# Still one of the best & most logical pieces ever written



## Doormouse (8 April 2015)

MADNESS, MADNESS  MADNESS

by Sir Mark Prescott

How many hours did Parliament devote to debating the war in Iraq? The answer is 41 hours. How many have died since that war began? If you believe independent sources 220,000 men, women and children.

How many hours did Parliament devote to debating the war in Afghanistan? The answer is 22 hours. How many human beings have died since that war began? If you believe the same independent sources again, it is in excess of 70,000 men, women and children.

How many hours have Parliament devoted to debating Hunting with Dogs? Answer: 700 hours. How many hares died coursing last year (wait for it) exactly 169!

If you told the Man on the Moon that 700 hours of Parliamentary time were devoted to 169 hares and only 63 hours to killing 290,000 human beings, he would scarcely believe you.

If you then described how, after 700 hours of debate and deep consideration, the Mother of all Parliaments, incorporating presumably the finest brains in the Kingdom, had fine tuned and honed a Bill, to such an extent that it had resulted in it being legal to kill a rabbit but illegal to kill a hare, the Man on the Moon would think you were joking.

If you then explained that such an offence would incur a £5,000 fine or 6 months in prison, but that almost no politician, few policemen and certainly not a dog in the world can tell the difference between a hare and a rabbit, the Man on the Moon would surely be convinced he was the victim of an elaborate joke.

Famously a BBC newsreader, some years ago, having introduced without comment footage of a Garda policemans dying body, partially covered by a tarpaulin, with blood pumping down the gutter, prefaced the next news item with the words What you are about to see now, may prove disturbing and proceeded to show footage of the Waterloo Cup. But what really is disturbing is that probably that newsreader was right to issue a warning, for modern man is so divorced, by supermarket packaging and cellophane, from the realities of nature and animal husbandry that the sight of two dogs pursuing a hare as Nature has decreed for the last 4,000 years probably is distressing.

For modern man is totally ignorant of the fact that the hare is the only mammal in creation with complete vision behind and an 180 degree blind arc in front (and now you know why it always jinks prior to disappearing through a small hole in a hedge!) When pursued it knows exactly what it is doing, for it is perfectly adapted for pursuit, and if fit, healthy and alert it will live (only 1 in 9 hares coursed are killed), but if it is slow, ill or stupid it will die (but never be wounded). This process is called Natural Selection, the survival of the fittest, upon which, as Darwin told us, depends the survival of every species in the world.

However, the hare was not designed by Evolution to evade guns, or cars it cannot see, nor to perceive the dangers of toxic sprays. Yet modern man is happy to tolerate the annual unselective slaughter and wounding of hundreds of thousands of hares by such methods, yet balk and legislate against coursing, a selective means of control, that conserves thousands each year on coursing estates yet kills only 169 animals, and those selectively, as Evolution decrees.

It is agreed by all that a banning Bill will, in total, not result in one hares life being saved and, further, in the words of the Game Conservancy investigation into hare numbers, It is only on hare coursing estates that hare numbers are on the increase against the National trend. It is an undoubted fact that, should coursing be banned, hundreds of greyhounds from off the tracks and from the Irish coursing fields, who are too cunning or too slow to earn their place will have no second career in the English coursing field. Both the dogs and the hares will all be adversely affected by a ban.

Four independent enquiries in 40 years have found in coursings favour; three of the last four Directors of the League Against Cruel Sports have changed their minds on its abolition. Yet modern man persists in attempting to end Britains oldest field sport and with it one of our oldest sporting traditions The Waterloo Cup.

Ban coursing and thousands of hares currently conserved will annually be shot. Hundreds of dogs will have no future and only 169 hares will be saved.

As the Man on the Moon looks down on this scene of self inflicted destruction, he can only reflect, in those saddest of closing lines to that much loved British film The Bridge over the River Kwai, Madness, madness  madness!


----------



## JenHunt (8 April 2015)

I agree, well worded, and well informed, and what's more, it really shows how much time was spent on the bill compared to wasting human lives in wars...


----------



## Apercrumbie (8 April 2015)

While I agree with the remarks about the amount of time spent debating about the whole thing, I thought that coursing was banned because hare numbers in many areas are very low.  The population is declining rapidly.  I also don't think it's fair to say that coursing estates have higher populations.  I'm sure some do, but one of the main problems with coursing is the underground stuff that will never be put in official figures.  I also think most people can tell the difference between a rabbit and a hare.


----------



## Countryman (8 April 2015)

Apercrumbie said:



			While I agree with the remarks about the amount of time spent debating about the whole thing, I thought that coursing was banned because hare numbers in many areas are very low.  The population is declining rapidly.  I also don't think it's fair to say that coursing estates have higher populations.  I'm sure some do, but one of the main problems with coursing is the underground stuff that will never be put in official figures.  I also think most people can tell the difference between a rabbit and a hare.
		
Click to expand...

"Underground" coursing - otherwise known as poaching, was indeed a danger to some hare populations - these people were only interested in killing hares, not in sport, and would often travel hundreds of miles from cities to the countryside.

However, this was already illegal long before the Hunting Act. All the HA did was to criminalise the responsible and organised coursers who had a strict code of conduct.


----------



## irish_only (18 April 2015)

Having attended the Waterloo Cup, I was always amazed at the number of hares at Altcar. It was run scrupulously, hares driven slowly towards the course, and all the smaller ones allowed to move away, pushing only big, fit healthy hares forward for the coursing. As for hare numbers, on my travels in Lincolnshire and further down that part of the country, hare numbers were so many that an organised shoot could see several hundred shot. Also, before the ban, all harrier and beagle packs kept records of how many hares they had seen or hunted each day, providing fact based evidence of hare numbers. I recollect a seasoned, experienced master telling me that hare numbers tend to go in ten year cycles.


----------



## ExmoorHunter (18 April 2015)

irish_only said:



			Having attended the Waterloo Cup, I was always amazed at the number of hares at Altcar. It was run scrupulously, hares driven slowly towards the course, and all the smaller ones allowed to move away, pushing only big, fit healthy hares forward for the coursing. As for hare numbers, on my travels in Lincolnshire and further down that part of the country, hare numbers were so many that an organised shoot could see several hundred shot. Also, before the ban, all harrier and beagle packs kept records of how many hares they had seen or hunted each day, providing fact based evidence of hare numbers. I recollect a seasoned, experienced master telling me that hare numbers tend to go in ten year cycles.
		
Click to expand...

I so regret never getting out to see the Waterloo Cup or any other coursing meets as I really would've enjoyed it. There is too much misinformation about coursing and all the illegal stuff is at the forefront rather than the (then) legal events and, in particular, the conservation benefits to the quarry. It is the only country sport where the intention is not to kill the quarry and the skill of the skipper was so important. I think it's so exhilarating to see dogs/hounds working as nature intended. So many people know nothing about it, even those involved in country sports. I wish I had seen it but it's too late now.


----------



## Showjumper17 (1 July 2015)

Can I ask where this is from? I'd like to quote it in an essay if possible!


----------



## Alec Swan (1 July 2015)

Sj17,  it is indeed as pertinent today as when it was written.  I'd suggest that you PM Doormouse.  I suspect that it was drawn from a newspaper article,  but can't be sure.

The lunacy of the controls and conditions,  forced upon us,  benefit no one but those with a wish to affect a control over others,  and sadly,  the hare doesn't actually benefit either!  As the originator says,  "I wonder what the man on the moon would make of such stupidity".

Alec.


----------



## Doormouse (1 July 2015)

It was written by Sir Mark Prescott, I think originally for a newspaper. I would think that you would be fine to quote it provided you note who the quotation is from. If you were concerned you could contact Mark Prescott personally to check. He should be easy enough to track down on a Google search.


----------



## Showjumper17 (1 July 2015)

Thanks Doormouse! I'll check with my tutor that it's ok to use- sometimes they can be funny with referencing. This would be an excellent point to include though!


----------



## Alec Swan (2 July 2015)

Sj17,

I suppose that the stance of your essay would be influenced by your stance on the subject,  which is logical,  but I see no harm in using such an article to provide balance.  It would be equally interesting to read of a report which from an opposing viewpoint,  would give an equally balanced and factual view of the damage that field sports have done to our environment,  and include that too.  The problem may be as I have found,  that though I've done limited research,  I've yet to read any article which achieves the last point,  with just about every one of them focussing on others being my morality monitor and singularly failing to promote the well being of our wildlife.

Good luck with your project.

Alec.


----------



## Showjumper17 (2 July 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Sj17,

I suppose that the stance of your essay would be influenced by your stance on the subject,  which is logical,  but I see no harm in using such an article to provide balance.  It would be equally interesting to read of a report which from an opposing viewpoint,  would give an equally balanced and factual view of the damage that field sports have done to our environment,  and include that too.  The problem may be as I have found,  that though I've done limited research,  I've yet to read any article which achieves the last point,  with just about every one of them focussing on others being my morality monitor and singularly failing to promote the well being of our wildlife.

Good luck with your project.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Alec,

I actually have to remain totally neutral and argue for both sides using various works & literature (the essay is the "academic" part of the main project, which is a feature/article). I definitely want to delve into political/legal aspects too, so it's always useful to find supporting literature to include.
Thank you!


----------

