HOUNDING THE RIDINGS? Last week, the British House of Commons was invaded by protestors objecting to ... a ban on fox hunting? In the course of the railway conference, I was chatting with a participant who described her use of the animation features in Power Point to reenact an earlier protest in Parliament involving votes for women, including the rather tender issue of well-to-do women obtaining the franchise although some men without property did not have the vote. So I suggested that there might be some teachable moments contrasting the hunt protest with the suffrage protest. Her reaction: I didn't know England. Likely not: some of my family was tossed out as early as 1608. I did, however, conduct some research on the politics and symbolism of riding to hounds, or as Oscar Wilde put it, the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible (a Google search string that well might lead to much more than one cares to know about the issues.)

The Independent provided a summary of the issues of the hunting ban, which I quote in full below. (Buy it yourself if you want)

A way of life wrongly attacked or the end of a centuries-old cruel blood sport?

16 September 2004

(First issue) The welfare of foxes

(Position of) Anti-hunting lobby: The League Against Cruel Sports says there is "no evidence" that foxes are genuine pests. To deal with "rogue" foxes, copper fencing around chicken coops and bringing sheep indoors to give birth are more effective ways of reducing attacks on animals than hunting.

(Position of) Pro-hunting lobby: The Countryside Alliance says that most farmers believe foxes are pests and their numbers need to be controlled. A ban will not save the life of a single fox because "pest control" would continue to be legitimate. There is a danger that the number of foxes would rise to unmanageable proportions in some areas and "shot to extinction" in others.

(Parliament's findings) The verdict: The Burns report, published in 2000, concluded that "farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider it is necessary to manage fox populations in view of the damage foxes can cause to farming and game management interests". The 200 registered packs of hounds kill 21,000 to 25,000 foxes a year.

Impact on horses and hounds

Anti-hunting lobby: Horse riding is one of the biggest growth areas of leisure pursuits and a ban on hunting would have a negligible impact on the equestrian world. Hounds would be used in drag-hunting and other alternatives to fox hunts, so there would be no need for any animals to be put down.

Pro-hunting lobby: There are 20,000 fox hounds and 200,000 other dogs indirectly used in hunting whose futures could be put at risk by a ban. A further 60,000 horses are also primarily used for hunting and would face a similarly uncertain prospect if their owners could not hunt.

The verdict: Horses and hounds could be deployed to different uses, but this would mean convincing their owners that switching could work. The ban in Scotland has had no impact on horses and hounds, which now are simply used in humane hunts.

Impact on rural and hunting communities

Anti-hunting lobby: The economic impact would be small as such a tiny number of people - only 700 to 800 in the whole of England and Wales - are directly employed by hunting. Those who are indirectly unemployed, such as blacksmiths, would not lose income because other types of horse sports and rural pursuits are flourishing.

Pro-hunting lobby: More than 12,000 jobs - or 8,000 full-time equivalent posts - would be lost by a ban on hunting. The economic impact could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds, and the social cohesion among rural communities created by hunting would be destroyed.

The verdict: The Burns report estimated between 6,000 to 8,000 full-time jobs would be lost by a ban and that outlawing hunting would be "keenly felt" in some rural communities. But the report also said that within 10 years, most communities would have adjusted. There were 10 hunts in Scotland before the ban was enacted there - and not a single one has been lost.

Hunting is intrinsically barbaric

Anti-hunting lobby: Fox hunting is cruel. Hounds are bred to run slowly, thereby prolonging the chase and increasing the distress to the fox. Foxes are run to the point of exhaustion. While the actual kill may be quick, the chase to the death is slow and tortuous.

Pro-hunting lobby: No method of control is going to be entirely without pain or distress, but hunting is necessary and no more cruel than other means. The death is quick.

The verdict: Lord Burns concluded that there was a lack of clear scientific evidence about the effect of the chase on a fox, but said he was satisfied that "this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". Most foxes do not die quickly from a single bite to the neck, but from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs.

A ban will criminalise innocent people

Anti-hunting lobby: Britain is a parliamentary democracy and people cannot pick and choose which laws they want to obey. The Commons has passed the Act and it is now no different from any other.

Pro-hunting lobby: Any ban will be unenforceable - people in rural communities will simply ignore the law and police forces will have to devote huge numbers of officers and time to bringing cases to court. The prospect of spy cameras in trees and village bobbies arresting renegade hunters will lead to a dangerous breakdown in trust between rural police and communities.

The verdict: Burns said that legislation could present "enforcement difficulties" but that would be up to Parliament to solve. The report accepted that some people might simply ignore the ban and rural police forces could be reluctant to give the law priority if they did not feel they had public support.

Is there popular demand for a ban?

Anti-hunting lobby: Polls by the Countryside Alliance that show huge opposition to a ban have been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Market Research Foundation. The most recent Mori poll, from November 2003, found that 76 per cent supported a ban on hunting.

Pro-hunting lobby: The Mori poll question was unfair and included people's views on badger baiting rather than simply whether fox hunting should be banned. A recent poll for the CA found only 2 per cent of people believed a ban should be a Government priority, while more than 500,000 turned out for the protest march in London in 2002.

The verdict: Even the pro-hunt lobby privately accepts that the majority of the British public are either in favour of a ban or at the least, are not fervently supportive of their cause.

Is a ban the only option?

Anti-hunting lobby: Yes. It was included in the 1997 Labour election manifesto, has a groundswell of public support and is the only straightforward and effective way to end a barbaric sport that serves no useful purpose.

Pro-hunting lobby: No. Most people favour regulation of hunting but not an outright ban, which will only lead to chaos, confusion and the destruction of a centuries-old way of life.

The verdict: Having come this far, any climbdown would be humiliating for Labour and infuriate anti-hunt campaigners. The pro-hunt lobby refuses to even accept that a ban will ever happen, and seems committed to a period of civil disobedience if - or when - it is enacted.

There is something a bit ham-handed about a government provoking such a protest over a matter seemingly so small -- is this really the hill you want to die on? What I have been led to understand is that the hunting ban captures in microcosm a tussle between metropolitan England ... that of coffee bars and commuter trains ... and country England, where rising gasoline prices and suburban sprawl crowd out old ways of life. The letters pages in The Independent suggest how angry some people are. There is a tamer introduction to the customs of the hunt and the issues at All Info About. The opponents of the hunt are sometimes more colorful. Stopping cruelty to foxes motivates some people. The levelling instinct motivates others.

At home, I used to join the local boys in “running down” the hunt. This is the only traditionally working class component of foxhunting: the fit young men of the village work out where the horses are going and, taking short cuts, try to get there before them. This way you could enjoy the thrill of the chase without the expense of owning a horse. The hunters tolerated us, but that was all. At the meet they would remain in the saddle, drinking from their stirrup-cups, talking only to each other. If we asked one of them a question, he would ignore us, or address us as if a worm had spoken, or walk his horse straight through us, so that we had to step out of the way. The Norman lords’ superiority, Shoard writes, was established by two features of feudal society: the castle and their “association … with the horse, which enabled them literally to look down on the serfs, who walked”.

As an animal welfare issue, fox hunting comes in at about number 155. It probably ranks below the last of the great working class bloodsports, coarse fishing. It’s insignificant beside intensive pig farming, chicken keeping or even the rearing of pheasants for driven shoots. But as a class issue, it ranks behind private schooling at number two. This isn’t about animal welfare. It’s about human welfare. By taking on the hunt, our MPs are taking on those who ran the country for 800 years, and still run the countryside today. This class war began with the Norman conquest. It still needs to be fought.

Or, one might take the occasion to comment on other once-legal blood sports, which, because they were not favored by the Norman lords, were banned long ago.

On the other hand, fox hunting has been banned in Scotland, where the hounds chase people, and fox -- or coyote -- hunting as practiced in the States (yes, it exists, with an association for the hound-masters, example hunt clubs in Virginia and in the Missouri Valley) involves the quarry being driven to ground rather than torn to bits by the pack. (And there are rules and a dress code. The hunt must be aesthetically pleasing. "With respect for the overall visual picture, the less correctly turned out riders should remain in the rear of the field." Priceless.)

One wonders, however, about the effectiveness of the fox hunt as herd management. Note that annual bag of some 25,000 foxes per year in the shires. By contrast, the annual bag in the Wisconsin deer hunt is close to 500,000 deer, of which close to 100,000 are taken by archers. Now, there's a Norman tradition for you...