Options
Freedom To Hunt and More
· Thursday, July 15, 2010
WASHINGTON -- My friend Andrew Roberts has inherited the title of "historian of the English-speaking people" from Winston Churchill. Churchill wrote his four-volume history up to 1900. Roberts took up the story from there and has written his stupendous "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900." I commend it to you.
In the book, Roberts says that there is something about English-speaking people that encourages a certain number among them to speak ill of us. He does not think that their criticism is legitimate for the most part, and I do not, either. But it is a characteristic of certain of us. You never find that captious quality in Russia. Would Vladimir Putin say the kinds of things about Russia that, say, Barack Obama says about America? Would Hugo Chavez say such things about Venezuela, Fidel Castro about Cuba, Hu Jintao about China? Roberts' case is made, and the Democratic Party and Labour Party offer plenty of examples to fortify his point.
Yet lay that observation aside for another day. He makes another case in his book worth mentioning. English-speaking people love liberty. I thought of this the other day when I read a piece in The Washington Post about the revival of fox hunting in Britain and the desire to legalize it once again. Ian Farquhar, an English hunter, leads the piece by saying, "I felt -- we all felt -- they were spitefully taking away the very essence of our liberty" when the 2004 ban on fox hunting went into effect. Now the Conservative government is back, and the law is up for repeal. What will happen I do not know, for the Conservatives are in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and only a minority of them are with the Conservatives on this one. However, that is not the issue. Rather it is the question of "the very essence of our liberty." It is a part of British tradition. Some have it. Some do not.
We have the tradition here, and it is seen by many as "the very essence of our liberty." The right to keep and bear arms is actually written into our Constitution, in the Second Amendment. Guns are seen as essential to liberty by many of us. In many communities, we can actually carry guns. There are studies that show that gun ownership and law abidingness correlate. There is a robust debate in America over gun ownership, but robust as it is, it is unlikely that the gun controllers ever will outnumber the gun rights people. We are safe with our guns.
Yet let us look at another matter, the hunt itself. Over in Britain, it is all tallyho, handsome attire, follow the pack. An occasional fox gets mauled, but that is one fewer fox for a farmer to gas or shoot, to trap or snare. If the hunt is legalized rather than restricted -- as it is now -- there will be a few more foxes to be mauled. But attendant with the hunt are the festivities, and there are jobs for the keepers of kennels and stables and the land managers. There is equipment to be maintained. The Countryside Alliance claims 45,000 members in some 300 clubs. During the winter months, the countryside comes alive with activity. I say good show!
On this side of the Atlantic, we do, of course, have the tallyho set. There are the hounds and horses and stylish dress. Yet there is much more. North America is a continent and a pretty raw continent when the great outdoors is at issue. Some hunt for trophies, some for the feast after the hunt. I am numbered among the latter. I freely get up before the sun is in the sky and set up for turkey, deer or even bear. But I am not a particularly avid hunter. Once when with my partner I shot a bear -- or, likelier, he did -- I had to follow the critter for two hours or more before it dropped. Not much fun -- but when we got back to camp, we told some great stories, and there was a stupendous feast that night.
The important thing on this side of the Atlantic or the other is that English-speaking people find liberty in the air. We relish our freedoms, and one is to hunt. I hope the present ban on fox hunting is repealed over there. Possibly I even will join in the fray. Though if I do, I shall ride at the back of the hunt. I would not want to incite a dog to carnage.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Syndicated Radio Host Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "The Patriot is the most informative and witty publication on the Internet. I read every issue!" It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Caseace
Bravo. Although such activity is not everyones cup of tea, it is one of those things that does instill comradarie for those that participate. I did lament the loss of the hunt when it was outlawed, for it was just another example of open season for the slow erosion of that which binds us together. These are the things that makes us who we are as a free people.
Posted July 15, 2010 at 2:21:12 PM
Floyd
Great article. Seems to me that if you don't like fox hunting, don't go or if you don't like guns, don't buy one. But don't dictate to me how I should live my life because you think you know better. Keep up the fight for our freedom. Americans may have to sacrifice some of their soft life, etc. to save our great nation.
Posted July 15, 2010 at 3:01:17 PM
Sandy
Even more, here in America the game belongs to us all, which has lead to some problems with PETA-like groups claiming they don't want their share of the game top be hunted; historically, in Great Britain the game belonged to the landowner, which gave rise to the notion of "poaching," or trespassing to kill game that did not belong to you. ( There was even a breed of dog known as a lurcher which was trained not to recognize its' owner if confronted by the lord's gamekeeper! )
Part of our freedom as Americans reisides in the knowledge that we can take up our weapons, go into the woods, and lawfully seek food for our families, unlike royal subjects at the time of our inception as a nation. As Adam and Eve were given dominion over all the beasts and the fowls so were we given dominion over ourselves. What could be more fundamental?
Posted July 15, 2010 at 5:21:52 PM
Sandy
I will add that the trend toward leasing property is great-if you have to money to do so!-but it seems to be leading to what we deliberately shed at the beginning: control of land by the rich. I do not like hunting on public property because I do not know all the people with whom I am sharing the woods. I fear for my son's safety and am reluctant to take him afield when a stranger, whose levelheadedness might be questionable, might be in the vicinity. In this day of large numbers of hunters that is no small consideration, unlike days of yore, when relatively few people were using the same woods. In Atlanta, I can't drive far enough away to get to safe hunting with the limited time off I have as a blue-collar mom. The price of a safe lease with a comfortable number of hunters has gone out of sight for people of my means.
I dream of leasing ( or, better, OWNING! )1000 acres for divorced moms ( and single gals! ) who learn to love hunting with a husband or boyfriend only to be evicted from the club when the relationship goes sour. He usually has the 4X4, the rifles, and more importantly, the lease! Then where does she hunt? On public land, peeing in the vicinity of strange men, with no ally to watch her back? And it's hard to find gal hunting partners. Not as hard as it used to be, but still difficult. And, yes, I'm crying over my poor state while hoping for a rich one-aren't we all?
Sorry. Didn't mean to go on a "feminist" rant. :) But hunting is far from a sure thing with libs in power and we don't need any attacks on the sanctity of such a hallowed tradition. I hope hunting lives on forever! Kill a big one, y'all!
P.S. I eventually ought my own dadgum 4X4, rifles, etc.
Posted July 15, 2010 at 5:40:02 PM