http://www.league.uk.com/campaigns/hunters_nonsense/hunters_nonsense.htm
Your argument not here? Tell us and we'll give you our response
mailto:info@league.uk.com
Hunting is necessary to control deer populations
NONSENSE!
There are 1.25 million deer in Britain. Of these 300,000 a year are
culled and approximately 150 are hunted with dogs. Only 2,500 of the
total deer population live in areas which are hunted with dogs.
Therefore, the vast majority, more than 99% of deer in this country,
live in areas where hunting with dogs does not take place. And there
is no difference between the health of these herds and the minority
which are hunted.
Hunting is necessary to control foxes
NONSENSE!
A recent scientific study published in the scientific journal nature
proved that hunting plays no part in the control of fox numbers. In
1km square areas across the country fox faeces were counted to assess
the size of the fox population in three consecutive years. The second
count showed numbers to be virtually the same as the first count after
a year of full hunting. The third count was also virtually the same as
the first two after a year in which hunting had been suspended due to
the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. So with or without hunting,
fox numbers stay the same. Their populations are regulated by the
availability of food supply and territory, not by hunting.
It's our civil right to go hunting/ a ban on hunting would breach our
civil liberties
NONSENSE!
There is no right to inflict cruelty on wild animals. It is insulting
to the millions of people around the world who have fought for rights
such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial and the right to
peaceful protest, to add to this list the right to torture small
animals. The hunters claim they are fighting for their liberty. What
about everyone else's liberty to peacefully enjoy the countryside
without hunts rampaging through gardens, over roads and railway lines
and causing huge disruption. What about the liberty of people to
express their opposition to hunting without facing of intimidation and
abuse for doing so?
We would all have to shoot our horses if hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
Of the 600,000 horses in this country, less than 7% ever go hunting.
Hunting is a very small part of the total equestrian sporting
activity. And if hunts converted to drag hunting where they follow an
artificial scent all horses could continue to be kept and used.
We would have to put down all the hounds if hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
Hounds can be retrained to go drag hunting, to follow an artificial
scent so that the hunts can continue and the hounds kept without
torturing wild animals. But hunters crying crocodile tears over the
possibility of having to shoot their hounds is quite stunning in its
hypocrisy. Hunts routinely shoot hounds when they become too slow to
keep up with the pack, usually at the age of six, and only half way
through their natural life. Also hunts breed more puppies each year
than they need to replace the older hounds that they shoot. Any puppy
which doesn't show a liking or talent for hunting is routinely shot.
Even if hunts refused to convert to drag hunting and shot every single
one of their hounds, this would be as many hounds destroyed as would
take place in just a couple of years of hunting as it is now.
A ban on hunting would destroy the important social role in rural
communities that hunting provides
NONSENSE!
The importance of hunting to rural communities is massively overstated
and there will be no ban on point to points, pony clubs, puppy show,
hunt balls, other social activities and, importantly, drag hunting.
All the hunts' activities can continue except chasing and killing wild
animals.
Hunting is important to the rural economy/ jobs would be lost if
hunting were banned
NONSENSE!
If all hunts simply closed and did not convert to drag hunting there
could be a gross loss of between 1,000 and 3,000 jobs. However, unless
those who go hunting now simply burn the money they would have spent
on hunting, they will spend that money in other areas of the rural
economy, creating jobs in other areas. Therefore any net loss of jobs
would be minimal, but if hunts convert to drag hunting, the economic
impact to the rural economy would be virtually nil.
A hunted animal always either escapes or is killed, if this is
replaced by shooting, more animals will be wounded and die a horrible
extended death from gangrene
NONSENSE!
Foxes which do escape from the hunt after a long chase may die of
trauma long after the hunt. Currently far more foxes are shot than
hunted and there is no evidence of large numbers of foxes dying after
being wounded. Professional and competent shooters will kill their
target either instantly or despatch it very quickly thereafter in the
vast majority of cases. Where an animal is wounded but able to run
away, the previous hunting bill would have allowed scenting dogs to be
used to quickly find and despatch that animal in the most humane
manner.
A ban on hunting would be townies dictating to country people how to
run their lives
NONSENSE!
A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It
is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption
and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to
it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus
humanity.
The police have enough trouble dealing with crime in rural areas
already without having to deal with illegal hunting too/ a ban would
be impossible to enforce
NONSENSE!
The police currently use some of their stretched resources in rural
areas in policing hunts to protect protestors from often violent
hunters and to deal with some of the wrong and illegal activities of a
minority of extremists who oppose hunting. If hunters abide by a new
law banning hunting and convert to drag hunting, police time spent on
hunting would be reduced. Only if hunters refuse to abide by the law
would the current level of policing hunts need to be maintained.
Banning any activity which harms no one else would be wrong
NONSENSE!
If the people who argue this really believed it then they would be
leading campaigns to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, whaling,
the ivory trade, and to repeal all animal welfare legislation giving
people the right to cruelly mistreat any animal as long as they don't
affect any people while doing so.
It has long been accepted that laws protecting animal welfare are
perfectly legitimate and are almost universally accepted. A ban on
hunting would give wild animals the protection from cruelty that
domestic animals currently enjoy.
A ban on hunting would inevitably lead to bans on shooting and
fishing
NONSENSE!
The reason that hunting should be banned is that a large majority of
the public, and a large majority of Members of Parliament have been
convinced that this is the right thing to do. Shooting and fishing are
completely separate issues and could only be reformed or abolished
with a similar will from the public and from MPs. Angling is the
biggest sport in the country in terms of the numbers of people who
take part. Anyone who suggests that a majority in the country or in
Parliament wishes to ban fishing is clearly living in cloud cuckoo
land.
The fox is killed by a quick nip to the back of the neck
NONSENSE!
When the hounds catch a fox above ground, they will bite at the
nearest part of the fox available, usually the hind legs or rear
quarters. Many post mortems on hunted foxes have shown extensive and
massive injuries to the abdomen, lungs, heart and hind quarters but
have found no evidence of injury to the head or neck. The fox will die
quickly, often in a matter of seconds or a minute or two, but death is
very rarely instant. This only deals with the actual kill at the point
where the fox has been chased and suffered sometimes for hours
beforehand, causing immense cruelty.
Hunting weeds out the old and the sick helping to keep a healthy
population
NONSENSE!
About 40% of foxes killed by hunts are cubs killed during the cub
hunting season - hardly old and sick. In stag hunting, old or sick
stags do not provide a long and enjoyable chase. Stag hunts use a hunt
servant known as a 'harbourer' who's task is to find a strong fit stag
which will give the hounds and riders a long chase often lasting 5
hours or more and covering more than 20 miles. No old or sick stag
could flee for its life for this long and over these distances.
Foxes do immense damage to farming and kill large numbers of newborn
lambs
NONSENSE!
A recent study from the University of York has found that lamb losses
to fox predation is 0.4% of lambs born, or one in 250. The vast
majority of lambs lost die of malnutrition, hypothermia and disease.
The cost of carrying out fox control far outweighs the minimal losses
to fox predation. Half of our farmland is grazed by cattle, where
foxes are no trouble. The other half is predominantly arable; foxes
kill three of the major pests to arable farmers - rabbits, voles and
mice. So over much of Britain, foxes are actually a benefit to
farmers.
Foxes sometimes kill all the chickens in a hen house just for the fun
of it without eating them
NONSENSE!
Foxes are not unique in killing more, sometimes much more, than they
can eat at the time. This entirely natural phenomenon known as surplus
killing, is widespread among other carnivorous animals such as wolves
lions and tigers. If a predator is able to catch an animal it will do
so, even when it is not hungry, because the meal can be saved for
another day when food is short. When this happens with foxes in a hen
house it is an unfortunate but entirely natural response to an
artificial situation.
Nature is 'red in tooth and claw' hunting is simply a part of nature
NONSENSE!
Foxes are at the top of the food chain and have never been hunted by
other predators over long distances. When wolves were present in this
country they may have chased scavenging foxes away from their food and
occasionally caught and killed one. For wolves to chase a small animal
such as a fox over long distances in the way that hounds do would not
give sufficient 'reward' for their expenditure of energy. If foxhounds
had to rely simply on the foxes which they catch for food, they would
starve very quickly indeed. With stags and deer, wolves would pick off
the old and weak, catching a large animal for minimal effort, if a
stag were able to maintain a head start on a pack of wolves for more
than ten or fifteen seconds, wolves would give up and look for other
prey. Stag hunts can last for five hours and more covering over 20
miles. This situation would never exist in the wild and cannot be
described as natural.
Licensing hunting would mean that hunts would have to stick to rigid
standards, eliminating the worst cruelty, this would be a fair
compromise.
NONSENSE!
Some hunts already operate under licence, when hunting on Forestry
Commission or Ministry of Defence land. And they regularly break the
conditions of these licences. There is no reason to think that they
would stick to the conditions of a new national scheme. But even if
they did, the chase and the kill in hunting is inherently cruel. A
licence allowing hunts to continue the chase, and to kill animals with
hounds would simply licence individuals to carry out cruelty. This is
clearly unacceptable, only a total ban will do. There is no
compromise, either hunts continue, whether under licence or not, or it
is banned, there is no middle way. You can't compromise on cruelty.
Hunting is not in the same category as bear bating, cock fighting,
and dog fighting in which an audience paid to witness the spectacle.
In hunting participants are rarely present for the kill so there is no
bloodlust.
NONSENSE!
Cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting are setting one animal on
another for the purpose of entertainment. So is hunting. It doesn't
matter whether people are present for, or revel in the killing of an
animal, the cruelty exists whether people are there to watch it or
not. And if so few hunters ever see the kill, and are not interested
in it, then they should convert to drag hunting where no kill takes
place.
Just because you do not like what we do is insufficient reason for
banning our activity. For a ban you have to show that it is injurious
to the public good and you have singularly failed to do so.
NONSENSE!
We do not call for a ban on hunting with dogs because we do not like
it. We want this activity to end because it is cruel and exists for no
other reason that entertainment. This is an affront to public morals
in the same way that allowing cock fighting or bear baiting would be.
Therefore there is plenty of justification for a ban.
There are far more important things for the government to be dealing
with, like health, education and housing. MPs shouldn't be wasting
their time on hunting.
NONSENSE!
There are indeed many more important issues that the Government must
deal with. But this does not mean that they cannot also ban hunting,
which is important to many people. Our parliamentary system allows
many issues to be discussed during one session of Parliament. Nobody
in 2000, for example, argued that fur farming was the most important
issue facing the country, but it was still banned. The Act which
banned fur farming was one of 45 pieces of legislation passed in that
Parliamentary session. The other 44 Acts of Parliament in the year
2000 included Acts on education, health, crime, local government,
Northern Ireland, warm homes and energy conservation, countryside and
rights of way etc. etc. etc.
Dear Supporter:
The long-awaited Third Reading of the Government's Hunting Bill has
been announced for 30th June.
This is a critical vote for the future of hunting with dogs.
The Government's Hunting Bill, bans deer hunting, hare coursing and
hare hunting. CRUCIALLY HOWEVER, as it stands, IT DOES NOT BAN FOX
HUNTING.
Your MP has the power to end this cruel sport once and for all so
please contact him/her TODAY and ask him/her to vote for AN AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD ban fox hunting.
You can contact your MP by:
Visiting
www.faxyourmp.com
Phoning the House of Commons on 020 7219 3000
Writing to your MP at House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Many thanks again for your valuable support for Britain's wildlife.
With your help we can put an end to this cruel sport once and for all.
Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA)
(RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports, IFAW
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
