Why LibDems are Wrong to Support the Illiberal Hunting Ban
Another Christmas has come and gone. Amidst the hangover of wrapping paper and hearty leftovers there is an issue that pops its head above the parapet every year and is likely to make an ugly come back if the Tories win the next General with a comfortable majority.
As with anything with “ban” in the title the Hunting Ban, instated under the guise of “animal welfare”, has had completely opposite consequences and unfortunately this is the policy of the Liberal Democrats.*
A burgeoning fox population is being dealt with using poisons that adversely affect the surrounding environment, the same environments that are used to farm the food that we eat and in which animal lovers indulge in country pursuits. Indiscriminate trapping methods and the abandonment of traditional practices adversely affect other species, some of which are endangered like the Dormouse, proving that anti-hunt zealots do not give a toss about ‘animal welfare’.
The inappropriate residual of class war still taints this policy. The notion that everyone living in the countryside is rich is still prevalent and this is where we should be making noise. Rural poverty is a woefully under reported issue and one where the LibDems could make electoral gains in the countryside if we tackled this issue appropriately and sensitively. Much of the hunting ban is stems from the New Labour metropolitan elite illiberally imposing it’s values upon the countryside making the Tories look comparatively compassionate. I can’t commend MPs Lembit Opik and Roger Williams enough for their stance on this issue.
The rational case for the Hunting Ban is thin. We condemned the sacking of David Nutt because we wanted policy based on evidence (which coincidentally is also being justified by liberal thought). If we applied that same thinking to the Hunting Ban we wouldn’t be in favour of it.
* UPDATE: I previously stated, incorrectly, that LibDem policy was to support the Hunting Ban as has been pointed out by Paul Walter, this is not the case. In light of this, we should make it LibDem policy to oppose the ban instead of sitting on the fence.
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
December 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“had completely opposite consequences and unfortunately this is the policy of the Liberal Democrats”
No it isn’t.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
From: http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk/party_views.shtml#libdem
“The general Lib Dem party policy is a total ban on hunting with dogs.”
December 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Show me where it is in a party policy statement then, rather than the website of a pro-fox hunting campaign.
The 1997 manifesto from the party said:
“We believe that the issues of hunting with hounds and coursing should be decided by free votes in the House of Commons.” merely adding that the party would “protect wild animals”.
The 2001 manifesto said:
“We believe that the issue of hunting with hounds should be settled by MPs on a free vote.”
The 2005 manifesto said nothing on the matter.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You’re absolutely right, Paul. We have no policy on this at all. Instead we’re sitting on the fence. That’s so much healthier…
I shall amend the post at once, Squire!
December 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
An evidence-based approach wouldn’t bring back hunting either. It’s neither efficient, nor effective as a pest control measure. There are better measures to control the population as necessary - better than either poison or a hunt.
Hunting is a cultural artifact. And if you think that the tradition is worth the suffering of an animal, then that’s a debate to be had. But that’s a distinctly different question.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
It is effective as a ‘discriminate’ pest control measure, in that, it doesn’t affect other species. Which poison and trapping does. Killing foxes outright through hunting also mitigates their suffering as opposed to a lingering death from poison.
It also employs people and prevents loss of income to farmers. I think all together the evidence does suggest that it is worth the mitigated suffering to the animal.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I think you’re either naive, or disingenuous to suggest that hunting provides a swift, or humane death when compared to traps, shooting or even the right types of poison.
Additionally, hunting was never sufficient as a control measure in its own right. Other methods would still be required regardless, so even if we took your assertions at face value, its benefit on those grounds would be negligible.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Well, I’m entitled to my opinion. As are Lembit Opik and Roger Williams and the pro-hunt campaigners all over the country.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Oh, you’re absolutely entitled to your opinion, and I in no way wish to suggest otherwise.
But you made a point of saying that this was evidence-based on the basis of pest control. And the evidence simply doesn’t support that. It doesn’t provide a basis for said opinion.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
No. I said this was evidence based on pest control, the adverse effects on other species by the use of other methods, and the fact that banning hunting was detrimental to rural economies where poverty is already rife. Overall, all factors considered together, the evidence suggests to me that fox-hunting is unhealthy for the country-side as well as being fundamentally illiberal.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
You are repeating propaganda put forward by some parts of the pro-hunt lobby. Most rural people oppose fox hunting and the primary motivation of those who oppose fox hunting is animal welfare - most people do not think others should be allowed to torture animals for entertainment.
Class has been a relevant issue when it comes to animal welfare law, but not in the way you assert - popular ways of torturing animals for entertainment by the urban working class were outlawed years ago, such as dog and cock fighting by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. If you are concerned about class prejudice effecting people’s abilty to torture aniamls for fun then you should be campaigning to repeal these laws too.
The need to control the fox population is over played. However, fox hunting is such a poor method of controlling foxes that it should no part in any serious conversation about managing their numbers.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Paul, you are one of the metropolitan elite imposing your values on the countryside.
The point is fox-hunting is not an “upperclass” pursuit. Working class people in rural areas support hunting too. What I find objectionable is rural jobs being taken away from working class men and women because they are associated with an “upperclass” pursuit. It’s about the urban class versus the rural class.
Aside from that I don’t support the fox-hunting ban because the fox-hunting ban hurts animals.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Many thanks for the modification, Sara
December 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
There is nothing like fox hunting to get people going! Of all the issues that face Britain today, I find it hard to be bothered by one so trivial. We know that our healthcare system delivers child mortality 25 per week above Sweden. We know that our education system delivers a poor education to those from poor backgrounds. We know that our planning system means that millions cannot afford a decent place of their own. We know that the police can harass anyone using a camera. We know that authors have difficulty reading is schools. We know that racism and sexism remain entrenched. We know that 1 in 4 people living in social housing flats are afraid to go out. Wars in Iraq and Afghanisation are costing a fortune.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:51 am
I am one of the metropolitan elite? Can you explain what that means? I am not sure what relevance the social group you think I belong to has on the validity of my argument here.
I don’t understand how you can think that banning fox hunting unfairly targets a group of people, when it is clear that the practice of hunting with dogs was so out of keeping with pre-existing animal welfare laws.
I also don’t understand how you can claim I am imposing my view on rural people, when a majority oppose hunting with dogs. You appear to be the one who is imposing their opinion. However, that is not necessarily important when there are sound principled arguments at stake. To say that proponents of the ban are being illiberal though is churlish; I could just as easily say the same of you.
The key issue here concerns the rights of humans vs the rights of animals. Fox hunting is unnecessary, most people do not think people should be allowed to cause pain and suffering to animals in this way for entertainment and I unashamedly sit on this side of the argument. Claiming it is primarily an issue of class prejudice is inaccurate and a distraction, readily put forward by some sections of the anti-hunt lobby.
Hunting with dogs is not a discriminate way to hunt foxes. Quite the opposite is true. Hunts pick up all sorts of scents and can end up killing all sorts of animals, including domestic pets. Fortunately it is an extraordinarily unproductive way of hunting, which is why it can not be put forward as a serious method of ‘managing’ foxes, not that they need to be controlled out side of areas with ground nesting birds and (at a stretch) lambs. Foxes are excellent at controlling rabbits and rats, and in fact reduce the need for environmentally damaging methods used to control the numbers of these species.
Tim, I think you would have done better to point out that there are bigger animal welfare issues out there than hunting with dogs - I and others are not embarrassed to be concerned about animal welfare.
December 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
“I also don’t understand how you can claim I am imposing my view on rural people, when a majority oppose hunting with dogs.”
I have never been able to understand why any farmer would support a practice involving a pack of hounds followed by hordes of people on horseback rampaging over their fields, disturbing their livestock, damaging crops etc.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Paul, rural areas have suffered under New Labour more than usual. You are displaying the same insensitivity towards these issues as any metropolitan new Labour MP. Rural affairs have been neglected. The way anti-ban protestors are behaving, it’s rebellion. Since rural poverty was such a neglected issue anyway to then callously take peoples livelihoods away from them is just reckless. As one commentator on facebook commented: “more specifically, it has always struck me… as rich for city-folk (myself included) to preach morality at the same farmers whose livelihoods have been systematically rinsed by relentless mismanagement from successive Tory/New Labour govts. Perhaps those farmers know best how to manage their business? Perhaps people in the Westminter Bubble should consider the effect on the local economy before making bold statements about animal welfare which should be considered in relation to the fact that farmers have been killing predators to their crop for as long as farming has existed, and the fact that farming could not exist without that.”
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I don’t understand why our government has banned the sport of fox hunting but not the sport of human boxing. Why is this?