28th February 2012

“Cynical Subterfuge” Is Not Accidental

There is no moral case for hunting with hounds in the minds of most right-thinking people and that’s why the seven-year old Ban is such a good thing: it represents a positive shift in the humanitarian values of our society.

Let’s be honest; the spirit of the Hunting Act (2004) is clear. That’s why many hunt supporters hate it so much. And, however difficult applying the letter of this Law might be, it has proved to be by no means impossible.

Propaganda from the pro-hunting lobby has always been, in my opinion, a deliberately confusing smoke-screen of half-truths and lies.

Take this last few months for instance: Newspapers have reported incident after incident of Hunts across the nation trespassing on private land, hounds running out of control, public safety put at risk, pet killings and livestock worrying. Pro-hunt apologists repeatedly claim that such misdemeanours are accidental and that their ‘sport’ is conducted legally. Yet, simultaneously, they’ve bombarded the press with arguments that the Law isn’t working and must be repealed.

A simple truth is that over 180 prosecutions of offenders under the Hunting Act (2004) have established that, however it is ridiculed, misrepresented or ignored, enforcement can and has been successful.

Statistically and morally, I think that repeal of this legislation should be a political non-starter. Instead of pandering to the demands of folk who are desperate to get their kicks from chasing and killing defenceless creatures we need MPs and the police to demand more transparency from Hunts. This could start with requiring that hunt supporters tell the truth; are they adhering to the Law of the land or are they breaking it?

Posted by Joe Hashman

Tags: hunt trespass, Hunting Act, illegal hunting

2 Comments | Leave a comment