Should Fox hunting be banned Essay Example

and since then he has introduced legislation that will end hunting. Although MPs in the House of Commons support the move, it also needs to be supported by the House of Lords, the un-elected second chamber of the British Parliament. But it is thought that the Lords are very much in favour of allowing hunting to continue. On the 30th of June 2003, in the House of Commons MPs vote 362 to 154 for a total ban on hunting with hounds. The government had tried to push through an amended Bill that proposed a regulatory system, but withdrew this towards the end of the debate.

Instead a backbench amendment effectively banning hunting with hounds was agreed. The Bill has been re-committed to Standing Committee and must still be debated in the House of Lords. This must be done quickly, because there is very little time before recess. If the Lords reject it as expected, the Government will probably force the Bill through by invoking the Parliamentary Acts.

This in itself requires at least a month of parliamentary time. The issue of fox hunting and whether it should be banned or not, has been a subject of conversation for a long time. There are a number of strong matters, which can be discussed about fox hunting: the reasons why people are 'for' and 'against' hunting are very important. To understand the complexities of the issues you must hear arguments from both sides of the fence.

Anti-fox hunting views

Animal Aid are opposed to all forms of animal cruelty and they are strongly opposed to hunting. They believe hunting with hounds has no place in modern Britain. It should have ended

years ago along with cock fighting, bear-baiting and dog-fighting. When animal cruelty is portrayed by some as a 'sport' to get pleasure from it debases society and promotes even more animal cruelty. It is not just foxes and other wildlife that suffer. Horses and dogs are also victims of hunting, viewed simply as 'sporting accessories' many sustain fatal injuries during the gruelling chase and the poor foxes are often savagely ripped apart by the hounds.

Animal welfare arguments

* From the RSPCA website: A 12-year-old girl and her ten-year-old brother were traumatized when they saw a fox being torn apart by a pack of hounds in their garden in West Yorkshire.

Their father said: 'They (the hunt) said it would have died in seconds, as the hounds would have got it by the throat, but from what I saw it was torn to pieces.'

* Fox hunters chase foxes for pleasure and not because they want to help farmers. Foxes could be controlled by shooting instead.

* Foxes do attack chickens and lambs, but that is part of their nature. Farmers should protect their animals, not attack the foxes.

Civil liberties arguments

* Personal freedom doesn't mean you have a 'right' to be cruel.

* Living in a democracy means that you have to accept the majority view - we can't all just do what we want.

Economic arguments

* Only 835 people are employed in hunt kennels. That many jobs are often lost when a factory closes. The economy is strong enough to bounce back.

* Many people make a living from selling drugs and stealing cars. The fact that people depend on an activity for their livelihood doesn't make the activity acceptable.

Pro-fox hunting views

People

that support the hunt say that foxes are no better than furry rats and need to be culled or their numbers could grow out of control. They also say that hunting is the most natural and humane way of culling these animals. They also say that fox hunting is an integral part of country life and the revenue raised from hunting will be lost and further deteriorate their way of life if it is banned. Countryside Alliance literature claims that 15,900 people whose jobs directly depend on fox hunting would be out of work. Those that would lose out include direct employees of the hunt and indirect businesses and workers.