Introduction

Since 1949 there have been seven attempts to restrict or ban hunting with dogs.

Finally, on 18th November 2004, the Hunting Act 2004 came into force, outlawing fox hunting, deer hunting, hare hunting, mink hunting and hare coursing.

The Hunting Act was finally pushed through using the Parliament Act. This was invoked by the Speaker of the Commons, because the House of Lords was continually and indefinitely delaying the will of the majority in the House of Commons.

The introduction of the Hunting Act came after a lengthy process. In 2002 a complete ban on hunting with hounds was voted for by the majority of MPs. This was later amended to a ban on stag hunting and hare coursing and strict licensing controls for fox hunting. This compromise Bill was the result of much deliberation and consultation, but did not fully satisfy either the pro or anti hunters.

The main protagonists for fox hunting (The Countryside Alliance) were always willing to consider licensing but condemned any moves to ban stag hunting and hare coursing. Those opposed to hunting with dogs were only really ever going to be happy with a complete ban on all forms of hunting.

In June 2003 a majority of MPs voted for a back bench amendment, effectively banning hunting with dogs and so the government withdrew its own amended Bill that proposed a regulatory system for fox hunting. From that point onwards the Bill became a battle between the House of Lords, who refused to endorse a complete ban, and the House of Commons, where the majority were in favour of a ban.

During this time there were also extensive demonstrations by pro-hunt supporters. Some of these turned into violent clashes between protesters and the police and on one occasion a group of eight hunt supporters managed to break their way into the House of Commons chamber.

Eventually, without agreement and with parliamentary time running out, legislation was pushed through using the Parliament Act.

The introduction of the Hunting Act, whilst welcomed strongly by those who have for years campaigned against hunting, does not put the issue to rest. There are many on-going concerns in the debate, including how a ban will affect employment and whether alternative fox culling methods are any less cruel than hunting with dogs.

There is also the crucial issue of how the Act will be enforced. The Countryside Alliance has already warned that at least 250 hunts are scheduled to take place on 19th February 2005, the day after the legislation comes into force and police chiefs have also warned of the practical difficulties of enforcing the ban, particularly in isolated rural areas.

The Countryside Alliance also says that that hunters will deliberately exploit potential loop holes in the legislation such as hunting for rabbits, which is perfectly legal, or claiming that dogs inadvertently went after a fox while they were out drag hunting.

In any debate it is worthwhile identifying the key points around which it revolves. Some of the key questions are:
• to what extent will a ban on hunting affect the economy of the countryside?
• how much does a fox suffer when killed by hounds – is hunting the least cruel method?
• what is the most efficient way to keep fox numbers under control?

On these matters the government commissioned a report (the Burns Report) in the hope of settling these debates – a forlorn hope as it turned out.

However, debates like this one are complex because they go beyond the factual and include a wide range of value based positions to which there are no rational counter-arguments. Such questions include:
• shouldn't people be free to do what they have done for many years without interference?
• the suffering of the fox is not important.
Against these are sometimes posed arguments based on the belief that fox-hunting is barbaric and has 'no place in modern Britain'.

It is important to remember that class discussion on this issue will often be heated and engaged, sometimes leaving pupils more uncertain than before. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since we need not attempt to reach a resolution of the issue but to encourage students to see more clearly the kind of arguments used and whether they can be challenged factually or whether they are ultimately based on beliefs or values.