Foxhunting: The Countryside United?

This weekend's march - organised by the Countryside Alliance - is expected to bring hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets of London - many campaigning (one way or another) for more money for the UK's rural areas.

The main issue which has underpinned this campaign, however, has always been the thorny topic of Fox Hunting. Campaigners on both sides of the debate have worked hard to win public support - the pro-lobby arguing in terms of livelihoods, pest control and rural traditions, the anti-lobby on grounds of cruelty and animal welfare.

Five years ago, seven in 10 members of the British public (and about the same proportion of MPs) supported Michael Foster's Private Member's Bill which sought to ban hunting. Today, after all the debates, publicity and rhetoric, we still find that around seven in 10 people take a dim view of hunting.

So why have the pro-hunting groups failed to make more impact on public opinion on this topic? And is it - as some would suggest - a case of a misunderstood rural minority being overwhelmed by the opinions of an ill-informed urban majority?

For this to be true, one would have to accept (as is often supposed) that those who live in town and country hold widely different opinions on the issue of fox hunting. And, in truth, there is some difference in the percentage of people who support a ban on hunting.

But surveys conducted by MORI Social Research Institute over the past few years repeatedly show that support for a ban in both urban and rural areas clearly outweighs calls for hunting's retention. In 2000, for example, a study on attitudes towards fox hunting among countryside dwellers showed that in the countryside, there is a majority in favour of a ban of almost two to one (52% for, 28% against). Those in favour of a ban are more likely to hold this view strongly - in the middle of the countryside, two in five people (41%) strongly support a ban and less than one in five (15%) strongly oppose it.

Certainly, the image that has been portrayed by the pro-hunting lobby is that it is an important - even essential - part of country life. But this begs the question - why are more people in rural areas opposed to hunting than in support of it?

The answer may lie in participation. In the middle of the countryside, almost half of those questioned (45%) are aware that hunting with hounds takes place in their local area, but nine in 10 (89%) disagree with the statement 'Hunting with dogs is an important part of my social life'. In fact, just one in 20 (four per cent) agree that hunting with dogs is an important part of their social life.

On the point of economy, again the arguments against a ban have been widely rejected, with three in five (61%) disagreeing that 'Hunting with dogs is an important part of the rural economy'. Even on the issue of pest control, the arguments appear not to have won acceptance from the majority of rural dwellers, with two thirds (64%) disagreeing that 'Hunting with dogs is necessary to control animal numbers, such as foxes'.

In fact, a majority (56%) believe hunting is cruel to the hunted animals, and more than a quarter (28%) believe it is cruel to the horses and hounds used by the hunts themselves.

Perhaps predictably, the Government is caught in the crossfire of this almost uniquely acrimonious and long-running debate. Most people (73%) feel 'the government has taken too long to resolve the hunting issue, one way or another'. And so whatever affect this weekend's march has on public opinion, the Government is under pressure to draw a line under the issue once and for all.

Most people on both sides of the argument (and in town and country) would like to see the rural agenda move on to more fundamental - and commonly held - concerns about healthcare, crime, housing, education and transport.

By John Leaman