There doesn't appear to be a great deal out there regarding the position of UKIP on the issue of fox hunting. There is a brief mention on
this page, which suggests that the party would not support a ban.
I believe that fox hunting is a repugnant sport, demeaning to those involved and part of an age now long gone. The claim that it is about ridding the farms of pests is nonsense. If it was really about getting rid of foxes, they would be out at night with a terrier, a powerful torch and a shotgun. Obviously much of the enjoyment is actually the social gathering, the tradition of the events and the horse riding, all of which I think look like great fun. However, there is also the negative side; that some of the enjoyment is linked to the competition of the fox against the hounds and the hunt. A successful hunt is one that chases a terrified fox for long distances across the counrtyside and eventually captures and kills the fox by tearing it apart.
However, I do
not support a government ban on it.
While I find the sport distasteful, I also appreciate that many others do not, and I respect their right to have a different code of ethics. It is obviously not a black and white ethical issue, otherwise 99% of the population would feel the same way, and clearly they do not.
Where such discrepancies exist in what is considered acceptable behaviour, I think that the government has to be very careful about over-stepping its assigned role. The government should, at all times, avoid regulation if at all possible in my opinion. A hunting ban seems to be an extension of the nanny state; Labour and others are convinced that the British public are unable to make their own ethical judgements and so they will take the decisions for us.
It is not dissimilar to the issue of abortion; there is a major rift in public opinion as to whether it constitutes murder. In this case, the government should not legislate against it and leave individuals to make their own judgements. I believe that the same logic should apply to hunting; let people make up their own minds about whether it is right or wrong.
I also think that there is a considerable aspect of the "feel-good" factor involved. MPs voting against hunting are allowing themselves to feel that they have done their bit for animal welfare and the promotion of an ethical society. This self-delusion is extremely disurbing.
A fox living in the wild is in its natural environment, and only suffers unnaturally on the day of its death. Around 10,000 of them are killed in hunts each year (as far as my research can tell). In contrast, there are 25,000,000 chickens kept in barbaric battery farm conditions in Britain. 2,000,000 of them die in their cages each year from disease or suffocation. An average battery farm chicken spends 72 weeks in an area 3/4 of the size of a piece of A4 paper before being killed.
If the amount of press coverage was related to the seriousness of the problem, then every article in every newspaper would be about battery farm cruelty. There simply is no comparison between the amount of cruelty to foxes and the cruelty to chickens. While this isn't a reason to not ban fox-hunting, I do believe that the fox hunting mania is an unwelcome distraction from the true crimes against animals that occur on a much vaster scale in Britain.
I hate to say it, but the plight of 10,000 animals (if that is the correct number) simply does not warrant the amount of time and money spent by the government.