Dodgy logic of hunting fans
By Exeter Express and Echo | Thursday, November 03, 2011, 08:00
THE Countryside Alliance's recent report on The Hunting Act states that its members hunt within the law. It then goes on to claim that the Act is a waste of time because so few of its members have been convicted under it.
Following this outstanding example of 'dodgy' logic is the assertion that 97 per cent of all convictions are for 'poaching or other casual hunting activities'. Poaching is more than adequately covered by tried and tested poaching laws. The idea that the police, CPS and magistrates have been deliberately inflating hunting conviction figures by trying poaching cases under the Hunting Act is risible.
The reference to 'other casual hunting activities' appears to be a deliberate attempt to hide the success of the Hunting Act in controlling illegal hare coursing.
It would be interesting to know who, in the Countryside Alliance hierarchy, is responsible for this nonsense. The only thing they appear to have got right appears in the last line of the report. "The number of people convicted under the Hunting Act between 2005 to the end of 2010 is 181". This is higher than for any other comparable animal welfare legislation.
Ivor Annetts
Tiverton
Comments
"The idea that the police, CPS and magistrates have been deliberately inflating hunting conviction figures by trying poaching cases under the Hunting Act is risible."
No one said they were 'deliberately inflating' anything as far as I can see. They are simply stating facts - only a very small handful of convictions under the Hunting Act 2004 have related to organised, registered hunts. The clear (97%) majority HAVE been poachers, they have nothing to do with any pack of foxhounds, staghounds, harriers or beagles.
If you cannot understand why the police and CPS are using this act to prosecute poachers you will have to ask them. You obviously believe the total number of prosecutions is 181. Why not go away and find all the hunts concerned that must have made up this number, if you are so certain that the C.A. are wrong and that this doesn't relate primarily to poaching? The evidence speaks for itself.
By cbryantNSH at 13:45 on 04/11/11
Report