Sport: Simon Hart argues why a ban is unjust
WHEN considering the whole issue of hunting with dogs, we shouldstart with the Burns report, which was commissioned to inform thedebate, not to say whether the activity was good or not.
If we consider the report as providing us with a basis of fact -and this was the first such inquiry in 50 years - then we have abetter idea of the truth of the matter.
Lord Burns concluded that hunting with dogs was a form of foxpopulation control, rather than population reduction.
He found a lot of people did it, that most farmers were in favourof it and that groups with an interest in the land - such as theNational Farmers Union and County Landowners were also in favour.
It found that drag hunting was not an alternative and raised somepoints of concern - for example he said there were too many cases oftrespass on the part of the dogs .
Lord Burns did say - and this has been seized on by the anti-hunting lobby - that the activity can seriously compromise thewelfare of the animal, but he qualified this by saying that anyactivity which ends in the death of an animal will compromise itswelfare.
The fact of the matter is that the fox population has to becontrolled. There are several ways of doing this and fox-hunting,which is one of them, cannot be taken in isolation.
Those who suggest the answer is shooting foxes with a rifle donot take into account the practical difficulties. Gun licences canbe difficult to come by, it takes a lot of training to get to thatlevel of marksmanship and, with increasing public access to thecountryside, there is potential for serious accidents.
There is also the issue of jobs. Burns estimated that some 6,000to 8,000 jobs would be directly affected and up to 70 per cent morecould be indirectly affected. And remember this is not only aboutfoxhunting, but all forms of activity involving hunting with dogs.It could affect upland farmers trying to protect their stock usinglurchers, for example.
Foxhunting has become a political issue and it is one which isabout social retribution, not about protecting wildlife. What we sayto those who want to ban it is, yes, you might not like it, but ifwe live in a society that encourages tolerance then you do not havethe right to ban it.
Even Jack Straw, who commissioned the report and who probablyknows more about it than anyone else in parliament, appears tobelieve there is no case for an outright ban.
Introduce legislation or supervision, but to ban foxhunting wouldbe unworkable and unjust.
Simon Hart is director of the Campaign for Hunting
Savagery Les Ward says control should not be barbaric
THE case against hunting with dogs is simple. It is that, in amodern and civilised Scotland, to use dogs deliberately to chase,terrify, attack, cause suffering to and kill wild animals is crueland barbaric.
And if wild animals do ever need to be controlled, it should bedone as humanely as possible.
To the majority of the public, such a statement is not onlyreasonable but right.
Opinion polls time and time again show that an overwhelmingnumber of Scots, both urban and rural, want to see this intolerabletreatment of wildlife with dogs banned.
Not surprising, especially when you also consider that were suchtreatment to be inflicted on domestic animals like the cat or dog,the perpetrators would be universally condemned for their activitiesand quite properly prosecuted in a court of law for cruelty toanimals.
It should therefore always be remembered in this debate that inseeking an end to this uncivilised behaviour, not only are weconsidering animal cruelty but also standards of human decency.
Those who hunt are happy to set a pack of hounds on a fox, seethe animal run in terror for its life and if caught, watch as it isattacked and savaged by dogs, with death the only mercifulintervention. They see nothing wrong in putting terrier dogs downthe underground refuges of foxes in an attempt to 'bolt' the fox,knowing that if the fox refuses to move, either because it isphysically incapable or is defending its cubs, there is a realchance that a subterranean battle will ensue between the fox andterrier which can result in serious injuries for both dog and fox.
They enjoy setting two greyhounds on a hare and cheering as it isturned by the dogs as it tries to escape.
Their biggest cheers are often reserved for the time when thehare is caught and becomes a living rope in a tug of war as it ispulled and torn between the dogs.
The arguments trotted out by those who indulge or support huntingwith dogs are not dissimilar to those put forward many years ago indefence of slavery or putting small boys up chimneys - employment,it helped the economy and it is wrong for the majority to pick on aminority.
The fact is that society's standards of ethics and moralitychange from generation to generation and probably in our lifetime wehave seen greater changes in standards than a any other time inhistory.
Another change is now due - a change that will see, through theProtection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, the abolition of thebrutal and barbaric practice of hunting with dogs.
Les Ward is chairman of the Scottish Campaign Against Huntingwith Dogs.
v
