Legend has it that during World War II, an American GI was invited to a fox hunt in England. It was explained to him that being invited to such a supremely significant social event was a great honor. He was told to be on his absolutely best behavior with the royalty and upper class Brits who were his hosts. The GI was a former steel worker from some place in Pennsylvania. He was told that when the fox was sighted, there would be a cry from his British hosts, “Tally ho, the fox.” That was all there was to be said.
But steel workers and GI’s do rough work. They don’t sip tea and trade palace gossip. They call them like they see them. When the fox was sighted by the GI, he is widely quoted as saying, “Tally ho, the God damned fox.” Of course, the British hosts were “absolutely appalled” and so no more fox hunting invitations were issued while the GI’s were in residence in England preparing for the invasion to do battle with the forces of Nazi-ism.
Some of the people who were appalled by the cry of the Pennsylvania GI, were probably also among those who said of the American GI’s, “They are over paid, over sexed and over here.” The comments about being over this and over that, are included to make the account more complete and non-controversial.
In terms of making a complete account, it is incumbent upon this ink stained essay writer to disclose that he is of Irish parentage and enjoys American citizenship. Being Irish and American may cause a small amount of prejudices about the Brits to escape, but the writer will make some effort to suppress it.
The subject of our non-prejudicial essay today, is the upper class English practice of fox hunting, with dogs, which normally results in the death of the fox. To properly hunt a fox, the wealthy Brit must purchase proper boots for riding a horse or horses. He must also have pants appropriate for riding horses. The pants are, of course, stuffed into the boots. Properly clad fox hunters must also have a shirt and a tie with foxhunting scenes painted on it. A proper upper garment with pleats where the sleeves meet the main part of the jacket is worn over the shirt. And of course, the fox hunter must have a gun to dispatch any foxes that are found. Sometimes the hunters wear helmets and sometimes they wear fedoras. Fox hunters are dressed in a fashion that they would always be welcome at a party given by the Prince of Wales.
After the hunter is attired in the latest fashion, he must also have a horse and a dog to chase the fox. If and when the fox is caught and shot, that event will be recorded as a successful hunt. Such a hunt will be celebrated over whiskey and tonics in tony clubs patronized by the hunters.
Whether the horses or the dogs are rewarded has never been an event that has come to my attention. In all of my association with our English cousins, fox has never been served as something to be eaten. The Brits eat kidneys and sausages that would turn your stomach if you knew how they were made, but they seem neither to devour the fox nor do they feed it to the horses or the dogs. Thus, for all their claims of civilized behavior, the Brits hunt the fox for the pure thrill of killing it. As far as this observer knows, the fox population in Britain is peaceful and has never attempted to destroy a city such as Coventry which the Germans tried to do. So the Brits hunt for the “sport” of killing the fox. In other civilized societies, this effort would be called murder, which it is.
Killing for the sport of it seems so un-British. Here in the colonies, well fed people like Richard Chaney and Anthony Scalia go to the marshlands to murder birds. The report from their hunting excursions over the years, says that they ordinarily slaughtered a humongous number of birds. There is no way that those dead birds could be eaten by the well fed Vice President or by the well padded Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. And while they were hunting this year, Scalia and Chaney DID NOT discuss the case involving Chaney that will appear on the Supreme Court’s agenda this Fall. They said they did not discuss it, so that is the final, final answer to this scandal. It would be nice if other cases could be settled so amicably.
In the most recent controversy involving fox hunting with hounds and the English Parliament, there was a vote in the Commons to outlaw the “SPORT” by a two to one margin. Supporters of the ban said hunting with hounds was cruel, elitist and outmoded. The people who wanted hunting to continue said the government should not trample on people’s civil liberties and on the rural way of life. Nobody said anything about the civil liberties of the fox because if he or she is killed, it is all done in the name of British sport. And we all know that English sport is done as a means of proclaiming “God save the Queen.”
All of the recent events took place in the House of Commons. It has been done before with the House of Lords opposing any such fox hunting bill passed by the Commons. And so the bill dies, as does the fox.
As the lawyers say, “Now comes Nicholas Gent.” Mr. Gent is a stock broker, aged 53, who presumably is wealthy. Mr. Gent delivered this sterling comment:

“This (bill) has nothing to do with animal welfare and has everything to do with the people who hunt. It is a form of class warfare and they shouldn’t discriminate against us.”

From the viewpoint of the fox, Mr. Gent is all wrong. The bill has only to do with animal welfare. If there is anything discriminatory about all this, it is clearly the fox that is being discriminated against. He or she is being killed. How much more discriminatory can one be?
Well, the Brits who are supposed to be a role model for other Parliaments and Congresses, had a proper uproar. The Commons was the scene of a near riot, which seems so un-British like. The words they used in the debate about dogs and foxes are ones that shouldn’t be used around well reared children.
But the Brits are making progress in their sporadic march toward civilization. In the Spring of 2004, there was another heated debate, but not about fox hunting. In that debate, there were some protestors who gained entry into the upper gallery of the House of Commons. From that vantage point, they lobbed or threw flour filled condoms at Tony Blair. How uncivilized! How outrageous! How preposterous! And the condoms were unused.
How can the Brits say they are setting a good example for the American Congress or the Indian Parliament or for any of their other former possessions?
If anyone would like to join me in a long overdue tribute to the GI from Pennsylvania who made the unfortunate reference to spotting the fox back in World War II days, perhaps you will lend your support to me in specifying that in the future, flour filled condoms will be hurled at foxes caught by the hounds. It is likely that the Vatican will have something scathing to say about contraceptive devices being used for sport, but that is the chance we will have to take. If Tony Blair knows that in the future all such projectiles will be aimed at the foxes rather than at him, it should be clear that he will support our efforts. He may even say, “Britannia rules the Tally Ho’s.”
E. E. CARR
September 21, 2004

THE NEW YORK TIMES (ATTACHMENT)
September 16, 2004
British Ban Fox Hunts With Dogs After Uproar
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
ONDON, Sept. 15 – After a day of rowdy demonstrations in which protesters broke into the floor of Britain’s Parliament, the House of Commons voted Wednesday to outlaw the centuries-old sport of hunting with hounds.
The 356-to-166 vote followed an emotional debate between supporters of the ban, who denounced fox hunting with dogs as cruel, elitist and hopelessly outmoded, and opponents, who accused the government of intruding on people’s civil liberties and trampling on their rural way of life.
It was the ninth time in 10 years that the House of Commons has voted on a hunting ban, but, with the aristocratic House of Lords vehemently opposed to any ban, the bill has never cleared Parliament. Supporters of the ban said that this time they would force it through the House of Lords by invoking a rarely used law called the Parliament Act. The act allows for bills to become law in the event of a deadlock between the two chambers.
“This practice should have been abolished years ago,” said David Winnick, a Labor member of the Commons from Walsall North. “People will wonder how it was possible for hunting with dogs to continue into the 21st century. It’s a barbaric practice that must come to an end.”
But the debate was soon overshadowed by the raucous demonstrators and the mounting chaos outside. Five demonstrators bolted into the House of Commons chamber and confronted members, prompting a 25-minute suspension of the proceedings. The five men were quickly tackled by doorkeepers and later arrested, but the intrusion raised alarms about security at Westminster and prompted a round of debate about the protests.
Michael Martin, the speaker of the House, said that eight men gained access to restricted areas by brandishing a forged letter. An unidentified pass holder led them into the chamber’s anteroom. Five of the men then entered the chamber.
A security overhaul was ordered a few months ago when protesters lobbed condoms filled with flour at Prime Minister Tony Blair as he spoke in the chamber. This week, a man from the same group, Fathers 4 Justice, climbed a fence and onto a balcony at Buckingham Palace.
“Parliament simply must have modernized security procedures,” Peter Hain, leader of the Commons, said.
Outside, the police confronted a raucous throng of protesters and wielded truncheons to pacify them, bloodying some heads. But most of the thousands of protesters – a mixture of young and old, town and country, tweed and leather – demonstrated peacefully, jeering at politicians and blowing hunting horns. One woman in a fox costume stripped down to her bikini and showed off a bare stomach inscribed with, “For fox sake, don’t ban hunting.”
“This has nothing to do with animal welfare and has everything to do with the people who hunt,” said Nicholas Gent, 53, a stockbroker who stood in the crowd. “It is a form of class warfare and they shouldn’t discriminate against us.”
Others said they worried about the growing urbanization of Britain and the loss of country jobs. “If they ban fox hunting, they will try to ban other things – fishing, falconry,” said Tony Bryan, 52, a falconer from Gloucestershire. Although previous efforts to ban fox hunting with dogs have failed, this time Labor supporters of the bill in the House of Commons voted to use the 1949 Parliament Act to get it past the House of Lords. The act has only been invoked three times: in 1991 to allow Nazi war criminals to be brought to trial, in 1999 to put into effect the European Parliamentary Elections Act and in 2000 to lower the age of homosexual consent.
Hunting advocates said they planned to take the government to court if the bill passed Parliament by contesting the Parliament Act.
“We will, if necessary, fight it in the European Court of Human Rights, where we believe we have a very strong case,” said Simon Hart, the chief executive of Countryside Alliance, at a news conference.
If that fails, opponents of a ban said they would blatantly ignore the law and leave it to the government to try to force the issue.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
 
~~~
A few things.
First, if the US had an option where the House could overrule the Senate in “emergencies,” I guarantee it’d be used on a weekly basis by whichever party controlled the house.
Second, if the only way that your tradition can survive is that a bunch of people who are literally referred to as “lords” will veto its repeal in spite of overwhelming public opposition, perhaps it is something that deserves to go away.
Third, hunting is stupid as hell, but I did learn something interesting about it the other day. This has nothing to do with foxes, but a lot of big game hunters in particular actually a big part in conservation efforts, because their license fees are so expensive. The guy who killed Cecil the lion, for example, paid $54k for the privilege. In the case of Cecil it was a financial loss for the park because Cecil brought in visitors directly to see him, but if your choice is to have an average lion die and make $54k, or keep the lion alive and make $0, it’s way better for parks to opt for the former option. The idea is that for every hunter that comes in, you can spend those thousands and thousands to support the other lions better and protect the territory.
Poachers are the scum of the Earth.