Anti-hunting arguments lack credibility

ONCE again, we see the response of hunt saboteurs and others opposed to hunting with hounds saying anything to avoid answering the most relevant questions regarding the Hunting Act (Louise Peters, The Yorkshire Post, March 6).

Where is the scientific evidence proving that the use of scenting hounds is inherently cruel? Validated research shows that the use of a full pack of dogs is necessary for fox control in certain areas, as opposed to just two dogs demanded by this legislation. The use of a full pack was also found to be the more effective by Lord Bonomy in his report to the Scottish Parliament in 2016.

Shortly before, and just after, the passing of the Hunting Act in 2004, numerous Parliamentarians wrote to the anti-hunting organisations asking for sight of the research supporting their claim that hunting with dogs causes unnecessary suffering. Over a period of two years requesting evidence, none could be provided

Indeed, as the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management has pointed out, the evolutionary or natural way to reveal the weakness, injury, disease or simply old age of the individual is by way of pursuit – a natural process that been undertaken by wolves and other predators for millennia. Hounds operate in a similar manner.

The final question, to be asked yet again, is what form of wildlife management or control do those opposed to hunting advocate? If the answer is to ‘leave it all to nature’, this means no protection for farmers’ crops or livestock, no curbing of disease and no protection for vulnerable species. I doubt this is acceptable to the majority of the public or any of the major conservation organisations, all of which undertake wildlife management.

These are not the usual point-scoring questions that so often arising in this debate. They are questions that are absolutely central to this issue and – until they are answered – the case against hunting with dogs has no credibility.