Read RSS Feed


Views on hunting have similarities

SIR – Mrs M Large (Letters, Monday, January 24) and I are in danger of agreeing with each other over hunting!

We both defend freedom of the press and the right to free speech. Neither of us are against anyone wearing clothes of their own choice.

Neither of us appear to disapprove of freedom of association or the right to live a traditional lifestyle.

I would also suggest Mrs Large supports conservation, animal welfare and the rights of indigenous people, like myself. We also both accept the Hunting Act (2004) is unlikely to be repealed anytime soon.

She is correct in saying the present Government has far more important things like the economy, the NHS and terrorism to fix before addressing the flawed hunting ban.

However, Mrs Large and I have to disagree over her allegations of cruelty.

After presiding over Labour’s inquiry into hunting, its chairman Lord Burns was asked if hunting was cruel. He replied “the short answer to that question is no”.

JON BURGESS
Malvern

Comments(4)

Janet Katherine says...
1:55pm Tue 1 Feb 11

Lord Burns answer to that question may have been similar if he had been asked the same question before his deliberations started. How anyone can suggest that chasing a fox till exhaustion and then ripping it apart with hounds while still conscious is not evil as well a cruel is beyond comprehension. It is neither necessary on economic or any other grounds. It is unnecessary to cull the older animal in this way as the hunt or hounds are unable to discriminate between young/injured or old fox before the chase.

I can only summise that hunters are devoid of compassion and hunt because they know no better. Resons for hunting that the fox enjoys it, that the fox is devious and kills indiscriminately are untrue. Man is able to co-exist with wild life and the true need to kill is man wanting total domination over other forms of life.

tub_thumper says...
9:36pm Tue 1 Feb 11

Jon Burgess twisting things again. Mrs Large said that “the Government has too many other issues to deal with at present such as cuts, university fees and now a housing crisis, to pander to the population that is against the ban.” In other words, the law is there so deal with it!

Hymie says...
12:14am Wed 2 Feb 11

Jon BURGESS is a past master of the pro hunting lobby. He appears to believe that by his half yearly letters leading to debate on  fox hunting that the WN readers will get so sick of the subject that the public will lose interest and ignore the subject thus if no one responds to what he writes then he has won the public around. 

If that is your intention Mr Burgess you are wrong and the Citizens of this Country remain opposed to fox hunting. This is the 21st Century and Mr Jon Burgess and his ilk should move out of the barbarity of the past and into co-existence with the animal diversity that we enjoy as wild life. 

sharpy says...
10:10pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Hymie -
Just a thought but wasn't it
a Simon Mccullough who started this latest hunting argument off with his anti letter???
I think the antis seem to give the pros
a kick start by writing to the W/N.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree