DECONSTRUCTING THE ANTI-HUNTER’S ARGUMENTS. PART 1

The so called morally conscious anti-hunting fraternity is always active and campaigning for the total abolishment of hunting in all its forms especially hunting with dogs. Although their arguments are flawed, the constant noise from their public relations machine without any or very little response from our side, allows for them to win through saturation of the populous mind with their false and emotionally based propaganda. With just a small amount of thought it should be possible for any hunter to poke the ANTIS arguments full of holes, it is my intention with this article to arm and educate the average hunter with the appropriate facts and ideas to defeat any ANTI in a logical discussion. The following is a document circulated amongst British anti-hunting groups that proposes to show the “EVILS” of hunting and why it is morally wrong and should be stopped. Within the body of the document, I will give a point by point rebuttal of all the arguments contained therein as to why hunting with dogs at least in Trinidad and Tobago is as valid and acceptable a past time as any other. My counter points are the bold italics within brackets eg {italics}.

***

HUNTING - Issues and Arguments

If you're going to take any part in the campaign against bloodsports it's useful to know the relative arguments as thoroughly as possible. Arguing with hunters is rarely productive, but as a sab you will want to explain to other people exactly why hunting should be stopped.

Foxhunting is primarily dealt with here, but I have mentioned other bloodsports briefly, as it is dangerous to assume the same arguments apply. A good booklet to read is "Wildlife Protection - The Case for the Abolition of Hunting and Snaring", available by mail order from the League Against Cruel Sports.

Killing animals is wrong

Why? To you and me this may seem obvious, but it isn't to others. In short (a) the animal is deprived of all the pleasures it would have enjoyed in the future: food, play, sunshine, sex etc, and (b) the animal undergoes mental and physical suffering when hunted. Hunters will sometimes try and deny this, but Zoologists agree that other animals feel pain. Don't forget about mental suffering either.

For a general argument against 'speciesm' see Chapter 1 of 'Animal Liberation' by Peter Singer (now in an updated 2nd edition).

The hunted animal can be chased for long distances by hunts, maybe for ten or more miles. Foxes are not suited for long distance running, and are built for speed not stamina. The opposite is true for hounds who are deliberately bred this way, so that the hunt can have a long chase. Hunters will claim that the fox dies from a 'quick nip in the back of the neck', but those who have seen kills (and sometimes recorded them on video), can tell you that the truth is somewhat different.

Some foxes 'go to ground'. In this situation, terriers are put into the hole, either to flush the fox out, to provide a longer chase, or to fight it until the terriermen dig down to it. A terrier is a formidable opponent for a fox. In one case in 1989, a cornered fox was so desperate to dig its way out of a hole in which it was being attacked by a terrier that it died with its lungs filled with earth. An underground fight like this can easily last for half an hour, and may even go on for two to three hours on occasions. All the time, the fox is fighting for its life. When the terriermen reach it, if it is one of the lucky ones it will be killed quickly by a bullet or by a spade.

{REBUTAL:-The precept that the killing of animals is wrong is inherently ridiculous no matter what angle it is viewed from. First let us look at it from a religious perspective, seeing that we do not live in a society that controls and dictates ones religious beliefs, this cannot be used as an argument because I am not obligated to believe in or follow the teachings of any particular religion . My spiritual beliefs cannot be dictated by another, I could easily say for arguments sake that I worship Aphrodite, Greek goddess of the hunt and no one could deny me that right. So that disqualifies the religious angle. Second they speak of depriving the animal of all the pleasures of its life, are we supposed to worry ourselves over the pleasures we have deprived the rats we poison or trap, the cockroaches we spray or the infections we take antibiotics to cure? They were all just as alive as our quarry and enjoyed pleasures in their turn, yet few if any whine or pine over there demise. Next they claim the animal undergoes mental and physical suffering, once again so do poisoned and trapped rats and other vermin. The bacteria must undergo its own version of suffering from a course of antibiotics as must also the intestinal parasitic worm from anthelmintic drugs, who cries for them? In the real world life dies all the time so that other living things may survive and prosper that is THE WAY OF THINGS. All of our daily nourishment comes at the death of plants and animals there is no evading this fact, we may try to delude ourselves but that is all it is delusion. Why stop at saying it is wrong to kill animals, plants are also alive and must experience the world in their own fashion, taken to its obvious conclusion this line of thought would also find it wrong to take the life of a plant. So according to the Antis first argument if killing animals for any reason is wrong, then the whole of the human race are guilty  of this unavoidable deed and not just us hunters but even the vegans are callous murderers}

Is hunting pest control?

     This is the major myth that hunters use to excuse their activities.

     The fox is not nearly the incredible menace to rural society it is sometimes made out to be. The MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food) regard the threat from a fox as 'negligible'. Scientific studies have shown that a fox may take dead or dying sheep, but a healthy sheep is easily a match for a fox. Sometimes foxes may get into sheds and take chickens, but if the shed was made reasonably secure this would not happen - and most chickens are kept in factory farms anyway. In the end, you are left with the farcical image of a fox with a crowbar.

     Scientists such as Steven Harris and David Macdonald have disproved this. In studies carried out in Scotland, an absence of fox 'control' had no effect on the population, or on lamb mortality. From information gained during rabies control in Europe, it is known that to have anything other than a very short term effect on population, 70% of foxes need to killed. The reason for this is that fox populations are very stable, and adapt to the available food supply. As the death rate varies, more or less vixens will breed, maintaining the population at the level appropriate to the food supply.

     Hunts tend to kill 2.5% of the local fox population a year. These are BFSS (British Field Sports Society) figures, so if anything are exaggerated. Plainly, hunts do not control foxes, even if there was the necessity.

     Furthermore, this tiny drop is generally more than compensated for by the efforts hunts make to increase numbers: creating artificial earths, discouraging shooting and snaring, and importing foxes (e.g. Isle of Wight and Australia). Sheep carcasses have been known to have been left outside earths.

     As far as hare hunting is concerned, hares are on the decline due to changes in modern farming methods. In East Anglia, the population level is possibly stable, but is nowhere near what it was. Hares are not pests anyway - and hare hunters will rarely, if ever, attempt to use this as argument.

     Mink are not native to this country, but again, there is no evidence to suggest it is a pest. Remember that the people who go mink hunting are those who hunted the otter to the brink of extinction, and when otter hunting was banned turned to mink to satisfy their bloodlust. Mink hunts are also often condemned for vandalism to the river bank and the otter's habitat.

     The situation with deer is more controversial, in the absence of any conclusive scientific studies. One thing is certain however, a well trained marksman can kill a deer instantly, whereas a deer hunted with hounds undergoes extreme suffering - a hound pack is unlikely to kill a deer unaided, usually there is a wait for the kill, while someone finds a gun. In Scotland, shooting is the only legal way to kill a deer, although untrained 'sportsman' pay some Highland estates for the pleasure of shooting deer in the annual cull. Another point of view, is that as man caused the mess that results in the so called 'overpopulation' of deer (and this is only 'overpopulation' by man's definition), man cannot be trusted to solve it, and so the killing of any deer should be banned. The species on the planet with the biggest overpopulation problem is not being culled after all.

 

{REBUTAL:- Now they attack pest control as an invalid excuse to hunt. In Trinidad and Tobago all of our quarry animals are eaten, we do not hunt to keep vermin levels low but let us nevertheless look at their arguments. They quote the MAFF without siting the actual study by name, author and date of publication, so these could be completely spurious “facts”, then talk of fox predation on adult sheep, this again is misleading to the uneducated public for as any British  shepherd can tell you, foxes prey on lambs not adult sheep. Then they go on to state that the odd chicken may be taken but this is the farmers fault because he should have made his shed more secure and anyway most chickens are on large secure factory farms anyway. Does this mean that the small traditional farmer has no right to keep poultry as this will endanger the wellbeing and safety of the fox if it becomes a poultry killer? Do they consider the rights of animals equal to or greater than that of humans? These are the same large factory farms that the animal rights groups themselves protest as being cruel, these same groups champion the free range raising of poultry that would allow the foxes easier access to them. A fox with a crowbar unlikely but a fox ripping through a chicken wire fence most definitely. If you give them enough time and pay attention to what they say you will notice that they generally talk themselves in circles. Then it goes on to site two “scientists” who have proved that fox control practices had no effect on the fox population or the rate of lamb mortality, this statement and whatever study spawned it is patently absurd, for it takes no scientific study to tell you that if you kill foxes the fox population in that area will be affected and seeing that foxes are an apex predator in Scotland the overall numbers would be lower than say rabbits so the population could be controlled by the culling of fewer individuals than would be needed for a basal animal like rabbits. As to having no effect on lamb mortality, the same holds true, if you lower the numbers of an apex predator that preys on lambs how could the lamb mortality numbers not be affected in a positive manner. Next they state that a 70% reduction in the population is needed to have anything but a short term effect. Hunting was just one of many ways the fox population is controlled in the UK if they had reduced the population by 70% the ANTIs would have started screaming impending extinction and greedy hunters. Hunting does control foxes but it is not the sole means to that end. Even their point that hunting is ineffectual as a means of pest control is shown to be incorrect by their own “facts” at one point they state that hunts only kill 2.5% of the fox population and even these figures are exaggerated and that such a low kill rate has no effect yet they also state that in certain instances the hunts assist the local fox population by building dens and feeding, this would only take place if the population was low in a given area, they continually contradict themselves. Hares were hunted and eaten and it is not hunting that has lowered their numbers but as stated changes in farming practices but once again the ANTIs issue is that the hare has rights of its own as do men and its rights are on par with those of men. In other words they have just as much right to exist in peace as we do and when we chase,  hunt and kill them we commit murder, this is their ridiculous stance. ANTI-hunters do not see animals as a resource to be used and managed but our brothers in some cockeyed new age point of view. They go on to speak of otter, mink and deer in the document but their arguments are the same just for different animals. The otter and mink were pests of the trout streams

until hunting brought them under control. As for deer their argument is again the same, the undue infliction of stress from the chase and capture by the hounds. Big bloody deal nature is not stress free as the old saying goes “nature red in tooth and claw”. So what if a deer or some other animal is stressed during a hunt, it does not matter one jot. A deer is no different from mapepire snake or rat an animal is an animal, our allocation of preference of one over another is all personal and artificial. Animals are just that a resource or a pest to be controlled and managed and hunting is a useful way of doing this.}

The inefficiency of Hunting

Hunting with hounds is deliberately inefficient as a method of killing, because it is about a perverted definition of 'good sport', not pest control. Hunts would use cubhunting tactics all season if they wanted to maximise kills; they don't.

Hunts often bolt foxes that have gone to earth - digging would be much more likely to end in a kill. Hounds are bred to be slow - and so may often lose their quarry. If hunts were serious about maximising kills they would use dogs fast enough to bring the hunted animal down quickly.

{REBUTAL:- Let me start here by saying that I make no apologies for being a hunter and one that uses dogs to chase and kill quarry at that. I do not hunt just to get wild meat to eat, neither do I hunt to exterminate vermin. I am a SPORTSMAN that’s right I enjoy the chase and I make no apologies for it. Dog hunters enjoy the chase, that’s right and it is being “a good sport” to chase animals with dogs. While the sportsman dog hunter acquires his bag a real commercial hunter/poacher would use more efficient means to capture and kill his bag where by the animal has less of a chance of escaping than if it was chased by dogs, like sentrying, pipe-guns and baited cage traps. The poacher cares not for a fare chase where by the game may escape to run another day but seeks the surest way to kill as much as possible. There is no sport in setting a trap on a game trail or waiting at a feeding tree with a gun for the animal to come looking for food, these are techniques geared to minimize the animals chances of escape and survival but although the dog hunter also seeks a bag at the end of his hunt he also allows the game a

greater chance of survival by using dogs that warns the animal of their approach. The process of hunting with dogs culls the old, sick and stupid from the population and actually allows for the survival of the fittest. Hunting that is sport hunting is not supposed to be highly efficient in eradicating large numbers of game animals which would actually threaten our sport. A true sport hunter while he wants his bag also wants there to be always forest and game animals for him to have his sport for if he destroys the forest and kills out all of the game then his sport and chosen past time will become lost. The ANTIs cannot have it both ways either we are killing out all of the game and driving animals to extinction or are just cruel bloodthirsty maniacs only interested in torturing Bambi.}

"Hunting is less cruel than other methods of fox control"

Another old chestnut from the bloodsport fraternity. Hunted foxes suffer a lot, and most significantly, hunting is not control anyway.

{REBUTAL:-Once again do not apologise for your sport, stand strong and know your facts. This statement is apologetic. Animals are not humans, we cannot treat them as such. In the process of our using them as a resource or controlling their numbers as a pest there must be expected to be stress and at times pain inflicted on them in one form or another, this is life. Human beings consume living things to live, plant and animal, this is a fact. Long ago in the mists of prehistory humans as a race made an unconscious pact with one another not to eat each other, this is evident by the fact that humans are social in nature and not solitary like bears and tigers whose males eat the young of their own kind. Obviously there are exceptions but this is the general rule of humanity. Once this was set all other animals became fare game as food for our biology is that of an omnivore, we need meat in our diet. Even mans’ best friend the dog has in various places and times been considered food. People are people, animals are animals do not confuse the two. This blurring of the lines is a ploy of the ANTIs that I call the BAMBI SYNDROME. This is the name that I give to the “NATURE FAKERS” movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth century that gave humane characteristics and personalities to animals. This nature faker movement has been of great influence in the anti-hunting, animal rights and animal liberation movements of the present, I will elaborate on the Nature Faker movement in a latter article.}

Fox conservation

The opposite of the control argument; some hunters maintain that the fox would be extremely rare or extinct without hunting. While hunts may encourage foxes, the fox population would survive perfectly well without them - the fox is very adaptable. Humans are unlikely to have a terminal effect on the species, but they do inflict great suffering on individual animals: that is where we come in.

{REBUTAL:- The ANTIs contend here that hunters are hiding under the banner of wildlife conservation when in reality they are not conservationists and care naught for wildlife. Once again the ANTIs statements could not be further from the truth, upon only cursory investigation we see that in Great Briton huge private estates are put aside solely as game/hunting parks were all the wild life benefit and not just the game species. In the USA the largest amount of land owned privately and kept solely for the conservation of wild life is not owned by any anti-hunting or animal rights group it is owned by Ducks Unlimited a hunters group financed and funded by duck hunters. In Africa this is also true some of the greatest variety and highest densities of game animal are to be found on private game farms from Kenya to Namibia. All over the world hunter based and owned reserves are the leaders in private wild life conservation not the animal rights people, it only takes a cursory search on the internet for one to find these facts for oneself.}

"We don't kill many"
"The kill is not the important part of the hunt"
"Hunting is the only way to get an exciting ride"

These whines are heard from the kind of rider who isn't really into the killing side, and may even feel vaguely guilty about it.

• 11 000 - 12 000 foxes are killed each season. That's up to 12 000 premature deaths.
• These riders still contribute, through subscriptions that keep the hunt going, to the deaths. ky

{REBUTAL:- DO NOT APOLOGISE FOR YOUR SPORT. When you apologise for your actions as a hunter the ANTIs already have you at a disadvantage. You are beginning from a defensive position when you make excuses like these. Instead of saying “We don’t kill many.” Say this, “Of course we kill animals, when we hunt. That’s the point, it’s called hunting isn’t it?” or “You’re damn right the kill is important, without the kill there would be no meat to eat in camp.” Here they complain of the 11,000-12,000 foxes killed each season calling their deaths premature, what of the lambs and poultry that they would kill, were their deaths not premature. Don’t domestic animals count?}

"The fox has a sporting chance"

The fox has no chance to decide not to participate in this 'sport'.

{REBUTAL:- Oh give me a break, did the chicken in your box of dead choose to be there? Once again we see the idea that animals are like people and that they should have a choice in how we treat them. This idea is total nonsense not worth wasting your breath on. The only choice a game animal has as far as I am concerned, is to outrun my dogs or get in my belly. People, people, people, let’s be real, they are animals, that’s all just animals. Now I am not advocating the torturing of animals for peoples amusement but these ANTIs take being kind to animals to an absurd extreme. Most not all mind you but a great many of these anti-hunting, animal rights, super greenie, tree-hugging hippie liberal activists who would have us dusting ants from our path with a feather duster and eating soy mush are also die-hard women’s rights activists that want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, defending a woman’s right to do as she will with her body. In such a case do they whine that the human foetus does not get a chance to choose its life or death? My guess would be they lose no sleep over the thousands upon thousands of future humans killed every year through abortion clinics and backroom docs across the world.

 

"Hunting is an integral part of country life"
"Hunting is traditional"

Foxhunting has been going on since the 18th century, when there were no more wild boar to hunt, and a lot less deer. Hare hunting has been going for longer. None of this however has any bearing on the rights and wrongs of hunting. Wars have been taking place for long enough - would the hunters say that wars are good things to have once in a while?

Foxhunting can be very disruptive to rural life, as hunts rampage through villages, gardens and farmyards. Hounds may 'riot' going after any animal that has the misfortune to get in their way for example hares, deer, pets and sheep.

{REBUTAL:- Hunting is indeed an integral part of rural life in Trinidad and Tobago, it has been so, going all the way back to the original native inhabitants of this land of ours the Amerindian peoples. Hunting game with dogs has also come to us through our European, African, Indian and Chinese heritage. Hunting is an ancient and universal activity of mankind from the most remote dawn of our history. Once again the ANTIs try to equate humans with animals and say that the length of time that hunting has existed does not make it right, like war which is also old it is wrong but unlike war hunting entails the killing of animals not people. There is no comparison, people are people and animals are NOT!!! In all my years upon this earth as a hunter I have never seen a pack of hounds cause any appreciable damage to private property but if this was the case the owners should be held accountable for the actions of their dogs. As hunters remember to be courteous and polite when crossing private land, cause no damage and repay the owner if your dogs cause any damage to his property or livestock.}

"Antis are townies who misunderstand the ways of the country"

Anti-hunts campaigners have to know a lot about hunting to campaign against it effectively. Hunt saboteurs need to know how a hunt works to sab effectively. And many live in the country.

The last time I heard this, it turned out that the only experience and knowledge of hunting of the person concerned was standing in the village on Boxing Day watching the hunters gather for their mince pies etc. I knew far more than he did, and so do you, having read thus far.

{REBUTAL:- Let me as a hunter take this opportunity to tell the ANTIs they don’t have a clue about hunting. It should be evident to you by now that the ANTIs don’t understand anything about the honourable and ancient sport of hunting with dogs. They live in an imaginary world filled with animals that are little furry people. They suffer from a serious disconnect with reality and have an extreme intolerance for any who disagree with their point of view, carried to the point of violence, this can be seen in the fact that the ANTIs regularly sabotage hunts and cause severe damage to hunters and their property, including at times hunting dogs. Little regard is held for the human hunters that are attacked in the name of saving animals, once again the ANTIs show that they hold the life of an animal to be equal to or greater than that of a human.}

Treatment of hounds

Hunters are fond of accusing sabs of mistreating hounds. In fact hounds suffer greatly at the hands of hunters. They are harshly disciplined; they will be whipped if they are really disobedient.

Very few foxhounds die of old age. A very small number may become minkhounds or draghounds in old age, and a very few probably become family pets; however, most are killed as soon as they become a little too slow for the pack, generally at 5-7 years of age.

Any really disobedient hound will be killed at any stage of its 'career'. Some hunting authorities, notably the Duke of Beaufort (see 'Foxhunting', by the said Duke), recommend breeding a large number of puppies and then killing all but those who prove to be the best hunting material.

Hunting very often involves taking hounds into danger. During the chase they are likely to be many such incidents are reported every year, and have been recorded on film.

Hunters say that if hunting were abolished, the hounds would have to be put down. There would be no actual need for this; the ex-hunters would be wealthy enough to maintain the hounds for the rest of their natural lifetimes. If they killed them, it would be out of callous indifference, and not no choice. Hopefully anti-hunting legislation will include a requirement for hunts to make arrangements for their hounds before disbanding.

A similar argument is put forward in relation to horses - but people will still continue riding, whether they can go hunting or not.

{REBUTAL:- Ridiculous, hounds are no more harshly treated by hunters than any other breed by their respective owners. If a dog is brutalised it will disobey its handler every chance it gets and will run wild once released in the bush to hunt. Hounds are disciplined, no doubt about that but generally brutalised by hunters, no way. Yes some hounds are put down so what? Once again the ANTIs show the highly exaggerated value they place on the life of an animal. Granted some particular hound might gain a special place in the affections of its master but in general hounds are not pets but working animals. When they reach the end of their working careers it is kinder to put them down than to leave them to pine in a kennel or yard and suffer for the rest of their days. As a farmer I have made the distinction many times between for example a “pet” and an “animal destined for the pot”. We are all human and we have our favourites that we become fond of and spare them the axe even when they pass their useful prime but it should always be remembered that they are still only animals, just animals, not humans. Hunting dogs do face danger on the hunt this is true but danger awaits us all human and animal alike in the most unsuspecting of places. None, human nor animal alike may escape their doom. In my short life I have seen some doozies of freak accidents. A hunter cannot be blamed for any accidents that befall his dogs while they are hunting. If hunting were abolished hounds and hunting curs of working lines that had already been trained to hunt indeed should be put down as they would pine been not able to run free and enjoy the chase. These dogs would not make

good house pets as they would continually try to escape from a yard to go hunting and could not be trusted alone around non-canine animals. The most humane thing to do in such a circumstance would be to put such a dog down. A horse broken to the saddle does not have to be used to ride to the hunt even if it once was a hunter but a dog once trained to hunt is always and only a hunter if it comes from good hunting stock. Deprived of the chase such a dog will develop behavioral problems, destructive tendencies and generally pine for the chase. The kindest thing to do is to put such a dog down and out of its misery.}