Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation

Nurse, Angus

doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9669-8

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to Montana, the following states have high deer kill rates: Alabama (7.07), Arkansas (6.16), Mississippi (8.98), North Dakota (9.46), South Dakota (8.23), West Virginia (8.07), Wisconsin (7.07), and Wyoming (8.61). Of those states, Alabama (7,338,314), Mississippi (5,583,753), and Wisconsin (8,814,261) were also among the top ten states with the largest number of deer killed. Notably, Texas, which had the largest number of deer killed over the study period (N = 13,724,647), ranks 22nd in the deer kill rate once kills are adjusted to reflect human population.…”

Section: Deer Kill Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous groups, however, oppose deer hunting, viewing it as immoral and a violation of animals' rights [4,5]. Debates concerning the morality or necessity of hunting-whether for recreational, conservation or subsistence purposes-can involve appeals to philosophical arguments concerning the morality of hunting, or those concerning the right to hunt [6,7]. Whether these debates are philosophical/moral or scientific, there is a need to quantify the extent and type of harm occurring, though some might argue that moral issues are absolute and apply even when only one animal is harmed, even minimally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deer Slayers: Examining the Scope of and Arguments for and against Legal Deer Theriocide in the US

Lynch

Genco

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deer hunting has a long history in the US. It is supported by hunting cultures, described as necessary for protecting forest/plant biodiversity and ecosystems, but opposed by animal welfare and rights advocates as cruel. Using multiple literature sources, we examine the trade-off between protecting deer and ecosystems from harm in the context of contemporary America. We examine various approaches for exploring harms affecting nonhuman animal populations found in the green criminological, environmental sociology, wildlife conservation and management, and ecological literature. We argue that making sense of these opposing positions requires examining the extent of deer hunting to quantify those harms in some way. Here, we examine reported deer kills for US states for the period 1999–2020. These data indicate that nearly 7 million deer are taken annually in the US. We also examined some hypothesized correlates of deer harvesting across states. While these data tell us something about the number of deer killed, these data alone are insufficient. We argue no clear conclusion about the acceptability of deer hunting can be reached given the difficulty rectifying opposing moral/philosophical positions on deer hunting, opposing deer management objectives, and scientific evidence on the ecological impacts of deer populations in the US under contemporary conditions that include shrinking forest ecosystems and impaired ecosystem stability.

show abstract

Section: Deer Kill Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deer Slayers: Examining the Scope of and Arguments for and against Legal Deer Theriocide in the US

Lynch

Genco

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Hunting supporters also deny that hunted animals feel pain and stress hunting as necessary and effective predator control. Even after the introduction of the Hunting Act 2004 , its proponents continue to challenge its legitimacy (Nurse 2017). The Act was challenged on the grounds that it was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights ( R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another Regina (Derwin and Others) v Same, 2007).…”

Section: Rationalizing Animal Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masculinities and Animal Harm

Nurse

2020

Men and Masculinities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the role of masculinities in animal harm and conceptions on the Masculinities Offender, primarily motivated by power and masculine behaviors. Within “masculinities crimes,” the exercise of power allied to sport or entertainment is significantly linked to organized crime and gambling. Masculinities crimes also include elements of cruelty or animal abuse and perceptions by offenders of their actions having cultural significance, and where toughness, masculinity, and smartness combine with a love of excitement. Examples include badger digging, badger baiting, cock-fighting, and other crimes involving the “sporting” killing or taking of wildlife. This article explores masculinities offender rationalizations and associated masculinity-based negative attitudes towards animals and animal harm. The public policy response to masculinities crimes reflects acceptance of the violent nature of offenders. Yet arguably enforcement and punishment through use of surveillance activities and undercover operations, and reliance on prison as the primary deterrent/sanction risks being counter-productive and reinforcing the very masculinities that underlie offending behavior.

show abstract

“…Consequently, the potential good for democracy of alerting the public to such a problem may be embraced through the creation of novel democratic institutions-such as critical deliberative mini-publics-that are specifically designed to address the concerns and self-perceptions of alienated minorities (Niemeyer 2014) and bring back disengaged citizens into public arenas of dialogue (Gray 2012). This involves addressing the concerns of minorities who feel alienated from the established system of democratic political institutions from the local to the EU levels, and from access to established mass media channels of mainstream newspapers, radio and TV.…”

Section: Democratic Ambivalence Of Victimhood-claims To Be Persecutedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Implications of Victimhood Identity: The Case of ‘Persecution’ of Swedish Hunters

Essen

Allen

2017

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This ethnographically based study examines Swedish hunters' claims to victimhood through appeal to the term 'persecution'. Perceiving disenfranchisement, injustice and discrimination on the basis of wolf conservation policy, we present hunters' self-styled predicament as victimhood-claimants of persecution at the hands of a state that has been co-opted by a conservationist, pro-wolf agenda that systematically disenfranchises rural and hunting interests and lifestyles. Through the phenomenological accounts of hunter respondents, our paper takes seriously the hunters' perception of persecution and, likewise, considers the opposite case made by conservationists: that wolves have been, and continue to be, the real victims of persecution in the conflict. Nonetheless, we show that the persecution language as it is applied from opposing parties in the conflict is problematic inasmuch as it is focused around creating a moral panic and confusion among the Swedish public who are ultimately responsible, as a democratic body-politic, for assessing the legitimacy of claims to moral wrong-doing and legal redress for the wronged. Our case study joins scholarship that explores the pathologies of claims to victimization by populist rural interest groups in the context of controversial conservation directives.

show abstract

Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Deer Slayers: Examining the Scope of and Arguments for and against Legal Deer Theriocide in the US

Deer Slayers: Examining the Scope of and Arguments for and against Legal Deer Theriocide in the US

Masculinities and Animal Harm

The Implications of Victimhood Identity: The Case of ‘Persecution’ of Swedish Hunters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About