Fox Hunting - Where's the logic?

Logic and reasoning applied in the absence of relevant facts can generate some strange conclusions.When a former member of the BNP recently lectured me on fox hunting this perverse thought process was demonstrated to the extreme. His rational was as follows:- 1. Foxes are pests. 2. Fox populations should be controlled and can be controlled. 3. Foxes are best controlled by hunting on horseback and with dogs. 4. Legislating against 3 has the consequences of fox population control that is more painful for the fox. 5. There are no effective measures in to prevent illegal killing of foxes.Let's examine each of these statements empirically. 1. Foxes are Pests Any unwanted and destructive insect or animal that attacks food, crops or livestock etc is a pest. In other words anything that threatens mans food supply is a pest. Rodents are therefore a major pest and have been a blight for mans food supply since man began agriculture. A sole fox can destroy, in one year, 5,000-6,000 ....rodents. Yes rodents and they usually do so because rodents are readily available food source. Foxes are generalists and eat whatever is more easily available. Foxes hunt alone, during the night preferentially for rabbits and rodents (mice, voles, ground squirrels), but also moles, song birds, ducks, quails, partridges, pheasants, eggs, insects (like locusts and beetles, including their larvae), earth worms, but they also eat fruit (in some cases and in some species up to 90 %), cadavers of big hoofed animals (or even their living offspring) and red kangaroos (in Australia), fish, frogs and crayfish in wet areas and garbage in urban areas. Chicken is not prevalent in the foxy diet. That's because chickens are not commonly available. Of course foxes will take the easiest prey first. If a farmer is careless in animal husbandry and makes available a free supply of vulnerable chickens then the fox will be there at night doing what foxes do. However well protected chickens will be of little interest to the fox who has a wide and varied food supply. Rodents are a real pest. Rodents multiple quickly and are also active at night. It is fortunate therefore that foxes also hunt at night and can hear the squeak of a mouse from a distance of 100 metres. It seems to me that if we could and did exterminate all foxes we'd have a serious rodent problem. Let's keep the foxes please. They are useful to mankind by controlling pests (rats and mice). Just don't make chickens the easiest source of food for Mr Fox.There's plenty of scientific evidence to support all of the above. If you want references just leave a comment and I'll mark up. 2. Foxes population should and can be controlled. This is a similar argument as badgers. Can populations of these species really be controlled. Well you can exterminate the fox if sufficient energy was expended on the objective in the same way the bear and the wolf were exterminated. That would probably need the whole of the British army on the case for 5 years of more. It would not be easy. Research has shown that:-

• Hunting (Before it was banned) killed around 20,000 foxes a year which represents only 3% of the UK fox population.
• The fox population is governed by the year round availability of food in defended territories.
• Where foxes are persecuted by humans more cubs are produced to restore their population levels.
• Studies in Europe have shown that fox populations can survive losses of up to 70% and still recover fully in the following year.
• Where foxes are killed this merely created a vacant territory which will be quickly filled by other foxes.

So attempting to control foxes is a waste of effort. Surely there is something more useful ex-fox hunter can do more useful things with their time? 3.Foxes are best controlled for the pleasure of sport on horseback. Well if you own a horse and enjoy the chase then this must be true. But it's not a statement of fact is it. It not even an empirical statement. It's an opinion and logical analysis on this point would need to trawl through the concepts about the arrogance of man. Man the spiciest - worse than racist. "Other creatures only exist so that we can eat them." Its the "God put them here for our benefit" belief that has no logical basis. Let's move on. 4. Legislating against 3 will result in more painful methods of fox control. Chasing foxes on horseback is assumed to be a method of control. It could be that it was a sport for pure pleasure. Given that one in three hunts were unsuccessful in catching the fox but still a good time was had by all in the thrill of the chase. I was informed by the former BNP member that farmers now use rat poison to kill foxes because they are unable to hunt them.Alternatively they will shot at them, wounding them in the process. Both result in painful deaths for the fox.Lets ignore the pleasure the Foxes use to get from being chased by people on horses and a pack of hounds. Before hunting with horses and hounds was banned, did all farmers refrain from shooting and poisoning foxes?Do they shoot and poison foxes more since the change in law. Well we've no evidence of the increase in fox control through shooting and poisoning butwhat is clear is that hunting with horses and dogs was not an effective primary control. Let us assume that there are law abiding farmers and farmers who ignore the law (believing that they are unlikely to be caught and punished).And there are farmers who are law abiding.Given that it is illegal to poison foxes and that some farmers are not law abiding (in any large population there will be an element), have the non-law abiding farmers have stepped up their poisoning activities since fox hunting with dogs was banned?And is any increase in this illegal activity (should there have been any increase) a justification for not having the ban? It's like reasoning that we should not outlaw teenage prostitution or else the sex fiends will rape your daughters. e.g. "Let the bad men carry on doing there bad deeds or else if we try to stop them they will do worse. "Such a rationale is not a sound basis for determining legislation. 5. There are no effective measures to catch the bad men (e.g. farmers poisoning foxes). Good news. This one is the simplest of misconceptions. There are very specific rules and regulations about how poison is used. Putting it in a dog bowl just outside the hen house for example and claiming it is to control rats is against the regulations and motive (it was for the rats m'lord) is no defence. A considerable number of Red Kites die as a direct result of ingesting pesticides and other poisonous substances intentionally applied in lethal doses to meat baits (abuse). These highly illegal baits, aimed at foxes, badgers or crows, also cause the deaths of many other animals including kites, other protected birds and even farm dogs. It's a pity the BNP did not do something useful like campaign against lawless farmers. Yes it's true that I am happy that toffs no longer get to enjoy hunting animals on horseback for their pleasure. I would like all such toffs to be re-educated. They are invariably the same toffs who drive 4x4 and try to intimidate drivers of small vehicles with their oversize monsters on the road. These are the same toffs that vote Tory and would like their taxes reduced and the unemployed sent to work houses. The same toffs who who dream of the two tier society of yesteryear with maid servants who they would take delight in seducing and then sending off to the mental hospital when they became pregnant. The same toffs whose bar room political reasoning follows the bigoted sequence of statements at the top of this page.

Medal to Gordon Brown - Pollution Anarchist

If I wanted to acquire the crown as top global anarchist I ‘d have a hard time outdoing George Bush and George Brown.

It’s the latter of the two who gets my barb today. He thinks like a narrow minded accountant, oblivious to the consequences in his drive for other diverse sources of revenue.
Let’s example Stamp Duty on house purchases.
How do encourage people to commute long distances to work? Make the transaction costs of moving house too great a barrier.

Recall that stamp duty kicks in at 1 per cent for homes worth between £125,000 and £250,000, but leaps to 3 per cent for properties above this value. The top rate is 4 per cent and applies on properties bought for more than £500,000.

So I’ve got the new job in the next town should I move house? Let me do the sums. My £400,000 new house will cost £12,000 in stamp duty. Now it I commute the extra 15 miles every day at 40ppm for 200 days a years that’s only £2,400. So if I moved it would take 5 years recover my stamp duty from saved commute costs.

OK there’s other factors to this decision - the schools, wife’s job and soft furnishing etc. But hey, why let Stamp Duty be a deciding factor. Thus contributing to Britain’s every increasing congestion, air pollution and global warming.

WELL DONE GORDON BROWN. Medal of honor to you for your contribution to pollution.

Supermarkets Kill People

For some years big food hyper-store have come under the microscope because of the side effects of the domination of the food industry. Most of this concern has been focused on the emergence of an oligopoly, their domination in the supply chain, local economy issues and environmental impacts. These points are well argued elsewhere (What's Wrong With Supermarkets).Here I want to outline something much more important - Supermarkets Kill People. Yes they do. People are dying everyday as a consequence of today's food retailing model.

Yesterday I went to my local green grocer and bought two large boxes of fruit and vegetables. Then out of interest I called by local supermarket and compared the prices. The supermarket was much dearer for most of the items that I had purchased. Mango, melon, lemon, apple, spinach, tomato, carrot, pepper, cucumber, orange were all more expensive in the supermarket than my local corner shop greengrocer. Some supermarket items were twice the price of the local friendly green grocer. The melon that cost me 0.80 was on offer at a special price of 1.60. Yet this is the supermarket that offers low cost box choc-ices that are 0.08 each. This same store has family size pizzas with a bargain two-for-the-price-of-one deal. The supermarket shelves present expensive fresh food and very cheap processed food. So what does Mr. and Mrs. average buy?

So what? Why should it matter?

Fact: Obesity and all its associated consequences is the worlds number one health issue.
Fact: Diet is linked to one third of all cancers.
Fact: Health service real costs in the developed world continue to rise.
Fact: Individuals are spending more on health care products. Example.
Fact: The cost of food-stuff has fallen over the last 30 years.

Now let's look at the theory that the best health care products are at the green grocers and can be inexpensive and tasty. More and more research is providing a consistent picture that not only is the cheap processed food unhealthy but that fresh produce is positively good for health.

The benefits of the high fibre and antioxidants in fresh fruit and veg have become well understood but other research is show more interesting benefits.

A few examples include:

• Vitamin C : Arterial deposits are a major health costs but are dramatically combated by high levels of this vitamin found in all fresh fruit and veg.
  Prevention of artherosclerosis with phenolic compounds found in exotic fruits such as persimmons.
• Pop a few walnuts in that salad. It helps to make your arteries more elastic from its contribution to your intake of alpha linolenic acid.
• Control cholesterol through regulating your homocysteine levels with healthy consumption of folic acid and B6 and B12. This means dark green produces such as spinach (eat it raw in salad).
  

So in the UK we have well debated five-a-day campaign promoted by uk_Gov. The irony is the food retailing model is working contrary to the heath of the nation. Government advertising to promote healthy eating is a consequence of the food retailing industry. It's little use banning fatty food advertisements targeted at young people when it's their parents who do the food shopping. It's ineffective promoting healthy eating when the supermarkets overwhelm any government propaganda through the square footage of the their shelves.

But let's not forget the average shoppers perspective. The shopper is in a hurry, traveling by car and who demand the convenience of a one stop shop but also cheap food.

Here's the solution.

Once again the free market economy has failed society. We need to enable the food shopper a convenient means of acquiring healthy food at competitive prices. A minor market intervention is needed but the solution is so simple and uses market forces.
Do you remember the old market stalls? Let's take the old outdoor market stall to the supermarket. Every supermarket over a specified size must provide a cover area (an area based on a percentage of the total store size) at their entrance to be allocated to market stall holders. Here stall holders will be able to operate the same hours as the supermarket, selling competitively priced fruit and veg that they purchased through the wholesale markets. The rent paid by the market stall holders will be an open market price but the allocation of the stalls will be managed by an agent who is appointed by the local public authority.

Problem Sorted. Let's make it happen! Write to your MP - send him this link.

Insured Car Drivers Subsidise Offenders

Fact 1: In the United Kingdom 1 in 20 car drivers don't have motor accident insurance.
Fact 2: The average annual motor insurance premiums is loaded by £30 ($55) to cover accidents with non-insured drivers.
Fact 3: Association of British Insurers (ABI) says uninsured drivers are involved in about 50,000 incidents a year.
Fact 4: Uninsured drivers are three times more likely to have an accident than insured motorists.
Fact 5: Uninsured drivers are 10 times more likely to be caught drink driving that insured motorists.

Theory 1: That detection of uninsured motorist is poor.
Theory 2: When an uninsured motorist is caught we don't sufficiently punish him/her.

Have we gone soft!

What must be done?
1. Firstly improve detections. We need insurance disks - similar to road tax disks.
2. Uninsured motorist should be banned from driving for five years.
3. Uninsured motorist should pay a fine that is at least 10 times the value of the total insurance that they have omitted to pay.
4. And if they can't pay then subject them enforced labour camps.
And if they won't work then electricute them somewhere painful.

The government's Greenway Review, set up in 2003 to look at the issue of uninsured drivers, should report in the next few weeks. It's about time. I'll update you when I've read it.