Previous | Memories | Tell Someone | Next
 
whiskyinmind
whiskyinmind
16 September 2004 @ 07:11 pm
Oooo, politics  
and this is a wee bit of politics so if you don't want to hear my ranting then look away now...



The Countryside Alliance are one of the largest pro-hunting organisations in this country. As you might or might not know, there was a vote taken in the UK parliament yesterday concerning the proposed banning of fox hunting with hounds in England and Wales. Scotland already has a ban in place thanks to our own legislative body.

Anyway, I'm not going to mention the invasion of the House of Commons being another showing up of our antiquated political systems, I'm not going to say anything about the result of the vote. What I will say though, is who told the Countryside Alliance that they speak for me?

I do not agree with any of their policies on hunting at all. I grew up surrounded by farms, all of my friends were farm kids. And every single year I saw a whole bunch of my friends' livliehoods ruined because of the hunts tearing across their property and ruining the annual crop.

Fox hunting, in my opinion, is a barbaric act which is nothing more than a throw-back to more barbaric times. Yes, foxes are a problem wherever there is livestock around. And yes, if they are not controlled somehow then they will be an even larger problem. But. Chasing them for hours across other people's property until the animal either dies of fright or is torn apart by ravening hounds is not the way to solve the problem. I know a gamekeeper called Bob who has done his job for forty years who hates the idea of hunting. Off the top of his head he listed ten ways of killing foxes which are far quicker and more 'humane' than hunting.

And yet, every time there's something about fox hunting in the news do they ever talk to people who are actually in the job like Bob? Do they talk to people like me who were born and brought up in the countryside and abhor the practice?

No.

They talk to radical animal rights activists who take extreme action and they talk to the Countryside Alliance who mouth off about how the countryside "community" is wholeheartedly behind fox hunting, and how the countryside "community" backs their stance 100%.

Well guess what? I'm part of the "Countryside Community" and my message to the Countryside Alliance? You don't speak for me.
 
 
Current Mood: angry
 
6 comments | Leave a comment
 
( Post a new comment )
[identity profile] willowmina.livejournal.com on September 17th, 2004 04:45 am (UTC)
Did the ban go through? I didn't hear. Although I must say that the people who participate in this 'sport' are saying that they're going to carry on hunting anyway. And you know what I say to that. Go for it, then we can slap a huge extortionate fine on the overpriveliged minority who take part in this practice, and then we can help those people who are affected by it adversely, and maybe re-distribute a bit of the wealth in this country.

Sorry, rant over.
[identity profile] acrazywench.livejournal.com on September 17th, 2004 07:41 am (UTC)
I'm fairly happy to rant on this subject too - and have been doing so for the last couple of days.

I hate the idea of fox hunting, when it began centuries ago perhaps the goal was to prevent foxes becoming pests, but I can't really believe that the people now involved in hunting really believe that they hunt for this reason since, according to the figures, it seemss one of the least effective methods of dealing with foxes when they are creating a problem.

I'm not entirely sure if I count as urban or rural now, but I was brought up in a village and there is a field at the back of my parents' house. Basically when there was a hunt it meant we had to keep our then dog (a Yorkie) in the house so she didn't get mistaken for a fox and eaten and we got to worry a little if the cat didn't show up demanding food at tea time!

The hunt often comes into the field at the back of our lane and during one hunt the hounds got over-enthusiastic and invaded all the gardens. The following day (Monday morning) the wife of the Master of the Hunt came to apologise for the disruption. When my dad answered the door (he was off sick from work) she was most put out that, since she'd gone to all the effort to come and 'apologise', no one else in the street was in! To which my dad pointed out that it was a Monday morning and that people worked!

Beck.

(The ban did go through in the House of Commons, but if/when it comes in it won't kick in until Autumn 2005 I think.)

[identity profile] smhwpf.livejournal.com on September 17th, 2004 12:25 pm (UTC)
I wonder why it is that the views of the rural majority who oppose foxhunting, and indeed who are adversely affected by it, aren't heard. One explanation is simply that it spoils a good story of "urban vs rural" that the media, with their goldfish-like attention spans, have decided is the issue.

Another is that you aren't organised - it's the organised groups such as the animal welfare lobbies (including actually quite moderate ones such as the RSPCA) and the hunting lobby, that get heard.

A third is that it would introduce a class element into the mix, that is between the powerful landowning classes that are behind the hunts, and the much less powerful small landowners and workers who are often not so keen. And such a thing is politically uncomfortable. So it's easier to go along with the story that there's a homogeneous countryside "community" that is behind hunting.

I'm not sure which explanation I'd consider the most important.

One interesting fact on the 'controlling the fox population' argument, is that fox numbers didn't appreciably go up during the F&M crisis, when hunting was suspended, which rather demolishes that argument.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on September 18th, 2004 12:52 am (UTC)
With the point about class being a factor, I agree completely. One of the main spokespeople for the Countryside Alliance who was interviewed the day after the vote, was a 'Sloan Ranger' called Emma. It may be a gross generalisation on my part, but she gave the impression that she was the daughter of a 'gentleman farmer' who 'manages' his land from London or some other city. I'm not saying that she shouldn't speak for the Alliance, just that - as you say - the media seem to paint the view that the CA speak for the entire countryside.

I also think that's the reason Scotland passed the ban much sooner and with much less protest (there was some but not as much as you might expect). Since the Highland Clearances, the people of Scotland, especially in rural communities, have had an abhorrance for these 'gentlemen farmers' and the remains of the crofting system (which is still ongoing in many places in Scotland) means that more people here recognise the class difference. We know that the people who take part in the hunts are not usually the people who work the land. They might own it, but they aren't always the ones most affected.

And yes, I take your point that the average rural community isn't organised enough to make a stand against the CA, and against the radical animal rights organisations. However, part of the reason for that is that rural living is harsh and unforgiving. There often is not time to make grand political gestures and it's rare that the media in this country takes note of anything that will not provoke controversy in the way that breaking into the chamber of the House of Commons will (for example).

There were two studies done in the 1980s (ironically enough for me by Glasgow University Media Group) and published under the titles "Bad News" and "More Bad News", they study the reasoning behind what makes the headlines and what doesn't. Although they focus more on the Falklands war, they are still interesting reading to gain a perspective on news editing in this country.
[identity profile] smhwpf.livejournal.com on September 18th, 2004 06:57 am (UTC)
Heard of that GU Media Group. They recently did a study of coverage of Israel/Palestine.

I keep forgetting, being down here most of the year, how refreshingly different Scotland is in many ways. (Not that all is sweetness and light north of the border of course).

By the way, on the subject of not getting your voice heard, I think your initial post would, with probably some minor modifications for audience, make a very good letter to a national newspaper. Well-argued, to the point, not too long, different perspective rather than re-hashing old arguments. Worth a shot.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on September 18th, 2004 10:16 am (UTC)
I hadn't even thought of sending it to a paper, I think I will. Thanks for the suggestion!