Reclaiming Hunt

It's often nice when people admit that they've made a mistake, such as Bjorn Lomborg's views on climate change. Sadly, Tony Blair's regrets seem not to focus on the disaster of Iraq (which they really should), but on the Hunting Ban.

Now, I am undeniably biased on the subject of fox hunting, since, as a vegetarian, I am never happy about anything to do with death. However, I do appreciate that foxes can be a problem, and so need to be controlled.

This does not mean that hunting is the best way to go about it. In fact, I can't see how it can help in the long term at all. It seems common knowledge that the hunters only catch the weaker foxes, and so the stronger foxes survive. Surely, therefore, this is only going to breed stronger, better, faster foxes. During a discussion on this topic on Twitter with Dr Evan Harris (with whom I disagree on this issue, if few others) and others, I put this point to him, and he offered an appropriate parallel, likening it to the more resilient bacteria that have formed because of anti-biotics.

I'm not proposing that fox hunting is breeding super-foxes, but I would argue that it therefore does not qualify as an effective form of pest control. If it does not, then what other excuse is there for it? All that remains is a large group cheerfully enjoying the slaughter of an animal.

Tony Blair's regret, however, seems shallow and misplaced, whatever your views on hunting. None of his regret seems to centre around his actions, but around other people's reactions. His remorse seems to lie with the fact that he got into "trouble for it". I find it incredibly depressing that, rather than have any conviction on a subject that means a great deal to both sides, he seems to care more about how he comes out of this than with the issues.