From: ncambray@eoe.co.uk (Nick Cambray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunting in the UK
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:50:47 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I have been following the recent heated debates on hunting, most
of which has centred around activity in the USA, and would like to 
add a view of this topic from a UK perspective.

Much of the discussion so far has focussed on hunting with guns,
which is rather less common in the UK, mostly because we lack
the large unpopulated areas of the US. A more usual sight in
England is the 'spectacle' of the fox hunt and other pack hunting
during most of the winter months. It is perhaps easier to feel 
removed from the act of killing when it is perpetrated at some 
considerable range with a rifle or shotgun, but I feel that all 
of these examples of bloodsports are equally reprehensible. Several 
posts have implied that it is not the killing which is important 
to the hunter but the hunt itself; if this is true, then why is 
the kill necessary ? I find it a great challenge to shoot clays 
but would never kill a living creature for sport. I enjoy horse 
riding, but do not feel that it is necessary to kill something 
to justify a day out riding. For those who enjoy hunting with 
hounds, drag hunting in which a series of trails are constructed 
for the hounds to follow, is a more humane alternative although
even this is not free from the charges of potential cruelty to
horses and hounds. Despite these options, however, a sizeable 
minority still persists in some form of hunting in our countryside. 

The issues involved with game shooting have already been aired at 
great length in this group, so I will not comment further at this 
stage. However, the gruesome nature of the kill at a foxhunt, and the 
fact that even when an animal has gone to ground it is frequently 
dug out and killed by the terrier men, and / or thrown to the hounds 
indicates to me that for many participants it _IS_ the kill which
is important. Some video footage of one such incident at the Quorn
hunt caused a storm of controversy when shown on British TV last
year. Add to this the disregard of some hunts for the safety of
domestic pets, of which many are killed each year by badly controlled
hounds, and in some cases the disregard of the hunt for the safety
of their own mounts and hounds, and a picture is starting to emerge 
of the mentality of the people involved. I am sure that most of them
have no interest whatever in the well being of any animals, and that 
have seen that they are quite prepared to sanction irresponsible, cruel,
vicious and in some cases illegal behaviour in persuit of a day's 
sport. I should add that this attitude is not solely directed against
animals but also against anyone who dares to oppose the hunt. I have
witnessed attacks on peaceful protesters and their property by thugs
who apparently accompany one UK hunt, and whose presence there appears 
to be for this purpose alone, and have seen well authenticated reports
of hounds being allowed to stray onto both major roads and railway 
lines. Because of the open threat of violence towards protesters, it 
is ironic that on occasions a hunt have summoned the police only to 
have their own activities scrutinised. Frequently, however, the police
appear more inclined to the hunt's point of view than to the protesters'
for a variety of reasons.

I expect the phrase 'peaceful protesters' to be siezed upon for an
attack by supporters of hunting, but it should be borne in mind that 
most people who are opposed to hunting are also opposed to the use 
of violence of any sort. Personally, I do not believe that anyone 
can justify opposition to hunting on the grounds of cruelty if they 
are prepared to initiate violence against people in an attempt 
to make their point. There have also been reports in the press 
regarding irresponsible actions of a minority of hunt saboteurs
who have endangered the lives of horses, hounds or riders by their
actions, and I would condemn such actions with the same fervour as I 
do the hunters.

A further even nastier aspect of UK bloodsports is the rise in illegal
hare coursing. A report on television recently highlighted many
examples of damage to crops and property, assaults on farmers who have 
tried to remove such people from their land, and similar attacks on 
the police. The motivation for these people is both blood and money. 
Hare coursing attracts much illegal gaming with thousands of pounds 
sometimes being found in the posession of those arrested. Unfortunately,
the UK law is very limited in its scope for dealing with this problem,
as trespass is not itself a criminal offence, and it is often hard to 
prove other offences against individuals. This is a source of great
frustration to farmers, campaigners and the police alike.

So why are some of these activities legal and some not ? Principally,
I suspect, because fox hunting and game shooting have historically 
both been the preserve of the relatively wealthy and powerful, and 
their lobby has managed to keep hunting legal while some other 'sports' 
such as dog fighting have, fortunately, been outlawed. A Bill designed 
to outlaw foxhunting failed in the House of Commons by only a very 
slim majority last year, and it is to be hoped that a future attempt
to change the law in this respect will be successful.