IS COURSING CRUEL?

Otago Witness, Issue 3098, 30 July 1913, Page 51

IS COURSING CRUEL?

RESOLUTION TO PROSECUTE RESCINDED. At a special meeting of the Committee ol the Society for the ' Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, held on July 5, the following motion was moved by Mr T. \V. Jeans: — “ That, in the opinion of the committee, the coursing of hares in enclosures is a. cruel sport, and that steps bo taken by the committee to test tins by a prosecution of those who engage in the practice.” —Tins motion was carried by six votes to four. The resolution arrived at, however, did not meet with the approval of some of the members, and another special meeting of the committee was held on the 24th July to consider a motion brought forward by Mr W. D. Snowball to rescind the resolution of July 3. ' In the event of ins motion being carried Mr Snowball gave further notice of motion, as follows: —“Whilst the practice of coursing within enclosures should not be encouraged, the committee considers that it is inadvisable for it to institute a prosecution against persons who take part in Plumpton coursing, us it recognises tluit were it to do so, it oouid not consistently refrain from instituting similar prosecutions against persons who engage in the sports of angling, doer-stalking, the shooting of our native fauna, etc., and it is obvious such action would militate seriously against the usefulness of the society in its legitimate functions.” Mr G. Fenwick occupied the chair, and there were about, a dozen ladies and gentlemen present. In referring to the object for which the meeting was called, the Chairman said lie was in entire sympathy with Mr Snowball’s motion. He had already expressed the opinion that tho society had made n mistake in passing ih previous motion, for one reason, if for no other, that if the society was to he consistent it could not stop at, the prosecution of those only who took part in ooursini# matches. What was to bo said of anglingY He did not think there was a tithe of the cruelty involved in the killing of a hare' by a greyhound that there was in the landing of a trout by means of a barbed hook in its gills. The speaker said that if tho society were going to embark on prosecutions of this kind it would endanger its position. He quite agreed that coursing was a very poor sport indeed, and not an elevating one, and the sooner it was wiped out tho better, but ho did not. considej it was tho province of the society to bring on prosecutions with this object. Mr Snowball said he had brought un hi« motion for various reasons. First of all. he believed that some of the members of the committee, who voted at tho meeting on July 3, were not fully conversant with tho wording of the motion then submitted. and did so under n slight misappre-hension—-at least he thought they did not favour a prosecution. Secondly, he considered that a very large number of tho members of the society wore not in favour of the motion passed. Already some members had signified their intention of refraining from contributing to the society, being of opinion that it was going too far, and asking what, it- was going to do next. Furthermore, he did not believe that if the society took a case to the court it could succeed. The speaker said he need not dilate on the good work done bv the society in years past, but it had not been, done by prosecutions. Ho considered their principal aim should be prevention. —(Hear, hear.) If tho society could not produce evidence in court to show that coursing was actually cruel, they must immediately lose prestige, and would ho undoing a great amount of the good work they had previously done. Mr Mills seconded the motion. The Rev. Mr Saunders said Mr Snowball had raised t lie point that it would be inexpedient for tiie society to prosecute, and that if it did prosecute defeat would result. Wln-ther inexpedient or not, it was a most deporablo thing if they should lose certain of their members, as stated by Mr Snowball, but, on the other hand, if they took action as proposed ho believed they would get other members in the place of those leaving them. So far ns Mr Snowball’s argument as to courting defeat in a court case was concerned he himself had obtained a legal opinion on tho matter. and that opinion led him to lie more optimistic than Mr Snowball. A prosecution could lie on (lie ground of baiting, torture, and ill-iifeng. and if the t wo first-mimed cruelties eou’d not be proved, he (the speaker)

tnougat tney oouid prove ill-usage as a result of coursing. He did not mink the society should retreat because it thought it •would bo beaten. He would much prefer to tight the case. He quite agreed that the society should also take action as regards pigeon shooting, more especially if what he had heard was true —that the birds were blinded in one eye so that they might i'.y in a certain direction so as to favour the guns. ' The speaker then asked if the chairman would accept an amendment to the motion. The Chairman said it was perhaps not quite in accordance with parliamentary procedure that an amendment should bo taken of which no notice had been given. Jf, however, the meeting was agreeable he was prepared to accept the amendment The amendment read: —“ That this committee, while not prepared t.o prosecute for cruelty those who take part in Plumpton coursing, expresses its emphatic opinion that such coursing is a heartless and unworthy form of sport, and therefore hopes to see it speedily abandoned.” It was agreed to accept the amendment an so far as the second part of Air .Snowball’s motion was concerned, and in the event of the resolution to rescind being carried. Air Theomm seconded the amendment. Ho was, however, ho said, in favour of the Mr Snowball’s first motion. They did not want to bo charged with being irrational, through taking action in some directions and leaving other sports alone. Mr Quick said he was not in favour of Mr Snowball’s motion. He thought they should act up to their name, and ho did not believe there was anyone who would deny that there was more or less cruelty in coursing in an enclosure. True, there were some other sports which might be cruel, but there might probably be some excuse for them on the ground that they wore indulged in with the object of obtaining food. They oonld not advance this argument for coursing, however. If the committee rescinded the motion it might be charged with lack of courage. He understood that those who went to the Plumpton meeting were agreed that the sport was more or less cruel. The Rev. Mr Diamond said he saw no reason why the committee should alter the decision arrived at at the last meeting. Those who had gone out to see the so-called sport of coursing could not adequately express their disgust with it and the sickening impression it made upon them to see the hare twisting and doubling in an endeavour to escape its pursuers. He said in his opinion coursing blunted feelings of compassion and hardened the heart against suffering. The committee could not cease to take action considering the aims and ideals of the society and its subscribers. Mr Jeans said he saw no reason why the resolution of July 3 should bo withdrawn. Mr Snowball’s motion to rescind the previous resolution was then put, and carried by 6 votes to 5. The second part of the motion was withdrawn by Air Snowball in favour of Mr Saunders’s amendment, and this, on being put. was unanimously agreed to. PUBLIC MEETING TO BE CALLED. Mr Saunders then gave notice to move at the next meeting of the committee that it is desirable to call a public meeting of the constituents of the society to discuss the question of the cruelty of coursing.