pslewis

If there WAS an open FREE vote tomorrow then I would guess that the public 'at large' would vote 75% to 25% to BAN ALL hunting with dogs - if thats NOT a mandate then I would love to know what was!!!

The government could get re-elected on that one point alone!! worth thinking on! OK, there is no opposition - but they would cruise it with a ban on hunting with dogs!!

Pete

MrDeference

And I could guess that we would get zapped by an alien space craft.
You can't expect your average red-top readers to have anything more than a rudimentary "cuddly fox = good, rich people with horses = bad" view of the situation. The minority demographic in this discussion are the hunters. The average person couldn't give a toss, but the unthinking majority will be easily convinced it is bad. Ergo the hunts men loose.

Sith

Lets kill all the foxes now so people can't go hunt them. Not that I care. Stops the chance of one of the mangey things running out and damaging my bumper.

Oh, and ratties *are* cute cudly little things. Well mine is, and he loves grooming my arm.

P.

Luke

Some of the women that go hunting look well dirty..

jasey

Boom Boom ....

I'll get me coat

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Good grief, I can't believe that people would post about foxhunting being all about wanting to ride, then go on to say that they wouldn't want to do drag racing as it's boring, and still EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
FFS you've just given the lie to your main argument.

MrDeference

Would you like some reading lessons? I didn't say those things. Don't FFS because you just imagined you saw something I wrote, which any normal person reading the page would realise I DIDN'T SAY.
By your rationale anyone with an opinion on one thing shares the same rationale as everyone else with the same opinion. You are making yourself look very ignorant.

Phil_

I would wager that those here who believe that those who choose to follow a hunt are there for reasons of bloodlust have never been to a hunt, or indeed spoken to anyone who has face-to-face. Isn't it great to have strong views on something you nothing about?

Diablo

What seems more naieve to me is the belief that anyone is being criminalised for pest control....LOL...

It is quite apparent that the pro hunt posters who have contributed to this thread have demonstrated a continual lack of understanding of the issue here. To me that demonstrates either a lack of intelligence generally (because it is quite clear) or an incredibly blinkered view that having any animal ripped to shreds while alive, for fun, is not cruel.

A few of observations on last nights posts...

1 - If it was all about pest control then it only needs one rider and his dogs. All the others don't need to be there.

2 - Its not about class, its about cruelty.

3 - Agreed, foxes are vermin (as defined)

4 - There are many, many ways to enjoy a ride in the country without a case of animal cruelty during and at the end of that ride.

5 - No one says you cannot drag hunt, so everyone involved gets to keep their jobs

Notwithstanding the point above, do you honestly believe that there will be an issue (as quoted) with "any and all trades associated with the fox hunts, that includes the horse groomers, horse feed suppliers, clothes makers, boot makers, etc, etc" loosing out that much on trade?

Hell, if they do, then that kind of proves the point that the huntsmen and women are just in it for the kill, doesn't it. But we have read at length that its not about the kill, its about an enjoyable and exciting ride out, so all of the groomers, suppliers, manufacturers and kennel boys will be maintained in gainful employment supporting drag hunts and the equestrian market generally, so thats not an argument.

After all, were sectors of the motor industry decimated when speed limits were introduced? Er, no. Not at all. So I cannot see the equestrian industry decimated because you cannot kill a fox with hounds.

D

Phil_

And do you think that the farmers will be happy for riders to trample crops, damage fences and so on if there is no related pest-control benefit for them? Naivety clearly runs both ways.

Nimbus

OT...

Paul,

I stand corrected. The quote was actually from "Amy and Amiability".

MrDeference

Let me be more verbose:
I am trying to assert that the majority of riders get the enjoyment from the ride. There is a hunts master who's job it is to carry out pest control. So, for him, there probably isn't that much fun in it, particularly when he is threatened with death for doing his job.

OK. I will give you the benefit of making an absurdist point, and address the underlying question. Say you *do* only really need one person and a pack of dogs. So what? That is irrelevant to any dicussion here. If the farmer is willing to let the riders enjoy riding across his land, then let them do so. One horse, ten horses. Makes no difference to a farmer.

Agreed. Show me a demonstrably more humane way of doing it. And don't suppose things without proof. If you assert that hunting with a rifle is *going* to be more humane, expect answers from people who will give you reasons why it won't.

Indubitably.

. Not necessarily. Why would a farmer open his fields to a drag hunt if they are not helping him with pests? Don't get something for nothing, even in the countryside.

You would complain about a 1% drop in your income, so why not afford these people the same luxury?

. That is called begging the question. If you refute my points above, address them individually and build an arguement that way. Don't use the proposition as the proof for the arguement.

What sort of arguement is that? I thought all we were talking about here was cruelty. You are now trying to infer that people won't be affected, because they weren't when cars had speed limits. What if I offer an equally absurdist example that illustrates the opposite effect?

Nimbus

Dagnabit, I promised myself I would not get involved in this tread. It's far to entertaining just lurking...

Anyway, For the pro-hunters, do you do it because (you can tick more than one)...

a) Meeting friends for a good time
b) A good ride in the country
c) The "thrill of the chase"
d) Keeping fox numbers down
e) The satisfaction of the kill
f) Providing employment for those that support you

Diablo

Mr D

I am not going to address each of your points individually, because I believe that has already been done at length in this post and its getting quite repetative now

We have already heard only 20% of hunts result in a kill. On that basis, the farmer gets nothing for his something 8 times out of 10. Not particularly good odds in anyones book.

And yes, I would happily take a 1% drop in income if that resulted in less animal cruelty.

How to kill humanely? Use humane cage traps and then destroy at close range with firearm. Got to be as effective for control as a fox hunt.

I still haven't read a reasoned argument that justifies the use of hounds to kill foxes (or any other animal for that matter) You insist on justifying the cruelty as pest control.

You have accused me of begging the question and using the proposition as the proof for the argument (a word which only has one "e" incidentally if we are addressing issues of the use of the English Language here) That was my intent.

Ponder this, if you will;

None of the pro hunt posters (including yourself) have yet justified the way in which the fox is killed, choosing instead to argue the point either by reference to the alternative methods, by commenting on the effect on the associated economy or by simply stating that its their God given right to do as they please.

Neither impressive, nor clever.

So, I ask you to please justify, in isolation, why you and others consider it to be quite acceptable to place an animal in a position of unecessary suffering and, ultimately, an horrific death.





[Edited by diablo - 9/18/2002 11:29:27 AM]

father_jack

MrDeference

Have you just been lurking, or actually reading? Your question connects two unrelated activities.
Supporting hunters is not equal to hunting.

You have already shown your hand...

Nimbus

MrDeferance.

Yes, I have been reading. All 15 pages so far...

They are related to Fox hunting. However, I see your point. Maybe I should rephrase that question to be addressed to the people who actually hunt.

Have I? How?

MrDeference

So, why do they invite the hunt back? Could it be something to do with laying a fresh scent trail? Discouraging the fox from going to land where it knows there are predators? Clever foxes learn, and avoid. Weak foxes go for the easy food. They return. Seems obvious to me.

Good man. I suspect that you care more than most people. However, you are stating that it is cruel. I am asserting (once again) that it is only as cruel as the other options.

I am guessing that you are also in favour of zoos. Or do you believe that a fox is happy and contented when enclosed in a small box?

There you go again.

EDIT: Missing quote tag

[Edited by MrDeference - 9/18/2002 11:38:06 AM]

Diablo

That still does not make it right and is a very weak manner in which to argue a point.

You still haven't answered the question.

And for the record, no, I don't believe in zoos.



[Edited by diablo - 9/18/2002 11:46:23 AM]

MarkO

I fail to see how being torn apart by a pack of hounds can possibly be classed as a humane death. A bullet to the head from close range will, on the other hand, provide an instant and humane dispatch.There may be a little stress involved until the swift and immediate death, but far less than if the fox is chased for several hours and then savaged to death.

Obviously, though, such a method would not be humane unless the traps were regularly checked (e.g., every 2-3 hours). In which case your facetious comment about zoos is entirely irrelevant.

For the record, I am anti-zoo, too.

MrDeference

One exists in nature. The other is a human method of killing. I would bet that the fox understands one more than the other.

You think that a fox running for two hours is more stressed than a fox in a box for two hours. We have different opinions, and since neither of us can talk fox, you will forgive me if I support a persons right to continue a "natural" method, because it is more sustainable, and stinks less of oppression.

There was no humour in my question about zoos. I don't know how you got the idea I was being facetious.

Diablo

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

And since when was it "natural" to dig up dens simply to flush out the fox/foxes first?

Is it not natural for foxes to kill chickens/lambs/piglets? Wonder who was here first, the fox, or the farmer with his captive livestock......

I think your comment on oppression shows your hand in this particlular issue quite clearly.



[Edited by diablo - 9/18/2002 12:02:17 PM]

MrDeference

What are my circumstances then Diablo?

MrDeference

Just found your question:
At least, I think that's what you meant. Looks like an invitation, instead of a question.
I will turn down your invitation, because there is no discussion without context.

Can you please justify, in isolation, why you and others consider it to be quite acceptable to place an animal in a position of unnecessary suffering and, ultimately, an horrific death. Oh, this time I am talking about food. Remeber *in isolation*.

MarkO

LOL. That's funny, that is. Very good.

Erm, if you want to talk about nature, then let's stop hunting the foxes altogether - it's a natural predator, doing what it does naturally, when it kills chicken and lambs, etc. Oh, and if you're really that concerned about nature, we should ditch chickens and livestock altogether - the way we farm them isn't 'natural' at all.

Fact is, farming is a man-made situation. Therefore, when we intervene (e.g., vermin control) we should do it humanely, and not use 'nature' as an excuse for unnecessary savagery.
Yes, both mentally and physically. And the recent studies of muscle degradation in foxes and stags during excessive pursuits proves this. Remember, in nature a fox wouldn't be chased - it has no natural predators other than humans (and since we don't eat it even that's open to argument). Plus, most animals that are hunted by hounds would not be chased for the excessive distances/times during natural predation.But, as explained above, hunting with hounds is no more 'natural' than capturing the fox and then putting a bullet through its head.You were comparing the temporary trapping of a fox to a zoo, and suggesting that anyone who supports the former must support the latter, which is clearly absurd.

MarkO

That's easy. I love steak, chops and sausages.

Diablo

Your circumstances are irrelevant to this discussion.

On the assumption that you are referring (with a lack of clarity) to my point about showing your hand, then I will expand simply to comment that it is apparent you have other issues than your argument thus far.

Or did I miss interpret "stinks of oppression"

Nimbus

Fox, Socks, Box, Knox,

Knox in box. Fox in socks.

Knox on fox in socks in box.

Socks on Knox and Knox in box. Fox in socks on box on Knox.


And that's all I have to say about that...

Diablo

There is context. The context is cruelty.

As for justification in the context of food, there is none. I accept that. It is, again, irelevant to the discussion here. Just as there is no justification in ripping a fox to pieces, for whatever reason.

If you cannot argue your point, don't make it.

Oh, and Numbus...LOL...go away...

MrDeference

OK. So why do they run? If they have no predators, then they wouldn't run. Seems odd. They used to run like billyho from my dog (RIP). Either they know they are being hunted or they are running from noise. Which is it?

So then you go on to say that there is an "excessive" level of pursuit. That would suggest that some level of pursuit is reasonable. How about a law that says the hunt should only last 1/2 hour? Would you be happy then?

I understand now. You thought I was being fatuous. Guilty