OPINION: Real pests want to keep hunting barbarism alive

DURING the nineteenth century, legislation to abolish cockfighting was described by proponents of the sport as: "oppressive and a gross infringement of our liberties".

The Countryside Alliance's Strategy Paper 2000/2001 advised that its campaign for hunting will promote "the issue as a threat to civil liberties and to the freedom of individuals or minority groups".

Now, where have you heard that before?

The pro-hunt views of the Alliance and their fellow travellers have long since lost any credibility.

Their attempts to justify "Hunting With Dogs" as a time-honoured tradition with benefits for our rural way of life is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has witnessed the bloody aftermath of hare coursing, fox hunting, etc.

Fearing the recent ban imposed on them in Scotland would be extended to England and Wales, pro-hunt supporters have now regrouped behind a "middle way" banner, a euphemism for licensed cruelty.

In mid-March, the House of Commons voted by 386 - 175 for a total ban. A day later and the Bill was referred to the Lords where, as expected, the result was turned on its head with 366 voting in favour of the "middle way" - a supposed compromise - and 59 supporting a total ban.

Several Ulster Unionist and DUP MPs attended the Commons debate and voted against the Bill. In so doing, Roy Beggs, Rev. Martin Smyth, Lady Sylvia Hermon, Iris Robinson, Peter Robinson and Jeffrey Donaldson confirmed their personal support for the continuation of hunting with dogs.

A so called "sport" that in the view of all animal welfare organisations is at best cruel, at worst barbaric.

As public representatives they must be confident their pro-hunt views reflect those of a significant number of their electors, bucking the trend set across the U.K.

The only local supporting the ban was Lord Laird of Artigarvan. Describing hunting with dogs as "cruel and obscene", Lord Laird stood firm on his personal principle that "you cannot mix the concept of cruelty and sport" and voted for a total and unequivocal ban.

The assertion that "quarry animals are pests and their numbers need to be controlled" can never justify turning packs of hounds out in pursuit of our native wildlife.

The fact that an animal is designated a pest has no bearing on whether or not it should experience pain and suffering. Any pest control method should pass three basic tests: necessity, effectiveness and humaneness - hunting with dogs falls short in every category.

The pest control argument does not stand up to scrutiny, it is a series of myths perpetuated by the hunting fraternity as justification for killing wildlife.

FACT: Foxes are rarely the problem that rural folklore suggests. Individual animals can cause local difficulties and can be dealt with simply and humanely using a rifle.

The recent Burns Inquiry found no evidence to support the view that the fox is a significant agricultural pest.

FACT: Hare coursing cannot be justified as a means of pest control, far from it, coursing is an attack on an already dwindling hare population. The defenceless animals are hunted with dogs as a twisted recreation.

FACT: A pest control argument cannot be applied to deer. An over population problem does not exist here. Stags are reared as quarry by hunt members and released to be hunted to exhaustion by packs of hounds.

FACT: Life expectancy of foxhounds is determined by their value to the pack. Young dogs that show no aptitude for hunting are put down, as are those who become too old to hunt. The life expectancy of a hound is usually about half their natural life span.

FACT: Foxes in the UK are reckoned to save farmers pounds 100 million each year by killing and eating rabbits and rodents - two major causes of crop damage.

FACT: Foxes are territorial animals and those lost to hunting are quickly replaced by others migrating into vacant territory.

FACT: Hunts following an animal often cause much more damage than any fox.

FACT: Many companion animals have been injured or killed by hounds in pursuit of their quarry and the hounds themselves have been killed on roads,railways etc.

FACT: A sensible alternative exists in the form of drag hunting, this would allow hounds and their followers to enjoy their sport without pursuing and killing wildlife and causing collateral damage.

This option has been advocated for years as an ideal compromise. To date the pro-hunt groups have not agreed to make the change, why? We all know the real reason, there is no kill to celebrate at the end of the day.

Richard Gordon, spokesperson for the Countryside Alliance, dismisses pictures of a hunt follower kicking a fox to death as an "aberration".

Implying this behaviour deviates from the "humanity and respect" normally shown to a cornered fox by hounds and the group of up market joyriders masquerading as sportsmen. Did the fox appreciate the difference in treatment? I doubt it!

The USPCA would welcome a public debate on the issue followed by a Stormont Bill calling for a ban. We are now in the 21st century and the society can see no justification for continuing with this brutality against our native wildlife.

The time is now right for the people of Northern Ireland through their public representatives to play a positive part in removing, once and for all, these so called "sports" from the life of our province.

Copyright 2002 MGN LTD
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.