From: "matthew.wright7", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re. Richard and Neils comments:
>Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always following on foot or in >their
cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never riding to >the hounds? I put
it to you the scruffy ordinary Joes would >soon go find something else to
follow, hence fulfilling their >'follower' needs. So banning hunting would
only effect the >'toffs' that the original poster remarked on.
This hardly constitutes an objective argument. Most hunting is on foot and
most people who hunt are ordinary, but frankly it doesn't matter whether
people are ordinary or toffs. Nor does it matter if they are "followers", as
everybody follows one interest or other. There are toffs in fishing and
shooting as well, yes they can be annoying, but any law that banned
something because of labelling one section of the community would be unjust
and an abuse of power suggesting a potential threat to everyone from the
Govt.
>If hunting is not cruel, why then am I prosecuted if I set a pack >of large
dogs onto a smaller, solitary dog?
The question of cruelty does not follow from this argument. The organised
hunting of any domestic dog by any method including guns would lead to
prosecution. Wild animals can be hunted by a variety of methods so long as
they comply with commonly realted ethics. The fox, as the Burns Inquiry
says, is killed in seconds by hunting. We can aslo hunt animals with hawks
and there is little difference.
>All that the Hunting Bill really can be said to be doing is simply
>extending to wild mammals the protection that domestic >mammals have
enjoyed since before the Kaiser's War.
There is a clear distinction between domestic animals and wild animals in a
whole range of matters.
>I also believe that yes, hawking is also cruel.
Interesting, so falconry would be banned if you had your way. Our ranks
reduced further in stages. Exactly the game the antis are playing because
they know some people don't complain until its their turn.
>I shall also not be going to the march in March. Why? >Because I am not one
of those who wish to see my sport - live >quarry shooting - hijacked as
"marching fodder" by the >houndsports lobby......
Many shooters I speak to recognise clearly the risks to shooting and the
trends against all fieldsports and are asking to be on the march. They are
not being hijacked by anyone.
>....whilst almost every day I am subject to hearing or reading >letters
from the red coated fraternity in my local press >justifying their method of
"fox control" because "shooting is >cruel"!
Suprisingly I agree - anyone that tries to justify their pursuit
by demeaning another are not fit to be in our ranks. We heard target
shooters doing the same to other target shooters. People should develop
informed arguments from knowledge of sports. The point is that any method
is likely to be cruel if it is poorly used, including shooting. Illogical
bans that prevent a mixed set of management methods make the likelihood of
cruelty greater.
>You cannot equate a natural kill by an animal with what is >basically a
human sport with rules, conventions and a yearly >fixture....killing
animals in a sporting or gaming environment >for fun is something that high
order civilized societies should >not partake in.
Humans create symbols and routines for everything they do and also the
skills they enjoy they take pride in doing properly. This is true also of
shooting, fishing, falconry etc as well as hunting. There is a balance
between man still being part of nature, thus undertsanding and conserving
it, and him having a level of civility. To be divorced from nature is not
possible nor would it help nature. The use of close seasons and other
conventions in hunting, shooting and fishing reflect this balance. It is a
civilising force and something to be proud of and this is a component of
enjoying a fieldsport.
>Is it not evidence itself that there is no "hidden agenda" >against
shooting that the Government itself has modified the >Hunting Bill
specifically to remove any risk of deer stalking >with dogs being "caught"
in the Hunting Bill?
Not really no.
.>the "rules" of fox hunting by mounted packs are >concerned >with
prolonging the hunt and thus seeing hounds >"work" and >not with controlling
foxes.
You stereotype hunting and misinform, possibly that is why you hedge your
comment with "mounted packs". Arguably most hunting occurs on foot,
especially in Wales, it is often hard work, most often the fox takes some
finding and then most often there is a realtively short chase and the fox
gets away or is killed. If it goes to earth it is bolted and shot. It goes
without saying that I haven't been fortunate enough to follow every pack but
those I have followed do not subscribe to your description. Other than that
you criticise people enjoying hounds but people also enjoy fishing and
shooting. Why shouldn't they?
>When it becomes not a "necessity" to either kill vermin or an >edible
quarry species but a "pleasure" falsely justified by >calling it a
"necessity"
It is necessary to control foxes and there is no false justification as
different methods suit different sitautions. That only leaves the question -
what is wrong with people enjoying being a hunter? - there is no difference
in your terms from shooting and fishing. An AR correspondent recently
replied to a media letter of mine saying, "you don't need to enjoy shooting
animals you can go to the supermarket like everybody else". Another letter
(Animal Aid) this week proclaims the end of the pheasant shooting season and
the "artificial rearing" of birds "to kill for fun" etc while asking for
this "bloodsport" to be banned! The sign is that AR groups are positioning
themselves to be the first to tackle other sports once hunting is banned, so
they can attract other group members.
>The "sport" of fox hunting as we know it today is not much >more than two
hundred years old
While some aspects of hunting as practised today are from more recent
history, the fundamentals can be traced back to at least Mesolithic times.
