Pro fox hunting (beware going to get heated)

You use the example of a trained marksman as an acceptable form of hunting. Does this imply, therefore, that you would ban anyone from shooting animals unless they had been properly trained? Because I can tell you that the majority of shooting is done by people who are a crap shot and invariably leave the animal suffering for some time before it is dispatched.

I can't see that fox hunting has much to do with pest control. You don't remove a pest by having regularly timetabled extravagant hunts with hundreds of dogs, horses, shotguns et al. It's an incredibly expensive way to deal with pest foxes. Clearly fox hunting is a hobby/sport more than it is about pest control.

Given that we have banned dog-fighting and cock-fighting because they involve cruelty to animals, I find it hard to see any compelling reason why dog vs fox fighting should be OK.

Frankly, I don't like toffs. Simple.

I agree. The relative cost/benefit ratio of actually planning and conducting a hunt in such a lavish manner is very high indeed. It would be like performing emergency surgery only after a complex, day-long ritual; pointless and essentially harmful.

What frustrates me is the continued line taken by pro-hunt lobbyists that it is 'dealing with a pest issue'. The argument is flawed.

Well the problem with subjectivity is that one cannot prove or disprove one's opinion. If I feel it is too cruel I cannot prove to someone else that it is and vice versa. We all allow some amount of pain and suffering to be inflicted on animals but we draw boundaries where we feel that pain is too much. And of course that boundary is somewhat arbitrary.

IIRC it's only hunting with dogs that has been banned. This is because the dogs rip the fox to shreds after chasing it for however long. That is considered unnecessary cruelty. You're right that cruelty is subjective. Some consider battery chickens to be too cruel, others don't. And so like most things it comes down to balance. It was felt by Parliament that the cruelty to the fox when dogs are used to hunt and kill it, is great enough to warrant a ban.

the point I'm making is that worzo's "subjectivity of cruelty" objection isn't necessarily a good objection

I agree. The relative cost/benefit ratio of actually planning and conducting a hunt in such a lavish manner is very high indeed. It would be like performing emergency surgery only after a complex, day-long ritual; pointless and essentially harmful.

What frustrates me is the continued line taken by pro-hunt lobbyists that it is 'dealing with a pest issue'. The argument is flawed.

I'm not a massive fan of untrained idiots taking pot shots at wildlife no.

Good to see class warfare isn't dead, and that political debates are based on logical examinations of the facts!

Finally, someone who's actually addressing the issue.

I know the ban was passed on cruelty grounds, but I suspect this was not the motivation of the MPs who voted.

My argument is that there is just not enough evidence for the fox suffering any significant amount more than the quarry in other forms of hunting. The cruelty issue has two points: 1) the chase is stressful, 2) the kill is painful for the fox

1) I argue that the chase itself is not stressful. The stress caused to a fox in the chase is probably the same as my sister chasing a rabbit around the garden because animals have no 'beliefs' or 'foresight' of their fate. The fox doesn't know its going to meet a grisly end, just as the rabbit doesn't know that my sister is only going to pick it up and stroke it. The animals are simply reacting to their instincts to run away from what they perceive as danger.

Therefore, if you are going to ban the hunting with dogs on the basis that there is a chase invovled, then you must ban the 'chasing' of any animals for any reason. For this reason, the chase itself does not cause significant suffering. The fox is not scarred for life or any anthropomorphic things like that.

2) I argue that the physical pain is similar to any other forms of hunting. I use the argument of consistency for this, on the assumption that the majority consider other forms of hunting as acceptable.
- fishing pierces a fish's lip and deprives it of oxygen
- shooting a bird invariably only wounds it, and it must be dispatched by other means

The cruelty argument just doesn't stand up, and isn't really the issue at all. A degree of "cruelty", as I have shown it here, is necessary in all forms of hunting, so unless the principal of hunting itself is wrong, then I really don't see why fox-hunting is any different.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. But I'm adding that this limit doesn't preclude arriving at an objective conception of subjective notions. It doesn't paralyze our ability to make normative judgements. Parliament, jurists and individuals can arrive at systemically informed judgements and call them "correct", in a meaningful way that doesn't simply rely on appeals to authority. The legal definition of murder, for instance, is a little more than just the act of ending a life: in some sense it's a fiction, but it's one that bears a very convincing correspondence to the biologically 'objective' definition of murder. I'm rambling a bit, but the point I'm making is that worzo's "subjectivity of cruelty" objection isn't necessarily a good objection.

All it really boils down to is killing an animal for sport, and in no circumstances should that be acceptable. Ever.

Well, there's the fact that killing something for fun is a basically uncivilised thing to do...

I think most people have extremely inconsistent ideas about animal welfare, (which comes up from time to time when I talk about the libertarian attitude to animal cruelty)

Do you agree that (as I think is the case) it is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet in every respect without eating meat?

If you do (and even if we accept that fox hunting has no utilitarian purpose and is only done for fun), I fail to see the relevant difference between fox hunting (unnecessarily killing an animal in a painful way order to get pleasure out of watching animals rip it apart) and, say, eating chicken (unnecessarily killing an animal in a painful way in order to get pleasure out of sinking your teeth into its flesh).

So can you either tell me the difference between the two cases, or agree that eating meat is "a basically uncivilised thing to do" as well.

But the important point you miss is that since the level of cruelty is to a large extent subjective it doesn't matter if it is more or less cruel only that it is perceived to be. Since public perception is that this is too cruel it is socially unacceptable and warrants a ban.

I think most people have extremely inconsistent ideas about animal welfare