I understand that this is a very emotive subject for many. I also know that my thoughts on this matter are very unlikely to change any ones views, but having read the above comments I feel I must address some of them. And, I hope, answer just a few questions. Some sweeping statements have been made, which are clearly bigoted and more about some miss-guided class war fare, which I never understood, as so many different classes are involved in hunting from the ground up. Hunting attracts people from every walk of life. (This is unusual territory as normal find myself reading Staggerlee’s comments and nodding in agreement, Kenty however I normally always disagree with

)
One of the many conclusions of the Burns Report shows that: “Broadly speaking, support was highest in all areas amongst men, older people, those who had lived in the area for a long time, people working in rural occupations and those in lower social class bands.
However, class did have much to do with the Bill it’s self.
“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.”
Peter Bradley MP, PPS to Defra Minister Alun Michael, Sunday Telegraph, 21st November 2004.
I (Mr Bluefish) grew up in a very rural area of Dorset, my grandfather was a farrier and the local hunt was just up the road from our home. So I was brought up with hunting, shooting and other country ways of life. We thought nothing of them, they were just part of the way we lived our lives.
Firstly whether we like the idea or not, farmers do have to, and will control fox numbers.
I do believe hunting is about fox control, there is, of course, much more to it than just fox control as members have commented above. There is the enjoyment of the social occasion, the traditions and the days riding. Is that so bad? People go fox hunting because they enjoy it, other people eat meet because they enjoy it, and that is the only reason we eat meat. Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals. The hunted either lives or dies. This can not be done by shooting, trapping, or poison. It is the only method that can utilise a search and dispatch facility, that is, if a sheep farmer is experiencing a predation problem from a rouge fox, the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill. They can then use the hounds to track and kill that actual fox. Not possible by any other means. Some of those other means are not so clean and clear cut as you might have been lead to believe. Fox shooting is rarely carried out by the professional, more often it is a pot shot, with an inadequate shot gun, rather than a high powered rifle, by a desperate farmer which will often maim, rather than kill, also you can not target a specific animal. Poisons are often used, but again do not target a specific animal, in fact they end up killing many other animals as well as the foxes. I have left, what I believe is the most horrid to last which is the trapping, there are any number of gruesome traps out on the market used to trap foxes, all of which maim, and leave the animal to a slow lingering death much more often than a clean kill. The cheapest and there for most frequent used is the snare, a fox which has caught a limb in a snare, will spend hours trying to gnaw his leg off to escape the trap. That is my thoughts on cruelty, below are the words of Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry into Hunting with dogs.
House of Lords, 12th March 2001. (An independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs
“Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... the short answer to that question is
no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.” Lord Burns also concluded that: “insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.”
A published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: “The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox.
The hunting with dog’s bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles. Despite claims to the contrary, the Hunting Act never had the support of Parliament. In fact, more parliamentarians voted against it than for it. The Hunting Act was eventually driven through the House of Commons in a single day following a blatant breach of Parliamentary protocol. It was then forced past the House of Lords using the ultimate constitutional sledgehammer, the Parliament Acts, which was used for only the fourth time since 1949.
“Unfortunately the wording of the act is ambiguous” Professor Patrick Bateson, appearing as a witness for the League against Cruel Sports, against the Quantocks Staghounds, 22nd May 2007.
In many ways, the bill makes little sense, exemptions had to be included supposedly allowing "pest control" while cleansing the hunting process of any "killing for fun". Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic. Terriers can be used on a fox underground to protect birds that are to be shot and yet, exactly the same process cannot be used to protect a farmer's livestock or to save a rare ground nesting bird. Dogs are permitted to kill a rabbit, but not a hare. Dogs are permitted to kill a rat, but not a mouse. Double standards or just madness?
Expert opinion on animal welfare and wildlife management does not favour a ban, and the Government’s own independent inquiry, the Burns Inquiry concluded that that there was no evidence that hunting was any less humane than alternative methods of control. Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Again, in my humble opinion, a law promoted on the basis of prejudice, and justified by flawed and improper evidence has no place on our Statute Book.
I will leave you with these thought’s. The measure of a true democracy is tolerance: tolerance of minorities, and tolerance of activities that the majority might not support.
“The future of our society should be founded on Shared values of liberty and democracy and fairness.” Prime Minister Gorden Brown MP, 12th January 2007
Tally Ho
