The Fox Hunting Debate

The fox hunting debate is a prime example of the difference between the justification for holding a particular political view and the underlying, possibly subconscious, real reason for doing so.

Those of a left wing persuasion are psychologically opposed to fox hunting for the following two reasons:

1. It costs a lot of money to own a horse, to school it, train it, feed it, pasture it, shoe it at 6-weekly intervals, pay vets' bills, stable it and to run a horse-box. This means that riding a horse to hounds is an expensive pastime, one which is seen as only within the reach of the well-heeled so-called ‘Upper-Class Toffs’, and which is completely unaffordable for the working classes;
2. When you are standing on the ground alongside someone very smartly dressed who is mounted on a horse, then you are physically looking up to the horse rider, who is physically looking down on you, and to anyone of a left-wing persuasion, this engenders disquiet, even if not open hostility.

When looking around to justify their hostile view of fox hunting, they willingly seize on deeply flawed animal welfare and cruelty issues to gain public sympathy. They dress it up with a whole raft of lies:

1. Few of those who hunt have ever been near enough to the front of the chase to see a fox despatched, so it is a myth to claim that enjoying such a spectacle is the reason for hunting;
2. Some years ago, when foxhunting was still legal, a research project was undertaken in which every fox killed by a particular hunt was sent to a laboratory to establish how it had died. In every case, it was found that the fox had died instantly following a bite on the back of the neck by the lead hound, and all the wounds to the body had been inflicted after the fox was already dead. This proves that hounds do not rip foxes to pieces. The first hound to catch the fox despatches it very quickly. That which is subsequently torn up is not a fox, it is the dead body of something that was once a fox. Tearing up dead meat is not cruel. Hunting must be preferable to the current situation where so many foxes are shot, as they have to be to save ground-nesting birds. It is very difficult to shoot dead such a small swiftly moving target – and so they are only injured and escape to die slowly in agony.
3. The same two-faced hunt saboteurs raise no objection to the depiction of savage predation in television wildlife programmes, which are considered to be good family entertainment.

The proof that this debate is nothing more than a fight between the left and right political wings is clear when we consider the history of fox-hunting bans. In all civilisations where foxes and hounds have been found in the same locality, then hounds have always been used to hunt foxes.

• The first banning of fox hunting was by 'Mad King Ludwig II' of Bavaria (1845 – 1886), but since he was known to be insane, he should perhaps be ignored as having unsound views.
• The first major nation state to ban fox hunting was Germany’s Third Reich, specifically the Nazi (National Socialist) Party, quite openly claiming that it was based entirely on class enmity, bigotry and hatred. A state that treated Jews as vermin would certainly not ban fox-hunting out of any sentimental feeling for genuine vermin, such as foxes. The ban was promptly overturned after the end of WW2.
• The second national ban was carried out by Scotland. For many generations the Scots had been ruled from Westminster, but with independence all changed. When the Scottish Parliament passed their hunting ban, MSPs were quite openly quoted as saying things like: “That’s in return for the highland clearances!”, (which had been enforced by English so-called "Upper-Class Toffs"), which gave the game away that it was based simply on revenge.
• In 1996 Tony Blair’s Labour Party accepted a £10 million ‘donation’ (aka a bribe); from the Political Animal Lobby (PAL) to ensure that as soon as he was swept to power he would extend the fox-hunting ban to the rest of the UK, which, of course, he did. After the 2015 General Election Nicola Sturgeon initially said that the SNP would not vote in the Westminster Parliament on matters that did not affect Scotland, but in return for a ‘donation’ from PAL, the SNP changed its mind specifically for fox-hunting at a 2 hour meeting on July 13^th 2015 and subsequently blocked the Government’s attempt to amend the ban. In politics, money talks.

Grouse Shooting has now joined Fox Hunting as something that socialists wish to ban, since it is obviously seen as something else only within the reach of those they class as Upper-Class Toffs. Oh, what a surprise!

Pure coincidences, nothing else

It is just a pure coincidence that all those who are very strongly opposed to fox-hunting just happen to be socialists, it is definitely not cause and affect.

It is just a pure coincidence that all socialists just happen to be very strongly opposed to fox-hunting, it is definitely not cause and affect.

The fact that it costs a lot of money to own, train, school, feed, stable and pasture a horse, and run a horsebox to transport it, meaning that those who can afford to do so must be Upper-Class Toffs has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The legitimacy of Equestrian Events as Olympic Sports

Having explained why the case against fox-hunting is clearly based on left-wing political prejudice, please let me prove that I am quite fair-minded in equestrian matters.

The competitors in all non-equestrian Olympic events are obviously members of the species Homo Sapiens. But what about the Olympic equestrian events? Please consider the wealth of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise:

• In horse racing, the betting is always on the horses, never on the riders, since it is universally accepted that the horses are the competitors.
• Equestrian events are the only ones where male and female riders compete on equal terms.
• Equestrian events are the only ones where riders can successfully compete when in their later years (by athletic standards).
• If the best rider in the world does not have a competitive horse at the time an event takes place, he or she does not get to compete.
• Although Olympic events have to be an obviously necessary exception, in all other national and international horse trials (aka Three Day Events), if a rider has two competitive horses at his/her disposal, he/she gets to ride each of them in turn at well-spaced intervals, and as a result, can come in both ‘First’ and ‘Second’.

So, are equestrian Olympic events examples of human beings competing athletically against each other or not? And if they are not, should they be Olympic sports?

Return to the top of this page, to the Home Page or to the Blog Index.