Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The representation of the fox as a sporting foe is not, however, the only
representation mobilised in support of hunting.
Take 2—vicious vermin: the fox as pest
The second representation is less romantic and more functional than the first. In it
the fox is not esteemed and admired, but vilified as a pest, as 'vermin', which needs
to be 'controlled'. The British Field Sports Society (BFSS), in its leaflet
Hunting: the
Facts
(1995), is quite clear that 'the fox is a ruthless predator, one capable of
inflicting great damage'. In representing the fox in this way, hunting is transformed
from a 'sport', with its implications of fun and enjoyment, to a necessary public
service—as argued by pro-hunting MPs both before and during the parliamentary
debate:
I do not want to hear any more romantic ideas about pretty little innocent
foxes. They are pests and they need to be controlled.
(Kate Hoey,
Hansard,
301, 28 November 1997: col. 1237)
People don't hunt because they revel in killing animals but to control the
number of foxes.
(Lembit Öpik, quoted in Settle 1997:1)
It's clear fox numbers have to be controlled and I don't see this method as any
crueller than other methods. It might well be less cruel.
(Cynog Dafis, quoted in Settle 1997:1)
Not only are foxes represented here as being pests, but they are represented as
potentially forming an infestation if not controlled—for example, the
Western
Mail
reporting that the Farmers' Union of Wales claimed that a ban on hunting would
'mean some farmland would be overrun with foxes and some farmers would go out
of business' (Settle 1997:1).
To produce this representation of the fox-as-pest, the fox is translated into the
forms of scientific knowledge, statistical data and anecdote. As modernist politics
dictates that the representation of non-humans is the field of science, MPs mobilised
scientific representation of the pest status of the fox to validate their argument. Of
particular debate was a report produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food (MAFF), part of which was quoted by the bill's proposer, Michael Foster.
However, both Peter Brooke and Sir Brian Mawhinney challenged Foster's reading
of the report, arguing that subsequent passages did confirm the fox's status as a pest:
[Foster] quoted the second sentence of this passage, which states: 'On the
basis of current evidence, the Ministry does not consider foxes to be a
significant factor in lamb mortality.' He stopped there, creating the
