[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR] .
have followed with great interest the long corres- pondence in your columns on the subject of blood sports. All your correspondents have dealt admirably with the problem from one point of view and all I think from the wrong one.
Both the antagonists and the supporters of the various sports have argued their cases always with the hunted animal as the central figure. Whilst I do not deny that the sufferings of the animal creation should concern us very deeply indeed, surely it is our own morality as the instigators of these sports that is on trial.
If the question stands : " Do blOod sports cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals ? " bearing in mind the inevit- ability of pain and suffering to most animals, and of death to all in a state of nature, the answer is by no means obvious and the way is open to endless controversy. But if the question, is framed thus " Is it -right to -take -pleasure in a sport which may possibly cause animals to suffer and which frequently causes their death ? ", if the proper emphasis is placed upon -the enjoyment, and if we bear in mind that all blood sports have enjoyment as their main object, I do not see that there can be two answers.
Comparisons between the sufferings of hunted and unhunted animals have taken up much valuable space in your columns and to my mind- are quite beside the point. The immediate cessation of all blood sports would diminish the total of animal suffering in the world by quite an infinitesimal amount. But with suffering which we do not cause we need have no concern. What we must concern ourselves with is the absolute necessity of submitting to the moral law which forbids us to take pleasure in any sport-which may possibly cause suffering to our fellow creatures.—I am, Sir, &c., A. J. HAVES. Newbridge, Uptvell, Wisbech.
[This correspondence is now closed.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
