Rights & wrongs of sport shoot­ing

Sunday Herald - - 29.10.17 EDITORIAL & LETTERS -

VISIT Scot­land and bring your gun (Un­der fire: anger as Vis­itScot­land pro­motes shoot­ing of hares for sport, News, Oc­to­ber 22). A for­eign gen­tle­man poses be­side a heap of white hare; lunch for the party is served from the manda­tory Land Rover. A goose trail­ing its wing flaps down the mud; its car­cass will float with the tide; the brave sports­man lies be­hind the bank, wait­ing for a bet­ter shot.

For the sport­ing “toff”, wound­ing a stag in its guts to my days poach­ing a hind for the salt bar­rel, I’ve seen it all. Elitism is a per­ni­cious con­di­tion: it turns cru­elty into cash and jobs, while the shoot­ers call them­selves con­ser­va­tion­ists.

Iain R Thom­son Can­nich

SHOOT­ING and eat­ing a le­gal quarry species surely has at least as much merit as buy­ing fac­tory-farmed, pre-pre­pared parts of an­i­mals which have never ex­pe­ri­enced the wild and prob­a­bly con­tain an­tibi­otics.

John Robins of An­i­mal Con­cern calls for a to­tal ban on fox hunt­ing (Let’s end fox hunt­ing for good, Let­ters, Oc­to­ber 29). He ob­vi­ously feels it is ac­cept­able for groups to drive around the coun­try dressed in com­bat gear with their faces masked when they are hunt sabo­teurs. He calls for “no more than two muz­zled hounds to be used to flush out foxes to be shot”. But two hounds would have vir­tu­ally zero chance of flush­ing a fox. The fox is not torn to bits but legally shot by the ri­fle­man.

Mr Robins rep­re­sents An­i­mal Con­cern yet shows no con­cern for the species upon which foxes pre­date. Ask any­one who has found all their chick­ens slaugh­tered when a fox gains ac­cess to the hen house.

This cam­ou­flaged class war­fare dis­plays a to­tal lack of un­der­stand­ing of the coun­try­side

David Stub­ley Prest­wick

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.