Blimpish on Hunting

Here is an excellent post from Blimpish on Hunting:

First things first, let us be clear: there is a consensus in this society that animals have categorically lesser moral value than humans, and can be killed at human will. Further, we recognise that some animals are pests and can be killed simply to end their lives, because their existence causes harm to our interests. You mightn't personally like this consensus, but it is the prevailing moral view.

The ban on 'hunting with dogs' does not change this consensus, it simply outlaws one particular method of killing some animals. It is now illegal to go hunting foxes or mice (not rats or rabbits: go figure on the moral coherence there) with dogs. It is not illegal to just go and kill them, but only to do so with dogs.

Now, all evidence I have seen or heard suggests that farmers view foxes as pests, and will want them killed, regardless of method. If the ban were completely successful, this would mean that the farmers would resort to poisoning or shooting foxes. Again, all evidence I have seen or heard suggests that this is worse for the fox, because killing by a pack of hounds is typically sudden and complete, whereas killing by (for example) shot often results in initially non-fatal wounds, which can turn septic or reduce the ability of the fox to survive. (Reports suggest that most hunts will follow the practice in Scotland of hunting the fox as normal, and hiring gunmen to finish the job before the hounds get the target.)

Indeed, I believe that one of the findings of Lord Burns on Hunting was that there was no convincing evidence that Hunting with Hounds was overall any more cruel than other forms of controlling the species.

Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.

Posted by John at February 21, 2005 02:04 PM | TrackBack