Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Hunting Ban Not Working

2004 should have been a good year for those of us who like to see our countryside animals alive and well rather than being torn apart by dogs but the Hunting Act which we hoped would put an end to the barbaric blood sports, seems to have had the opposite effect.
Despite the ban, hunting is more popular than it was before it was introduced. Apparently the tossers that get a kick from killing the wildlife for fun just found other ways to continue being tossers, devising ways of circumventing the ban. Some shoot the fox after the hounds have chased it to exhaustion before the hounds tear into it. Others use birds of prey to kill it and the hunters know that the police have difficulty in keeping up with the hunt to enforce the law and rely on videotape evidence from hunt saboteurs who continue the battle to stop those who take pleasure in killing innocent animals.
The Conservative Party have hinted that they will repeal the legislation if they get into power which is yet another reason to keep the Cameron right wing far away from power. The current legislation needs to be tightened up with the loopholes being exploited by the hunters closed and a blanket ban that states clearly, hunting animals for sport is against the law and anyone who participates in it will be dealt with by the law. No ambiguity or back doors left open, blood sports need to be stamped out.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

Other than it not being to your liking, why do blood sports NEED to be eliminated?

Q

Chris Gale said...

Killing for sport should be eliminated, like badger baiting, cock fighting and other obscenities that were once legal, it is a stain on humanity.
The link between violence towards animals and abuse of people is well established.

Lucy said...

What Chris said Q, it is cruel, indefensible and people should not be killing animals for 'sport' in this age.

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

So your primary argument is that it is cruel. Right?

If that is your main point (only one I see) then how do you define cruel and in what context. I ask for context because if they are not brutally murdered by humans most animals die in one of these ways:
- hit by a car
- slowly and agonizingly die of starvation after months
- die slowly and agonizingly due to disease over a period of weeks or months (significant pain killers are fairly rare in nature)
- become so weak that buzzards eat them alive (buzzards will eat dead animals, but they will also eat live animals if they are defenseless)
- become so weak that they are eaten alive by fire ants (this may not happen in Europe, but it happens below the freeze line in north america all the way down to the freeze line in south america)
- eaten alive by a coyote, owl, bobcat, mountain lion, bear, snake, eagle, hawk, etc. (again, these may be new world perils)

I mention these because if any of these were imposed on animals by humans I would think you would call them cruel.

How does them being natural make them less cruel?

Now, I readily admit that I'm a hunter, but I am against torturing animals (causing them more pain than is associated with the killing - clearly a gun shot causes much pain - but that is not the same as purposely inflicting non-lethal injuries).

If one applies human value to all animals, then I agree that killing an animal is cruel. However, I don't think it is more cruel, or even as cruel as nature, and I don't understand the logical application of human value to all animals. Unless, one seeks to remove all pain from the thing we call life... which and admirable but senseless ideal.

Q

Lucy said...

Big difference between an animal dying by accident or at the paws/talons of a predator killing to survuive and one being killed for a bit of sport.
The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable is the phrase the sabs use and sums it up nicely.
We have had this discussion before when debating hunting (this is about bloodsports which has a subtle difference that it is supposedly seen as a sport but the outcome is the same) and i still don't buy the argument that you are doing an animal a favour by killing it before it has chance to get eaten, run over or die of hunger.

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

fair enough. though I never claimed to be doing the animals a favor. i don't kill them for the sake of killing. i do actually eat the things i kill...

from what i've read about fox hunting, it does not sit well with me...

Q

Cheezy said...

That's right. Foxes (particularly mangy London ones) taste terrible!

Stephen K said...

I take it 'tosser' is an insult in the UK. I hope so, and I share that sentiment in this case.

Lucy said...

Hmm, how to explain the term tosser.
It is an insult and means someone who is rather self obsessed and egotistical.