MrDeference

I couldn't give two hoots, but one side of this argument has come over as ignorant and offensive.
Can you guess which one it is...

H7

Interesting view, Marko. But I put it to you that you KNOW whenever you get behind the wheel of your car that you WILL kill insects on your windscreen, yet you still do it. Just as culpable, IMHO. You don't need a gun (or a fox) to kill.

Diablo

Funny how some of those who have a full understanding and experience of country life appear not to live in the same democratic society as the rest of the population...

This, of course, qualifies them to be masters of their own destiny regardless of public needs and wants.

You are custodians of the land for the future, nothing more nothing less. Don't **** it all up for the next generations.

D

Diablo

Geez, I hope alcazar had email notify turned off

D

Miles

No fox hunting, no foxes. They'll just be exterminated with cheaper more efficient means, ie just be gassed. Take yer pick, I know I'd prefer to have foxes in the enviroment.

Going back a few pages, there was mention of the overwhelming support for the ban in Scotland. This overwhelming support wasn't particularly obvious.

Phil_

What will **** it up is the clueless idiots who, for instance, jump on the "cruelty" bandwagon and want us all to live in some overly-sanitised police state.

MarkO

What a load of contrived bollocks. That's the straw-man argument in full effect.

For a start, you imply that I'm against killing foxes which, per se, I'm not. I've only discussed hunting with dogs - and I've openly advocated the population control of foxes using other more humane (and efficient) methods.

But to claim that by driving my car I'm intentially killing anything is just plain daft, and is simply an attempt to get away from the truth. By the same argument, if I drive down a town high street then I'm a murderer, as I intended to drive there, and I could kill somebody if they stepped out in front of me. Which, clearly, is absolute rubbish.

If that's the best and most coherent argument you can make, I suggest you leave the discussion, 'cos you aint doing either side any good by making such dumb and ill-considered statements.

Diablo

Good point B2z,

There are around 8 urban foxes around where I live. Annoy the dog something terrible when we are out walking. See them most nights.

Would happily see them exterminated by humane means, but certainly not by a hunt riding down my street.

So I guess I probably have more experience of foxes than a few pro hunt that have posted on this thread..LOL...

Miles, there was overwhelming parliamentry support in favour of the ban, based on the opinions of the electorate canvassed by those politicians, petitions signed and presented to the committees, support from all the animal support organisations, etc, etc...need I go on?

D

[Edited by diablo - 9/17/2002 4:04:11 PM]

MarkO

Well, there was obviously enough support in the Scottish parliament for the motion to be passed....

Phil_

Silly argument. Bills for tax increases get passed by Parliament too, and I don't see much overwhelming support for them.

Nevetas

Miles, Gasing is not always an easy way to destroy foxes, other factors come into play. My prefered way is to sit in a landrover with a 1m candlepower light, and a .243, trust me that's humane.

Problem is if there was no foxing hunt, the farmers arn't going to bother buying the proper equipment, they will just blast them with whatever they have laying around the farm! That would then see injured foxes running about in agony

[Edited by Nevetas - 9/17/2002 4:10:52 PM]

MarkO

Fair point. But tax rises are a 'necessary evil' to maintain the stability of the economy (oops, let's just close that can of worms again there, eh? ). I can't see why any politician would vote to ban fox-hunting unless he or his constituents had a fairly good feeling of support.

Mind you, I'm assuming that democracy works as it should, which is a fatal mistake.

Diablo

Mate, you are under estimating the strength of feeling and intelligence of a great number of the opponents to fox hunting. You are also making general stereotypes with your "clueless idiots" comments.

I just want to live somewhere where it is not deemed acceptable to rip an animal to pieces in the name of "sport".

Oh, hell, since 1 August 2002 I do

But that doesn't stop me being sickened by the actions of those who hunt with dogs and try and justify it.

D

Phil_

Foxes are vermin. Hunting is an effective way to control the fox population. Where's the issue?

Diablo

Read the bloody posts

What part of cruel/barbaric/savage don't you quite understand?

dsmith

I can only presume that all those so vehmently against death of animals for fun are also vehmently opposed to the continued existence of the domestic cat ?

if not - why not ?

Diablo

By the way, if any of you ******* are Tiggs, Puff, Sti whatever having a wind up I will hunt you down with dogs and kill you...



D

MarkO

Very true. Well-spotted.Hunting with rifles, perhaps. Hunting with hounds could not - by any means - be classed as 'effective'. It's about the most innefficient method of hunting there is. 20-30 horseback riders, a pack of dogs, and a whole day, and the expected kill rate is 20%!!! As has been mentioned before, many times more foxes per day are killed unwittingly on the roads than by hunting with hounds.<yawn> You've clearly not been paying attention.

Diablo

Just dim, methinks

D

Edited smiley 'cos I upset Miles (see below)



[Edited by diablo - 9/17/2002 4:24:54 PM]

MATTeL

The hunt do ignore pivate property and people refusing them access.

When I lived in Scotland a hunt was carried out accross a friend of the families land. He had told them several times that they couldn't come on to the land as the had previously destroyed three dry stone walls and upset and injured the beasts (bullocks) he had.

With Scotland having no trespass laws he couldn't get help from the local Police.

A pump action shotgun with rock salt cartridges apparently is all you need to stop people smashing walls up and scaring livestock!

Just a note he never fired at anyone, he fired to rounds in the air. Horses can stop quite quickly!

I have lived and worked in the countryside. I have yet to see how the hunt actually helps control the number of foxes in this country.

They can go out all day and not kill the fox (horses get iunjured, other animals can get trampled), yet two guys with shotguns can come home with a load of rabbits!

There are far more efficient and humane ways to control numbers, if have to.

The countryside does need to be protected but to say that banning fox hunting will destroy that have of life is bunk. The same argument could be used for bringing back strip farming and mna powered plays.

After all the modern mass farming is destroying hedgerows and habitats of many creatures, surely that is the countryside we should be protecting?

Also I am curious the people sticking up all the Green Unions on the road signs, are they going to be prosecuted for that?

Diablo

Deano,

We (humans) are supposed to be civilised. We have a conscious choice.

Domestic cats are not and do not. Its in their genetic makeup.

D

Phil_

I'm assuming you happily eat meat. I can assure that the process by which the cow gets from the field to your table generally causes that animal great suffering and stress as well. Why is that not viewed by you in the same light? How about poisoning rats? Do they have a pleasant death?

MarkO

This is almost as absurd as the sticker I see on a few cars at the station in the mornings, which say "Foxes kills for pleasure, why shouldn't we?".

The fact is that a cat, a fox or any other non-human mammal does not have a conscience. True, cats play with their prey, but it's training for hunting which they would do if they lived in the wild. Foxes kill too, but that's no justification for us killing them cruelly.

We're supposed to know better, due to a few million years of evolution, a well-developed society and a whole host of other stuff which is unique to humans.

Miles

Diablo, he's got a different opinion to you. No need to indulge in personal attacks. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

MarkO

That point's already been made and responded to. Keep up, for god's sake.

Diablo

Miles ffs!

I just answered Bravo2Zero's question!

After all, its not like the side of the argument I support has not been made clear over the past 9 pages

Not a personal attack, just a frustrated observation. No need to get all [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] about it

D

MarkO

That's the best idea I've heard all day.