tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/fox-hunting-15364/articlesFox hunting – The Conversation2020-06-18T17:17:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1284192020-06-18T17:17:11Z2020-06-18T17:17:11ZDebate: Hunting ‘common’ species won’t mitigate epidemics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338923/original/file-20200601-95036-sy11en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=80%2C48%2C1836%2C1003&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Badgers are hunted down as 'harmful' species. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/fr/photos/blaireau-des-animaux-forest-44202/">Pixabay</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ongoing catastrophes of climate change, <a href="https://ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf">biodiversity loss</a> and the coronavirus pandemic show that politicians are resistant to <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-morrisons-biggest-failure-in-the-bushfire-crisis-an-inability-to-deliver-collective-action-129437">objective information</a>, especially when economic growth is at stake.</p>
<p>As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to unfold in many countries and our relations to animals are <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-shows-we-must-get-serious-about-the-well-being-of-animals-138872">being debated more than ever</a>, the practice of hunting is part of the heated debate.</p>
<p>According to a 2018 poll in France, 84% of those interviewed stated that they <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/les-francais-rejettent-massivement-la-chasse">disapproved of hunting</a>, even as authorities and nonprofit organisations often face strong pressure from <a href="https://theconversation.com/nicolas-hulot-face-au-mur-des-lobbies-102300">hunters’ lobbies</a>. Such organisations may benefit from <a href="https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/hauts-de-france/oise/compiegne/celebre-cerf-foret-laigue-oise-black-ete-abattu-lors-chasse-courre-1772897.html">local politics</a>, and the claim by hunters that that culling “common” game species can help maintain ecological balance, prevent damage the environment and even reduce the spread of diseases.</p>
<h2>Invisible “common” species</h2>
<p>Species often described as “common” include weasels, martens, polecats, foxes, rook ravens, black crows, magpies, jays and starlings, all of which were previously termed as harmful. While the <a href="https://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/animaux-nuisibles-code-environnement-decret-28605.php4">term has changed</a>, the consequences remain.</p>
<p>In fact, most people have never or only rarely seen such “common” species, especially mammals that avoid humans or are nocturnal. One notable example is the badger, which can be hunted in ways that <a href="https://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/One-Voice-revele-l-enfer-sous-terre-de-la-chasse-aux-blaireaux-1683538">strongly diverge</a> from any idealised vision of what “hunting” looks like. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=63%2C35%2C735%2C495&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338920/original/file-20200601-95059-185l6ej.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox in Chartreuse mountains of France.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Renard_montrant_son_museau.JPG">Brucyn/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of natural balances, the numbers of specimens in a given population of any species fluctuates. Simply said, if there are enough food and water resources and habitat to live in, the population thrives. When these resources dwindle, the population size decreases. There are other factors as well, including predator-prey interactions, local climate, human-wildlife interactions, and pathogens.</p>
<h2>The role of epidemics in regulating populations</h2>
<p>In the case of pathogens, they can influence the population size of any species – that is why we humans fear them as well. Host-pathogen interactions are highly complex, but generally the spread of a pathogen depends on how infectious it is, the size of the population and the interactions between individuals.</p>
<p>This has been recently shown for an amphibian pathogen, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-04-transmission-amphibian-pathogen-bsal.html"><em>Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans</em></a>. Its transmission is dependent on the number of contacts between individuals, which is closely related to the density of a population. Generally, the higher the number of specimens, and the more reduced the living space of that population, the more likely it will be that the pathogen will spread.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338926/original/file-20200601-95009-1t955ci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Salamanders are susceptible to catch an amphibian pathogen, <em>Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans</em>.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/fr/photos/monde-animal-nature-des-animaux-3357937/">Pixabay</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If an infectious disease spreads rapidly, the most susceptible individuals will get infected, and this too varies depending on the nature of the pathogen itself – it may most affect younger, weaker or older individuals, whichever is the most susceptible. In an epidemic, individuals in a good condition can also become infected, but depending on their immune system and the disease itself, they may recover or die.</p>
<p>In short, infectious diseases can <a href="https://www.p3mountains.org/post/pathogens">control the population size of common and not so common species</a>. If culling keeps population size at low levels, however, an epidemic may not occur and therefore will not reduce the number of individuals.</p>
<h2>Is culling really beneficial?</h2>
<p>While the reduction in the populations of common species may be perceived as beneficial, it can in fact lead to a higher diversity of pathogens in a population – unlike pathogens, hunters do not target for weak individuals, but sometimes those that are most fit and in good health. In this way, hunting common species may actually increase disease risks for humans rather than decrease them.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125688/">2016 study</a> conducted in the United Kingdom looked at the impact of culling wild badgers (<em>Meles meles</em>), which can serve as a host for the pathogen that causes cattle tuberculosis (<em>Mycobacterium bovis</em>). </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xhyI5U8JyBg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Bovine tuberculosis explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The study confirmed that while large-scale badger culling reduced the incidence of confirmed cattle TB cases, its benefits were undermined by induced changes in badger behaviour. These changes in turn increased transmission among badgers and from badgers to cattle. The reason culling pushes badgers out of the culled areas, as well as expanding badger ranging in and around the areas where culls occurred. Thus, due to changes in badger behaviour in response to culling, such actions actually resulted in the opposite effect of what was desired.</p>
<p>Also missing in the debate precise information about the damages caused by badgers and other common species. In a <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000037125721&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074220&dateTexte=20180630">2018 text</a>, the French Environmental Code states that many such species are “likely to cause damage”, but provides no further information. What we do know is that common species can play an important role in an ecosystem. This can include wild boars turning soil to find worms, fox catching mice, martens eating the eggs of other species, or all animals simply leaving behind faeces to nourish the soil.</p>
<p>Each species has its role to play in nature and due to the <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5962/154?casa_token=pJ0ORmt42JYAAAAA:GLwYTmP4k907HJBqmsQlsm5_XnCp9kx3ADrtzQRU9jpf9o4QpAP2BKbrY1rVKTWHJOVmm7uG6moPFw">myriad interactions</a> between species, humans still have significant difficulty in understanding the roles that animals play in their environment, even the most common ones.</p>
<h2>Risks to animals and hunters</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338930/original/file-20200601-95054-a32m2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Female starling: this bird is often confused with any other ‘black bird’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hedera_baltica/33673327206">Hedera.Baltica/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Laws are not particular strict regarding who is allowed to take an animal’s life and the choices that they make, intended or otherwise. Risks to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/index_en.htm">non-harmful species</a> can easily occur – it’s easy to confuse any black bird for a blackbird.</p>
<p>Hunters themselves can also be at risk. With the <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736#d2355001e1">Covid-19 pandemic</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320460/">Ebola epidemic</a>, we better understand how hunting animals can result in the shift of deadly pathogens to humans. While common European species harbour no such diseases, rabbits and foxes can be infected with <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2578082">rabies</a>, which can affect humans. </p>
<h2>What can we do?</h2>
<p>In Luxembourg, hunting, trapping and killing foxes has been entirely stopped without any negative effect reported so far on the human or the wildlife populations. The same is true in the <a href="https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068%5B0939:EOHFAF%5D2.0.CO;2?casa_token=6Akq167TthAAAAAA:r7y__gFINRezeD9jAG1DTNxkf_Jmq5Hqk1YAi5IWkoqrOkbLamJCrp2A9JwKeGJ0stu_gOsYY5-0PA">Swiss canton of Geneva</a>. Measures other than culling have been used to mitigate damages caused by wild animals, including such as electric fences against wild boars or equipment that emits warning signals at the approach of deer. These examples show that approaches other than culling are possible.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=158&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=158&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=158&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310261/original/file-20200115-134768-1tax26b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Created in 2007 to help accelerate and share scientific knowledge on key societal issues, the AXA Research Fund has been supporting nearly 650 projects around the world conducted by researchers from 55 countries. To learn more, visit the site of the <a href="https://www.axa-research.org">Axa Research Fund</a> or follow on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/axaresearchfund?lang=fr">@AXAResearchFund</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128419/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dirk Schmeller a reçu des financements de AXA Research Fund, DFG, European Commission. </span></em></p>All animals plays a role in nature, and in times of biodiversity loss and climate change, hunting “common” species such as foxes and badgers is irresponsible .Dirk S. Schmeller, Professor for Conservation Biology, Axa Chair for Functional Mountain Ecology at the École Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse III – Paul SabatierLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1104542019-01-30T13:30:09Z2019-01-30T13:30:09ZNo wonder fox hunting is still prevalent – the ban is designed to fail British wildlife<p>Despite overwhelming public opposition and a longstanding ban, fox hunting shows <a href="https://www.league.org.uk/news/eight-reports-of-kills-by-fox-hunts-since-boxing-day">no signs of abating</a> in the UK. The 2018 hunt season alone saw <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hunts-illegal-hundreds-autumn-season-figures-animal-rights-hunting-ban-england-wales-a8286336.html">550 reports of illegal hunting</a>, though these figures only represent known incidents. </p>
<p>In 2014 it was found that <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11313805/250000-people-turn-out-to-support-Boxing-Day-hunts.html">250,000 fox hunters attended Boxing Day hunts</a> across the UK. In 2019, so far, at least <a href="https://www.league.org.uk/news/greene-king-urged-to-ban-fox-hunt-meets">21 foxes have been killed by the hunt and 151 incidents</a> of illegal hunting have been reported since the season began on November 1.</p>
<p>The Hunting Act, which prohibited hunting foxes and wild mammals with dogs, was approved by the UK’s parliament in 2003 with <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1846577.stm">362 MPs in favour and 156 against</a>. The following year it became law. In 2017, the British people were surveyed on whether they continue to support the ban on fox hunting and the result was resounding – the highest margin ever recorded on the matter - <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/attitudes-hunting-2017">85% thought fox hunting should remain prohibited</a>.</p>
<p>So if the ban is entering its 15th year, why is fox hunting still happening?</p>
<h2>A legal let-down</h2>
<p>This question is answered in the Hunting Act itself, particularly the manner in which it “outlaws” fox hunting. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1">Article 1</a> states that a “person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog”. But the provision continues: “Unless his hunting is exempt.”</p>
<p>Herein lies the deceit of the Hunting Act, for it lists a total of nine reasons <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1">a hunt may flout the general ban</a>. One of the more commonly invoked exemptions maintains that it is legal to hunt foxes if they pose a danger to livestock, game, crops or fisheries. As such, fox hunting advocates would have us believe that Roald Dahl’s tale of Fantastic Mr Fox and his endeavours to outwit farmers is all too common a curse in rural communities. </p>
<p>This remains nothing more than a smokescreen to defy the ban. Research has shown that foxes naturally control rabbit populations that if left unchecked, would <a href="https://www.gwct.org.uk/research/long-term-monitoring/national-gamebag-census/mammal-bags-comprehensive-overviews/interpretation-of-ngc-trends-rabbit/">cause significant economic harm to farmers</a>. The UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) also advises against controlling foxes, and instead favours strengthening protection around livestock to <a href="https://www.discoverwildlife.com/people/do-we-really-need-to-control-foxes-in-the-uk/">guard against natural predation</a>.</p>
<p>Another commonly used exemption exploits a loophole around flushing foxes out to help birds of prey hunt. This has seen fox hunters disguising their true intentions by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06w6r99">taking birds of prey along with them</a> without ever letting them loose. </p>
<p>There is also the dubious practise of <a href="http://www.countryside-alliance.org/countryside-alliance-guide-trail-hunting/">“manufactured” trail hunting</a> in which hounds are supposed to follow an artificial scent trail with no animal chased or killed. In reality, hunt organisers use actual fox scent and lay routes deliberately close to where foxes are known to live, meaning they quickly become the subject of a hunt. Trail hunting is again an attempt to <a href="https://www.league.org.uk/trail-hunting">hide the true intentions of those that wish to continue fox hunting</a>.</p>
<p>Monitoring and gathering accurate information on all this to help prosecute offenders is a dangerous task, with members of the public often exposed to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/fox-hunting-uk-britain-mobs-driving-communities-apart-a7948516.html">insults, intimidation and threats</a> from hunters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z5yw-heybH8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The inadequate Hunting Act and the nefarious practises of hunt organisers mean fox hunting endures in England and Wales. Scotland too, offers no refuge for foxes and the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/6/contents">Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002</a> provides similar loopholes that allow hunting to continue.</p>
<p>Setting aside the cruelty of fox hunting, evidence from the Breeding Bird Survey suggests red fox numbers have <a href="https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/bbs/latest-results/mammal-monitoring">declined by 41% since 1995</a>. Introducing a complete hunting ban is more essential than ever to protect the UK’s foxes.</p>
<h2>A fox-centric approach</h2>
<p>The Hunting Act has humans as its focus by specifying how people can bend the law’s provisions to their circumstances. Despite its prevalence in much of environmental law, this human-centric idea is entirely the wrong approach. Any future legislative efforts need to place foxes, and other mammals, at the centre of legislation.</p>
<p>Foxes must be protected for their own right, and a blanket ban on hunting, absent any exemptions, is the only way to safeguard populations. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fox-hunting-illegal-prison-sentences-boxing-day-hunt-sue-hayman-hounds-a8698871.html">Severe penalties must also be included</a>, to ensure that those already willing to flout the law will rethink their actions.</p>
<p>The likelihood of such a move materialising during this parliament is slim, however. Prime Minister Theresa May offered a free vote to repeal the Hunting Act during the 2017 election but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/theresa-may-drops-manifesto-promise-to-allow-foxhunting-vote">withdrew the pledge after her disastrous election result</a>.</p>
<p>It’s essential that campaigns for stronger anti-hunting laws highlight how widespread resistance to diluting the ban is. The failures of the existing ban endanger foxes and betray the wishes of a majority of the public. Any update to the Hunting Act must crack down on those who think they are above the law.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110454/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ash Murphy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fox hunting has been banned in the UK since 2004 – so why is it still happening?Ash Murphy, PhD Researcher, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786202017-06-07T08:47:17Z2017-06-07T08:47:17ZBefore you vote, read Mary Webb’s 1917 novel on the barbarism of fox hunting<p>Mary Webb’s classic novel Gone to Earth marks its 100th anniversary this year and remains extremely relevant. The novel has anti-fox hunting and anti-cruelty rhetoric at its core – so its centenary comes at a timely moment. Should the Conservative Party secure a majority after Theresa May’s snap election on June 8, the UK countryside could well be witnessing <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-conservatives-tories-ban-bring-back-repeal-hunting-act-general-election-2017-a7737881.html">the return of hunting with hounds</a>.</p>
<p>May has pledged to have a vote on rescinding the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/pdfs/ukpga_20040037_en.pdf">2004 Hunting Act</a> which bans the practice of using dogs to hunt wild mammals (other than to flush them out of cover to be shot). As Daniel Allen wrote in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/fox-hunting-row-playing-politics-with-animal-welfare-77512">recent article on this site</a>: “It is time that politicians looked beyond political promises and personal legacies, to stop playing politics with animals, and start taking animal welfare seriously.”</p>
<p>In response to May’s statement, Bill Oddie, president of the League Against Cruel Sports, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/21/foxhunting-belongs-to-the-dark-ages-of-animal-cruelty?CMP=share_btn_fb">said that</a> “foxhunting belongs to the dark ages of animal cruelty”. It has been more than a decade since the ban came into force – and May’s avowal of the archaic and brutal practice, marks a potential shift back to the kind of world that so horrified Webb.</p>
<h2>The ‘death pack’</h2>
<p>Gone to Earth, Webb’s second novel, received scant critical attention during her own lifetime, despite <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2008/07/10/mary_webb_feature.shtml">receiving warm praise</a> from the Conservative politician Stanley Baldwin. It remains to this day a largely under-read classic, despite the fact that <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042513/">it was made into a film</a> in 1950 by celebrated directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. The novel contains an important message, connecting the brutality of hunting with a tendency towards general human cruelty – a message we should remember before we plunge ourselves back into the dark ages Oddie warns us of.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172489/original/file-20170606-3665-ugofz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mary Webb: passionate advocate against hunting.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Hazel Woodus, the 18-year-old protagonist of Webb’s novel, lives in fear of both the mythical “death pack”, which she imagines roaming the countryside, and the very real hunt, whose hounds pose an immediate physical danger to her pet fox, Foxy. Hazel and Foxy live in a constant state of fear and flight. Hazel, we are told, “identified herself with Foxy, and so with all things hunted and snared and destroyed”. </p>
<p>In Webb’s novel, those who kill for sport, for entertainment and who prey on the weak, represent the dark side of humanity which exerts its power over the defenceless – simply because it can.</p>
<p>Gladys Coles, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2702608-mary-webb">Webb’s biographer</a>, remarks upon the fact that the hunt symbolises the physical and psychological cruelty inherent in human nature, if unchecked. According to Gone to Earth, the death pack “hunts at all hours, light and dark; it is no pale phantom of dreams”. The death pack becomes more than just a haunting spectre with the realisation that it consists of “our fellows, all that have strength without pity”. It is, according to Webb, “mankind’s lack of pity, mankind’s fatal propensity for torture, that is the nightmare”.</p>
<h2>Violent pastimes</h2>
<p>A century ago, anti-foxhunting activists were, by and large, seen as cranks. Webb’s message went against the grain by connecting the cruelty of the hunt and the World War I battlefield. Gone to Earth, which had been written during 1916, the year of the Battle of the Somme, is inescapably coupled to the bloody historical realities of the war, the presence of which is felt throughout the text. </p>
<p>The absence of direct references to the war, a war in which three of Webb’s brothers fought, serve to make Webb’s message of pacifism even more poignant. The Somme, for Britain the bloodiest battle of the war, resonates throughout the novel where, for the protagonist, “the earth’s all bloody” and “the world’s nought but a snare”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172491/original/file-20170606-3690-1j4mmza.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The novel was praised by the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amazon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though Webb might have been perceived as a crank, her voice against cruelty was accompanied by the likes of <a href="http://www.henrysalt.co.uk/">Henry Stephens Salt</a>, social reformer and animal rights advocate. and the playwright and critic George Bernard Shaw. </p>
<p>For Salt, blood sports and warfare were “kindred pastimes” which both bred violence. Likewise, Bernard Shaw <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UZQ2jwbq3IwC&pg=PT233&lpg=PT233&dq=george+bernard+shaw+sports+in+which+men+revert+to+the+excitements+of+beasts+of+prey&source=bl&ots=JUJnFi2SLC&sig=LzEq0h9XiJSQ_4NE5g0zD1Awpv4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwmZ7-qKnUAhVBD8AKHS7iA3gQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=george%20bernard%20shaw%20sports%20in%20which%20men%20revert%20to%20the%20excitements%20of%20beasts%20of%20prey&f=false">was equally revolted</a> by “dehumanising sports”, such as fox hunting, “sports in which men revert to the excitements of beasts of prey”.</p>
<p>The objections to fox hunting that Bernard Shaw and Salt voice perhaps have less to do with concerns about animal welfare and more to do with the fear of the contagion of cruelty – the way we treat animals is only one step removed from the way we treat our fellow human beings. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172492/original/file-20170606-3674-142ay5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Human barbarism: the battle of the Somme.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Imperial War Museum</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Salt warned of “the tiger that lurks in all of us” and wrote that our inherent callousness “will not be easily tamed, so long as the deliberate murder of harmless creatures for ‘sport’ is a recognised amusement in every ‘civilised’ country”.</p>
<p>Despite the gruesome ending to Gone to Earth, Mary Webb was optimistic about the future: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have left behind us the bloodshot centuries when killing was the only sport, and we have come to slightly more reputable times when lovers of killing are conscious that a distinct effort is necessary in order to keep up ‘the good old English sports’.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>She prophesied that “better things are in store for us” – and, indeed, the 2004 act banning the practice of fox hunting was a step towards realising a more humane world, a move which a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-bring-back-fox-hunting-only-one-in-10-voters-support-a7757891.html">recent Independent poll</a> suggests most are in favour of. Revoking the ban might not just plunge us back into the dark ages of animal cruelty, but into a world which also lacks compassion on a human level.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ellen Turner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If elected, Theresa May has vowed to have a fresh vote on fox hunting. This 100-year-old novel should be required reading.Ellen Turner, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775122017-05-15T12:12:30Z2017-05-15T12:12:30ZFox-hunting row: playing politics with animal welfare<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169313/original/file-20170515-7019-1a5xw9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If Theresa May’s announcement of a UK general election on June 8 was a surprise to many, her pledge to allow a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act was hardly unexpected. </p>
<p>During a factory visit in Leeds recently, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011">May declared</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>As it happens, personally, I’ve always been in favour of fox hunting and we maintain our commitment – we had a commitment previously – as a Conservative Party to allow a free vote and that would allow parliament to take a decision on this. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents">The Hunting Act</a> came into force in 2004 to “prevent or reduce unnecessary suffering to wild mammals”. In theory, the law prevents foxes, hare (endangered in parts of the UK due to habitat loss), deer and mink from being pursued, injured or killed with hounds. </p>
<p>But in reality, enforcement of the law is a significant challenge – with the <a href="https://www.league.org.uk/News/boxing-day-hunts-16">League Against Cruel Sports</a> estimating an average of 16,000 illegal hunting incidents each year.</p>
<p>Between 2005 and 2017 there were <a href="http://www.countryside-alliance.org/calls-grow-hunting-act-scrapped-figures-reveal-no-successful-prosecutions-two-years/">423 prosecutions</a> under the act, <a href="http://www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/">24 of which involved registered hunts</a>. </p>
<h2>The Hunting Act explained</h2>
<p>Horses and hounds in pursuit of the “wiley” fox across the British countryside captures the public imagination, effortlessly dividing opinion on rural-urban relations, class, cruelty, tradition, national identity and the rural idyll. </p>
<p>But while the fox gets all the press, other parts of the Hunting Act – which covers stag hunting, mink hunting, beagling, and hare coursing – are rarely mentioned. </p>
<p>Over the past 20 years, party leaders such as <a href="http://www.fwi.co.uk/farm-life/fox-hunting-ban-deliberately-sabotaged-says-blair.htm">Tony Blair</a>, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-david-camerons-desire-to-reverse-ban-doomed-in-face-of-tory-opposition-a6786171.html">David Cameron</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-33521292/sturgeon-cameron-out-of-touch">Nicola Sturgeon</a> have played politics with animals to polarise opinion and mobilise targeted support. And this time round is no different. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169314/original/file-20170515-6990-1ykozqi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The face of the Hunting Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pexels.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Those that oppose the act, notably the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance, point to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1477176/What-the-Act-allows-and-what-is-illegal.html">inconsistencies in the law</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. </p>
<p>You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally, but if you use three it’s an offence. </p>
<p>You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pro-hunting opponents also challenge the role of this law in improving animal welfare. Countryside Alliance chief executive Tim Bonner maintains: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There has been no improvement in welfare – just as many foxes are being killed as were before the ban. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265552/4763.pdf">Burns Inquiry</a> in 2000 – which looked into hunting with dogs in England and Wales when foxhunting was legal – registered hunts took an estimated 21,000 to 25,000 foxes annually. This accounted for roughly 5% of total fox deaths.</p>
<p>Today foxes and other wildlife continue to be legally “controlled” by farmers – <a href="http://www.discoverwildlife.com/british-wildlife/do-we-really-need-control-foxes-uk">mainly by shooting</a>. So the argument goes that a return to hunting would not increase deaths, and it is only “fair” that a small percentage of these perceived pests are hunted – in keeping with the British “tradition”. </p>
<h2>‘Pest control’</h2>
<p>But if that many foxes continue to be killed through legal practices of shooting, trapping and snaring, what role does hunting really have in wildlife management? </p>
<p>Historically, <a href="http://www.reaktionbooks.co.uk/display.asp?K=9781861897671">otter hunting</a> – which became illegal in 1978 when the endangered otter became a protected species in England – was exactly that. Otter hunters would hunt this “fish-killer” to protect fish stocks. By the 20th century, hunting otter had become a respected sport and regional organisations were created to do it. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169319/original/file-20170515-7001-t1tv27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The cruelty of the otter hunt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Webb/UK Wild Otter Trust</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Otter hunts were said to help develop a sense of community. The hunters had specialist understanding of the animal and its environment, and the otter acted as a guide for summer excursions into wild and watery rural landscapes. </p>
<p>Otter hunters valued the otter for the sport it provided them. And had it not been for otter hunting, the likelihood is the species would have been exterminated by those with a vested interest in fish.</p>
<p>But back then, animal welfare was certainly not a consideration. In fact, those who campaigned against otter hunting regarded it as one of the <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/rural-history/article/an-incredibly-vile-sport-campaigns-against-otter-hunting-in-britain-190039/4BCE85C41D8B90D859EF42AF7733F82E">most cruel forms of hunting</a> with hounds. </p>
<p>This was largely due to the duration of the pursuit – which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/26/country-diary-1912-otter-hunting">could often be up to seven hours</a> – and the active role of the followers, along with the otters prolonged suffering in the teeth of hounds.</p>
<h2>Country sports</h2>
<p>Otter hunting became enjoyed as a leisurely pastime – the experience of hunting surpassed the original intent of killing. And where otter hunting was considered “fun” by <a href="http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/2367/1/Watkins%20otter%20hunting%20cw.pdf">otter hunters</a>, hunting with hounds in the 21st century has the same appeal for participants. </p>
<p>Back in 2015, the prime minister, David Cameron, promised a free vote to repeal the Hunting Act. He declared: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is definitely a rural way of life which a born-and-bred Londoner might struggle to understand. I have always been a strong supporter of country sports. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cameron then insisted: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare … people should have freedom to hunt.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, and the 56 SNP MPs <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/14/foxhunting-vote-shelved-by-tories-in-face-of-snp-opposition">united against Cameron</a>, and in a humiliating political climb down, Cameron was forced to cancel the free vote. </p>
<h2>Animal cruelty</h2>
<p>The Hunting Act was the outcome of a political promise made by Blair. The attempted repeal was the outcome of a political promise made by Cameron, one which is being replicated by May. </p>
<p>The “freedom to hunt” is central to those calling for a repeal. These same pro-hunting supporters <a href="https://twitter.com/Dr_Dan_1/status/861969091061592065">dismiss the animal cruelty angle</a> – describing it as “complex” and <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010312/text/10312-06.htm">claim that there</a> is “[in]sufficient verifiable evidence” to reach conclusions on such matters.</p>
<p>But the notion that cruelty is complex has little substance. To the observer, cruelty is subjective and relative. For the animals experiencing unnecessary distress or pain, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs">suffering is absolute</a>. </p>
<p>So while it is clear that the Hunting Act would benefit from revisions – to tighten up the legislation – repealing the law altogether will indeed have direct implications on the welfare of animals currently under its protection. </p>
<p>It is time that politicians looked beyond political promises and personal legacies, to stop playing politics with animals, and start taking animal welfare seriously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Daniel Allen is the Media and Policy Advisor for the UK Wild Otter Trust (charity 1167746) and member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.</span></em></p>Why politicians need to stop playing politics with animals, and start taking their welfare seriously.Daniel Allen, Teaching Fellow in Human Geography, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/447372015-07-15T14:34:41Z2015-07-15T14:34:41ZWhy the English fox may turn around to bite its Scottish saviours<p>The champagne corks are not exactly popping in <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/property-crisis-what-crisis-snp-plans-move-to-swish-new-hq-near-holyrood-1-1163025">Gordon Lamb House</a>, even if the SNP has reason to celebrate. The party has dealt another bloody nose to prime minister David Cameron – the fourth since the election – by forcing the government to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33520547">postpone a planned vote</a> on repealing the ban on fox hunting.</p>
<p>Angered by the alleged second-class treatment Scottish MPs are getting from the Conservative government, the SNP warned that it would vote against the hunting bill. Fearful of losing, Cameron withdrew the vote from the parliamentary schedule. </p>
<p>But if the threat to vote against the fox-hunting bill showed the SNP as an effective opposition party capable of derailing the legislative agenda of the government, it also showed the dangers of such strategy. In order to fully grasp these dangers it is important to understand the source of the popularity and political credibility of the SNP.</p>
<p>The SNP did not become the only party that counts in Scotland by sheer luck. Both current leader Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor Alex Salmond have spent the best part of the last decade transforming the SNP into a professional, well-oiled electoral machine and a responsible and competent party of government.</p>
<p>That strategy has delivered handsome returns. The SNP has led the Scottish government since 2007, <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-snp-course-landslide-victory-6061943">polls</a> suggest it may win a landslide at next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections, and the party, with its 56 MPs in the House of Commons, is now a force to be reckoned with at Westminster.</p>
<p>The SNP’s popularity is also predicated on the claim that it is different. It presents itself as the antidote to the toxic Westminster culture of tricks and parlour games. That strategy is clearly visible in the behaviour of the SNP in the House of Commons. The party’s much larger contingent of MPs may be new to the green benches but they are not in awe of the place. They like to point to some of the old-fashioned and barmy Westminster <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/12/snp-mps-at-westminster-scotland">rituals</a> and seem to wear with the pride the reprimands they get from the Speaker of the House every time they breach parliamentary etiquette.</p>
<p>But voting against a bill that does not remotely affect Scottish voters (or foxes) runs the risk of undermining the political credibility and popularity the SNP worked so hard to acquire. Instead of coming across as principled, the SNP now looks like a typical Westminster party that is ready to renege on its values in order to engage in a spot of legislative tit-for-tat just for the sake of it.</p>
<p>The party’s decision had nothing to do with a new-found concern for the well-being of English foxes (if anything, they enjoy <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/politics/scottish-government-to-consider-tightening-law-on-fox-hunting-after-noting-strength-of-feeling.5187">more protection</a> than Scottish foxes) and everything to do with revenge at the government’s proposals on English Votes for English Laws and further Scottish devolution.</p>
<p>That much was apparent when <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33520547">Sturgeon</a> that the SNP’s stance serve to remind the prime minister that he had “a slender and fragile” majority.</p>
<p>Until now, the SNP has refrained from voting on legislation that only affects England and developed a consistent position on EVEL. Considering the SNP’s raison d’être is to fight Westminster meddling into Scottish affairs, this position was consistent with its constitutional nationalism. </p>
<p>In threatening to vote on fox hunting, the party has thrown its own rulebook out the window. By breaching its own conventions regarding legislation that only affects England, it is not only indulging on the kind of politics it seeks to stand against, it is potentially weakening its hand on devolution matters. And here, Scotland has far more to loose than Westminster.</p>
<p>For now, supporters may celebrate the boldness of the SNP contingent in Westminster, but Sturgeon and her MPs should be aware that engaging in too many games may come back to haunt the party. That is particularly dangerous for a group that built its popularity on the back of the promise to deliver a different style of politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In threatening to derail a vote on fox hunting in England, the SNP has undermined its credibility as a voice for Scotland.Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Politics, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/386072015-03-11T06:23:49Z2015-03-11T06:23:49ZWhat fox hunters could learn from the Maasai Olympics<p>Making something illegal will not stop it happening – just look at the trade in endangered animal parts in traditional <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/29/tigers-in-traditional-chinese-medicine-a-universal-apothecary/">Chinese medicine</a>. And in some cases making an activity illegal has made it more desirable, the consumption of bush meat in Africa being a case in point. The forbidden fruit, or in this case monkey, tastes sweeter.</p>
<p>It’s clear that any crackdown on illicit activity needs to address motivations. Foxhunting is a great example. Ten years after hunting with dogs was outlawed in the UK, prime minister David Cameron has promised MPs an open vote on <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-he-wants-to-repeal-the-fox-hunting-ban-10091571.html">repealing the ban</a> if he wins the general election. Though 80% of England’s population is against it, clearly the rest still want to carry on as before.</p>
<p>Perhaps what fox hunting diehards need is an alternative. Not something that simply exists to keep the authorities happy, but a competitive alternative in its own right. Maybe they could look to east Africa for inspiration, where the Maasai people have traded lion hunting for a different sort of competitive thrill-seeking.</p>
<h2>Cultural killing</h2>
<p>Addressing fox hunting requires an understanding of its causes. Politics aside, the question is why there is still such a desire to chase and kill foxes with hounds. Fox populations have not exploded since the ban, so there is no argument in terms of pest control. And in any case lamping – the dazzling of a fox with a bright light and then shooting it – when carried out by a trained marksman has been shown to be a much more effective and humane method of control.</p>
<p>Fox hunting enthusiasts argue it is part of the nation’s cultural heritage and that the ban is eroding the culture of countryside folk. This argument is used by indigenous people to hunt everything from polar bears to <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-name-of-culture-dugong-hunting-is-simply-cruel-12463">dugongs</a> or whales. Fox hunters are quick to point out their target is officially classified as a pest not an endangered species. </p>
<p>But culture changes, people say, and fox hunting need not be part of the UK’s social life for ever. Child labour, for instance, was an important part of the industrial revolution in the UK – it’s now long banned, and no one wants to bring back the traditional chimney sweep.</p>
<p>The fox hunting lobby isn’t buying into the argument that culture moves on. They point out that the <a href="http://www.mfha.org.uk/">number of hunts</a> is still the same as before the ban. Of course since the ban they have been able to engage in substitute activities such as <a href="http://huntingact.org/?q=node/61">trail hunting</a>, the laying down and following of an artificial trail in the pattern that a fox would leave across appropriate terrain. Thus the hunters have had outlets for their desires.</p>
<p>Many people accept that their motivations to hunt are no longer appropriate in a modern society where food is easily available. Fishermen practice catch and release, and hunters can shoot clay pigeons. </p>
<p>These activities have been turned into games: fishermen can compete in matches or at least tell their tales of the one who got away, whereas clay pigeon shooting is featured in the Olympics.</p>
<p>Pride, prizes and prestige can be gained in these sports. Something that is missing I suspect from trail hunting, which is born out of a stigmatised activity that now has no obvious prize. In the past, hunts could boast of how many kills they had made in a season.</p>
<h2>Cultures can change</h2>
<p>Lions in Africa are another species that soon could be on the endangered species list. Realising this, the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania have changed one important part of their cultural heritage. Traditionally for a man to become a warrior, a leader or at least attract a wife, he needed to go out and kill a lion. Since 2012 the Maasai have substituted killing lions with the <a href="http://www.maasaiolympics.com/">Maasai Olympics</a> where they can run, jump and throw against each other. </p>
<p>The winners gain medals, prizes and prestige – the same honours once gained through lion-killing. This shows culture is not a static thing but it evolves in relation to its environment. If culture does not evolve then as all things suffering Darwinian forces it will go extinct – the Maasai know this.</p>
<p>Maasai men have been killing lions for much longer than people in the UK have been hunting foxes with hounds but have quickly accepted a change in their culture. Those wishing to repeal the Hunting Act would do well to think about the lessons to be learned from the Maasai. Even cultural conservation is not preservation – it is about adapting to change in your environment and acting sustainably.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38607/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert John Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You don’t need to kill wild animals to prove your worth.Robert John Young, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.