I have recently had a number of people emailing asking me my position on the fox hunting ban.   When the ban was introduced I was sceptical of the motives (Labour metropolitan class versus rural areas) and its effectiveness, and I was very conscious of the very strong opposition to the ban by many I knew who lived and worked in rural communities across the country.  But I think on balance it has succeeded in curbing unnecessary cruelty without completely ruining the rural way of life as was predicted by its opponents. If it was brought to a vote again I would be inclined to suport its continuation.

One of the best pieces of evidence of people’s attitudes to this now was an e-poll conducted by one of our MP’s, Tom Brake, who represents Carshalton and Wallington - here is his summary:

EXTRACT FROM TOM BRAKE’S FACEBOOK SITE:

The results of the October e-poll on fox-hunting are in…and here they are

The results of the October e-poll on fox-hunting are in…

Via my e-group I asked for your views on the possible repeal of the ban on fox hunting in England and Wales, with David Cameron raising the possibility of a free vote in Parliament should the Conservatives win the next General Election.

As usual thank you so much for the fantastic responses. The results broke down as follows:

- 72% felt that the ban should be upheld, with a number expressing the view that it should be strengthened if possible.
- 28% supported repealing the ban if the opportunity were to arise.

While a majority of you supported upholding the ban, it would seem that the issue is not as clear cut as the media would like to portray. Many people were quick to dispute the traditional divide in support for hunting between those who live in the countryside and those in urban and suburban areas. Some emailed me indicating that although they previously lived in the countryside they could not help but feel that the practice was barbaric. Conversely other e-group members who have lived in the Borough all their lives felt it was a British institution which should be maintained.

Members who felt the hunt should be kept illegal, approached the topic from a largely ethical perspective, saying that they feel its cruel and barbaric nature had no place in today’s civilised society. Janet pointed out that if the hunt would not be deemed a legitimate way to cull feral cats and dogs, why would it be regarded suitable for a fox? While others emailed in their views that hunts should be equated to the practice of cock fighting, dog-fighting and bear-baiting.

Some in the e-group attacked the legitimacy of hunting on the basis that it could not viably be described as a sport. One member felt that a sport should be a voluntary activity between two or more reasonably matched competitors and ‘in which the aim is not to kill one’s opponent.’ Some suggested that the law originally passed banning fox hunting was flawed and dealt with the issue insufficiently. Mostly this group felt that greater attention should be paid to hunts which flaunt regulations and if anything a tightening of legislation was required, not a vote on repealing the legislation.

Those who supported the reinstatement of hunting had three main arguments; that it is required to maintain the fox population on the basis that they are pests, secondly that it helps support the rural economy and lastly that it is matter of British tradition.

Many of you anticipated these objections to the ban. On this first point, some felt that it was now possible to properly secure livestock and pets to prevent foxes taking and killing them. Some also agreed with one member of my e-group, Pam when she pointed out that ‘to try and make out that it is the most humane way to control the fox population is simply dishonest.’

Some who disapproved of hunting felt that there was sufficient justification for the culling of foxes although emphasised the importance of this being carried out in a humane way.

Several people found the arguments for reintroducing fox hunting on the grounds that it helps support rural economies unpersuasive. At one end of the spectrum, people pointed out that other traditional professions such as blacksmiths and thatchers were gradually dying out but had received far less coverage. Indeed, David felt that people who had been made unemployed by the ban would eventually find alternative types of employment anyway. Others such as Robert felt that the economic argument was no more valid now than when the trading of human beings for slaves once supported an economy. At the other end people argued that through ‘drag hunting’ almost all relevant jobs involving the care of horses and hounds could surely be retained. Drag hunting was also suggested as a counter to the third argument posited by those in favour of hunting, as a means of somehow maintaining the tradition of the hunt.

Those on both sides of the debate seemed to find the increasing numbers of urban foxes to be of growing concern, with Jane writing to express her concern that foxes cause damage to property and left their mess everywhere. Many felt them to pose a risk to health and safety, especially of pets, while others felt aggrieved by their foraging through bins and general noisiness. A few, such as Patsy and Graham argued that although they felt that fox hunting was morally wrong because of the undue distress caused to the fox, would actually support the humane culling of foxes in urban areas. Hugh, who supports hunting suggested (possibly with tongue in cheek) that the sport be legalised in towns so as to drive foxes away, a sentiment echoed by Wendy who felt it might serve to better protect her bins.

Despite receiving impassioned arguments on both sides, the overwhelming trend in responses was to acknowledge that there would be issues of far greater importance for a newly formed Government to tackle after the next election, than return to the issue of fox-hunting. Many of you considered the amount of time dedicated to the topic in Parliament already to be excessive and hoped that issues of greater importance including economy and foreign policy would be brought to the fore of debate.

As usual the e-poll has managed to produce a lively debate and it is encouraging see how many people are so obviously politically engaged and very well read on this subject. I have previously indicated that I voted to support the ban in 2004 and should there be another free vote at any point in the future I would feel inclined to vote to uphold it.