Sir: The article by Raymond Carr, 'Fox- hunters unite' (31
July), abused the League Against Cruel Sports and was also full of inaccuracies. A plethora of historical ghosts were brought in to defend the indefensible. Diverse characters such as Jacobins, Welsh miners, Robespierre, Bentham, Cobden and Trotsky together present an amusing Picture. The inevitable melee would distract the attention of even the most blood-soaked fox-hunter.
The distraction of attention is the prin- cipal purpose of such articles; the reader assumes that foxes are vermin needing con- trol and the debate moves away from the central issue of moral philosophy into some foggy backwater.
The moral question is simple: do we per- mit killing for fun? Dog-fighting and bear- baiting were abolished long ago, but they were only working-class bloodsports. In these more egalitarian times Parliament may take a different view, which is why the League is involved in politics. Any other Way is mob rule or anarchy.
Certain myths surrounding foxes must be exposed. A high fox population is an ad- vantage to arable, beef and dairy farmers by controlling rats and rabbits; thus 80 per cent of all farmland usage is beneficially served by foxes. The minor threat posed to sheep farmers from foxes must be com- Pared to the major losses from stray dogs and severe weather. An average sheep farmer suffers a 10 per cent loss through still-born lambs. A fox will take such a car- cass and thus mistakenly be blamed for the killing.
As 98 per cent of poultry are in battery
units, the millions of birds confined in these places would receive a blessed relief from a visit by Reynard. Small wonder that 70 per cent of farmers do not regard the fox as a pest. So where does this 'vermin' bit come into the argument? A myth to justify fox- hunting?
Having dealt with the vermin distraction, the 'fox-control' factor requires perusal. When Columbus discovered the largely uninhabited continent of America, his first report back was not 'I am unable to land because the countryside is five-foot-deep in foxes'. Equally our own countryside is not knee-deep in hedgehogs and our skies are not black with sparrows. I wonder why? Could it be that the learned scientists are right when they state that wildlife popula- tions are self-stabilising?
Dr David Macdonald, a leading expert on fox biology, has found that, on average, foxes in rural areas control their adult population to four per 1,000 acres. A most interesting point is that when a resident fox is killed, another fills the vacuum created. The faster they are killed, the faster they reproduce.
All these facts are proven scientifically and also make sound common sense. Someone once said tha'scienceonly proves what common sense dictates'. So here we are, back in the central area of debate, hav- ing explored the foggy backwaters of decep- tion and proved that no light shines in such places.
In conclusion, I would refer to the sug- gestions that I am not Robespierre ready to send fox-hunters to the guillotine en masse — don't be too sure! Every time I watch a hare torn between two greyhounds, scream- ing pitifully, while the 'sportsmen' look on grinning, or I see a fox dragging itself away in total exhaustion, or I see an exhausted stag at bay surrounded by a pack of dogs and the 'sportsmen' smiling after the seven- hour, 30-mile chase, the prospect of the guillotine falling on such people is appeal- ing. However, that would drag me down to their levels; a sobering thought!
The guillotine can and will be used, but in Parliament, to curtail a filibustering debate on this subject in the near future. I hope to be there knitting, and when the bloody head of disregard falls into the basket of socialism, I shall chuckle, and chuckle, and chuckle.
Richard Course
League Against Cruel Sports, 83-87 Union Street, London SE1
Previous page
