Nobody has said that they do it for the enjoyment of any cruelty that may be involved, and that cruelty or lack of cruelty is a value judgement made by the persons involved on both sides of the argument.

It would be more honest if folk did just come out and say this - for that is what all the excuses, comparisons and other 'red herrings' are in effect supporting. I think the argument will just go on if one side continues to ignore or belittle the only real issue at stake - and continues to excuse any form of cruelty inflicted only for sporting pleasure.

Perhaps perceptions of what is inflicting needless cruelty should be based more of those who are on the receiving end of it - rather than those who obtain pleasure in inflicting it? The latter perhaps should not have a say at all?

I suggest that if the punishment for speeding etc were for you to be chased across the countryside by hounds baying for your blood and encouraged to attack and bite you when you were eventually exhausted - you may consider this to be a cruel punishment, a little unfair and would wish the law to be changed to offer you some protection? I would agree with you too.

What would your opinion then be of those who thought there was no cruelty involved in this practice - or it was deserved - or that those chased were somehow not knowledgable enough to understand the reasons or appreciate the thrill and fun of it?