Two weeks ago the French equivalent of "The Guardian", "Le Monde", published a lucid, well argued and well written article outlining the case for banning hunting in France ( I read "Le Monde" from time to time to keep up my French and I'm almost totally deaf so conversations are difficult.)
This was a totally one sided statement because it was the tactical and partisan case against hunting. But as a stalker it made me think about my own position; how could I justify what I do in the face of these arguments. Here we go; there were five main objections;
- Since the start of the hunting season this year in France eleven people have been killed by hunters, one while driving his car and one while gardening. This is probably the most powerful argument against hunting in France.
- Hunting isn't a sport and can't be compared to football or skiing, calling hunting a sport might be a "category error".
- The deliberate killing of protected species by a few hunters or gamekeepers eg., golden eagles and harriers is unsupportable.
- Shooting causes pollution by lead and plastic.
- Economic arguments in favour of hunting are at best weak.