To some, canned hunting is unethical. To others, the hunting industry is a major business.
It creates employment and brings in a huge amount of money.
It also justifies, and finances, the conservation of extensive tracts of our country.
So is there a compromise? Yes, there is, but it is certainly not contained in the court judgment that has just been handed down.
This judgment seems likely to destroy the breeding industry, hobble the hunting industry and ensure that a lot of people lose their incomes.
And it's not even going to save the animals, which will now be superfluous, and are likely to be put down.
Personally, I am on the side of those who have a profound distaste for the business of canned hunting, so I approve of the ruling that animals should be allowed to run free for two years before they may be hunted.
But I am also opposed to mass euthanasia, so I suggest the following compromise which will save both the industry and the animals:
Instead of effectively outlawing the hunting of bred animals overnight, we should apply the new rule in phases. …