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how it’s structured. To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals. Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding.

Well that is an opinion - your opinion. Anti hunting types are very quick to label hunting as "sport". Hunting has a purpose. (On this forum we have posters who are experiencing increasing predation of livestock since the ban). What you are also missing here is the importance of hunting in rural society. Hunting helps support local economies in a myriad of ways. Yes people involved in hunting do enjoy the chase but that does not make it a "sport" like football - there are no opposing teams and there isnt a score board. There are many activities that could be argued "to cause unecessary suffering" even the slaughter process could be identified as such using this logic. However this argument is purely subjective. I personally prefer the quick clean kill of hounds than a fox crawling away to die unless shot by a good marksman (these are much less common than the anti fraternity seem to imagine or care). Do you propose that we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent. Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?

This isn’t an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and don’t have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.

Not very a very useful argument - and can be likened to attempting to stick a jelly with a pitchfork. Such subjectivity can never be a logical basis for legislation.

 

[PaulT]

The reason that you have no evidence at your finger tips is that this is complete nonsense. It was made clear that while there was a commitment to repeal, there were many more pressing problems that would occupy the coalition post-election. Thanks to the fine mess that Labour promises have left the country in, the priority always had to be on economic recovery.

Hi CC. As far back as Feb 2006 the Tories were promoting the idea they would immediately reverse the ban (Telegraph, 18/2/06). More recently, Nick Herbert, then Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, argued that: 'Allowing the new Parliament an early opportunity to revisit a discredited law will not be a distraction from our wider agenda: it will simply be the right thing to do.' (Telegraph, 17/10/09). In the same month Tory party sources were putting it about that a repeal vote would be held 'in the first few months of a Conservative administration' (Daily Mail, 7/10/09). In the run up to last year's election Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski argued the Tories’ credibility would be 'shot to pieces' if they failed to introduce an early repeal vote.

I'm sure there are plenty more examples but you get the drift of it. It appears my suspicion was well founded.

I would hazard a guess that actually hunting is an issue for the minority of people in an election campaign both voters and activists. It was hunting that got me involved in political campaigning for the Conservative party, but it wasn't just hunting that kept my weary feet trekking through the streets in 2010. We have the added advantage that for once we have ministers from DEFRA who actually have experience of and understand rural issues, whereas Hillary Benn, Margaret Beckett et al had barely been out of London save the odd holiday. I would also argue that simply because legislation has been in place for a long time it lessens the chance of repeal. After all S28 had been in place for 15yrs when it was repealed in 2003.

It’s interesting you mention section 28 as I would be hard pushed to find a parallel more unlike the hunting example. Reversing the ban on schools and other public bodies from promoting homosexuality was a progressive measure supported by a majority of the public. No prosecutions had been brought under the legislation in the fifteen years of its existence. On the other hand, repeal of the Hunting Act would be a hugely regressive step supported by a tiny minority of the public. At the last count, the total number of convictions under the Hunting Act (in less than half the period of time section 28 existed) was over 150.

To develop my political argument a bit further, the evidence referred to above suggests that many of your Tory 'friends’ in Parliament are first and foremost politicians. They may claim to sympathise with your pro-hunt views, some may even hunt themselves, but don't confuse this with necessarily being prepared to 'do the right thing'. Many view the issue of hunting in pragmatic, even mercenary, terms - fully prepared to accept help during election campaigning but, heaven forbid, unexpectedly busy should a repeal vote ever happen. I believe at least one Tory MP has already been accused of using pro-hunt campaigners in this way - I predict more will follow. Stranger things have happened - it's what many politicians do.

Of course groups like the Countryside Alliance need cheerleaders like you to keep supporters' morale up. It's perfectly understandable, but if the situation is anything like the anti-hunt campaign in the early years of the first Labour government, many hunt supporters will be wondering what's happening.

 

[PaulT]

The Hunting Act was nothing about banning hunting - it was more a kneejerk reaction in favour of self interest groups who's lobbying were at best based on raw emotion, percieved class bias and notable lack of objective thought.

Morning Fiagai. You sound very bitter, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Well that is an opinion - your opinion. Anti hunting types are very quick to label hunting as "sport". Hunting has a purpose. (On this forum we have posters who are experiencing increasing predation of livestock since the ban). What you are also missing here is the importance of hunting in rural society. Hunting helps support local economies in a myriad of ways. Yes people involved in hunting do enjoy the chase but that does not make it a "sport" like football - there are no opposing teams and there isnt a score board. There are many activities that could be argued "to cause unecessary suffering" even the slaughter process could be identified as such using this logic. However this argument is purely subjective. I personally prefer the quick clean kill of hounds than a fox crawling away to die unless shot by a good marksman (these are much less common than the anti fraternity seem to imagine or care). Do you propose that we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent. Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?

I thought the forerunner of the Countryside Alliance was the British Field Sports Society – bit of a giveaway in the title.

Am I correct in thinking you are opposed to the basis of animal welfare legislation in the UK for well over 100 years? The legal concept of unnecessary suffering certainly isn’t new. I have long suspected that many of the more vocal supporters of hunting have a philosophical aversion to animals being legally protected from cruelty, believing animal cruelty to be a private matter (much like the issue of wife beating was not too long ago, rather shockingly).

 

[combat_claire]

Oakash, you say the Hunting Act is clearly wrong. I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect (very little, if any, legislation is) but I don't follow the logic that therefore it should be repealed.

This is bad law, where the premise of breaking it is somebody's intention as they leave kennels on a morning. How on earth can a prosecution hinge on such a concept when no lawmaker can possibly say for definite what the intention was on that hunting day. This law puts enormous pressure on hunt staff, masters and police resources due to the complicated nature of the law that resulted from endless compromises. If this wasn't bad enough, the law was forced through by use of the Parliament Act, something which many legal commentators believe make the Hunting Act ultra vires. Finally the law is arbitrary in the way it was written and full of contradictions - why is it banned to hunt hares, fox, stag, mink etc but be okay to hunt rats or rabbits?; why is it okay to use terriers to protect game birds whilst a livestock farmer is forbidden from using the same method to protect his lambs? These are three excellent reasons for why the only answer is to repeal this law.

I start from the premise that hunting for sport is morally wrong. If you disagree, it follows that any ban will be unjustified to you, irrespective of how it’s structured. To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals. Human beings have the unique (as far as I know) ability to empathise. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions for others, and this brings with it a series of responsibilities which cannot apply to other animals incapable of this level of understanding.

As Fiagai has already pointed out this is not a black and white issue of someone getting a thrill from chasing an animal. The aim of quarry hunting was always based on population management and not extermination. Hunting managed this excellently by using the only method that was based firmly on the principles of natural selection. By banning hunting you condemn more foxes to worse deaths, that in many cases do not guarantee there to be no wounding; whilst not keeping the population at a healthy optimum.
You also have to look at the wider picture - hunts manage thousands of acres of woodland, plant and manage many more miles of hedges than the LACS ever will and look after several sites of SSSI designation. That is before you even consider the social and economic importance of hunting and country sports to rural communities both as employer and in supporting the businesses that rely on winter funding from hunting tourism to bolster fragile incomes. Therefore in my mind any legislation which fails to take into account all relevant factors is unacceptable legislation, before you even consider the fact that there are serious concerns about the so called animal welfare priorities of the Hunting Act.

This isn’t an animal rights stance. I accept there are many occasions where we interact with and use animals, and don’t have fundamental objections to this as long as we do so without causing unnecessary suffering.

Unnecessary suffering is of course the crux of the argument for all issues relating to animal welfare. I have no problems with rearing animals for meat and milk - I have worked on dairy and stock farms and seen for myself that conditions are more than satisfactory on UK farms, which is why I will where possible only buy the best British produce I can afford. I would rather starve than eat Danish bacon from stall-reared pigs. However I have serious reservations about halal slaughter houses.

As far as hunting is concerned, I am convinced that a, foxes and other quarry species have to be controlled for the benefit of a balanced ecosystem and that b, hunting with hounds is the best form of achieving that management goal. No lamper can guarantee they won't wound a moving target shot by night and condemn the quarry to death by gangrene or starvation where the jaw was shot off. Poisoning and gassing although now outlawed are terrible methods of inflicting death on another species and are completely indiscriminate.

As a final point, I see domestic pets being dragged round the block every day on my way to the office - overweight, unfit, allowed no time to socialise with other dogs, no time to stop and sniff at interesting scents and fed a processed diet of tinned meat. I admit I haven't done a straw poll of these owners but I suspect most of them would classify themselves as animal lovers and most would also feel that hunting with hounds was cruel. I put it to them - that my hounds which are kept as a pack in a natural social order, fed flesh and bones for healthy nutrition, exercised for miles daily with freedom to express their natural behaviours within reason and the law. I pose the question, which of us is truly cruel??

 

[PaulT]

This is bad law, where the premise of breaking it is somebody's intention as they leave kennels on a morning.

What a curious thing to say – is this rather like arguing the whole premise of the law against murder is a twisted husband’s intention as he seeks out his wife? Surely there needs to be evidence the dirty deed has been committed before any proceedings can begin, and only then will intent be considered?

How on earth can a prosecution hinge on such a concept when no lawmaker can possibly say for definite what the intention was on that hunting day. This law puts enormous pressure on hunt staff, masters and police resources due to the complicated nature of the law that resulted from endless compromises. If this wasn't bad enough, the law was forced through by use of the Parliament Act, something which many legal commentators believe make the Hunting Act ultra vires. Finally the law is arbitrary in the way it was written and full of contradictions - why is it banned to hunt hares, fox, stag, mink etc but be okay to hunt rats or rabbits?; why is it okay to use terriers to protect game birds whilst a livestock farmer is forbidden from using the same method to protect his lambs? These are three excellent reasons for why the only answer is to repeal this law.

I am not a legal expert and feel insufficiently qualified to comment on the finer points of law. However, your point about the use of the Parliament Act was subject to a number of legal challenges, supported by the hunting lobby, and these ultimately failed.

Surely perceived inconsistencies in the legislation is more an argument to strengthen it rather than scrap it. After all, we wouldn’t be looking to completely do away with legislation to protect the elderly in care homes on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough! I suspect your fundamental objection to the legislation is that you don’t want to be stopped doing what you enjoy rather than the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

As Fiagai has already pointed out this is not a black and white issue of someone getting a thrill from chasing an animal. The aim of quarry hunting was always based on population management and not extermination. Hunting managed this excellently by using the only method that was based firmly on the principles of natural selection. By banning hunting you condemn more foxes to worse deaths, that in many cases do not guarantee there to be no wounding; whilst not keeping the population at a healthy optimum.

You’re making an awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here! You claim the aim of hunting was always population management – what do you mean by this, who determines what the ‘correct’ population level is, and how is this monitored (after all, it must be monitored to enable you to claim it is carried out excellently by hunts)? BTW, if that really were the case, why wasn’t the BFSS ever called the British Wildlife Management Society?

I haven’t made any generalisations about people getting enjoyment from chasing an animal (although I suspect some of your fellow hunt supporters do get their enjoyment this way). My point about sport was more to do with the equestrian aspects for the field and watching hounds work for followers on foot and in their cars. I certainly don’t subscribe to the idea you’re all a bunch of bloodthirsty sadists, but these reasons for going hunting still amount to entertainment.

You also have to look at the wider picture - hunts manage thousands of acres of woodland, plant and manage many more miles of hedges than the LACS ever will and look after several sites of SSSI designation. That is before you even consider the social and economic importance of hunting and country sports to rural communities both as employer and in supporting the businesses that rely on winter funding from hunting tourism to bolster fragile incomes. Therefore in my mind any legislation which fails to take into account all relevant factors is unacceptable legislation, before you even consider the fact that there are serious concerns about the so called animal welfare priorities of the Hunting Act.

CC, even if all of this is true I can’t accept cruelty to animals on the grounds that it happens to result in patches of managed woodland, a disputed number of jobs and something to talk about in the local pub at the end of the day.

Unnecessary suffering is of course the crux of the argument for all issues relating to animal welfare. I have no problems with rearing animals for meat and milk - I have worked on dairy and stock farms and seen for myself that conditions are more than satisfactory on UK farms, which is why I will where possible only buy the best British produce I can afford. I would rather starve than eat Danish bacon from stall-reared pigs. However I have serious reservations about halal slaughter houses.

I’m glad we agree on the crux of the argument as Fiagai seems to think all antis are motivated by class war, and I’m heartened to see your concern for the welfare of at least some animals.

As far as hunting is concerned, I am convinced that a, foxes and other quarry species have to be controlled for the benefit of a balanced ecosystem and that b, hunting with hounds is the best form of achieving that management goal. No lamper can guarantee they won't wound a moving target shot by night and condemn the quarry to death by gangrene or starvation where the jaw was shot off. Poisoning and gassing although now outlawed are terrible methods of inflicting death on another species and are completely indiscriminate.

Fine, I doubt nothing I say will shift you from that conviction but I hope others will recognise that this is based on a whole series of unsubstantiated assumptions. Perhaps the most significant is the almost arrogant (no offence intended) way in which it apparently goes without saying that fox populations absolutely have to be controlled/managed, and that hunting is the best method of achieving this.

As a final point, I see domestic pets being dragged round the block every day on my way to the office - overweight, unfit, allowed no time to socialise with other dogs, no time to stop and sniff at interesting scents and fed a processed diet of tinned meat. I admit I haven't done a straw poll of these owners but I suspect most of them would classify themselves as animal lovers and most would also feel that hunting with hounds was cruel. I put it to them - that my hounds which are kept as a pack in a natural social order, fed flesh and bones for healthy nutrition, exercised for miles daily with freedom to express their natural behaviours within reason and the law. I pose the question, which of us is truly cruel??

You’re so right about careless pet owners but I believe it’s a very poor defence indeed to argue that nothing should be done about A because look what’s happening to B. We see this tactic adopted time and again in various debates, most recently against intervention in Libya (why intervene in Libya when far worse is happening in Syria etc etc). I happen to oppose our involvement in this latest foreign escapade, but not because of this 'do nothing' argument – the fact that there will always be greater perceived atrocities occurring isn’t sufficient justification to leave alone. Anyway, I digress…

 

[Alec Swan]

combat_claire,

your last post, in my view, is one of the best, that I've yet to read.

The OP posed the question of repeal. I can't ever see it happening. The antis have satisfied their ill-reasoned arguments, and government has placated them. Those who are pro-hunting, though in greater numbers than those who are opposed, will need a serious level of support from the conservation bodies, amongst others, before the terrible wrongs, are righted. I wish that the situation was otherwise.

Alec.

 

[Fiagai]

Morning Fiagai. You sound very bitter, if you don’t mind me saying so.

By any chance have you been here before PaulT?
If the facts are bitter to you then you are of course free to say whatever you wish. Doesnt change the fact that the Hunting Act was nothing whatsover about banning hunting. (The Act still allows hunting albeit in a different manner)

I thought the forerunner of the Countryside Alliance was the British Field Sports Society – bit of a giveaway in the title.

Wrong I'm afraid...

The Countryside Alliance was created in 1997 as a response to the newly elected Labour Government’s pledge to ban hunting with dogs. An amalgamation of three organisations: The Countryside Business Group, the British Field Sports Society and the Countryside Movement, the Countryside Movement

LINK



In my experience the splitting of hairs is not generally a constructive method for discussion. Comparing the activity of "sport" as an in your statement "hunting for sport is wrong" with the name of the defunct "British field Sports Society" is disingenuous. The use of the word "sports" is no longer incorporated precisely because of such underhand tactics and wilful misinterpretation.

Am I correct in thinking you are opposed to the basis of animal welfare legislation in the UK for well over 100 years? The legal concept of unnecessary suffering certainly isn’t new. I have long suspected that many of the more vocal supporters of hunting have a philosophical aversion to animals being legally protected from cruelty, believing animal cruelty to be a private matter (much like the issue of wife beating was not too long ago, rather shockingly).

Paul - you didn't answer the question asked previously...

Should we free the farm animals and not eat meat because we have a moral obligation to do so because the cow/sheep/chicken cant understand our intent. Does that mean it would it be ok to eat them if they did have such an understading?

Answer this truthfully and then I will match your answer. In your original post you have neither defined nor given the scope for your statement

To my mind it is acceptable to legislate against any activity which causes unnecessary suffering to animals.

So your arguement is meaningless. By the way since you brought it up - when did you stop beating your wife?

Your opinion remains subjective - many human practices may be defined as causing uneccesary suffering - including some slaughter processes and even the farming of animals but that does not mean it is "uneccesary suffering" as defined by law or practice. The legislation for domestic animals may be useful if we are talking about domestic animals however we are not doing so in this instance. A quick kill by hounds is in my opinion remains a preferable death to many of the methods proposed by sadly misguided anti hunting individuals.

 

[PaulT]

Hi Fiagai. If you believe splitting hairs is not constructive, why do it?

Apologies for not having answered your question. I believe it betrays a lack of understanding on your part about my position. Quite simply, I believe causing unnecessary suffering to animals is morally wrong. This has nothing to do with whether animals understand intent or not, and quite frankly I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of your question.

In terms of the issue of meat-eating, as I've said I'm not an animal rightist. I've nothing in principle against eating meat as long as animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane way.

You say my argument is subjective, but that's the nature of moral conundrums. I'm happy of the evidential foundations for the hunt ban but ultimately, like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour. Such judgements will always be regarded as subjective by those affected by them.

Do you have a philosophical objection to animal welfare legislation, Fiagai?

Forgive me for not including quotes from your previous post, but the mobile version of the forum doesn't appear to allow this functionality.

 

[Alec Swan]

....... like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour.........

If you honestly believe that "Government", and specifically the incumbents, at the time when the act was passed, were influenced by any degree of morality, then you sir, are living in a dream world.

Tell me again that you're being serious!!

Alec.

 

[PaulT]

Alex, I believe the vast majority of MPs who promoted and voted for the Hunting Act were motivated by the belief that hunting causes unnecessary suffering to animals.

 

[Alec Swan]

Alex, I believe the vast majority of MPs who promoted and voted for the Hunting Act were motivated by the belief that hunting causes unnecessary suffering to animals.

I'm genuinely sorry to bring you to the real world, but the word belief can have no validity, what-so-ever, when applied to those who we employ, to direct this land or ours.

Alec (with a C!).

As a foot note, I have no intention of being pedantic, the opposite, but those who banned the pursuit, of live game, with hounds or dogs, only had one thought in mind, and it was little, or nothing, to do with animal welfare, but everything to do with comfortable placation. a.

 

[PaulT]

So sorry Alec for getting your name wrong.

 

[Fiagai]

Hi Fiagai. If you believe splitting hairs is not constructive, why do it?

Repeating my observations doesnt help this discusion. Would you desist from using such obvious asides thanks.

Apologies for not having answered your question. I believe it betrays a lack of understanding on your part about my position. Quite simply, I believe causing unnecessary suffering to animals is morally wrong. This has nothing to do with whether animals understand intent or not, and quite frankly I'm at a loss to understand the purpose of your question.

OK you are at a loss. Start with your first premise and define what you believe is "unnecessary suffering" Then some details on what morality base you suscribe to - religous, humanist, new age? Then perhaps we can move to a more constructive discusion.

In terms of the issue of meat-eating, as I've said I'm not an animal rightist. I've nothing in principle against eating meat as long as animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane way.

The point here is that many activists do not agree with humans raising and slaughtering animals for consumption - they do not consider it humane. The very act of farming is seem by some as an attack on living organisms causeing what they see as unecessary suffering. Your definition of meat eating is obviously not as extreme but without acknowledging that what is "humane" to you, may not humane to someone else. Without empirical objectivity however this process is simply the thin of the wedge.

Ban hunting, ban keeping farmed / domestic animals, then ban farming. what future then for rural England?

You say my argument is subjective, but that's the nature of moral conundrums. I'm happy of the evidential foundations for the hunt ban but ultimately, like all moral progress, it is based on what Parliament deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour. Such judgements will always be regarded as subjective by those affected by them.

No its subjective because you havent given Your definition of "unnessary suffering". "evidential foundations" Errrhhhh? Politics is almost never based on morality or has evidential foundations . It may be based on a defined concensus covering a wide range of views and opinions

Do you have a philosophical objection to animal welfare legislation, Fiagai?

Redundant use of perverse logic - we are talking here about your expressed opinions on "unecessary Suffering" and your "morality".

 

[Alec Swan]

PaulT,

that's no problem, at all. I will have no knowledge of how you live your life, obviously, but those of us who live a truly rural existence, are finding that our lives are being, somehow sanitised, and all so often at the whim, of those who give us little thought.

Our public services, our village schools, our social services, our village post offices: those things which are the fabric of our existence, have been eroded away, by successive governments, regardless of their persuasion. Hunting, a valued and valuable cohesive bond, was something of a final straw.

It goes far deeper than a ban on hunting, though because hunting is a convenient handle, that is what's hung on to by the media, and the one thing which terrifies government, is the media.

Never run away with the idea that animal rights are in any way, anything to do with the hunting ban, such as it is. The alternative to hounds, when it's been argued by those who speak with little experience, the use of snares for instance, is a barbaric practice, and I speak with more experience than most.

You may find this a strange statement, but I can assure you, that hunting has little to do with the killing of foxes, or deer, and I'd also assure you, that those with the most deep seated understanding and compassion, for the quarry, are those who hunt them.

Alec.

 

[PaulT]

Fiagai, in my opinion humans should take all reasonable steps to avoid causing suffering to animals. This very much depends on the situation; for example, making sure pets are regularly fed and watered, live in a suitable environment and, where appropriate, regularly exercised. Perhaps it's best explained by owing animals a duty of care when we interact with them.

In the case if hunting, I believe hounding them across the countryside for miles on end is intrinsically cruel (not to mention the associated activity of terrierwork). By definition, this causes unnecessary suffering.

In the legal sense, the issue of what is and isn't humane behaviour is up to the courts to interpret, based on legislation passed by Parliament. I've already indicated my views on the subject.

You mention empirical objectivity but I'm sure you're aware there's a whole debate within the social sciences whether this can ever be achieved. Putting these wider philosophical discussions to one side, I'm satisfied there is sufficient evidence that a) wild animals experience pain and fear, and b) hunting is intrinsically cruel because the act of hounding wild animals for miles on end causes unnecessary suffering.

Opinion polls suggest a large majority of the public share this view, as did a large majority of MPs during 2004.

I'm sorry you feel animal welfare legislation is based on 'redundant use of perverse logic'. As I suspected, your comments suggest a deep suspicion of the whole concept of animal welfare, let alone it's place in the legislative sphere. I wonder how many other hunt supporters share these marginal views?

 

[PaulT]

Oh, I've just noticed another little gem you've posted, Fiagai. How on earth can you seriously claim that politics is 'almost never based on morality'? The philosophical foundations of modern political theory are grounded in moral judgements.

That fact aside, what's wrong with politicians reaching moral conclusions based on their experiences and the evidence that's available?

 

[Alec Swan]

.......Opinion polls suggest a large majority of the public share this view, as did a large majority of MPs during 2004........

Opinion polls rely upon the wording of the questions. As an example, and if previously asked;
A/ Do you believe hunting with hounds, to be unjustifiable?

B/ Do you think it wrong, that a load of upper class, and wealthy land owners, who contribute nothing to society, should be allowed to ride about where they please, whilst encouraging their dogs, to rip wild animals to pieces, whilst the spectacle is enjoyed by the above, and supposed dilettantes?

Tell me, what do you think would be the general response from the general public? When the question is worded, as B, then we both know the answer to that one, don't we?

A point which you've previously made, and with the contention that it's wrong for animals to feel fear, because of man; have you ever walked very quietly, through a wood, on a sunny morning, and found a fox, lying in the sun and asleep, as I have? Has the fox then bolted in fear? Had you not been in the wood, then perhaps, you wouldn't have disturbed the poor panic stricken creature. Perhaps you shouldn't have put yourself in the position, where you've created fear. Have you ever bumped deer, which have been resting on open moorland, or woodland, and watched them gallop away?

All animals live with fear. It's part of their make up. If you are so convinced of your argument, could you explain to me how you would see numbers controlled, and kept within reasonable bounds, or are you of the belief, that every living creature should be entirely free, from death, at the hands of man?

Alec.

 

[EAST KENT]

Absolute sense Alec ,in my view experience counts for an awful lot. That is why I too regard snares as barbaric ,and no better than gin traps.
The other evening I met a released town fox..how did I know? Well it allowed me and a dog to walk directly up to it,and only moved casually when we were 20 feet from it.I hope the releaser is ashamed,it will starve here with no hunting knowledge ,far kinder to have shot it. Our foxes,like all proper country ones,on spotting a human movement put at least a field between it and you,and quickly too.
Observing our local foxes is a matter of stealth,wind direction and remaining completely still in their sight.

 

[PaulT]

Alec, go on, admit it, you made those questions up, didn't you?

You accused me of not being part of the real world; meanwhile, in the real world, reputable polling companies go to great lengths to protect their reputations by making questions as unbiased as possible.

It goes without saying there is a world of difference between the momentary fear felt by wild animals as they sense the presence if man, and the trauma experienced by being chased by a pack of hounds. Your attempt to trivialise the suffering involved in hunting is telling, and it does your credibility no favours at all.

Yes, animals live with fear. They also live with pain and suffering. You seem to be implying this somehow justifies cruel treatment if them - if not, I don't understand your point in the context of our discussion.

 

[EAST KENT]

Trouble is PaulT,these questions are always loaded to get the response required,and asked of people with absolutely no knowledge of wildlife at all.Foxes DO NOT feel fear at the start of a hunt,in fact they often sit and scratch a flea before making off,fear is only felt at the end,when he feels he may after all ,be in danger.Foxes are not hunted close up like that more than once,and have no anecdotal thoughts on pain or death.In fact I have watched many an unhunted fox trot casually off,and look back to the covert where hounds are in insolent disbelieve,completely unworried.
That is precisely why snares and traps are so cruel..they bring prolonged fear.I guess the best way of control is either "calling" to a rifle,or flushing with a terrier to an accurate shot,both ways fear would be minimal.
Those methods and hounds are acceptable ,but none create prolonged fear which is just plain cruel.

 

[PaulT]

Hi East Kent. You say polling questions are always loaded. What's loaded about the following question: "To what extent would you support or oppose the legalisation of hunting foxes, stags and hares under the regulation of a governing body?"

You also claim the public, who are being polled, are ignorant of the issues. In my opinion, they are only too aware that hunting involves cruelty, and that's the problem for the hunting lobby. Underestimate most people's concern for animal welfare at your peril.

BTW, I fully support your opposition to snaring. It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......BTW, I fully support your opposition to snaring. It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.

Are we to assume that you have an alternative means of fox control?

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......BTW,.......It's such a shame that all of the main pro-hunting organisations defend the use of these vile devices.

In the event that hunting, in its purest form is now banned, perhaps you'd be kind enough, to suggest an alternative. I have experience of all the currently "acceptable" systems which are in place, and will willingly debate with you, the rights and wrongs of each, assuming that is, that you can also speak with a degree of experience, rather than hypothesis.

Alec.

 

[PaulT]

Alec, you will notice in my previous posts I question the assumption that the fox population needs to be controlled. Sorry if it's an inconvenience, but I'm not prepared to accept this just to make your argument easier.

I'm still waiting for answers to my previous questions in relation to this. Perhaps one of you would care to provide independent evidence that a) fox populations need to be controlled, and b) hunting is an effective method of doing this?

I really don't mean to be picky but this is rather fundamental to the whole defence of hunting.