I was stopped on my way into the office this morning by a pleasant, studious-looking chap with a microphone, who introduced himself as being from Radio Stoke, before asking courteously if I had heard about Theresa May's plan to give MPs a 'free vote' on fox hunting and what I thought about that.
Unfortunately, in addition to making me sound like Darth Vader's long-lost sister (I'm sure he has one, with Star Wars having almost as complicated a series of misplaced relatives as Classical Greek tragedy), the cold I am currently fighting off has dulled my wits slightly, so I did my best to actually answer his question.
With hindsight, that was a mistake. Not because I don't have an opinion - I do. It's further down and will explain the title of this post. My mistake was not responding by questioning why he hadn't been loitering about outside the CAB in December last year, when the local rate for the Benefit Cap was slashed by £6000 (Child Tax Credit/ Child Benefit for two kids), or whether he had taken his trusty vox pop microphone out on the streets to find out if people approved of the cuts to benefits for widows and orphans last month?
My point, in short, should have been that I find it bizarre that it's so much easier engender debate and elicit sympathy when the issue is cruelty to animals. Cruelty to humans - whether that's through sanctions, the Bedroom Tax, cuts to disability and sickness benefits or the new 'two child limit' and 'rape clause' for CTC and Universal Credit - raises barely a shrug of the shoulders. Moreover, we're told it's generally popular with voters, who approve of cutting benefits to encourage the workshy to take jobs and the feckless to stop having kids. Animals are defenceless, they would argue, so we have to protect them. I get that: I don't disagree. But human children are also pretty defenceless and last century we started taking serious measures to protect them too, by making sure their parents had enough money to keep them in the necessities of life and to put a roof over their heads. Now, we often don't - indeed, if we cap a family's benefits, the first thing stopped by the state is a slice of the rent money.
How are people content to let that happen? I will take a great deal of convincing that the fault doesn't lay at the door of media representation of people on benefits. Imagine if instead of the usual seasonal celebration of British Wildlife we had Bad Springwatch, where we saw foxes going berserk in chicken coops and ripping up new-born lambs - but not hunting wild prey and absolutely never their pretty, joyful, gambolling cubs. Birdlife would be represented by chip-thieving seagulls hanging about seaside resorts and feral pigeons crapping on statues of national heroes, not chirpy blue-tits or majestic kestrels, while the evil alter ego of Chris Packham (a Richard Bilton for animals) would exhort people not to put seed and scraps out for the birds, or snacks for hedgehogs, on the grounds that it encourages dependency.
That, folks, is the equivalent - in animal terms - of the TV output about claimants.
What about the foxes, though? Well, I'm not in favour of fox-hunting. To me, not only does it seem barbaric to the wild animal to chase it for fun, it's surely cruel to both dogs and horses to ride them at speed across a route that hasn't first been checked for hazards, such as barbed wire fences, slurry pits and broken glass, and dangerous for them and their riders. A planned drag hunt, following a scent trail, mitigates these risks and prevents the risk of trespass onto land where a troop of horses and hounds aren't welcome.
What never fails to amuse me is that if the subject arises amongst people with divergent views (I sometimes go horse-riding, so do encounter people strongly in favour), two completely contradictory defences of the practice are offered. I'm either told 'the fox usually got away' or, alternatively, I'm assured that fox-hunting is the most effective way of controlling the rural fox population. Hence, 'Schrödinger's Fox' - simultaneously alive and well, having cunningly outwitted the pursuit, and dead.
Perhaps the pro-hunt lobby should pause to consider the effect of their preferred method of control. Those foxes that do get away are the swiftest, the sharpest, the 'fittest' in the most Darwinian sense. Those killed by the hunt are the slowest and the least fit. You are, therefore, breeding a cleverer, faster rural fox, a wiser and wilier foe, generation by generation.
You should be worried.
No comments:
Post a Comment