Forget the fox, pity the pig

I'd rather be a fox who lives to a ripe old age before being torn apart, than a pig

TALLY-HO HUM. Further skirmishes in the long-running battle to ban fox-hunting from these shores. Yesterday's visit to Downing Street by members of the Endangered Exmoor pressure group was timed to take place just prior to the last Cabinet meeting before Jack Straw makes a statement on the future of hunting with hounds on Monday.

The delegation, led by the Labour peer and Exmoor resident Ann Mallalieu, delivered the findings of an independent report, commissioned by West Somerset district council from the Centre of Rural Studies in Cirencester. Investigating the economic, social and environmental aspects of hunting with hounds in the area, it concluded that nearly 40 per cent of businesses considered hunting to be of great importance to their turnover and that up to 1,200 full- and part-time jobs could be lost if hunting were stopped.

Such concerns evoke a touching picture of the big houses on the moor on Boxing Day, with stiff-upper-lipped lords of the manor nagging their families to put down the PlayStation and pull on their jodhpurs: "Come on, old chaps. We all hate hunting, y'know, but we've got to get out there and stimulate tourism. We can't let the jolly old peasants down."

"Oh, but Pater, if I stay here I can kill 80,000 Vietnamese martial arts experts and get up to level five. Out there we'll be lucky to see one sick old fox being eviscerated."

"No arguments, son. Duty and responsibility mean that we must keep tradition alive. However much we may wish to, we cannot embrace millennial habits. Think of our ancillary workers."

Ben Stewart, spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, is not fooled. "This is not about economics," he fulminates. "The truth of the matter is that these people really enjoy hunting, and are not willing to move into the 20th let alone the 21st century."

Funny. I thought it was all about animal welfare. But it can't be, can it? Because far greater crimes against the dignity and quality of life of animals occur in Britain every day, and these abuses do not whip up anything like the controversy that is generated by hunting.

Take, for example, the outrageous lack of compassion we are displaying towards our pigs (and our pig farmers, as well).

Mass-produced pork products are still produced under fairly parlous conditions, and legislation introduced on 1 January to ban the barbaric stall and tether system brought huge financial pressure to bear on an already ailing industry. This legislation is something that the animal- loving British people should be supporting. Our new laws were introduced seven years before the rest of Europe and we can now count ourselves among the most humane pork producers in the western world.

Instead it has created economic disaster for British pig farmers, who would have suffered anyway because of a worldwide fall in the price of pork. But they have suffered all the more, not just from their heavy investment in making their methods less efficient but more humane, but also from the lack of support they have received from the Government and from the public.

The farmers have been left to compete in the open market with much cheaper meat from abroad, which this nation of animal-lovers is purchasing in preference to our home-grown, kinder meat. While the Government has backed (though not with actual money) the introduction of a quality mark designed to persuade consumers to buy British pork, the Minister of Agriculture, Nick Brown, responded to calls by the Opposition for a ban on pig meat raised in inhumane conditions by arguing that this was a question of supply and demand. "These are market judgements, not the fault of government."

This appears to me to be a much more urgent animal rights issue than the fox- and stag-hunting issue. But while a recent poll by the League of Cruel Sports found that 72 per cent of the population was now against hunting, pig farmers would throw their right arms into the swill bin to gain half that awareness and half that support. Why is so much time and money invested in the fight against Britain's 200 hunts, while the efforts of a pounds 1bn industry to improve the quality of animal life receive hardly any awareness and support at all?

I understand that people are repulsed by the idea of a creature being torn limb from limb in the pursuit of pleasure, but surely quality of life is more important than quality of death. Unlike the vast majority of people, I wouldn't dream of speaking for foxes. But my understanding is that of the 12,000 foxes a year that are killed by the hunt, most are old and sick. The 80,000 that are simply shot - the preferred method is to freeze them with terror in a searchlight, then blast them at close range - can be of any age and in any state of health.

I wouldn't dream of speaking for pigs, either, but given the choice I'd rather be a fox who lives to a ripe old age before being torn apart than a pig who sits on a slatted concrete floor for a lifetime before being humanely stun-gunned, then sold for a derisory sum to a cat-food manufacturer. But that's just me.

It appears that far from being a testament to our dedication to the cause of animal welfare, the enormous public support for the banning of hunting with dogs - and the banning of fur farming, too - shows how keen we are to attach ourselves to moral stands that involve no personal sacrifice. The fact that most people remain unaffected by the prospective demise of hunting, because it is an elitist sport, simply adds a dash of class hatred to an emotive but largely irrelevant issue.

There is some speculation that, on Monday, Jack Straw may devolve the hunting question to county councils or some other layer of local government. Then hunts can apply for licences, or, if there is local demand for such a move, referenda can be set up that would resolve the issue locally.

I can't believe that a sensible man like Mr Straw would do such a thing. Not only would it be a weaselly compromise, it would also ensure that this dull controversy would carry on dominating the animal welfare agenda for years to come. First this, then that, local battle would be fought, with more time, more energy and more money being poured into what is essentially a side issue. As for the money that the mounting of referendums soaks up, give it to the pig farmers instead.

I'm sick and tired of the way in which this unsavoury sport has become some kind of test of democracy. Why, with so many other injustices both to animals and to people going on, are so many Labour MPs wedded to banning an anachronistic minority activity?

License hunts and inspect them for barbaric practices; ban the digging out of foxes that have managed to get to ground; hope that hunting will continue to decline; tax it punitively. But don't bang on at every opportunity about how it must be ended before we can call ourselves a civilised society.

The money spent on trying to stop hunting is lavish. One group, the Political Animal Lobby, gave pounds 1m to Labour prior to the election in the hope of influencing a ban. Frustrated, they have now diverted their funds to the Greens, paying half of the party's European election costs simply because the Greens view on hunting is the same as their own.

Even the opening of the Scottish Parliament, which has plenty to keep it busy, has been seen as another way of banning hunting with hounds somewhere. In Holyrood, enthusiasts purr, Private Members' Bills cannot be filibustered, so a Bill there would not be bounced out of Parliament in the way that Michael Foster's was in Westminster last year.

Never mind the fact that in Scotland last season there was hardly any action from hunt saboteurs, as they were unable to raise the finance needed to stage disruptions. Just sit there on the moral high ground of other species' suffering. As long as the suffering in question isn't the kind of suffering that fills the fridge.