I've been following the discussion about gambling, fox-hunting and the like
with keen interest.  A friend of mine just sent me a link to an article on
fox hunting by George Will, I'd be curious to hear what people think . . .
. :-)  Sounds to me like George Will has been reading the North report.

http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/will/will_20000625.html

jt

p.s. on second thought, since these links to newspaper articles and online
columns sometimes have a limited shelf life, why don't I post the article
here?

***************************************

Life, liberty and the pursuit of foxes

By George Will
Published June 25, 2000

LONDON--Not all that long ago, Britain's Labour  Party wanted to
nationalize the "commanding  heights" of the economy. Today, the
miniaturization  of politics being a transatlantic phenomenon, the  party
wants to ban fox hunting. It is wrong again, and in ways that illuminate a
certain dreary sameness about the  supposedly transformed Labour Party.

The debate about fox hunting, which has waxed and waned for years, recently
came to a rolling boil with the publication of the report by Lord Burns'
committee. The report is a long, judicious assessment of the environmental,
economic and other facets of the issue. It includes this priceless bit of
British governmentspeak:

"There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the
welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground
by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously
compromises the welfare of the fox."

But a fox's lot often is not a happy one, for good reasons. And the
resurgence of this issue, at a moment when the "old Labour" leftists  are
becoming restive about the vacuity of Prime Minister Tony Blair's "New
Labour" program, is telling.

The angry pursuit of those who pursue foxes has been an occasion for
dusting off Oscar Wilde's description of fox hunting--"The unspeakable in
full pursuit of the uneatable." Hunters have responded by brandishing
Macaulay's observation that the Puritans banned bear baiting not because it
gave pain to bears but because  it gave pleasure to spectators. Both
witticisms are pertinent.

It was said of Margaret Thatcher that she could not see an  institution
without wanting to swat it with her handbag. British leftists  have a
similar itch to tell people what they cannot do. And because  fox hunting
is an ancient liberty often enjoyed by toffs in fancy garb,  it brings
together two British susceptibilities--to class envy, and to
sentimentality about animals.

Foxes are, in their fashion, cute, even elegant. However, farmers  will be
forgiven for not seeing them that way.

Foxes are part of what an unsentimental Englishman called "nature, red in
tooth and claw." They are pests that must be controlled. They  are fierce
and cunning carnivores that can take a fearful toll  on--seriously
compromising the welfare of--sheep, chickens and other livestock. Which is
why far more foxes are killed by shooting, trapping, snaring and poisoning
than by foxhounds. These methods, all of which seriously compromise the
welfare of foxes, often involve agonies more protracted than that of foxes
caught by hounds, even if it is not the case, as hunters insist, that the
hounds usually kill the fox within seconds by a neck bite.

Hunting foxes with hounds is not necessary in order to control the fox
population. And although fox hunting does serve the social purpose of
controlling a pest, it is done for pleasure. Still, the debate about fox
hunting, which involves a lot of talk about potential environmental and
economic consequences of a ban, suggests a troubling British casualness
about allowing, even inciting, government to take bites out of the freedom
of individuals.

British "progressives," like their American counterparts, divide their time
between praising "diversity" and "tolerance," and trying to legislate
against and regulate behavior they disapprove. Fox hunting is a right
exercised by a minority in Britain, where tyranny of the majority is all
too possible.

Deriving pleasure from protracted pain inflicted on animals that do no
social harm--e.g., cockfighting and bullfighting--is barbarous, and such
cruelty is ripe for proscription. But is it respectful of human liberty--is
it perhaps contrary to human nature--to ban all pursuits of wild creatures
for pleasure?

Opponents of fox hunting--how many, one wonders, are vegetarians, or refuse
to wear leather?--must, by the logic of their arguments, look askance at
almost all hunting and even fishing: Should Britain criminalize anglers who
put live trout into their creels? When, as seems likely, the Labour
government bans fox hunting--perhaps precipitating a mass slaughter of many
of the 19,000 foxhounds, most of them unsuitable for pets--much work will
remain for the militantly compassionate.

The Spectator magazine's weekly item "Banned Wagon," a "survey of the
things our rulers want to prohibit," recently reported that 24 members of
Parliament--mostly Labourites, of course--have signed a motion condemning a
chain store for selling pets, and calling for a ban on "trading in live
animals," which the signers consider akin to the slave trade. Thus does the
miniaturization of politics, combined with a cloudy notion of "compassion"
as the sovereign political virtue, tend toward absurdity.

                         You may write to George Will c/o Washington Post
                         Writers Group at 1150 15th Street N.W., Washington,
                         D.C.


                               Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you.

from http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/will/will_20000625.html



                                   Copyright © The Sacramento Bee


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%