Scotland - Fox Hunting Banned

[Steven Mace]

Hunting: Banned

By Wesley Stanton

13/02/2002

A centuries-old tradition is to be outlawed in Scotland, after the Scottish Parliament this evening voted to ban foxhunting. MSPs voted by 83 to 36 votes – with five abstentions – to pass the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, effectively stopping fox hunting after the Bill gains Royal Assent in due course.

The Countryside Alliance (CA) has roundly condemned the Scottish Parliament’s action as a “shambles” – and has immediately said that it will challenge this “infringement of human freedoms”.

To add insult to a very grave injury, those who lose their jobs as a direct result of the ban will not receive one penny of compensation. Although it was expected that the compensation issue would feature heavily in the debate, amendments put forward to compensate those affected by the ban were not supported.

The Bill makes it an offence to use dogs to hunt wild mammals, effectively ruling out mounted fox hunting and some other activities such as hare coursing. It carries a penalty of heavy fines or a six-month prison term.

"Today rural Scotland has been betrayed by the Scottish Parliament,” said Allan Murray, Scottish Countryside Alliance Director, vowing to take the battle to retain hunting to court.

"This Bill`s sponsors long ago abandoned any pretence that it was about animal welfare," said CA CEO Richard Burge. “It is now revealed as a blatant attempt to seek to interfere with human thought and behaviour. Competent politicians should know better than to try to frame legislation that merely seeks to impose their own personal opinion on the community – and especially on cultural minorities. That is why this Bill was destined from the first to be an unworkable mess – and the lesson should not be lost on politicians beyond Scotland".

Fears are widespread that the ban on hunting with hounds will have a knock-on effect on Scotland’s wildlife and its £100 million shooting industry. Gamekeepers, pest controllers, rough shooters and woodland deer stalkers are dismayed that much of their work will now have to be carried out while accompanied by only a single gundog.

BASC is furious that the Scottish Parliament has thrown out measures aimed at ensuring animals are killed humanely and safely. The exceptions – allowing the use of a dog to dispatch a wild mammal, if it would have been unsafe to use a firearm, or if the mammal was injured, have been removed. BASC believes that the Act will compromise animal welfare, rather than enhance it.

“The Rural Development Committee listened to a great deal of evidence on many aspects of pest control and management in Scotland’s countryside,” said Dr Colin Shedden, BASC’s Scottish Director. “Their amendments to the Bill were based upon sound advice, and ultimately the welfare of the animals in question. Much of that good advice has been discarded by Parliament.”

http://www.leadshot.com/story.asp?id=450

Steve Mace

[templar]

As a sixth generation American of Scottish descent on both sides of my family, all I can say is that the current gov't of that beautiful country is even more out of touch than our own legislature with the people whom they are purported to serve.

[Steven Mace]

February 28, 2002

Peers to get last chance to save hunting

By Philip Webster, Political Editor

PEERS and MPs are to be given a vote before Easter on whether to ban foxhunting in England and Wales as Tony Blair gives the Lords one last chance to opt for a compromise that might allow the pursuit to survive.

Both Houses of Parliament will hold all-day debates the week after next and vote on the three options contained in the Bill that was blocked in the run-up to the general election last year.

Mr Blair and his ministers will disappoint Labour MPs by a decision not to reintroduce that Bill. Instead, the votes will take place on simple motions to enable both Houses to voice their opinions without taking up too much parliamentary time.

The Commons is certain to vote for an outright ban, as it has in all recent divisions, and some Labour MPs will call any idea of a deal a betrayal. But Mr Blair hopes that the Lords, which last year voted for hunting to go on in its present form, will this time opt for the “middle way” plan that would allow it to continue with licences issued by an inde- pendent body.

That would open up the way to a period of talks involving peers and MPs designed to settle the issue once and for all. A Bill would then be introduced in the next session of Parliament to push through either a ban or a compromise. If the Lords continued to block it, it would eventually be forced through.

Senior ministerial sources said last night that the issue would definitely be settled by the election and that an outright ban remained a likely outcome if a deal failed.

The latest attempt to break the impasse will be announced by Robin Cook, the Commons Leader, this afternoon. Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, will set out the proposed parliamentary and consultation procedures.

Many Labour MPs will voice their anger at any suggestion of a compromise. Ministers behind the latest plan say that it may not be possible to reach one and that in that situation the end result will be an outright ban. The Scottish Parliament has already voted for a ban, which should come into effect in the autumn.

The last attempt at a deal with the Lords has been proposed to avoid a lengthy confrontation between the two Houses, which would prevent other legislation going through. Mr Blair, supported by Mr Cook, is also keen to avoid a showdown with countryside campaigners.

In a vote last year, MPs supported an outright ban by 387 votes to 164, and the majority is likely to be similar this time. The “middle way” option, which appears to have gained some support in recent months, was rejected by 382 votes to 155.

Today’s attempt at a deal was foreshadowed in Labour’s manifesto, which promised MPs a free vote. “We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue,” it said.

But the manifesto also suggested that if a compromise was not possible and that legislation continued to be blocked “we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved”. That has always been taken to mean that the Government would eventually force legislation through the Lords using the Parliament Act. Ministers will not issue that threat today but it will be implicit in the procedures laid out, according to ministerial sources.

Mr Blair and the “middle way” group were disappointed when the Lords decided against backing the compromise proposal last year and instead supported the status quo system of voluntary licensing.

Behind today’s announcement will be the threat that the Lords have one last chance to save the pursuit, albeit in a far more regulated form. Many Labour MPs will make clear they are not interested in a compromise plan and urge Mr Blair to go the whole hog.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-221484,00.html

Steve Mace

[Steven Mace]

Royal support for country sports

By Ben Trovato

16/03/2002

Animal rights loonies have hit out at the Duke of Edinburgh for hosting a lecture supporting field sports just before MPs vote on fox hunting.

The Duke invited Graham Suggett – a British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) council member – to speak at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts, arguing that the sports of hunting, shooting and angling play a key role in protecting our countryside and encouraging a wider variety of wildlife.

"Shooters, anglers and hunters care about the countryside,” he said. “Countryside sport participants have an empathy with the countryside and its wildlife and are often involved with projects concerning wider aspects of biodiversity. Conservation and countryside sports go hand-in-hand – without this interdependence, biodiversity would be seriously reduced."

The Duke, who is president of the society, chaired the meeting and described the talk as "a very interesting assessment of what goes on in the countryside", saying that balance was the key to maintaining a healthy countryside.

Not surprisingly, the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) were dismissive of the Duke’s actions.

“Prince Phillip’s support for any cause is akin to the kiss of death,” said Mike Hobday, spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS). “We’re not in any sense worried by his coming out with his personal views and believe that members of Parliament are more interested in the opinions of the general public, 72% of whom according to a MORI poll in Jan believe that fox-hunting should be illegal.”

“Every single poll that asks the yes/no question comes out in favour of a ban,” he said. “The only way a poll comes out with a different set of results is when there are more options.”

It’s akin to “Should the NHS have enough hospital beds?”. Ask any member of the general public and the answer will doubtless come back as a big thumbs up. But ask “Should income tax go up 5p so as to provide the NHS with enough hospital beds?” and the chances are you’ll get a very different set of answers.

We’re glad that LACS think the opinions of the general public are more important to MPs than the Duke’s personal views. Because if you keep the fox-hunting issue simple – “Should it be banned or not?” then people make an uninformed choice. But pose the question “How important is a fox-hunting ban in terms of Government priorities?” and you’ll find that 98% of the general public believe there are more important things on which the Government should concentrate.

Looks like animal rights campaigners aren’t too keen on the Duke trying to hijack their pathetic little class war.

http://www.leadshot.com/story.asp?id=486

Steve Mace

[Steven Mace]

MPs vote for hunting ban

By Wesley Stanton

19/03/2002

It wasn’t so long ago that our fears and concerns were primarily for our family and our family alone. Then, as mankind became more civilised, our fears and concerns spread to the local community. Then it spread beyond race – and now it’s reached an absurd level - it`s gone beyond species.

Evidence for this overreaching philanthropy is that English MPs have again voted for the abolition of hunting with hounds – and despite the belief that a “middle way” agreement might receive support, Parliament voted by 386 votes to 175 for an outright ban. MPs had first rejected "supervised" self regulation by 401 votes to 154 – and then the middle way was defeated by 371 votes to 169.

Peers will later today debate the issue in the House of Lords and are expected to opt for the “middle way” – but Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael has not ruled out using the powers under the new Parliamentary Bill to force the Lords to do their bidding.

“It’s fascism – doing to the minority what you’d never get away with if they were the majority,” said former Environment Minister John Gummer.

Let be frank – this decision may purport to be “what the people want”, but in reality it is a nasty little class war. It’s a matter of civil liberties – and there are many, many Labour MPs who will be delighted that they have cut into the hearts of those they consider to be the old enemy.

If anyone had any doubt about the true motivations of anti-fox hunters, then jeers of “Jolly hockey sticks!” during a serious political debate on Andrew Neill’s late night TV programme should give a strong hint as to what it’s really all about.

And if you think that it’ll stop at fox hunting, then consider that Tony Banks commented in Parliament: “I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill anything for pleasure – it’s the blood lust that I object to.”

Killing something for food is OK but god forbid that you admit to any primeval urge to hunt things – whether for food, or to protect a food source.

Tony Banks – like too many other modern politicians – has doubtless read too many children’s books that anthropomorphise foxes and other creatures – picturing them on a level with human beings, so people start to believe that the consciousness of a fox is the same as that of a human being. Foxes may seem cute and cuddly in cartoons – but in the cold light of day, they’re vicious killers. Yet the Government is now telling us what we’re allowed to do or not allowed to do on private property to protect livelihoods from a ubiquitous agricultural menace.

But if anyone is naïve enough to think it’ll stop here – think again. Be afraid, be very afraid.

http://www.leadshot.com/story.asp?id=489

Steve Mace