Hunting Act does not ban hunting
THE Hunting Act 2004 bans wild mammals being hunted with dogs for sport, but it does not ban hunting.
Colin Richey, and many other people, fails to understand or ignore this very important point. (Tories' hunt pledge should be honoured — Letters, July 24.)
Prime Minister David Cameron, in his maiden speech in the House of Commons on June 21, 2001, said: "I will always stand up for the freedom of people in the countryside to take part in country sports, and, in the light of today's debate, would always be concerned about any limits set on a debate on a hunting Bill that could curtail that freedom..."
His speech, nine years ago, is nine centuries after Ethelred II established the first royal hunting lodge in the royal forest of Wychwood, west Oxfordshire – near the constituency of Mr Cameron.
During the past 900 years, deer hunting was very much the preserve of royalty and nobility. Today, things have changed, but there remains a Tory threat to reintroduce the medieval barbaric sport of killing animals for fun by repealing the Hunting Act 2004.
Early Day Motion 116 was recently laid before the House of Commons, by a Labour MP, saying any attempt to repeal the Act would be a retrograde step and out of keeping with a civilised society.
I feel sure most Echo readers will agree.
John Phelps
Argyll Road, Exeter
2 Comments
by giles, rose ash
Thursday, July 29 2010, 1:22PM
“"Hunting Act does not ban hunting"
He does have a point.
When the law came into force I wrote to Defra complaining that it would be impossible for me to prevent my dogs flushing deer out even if I wanted to. This of course applies to many dog walkers.
They replied that the law did not restrict dogs hunting. The only restriction was on me hunting with the dogs. It turns out that hunting being an 'intentional activity' all I have to control when out with my dogs is my thoughts.
The law does not protect the deer from being flushed out but me from thinking certain things that Labour MPs deemed immoral while out for an evening stroll.
Of course if I cannot help myself but think bad thoughts of wild deer running away then I can avail myself of one of the exemptions, shoot all the flushed out and remain pure in mind and spirit under the law.
Mr Phelps suggests that removing such legal nonsense would be 'a retrograde step in a modern society'. I disagree. We need to replace the Hunting Act with a law protecting all would mammals from deliberate cruelty howsoever caused.
Unfortunately much of the anti hunt lobby opposes such a law on the grounds that if people were not being cruel to animals they could not be convicted.”
by Sarah, Surrey
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 9:43PM
“Well, I read the online version of the Exeter Express and Echo, and I don't agree.
Giles???”