The Hunt and the Trap A Private Member's Bill on
the extinction of certain field sports, especially the hunting of the fox, happens to coincide with a greatly increased membership of the British Field Sports Society at 3 St. James's Square. I do not propose to take a hand in the vigorous propaganda, on both sides, that is in evidence ; but there is one point that ought to be stressed, for the sake of the wisdom of putting first things first. The present use of the steel trap and to a less extent of some other traps inflicts many thousand times as large a sum of cruelty as all the hunts. Still, in spite of protests, dogs, cats, vermin ( so called ) and birds are caught in their mangling teeth, as well as the unhappy rabbits for which they are set. I have myself in the past released a fox-cub so caught and seen a number of one-legged pheasants. The new Bill specifically condones cruelty if it is inflicted for the sake of providing food and so accepts both the steel trap and the gun. It is a little hard to understand why hunting is always put in the forefront by humani- tarians (among whom in certain respects I should like to be classed). I have asked the question of kind-hearted people, and their answers suggest that the throwing of the fox to the hounds after its death has appalled them much more than the hunting itself ; and in this regard of course cruelty does not come in. In face of such feelings it has certainly been a mistake on the part of the hunts to adopt the habit of " blooding " children. It is not barbarous, but it is barbarian. Again in regard to priorities in cruelty, the gun—strongly recommended by some of the humanitarian school—certainly inflicts more and more lasting pain than all the packs of foxhounds. How to kill is a dreadful problem. One of the most charming dogs I have known was killed by poison set for foxes.
Previous page
