Foxhunting: Pointless cruelty

national | animal rights | opinion/analysis

Thursday May 04, 2006 09:33

by Timmy Nolan

Foxhunting is just as cruel as many outlawed forms of entertainment which involve violence against animals.
Fox hunters profess to be doing the agricultural sector a favour by hunting and killing foxes. The reality is that foxes are beneficial to crop farmers as they hunt and kill rodents such as field-mice and rabbits to survive. These “pests” are very often responsible for the destruction of crops.

The Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association (IMFHA) claim on their website that “Left unchecked, fox populations would expand and destroy the delicate balance of nature and cause widespread damage”. Hunters claimed that the fox population would spiral out of control due to the ban in Britain, but in 2001 during a year-long ban on hunting, due to foot and mouth disease, The Mammal Society of Britain found that fox numbers did not increase dramatically.

Foxhunting became banned in England and Wales recently. It is however still legal in Ireland. The big question is therefore if hunting should be allowed to continue. The main arguments hunters cite against banning foxhunting are, that foxes need to be killed to protect agriculture, jobs would be lost, the economy would take a downturn and that banning this hunting is against human rights. Hunters claim that they must control the fox population so that there is enough food to go around, that they are killing a number of the animals to protect the survival of the species as a whole. Generally when foxhounds are too old to engage in the hunt successfully they are killed. This fact alone should cast serious doubts on the idea that the hunters are trying to keep the fox population stable for any noble reasons or out of concern for the environment.

There is a viable alternative to foxhunting but since it lacks a kill at the conclusion most foxhunters object to it. This alternative is drag-hunting, in which a scent is spread for the hounds and hunters to follow. This provides the hunters with everything foxhunting does except for the result of a bloody and mutilated small animal. The goal in foxhunting is to kill the fox but many hunters cite the thrill of the chase as the main draw to their sport. Since foxes frequently attempt to escape underground the hunters nominate a gameskeeper whose main job is to block up any hole in an area that the fox is likely to try to use to flee.

The IMFHA drafted a code of conduct in 1998 to appease concerns Minister Joe Walsh had regarding the blood sport. According to the Irish Council Against Blood Sports (ICABS) this code of conduct has had very little effect on how the hunters conduct themselves. The code does indeed contradict itself in some key areas. For example earth-stopping which involves the blocking of escape routes for the fox “shall not be allowed for the sole purpose of preventing a hunted fox from going to ground” yet later in the document it is stated that it “shall be allowed”.

In the end, the only people who benefit from foxhunting are the hunters themselves. The only danger to agriculture that foxes present is the loss of the odd chicken or two. Foxes have been known to eat lamb but for the most part these are carrion. Many countries such as Switzerland and Germany have banned foxhunting and there has been no evidence of an explosion in fox population in those countries. The fact is that foxhunting is simply a legal form of animal cruelty.

save preference

Comments (14 of 14)

Bit shocked

by Glitter

Mon May 08, 2006 17:19

I actually thought foxhunting had been outlawed years ago in this country, I am rather shocked at this article, not least at my own ignorance!

Foxhunting- pointless cruelty

by Catherine

Sat May 06, 2006 18:28

I thought this was a great article. It was obvious what view the author had regarding foxhunting. There is nothing better however, than reading an article that has been well researched and where the author is not forcefeeding his/her views on his/her readers. Foxhunting is a cruel 'sport' - if you can call it a sport and the sooner people realise this and stop it the better.

Troll

by Keith

Fri May 05, 2006 23:11

Well shipsea, i dont think I'm the troll your looking for. I often post comments but i always use my real name. Keith. I see you don't use your name but i suppose thats up to you. Maybe you dont want people you know seeing your convictions. although in this instance I agreed with the general principle and attacked the writers methods it is not something I confine myself too. sometimes i disagree with the story itself. i do however have a big problem with people who try and manipulate information like in this article. i believe that if you are in the right you shouldnt have to. but thats just me

Liberal & Animal Rights

by LiamK

Fri May 05, 2006 15:53

Hey Liberal,
you have good points and i agree with a lot of what you're saying but I'm not sure its as straightforward as you say to dole out animal rights in a particlular order. Just because an animal is not of use to humans doesnt mean it deserves less rights than other more useful animals, I think some other way is needed to decide the question. I think perhaps it should run along the lines of inteligence and consciousness level in the animal. So I'd agree with you that primates might deserve most repect and protection but I'm not sure about your placement of foxes with respect to dogs, both of whom are members of the same family and probably share similar levels of consciousness and subjectivity with respect to pain for example.

Also your point that human suffering should take priority is a good one but not really valid in this instance because we are the ones (humans) causing foxes to suffer so all we need do to stop it is... stop hunting them.

Interesting.

by Ciara Nolan

Fri May 05, 2006 15:09

I found this interesting link. I don't know when this was written but I found it to be quite informative...

I can link to another place from here can i?

Well if the link gets deleted or anything it says that the population of Ireland is 4,5000,000 and that the amount of hunters are,300,000 Which is 0.6% of the population of the whole island of Ireland.

Not exactly

by Liberal

Fri May 05, 2006 15:02

"Basically you seem to think that animals should have no rights at all ever and people should be allowed to torture them or anything they like for any reason they like."

There's a hierarchy.
Foxes, rats, mice and locusts are vermin.
Sheep, cattle and poultry are agricultural animals.
Dogs, cats, horses are pets.
Endangered animals such as lions, tigers, elephants and whales have aesthetic, spiritual, cultural, religious and environmental importance - they are unique awesome and mysterious, their existence inspires us to ponder the fundemental questions.

Vermin are the lowest form of animal in that they serve no use to humans and are usually harmful to our interests and often arouse our disgust - foxes attack poultry and lambs, rats spread disases to humans, mice damage food stores, locusts strip cultivated land of crops needed to feed people etc.
So as I see it is less of a crime to be cruel to this type of creature.
I would prefer to poison them instead but if a person wants to hunt and kill them because of their often loathsome nature I have few qualms.

Sheep, cattle or poultry are assets - we want them to trive so we can slaughtered them for meat - the better an animal is fed and threated during its rearing the more likely it will be a useful resource. It is counter productive to kill them in cruel ways - rearing them to hunt them seems a ridiculous idea (but if you want to do that go ahead).

Dogs,cats and horses are more intelligent and loveable toward us - to be cruel to such animals is senseless and worrisome - to force dogs to fight or burn kittens in bonfires demonstrates an underlying potential sadism to fellow humans - if this sadism would be confined to the threatment of animals that would be repulsive but often children and adults who behave cruelly to animals of this category are likely to have a sadistic attitude to humans.

Killing animals such as tigers, lions, elephants and whales purely for the pleasure of the trophy is morally wrong and such behaviour enrages me - the value of nature and the place of man in the world has been soiled by the practice of killing these wonderful beasts.

Finally the ape families such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangatang are higher animals and related to us so they deserve the highest respect of all.

BUT

Homo sapiens is my species - we are animals too - the ultimate taboo is the sadistic murder or cannibalism of a human being.

At the moment tyrants, totalitarians, criminals, accidents and natural disasters kill millions of people every year.

Until that is no more I really dont care very much for the welfare of humans compared to human beings and even blood sports involving higher animals even apes arouses little interest in me.

Look after your own species welfare first.

figures?

by H Dowling

Fri May 05, 2006 14:47

I think that there is definetly a lack of knowledge to the extent which fox hunting occurs in Ireland. Does anybody have any figures as to the numbers who engage in this sport in Ireland and the numbers of foxes hunted on an annual basis?
I think this article brings to light an issue that the public have not been hearing about in this country but that will inevitably attract more media attention in the future.

I'm wondering are there more foxhunts now in Ireland?

by hmmmm

Fri May 05, 2006 14:12

is there a foX-hunting tourism? are frustrated ex-fox-hunters coming over here England to get their buzz? anyone know?

Barbaric

by D Hendrick

Fri May 05, 2006 13:27

This is a very interesting article.
What I do not understand is that those individuals who are pro fox hunting claim that is they do not undertake this barbaric sport that jobs will be lost & it would lead to economic down turn. How this is possible I do not know. Foxes are a part of the eco system & are required to keep everything in balance. Culling them for sport under the pretense that its necessary for the the balance of the eco system is a load of bs. Foxes reduce the rodent population & clean up carrion etc that would other wise rot & spread disease which in turn would mean that those involved in the agricultural sector would have to spend slightly less perhaps on pestacides & vets.

I do not understand how the IFMHA can say that what they are doing is vital when they are interfering with a balance that has evolved over thousands of years through evolution. Nature always finds away to balance itself out & the 9/10 times when its not a natural disaster its Humans who destroy the balance.

Liberal

Fri May 05, 2006 13:13

Hey liberal, if you dont care about the issue so much why did you read an article on it and then post a comment after it?

"So in the end of the day I just want to mind my own business watch the football on the telly and let the foxhunters do what they do"

Seems like a very selfish opinion but you're entitled to hold it. Basically you seem to think that animals should have no rights at all ever and people should be allowed to torture them or anything they like for any reason they like.

You pursue your hobbies other people will pursue theirs

Fri May 05, 2006 10:29

The people who pursue foxhunting enjoy it and they harm nobody else.
I don't like foxhunting because I think it is cruel to foxes. But I don't think we should make laws stopping people from being dickheads and beside human beings are not getting hurt so on the my personal scale of issues of importance foxhunting really doesnt interest me too much.
So in the end of the day I just want to mind my own business watch the football on the telly and let the foxhunters do what they do. It doesn't affect me or any other human being so I dont really care.

Keith

by Shipsea

Thu May 04, 2006 22:00

There is a particular sort of troll on Indymedia, maybe the same person or maybe multiple identical personalities, who pitch up regularly, pretending to be personally sympathetic to the issue raised but nevertheless attacking the author or his/her argument on some tangential ground. In this example, typically, the principle of the author's argument is accepted but the evidence for what s/he has said is aggressively questioned/criticised while 'Keith' himself offers no evidence for his own position. Anyone taking up the (decoy/troll ?) objection automatically, of course, derails the discussion.

re:editing

Thu May 04, 2006 12:24

It actually says
"shall be allowed "to assist in the finding of foxes above ground".

Or the full paragraph reads

"Earth stopping shall not be allowed for the sole purpose of preventing a hunted fox from going to ground. It shall be allowed, with due regard for the wishes of the landowner/lawful occupier, in the interests of the safety of, and the prevention of danger to other animals and/or members of the public, and to assist in the finding of foxes above ground. In general, earth stopping should be undertaken in any given instance only on lands to be traversed by the hunt in its initial stages. "

Editing

Thu May 04, 2006 12:02

For example earth-stopping which involves the blocking of escape routes for the fox “shall not be allowed for the sole purpose of preventing a hunted fox from going to ground” yet later in the document it is stated that it “shall be allowed”.

I very much doubt it simply says it "shall be allowed". In fact I'd bet money that there is something after that like "on condition that" or "for the purpose of". You're just picking and choosing the parts that help you and misrepresenting them. I myself am against fox hunting but I can't understand why people have to do things like this to make their point more valid. If you're gonna quote like this do it honestly. People might be more willing to support you when you don't try to deceive them.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Foxhunting: Pointless cruelty

Comments (14 of 14)