Disproving arguments against hunting

Over the years, major entities calling themselves “animalists” and political parties have intensified their efforts to criminalize and incite hatred against citizens who hunt. Year after year, they use the end of the hunting season to spread a lie that is baseless and cannot be supported by comparative arguments. All this to make a false communication of what the real hunt is and foment hatred in people who do not know the activity.

The arguments of these people are unfounded and we are going to prove it by denying five myths against hunting that simply attack it.

1. Hunting destroys the rural world

Spain was born in its towns. The customs and traditions of our rural environment form our identity and cannot be understood without hunting. Without those who reactivate the economies of our towns from September to March and keep the infrastructure in good condition throughout the year.

Hunters are the ones who know the countryside best, they are the ones who love their animals the most, they are the ones who keep the roads clear all year long, allowing them to reach the most remote places; concerned about the good condition of the mountains to prevent fires, which invest more than 280 million euros in Spain every year, or those that prevent the reproduction of species that overpopulate, are harmful to public health and endanger road safety.

According to a study prepared by Deloitte for the Artemisan Foundation, hunting generates 6,475 million euros in Spain and employs 187,000 people. This study also certifies that hunters are the group that invests the most money in nature conservation in Spain, after public administrations. Specifically, 287 million euros per year, from which all biodiversity benefits. This translates into wealth generation and population fixation in emptied Spain.

When talking about hunting activity, we remember the people who continue to maintain hope in many businesses in smaller towns such as bars, gun shops, hotels or transport.

2. Hunting is not culture

Popular culture is defined by the RAE as "A set of manifestations in which the traditional life of a people is expressed."

There is nothing more traditional in the towns than hunting, remembering the cave paintings with hunting scenes representative of the culture of that time, or the creation of the tools that our prehistoric ancestors used to hunt. The art of buying and selling birds of prey or the hunting centers that existed in many towns at the beginning of the last century, where hunters met to share and communicate the moments and joys of hunting.

This has been done for centuries and is the way of life for many people in rural areas, who hunt, share, conserve and protect the rich nature of our country.

3. Hunting mistreats dogs

There is a great myth in the animalist arguments, which affirm that more than 50,000 dogs are abandoned after the hunting season. Recent studies by Seprona and Affinity affirm that they are wrong since the dogs are born with the hunters and are cared for from the moment they arrive home until the last day. They are taken to the vet, educated and trained since they are puppies. These animals also go out into the field and live happily with the profession they practice, there are many testimonies that affirm that hunters treat our dogs as part of the family: «My dog, apart from being part of my family, requires the better physical shape to carry out their activity. It is totally ridiculous to think that we do not take care of our dogs, when our benefit is that our dogs are mentally and physically well cared for.

4. Limits the rights of the majority of citizens

It would be completely absurd to say that the hunt accumulated complaints for blocking public roads and channels. When a person wants to block a public road, they must make a request and the corresponding authority must approve it. The river bed is a safe zone and hunting is prohibited on that bank. Nor do we enjoy preferential access to public forests, quite the contrary. For example, hunters who go hunting in a public forest hunt once a year and pay. Cyclists, walkers, etc. They do it for free the rest of the year.

5. Hunting is unethical

For animalists, the death of the animal represents an ethically insurmountable step. His argument goes through affirming that the environment regulates itself. This statement, in addition to being simple, is wrong and poses a danger in the very short term if we want to maintain an adequate balance in nature. Man as a fundamental link in the chain has always been present in the natural environment and hunting was man's first job and trade, the first way of life he has adopted. The hunter does not seek the suffering of the animal, what is more, he does not need its death to be a hunter.

Author: María Balletbó