Arguments stemming from a lack of scientific evidence made yesterday’s hearing hard going . . .
Day two of the public hearing into hunting with dogs considered the issue of cruelty and the principle of least suffering, and heard evidence from a wide range of academics.
Questions of animal pain and moral responsibility are often contentious, and yesterday was no exception.
According to the Burns Report, bothshooting and hunting with dogs compromise the welfare of the quarry.
These findings leave nobody clearly in the right when it comes to issues of “least suffering,” he said.
The aim of the day for the pro-hunt lobby was to prove that hunting with dogs causes the least amount of suffering to the animal when compared to the alternatives.
Chairman of the Countryside Alliance, Richard Burge said he thought the day was a success for the pro-hunters.
“Today we established that the prohibition of hunting will be likely to increase rather than decrease suffering to wild animal populations.”
Lack of scientific evidence on the subject was a problem however for both sides of the debate, there being no way to measure animal suffering.
The anti-hunt lobby claimed that hunting caused the quarry to suffer more than the alternative methods of control.
Liam Slattery from the League Against Cruel Sports said proof was not a problem: “The Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal did more than enough yesterday to prove what most people already recognise, that hunting with dogs is inherently cruel.”
In other words, the second day sawneither side giving an inch of ground with both again claiming their viewpoint as victorious.
Click here to read the report on day one of the Hunting Hearing
