NationStates Jolt Archive

Right Firstly let me state my position.

From studies I've seen there are lots of issues with fox hunting...
1. It doesn't work ?
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animaluse/trapresearch/controltechniques/redfoxhunting.htm

2. It's cruel and inhumane to have a fox run until it's exhausted and then torn to pieces by dogs.

3.It's an outdated and barbaric practice.

However
1. It's often cited as the most humane way of destroying a vermin with no natural preditors, better than the slow death of poisoning, starvation or through a shot that maims but doesn't kill.

I really fell that it should be banned however can understand the arguements against it.

I'm willing to be persuaded, however the idiots who broke into the house of commons yesterday have done nothing but firm up my resolution to support the use of the parliament act to force this through the house of Lords.

I'm especially interested to hear the opinions of teh various trigger happy Americans on this forum as to what they think of this ancient 'sport'?

Sorry this is something of a tangential reply, but it really bugs me that the hunt protestors appear to be getting fairly sympathetic coverage after yesterday's demo. I agree that the police were ludicrously heavy-handed; however, if it had been, say, an anti-capitalist demo, they would have been praised.

The Daily Mail (may Paul Dacre's bloodline be afflicted with incessant plagues of boils) has taken great pleasure in the past from highlighting the peaceful nature of pro-hunting demos while focusing on isolated incidents in anti-capitalism demos in order to propagate their hilarious 'fascists of the left' message. What now? Blanket condemnation of the protestors, as would be consistent? Nope. Hypocrites.

Sorry, rant over. As to the topic itself... not sure where I stand. I loathe hunting as practiced by the chinless wonders of rural Britiain, as it demeans and debases the humans participating. However, I'm hesitant to support the imposition of a blanket ban when, frankly, I'm not rural and probably don't understand the countryside as well as I ought to.

Know what you mean, for the first time ever I'm looking forward to what Amanda Platel might want to say about it.

God I never thought I'd say that.

Out of interest as a sepperate very hyperthetical note:

If it was an MP who let the protestors in as it is possible it was what punnishment should the MP face?

However, I'm hesitant to support the imposition of a blanket ban when, frankly, I'm not rural and probably don't understand the countryside as well as I ought to.

Don't let them fool you. I've lived in rural Britain for most of my life and most of the people I know don't support hunting. They don't speak for the whole countryside, they just like people to think they do.

I dont think anything is wrong with fox hunting.

Dogs have been running prey till they are exhausted for centuries. This is the same stratagy that fox's use when hunting their prey.

Live by the sword die by the sword

I dont think anything is wrong with fox hunting.

Dogs have been running prey till they are exhausted for centuries. This is the same stratagy that fox's use when hunting their prey.

Live by the sword die by the sword

Should we not be more humane than animals?

Should we therefore not kill cows, sheep, chickens, who do not as you say live by the sword.

I am not arguing that foxes shouldn't be controlled, but that hunting is a cruel and barbaric practice. My problem is that I'm unsure if there is a less cruel practice.

How is it hunting if you just have your dogs chase down and kill the animal? And with foxes, you don't get any meat anyway, so I fail to see the point, unless they are a pest that needs to be controlled (in which case you can still just shoot them).

Don't let them fool you. I've lived in rural Britain for most of my life and most of the people I know don't support hunting. They don't speak for the whole countryside, they just like people to think they do.

Yup. I grew up in a very rural area, and frankly the local hunt -- which, since I live in Scotland, has now been banned for a while now, with no negative impact on the community and no resulting plague of foxes -- was regarded by all the non-landowners and most working farmers as a bloody nuisance at best and a pack of vermin at worst.

I have to say I enjoyed the sight of upper-class yahoos getting battered by the police, and found myself cheering for the Old Bill in a quite uncharacteristic fashion. It's very entertaining watching people who have grown up thinking that the Law does not apply to them running slap-bang into cold hard reality. However, it is a depressing comment on some people's priorities when, in a world where 200,000 children die each week from preventable diseases, to take just one example, these overfed, self-inflated cretins reserve their outrage to protect their right to pursue and dismember a largely harmless furry mammal slightly larger than a domestic cat.

lol, all I am saying is that there is a lot of sympathy for the foxes that are being killed in a way that each fox has killed hundreds of animals.

Hunting is the killing of animals, and involved in that are hundreds of inhumain practices. If you are going to ban all of them you will be there for years doing it.

What about pig dogs? thousands or dogs are killed every year trying to hunt boars, but more often than not, these dogs are wounded and have to have their throats slit to put them out of their misery.

Fox's atleast have lots of hounds descend on them to kill them relativly quickly.

Don't let them fool you. I've lived in rural Britain for most of my life and most of the people I know don't support hunting. They don't speak for the whole countryside, they just like people to think they do.

Absolutely, I grew up in rural Oxfordshire and knew few people there who supported hunting with hounds. One of the most despicable things the chinless wonders and their cap doffing hangers on have done is to hijack the entire Countryside Alliance movement and purport that virtually anyone whoe has ever been near the countryside must be pro hunting by birth.

I also consider it shameful that the Tories have announced they'll annul the ban if they ever achieve office again - I understood the majority of this country were opposed to hunting.

To draw a parallel, there hasn't been enough of it here, and we currently have about 40,000 more deer than the land can sustain. So the deer are wandering into traffic and eating everything in sight... we've even had deer run into shop windows *in the center of town*, almost three miles from the nearest open land. Many deer die being hit by cars or some by starvation in the winter.

Are foxes a problem in the English countryside? Or is it just hunting them with dogs that is the issue?

lol, all I am saying is that there is a lot of sympathy for the foxes that are being killed in a way that each fox has killed hundreds of animals.

not at all.

the foxes, like other carnivorous animals, are hunting for food, without which they will die, miserably and most likely painfully, of starvation.

you cannot say the same of either the dogs or the humans who perform the hunt.

Fox's atleast have lots of hounds descend on them to kill them relativly quickly.

let yourself be torn apart by a pack of dogs of proportionate size (you are bigger than a fox) and then tell me that this is not a terrible way to die. (no, it hasn't happened to me, but I've been bitten by dogs before, deep bites, and it hurts.)

I would be against fox hunting even if it was done for food, because it is done in an unnecessarily cruel way. a good hunter should be able to shoot accurately enough to usually kill rather than maim, and would make sure to track the animal to ensure it was dead and not dying painfully and slowly in case of a missed shot.

(ok. I'm guessing there - perhaps even a good hunter has only a tiny chance of hitting a fox and killing it, but then why hunt foxes, rather than something easier to kill, if as humane a death as possible is so important.)

foxes have no choice in their hunting method - they do not have guns or other implements to aid them, they only have teeth and claws.

yeah, I agree, nature in general is cruel, but that is no excuse when it is possible to not be cruel and you choose to do so anyway.

I guess I've overstated my point by now (I usually do,) so I'll be quiet again.

The propsed ban is nothing to do with cruelty, it is teh remainder of the class war advocated by grizzled old lefties.

The fact that it is clas war has been proven on Radio 4 by a lefty professor type who wrote an article for the government stating that it should be banned to break the aristocray.

Also by the number of comments here about toffs etc. proves that it is a perceived class issue. However most people who hunt these days come from all backgrounds not just the remainder of teh aristocracy.

If the issue is about cruelty then fishing, shooting, battery farming and halal meat should also be completely banned.

I live in Devon, don;t hunt but do ride, and most people I know support hunting.

Some anti-hunt lobbies have said that the pro-hunt people are being childish by stating that the hounds will have to be destroyed. The anti-hunts say this isn;t necessary. If hunting is banned what do they propse to do with the hounds? The current hunts won't exist to look after them, they can't be re-habilitated? Who will pay for thier up keep? No one they will be destroyed.

The otehr issues are around how foxes will be controlled. Shooting? Can't do it with a shotgun, need a rifle.... how much does a rifle license cost? How much to pay for a marksman to kill pest this way? No one can afford to do that. So it comes back to traps, how often can landowners check traps? not often so foxes and other animals will be left dying by inches in agony. Gas... phewwwwww

Th emajor worry about all this though is the fact that this governement is willing to use teh parliment act for a SECOND time in its 7 year misrule. Only the 3rd time it will have been used for over 100 years or more!!! What does that say about this goivernment

To draw a parallel, there hasn't been enough of it here, and we currently have about 40,000 more deer than the land can sustain. So the deer are wandering into traffic and eating everything in sight... we've even had deer run into shop windows *in the center of town*, almost three miles from the nearest open land. Many deer die being hit by cars or some by starvation in the winter.

Are foxes a problem in the English countryside? Or is it just hunting them with dogs that is the issue?
It really does depend who you ask...

At their current levels foxes are not I believe a big issue in Rural Britain. One of the arguements is that if hunting were outlawed they would become a problem.

Different studies imply different answers to that question.

To draw a parallel, there hasn't been enough of it here, and we currently have about 40,000 more deer than the land can sustain. So the deer are wandering into traffic and eating everything in sight... we've even had deer run into shop windows *in the center of town*, almost three miles from the nearest open land. Many deer die being hit by cars or some by starvation in the winter.

Are foxes a problem in the English countryside? Or is it just hunting them with dogs that is the issue?

No. Foxes are not a problem in the countryside. A fox may, if you fail to put a proper floor on your henhouse, kill a few chickens from time to time. They might -- just -- kill a lamb if the lamb was severely ill. But given that the staple diet of the average countryside fox is beetles, earthworms and voles, they don't really class as pests at all.

Further, there are more foxes in areas which support fox-hunting with hounds than there are in areas where they are shot or poisoned -- because hunting foxes with hounds is an incredibly inefficient way of controlling fox numbers (assuming that they need to be "controlled" at all).

Foxes make great pets.

But I'd still say let them be hunted. However letting the dogs have all the fun isn't what I'd call very sporting.

I'm in favour of a ban just to piss off the toffs. :D

I'm in favour of a ban just to piss off the toffs. :D

Oh, me too. But I disagree with the idea that it's "class war". It's more of a "class quick rabbit-punch to the kidneys".

Indeed!

If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists...

:D

The propsed ban is nothing to do with cruelty, it is teh remainder of the class war advocated by grizzled old lefties.

The fact that it is clas war has been proven on Radio 4 by a lefty professor type who wrote an article for the government stating that it should be banned to break the aristocray.

No that proves that one "Lefty professor" believes that.


Also by the number of comments here about toffs etc. proves that it is a perceived class issue. However most people who hunt these days come from all backgrounds not just the remainder of teh aristocracy.


I'm not sure but doesn't that destroy your class war issue?

If it's not just toffs involved that doesn't make it less barbaric.


If the issue is about cruelty then fishing, shooting, battery farming and halal meat should also be completely banned.

One battle at a time, but just because other things are bad doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw this one



I live in Devon, don;t hunt but do ride, and most people I know support hunting.

I Live in London, don't hunt do ride, no one I know wupports hunting, what's your point?



Some anti-hunt lobbies have said that the pro-hunt people are being childish by stating that the hounds will have to be destroyed. The anti-hunts say this isn;t necessary. If hunting is banned what do they propse to do with the hounds? The current hunts won't exist to look after them, they can't be re-habilitated? Who will pay for thier up keep? No one they will be destroyed.


Something is wrong whensomeone is arguing for killing foxes by saying if we don't we'll have to kill dogs?


The otehr issues are around how foxes will be controlled. Shooting? Can't do it with a shotgun, need a rifle.... how much does a rifle license cost? How much to pay for a marksman to kill pest this way? No one can afford to do that. So it comes back to traps, how often can landowners check traps? not often so foxes and other animals will be left dying by inches in agony. Gas... phewwwwww

Here I agree with you however studies have shownt that hunting does nothing to control numbers, and yet none of these sounds less humane than being torn to pieces...


Th emajor worry about all this though is the fact that this governement is willing to use teh parliment act for a SECOND time in its 7 year misrule. Only the 3rd time it will have been used for over 100 years or more!!! What does that say about this goivernment

That they are determined to use the powers that they have to get through issues that the majority of the country and elected MP's beilieve in?

Fox hunts are pretty useless in culling numbers. A successful hunt is 4 hours spent chasing ONE fox and capturing it. It's nothing more than a big day out for whomever engages in them. More often than not, they'll catch precisely jackshit.

For those who have no idea what they are choking about,it makes no real difference what the government decides hunting will continue for centuries to come........Long live the hunter.

For those who have no idea what they are choking about,it makes no real difference what the government decides hunting will continue for centuries to come........Long live the hunter.

I really hope not, and really can't see it. Even though a lot of hunters believe themselves above the law I hope sentences are harsh when dealing with those who break this one...

The problem people have with fox hunting is that there are some folk out there who enjoy it. They enjoy seeing an animal get ripped apart. Now, animals get ripped apart all the time by other animals, should we force lions to go veggie because it is an inhumane way to kill gazelle? Didn't think so.

I think it is wrong to ban a practice only because some people enjoy it and the majority think it is cruel. I don't go hunting. I'd prefer if nobody wanted to go hunting. I think however it is immoral to stop someone doing something just because I don't like it.

I would note however that I do not endorse such practices as dancing bears. This is unnecessarily cruel, and distinctly un-natural. Hunting however is a natural practice, I'd sooner see fishing banned than hunting with hounds.

I really hope not, and really can't see it. Even though a lot of hunters believe themselves above the law I hope sentences are harsh when dealing with those who break this one...


Its not a case of being above the law,a civil right and a ageless partnership to hunt is going to be abolished,whats next..? i,l tell you shooting rights thats what,people have to stand up for what is there god given right to do,man and dog have hunted since he found a loyal companion in his canine friend and this will not stop,you can debate till the end of time and hunting will continue till that day also...........

I see what you mean, Dalradia, but hunting with hounds while tootling on a bugle and haw-hawing with your chums when you're not hunting for food seems to me to be a little barbaric. They enjoy it? Well, many people enjoy many things that are pretty barbaric...

I have no real issue with the idea of hunting itself, though I think that perhaps we ought to be beyond such activity when it's not necessary (and where the horses and hounds are doing all the work). However, the pomp and ceremony and revelling in casual butchery strikes me as somewhat symptomatic of a psychological disorder.

Incidentally, I think pursuing this Act in Parliament is ludicrous. There are bigger things to worry about.

Its not a case of being above the law,a civil right and a ageless partnership to hunt is going to be abolished,whats next..? i,l tell you shooting rights thats what,people have to stand up for what is there god given right to do,man and dog have hunted since he found a loyal companion in his canine friend and this will not stop,you can debate till the end of time and hunting will continue till that day also...........
God-given? Prove it. Shooting rights next? Shame.

God-given? Prove it. Shooting rights next? Shame.


Beat me to it.

Other than the Monarchy, the House of Lords and Cricket, the hunt is the last bastion of old school elitism in the UK.

The nouveau elite of the corporate eschelons have no interest in hunting.

The hunt has lost it's following, and the protestors yesterday were not simply representative of the hunters but were actually ALL of them, and they behaved exactly as expected: BADLY.

The ban will be a welcome piece of legislation, and the vast majority of the UK will be glad to say goodbye to this antiquated piece of barbarism.

Well, Im kinda nuetral, but I would be happier if Spain banned bullfights :P
At least the fox has a chance.

God-given? Prove it. Shooting rights next? Shame.


Off the issue slightly but believe me the time will come when you may need a gun in your hand to protect you and your own,i,m talking about rights of freedom this government is taking away and down the path to anarchy..............Mock all you wish but you know i am right.

Th emajor worry about all this though is the fact that this governement is willing to use teh parliment act for a SECOND time in its 7 year misrule. Only the 3rd time it will have been used for over 100 years or more!!! What does that say about this goivernment
It says the elected representatives are fed up with an un-elected body saying "sorry, not good enough": If it gets pushed through using the Parliment Act then it'll be the choice of parliment, not Labour.

I say ban it, but I voted for giving it a couple of years before it becomes effective so the rural ecnomies have time to "re gear" or what have you. There's absolutely no reason why a group of people can't go riding around the countryside without chasing an animal.

Personally, I think the protestors just alienated themselves massively from the general population, especially with the trouble they caused on the M25. Yes the furl protestors did the same but everyone had to pay high prices.

And much like Jeldred, the sight of pro-hunt protestors getting battered made me feel all warm and fuzy inside.

Off the issue slightly but believe me the time will come when you may need a gun in your hand to protect you and your own,i,m talking about rights of freedom this government is taking away and down the path to anarchy..............Mock all you wish but you know i am right.
That would be the path to despotism, I think. Anarchy is the absense of rules/rulers, not excessive control by central government. That's another discussion entirely, however.

No that proves that one "Lefty professor" believes that.

Except that the government accepts his paper



I'm not sure but doesn't that destroy your class war issue?
Uhhmmm nope. People keep banging on about Toffs and teh gentry. most people say thgey are anti-hunt are so because they believe it is a Toffs thing, thus they want to ban it from jealousy and class reasons.



If it's not just toffs involved that doesn't make it less barbaric.
Not sure waht you mean here



One battle at a time, but just because other things are bad doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw this one
What I'm saying is that if they ban this coutry pursuit thern by logic they should ban the otehr; Halal meat as well..... how will the liberals cope with that one?



I Live in London, don't hunt do ride, no one I know wupports hunting, what's your point?
point is to state my background as has been the case with other responses.



Something is wrong whensomeone is arguing for killing foxes by saying if we don't we'll have to kill dogs?
Not sure what you mean here. The dogs will have to be destroyed, who will pay fo their up keep?
Also what happens to the hunting horses? They're not exacctly ponies


Here I agree with you however studies have shownt that hunting does nothing to control numbers, and yet none of these sounds less humane than being torn to pieces...
At least being torn to peoices is quicker


That they are determined to use the powers that they have to get through issues that the majority of the country and elected MP's beilieve in?
The House of Lords is also part of the democratic process. How come this government feels it should use the act twice when no other party ever has? And remember Blair may have a large majority but the number of people who actually voted for him is less than has ever voted fo anyone else

Not sure what you mean here. The dogs will have to be destroyed, who will pay fo their up keep?
Also what happens to the hunting horses? They're not exacctly ponies

Drag hunts? Point to Points? These are just some of the activities engaged in by the hunting fraternity which do not rely on fox as quarry, and there is no reason for them to be affected: in fact once the element of death is removed from the hunts they may very well find an upsurge in interest and support from riders that previously disapproved of them.

This is just another intrusion on the everyman's civil liberties by a state insisting on moddly coddling us all. Fox hunting was doing no-one any harm at all, yeah, some people hate it, but others love it, I don't really think there is any justification for the ban apart from it's an attempt to prevent "animal cruelty". Which is strange, seeing as from what I know of the proposed legislation, hunting is still allowed, just not with dogs. And dogs are more likely to get the job done in a hurry than any other method, shooting is unreliable, as most people on a hunt don't have the best of shots, normally just wounding the animal, and therefore causing the fox to suffer more pain, which suggests more cruelty. Very confusing reasons for the bill.

Plus for the Government to suggest that it shall use the Parliament Act to force it through law without the House Of Lord's consent is a damning verdict on the UK's state of affairs at the moment. The Parliament Act was designed solely for exceptional matters, and the recreational hobbies of a minority doesn't constitute exceptional matters of state interest to me. It's totally crazy.

First of all I don't like fox hunting but don't know if I know enough about the issue to force my opinion on others that do. So I'll go with the Gov reports, hold on a minute they said there was no reason to nban it. Now I am confused.
Next it will be the shoots, then it will be fishing then whatever else smog suckers don't do in the city.
And the argument about most people in the UK don't want hunting blah blah
the majority of people in the UK want the death penalty, that does not mean to say that re introducing it would be correct, most people would close our borders to asylum seekers or at least lock them in camps until they are processed,again this does not make the idea correct just becuase the majority say so.

This is just another intrusion on the everyman's civil liberties by a state insisting on moddly coddling us all. Fox hunting was doing no-one any harm at all, yeah, some people hate it, but others love it, I don't really think there is any justification for the ban apart from it's an attempt to prevent "animal cruelty". Which is strange, seeing as from what I know of the proposed legislation, hunting is still allowed, just not with dogs. And dogs are more likely to get the job done in a hurry than any other method, shooting is unreliable, as most people on a hunt don't have the best of shots, normally just wounding the animal, and therefore causing the fox to suffer more pain, which suggests more cruelty. Very confusing reasons for the bill.

Plus for the Government to suggest that it shall use the Parliament Act to force it through law without the House Of Lord's consent is a damning verdict on the UK's state of affairs at the moment. The Parliament Act was designed solely for exceptional matters, and the recreational hobbies of a minority doesn't constitute exceptional matters of state interest to me. It's totally crazy.


Absolutely. There are far more important things for the government to worry about than a recreational activity for which the population is roughly evenly split. For the government to use the parlimentary really does show the problems Blair is having with his back benchers, this is just a sop to the old left to help him "win" another election. Last time he used teh parliment act was for Gay rights activists which the majority of teh country were against and the House of Lords blocked. 2 trivial issues he's used the act for to get his own dictatorial way

I can see what people mean when they draw parallels between hunting and other sports. People who go fishing often do just as much cruelty as hunters. Also, the horses in racing don't exactly have a nice life. It does seem like there's a bit of a thin line here, yet the Government treats it as a very thick line. I would not vote in favour of a ban. However, I do think that hunting is morally repugnant. Also, the people from the Countryside Alliance really sometimes drive my emotions the other way for a few moments. Let's look at some of their arguments:

It destroys rural communities: Are they really so weak? Do they really just depend on an event a few times a year? Hunting's been banned in Scotland; rural communities still seem to exist.

The hounds will have to be gassed: Or they could just be used for drag hunting instead? Just like in Scotland! There was no puppy genocide there.

Civil liberties: Since when has the British countryside been a bastion of tolerance? Anyway, you can't just use phrases like "liberty" to make people stop thinking and accept your arguments - unless you want anarchy. Like Bentham said, natural rights are "nonsense on stilts".

The towns are persecuting the countryside: This one really pisses me off. I live here in West Yorkshire, which is both an urban area and close to old mining villages. For one thing, it's not like everyone around here has got it in for farmers and hunters; I don't see anti-hunt posters, except on rare occasions. Many people in the towns and cities don't care about hunting or support it. But the big thing is this ridiculous attitude that farmers particularly and rural people in general seem to think that they're not being listened to unless they get millions of pounds in subsidies. Did you know that the Farmers' Union opposed the miners' strike and said subsidies should be cut for them? Now if you think that Thatcher was right in the miners' strike, then you are being inconsistent unless you think that the same policies should be applied to farming. They get an awful lot more money than anyone else does. Why did this happen? Could it be that farmers vote Tory en masse and miners vote Labour en masse [before they became extinct, that is]? Farmers complain about the E.U., yet if it wasn't for Europe bailing us out of B.S.E. and foot-and-mouth, then British agriculture would be as dead as British coal. In relation to third-world issues, they don't seem to have any conscience at all that their subsidies make things worse for world starvation. I think it is ridiculous that we are paying our taxes for this and I would cut farm subsidies straight away. I wouldn't do it quite as brutally as Thatcher did it with the miners, but I don't think there's any possibility of these affluent rural villages, where everyone seems to have a big car, being turned into replicas of how Wakefield and Barnsley district were until just recently. Of course, the governments are scared of losing rural votes. Perhaps, when Blair realises how much the Countryside Alliance hate him, he'll decide that he has nothing to lose from cutting back farm subsidies and do everyone except the rich farmers a big favour. That really would make him Thatcher's successor.

This is just another intrusion on the everyman's civil liberties by a state insisting on moddly coddling us all. Fox hunting was doing no-one any harm at all, yeah, some people hate it, but others love it, I don't really think there is any justification for the ban apart from it's an attempt to prevent "animal cruelty". Which is strange, seeing as from what I know of the proposed legislation, hunting is still allowed, just not with dogs. And dogs are more likely to get the job done in a hurry than any other method, shooting is unreliable, as most people on a hunt don't have the best of shots, normally just wounding the animal, and therefore causing the fox to suffer more pain, which suggests more cruelty. Very confusing reasons for the bill.

Plus for the Government to suggest that it shall use the Parliament Act to force it through law without the House Of Lord's consent is a damning verdict on the UK's state of affairs at the moment. The Parliament Act was designed solely for exceptional matters, and the recreational hobbies of a minority doesn't constitute exceptional matters of state interest to me. It's totally crazy.
Well yes, visit a slaughter house and see how we kill thousands of Chickens a day. But I suppose they aren't fury and cute and smog suckers each chicken so as they may suffer from stopping it better keep it going.

Well yes, visit a slaughter house and see how we kill thousands of Chickens a day. But I suppose they aren't fury and cute and smog suckers each chicken so as they may suffer from stopping it better keep it going.

Huh? What's your point and how is it appropriate to what I posted? Maybe I'm just not reading it properly (due to absence of punctuation in the second sentance), but it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Huh? What's your point and how is it appropriate to what I posted? Maybe I'm just not reading it properly (due to absence of punctuation in the second sentance), but it doesn't seem to make much sense.
I think he's trying to say that because we (us "smog suckers", which I assume means city dwellers) eat chicken we don't care about their welfare.

Which kind of over looks the increasing amount of organic and free range products being eaten.

Well yes, visit a slaughter house and see how we kill thousands of Chickens a day. But I suppose they aren't fury and cute and smog suckers each chicken so as they may suffer from stopping it better keep it going.

???

Some of us concerned about the cruelty implicit in hunting with hounds don't support the meat, dairy or livestock industries either...

Huh? What's your point and how is it appropriate to what I posted? Maybe I'm just not reading it properly (due to absence of punctuation in the second sentance), but it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Sorry I was on a roll. I will endeavour to punctuate correctly in future.
What I was so ineloquently trying to say is that if animal cruelty is a major drive for banning fox hunting, then why do those that appose it not stop the cruelty perpetrated upon thousands and fluffy wuffy chickens every week?
As a nation we kill (rightly in my opinion) thousands of animals for food every week. Not always in the most humane ways (wrong in my opinion). If the objection is to cruelty there are better targets than a few hunts killing less than 15,000 foxes a year.
What bothers many people is that those that participate enjoy something they see as distasteful and wrong. My mate hates what he describes as fetid milk and retches if it’s brought to near and cannot understand why we eat it. I still love cheese and he would never dream of stopping me eat it, and I would never make him eat it.
I’m waffling again so I’m off.

???

Some of us concerned about the cruelty implicit in hunting with hounds don't support the meat, dairy or livestock industries either...And I have the utmost repsect for vegans, as they do walk the walk, not just spout the talk.
But to answer the other posters point about organic and free range chickens, they all die the same way!

I think he's trying to say that because we (us "smog suckers", which I assume means city dwellers) eat chicken we don't care about their welfare.

Which kind of over looks the increasing amount of organic and free range products being eaten.

Ahh, thanks for that, it makes more sense. It's true that I don't give a toss about chicken's welfare, for me it serves as much purpose as worrying about the health of a potato waffle. I.e. totally pointless. It's food, I eat it. That's about as far as my concern for chickens go. We're at the top of the food chain, and I'm sure those below us couldn't give a monkey's arse about those below them. Maybe it's an arrogant view, but it doesn't bother me much to be totally honest.

This is not a UK issue but an English issue. Fox hunting is already banned in Scotland.

Ahh, thanks for that, it makes more sense. It's true that I don't give a toss about chicken's welfare, for me it serves as much purpose as worrying about the health of a potato waffle. I.e. totally pointless. It's food, I eat it. That's about as far as my concern for chickens go. We're at the top of the food chain, and I'm sure those below us couldn't give a monkey's arse about those below them. Maybe it's an arrogant view, but it doesn't bother me much to be totally honest.
And that's another point and not one that I am saying I agree with. If it is ok to kill for meat when that is no longer required to survive, what is wrong with killing for recreation? So if killing for recreation is wrong so must killing for meat so we should all be vegans or at least veggis.

This is not a UK issue but an English issue. Fox hunting is already banned in Scotland.

What?! Wales has buggered off and become independant in the last couple of days? Why didn't anyone tell me? And NI too? Jees, the fall of the Union is upon us!

Thanks for the chat! Off home, I'll pick this up in the AM.

And that's another point and not one that I am saying I agree with. If it is ok to kill for meat when that is no longer required to survive, what is wrong with killing for recreation? So if killing for recreation is wrong so must killing for meat so we should all be vegans or at least veggis.

Killing is fine, either way. Fun or for food, both are okay in my book. Pity so many people disagree with me though.

What?! Wales has buggered off and become independant in the last couple of days? Why didn't anyone tell me? And NI too? Jees, the fall of the Union is upon us!

NI is not covered by the current piece of legislation: hunting with hounds remains legal here.

And I have the utmost repsect for vegans, as they do walk the walk, not just spout the talk.
But to answer the other posters point about organic and free range chickens, they all die the same way!
I'll happily admit I know nothing about the slaughter business - I assume they gas them with carbon monoxide or something?

As for the cheese explanation, I'm not sure it's entirely valid because the cheese doesn't suffer from being eaten. And no-one has ever said the cheese must be eaten because it's a pest.

And I have the utmost repsect for vegans, as they do walk the walk, not just spout the talk.
But to answer the other posters point about organic and free range chickens, they all die the same way!

I do just so happen to be vegan, but although the final destination of free-range and well-treated livestock is the same, I do consider it important that they at least live lives relatively free of cruelty prior to that point.

NI is not covered by the current piece of legislation: hunting with hounds remains legal here.

Lucky gits.

Can I just ask the people that are opposed to hunting whether or not they've ever been to a hunt? If you haven't then you're lacking in information.

Hunting with dogs is a way of life in the country side. Without it coummumities would have very little to bind them together as a lot of the time they can stretch for miles.

I'd like to point out a few things as well.
1. How else would you keep the fox population down? Would you poison or trap them? Or would you just let them get out of control? The poison that farmers put down is often eaten by other animals that pose no threat to livestock and traps mean that the fox has a very slow and often painful death. Death by hound is very quick, a single slash to the throat and the fox is dead.

2. The hounds that are used have been and are bred specifically to hunt. They are not pets and kill on instinct. If hunting is banned then these dogs will have to be put down because they can not be re-homed. There are thousands of hunting dogs in the country and they would not survive the ban.

3. Many of the yards where the dogs and horses are kept also run knackers yards. Without these places there would be no where for farmers to take dead livestock.

4. The horses that are used have been bred for the hunt and while it is easier for a horse to be homed many would have to be put down.

Unfortunately, this all falls on the deaf ears of the Labour government :headbang: , which is made up of townies who don't like the idea of killing what they see as innocent animals. I say them, look at the damage a single fox can do when let into a chicken pen. Not one chicken survives.

Hunting is a way of life. It can not be banned.

I live on a farm in the dales, and there has never been any problem here. I have not had any problem with foxes and the only people I've know who hunt are pritty well known as the more well off sort who arn't real farmers (You know they own the land but don't farm.) Most people I know are against hunting, and you don't neeed it anyway.

Off the issue slightly but believe me the time will come when you may need a gun in your hand to protect you and your own,i,m talking about rights of freedom this government is taking away and down the path to anarchy..............Mock all you wish but you know i am right.
Hopefully in the long run, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Banning fox hunting is a very good idea.
At the end of the day, he says that fox hunting is a 'way of life'. I think that is total bull.
Your telling me, that to bring people closer together, they have to act like people who come from 500BC and go kill things for the fun of it like a pack of Barbarians and their war dogs? It's just a lame excuse.

I think it's disgusting and people like that should be ashamed of themselves, because at the end of the day, people who say that 'they eat the chickens!' SO WHAT!? That doesn't give people the right to go and hunt them down like animals that have no feelings what so ever. At the end of the day, If a fox gets inside a Chicken Coop, isn't that the owners fault? have people ever heard of fences? Oh, they like killing i forgot, so it doesn't matter to them.

Again.. Killing makes the community come together....... Excuse me.... but what kind of sad peices of crap are them people? Why should they have a license to go out hunting animals, that at the end of the day have to look after themselves too.

For a summary.... I take it if they were put in the Foxes 'shoes' they wouldn't want to be ripped apart by a pack of dogs i take it? Unless they like being eaten alive....

Kirov......

I'm a city dweller, but I've done my research on fox-hunting, although I've never been to one.

Foxes in general aren't a pest to farmers, as they are generally fearful of humans and avoid us. However, as the fox gets older, it cannot hunt or scavenge like it used to and ventures onto farms to get its food there. This is what causes the problems to farmers, as if a fox gets into a chicken pen it will kill the lot of them, even if it eats only one and takes another. They take lambs too, only this is a lot rarer.

In Scotland, the hunts are now banned, and hunters or marksmen are employed to clear woods around farmland of foxes. It is thought 3 times as many foxes now die than before, as a lot of foxes living besides farms would not go onto them unless there is no other way for them to get food. The marksman will keep shooting foxes until the guilty fox is caught and the taking of chickens stops.

In the old hunts, it was rarely a young fox that is the victim, as these can outrun hounds and horses. The hunts mostly caught only the foxes who were sick, injured or old.

Some farmers have reverted to traps (which are illegal anyway, to my knowledge), but these will also kill any fox or other animal. Poison will kill anything, including the farmer's livestock. Shooting will kill any fox, including a vixen who is trying to get food for her 8 pups. In a hunt, 9 out of 10 times she would easily escape. Also, a fox ripped to pieces by dogs will not crawl away and take three days to die, yet a shot fox might.

As much as toffs killing for fun disgusts me, I cannot think of a better way to stop old foxes from menacing farmland without harming the younger foxes or other creatures.

But then, this ban is not about protecting animals from cruelty, its Labour trying to appease its extreme Left by reverting to old-Labour style class warfare. 15,000 foxes a year in hunts is nothing to the million chickens a day in factory farms, many who have had their beaks clipped so they cannot injure each other due to being cramped together with no room to move. Many of these chickens have never seen the light of day... at least in a hunt, it is generally an old fox who has lived a good natural life before ripped to pieces by dogs.

Banning fox hunting is a very good idea.
At the end of the day, he says that fox hunting is a 'way of life'. I think that is total bull.
Your telling me, that to bring people closer together, they have to act like people who come from 500BC and go kill things for the fun of it like a pack of Barbarians and their war dogs? It's just a lame excuse.

I think it's disgusting and people like that should be ashamed of themselves, because at the end of the day, people who say that 'they eat the chickens!' SO WHAT!? That doesn't give people the right to go and hunt them down like animals that have no feelings what so ever. At the end of the day, If a fox gets inside a Chicken Coop, isn't that the owners fault? have people ever heard of fences? Oh, they like killing i forgot, so it doesn't matter to them.

Again.. Killing makes the community come together....... Excuse me.... but what kind of sad peices of crap are them people? Why should they have a license to go out hunting animals, that at the end of the day have to look after themselves too.

For a summary.... I take it if they were put in the Foxes 'shoes' they wouldn't want to be ripped apart by a pack of dogs i take it? Unless they like being eaten alive....

Kirov......

They're bloody foxes for crying out loud! They don't have feelings, or emotions, not do they give the slightest damn about it being cruel or not, they survive purely on instinct, if their instinct fails them, than that's tough, isn't it? This isn't a "do unto others..." situation, there's a clear boundary between human customs, traditions, etc and an animal's way of life. They don't whittle on endlessly about rights, or about how unhumane it is. You don't need an excuse to kill foxes, you haven't need one since the dawn of time, so why need one now? You my dear friend, are an imbecile. Do not attempt to converse on such situations when you are so obviously uneducated to the subject matter.

They're bloody foxes for crying out loud! They don't have feelings, or emotions, not do they give the slightest damn about it being cruel or not, they survive purely on instinct, if their instinct fails them, than that's tough, isn't it? This isn't a "do unto others..." situation, there's a clear boundary between human customs, traditions, etc and an animal's way of life. They don't whittle on endlessly about rights, or about how unhumane it is. You don't need an excuse to kill foxes, you haven't need one since the dawn of time, so why need one now? You my dear friend, are an imbecile. Do not attempt to converse on such situations when you are so obviously uneducated to the subject matter.
And I was so pleased that neither side had resorted to petty name calling.

Well it's what I should of expected from someone who sees no need to not be cruel to animals.

And I was so pleased that neither side had resorted to petty name calling.

Well it's what I should of expected from someone who sees no need to not be cruel to animals.

Wasn't petty at all, there were points in the post, wasn't just flaming for the sake of flaming.

There isn't a need. I'm sorry if I have little regard for animals, I just don't see the point of wasting time and money worrying about them, when they serve little or no purpose to us. Plus I'm not cruel to animals. Animals that serve a purpose I treat fondly, dogs, cats, horses, etc. All of which I feel deserve our good treatment. Foxes, however, are vermin. They serve little or no purpose. Hunting them is a tradition, that is both effective, and assumedly a lot of fun, otherwise people wouldn't participate.

Don't give me that! LOL!
Foxes obviously have feelings...... It's a living mammalm for christ sake.
If you hit a fox, it hurts and feels the hurt does it not? So don't tell me they don't have feelings. Instinct is just an excuse, don't tell me that a foxes instinct is to annoy farmers as much a possible for them to be hunted down!

Like i said before, they look like a pack of barbarians in the hunt.

Just look at them yesterday, They call THAT peaceful? If i were the police and they were like that i would of grabbed my truncheon and whacked me a few skulls, just to hope that it gives them some sense and to go get a real hobby. They looked like a bunch of yobs and many of the older men there who think they are real farmers, but they aren't, who think they are the King themselves and think they are above the law. With people like that, of course they are gonna act like dumbass barbarians who have no compassion for other species of animal. While they are at it, why don't they shoot their dogs while their at it and their horses, because that will probably give them much pleasure and joy in their sadistic game. And besides, people who do fox hunting just think they are the Social Elite or Upper class, and they ain't, and quite frankly people like that need hunting and shooting themselves.

Kirov.......

I would just like to add to my last post.

What ever happened the the food chain i must say. The food chain is the natural way to keep animal numbers down, for them people that do hunt, and think they are doing 'god's work'.

Foxes eat small animals obviously. E.G

Cabbage<---Rabbit<----Fox

Self explanitory really.......

Rabbit eats the Cabbage, and then the Rabbit is eaten by the fox.... When the Rabbit's numbers fall, The fox's numbers fall because of no food....Yea again, this is for them people who like to hunt, and thnk they are keeping the fox population down.

When the foxes numbers fall, the rabbits numbers go up, and so the chain goes in circles..... Get it?

Like I said, this is for them people that think their hunting is keeping the fox population down. No..... you are wrong. More foxes die of no food, than they do on the hunt, and like someone said last time, they only go to farms when they can't find any rabbits to eat.

So please, tell me why nature isn't as effective as Hunters? Why can't they let nature take it's course, like it has for centuries, and why do humans need to interrupt that balance. And also, if they want to kee killing foxes.. Isn't the rabbit population going to spiral out of control? What they going to do then? There will be more rabbits, so less vegetables for farmers, so don't tell me that Foxes ain't vermin because they are doing the rural people a good job if you ask me.

Kirov.......

P.S Inbecile? lol omg, and uneducated?.... lol... I laugh at your taunts, obviously your social elite you go hunting with are just to clever for an 'Average Joe'. It's probably them who are uneducated, definatly not me.

However
1. It's often cited as the most humane way of destroying a vermin with no natural preditors, better than the slow death of poisoning, starvation or through a shot that maims but doesn't kill.


However, the fox population is not only limited by natural factors but it has been suggested as well that in fact is self limiting as foxes seem to only breed the number needed to keep the population steady. Thus the more you hunt the more they breed, the less you hunt, the less they breed.
Not to mention that these same people who object to foxes often also have cats who hunt exactly the same things that foxes do.
It's been a long time since foxes were truly vermin anyway.

Wasn't petty at all, there were points in the post, wasn't just flaming for the sake of flaming.

There isn't a need. I'm sorry if I have little regard for animals, I just don't see the point of wasting time and money worrying about them, when they serve little or no purpose to us. Plus I'm not cruel to animals. Animals that serve a purpose I treat fondly, dogs, cats, horses, etc. All of which I feel deserve our good treatment. Foxes, however, are vermin. They serve little or no purpose. Hunting them is a tradition, that is both effective, and assumedly a lot of fun, otherwise people wouldn't participate.

I happen to feel that you serve no purpose to my life and probably will never serve any useful purpose for the ultimate betterment of mankind.
Please report to your nearest hunt to be ripped to death by hounds.
Thank you.

They're bloody foxes for crying out loud! They don't have feelings, or emotions, not do they give the slightest damn about it being cruel or not, they survive purely on instinct, if their instinct fails them, than that's tough, isn't it?

Funny: seeing as how they have very similar brain structures to those which can be seen to be active when human beings are emotional or in states of marked feeling. What evidence do you have for your claims that they don't have feelings or emotions?

I do not think that hunting should have been banned or even an issue in the current political climate. When issues of terrorism are at hand fox hunting isn't a serious issue.

The government found that on grounds of animal welfare there was no need for a ban. It merely reflects the bigotry of Labour MP's still fighting the class war of the late 1800's and early 1900's. I know of one MP, who's name is Tony Banks I belive, who said that 'We all know that they're all Tories in the countryside lets get them.' This typifies all Labour MP's who are disgraceful human beings.

However they're no different to the anti-hunt people. I saw two particularly rabid protestors who would follow the local hunt with a recording of the hounds.
It sounded aweful because of the distortion of the recording. During the program a voice could be heard in the background. When the camera crew went across it was a farmer.
She was crying prefusely and was asking for the noise to be turned off. This was because the cows, disturbed by the noise, were stampeding in blind terror. The anti's refused, putting their noses up at the woman and walked away. No concern for animal welfare there then.

As for the men who went into the commons it just goes to show what a hideous travesty the whole thing is as no-one has done this since 1720.

I find the fact that the Lords, who let us not forget, gave up their power so that the common man could rule himself, being ignored and replaced by 'Tony's Cronies' is absolutely disgusting. The English Parliament is the model from which all other democracies are based. However unlike such countries as America where rights are enshrined by a constitution the English have no rights technically. To quote Stalin the 'Socialist Fascists' have used this loop hole to erode are rights for their own bigotted needs.

Fox hunting should never have been banned. Foxes have much more of a chance than their own prey does to escape and more-often-than-not they do. Foxes will now get shot, trapped and gassed in far greater numbers and animal welfare was merely a cover for the bigots to stop who they wrongly percieve as 'toffs'.
The important question now is, that now hunting has been banned, What's next?

I do not think that hunting should have been banned or even an issue in the current political climate. When issues of terrorism are at hand fox hunting isn't a serious issue.


Well seeing as how we have had active terrorism happening in the UK since at least the late sixites, at what point would it have been appropriate?

The important question now is, that now hunting has been banned, What's next?

I'm hoping for a ban on stupidity in England and Wales myself.

Fox hunting is EVIL!

For once the British government did something I agree with.

No, I don't think it should be banned. In the Dorset village where I live you sometimes see fox hunts and I don't think it's anything that needs to be banned. Just as much cruelty happens in abbatoirs and factory farms every day, and at far larger scale than fox hunts. But you don't see the protestors whining about that as it all goes on behind closed doors and gives them cheap meat. Hypocrites the lot of them. And it just shows that this is a class issue, with people wanting to antagonise the 'toffs' rather than make a difference for any real cruelty.

The main reason I don't want it banned is the economic reason. There are a hell of a lot of people who work in kennels, stables, ect and their livelyhoods depend on fox hunting. I don't think it's worth putting these people out of jobs and sometimes ther homes just to preserve the lives of a few pieces of vermin.

The vermin part is another reason as well. Me and my dad go hunting and we've shot a few foxes before. The farmer whos land we use is always happy for us to do it. If a fox breaks into a chicken coop it butchers every single animal in there. They have also been known to attack sheep, especially weak ones and lambs. These campaigners have probably never seen a fox before so they haven't a clue about the damage they cause. Any attempt to get rid of these pests should be welcomed.

Also, I think if people are doing something that doesn't harm another person I think they should be left alone. I don't mind that fox hunts go on here, it doesn't affect me and it helps farmers. People should stop interfering with what doesn't concern them.

Fox hunting is EVIL!

BuT sO iS tHe BrItIsH GoVeRnMeNt!!!!

FoX hUnTiNg Is EvIl!!!!
TeH bRiTiSh GoVeRnMeNt Is EvIl!!!!
ErGo, TeH bRiTiSh GoVeRnMeNt Is FoX hUnTiNg!!!!!!shift-suxors!!!!!!!!


******


I have to say what is really funny is listening to the news on the radio now and the interviews with those protestors hurt during the scuffles outside Parliament - all these plummy upper middle class voices saying [i]"I say, the filth really are bastards after all!"

I'm especially interested to hear the opinions of teh various trigger happy Americans on this forum as to what they think of this ancient 'sport'?

I am American, and I certainly am not trigger-happy. Characterizing a whole nation this way seems designed to elicit less than positive responses, as I am sure I am not the only one who finds that label insulting.

I am American, and I certainly am not trigger-happy. Characterizing a whole nation this way seems designed to elicit less than positive responses, as I am sure I am not the only one who finds that label insulting.

I think you misread the intentions of the previous poster. If they had asked for the opinions of the "various female* American posters" would you have been offended?


* or male, depending on your gender.

Nebby, It's not my country, therefore I don't have a say whether or not it is banned.

I don't like the idea of hunting another predator, though. It doesn't fit--they're not made to be hunted like deer.

I am American, and I certainly am not trigger-happy. Characterizing a whole nation this way seems designed to elicit less than positive responses, as I am sure I am not the only one who finds that label insulting.

No I was specifically looking for responses from those Americans who are "Trigger Happy". I meant no insult to those who aren't, or really those who are.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as I would be very interested in responses from those Americans who believe they have a God given right to own a gun for hunting.

Nebby, It's not my country, therefore I don't have a say whether or not it is banned.


That shouldn't stop you having an opinion.

No, I don't think it should be banned. In the Dorset village where I live you sometimes see fox hunts and I don't think it's anything that needs to be banned. Just as much cruelty happens in abbatoirs and factory farms every day, and at far larger scale than fox hunts. But you don't see the protestors whining about that as it all goes on behind closed doors and gives them cheap meat. Hypocrites the lot of them. And it just shows that this is a class issue, with people wanting to antagonise the 'toffs' rather than make a difference for any real cruelty.

The main reason I don't want it banned is the economic reason. There are a hell of a lot of people who work in kennels, stables, ect and their livelyhoods depend on fox hunting. I don't think it's worth putting these people out of jobs and sometimes ther homes just to preserve the lives of a few pieces of vermin.

The vermin part is another reason as well. Me and my dad go hunting and we've shot a few foxes before. The farmer whos land we use is always happy for us to do it. If a fox breaks into a chicken coop it butchers every single animal in there. They have also been known to attack sheep, especially weak ones and lambs. These campaigners have probably never seen a fox before so they haven't a clue about the damage they cause. Any attempt to get rid of these pests should be welcomed.

Also, I think if people are doing something that doesn't harm another person I think they should be left alone. I don't mind that fox hunts go on here, it doesn't affect me and it helps farmers. People should stop interfering with what doesn't concern them.

Firstly, there are people who object to factory farming and many meat eaters object to any animal being killed for any other reason than for being eaten. This is not hypocrisy, this is how nature actually is supposed to work.

Economics isn't an issue, these people should find a better job doing something productive for everyone, not just a few toffs.

Foxes used to be a major problem but most of the time now they can't even find a way into chicken coops; cats are better at that. In fact, it is rare that a fox will actually kill more than it can eat so it won't ravage every animal there, chickens can die from shock. Now much of farming is based on agriculture; chicken deaths aren't really a major problem for most farmers and even so hunting is cruel and ineffective.

As for 'people shouldn't interfere', well that's just the point of democracy isn't it? People deciding the fate of the whole country.

Just a few thoughts from a Johnny Reb:

Hunting is ok. I eat meat. I believe that if one eats meat one ought to at least have killed and had blood on ones hands.
However, fox hunting, as I understand how it is carried out in the UK, is barbaric, uneccesary, and harmful, by the hunting ethos I grew up with.
The rules for hunting, as I grew up with, are never kill what you won't eat or is causing harm. Always try your best to kill as quickly and painlessly as possible. Always try to ensure that habitat is protected.

The hunters don't eat the fox and it isn't usually a pest. In cases where it a fox has become a pest, it ought to be dealt with in as efficient and humane a way as possible - shooting or trapping. Being torn apart alive by dogs is inexcuably inhumane. Behaving in such a manner towards non-pest predators is the worst sort of behavior, seeing as predators are key in keeping things in balance.

However, I can't say no on the poll. All hunting with dogs cannot be condemned. Bird dogs are invaluable allies. They don't kill the bird. They spot or retrieve.

As for 'people shouldn't interfere', well that's just the point of democracy isn't it? People deciding the fate of the whole country.
So if 51% of people agreed with slavery, would you think it should be reintroduced? Democracy isn't about a majority oppressing a minority.

well im an american and i know i shouldnt post on this topic but that never stopped a brit from posting in an american topic so here i go

first of all, i dont understand english fox hunting. anything that doesnt end with something being SHOT doesnt seem much like hunting to me.

second, y'all dont see to understand nature very well. when the rabbit population goes down, the fox population goes down BECAUSE THE FOXES AND THEIR KITS STARVE TO DEATH. this is not a humane way to go. foxes NEVER die nicely. nature provides no kinder gentler deaths.

third, it seems to me that anything that gets rich people to go to small towns and drop bunches of money into the local economy is a good thing. sure they can learn to do without it but its nice to get extra money eh?

and finally i think y'all should stop worrying about foxes and instead start some kind of forced breeding program within your aritstocracy so future generations will have CHINS.

That shouldn't stop you having an opinion.

True, which is why I continued with the statement about not liking the hunting of predators. :)

While I do think hunting foxes is a bit cruel I don't really think it is any of my business to tell people not to do it. This is because a) it involves a threat of violence against humans (jail if you hunt) and is a violation of liberty, b) animals don't have rights, c) foxes are utter vermin and should be killed, after all, hunting is what they spend all day doing, d) I don't imagine foxes die a nice death however they go (if they don't have any predators they must just starve to death, no?) e) I don't particularly care f) it pisses off the govt.

I'd rather just get on with my life and stay out of these idiots' way.

As for the parliament protest it was a completely wasted opportunity. They could easily have snuck in a few petrol bombs and snuffed out a few of the theives and murderers on both sides of the house. Amateurs.

So if 51% of people agreed with slavery, would you think it should be reintroduced? Democracy isn't about a majority oppressing a minority.
Wake up and smell the oppression. That's exactly what Democracy is about.

No I was specifically looking for responses from those Americans who are "Trigger Happy". I meant no insult to those who aren't, or really those who are.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as I would be very interested in responses from those Americans who believe they have a God given right to own a gun for hunting.

Even if I were inclined to own a gun (I'm not) or hunt (I don't), trigger-happy seems to connote shooting indiscriminantly and without thought -- something a responsible gun owner would probably not care for either.

To put it into perspective, however, there are people in the states who are against hunting of any kind. The results? In New Jersey, last year, they had to have a black bear hunt because these animals were so numerous they were strolling into fairly urban areas and, in a couple of cases, got into peoples' homes. Add to this a cases in which a bear snatched an infant in upstate New York out of its carriage and devoured it, and where a bear walked onto a porch and slapped a two year old who was sitting out there in the head, and you can understand why it was deemed necessary.

Animal rights activists went NUTS over the hunt.

Deer populations explode, and more than simply being pests by eating people's gardens, they starve, their inability to find proper food makes them disease prone, and they, too, invade people's homes in desperation. I know someone who had a buck break through a screen door and run around inside the house, panicked and attacking everything in sight until someone was able to slam a bedroom door on it, trapping it. After several attempts to tranquilize the maddened animal, it was necessary for police officers to kill it to remove it from the house without endangering anyone else.

I wouldn't hunt myself, but I don't count those who do as trigger happy, and I do see the need in limiting the populations when they get out of control.

Wake up and smell the oppression. That's exactly what Democracy is about.
OK, then surely by that thinking if slavery did have majority support it should be reintroduced?

So if 51% of people agreed with slavery, would you think it should be reintroduced? Democracy isn't about a majority oppressing a minority.

Apples and Oranges. Foxes, as much as I think they are cute, are not humans. They are not, therefore, a minority.

Yes it should be banned... but stupid me pressed no! :mad: any way, animals arent meant to be killed. they are not ours to eat and they are certainly not ours to torture and hunt. you wouldnt like it if some one started chasing u on horses with a pack of dogs when in the end you know your going to be killed! What a load of Bullshit it is to fox hunt.

OK, then surely by that thinking if slavery did have majority support it should be reintroduced?
No. The problem is with democracy. It necessarily leads to the oppression of minorities.

OK, then surely by that thinking if slavery did have majority support it should be reintroduced?

:-D That is why the US is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy... it helps to make sure that the majority does not oppress the minority.

However, there certainly is the possibility of abuse in the other direction....

:headbang: :sniper:

Apples and Oranges. Foxes, as much as I think they are cute, are not humans. They are not, therefore, a minority.
I think you might have misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't referring to foxes as the minority whose rights needed protecting, I was referring to the huntsmen.

The Burns Report - an independent official inquiry into foxhunting - found that there is no evidence foxhunting has any effect on the fox population. Therefore thge argument that foxhunting is pest control is complete rubbish, just like everything else the "Countryside" Alliance comes up with (I live in the countryside and hate everything that organisation stands for).

No jobs have to be lost, no hounds or horses have to be put down, if the hunters simply swap to drag racing..where the dogs chase a special scent laid down on a route through the countryside. It's basically exactly the same as foxhunting except no innocent creature has to be ripped to shreads. BUt will the foxhunters accept this? No course not. Takes all the fun away apparently. I tell you these people are WEIRD. Have you heard how new huntsmen have the blood of a fox smeared on their face as a kind of initiation ceremony?

It is sick, it is inhumane, that's why our government has a right to end this practice. Just like the working-class pursuits of dog fighting have been outlawed (long ago) it is time to end the upper class barbarism.

No. The problem is with democracy. It necessarily leads to the oppression of minorities.
It doesn't have to be that way. As Katganistan said, democracy can also be combined with adequate protection for minorities.

It doesn't have to be that way. As Katganistan said, democracy can also be combined with adequate protection for minorities.

However, using the US as an example of such is not the most convincing: its status as a constitutional republic with a strong democratic tradition did not do a great deal to protect minorities prior to ... oohhh... the sixties.

However, using the US as an example of such is not the most convincing: its status as a constitutional republic with a strong democratic tradition did not do a great deal to protect minorities prior to ... oohhh... the sixties.
Fair point, but I still think that it can be done.

An intersting point that very few people have picked up on is that a large number of the fox population in Britain is now urbanised; foxes are becoming pretty common sites in towns and cities, more than ever. Yet you don't see urban bussinessmen chasing foxes in their company cars. Personally, I think that the toffs in the country dont really hunt foxes do get rid of the 'vermin', but just because they think they have a god given right to hunt and kill any animal they can find (in a totally humane way, of course :rolleyes: ). If foxhunting is banned, they'll just end up hunting something else. If all hunting with dogs is banned, they'll probably just go out and shoot anything that moves, sadly.

Fair point, but I still think that it can be done.

The question is then whether the degree of protection of minorities which currently exists in the US is thanks to its system of government (constitutional rep-yadda-yadda-yadda) or to other factors.

However, using the US as an example of such is not the most convincing: its status as a constitutional republic with a strong democratic tradition did not do a great deal to protect minorities prior to ... oohhh... the sixties.
.... or since.

Also by the number of comments here about toffs etc. proves that it is a perceived class issue. However most people who hunt these days come from all backgrounds not just the remainder of teh aristocracy.

It is a class issue. When have the Countryside Alliance campaigned on the traditional low pay for rural workers or the problems caused by commuters buying up large swathes of housing in the countryside? A simple look at the Countryside Alliance shows your claim that the pro-hunting lobby is "from all backgrounds" is simply propaganda with no truth in it. (All figures from 2002 so may be slightly dated).

When the Countryside Alliance was set up, Baroness Ann Mallalieu said those involved "include not just field sportsmen but those who own and manage most of the countryside". (The Field, 1998)

Maybe you can point to the non toffs involved in the Board of Directors of the CA in 2002:

John Jackson (Chairman): Non-solicitor Chairman of Mishcon de Reya, Chairman of Ladbrooke Group and Celltech plc, Director of Billiton plc, Wyndeham Press Group plc, WPP Group plc, Xenova Group plc, Brown and Jackson plc and Oxford Venture Capital Trust. Special adviser to the Korda Seed Capital Fund and Cambridge Animation Services ltd. One of the four owners of History Today.

Bill Andrewes (Deputy Chairman): Ex British Field Sports Society and ex chairman of the Campaign for Hunting.

Richard Burge (Chief Executive): Former Director General of Zoological Society of London, son of a military colonel. Trustee for the Charles Darwin Centre. Sits on the council of the Shropshire and West Midlands Agricultural Society.

Lord Mancroft: Tory Peer. Chairman of Inter Lotto UK ltd.

Sam Butler: Partner in estate agent Butler-Sherborn. Particularly interesting one this. His estate agent's sell extremely expensive homes to toffs, with no chance of any ordinary locals being able to afford them. When Nick Cohen of the Observer phoned Butler-Sherborn posing as a buyer for a highly over-priced Cotswold pad he expressed concern he could face hostility for being a townie. The saleswoman replied "oh, no, everyone round here's a commuter". ("Is it Hague or Blair", The Observer, 31st December 2000)

I can go into more detail if you wish (including the business interests of the Countryside Alliance, actually very anti the Countryside) but that should be enough for you to start with.


Some anti-hunt lobbies have said that the pro-hunt people are being childish by stating that the hounds will have to be destroyed. The anti-hunts say this isn;t necessary. If hunting is banned what do they propse to do with the hounds? The current hunts won't exist to look after them, they can't be re-habilitated? Who will pay for thier up keep? No one they will be destroyed.Drag hunting. Or are you arguing that the claim by the pro hunting lobby that they hunt for the thrill of it, not for the kill are lies?

The otehr issues are around how foxes will be controlled. Shooting? Can't do it with a shotgun, need a rifle.... how much does a rifle license cost? How much to pay for a marksman to kill pest this way? No one can afford to do that. So it comes back to traps, how often can landowners check traps? not often so foxes and other animals will be left dying by inches in agony. Gas... phewwwwww

But the pro-hunting lobby also argue that few foxes are killed by hunts every years. If the fox population needs controlling why use an uneffective method to do it?

Hunting is a way of life. It can not be banned. Stop pretending hunting has a historical basis. A pro hunting writer, Sir W Beach Thomas admits that "it is true enough in essentials to argue that hunting as we know it began in the eighteenth century, and belongs to modern England... The Enclosures acts encouraged it by destroying other sports, especially the hunting of deer...in 1779...[there were] fewer then a dozen regular hunts".

The Master of Foxhounds Association only dates back to 1856.

In other words the idea that foxhunting is part of ancient British tradition is not true. And I put it to you that the pro-hunting lobby knows this and is lying cynically and deliberately.

200+ years is a pretty long tradition if you ask me, some countries haven't been around much longer than that!
Again I say I'm not convinced about fox hunting either way. But would like to make some points:
Foxes do not have emotions as humans understand them emotion is generally the product of intelligence (generally but that is all another discussion).
IMO only vegans can complain about the cruelty aspect, if you’re not a vegan than you are responsible for as many animal deaths than any hunter.
Chickens are normally killed by grabbing them by the legs, hanging them alive upside down on a conveyor belt, their legs are attached to one pole of a current then they are brought over a trough of water which is the other pole and electrocuted. If they are lucky this works and they never notice the spinning blades that will cut their heads off. Very efficient but not without an element of cruelty. As it is for animals arriving at a slaughter house with the smell of blood in the air and the stress of the journey recently behind them. So I salute all vegans but enjoy meat too much myself, though I prefer game animals that have lived a natural life, then been killed in situ with little stress.
People appear to be emotional about the fact that some one enjoys killing an animal for pleasure. They feel that is wrong but that breeding and killing an animal for meat is ok, even though to survive we do not need to do this, it is just because they like to consume the flesh of young dead animals. Yep if it’s games it is probably a lot older than the youngsters that are killed for food.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt: The majority in a democracy have no more right to tyrannise over a minority than, under a different system, the later would have to oppress the former.
We do not need to kill animals to survive but we do and I can accept that, we do not need to kill animals for entertainment but we do and I can live with others doing that, even if I may not see the attraction.

reading this thread it is clear to me that a revolution will take place with the country side alliance storming london and taking over parliament. prominent figures such as tony blair the queen and timmy mallet will be executed. and we will all be forced to speak with silly voices play polo and adress tory voters as mi'lord.

for god sake grow up an overwhelming majority of people want it banned. the CA pathetic protests and civil disobedience wont even affect anyone because no one cares. example you could only get 4000 people into parliment square. CND got 500,000 and look how many nukes there are now grow up and except the facts.

the CA should be lobbying on issue where they have support from the public, can win and will really make a difference to people in the country. for example rural deprevation and post office closure

Eee by gum. eets reet sad tha everbody iz geeting soo wound up bout fox huntin. eets a reet bad sport thas got noo place int our gods own yorkshire. im reeet appy tha eets been banned just soo long as they doont ban Yorkshire Tea. that'll be reet bad.

It pitys me that it took so long to ban this barbaric sport yet they didn't think twice when banning Bear bating or Cock fighting (commonors sports). It is about time that posh persons sports such as Polo and Croquet are banned.

Eee by gum. eets reet sad tha everbody iz geeting soo wound up bout fox huntin. eets a reet bad sport thas got noo place int our gods own yorkshire. im reeet appy tha eets been banned just soo long as they doont ban Yorkshire Tea. that'll be reet bad.

It pitys me that it took so long to ban this barbaric sport yet they didn't think twice when banning Bear bating or Cock fighting (commonors sports). It is about time that posh persons sports such as Polo and Croquet are banned.

Ow. Reading your post made my eyes bleed.

Eee by gum. eets reet sad tha everbody iz geeting soo wound up bout fox huntin. eets a reet bad sport thas got noo place int our gods own yorkshire. im reeet appy tha eets been banned just soo long as they doont ban Yorkshire Tea. that'll be reet bad.

It pitys me that it took so long to ban this barbaric sport yet they didn't think twice when banning Bear bating or Cock fighting (commonors sports). It is about time that posh persons sports such as Polo and Croquet are banned.
They are also going to ban the commoners sports of Hare coursing and rabbiting.
But they can still hunt accused criminals with dogs.
Still can't see why the knicker twisting about fox hunting unless you're a vegan. In which case "dofs cap".
It appears to be as much about getting at richie rich than anything else.

They are also going to ban the commoners sports of Hare coursing and rabbiting.
But they can still hunt accused criminals with dogs.
Still can't see why the knicker twisting about fox hunting unless you're a vegan. In which case "dofs cap".
It appears to be as much about getting at richie rich than anything else.

What if you're just a vegitarian?

What if you're just a vegitarian?
Well animals still die to provide you with the things you use in life. the fact that you do not eat thier flesh is irrellevant. You might as well eat the flesh, at least it is using the whole animal.

Well animals still die to provide you with the things you use in life. the fact that you do not eat thier flesh is irrellevant. You might as well eat the flesh, at least it is using the whole animal.

Like what? Let's assume we're talking about a vegitarian who doesn't wear fur or leather, but drinks milk, eats cheese, and eats eggs. Just for the sake of arguement. What animal dies for this person's benefit and how?

Like what? Let's assume we're talking about a vegitarian who doesn't wear fur or leather, but drinks milk, eats cheese, and eats eggs. Just for the sake of arguement. What animal dies for this person's benefit and how?
The dairy cows suffer for your chesse and milk, animals die to produce gelletin that is included in loads of your foods and sweets, your cloths have dyes that are produced from the bodies of animals, the beer you drink and some of the wine is cleared using the extracts from animals and it goes on and on. I'm no vegan and if there are any out there they will give you a better run down on all the millions of things we use every day that came from mans exploitation of animals.

The dairy cows suffer for your chesse and milk, animals die to produce gelletin that is included in loads of your foods and sweets, your cloths have dyes that are produced from the bodies of animals, the beer you drink and some of the wine is cleared using the extracts from animals and it goes on and on. I'm no vegan and if there are any out there they will give you a better run down on all the millions of things we use every day that came from mans exploitation of animals.

I can see where you're coming from but I question your defintions:

The cow doesn't actaully die from giving milk. It's sad that it does, but it isn't really on the same level as eating its flesh. The same goes for cheese, obviously.

A strict vegetarian doesn't eat gelletin. Yes, it's hard to see in some foods, but vegetarians do try to cut it out of their diet.

Guiness is the only beer I'm aware of that's non-vegetarian, and vegetarians aware of that fact don't drink it.

As for the dyes, you've got me there. Some vegetarians think it's ok because it's a bi-product of the animal - no animal is actually killed for the dye. They're killed for the meat and the rest is just used. But I'll give you that one in the name of fairness.


But my next question...
Do you really think vegetarianism is pointless even if one is guilty of all the things listed above? At least by refusing to eat meat, you're reducing the problem, even if you haven't totally removed yourself from it.

i dont see how milking cows and killing other animals for food comes into this argument. When they are killed they are used for a purpose not for just sport as with fox hunting. i think that it you treat animals with respect then you have a clear conscience. fox hunting is totally different. when you set hounds to rip apart a fox that is terrified after the chase you are being inhumane. i would say that you are being barbaric but even these ancient people respected the native animals. Huntsmen should stay in their huge mansions and respect the native wildlife that makes our country GREAT BRITAIN.

I can see where you're coming from but I question your defintions:

The cow doesn't actaully die from giving milk. It's sad that it does, but it isn't really on the same level as eating its flesh. The same goes for cheese, obviously.

A strict vegetarian doesn't eat gelletin. Yes, it's hard to see in some foods, but vegetarians do try to cut it out of their diet.

Guiness is the only beer I'm aware of that's non-vegetarian, and vegetarians aware of that fact don't drink it.

As for the dyes, you've got me there. Some vegetarians think it's ok because it's a bi-product of the animal - no animal is actually killed for the dye. They're killed for the meat and the rest is just used. But I'll give you that one in the name of fairness.


But my next question...
Do you really think vegetarianism is pointless even if one is guilty of all the things listed above? At least by refusing to eat meat, you're reducing the problem, even if you haven't totally removed yourself from it.
No if it makes you more comfortable then great. I eat flesh and am comfortable with that. My point being only a strict vegan can say with any degree of conviction that thier life does not add to or cause the suffering of animals. But as we all use electricity, plastics and modern ways of life then even that is debatable.
I also think vegitarians can have a bit of a hard time.
My objection is to people who see killing an animal for it's skin as wrong but killing it for its flesh as ok. My only concern as a meat eater and skin wearer is that the animal had as much as possible a cruelty free life and death. The more efficiently we use its body when dead then the better.
Humans do not need to kill animals to live, I ask why is it ok to kill them for one unecessary reason and not for any other?

No if it makes you more comfortable then great. I eat flesh and am comfortable with that. My point being only a strict vegan can say with any degree of conviction that thier life does not add to or cause the suffering of animals. But as we all use electricity, plastics and modern ways of life then even that is debatable.
I also think vegitarians can have a bit of a hard time.
My objection is to people who see killing an animal for it's skin as wrong but killing it for its flesh as ok. My only concern as a meat eater and skin wearer is that the animal had as much as possible a cruelty free life and death. The efficiently we use its body when dead then the better.
Humans do not need to kill animals to live, I as why is it ok to kill them for one unecessary reason and not for any other?

And for that reason I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. I do think killing an animal for sport, fur, or food is equally as wrong. I don't think meat-eaters are wrong, mind you. I just see vegetarianism as a step in the right direction. Animal efficiency doesn't really work in today's world. You don't just buy a cow anymore. If a vegitarian stops eating meat and keeps wearing leather, he/she's still reducing the demand for animal suffering.

My only point is vegitarians make an effort to reduce their dependence on other life. Obviously vegans do a better job, but the whole vegetarian community helps to reduce the meat industry's stranglehold on America and Europe's diets.

Quote:
"i dont see how milking cows and killing other animals for food comes into this argument. When they are killed they are used for a purpose not for just sport as with fox hunting. i think that it you treat animals with respect then you have a clear conscience. fox hunting is totally different. when you set hounds to rip apart a fox that is terrified after the chase you are being inhumane. i would say that you are being barbaric but even these ancient people respected the native animals. Huntsmen should stay in their huge mansions and respect the native wildlife that makes our country GREAT BRITAIN."

I'm with charlie chalk, this converstaion has gotten off topic. Fox hunting is cruel and barbaric. If you need to get rid of a fox, shoot it and it suffers pain for a few moments, or raise a fence around your land, or is that too simple for you bloodthirsty heathens.

Quote:
"i dont see how milking cows and killing other animals for food comes into this argument. When they are killed they are used for a purpose not for just sport as with fox hunting. i think that it you treat animals with respect then you have a clear conscience. fox hunting is totally different. when you set hounds to rip apart a fox that is terrified after the chase you are being inhumane. i would say that you are being barbaric but even these ancient people respected the native animals. Huntsmen should stay in their huge mansions and respect the native wildlife that makes our country GREAT BRITAIN."

I'm with charlie chalk, this converstaion has gotten off topic. Fox hunting is cruel and barbaric. If you need to get rid of a fox, shoot it and it suffers pain for a few moments, or raise a fence around your land, or is that too simple for you bloodthirsty heathens.
No I don't think it is off topic at all. What is being discussed in a round about way is why do you object to the killing of foxes when you support the killing of so many other animals. By co respondant has taken the stance that they object to all killing so I can respect that position, I can't respect the position that to kill foxes is cruel but chickens and sheep and veal calves are ok.

No I don't think it is off topic at all. What is being discussed in a round about way is why do you object to the killing of foxes when you support the killing of so many other animals. By co respondant has taken the stance that they object to all killing so I can respect that position, I can't respect the position that to kill foxes is cruel but chickens and sheep and veal calves are ok.

What i'm objecting to is the manner in which the foxes are killed, not specifically the killing of them. And also i think that using veal calves is cruel as they are kept enclosed in the dark for their short llives.

What i'm objecting to is the manner in which the foxes are kill, not specifically the killing of them. And also i think that using veal calves is cruel as they are kept enclosed in the dark for their short llives.

Well, it sounds like we're all in agreement: foxes are killed in a horrible way and veal is icky.

Well, it sounds like we're all in agreement: foxes are killed in a horrible way and veal is icky.
Just to get off topic and stir things again (as is my want).
Is veal icky if it is as it was, and that being a suckling calf. So born, kept with mummy for a week or so then boof onto a plate. Still icky? Or just sad for the doe eyed burger factory?

Just to get off topic and stir things again (as is my want).
Is veal icky if it is as it was, and that being a suckling calf. So born, kept with mummy for a week or so then boof onto a plate. Still icky? Or just sad for the doe eyed burger factory?

Um... I don't think I fully understand your question, but I still think it's icky. In case it wasn't really obvious from before, I'm a strict vegetarian and lax vegan. Baby cows are icky. If they're made to suffer in the name of veal, they're more icky for obvious reasons. Still, eating a one-week-old baby cow is pretty bad even for meat-eaters. I think even most meat-eaters would agree with that. Either that, or I'll be flamed in a matter of minutes.

Um... I don't think I fully understand your question, but I still think it's icky. In case it wasn't really obvious from before, I'm a strict vegetarian and lax vegan. Baby cows are icky. If they're made to suffer in the name of veal, they're more icky for obvious reasons. Still, eating a one-week-old baby cow is pretty bad even for meat-eaters. I think even most meat-eaters would agree with that. Either that, or I'll be flamed in a matter of minutes.
No. No flaming just asking. Maybe there should be a new thread along these lines, you know killing of and eating animals in general.
But I agree the killing of a very young cow is a bit icky and not very efficient.

Um... I don't think I fully understand your question, but I still think it's icky. In case it wasn't really obvious from before, I'm a strict vegetarian and lax vegan. Baby cows are icky. If they're made to suffer in the name of veal, they're more icky for obvious reasons. Still, eating a one-week-old baby cow is pretty bad even for meat-eaters. I think even most meat-eaters would agree with that. Either that, or I'll be flamed in a matter of minutes.

I'm not a vegetarian, although i agree that veal is icky, for of course the obvious reasons(ie the calves are taken from their mothers and kept in a small dark box and killed for meat).

No. No flaming just asking. Maybe there should be a new thread along these lines, you know killing of and eating animals in general.
But I agree the killing of a very young cow is a bit icky and not very efficient.

Sure. Anyway, I'm expecting flames from other people. You've actually been mature about this discussion regardless of the fact that we're pretty much thinking in opposite ways. That makes you cool.

I'm only on the forum for another 20 minutes, so if you want to start a thread, I'll post for that period of time.

I'm not a vegetarian, although i agree that veal is icky, for of course the obvious reasons(ie the calves are taken from their mothers and kept in a small dark box and killed for meat).


Makes sense. Most people who disagree with killing for sport tend to dislike veal. Goes hand in hand, really.

Sure. Anyway, I'm expecting flames from other people. You've actually been mature about this discussion regardless of the fact that we're pretty much thinking in opposite ways. That makes you cool.

I'm only on the forum for another 20 minutes, so if you want to start a thread, I'll post for that period of time.
Maybe Monday as I'm off soon to get some work done!

ban it NOW!
those hunters are crazy murders :mad:

i personally dont see a thing wrong with eating meat as long as the meat has been killed respectfully and that the animal hasn't been mistreated in life.

YOU UTTER BASTARDS!!!!!
I've been reading this thread about fox hunting and both sides have made some very good points.
BUT ALL THIS TALK OF MEAT AND VEG, HAS GONE AND MADE ME HUNGRY!!!
going to have to go and eat now. lol

(meant as a joke only guys)

ban it NOW!
those hunters are crazy murders :mad:
That's only true if you hunt human... Webster's Dictionary defines muder as:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

...none of which apply to foxes, or anything else non-human for that matter.
Now, if you want to say it *does*, you have to stop eating anything solid and wear only synthetic fibres...

I suspect that if it was snake hunting (or some other non-cuddly looking animal) that there wouldn't be an uproar.

That's only true if you hunt human... Webster's Dictionary defines muder as:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

...none of which apply to foxes, or anything else non-human for that matter.
Now, if you want to say it *does*, you have to stop eating anything solid and wear only synthetic fibres...

I suspect that if it was snake hunting (or some other non-cuddly looking animal) that there wouldn't be an uproar.
I suspect if it was something that really was a pest you would be right....

The RSPCA is against it, which makes me think it must be cruel.

I've had long arguments with people who want to keep hunting.

In my opinion it's wrong. It's a sport in which the main point is to hurt animals. Can't be right, can it?

That's only true if you hunt human... Webster's Dictionary defines muder as:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

...none of which apply to foxes, or anything else non-human for that matter.

What about the point that fox hunting is, in your words. outrageous and blameworthy. Therefore fox-hunting is murdur, under definition 2b) :p A point i think to team anti-foxhunt.

I live in the south west, the farmer land of the country, and often you see hunters going out in their posh suits on their horses. They dress up to kill foxes. How ridiculus is that! Almost everybody i know is allowed by their parents to swear at the hunters as they ride by. Its seen as resonable in this area. They treat killing animals as a sport. When i told this to my pro-hunting friend he said how can you have a sport where no participant wins. But there is a winner. The humans and their dogs win everytime.

As you may of guessed, i am against fox hunting and i welcome the ban with both hands. There used to be signs around saying "save the counrtyside" and that was about a year ago. When in the car, i said to my mum that the signs sounded like a good idea, the countryside is a beautiful place yet ruined by veichles etc.But really they meant save the countryside by enabling us precoucius pr**ks to kill Foxes in a brutal way. Sorry to people who are pro-hunting im sure your not pr**ks at all. A few months after showing these signs, i new one was shown. It said "59% of the public say yes to fox hunting". For a start, it cant of been 59% of the public because they havnt asked me or anyone i know. I know that you can ask a percentge of the popluation and asume thats what the rest of the public will agree with but you cant just asume. Also the signs were asking you to save the countryside and more than just fox hunting.

I am aware i have gone of on my soapbox a bit but i think it is a very important issue and i want to get my points across.

I think those protesters who invaded the house of commons made themselves and the rest of the pro-hunters look like idiots more than anything else. They also proved that, even after hearing about al-queda plots to distroy the house of commons, they havnt protected them better at all, worse even. And todays storys about a Sun jornalist with a fake bomb managed to get in scared me. 1 of the places in Britain that should be the safest was invaded by a jornalist with a bomb and fake refrences. But thats a different subjuect.......

I am very sorry if i have offended anyone in my views, pro or against hunting but i just feel very strongly about this.
:)

What about the point that fox hunting is, in your words. outrageous and blameworthy. Therefore fox-hunting is murdur, under definition 2b) :p A point i think to team anti-foxhunt.

You consider killing a fox outrageous or blameworthy?
Really?
Do you consider killing flies the same way? How about rats?
I still posit that if foxes weren't "cute" no one would care.

Outrageous is going out and shooting a hundred buffalo in a weekend because you can. Blameworthy is killing someONE.

Killing a fox? Please. Equating animals to humans is a joke. I garden, fish and hunt. Unless you've done likewise (and I'm not on a soapbox here), don't preach.

Now, what I'm most interested in here is that *NO ONE* has once said anything about the actual fox hunt. Are the dogs used as in duck hunting? Is the fox eaten? If not, then it's killing for sport. And I'm against that, unless there is an overabundance of foxes in an area and they're a pest. Otherwise it's like the _ssholes that shot a deer and just take the horns.

So, fox hunting is banned now? I'm personally against the ban, as I don't see fox hunting's inhumanity. If you want to see inhumane, go to the slaughterhouse where your meat comes from.
I have to say, however, that I admire the missionary zeal that is on both sides of the debate in the UK, but I am very dismayed how easily they broke through security, and onto the House of Commons (or that Batman guy on Buckingham Palace). It's giving terrorists ideas.

You consider killing a fox outrageous or blameworthy?
Really?
Do you consider killing flies the same way? How about rats?
I still posit that if foxes weren't "cute" no one would care.

Outrageous is going out and shooting a hundred buffalo in a weekend because you can. Blameworthy is killing someONE.

Killing a fox? Please. Equating animals to humans is a joke. I garden, fish and hunt. Unless you've done likewise (and I'm not on a soapbox here), don't preach.

You are still missing my point, as i have said several times i object to THE MANER OF THE FOX HUNT, not the killing of the foxes in general. I object to the fact that, as sport people chase a single animal onhorseback with a pack of dogs to maul the beast till it dies. Yes, i admit if there is a problem with the foxes as pests and there are no other alternatives then killing a fox is justifiable, but not in such an inhumane maner.
What i ask you is the problem with a famrer, taking a gun and killing the fox with a single relativly painless(compared to the stress and mauling of the hunt) shot, if it is the only way to rid himself of a pest. As to the point of flies, i don't object to killing them, because they are a pest and there is no alternative, but i do object to ripping their legs and wings off, as this is an unnecassarily cruel way to go about a job that has a much nicer solution.
I say again I object to the fox HUNT, not to humanely killing something that is a pest if thbere is no other alternative.

Now, what I'm most interested in here is that *NO ONE* has once said anything about the actual fox hunt. Are the dogs used as in duck hunting? Is the fox eaten? If not, then it's killing for sport. And I'm against that, unless there is an overabundance of foxes in an area and they're a pest. Otherwise it's like the _ssholes that shot a deer and just take the horns.
No, it's killing for sport- essentially a bunch of rich people put on silly clothes and run the fox to the point of exhaustion, and then get the dogs to rip it apart. (It's also highly inefficant as a form of pest control, and hunts have been caught on camera feeding fox cubs in the past which suggests that the pest control excuse is precisely that.

Well, if I were to give an opinion.....
No, I don't think fox hunting should be banned. I don't condone it, but as far as that goes, it is just opinion. I do believe that foxes often need population control, seeing as Britain has killed off all of the foxes natural predators. Let me explain, I live in nothern Illinois, but often visit a friends farm in south western Wisconsin. Up there, foxes often reach populations that force some of the weakest foxes to repeatedly raid hen houses for food. However, I don't think that running around on horseback with a bunch of stupid purebred(sorry, once again, personal opinion) dogs running around trying to catch a fox is the best way to do it. Mostly because it takes a long time, second, because it ruins the pelt(fox fur all the way). When I go after foxes, I would maybe take one dog, maybe, trained like a coon dog, to trail and corner, but not to attack. I would also take a rifle(with a dog, .22lr, without, probably something along the lines of a flat, fast shooting .22-250, or .220 swift) to finish it off. I say, forget the horse and red coats, buy yourself some decent camo. :D As for trapping, it is quite humane when done right. Either you can use body traps, which kill instantly, or check your traps early in the morning every day bacause, as many trappers know, the main activity period of many small carnivorous mammals is between 4-6am, so the animal is in trap less then two hours. As for the killing and eating of animals, I am all for it. Veal is slightly disturbing, but sometimes, such as when a calf has busted its leg, it is quite practical. So, for lovers of beef, camo, and good old bolt action rifles everywhere, :sniper: :D

I think it is wrong to ban a practice only because some people enjoy it and the majority think it is cruel. I don't go hunting. I'd prefer if nobody wanted to go hunting. I think however it is immoral to stop someone doing something just because I don't like it.
Well, let's say for the sake of argument that a minority of people enjoyed torturing and murdering other humans, but the rest of us considered it "cruel" and wrong. You can't possibly be saying that it would be immoral to stop them enjoying their pastime of killing other humans! In fact, it would be your moral duty to try and educate them on the absolute wrongness of their pastime.

Replace "humans" with "foxes"... and the statement still stands.

An intersting note though is that hunting foxes with dogs doesn't lower there population, it only kills the weak, old, and sick foxes who cant excape the dogs, you will hardly even find a young, strong fox caught by dogs. By killing the weaker, older ones, it only leaves more food for the stronger, younger foxes who still can have strong pups. As for all of the "bad" stuff they supposedly do, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a fox-proof cage for your chickens than it is to buy, train, and keep a horde of hunting dogs and guns and horses that they use for traditional hunts.

When I hunt, I hunt things that need to be killed, like poisonous snakes, if I'm shure they aren't poisonous I'll pick them up keep them for pets, but when I hunt I actualy hun, using only a sword or hook axe along with my knives to kill, this practice has gotten me bit a few times but I've killed over 30 snakes this year that way and it's a heck of a lot more sporting than fox "hunts".