Anthony Butcher

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.

shadbolt

The best way to reply is direct you to my website ukip-richmondpark.com. I was so incensed by our brutal police attacking my countrymen wanting to preserve a British tradition that I immediately wrote a webpage on the subject and also enrolled UKIP Richmond Park as an affiliate member of the Countryside Alliance.

Fox hunting may be cruel, but it is the England that I liked, not the poxy politically correct trap it is today. Fox hunting must remain until people don't simply want to do it anymore.

__________________
God Bless England

cynic

There are a million things you may or may not approve of. I for one am very pro Fox hunting, I won't go INTO phpbb_the arguments. The point is quite simple - less control and more freedom - that is what UKIP is about. So wether you are a fox-hunter in the country or a gay urban city dweller, that is your business - not the business of the State. And if you are Gay and want to hunt foxes, then you are quids in. Time to stop speaking within the frames of reference that New Labour imposes upon our thought. Never apologise for your thinking - if you do they have succeeded in implanting a politically correct seed which will forever have you on a back footing.

C_steam

Absolutely. We should be pushing this point for all it is worth, it seems to be a 'Unique selling point' for UKIP over other parties.

I would like to add one more clause to the above though:-

'Less control, more freedom, more fairness'

Dave

Many good points raised here, the best answer to give, without alianating one side or the other may be that:

"UKIP believe in giving power back to the people in local referendums, for instance where hunting takes place a referendum should be held, where no hunting takes place no referendum, I havent noticed the Brixton stag hounds out of late or the Birmingham City hunt riding out lately either, inner city and urban MPs should concentrate more on HUNTING drug dealers and BANNING drive by SHOOTINGS, and leave rural affairs to rural peoples"

My personal view is that this had not alot to do with cruelty but more to do with an imagined class war (lets give the toffs a bloody nose) and funding for the labour party.

What has been achieved by the ban is lots of working class people, stable lads/girls, farriers, vets etc, to poorer lives (lower wages, loss of jobs), the fox has been condemmed to exstinction (hunts tend to take out old and infirm, and a few cubs during cubbing season), shooting and gassing will be less discriminate and therefore many more will be killed.

AB said

"and kills the fox by tearing it apart"


A fox is never ripped apart whilst alive, the first dog will break it's neck with a bite similar to way abig cat dispatches a zebra in the wild, so the fox is very very dead before the ripping starts, thus feels nothing and by this point being somewhat dead already, couldn't care less.

Charles II done a similar thing to Cromwell and sent his appendiges to the four corners of the kingdom as a sign to his subjects, was Cromwell bothered, being dead he had no idea what was happening, so it didn't hurt and didn't matter much to him.


Regards
Dave

Anthony Butcher

That is the theory, but as I understand it, it really is wishful thinking. I may be wrong of course, but it all sounds too conveniently clinical. :?

Karen

I do not hunt, but it is a question of freedom. I do not go to football either but there is an even better argument for banning that. It is not a UKIP problem. I think it was Pitt who said I do not agree with what you do but I shall fight for your right to do it.

Kilroy's Boy

i think UKIP needs a firm policy on all major issues - it's sitting on the fence that will just make people reject votuing for them because they don't have a solid view.

personally I think fox hunting is barbaric but understand banning will cause major upset in the countryside but these people need to get over the idea of killing for sport and move on to other more productive activities. the 'we've done it for generations' thing just doesn't fly with me - they've also been bear baiting in Pakistan for generations but just because these people earn a living from it doesn't mean we should protect it. Yes the government should help them get other jobs but I believe Liberty can go so far, people torchering cats and having sex with children shouldn't be made legal because it's what certain people like doing. When peoples or animals (involuntarily) are being exploited for gaming purposes that result in them being hunted down and torn apart by dogs is immoral even for a pest like a fox.

I'm no animal rights activist an eat meat and fish all the time and think nothing of farm produce as it's for food, survival - yes there are issues with certain types of farming which I agree are poor and need to be addressed also but we're talking about a 'sport' here which by today's supposedly moral, civil society sticks out like a bayonet at a kids tea party.

And btw the poor farming ethics in some cases thing is only happening because the givt have just let supermarkets get away with driving the prices down to attract more competition, an entirely new subjet of conversation.

HAve any of you gone to the ideas forum and posted an idea about how to improve the marketing and profile of the UKIP if not - et your idea down now!

KP

Karen

Fox hunting is not really the issue: the issue is that New Labour is the new term for fascist. Blind git is all for banning things that the po-faced Socialists - or should that be National Socialists - are about. Once hunting is forbidden fishing, smoking, walking your dog and motoring will all follow.
Good luck to the Countryside Alliance they are more effective at putting their case than we are.

mkpdavies

I thought the idea by someone of making it a local issue was a good one. There is clearly a split between townies and countryside people on this issue, so I wouldn't want to impose my townie attitude on a rural area. I don't think all issues can be seen as black and white, wouldn't it be more fair and honest to admit we were as split as the rest of the UK and leave it up to the localities?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems