A law based on cruelty

[Ereiam_jh]

"How would you make an activity which you consider cruel not cruel?"

By chaging it. It's not rocket science.

If I was regulated by a sensible law based on cruelty which accounted in a measured manner for both the pros and cons of hunting then I would be happy to obey it.

I am regulated by an absurd law that said I have to shoot animals I flush out so I will break it.

It's very unlikely nthat the Hunting Act will be around that long so it makes perfect sense to consider what should replace it.

If I had someone calling me a baboon, which is no better or worse than the disgusting idiots in football sadia making ape noises at black players I would consider them ignorant childish bigots with no place in a sensible debate about hunting.

 

[Peta]

"I am regulated by an absurd law that said I have to shoot animals I flush out so I will break it."

The law doesn't say that. If you're not hunting the Hunting Act does not apply.

Who's called you a baboon, you cheeky monkey?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The law says that flushing out animals is hunting. You and I may think that it isn't hunting but if the law says it is then as far as the law is concerned it is.

Defra are quite clear that flushing out is hunting, animals must be shot to stop them being persistently flushed out.

They also say that chasing is hunting even if you're not trying to kill the animal.

Your approach to bits of the law you don't like is just to pretend they aren't there. Mine is to break them.

Are you really saying that I can get the Hunt in to flush out deer with a full pack of dogs? The law says they can only use two, or do you deny that as well?