I was interested to read that, since the Hunting Bill came into force, the number of participants appears to have increased, despite the fact that ripping live animals to pieces has now been replaced by the less exciting task of tracking a smelly rag.
I seem to recall that when the Bill was bravely introduced by Tricia Marwick, the hunting community, led by the Countryside Alliance, claimed that such a move would lead to mass unemployment among the hunting fraternity, hundreds of working dogs being destroyed, followed by the complete collapse of the entire rural economy.
Given that nothing of the kind has happened, wouldn't a bit of humility perhaps be in order from the Countryside Alliance?
Gavin Fleming, 517 Webster's Land, Grassmarket, Edinburgh.
Hunting with dogs may be banned but the twisted logic of the Countryside Alliance is still alive and well.
Your article on the Boxing Day hunts (December 27) reports that more people are attending now that they have changed to drag hunting. This would lead a logical person to conclude that people who were previously put off by the cruelty of a fox hunt are now able to participate. Not so, according to the Countryside Alliance, which claims that everyone who attends is, in fact, showing their support for this blood sport.
Jill Grieve then goes on to say that a lot of people have attended hunts since the ban to "see what the fuss is about". Forgive me if I've missed something but hasn't what the fuss was about - the chasing and killing of a live quarry - been banned? Surely many people are going along to watch the hounds and horses, safe in the knowledge that they are not going to see a terrified animal chased to exhaustion and torn to pieces.
Overturn the ban and numbers would go down again, but the Countryside Alliance wouldn't care since the blood would have been put back into their "sport".
I would like to watch a drag hunt but will never go near while the threat remains of automatically being counted as a supporter of something as uncivilised as hunting with dogs.
Sarah Bruce, 21a The Causeway, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article