Sir, The Minister for Rural Affairs, Alun Michael, in his statement last month to the House (Hansard, December 3, col 757), stated specifically: “We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting.”

Hare coursing clearly falls into the same category as shooting or fishing, which are recreational sports. But, as Professor Roger Scruton has pointed out in the journal Philosophy (vol 77, 2002), coursing differs in one fundamental and morally relevant respect. It is a managed adaptation of a natural form of predation, which the quarry avoids by instinct. In contrast, shooting and fishing use technology that neutralises the quarry’s innate means of defence.

Pursuit by hounds is entirely natural for the hare. It is a situation for which it is supremely well adapted. Speed, acceleration, all-round vision and manoeuvrability all ensure that well over 90 per cent of coursed hares escape unharmed.

The number of hares killed in a coursing day, even during a major event, is very few (eight maximum) compared with the hundreds of animals killed in a single hare shoot. Death from coursing, if it occurs, is virtually instantaneous and above all certain; coursing leaves no wounded survivors, compared to 20-25 per cent of hares not killed outright during a shoot, 10 per cent of which will escape to live or die with their wounds.

Coursing interests also contribute substantially towards conservation and enhancement of hare numbers.

Judged therefore by the minister’s so-called “golden thread” of cruelty and utility, there can be no “incontrovertible evidence” to ban hare coursing if shooting and fishing are to remain unrestricted.

Yours faithfully,
LEWIS H. THOMAS,
Smiths Cottage,
North Heath, Chieveley,
Newbury, Berkshire RG20 8UA.
drlewis.thomas@virgin.net
January 12.

Explore Letters

• Feedback