COURSING

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27148, 18 September 1953, Page 7

COURSING

Sir, —I am in full agreement with your correspondent, H. Thompson, in condemning all bloOd sport. Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that women on the council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and members deck themselves out in fur coats and fox stoles, robbing those unfortunate creatures of their young lives. Only the best pelts are used. Why this inconsistency? Is it self-conceit and self-aggrandise-ment? We produce the best wool. Is, this not sufficient for our overcoats, etc.? No blood shed or young lives lost, certainly no cruelty. Let them practise what they preach. Make believe is valueless.—Yours, etc., DO UNTO OTHERS. September 15, 1953. [When this letter was referred to the secretary of the Christchurch branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mr C. G. McKellar) he had no comment to make.]

Sir, —“Logic” has missed the point altogether. The fuss is about the motives of those supporting coursing, rather than the hares’ deaths. Pest eradication realises that in the interests of the community pests must be controlled, though one may derive no pleasure from doing it. A- blood sportsman, however, kills purely and simply for pleasure. The animal dies in each case,' but the motives of the killers are as different as chalk and cheese. Killing for pleasure, if it has no element of conscious cruelty, is at least selfish. It shows, I think, an immature mind, a lack of perspective, and superficial thinking, which one could excuse in children; but one expects something more mature of adults. This is a free country, certainly, but be sure that killing for pleasure adds to the debit side of one’s karma, as those who laugh now will ultimately realise. —Yours, etc., M. September 17. 1953.