Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Jul 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		A hunting ban - good for foxes? September 7 2004 So Tony Blair has finally bitten the bullet. He's going to ban hunting - or at least he's going to try. Never mind that the countryside will be up in arms, that the police have told him a ban would hugely expensive and difficult to enforce, that several of his ministers have serious doubts about the idea. But at least, it's good news for foxes, isn't it? Actually, no it isn't. Think of it from the fox's point of view. Sooner or later, somehow or another, a fox is going to die. If hunting is banned, then a fox may die from another culling method - legal or illegal - or from accident, disease, starvation or old age. Legal culling methods include shooting, trapping and snaring. Now of course a clean shot through the brain or heart is a very humane culling method, and a good marksman in a good light, shooting a sitting fox within a reasonable distance, may be able to guarantee a clean shot. But imagine a moving fox, a poor light, a long shot, some undergrowth, even a marksman having a bad day, and the chances of wounding rather than killing are high. What happens to a wounded fox? Unless the wound is totally superficial, the fox will die. It may take hours, or days, or weeks. It may get gangrene. It will certainly be in pain and distress. It may simply be unable to hunt or feed itself, and die of starvation. A quick death on the hunting field, in a rush of adrenaline, would be a mercy by comparison. Equally, snaring or trapping risk leaving a fox to a slow death. Not surprisingly, methods which are effectively illegal - poisoning or gassing - are equally prone to leave a fox to a protracted and agonising death. There are no hospices for foxes. Charlie will breathe his last in a ditch, after hours or days of pain and terror. A "natural" death, by accident, disease, old age or starvation will be equally uncomfortable. You may think a fox might prefer a painful death at a good age, rather than die young on the hunting field. But that brings us to a key point that opponents of hunting never seem to grasp - generally speaking, young, fit foxes escape, while old or sick foxes are taken. I once had an "animal rights" campaigner ask me derisively how hounds were supposed to work out the age of the fox. I was staggered by the stupidity of the question: as any fool can see, young fit foxes run faster than old or sick foxes, and are more likely to get away. Indeed hunting with hounds is not only one of the most humane ways of culling foxes. It is also the only method which preferentially takes old or sick foxes, and so contributes positively to the fitness of the fox population. Counter-intuitively, a hunting ban could lead to the extinction of foxes over a wide area. For the farmer, the fox is simply vermin, a threat to his lambs and chickens, a voracious and indiscriminate predator. Farmers, many of whom hunt or support hunting, tolerate a controlled fox population for their sport. Ban hunting, and it will be open season on the fox. Over much of England, the landscape is a hunting landscape. It will change forever, to the detriment of wild-life and bio-diversity. Much of the woodland planted by hunts and hunting farmers as coverts will go, hedges will be replaced by fences, industrial agriculture will take over. Tony Blair knows this. He has heard the arguments, and with all his faults he's not stupid. So why is he doing it? Partly to throw a bone to the fractious class-warriors on his back-benches. Partly because he believes it will be a "challenge" to the Conservative party. But here his usual political instincts have let him down. Apart from a few zealots, most of those who oppose hunting don't feel strongly enough about it to change their vote. But huge numbers of hunting people do feel strongly enough. That is why the Countryside Alliance can get four hundred thousand people on the streets of London, while the antis are lucky to manage a few hundred. A hunting ban would mean a million extra Conservative votes, and thousands of new and passionate activists. A ban would be an affront to civil liberties, and to centuries of British tradition. It would be a slap in the face for the countryside, and a headache for the police. It would damage rural communities, the landscape, the environment, wildlife and biodiversity. And above all, it would be a disaster for foxes.