Red herrings from the men in pink

As we move into the third millennium there are many escalating complicated issues facing western governments:  balancing the increasing costs of social infrastructure with a tax regime that encourages economic growth; responding humanely and firmly to the growing numbers of asylum seekers; dealing with the legacy of violence in former colonies.  In Britain the media are giving equal prominence to a straight-forward issue which is a relic from a bygone age.

The British Government has found it so difficult to deal with that it has finally decided to give parliamentary members a 'free vote'.  Yet the question of breeding packs of dogs to hunt and kill other animals is made complicated only by the large number of red herrings on offer from the men in pink.  At the risk of adding to the world's problem of over-fishing here is my trawl:

'It has been a tradition for centuries' is the strangest of all arguments ~ one that, if extended, would see us still living in caves.  We are different to animals because of our self-perception and our willingness to move towards a 'better world'.  Traditions are not to be relinquished lightly, but they should not prevent us from becoming a more enlightened society.

'The animals feel no pain' is an amazing claim.  The death might or might not be quick, but in human terms the preceding hunt must be the ultimate trauma.  Perhaps it is inappropriate to look at it in human terms, but the old adage 'do as you would be done by' is a useful measure.  Had we applied it in the past there would have been no slavery, no religious persecutions, and no 'ethnic cleansing'.  Had we maintained more natural farming practices there might even have been no BSE!

'It's only natural' is a fair statement.  In the wild, vulnerable animals are hunted down by stronger predators, and the chase might be long and traumatic, the kill might be swift or not so swift.  But what isn't 'natural' is for one species to engineer the chase for entertainment.  Most enlightened societies have outlawed most practices which involve the killing of animals as a spectacle.

'We are doing the farmers a favour' is a claim made less frequently now.  As the numbers of foxes killed by hunts is such a small percentage of the fox population, perhaps even the die-hards have realised the futility of this argument.  Here is a red herring of my own: one hill-farmer I know (who was a hunt secretary for a number of years) prefers to shoot the occasional fox which causes problems rather than have a hunt scattering his sheep and damaging his dry-stone walls.

'A hunting ban would cost jobs' is emotionally charged, but a red herring none the less.  As society changes employment is disrupted.  Old jobs go, new jobs are created.  If the change is for the better, this is an acceptable aspect of progress.  If the jobs to be sacrificed are socially undesirable, then there can be no argument.  Otherwise we would still employ men to make thumb-screws and the rack.

'If hunting is banned we will have to kill the dogs' is the argument of the self-confessed cynic.  It would appear that the hunters have no more regard for their own dogs than for the foxes and deer they kill, but here is a direct appeal to the 'soft nature' of their opponents: animal-loving city-dwellers who don't understand the ways of the country folk.  But of course, killing the dogs is not the only option.  In my rural community hound-trailing has an enthusiastic following comparable to fox-hunting.  Instead of packs of dogs owned by hunts, the dogs are owned by individuals.  Instead of chasing foxes, the hounds follow an aniseed trail which can be laid to provide safety for the dogs and respect for landowners.

Whilst fishing for red herrings it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture.  We cannot achieve a perfect society overnight, but we owe it to future generations to strive towards one.   To be sure that we are moving in the right direction try  a hypothetical view from fiction:  the earth is being demolished to make way for a super inter-galactic highway.  We are at the planning appeal, and in an attempt to justify our existence we put forward examples of our finer qualities.  Would the bullying of a weak member of our planet by an organised group of stronger members strengthen our case?  It would take more than red herrings to stop the inter-galactic bulldozers!

ã Harvey Tordoff
13^th June 2000