NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wondered what people thought of the new fox hunting ban

From what I hear it's unenforceable. Who's to say you weren't out riding and exercising your dogs, and they happened chase after a fox?

there's loads of ways of getting round it, which is good IMO, if people stopped foxhunting in a years time the countryside would be overrun with them, it's difficult for people who live in towns and cities to understand and they always go on about it being cruel but foxes are vermin, they kill chickens and sheep and most of the time it isn't even to eat them, they just bite the heads off and leave them

I am SO HAPPY fox hunting has been banned. No-one can justify that level of cruelty. Foxes are predetors, and regulate their numbers naturally. They don't need to be controlled. And I live in the countryside. :rolleyes:

i agree with Tink, I come from a hunting family and the yard I keep my horse at - several people from there hunt...I also disagree with the fact that such a rural sport like hunting...whats it got to do with town people...it doesnt affect their lives...just another thing to rant about. :rolleyes:

It's not about townies v countryside you idiot.

It's not about townies v countryside you idiot.
What is it about? Poor vs. rich?

What is it about? Poor vs. rich?

Its about cruelty v non-cruelty :rolleyes:

Its about cruelty v non-cruelty :rolleyes:
I'm in favor of cruelty. Learning to desensitize yourself makes you stronger.

most of the time it isn't even to eat them, they just bite the heads off and leave them

Evidence?

No?

I think I'll have to respectfully not believe you, then.

Thats why i like the law where i live. If it steps on my property i can shoot it dead...Works great to hunt year round when you have several acres of land.

i think its sad to lose a long term cultural tradtion.

I'm in favor of cruelty. Learning to desensitize yourself makes you stronger.
Learning to actually care about stuff makes you smarter.

Its about cruelty v non-cruelty :rolleyes:
that's absolute crap, foxes kill chickens, we need chickens for food and eggs, we don't need foxes, it makes more sense to get rid of the foxes than let them get rid of the chickens, the foxes are more cruel than us, we kill to keep numbers down, foxes kill for the hell of it

And how are you going to get rid of the foxes now? Shoot them? That can be a drawn out, painful death from bleeding. Trap them? I hope not. Also, what are you going to do with the hounds?

that's absolute crap, foxes kill chickens, we need chickens for food and eggs, we don't need foxes, it makes more sense to get rid of the foxes than let them get rid of the chickens, the foxes are more cruel than us, we kill to keep numbers down, foxes kill for the hell of it

Yes, so let's kill all the other thing that eat chickens. :rolleyes: You don't see toffs on horseback riding after weasles.

Learning to actually care about stuff makes you smarter.
Learning anything makes you smarter, but learning to desensitize yourself makes you stronger too.

Evidence?

No?

I think I'll have to respectfully not believe you, then.
I live on a farm, i have chickens, i've woken up to find a load of them with their heads ripped off

Well, it's not as if you care about the hounds either, killing them when they're 6 years old and unable to hunt. You care as much about the hounds as you do about the foxes.

that's absolute crap, foxes kill chickens, we need chickens for food and eggs, we don't need foxes, it makes more sense to get rid of the foxes than let them get rid of the chickens, the foxes are more cruel than us, we kill to keep numbers down, foxes kill for the hell of it

Yet again, evidence? No? Stop talking random dribbe.

Also, Foxes also eat other creatures which you find pests. Killing the foxes would end up with another type of wild creature population starting to gorw and annoy you.

You just can't end up shooting everything.

Edit:

I live on a farm, i have chickens, i've woken up to find a load of them with their heads ripped off

Doesn't sound like foxes to me. Well, scare them off then. A short, sharp shock which doesn't mean you killing foxes.

So, you're against cruelty to chickens? What do you think of farmers who just keep theirs in boxes, feed them minimum food, etc?

Well, it's not as if you care about the hounds either, killing them when they're 6 years old and unable to hunt. You care as much about the hounds as you do about the foxes.
Hounds are just a tool for killing foxes. When a tool ceases to function it is disposed of.

I'm in favour of it being banned - I too think it's cruel. I do think there probably needs to be fox control, but not so that the fox dies in agony. Someone said about it attacking chickens violently - point taken, but a fox is a wild animal driven by instincts, which humans - as 'civilised', socialised beings - have learnt to control.

The ban in its current form seems unenforceable, however. But under this government, that doesn't surprise me.

If you are trying to keep the population of foxes down, what's the deal with artifical earths?

Hounds are just a tool for killing foxes. When a tool ceases to function it is disposed of.
See?

Its about cruelty v non-cruelty :rolleyes:

Anyone who believes that a regime where foxes are shot is somehow better for the foxes is seriously mistaken. Firstly in Scotland, where the ban was introduced a while ago, more foxes have been killed since the ban because more specific effort is put into shooting them. They kill any fox as well, not just the old and weak. Secondly, shooting a fox doesn't kill it immediately any more than hunting does. At least if you hunt it, even if it isn't killed at the first go then it will be dead very shortly afterwards. A lame fox might last for a few weeks more before dying of gangrene or starving if the farmers can't find it.

When you actually look at the evidence, which few people seem to have done during the course of this debate, disappointingly, the justification for the ban seems hollow. It's more about not liking the attitude of the people who hunt, which is also very often misinterpreted, than with the welfare of the fox. Very disappointing.


What is interesting, for the aspiring lawyers among you, is that the Court of Appeal ruled that legislation passed under the Parliament Act, such as the Hunting Act, was secondary legislation that can therefore be challenged by the courts in Judicial Review and on Human Rights grounds, even though they did not find that the Hunting Act itself breached anything. Most Acts of Parliament cannot be challenged by the courts in that way.

Yes, so let's kill all the other thing that eat chickens. :rolleyes: You don't see toffs on horseback riding after weasles.

Says it all, I suspect.

Anyone who believes that a regime where foxes are shot is somehow better for the foxes is seriously mistaken. Firstly in Scotland, where the ban was introduced a while ago, more foxes have been killed since the ban because more specific effort is put into shooting them. They kill any fox as well, not just the old and weak. Secondly, shooting a fox doesn't kill it immediately any more than hunting does. At least if you hunt it, even if it isn't killed at the first go then it will be dead very shortly afterwards. A lame fox might last for a few weeks more before dying of gangrene or starving if the farmers can't find it.

When you actually look at the evidence, which few people seem to have done during the course of this debate, disappointingly, the justification for the ban seems hollow. It's more about not liking the attitude of the people who hunt, which is also very often misinterpreted, than with the welfare of the fox. Very disappointing.


What is interesting, for the aspiring lawyers among you, is that the Court of Appeal ruled that legislation passed under the Parliament Act, such as the Hunting Act, was secondary legislation that can therefore be challenged by the courts in Judicial Review and on Human Rights grounds, even though they did not find that the Hunting Act itself breached anything. Most Acts of Parliament cannot be challenged by the courts in that way.

If you think that hounds only kill old or sick foxes, then you are seriously depraived of infomation.
http://www.league.uk.com/cruel_sports/pack_of_lies/foxes_and_fox_hunting.htm

And fox hunting has already been banned, weather you like it or not.

Yet again, evidence? No? Stop talking random dribbe.

Also, Foxes also eat other creatures which you find pests. Killing the foxes would end up with another type of wild creature population starting to gorw and annoy you.

You just can't end up shooting everything.

Edit:



Doesn't sound like foxes to me. Well, scare them off then. A short, sharp shock which doesn't mean you killing foxes.

So, you're against cruelty to chickens? What do you think of farmers who just keep theirs in boxes, feed them minimum food, etc?
it is foxes, we've caught them trying to get in before, no matter how much we try and scare them off they always come back

I think it's wrong to keep chickens in boxes etc, hence why we have our own free range chickens, though i'm not entirely sure what the hell that has to do with anything

If you think that hounds only kill old or sick foxes, then you are seriously depraived of infomation.
http://www.league.uk.com/cruel_sports/pack_of_lies/foxes_and_fox_hunting.htm

And fox hunting has already been banned, weather you like it or not.


I don't think that hounds only kill old or sick foxes, but they are much more likely to catch them.

I also wouldn't get your information from impartial sources, be it the League Against Cruel Sports or the Countryside Alliance. It's a very poor way to get yourself informed.

I don't think that hounds only kill old or sick foxes, but they are much more likely to catch them.

I also wouldn't get your information from impartial sources, be it the League Against Cruel Sports or the Countryside Alliance. It's a very poor way to get yourself informed.

So, we shouldn't look up stuff, we should make it all up? Takes all sorts.

See?
I see that you're weak enough to throw money and resources into a tool that can no longer perform it's function.

Yet again, evidence? No? Stop talking random dribbe.

Also, Foxes also eat other creatures which you find pests. Killing the foxes would end up with another type of wild creature population starting to gorw and annoy you.

You just can't end up shooting everything.

Doesn't sound like foxes to me. Well, scare them off then. A short, sharp shock which doesn't mean you killing foxes.

So, you're against cruelty to chickens? What do you think of farmers who just keep theirs in boxes, feed them minimum food, etc?

Where, in the sense of rural/urban environments, do you live. You are criticising personal experience of the devastation that a fox can do, without showing a shred of evidence or justification for your opinion.
Tink lives on a farm, she has seen the effects of foxes herself. I too have seen the effect. They are pests. They need to be controlled. Hunting is just one method of doing this, it is no less cruel than shooting or trapping, it is just the currently popular bogeyman.

Why are you not up in arms about the cruelty shown to animals by little old ladies who live in appartment blocks with three dogs, two parrots, a tortoise and forty five cats?

What about the people who mistreat dobermans to produce guard dogs.

Have you ever had a goldfish in a bowl, pure cruelty to imprison some living thing with no reason whatsoever.

Open your eyes.

I see that you're weak enough to throw money and resources into a tool that can no longer perform it's function.

They're the pricks that breed them, then shoot them. And that's a typical hunting attitude. Well at least you openly admitt it.

Where, in the sense of rural/urban environments, do you live. You are criticising personal experience of the devastation that a fox can do, without showing a shred of evidence or justification for your opinion.
Tink lives on a farm, she has seen the effects of foxes herself. I too have seen the effect. They are pests. They need to be controlled. Hunting is just one method of doing this, it is no less cruel than shooting or trapping, it is just the currently popular bogeyman.

Why are you not up in arms about the cruelty shown to animals by little old ladies who live in appartment blocks with three dogs, two parrots, a tortoise and forty five cats?

What about the people who mistreat dobermans to produce guard dogs.

Have you ever had a goldfish in a bowl, pure cruelty to imprison some living thing with no reason whatsoever.

Open your eyes.


There is no method of control in hunting. It has been proven to be a very uneffective way, and what about the man-made artificial earths that they use to breed foxes?

Where, in the sense of rural/urban environments, do you live. You are criticising personal experience of the devastation that a fox can do, without showing a shred of evidence or justification for your opinion.
Tink lives on a farm, she has seen the effects of foxes herself. I too have seen the effect. They are pests. They need to be controlled.
My grandfather was a farmer for all of his life, and I spent quite a bit of time with him on the farm. He always was infuriated by the foxes coming in and killing the chickens, quite understandably. He was also perpetually pissed off by the horses on the hunts trampling up his fields! Whether anyone cares about the fox or not, there's that issue too - hunts can go across people's private land, seemingly without permission. My grandfather never gave them any permission, at any rate, and neither did any other farmers he knew.

I fail to see why we should not do something which has worked for the past few centuries just because some people think it is 'cruel' to an animal that doesn't even have conscious thought. It's an animal, and it lives on instinct.

My grandfather was a farmer for all of his life, and I spent quite a bit of time with him on the farm. He always was infuriated by the foxes coming in and killing the chickens, quite understandably. He was also perpetually pissed off by the horses on the hunts trampling up his fields! Whether anyone cares about the fox or not, there's that issue too - hunts can go across people's private land, seemingly without permission. My grandfather never gave them any permission, at any rate, and neither did any other farmers he knew.

They can go across railways too, which is illegal, and often ends up in the deaths of hounds-not that they care of course.

I fail to see why we should not do something which has worked for the past few centuries just because some people think it is 'cruel' to an animal that doesn't even have conscious thought. It's an animal, and it lives on instinct.

How do you know it doesn't have a conscious thought? Have you asked it? Has that been proven? No, it hasn't.

How do you know it doesn't have a conscious thought? Have you asked it? Has that been proven? No, it hasn't. I haven't seen his soul, why don't we hunt him? I really don't like ignorance.

I fail to see why we should not do something which has worked for the past few centuries just because some people think it is 'cruel' to an animal that doesn't even have conscious thought. It's an animal, and it lives on instinct.

Killing/flogging criminals worked for the past few centuries.

I wouldn't think a criminal had conscious thought, since they are just going by instinct he take stuff from other people to full their own needs. Isn't it possible to get a job?

Thus, according to your thought, let us bring back flogging and hanging.

Edit:

I haven't seen his soul, why don't we hunt him? I really don't like ignorance.

He was talking about conscious thought, not a soul. You can ask a human about his conscious thought and you can possibly prove it.

Skarto Argento, are you a vegetarian?

My grandfather was a farmer for all of his life, and I spent quite a bit of time with him on the farm. He always was infuriated by the foxes coming in and killing the chickens, quite understandably. He was also perpetually pissed off by the horses on the hunts trampling up his fields! Whether anyone cares about the fox or not, there's that issue too - hunts can go across people's private land, seemingly without permission. My grandfather never gave them any permission, at any rate, and neither did any other farmers he knew.

Fair comment. Not all farmers like hunts, but some do.
A good, well run hunt will not cause problems to farmers that do not want them on their land. But not all hunts are well run.

I'm not sure if I'm in favour of the ban. It is cruel, but then again it keep their numbers down and employs a lot of people.

From what I hear it's unenforceable. Who's to say you weren't out riding and exercising your dogs, and they happened chase after a fox?
No, not really. It's not as if people spontaneously start hunting anytime. These hunts are arranged and planned for months in advance.

Humans are biologically very similar to animals. Therefore let us hunt or place in combat our fellow humans, Roman-style.

Killing/flogging criminals worked for the past few centuries.

I wouldn't think a criminal had conscious thought, since they are just going by instinct he take stuff from other people to full their own needs. Isn't it possible to get a job?

Thus, according to your thought, let us bring back flogging and hanging.

And bear baiting and cock fighting, and badger baiting...ECT

Skarto Argento, are you a vegetarian?

Vegan.

Humans are biologically very similar to animals. Therefore let us hunt or place in combat our fellow humans, Roman-style.

Well we need to get rid of the scallies somehow

Vegan.
fair enough

Fair comment. Not all farmers like hunts, but some do.
A good, well run hunt will not cause problems to farmers that do not want them on their land. But not all hunts are well run.

No they are not.

In fact, on the BBC news, a "hunter" talked about the "thrill of the hunt" which basically was roaming throughout the countryside and not knowing where you are going to go next.

Basically, it's "follow the fox". That means it isn't well run. It is random as the fox's thoughts of escape.

No they are not.

In fact, on the BBC news, a "hunter" talked about the "thrill of the hunt" which basically was roaming throughout the countryside and not knowing where you are going to go next.

Basically, it's "follow the fox". That means it isn't well run. It is random as the fox's thoughts of escape.

The hunting of unpredictable wild animals with packs of hounds, inevitably means that hounds attempt to follow the quarry wherever it may run in its efforts to avoid capture. Every hunting season there are scores of incidents - some trivial, but many serious - of 'rioting' (out-of-control) hounds, invading private property, damaging crops, stampeding and killing livestock, running through gardens, killing pet cats and dogs and causing accidents on roads and railway lines.

I'm in favor of cruelty. Learning to desensitize yourself makes you stronger.

Heh, so does adding sarcasm to your sense of humour! ;)

In drag hunting, the mounted supporters follow a pack of foxhounds which 'hunt' an artificial trail laid by a runner or rider over a set course. Bloodhounding is very similar to draghunting, except that the dogs usually follow the human scent of an athlete who sets off some time before the hunt.

Both draghunting and bloodhounding are both increasing in popularity in Britain. The obvious advantage of these forms of hunting is that a trail can be planned over a course which avoids vulnerable crops, livestock, gardens, roads, railway lines and other hazards. The hunt can be made fast or slow and thereby cater for riders of differing expertise, by either laying a trail over a fast route, or by frequently 'lifting' the scent, so that the dogs 'check' - allowing riders to catch up. At the end of the hunt, the dogs are praised enthusiastically and given a reward of food - instead of being allowed to kill and eat a wild animal. These forms of hunting obviously involve no use of terriers or blocking up of fox earths and badger setts, or the digging-out of foxes. The hunt can also be arranged so that the hunt ends at the same point at which it started - thus avoiding riders 'hacking-back' to their horse-boxes, along narrow unlit roads in semi-darkness.

I agree with Bill Bailey on the issue of fox hunting; I know I should probably be against it because it is cruel but really I am against it because I can't stand the snobbery of the fox hunters I have seen and the way they take over the countryside and the roads whenever they are on the roads. I am glad about this whole ban thing though because it is another nail in the coffin of the Lords. :)

I'd love to take this issue further, but i have to go. The hunt has been banned, oh yeah.

its really good its not allowed, but hardly enforceable. But why do they have to do it anyway? They need to grow up and get civillized. Killing Foxes for fun is a crap idea which they did in primitive times when they had nothing better to do.

I'd love to take this issue further, but i have to go. The hunt has been banned, oh yeah.
it's easy to get round, oh yeah.

In drag hunting, the mounted supporters follow a pack of foxhounds which 'hunt' an artificial trail laid by a runner or rider over a set course. Bloodhounding is very similar to draghunting, except that the dogs usually follow the human scent of an athlete who sets off some time before the hunt.

Both draghunting and bloodhounding are both increasing in popularity in Britain. The obvious advantage of these forms of hunting is that a trail can be planned over a course which avoids vulnerable crops, livestock, gardens, roads, railway lines and other hazards. The hunt can be made fast or slow and thereby cater for riders of differing expertise, by either laying a trail over a fast route, or by frequently 'lifting' the scent, so that the dogs 'check' - allowing riders to catch up. At the end of the hunt, the dogs are praised enthusiastically and given a reward of food - instead of being allowed to kill and eat a wild animal. These forms of hunting obviously involve no use of terriers or blocking up of fox earths and badger setts, or the digging-out of foxes. The hunt can also be arranged so that the hunt ends at the same point at which it started - thus avoiding riders 'hacking-back' to their horse-boxes, along narrow unlit roads in semi-darkness.

Doesn't that kind of ruin the arguments of fox hunters who say they are doing it for the good of society by keeping fox numbers down?

its really good its not allowed, but hardly enforceable. But why do they have to do it anyway? They need to grow up and get civillized. Killing Foxes for fun is a crap idea which they did in primitive times when they had nothing better to do.in nature animals kill other animals, sometimes they do it for food, sometimes they do it for the hell of it, foxes aren't any different to humans, they kill for the fun of killing, the difference is they kill things that we need, nobody needs foxes

As a farmer myself, this issue effects me. I've seen how much ppain a fox goes through when it is shot, if you miss it's head, then it akes ages to die, and usually I finish it off. But if it starts to limp away, esspeccally at hight, then I might not be bothered to follow it, this way i also kill healthy foxes as much as old dying ones.

I've never hunted with hounds, there just arn't hunts going on up here, but I don't see how it can be more cruel than shooting foxes, eatherway the foxes die. And they do need to die.

You know what? Nobody can come up with a good reason to allow the hunting to continue. The best I've heard, from a Tory friend of mine (yes I know, but he will learn) is that the leather industry profits massively from the death of cows, and the attack on fox hunting that kills literally tens of foxes per year is a pathetic working-class attack on the countrysiders especially since they tend to roam around the street clad entirely in leather.

On the other hand, it's the beef industry that kills the cows and the leather industry that cleans up the skins. In other words, if England suddenly became Muslim, I'm sure that the countrysiders would be right to complain that they're not allowed to hunt foxes whilst we skin cows. However, as it stands, we're not and they're not.

If the rich upper-class landowning types want to have fun together, can't they just go down and have a drink at the local? Or does that involve them in sharing space with other members of the community - something clearly out of the question. After all, who knows what those other country yobs would do with their nicely ironed red jackets if they could get their hands on them.

It is obvious that the law to outlaw fox hunting was put through parliament illegaly. It took over 260 hours of parls time, time which could been much better spent dealing with issues which actually matter. (Although maybe the government dont have any policies)
If foxes need to be controlled then why not let some people have fun out of it, so what if they happen to be rich and wear silly clothes. Its a clear case of class law.
It is also quite depressing to see that alot of labour MPs were willing to resign if the fox hunting bill wasnt passed, its a shame that none of them had the same backbone when it came to sending British citizens to their death in Iraq. Is a human life not worth the same as a foxes

You know what? Nobody can come up with a good reason to allow the hunting to continue. The best I've heard, from a Tory friend of mine (yes I know, but he will learn) is that the leather industry profits massively from the death of cows, and the attack on fox hunting that kills literally tens of foxes per year is a pathetic working-class attack on the countrysiders especially since they tend to roam around the street clad entirely in leather.

On the other hand, it's the beef industry that kills the cows and the leather industry that cleans up the skins. In other words, if England suddenly became Muslim, I'm sure that the countrysiders would be right to complain that they're not allowed to hunt foxes whilst we skin cows. However, as it stands, we're not and they're not.

If the rich upper-class landowning types want to have fun together, can't they just go down and have a drink at the local? Or does that involve them in sharing space with other members of the community - something clearly out of the question. After all, who knows what those other country yobs would do with their nicely ironed red jackets if they could get their hands on them.

Not all upper class people are snobs. And in fact you are being snobbish by generalising them like that, if you have your argument like that, why dont you go on the hunt? Are you scared they might have manners or a good upbringing? Who blames them for that?

You know what? Nobody can come up with a good reason to allow the hunting to continue. The best I've heard, from a Tory friend of mine (yes I know, but he will learn) is that the leather industry profits massively from the death of cows, and the attack on fox hunting that kills literally tens of foxes per year is a pathetic working-class attack on the countrysiders especially since they tend to roam around the street clad entirely in leather.

On the other hand, it's the beef industry that kills the cows and the leather industry that cleans up the skins. In other words, if England suddenly became Muslim, I'm sure that the countrysiders would be right to complain that they're not allowed to hunt foxes whilst we skin cows. However, as it stands, we're not and they're not.

If the rich upper-class landowning types want to have fun together, can't they just go down and have a drink at the local? Or does that involve them in sharing space with other members of the community - something clearly out of the question. After all, who knows what those other country yobs would do with their nicely ironed red jackets if they could get their hands on them.Foxes are vermin! they kill other animals for no reason! that may be exactly what hunters do but at least some good comes out of killing foxes, what good comes out of foxes killing animals that we need?!

Not all upper class people are snobs. And in fact you are being snobbish by generalising them like that, if you have your argument like that, why dont you go on the hunt? Are you scared they might have manners or a good upbringing? Who blames them for that?
I love the bit about Land Owning classes, I own land, am I a snob or a lord or somthing...NO!

I think banning fox hunting is just the government pleasing the people who are the most politically correct. IMO, a person should be allowed to conduct whatever outdoor activities/persuits they damn well like on their own land, that they legally paid for. I also think you should be given the right to kill a man if he enters your home without your permission, but that's for a different topic....

To many in the countryside, foxes are pests and vermin, they eat farmer's produce, kill their livestock and other things besides. These anti-fox hunting campaigners, I bet they have never even seen a fox hunt take place, experience what it is like, what country life is like. No, they're just city people that don't know a damn thing about the countryside. Put it like this, if the foxes weren't 'cute', if they were not so lovably adorable, if they looked like the anus of a hobo, would these campaigners still be campaigning? No. They wouldn't give a damn, they'd go and find something else to campaign about.

And it is true that many foxes just kill animals for the heck of it, and leave their carcasses right there where they killed them. I have several friends that this has repeatedly happened to, once a fox came into one of their gardens and just killed their pet genuea pig(sp?) and just left their dead bodies there. Another one's dog caught a disease known as fox-mange and almost died because of it.

The government is eroding all of what is left of British tradition, remember when they tried to get the honour title, "Order of the British Empire" (OBE), renamed to something that didn't have the word "Empire" in it? The goddamn Labour governmnet is just trying to better intergrate us into the Eurotrash, take away this country's identity and make us a clone just like every other country in the (excluding some) in the EU.

I think banning fox hunting is just the government pleasing the people who are the most politically correct. IMO, a person should be allowed to conduct whatever outdoor activities/persuits they damn well like on their own land, that they legally paid for. I also think you should be given the right to kill a man if he enters your home without your permission, but that's for a different topic....

To many in the countryside, foxes are pests and vermin, they eat farmer's produce, kill their livestock and other things besides. These anti-fox hunting campaigners, I bet they have never even seen a fox hunt take place, experience what it is like, what country life is like. No, they're just city people that don't know a damn thing about the countryside. Put it like this, if the foxes weren't 'cute', if they were not so lovably adorable, if they looked like the anus of a hobo, would these campaigners still be campaigning? No. They wouldn't give a damn, they'd go and find something else to campaign about.

And it is true that many foxes just kill animals for the heck of it, and leave their carcasses right there where they killed them. I have several friends that this has repeatedly happened to, once a fox came into one of their gardens and just killed their pet genuea pig(sp?) and just left their dead bodies there. Another one's dog caught a disease known as fox-mange and almost died because of it.

The government is eroding all of what is left of British tradition, remember when they tried to get the honour title, "Order of the British Empire" (OBE), renamed to something that didn't have the word "Empire" in it? The goddamn Labour governmnet is just trying to better intergrate us into the Eurotrash, take away this country's identity and make us a clone just like every other country in the (excluding some) in the EU.
Agreed, with all but the last bit.

I agree! Red foxes are a delicacy in Trammwerk - who knows when they'll go extinct?!

Vermin or not, there is no need to hunt for food anymore. That leaves us with a large number of foxes, and hunting for sport is unnescesary and cruel. I'm glad it has been enforced.

Vermin or not, there is no need to hunt for food anymore. That leaves us with a large number of foxes, and hunting for sport is unnescesary and cruel. I'm glad it has been enforced.
when the foxes kill our animals it's unnescesary and cruel, you gonna start locking them up when they kill for sport?

Vermin or not, there is no need to hunt for food anymore. That leaves us with a large number of foxes, and hunting for sport is unnescesary and cruel. I'm glad it has been enforced.

So, by your logic we shouldn't hunt anything because hunting is only a sport and is cruel and unnecessary. I'll tell you what I'll live trap ALL! the vermin around my property, fox, skunks, racoons, possums, squirrels, rats, mice, moles, ground hogs, etc. and send all your way.

The only reason this law was passed was because the Parlament in the UK was pressured by the likes of PETA who have a twisted view of how things work here on earth. If we do not "hunt" certain animals it won't be long before these same self-rightous people start whining to have the government rid their homes of all the vermin that have moved in.

Fox hunting was an easy target because it was a "gentleman's sport" and was a high profile event.

By the way most of those critters I mentioned above carry some very nasty diseases to boot.

Humans are vermin, I kill any that annoy me.
Edit: Especially the larvae.

This ban is just another unnecessary infringement of freedom. Fox-hunting hurts no one, and thus should be a near-guaranteed right. Instead some rich bureaucrats looking to enhance their public image adopt the sentiments of some fucking-crazy animal rights group and stomp out a hundreds-year old tradition/cultural aspect. I'm surprised there is not more general uproar in England (though I don't live there so I can't say for sure).

Humans are vermin, I kill any that annoy me.
Edit: Especially the larvae.
*Genuflecting* Ah, good old larval days...

a lot of you have missed the point here

yes fox hunting is banned
but killing foxes is not.

it is still legal for a farmer to trap foxes (as long as he checks them every 24 hours) and to shoot foxes.. so nothing has changed.

the great debate should be over why has so much effort been put into stopping this 'sport' when the real cruelty is the lives that battery hens, etc live.

There's a ban in England on hunting Fox [News]? Wow, they really must hate that network :D

The reason there's no uproar is that only a small minority hunt and the large media-pummelled urban/suburban majority generally think of a bright cute fluffy Disney cartoon fox whenever they're mentioned, because that's the most they actually know about wildlife.

There are the more well-informed among us English who haven't ever hunted but vaguely sympathise with the arguments of the Countryside Alliance people but frankly don't consider this an important enough issue to be making a fuss about compared to all the other outrageous stuff our government are up to.

The reason there's no uproar is that only a small minority hunt and the large media-pummelled urban/suburban majority generally think of a bright cute fluffy Disney cartoon fox whenever they're mentioned, because that's the most they actually know about wildlife. There are the more well-informed among us English who haven't ever hunted but vaguely sympathise with the arguments of the Countryside Alliance people but frankly don't consider this an important enough issue to be making a fuss about compared to all the other outrageous stuff our government are up to.

that's so true.
Disney has been doing it for years, im so glad someone has finally said that.

no-one gives a shit about mouse traps for killing mice and rats but everyone cares about the poor little cute fox

that's so true.
Disney has been doing it for years, im so glad someone has finally said that.

no-one gives a shit about mouse traps for killing mice and rats but everyone cares about the poor little cute fox
If disney's to blame wouldn't people be upset about moustraps killing mickey? Not that I'm trying to make disney look good. I've hated disney since I first saw one of their animations as a little kid.

If disney's to blame wouldn't people be upset about moustraps killing mickey? Not that I'm trying to make disney look good. I've hated disney since I first saw one of their animations as a little kid.
I see your point but I do think a lot of people don't realise what foxes are like, I know not all people against fox hunting live in towns but a large majority do and those people have never come in contact with foxes and do think they're all cute and cuddly rather than the horrible evil vermin that they actually are

If disney's to blame wouldn't people be upset about moustraps killing mickey? Not that I'm trying to make disney look good. I've hated disney since I first saw one of their animations as a little kid.

mickey doesnt look like a mouse, hes made with exagarrated features etc, but disney foxes (fox and the hound) look like foxes but with all the wide eyes and fluffy fur, etc.

you must agree tho.. foxes are portrayed as fluffly little ginger cuddly creatures but the fact of the matter is they are a pest, they kill for pleasure (not only for feeding as some have suggested) and their numbers have to be controlled.

mickey doesnt look like a mouse, hes made with exagarrated features etc, but disney foxes (fox and the hound) look like foxes but with all the wide eyes and fluffy fur, etc.

you must agree tho.. foxes are portrayed as fluffly little ginger cuddly creatures but the fact of the matter is they are a pest, they kill for pleasure (not only for feeding as some have suggested) and their numbers have to be controlled.
Thats true, somethimes the foxes are the heros as well, as in disneys bestadised version of Robin Hood, so all the kids who see that'll think foxes are great, and are heros, not pests.

mickey doesnt look like a mouse, hes made with exagarrated features etc, but disney foxes (fox and the hound) look like foxes but with all the wide eyes and fluffy fur, etc.

you must agree tho.. foxes are portrayed as fluffly little ginger cuddly creatures but the fact of the matter is they are a pest, they kill for pleasure (not only for feeding as some have suggested) and their numbers have to be controlled.
Thats true, somethimes the foxes are the heros as well, as in disneys bestadised version of Robin Hood, so all the kids who see that'll think foxes are great, and are heros, not pests.

The ban is long overdue and finally these bloodthirsty upper class idiots can no longer enjoy watching poor foxes being ripped apart by rabid dogs. I just hope the police will put aside their class allegiances and be prepared to go after these thugs who think they can whatever they want just because of their background.

The ban is long overdue and finally these bloodthirsty upper class idiots can no longer enjoy watching poor foxes being ripped apart by rabid dogs. I just hope the police will put aside their class allegiances and be prepared to go after these thugs who think they can whatever they want just because of their background.
If poor people hunted fox would you still be in support of the ban?

The ban is long overdue and finally these bloodthirsty upper class idiots can no longer enjoy watching poor foxes being ripped apart by rabid dogs. I just hope the police will put aside their class allegiances and be prepared to go after these thugs who think they can whatever they want just because of their background.
do you live in the countryside? ever had any experiences with foxes?

there are ways to control so called pests and wankers running about in red coats on hoarses whule a fox is ripped apart by dogs is not one of them

there are ways to control so called pests and wankers running about in red coats on hoarses whule a fox is ripped apart by dogs is not one of them
It gets the job done, and people enjoy doing it. People will hunt for free. Exterminators charge money.

now on the other hand it could be deemed as a good way to keep down the population.. and its a british tradition......and all that
now.i dont agree a bullet would be quiker and more painless

It gets the job done, and people enjoy doing it. People will hunt for free. Exterminators charge money.

hmm but how could it really be deemed sport? theres no competition, no challenge

hmm but how could it really be deemed sport? theres no competition, no challenge
Sport or no sport people enjoy doing it.

If poor people hunted fox would you still be in support of the ban?

I am against any cruelty towards animals which is unnecessary.

do you live in the countryside? ever had any experiences with foxes?

I don't live in the country but I have had experiences with foxes in my garden which seem nice animals.

It gets the job done, and people enjoy doing it. People will hunt for free. Exterminators charge money.

The fact is that is extremely cruel and unnecessary. If the fox population does get out of control, which it isn't, there are more humane ways of reducing it.

there's loads of ways of getting round it, which is good IMO, if people stopped foxhunting in a years time the countryside would be overrun with them, it's difficult for people who live in towns and cities to understand and they always go on about it being cruel but foxes are vermin, they kill chickens and sheep and most of the time it isn't even to eat them, they just bite the heads off and leave them

Now true, most foxes eat rats and slugs more then anything, and most of them are infact timid.

I don't live in the country but I have had experiences with foxes in my garden which seem nice animals.

then you don't know all the facts. Foxes are horrible, evil vermin that kill for the hell of it. Unless you've dealt with them properly, eg. woken up to a a coop of massacred chickens the I don't think you have a right to say whether or not it's ok to kill them

I am against any cruelty towards animals which is unnecessary.



I don't live in the country but I have had experiences with foxes in my garden which seem nice animals.



The fact is that is extremely cruel and unnecessary. If the fox population does get out of control, which it isn't, there are more humane ways of reducing it.
It's pointless and weak to worry about the feelings of anything that's not capable of thinking at or near the level of a human. If people were chimp hunting I might be upset. Personally, I don't care if they are torturing foxes for weeks on end and keeping them alive and conscious throughout the process.

Now true, most foxes eat rats and slugs more then anything, and most of them are infact timid.
one (or more) killed a load of our chickens, not for food, they just killed them

one (or more) killed a load of our chickens, not for food, they just killed them

But more often then not they act as nature's dustmen, they eat rubbish in cities that would otherwise pile up.

But more often then not they act as nature's dustmen, they eat rubbish in cities that would otherwise pile up.
I dunno about that, I've never seen foxes in the city bu tI do know that fox hunts don't go on in cities so this doesn't really have anything to do with this. In the countryside (where they are hunted) they're pests, the majority of people against hunting live in towns and cities and don't know what they're talking about, they see foxes as cute and cuddly but they're not

The ban on foxhunting is nigh-on-purely a class thing in my opinion. The fact of the matter is that more foxes will be killed, with, potentially, just as much sufferring incurred, should farmers have to take the matter into their own hands and shoot foxes.

I dunno about that, I've never seen foxes in the city bu tI do know that fox hunts don't go on in cities so this doesn't really have anything to do with this. In the countryside (where they are hunted) they're pests, the majority of people against hunting live in towns and cities and don't know what they're talking about, they see foxes as cute and cuddly but they're not

As mentioned earlier, it's similar to the Disney sindrome in the US. The greenies in the Midwest managed to have deer hunting reduced to practically zero for several years by simply refusing to issue permits for hunting. Over the last few years, deer populations have gotten so large that crops are being destroyed, there are over 30,000 car accidents per state per year with damages into the hundreds of millions. As well as large numbers of starving/sick deer. Hunting is now being heavily encouraged.

Packs of coyotes will attack households and livestock. Yes, there are quite a few large packs in the country. When they interbreed w/ domesticated dogs (CoyDogs) they're even more fearless w/ the strength and ferocity of a coyote.

Foxes and thier ilk (weasels, stoats, raccoons, possums, etc.) WILL kill for pleasure and slaughter chickens etc. w/o eating them. I have seen this firsthand. Anyone who says they don't does not have a realistic view of nature.

Just do what I do....yell "It's coming right for us!" and then it's self-defence.

Or, you can "thin out their numbers" so they don't all starve to death.

There's an article in the current National Geographic about creatures invading certain countries that are not indigenous to those countries. I haven't read it yet but there was several maps of particular animals The Red Fox being one of them. The map showed in green where the fox belongs and in red where it doesn't. The country with the largest swath of red was Australia. Maybe they should have moved the hunts down there?

Q.Why do you hunt foxes in the first place?
A.Because they kill our chickens and are vermin
I see that.
We need to keep the numbers down
I see that.
BUT I live in rural Leicestershire where there are more hunts than anywhere else and I daily see small pointless areas of woodland in the middle of fields left deliberately as fox cover to encourage them to breed.
If you hunt them to reduce the numbers why do you encourage them to breed? Is it maybe because you need something to hunt?
In Lincolnshire where they have shot rather than hunted for many years they do not encourage foxes to breed and there are a lot less than in other areas.
Shooting works to keeps numbers down.
Admit it you hunt because you like it and you've always hunted. Be honest.
Unfortuneately bear baiting, otter hunting and cock fighting are all illegal too.
I'm sure plenty of people wanted to go on doing them but in the end it died out. You'll end up like badger baiters, working from dodgy landrovers at night.
The majority of us don't want hunting. We voted for people who would ban it.
There are a minority of people who bait badgers. I'm sure no one here would do it but I bet they say they should be able to do it cos badgers carry TB, are vermin, cos they've always done it. It's traditional!!!!

Two other points I forgot to mention.
we'll have to kill hundreds of dog
You already kill hundreds of dogs when they get too old to hunt which is what now? 5 years out of a potential 15.

This foxes kill for pleasure crap. Yes I've seen the damage a fox will do and I've paid for the new birds and repaired the fences. Foxes kill as much as they can. They plan, instinctively, to kill and bury everything they can get their teeth into be laid down for winter of to feed their young.

NO they don't think it through so they run out of time, get scared, run off, get disturbed. Maybe we could train them to kill one, take it home, kill another etc
Shoot 'em I say and get it over with.

I saw a fox hunt yesterday, there were no horses though and the people were just normal down to earth farmers, NOT upper-class toffs!

there's loads of ways of getting round it, which is good IMO, if people stopped foxhunting in a years time the countryside would be overrun with them, it's difficult for people who live in towns and cities to understand and they always go on about it being cruel but foxes are vermin, they kill chickens and sheep and most of the time it isn't even to eat them, they just bite the heads off and leave them
Erm. have you never heard of foxes in urban environments? We are hardly overrun with them there.
As for your claim that were it not for foxhunting the countryside would be overrun with them, try linking that with some facts. Foxhunting makes absolutely no impact on the level of foxes. The thugs who engage in this sort of activity will say any lie, break any law and use any justification to maintain their abhorent interest.

Erm. have you never heard of foxes in urban environments? We are hardly overrun with them there.
As for your claim that were it not for foxhunting the countryside would be overrun with them, try linking that with some facts. Foxhunting makes absolutely no impact on the level of foxes. The thugs who engage in this sort of activity will say any lie, break any law and use any justification to maintain their abhorent interest.
have you heard of fox hunts happening in urban environments? this isn't about foxes in towns. And as for it not effecting the numbers, I couldn't care less. I have no feelings towards foxes, if people want to kill them then why should I be bothered? you might say it's cruel but it's no more cruel than the way they behave

Psychiatrists have pointed to a link between people who inflict cruelty on animals and paedophilia.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/exploringthecrueltyconnection.htm

People who hunt are sick in the head. Why do people who live in the countryside think that 'townies' have no right to an opinion on country issues?

How are we going to drag these uncivilised barbarians in to the 21st century?

Psychiatrists have pointed to a link between people who inflict cruelty on animals and paedophilia.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/exploringthecrueltyconnection.htm

People who hunt are sick in the head. Why do people who live in the countryside think that 'townies' have no right to an opinion on country issues?

How are we going to drag these uncivilised barbarians in to the 21st century?
my dad hunted and my stepdad and plenty of their friends hunt! not one of them is a paedophile! that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life! there was no proof on that website, it's just about a conference to discuss the connections

It's pointless and weak to worry about the feelings of anything that's not capable of thinking at or near the level of a human. If people were chimp hunting I might be upset. Personally, I don't care if they are torturing foxes for weeks on end and keeping them alive and conscious throughout the process.
That has to be one of the nastiest and unfeeling comments I've encountered here. You don't worry about the feelings of sentient animals. I think it's enough just to repeat your post, hoping that you will rethink what you are saying. As for me, I'm chilled to read what you think.

I'm in favor of cruelty. Learning to desensitize yourself makes you stronger.

No, being drunk desensitizes you. :p

Psychiatrists have pointed to a link between people who inflict cruelty on animals and paedophilia.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/exploringthecrueltyconnection.htm

People who hunt are sick in the head. Why do people who live in the countryside think that 'townies' have no right to an opinion on country issues?

How are we going to drag these uncivilised barbarians in to the 21st century?
True, I for one don't go for that "townie v country folk" crap.
They decide that people from the urban environments have no experience with the countryside. They also claim we are making it a class issue. The fact is. it's them who arew being divisive, it's them who will grab on to any weak excuse or justification to ensure their own selgfish violent activities. N.B. By them I don't mean countryfolk, I just mean the savage thugs who enjoy ripping foxes to shreds.

my dad hunted and my stepdad and plenty of their friends hunt! not one of them is a paedophile! that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life! there was no proof on that website, it's just about a conference to discuss the connections

All 'townies' know that countryside yokels get up to weird things in the countryside. If your friends and family are peadophiles they probably wouldn't tell you about it - Sick people.

Re, Drunk Commies, he's just a fool who enjoys presenting a tough facade. I suspect he cries in his bed every night because he was bullied at school or something.

Kill the Foxes darn eating my Chikens
So what if we hunt them with dogs which rip them apart.

Take it how you want. ;)

All 'townies' know that countryside yokels get up to weird things in the countryside. If your friends and family are peadophiles they probably wouldn't tell you about it - Sick people.

Re, Drunk Commies, he's just a fool who enjoys presenting a tough facade. I suspect he cries in his bed every night because he was bullied at school or something.
that hurts, you just called my dad a paedophile!

have you heard of fox hunts happening in urban environments? this isn't about foxes in towns. And as for it not effecting the numbers, I couldn't care less. I have no feelings towards foxes, if people want to kill them then why should I be bothered? you might say it's cruel but it's no more cruel than the way they behave
No, this is about the unecessary slaughtering of foxes.....just for fun. Which as you correctly state does not happen in towns.

True, I for one don't go for that "townie v country folk" crap.
They decide that people from the urban environments have no experience with the countryside. They also claim we are making it a class issue. The fact is. it's them who arew being divisive, it's them who will grab on to any weak excuse or justification to ensure their own selgfish violent activities. N.B. By them I don't mean countryfolk, I just mean the savage thugs who enjoy ripping foxes to shreds.
a lot of people in towns have never seen foxes before, they think they're all cute and cuddly, foxes are evil vermin

No, this is about the unecessary slaughtering of foxes.....just for fun. Which as you correctly state does not happen in towns.
i think it's necessary

True, I for one don't go for that "townie v country folk" crap.
They decide that people from the urban environments have no experience with the countryside. They also claim we are making it a class issue. The fact is. it's them who arew being divisive, it's them who will grab on to any weak excuse or justification to ensure their own selgfish violent activities. N.B. By them I don't mean countryfolk, I just mean the savage thugs who enjoy ripping foxes to shreds.

And if that is the case? So what. Foxes are a menance and banning the hunting of them is foolish. Hey while we're at it lets ban rat-traps as well. Can't be cruel to animals now can we?

Kill the Foxes darn eating my Chikens
So what if we hunt them with dogs which rip them apart.

Take it how you want. ;)

It must be frustrating for you when animals refuse to recognize the cocept of human property. Perhaps you need to sit down with the fox and explain this concept with him. Couldn't you come to some sort of agreement? Surely Foxy has as much right to the chickens as you? Perhaps you could to put little labels around the chickens neck to mark out your's and his?

Just some general info, paedophiles can be any sex.

It must be frustrating for you when animals refuse to recognize the cocept of human property. Perhaps you need to sit down with the fox and explain this concept with him. Couldn't you come to some sort of agreement? Surely Foxy has as much right to the chickens as you? Perhaps you could to put little labels around the chickens neck to mark out yours and his?
We have a use for the chickens, we eat their eggs and we eat them, foxes have no use for chickens, we have no use for foxes, therefore we have to kill the foxes to protect our food

that hurts, you just called my dad a paedophile!

Hmm, what do I care about most? A fox being ripped apart for fun or your feelings?

And if that is the case? So what. Foxes are a menance and banning the hunting of them is foolish. Hey while we're at it lets ban rat-traps as well. Can't be cruel to animals now can we?
This debate is about the manner of killing, rat traps are not placed for fun, ripping an animal to pieces, after it's exhausted, terrified and can't go any further...all for "fun" is an abhorent and evil activity.

Hunting sucks. But at least with most types of hunting the eat the damn thing. Mostly it's about fake machismo masquerade. "Oooh, look, it's so much fun to kill things. I'm so tough/manly/brave/virile."
Anybody who kills things for amusement makes me sick. I hardly feel killing anything is amusing. Sometimes one can justify even killing humans, but finding pleasure in it is disgusting.

Just some general info, paedophiles can be any sex.
what the hell has that got to do with anything?

It must be frustrating for you when animals refuse to recognize the cocept of human property. Perhaps you need to sit down with the fox and explain this concept with him. Couldn't you come to some sort of agreement? Surely Foxy has as much right to the chickens as you? Perhaps you could to put little labels around the chickens neck to mark out your's and his?
I tried that the bastard bit my hand andd gave me TB so i shot him.
Mwhahahahahhahahahahaha

It's crap. It's townie legislation mostly made by peopl who have no concept of life in the countryside.
I'm not a blood-sports fanatic or anything, before I get attacked. I'm a vegetarian, against cruelty to animals, but having lived in the countryside all my life, I'm against this ban because it's just not right. It's against tradition, and most people who support it don't consider lots of stuff - like, most of the time, when the fox is actually caught it isn't ripped to pieces by dogs anymore; they just shoot it in the head. And what's the alternative? Snares? They're much crueller. And night-foxing (when they go out, shine a torch so that it reflects off the fox's eyes so they know where it is, then shoot) is not effective, it just wounds the fox and lets it bleed for days on end because it's generally not accurate enough.
I respect people who are against it, but I am entirely ambivalent about it, and I don't think anyone has the right to criticise or argue in favour of the ban until they've actually lived out in the sticks and been on a foxhunt.
The kindest thing to do, of course, would be to shoot Tony Blair in the head.

This debate is about the manner of killing, rat traps are not placed for fun, ripping an animal to pieces, after it's exhausted, terrified and can't go any further...all for "fun" is an abhorent and evil activity.

Rat Traps seem far crueler to me than some dogs killing a Fox in the same way the Fox would get killed by wolves.

what the hell has that got to do with anything?
You seemed to think your dad was being accused of being a paedophile, I'm just letting you know that a paedophile can be male or female. In future, you can make that distinction for yourself.

Hmm, what do I care about most? A fox being ripped apart for fun or your feelings?
normal people put people's feelings over animals', calling somebody's dad a paedophile without any just cause is an awful thing to do, you really should be ashamed of yourself

Hmm, what do I care about most? A fox being ripped apart for fun or your feelings?
Tinks feelings of course you Animal lover.*Evil Gleer*

Rat Traps seem far crueler to me than some dogs killing a Fox in the same way the Fox would get killed by wolves.
And how many wolves are there in rural England? Generally, one carnivore will only attack another through fear, they prefer other sorts of prey.

You seemed to think your dad was being accused of being a paedophile, I'm just letting you know that a paedophile can be male or female. In future, you can make that distinction for yourself.
I'm not stupid, I know women can be paedophiles but I still fail to see what that has got to do with this

And how many wolves are there in rural England? Generally, one carnivore will only attack another through fear, they prefer other sorts of prey.

What does the amount have to do with anything if we're talking about the method?

normal people put people's feelings over animals', calling somebody's dad a paedophile without any just cause is an awful thing to do, you really should be ashamed of yourself
"Normal" people do not tend to get pleasure from the act of savaging a fox and watching it get torn to peices.

What does the amount have to do with anything if we're talking about the method?
I think the amount is very important, given there are no wolves running wild in England.

I think it's a shame that it has been banned...

I'm not stupid, I know women can be paedophiles but I still fail to see what that has got to do with this
Then why did you assume your dad was being so accused???????

"Normal" people do not tend to get pleasure from the act of savaging a fox and watching it get torn to peices.
Ro already pointed out that they aren't savaged by dogs anymore, they're mostly shot in the head

It's crap. It's townie legislation mostly made by peopl who have no concept of life in the countryside.
I'm not a blood-sports fanatic or anything, before I get attacked. I'm a vegetarian, against cruelty to animals, but having lived in the countryside all my life, I'm against this ban because it's just not right. It's against tradition, and most people who support it don't consider lots of stuff - like, most of the time, when the fox is actually caught it isn't ripped to pieces by dogs anymore; they just shoot it in the head. And what's the alternative? Snares? They're much crueller. And night-foxing (when they go out, shine a torch so that it reflects off the fox's eyes so they know where it is, then shoot) is not effective, it just wounds the fox and lets it bleed for days on end because it's generally not accurate enough.
I respect people who are against it, but I am entirely ambivalent about it, and I don't think anyone has the right to criticise or argue in favour of the ban until they've actually lived out in the sticks and been on a foxhunt.
The kindest thing to do, of course, would be to shoot Tony Blair in the head.


Who cares about tradition? We're a progressive, evolving creature aren't we?

I can just imagine the presiding preist over cannilbalilistic ceremony procliaming "end cannilbalism?, but it's tradition!".

Rat Traps seem far crueler to me than some dogs killing a Fox in the same way the Fox would get killed by wolves.

To me it's not just about how cruel it is or is not. It's about how sick it is for people to take pleasure in something else's pain. Teaching youngsters to hunt forces them to shut down part of the empathy we might otherwise develop. It's not just about the foxes health, but societies.

Then why did you assume your dad was being so accused???????
because he used to hunt and someone said that people who hunt are paedophiles!

I think it's a shame that it has been banned...
not really, there's loads of ways of getting round it, there's even been a book published telling you how to get round the law, so they can still go on, I saw one yesterday when I was out on a bike ride

"Normal" people do not tend to get pleasure from the act of savaging a fox and watching it get torn to peices.

I'd imagine normal people would seeing as it should rekindle all the base instincts and desires of primitive man...

I think the amount is very important, given there are no wolves running wild in England.

Well I'll be damned, they're extinct in England. Well replace Wolves with Coyotes or Wild Dogs. Pick your predator.

Ah so now its not the method, its the amount. Or maybe its a combination of both? Either way, so what? Fox hunting hasn't hurt the environment much and the Fox numbers and in proper check. At the same time some people get a kick out of the activity.

There's no harm being done to anyone but some poor people who can't stomach the idea that people actually enjoy fox hunting. Well buck up and mind your own damned business and do the things you enjoy while others do the things they enjoy. Fox hunting has no affect on you and doesn't end up violating any of your rights. And I'm sorry but you can cry me a river all you want about the cruelty suffered to the poor innocent fox but I don't share your sympathies for vermin.

I think we can get a win-win situation here. Wht not let the hunters chase and kill the bone-idle and chavs of our country.

Who cares about tradition? We're a progressive, evolving creature aren't we?

I can just imagine the presiding preist over cannilbalilistic ceremony procliaming "end cannilbalism?, but it's tradition!".
That would be a fine retort if that had been the basis of my argument, but it wasn't. If they had been so stuck in "tradition", they'd still let the dogs rip the fox apart, and spread it's guts all over a field, and get blood all over their snouts, and then wipe the blood on their children's faces, and then leave the brains for the birds to eat. That's the tradition. But they don't. The tradition is the red coats and romping through the fields in cold country air and getting some exercise, unlike the fat twats in the city that sit around all day worrying about balancing all the zeros.
You're all stereotyping so I decided to join in.

normal people put people's feelings over animals', calling somebody's dad a paedophile without any just cause is an awful thing to do, you really should be ashamed of yourself

I'm being lectured on morality by a butcher of animals.

I never directly accused your father of being a paedophile. I pointed to links between paedophilia and animal cruelty. You came to your own conclusion.

because he used to hunt and someone said that people who hunt are paedophiles!

Serial killers and some of societie's other predators start by torturing animals. In order to enjoy a sport that depends on killing another living thing you have to numb yourself somewhat. This makes compassion and empathy less easy to access. I think the last thing humans need is to become more hardened. At one time it was necessary, but it isn't really a survival skiil anymore.

To me it's not just about how cruel it is or is not. It's about how sick it is for people to take pleasure in something else's pain. Teaching youngsters to hunt forces them to shut down part of the empathy we might otherwise develop. It's not just about the foxes health, but societies.

What a nice load of bullshit. Hunting has been a part of humanity for melinna. If anything it is the natural state of man and it is us.

Nevermind using the same pseudo- psychological arguments as you we could argue that hunting creates a useful escape valve for aggression and anger in society while breeding fellowship with our fellow man, thus increasing empathy and the overall health of society.

Oh, and I'm not pro-fox hunting, I do think it's quite savage. I'm just anti- fox hunting bans. The state interferes enough already.

The kindest thing to do, of course, would be to shoot Tony Blair in the head.

Now that would be a good replacement for the old hunts:

"It's the 12th of August and Politician season is now open till the 10th of December! Get your rifles at the ready and see if we can bag a prime minister today, they're considered to be quite wiley and elusive game, never too predictable and therefore rather good sport. No phoning their press offices though please, it's considered cheating to check exactly where they're going to be for their daily engagements."

I'm being lectured on morality by a butcher of animals.

I never directly accused your father of being a paedophile. I pointed to links between paedophilia and animal cruelty. You came to your own conclusion.
i don't go hunting myself! I couldn't hurt a fly! I love my animals to bits and can't wait till we get more!


and all I did was point out that it's not necassarily true, there's no proof that there's a link between paedophilia and animal cruelty

I wish we had fox or rabbit hunting as a sport in Australia, the little bastards eat everything and kill our animals... :sniper: plus rednecks will have something to do on a weekend...

I'm being lectured on morality by a butcher of animals.

I never directly accused your father of being a paedophile. I pointed to links between paedophilia and animal cruelty. You came to your own conclusion.
Interesting. Personaly I'm disgusted by hunting and cruelty to animals, but I'd also like to see the age of consent lowered to 14 or 15-ish.

Anyone that says 'Oh no, but foxes killed my chickens' doesn't have the sense to look after them.
I live in the country, I have chickens and ducks, and as I am capable of putting them away at night, and lo and behold, none have been killed.

And all this 'Oh but the foxes are going to over run the countryside' crap is just dumb. Foxes are a self regulating species, and maybe if there were a few more of them there wouldn't be farmers wailing about rabbits and killing them with that nasty new version of mixi.

The fact is we are a bit short of foxes. many hunts in this country have artificial earths, which I have seen with my own eyes. Little shed things made nice and comfortable, where foxes are made comfotable and left food to optimise breeding, and then used for hunting.
If foxes were such a huge problem, why would they need to do this?


I used to work on a free range chicken farm, where they were protected by electric fences and put in sheds at night. Foxes weren't a problem.

My uncle has a farm, he has sheep, he loses more lambs and sheep due to irresponsible dog owners not controling their pets properly than he does foxes.

Hunting is cruel, espeically the part where the terrier men dig out a fox that's gone to ground. And lets not forget cubbing.
There is no reason why hunts can't switch to drag hunting. All those people that have said they'll shoot their horses and hounds if there was a ban don't deserve them anyway, and are just proving they have little or no regard for anything other then their own interests. I
have a horse, and if someone told me I couldn't do one particular thing with it, maybe compete in one particular event, I wouldn't kill it, or even stop riding.

My neighbour was out in the woods last year and her pet dog was savaged by passing hounds. This happens all the time. Hunts have always shown enormous disregard for private land and members of the public they come accross. I remember rail track taking many hunts to court over damage to trains which had run over a load of hounds, and the delays caused by horses and hounds on the line. Rail Track was actually in favour of foxes on their land as the rabbit burrowing under the line was a problem that foxes kept under control.

Just because you don't like a species you can't kill them all.
If you care for animals that are on a predators diet, look after them properly.

I used to live in Sussex and a farm near me had a llama, as it's been proven that a male llama will protect a herd of sheep, believing them all to be his 'wives'. This wasn't done just for foxes, but also for pet dogs, which the farmer maintained also, were a constant problem, and a llama will butt them away as it will a fox. Llamas are bloody viscious.

What a nice load of bullshit. Hunting has been a part of humanity for melinna. If anything it is the natural state of man and it is us.

Nevermind using the same pseudo- psychological arguments as you we could argue that hunting creates a useful escape valve for aggression and anger in society while breeding fellowship with our fellow man, thus increasing empathy and the overall health of society.

Not hunting certainly hasn't made me violent. Perhaps some people might be taught better ways of channeling aggressive emotions.And it's not pseudo-psychological. Slavery, rape, murder and superstition have also been part of humanity for millenia. I suppose you are going to suggest those are okay. Tradition never cuts it as an excuse to continue something.

I don't agree with foxes being bred especially for hunting

Not hunting certainly hasn't made me violent. Perhaps some people might be taught better ways of channeling aggressive emotions.And it's not pseudo-psychological. Slavery, rape, murder and superstition have also been part of humanity for millenia. I suppose you are going to suggest those are okay. Tradition never cuts it as an excuse to continue something.
slavery, rape and murder hurt other people, fox hunting doesn't

Psychiatrists have pointed to a link between people who inflict cruelty on animals and paedophilia.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/exploringthecrueltyconnection.htm

People who hunt are sick in the head. Why do people who live in the countryside think that 'townies' have no right to an opinion on country issues?

How are we going to drag these uncivilised barbarians in to the 21st century?

What are you trying to imply here? Anybody who has ever hunted is psychologically unsound?

That conference had nothing to do with hunting whatsoever.

I personally do believe that "townies" have the right to an opinion, I also believe that quite often it will be ill-informed when it is to do with something that they have no experience of.

How about a little bit of civilising of yourself rather than trying to imply that people who hunt are one step off being paedophiles, you're just trying to demonize a wide group of people with no basis, that is barbarian behaviour if anything.

slavery, rape and murder hurt other people, fox hunting doesn't

So? Enjoying raping your slave wasn't always considered immoral. Because their feelings weren't as important as free people. Enslaving blacks wasn't immoral because they didn't have feelings the way white people did. Whatever excuse you can make about animals not deserving as much consideration as humans was once made about blacks, jews, women and American Indians. They feel pain and fear too.

So? Enjoying raping your slave wasn't always considered immoral. Because their feelings weren't as important as free people. Enslaving blacks wasn't immoral because they didn't have feelings the way white people did. Whatever excuse you can make about animals not deserving as much consideration as humans was once made about blacks, jews, women and American Indians. They feel pain and fear too.
I eat meat too, does that also make me a bad person?

Not hunting certainly hasn't made me violent. Perhaps some people might be taught better ways of channeling aggressive emotions.And it's not pseudo-psychological.

Unless you'd like to point me towards your thesis as well as your graduate school with teh proper contact information to verify your credentials... Saying some foolish crap and making assumptions that teaching anyone how to hunt shuts down the ability to sympathize and would somehow harm society is pseudo-psychological.

Slavery, rape, murder and superstition have also been part of humanity for millenia. I suppose you are going to suggest those are okay. Tradition never cuts it as an excuse to continue something.

Slavery, rape and murder all violate the rights of other humans and have always been seen as questionable (slavery) or plain wrong (murder and rape) throughout human history. Hunting has been seen as a vital and sometimes noble by humanity since the dawn of time.

So? Enjoying raping your slave wasn't always considered immoral. Because their feelings weren't as important as free people. Enslaving blacks wasn't immoral because they didn't have feelings the way white people did. Whatever excuse you can make about animals not deserving as much consideration as humans was once made about blacks, jews, women and American Indians. They feel pain and fear too.

Foxes on the other hand are not human.

Just wondering where you got you're doctorate, Salvondia.

Just wondering where you got you're doctorate, Salvondia.
As I noted, my pseudo-psychological argument ws pseudo-psychological BS. But then You are the one who is claiming your BS isn't.

Actually studies of violent prisoners show that many were not just abused themselves, but encouraged to abuse others. Especially animals. Most violent predatory criminals tortured animals first. Violent acts require you to be able to shut down empathy for the victim. It's also been shown to be easier to shut down empathy if done on a regular basis.

Actually studies of violent prisoners show that many were not just abused themselves, but encouraged to abuse others. Especially animals. Most violent predatory criminals tortured animals first.

Oh yes, such lovely studies that anyone who took a single class on statistics could tell you why they all suck. Those studies go first to the violent prisoners and then try to find a cause, ie something they all share. That is the absolute worst way to try and prove your case.

What the studies should be doing is tracking people who were abused, abused animals, killed ants with magnifying glasses or pulled the wings off insects and then find out how many of those people who all shared that attribute ended up being violent to other humans. You’ll find they don’t conduct that study because they can’t prove a significant connection when they do.

Basically, though those studies exist, they're conclusions are highly questionable. It makes sense that the kind of people who would kill and attack humans would have done the same in their child. I do not buy that it immediately then works in the opposite direction.

Violent acts require you to be able to shut down empathy for the victim. It's also been shown to be easier to shut down empathy if done on a regular basis.

And I would contend that you will have a great deal of trouble trying to find any study that can demonstrate that torturing animals has some great detrimental affect on society. I also doubt you will be able to find a study that can actually show that people who hunt turn into serial killers.

Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be an integral part of humane education.

Anybody who has accustomed himself to regard The life of ant living creature as wothless is in danger of arriving also at the idea that human life is worthless. -Albert Schweitzer

According to FBI profiler Robert Kessler, "Muderers frequently start out torturing or abusing animals.

Nearly all children go through a stage of "innocent" cruelty during which they may harm insects or other small animals in the process of exploring their world. Most children, however, with guidance from parents and teachers, develop empathy for the pain animals can suffer. Some, however, become locked into a lifetime pattern of cruelty.

Alberto DeSalvo, the self-confessed 1962-63 "Boston Strangler" who killed thirteen women, had, as a youth, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes.

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985, was one of the most prolific killers in modern history. His first act of violence as a child was to strangle a cat.

Brenda Spencer fired forty shots at San Diego school children, fatally wounding two and injuring nine others. Neighbors later informed police that Spencer had repeatedly abused dogs and cats, often by setting their tails on fire.

Most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, but they have already taken a step on the path of violence. Ground-breaking studies by psychiatrist Alan Felthous and others, indicate that many criminals who have been violent toward people share a common history of brutal parental punishment and cruelty to animals. Yet, even today, it is not unusual to find school and judicial systems in which animal abuse is not taken seriously.
From-
http://www.potterleague.org/advocacy_violence.html

Studies at the University of Southern Maine shown hunters are more likely to be male, conservative and score lower on the empathy scale on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. Intuitive and feeling types were more likely to find hunting objectionable.

Yes, there are differences between animals and humans, but then there are differences between men and women; between white people and those of color; between middle-aged adults, the elderly, and children; between those who are cognizant and those who are mentally challenged; between people born to wealth and people born to grinding impoverishment.

All such differences have, of course, been used at different times and in different places by one group of humans to achieve advantage at the expense of another. But that does not make such advantages "right." It does not mean that differences, alone, justify the bias that makes one group of humans less deserving of common decency, justice, and compassion than another.

So the issue still remains why is the difference that determines who is human and who is animal so different in kind (and not merely degree) from the differences that separate one group of people from another. Ultimately these differences of gender, age, mental ability, race, color, and so on derive from circumstances quite beyond the control of the individual who is the victim of discrimination. You and I cannot help what race we were born to, but neither can we, or any living being, help what species we were born to. Genes determine such things, and we have no control over our genes.

I just wondered what people thought of the new fox hunting ban

Well, maybe we might need Pommie help to remove some of our foxes in Australia. We have too many and they are eating the native wildlife out.

Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be an integral part of humane education.

Anybody who has accustomed himself to regard The life of ant living creature as wothless is in danger of arriving also at the idea that human life is worthless. -Albert Schweitzer

According to FBI profiler Robert Kessler, "Muderers frequently start out torturing or abusing animals.

Nearly all children go through a stage of "innocent" cruelty during which they may harm insects or other small animals in the process of exploring their world. Most children, however, with guidance from parents and teachers, develop empathy for the pain animals can suffer. Some, however, become locked into a lifetime pattern of cruelty.

Alberto DeSalvo, the self-confessed 1962-63 "Boston Strangler" who killed thirteen women, had, as a youth, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes.

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985, was one of the most prolific killers in modern history. His first act of violence as a child was to strangle a cat.

Brenda Spencer fired forty shots at San Diego school children, fatally wounding two and injuring nine others. Neighbors later informed police that Spencer had repeatedly abused dogs and cats, often by setting their tails on fire.

Most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, but they have already taken a step on the path of violence. Ground-breaking studies by psychiatrist Alan Felthous and others, indicate that many criminals who have been violent toward people share a common history of brutal parental punishment and cruelty to animals. Yet, even today, it is not unusual to find school and judicial systems in which animal abuse is not taken seriously.
From-
http://www.potterleague.org/advocacy_violence.html


Oh yes, such lovely studies that anyone who took a single class on statistics could tell you why they all suck. Those studies go first to the violent prisoners and then try to find a cause, ie something they all share. That is the absolute worst way to try and prove your case.

What the studies should be doing is tracking people who were abused, abused animals, killed ants with magnifying glasses or pulled the wings off insects and then find out how many of those people who all shared that attribute ended up being violent to other humans. You’ll find they don’t conduct that study because they can’t prove a significant connection when they do.

Basically, though those studies exist, their conclusions are highly questionable. It makes sense that the kind of people who would kill and attack humans would have done the same to animals as a child. I do not buy that it immediately then works in the opposite direction.

Its called reading comprehension. You really need to work on it.

Yes, there are differences between animals and humans, but then there are differences between men and women; between white people and those of color; between middle-aged adults, the elderly, and children; between those who are cognizant and those who are mentally challenged; between people born to wealth and people born to grinding impoverishment.

Difference between animals and humans regarding this issue: ~infinity.
Difference between men and women regarding this issue: ~nil.

All such differences have, of course, been used at different times and in different places by one group of humans to achieve advantage at the expense of another. But that does not make such advantages "right." It does not mean that differences, alone, justify the bias that makes one group of humans less deserving of common decency, justice, and compassion than another.

Are we talking about groups of Humans? No.

So the issue still remains why is the difference that determines who is human and who is animal so different in kind (and not merely degree) from the differences that separate one group of people from another. Ultimately these differences of gender, age, mental ability, race, color, and so on derive from circumstances quite beyond the control of the individual who is the victim of discrimination. You and I cannot help what race we were born to, but neither can we, or any living being, help what species we were born to. Genes determine such things, and we have no control over our genes.

I take it you can not see the difference between hair, eye-color, skin-color and species huh? Humans are Humans. Foxes are Foxes. One of these has the ability to say, "I think therefor I am" and comprehend the phrase. The other can not. Nice simple difference the draws the line quite nicely.

Empathy, the ability to mentally put oneself in another's shoes and understand their perspective, is key to peaceful coexistence. Lack of empathy allows abuse to happen because to the unempathetic abuser, the victim is just an object, not a feeling being. Thus the development of empathy for others, human and nonhuman, must be an integral part of humane education.

Anybody who has accustomed himself to regard The life of ant living creature as wothless is in danger of arriving also at the idea that human life is worthless. -Albert Schweitzer

According to FBI profiler Robert Kessler, "Muderers frequently start out torturing or abusing animals.

Nearly all children go through a stage of "innocent" cruelty during which they may harm insects or other small animals in the process of exploring their world. Most children, however, with guidance from parents and teachers, develop empathy for the pain animals can suffer. Some, however, become locked into a lifetime pattern of cruelty.

Alberto DeSalvo, the self-confessed 1962-63 "Boston Strangler" who killed thirteen women, had, as a youth, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes.

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985, was one of the most prolific killers in modern history. His first act of violence as a child was to strangle a cat.

Brenda Spencer fired forty shots at San Diego school children, fatally wounding two and injuring nine others. Neighbors later informed police that Spencer had repeatedly abused dogs and cats, often by setting their tails on fire.

Most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, but they have already taken a step on the path of violence. Ground-breaking studies by psychiatrist Alan Felthous and others, indicate that many criminals who have been violent toward people share a common history of brutal parental punishment and cruelty to animals. Yet, even today, it is not unusual to find school and judicial systems in which animal abuse is not taken seriously.
From-
http://www.potterleague.org/advocacy_violence.html

Studies at the University of Southern Maine shown hunters are more likely to be male, conservative and score lower on the empathy scale on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. Intuitive and feeling types were more likely to find hunting objectionable.

Yes, there are differences between animals and humans, but then there are differences between men and women; between white people and those of color; between middle-aged adults, the elderly, and children; between those who are cognizant and those who are mentally challenged; between people born to wealth and people born to grinding impoverishment.

All such differences have, of course, been used at different times and in different places by one group of humans to achieve advantage at the expense of another. But that does not make such advantages "right." It does not mean that differences, alone, justify the bias that makes one group of humans less deserving of common decency, justice, and compassion than another.

So the issue still remains why is the difference that determines who is human and who is animal so different in kind (and not merely degree) from the differences that separate one group of people from another. Ultimately these differences of gender, age, mental ability, race, color, and so on derive from circumstances quite beyond the control of the individual who is the victim of discrimination. You and I cannot help what race we were born to, but neither can we, or any living being, help what species we were born to. Genes determine such things, and we have no control over our genes.
Tripe.
So all butchers and slaughter house workers are likley to be viloent? No. The studies do not relate to fox hunting, an issue I am undecided about, but refer to behaviour outside normal society. As fox hunting and shooting and fishing are activities that are within (or were) normal society the studies do not relate. The animal abuse seen was of a different nature all together.
That is why the fox hunting isse is muddy, both side use the most unrelated facts to back up thier views.
Statistically people who participate in fox hunting are less likley to commit a criminal offence than nearly any other sport. This fact does not make fox hunting good! We can all twist facts, doe not help an argument though. PS sorry about the spelling, I'm in a rush.

Tripe.

LOL

Yup, it's an offally bad argument. ;)

Well, maybe we might need Pommie help to remove some of our foxes in Australia. We have too many and they are eating the native wildlife out. :D

Unfortunately, hunters usually only catch 1 in 5 (BBC Stats) of the foxes they hunt and they're usually the old or sick ones. You'd end up with a marginally reduced, leaner and fitter fox problem. Good idea though.

I once went to do volunteer work with the National Trust in Exmoor, back in sixth form, where I had the distinct pleasure of watching a particularly noxious anti-hunt girl get put in her place with great patience and dignity by the farmer who was kind enough to drive our minibus. She was a towns person of the worse sort(I'm a towns dude, but I can at least remember to close a farm fields gate).

He pointed out that as a farmer, he could make almost no money due to the various rural problems that had been fantastically mismanaged by the government. But the local hunt paid him a retainer in order to maintain his fields and hedgerows as a pastoral backdrop for their commercial hunts - hunts for rich city folk and visiting tourists to take part in an old tradition. Apparently the economic influx into the area from this hunt was essential to make ends meet, as the hunt paid for access to the land of many of the areas farmers and supported the lands maintenance.

The girl knew nothing, as he elegantly demonstrated (I can't remember the whole argument, merely that it was tremendously funny) and I learnt quite a bit more. Prior to that I didn't give a damn one way or another - now I'm worried that a lot of thoroughly friendly, pleasant people have seen their livelihoods ripped away by bigots that view them as somehow 'primitive' cos they've never seen a Starbucks.

Since you miss the point repeatedly, I'm not sure I should even try.

If people were wrong about blacks, women, jews and the mentally ill and mentally handicapped having as valid feelings and emotions as others, why is it so far fetched that animals emotions should be valid? If group A is not considered to have any rights and it's later decided they do, might it happen also to group B? Some of these groups were not defined as humans. But why does something have to be defined as human to have intrinsic worth? Humans don't have a monopoly on emotions. Other creatures have feelings of love, fear and grief. Because their emotions are less complex doesn't make them of less worth. Being part of Homo Sapiens does not give you a monopoly on emotion. Intelligence doesn't either.

Hunting is a form of socially sanctioned recreational violence
practiced by approximately six percent of the U.S. population.
Collectively, hunters resemble an army of under-trained,
unsupervised amateur killers roaming around destroying 200 million
animals a year, making it unsafe for hikers, campers and wildlife.
The wholesale slaughter includes millions of animals that are left
wounded and mutilated with their faces or stomachs destroyed. Many
will die a slow agonizing death. A hunter's lack of feelings
- empathy and compassion - for animals and lack of respect for
nature go hand in hand. As a result of hunting, millions of game
animals are wounded, wasted and mutilated. Entire ecosystems are
damaged by this grisly hobby. How can hunters kill, cripple, and
harass millions of animals without damaging the ecology?

Hunters believe that wild animals are merely moving objects waiting
to die anyway. So why not just shoot them? They also claim to be
providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife
populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer
actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting.
Of course, hunters encourage an overpopulation of deer. They want
plenty of big game trophies and an overabundance of big game
animals. Thanks to state wildlife agencies, this country's
ecosystems are manipulated to provide a surplus of deer and elk.

Adding insult to injury, hunters have no consideration for nongame
animals - including endangered species. Over half of this country's
National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting. And they're called
refuges! So-called "wilderness areas" which are managed with
taxpayer money, permit recreational wildlife killing. Typically, 71
per cent of hunting license money goes toward enforcing hunting
regulations. The remainder is used to improve and maintain state
lands for hunting use. Lottery and income tax monies are used to
supplement nongame programs because hunters don't want their
license money spent on these projects. Hunters are not concerned
about a balanced ecology or biodiversity and they'd love to see our
national parks turned into hunting preserves.

Since you miss the point repeatedly, I'm not sure I should even try.

Actually you missed the point but thats fine. I'll repeat it one last time for you. If you study a group of people who you already know to be violent killers you will likely find that almost all of them tortured animals as children. If you study the entire group of people who tortured animals as children you will likely find that a very tiny amount of them grew up to be violent killers.

What your studies do is take that tiny amount, say "hey look they all did X" and then attempt to say X is the cause.

And as others have noted there is no correlation to be drawn between hunters and violent murders.

If people were wrong about blacks, women, jews and the mentally ill and mentally handicapped having as valid feelings and emotions as others, why is it so far fetched that animals emotions should be valid? If group A is not considered to have any rights and it's later decided they do, might it happen also to group B? Some of these groups were not defined as humans. But why does something have to be defined as human to have intrinsic worth? Humans don't have a monopoly on emotions. Other creatures have feelings of love, fear and grief. Because their emotions are less complex doesn't make them of less worth. Being part of Homo Sapiens does not give you a monopoly on emotion. Intelligence doesn't either.

And you can present some proof that animals operate on anything other than instinct? Just because you've suffered from the disneyfication of animals and imagine them to have emotions of love, loyalty, fear, grief etc... doesn't mean they actually have them. Nor does it matter to me if they do. Foxes can have all the feelings of fear in the world and it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter. They're vermin. Hunting them is not immoral. Killing them is not immoral.

I'm still to hear a decent arguement in favour of retaining the right to hunt wild mammals. All this talk of the countryside going into meltdown and the fox population spiralling out of control is transparent nonsense. What about all the foxes in our cities? I don't see the riding stables near where I live in Ealing careering round Gunnersbury Park, Brentford dock and the M4 corridor in search of foxes and I've never heard of anyone complaining their cat has been killed by a fox. I see a lot of foxes though.

As for this town vs. country rubbish; I grew up in the country and my family still live there. They're not into fox hunting and I know or knew very few people from back home who were/are, but the ones I do know are facing up to the reality of drag hunting or a criminal record and faced with the consequences the later would have on their career prospects they are opting for the former. They're not exactly happy about the ban, but they're not going to start a revolution either. I know there standpoint, they know mine we agree to disagree and talk about other things.

As for the country folk who think they should be autonomous from the city dwellers: this is a democracy and the people in the city have as much right to say what happens in the country as vice versa. Don't the poor souls who drag there behinds in on packed commuter trains from the suburbs 5 days a week pay taxes which fund organisations like the RPA who keep farming in this country afloat? Don't they deserve a say? If they don't then we can just scrap the RPA and DEFRA right now and have a nice tax rebate thank you very much.

I have yet to say that everyone who tortures animals end up a serial killer. Brain injuries contribute to violence, yet not everyone with a brain injury ends up violent. Obesity contibutes to developent of diabetes, but not all obese have diabeties. Smoking contributes to emphysema, but not all smokers have emphysema.

And the point you miss is just because someything is not human does not mean it lacks sentience. Or is it all right to torture your pet dog?

Hunting is a form of socially sanctioned recreational violence
practiced by approximately six percent of the U.S. population.
Collectively, hunters resemble an army of under-trained,
unsupervised amateur killers roaming around destroying 200 million
animals a year, making it unsafe for hikers, campers and wildlife.
The wholesale slaughter includes millions of animals that are left
wounded and mutilated with their faces or stomachs destroyed. Many
will die a slow agonizing death. A hunter's lack of feelings
- empathy and compassion - for animals and lack of respect for
nature go hand in hand. As a result of hunting, millions of game
animals are wounded, wasted and mutilated. Entire ecosystems are
damaged by this grisly hobby. How can hunters kill, cripple, and
harass millions of animals without damaging the ecology?

Hunters believe that wild animals are merely moving objects waiting
to die anyway. So why not just shoot them? They also claim to be
providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife
populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer
actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting.
Of course, hunters encourage an overpopulation of deer. They want
plenty of big game trophies and an overabundance of big game
animals. Thanks to state wildlife agencies, this country's
ecosystems are manipulated to provide a surplus of deer and elk.

Adding insult to injury, hunters have no consideration for nongame
animals - including endangered species. Over half of this country's
National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting. And they're called
refuges! So-called "wilderness areas" which are managed with
taxpayer money, permit recreational wildlife killing. Typically, 71
per cent of hunting license money goes toward enforcing hunting
regulations. The remainder is used to improve and maintain state
lands for hunting use. Lottery and income tax monies are used to
supplement nongame programs because hunters don't want their
license money spent on these projects. Hunters are not concerned
about a balanced ecology or biodiversity and they'd love to see our
national parks turned into hunting preserves.

All very well and good, but we're talking about fox hunting in Britain, by horse and hounds, not Americans shooting anything that moves in the hills and then not giving a toss about their environment.

A statistic from the Mail on Sunday:

On the first day of the fox hunting ban to last Sunday, 93 foxes were killed by shooting (still legal). Over the same time period last year 100 foxes were killed by hounds.

My point? The fox hunting ban is the msot badly drafted piece of legislation I have seen in a long time. It is unenforcable and it's ambigous in the extreme.

I have yet to say that everyone who tortures animals end up a serial killer. Brain injuries contribute to violence, yet not everyone with a brain injury ends up violent. Obesity contibutes to developent of diabetes, but not all obese have diabeties. Smoking contributes to emphysema, but not all smokers have emphysema.

But you have decided to pretend there is some strong correlation and that somehow it hurts society that we allow hunting because it will desensitize us to violence. IE you ARE saying that it will cause violence.

And the point you miss is just because someything is not human does not mean it lacks sentience. Or is it all right to torture your pet dog?

My pet Chihuahua does not have sentience, of that I am quite sure. Neither did my pet Poodle, the damn bitch.

No, they would both have been sentient.

click here for definition of sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience)

The debate is down to whether it matters or not...

What makes it not alright to torture your pets? Or do you Disneyfy them? Does a fox suffer less than your dog? And how are you sure that your dogs don't have sentience? Does asking them count? Why would killing a wild creature desensitize people less than killing pets? No I'm not saying it always causes violence against humans. I am saying it desensitizes people, which can contribute to violence. Please define sentience. Animal behaviorists now believe that animals, though having less complex thought and emotion, certainly have them. But a severely brain damaged person who may have less capacity for thought and emotion still has rights.

The person is a human and the animal is not...

Humans make the laws to control humans, when the animals start drafting laws too, then they get a say in it.

The person is a human and the animal is not...

Humans make the laws to control humans, when the animals start drafting laws too, then they get a say in it.

So if only the ability to help draft laws counts, what about humans who cannot? Children? Mentally challenged? people who are disenfanchised for other reasons?

Why else would being human count above being anything else?

So if only the ability to help draft laws counts, what about humans who cannot? Children? Mentally challenged? people who are disenfanchised for other reasons?

Why else would being human count above being anything else?


Now, now, stop trying to twist things.

In your previous example the human you used was a severely brain damaged person, maybe this person couldn't draft laws, but other humans can and have to protect the rights of this human being.

What it would seem you're trying to do is to say that animals should have the same rights as humans and I do not agree.

Why else would being human count above being anything else?


Because we're speciesist.

By that I mean that we value our own species over others.

I just wondered what people thought of the new fox hunting ban
About 500 years late, but who's going to implement?

Now, now, stop trying to twist things.

In your previous example the human you used was a severely brain damaged person.
He didn't mention Charles personally, though.

Long live the ban!

Now, now, stop trying to twist things.

In your previous example the human you used was a severely brain damaged person, maybe this person couldn't draft laws, but other humans can and have to protect the rights of this human being.

What it would seem you're trying to do is to say that animals should have the same rights as humans and I do not agree.

Apparently humans can also draft laws to protect foxes. So that should make everything alright for you.

Apparently humans can also draft laws to protect foxes. So that should make everything alright for you.

Yes, they can and like any law I have the right to dispute whether I think it is good law or not. Just because a human wrote it doesn't mean that they got it right. This is one that I don't agree with and am exercising my rights to debate...

id have to say its good to have a fox hunting ban because well who are we to decide who lives and who dies

Psychiatrists have pointed to a link between people who inflict cruelty on animals and paedophilia.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/exploringthecrueltyconnection.htm

People who hunt are sick in the head. Why do people who live in the countryside think that 'townies' have no right to an opinion on country issues?

How are we going to drag these uncivilised barbarians in to the 21st century?
There is also a link between eating food and pedophilia, wearing clothes and pedophilia, and walking upright and pedophilia. Hunting is not pedophilia. If for some reason hunting and pedophilia are correlated (and I don't grant that they are) it's correlation without causation. There's nothing about hunting that makes one a pedophile. Your argument is just a libelous assault on hunters, and is completely without value to the debate.

That has to be one of the nastiest and unfeeling comments I've encountered here. You don't worry about the feelings of sentient animals. I think it's enough just to repeat your post, hoping that you will rethink what you are saying. As for me, I'm chilled to read what you think.
Animals are not humans. They aren't entitled to the same rights. The closer an animals is to human, for instance chimps and other great apes, the more rights we choose to give them. But a fox is far from human, and is not worth a second thought.

Animals are not humans. They aren't entitled to the same rights. The closer an animals is to human, for instance chimps and other great apes, the more rights we choose to give them. But a fox is far from human, and is not worth a second thought.

The same arrogance that many nasty characters throughout history have used to justify their treatment of so-called "subhumans"....

In drag hunting, the mounted supporters follow a pack of foxhounds which 'hunt' an artificial trail laid by a runner or rider over a set course. Bloodhounding is very similar to draghunting, except that the dogs usually follow the human scent of an athlete who sets off some time before the hunt.

Both draghunting and bloodhounding are both increasing in popularity in Britain. The obvious advantage of these forms of hunting is that a trail can be planned over a course which avoids vulnerable crops, livestock, gardens, roads, railway lines and other hazards. The hunt can be made fast or slow and thereby cater for riders of differing expertise, by either laying a trail over a fast route, or by frequently 'lifting' the scent, so that the dogs 'check' - allowing riders to catch up. At the end of the hunt, the dogs are praised enthusiastically and given a reward of food - instead of being allowed to kill and eat a wild animal. These forms of hunting obviously involve no use of terriers or blocking up of fox earths and badger setts, or the digging-out of foxes. The hunt can also be arranged so that the hunt ends at the same point at which it started - thus avoiding riders 'hacking-back' to their horse-boxes, along narrow unlit roads in semi-darkness.

You are the most ignorant person I have ever had the displeasure of encountering on this messageboard. Let's look at the issues here shall we?

1. In order to manage the countryside in a sustainable way, pests must be controlled in a way which does not disturb the natural rhythm of things flushing out and killing old weak foxes is the only way of achieving this

2. Same goes for managing deer population. It's a largely unreported fact that following the banin Scotland the government recommended using helicopters with machine guns to kill the required number of deer...healthy, young, old, whatever. Humane.

3. Huntspeople may on occasion step out of line. There is nothing wrong with the idea of regulating hunting. But sabs are just as bad if not worse.I have personally witnessed a group of sabs, having laid aniseed scents for hounds over cliffs (8 hounds dead) and onto iced ponds (4 hounds drowned and one huntsman with pneumonia trying to save them) - they watched and laughed.And they call themselves animal rights activists!

4. Draghunting is far more dangerous than regular hunting. It's like point to point or steeplechasing.

5. Animal respect, not animal rights. I'm a vegetarian because I disagree with pointless suffering in factory farms. Foxes have a long, natural life and are quickly killed when they are too weak to escape. Shooting is risky, trapping cruel.

6. Finally, the ban is undemocratic and uninforceable. I think we know why.
:D

All 'townies' know that countryside yokels get up to weird things in the countryside. If your friends and family are peadophiles they probably wouldn't tell you about it - Sick people.

Re, Drunk Commies, he's just a fool who enjoys presenting a tough facade. I suspect he cries in his bed every night because he was bullied at school or something.
Actually I learned in school that if you are willing to fight you won't be bullied. I never got bullied through high school because anyone who tried got what was comming to him.

Hmm, what do I care about most? A fox being ripped apart for fun or your feelings?
I'd care more about her feelings. But maybe I'm just a better person than you. I recognize the value of people, you only care for cute, cuddly little animals.

And how many wolves are there in rural England? Generally, one carnivore will only attack another through fear, they prefer other sorts of prey.
Are you fucking kidding me? Wolves out in the western US kill coyotes for fun (and to reduce competition for resources). Same with lions and hyena in Africa. When there were wolves in England, you can bet they'd kill fox every chance they got. Animals aren't too picky as to what meat they'll eat, and if it reduces competition for food, all the better.

I think the amount is very important, given there are no wolves running wild in England.
So with no more wolves, how do you control the number of foxes?

I'd care more about her feelings. But maybe I'm just a better person than you. I recognize the value of people, you only care for cute, cuddly little animals.

haha cute cuddly little animals those little things could kill you.... but i still think killing them is wrong because look at how many animals we already destroyed of the face of this earth

To me it's not just about how cruel it is or is not. It's about how sick it is for people to take pleasure in something else's pain. Teaching youngsters to hunt forces them to shut down part of the empathy we might otherwise develop. It's not just about the foxes health, but societies.
There's such a thing as too much empathy.

there's loads of ways of getting round it, which is good IMO, if people stopped foxhunting in a years time the countryside would be overrun with them, it's difficult for people who live in towns and cities to understand and they always go on about it being cruel but foxes are vermin, they kill chickens and sheep and most of the time it isn't even to eat them, they just bite the heads off and leave them

Not quite. If people would just stop hunting period and stop messing with Mother Nature the eco system would balance it's self out. If they there are plenty of animals foxes eat that aren’t sheep such as rabbits but since we hunt them the foxes have nothing else to eat but our sheep. Plus the fact that we destroy their habitat for "progress" doesn’t seem to be a smart idea either. Since we do that we lose air quality in the area not to mention make fox or what ever predators hunting ground smaller so they have to go else where like lets say....farms if they want to hunt their prey. And of course the dogs dragging the foxes out of holes sort of make it a little painful I would think. If we leave nature alone it would leave us alone that is how it has always been people are just too stupid to realize it.

So with no more wolves, how do you control the number of foxes?

Lol wolves are very important as well since they kill deer and foxes. I would rather have a wolf in my forest taking care of the deer population than a hunter because stray bullets hurt.

Serial killers and some of societie's other predators start by torturing animals. In order to enjoy a sport that depends on killing another living thing you have to numb yourself somewhat. This makes compassion and empathy less easy to access. I think the last thing humans need is to become more hardened. At one time it was necessary, but it isn't really a survival skiil anymore.
Serial killers do a lot of things that normal people do as well. You can't stop serial killing by banning hunting any more than stop serial killing by banning driving cars. BTW, the cruelty to animals linked with serial killing isn't hunting, it's torture and killing of house pets

Actually I learned in school that if you are willing to fight you won't be bullied. I never got bullied through high school because anyone who tried got what was comming to him.

Ha that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That doesn’t work worth a shit. I have tried it before and all it created was conflict and stupid ness. Ha sticks and stones doesn’t work either. NOTHING WORKS FOR BULLIES and that’s just a lesson of life. Unless you have physical strength or a whole bunch of people backing you up then you’ve got nothing against a bully.

Serial killers do a lot of things that normal people do as well. You can't stop serial killing by banning hunting any more than stop serial killing by banning driving cars. BTW, the cruelty to animals linked with serial killing isn't hunting, it's torture and killing of house pets

That is extremely true but hunting does reinforce violence.

Off-topic warning!

On the issue of wolves, their are plans afoot for reintroduction of the species in a limited way.

Some news of it is available here (http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02/week_3/16_wolf.html) and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/specials/sheffield_99/450318.stm)
and some of the reasoning behind it is here (http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/whyreintroduce.html)

What those articles don't mention is that there are already a couple of very small packs in existence in the country due to captive animals escapes.

Now back to the topic at hand...

So? Enjoying raping your slave wasn't always considered immoral. Because their feelings weren't as important as free people. Enslaving blacks wasn't immoral because they didn't have feelings the way white people did. Whatever excuse you can make about animals not deserving as much consideration as humans was once made about blacks, jews, women and American Indians. They feel pain and fear too.
So a fox's feelings are equal to a human's?

That is extremely true but hunting does reinforce violence.

If that was the reason for banning it, we'd probably have to ban most competitive sports, drinking in pubs, etc...

Since you miss the point repeatedly, I'm not sure I should even try.

If people were wrong about blacks, women, jews and the mentally ill and mentally handicapped having as valid feelings and emotions as others, why is it so far fetched that animals emotions should be valid? If group A is not considered to have any rights and it's later decided they do, might it happen also to group B? Some of these groups were not defined as humans. But why does something have to be defined as human to have intrinsic worth? Humans don't have a monopoly on emotions. Other creatures have feelings of love, fear and grief. Because their emotions are less complex doesn't make them of less worth. Being part of Homo Sapiens does not give you a monopoly on emotion. Intelligence doesn't either.
Where does one draw the line? I'm not willing to become a vegan. Therefore I'm not willing to accord human rights to animals. Most people agree with me on this issue, and in the forseeable future that will not change.

The only thing i wish to know is why hunters are demonized, i support the hunting ban, but at the same time i don't quite get why people get so angry about it one way or another. the *animal-loving* side have been known to throw petrol bombs at people's houses, dig up graves to get to families in the animal research business, they send death threats and god knows what else. if i had to compare the two, i would say at least the hunting side is respectable, i have no respect for *terrorism* and don't try to paint it as anything else.

Hunting is a form of socially sanctioned recreational violence
practiced by approximately six percent of the U.S. population.
Collectively, hunters resemble an army of under-trained,
unsupervised amateur killers roaming around destroying 200 million
animals a year, making it unsafe for hikers, campers and wildlife.
The wholesale slaughter includes millions of animals that are left
wounded and mutilated with their faces or stomachs destroyed. Many
will die a slow agonizing death. A hunter's lack of feelings
- empathy and compassion - for animals and lack of respect for
nature go hand in hand. As a result of hunting, millions of game
animals are wounded, wasted and mutilated. Entire ecosystems are
damaged by this grisly hobby. How can hunters kill, cripple, and
harass millions of animals without damaging the ecology?

Hunters believe that wild animals are merely moving objects waiting
to die anyway. So why not just shoot them? They also claim to be
providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife
populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer
actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting.
Of course, hunters encourage an overpopulation of deer. They want
plenty of big game trophies and an overabundance of big game
animals. Thanks to state wildlife agencies, this country's
ecosystems are manipulated to provide a surplus of deer and elk.

Adding insult to injury, hunters have no consideration for nongame
animals - including endangered species. Over half of this country's
National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting. And they're called
refuges! So-called "wilderness areas" which are managed with
taxpayer money, permit recreational wildlife killing. Typically, 71
per cent of hunting license money goes toward enforcing hunting
regulations. The remainder is used to improve and maintain state
lands for hunting use. Lottery and income tax monies are used to
supplement nongame programs because hunters don't want their
license money spent on these projects. Hunters are not concerned
about a balanced ecology or biodiversity and they'd love to see our
national parks turned into hunting preserves.
Hunters in the USA actually contribute more to keeping wild places wild, and keeping populations of wild animals healthy than any environmental group. If not for hunters, many of those wildlife habitats would be farms or suburbs. The fees and taxes paid by hunters help keep those places natural. Hunters are simply playing the normal human role in the ecosystem as the apex predator.

So a fox's feelings are equal to a human's?
Why not?

This is what you get if you press the reload button all the time!

Vegetarianism has went to far this time. The fox is a predator by nature. To ban it from hunting is cruel and useless. The ban must be removed and those responsible hunted down. Free the fox I say! Let it hunt where ever it pleases!

All very well and good, but we're talking about fox hunting in Britain, by horse and hounds, not Americans shooting anything that moves in the hills and then not giving a toss about their environment.
American hunters have very few accidents. They don't shoot anything that moves. Also they are the main source of funding for wildlife preservation. You don't know what your talking about, so kindly shut up.

Why not?
How about you try answering the question rather than just turning it back?

American hunters have very few accidents. They don't shoot anything that moves. Also they are the main source of funding for wildlife preservation. You don't know what your talking about, so kindly shut up.

Easy now, I was just pointing out that the rant that had been posted had no relevance to the topic...

Vegetarianism has went to far this time. The fox is a predator by nature. To ban it from hunting is cruel and useless. The ban must be removed and those responsible hunted down. Free the fox I say! Let it hunt where ever it pleases!
I think you've got the wrong end of the proverbial stick mate.

I think you've got the wrong end of the proverbial stick mate.But havn't they banned the fox from hunting?

That is extremely true but hunting does reinforce violence.
Can't agree less. A culture where the hunt is valued for its' social inclusion is less likley to be one where there is random violence directed at individuals.
Cultures that hunt are normally more in touch with and concerned about the enviroment of thier prey animals. I'm not saying this does or does not apply to fox hunting. If it were not for the shooting in the UK we would not have any heather moor land as without the shoots it is unproductive and would be better covered in fast growing soft woods. We would not have the small ponds and woods dotted about if they did not benifit the land owners. We would not have the clean rivers we have it were not for Anglers bringing actions against water companies and factories. So you could argue that hunting produces a more caring culture, you'd be talking crap but no more than all the 'stand on ants and you will murder the granny' argument that appears to be thrown up ever now and then.

Actually I learned in school that if you are willing to fight you won't be bullied. I never got bullied through high school because anyone who tried got what was comming to him.

That's exactly the sort of response I expected. You were just too tough.

id have to say its good to have a fox hunting ban because well who are we to decide who lives and who dies
Who are we? We are humans. We have language, art, technology, laws and government. We are like gods when compared to animals. We give ourselves the right to decide which animals live and which die.

Vegetarianism has went to far this time. The fox is a predator by nature. To ban it from hunting is cruel and useless. The ban must be removed and those responsible hunted down. Free the fox I say! Let it hunt where ever it pleases!


LOL nice to see some still have a sense of humour :cool:

The same arrogance that many nasty characters throughout history have used to justify their treatment of so-called "subhumans"....
But those "subhumans" were clearly of the species Homo sapiens. Foxes are not. Those who were discriminated against in the past were capable of science, art, language, etc. Animals are below us. They are incapable of art and science. Language is available to them only in the most rudimentary form.

haha cute cuddly little animals those little things could kill you.... but i still think killing them is wrong because look at how many animals we already destroyed of the face of this earth
This isn't an issue of extinction. Foxes aren't endangered.

Ha that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That doesn’t work worth a shit. I have tried it before and all it created was conflict and stupid ness. Ha sticks and stones doesn’t work either. NOTHING WORKS FOR BULLIES and that’s just a lesson of life. Unless you have physical strength or a whole bunch of people backing you up then you’ve got nothing against a bully.
I do have physical strength. I didn't get bullied in high school because I used it. You must just be a weakling.

That is extremely true but hunting does reinforce violence.
So what? Watching violent movies does too. We don't imprison people due to the traits that predispose them to violence, we imprison them for using violence inappropriately against other people.

Why not?
Because a fox is incapable of the higher mental functions humans take for granted. They are lower than us, so their feelings count less.

Easy now, I was just pointing out that the rant that had been posted had no relevance to the topic...
Sorry, I have plenty of friends and family who hunt. Also I get a bit sensitive about the "shoot anything that moves" stereotype that people use against Americans.

That's exactly the sort of response I expected. You were just too tough.
Maybe I am. You've never met me. You don't know.

Sorry, I have plenty of friends and family who hunt. Also I get a bit sensitive about the "shoot anything that moves" stereotype that people use against Americans.

No problem :D

I do have physical strength. I didn't get bullied in high school because I used it. You must just be a weakling.


LOL, you really are nuts aren't you? "I do have physical strength" - wow, you must be like He-Man or something. You're a class comedy character.

Anyone with a soul knows it's bad to extinguish life for fun.

Re. your earlier comments I can't imagine what criteria you would use to determine what makes a good or better human. Perhaps, that could be a new thread.

LOL, you really are nuts aren't you? "I do have physical strength" - wow, you must be like He-Man or something. You're a class comedy character.

Anyone with a soul knows it's bad to extinguish life for fun.

Re. your earlier comments I can't imagine what criteria you would use to determine what makes a good or better human. Perhaps, that could be a new thread.
I don't claim to have a soul. There isn't any evidence to show that they exist. I don't enjoy hunting for sport, but I recognize the rights of those who do.

i buy the Horse and Hound magazine every week, i ride every week and i completely support hunting, i don't think the government should be wasting their time with banning it.
it annoys me that lots of people just say that foxhunting is cruel and senseless, without knowing the facts!

I don't claim to have a soul. There isn't any evidence to show that they exist. I don't enjoy hunting for sport, but I recognize the rights of those who do.

Would you recognize the right of one man to take the life of another?

Now that would be a good replacement for the old hunts:

"It's the 12th of August and Politician season is now open till the 10th of December! Get your rifles at the ready and see if we can bag a prime minister today, they're considered to be quite wiley and elusive game, never too predictable and therefore rather good sport. No phoning their press offices though please, it's considered cheating to check exactly where they're going to be for their daily engagements."
Hehe, hell yeah! That would be fantastic! I would so go on a Politician Hunt - much more entertaining and socially useful than fox hunting!

Would you recognize the right of one man to take the life of another?
Seems like you're trying to lead him into saying that an animal and a human have the same rights, which they don't and they shouldn't have.

Seems like you're trying to lead him into saying that an animal and a human have the same rights, which they don't and they shouldn't have.

Why not? Why does having "intelligence" render you immune from the rest of the animal kingdom. What level of intelligence is required to be saved? Are rats and dolphins fare game? Does that mean you can go around shooting people with learning difficulties?

Would you recognize the right of one man to take the life of another?
Only under certain circumstances. Self defense, defense of civilians from criminals, just wars.

Why not? Why does having "intelligence" render you immune from the rest of the animal kingdom. What level of intelligence is required to be saved? Are rats and dolphins fare game? Does that mean you can go around shooting people with learning difficulties?
Yes. Intelligence separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The capability our species has to produce art and technology is unrivaled in the rest of nature. It sets us on a higher level as a species. This means that humans, even stupid ones, are entitled to more rights than animals.

Why not? Why does having "intelligence" render you immune from the rest of the animal kingdom. What level of intelligence is required to be saved? Are rats and dolphins fare game? Does that mean you can go around shooting people with learning difficulties?

Having intelligience does not render oneself immune to the rest of the animal kingdom, an idiot who wanders into a lions den could be more intelligient than the lions he gets eaten by, but it won't matter a jot to the lions.

As I pointed out in another post, humans without learning difficulties have already made laws to stop people from treating those with them as sub-human. What level of intelligience do you need to stop bringing up the same stupid argument?

Why not? Why does having "intelligence" render you immune from the rest of the animal kingdom. What level of intelligence is required to be saved? Are rats and dolphins fare game? Does that mean you can go around shooting people with learning difficulties?

Rats are generally seen as vermin, not game.

Dolphins are protected in some areas and not in others dependent upon species and whether you're in charge of the trawler hawling them up in its nets.

Having intelligience does not render oneself immune to the rest of the animal kingdom, an idiot who wanders into a lions den could be more intelligient than the lions he gets eaten by, but it won't matter a jot to the lions.

As I pointed out in another post, humans without learning difficulties have already made laws to stop people from treating those with them as sub-human. What level of intelligience do you need to stop bringing up the same stupid argument?

You completely miss my point you dunce. I was saying that in your opinion intelligence is the defining criterion which makes it ok to kill animals, but not humans. Why is this? Does that make it ok to shoot stupid/unintelligent people?

Here's a hypothetical situation: what if extremely intelligent aliens arrived on our planet and decided that we were stupid, would it be ok to kill us for fun?

You completely miss my point you dunce. I was saying that in your opinion intelligence is the defining criterion which makes it ok to kill animals, but not humans. Why is this? Does that make it ok to shoot stupid/unintelligent people?

Here's a hypothetical situation: what if extremely intelligent aliens arrived on our planet and decided that we were stupid, would it be ok to kill us for fun?
Would it be OK from the alien's point of view? I guess that depends on the aliens. Would it be OK from our point of view? Of course not. We'd fight, and maybe we'd be wiped out. So what?

You completely miss my point you dunce. I was saying that in your opinion intelligence is the defining criterion which makes it ok to kill animals, but not humans. Why is this? Does that make it ok to shoot stupid/unintelligent people?

Here's a hypothetical situation: what if extremely intelligent aliens arrived on our planet and decided that we were stupid, would it be ok to kill us for fun?

No, you imagine that I think intelligience is the defining criterion. Your imagination has run away with itself for a bit...

You completely miss my point you dunce. I was saying that in your opinion intelligence is the defining criterion which makes it ok to kill animals, but not humans. Why is this? Does that make it ok to shoot stupid/unintelligent people?

Here's a hypothetical situation: what if extremely intelligent aliens arrived on our planet and decided that we were stupid, would it be ok to kill us for fun?
Also please be aware that I pointed out your idea as stupid, not you. You're trying to make this personal by accusing me of being a dunce... very sad.

We do have dominion over animals...what matters is what we do with that dominance. Yes it would be lovely if we could live side by side with the pretty animals but we can't, so therefore hunting is a humane, sustainable and practical method of controlling the population.