chris.bailey
29th of December 2004 (Wed), 09:02
The photos posted by neil_r in the people photo sharing forum sparked quite an anti-hunting response; the tone of which I felt suggested a degree of ill-information. Terms such as ‘bloodthirsty’ and ‘hooligan’ are purely emotive and have been used far too often in the long debate on hunting with hounds in the UK. As for ‘cruelty for pleasure’, I’m afraid that most of the meat we eat involves a degree of cruelty to animals but as this is out-of-sight and in the interests of our eating pleasure, somehow we see that as justified. Personally I see little difference.
For those who have challenged me to provide an informed response I will offer the following chain of logic. I can well believe that others will do the same and reach other conclusions and I can appreciate their view. Such things are rarely clear cut and like most of life, involve a degree of compromise. I have, however, as a ‘townie’ living in the country, tried to take a balanced and informed view in reaching my own conclusions. I am not strongly pro or anti hunting though my own research has tended to sway me from the anti towards the pro.
To me the whole question of hunting with hounds needs to be considered in the wider context of animal husbandry, farming methods and quality of product. The hunting with hounds debate has isolated one element of this without fully considering others. Most evidence supporting hunting with hounds in such a wider context has been overshadowed by the emotive terms used by the anti-hunt lobby. This is a shame as it has led to a political decision that does not necessarily have scientific backing.
Anyway, my logic is as follows.
1) Do I want to eat meat? I have tried vegetarianism and decided it is not for me. I fully accept others views on this fundamental question but having decided I am a meat eater led me to consider my responsibilities as a carnivore.
2) Am I happy to eat meat and poultry produced by modern farming methods of mass production, additives etc? No I am not. Though most of us live with the picture postcard view of the farmyard, this is very far from the truth. Poultry production in particular is both intensive, un-natural and cruel in the extreme. Battery chickens are pumped full of antibiotics, without which they would not survive the disease that permeates such methods. Slaughter houses involve long distance transport of animals and then long delays before slaughter, both involve high degrees of stress and anxiety with some animals dying in transportation. I could go on but hopefully have made the point.
3) Is there an alternative? Yes. There are a growing number of animal friendly farms where chickens are reared in the open and cattle are slaughtered in small numbers locally. I know of one farmer who takes his own animal to slaughter and feeds them Mars bars to calm them. A strong bond exists between them and he feels responibility for the welfare of his animals right up to the point of slaughter. That is the kind of meat I would like to eat, and now do.
4) Am I prepared to pay the extra cost for animal friendly meat. Yes. The quality is immensely better with lower artificial additives. It does mean that I now import bacon from Northern Ireland (the only nitrite free bacon in the UK at present) and I need to buy meat in bulk as the cattle are slaughtered to order. As a family we now eat a little less meat but what we do eat tastes better. Overall there is little cost difference.
5) What are the other implications of animal friendly meat production? This is where it ties back into hunting with hounds. All farming is about maintaining a balance between the interests of the farmer his animals and wildlife. A compromise between a number of conflicting ideals, none of which can exist in isolation. Mass production in sheds effectively keeps ‘pests’ out. Rearing sheep and poultry out of doors in a more natural way shifts the balance. Foxes are a major threat to open bred poultry and lambs and need to be controlled. Foxes have few natural predators. Strangely their major predator in less rural areas is the motor car which keeps their numbers in check, in more rural areas this is not the case. A single fox can kill up to 100 chickens in one visit, very little of which is taken as food.
6) Having come to the view that foxes do need to be controlled, what is the best method of doing so? Having seen wild animals and domestic cats caught in traps and snares I am against such methods which are indiscriminate and often involve a long and painful ending. Poisoning is both illegal and very indiscriminate; barn owls in particular have declined both as a result of loss of habitat (that organic methods recreate) and use of farmyard poisons. That leaves shooting or hunting. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons suggest that hunting is the most humane
http://www.huntfacts.com/veterinary_opinion_on_hunting_.htm
gives what limited evidence there is. It would have been nice for there to have been more time for them to collect more. The cynic in me suggests that the politicians may not have liked the results.
7) Accepting that fox number control is needed and that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of doing so, to me the right answer was to licence hunts to ensure that it was carried out in the interests of fox number control and that pack hounds were properly cared for. An outright ban will lead to illegal hunting together with an increase in the use of poisons and snares.
So that is my ‘informed’ view. Not emotive but hopefully logical. All I would ask is that next time you sit down to eat a chicken, a lamb chop or a beef stew, give some though to how it was produced and what else it contains.
For those who have challenged me to provide an informed response I will offer the following chain of logic. I can well believe that others will do the same and reach other conclusions and I can appreciate their view. Such things are rarely clear cut and like most of life, involve a degree of compromise. I have, however, as a ‘townie’ living in the country, tried to take a balanced and informed view in reaching my own conclusions. I am not strongly pro or anti hunting though my own research has tended to sway me from the anti towards the pro.
To me the whole question of hunting with hounds needs to be considered in the wider context of animal husbandry, farming methods and quality of product. The hunting with hounds debate has isolated one element of this without fully considering others. Most evidence supporting hunting with hounds in such a wider context has been overshadowed by the emotive terms used by the anti-hunt lobby. This is a shame as it has led to a political decision that does not necessarily have scientific backing.
Anyway, my logic is as follows.
1) Do I want to eat meat? I have tried vegetarianism and decided it is not for me. I fully accept others views on this fundamental question but having decided I am a meat eater led me to consider my responsibilities as a carnivore.
2) Am I happy to eat meat and poultry produced by modern farming methods of mass production, additives etc? No I am not. Though most of us live with the picture postcard view of the farmyard, this is very far from the truth. Poultry production in particular is both intensive, un-natural and cruel in the extreme. Battery chickens are pumped full of antibiotics, without which they would not survive the disease that permeates such methods. Slaughter houses involve long distance transport of animals and then long delays before slaughter, both involve high degrees of stress and anxiety with some animals dying in transportation. I could go on but hopefully have made the point.
3) Is there an alternative? Yes. There are a growing number of animal friendly farms where chickens are reared in the open and cattle are slaughtered in small numbers locally. I know of one farmer who takes his own animal to slaughter and feeds them Mars bars to calm them. A strong bond exists between them and he feels responibility for the welfare of his animals right up to the point of slaughter. That is the kind of meat I would like to eat, and now do.
4) Am I prepared to pay the extra cost for animal friendly meat. Yes. The quality is immensely better with lower artificial additives. It does mean that I now import bacon from Northern Ireland (the only nitrite free bacon in the UK at present) and I need to buy meat in bulk as the cattle are slaughtered to order. As a family we now eat a little less meat but what we do eat tastes better. Overall there is little cost difference.
5) What are the other implications of animal friendly meat production? This is where it ties back into hunting with hounds. All farming is about maintaining a balance between the interests of the farmer his animals and wildlife. A compromise between a number of conflicting ideals, none of which can exist in isolation. Mass production in sheds effectively keeps ‘pests’ out. Rearing sheep and poultry out of doors in a more natural way shifts the balance. Foxes are a major threat to open bred poultry and lambs and need to be controlled. Foxes have few natural predators. Strangely their major predator in less rural areas is the motor car which keeps their numbers in check, in more rural areas this is not the case. A single fox can kill up to 100 chickens in one visit, very little of which is taken as food.
6) Having come to the view that foxes do need to be controlled, what is the best method of doing so? Having seen wild animals and domestic cats caught in traps and snares I am against such methods which are indiscriminate and often involve a long and painful ending. Poisoning is both illegal and very indiscriminate; barn owls in particular have declined both as a result of loss of habitat (that organic methods recreate) and use of farmyard poisons. That leaves shooting or hunting. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons suggest that hunting is the most humane
http://www.huntfacts.com/veterinary_opinion_on_hunting_.htm
gives what limited evidence there is. It would have been nice for there to have been more time for them to collect more. The cynic in me suggests that the politicians may not have liked the results.
7) Accepting that fox number control is needed and that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of doing so, to me the right answer was to licence hunts to ensure that it was carried out in the interests of fox number control and that pack hounds were properly cared for. An outright ban will lead to illegal hunting together with an increase in the use of poisons and snares.
So that is my ‘informed’ view. Not emotive but hopefully logical. All I would ask is that next time you sit down to eat a chicken, a lamb chop or a beef stew, give some though to how it was produced and what else it contains.