Effect of UK fox hunt bans almost one year later

The Wednesday, November 16, edition of USA Today has an interesting article headed, "British hunters bristle under new fox rules; Restrictions on hounds don't keep prey from being killed, and alternatives more cruel, some say." (Pg 6A)

It tells us: "Though hunters no longer can legally allow their hounds to tear apart a fox, they can trail hunt: Hounds follow the scent of fox, laid down along a trail through the countryside, instead of the real thing. The scent comes from water in which a dead fox, caught by means other than hunting, has been placed, says the Countryside Alliance, a lobby group fighting to overturn the ban.
The law also allows hunters to use dogs to flush a fox from cover, but only if a bird of prey, such as a golden eagle or a hawk, accompanies the hunters to carry out the kill. Other regulations allow the killing of rabbits, but not hares."

A hunter is quoted:
"There's more foxes killed in a worse way. If you see a fox torn to pieces by a hawk, it's far more cruel."

And we read
"The ban does allow hunters to shoot foxes after they have been flushed out by two hounds. About 21,000-25,000 foxes are killed by hunts annually, and 70,000-80,000 are shot annually, says Becky Hawkes, a spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Britain's fox population is about 252,000 adults."

And we read that, "A report the league issued in early November found that 40% of hunts have been the subject of 'credible allegations' of illegal activity since the new law went into effect. There have been no public prosecutions so far, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The article points to some of the dangers inherent in trying to make a difference to the treatment of animals by banning specific activities rather than addressing society's attitude as a whole. But, on the other hand, bans, even if they can be evaded, send a message that types of behavior are repugnant to society, so bans can be part of a paradigm shift.

The article opens the door for letters to the editor about hunting, or any animal cruelty for the purpose of human entertainment, or on the broader issue of how human society treats members of other species.

You can read the whole article on line at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-15-fox-hunt_x.htm

USA Today takes letters at http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18 OR http://tinyurl.com/cee7y


Indybay covered this in November 2004: http://indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=2647&category_id=58


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)