BACK
TO MENU
DAILY TELEGRAPH - 11.1.03
I suppose that as you read this Alun Michael's Bill to ban hunting will
be feeling its way through the corridors of power. It is not actually
called Alun's Anti-Hunting Bill (I don't even know what it is called)
but you all know the one I mean. Mr Michael assures us that it will
be 'Robust legislation that will stand the test of time' (Ho! Ho!)
and that it will be based on 'the principles of cruelty and utility'.
Well now, Michael Bach, right there is a nasty shoal that might rip
the bottom out of even a 'robust' bill. If we assume that a 'principle'
is a 'general truth..from which to argue' then the cruelty of hunting
cannot be a matter of principle - especially if you accept the definition
of cruelty as 'taking pleasure in suffering' (all definitions from
my well thumbed Chambers Dictionary). I know of no hunting person who
takes pleasure in suffering. Indeed one of the satisfactions (and principles)
of hunting is that it applies a natural quietus to animals that may
well be suffering. There is a lot of suffering in the natural world
- animals get sick and there is no NHS for them; animals get old and
starve, animals get wounded and die of gangrene - these are the animals
most likely to get a quick end from the bite of a foxhound (the power
of a foxhound's jaws is an awesome thing) - the fleet and the strong
escape - that is nature's way. Michael Bach (he is little) might have
done better if he had stuck to Professor Burn's famous phrase -"compromising
the welfare of" but even the Good Professor admitted that no research
in this had been carried out. The fox, the hare and the deer are, by
nature, flight animals. As long as their flight is not compromised
then neither is their welfare. Next time you see an orphan fox cub
being cuddled by Rolf Harris on the telly, look at its eyes and see
the naked terror there. I should feel the same if my right of flight
was compromised by a bearded Antipodean. I don't fish, but it does
not require a deep intelligence to figure out that fishing compromises
the welfare of the fish in a big way. The fish on the hook wants only
one thing - to escape, but the angler, by 'playing' the fish continuously
frustrates the flight instinct. The fish may get quietus from the 'priest'
in the end or it may spend hours imprisoned in a 'keep net'. No one
turns a hair at the sight of a mountain of live fish being released
from trawler's net and yet all those fish will either be crushed or
suffocated to death. Ah well, they are only fish and how often you
hear the received wisdom that 'fish don't feel'. Even the RSPCA states
that it has no intention of attacking fishing and yet somewhere in
my files, I have a scientific report commissioned by that same worthy
body. This states that fish have a highly developed nervous system,
which renders them liable to a high state of suffering. One way or
another, fish have their welfare well and truly compromised and yet
the Government and the RSPCA have no intent on attacking fishing either
as a sport or a business. They might claim 'utility', I suppose, but
my feeling is that it is more a packet of hot chips. There are supposed
to be something like 4 million fishermen in the country. The Government
claims not to threaten Shooting, although many Labour MPs will admit
that it is 'next on the list'. Before the shooters and fishers sit
back with a sigh of relief, let me point out that once a political
case has been gerrymandered against hunting, then their flank is wide
open. Once the political base was established, it might not even require
another bill. A ministerial order would very likely do for them both.
|
