Let me start this by saying that I have not yet made up my mind on hunting, I'm still trying to decide whether a singular ban on the hunting of one species is logical.
To me, logic would state that if there is a ban on fox-hunting, there should also be a ban on fishing and shooting as all of them cause the hunted creature stress, suffering and pain.
Why is fishing not considered in the same way?
Fish feel pain but it's ok to hurt them because they are not mammals?
If the "hunting rabbits with dogs is ok, but not hunting foxes" bit of the telegraph report is true, why is this so? What is the difference?
Are snares and poison a better way of getting rid of foxes? Would we rather see an animal knaw it's own leg off to escape from a forgotten snare? Or the indescriminate killing of many species by leaving poison around.
Hunting foxes with guns is allowed, but what happens if the aim is just slightly off. The fox takes a hit somewhere which is not immediately fatal, maybe it survives for an hour or two, maybe it lasts a day or so. Is that sort of suffering better and more acceptable than the suffering caused by being killed by dogs?
I will agree that the fox suffers stress and fear when being chased but once caught by the dogs I would imagine the end is fairly swift?
When the ban comes into effect what happens to the hunting dogs? I understand that these are dogs which cannot easily be re-homed. Are we helping one set of animals whilst condemning another?
The idea of banning something because it causes stress, fear, and pain to an animal is admiral and shouldn't be argued with. But why exempt so many other species from this protection?
__________________
"Who are you?"
"We're the Sweeney, son, and we haven't not had no dinner..." |