CHAPTER IV.
THE HUMANITARIAN ASPECT.
By Col. Robertson-Aikman.
I have been asked to contribute some remarks on the humanitarian aspect of hare hunting, much having been written to the Press on its cruelty, especially in reference to the E.C.H.—a hunt that has been singled out for opprobrium by people to whom must no doubt be attributed well-meaning and humanitarian feelings, but who it seems to me fail to recognise natural laws or to take a broad-minded or unbiased view of sport in general or to realise that they have not the monopoly of humane feelings.
To commence with, what is cruelty? The infliction of pain need not necessarily constitute cruelty, else many things besides sport must be condemned. The infliction of unnecessary pain is where cruelty begins, and this is reprehensible and inexcusable. I think the subject must be approached with a sense of proportion, and must be treated comparatively. All animals have to meet their death, and those that are used for human food an untimely death at the hand of man, and the chief object to be kept in view is the avoidance of inflicting unnecessary pain. This should be every true sportsman’s aim.
Nature herself is cruel, beasts and birds of prey being the worst offenders. Who that has seen a cat with a mouse but is not moved with pity and made to wonder why things have been so ordained?
Venery has been in vogue since the days of primitive man, when he hunted for the means of subsistence; and nowadays, when it is practised as a manly pastime for exercise, health, and pleasure, every true sportsman who indulges in it makes it his endeavour to minimise the sufferings of his quarry, and will always give it a fair chance for its life. Contrast this with the everyday occurrence of a calf or a pig being taken to have its throat cut and bled to death with no possible chance of escape. My sympathy is stronger for these than for any hunted animal. Have those who decry the sport never eaten veal and ham pie?
I said before that the question is comparative, and I should like to follow that up by saying that the sport of hunting compares very favourably with other sports from a humanitarian view. Take shooting; how many animals and birds in a day’s shooting get away wounded, many to die a lingering death? Quite a considerable percentage. In hunting it is certain death or escape, and, though cases are known of hunted animals being picked up afterwards having died of exhaustion, these cases are exceptional. They never get away wounded, and their end when killed by hounds is as quick as it is certain. I imagine there are more things mortally wounded in a big day’s covert shoot than any one pack of hounds kills in a season, and I venture to think that taking the country as a whole there are more wounded in one day’s shooting than all the packs in the kingdom kill in a whole season.
I recall an incident when hunting in Lanarkshire which illustrates the often mistaken ideas of humanitarians. I had a beaten hare in front of me that took to the roads. I came to a cross road where hounds checked, and met a lady whom I asked if she had viewed my hare. She said yes, but she would rather not tell me where she had gone, as she looked on hunting as cruel. I told her I respected her feelings of humanity, and if I were of her opinion I would give up hunting. I asked her her views on shooting and whether she did not think it was cruel that so many things died from wounds. She replied, “No good sportsmen ever wound things, they always kill them dead.” How many of us, I wonder, could under this definition claim to be good sportsmen?
An officer of that excellent Society the S.P.C.A. once met me returning home with hounds from hunting, and, noticing a lame hound, was going to run me in for cruelty. I told him if he could insure prevention of such cruelty I hoped he would come and stay with me for the winter.