Anti-hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-hunting is a term which is (often informally) used to identify or describe persons or groups, generally in a political context, who stand in opposition to hunting. It is also used to describe efforts to prevent hunting through legislation and other means which can include acts of civil disobedience such as hunt sabotage. Anti-hunting laws such as the English Hunting Act 2004 are generally distinguishable from conservation legislation such as the American Marine Mammal Protection Act by whether they seek to reduce or prevent hunting for perceived cruelty related reasons or to regulate hunting for conservation, although the boundaries of distinction are sometimes blurred in specific laws, for example when endangered animals are hunted.

While anti-hunting does not appear to be pejorative so much as descriptive, the term is widely used by pro-hunting, and traditional hunting conservation sources.

1 History of the anti-hunting movement
- 1.1 Modern influences
2 Geographic differences
- 2.1 Class issues
3 Notes
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] History of the anti-hunting movement

The anti-hunting movement was largely established in late ninteenth century England as a focus of the idealism espoused by the writer Henry S Salt and developed within the goals of the Humanitarian League. ^[1]

[edit] Modern influences

Anti-hunting groups in the US include Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The corporate stance of more centrist animal welfarist groups such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals includes anti-hunting sentiment.^[2].

In England and Wales the campaign to ban fox hunting was led by the animal welfare groups, the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.^[3] ^[4]. Advocates for Animals formed a partnership with the League Against Cruel Sports and IFAW to campaign for the prohibition of hunting with dogs in Scotland. Hunts were also sabotaged by the Hunt Saboteurs Association. The League Against Cruel Sports also campaigns against hunting in Northern Ireland.

[edit] Geographic differences

It is difficult to compare strength of anti-hunting sentiment in different countries, for example because the word 'hunting' carries different meanings in the UK and United States. Nonetheless, it is more possible to compare the strength of the anti-hunting movement in different countries, with some having stronger organization, such as in the UK, and some being nearly without it, such as New Zealand. The United States is largely pro-hunting with 78% of Americans supporting legal hunting in 2006.^[5]

[edit] Class issues

Class has sometimes been proposed as a possible differentiating factor between hunting in the UK and hunting in the United States. This seems, however, to form a very minor aspect of the UK's anti-hunting movement.

Traditionally, support for hunting, notably rabbit and hare coursing, has long been a part of working class culture in the United Kingdom.^[6]. As recently as 2005, one anti-hare coursing organisation referred to coursing supporters as being made up of "10% Nobs and 90% Yobs".^[7]

The Burns Inquiry analysed opposition to hunting in the UK. They reported that:

"there are those who have a moral objection to hunting and who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of people gaining pleasure from what they regard as the causing of unnecessary suffering. There are also those who perceive hunting as representing a divisive social class system. Others, as we note below, resent the hunt trespassing on their land, especially when they have been told they are not welcome. They worry about the welfare of the pets and animals and the difficulty of moving around the roads where they live on hunt days. Finally there are those who are concerned about damage to the countryside and other animals, particularly badgers and otters."^[8]

Such an element of class is absent from the hunting debate in the United States where there are not many obvious class differences in hunting habits (except for there being little evidence for significant support of hunting by the welfare class). Instead the differences in anti-hunting sentiment relates to urban sprawl and increasing population density. ^[9] Because of the abundance of public land in the United States, as high as 75% of the land in some states, one need not be wealthy to have access to huntable land in less densely populated areas.

The democratic perspective on hunting in the United States started as a result of the reaction against English laws restricting game to the crown.^[10]. This is one of the aspects of Amrican culture which formed as a result of that nation's original high number of refugees from the UK and Ireland.(see Enclosure movement)

A further difference between the context of debate on hunting in the UK and US is that US hunting in often licensed by Government, providing licence fee income to the state. In contrast to this, hunting in the UK has broadly required only the permission of the landowner or the owner of sporting rights over the land.