Ill-conceived and vindictive piece of legislation
S Newby, (Mailbox, January 13), like most anti-hunting folk, find using emotive language supports their argument.
Well, it doesn't! The questions I have been asking to no avail are, how many foxes are caught by hounds and what percentage of the fox population does this represent?
I am not a hunter, but do have chickens on my land and have seen at first hand the devastation foxes cause – or is that emotive?
I suppose the antis will say that's all right as it is in the fox's nature to do so, just as it is in the hound's nature to chase.
The fact remains, this Government chose to spend an inordinate amount of parliamentary time in saving vermin. Why?
What is so special and important about the fox that other far more important business should be put aside? It was a half-baked, hotchpotched idea which cannot be policed by our already over-stretched police force.
The antis would have us believe there is carnage in the countryside with dead foxes littering the land like confetti.
That just isn't so. My guess is that very few foxes are caught by dogs. Hunting has not and will not see the extinction of this animal.
New Labour, in their wisdom, decided to alter centuries of tradition to appease a misguided, mainly urban, dweller, who has little understanding of the rural way of life.
Well, it has backfired and this subject will not go away as they would wish.
To replace tradition with a bad law is an ideology borne out of desire to change for the sake of change. It was an ill-considered and vindictive piece of legislation which needs overturning.
David Hankey, Great Easton.
5 Comments
by David Hankey, Great Easton, Leics
Wednesday, January 20 2010, 9:21AM
“Well thank you "urbanites" for your replies - you have proved my point!!
I am disappointed that none of you have been able to answer my questions regarding the number of foxes killed by hunts and what percentage of the fox population it represents. I guess it is a bit like the MORI poll, a miniscule proportion of the population would have been contacted!!”
by Karin, Oadby
Tuesday, January 19 2010, 1:13PM
“Oh Mr. Hankey, from whence does your loathing of poor old Mr.Fox emanate. I too have lost chickens to a fox and blamed myself. Had I caught the fox at the time naturally I would have felt like killing him,however,it is his nature to kill. He does not possess free will, we, on the other hand do. You state few foxes are caught by dogs.. THEREFORE IT IS AN INEFFICIENT METHOD OF PEST CONTROL....”
by Daniel, Leicester
Tuesday, January 19 2010, 11:52AM
“I dont think people are against humane culling of animals if its required, but the barbaric way this is done for so called 'sport' is disgusting and is rightly banned.”
by John, Glenfield
Tuesday, January 19 2010, 10:21AM
“There is nothing AT ALL stopping you shooting foxes on your land. I repeat NOTHING PREVENTS THIS.
So I must conclude that you like the idea of a living animal being torn to pieces after running for its life. Its an entirely artificial hunt - unless of course you are advocating letting packs of hounds roam free?
The vermin argument is specious in the extreme and frankly I think that epithet would better fit the people who participate in this "sport".”
by Neil B, Leicester
Tuesday, January 19 2010, 9:54AM
“According to the latest (September 2009) independent MORI poll, "In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing." So it¿s not just those in towns who agree with the ban. The majority of the rural community seem to agree with it too.”