Is it about cruelty or about curtailing freedom? (From Gazette & Herald)

Is it about cruelty or about curtailing freedom?

Like most of the writers who contribute to our newspapers, I like to see readers taking issue from time to time about the content of our stories.

This means we still have the freedom to air our views in this country about all manners of things without the fear of persecution.

It also means the Gazette has a wide range of readers whose interests and opinions are equally wide-ranging.

This was very apparent from Tommy Woodward's letter published on February 1 and will no doubt draw letters in response from the hunting fraternity. Mr Woodward's letter seems to be part of his campaign against hunting, which he has fought in the paper for a number of years now.

I thought Peter Walker's article, which Mr Woodward criticised, was a well-balanced piece written more from a countryman's point of view than that of a more radical hunting perspective.

I have looked long and hard at all aspects of the hunting debate over the past 50 years and have listened to all the arguments both for and against with a fairly open mind.

As a tenant farmer, I must allow the hunt free access to my land. This is written into my tenancy agreement and will be included in many more farm agreements. Fifty years ago, this was regarded as normal and accepted by the farming community just as the fact shooting rights were also retained by the landowner.

But even if this were not the case I would still allow the hunt across my farm, because I believe hunting and indeed all country sports are an integral part of country life. I also think the vast majority of the people who earn their living from the countryside share the same view.

Over the 50 years I have worked our farm, I have had a number of occasions to take exception to the way the hunt has behaved but have always found them apologetic and prepared to put right any damage they might have done.

In spite of these past problems, I will be very sad if hunting is ever banned because I still believe in freedom and think the attack on hunting is more an attack on the class system and people's rights rather than a defence of animal rights.

Every year since I retired from a more active role on the farm, I have spent two or three days following the local hounds in my car with the aim of meeting the people who follow the hounds to try to find out who they are and also why they are there.

The only group who would not talk freely to me has been the anti-hunting people who regarded my press card with disbelief and never seem to have coherent reasons for what they were attempting to do.

The opinion I formed of the younger element of both the hunters and the anti-hunting groups was they were both there for the same reason. The men were out to display their virility and aggression prior to mating and the girls were looking for a mate who shared their outlook and had similar interests. Subsequent observations suggest this is indeed the case.

Both groups dress and behave in a way which draws attention to them from the opposite sex and seemed to enjoy their days out in the country with mating, children and marriage being the consequence.

The hunting people all appeared to have good complexions and look healthy whilst the anti-hunting group would be cocooned in their cars wearing clothes which seem unsuitable for cold, raw days in the country.

In spite of their views and a very different appearance, they often wore leather in some form or another. This rather contradicted their views that killing animals was wrong.

The people who hunt all told me hunting is a very expensive sport and they often had to struggle to find the cash to pay for it.

The antis were less forthcoming and would never tell me how they could afford to take time off during the week or afford to get to the meets at weekends.

College students tell me cash has always been available to finance groups of students who were prepared to demonstrate against everything which is regarded as part of the establishment but they never worried where the cash came from because demonstrating against hunting was seen as a cheap day out in the country.

I am personally neither for nor against hunting from either a class or a moral point of view.

If hunting is banned, I am certain the fox will have a much harder time. He is a ruthless killer of all small livestock and ground-nesting birds and, like people, as well as cats and dogs, often kills for fun rather than for food. This is why the vast majority of farmers hate foxes and why they tolerate the hunt riding over their farms.

If hunting is banned, fox killing in the countryside will increase and the gun and snare are nothing like as efficient killers as a pack of fox hounds and sadly many straying dogs and cats as well as the foxhounds will die because of the ban.

For me, however, the real point at issue is freedom and the right of people to continue to follow a sport which is part of the country way of life the right of a minority to do something which their ancestors have done for generations.

Some time ago, we abolished the death penalty in this country because it was seen as cruel and barbaric and could result in the death of innocent people.

Today, because of the increase in violent crime, many of our policemen carry guns and innocent people as well as criminals are sometimes killed by mistake. The number of robberies involving handguns has also increased very dramatically since they were banned following the terrible tragedy at Dunblane. It is now easier and cheaper to get hold of an illegal handgun than it was to buy a legal one before the ban.

Our politicians should reflect on these two factors before they bring in a total ban on hunting, which might be impossible to enforce, and could have some unforeseen consequences.

Updated: 14:45 Thursday, February 08, 2001