The Hunting Act came into force in February 2005, even though it was widely opposed by people from all walks of life, people who know the countryside best. The Hunting Act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to ‘protect’.
First of all, it must be said that a true democracy is one which tolerates different viewpoints and different ways of life. Fox hunting has for hundreds of years been culturally important to large groups of people. Activities should be banned that cause a harm or are widely opposed by the majority of the population. However, the government has never proved this to be true with hunting. Consequently, we argue that the hunting ban is an unfair and prejudiced law.
It could be argued that hunting protects animals from unnecessary suffering. However, it simply does not. It simply tries to prohibit certain kinds of wildlife management despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that there are any less humane than the alternatives. In fact, the result of the hunting ban is that more foxes, deer and hares are being killed. If foxes are not hunted, what is the alternative? Poisoning and trapping both cause long, painful deaths for the animals in question.
Moreover, hunting has played a crucial role in the creation and management of the British Countryside for centuries. The act threatens the conservation work that hunts, and the and land managers who support hunting, have carried out for generations. Unless hunting is allowed, foxes and other predators will overrun the countryside, making it almost impossible to farm profitably. The government agrees that the numbers of animals which are harmful to farming and livestock need...