The Fellowship of Life |
| |
Hands off our wildlife
Patrick O'Donovan, October 3, is presumably referring to the League
Against Cruel Sports when he expresses indignation at those who
claim that the Royal family is giving a bad example by going
foxhunting.
Recently an independent poll by MORI established that the majority
of people in this country do not approve of the Royal family
foxhunting. It was legitimate for us to point this out to members of
the Royal family, which we did in as respectful a manner as
possible, hoping for a response.
Royalty should set a good example in the field of morality, and
foxhunting falls squarely within that field. It was Mr O'Donovan's
failure to perceive this at any point in his article which led at
best to inconclusiveness and at worst confusion.
Opposition to hunting is based on a very simple principle axiomatic
to Christians, namely that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.
When a wrong is committed it matters not at all from which stratum
of society the perpetrator comes. The fox does not represent a
menace in this country: this is not a personal view, but one reached
by experts unconcerned with the pros and cons of hunting.
We have a recent letter from the Ministry of Agriculture asserting
that the loss of livestock to foxes is economically insignificant. A
number of countries in Europe either do not allow foxhunting or do
not have the tradition of practising it, and their fox populations
have remained stable.
Incidentally, were it necessary to control fox numbers, hunting
would be a very silly way of doing it, since it is unreliable, does
not discriminate between healthy and unhealthy animals or their sex,
and should rabies ever reach us would promote its spread, for it has
been shown that attempts to control rabies by hunting foxes
disperses their population and encourages the growth of the disease.
In short, the only reason for foxhunting is the enjoyment of it. Mr
O'Donovan is badly off-beam when he implies that trying to stop
hunting is equivalent to trying to stop people smoking. A fox may
well be considered less important than a human being and the
suffering of human beings throughout the world may well leave little
indignation over for anything else, but this cannot justify the
deliberate imposition of unnecessary suffering and death on a
sentient animal.
Maeve Denby
Executive Director,
League Against Cruel Sports
(31/10/80)
=====================
I would refer Margaret Farrel. October 10, to the handbook of the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, "God's Animals" by the late Dom Ambrose Agius, OSB, MA.
Concern about animal welfare is expressed in Anglican circles by the
Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals. To obtain a copy of
their excellent quarterly bulletin contact...
J.J. O'Connor
(31/10/80)
=====================
I don't really know what the anti-bloodsporters are cracking on about. It's precisely because I take part in blood sports, field sports, call them what you will, that I am acutely aware of the rapacity of economic man in his disregard for the environment, animals and all, and try to do something about it. All the anti-bloodsporters' sentimentality can claim is wildlife banished to ghettos, and an over-population of ill-trained dogs.
R.M. Hatcher
(31/10/80)
Return to 'Catholic Herald'
Debate |
This site is hosted and maintained by The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org |
Since |