Nigel
Well-Known Member
Hi All,
So true.....from Richard Course (Ex League against cruel sports Chairman) in his submission to the Burns inquiry:-
SECTION 1: THE MOTIVES OF THE PROHIBITIONISTS
The campaign for the prohibition of hunting with dogs, which led to the Inquiry being set up, is driven by two, quite separate motives:
1. A laudable objection to cruelty to animals (animal welfare); and
2. A highly principled objection to tormenting and killing another living creature for fun (sport/recreation).
The second of these motives is better described as moral fundamentalism which is rarely a sound basis for legislation. In this particular case, "killing for fun" or "killing for sport" would inevitably put fishing and shooting at the top of such an agenda.
As the Government has recently assured shooting and fishing interests that their "sport is safe", it is clear that moral fundamentalism will not feature in the current political debate.
Indeed the Committee of Inquiry has not been asked to consider "ethical issues".
When it can be shown that some forms of hunting with dogs can be quicker and consequently more humane than, for example, snaring, most prohibitionists, including Members of Parliament, abandon animal welfare as their motive and reveal that an abhorrence of "killing for fun" is the underlying cause of objection.
They switch from how animals are killed to why animals are killed.
The how is relatively simple to deal with: do the other commonly-used methods of killing cause more or less suffering to the animal?
This is clearly an animal welfare issue.
The why is not so simple. Coarse fishing and game shooting are exclusively recreational, but hunting with dogs has a pest-control element attached to it if the quarry is a recognised pest species.
It was a wise decision to exclude the ethics from the Inquiry's report to the Secretary of State but the Inquiry should be aware that the underlying motive of the prohibitionists is, in fact, an ethical motive.
So true.....from Richard Course (Ex League against cruel sports Chairman) in his submission to the Burns inquiry:-
SECTION 1: THE MOTIVES OF THE PROHIBITIONISTS
The campaign for the prohibition of hunting with dogs, which led to the Inquiry being set up, is driven by two, quite separate motives:
1. A laudable objection to cruelty to animals (animal welfare); and
2. A highly principled objection to tormenting and killing another living creature for fun (sport/recreation).
The second of these motives is better described as moral fundamentalism which is rarely a sound basis for legislation. In this particular case, "killing for fun" or "killing for sport" would inevitably put fishing and shooting at the top of such an agenda.
As the Government has recently assured shooting and fishing interests that their "sport is safe", it is clear that moral fundamentalism will not feature in the current political debate.
Indeed the Committee of Inquiry has not been asked to consider "ethical issues".
When it can be shown that some forms of hunting with dogs can be quicker and consequently more humane than, for example, snaring, most prohibitionists, including Members of Parliament, abandon animal welfare as their motive and reveal that an abhorrence of "killing for fun" is the underlying cause of objection.
They switch from how animals are killed to why animals are killed.
The how is relatively simple to deal with: do the other commonly-used methods of killing cause more or less suffering to the animal?
This is clearly an animal welfare issue.
The why is not so simple. Coarse fishing and game shooting are exclusively recreational, but hunting with dogs has a pest-control element attached to it if the quarry is a recognised pest species.
It was a wise decision to exclude the ethics from the Inquiry's report to the Secretary of State but the Inquiry should be aware that the underlying motive of the prohibitionists is, in fact, an ethical motive.