Letters to the Editor

The Lengths to Which We Must Go

We began the defence of hunting years ago believing that common sense arguments would sway opinion. Wrong. We then set great store in scientific evidence (Burns) and even philosophical argument (Scruton). Wrong again. The truth was always that anti-hunting sentiment is based on old-fashioned class hatred, and that the animal welfare movement had been captured by quasi-terrorist revolutionaries about as interested in the well-being of foxes as I am in theirs.

Late in the day, we fell back on the minority rights argument. After all, we said (as has John Mortimer, again); the true test of democracy is not that the will of the majority prevails but that minorities are protected from unreasonable oppression. No less a hunting man than HRH The Prince of Wales is in trouble for speaking the truth about this argument: it depends entirely on what kind of minority you are. As in Orwell’s Animal Farm, where all animals were equal but pigs were more equal than others, some minorities are apparantly more deserving of protection than others.

History is littered with the carcasses of minorities which have relied on good will, common sense, fair play, decency, loyalty, gratitude and all the virtues that characterise hunting people, failing to understand that for reasons not connected with their cause or activity they are simply hated by the majority—or by eloquent spokesmen for the majority.

An overwhelming advantage of the anti forces is that they have always known that hunting people were essentially law abiding. But let us be realistic for once. We will have to come to a rational consideration of peaceful civil disobedience in the end. The trade union movement, and therefore the Labour Party, women’s suffrage and the State of India, to name just a few successful and well regarded causes, are all part of today’s world because of civil disobedience, some of it not so peaceful.

I do not want to disparage the many who have made huge sacrifices in working for the Countryside Alliance, but it will not save us. When hunting is gone and shooting has followed and even fishing has been banned, the Countryside Alliance will still be there, probably with a bigger budget. That is the future of organisations. Hunting is not an organisation but a way of life, as so many have pointed out. A way of life dies when it is not defended, even to the death.
Stanislas M Yassukovich CBE
Bonnieux, France.

Cometh the Hour …

Many sporting people will join me in celebrating the arrival of the Labour MP (and former Sports Minister) Kate Hoey as the new Chairman of the Countryside Alliance. She has proved herself to be an eloquent and brave Member of Parliament, an advocate for the countryside, and a thoroughly decent human being. With Lord Mancroft as Vice-Chairman, I believe we have a strong partnership at the head of affairs. My spirits rose when I heard the news.
Penelope Broderick,
London EC3.

A Common-Sense Argument

Throughout my lifetime I have stood with the anti-hunt point of view; my main concern being the ‘sport’ of chasing an animal to death and an empathy with the emotions of the same during the chase—fear, panic and pain.

This last year, however, has found me re-examining the issues. This has involved discussions with those of the opposing views, and yet I was unable to find satisfactory and substantial answers from either side. What an interesting read Miles J Cooper’s article was [Hunting Magazine, ‘Why I Changed Sides: Ex-Anti Hunt Activist Tells’, August issue]. Finally, a common-sense approach—concise, calm, and addressing the pertinent issues.

The debate whether or not to hunt cannot be split into black and white. Rather, it is a matter of which is the most humane and ecological way to proceed. The issue cannot be based on the aesthetics of well-meaning words and people, but the reality of the consequences of a ban. I fear that the pain and suffering of the few, in this case, will benefit the many. The way forward must be the continuation of hunting with the introduction of legislation and on-going education; until, at least, more substantive and humane alternatives are put forward.

At the end of the day, we have an honour to uphold, protecting and ensuring the survival of the countryside; not for ourselves but for our grandchildren and future generations—before it is too late.
R Davies,
Hereford.

The Triumph of Reason

It has long been obvious to those of us who openly defend hunting, that although we may radically disagree with those ranged against us, at least some of them hold their views quite rationally, and have given them as much thought as we have given to our own position. Miles J Cooper is clearly among this category [Hunting Magazine, ‘Why I Changed Sides: Ex-Anti Hunt Activist Tells’], and it was reassuring to read that reason could triumph in the cause of hunting.

The only thing wrong with Mr Cooper is that there are far too few of his kind; amenable to reason and genuinely motivated by the best interests of the countryside, its people and its wild life. Unfortunately, the majority of those ranged against us enter debate with their ears closed and their minds prejudiced. As Mr Cooper points out, the basis of anti-hunting politics is not about animal welfare but the expression of ill-will towards the landed gentry of Old England, whom many antis ignorantly assume are the only people who hunt. Since most of our critics have little real understanding of pest control, I suspect that few, if any, realise how quickly and how cruelly many areas could be cleared of foxes—by lamping and poisoning—if farmers cease to tolerate foxes on their land.

If you love both foxes and hunting, as I do, then be aware that ending hunting is the greatest blow to fox numbers imaginable.
Philip Hudson,
Carlisle.

Staghunting: A Vet Gives His View from Mr D J B Denny, BVetMed, MRCVS

The very existence of part of our national heritage—the unique red deer herds in the West Country—is in jeopardy through the ban on deer hunting. Professor Patrick Bateson’s report to the National Trust, which attacked hunting—and on which many people now rely for evidence—contained science so basic, so superficial and so flawed as to be negligent. It should be given no credibility in the current debate.

I have been interested in the deer for the last 27 years. I became involved with the science of the hunted deer in 1997, as a sequel to Bateson’s report. As a veterinary surgeon, I can defend deer hunting, because it has a purpose—to cull—better than I can defend any other activity involving animals, be it for pleasure, financial gain or both.

Just as farmers have to cull their stock to maintain healthy populations, so Man, being responsible for their environment, must take responsibility for the wild mammal population. However an animal is culled, there will be a degree of suffering for the individual.

But cruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering. Since culling is necessary—in fact it is vital—neither hunting which is disciplined, nor stalking, if carried out efficiently, can be classified as cruel. What is cruel is so-called animal welfarists allowing their deer to starve to death from disease, or allowing a stag with a broken leg to suffer for days while their HQ makes a decision.

Hunting people are genuinely concerned for their deer. They are the deer’s custodians. They have successfully managed the herds. They have monitored the deer and given a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, 52-weeks-a-year casualty service—all unique, and free.
D J B Denny, BVetMed, MRCVS,
Broadwas-on-Teme, Worcester.

Truth About Rural Policemen

Joanna Russell was right to highlight the ruthless nature of the poaching lurcher men [Under Scrutiny, Hunting Magazine May issue and Letters, July]. Nobody, least of all Mrs Russell, I am sure, is seeking to denigrate law-abiding men and women who work lurchers.

We have a countryside problem, which, let us face the facts, cannot be policed. Why not? Because we have too few country policemen, and because of the ad hoc, fly-by-night nature of the gangs involved. I should have thought that these two truths might weigh heavily on the Home Secretary, not to mention the Prime Minister. Can either of them have wished to exacerbate the problem by banning any legitimate field sport? First, the police will not be able to cope with illegal hunting (they cannot do so even now). Secondly, they will lose the eyes and ears of bona fide country people in combating criminals in the rural areas.
Jennifer Simmonds,
Lincoln.