Monday, 29 March 2010

Fox on the Run

Rumours reached me a week or so ago that I would - along with some other Labour MPs - be targeted at the General Election by pro-hunt supporters. This is confirmed in an excellent piece of investigative journalism from the Independent.

Given that (a) I wasn't in Parliament in 2004 to vote for the hunting ban, although of course I would have backed it; (b) there are plenty of seats more marginal than mine; and (c) there aren't any hunts in my urban constituency, I regard this as something of a badge of honour. I can only assume I've been singled out in recognition of my support for animal welfare issues during my five years in Parliament, or my online efforts to promote http://www.backtheban.com/.

Or is it because my Tory opponent has been identified as someone who will vote to bring back fox-hunting? I've seen an email response she sent to a constituent a while ago on the topic, saying that she totally supported the Tory pledge to give MPs a free vote on the issue in the new parliament, but she 'would wait and see what her constituents thought' before deciding how to vote. (NB 75% of the British public opposes the ban).

My understanding, however, and I've seen some of the background material on this, is that Vote-OK have only given their backing to candidates who have pledged to vote for the return of fox-hunting. Perhaps someone could ask Adeela if that's true?

PS Easy way to ask - www.keepcrueltyhistory.com.

7 comments:

Derek Baines said...

There's a definite problem with the Hunting Act. Under the law wild animals can only be flushed out if they are then shot.

This makes a certain amount of sense with foxes which are territorial animals and would simply return once the dogs have gone.

However when free roaming herding Red Deer are flushed out to protect timber there is often no need to kill them.

Would you support a change in the Hunting Act to remove the requirement for animals to be killed?

Kerry said...

Total red herring, put about by pro-hunting lobby to discredit current legislation, as previously discussed on this blog.

Derek Baines said...

Ps where is it discussed previously? I would love to have a read ta

Derek Baines said...

Oh cool.

Could you explain though?

It says that flushing out of cover is exempt hunting unless conditions are met and one of those conditions is that the animal is shot.

I've been debating with someone on facebook and LACS and I am convinced that they are correct with respect to deer.

There's no need to shoot them at all.

I'd be interested to know if you support the shooting condition being in the law.

Ian said...

This is indeed a red herring. Flushed out animals have to be shot immediately in order to prevent them from being chased by the dogs.

The Hunting Act is not about shooting it is about animals being chased by dogs so the law is entirely consistent.

Julia said...

The shooting stipulation only affects a tiny number of people who now have to shoot animals rather than dispersing them.

It really is not relevant and from what I understand is not enforced anyhow.

Kerry said...

If you search against fox or hunting on this blog, you will find it.