IN the most recent contributions to the paper concerning hunting and HuntFest, I see that a lot of the language varies from insulting to plain hostile; with people being described as “communist scum”, “ferals”, “dopes”, etc.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
One writer has claimed with certainty that he was witness to an “appalling exhibition” by an individual at the HuntFest event, in which the ‘accused’ actually talked to an attending police officer about the event - “bending [his] ear” as the writer puts. As it turns out, the ‘offender’ is not the named person but rather another person who objects to what HuntFest stands for. She is a stalwart, eighty-year-old woman, who knows the land and whose family has lived in the area for many years.
I think the paper ought to be a lot more careful about what it allows to be published - to avoid legal action against it, if for no other reason.
To answer some of the views expressed by the hunting fraternity, I point out that there are plenty of people about, like me, who own firearms, support scientifically based, properly and humanely managed culling programs, are in favour of shooting ranges, and who are not aligned with any political party and, at the same time, reject completely what is referred to as “trophy hunting”.
If we had ‘big game’ here and it were lawful to shoot them, we can be sure that is exactly what would happen: in the style of the Shooters and Fishers MP, Robert Borsak, who allegedly described his killing of a magnificent bull elephant in Zimbabwe as “...awesome. He did not know what had hit him”!
This debate appears to be separating those who think it is okay, even a thrill, to kill animals as a form of recreation, from those who reject or are repulsed by it.
It really gets down to that and no amount of debate is going to alter the views of the two camps.
But let’s, please, keep it civil and not personal.
Peter Cormick
Deua River Valley
