Suppose I can see it from both sides. Hunting provides a lot of jobs (I used to work at stables where they regularly hunted but never took part myself) it also provides an education for a lot of horses that will go on to showjumping or other equestrian disciplines.
But it is a cruel way of managing a pest problem and foxes can definately be classed as pests. They are wonderful animals but don't just necessarily kill for survival.
They will kill for fun as any farmer will know
The better option is to use a different way to deal with the foxes, somethin more humane but allow the hunt to continue without the fox part. Drag hunting is where the hounds follow a scented trail already set by someone. The thrill is still there, the horses love it but nothing gets killed or savaged by the dogs
Simplistic reply ........
if your neighbour has a dog that gets into your garden and causes havoc and you rip it apart with your dogs as a way of stopping the havoc, then it is you who will be prosecuted and most probably be banned from keeping future animals.
Yet, if it is a fox causing the havoc and you set the dogs on it, it suddenly becomes a sport?????? be real it's still animal cruelty!!!
The fox has more right to the land, than we do. We force them out of natural habitat and then expect them not to cause havoc????
Don't get me wrong, when foxes/birds/mammals are a real threat to humanknd then I will support hunting, until then there is nothing you can say to me that proves that terrifying an animal and ripping it apart is a sport!!!!
About 43% of the people who bothered to vote, voted labour.
The ones who couldn't be bothered to vote, don't count !
Mayby I'll also not have to hear the sound of a hare being torn to pieces outside my front from now on ?
But since farmers are not best known for their honesty (red diesel in the landrover) ?
If you're worried about your chickens then take better care of them in the first place. Don't let the fox get them, save them for you to kill instead.
As for all the dogs ... well the one's not up to standard get destroyed anyway.
Anyone other excuse for a human being who makes a living out of this 'sport' deserves to rot away on the dole forever. Scumbags.
Waterpistol, are you a vegitarian how many animals are murdered for the eating of man, kept in inhumane conditions etc surrly following your argument all meat eaters should rot in hell
I saw appalling cruelty to dumb animals only this morning. It was horrific. That kind of transportation should be made illegal!!! They were squashed into dirty, poorly ventilated, outdated equipment; they had no access to water although many were showing signs of distress; they looked sullen and depressed, their eyes looked sunken, they were totally unable to carry out any of the functions appropriate to their species; and the worst thing?....nobody seemed to care. Barbarism, pure barbarism....
...and if the Victoria line has ONE more signal breakdown...I'm taking a cab!!
JQL yes they do. foxes kill! possibly for the sake of killing. my cat does that. she doesn't eat the mice or birds she catches, she simply kills! undeniable fact.
but knowing that, as a thinking, feeling, intelligent species, we protect against it, by protecting, not slaughtering. and i hope you know me better than to see that as flaming. we are better than the foxes, who can only live according to their nature. we can think outside the box, but choose barbarism over it. it is wrong, it is simply wrong. no amount of articulate argument can persuade me that tearing a live fox to pieces, hunted to complete exhaustion by a pack of hounds is *ever* morally justified.
that's it.
neil x x x ;-)
I do not believe an elected minority (of any particular hue or leaning) has the right to impose it's will on the majority.
Fact: Plant life feels "pain", not necessarily the same way animals feel pain, but plants do respond to being damaged. When you cut a plant it gives off pheromones as a reaction to being "attacked". Therefore you could say that cutting up vegetables was cruel as it inflicts “painâ€. Using the arguments proposed in these posts chopping vegetables should be illegal as it is cruel to plants. A minority believe it therefore you shouldn’t cut plants.
What I’m trying to get across is: The argument isn't about whether a particular activity should be banned or not, but whether a minority should be allowed to impose it's will on the majority. Whichever way you look at it, 25% or 43% is still a minority.
For example, some people abhor football (soccer). If an elected minority just so happened to be made up of those who hate football, football would become illegal. Surely that's not right? Using the same arguments proposed in this thread, it could become a horrible reality..
I'm not advocating Proportional Representation. What I'm advocating is a better system than the first past the post we have at present.
It is not for me, or you for that matter, to come up with a better system but our, government using a majority type verdict.
The problem we face is that politics would interfer as it always does.
It's good to dream...
instead of me raving on my opinions for ages and apges and pages i'll say a few words instead.
I will always support hunting. Inthe countryside foxes are like rats you le tpeople kill rats however they want to so just because he looks nice they aren't allowed to anymore!
I support the country folk agaisnt teh stupid townies. And i live in suburbia.
WOW what a fantastic debate, what you all realise is that I dont agree with all that has been said, it has been a true pleasure reading the comments of all concerned.
Soooooo - what is the general opinion, if you out looking for action when dogging and parked alone in a rural car-park, would you prefer to watch the tradition, majesty and splendour of a full hunt go galoping past or would you prefer to watch a fox and her baby cubs frolicking in a field?
Roger.
Incidentally, if the farmers cared so much about the countryside they would consider stopping breeding cattle and start farming more wheat and other crops.
On 10 acres of land you will only produce enough meat to feed 2 people, whereas with crop farming you would produce enough to feed up to 60 people depending on the crop.
Where's the conservation in that?
10 acres, (5 football pitches), will support:
by growing SOYA - 60 people;
by growing WHEAT - 24 people;
by growing MAIZE - 10 people;
by growing CATTLE - TWO people.
Soya may not be the best example as it can effect rainforests, but the fact remains. Cattle farming does not eqate to conservation.
Now a Vixen with 2 nice 'puppies' frolicking in a field is an altogether different proposition.
Not a problem Roger. One trains them on peasants.
Oops, my lawyer advises me that should read "pheasants" ;)
:D :D
