I feel this makes good sense on so many levels, with the current financial climate this is hardly a top priority and should be placed on the back burner, if only Labour had be as sensible when forcing the silly law through.
Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Hunting ban to remain in place during 2011
last reply
163 replies
6.6k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Sex God
Not sure what you're saying there Flower? You seem to be saying that we should take his regret seriously on the one hand, and then go on to tell us why such expressions of regret are not to be taken seriously at all? 
Which way are we having it? 
In any event, I think TB's regret is mainly that he knows that his constant prevarications as to whether laws about hunting with dogs for sport should be brought into line with laws banning bear and badger baiting were always influenced by ulterior motives, and his inability to navigate his famed middle way on this one led to a badly framed law being driven through using a blunt instrument like the Parliament Act.
I mean to say that he regrets that he was overly concerned that whichever way he jumped he would either lose support among the naturally Tory voting country types he'd persuaded to vote for him against their better judgement, or lose support among the naturally Labour voting townies that he'd equally managed to persuade to vote for him against their better judgement, and he knows that he doesn't seem to have dealt with that little conundrum all that well. Hence the clutching-at-self-serving-middle-way-straws along the lines of a 'Oh, well of course, once I'd managed to back myself into a corner, I decided that when asked I'd say that I always meant to cripple the Bill and make it unworkable all along . . . . .' type back-pedal? That's quite a self-incriminating indictment of his failings as a leader really, but that's not to say that he all of a sudden believes that well, actually, hunting with hounds is all fine and dandy?
N x x x ;)
Which way are we having it? In any event, I think TB's regret is mainly that he knows that his constant prevarications as to whether laws about hunting with dogs for sport should be brought into line with laws banning bear and badger baiting were always influenced by ulterior motives, and his inability to navigate his famed middle way on this one led to a badly framed law being driven through using a blunt instrument like the Parliament Act.
I mean to say that he regrets that he was overly concerned that whichever way he jumped he would either lose support among the naturally Tory voting country types he'd persuaded to vote for him against their better judgement, or lose support among the naturally Labour voting townies that he'd equally managed to persuade to vote for him against their better judgement, and he knows that he doesn't seem to have dealt with that little conundrum all that well. Hence the clutching-at-self-serving-middle-way-straws along the lines of a 'Oh, well of course, once I'd managed to back myself into a corner, I decided that when asked I'd say that I always meant to cripple the Bill and make it unworkable all along . . . . .' type back-pedal? That's quite a self-incriminating indictment of his failings as a leader really, but that's not to say that he all of a sudden believes that well, actually, hunting with hounds is all fine and dandy?
N x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours. Believe it it or not there are elements of class war, although I agree with you, it should not be, as hunting attracts people from all walks of life, and as you have mentioned it, I believe that they/we are entitled to use civil rights as much as the next man.
You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change, and beyond any measure, the finniest way to achieve a clean kill is with hounds. The persons who often require the help of the huntsman and his hounds is the Shepard, if he is experiencing his lambs being killed by a troublesome fox he will call the huntsman, they arrive in the early hours, take the hounds to the killed lambs and then track the fox, this way they can ensure that the actual fox who is causing the trouble can be tracked and destroyed swiftly. In the Burns Report, an independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs, Lord Burns concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught." Other published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: "The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox." In my view, that does not sound barbaric, in fact there is no finner method. That can not be guaranteed by any other method!
Most often trouble some foxes turn out to be the old or sick, now unable to kill there normal prey and taking the easy option of a captive meal. Another troublesome fox, which has only become a problem in more recent years are the urban foxes, trapped by animal rights activist's who then take them out into the countryside and release them to a certain death. As these animals struggle with hunting there own food, many starve to death or are killed due to getting into chicken coups, etc.
However, I would agree that you are quite right, a free vote would be lost
Sex God
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours
Fair enough. A good point, well made. From this point onwards, I shall refrain from the use of the brigade word, and refer instead to the pro-hunting lobby, in a County Alliance kind of way. Not that that makes much of a difference to the general argument, but hey . . . . :P
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change
Erm . . . no? Your argument assumes that the world and his wife agree that the fox population needs to be controlled, but as a farmer you will no doubt be aware that there have been any number of studies over the years that suggest that there's very little need for fox control at all, in a purely economic sense? There are figures available to anyone who chooses to look at them that say that fox predation has next to no impact whatsoever on, say, the number of lambs / pigs / game birds / whatever a farmer might expect to raise or loose in a given year, given an expected amount of natural wastage, given appropriate other measures as far as looking after their source of income goes. These are studies conducted by MAFF, and DEFRA, and independents, etc, doing their best to help farmers . . . .
By your own admission, assuming I'm reading you right, hunting with hounds is a spectacularly inefficient method of controlling the overall fox population. What's your estimate of the impact hunting foxes with hounds has on the population in general? If you're being honest Blue, you'll admit it's next to none. Now, if it's true that hunting with hounds has next to no impact whatsoever on the overall fox population, then it must also be true that hunting with hounds has next to no impact whatsoever on losses to farmers thanks to fox predation? What then is the point of it?
IMO the whole point of it is that some people enjoy it, and they'd quite like to be able to enjoy it for a bit longer. I would have more respect for them if they just came out and said it, without trying to dress it up as something else.
N x x x ;)
P.S. Since you have chosen to bring up and quite selectively quote the Burns report, may I direct you to chapter 5, specifically 5.3, , , , and , and point out that the beliefs of farmers as expressed in are not in any way wholly supported by the evidence presented earlier in the report? ;)
Quoting you directly, may I put the 'insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds' at into its proper context, which goes on to say 'There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.' A suitable response to that would probably be 'No shit, Sherlock?' ;)
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
*SNIP* Erm . . . no? Your argument assumes that the world and his wife agree that the fox population needs to be controlled, but as a farmer you will no doubt be aware that there have been any number of studies over the years that suggest that there's very little need for fox control at all, in a purely economic sense? There are figures available to anyone who chooses to look at them that say that fox predation has next to no impact whatsoever on, say, the number of lambs / pigs / game birds / whatever a farmer might expect to raise or loose in a given year, given an expected amount of natural wastage, given appropriate other measures as far as looking after their source of income goes. These are studies conducted by MAFF, and DEFRA, and independents, etc, doing their best to help farmers . . . .
N x x x ;)
As you say, there are opposing views, I believe mine to be correct
You may say that it has little effect economically, but to the farmer he will take a different view, it is a plain and simple fact that if a Shepard/keeper is loosing stock to a fox, he will do something about it, never mind what a studies may have said, he will protect his stock. I do not see how anybody could change that fact, or mindset, I would have to add that I am unsure DEFRA/MAFF always have farmers interest as there top priority. What I am trying to say is that the world may not perceive the need but each individual farmer may see things very different. I feel the need to stress again, that more often than not, predation from foxes is due to older, weak, injured and sick animals. Farmers/keepers us many methods to help protect there stock, but the fact will always remain that they will use lethal force despite any studies.
Fox population's may be able to control there own numbers as suggested, but at what cost to farmers, the environment and the fox its self. Overpopulation would see them suffer poor nutrition, and disease. Death under these circumstances is likely to be painful and protracted and clearly does not represent the healthy population we currently have. Levels of predation would be totally unacceptable to farmers and the overall balance of other wildlife, let us not forget the ground nesting birds and other wildlife which also currently benefit from hunting.
So, if you are unwilling to give any ground on the economics of the argument, perhaps I could try the wildlife management side of the argument, if studied hard it is difficult to dismiss the benefits to our now squeezed countryside, performed by hunters and keeper alike.
Predator control works;
and
Quote by neilinleeds
By your own admission, assuming I'm reading you right, hunting with hounds is a spectacularly ineffient method of controlling the overall fox population. What's your estimate of the impact hunting foxes with hounds has on the population in general? If you're being honest Blue, you'll admit it's next to none. Now, if it's true that hunting with hounds has next to no impact whatsoever on the overall fox population, then it must also be true that hunting with hounds has next to no impact whatsoever on losses to farmers thanks to fox predation? What then is the point of it?
N x x x ;)
It does not have a major impact as you say on the fox population, but that is exactly the point, no one wishes to get rid of foxes. However on the other hand it has so many advantages over other methods used. Firstly, as already stated, it is the only method that can discriminate, hounds can track an individual fox, from its kill. Moreover, most times, the hunt only take the young, old or sick foxes, but perhaps most important it is certain to leave no wounded or damaged survivors, also healthy foxes most often could say they behave just as a natural predator would do, so helping to keep the population healthy. A search and dispatch function, if you like for the weak, sick and injured. This helps to replace the natural selection proses removed by us. Snares, poison, and shooting can not perform these functions. As said above it is most often the sick which take the stock, and as the hunt can target Pacific animals, this makes the hunt a very effective weapon for the stock keeper. That in my view is a strong and valid point. Therefore I don't see efficiency as a deciding factor in choosing the method of culling, its less about the numbers and more about which foxes are culled.
Quote by neilinleeds
IMO the whole point of it is that some people enjoy it, and they'd quite like to be able to enjoy it for a bit longer. I would have more respect for them if they just came out and said it, without trying to dress it up as something else.
N x x x ;)
I think I did say it; You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
My point was the huntsman enjoys his job in the same way people enjoy eating chicken, neither are required for us to live, but can be done, and they can be enjoyed. Is it wrong to enjoy ones job? The rat man with his terrier's, the River Ghillie/trout farmer, which may involve the catching of pike, mink etc, enjoys his job also.
The sporting or recreational element of hunting is irrelevant to the central issue of animal welfare, except in so much as it happens to be what pays for this particular method of humane control. That is more of a human Prejudice.
I see nothing morally wrong with using hounds to hunt wild animals, any more than it is wrong to hunt fish with a rod or shoot birds with a shotgun. In fact hunting with hounds is entirely natural to its quarry and does not use technolagy for which the quarry has no defence.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours. Believe it it or not there are elements of class war, although I agree with you, it should not be, as hunting attracts people from all walks of life, and as you have mentioned it, I believe that they/we are entitled to use civil rights as much as the next man.
You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change, and beyond any measure, the finniest way to achieve a clean kill is with hounds. The persons who often require the help of the huntsman and his hounds is the Shepard, if he is experiencing his lambs being killed by a troublesome fox he will call the huntsman, they arrive in the early hours, take the hounds to the killed lambs and then track the fox, this way they can ensure that the actual fox who is causing the trouble can be tracked and destroyed swiftly. In the Burns Report, an independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs, Lord Burns concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught." Other published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: "The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox." In my view, that does not sound barbaric, in fact there is no finner method. That can not be guaranteed by any other method!
Most often trouble some foxes turn out to be the old or sick, now unable to kill there normal prey and taking the easy option of a captive meal. Another troublesome fox, which has only become a problem in more recent years are the urban foxes, trapped by animal rights activist's who then take them out into the countryside and release them to a certain death. As these animals struggle with hunting there own food, many starve to death or are killed due to getting into chicken coups, etc.
However, I would agree that you are quite right, a free vote would be lost
I have never concerned myself with fox hunting and whether or not it should be allowed feeling that in the grand scheme of things it is such a trivial issue. But I feel constrained to say something in the light of the above.
Some time ago I was in the Yukon Territory in northern Canada talking to an old Cree Indian man who in his youth had lived a traditional lifestyle hunting for food. He told me that in those days a young man would go out alone into the wilderness armed only with a spear to fight a bear in order to prove his manhood and that sometimes he would be seriously injured or even killed in the process, but that if he was successful, he would skin the bear and eat the meat. I told him about fox-hunting in England, and he said that no Cree Indian would kill an animal merely for pleasure as this was disrespectful to Life, and that only a coward would derive pleasure from killing an animal which had no chance whatsoever of defending itself.
Enough said.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours. Believe it it or not there are elements of class war, although I agree with you, it should not be, as hunting attracts people from all walks of life, and as you have mentioned it, I believe that they/we are entitled to use civil rights as much as the next man.
You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change, and beyond any measure, the finniest way to achieve a clean kill is with hounds. The persons who often require the help of the huntsman and his hounds is the Shepard, if he is experiencing his lambs being killed by a troublesome fox he will call the huntsman, they arrive in the early hours, take the hounds to the killed lambs and then track the fox, this way they can ensure that the actual fox who is causing the trouble can be tracked and destroyed swiftly. In the Burns Report, an independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs, Lord Burns concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught." Other published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: "The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox." In my view, that does not sound barbaric, in fact there is no finner method. That can not be guaranteed by any other method!
Most often trouble some foxes turn out to be the old or sick, now unable to kill there normal prey and taking the easy option of a captive meal. Another troublesome fox, which has only become a problem in more recent years are the urban foxes, trapped by animal rights activist's who then take them out into the countryside and release them to a certain death. As these animals struggle with hunting there own food, many starve to death or are killed due to getting into chicken coups, etc.
However, I would agree that you are quite right, a free vote would be lost
I have never concerned myself with fox hunting and whether or not it should be allowed feeling that in the grand scheme of things it is such a trivial issue. But I feel constrained to say something in the light of the above.
Some time ago I was in the Yukon Territory in northern Canada talking to an old Cree Indian man who in his youth had lived a traditional lifestyle hunting for food. He told me that in those days a young man would go out alone into the wilderness armed only with a spear to fight a bear in order to prove his manhood and that sometimes he would be seriously injured or even killed in the process, but that if he was successful, he would skin the bear and eat the meat. I told him about fox-hunting in England, and he said that no Cree Indian would kill an animal merely for pleasure as this was disrespectful to Life, and that only a coward would derive pleasure from killing an animal which had no chance whatsoever of defending itself.
Enough said.
I would have to say, that you can not have read a word I have written
But respect your veiw
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
Quote by sexyslut79
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
Did you go out with a spear and kill your own bear or did you take the cowards way out?
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by sexyslut79
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
I believe all of what I have writen to be factual, the fact that you believe it to be ludicrous is beond my control :sad:
Perhaps The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, can be more help to you, Most of the 550 supporters of VAWM are general practitioners spread across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, Many have had years of clinical experience with all common species of domestic and wild animals. Most of them do not ride to hounds, but many have first-hand knowledge of hunting. Some are academics with a wealth of research experience, five are veterinary professors and six are fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists, a collective authority that must be second to none in the on going debate on hunting. Furthermore the group does not seek primarily to protect personal liberty or livelihood, a country sport or however many jobs in the countryside. First and foremost it seeks to protect the welfare of wild animals in the wild.
Personaly I prefer the to listen to the knolage of fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists rather than a Cree Indian, just my view of coarse.
I have a question.
If the hunting is (in some areas) about the control of the fox population, therefore providing a service to the farmers and the countryside, then where is there such a need for the pomp and pageantry to do this?
Why is there a need to dress a certain way? Would someone be discouraged from riding in one of these hunts if they were to arrive in a football shirt and a pair of combats?
If the hunting is (in some areas) about the control of the fox population, therefore providing a service to the farmers and the countryside, then where is there such a need for the pomp and pageantry to do this?
Why is there a need to dress a certain way? Would someone be discouraged from riding in one of these hunts if they were to arrive in a football shirt and a pair of combats?
Sex God
Quote by essex34m
I have a question.
If the hunting is (in some areas) about the control of the fox population, therefore providing a service to the farmers and the countryside, then where is there such a need for the pomp and pageantry to do this?
Why is there a need to dress a certain way? Would someone be discouraged from riding in one of these hunts if they were to arrive in a football shirt and a pair of combats?
Hope this helps essex
Sex God
If it's about controlling fox numbers it's got to be about the most stupidly inefficient and resource-heavy method anyone has come up with.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
Quote by Bluefish2009
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
I believe all of what I have writen to be factual, the fact that you believe it to be ludicrous is beond my control :sad:
Perhaps The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, can be more help to you, Most of the 550 supporters of VAWM are general practitioners spread across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, Many have had years of clinical experience with all common species of domestic and wild animals. Most of them do not ride to hounds, but many have first-hand knowledge of hunting. Some are academics with a wealth of research experience, five are veterinary professors and six are fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists, a collective authority that must be second to none in the on going debate on hunting. Furthermore the group does not seek primarily to protect personal liberty or livelihood, a country sport or however many jobs in the countryside. First and foremost it seeks to protect the welfare of wild animals in the wild.
Personaly I prefer the to listen to the knolage of fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists rather than a Cree Indian, just my view of coarse.
Well I am an academic-an Historian in fact and I would trust my knowledge and understanding of people rather than that of Veterinary Surgeons!
Sex God
I will try to answer some of your points foxy.
If it's about controlling fox numbers it's got to be about the most stupidly inefficient and resource-heavy method anyone has come up with.
Efficiency should not be the sole deciding factor in choosing the method of culling, it is more about which foxes are culled, rather than how many. Hunting seeks to manage rather than exterminate populations of the fox.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
The cost of the hunt to the farmer/stock-man is free, surely that is very cost effective indeed. The employed members of staff, along with, hounds, horses etc, are paid for by the subscription of mounted members who wish to follow the hunt, all at there own cost. Further to that the hunt perform a free fallen stock service for the stock-man, the meat then feeds the hounds. They are contractors, who provide a service to the customer for free.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
Nothing, shooting has its place, but shooting inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. No amount of training can eliminate mistakes by the beginner, the reckless and the downright unlucky. Research sponsored by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group has shown that up to 60% of foxes may be wounded by shotgun shooting and up to 48% by rifle shooting.
Also worth noting that hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Hunts also perform a vital role in sheep farming areas and have always been responsive to "call-outs" to deal with foxes causing predation problems at lambing time, this means the troublesome fox can be tracked from its kill by the hounds, neither can be reproduced by shooting.
If it's about controlling fox numbers it's got to be about the most stupidly inefficient and resource-heavy method anyone has come up with.
Efficiency should not be the sole deciding factor in choosing the method of culling, it is more about which foxes are culled, rather than how many. Hunting seeks to manage rather than exterminate populations of the fox.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
The cost of the hunt to the farmer/stock-man is free, surely that is very cost effective indeed. The employed members of staff, along with, hounds, horses etc, are paid for by the subscription of mounted members who wish to follow the hunt, all at there own cost. Further to that the hunt perform a free fallen stock service for the stock-man, the meat then feeds the hounds. They are contractors, who provide a service to the customer for free.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
Nothing, shooting has its place, but shooting inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. No amount of training can eliminate mistakes by the beginner, the reckless and the downright unlucky. Research sponsored by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group has shown that up to 60% of foxes may be wounded by shotgun shooting and up to 48% by rifle shooting.
Also worth noting that hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Hunts also perform a vital role in sheep farming areas and have always been responsive to "call-outs" to deal with foxes causing predation problems at lambing time, this means the troublesome fox can be tracked from its kill by the hounds, neither can be reproduced by shooting.
Sex God
Quote by sexyslut79
Well I am an academic-an Historian in fact and I would trust my knowledge and understanding of people rather than that of Veterinary Surgeons!
Are vets not people
:lol: Quote by Bluefish2009
I will try to answer some of your points foxy.
If it's about controlling fox numbers it's got to be about the most stupidly inefficient and resource-heavy method anyone has come up with.
Efficiency should not be the sole deciding factor in choosing the method of culling, it is more about which foxes are culled, rather than how many. Hunting seeks to manage rather than exterminate populations of the fox.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
The cost of the hunt to the farmer/stock-man is free, surely that is very cost effective indeed. The employed members of staff, along with, hounds, horses etc, are paid for by the subscription of mounted members who wish to follow the hunt, all at there own cost. Further to that the hunt perform a free fallen stock service for the stock-man, the meat then feeds the hounds. They are contractors, who provide a service to the customer for free.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
Nothing, shooting has its place, but shooting inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. No amount of training can eliminate mistakes by the beginner, the reckless and the downright unlucky. Research sponsored by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group has shown that up to 60% of foxes may be wounded by shotgun shooting and up to 48% by rifle shooting.
Also worth noting that hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Hunts also perform a vital role in sheep farming areas and have always been responsive to "call-outs" to deal with foxes causing predation problems at lambing time, this means the troublesome fox can be tracked from its kill by the hounds, neither can be reproduced by shooting.
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to accept your implied portrayal of fox hunters as people who, out of the kindness of their hearts and with tears in their eyes go around the countryside eliminating pests or putting injured creatures out of their misery? You are trying to defend the indefensible. Fox hunters are people who derive pleasure from killing defenceless animals and most people know this and disapprove of it. Mind you I am prepared to believe that I am wrong. In which case perhaps you could arrange for a party of oddly dressed people on horseback accompanied by several hounds and assorted minions to come to my allotment and eliminate the slugs and snails which ravage our fruit and vegetables.
Quote by sexyslut79
[ In which case perhaps you could arrange for a party of oddly dressed people on horseback accompanied by several hounds and assorted minions to come to my allotment and eliminate the slugs and snails which ravage our fruit and vegetables.
Just out of interest, do you kill the slugs and snails that ravage your allotment?
Sex God
Quote by sexyslut79
Well I am an academic-an Historian in fact and I would trust my knowledge and understanding of people rather than that of Veterinary Surgeons!
Are vets not people
:lol:Er, I rather think you're missing my point here!
Yes, I must be
Quote by sexyslut79
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to accept your implied portrayal of fox hunters as people who, out of the kindness of their hearts and with tears in their eyes go around the countryside eliminating pests or putting injured creatures out of their misery? You are trying to defend the indefensible. Fox hunters are people who derive pleasure from killing defenceless animals and most people know this and disapprove of it. Mind you I am prepared to believe that I am wrong. In which case perhaps you could arrange for a party of oddly dressed people on horseback accompanied by several hounds and assorted minions to come to my allotment and eliminate the slugs and snails which ravage our fruit and vegetables.
I never meant to imply they do it out of the kindness of there heart, they do it because this is there choice of job, it is how they make there living, how they pay there bills. The fact that the hounds are most likely to catch the ill, sick, weak and old, because they are slower, is surely an advantage and a bonus. Because of this effect, it makes it the finniest method available, particularly for the fox population.
I do believe it is defensible and justifiable. I am not a fox hunter, but strongly believe it worth defending, because of it value to the countryside. You may believe it to be ridiculous, I however do not.
The fox hunter may well enjoy his/her job, not sure we could say they enjoy killing any more than the man in the abattoir who kills our meat.
Quote by sexyslut79
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to accept your implied portrayal of fox hunters as people who, out of the kindness of their hearts and with tears in their eyes go around the countryside eliminating pests or putting injured creatures out of their misery? You are trying to defend the indefensible. Fox hunters are people who derive pleasure from killing defenceless animals and most people know this and disapprove of it. Mind you I am prepared to believe that I am wrong. In which case perhaps you could arrange for a party of oddly dressed people on horseback accompanied by several hounds and assorted minions to come to my allotment and eliminate the slugs and snails which ravage our fruit and vegetables.
Ridiculous?
I have read Blue's and NIL's point of view and accept both their arguments and stand points as individuals.
Blue's interpretation of a person who enjoys their job is no different to any other person going about and doing their job and enjoying it. What's the difference in a historian pouring over some books or searching an area to a houndsman going about his business? If people just did the job and didn't like it then they wouldn't do it with care........this could then lead to unnecessary cruelty as they wouldn't give a monkeys.
As for dress, who cares. If people wish to dress up in red, clown suit, hoody, burkah, etc it is their choice, their wish. What has it got to do with anyone else?
The only people who have the moral high ground are the vegans, who despise all animal uses..........but this then falls flat on its arse for me when they use medical advancements that were borne from animal testing to prolong their life. The only way in my mind to have the moral highground in this debate is to forego of any food, clothes or medical use where animals are involved, otherwise the individual is saying that they disagree with what others do as long as it doesn't effect how they choose to harm animals.
The killing of foxes will always happen as they will attack and kill livestock. This is their livelihood and it needs protecting by whatever means possible, including poisoning, shooting, trapping, hunting. All methods that will appear cruel in one way or another and in certain circumstances, one will be more advantageous than the other.
I can understand you do not like people deriving pleasure out of killing, but it is a job that needs doing in my eyes and I would prefer somone who wants to do it than someone who doesn't care about the outcome.
Is killing animals defensible? In some peoples eyes, killing or harming any animal is wrong i.e. Buddhists and vegans
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Six out of 10 people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time, common sense really
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don’t know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don’t know 2%
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don’t know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don’t know 2%
Quote by Bluefish2009
Six out of 10 people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time, common sense really
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don’t know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don’t know 2%
I bet if you used the exact same criteria and asked car theives
"do you think chasing car thieves is a waste of police resourses"
NO 98%
YES 1%
DONT KNOW 1%
Loaded questions to a limited group proves one thing.
Polls prove 100% of the people asked answered.
Sex God
Quote by robbo-bi1
Six out of 10 people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time, common sense really
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don't know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don't know 2%
I bet if you used the exact same criteria and asked car theives
"do you think chasing car thieves is a waste of police resourses"
NO 98%
YES 1%
DONT KNOW 1%
Loaded questions to a limited group proves one thing.
Polls prove 100% of the people asked answered.
Do you have a link to prove this claim
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Six out of 10 people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time, common sense really
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don’t know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don’t know 2%
The problem is the question blue....I don't believe in hunting with hounds as I'm sure I've mentioned but if asked the first question I would answer no, because it isn't a good use of police resources...if the hunts look as though they may break the law though it is a necessary use of those resources.
Do I think animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands ...no,but I know that sometimes they will and I know that sometimes it will be the right thing to do.
Loaded questions give distorted results...I believe that if the question was "do you believe that the law against hunting with hounds should be repealed"most people in this country would say no....I also believe that if I was careful about where I got my sample from I could get the exact opposite answer.I think you should try to find a less obviously biased poll .....this one proves only that the pollsters knew how to get the answer they wanted
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Six out of 10 people think the Hunting Act has been a waste of police time, common sense really
questions:
Do you think that banning hunting and the subsequent requirement to police the ban is a good use of police resources?
•No 62%
•Yes 33%
•Don't know 4%
Do you think that animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands for the purpose of protecting wild animals?
•No 85%
•Yes 13%
•Don't know 2%
The problem is the question blue....I don't believe in hunting with hounds as I'm sure I've mentioned but if asked the first question I would answer no, because it isn't a good use of police resources...if the hunts look as though they may break the law though it is a necessary use of those resources.
Do I think animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands ...no,but I know that sometimes they will and I know that sometimes it will be the right thing to do.
Loaded questions give distorted results...I believe that if the question was "do you believe that the law against hunting with hounds should be repealed"most people in this country would say no....I also believe that if I was careful about where I got my sample from I could get the exact opposite answer.I think you should try to find a less obviously biased poll .....this one proves only that the pollsters knew how to get the answer they wanted
The questions are straight forward enough, the questions are no different than asking, should huntsmen be permitted to brake the law, answer, no.... Straight forward questions and straight forward answers. I am quite happy with my choice of poll
When the question of repeal is raised, most people, as you say, do say no, but that does, of coarse not make them correct, just because a majority have a way of thinking, does not automatically mean the minority are incorrect.
Quote by flower411
The problem is the question blue....I don't believe in hunting with hounds as I'm sure I've mentioned but if asked the first question I would answer no, because it isn't a good use of police resources...if the hunts look as though they may break the law though it is a necessary use of those resources.
Do I think animal rights activists should be allowed to take the law into their own hands ...no,but I know that sometimes they will and I know that sometimes it will be the right thing to do.
Loaded questions give distorted results...I believe that if the question was "do you believe that the law against hunting with hounds should be repealed"most people in this country would say no....I also believe that if I was careful about where I got my sample from I could get the exact opposite answer.I think you should try to find a less obviously biased poll .....this one proves only that the pollsters knew how to get the answer they wanted
And I think most people couldn`t care less. It`s just a bunch of violent townie agitators with nothing better to do than simply trying to destroy something they don`t understand.
And don`t start spouting about democracy and the law ! You believe there is no democracy in this country and I agree with you, that`s why we have stupid laws that endanger peoples ability to make a living. Imagine the countryside alliance taking the route of the students when they don`t agree with the rules ......there really would be blood on the streets then .....but that won`t happen because the majority of them are law abiding citizens and will stay within the law rather than rampaging through the streets like spoilt little brats.
oh so the spoilt little brat...( bryan ferrys son) didn't break into the chambers of the house of commons and cuase a commotion by throwing stuff around then ?? All in the name of the countryside alliance !!! What he threw may of been just some sort of purple dye...but no one else was to know. There will always be extremists in all walks...
Sex God
Quote by deancannock
oh so the spoilt little brat...( bryan ferrys son) didn't break into the chambers of the house of commons and cuase a commotion by throwing stuff around then ?? All in the name of the countryside alliance !!! What he threw may of been just some sort of purple dye...but no one else was to know. There will always be extremists in all walks...
This was done off his own back, not in the name of the alliance or the countryside, I hope he faced the force of the law
