Long life
Once bloodied, twice shy
Nigel Nicolson
Blood sports have played little part in my life. My grandfather bequeathed to me a fine pair of Purdey guns, but I was too small to use them as a child and too clumsy as an adult. There was a ridiculous incident when my father, who was equally inexperi- enced as a shot, thought it necessary to indoctrinate his sons in the traditional pas- times of the countryside, and took us into the woods with one of the precious guns. A rabbit sat in our path washing its whiskers. He took aim, pulled the trigger, and there was nothing but a metallic click. The rabbit continued its toilet, indifferent to our pres- ence. At the second attempt, the same thing happened. The rabbit then loped off at its leisure. After that, we gave the Purdeys to the gardener, who shot a rat and then sold them for an enormous sum.
Only on one occasion have I killed an animal deliberately. I was 21, staying with a Highland laird, His niece, with whom I was much in love, induced me to stalk a stag. The gillie could barely conceal his con- tempt for me, but as he was under instruc- tions and also in love with the niece, he brought me after a long march to a point where a fine stag was seen browsing in the heather. I killed it quite cleanly, as it hap- pened, but it lived long enough to look at me reproachfully. I shall never forget that look, nor what happened subsequently. When the deer had been gralloched, my girlfriend smeared its entrails on my face, `to bloody you,' she explained, and I was not to wash it off for 24 hours. I sat at din- ner bloodied, hating it, but still loving her. She married a solicitor.
I thought of this event two weeks ago as I listened to the debate at the annual meet- ing of the National Trust. The meeting was dominated, once again, by the issue of stag- hunting. It was a difficult decision for the Trust, for there was no denying that a majority of its members who had bothered to vote in 1990 (7.3 per cent of the total membership) had supported the protesters, and there had been a time-stalling enquiry into the likely consequences of imposing a ban. If the stags won a reprieve, soon it would be the turn of the foxes. The Coun- ell's reply was that it was 'neither in favour of, nor against, hunting'. Moral issues like this should be decided by Parliament. A resolution to this effect was carried by over 100,000 votes to 30,000, rather larger totals than I observed in the beautifully spacious auditorium at Wembley. So a decision was once more shelved.
I understand the Trust's dilemma, but its Claim to be neutral in this dispute is not quite tenable, for if it allows hunting to Continue on its land, it proclaims itself in favour, and if it forbids hunting, it disap- proves of it. In either case, half the two million membership will be outraged. Charities should not shirk such issues, nor has the Trust done so in the past. It has forbidden coursing (with the explanation that while there are too many deer, there are too few hares), taken the lead in bar- ring metal detectors for treasure trove and Controlled the use of bikes on moorland paths, all decisions which involved a choice between competing ethical claims. There is no need to impose a universal rule about hunting for fox or deer. Leave it to the Trust's regions and individual donors, as it has been left elsewhere to county councils and separate landlords.
Although we have no stags in Kent out- side a few parks, I would vote against, remembering those reproachful eyes on that Scottish hillside years ago.
Previous page
