Liz | 13.03.2006 12:42
Those against hunting come up with a load of rubbish in favour of their argument. Below are some of the claims they make... and the truth.
They say: Hunting is cruel
“Hunting by hounds is the most natural and humane way of controlling the population of all four quarry species - fox, deer, hare and mink - in the countryside.” Statement supported by over 500 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
“Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel…The short answer to that question is no.”
Lord Burns, chair. Inquiry into Hunting with dogs.
This confirmed the findings of an earlier Government inquiry. Both inquiries found that death was almost instantaneous. The inquiry also found that shotgun use in the day & snaring - the main alternatives to hunting - are worse for animal welfare.
They say: Animals are chased to exhaustion
Foxes and other quarry species are not hunted to the point of physical exhaustion and collapse, rather to the point where, when still running hard, they are caught up by the leading hounds. Equally deer will turn and face the hounds at bay when they are then shot by the huntsman. The huntsman cannot afford to deliberately prolong the chase because if he does so the hounds will be unable to continue the chase because of lack of scent.
They say: It is done by 'toffs' on horses who enjoy cruelty.
This pathetic attitude is wholly untrue. 195,000 ordinary women and men from all walks of life, support hunting, most of them on foot. Logically it cannot be right for MPs to ban hunting with hounds, and not hunting with a gun or a fishing rod, purely because they don’t like the people they believe support hunting with dogs. The proposal to ban hunting is an attack on the people that hunt, rather than an improvement in animal welfare.
Click here for the comments page...
They say: Our campaign against hunting is based on animal welfare consideration.
As one of the main anti-hunting groups in the UK, the League Against Cruel Sports is presumed to put animal welfare at the centre of it's argument against the activity. This is rubbish, five people have left - two of which are chief executives - in protest at it's disgraceful behaviour.
click here to read the full article...
They say: The majority of the public want a ban.
Only 36% of the public supports a ban on hunting. The majority of the public now consistently opposes
They say: A ban will save animals lives.
Lord Burns, chairman of the latest Government inquiry into hunting reported that, “If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means.” The welfare case for hunting is irrefutable.
They say: MP's must decide.
The vast majority of opposition comes from urban Labour MPs with no hunting in their constituencies and is often based on old political scores and not on reality. Decisions on hunting should be made by those involved in wildlife management and farming. The people who matter in wildlife management and animal welfare are the people who care for animals rather than those who care about them. The "carers for" invariably also "care about".
Barry Sheerman, one of the three Labour MPs to vote against the ban in September 2004, admited to The Telegraph, [that] the new law is, in large part, class-driven revenge for the Tories' smashing of the miners' strike, and the privatisation of the nationalised industries.
Is this a reason to ban something?