Now ban fox hunting south of the border?

FRANK ELSON asked one of the foremost campaigners against hunting, Bolton North-east MP David Crausby, and a supporter of hunting, David Stocker, North-west regional spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, to put their cases in their own words.

FOR: David Stocker

Pro-hunting: 'A ban has more to do with politics and class than it has to do with animal welfare'

Hunting with packs of hounds is first and foremost a living rural cultural institution, of greater significance in some parts of the UK than others, in particular in the more deeply rural areas.

Hunting, and the social events organised around it, balls, social and fundraising events, provide a sense of involvement and community for those who support it that is both enduring and engaging and creates a sense of belonging.

Hunting has the capacity to provide for its enthusiasts a complete way of life. A ban on hunting would effectively put the welfare of what are technically vermin before the interests of human community, a truly perverse piece of policy making.

A ban on hunting would also be deeply hypocritical. Opponents say hunting is cruel because it causes "unnecessary suffering", yet politicians who oppose hunting say: "But angling is safe with us".

If it is a concern for animal welfare that motivates them, how is it possible to find acceptable the repeated hooking, playing and capture of fish that will simply be returned to the water alive, as happens in coarse fishing, the most popular branch of the sport in the UK?

Moreover, in previous attempts to ban hunting with dogs, the killing of rabbits by dogs has been excluded from the proposed legislation. Again, if such legislation is driven by concern for animal welfare, why should it be right to ban the hunting of hares with dogs, but not the hunting of rabbits?

The drive to ban hunting has more to do with politics and class than it has to do with animal welfare.

Were politicians ever to succeed in banning hunting, the energies of those campaigning organisations with an animal rights agenda who fought for a hunting ban would almost certainly be re-directed against other country sports like shooting, fishing and falconry.

How many politicians would stand their ground in support of other country sports against well-funded groups of this kind, particularly if such groups made significant donations to the party in question?

Anti-hunting groups say "hunting has no place in a civilised society", but surely, as the Independent newspaper said last week, the mark of a civilised society is its tolerance of unpopular behaviour?

AGAINST: David Crausby

The primary tenet in my opposition to hunting with hounds is that killing animals for pleasure is principally wrong.

If people pursued the fox for food or because they needed to curb them as vermin then I would understand, but the truth is that fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing are designed to be cruel.

Fox hounds are bred for stamina and able to provide the "sport" of a lengthy chase. The fox is forced to run as far as it can until it is exhausted and the hounds eventually catch it and tear it to pieces.

Dogs could easily be bred for speed but the chase would be over in minutes and would not provide what hunt subscribers pay for.

Hare coursing greyhounds are bred for speed because that is the nature of the spectacle. With stag hunting they use hounds again and select the strongest red deer to provide the best chase sometimes lasting over eight hours. The unpleasant reality is that the objective of these forms of hunting is nothing more than entertainment.

Of course I don't want to see anyone unemployed and, if hunters are prepared to ditch the cruelty and participate in drag hunting, then nobody need be without a job.

Indeed I would argue that more people would be interested in hunting on horseback if it did not terminate with the sickening and unnecessary death of an innocent animal.

The case for banning hunting with hounds has been included in Labour manifestos prior to its two successful elections and the Government has an obligation to put this matter to Parliament.

I have asked the Prime Minister to bring forward a vote and from his answer I am confident that we will have the opportunity to vote on this matter. I will continue to press him to provide sufficient time to resolve this matter once and for all.