Hunting is Under the Gun Again

Thousands of rural people in the UK have been thwarted by an urban inspired vote to ban all hunting of game with dogs. The British Parliament outlawed rabbit and fox hunting with hounds, which went into effect by February 20, 2005. The issue was lobbied and campaigned as an anti-cruelty measure, and now that it has become law, the result is loss of a cultural tradition, and loss of management of those species of game in the UK.

Members of the Countryside Alliance note that it is still legal to go forth with dogs and horses, when the dogs are given a scent trail laid down previously through artificial means. When that was done today, a fox was (perhaps inadvertently) shot twice and killed sometime while the packs were afield. Two arrests were reportedly made for breaking the anti-hunting legislation, but it is not yet known if they were related to the incident of the fox shooting. Country people are extremely bitter and feeling defiant.

Meantime, in the US, there are many pending legislative attempts to put an end to sport hunting of various kinds. These range from the HSUS objection to so called "canned hunts" to the ultimate fantasy for animal rights advocates; a New York bill in each the Senate and Assembly that would make the killing of wild game and wild birds a criminal act on grounds that such is "animal cruelty". The bills cover both hunting and trapping.

In New York State, the Assembly bill is introduced through the Agriculture Committee, and in the Senate, while it has another name, it is the same measure; both are supported by New York City and Long Island legislators who feel secure in backing this legislation. Their constituents are ignorant of the environmental, public health, tax base and agricultural ramifications of these measures. Without legal hunting and trapping, New York's environment would surely deteriorate very quickly, and millions of people would be harmed, fiscally and physically, to say nothing of the damage to their homes, livestock, pets, water supply, and automobiles. The bill is in no one's best interest, and benefits only the selfish, antisocial agenda of protectionism.

Other states have similar legislative initiatives that mimic the UK disaster, but in the US, the environmental scope is more universal than in the UK, where only two wild species are directly involved, while others such as livestock and pets are secondarily affected. We can only hope that rabies never enters the UK, given that hunting as an option for management of foxes is now a criminal act.

IWMC deplores this trend to thwart the efficient management of wildlife through abolishing sport hunting. Sport hunting is the most efficient and cost effective manner through which numbers of wildlife are kept in check in an environment that is increasingly crowded with people. Yes, we all have to live together on the earth. And no, people should not have to experience a trend of confrontations with wildlife until they regard them all as menaces and nuisances, instead of valued resources. That very situation occurs in France, where the government outlawed trapping and use of the pelts of foxes. And still, lessons learned in one country have to be repeated in all the others, until people finally realize that animal rights advocates do not have the best interests of mankind at heart, and that the original human instinct to use animals may be the best one, after all. Good luck, UK, Good luck, New York, and all other jurisdictions where animal rights advocates have more legislative friends than do rural people.