ABSTRACT
The so-called ‘Animal Question’ remains one of the hottest and emotional aspects of contemporary biopolitical debate. Within this ‘the intended killing of wildlife for sporting purposes’ is especially contentious. While either side attempts to make their position unassailably clear and compelling it is almost always complex, muddied and confusing when specifi c issues are considered. This is made all the worse by those whose view it is that there are universal principles or ethics that can resolve this ‘contested nature’ (Macnaghten and Urry 1998). We are in a better position to make decisions when we know where views, values and new demands come from and, in the same way, we can assess better those whose practices we condemn when we know their motives, their impacts and the consequences of their actions.
