I write this article in response to the petition that has almost reached 500,000 signatures that urges the British government not to repeal the ban on fox hunting from 2004. For fox hunting to be legalised again would be an unlikely scenario since this is a controversial issue that tends to divide congregations of society, but as David Cameron has formally made aware that he supports the freedom to hunt, this petition is gaining a lot of momentum with celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Brian May helping to spread the message. The idea is that Britain should never allow the idea of foxes being brutally hunted predominantly by the upper classes, and that actually harmless foxes should be protected by law. The method of fox hunting is usually quite straightforward. A pack of dogs that's often led by a group of horsemen will attempt to route out and kill a fox by following the scent trail it leaves behind, and then finishing up with some brandy and cigars. There are various methods to this traditional activity, but it's the universal threat towards the fox that has activists up in arms about the Conservative Party repealing the act.
Thanks to the Labour government fox hunting has been banned in England and Wales since 2004 after a series of debates and enquiries that stemmed from the absence of protecting foxes on the 1996 'Wild Animals Protection Act'. Since 2004 a maximum fine of £5,000 can be given for failure to adhere to these laws, and in Scotland a six month jail sentence can even be obtained, which does seem a little harsh in my eyes. Since the act was brought in only six hunts have been formally cautioned by authorities, which does suggest that the current system in place is working effectively and provides a suitable deterrent and compromise for supporters and the government. However, this is an act with a lot of loopholes. What most people don't realise is that the 2004 act didn't actually 'ban' fox hunting outright and in fact fox hunting is still permitted in England and Wales if the party consists of only two dogs, or there's a bird of prey in the party that can instantly kill the fox upon location. I must ask David Cameron why he needs to repeal this law, considering that it appears to cater for both parties, and legalising this activity would be a controversial issue that wouldn't win him many voters. As a person I don't advocate the torture of animals in any way, and so for me fox hunting is a sport that needs to be controlled by the government, and the current method of ensuring that the fox dies in a relatively painless way appears to me as an area of common ground between me and supporters.
The most common reason given as to why fox hunting should be legalised is because it provides a method of pest control that ensures a stable fox population in a way that's far more humane than the alternatives. This is actually a really important point considering that the large British fox population are considered vermin in rural areas. The diet of a fox consists of valuable commodities such as lambs and chickens, and even extends to rare birds and many small mammals. Not only do foxes threaten the stability of many threatened species, but they also have the tendency to kill more organisms than they consume, meaning that whether you like it or not, the British fox population does need to be controlled for the benefit of both farmers and ecosystems. The truth is that fox hunting is one method of pest control that works in a similar way to how natural selection would work in the wild. Weaker and younger foxes are more likely to be killed, and so in this way only the strongest survive. That's all very well, but when you view the statistics you actually discover that fox hunting is a very inefficient process at controlling rural fox populations. It's estimated that five times as many foxes are killed on British roads each year, indicating that there are far better alternatives of pest control that don't resort in sadistic games.
The question now becomes if fox hunting is no longer viable then how can we control the rural fox population? The number of foxes has increased at a steady rate since the 1950's according to figures from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and this can be attributed to the increase in food sources and lack of competition from similar organisms. The interesting thing is that the population has actually remained relatively stable since the mid 1990's, and so as the number of fox hunts decreases, the number of foxes doesn't actually change. Fox hunting is clearly not a realistic method of pest control, so the idea that it does work is going against the statistics provided by reliable sources. But now that fox hunting is out of the picture culling appears to be the most appropriate option, despite the fact that this method has the potential to be even more barbaric than fox hunting. The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management has estimated that in order to sustain a stable fox population up to 68% of rural foxes past the breeding age will have to be killed. That does seem an excessive number, but contrary to what activists believe it's simply foolish to leave the rural fox population as it is, even if that does mean relying on more inhumane methods such as shooting or snaring. The statistics show that objecting fox hunting based on the thought of purely killing foxes is simply misguided, and that conservation of ecosystems needs management instead of personal ethics to succeed.
The reasons for controlling fox hunting don't stop there either. Not only is it a poor method of population control, but it's also not really a sport in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned fox hunting appears to be a form of casual sadism that butchers living foxes for a bit of fun. I understand that chasing animals is an exciting event to be part of, but does that also require you to butcher a fox in return? Well actually no. There are a variety of alternatives to fox hunting that as far as I can see make no difference on the actual event. Drag hunting is the most popular alternative, and requires just the scent to find an object that resembles a fox. I recall 'Top Gear' using a small 4x4 as the fox when they decided to give it a go, and the overall premise didn't seem to change. Maybe asking for the law to be restricted further is going too far, and if drag hunting was to be made the only method then many dogs would have to be put down, thus effecting the 8,000 people that rely on fox hunting to make a living. If you think I've ignored the ethical debate in this issue then you'd be spot on, considering that there really isn't an ethical solution to this problem. Even those people that don't want any harm on the rural fox population must realise that their solution is also unethical within itself. Preserving the rural fox population would only cause more deaths in organisms at lower trophic levels, so in reality killing foxes, which may entail the continuation of fox hunting, does appear to be the most ethical choice.
In conclusion I personally think the restrictions should remain in place. If members of society want the freedom to hunt and uphold strong traditions, then the current law doesn't have a huge effect on the pastime. However as for legalisation, that shouldn't happen in my opinion, as the casual torture of helpless animals is an activity our country shouldn't be advocating, and the statistics evidently show that the process doesn't work as pest control. If we as a nation accept that the reality is there isn't a way of controlling the fox population without inhumane devices then we can manage the countryside to a greater extent, which whether you like it or not is vital to rural conservation. Unfortunately foxes are pests and so there really isn't any option when it comes to culling, despite what your feelings may be. The problem is that the countryside can't be managed by people's feelings, and leaving the fox population alone would be a major issue for Britain's ecosystems. However I do hope this is achieved in a way that doesn't involve torturing the poor animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment