So I see fox-hunting has been in the news again recently.
Well, no, I don't. I see it's been in the letters pages of the Metro, which doesn't really count as news, but I have also spotted the occasional article about Countryside Alliance people trying to track down a minister on tour, and miscellaneous upper-class types causing a disturbance in the House.
So I infer that, once again, it's come up. My prediction: nothing will change.
Never does. Nor do I expect it to change, given the way the debates and the proposals go. That's because there are too many issues bundled together: getting rid of pests, blah blah, ancient traditions, blah blah, evil blood lust, blah blah, rampaging across countryside, blah, blah, what will happen to the dogs, blah blah.
With all those emotional issues tied together, it's not surprising that everyone argues, but nothing gets resolved.
"It's not that simple," people say.
Fine. Let's simplify it.
Issue A: fox population. Let's regulate that. If it's a pest, well, there are firms that remove pests. If it needs special handling, like badgers or bats, then we've got precedents. The councils will remove wasp nests, I understand. And as for breeding foxes, well, won't need that if foxes are pests. (Conversely, if they're getting endangered, then they need to be protected.)
Issue B: ye olde traditions of rampaging across the countryside with horses and hounds. Okay, let's discuss that, too. But you can't chase after something that's (a) alive and (b) hasn't signed a consent form.
Argue them separately. It'll actually get sorted, then. Current Mood: annoyed