Fox Hunting Ban. Will they,Wont they?
06 July 2003, 08:53 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 19,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....Now there is a thought!
Instead of those Foxhounds how about a pack of Rat Terriors?
Now that would be a sight!
Horseback chasing the Terriors through the swewers and wharfs killing those pesky little critters.
THAT would be something to write home about!
Instead of those Foxhounds how about a pack of Rat Terriors?
Now that would be a sight!
Horseback chasing the Terriors through the swewers and wharfs killing those pesky little critters.
THAT would be something to write home about!
06 July 2003, 11:57 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leslie
1. maybe not but life is short
2. There arn't any contradictions in my posts its only your incorrect understanding of them that makes you think that.
3. no NO NO
Are you male or female ?
The question remains why not have drag hunts instead exactly the same but no death at the end. The only reason the hunting lobby won't accept that is the lack of blood guts torture murder and excitement. Riding around the countryside enjoying the scenery with out killing things just doesn't do it for some scum bags.
1. maybe not but life is short
2. There arn't any contradictions in my posts its only your incorrect understanding of them that makes you think that.
3. no NO NO
Are you male or female ?
The question remains why not have drag hunts instead exactly the same but no death at the end. The only reason the hunting lobby won't accept that is the lack of blood guts torture murder and excitement. Riding around the countryside enjoying the scenery with out killing things just doesn't do it for some scum bags.
07 July 2003, 10:23 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW
1. Maybe better to read them if you are going to post
2. There will always be an element of scumbag right through life, but in the same way, only a few are like that. And I don't admire them either.
3. I'm not surprised,havent ever met anyone who is.
3and a bit. Is that an offer
I don't go hunting, can't ride a horse anyway. But I uphold the right of country people to follow their traditions without the likes of Prescott venting his unpleasant spleen and the government
using the occasion to drum up cheap popularity and try to divert attention from their lack of success at anything so far. I'd feel the same if they tried to ban 'bikes on the grounds of safety.
Les
Les
1. Maybe better to read them if you are going to post
2. There will always be an element of scumbag right through life, but in the same way, only a few are like that. And I don't admire them either.
3. I'm not surprised,havent ever met anyone who is.
3and a bit. Is that an offer
I don't go hunting, can't ride a horse anyway. But I uphold the right of country people to follow their traditions without the likes of Prescott venting his unpleasant spleen and the government
using the occasion to drum up cheap popularity and try to divert attention from their lack of success at anything so far. I'd feel the same if they tried to ban 'bikes on the grounds of safety.
Les
Les
07 July 2003, 04:23 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look at the side effects of the so-called hunting ban in scotland.
the hunt still rides on horseback, backed by beaters with guns who then despatch the foxes that are flushed out. any foxes that escape the gun can then be despatched by the hounds that accompany the hunt.
foxes are now being killed with the gun/hound combination at 10 times the rate they were when hunting with hounds was the preferred choice for controlling numbers.
the scottish "ban" (it isn't a ban: anyone who says it is doesn't know what they're talking about) has turned hunts from 10-20% effective to 90%+ effective.
net effect: the fox population in scotland now faces extinction without further intervention. nice one, scottish assembly.
**
as to a ban in england, here are the simple options for controlling the fox population:
1. trapping. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
2. snaring. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
3. poisoning. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
4. shooting. problem? a clean kill (head or heart shot) is very difficult and requires the rare skills of a genuine and ****-hot marksman. wounding normally results in a protracted and painful death without hounds present to finish off the wounded animal quickly. some of you may not know that foxes do not tend to lick their wounds and so often die of gangrene after being shot or wounded by another animal.
5. the scottish model. problem? overly efficient as you simply add marksmen to the existing mix of horse and hound.
6. licence hunts, grant the licences and charge for them. let them carry on as normal, culling the fox population at a 20% effectiveness level that is neither indescriminate with regard to other wildlife nor a fundamental threat to the fox population as a whole.
i'd encourage everyone who reads this post to put their natural prejudices to one side and think hard about what the practical alternatives are.
i'd prefer the status quo but IMO option 6 is the only viable position to take.
this whole issue is viewed with a crippling, ignorant myopia: urban politicians and media commentators who understand nothing of land and animal management; lib-dem hypocrites like michael foster that will happily go fishing on a weekend in a sport that serves little or no husbandry purpose; class-obsessed labour politicians whose outlook is still rooted in the 1930s; anti-bloodsport groups that refuse to realise that there is no acceptable alternative to hunting with hounds that doesn't have a serious negative impact on other species or cause even greater cruelty in the process. muppets one and all.
it's pathetic: when we have so many problems within education, transport, crime, asylum & defence - let alone our foreign policy commitments - we spend parliamentary time on this ... trifle.
[Edited by Holy Ghost - 7/7/2003 4:59:29 PM]
the hunt still rides on horseback, backed by beaters with guns who then despatch the foxes that are flushed out. any foxes that escape the gun can then be despatched by the hounds that accompany the hunt.
foxes are now being killed with the gun/hound combination at 10 times the rate they were when hunting with hounds was the preferred choice for controlling numbers.
the scottish "ban" (it isn't a ban: anyone who says it is doesn't know what they're talking about) has turned hunts from 10-20% effective to 90%+ effective.
net effect: the fox population in scotland now faces extinction without further intervention. nice one, scottish assembly.
**
as to a ban in england, here are the simple options for controlling the fox population:
1. trapping. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
2. snaring. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
3. poisoning. problem? it's indescriminate and involves a protracted and painful death.
4. shooting. problem? a clean kill (head or heart shot) is very difficult and requires the rare skills of a genuine and ****-hot marksman. wounding normally results in a protracted and painful death without hounds present to finish off the wounded animal quickly. some of you may not know that foxes do not tend to lick their wounds and so often die of gangrene after being shot or wounded by another animal.
5. the scottish model. problem? overly efficient as you simply add marksmen to the existing mix of horse and hound.
6. licence hunts, grant the licences and charge for them. let them carry on as normal, culling the fox population at a 20% effectiveness level that is neither indescriminate with regard to other wildlife nor a fundamental threat to the fox population as a whole.
i'd encourage everyone who reads this post to put their natural prejudices to one side and think hard about what the practical alternatives are.
i'd prefer the status quo but IMO option 6 is the only viable position to take.
this whole issue is viewed with a crippling, ignorant myopia: urban politicians and media commentators who understand nothing of land and animal management; lib-dem hypocrites like michael foster that will happily go fishing on a weekend in a sport that serves little or no husbandry purpose; class-obsessed labour politicians whose outlook is still rooted in the 1930s; anti-bloodsport groups that refuse to realise that there is no acceptable alternative to hunting with hounds that doesn't have a serious negative impact on other species or cause even greater cruelty in the process. muppets one and all.
it's pathetic: when we have so many problems within education, transport, crime, asylum & defence - let alone our foreign policy commitments - we spend parliamentary time on this ... trifle.
[Edited by Holy Ghost - 7/7/2003 4:59:29 PM]
07 July 2003, 06:49 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy ghost exactly how is fox hunting going to have any impact on the over all number of foxes. Most hunts pick up loads of scents on any one hunt and get a couple of foxes on a good day if they are lucky. It takes and expert marksmen to shoot foxes does it ? funny that becuase the farmers I know (And I live surrounded by them and have done my whole life) have no trouble sitting up for a night and blasting away with a shotgun and bagging loads of foxes. Trust me not many limp away having been shot by a 12 bore. A farmer spending one night with a gun can kill more foxes than a hunt will do in a whole season. The reason I object to hunting with dogs (do you also support the hunting of deer with dogs as well btw) is becuase its blood lust pure and simple and as far as I know civilization is about controlling the worst aspects of human nature not encouraging them.
The mention of scotland is another load of rubbish just because there are loopholes in the law does not invalidate what the law was trying to achieve it just means that the law should be written better or changed untill it matches the original intention.
Your post was eloquently put but complete rubbish.
The mention of scotland is another load of rubbish just because there are loopholes in the law does not invalidate what the law was trying to achieve it just means that the law should be written better or changed untill it matches the original intention.
Your post was eloquently put but complete rubbish.
07 July 2003, 07:03 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly holyghost...a man who speaks some common sense than someone who froths at the mouth about such a trivial matter.
it isnt about the fox..its about the toffs who ride on the horses.
if you ban it the fox will still die an agonising death by trapping, poison, shooting etc...
do we tell the city folk about keeping pets in high rises?
it isnt about the fox..its about the toffs who ride on the horses.
if you ban it the fox will still die an agonising death by trapping, poison, shooting etc...
do we tell the city folk about keeping pets in high rises?
07 July 2003, 08:44 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW Bikes
the ban in scotland has not worked. it is a bad piece of poorly worked out, leaky legislation that in no way achieves what it was designed to do. hence, there is no ban in effect.
all that matters is the end result: and the end result is that the combined use of hound and gun, for whatever reason, has increased the death rate amongst foxes by 10 fold and is threatening their existence accordingly.
the figures are accurate and as published by the assembly last week. i would imagine to some embarassment.
the legislation has knowingly and complicitly allowed hunting with hounds to become effective beyond a point that is environmentally sustainable. the frequency of hunting has not changed: it has simply become over-effective. so hunts are accordingly looking to scale back their activities to a more sustainable level.
my comments about the indescriminacy and enhanced cruelty of trapping, snaring, poisoning and shooting are absolutely, 100% valid.
while you may deplore what you see as pure bloodlust, i believe hunting with hounds to be the right balance of control vs environmental impact. and with sound reason. it is neither indescriminate nor excessively cruel as snaring, trapping and poisoning are. shooting has to be done right or it involves unnecessary suffering and death by gangrene. a fox caught by the hounds has a quick end. violent sure, but no death in nature is pretty. quicker than all the above with the sole exception of a clean kill with a weapon.
as for hunting stags with hounds, i see no element of practical husbandry in the practice and ending it is right and proper. culling of the sick or the control of deer/stag numbers to maintain environmental balance is best - and most humanely done - by stalking with a bullet. it's a big target, difficult to track, slower moving, the numbers at stake are far fewer and it is not a pest. far from it.
if you can't stand the sight of the red jacket - or have an ill-informed perception that it is somehow intrinsically more cruel than other ways of despatching a vermin predator - then that's a symptom of your prejudice and a failure to see beyond the image of basil brush.
i don't hunt. but i believe as long as it performs a useful, sustainable function, then people should have the right - and responsibility - to continue unmolested and without demonisation by the ignorant and the prejudiced.
take the splinter out of your own eye before you try to take the mote out of mine.
[Edited by Holy Ghost - 7/7/2003 8:46:56 PM]
the ban in scotland has not worked. it is a bad piece of poorly worked out, leaky legislation that in no way achieves what it was designed to do. hence, there is no ban in effect.
all that matters is the end result: and the end result is that the combined use of hound and gun, for whatever reason, has increased the death rate amongst foxes by 10 fold and is threatening their existence accordingly.
the figures are accurate and as published by the assembly last week. i would imagine to some embarassment.
the legislation has knowingly and complicitly allowed hunting with hounds to become effective beyond a point that is environmentally sustainable. the frequency of hunting has not changed: it has simply become over-effective. so hunts are accordingly looking to scale back their activities to a more sustainable level.
my comments about the indescriminacy and enhanced cruelty of trapping, snaring, poisoning and shooting are absolutely, 100% valid.
while you may deplore what you see as pure bloodlust, i believe hunting with hounds to be the right balance of control vs environmental impact. and with sound reason. it is neither indescriminate nor excessively cruel as snaring, trapping and poisoning are. shooting has to be done right or it involves unnecessary suffering and death by gangrene. a fox caught by the hounds has a quick end. violent sure, but no death in nature is pretty. quicker than all the above with the sole exception of a clean kill with a weapon.
as for hunting stags with hounds, i see no element of practical husbandry in the practice and ending it is right and proper. culling of the sick or the control of deer/stag numbers to maintain environmental balance is best - and most humanely done - by stalking with a bullet. it's a big target, difficult to track, slower moving, the numbers at stake are far fewer and it is not a pest. far from it.
if you can't stand the sight of the red jacket - or have an ill-informed perception that it is somehow intrinsically more cruel than other ways of despatching a vermin predator - then that's a symptom of your prejudice and a failure to see beyond the image of basil brush.
i don't hunt. but i believe as long as it performs a useful, sustainable function, then people should have the right - and responsibility - to continue unmolested and without demonisation by the ignorant and the prejudiced.
take the splinter out of your own eye before you try to take the mote out of mine.
[Edited by Holy Ghost - 7/7/2003 8:46:56 PM]
15 July 2003, 03:40 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we really need to turn a corner on this one and look at the global issue of whether or not there are more pressing matters in the world needing the tree hugging hippy brigades attention than 47 of basil`s mates...
ok, Ive got my flame suit on in readiness...
ok, Ive got my flame suit on in readiness...
16 July 2003, 01:28 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 19,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having given the Fox some additional thought.....
It is the fault of mankind that the fox is a pest.
He we not encroached on it's hunting ground there would be no need to institute controls on what it hunts.
The Fox is a great mouse and rat hunter it also hunts birds and eggs and everything else it encounters.
Now if Australia had a good fox population........
It is the fault of mankind that the fox is a pest.
He we not encroached on it's hunting ground there would be no need to institute controls on what it hunts.
The Fox is a great mouse and rat hunter it also hunts birds and eggs and everything else it encounters.
Now if Australia had a good fox population........
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post