Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Blood sports, abolition of
Section F. Culture, education and sport
There are different examples of blood sports in different cultures; cockfighting is illegal in most Western countries now, but is popular in much of Asia and Latin America; some parts of Spain still enjoy bullfighting. In the UK, foxhunting was banned in 2004, but the legislation is not rigorously enforced, and in 2013, hunts still take place up and down the country; Pakistan recently banned dogfighting, but it is still popular in rural areas. A debate may focus on one of these sports or look at banning them collectively. Not all of the arguments work for all of the sports — the issues around bullfighting and hunting, for example, overlap but are different, so be sure to pick your arguments accordingly. See also the introduction to the debate on ’Animal experimentation and vivisection, banning of’ (Section E) and the entry on ’Animal rights’ (Section A) for a general summary of animal rights debates.
Pros
[1] There is a continuum between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals such as birds, hares, foxes and deer can, like us, experience stress, fear, exhaustion and pain. As conscious beings, we should accord these animals rights and not inflict suffering and death on them for the sake of our entertainment. The infliction of unnecessary suffering on domestic and captive animals is already a criminal offence — this offence should be extended to cover all animals.
[2] In the case of hunting, it is defended on the grounds that it is legitimate pest control or legitimate hunting for food. Claims that hunting is a form of ’pest control’ are usually bogus. Foxes, for example, are particularly inefficient predators, accounting for only a tiny percentage of livestock lost each year. Foxes were imported into Britain specifically to be hunted, when deer populations waned early in the twentieth century, and fox hunts still deliberately nurture fox populations. Foxes are not eaten. Hunting with hounds — killing the quarry only after hours of terror and exhaustion — is not an effective way to kill hares, foxes or deer. Shooting is more humane and efficient, if they really need to be killed to protect livestock or reduce populations. Game birds are bred specifically to be shot. These practices are a particularly stark example of the abuse of humanity’s position as ’stewards’ of the natural world.
[3] Nobody has a right to continue with cultural practices which are harmful (to humans, animals or society as a whole). Cultures must evolve to conform to society’s values. Public executions and freak shows were once culturally significant. They have gone, and blood sports must go the same way.
[4] Public opinion has moved against blood sports and there are lobbies in many parts of the world to outlaw practices where they still go on. They are seen as outdated and barbaric and they do not fit in with our views of a civilized society in the twenty-first century.
[5] There are alternatives to blood sports that could maintain employment for those involved in the industry and maintain the pursuit as a hobby, but without the cruelty to animals. Examples of this are ’draghunting’ where an artificial trail is laid and followed by hounds, or shooting at targets on a range.
[6] Bans send out a clear message that animal cruelty is unacceptable, and over time the activity will decrease. More effort could be put into enforcement with harsher penalties. If the government is failing in enforcement, why would it be any more effective in regulation?
Cons
[1] Humans are both at the top of the food chain and of the evolutionary tree, and as such, may use animals to their own ends, while preferably minimising their suffering. Blood sports exist as a way to derive community enjoyment from the hunting of animals that would be killed anyway. The opposition to blood sports is largely based on anthropomorphic sentimentality and squeamishness. People have always had to kill animals to feed and protect themselves. In the modern metropolitan supermarket age, people have the luxury of distancing themselves from the actual business of doing so.
[2] Blood sports often kill animals that are destructive of animals raised for food. The huge majority of farmers agree that foxes are pests that attack their livestock. Shooting, poisoning and trapping — the alternatives to hunting with hounds — are not more humane. All these methods potentially leave animals to die a slow and painful death (most farmers are not trained marksmen — a shot is more likely to wound a fox than kill it, leaving it to starve through its inability to hunt). The death of an animal caught by hunting hounds is over in a second or two. Other blood sports kill animals that can be eaten — pheasants, grouse, deer, hares and fish — some of which are also a pest to agriculture and forestry (e.g. hares, deer). And it is hardly logical to complain about the shooting of birds that were bred to be shot. As it is, they have a perfectly natural life ended instantaneously when they are shot. If it were not for blood sports, these birds would never have had a life at all — they would not have been born.
[3] Some blood sports are culturally important, such as bullfighting in Spain. In these cases, the cultural rights of humans must be put before the dubious rights of animals.
[4] There is still a lot of support for blood sports such as bullfighting, which is seen as an important part of Spain’s cultural heritage. Many of those who oppose hunting have never been hunting themselves and are city-dwellers. They live a life detached from the realities of rural life and farming, and hence can afford to take an idealistic stance on ’animal rights’. In rural communities, there is very little support for a ban.
[5] The banning of blood sports would undermine the rural economy, since hunting provides jobs for many and protects agricultural land. As explained above, there is no need for an alternative such as drag-hunting, since blood sports are not gratuitous entertainment, but the carrying out of legitimate and necessary killing of pests or game in an enjoyable fashion.
[6] It has proved impossible to enforce bans on blood sports. Dogfighting is still popular, though illegal, in Pakistan; nobody knows how many illegal cockfights take place globally; and in Britain, it is believed that groups have found ways around the foxhunting ban and escaped prosecution. These ineffective bans undermine the government and it would be better to work to regulate conditions for animals involved in the sport.
Possible motions
This House believes that the unspeakable should leave the inedible alone.
This House believes that blood sports are legalised barbarism.
This House would ban bullfighting.
This House would relegalise foxhunting.
Related topics
Animal experimentation and vivisection, banning of
Animal rights
Vegetarianism
Zoos, abolition of