Ah but it is. It’s rather critical.
BDS Statement on Stag Hunting
- Thread starter Keith Edmunds
- Start date
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Choice is not the relevant criterion. That's why some human sports were made illegal if they were cruel or likely to have severely damaging effects. Bare knuckle fighting, street fights, gladiatorial games, duelling, BASE jumping, shock fighting, all sports for doped athletes (as a separate category) etc
salukiwhippet
Well-Known Member
I’m not following your logic here.
Are you arguing that the sports listed are banned because they’re cruel? And, by inference, the un-banned ones must therefore not be cruel?
And then, by further inference, that because a marathon runner and a hunted stag both run to the point of physical collapse, and we have decided that marathon running is not cruel, therefore stag hunting must also not be cruel?
I think that we can therefore logically extend your argument and say that actually, it should be perfectly legal to hunt randomly picked runners with hounds. If choice is irrelevant, and they’re out running, it should be fine to pursue them to the point of collapse.
Yes. And yes. Why else?
Yes. They are both physiologically the same, so that cannot reasonably be a criterion for determining cruelty. Although deer are, of course, far more adapted for dealing with being pursued than humans.
Choice is irrelevant to cruelty, but reasonably available to humans. There are some legitimate differences between being human and animal. It is legal and has been done for runners to act as the quarry for hounds. It is not legal to compel humans to do anything they don't want for one's entertainment, which is not an issue of cruelty.
It’s possible we’re using different definitions of the word cruel.
Could you clarify what you mean when you use that word?
Sadly we have precisely that happening (again) with Charlie Pye-Smith's new book - Rural Wrongs.The problem is of course, that despite the BDS or any other organisation or body, taking a stance against hunting with hounds, the anti brigade will not suddenly cosy up to them and proclaim "oh they are ok, they don't support hunting with dogs" whatever your personal feelings are, what we DONT need is one branch of "hunting" decrying another, must be music to the hunt sabs ears, well done BDS
Something like ....to deliberately cause a high degree of pain or suffering which is greater than that which is a normally accepted level of discomfort.
Let us be rational here and bear in mind that we live in a society where the state reserves the right to compel humans to enter a battlefield and advance into all the horrors of war. That is legitimate. The state reserves all sorts of powers to inflict suffering, pain or fear. We live in a country where government agencies have hounded individuals to suicide, and nobody was found criminally responsible for any offence involving cruelty there. Where those caring for us allow excess deaths, and nobody is accountable. Obviously chasing a deer is more stressful for that individual than not doing that, but that is nothing near cruel. There are an enormous number of other unpleasantnesses in life to deal with before it starts to become rational to legislate over stag hunting.
The dogs don't select the hunted deer...The harbourer does that.
True. However, my comment was directed at a particular part of the BDS paper, which for some reason deemed it relevant to deny the existence of this characteristic in dogs.
Yes. It is a valid argument. I do not happen to hold that opinion and very much enjoy both field sports, eating meat and fish, and most importantly liberty. However, neither of us can reasonably challenge a vegan's decision to have a vegan diet because they believe that harming animals is wrong. The only point on which we could challenge this is that one group of people does not have the right to compel others to follow their views.
Depends how close you are. At 6 inches a shotgun is incredibly humane. Other more "conventional" uses of a shotgun are not so humane.
Nonsense. It doesn't help anyone to grossly exaggerate. it is perfectly well established in law that shotguns, used properly, are not cruel.
What about sticking a hook in a fish's face? What possesses someone to make such spurious claims?
Again that notion of Staghounds only hunting sick deer has probably come from Smith-Pye's book. Don't get me wrong, I am not 'anti-hunting' but, like the BDS, feel that some aspects could be conducted better. Youtube has plenty of videos of completely exhausted stags that have been run to a standstill over many hours - that really doesn't do the fieldsports community any favours at all.
Charles S-J
Well-Known Member
With respect, the paper does not categorically deny any ability of dogs to detect disease. Rather it says that the BDS has 'seen no evidence that hounds are able to detect or select diseased deer that appear healthy to experienced humans' and that 'No peer-reviewed scientific work has given any weight to this theory.' If this argument is to be used to support hunting it is very much up to those using it to come up with the evidence, not the BDS.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
There's no point arguing with this member. They're more than likely a troll as they only contribute to contentious threads in Off Topic and won't stop until you get bored and move on from pointlessly arguing with them. I don't think it's possible for someone to be so obtuse unintentionally.
You'll be glad to know I didn't read Smith-Pye's book. If one is to conduct hunting better, then what is the suggestion for improvement? Something eccentric like print-hounds? A sort of cross between a rottweiler and a lurcher, which I have seen before for use on foxes? Catches the beast and nails it within 100m? Or is it to stop stag-hunting, which sounds somewhat indistinguishable from being "anti-hunting".
"Fieldsports community"?? I've heard of it, but Look at the comment above. There is no fieldsports community - that group of people contains many, including their own organisations who have progressively damned many forms of fieldsport and continue to do so. With friends like these.....
With respect, that is a semantic argument. They put forward that evidence and the BDS declined to accept it because it is not "peer-reviewed scientific work". What evidence does exist on that topic is that hounds are claimed to have that ability. In the absence of peer-reviewed science disproving it, then it is proper to reply on the evidence available from witnesses, whatever the origin. They are not scientists in that peer-group, so the BDS position effectively refutes the input of the hunts.
You have it the wrong way round. If the argument is to be used to support a legal activity, then it is very much up to those who wish to take away liberties to come up with the evidence. This country, traditionally, at least is not the Soviet Union. People should be at liberty except when a good reason exists, not the opposite.
Similar threads
