Rational, Civilized People 1 : 0 Inbred, Bloodthirsty Toffs

[Loxleyhood]

You don't understand. It's a ban on hunting with dogs. It's still perfectly legal to just go out and shoot one.

 

[[NO]Subedai]

ye but they dont like that they like it for the torture factor involved in hunting so shooting em aint a option.

 

[Loxleyhood]

It isn't torture. The dogs don't throw the fox in a chair, shine a light in its face and start bitch-slapping it.

 

[sibanac]

It isn't torture. The dogs don't throw the fox in a chair, shine a light in its face and start bitch-slapping it.

beeing ripped apart by a pack of dogs isnt the most painless and fastest way to kill samething.

 

[gunner440]

i find it really stupid

people thinking with their hearts instead of their brains

i mean for example:

wifeA complains about hunting

hunting becomes illegal etc and all related companies are shut down

husbandA comes home after being told he's been made unemployed because of the ban

wifeA complains about how crap the government handle stuff

..

 

[oblimov]

husbandA gags wifeA and takes her to bed

 

[Ekydus]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004430992,00.html

Yeah... hurting animals for fun is just great.

 

[Loxleyhood]

beeing ripped apart by a pack of dogs isnt the most painless and fastest way to kill samething.

Nope, it's just natural.

 

[Sendraks]

I can't say I'm Fox Huntings biggest fan, but I am shocked about the level of ignorance and plain reactionary behaviour by the anti-hunting people in this thread.

Particularly someone linking to the sun webpages! Since when has the Sun been a newspaper that contained anything news-worthy.

A hunting ban will cause a lot, an awful lot, of people who live and work in their country to lose thier jobs or face financial difficulty because of this. These are regular people not the "toffs" that so many here speak of, but people on average wages whose jobs will be directly or indirectly affected by this ban. This is the main reason I oppose this ban and would seek firmer regulation of the hunts than currently exists. Broad brush action such as this, will do more harm than good.

Many of these people are also those who do the most good to protect and converse the countryside. They have a vested interest in looking after the land out there, who else is going to do this? The city folk? From my experience they are the prime causes of littering and illegal dumping out in the country. Certainly the former population does more to benefit wildlife than the latter do.

You don't keep a country sport going for hundreds of years by having a reckless regard for the environment. The country sports organisations of the UK, not just fox hunting, but also wildfowlers, have probably done more to keep british wildlife numbers at sustainable levels than any other group. Yes they do it because they have a vested interest and its easy to criticise them because of this, but I don't see the people stepping up to the mark and forming groups and pooling their resources (which are in the majority of cases limited, not all country sportsmen & women are toffs) to buy and maintain habitat for wildlife. Yes some of it gets shot or hunted (most wild game that is hunted is also eaten and I hasten to add that as someone who has sampled the produce of hunting, its damn good) but the majority of it survives so population numbers either stabilise or grow.

Not many people here will know, I suspect, that the Mallard (that most ubiquitous of british wildfowl) was nearing the endangered species lists in the 1960s due to pollution and general poor environmental care. It was predominantly the action of these despised country sports people who stopped this wonderful species shuffling off altogether. Today the Mallard is in danger again, today the country sports people are stepping up to the mark and doing their bit to preserve the species. Meanwhile they are criticised in the press and by townies who frankly do sweet FA about such issues, because they know sweet FA and happily buy into the culture of these things being someone elses problem.

A momentary digression to the point about the RSPCA being upset about dogs being trained to engage in violent activities. These dogs aren't fighting each other, they are not being asked to engage bulls in single combat. These are incredibly well cared for, well trained creatures. Anyone who has spent any time with a trained hunting dog or gun dog (that is a dog used in wildfowling hunting with guns, not a dog trained in the use of guns, for the easily confused out there) will know how calm, how intelligent, how obedient and above all, how mild of temprement these creatures are. I am not aware of any complaints from the RSPCA against the owners of the hounds in the country sports community.

The foxes are a different matter though.

And there in lies the problem. Huntsmen will assure you that the fox is killed very quickly by the hounds, which may be true, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the preceding hunt is physically exhausting and quite a torment for the Fox, even if it does manage to escape. Its is not, to my mind, an efficient or humane means of controlling a species which is a pest in many rural communities. Poison, is of course, a hugely undesirable means of controlling them (due to the risk to other species) and trapping is equally cruel.

Shooting foxes is not a simple matter either. You have to be a good hunter and a good marksman to be able to actually find and shoot a fox in the country. They are notoriously tricky creatures. In the abscence of hunts, you leave the fox at the risk of being shot at by those less adept with a weapon and thus risk subjecting foxes to injury and a prolonged agonising death, rather than a swift execution. Though it pains me to say it, a fox hunt may not be swift, when it gets the fox it is dead in short order.

So there in lies the problem. We have a means of pest control that many of us find hugely difficult to stomach and a large number of reactionaries (many of which are either uninformed or easily influenced) have called for a Ban, which effects many people, will have long term and uncertain effects on the future of the countryside and offers no acceptable alternatives to controlling said pest.

Quite a pickle.

 

[Sendraks]

Nice, now can they get around to sorting out extensive NHS Middle management issues and actually recruit more nurses, consultants, GP's, specialists, support staff etc?

Not unless you want to pay more tax to hire em and train them.

The workforce problems facing the NHS are far more complicated than just sorting out middle management issues. Even if you sacked all of the middle management tomorrow and free up all the resources associated with them, you wouldn't have even remotely begun to sort the various staffing issues regarding Doctors, Nurses, Public Health specialists etc etc...

 

[Gordonax]

Nope, it's just natural.

So is dying in childbirth, for a lot of women. So is walking everywhere, dying of measles as a child, and starving to death in a famine. There's a LOT of things which are "just natural" which we either prevent or change. The whole "it's natural" argument is rubbish.

What's more, the process of hunting itself is anything but natural. I've actually been on hunts, and quite often you end digging out the fox if it's gone to ground and throwing it to the dogs. Is that natural?

And, of course, the dogs themselves are a product of man, not of nature. No existent breed of dog hasn't been bred, specifically for a purpose, by the intervention of man.

 

[Loxleyhood]

Question; how do you know that the dogs rip the foxes apart? Sounds like propaganda too me.

 

[Sendraks]

Question; how do you know that the dogs rip the foxes apart? Sounds like propaganda too me.

A few pictures that antis are particularly found of showing a fox supposedly being shredded by hounds have been used in their campaigns in the past. The actual details of the image are pretty vague and no one has ever come forward to say on which hunt these photos were taken.

It also doesn't explain the considerable number of fox pelts, fox heads, stuffed foxes etc etc generated by hunts. Curious that this should be so when apparently the foxes are torn to smithereens.

Regardless, having a few dozen hounds bring you down is doubtful to be a nice way to go, even if they don't tear you to shreds.

 

[Gordonax]

A hunting ban will cause a lot, an awful lot, of people who live and work in their country to lose thier jobs or face financial difficulty because of this.

Yes, it will. However, should we preserve an industry that's based principly on cruelty? The moral dimension of cruelty to animals has to outweigh the jobs involved. If you take the opposite view, you end up accepting saying that cruelty is less important than jobs.

Many of these people are also those who do the most good to protect and converse the countryside. They have a vested interest in looking after the land out there, who else is going to do this? The city folk?

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Consider for example the establishment of national parks, which was largely down to the intervention of "city folk" - ramblers and others who wanted access to unspoiled countryside. It's not city dwellers who have been uprooting hedgerows in order to convert the countryside into industrial-scale agro-businesses, or who've been gradually removing more and more wooded areas.

Country people have a vested interest in exploiting the countryside for jobs and money. I don't blame them for that - in their position, I'd be doing the same - but that often is not the same as having a vested interest in preserving the wildlife of the countryside. As soon as a species gets in the way of farming, it's dead.

 

[Gordonax]

Question; how do you know that the dogs rip the foxes apart? Sounds like propaganda too me.

It largely depends on the hunt. If the dogs get the the fox a long time before the huntsmen, it's pretty shredded. If not, then it tends to be quicker. Either way, the death itself is pretty quick - but the chase before hand, which places the animal under extreme stress, isn't.

 

[Loxleyhood]

A few pictures that antis are particularly found of showing a fox supposedly being shredded by hounds have been used in their campaigns in the past. The actual details of the image are pretty vague and no one has ever come forward to say on which hunt these photos were taken.

P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

 

[Loxleyhood]

The way you guys are going on; next step, banning foxes for shreading rabbits to bits, which happen to be biological little terrors, but are a tad cuter.

 

[Sendraks]

Yes, it will. However, should we preserve an industry that's based principly on cruelty? The moral dimension of cruelty to animals has to outweigh the jobs involved. If you take the opposite view, you end up accepting saying that cruelty is less important than jobs.

I agree and this is one of the dilemas that this ban presents. Also, is hunting with hounds dramatically more cruel than the alternatives? People assume that poisoning or shooting is straightforward and painless for the animal, it is not.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Consider for example the establishment of national parks, which was largely down to the intervention of "city folk" - ramblers and others who wanted access to unspoiled countryside. It's not city dwellers who have been uprooting hedgerows in order to convert the countryside into industrial-scale agro-businesses, or who've been gradually removing more and more wooded areas.

The National Parks have seen better days. They are wonderful places to visit, but you spend any time in them during the tourist season and you can soon spot those who genuinely appreciate them for what they are and those who think its just a bit of scenery. Long may they exist, long after I am dead, but they need a lot more support from the public than they are getting. The public of today does not have the same mindset as when those parks were set up.

And I would say that this is only a small segment of the population, some of whom may not approve of this ban or disapprove of fox hunting at all. Heck, some of them may be actively involved in it.

Farming is a problem for the countryside and represents an entirely different sub set of issues concerning problems of wildlife out in the countryside. There are national trust volunteers out there helping to plant new hedges, new habitat on a regular basis. There are also country sportsmen out there doing the same. I think it would be interesting to see what the level of understanding of countryside issues, as well as the general level of education, amongst national trust volunteers was. (This from the stand point of someone who has been one).

Country people have a vested interest in exploiting the countryside for jobs and money. I don't blame them for that - in their position, I'd be doing the same - but that often is not the same as having a vested interest in preserving the wildlife of the countryside. As soon as a species gets in the way of farming, it's dead.

Farming no longer holds that kind of sway over the countryside and farmers are blockaded at pretty much every turn now a days if their industry presents a significant threat to habitat or wildlife. Urbanisation of the countryside, the construction of new roads, new housing and the like, has had far more crippling effects on wildlife in recent years than farming. The big farms still have very much a bully boy attitude about them with what they think they can do, but you'd be surprised by how little this is tolerated by country folk.

Not all Farmers are hunters though, or approve of hunts on their land, so this is really a tangent to the debate on hunting.

 

[Sendraks]

The way you guys are going on; next step, banning foxes for shreading rabbits to bits, which happen to be biological little terrors, but are a tad cuter.

Rabbits are indeed biological little terrors. Look what they did to Australia!

Show the public watership down though and you can't touch em! Meanwhile the little feckers cause considerable damage to woodland if not kept in check!

 

[Chilly]

cba to read the thread you tarts but i disagree with sissy, fox hunting is just a tradition-heavy way of keeping fox numbers in rural areas down, the fact it involves ripping the poor fuckers to shit with dogs is a bit crap really, but i see nothing wrong at all with a farmer going out inot the night to shoot a few foxes cos his chickens are a-screamin'

 

[harebear]

Well thats why its getting banned with dogs, and not totally banned I think most of you would rather get shot in the head than pulled apart by some bears or smt

 

[Sissyfoo]

cba to read the thread you tarts but i disagree with sissy, fox hunting is just a tradition-heavy way of keeping fox numbers in rural areas down, the fact it involves ripping the poor fuckers to shit with dogs is a bit crap really, but i see nothing wrong at all with a farmer going out inot the night to shoot a few foxes cos his chickens are a-screamin'

Just because it is laden with tradition doesn't make it right. I don't like the fact that farmers go out and blow foxes to bits but I don't object to it. Terrorizing an animal and then having it brutally ripped apart by a dozen hounds for your AMUSEMENT is, however, completely fucked up and wrong!!

I'd write more but I am off to have bath!

 

[Sendraks]

I think most of you would rather get shot in the head than pulled apart by some bears or smt

I'd much rather be shot in the head than merely wounded and left to die of my own accord, over many days perhaps, in the open countryside. This is a far greater liklehood for the fox if the only means of control is shooting them, as the vast majority of people who seek to control foxes this way have neither the skill or the equipment to kill a fox with a firearm.

Make no mistake about this, banning hunting with hounds will not end cruelty as a result of attempting to control the fox population in certain areas.

 

[harebear]

Saw on tv a sec ago some muslim wankers tearing apart some bears jaw or smt then setting dogs on it, w00t such fun... if the fuckers wanna do stuff like that I hope some bears tear them apart :<

 

[Ekydus]

I can't say I'm Fox Huntings biggest fan, but I am shocked about the level of ignorance and plain reactionary behaviour by the anti-hunting people in this thread.

Particularly someone linking to the sun webpages! Since when has the Sun been a newspaper that contained anything news-worthy.

Actually, Mr Know-It-All, my post was rather vague and just showing an example of how people barbarically treat animals; does this cause reactional behaviour that is just so uncontrollable that I just cannot bare myself to not post on the matter? No. So what evidence suggests I am anti-hunting? I'm guessing you're going by the idea that my post was pointing toward the anti-hunting mindset, but you still have no clue, do you? Assumptions are wonderful things, aren't they just? Now since you obviously think the Sun is a shit newspaper (I think it is shit also) you won't even give it the time of day, but perhaps if you got off of your high horse (anyone spot the pun?) you could actually read what the story is about; a 13 year old boy was kicking a small puppy around like a football. Maybe I should find a link from the BBC next time for you? It is animal cruelty nonetheless and just because dogs are domesticated I don't really think they should be treated as a life more precious than that of a fox.

When I used to live in a countryside area, my dog disappeared for a few days. When he returned, his body (neck mainly) had air gun bullets wedged firmly into his skin. I can't stand when people would be so cold blooded to do something like this. The only reason there is a psuedo-culture evolved around hunting is because all of the Lords have been using it as a pastime and have left it to go on too long. Maybe it's about time they faced up to this and let it end? What other country do you know of that could honestly introduce this as a welcomed activity? Hunting is barbaric and you can't just deny that, if you say it's propaganda you're a moron; how about we let a pack of 20 dogs rip you to shreds then... maybe then you'll realise it isn't just propaganda and the dogs actually cause considerable pain. I am not against ridding the land of foxes as a pest, merely using it as a pastime activity which they get great pleasure from and seems rather pointless, when you could just as easily shoot them in the head.

 

[Aiteal]

I do remember a tv doc on this subject a few years back.

Lord Farquarsmith-smythe-smothson or something or other being asked why he hunted foxes (he lives on the Isle of Man I think, or was it Jersey)

"Because they are bloody pests that worry the famers chickens"

Interviewer - "Foxes are not native to this little island, wasn't it your grandfather who introduced them here to hunt?"

Lord Farquarsmith-smythe-smothson looks embaressed then punches interviewer, interview over.


Although, think about the poor beagles, those that won't be 'put down' considering there is no need for them without the hunt, will probabaly end up being used to test my ciggies on.

Lets face it, for most people, this has more to do with class issues than animal cruelty.

 

[Sendraks]

Jeeze, Ekydus, calm down.

1) My post wasn't specifically addressing your post, but the general attitude concerning the ban in this thread. What on earth makes you think I would single you out for my commentary. A brief mention of a link to the sun as poor reference material (which it is, you acknowledged that fact) and you charge off on a rant. There is the further consideration that there are certain links I will or will not consider clicking on in the work place. The Sun is one of them, the paper is famous for its less than work friendly content. I'm not even saying link to a different source, but a brief synopsis of the article to help set your post in context would help.

2) Domesticated dogs that do pose a threat to wildlife, either because they have escaped from their owners or their owners cannot control them off the lead, have the same rights as foxes. If a farmer catches a dog loose on its land attacking his sheep, he is well within his rights to have it put down, or shoot it on the spot if he has reason to believe it is a stray.

3) You will notice that I began an ended my post with the statement that I am not fox hunting's biggest fan. If you had bothered to read it.

4) You'll have noticed that I also said fox hunting was not a efficient or particularly humane means of controlling a pest. If you had bothered to read my post.

5) I saw the link about the puppy kicking incident on the BBC a few days ago. You'd be right in thinking was quite shocked by it, especially as I am dog owner myself.

6) Reference to points 2 and 3 regarding your comments that I somehow seem to think that fox hunting is other than barbaric. You'd have realised that was not the case if you'd bothered to read my post instead of going off on one.

7) I have yet to see one piece of substantive evidence for the hounds ripping the fox to shred crap. If it is true, which I doubt, then its easily the most merciful part of the hunt as the poor creature will die pretty quickly with 20 hounds on it. Far worse in the physical and psychological tormet the creature suffers from being hunted for an extended duration. Of course you'd have noticed I acknowledged that if you'd bothered to read my post.

8) If you'd bothered to read my other posts, you'd note that I am not a great proponent of the fox shooting solution, simple because it presents an equal amount of cruelty to the animal, as it runs a far greater risk of being wounded. Foxes are not easily shot in the head, their reputation for cunning implies that it is not easy to sneak up on a fox and cap it one. Nor are they easy to stalk or get close enough too to kill with a shotgun, the weapon of choice for a farmer.

9) The hunting ban is something I oppose, not because I do not think hunting with hounds is cruel this is manifestly obvious from my posts, but because it presents no logical thought-out alternatives to controlling a pest. While bringing an end to barbarity is desirable, it is all the more so if it presents alternatives. The fox is no better off than before and countless people (and henceforth the countryside) are far worse off because of it.

So in conclusion, read what I write before attacking me and using insults. I've taken the time to consider what you have said in full and respond to the points you raised, without recourse to needless insults. You also accuse me of making assumptions (which I admit I did with regards to the link you posted) but you are equally as guilty of the same in your post.

 

[Ekydus]

Insults? Nope. I did read your posts, you're both for and against the hunting ban so what more can be said? It may seem like I go off on a rant but just like your post didn't put me in the spotlight, mine was not entirely dedicated to you.

Instead of destroying the pest why not try preventing it? It is possible to set up electric fences around areas that the farmers do not want intruded upon.

 

[Sendraks]

Insults? Nope. I did read your posts, you're both for and against the hunting ban so what more can be said? It may seem like I go off on a rant but just like your post didn't put me in the spotlight, mine was not entirely dedicated to you..

Fine, cool, peace. For whats its worth, I am sorry for the assumption concerning the sun link, it was a bad call on my part.

Instead of destroying the pest why not try preventing it? It is possible to set up electric fences around areas that the farmers do not want intruded upon.

Its a good idea, though many farmer will balk at the expense (not all are rich landowners, many live on the breadline) and iirc, electric fences have to be pretty darn big to stop foxes.

But I totally agree that preventative measures are a far better means of controlling foxes than trying to exterminate them.

 

[Coim]

You people write too much. However, I agree with Lox.

PROPAGANDA.