IS IT CRUEL?

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18481, 8 September 1925, Page 8

IS IT CRUEL?

CAPTIVE BIRD SHOOIWa S.P.C.A. SAYS «NO.» The Canterbury Society f» *l« has deeded to t«*, M tcSTft! the matter of support* ikT?J? tire Bird Shooting j before Parliament; ■ **** At yesterday's meeting of tfc c.ety, a letter was recoiled fro* £ Otago Society for the Proration tf Cruelty to Aaimala statins that tfcZ uody had received from the Ho*. Q, -U. ifaomson, a copy of th* Owm n.rd anoouag Bwwnich wwud*£Sw come Iwioie we lower ho«n l2 letter suggested - that the Uaterhm society siiouid »nte the benberaef * Parliament m its district and a* * Uiem for support for the Bill when j£ was brought uet'oro the, Lower fS^ Iho Bui, a copy of which w»i closed, stipulates that ever* paai promoting, arranging, conductuS"*.. sisting in, or taking money for an* event in the course of which uiiSl birda are liberated for the purpoaaaf being shot at, shall be liable to a t» not ©xoeedaijr £25. - Mr A. R. Morten stated that fraajL ly ho was in favour of sparrow |Z pigeon shooting. He considered ttS it was not as cruet as duck shootS at Lako Ellcsmore. At the LaktttS had a number of amateur marknZ who quite frequently wounded hSand let them escape. At Un» gnu cKI" on tho rther hand, the gun-mea win'" all the very best of shots and a Un was either killed outright or got "Vj away. Ho did not consider this fan of sport cruel. The Society's inspector, Mr J. White, remarked that the Bill did not state that the sport was cruel.

Mr J. C. Lord considered thai «tf» tivo bird shooting was not as cflkj as was hare shooting in the river hats. He supported the contention of Xr Morten. Mr Morten: If you can point ant anv cruelty in it. I'm willing toTf& for the proposal in the letter. On the motion of Mr J. Spittar il was decided to take no action in tfct matter.