Tally Ho!
What better way to work off that extra helping of Christmas pudding than getting out in the fresh air in some of Britain's most unspoilt countryside? That's exactly what thousands of people will be doing today, whether that be striding up hillside paths or gently strolling along woodland trails. Thousands more will be enjoying the fresh air on horse back as they take part in the traditional Boxing Day hunt.
Hunting is always an emotive issue. Oscar Wilde famously described the ancient country past time as "the unspeakable chasing the uneatable." One could possibly think of a few words to describe Oscar Wilde too, but I'll not go down that road.
On one side you've got people who think it's barbaric for the huntsmen (and ladies) to watch as the hounds rip their helpless quarry to shreds for the sheer pleasure of it. Pleasure is exactly what it is - the hounds gain nothing from the experience other than the thrill of the chase and satisfaction of the kill.
The counterargument, absolutely correctly, is that the fox is vermin - a ruthless vermin, lacking in natural predation, that wreaks havoc on livestock. It is a simple fact that whereas most animals kill for the prey the fox kills every bird in the hen house and then consumes none of them. The huntsmen would also profess that hunting with dogs is the closest thing you can get to natural predation. Hunting with dogs is a pursuit that helps maintain the natural balance by weeding out only the fattest, weakest, slowest specimens of foxkind. Darwinism in action - the survival of the fittest as the weakest fall by the wayside.
Ah, but yes - you could always shoot the fox. It's true that shooting is an option, but it isn't always as effective as the anti hunt lobby would have you believe. Whereas the fox that gets winged by a wayward bullet endures a slow, painful, infectious death the fox mauled by hounds stands no chance of escape and is despatched in only a few seconds. Furthermore, the fox in flight has a sporting chance of outsmarting those in lumbering pursuit and escaping to ground. Most hunts consider it a "good day" if they can catch only one fox - many don't achieve even that.
The arguments for and against are all irrelevant now. Since the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004 it is illegal to hunt any wild mammal with a dog. As the opening paragraph of the legislation states:
"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt."
It's a terrible law - ill-conceived, unenforceable, riddled with ambiguity, inconsistency and loopholes. The very sort of law the Labour government is proving so adept at - legislation designed to criminalise a law abiding minority while simultaneously salving the consciences of ignorant, trendy left, towny Labour MPs.
The spotters will have noticed the word "exempt" in the extract above. The exemptions are wide ranging and include some glaring oversights any GCSE law student would pick up. Here are some examples:
Hunting is always an emotive issue. Oscar Wilde famously described the ancient country past time as "the unspeakable chasing the uneatable." One could possibly think of a few words to describe Oscar Wilde too, but I'll not go down that road.
On one side you've got people who think it's barbaric for the huntsmen (and ladies) to watch as the hounds rip their helpless quarry to shreds for the sheer pleasure of it. Pleasure is exactly what it is - the hounds gain nothing from the experience other than the thrill of the chase and satisfaction of the kill.
The counterargument, absolutely correctly, is that the fox is vermin - a ruthless vermin, lacking in natural predation, that wreaks havoc on livestock. It is a simple fact that whereas most animals kill for the prey the fox kills every bird in the hen house and then consumes none of them. The huntsmen would also profess that hunting with dogs is the closest thing you can get to natural predation. Hunting with dogs is a pursuit that helps maintain the natural balance by weeding out only the fattest, weakest, slowest specimens of foxkind. Darwinism in action - the survival of the fittest as the weakest fall by the wayside.
Ah, but yes - you could always shoot the fox. It's true that shooting is an option, but it isn't always as effective as the anti hunt lobby would have you believe. Whereas the fox that gets winged by a wayward bullet endures a slow, painful, infectious death the fox mauled by hounds stands no chance of escape and is despatched in only a few seconds. Furthermore, the fox in flight has a sporting chance of outsmarting those in lumbering pursuit and escaping to ground. Most hunts consider it a "good day" if they can catch only one fox - many don't achieve even that.
The arguments for and against are all irrelevant now. Since the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004 it is illegal to hunt any wild mammal with a dog. As the opening paragraph of the legislation states:
"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt."
It's a terrible law - ill-conceived, unenforceable, riddled with ambiguity, inconsistency and loopholes. The very sort of law the Labour government is proving so adept at - legislation designed to criminalise a law abiding minority while simultaneously salving the consciences of ignorant, trendy left, towny Labour MPs.
The spotters will have noticed the word "exempt" in the extract above. The exemptions are wide ranging and include some glaring oversights any GCSE law student would pick up. Here are some examples:
- Stalking and flushing out: It is permissible to flush a fox out of cover, with dogs, for the purposes of shooting dead the fox. This has to be done by a competent person for the purposes of protecting livestock.
- Falconry: Likewise it is permissible to flush a fox out of cover, with dogs, for the purposes of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the fox.
- Rats and rabbits: These are exempted from the Act and can be hunted with dogs.
In reality these loopholes mean that the thrill of the chase can still continue as long as the huntsmen take reasonable steps to ensure that the hounds are called off before the fox is actually killed. As long as it is either a bird of prey or bullet that finishes the job the huntsmen are perfectly within the law. Truly terrible legislation.
It might be a good time to interject that I am completely indifferent to fox hunting. It is not something I have ever done, have no interest in ever doing, but living in a rural area I know a few people who do. The huntsmen I know aren't blood thirsty animals and they aren't going out with the sole intent of killing foxes. Their primary motivation is to socialise, talk livestock prices, drink a few tots of brandy and feel the wind in their hair. Is it right to attempt to criminalise these people, as simpleton Labour MPs have done, for choosing to ride their horses, on their land, with their hounds? Absolutely not. Surely even the most tree-huggy of liberals can spot the erosion of civil liberties in that scenario?
As much as I couldn't give a second thought about fox hunting I defend their right to do it.
It might be a good time to interject that I am completely indifferent to fox hunting. It is not something I have ever done, have no interest in ever doing, but living in a rural area I know a few people who do. The huntsmen I know aren't blood thirsty animals and they aren't going out with the sole intent of killing foxes. Their primary motivation is to socialise, talk livestock prices, drink a few tots of brandy and feel the wind in their hair. Is it right to attempt to criminalise these people, as simpleton Labour MPs have done, for choosing to ride their horses, on their land, with their hounds? Absolutely not. Surely even the most tree-huggy of liberals can spot the erosion of civil liberties in that scenario?
As much as I couldn't give a second thought about fox hunting I defend their right to do it.
