For centuries those in the countryside of Great Britain
have engaged in the sport of foxhunting. Beginning in the 17th
Century, hounds were trained and bred to hunt foxes on farmland. The practice continued to grow and
spread through the following centuries (“A centuries old tradition”, 2004). Originally, the purpose of
foxhunting was pest control. Over
time, however, the practice took on a cultural and traditional element. Certain types of clothing, food
and ceremonial practices, such as the hunting call became a part of the practice
(Fox Hunting, 2004). The fox
hunt evolved beyond a mere utilitarian exercise to include cultural application
(McGinnes, Sear, Young, & MacGregor, 2002, December 13).
To view foxhunting in England as soley
recreation is to grossly underestimate its significance in the culture and
identity of rural citizens.
Foxhunting is as culturally significant to Britons as baseball is to
Americans. In a commentary that
appeared in the Guardian Unlimited, Leanda De Lisle explained that,
“...for some people football or music is a part of who they are. For these people, it’s hunting. In England it alone
can give you the physical sense of being part of a still wild country. Fences and roads disappear as you follow
the fox wherever he chooses to lead.
To ban it is to take away closeness to nature and a freedom they believe
is worth losing everything for.”
To rural Britons foxhunting is not simply recreation; rather it is viewed
as a civil right (Baldwin & Elliot, 2004).
The ban is a cultural
battle that transcends the issue itself.
It aggravates the friction and fracture between rural and urban
interests, between Labour and Conservatives and between Commons and Lords. It’s about more than just fox hunting-
it is a power struggle between rival interests (Charter, 2004 November
16).
It is understandable then, why, when
Parliament began to consider banning foxhunting in 1997, a tumult of resistance
was unleashed in the English countryside.
Advocates of the ban insisted that the practice was impractical, archaic
and inhumane. Opponents of the ban
argued that foxhunting is as English as tea and crumpets in the afternoon.
This paper will examine the background, history and cultural significance
of foxhunting. The paper will
then introduce the modern movement to ban fox hunting with dogs. A detailed explanation of
the political mechanics and strategy of the enactment of the Hunting Bill and
the imminent political consequences and responses looming over the horizon will
be discussed in detail.
It is important to note that the movement has
never sought to ban general hunting of foxes, just hunting foxes with dogs. Even with a ban, farmers will still be
allowed to trap and/or shoot foxes.
In all the literature researched for this paper, hunting with dogs was
simply referred to as “hunting” and hunting with guns as “shooting”. That precedence will be followed
in this paper when distinguishing between the two.
Fox hunts occur on private rural lands. “Hunts” are formal organizations
of farmers and recreational hunters.
These groups will pool their resources to regulate foxes on several
adjoining farms.
Traditionally, members of the hunts were the farmers themselves. Today, the Hunt has become largely
recreational, with the overwhelming majority of hunt organization members not
farmers. These organizations
may have as many as 700 members (Rowley, 2004).
Currently, there are 178 formally organized hunting clubs in
England and
Wales. These clubs own over 7,000
specially bred hounds and nearly 800 horses. The hunting clubs claim 249 part
time employees and 453 full-time employees (McGinnes, et al, 2002). These statistics will become
important later in the examination of the impacts of the ban when economic
considerations are made.
The “hunt” usually occurs over a period of six weeks annually. The hunt consists of a group of
horsemen following a pack of hounds trained to follow the scent of foxes (Fox
Hunting, 2004). When the hounds
confront the foxes, they tear the animal to shreds and devour it on the spot
(Key, 2001).
The movement to ban fox hunting with dogs is not new. In 1949 the first two pieces of
legislation to ban fox hunting with dogs were handily defeated in the House of
Commons. Between this initial
attempt and the present several pieces of legislation proposing a band were
introduced and defeated. Even so,
several hunting bans were introduced, creating important precedents. In 1959 hunting with dogs was
banned in Scotland. Between 1988 and 1997 12 different
member bills that would have banned all hunting with dogs failed. Nearly all of these pieces of
legislation died not in the popularly elected House of Commons, but rather the
House of Lords (A centuries old tradition, 2004). Popular opinion throughout
this time period overwhelmingly supported a ban on hunting for foxes with dogs
(McGinnes, et al, 2002).
The year 1997, with a general election, was a watershed year for
UK politics. “New Labour” lead by Tony Blair needed
an issue to latch on to early and appear decisive. A ban on fox hunting with
dogs was the perfect opportunity.
Public opinion polls conducted by Market Opinion & Research
International (MORI) and commissioned by the House of Commons indicated that in
1997 public support of a ban was at 68%. Since that time, support for the
ban has generally held steady generally within the range of 60-70% (McGinnes, et
al, 2002).
At the time, Blair made unequivocal promises regarding the ban when he
stated, “[Fox hunting with dogs] will be banned. We will get the vote to ban as
soon as we possibly can. We are looking at ways of
bringing [the fox hunt ban] forward in future sessions. We will try if we
possibly can to give [the fox hunt ban] space in the upcoming session or the one
after that.” (Assinder,
2004).
In the interim between that watershed election and the present a
passionate debate has engulfed the nation, particularly the countryside. Labour made repeated attempts to
pass legislation making good the election promise. Since 1997 twelve separate bills
introduced by Labour have failed (“A centuries old tradition”, 2004).
The Countryside Alliance is the main organization fighting proposals to
ban hunting with dogs. They
represent thousands of Hunting Clubs, Club Members, hunters and farmers across
the English countryside. The
Alliance is well
organized and powerful. Until
recently, the Alliance had been successful in thwarting
attempts to ban hunting with dogs (Countryside Alliance 2004 November
18).
Arguments for retaining fox hunting via dogs are varied. This could be in part due to
strategy. The pro-hunt lobby has
taken a “shot-gun” approach to arguing for hunt preservation. They have sprayed several
arguments, hoping that if some fail, some will “hit” and resonate with the
public and with Parliament. In
addition, the pro-hunt lobby has effectively linked the logic of the different
and several arguments.
Hunters argue that fox hunting with dogs is a time honored
tradition. They even go so
far as to claim it as a civil right.
The Conservative Party claims that, “An
outright ban would undermine the hard won rights and freedoms developed over
generations.” (Conservative
Party, 2004 November 16).
Labour backbenchers respond that the practice is an anachronism in modern
Britain and that it has long outlived
its utility as a means of pest control.
Perhaps the argument advanced more than any other by the pro-hunt lobby
is hunting as a means to a pest control ends. This argument appears valid on the
surface. Foxes pose a threat
to small livestock and poultry.
However, a close examination of the practice of hunting with dogs reveals
that the practice has at best a negligible effect upon fox populations. A study by Cambridge University concluded that fox hunting with
dogs has nearly no effect on fox populations (Heyden & Reynolds, 2000).
In addition, a study commissioned by the
House of Commons conducted a poll of farmers in 1995, prior to Labour initiating
the movement to ban the use of dogs.
The poll shows the farmers themselves believe that shooting is a more
effective method of pest control than hunting with dogs. 63% of farmers reported that
shooting was an effective method while 55% believed that hunting with dogs was
effective (McGinnes, et al, 2002).
While researching the issue it was surprising to discover that the
pro-hunt lobby has attempted to take the higher ground when cruelty and animal
rights are considered. The
anti-hunt lobby argues that shooting is both a more efficient method of pest
control as well as more humane because death is instant. Lead by the Countryside Alliance, the
pro-hunt lobby argues that shooting as a method of pest control is inhumane
because it often maims instead of killing, while dogs ensure death. Hunter Diane McDougal argues that, "Everyone says it's cruel to the animal but the actual
death of the fox is very quick. Either the fox is dead or it's free. There's no
messing about, it's a dangerous animal so the dog kills it straight away, the
death is instant” (Rugby Today, 2004).
Shooting does not cull, but hunting does argues the Countryside Alliance
(BBC News, 2004 September 16).
In other words, hunting with dogs picks off the weakest and slowest
foxes, and thus strengthens the fox gene pool. This appears to be a perplexing
and contradictory argument for the pro-hunt lobby. If foxes are pests and vermin and
the purpose of the hunt is to rid the countryside of them, then farmers
shouldn’t want a stronger gene pool.
The pro-hunt lobby responds that sick foxes spread diseases to
livestock. The spread of
disease, they argue, is a greater threat to livestock than predation. The Countryside Alliance and the
Farmers Union of Wales have both advanced the argument of a correlation between
restrictions on culling and the dreaded foot and mouth disease. While compelling, a
correlation for this argument has yet to be established (McGinnes, et al,
2002).
The pro-hunt lobby argues that a ban on fox hunting will result in
devastating economic losses.
These losses are threefold.
First, economic damage will occur due to the uncontrolled pests harming
agriculture. Next, losses
will occur from the reduction in residual spending associated with recreational
hunting. Finally, jobs will
be lost. The effects of this,
it is argued, will reverberate throughout the fragile rural economies.
The impact of the Hunt on rural economies is greatly exaggerated by the
pro-Hunt lobby. The
aforementioned study commissioned by the House of Commons determined that only
453 people are employed full-time and 249 people part time by the organized
hunts. That this loss of jobs would
have any impact on the aggregate economy is far-fetched and unreasonable.
The loss of revenue from recreational fox hunting is the strongest
argument advanced by the pro-hunt lobby. The average fox hunt lasts 74 days
each year and generates £984 per day for fox hunting per club. In contrast, the deer hunt, which
is banned by the Hunting Bill but is not engulfed in controversy, has a season
of 97 days and generates an average of £1247 per day for a Hunting Club. The Hunting Bill creates losses
for not only the controversial fox hunt, but also the politically peripheral
deer, hare and mink hunts. In
addition, these numbers represent losses only for the Hunts themselves and not
for any other businesses associated with the hunt which may include tourism,
equestrian services and food services (McGinnes, et al, 2002).
The potential loss of livestock and other damage appears to be a
compelling argument. Without
the ban, the average Welsh farmer suffers an average annual loss of £500 due to
fox predation. Rural
interests argue that such losses will dramatically increase if a ban is
implemented. A ban on
fox hunting will not have a significant effect upon predation. It is important to consider evidence
already presented. Studies by
Cambridge
University and the House of
Commons concluded that hunting with dogs had a negligible effect on the fox
population (Heyden & Reynolds, 2000). This was determined by comparing
isolated regions in the United
Kingdom that had already instituted a ban, such as
Scotland, with those already
with out a ban, such as England and Wales. In addition, in terms of pest
control methods, farmers themselves acknowledge that shooting is a more
effective pest control method than hunting (McGinnes, et al, 2002). Considering these two facts, it is
difficult to believe that a ban on hunting with dogs will result in an increase
in predation. Pest control will still exist through shooting.
Parliament set aside £150 million to offset the effects of the ban on the
countryside economy. The aide is
generally viewed with disdain by the pro-hunt lobby. Many believe that the aide is
designed to appease and weaken the membership of the Countryside Alliance
(Brown, 2004 November 19).
The most current piece of legislation originated in the 2002-03 session
of Parliament. The Hunting Bill, the formal name, would
completely ban hunting of deer, hare and fox with dogs. The bill was defeated in the House of
Lords, despite overwhelming support in the House of Commons.
The bill was reintroduced verbatim in the 2003-04 session of
Parliament. Again, the bill
was overwhelmingly passed in the House of Commons and defeated in the House of
Lords (Sky News 2004 November 18).
This time, however, Labour MP’s in the House of Commons had a trump card
to be played- a rarely used power given to the Speaker of the House through the
Parliament Acts.
The Parliament Acts were first passed in 1911 and then renewed and
amended in 1949. Under the
Acts, if a verbatim piece of legislation is defeated in consecutive sessions of
Parliament by the House of Lords, the Speaker of the House, may at his
discretion, “certify” the legislation. This act overrides the vote in the
House of Lords and automatically binds the legislation into law. Use of the Parliament Acts is
extraordinarily rare, only having been used three other times since 1949
(Tempest, 2004).
Conservatives have vehemently opposed the use of the Parliamentary
Acts. They argue that their
use is abusive to the democratic system, arguing that, “for a government to use the Parliament Act to drive this
type of legislation through in such circumstances would set a worrying
precedent” (Conservative Party, 2004). That “precedent”, however, is minimal at
best. The three other pieces
of legislation passed via the Parliament Acts were not extraordinary in
circumstances nor policy (Prince, 2004).
Tony Blair quickly recognized the political fallout from the
situation. With an election
looming over the horizon, the political implications of the Hunting Bill are
significant. A promise from
the 1997 election that was supposed to be easily and quickly enacted lingers on
the Labour agenda stagnating. For
this reason Blair had incentive to pass a ban soon in order to retain
credibility. However, Blair
recognized that an outright ban could pose several problems for him. If the legislation were to become
enacted by Parliament, implementation would occur in the spring of 2005, likely
near the next election. This
timing poses two specific problems to Blair. First, the ban is a more likely to
be a voting issue for those in the countryside than those in the urban
areas. Rural citizens are
much more stirred by the ban than city dwellers. Second, the inevitable chaos from
mass civil disobedience would create an embarrassing side show during the
upcoming election.
Hoping to have his cake and eat it to by avoiding losing credibility and
incurring election cycle chaos, Blair proposed a “Third Way”
compromise. The compromise
would have allowed for fox hunting with dogs to continue in Wales and England where
hunting tradition and opposition to the ban are strongest. Hunts would have been required to
register with the government and meet certain requirements (Tempest,
2004).
In addition, the compromise would have delayed implementation 18 months-
well past the next election. Blair
justified this provision reasoning that the delay would allow time for the
countryside to brace itself for the economic impacts of the ban. Critics, however, charged that
Blair was attempting to skirt the political fallout of the ban by delaying
implementation past the election (Adams,
2004).
When it came time to vote, however, Blair was unable to gain the support
of many members of the Labour Party, including members of his own cabinet. The determined support of the
verbatim regurgitated Hunting Bill from the previous session was spear-headed by
Labour backbenchers. These
MP’s tend to be more liberal and more urban than even the average Labour MP
(Assinder, 2004).
There was nothing in the compromise for the
backbenchers for three reasons.
First, it created a philosophical contradiction for them. For years they had been decrying
hunting with dogs as “wrong immoral [and needing to be] be stopped” (Charter,
2004 November 17). To allow any
hunting would create a philosophical contradiction and compromise. Second, backbenchers recognized
that the pro-hunt lobby had no political leverage. The backbenchers had all the votes
needed to override the Lords, and thus saw no need to compromise. Finally, backbenchers had
attempted no less than 12 times since 1997 to broker a deal with the Countryside
Alliance and pro-hunt lobby.
During that period, the pro-hunt lobby was uncompromising, frustrating
the efforts of Labour. Only
after an enactment of the ban was imminent did the Countryside Alliance offer an
olive branch seeking a compromise (Countryside Alliance, 2004 November 18). Unfortunately for the Alliance the strategic interests of the Conservative Party
and the Alliance
were divergent in not only their means but also their ends and the plea for a
compromise was rejected. The
Conservative Party had too much too much to gain from the upcoming
election.
Blair’s compromise, and a similar House of Lords
concession, was both defeated the same day that the Hunting Bill was defeated by
the Lords, qualifying it for “certification” under the Parliament Acts (BBC
News, 2004).
The Hunting Bill was then certified by the Speaker
of the House of Commons Michael Martin under the Parliament Acts. Implementation is scheduled for
the spring of 2005 (Wintour, 2004).
Immediately, the Conservative Party promised
to repeal the ban if it were allowed to control government The Conservatives are
clearly moving to capitalize on the controversy in the coming election. They will seek to activate their
base in the rural areas as well as embarrass Labour in front of the general
constituency (Charter, 2004 November 16).
The Lords realized that they had no direct way to
prevent the Hunting Bill from becoming law. They did, however, for a time
threaten to blockade critical welfare funding for children if the Parliament
Acts were used. The tactic
was less than popular with the public and was quickly abandoned (Tempest, 2004).
The House of Lords, controlled by the Conservatives, deliberately
defeated the Hunting Bill a second time knowing that it would be enacted via the
Parliament Acts in time for the upcoming elections. They relished that implementation would
occur nearly simultaneous to the next election (Charter, 2004 November 18). Tories hope for a political disaster of
chaos and civil disobedience as Labour asks the public permission to retain
control of government. “While we cannot condone any violence that may follow a
decision to ban hunting, I fear it will be inevitable in the run-up to the next
General Election” is the official stance of the Conservative Party regarding
civil disobedience. The Party
will not condone violence, but it will not condemn general civil disobedience
either (Conservative Party, 2004).
As implementation nears, civil disobedience protests have already
begun. Recently, a state
dinner with the Queen and French President Jacques Chirac was disrupted by angry
protesters outside Windsor Castle (Sky News, 2004 November 19). In addition, last September three
members of the Countryside Alliance broke onto the floor of the House of Commons
and disrupted debate (Charter, 2004 November 16). The Countryside Alliance claims
that these actions are merely the “thin edge of the wedge” (Baldwin &
Elliott, 2004).
“I am quite prepared to go to prison for this and most of my colleagues
think the same. The ban is complete and utter rubbish. It's just prejudice
against people and has nothing to do with animal welfare. People will not take
any notice and we as a hunt intend to carry on," says John Weller of the Pennine
Hunt (Rowley, 2004).
The Countryside Alliance does not promote violence, but does advocate
civil disobedience as a tactic of last resort. In 2002 the group created a
petition with tens of thousands of signatures (Countryside Alliance, 2002). Those that signed committed to
defy the ban and continue hunting after implementation. They committed, if necessary to go
to jail (Clover, 2002). The
attitude of Mr. Weller is the rule among hunters, not the
exception.
“Breaking the law is wrong, but civil rights leaders have said for years
that if there is an unfair law, then it is proper for the individual to draw
attention to this unfairness by breaking it, and the coming forward to accept
their punishment,” said Alliance
spokesman John Jackson (Baldwin & Elliott, 2004).
This creates an enormous enforcement problem. "Enforcing the law in the early days will require a
significant commitment of resources and the consequences of this will be
carefully examined," says Chief Constable McWhirter or Suffolk County (BBC News, 2004 November
19). Although the majority of the general
public supports the ban, 70% oppose diverting law enforcement resources in order
to confront widespread civil disobedience (Kite, 2004). This statistic may not be
accurate, however. When the same
question is posed differently, an entire different result occurs. 76% of the public say that they
oppose hunters breaking the law, including defying the ban (International Fund
for Animal Welfare, 2003).
Interestingly, a loophole in the Hunting Bill facilitates the civil
disobedience. The Hunting
Bill does not ban the possession or even the breeding of hunting dogs. It explicitly protects the preservation
of breeding lines. The dogs needed
to defy the hunt are protected property under the law banning the Hunt (Baldwin
& Elliot, 2004).
The Countryside Alliance has also promised to appeal the
constitutionality of the Parliament Acts through the courts. It is their hope to invalidate the
Hunting Bill through legal maneuvering. In addition to invalidating the
Hunting Bill, overturning the Parliament Acts would reverse the War Crimes Act
of 1991, The Sexual Offenses Act of 2000 and the 1999 European Parliamentary
Elections Act (Prince, 2004).
In addition to these measures, the Countryside Alliance has also sworn to
encourage its members to obstruct government access to utilities as well as
prohibit the use of their land by the military for exercises (Jones,
2004).
The pro-hunt lobby clearly has some powerful cards left in their
hand. They will play each of
them to their fullest value.
The battle over fox hunting isn’t about recreation policy or even animal
rights. It is the proxy vehicle of
the conflict between rival forces seeking power. Labour, representing liberal urban
interests, initially sought the ban to obtain early credibility when it came to
power. Now it seeks to retain
credibility by following through on a commitment made when it came to power
years ago. The upcoming elections,
not consideration of animal rights, has accelerated the process and focused the
parties attention on the issue.
The Conservatives, representing rural interests, motives aren’t
transparent either. Though they
advocate the position of their rural constituencies, they passed up an
opportunity to make a compromise and preserve hunting. They did this in order to gain a
competitive edge on Labour in the coming elections, when a furious countryside
will be engulfed and riled to go to the polls and Labour would be embarrassed by
civil disobedience and an inability to enforce a law that it created. The issue has been simmering
for decades, but recently was brought to a boil as Labour and the Tories
wrestled with each other for the upper hand to gain more power and control in
Parliament.
Works Cited
“A Centuries Old Tradition” (2004 November 18). Times Online. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1363674,00.html
Adams, Christopher (2004 November 17). UK fox hunting ban likely to take
effect in 3 months. Financial Times. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.financialtimes.com
Assinder, Nick (2004 November 23). Hunt ban's impact on
Blair. BBC News UK
Edition. Retrieved November 23,
2004 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4024171.stm
Baldwin, Tom & Elliot, Valerie (2004 November
18). Protests and civil
disobedience will follow the ban.
Times Online. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1363672,00.html
BBC News (2004 September 16). Viewpoints: Fox
Hunting Ban. BBC News UK
Edition. Retrieved November 18,
2004 from http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/
BBC News (2004 November 18). Hunt ban expected despite peers. BBC News UK
Edition. Retrieved November 18,
2004 from http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk
BBC News (2004 November 19). In pursuit of civil
disobedience. BBC News UK
Edition. Retrieved November 19,
2004 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4026019.stm
Brown, Colin
(2004 November 19).
Compensation for ban on fox hunting may cost taxpayer £150m. The Independent. Retrieved November 19, 2004 from
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=584808
Charter, David (2004 November 16). Blair pushes
for ‘middle way’ hunt vote. Times Online. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1360657,00.html
Charter, David (2004 November 17). Conservatives
would repeal ‘filthy little arrangement’. Times Online. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1362519,00.html
Charter, David (2004 November 18). Lords’ defiance may bring hunt ban
sooner rather than later. Times
Online. Retrieved November 18,
2004 from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1363663,00.html
Clover, Charles (2002 September 22). Hunt supporters sign up to break the
law. The Daily Telegraph Online. Retrieved November 22, 2004 from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml;sessionid=OLDUZUEXRU3EXQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/global/2002/07/22/brhunt22.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=55617
Conservative Party (2004 November 16). Hunting ban threatens rural way of life
in Wales. Retrieved from
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=117269
Countryside Alliance (2002). The Hunting Declaration. Retrieved from
http://www.huntingdeclaration.org/dec.php
Countryside Alliance (2004 November 18). MPs should not
ignore public opinion. Retrieved
from http://www.countryside-alliance.org
De Lisle, Leanda (2004 September 17). Riding with the hounds. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,2763,1306478,00.html
"Fox Hunting," Microsoft Encarta Online
Encyclopedia 2004. Retrieved
November 18, 2004 from
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553482/Fox_Hunting.html
Heyden, Matthew J., & Reynolds, Jonathan
C. (2000). Demography of rural foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) in relation to cull intensity in three contrasting
regions of Britain. Journal of Zoology, 251, 265-276
International Fund for Animal Welfare (2003
October 22). 76% Say Hunters Should
Obey Law. Retrieved November 18,
2004 from http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=77093
Jones, George (2004 November 11). Landowners who back hunt threaten to
obstruct utitlities. Daily
Telegraph. Retrieved November 18,
2004 from
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/20/nhunt20.xml
Key, Lis (2001 November 15). Time to Ban Fox Hunting, Not Resume it. International Fund for Animal Welfare
Online. Retreived 18 November
2004 from http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17831
Kite, Melissa (2004 November 28). Don’t enforce ban, say 70pc. News Telegraph Online. Retrieved 28 November 2004 from
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/nhunt28.xml
Prince, Rosa (2004 November 19). High Court Challenge to Hunt Ban. The Daily Mirror. Retrieved November 19 2004 from
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14889017&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=hunting-ban-in-3-months-name_page.html
McGinnes, Stephen. Sear, Chris. Young, Ross & MacGregor, Ed (2002 December 13). The Hunting Bill. House of Commons Library, Research Paper
02/82 [Bill 10 of 2002-03].
Market Opinion & Research International (MORI)
(2003 November). Most Say Hunting Should Not Be Legal. Market Opinion & Research
International Online. Retrieved
November 18, 2004 from http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/cpha.shtml
Rowley, Tom (2004 November 21). Huntsman
vows to defy fox ban. Tameside Advertiser. Retrieved November 26, 2004 from
http://www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk/news/index/articles/article_id=5292.html
Rugby Today
(2004 November 16). We Kill The Foxes the Farmer Wants Killed. Rugby Advertiser. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://www.rugbyreviewtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=689&ArticleID=888693
Sky News (2004 November 18). Uproar As Peers Reject Hunting Ban. Sky News. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041117/140/f6u0x.html
Sky News (2004 November 19). Hunt Protests Greet
Blair and Chirac. Sky News. Retrieved November 19, 2004 from
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041119/140/f6xwy.html
Tempest, Matthew (2004 September 6). Q&A: Banning Foxhunting. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved November 18, 2004 from
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1298377,00.html
Wintour, Patrick (2004 November 19). Parliament Act brings an end to 700
years of hunting. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved November 19, 2004 from
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,1354920,00.html
