Bogus claims in defence of hunting
I never cease to be amazed by the puerile excuses that hunters concoct to justify their blood sport. The latest edition, by one Charisse Ryan (Express, September 28) is no different. Ms Ryan is essentially saying that, since not enough is being done to conserve our wild animals, we might as well shoot them.
Other feeble arguments given are that hunting contributes significantly to the sale of groceries and pet supplies (?), and that hunters are the ones who bring back data. The only data hunters provide is to boast about the number of animals they have shot. What good is that information?
Another letter, written some time ago, grumbled that the inalienable rights of 20,000 legitimate hunters were being threatened by the proposed two-year ban on hunting.
If each of these self-proclaimed “sportsmen’’ killed just one animal during the hunting season, do they really believe that would have no impact on our wildlife population?
I’m not saying that hunting is not fun, but claiming that it has some cultural or religious importance is so contrived. You can get the same thrill by taking your camera to the forest instead of your gun.
When your dogs have cornered some helpless creature, take a picture of it and show it to your children. They would much rather see that than some bloody carcass in a bag. And the animal would still be there for others, like me, to enjoy.