THE NEED FOR COMPROMISE TO COUNTER THE THREAT IN THE LONGER TERM

"The House of Lords" has shown itself to be open minded and to protect the interests of individuals and minorities. David Cameron (The leader of The Conservative Party) has the same interests at heart. He has stated that when returned to Government his Party will introduce a Bill to "Repeal the Hunting Act" and that "The House of Commons" will be allowed a free vote on the issue. Nevertheless, the dictatorial anti-hunting stance of a majority of "Labour" MPs and many MPs from other parties is not likely to have changed. The mere entry of a "Repeal Bill" will reignite the Hunting Contoversy, particularly since it will be stoked up again by well funded "animals rights " groups repeating their alarmist propaganda to incite the public against hunting. It is important, therefore, to avoid wasting the time of Parliament, that "The Repeal Bill" is as simple as possible to give nothing for "The Antis" to get "their teeth into" during the unavoidable debates. Nevertheless, these organisations and their propaganda will always be waiting in the wings, even after a Repeal. They will await the return to power of Labour and anti-hunting bills will remain a threat. It is important, therefore, that some time well after the Repeal Act the department responsible for Hunting quietly blunts the case of the "Antis" by seeking a compromise that could stabilise Hunting for the Longer Term. In framing a Longer Term Solution it is necesary to bear in mind the fact that GB is not a True Democracy. In the current "Constitution", the justification used in attempts (some successful) to impose several bans (e.g. on keeping so called "dangerous dogs") is that if, say, 71% of the British people think that something should be banned then Parliament should ban it. In other words that the will of the majority should prevail in all circumstances is often accepted. But this position is dangerously against "True Democracy".

TRUE DEMOCRACY

"True Democracy is defined as  government vested in all of the people" . That is on  behalf of small minorities (such as people of "rural" culture) as much as of the majority "urban" culture. In a True Democracy, Parliament is  elected to govern wisely. This requires it to balance the sensitivities and well-being of the majority against the sensitivities and interests of all minorities in the light of the well-being of the nation as a whole, in order to achieve a compromise that is just acceptable to all parties. E.g. is the distress of the minority owners whose "dangerous dogs" have been put to death really balanced by the number of woundings that might have been avoided? May be. BUT IN THE CASE OF HUNTING THE SITUATION IS NOT EQUIVOCAL.  HOW MUCH WOULD THE WELL-BEING OF THE UK BE DISIMPROVED BY REPEALING THE BAN ON HUNTING? I CANNOT SEE ANY, BUT THE DAMAGE TO THE INTERESTS OF COUNTRY PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRYSIDE  (INCLUDING THE FOX POPULATION) WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT IF THE BAN WERE TO BE ALLOWED TO PERSIST. 

A proposed LONGER TERM SOLUTION

In devising a longer term solution to forestall repeats of attempts to Ban hunting again discussions should not be clouded with issues that are not pivotal. In other words those drafting the rules should concentrate on how to ensure that there is no unnecessary suffering ( i.e. no cruelty ) and nothing done which is ethically unacceptable ( i.e. hunting does not degrade "the good order of society" ).

Foxman agrees that there should be a ban on inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals, such as Lord Donoghue's proposal. It should be noted, however, that Hunting does not inevitably involve inflicting unnecessary suffering. What did the Commons really vote for (1) To ban all hunting because a majority of MPs assumed that it always inflicts unnecessary suffering (i.e. is Cruel) or (2) Banning an activity because of dislike of its practicioners?

Even the bigots knew from The Burns Report that Inevitable Cruelty had not been proved. Therefore, their bigotted opposition must have been based on an ASSUMPTION of inevitable cruelty and/or dislike of "hunters". It was cowardly of the Government to be unwilling to halt the efforts of the bigots to destroy a significant part of the culture of the UK without proper proof of inevitable cruelty in hunting.

THE SYSTEM OF REGULATION PROPOSED BY FOXMAN

In view of the logic outlined above, the "compromise" should be for the Government to instruct the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to sponsor "a body" to ensure that the sport behaves in a proper manner. That is to say "does not inflict unnecessary suffering ( is not cruel) and "does not interrupt the good order of Society" (is ethical). It should also put forward proposals for further research into the issues of cruelty and welfare.The "body" ( the "Hunting Authority H.A.") would:

1. Require the actual "hunters" (i.e. Hunt Staff, not the followers) to hold a licence from the H.A. before a wild mammal can be deemed to have been killed "in a reasonably swift and humane manner". Such licences would ensure that any "hunter" abided by the relevant Code of Conduct, enforced by the sanction of withdrawing a Licence to Hunt. Use of any deliberate means (e.g. a dog, a gun, a ferret) to kill a Wild Mammal while hunting without a licence would be an offence under The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 or such later Act as may be decided . Each code (specific to a species of Wild Mammal) would preclude unnecessary suffering by rules which ensure that killing must be carried out in a reasonably swift and humane manner.
2. The Hunting Authority would be responsible to DEFRA and charged with:

• Putting forward a CODE OF CONDUCT banning the aspects (practices, methods, traditions etc) of fox-hunting (inter alia) that the "Hunting Authority" finds to be cruel or "contrary to the good order of Society."
  
• Putting to DEFRA proposals for:
  
  
  • Implementing through the Hunting Associations (the governing bodies for each form of hunting) the necessary monitoring and sanctions to prevent Unlicensed Hunting and Breeches of the Code of Conduct.
  • The Research needed to investigate the alleged cruelty and "compromise of welfare"and how this research should be sponsored.
  • The funding required for the Research.
    
    

  A proposed "Hunting Authority".

This must be constituted so as to be seen by:

• The Public to be truly balanced between those representing Hunting and those representing animals rights .
• The Hunting world as fully in possession of all relevant facts about the details of Hunting.
• The Animal Welfare world as fully in possession of all relevant facts relevant to the WELFARE of the hunted species.

The"Hunting Authority" (HA) might consist of a group of Voting Members and an "Experts Group" of permanently coopted Non-voting Members.

The Voting Members would be chaired by an eminent member of the judiciary experienced in "Human Rights" and appointed by Government. He would have a casting vote.
He would be supported by an equal number of representatives, on the one hand, of Pro--Hunting Organisations and, on the other, of Animal Welfare Organisations.

The Nonvoting Members would be drawn from experienced practitioners of:

• Relevant sectors of Agriculture and businesses significantly involved culturally or economically with Hunting.
• Each type of Hunting (Huntsmen etc.)
• Maintaining the Welfare of wild animals (Vets, Zoologists, Environmentalists etc.)

Clearly no Code of Conduct should be approved before the "HA" had:

• Commissioned and examined the detailed results of the "missing research", so often alluded to in the Burns Report.

• Examined the details of fox-hunting more thoroughly than "Burns" was able to do in the limited time available to the Inquiry.