Why, if the case against Hunting so strong, so obvious, do the anti-hunt lobby feel the need to use Deception, Half-Truths, Misleading Comments and downright Lies to build up their case.

This is a very good question, and you will find that as you progress through this Web Site you will get sent back to this page over and over again.

The reason is simple :

Because they do not believe in their own case.

Deep down, they know that they are wrong.

Hunting with hounds is no worse than any other form of pest control. They all have their good points and their bad points.

They know, as well as we do, that the real reasons that hunting with hounds is unpopular are based on an in built social dislike of the People that are doing the thing, not the thing that they do.

People claim to dislike hunting with hounds because they believe that :

the only reason that Hunters do what they do to foxes is because they get pleasure from doing so.

Well,

The only reason that coarse anglers do what they do to fishes is because they get pleasure from doing so.

That is a fact.

And the only reason that Hunting is hated and Angling is not, is because Hunting is done by "rich gits", who we don't like, and Angling is done by "Normal People", who we do.

That is the real reason.

All this stuff they then come up with about fish not feeling pain etc, is

(a) total rubbish

and

(b) an attempt to retrospectively justify this inconsistency to themselves.

 

So there we have it – the anti’s tell porkies because even they don't believe what they are saying. They might persuade themselves to think they do, but subconsciously they don't.

It's hardly surprising really. I mean they know the facts as well as we do.

• Foxes do eat lambs
• What the hound does to the fox is absolutely no different to what the fox does to the rabbit.
• And considerably less unpleasant than what the domestic moggy does to almost anything it can catch.

They know that the real reason why hunting wasn't banned along with Cock Fighting and Badger Baiting is because Hunting is justifiable, whilst the others are not.

It's the simple, obvious reason.

That’s a heck of a lot of current to have to push your prejudice against.

The anti’s hate hunting not because it is wrong, but because they desperately want it to be wrong. In their perfect world, they think it ought to be wrong.

And when they cannot find the proof to make what they want come true, they invent it.

Conclusion :

If the anti’s genuinely believed that hunting was totally morally unjustifiable, that would be it.

They wouldn’t need to invent justifications or creatively interpreted research or anything else.

It would just BE wrong. End of story.

Look at it this way :

We all know that raping children is wrong.

We don't need to prove it, it just is. We KNOW it is.

We don't feel the need to try to claim that the reason it should be illegal is because it is an ineffective form of human reproduction.

 

The antis attempt to mislead the public because they do not believe their own case.

And if they do not believe it, why should you?