In the last issue I was giving my viewpoint on
the fallacies of the anti-hunting fraternity’s arguments as they are outlined
in a document circulated amongst them and over the internet. In this issue I
will complete the deconstructing of their arguments.
One must keep in mind that the letter
being deconstructed was written concerning British foxhunting in particular and
therefore British law.
My counter points are the bold
italics within brackets eg {italics}.
***
HUNTING - Issues and Arguments
Violence to animals and violence to people
It is no coincidence that those who arrange the
nasty and premature deaths of foxes inflict harm on sabs.
{REBUTAL:- Oh cry me a river, those poor sabs just
trying to stop us demented hunters from torturing all those “wee wittle wabbits”
with their love and rainbows, while we are inflicting god knows what
abominations upon them. To begin with they refer to themselves as sabs and this
is short for saboteurs and should give you a hint that they are not as innocent
and nonviolent as they would have you believe. Depending on the particular
group of sabs involved, action taken against hunters and actual hunts in
progress can range from noisy demonstrations meant to disorient the hounds, to
the destruction of hunters’ property, the shooting of hunting dogs and actual assaults
against hunters. When law abiding hunters have to regularly put up with the
violent actions of these lawbreakers is it any wonder that some of us snap from time to time and I am in no way
condoning such aggressive actions on our part, only pointing out that the sabs
are not the innocent lambs they would have you believe they are.}
Hunting and the law
Hunting
has tradition and the support of very powerful people on its side. The
influence of these people meant that hunting has been left untouched by
legislation - the Protection of Animals Act only covers captive and domestic
animals.
It is
likely that the police would regard hunting as unlawful if it were a new
activity. Surely, letting an excited pack of carnivorous animals career about
the countryside, across roads and through villages, only partially under
anyone's control, amounts to a breach of the peace?
{REBUTAL:- Oh my! They make a pack of hounds in the
pursuit of its quarry seem to be a veritable pack of hell hounds out for blood.
Hounds are not wild slathering bloodthirsty beasts as they would have the
public believe and a danger to allow running loose. Any person familiar with
hounds knows different, they are one of the most people friendly types of dog
there are. The so called tolerant liberal left has a long history of only being tolerant and
accepting of a particular outlook or activity if it aligns with their
views. In truth they cannot stand anyone
different to them, I don’t try to stop others from pursuing the pastimes that
they enjoy why should they seek to interfere with my hobbies? In my younger
days I very much enjoyed Carnival, now that I no longer play mas’ I don’t whine
about the noise of the steelbands or try to get them banned. These sabs are
like children that throw tantrums, it has to be their way or no way at all.
As for hunting being protected by the law, of course it is, the laws that
govern hunting were made in a time before the present when the minds of the
urban adults were not poisoned in their youth with ideas that animals are just
like us and should enjoy the same rights and privileges as humans
do under the law.
"Hunting provides employment"
Hunting in Britain provides full-time employment
for no more than 750 people, probably less (source -LACS - I think this figure
refers to all hound sports). Spread over the whole country, this would hardly
be a huge blow to the rural employment situation were hunting to be abolished,
especially as (a) at least some hunts would become draghunts, and (b) all those
riders who didn't want to draghunt would suddenly have a lot of disposable
income with which to create new jobs elsewhere in the leisure sector of the
economy.
Often the BFSS quote much larger figures than 750,
but they include jobs which will still exist when hunting is abolished (people
will still be riding horses, and require the associated services and
equipment).In any case, employment is never enough to justify immoral
practices.
{REBUTAL:- Like anything else that a lot of
money is spent on, and the sport of hunting with dogs consumes lots of money,
hunting provides jobs but we as hunters should never use this as a reason for
the continuation of hunting. Hunting in T&T should never be considered from
a commercial basis it is a sport pursued by the private individual whereby he
or she may provide a delicacy for their family or friends. In the letter the
Anti’s state “employment is never enough to justify immoral practices.” I
contend that hunting is no more an immoral practice than fishing, trapping rats
or taking antibiotics for an infection. Animals are animals not people and when
we start to blur the lines then we begin a journey that will take us down roads
to all sorts of absurdities.}
"Hunting
is natural"
Would-be
BFSS intellectual, Ian Coghill, claims that we are biologically equipped to be
hunters, with all the necessary teeth, enzymes, and instincts - BUT not
everything we are mentally and physically equipped to do is a morally
acceptable pastime.
Hunters also speak of the
inevitability of death and suffering in the biological world. This is never
thought to be an excuse for murder and rape (humans are a part of the
biological world too), so why should it apply to hunting? Neither can hunting
be seen as a natural activity for hounds. Hounds are painstakingly bred and
trained to hunt.
Furthermore, no pack animal will
chase an animal the size of a fox for the length of time a hound pack chases a
fox. It simply would not provide anywhere near enough food for the pack.
{REBUTAL:-
Once again the Anti’s old standby argument that hunting
is immoral. First of all just let me state here that moral codes are not laws
of nature but arbitrary paradigms imposed by a community on its members for
whatever reason. What is morally acceptable by one culture and religion may not
be accepted by another. In this modern western society were freedom of religion
and thought is cherished, I can see no reason why one group should be allowed
to impose its views on another. Here again the Anti’s equate humans with
animals by comparing hunting with rape and murder, are we really supposed to
take these people seriously when they make statements such as this?
Now
the excuse that somehow the hunter makes the hound chase its quarry and that
hounds chasing a fox is an unnatural act that they only partake in because
their owners make them do it. Well hunting is the natural activity of the
ancestor of the dog, that being the wolf. Hounds are not made to hunt as the
uninformed are made to believe, any real hunter can tell you that if a dog does
not want to hunt there is nothing that you can do to change its mind, simple as
that. As for being artificially bred and trained to hunt, they are only bred to
maintain their natural hunting drive inherited from the wolf and as for
training that only directs their natural instincts
and abilities not create them out of thin air . The hound or hunting cur hunts because it wants to hunt not because the hunter makes it hunt.
Hounds
hunt the fox because of natural prey drive and training, their survival does
not depend on the amount of meat a fox provides. The same dogs that run the fox
could be trained to run deer. The pack is provided its sustenance by its owner;
they are not a wild pack of wolves so the size of the quarry does not matter to
them only their desire to hunt. This desire is used as a tool by the hunter,
just as the truncated hunting drive of the stock dog is used by the stockman to
his benefit, should we abandon the use of stock dogs to help with the handling
of the vast herds of livestock because it is an unnatural act for them to herd
stock without killing them as a wild wolf pack would? If these Anti’s are such
sticklers for everything being natural and living and conducting their lives
exactly as nature intends then they should strip off their clothes and go live
in the forest like an ape, they could then be one with the animals that they
see as their equals.}
The environment
Landowners
derive no income from hunting with hounds which could be channelled into
conservation, and so would be no less financially capable of doing it in the
absence of hunting.
Sometimes
they will say that landowners retain woodland for hunting. A survey by Cobham
Resources Consultants, commissioned and published in 1983 by a pro-bloodsports
group stated that creating fox coverts was the "least significant
motive" for landowners retaining or planting woodland.
Also,
the 'guardians of our countryside' have made a poor job of it. Look at the bare
expanses of fields with their lack of hedgerows, around East Anglia, as one
example. Another example is that about half of the ancient natural/semi-natural
woodland Britain has disappeared since the 1940s.
It is
often argued in the case of the grouse moors, that the fees paid by shooters
maintain the grouse moorland. However it is worth pointing out that (a) tourism
has a far greater economic significance in these areas, and (b) the grouse
moors are not a true natural environment, and would largely disappear if nature
was simply left alone for a change.
The
influence of the hunters has failed to stop development in the countryside -
e.g. roads, urban sprawl. Hunts are relatively weedy to take on powerful
economic forces such as these. The obvious solution is genuine conservation
measures, now.
Hunting
with hounds has few significant detrimental environmental effects; however it
is worth mentioning the disturbance of badger setts through earth stopping and
digging out, and the obvious impact of a convoy of hunt vehicles polluting its
way through the countryside. Most coverts are drawn to infrequently to have a
significant effect on the wildlife there; however wildlife trusts may make sure
of this by banning hunting on their land.
{REBUTAL:- The examples given here by
the Antis are for Britain as is the case for this entire document. What they
state may or may not be true but in the USA hunters are a major source of money
and impetus for wildlife and forest conservation. The largest private
organisation that directly owns or leases land that intern protects a whole
myriad of species besides the general game animals is Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited habitat projects are in all 50 states,
every Canadian province and in key areas of Mexico and Latin America. In total,
Ducks Unlimited has developed more than 20,000 conservation projects across
North America. Ducks
Unlimited takes a continental, approach to conservation. Since 1937, Ducks
Unlimited has conserved more than 12 million acres
of habitat across North America. Although Ducks Unlimited is mainly concerned
with water fowl conservation, a host of other species both game and nongame
animals benefit from the group’s goal of preserving and maintain the levels of
water fowl for hunters to harvest. Examples of groups similar to Ducks Unlimited operating in other
countries are extant and may be found with little to no effort by anyone
sincerely interested in wildlife and forest conservation and not just pushing
their ant-hunting agenda. It cannot be denied that on a global scale sport
hunters are a genuine and important factor in nature conservation.}
Hunters' hypocrisy
You will have noticed that a common thread of
hypocrisy runs through many of the pronouncements of the hunting community.
They mistreat their hounds, while posing as animal lovers and accusing sabs of
hurting their animals. They are violent, but claim to be the victims of
intimidation and assault; and so on ad nauseam.
{REBUTAL:-
Do you like how they make the carte blanche statement that hunters mistreat
their hounds? While I am sure that there are hunters who do mistreat their
hounds, I am equally sure that it is of no higher an incidence amongst hunters
than it is amongst non-hunting dog owners. They also claim hunters are violent
what is the evidence of this claim? I assume that they define the killing of
game as violence for I am not aware of the fact that there is a higher
incidence of violent crime against fellow humans by hunters than there is by
non-hunters. Once again they class animals on the same level with humans. I do
not nor will I accept that the killing of an animal for food or vermin
extermination is violence weather it is in front of a pack of dogs, in a trap
or by whatever means it is carried out. This line of logic will have us
thinking of humane painless ways to eradicate rats, cockroaches and other pests
no matter how much it costs because after all they deserve the same treatment
as humans, right? These antis are delusional in their basic outlook on life
sorry to say, but if we followed their train of thought to its logical end it
would not even allow us to be a vegan or even breath for that matter.}
"Meat eaters should not oppose hunting"
Hunters
like to criticise the hypocrisy of anti-hunting people who eat meat, wear
leather or whatever (though I have still to meet a non-vegetarian saboteur).
There is an element of truth in this, however it is still no defence of hunting
to point out the cruelty and suffering other animals go through.
{REBUTAL:-
No one should oppose hunting if it is
well managed and sustainable. Reality is what it is, for some to live some must
die, it is just that simple. People must consume food made up of either plants
or animals to survive; therefore we cannot class ourselves with them on any
level that will allow the lines to blur. Cold as this may seem it is reality,
all the animal rights movements are a product of modern times and of people
that have become removed from the cycle of life experienced on a daily basis by
the livestock farmer, fisherman etc.}
"Anti-bloodsports campaigners are motivated by class hatred"
Bloodsports
are not the prerogative of the wealthy. Hare coursing still exists, and is to a
large extent, a working class sport. Even a foxhunt consists of a wide spectrum
of people. You have to be rich to be able to afford to ride with the hunt, but
not to be a terrierman, a foot follower or a supporter. These people are not
just the puppets of the aristocrats: they are enthusiastic participants in the
hunts.
People
opposed to hunting come from all backgrounds.
{REBUTAL:- The Antis/Sabs claim that
the anti-hunting movement is not driven by class hatred as hunters come from
all levels of society but I claim that it is class driven by hatred for the
hunting class. The anti-hunting movement is just one example of the growing
intolerance of society for others that engage in activities that are different
to their own but yet do not directly impact on them. Although we live in a free
society that in theory does not prohibit actions unless they are inimically
detrimental to society itself, it is becoming more frequent to see groups and movements dedicated to protesting a wide
range of topics. People that oppose
hunting come from all backgrounds as do hunters. This world would be a better
place if we all had a live and let live attitude to life and did not stick our
noses into other people’s lives, preferences, and pastimes trying to control
what are none of our business.}
Spreading of disease
Disease
may be picked up by hounds, and spread wherever they go. Also, killing a fox
means that another fox may move into that area to replace it. This means that
there is more mobility in the population than there would otherwise be, and
therefore a greater potential for the spreading of disease.
{REBUTAL:- The vast majority of dogs in
T&T are vaccinated by their owners, at least the ones with responsible
owners that value their dogs. If a dog is carried afield to hunt and picks up a
disease because it is unvaccinated it is the fault of its owner plain and
simple and has nothing to do with the sport of hunting. When game is killed and
replaced by another individual that may have been driven from its home ground
and forced to resettle there, it is a good thing, this allows for the mixing of
the gene pool in the game population. A population of a game animal should be
contiguous across its range; if a disease were to become present it would
spread through contact between the animals themselves in a chain reaction
effect across the whole area and would not have to rely on hounds to spread it
or animals driven from their home range by hunting. This argument against
hunting is very weak, with this logic all hiking should also be banned as
contaminated animal faeces could be spread on the soles of shoes and start an
animal epidemic, for that matter walls should be built around blocks of forest to
prevent any accidental spreading of disease that may inadvertently wipe out a
population of animal. Wild animals have been living with disease since there
have been wild animals, nature has given them the ability to handle outbreaks
of disease and bounce back on their own.}
Hunting and individual choice
"So
you don't believe in personal freedom" said the same guy who had accused
me of being an 'ignorant townie'. This argument is fundamentally flawed - who
would suggest we have the freedom to take the lives of other humans? Who would
say we have the freedom to mutilate a pet dog? Similarly, all animals should be
regarded as sensitive living beings who deserve respect and consideration.
{REBUTAL:-
Here they go again, placing animals on the same level with humans. They would
have you believe that killing a deer is the same as killing your neighbour. They
continuously try make this connection between animals and humans as being
equals in the hope that it would stick in our subconscious. Humans are animals;
yes I will acknowledge that but we are animals of an entirely different class.
WE ARE HUMAN, THEY ARE NOT. There can be no escaping the fact that in a
practical secular sense we cannot equate ourselves with animals in any way,
this would leave us helpless against vermin and disease. Who is to decide which
animals are our equals and are ”sensitive living beings who deserve respect and
consideration” and which are not. All things considered the anti-hunting
community attempts to sway the public opinion of non-hunters with lies and emotional
rhetoric that has no base in fact. Any hunter or for that matter anyone that
takes a couple of minutes to think about it will see the holes in their
arguments. To be fair there is one reason to at least temporarily place a
moratorium on hunting and that is over harvesting or low population levels of a
particular game animal. Although sport hunters enjoy the thrill of the chase,
the lavway and the delicious wildmeat a true sport hunter would never wish to
hunt his quarry to extinction. Without the animals and the forest we have no
sport, so in truth a conscientious hunter is above all things a wildlife and
nature conservationist at heart.}
No comments:
Post a Comment