Twenty-two dead hares were found laid out in rows on a farm in east Kent.
The farmer who found them described it as “pure animal cruelty”. She believes they may have been arranged as trophies, or as evidence of how many hares had been killed for people betting on the dogs chasing them. She is right about the cruelty. But there is something uncomfortable about the way Britain talks about hare coursing. We seem very good at recognising cruelty when the people doing the killing are criminals.
Hare coursing involves dogs, usually greyhounds or lurchers, being set on hares. People gamble on the chase. The Guardian reported earlier this year that bets can be placed on how many times a hare will be forced to turn before the dog catches and kills them, with some chases even livestreamed for gamblers elsewhere. The activity has become tied to organised criminal networks, intimidation and huge sums of money.
Nobody should struggle to identify what is happening to the hare. They are terrified. They run because somebody is trying to kill them. And if they cannot escape, they die.
An RSPCA representative described the end of a coursing chase rather plainly: the dog catches the hare and “rips it to bits”. The dogs can also be victims.
Wiltshire Council reportedly collected 20 lurcher-type dogs associated with hare coursing during just 3 months in 2025. Some were underweight or injured. Only three were reclaimed.
The people confronting coursers can be victims too. One farm worker was injured after being knocked down by a car. A barn was reportedly set on fire after a farmer chased coursers away. 3 cows died in a road collision after fencing was destroyed. Another farmer was surrounded at night by vehicles that circled him and rammed his car. Farmers have spent money on barriers, cameras and other attempts to keep coursers out.
So yes, hare coursing deserves condemnation. But then we reach the absurd part.
One farmer told The Guardian that conservation work had helped increase local hare numbers. More hares apparently attracted more coursers. And what solution were some farmers considering?
Shooting the hares. Seriously.
The logic appears to be that hares might need to be killed to stop the wrong people killing them. The hare does not care whether the person responsible has placed a bet. They do not care whether their death is photographed as a trophy. They do not care whether the human killing them considers themselves a criminal, a conservationist, a farmer or anything else.
They want to live.
The Kent farmer reportedly said the idea of animals being “pursued for fun or for financial gain” was disgusting.
Absolutely. But perhaps we should finish the sentence. Pursuing another animal for entertainment is disgusting because of what happens to the animal, not because the person doing it failed to obtain society’s approval first. The 22 hares left in that Kent field are not evidence that a few particularly unpleasant people have discovered the wrong way to kill animals. They are evidence of something much simpler.
Hares are not gambling equipment.
They are not trophies.
They are not targets.
And killing them does not somehow become respectful because we change the person holding the weapon.