From: Neil Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The essence of the question is: if a wild predatory animal inflicts
>a certain level of misery upon its prey -- in the process of subduing it, what
>would you deem to be onerous when a human is conducting the same act?
Oh please - there is a massive difference. You cannot equate a natural kill
by an animal with what is basically a human sport with rules, conventions
and a yearly fixture. You know I firmly believe that a major reason that
people oppose fox hunting, in this country anyway, is because the
supporters try to justify their cause with comments like this. In short you
are treating the people who oppose you like idiots and they fight harder
because of it.
The people that oppose hunting foxes with dogs in this country do so
because it is basically a sport. Their objection is that killing animals in
a sporting or gaming environment for fun is something that high order
civilized societies should not partake in.
99% of those same people would not oppose any animals being culled,
harvested, managed or even 'farmed' if that is required. Only an oddball
would object to predators killing their prey.
-----------------
Neil Francis
Trowbridge, UK
-----------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Define "oddball". I don't frankly think that "people" do oppose
hunting foxes. 85%+ probably don't give a toss, but if forced
to profer an opinion will go with the majority. That's true of
many issues, especially this one, as it's largely a rural issue
and only 7% of the population live in rural areas.
Like banning handguns for example. Actually the the last MORI
poll showed that 55% of people surveyed thought the ban would
unfairly penalise target shooting, but how much notice did the
Government take of that?
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
