open i

A bitter campaign to impose a ban on hunting in Britain appears to have achieved nothing(550 words).

A reliable source, or as reliable as any source is likely to be on such matters, suggests that anybody seeking a punt, pun intended, on a cock fight, should not take long to find it. And the Gardai, the Irish police, are only inclined to be concerned if the public express concern.

Across the Irish Sea it seems the very recent British legislation banning "hunting with dogs" is destined for the same consideration.

On the day after the ban was imposed record numbers of people took to the field to support the meets of 250 local hunts, who clearly have no intention of throwing in their hands and putting down their packs of hounds.

The Hunting Act of 2004 prohibits hunting, meaning the intentional killing, of most mammals with dogs. For most, if not all hunts, that appears to provide plenty of latitude.

Television audiences have been treated to the spectacle of a hunt chasing a fox to it earth, in which it was cornered by a terrier, dug out and shot, finally to be fed to the hounds. A total of 91 foxes were legally dispatched in this manner. A further three were accidentally killed by hounds, which again is legal, provided it can not be proved that the huntsmen purposefully allowed the kill to occur.

That all this was perfectly legal under the new legislation, and recorded by cameras and a helicopter to prove the point, must have been a great frustration to MP's and anti blood sport campaigners. A great deal of effort, parliamentary time and political capital has been spent to obtain what was supposed to be an historic victory every bit as great as legislation banning cock fighting over 50 years ago.

A ban on hunting has been featured in the last two Labour Party manifestos and with two very large government majorities to work with, it might have been expected that an effective ban would have been simple to legislate. The challenge has been that the government was unable to provide convincing evidence to show that hunting was cruel.

The issue was soon seen in rural Britain as a case of urban prejudice which became very obvious when over 400,000 people took a Sunday off in September 2002 to travel to London to take part in the Countryside Alliance's Liberty and Livelihood March. And in retrospect it has been all downhill on the issue for government since then.

A recent Mori opinion polls indicates that support for legislation has slipped from an almost two-thirds majority in 1999 to a 47 percent minority, although 51 percent of urban voters still support the legislation. This undercuts the rather feeble claims of MP's that they were reflecting the opinion of their constituents, and so democratically obligated to pass divisive legislation.

This inclination to represent the opinions, as opposed to the interests, of their constituents is not an unusual failing of politicians immediately prior to an election. The House of Lords, not so elected, has perhaps been more discriminating in opposing the legislation but was eventually overruled by the Commons.

Positively, and despite the considerable publicity the issue has received, the number of voters claiming no preference on legislation has increased. Perhaps at some future date when every one has cooled down, more appropriate legislation will be enacted.

February 21, 2005