# URGENT: Hunting Act under threat!!



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

League Against Cruel Sports

Cameron plots to reintroduce fox hunting by the back door! - please contact your MP using the above link.

_DAVID CAMERON has started a search for MPs who will help him reintroduce fox-hunting by the back door.

He and the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, want to use a parliamentary device known as a statutory instrument to amend the Hunting Act, and have provisionally booked parliamentary time on March 26 to debate the idea. They are now canvassing support among MPs of all parties. _

Cameron plots to ease hunting ban | The Sunday Times

.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*What an evil, sly b*stard he is. And i bet he gets it brought back in damn quick.*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

It has always been a ill thought out piece of legislation though. it never really worked, same sort of ineffectiveness and loop holes as the DDA


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *What an evil, sly b*stard he is. And i bet he gets it brought back in damn quick.*


If they cant get their own way they just change the law - they've just done it with hospitals Jan!! They wanted to close successful Lewisham hospital, but there was an outcry & the closure was fought & won through the courts, so they just changed the law So now they can close any hospital 'even if its performing well' within 40 days!! ... and we cant do a damn thing about it

They are the most deceitful, despicable govt in history! Roll on 2015!!!

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> It has always been a ill thought out piece of legislation though. it never really worked, same sort of ineffectiveness and loop holes as the DDA


Then the loop holes should be tightened not relaxed! The problem is those involved in hunting believe they are above the law!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Then the loop holes should be tightened not relaxed! The problem is those involved in hunting believe they are above the law!


*I have never known a government to close loop holes so quick. But only the ones that bother them.*


----------



## Dianne58 (Feb 22, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *What an evil, sly b*stard he is. And i bet he gets it brought back in damn quick.*


Lets hope we can drag him through the back door when he is up for re-election  x x x


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar? 

*Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?
> 
> *Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


*Because it is illegal, wouldn't be only right that those carrying it on should be brought to justice?*


----------



## Sterling (Jan 8, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?
> 
> *Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


Agreed. Hunter/gatherer comes to mind.

Dont attempt to forbid me from caring for offspring, please.....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MPs moot changes to hunting ban | Shooting times


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I was about to post the link - I've shared on Nosey Book and signed. I wondered when the odious Tories would attempt this - it had to be before the next General Election to ensure votes.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?


Dog fighting never went away either. By the same logic, surely it's better to have that open and regulated too as opposed to under the radar...


----------



## Roger Downes (Sep 17, 2013)

Have signed that link. Also for what its worth I have Tweeted the prime minister at https://twitter.com/David_Cameron 
Have my doubts they want to listen though.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sadly my MP is very much up for the act to be amended. He feels there are too many loopholes and it needs changing.

I can guarantee he won't be pushing for the legislation to be tightened up to make hunting more difficult and to bring those who persist in this vile act to proper justice in front of the courts!!!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. *From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on*. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?
> 
> *Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


Then they should be treated like the common criminals they are & punished, same as dog fighters.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Makes me chuckle, all the law abiding and completely ethical people on here? As someone with a van that's tracked for work, I dread driving through rush hour traffic. Why? Because every single person is up my jacksy wanting to do more than the speed limit. I've had people overtake me in 30mph zones, doing far more than the speed limit as they simply MUST get to work, or wherever, in time. Including mowing down wildlife on their way to work, as they simply HAVE to get there on time.


----------



## emma20 (Feb 7, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?
> 
> *Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


Sorry of I don't come across right but if it was open and regulated would people that don't hunt now start hunting? Would those that hunt under the radar just hunt as they were?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Then they should be treated like the common criminals they are & punished, same as dog fighters.


nah thats too good for em, they should be hunted down themselves and killed in the most horrific way imaginable. eye for an eye and all that.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Makes me chuckle, all the law abiding and completely ethical people on here? As someone with a van that's tracked for work, I dread driving through rush hour traffic. Why? Because every single person is up my jacksy wanting to do more than the speed limit. I've had people overtake me in 30mph zones, doing far more than the speed limit as they simply MUST get to work, or wherever, in time. Including mowing down wildlife on their way to work, as they simply HAVE to get there on time.


Trying to see the reasoning behind this post but failing.... Sorry!!

If your point is that 'law-abiding people' mow down wild-life to get to work on time that would be considered an unintentional kill. Not right as breaking the speed limit caused it but still unintentional.

Therefore, a BIG difference to setting out with a group of riders on horseback, with the INTENTION of killing, where a pack of braying hounds chase down an innocent & defenceless fox, which is scared sh!tless, terrified until it is too knackered to run anymore whereupon the hounds rip it to shreds in several different directions. If it goes into a burrow, these lovely riders and their footmen then get shovels and dig it out!!!

Now if it was a child or a human being hunted like this, these people would go to jail!!

So WHY is the fact it is a defenceless animal suddenly make it alright to do this???

When we read tales of slavery from the past, we read of people who suffered in a similar manner to the above and we cringe at how horrific this was yet there are humans out there who think it is still acceptable to hunt animals like this.

It is beyond me, it really is. :nonod:

.


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

Signed and sent ,not sure if it will do any good,but I'd rather try and be defeated than sit on my ar*e and say it is a waste of time to try.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Trying to see the reasoning behind this post but failing.... Sorry!!
> 
> If your point is that 'law-abiding people' mow down wild-life to get to work on time that would be considered an unintentional kill. Not right as breaking the speed limit caused it but still unintentional.
> 
> ...


What on earth has slavery got to do with it?

My point is, I bet every single person on this thread breaks the law, in one way or another. And one of the points I would bet is with the speed limit, in fact some members have even posted openly they have broken the speed limit.

The illustration given about wildlife being mowed down, is by all those commuters, who have such important lives they can't possibly drive at a sensible level, they MUST drive above the speed limit to get to work on time. S*d the ground nesting birds, hares, rabbits, hedghogs, badgers I regularly see mowed down by the regular commute, their work is so important they couldn't possibly not speed.

Ban commuters and you'd save a helluva lot more foxes, badgers etc, than banning hunters.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

signed and sent.. though i'm pretty sure my mp will be opposing this anyway it cant hurt right?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

porps said:


> signed and sent.. though i'm pretty sure my mp will be opposing this anyway it cant hurt right?


You might be surprised, mine is pro a repeal, & I'm very disappointed in him quite frankly.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What on earth has slavery got to do with it?
> 
> .


Black slaves were often hunted down by dogs and today we think this is abhorrent.

_Former slaves claimed that masters, patrollers, or professional slave catchers would use 'savage dogs, trained to hunt and follow the track of the poor colored fugitive' [William J. B Anderson, Life and Narrative of William J. Anderson, Twenty-four Years a Slave (1857), 48]*. Although it is possible that abolitionist accounts exaggerated their savagery at times, writings from slave-holders suggest they were not far off. Bennett H. Barrow, one slaveholder from Louisiana, kept a detailed diary and frequently mentioned the importance of dogs in capturing runaways, as well as the terrible violence they could inflict: 'hunting Ruffins Boy Henry, came across Williams runaway caught him dogs nearly et his legs off, near killing him'. [Diary, Mss. 2978, Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections, LSU Libraries, Baton Rouge, La, 440]. Barrow offers numerous other insights into the systematic use of dogs in slavery. In October of 1844 he noted that 'two men from Mississippi came last night with pack of ***** dogs to hunt Miss Swifts ******',_

Yet there are people who think doing the same to a fox, or any other four-legged animal, is perfectly acceptable and still quite sporting.

The people who have compassion, and genuinely care about all animals and wildlife, see no difference between the two.

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Black slaves were often hunted down by dogs and today we think this is abhorrent.
> 
> _Former slaves claimed that masters, patrollers, or professional slave catchers would use savage dogs, trained to hunt and follow the track of the poor colored fugitive [William J. B Anderson, Life and Narrative of William J. Anderson, Twenty-four Years a Slave (1857), 48]*. Although it is possible that abolitionist accounts exaggerated their savagery at times, writings from slave-holders suggest they were not far off. Bennett H. Barrow, one slaveholder from Louisiana, kept a detailed diary and frequently mentioned the importance of dogs in capturing runaways, as well as the terrible violence they could inflict: hunting Ruffins Boy Henry, came across Williams runaway caught him dogs nearly et his legs off, near killing him. [Diary, Mss. 2978, Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections, LSU Libraries, Baton Rouge, La, 440]. Barrow offers numerous other insights into the systematic use of dogs in slavery. In October of 1844 he noted that two men from Mississippi came last night with pack of ***** dogs to hunt Miss Swifts ******,_
> 
> ...


A lot of people also used to keep pigs in their back yards, and culled their own meals. Linking fox hunting to slavery is about as relevant as linking line dancing to rugby!!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

disgusting!!! absolutely horrid!





meanwhile Spain demanded to exclude Gibraltar from EU air space..got away with it..Cameron bastward did nowt!!!




of course..more important is to kill all the badgers, foxes and whaterever wild animals you have there



for me Nigel Farage is probably better choice than this ****!!!


When I read ST today I felt like If I could chane him into fox and send forty beagles and foxterriers after him..I would!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A lot of people also used to keep pigs in their back yards, and culled their own meals. Linking fox hunting to slavery is about as relevant as linking line dancing to rugby!!


_150 years ago, they wouldve thought you were absurd if you advocated for the end of slavery. 100 years ago, they wouldve laughed at you for suggesting that women should have the right to vote. 50 years ago, they wouldve objected to the idea of African Americans receiving equal rights under the law. 25 years ago, they wouldve called you a pervert if you advocated for gay rights. They laugh at us now for suggesting that animal slavery be ended. Someday they wont be laughing. ~Gary Smith_

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> _150 years ago, they wouldve thought you were absurd if you advocated for the end of slavery. 100 years ago, they wouldve laughed at you for suggesting that women should have the right to vote. 50 years ago, they wouldve objected to the idea of African Americans receiving equal rights under the law. 25 years ago, they wouldve called you a pervert if you advocated for gay rights. They laugh at us now for suggesting that *animal slavery be ended*. Someday they wont be laughing. ~Gary Smith_
> 
> .


We didn't eat slaves, we didn't eat women, we didn't eat African Americans, we also didn't eat gays.............

What is animal slavery? 
I don't think a fox is in slavery


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> _150 years ago, they wouldve thought you were absurd if you advocated for the end of slavery. 100 years ago, they wouldve laughed at you for suggesting that women should have the right to vote. 50 years ago, they wouldve objected to the idea of African Americans receiving equal rights under the law. 25 years ago, they wouldve called you a pervert if you advocated for gay rights. They laugh at us now for suggesting that animal slavery be ended. Someday they wont be laughing. ~Gary Smith_
> 
> .


Pop over to the cat forum, where owners are regularly described as *slaves*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What on earth has slavery got to do with it?
> 
> My point is, I bet every single person on this thread breaks the law, in one way or another. And one of the points I would bet is with the speed limit, in fact some members have even posted openly they have broken the speed limit.
> 
> ...


Yes it is sad that people would get sacked and wouldnt be able to feed their families if they are late to work too many times.. It is sad that there are so few jobs around that people are prepared to break the speed limit to make sure they dont end up out of work.

how is that relevant to killing animals for a bit of a laugh?

Sport hunters are just evil cowards. They need culling, not our wildlife.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> Yes it is sad that people would get sacked and wouldnt be able to feed their families if they are late to work too many times.. It is sad that there are so few jobs around that people are prepared to break the speed limit to make sure they dont end up out of work.
> 
> how is that relevant to killing animals for a bit of a laugh?


Life style choice, people live in one place, and commute to another place.

You'd be disgusted at the amount of dead animals and birds on week day commutes including youngsters. Never mind eh, people need jobs!!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Life style choice, people live in one place, and commute to another place.
> 
> You'd be disgusted at the amount of dead animals and birds on week day commutes including youngsters. Never mind eh, people need jobs!!


Yes because its obviously choice isnt it. Everyone has enough money to choose exactly where there live, social and economic factors are not at play at all, and any one who doesnt live within walking distance of their job is doing so by choice. There is enough affordable housing for everyone to live in a prime location.

what planet do you even live on?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> Yes it is sad that people would get sacked and wouldnt be able to feed their families if they are late to work too many times.. It is sad that there are so few jobs around that people are prepared to break the speed limit to make sure they dont end up out of work.
> 
> how is that relevant to killing animals for a bit of a laugh?
> 
> Sport hunters are just evil cowards. They need culling, not our wildlife.





porps said:


> Yes because its obviously choice isnt it. Everyone has enough money to choose exactly where there live, social and economic factors are not at play at all, and any one who doesnt live within walking distance of their job is doing so by choice. There is enough affordable housing for everyone to live in a prime location.
> 
> what planet do you even live on?


Normal planet.

Killing animals for a bit of a laugh? What planet are you on?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Normal planet.
> 
> Killing animals for a bit of a laugh? What planet are you on?


one i share with evil cowards, apparently.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> one i share with evil cowards, apparently.


Ah, I take it you are one of these immaculate people who survive on fairy farts and never impact one other animal in your entire life.

Well done. I'm happy to interact with my dogs, and any other animal.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Pop over to the cat forum, where owners are regularly described as *slaves*


????  

My husband also makes stupid & absurd remarks when his arguments run dry. :yesnod:

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> ????
> 
> My husband also makes stupid & absurd remarks when his arguments run dry. :yesnod:
> 
> .


Or perhaps your arguments run dry my dear


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't know how one can argue that everyone is hypocrites if they are against what Cameron is proposing.

I do not drive and I have never purposely killed an animal, nor has my boyfriend who does drive.

Not everyone in cars purposely mows down animals in the road for some sick enjoyment. I bet most people on this thread do not have sick tendency to do something so terrible. However, accidents can happen yes. There is a big difference in hitting an animal accidentally to purposely driving at one.

I really do hope this doesn't get passed. I do not believe that if it does it will be better because of the people who still do it now. They should be caught and bloody punished. Fox killing is nothing but a bloodsport, and nothing but cruel and vicious.

I cannot agree to something so horrific and terrorising a fox and then killing it savagely.

I do not agree with dog fighting either. Disgusting.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Makes me chuckle, all the law abiding and completely ethical people on here? As someone with a van that's tracked for work, I dread driving through rush hour traffic. Why? Because every single person is up my jacksy wanting to do more than the speed limit. I've had people overtake me in 30mph zones, doing far more than the speed limit as they simply MUST get to work, or wherever, in time. Including mowing down wildlife on their way to work, as they simply HAVE to get there on time.


Most farcical argument for repealing the hunting ban I've heard yet - "People speed in their cars, so I should be allowed to kill animals". What will they come up with next? (Shakes head in amazement)

Speeding is against the law and those who are caught are punished. Hunting foxes should stay against the law and those who break the law should be punished.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blackcats said:


> I don't know how one can argue that everyone is hypocrites if they are against what Cameron is proposing.
> 
> I do not drive and I have never purposely killed an animal, nor has my boyfriend who does drive.
> 
> ...


I take it your absolute indignation means you don't buy any meat products from supermarkets, or shop at supermarkets in general? I'd be pleasantly surprised if this was the case btw.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ah, I take it you are one of these immaculate people who survive on fairy farts and never impact one other animal in your entire life.
> 
> Well done. I'm happy to interact with my dogs, and any other animal.


No, i'm one of those people who would never intentionally kill or harm an animal for my own amusement.

You're whole argument seems to be "other people sometimes harm animals, often accidently or inadvertantly, or out of necessity (or perceived necessity in the case of meat i suppose). therefore it's fine to do it intentionally for fun"

Should this extend to people too?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

So because one is a meat eater (Oh, boy, here we go) means I must agree with a fox being hunted down and torn apart by a pack of dogs.

Which is horrific and cruel. 

Yes, we have had the argument with animals and how they are killed in slaughterhouses.

But half these people who kill these foxes do it for nothing but pure fun and I think it is more brutal.

But as I said, is everyone who drives hypocrites then? Does everyone who drive purposely kill animals in the road for enjoyment.

So do you do it then seeing as you drive as that is your point, isn't it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> No, i'm one of those people who would never intentionally kill or harm an animal for my own amusement.
> 
> You're whole argument seems to be "other people sometimes harm animals, often accidently or inadvertantly, or out of necessity (or perceived necessity in the case of meat i suppose). therefore it's fine to do it intentionally for fun"
> 
> Should this extend to people too?


That'll be your, not you're.

Nope, my whole argument is based on people buy sh*t at their local shop, supermarket etc, and have no idea what is involved in the production of their meal.

Yet post something on here that says preserve x, y or z species and people will jump in there.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That'll be your, not you're.


what a fine argument! good point, well made...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> what a fine argument! good point, well made...


Cheers, obviously a worthy person to debate the issue with! Possibly off to sleep, which is more important to be honest.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Fox meat isn't sold in the supermarkets.

I have never seen it in butchers either.

I don't know anyone who has ate it either. 

So people can protest against this if they eat meat. 

Just because I eat meat and others on this thread do doesn't mean we agree to foxes being hunted for nothing but pure fun and pleasure and being savagely killed for absolutely nothing.

I have a right to say that and think that. I do not think I am a hypocrite for believing it either just because I eat some meat. That's your choice though, not mine.

Edit: And if people do kill these foxes and eat them (Which I have never heard of) I still do not agree with it. Why kill more animals for food. There is enough I think. It's wrong all around. Just horrible is all I can say.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

hope you have sweet dreams of ripped apart foxes


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Strangely enough, I was thinking of this short verse yesterday because of the poems thread....


Optimist

Kill off mankind,
And give the Earth a chance!
Nature might find
In her inheritance
The seedlings of a race
Less infinitely base.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> Strangely enough, I was thinking of this short verse yesterday because of the poems thread....
> 
> Optimist
> 
> ...


nice, who wrote that?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

^ this might surprise you but it was Aleister Crowley.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> ^ this might surprise you but it was Aleister Crowley.


wow really... yep im suprised! But when you're right you're right.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> Strangely enough, I was thinking of this short verse yesterday because of the poems thread....
> 
> Optimist
> 
> ...


Best post on the whole thread.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

Having read through this thread, I find it ridiculous that driving a vehicle in rush-hour is being compared to hunting.... and then to go and correct punctuation. :yikes: Really? Is that the best anyone can come up with? Don't drive, and learn to punctuate; that people who buy meat from supermarkets are somehow frowned upon by some who think they're better than others. Really? What a joke.

Hunting is banned, it is banned because it's cruel and barbaric. We do not need to hunt for sport, we've come a loooooooooong way since we considered it to be a sport, well, most of us have, some doddery people still consider it their right. 

Not all of us buy meat from supermarkets, many do, not all of us buy cheap chickens to roast, but some do - so what? That is NOT against the law, hunting is.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Satori said:


> Strangely enough, I was thinking of this short verse yesterday because of the poems thread....
> 
> Optimist
> 
> ...


Absolutely.

I always think the more you mess with things you shouldn't, the more it will come and bite you in the arse. Mess with nature and all that, it'll fight back with a bigger force.

It'll happen sooner or later and that poem will become true.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

8tansox said:


> Having read through this thread, I find it ridiculous that driving a vehicle in rush-hour is being compared to hunting.... and then to go and correct punctuation. :yikes: Really? Is that the best anyone can come up with? Don't drive, and learn to punctuate; that people who buy meat from supermarkets are somehow frowned upon by some who think they're better than others. Really? What a joke.
> 
> Hunting is banned, it is banned because it's cruel and barbaric. We do not need to hunt for sport, we've come a loooooooooong way since we considered it to be a sport, well, most of us have, some doddery people still consider it their right.
> 
> Not all of us buy meat from supermarkets, many do, not all of us buy cheap chickens to roast, but some do - so what? That is NOT against the law, hunting is.


Exactly.

Reading this too just makes me want to ask one simple question really.

If we are considered hypocrites because some of us eat meat or some us drive and that we shouldn't disagree with hunting down animals such as foxes and should happily accept it for the reasons stated above...

Makes me ask...

Should we then agree with murder in human beings? That is an innocent, defenceless animal being hunted down by some monster for nothing but pleasure and a sick sense of enjoyment.

That is similar to how foxes would feel. Defenceless, innocent, do nobody any harm. Being killed by people who get a kick out of it.

Or is it different because we can talk, communicate, and are supposedly intelligent.

To me it is just the same. We're all animals. None of us deserve to be cruelly tortured and killed for fun. Foxes feel pain and emotions just like we do.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Reading this too just makes me want to ask one simple question really.
> 
> ...


Most if not all of the 174 packs of the MFHA do not break the law. Of the 181 people prosecuted under the hunting act, only 3 have been members of MFHA.

Law breakers are prevalent in all walks of life. Why should all in that particular walk of life be tarred with the same brush?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

So you're telling me a fox doesn't feel absolutely terrified and feels pain in being hunted down and ripped to pieces. 

Oh, sorry, just I thought hunting foxes was illegal.

And who is tarring who with what brush? I am talking about hunting foxes. 

That's what we are talking about, aren't we?

Unless you are talking about something else. In which case can you explain?

Edit: Yes, I am aware foxes can get into chicken pens, kill all the chickens without eating them.

My OH had chickens and lived in the countryside. The pen was very secure so no problems.

I do not think because foxes do something like the above means they should be hunted down and ripped apart.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> We didn't eat slaves, we didn't eat women, we didn't eat African Americans, we also didn't eat gays.............
> 
> What is animal slavery?
> I don't think a fox is in slavery


we don't eat foxes


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> So you're telling me a fox doesn't feel absolutely terrified and feels pain in being hunted down and ripped to pieces.
> 
> Oh, sorry, just I thought hunting foxes was illegal.
> 
> ...


I'm sure they do, but how do you know how they feel. I don't 

Some times when I'm walking a fox will saunter past and another time another fox will flee in terror. I don't know why either react the way they do. I can't talk fox 

Fox hunting is illegal, that's why MFHA only hunt trails 

Still doesn't stop foxes trying to eat a farmers stock.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> we don't eat foxes


I knew someone would use that. Please look at the quote I was referring to. It mentions animals, nothing to do with foxes or hunting


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> we don't eat foxes


That being the whole point - foxes are hunted down for sport!!! Nothing more. Just sport!!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> Edit: Yes, I am aware foxes can get into chicken pens, kill all the chickens without eating them.
> 
> My OH had chickens and lived in the countryside. The pen was very secure so no problems.
> 
> I do not think because foxes do something like the above means they should be hunted down and ripped apart.


Nor do I


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> That being the whole point - foxes are hunted down for sport!!! Nothing more. Just sport!!!


But the quote wasn't about that. Unless you read it differently to me.
It didn't seem to refer to hunting at all but the slavery of animals


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> I'm sure they do, but how do you know how they feel. I don't
> 
> Some times when I'm walking a fox will saunter past and another time another fox will flee in terror. I don't know why either react the way they do. I can't talk fox
> 
> ...


Because most animals feel pain. Science will tell you that. They have nerves, receptors, etc, like we do to feel pain but I'm not a biologist so I can't go into that one with you.

Perhaps closer contact with humans? Foxes are naturally shy creatures from man. Some not so much because we build closer to their environment so they become aware of us more. Just looking at that case with that fox that was lying on that little boy's bed. It was a cub though so probably wasn't aware of the danger of man but shows why that thing keeps happening.

Foxes do feel pain. Always can ask google and check out science pages.

Should I kill the little shits on my area who think it's okay to play loud music, break people's windows, get into fights and hurt people?

No, because that person can be stopped by other methods of punishment.

I do not agree foxes should be hunted down the way they are because *some *kill livestock.

Plus, isn't that nature and all that so farmers should go to tight measure to ensure their livestock are safe?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> Nor do I


So what is your point to me then?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A lot of people also used to keep pigs in their back yards, and culled their own meals. Linking fox hunting to slavery is about as relevant as linking line dancing to rugby!!


By keeping your own livestock and also killing it for the pot is one thing but what do you do with dead foxes , badgers and maybe otters? Otter and badger are off the menu for the time being but the stroke of a pen could change all that overnight.

Killing for the pot from something that hasn't been chased til its lungs burst and in constant panic and terror is totally different from some moron chasing and killing for nothing more than the fun of it.

Hunting has been banned, it was campaigned and lobbied for for years. ONly reason its been brought out of the past is cos Cameron is desperate for votes and we are due an election.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Life style choice, people live in one place, and commute to another place.
> 
> You'd be disgusted at the amount of dead animals and birds on week day commutes including youngsters. Never mind eh, people need jobs!!


I live in a very rural area and there are always plenty dead things on the local roads here.

Last autumn, my daughter was driving my car under the speed limit when a roe stag jumped out and landed on the bonnet of my car. I was front passenger, I thought the deer was going to come through the windscreen. It didn't but did manage to do £300 damage to my car. Not all animal deaths are causeed by speeding.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

A peasant hitting your car at 30mph does fair bit of damage. You don't usually see the bird til it is in your path. I never swerve to avoid pheasant but do put my brakes on as hard as is safe. A pheasant hitting a biker in the face or chest has a good chance of being fatal.

All these pheasant farmers who allow their birds out roaming etc so some muppet can come along and shoot them, should be made to ring the birds and have public liabilty insurance. These birds fly up and in front of your casr, they are a danger to motor bikers and cause damage to cars. There isn't usually anyway to avoid them when they flush.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> Because most animals feel pain. Science will tell you that. They have nerves, receptors, etc, like we do to feel pain but I'm not a biologist so I can't go into that one with you.
> 
> Perhaps closer contact with humans? Foxes are naturally shy creatures from man. Some not so much because we build closer to their environment so they become aware of us more. Just looking at that case with that fox that was lying on that little boy's bed. It was a cub though so probably wasn't aware of the danger of man but shows why that thing keeps happening.
> 
> ...


But you were also talking about emotions of the fox!! How do you know the emotions of the fox? I wish I did, I'd love to know how animals feel 

I never lost any from my stock pen, despite a vixen living and rearing cubs only a few yards away for 7 years. She used to walk around one side of the pen when I was on the other side 
Loved seeing her and her cubs every year. While she was there, no rogue fox came into the area


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> A peasant hitting your car at 30mph does fair bit of damage. You don't usually see the bird til it is in your path. I never swerve to avoid pheasant but do put my brakes on as hard as is safe. A pheasant hitting a biker in the face or chest has a good chance of being fatal.
> 
> All these pheasant farmers who allow their birds out roaming etc so some muppet can come along and shoot them, should be made to ring the birds and have public liabilty insurance. These birds fly up and in front of your casr, they are a danger to motor bikers and cause damage to cars. There isn't usually anyway to avoid them when they flush.


They are classed as wild animals much like cats


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

rona said:


> But the quote wasn't about that. Unless you read it differently to me.
> It didn't seem to refer to hunting at all but the slavery of animals


My interpretation was that their lives are defined on the whims of others and not by their own rights to live their own lives.

Sadly most animals are slaves to humans because we're 'so big and clever and have guns and stuff' we hold the cards on the outcome of their lives. We call the shots on their rights.

That is not right.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Look at how people react to dogs being killed and poisoned in foreign countries.....whats the difference between them doing that and us hunting our wild animals? its sick


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> My interpretation was that their lives are defined on the whims of others and not by their own rights to live their own lives.
> 
> Sadly most animals are slaves to humans because we're 'so big and clever and have guns and stuff' we hold the cards on the outcome of their lives. We call the shots on their rights.
> 
> That is not right.


OR

We keep them in unnatural conditions as pets


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> But you were also talking about emotions of the fox!! How do you know the emotions of the fox? I wish I did, I'd love to know how animals feel
> 
> I never lost any from my stock pen, despite a vixen living and rearing cubs only a few yards away for 7 years. She used to walk around one side of the pen when I was on the other side
> Loved seeing her and her cubs every year. While she was there, no rogue fox came into the area


Fear is an emotion in all animals. Do you know why? For survival.

A fox being chased down by a pack of growling dogs sends that fox running in fear to survive.

Thus that fox is feeling emotion.

I like foxes and have only seen a fox about twice in my life. One when I was going for a walk. It was running into bushes very far ahead of me so didn't actually get to see it properly.

Then I had a fox waking me up at three in the morning screaming because it was chasing a bird that was flying around high above it on the roundabout outside my flat.

Foxes can be a nuisance to farmers with chickens I agree but I always assume if you make sure your pen is nice and secure it is a very slim chance that fox can get in there.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> Look at how people react to dogs being killed and poisoned in foreign countries.....whats the difference between them doing that and us hunting our wild animals? its sick


It's not sick killing baby animals for food, that's lambs and piglets, or ripping mother and baby apart for our daily pinta, that's our dairy cows? 

If you can compare dogs to foxes then why not our poor farm animals?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rona said:


> OR
> 
> We keep them in unnatural conditions as pets


Stop it. It is late and you are making me think.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

rona said:


> *But you were also talking about emotions of the fox!! How do you know the emotions of the fox? * I wish I did, I'd love to know how animals feel
> 
> I never lost any from my stock pen, despite a vixen living and rearing cubs only a few yards away for 7 years. She used to walk around one side of the pen when I was on the other side
> Loved seeing her and her cubs every year. While she was there, no rogue fox came into the area


I think nearly every sentient creature on this earth understands the emotion we call fear. It is the instinct that makes a mother animal protect her cubs, a father animal face down the predator threatening his 'family' or territory.

I like to believe that most animals feel the emotion we call 'love' - you only have to look at the way a mother cat will cuddle her young. There is more there than just feeding them and making them strong.

Humans are very guilty of imposing our definition of emotions on animals which is rarely beneficial to either party.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> My interpretation was that their lives are defined on the whims of others and not by their own rights to live their own lives.
> 
> Sadly most animals are slaves to humans because we're 'so big and clever and have guns and stuff' we hold the cards on the outcome of their lives. We call the shots on their rights.
> 
> That is not right.


True.

I hate when people say we are the strongest animals and then show how by what animals we have killed. It's like crocs for an example to use. They are mighty dangerous animals. I have so much respect for them but when people boast on how they kill them, comparing to their size, danger, and strength means nothing.

We have to use guns to kill animals. Doesn't show strength to me.

Animals don't fear man. They fear the weapons that man uses.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> .
> 
> Foxes can be a nuisance to farmers with chickens I agree but I always assume if you make sure your pen is nice and secure it is a very slim chance that fox can get in there.


Cattle farmers and chicken farmers / owners see the fox as vermin killing their stock. Crop farmers see the fox as an ally as it keeps the rabbit population down.

One mans meat and all that....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Thank you to all those who care about animals & have taken time to sign the link. I've been a bit off colour today so im only replying to Rona's - for now! lol



rona said:


> I'm sure they do, but how do you know how they feel. I don't
> 
> Some times when I'm walking a fox will saunter past and another time another fox will flee in terror. I don't know why either react the way they do. I can't talk fox
> 
> ...


Of course there is no 'absolute' proof that foxes harried to their deaths feel terror or feel pain Just as theres no 'absolute' proof that say a cat chased and savaged by dogs feels terror or pain - we cant talk 'cat' either. But that they do is the most rational proposition, is it not?. A contrary suggestion would be absurd.

This is a common tactic used by the pro hunt set - obfuscation. We cant 'prove' that foxes feel terror or pain, so the pro hunters cant really be cruel. Smoke & mirrors

Illegal foxhunting (by MAFH) goes on all the time often with collusion of the police.

Foxes only account for a tiny fraction of livestock losses, the VAST majority die because of poor management.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> Fear is an emotion in all animals. Do you know why? For survival.
> 
> A fox being chased down by a pack of growling dogs sends that fox running in fear to survive.
> 
> ...


I must have seen 100s of foxes in my time. Beautiful animals, seen a couple almost as big as a Golden Retriever. 
They are the most intelligent creature, very very resourceful and determined when hungry. Sometimes they find a ***** in the protection in place. I've even seen a hole in wire netting ripped by a determined fox. The aftermath wasn't pleasant to see


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> Animals don't fear man. They fear the weapons that man uses.


It always saddens me that so many creatures live happily side by side, then I walk by and they all scurry for cover


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> I must have seen 100s of foxes in my time. Beautiful animals, seen a couple almost as big as a Golden Retriever.
> They are the most intelligent creature, very very resourceful and determined when hungry. Sometimes they find a ***** in the protection in place. I've even seen a hole in wire netting ripped by a determined fox. The aftermath wasn't pleasant to see


They shouldn't feel that hungry though to have to resort to doing that surely?

Not sure if this is because man keeps building so close to where foxes are and drive out the food they need.

I did always assume that is the case in most situations like that with animals.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> It always saddens me that so many creatures live happily side by side, then I walk by and they all scurry for cover


It is actually. Wouldn't you just love to be like Snow White.

I would love to be able to be up close to an animal, observing it and taking pictures without it running for cover.

But then some animals don't fear us. The ones that usually do have every reason to fear us if you get what I mean.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> They shouldn't feel that hungry though to have to resort to doing that surely?
> 
> Not sure if this is because man keeps building so close to where foxes are and drive out the food they need.
> 
> I did always assume that is the case in most situations like that with animals.


Usually when snow is on the ground or as it's been this winter, very wet.
All the foxes food goes to ground, literally
or an injured fox


----------



## Roger Downes (Sep 17, 2013)

In my view there is a evil streak in mankind that revels in death, destruction and misery. It was far more prevalent in years gone by. History is full of mans inhumanity to fellow man and animals. In so many areas that trait still exists.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> It's not sick killing baby animals for food, that's lambs and piglets, or ripping mother and baby apart for our daily pinta, that's our dairy cows?
> 
> If you can compare dogs to foxes then why not our poor farm animals?


Fine.. but is the solution then to say 'this is cruel and accepted, therefore all cruelty should be allowed', or should we say, 'this is cruel and accepted, lets do something to make it less so'?

Here comes a cliche - 2 wrongs dont make a right.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I like hunting foxes 

Got loads of pictures and videos :ciappa:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> Fine.. but is the solution then to say 'this is cruel and accepted, therefore all cruelty should be allowed', or should we say, 'this is cruel and accepted, lets do something to make it less so'?
> 
> Here comes a cliche - 2 wrongs dont make a right.


No, I just find it sad that people get up in arms about a few foxes when millions of farm animals suffer.

It's the skewed perspective I find hard to understand. It's like the fox is somehow better than a cow


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> No, I just find it sad that people get up in arms about a few foxes when millions of farm animals suffer.
> 
> It's the skewed perspective I find hard to understand. It's like the fox is somehow better than a cow


i find the opposite perspective very strange.. that livestock is better than a fox, or should have more rights than a fox. Who was there first? Which animal wouldnt even be here if not for humans?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> i find the opposite perspective very strange.. that livestock is better than a fox.


Who thinks that? Not this government that's for sure


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Who thinks that? Not this government that's for sure


no, they seem to hate all animals equally


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> No, I just find it sad that people get up in arms about a few foxes when millions of farm animals suffer.
> 
> It's the skewed perspective I find hard to understand. It's like the fox is somehow better than a cow


I don't think a fox is better than a cow, a horse, a pig, a sheep, or even a dog being killed.

Yes, I eat beef, pork and chicken, therefore it does mean I am agreeing to the animals being killed for me to consume it. But it still doesn't mean I don't feel some form of guilt and wonder how the animals are treated.

I know for a sure fact if I had the balls to see what it was like for an animal ready for the slaughterhouse or had the stomach to watch it happening, I would definitely not eat meat. A large percentage of people would too. Which is why we all like to remain ignorant really and why slaughterhouses do not offer tours.

I do agree we should be more made aware of where our food comes from. But that is a difference to actually seeing what happens. Otherwise, most people would not eat meat.

It does not necessary mean we favour certain animals over others.

If I heard cases (An example) of cows being killed in a horrific way such as having their heads chopped off then I would be totally against it and think it is just as cruel as foxes being hunted.

I know it doesn't necessary make it any better but foxes are hunted for nothing but pure fun and entertainment for people. Cows are killed for food for us. Yes, I know it can be horrific and that too many are killed for no reason but...

I do see all animals being tortured equal for me. The same way if a kitten was tortured or a sheep.

No animal is better than any other. They all serve a purpose to life and to live, just like to tiger we are putting closer to extinction all the way to the fox itself.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> I don't think a fox is better than a cow, a horse, a pig, a sheep, or even a dog being killed.
> 
> Yes, I eat beef, pork and chicken, therefore it does mean I am agreeing to the animals being killed for me to consume it. But it still doesn't mean I don't feel some form of guilt and wonder how the animals are treated.
> 
> ...


It's not the death that bothers me so much as they way they have to live 
Dairy is the cruelest industry. The calves are taken away, many male calves to instant death (many used by hunts to feed hounds) the cows are often lame through being made to walk on concrete or the bowed legs because of the huge udders they are just milk machines 

Campaigners warn against rise of the &#039;mega-farms&#039;: Could massive pig, fish and dairy units harm the environment? - Nature - Environment - The Independent

If you want to support farm animals
Compassion in World Farming - The farm animal welfare charity


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

In the words of Oscar Wilde-

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

That sums up fox hunting for me. Many years ago I worked in a hunt yard so I do have some knowledge of it. I am very anti hunt especially after seeing a load of hooray henrys baying for blood when a fox was cornered and couldn't get away  Sickening blood thirsty chinless wonders


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't approve of fox hunting for sport with horses and packs of hounds. All I'm really seeing at the moment is purely anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to people's emotions.

From the shooting times article..


> The Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs (FWFP), which helps control the numbers of foxes to protect livestock in upland Wales, commissioned research in Scotland, where there is no limit on the number of dogs that can be used to flush a fox.
> 
> *The research found that* using more dogs was not only a more effective way of finding problem foxes, but also *a faster and more humane way of killing them*, since the pursuit time was shorter and a pack would flush a fox from cover on average twice as quickly as a single pair of hounds.


Has anyone found a copy of this report.. any report which disproves this? What is the situation in Scotland?

Given the information supplied a change makes sense. From the information supplied it appears we aren't talking about horses and dogs despite the photos. According to the information given it's dogs flushing prey towards a gunman. Facts are needed and I am not seeing any.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I don't approve of fox hunting for sport with horses and packs of hounds. All I'm really seeing at the moment is purely anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to people's emotions.
> 
> From the shooting times article..
> 
> ...


Not sure if this is it and I haven't read it 
Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management - The role of hunting in wildlife management

http://fedwfp.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fwfp-research-release.pdf

http://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/amendment-of-the-hunting-act/

http://www.league.org.uk/news-and-o...2013/nov/pro-hunt-myths-exposed-in-new-report

Oh no they couldn't could they!!!
"Killing does not control fox numbers"


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I don't approve of fox hunting for sport with horses and packs of hounds. All I'm really seeing at the moment is purely anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to people's emotions.
> 
> From the shooting times article..
> 
> ...


A non peer reviewed report commissioned by Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs on a politically explosive issue that a minority desperately would like to see change, where the lead researcher is bizarrely a top national hunt race trainer with no previous research in this area.

Yep seems legit 

Funding bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> A non peer reviewed report


So peer reviewed things are the only thing worth looking at.. maybe you should read up on peer review and the fact even people like editors of lancet say they aren't worth much. Let's face it, the peer reviewers aren't even associated with the report so there's no comeback.



lennythecloud said:


> commissioned by Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs on a politically explosive issue that a minority desperately would like to see change, where the lead researcher is bizarrely a top national hunt race trainer with no previous research in this area.


Compared to nothing other than an appeal to emotions and anti-government protest...

Seems to be logic doesn't come into the discussion. Wasn't fox hunting banned in Scotland in 2002? Yet they still have the no limit on dogs? Works in Scotland, cannot work in the UK...

Backdoor to legalizing hunts, possible, however lets get the facts into the discussion and if people are going to protest, make sure the protest is to close possible loopholes using the opportunity.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Google 'hounds ripping foxes apart on hunts' then click on 'images'

Maybe you will see why so many people are against fox hunting (or any hunting that involves hounds running down and killing their prey just for the sport of the humans in charge).

If you hunt and eat what you kill, fine, if you hunt for sport... I can't type what I would like to say I think of you (generic you)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> By keeping your own livestock and also killing it for the pot is one thing but what do you do with dead foxes , badgers and maybe otters? Otter and badger are off the menu for the time being but the stroke of a pen could change all that overnight.
> 
> Killing for the pot from something that hasn't been chased til its lungs burst and in constant panic and terror is totally different from some moron chasing and killing for nothing more than the fun of it.
> 
> Hunting has been banned, it was campaigned and lobbied for for years. ONly reason its been brought out of the past is cos Cameron is desperate for votes and we are due an election.





lilythepink said:


> I live in a very rural area and there are always plenty dead things on the local roads here.
> 
> Last autumn, my daughter was driving my car under the speed limit when a roe stag jumped out and landed on the bonnet of my car. I was front passenger, I thought the deer was going to come through the windscreen. It didn't but did manage to do £300 damage to my car. Not all animal deaths are causeed by speeding.


Are you saying every fox hunted is killed in this way? As you know, most foxes are shot, they never even run, don't have the chance of getting away even. Which would you say is more humane, the rifle, or the pack? The fox doesn't know the difference, humanising it doesn't make it any crueller, but the fact is with a pack of hounds, the fox has a chance of getting away, it doesn't if someone goes out and lamps for it with a rifle and calls for it.



MoggyBaby said:


> Cattle farmers and chicken farmers / owners see the fox as vermin killing their stock. Crop farmers see the fox as an ally as it keeps the rabbit population down.
> 
> One mans meat and all that....


Very black and white! And I doubt if a crop farmer is even bothered, most use pesticides these days. 



Blackcats said:


> They shouldn't feel that hungry though to have to resort to doing that surely?
> 
> Not sure if this is because man keeps building so close to where foxes are and drive out the food they need.
> 
> I did always assume that is the case in most situations like that with animals.


Tell the fox that, I'm sure they would understand if you told them they shouldn't feel hungry.



MCWillow said:


> Google 'hounds ripping foxes apart on hunts' then click on 'images'
> 
> Maybe you will see why so many people are against fox hunting (or any hunting that involves hounds running down and killing their prey just for the sport of the humans in charge).
> 
> If you hunt and eat what you kill, fine, if you hunt for sport... I can't type what I would like to say I think of you (generic you)


And google how most of your meat products are made, and you'll see a whole world of cruelty.

I'm not pro fox hunting, I'm not anti fox hunting either, but the vast majority of cruelty in this country comes through ignorance. People ploughing their way through the countryside at a stupid speed mowing down everything in their path. And people eating their way through their McHappy meals and two for a fiver chickens etc, etc. If people voted where it mattered, ie through their life style, it would make a helluva lot more difference to real animal welfare.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you saying every fox hunted is killed in this way? As you know, most foxes are shot, they never even run, don't have the chance of getting away even. *Which would you say is more humane, the rifle, or the pack? The fox doesn't know the difference,* humanising it doesn't make it any crueller, but the fact is with a pack of hounds, the fox has a chance of getting away, it doesn't if someone goes out and lamps for it with a rifle and calls for it.
> 
> The rifle if in the hands of a marksman. I'm quite sure a fox hunted with a rifle is far less stressed than a fox chased by hounds as a general rule
> 
> ...


Agreed 

I'm little worried that we are putting over that all farming is bad which of course it isn't, but suffice to say, that farming has been a generally male orientated business with usually in my experience, a lot of competitive/testosterone driven behaviour


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Google 'hounds ripping foxes apart on hunts' then click on 'images'


Not the issue being implemented. If we are going to debate the issue, let's debate it not mislead.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> I don't approve of fox hunting for sport with horses and packs of hounds. All I'm really seeing at the moment is purely anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to people's emotions.
> 
> That's because you have your blinkers on again lol. When any organisation/government systematically sets about destroying our most precious assets; ie wildlife, the environment ~ our natural world, the NHS, I don't care who they are, I am going to shout it from the rooftops:thumbsup:- it just happens to be THIS government.-
> 
> ...


Refer to Lennys post...and this >>

The



Goblin said:


> So peer reviewed things are the only thing worth looking at.. maybe you should read up on peer review and the fact even people like editors of lancet say they aren't worth much. Let's face it, the peer reviewers aren't even associated with the report so there's no comeback.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> ...


The legislation is very clear, many of the hunts simply choose to ignore it knowing in many instances they have the police and the courts on their side. The act itself works, proof of that are the successful convictions.

Conservatives against fox hunting (Blue Fox). Farmer speaks out against relaxation of Hunt ban. March 2014 « Conservatives Against Fox Hunting Dear me, _more_ 'anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to peoples emotions'. 

Copied from the link >>

Farmer speaks out against relaxation of Hunt ban. March 2014

Dear Mr Eustice

I gather that you/your department is angling to bring back hunting with dogs by the devious means of increasing the number of dogs allowed under the hunting act, which currently allows for 2 dogs.

I am a farmer in the Southwest - Mid Devon.

I have had and still hold interests in other businesses.

On my farm holding I have approx. 10,000 free range chicken (as high as 20,000 in the past) and at this time of the year plenty of lambs.

I have a healthy number of foxes which are not controlled in any way.

It is very simple and inexpensive to organise farming practice to avoid stock losses to foxes.

Foxes save me a great deal by controlling rabbits (reducing crop losses) and rats, they are more valuable to a farmer alive than dead.

There is no justifiable case for killing foxes.

Hunting is not a sport, it is plain and simple murder by cowards of creatures which cannot fight back.

When I was young I used to shoot but realised by my late teens (mid 1960s) that there was no competition and I had no moral right to destroy our natural heritage, creatures which belong to the nation.

Too many of our native species (flora and Fauna) have already been decimated - it's time to stop the destruction.

I think that people who have a desire to kill for the sake of it need psychiatric help.

I was born into a staunchly Conservative family and been a Conservative all my life.

In common with approx. 80% of countryside people I am totally against the return of foxhunting in particular, a practice which has no value or place in a modern civilised society.

If hunting with dogs returns as a consequence of Conservative party action I will never vote Conservative again.

Yours sincerely

Graham Cooper

We receive many emails from Farmers who do not want to see a return of hunting or the relaxation of the ban. The above letter was sent to us in March 2014



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you saying every fox hunted is killed in this way? As you know, most foxes are shot, they never even run, don't have the chance of getting away even. Which would you say is more humane, the rifle, or the pack? The fox doesn't know the difference, humanising it doesn't make it any crueller, but the fact is with a pack of hounds, the fox has a chance of getting away, it doesn't if someone goes out and lamps for it with a rifle and calls for it.
> 
> Very black and white! And I doubt if a crop farmer is even bothered, most use pesticides these days.
> 
> *I'm not pro fox hunting,* I'm not anti fox hunting either, but the vast majority of cruelty in this country comes through ignorance. People ploughing their way through the countryside at a stupid speed mowing down everything in their path. And people eating their way through their McHappy meals and two for a fiver chickens etc, etc. If people voted where it mattered, ie through their life style, it would make a helluva lot more difference to real animal welfare.


No, of course you're not:lol:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> It's not sick killing baby animals for food, that's lambs and piglets, or ripping mother and baby apart for our daily pinta, that's our dairy cows?
> 
> If you can compare dogs to foxes then why not our poor farm animals?


but I can compare...2 wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I have had horses all my life....I have been out with hounds hunting.drag hunting. Nothing takes your breath away better than going out on a winter morning as the mist is rising and you can see the horses and hounds....its a magnificent sight and one that should be preserved...but no animal has to die for that.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Rona, I can't quote you as your text is within the text you quoted from me, but re the foxes that are shot by a good marksman, not only is that considered by many people unacceptable, because they don't like to think of appealing animals being shot, but it's simply a nonsense to me as foxes probably wouldn't care one way or the other. They are a wild animal, and like any wild animal, live their lives in fear of being predated on by *something* else. If they are shot, they have no chance of escaping, if they are chased by someone on horseback with a pack of hounds, there's a possibility of them getting away, although they will obviously be fearful when being chased. But then I wonder how many other fearful points in their life from *bumping* into humans we cause that don't result in their possible death (although some possibly do, thinking of all those clipped by cars to limp off to a painful slow death) but simple things like people walking past their den or where they're resting. 

It's people's perception of what's cruel that is on it's head. One minute signing a petition against fox hunting because that's *obviously* cruel. The next minute down the supermarket stacking their trollies full of stuff that will be from a much crueller process, but also so wasteful. How many chickens have breast reduction surgery and yet how many people won't eat meat because they don't really like the thought of killing a cute fluffy lamb, but will eat chicken breast meat?? It's just mad!!! What do they think happens to the rest of it, and do they really think chicken is the *kindest* meat on the supermarket shelf? 

Yet if anyone were to start a petition that actually made a difference, ie ban large scale production of chicken raised in cruel circumstances, even ban supermarkets which have pushed prices lower than many small producers can compete with, and there would be absolutely no support whatsoever, because that would mean people would have to actually make changes to their lives. 

Much easier to sign a petition that means very little but *saves* a cute fluffy animal from being chased by nasty people and killed.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

i bypassed the thread after first couple pages as too many silly arguements

so dont know if this has already been mentioned, but why dont they just change the law to thus.....

abolish the hunting with dogs act, which is silly anyway, as its too clumsy and awkward, and even people walking their dogs can break this law, and instead have a law that just says its illegal to hunt just foxes, apart from farmers whom can get a special licence to only shoot foxes that are a threat to their livestock.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Rona, I can't quote you as your text is within the text you quoted from me, but re the foxes that are shot by a good marksman, not only is that considered by many people unacceptable, because they don't like to think of appealing animals being shot, but it's simply a nonsense to me as foxes probably wouldn't care one way or the other. They are a wild animal, and like any wild animal, live their lives in fear of being predated on by *something* else. If they are shot, they have no chance of escaping, if they are chased by someone on horseback with a pack of hounds, there's a possibility of them getting away, although they will obviously be fearful when being chased. But then I wonder how many other fearful points in their life from *bumping* into humans we cause that don't result in their possible death (although some possibly do, thinking of all those clipped by cars to limp off to a painful slow death) but simple things like people walking past their den or where they're resting.
> 
> It's people's perception of what's cruel that is on it's head. One minute signing a petition against fox hunting because that's *obviously* cruel. The next minute down the supermarket stacking their trollies full of stuff that will be from a much crueller process, but also so wasteful. How many chickens have breast reduction surgery and yet how many people won't eat meat because they don't really like the thought of killing a cute fluffy lamb, but will eat chicken breast meat?? It's just mad!!! What do they think happens to the rest of it, and do they really think chicken is the *kindest* meat on the supermarket shelf?
> 
> ...


Or rejoicing in the bargain clothing they have bought which has knowingly or unknowingly by them been manufactured in a sweat shop. If things that supposedly cause animal suffering should all be banned then surely pet ownership itself needs to be stopped - how many cats and dogs are currently languishing in rescues centres or have already been destroyed this year - not to mention the ones that are currently being ill treated by their owners.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Rona, I can't quote you as your text is within the text you quoted from me, but re the foxes that are shot by a good marksman, not only is that considered by many people unacceptable, because they don't like to think of appealing animals being shot, but it's simply a nonsense to me as foxes probably wouldn't care one way or the other. They are a wild animal, and like any wild animal, live their lives in fear of being predated on by *something* else. If they are shot, they have no chance of escaping, if they are chased by someone on horseback with a pack of hounds, there's a possibility of them getting away, although they will obviously be fearful when being chased. But then I wonder how many other fearful points in their life from *bumping* into humans we cause that don't result in their possible death (although some possibly do, thinking of all those clipped by cars to limp off to a painful slow death) but simple things like people walking past their den or where they're resting.
> 
> It's people's perception of what's cruel that is on it's head. One minute signing a petition against fox hunting because that's *obviously* cruel. The next minute down the supermarket stacking their trollies full of stuff that will be from a much crueller process, but also so wasteful. How many chickens have breast reduction surgery and yet how many people won't eat meat because they don't really like the thought of killing a cute fluffy lamb, but will eat chicken breast meat?? It's just mad!!! What do they think happens to the rest of it, and do they really think chicken is the *kindest* meat on the supermarket shelf?
> 
> ...












Humans are wild animals too. Would YOU prefer to be chased to exhausation by a pack of dogs and then ripped limb from limb, or would you prefer to get shot unexpectedly?

As for trying to make this barbaric bloodsport seem like the more sporting option because the foxes have some chance of escape.. If it werent so ridiculous i would laugh at such a statement.

I've got a solution - Legalise foxhunting, but also make it legal to hunt foxhunters. Then we'd see how highly you lot value your "sport". Pretty sure there'd be a lot less people playing this sick game if there was ANY chance of the quarry fighting back.

The life of a fox is worth WAY more than that of a foxhunter.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Laurac said:


> Or rejoicing in the bargain clothing they have bought which has knowingly or unknowingly by them been manufactured in a sweat shop. If things that supposedly cause animal suffering should all be banned then surely pet ownership itself needs to be stopped - how many cats and dogs are currently languishing in rescues centres or have already been destroyed this year - not to mention the ones that are currently being ill treated by their owners.


Exactly! And yet when people post against random breeding in the breeding sections of the forum, quite often they're told they're being harsh. I really struggle to understand the *perception* of cruelty some people have.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> i bypassed the thread after first couple pages as too many silly arguements
> 
> so dont know if this has already been mentioned, but why dont they just change the law to thus.....
> 
> abolish the hunting with dogs act, which is silly anyway, as its too clumsy and awkward, and even people walking their dogs can break this law, and instead have a law that just says its illegal to hunt just foxes, apart from farmers whom can get a special licence to only shoot foxes that are a threat to their livestock.


Most prosecutions have been for hare coursing I believe but no one mentions that because it isn't a spectacle and the types that normally partake aren't rich.
Other prosecutions have been for going after Rats and rabbits that aren't even protected under the hunting act unless the perpetrators haven't permission.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Laurac said:


> If things that supposedly cause animal suffering should all be banned then surely pet ownership itself needs to be stopped - how many cats and dogs are currently languishing in rescues centres or have already been destroyed this year - not to mention the ones that are currently being ill treated by their owners.


the difference (obviously) is that hunting a fox with hounds is ALWAYS a cruel act INTENDED to harm the animal. Pet ownership is often not a cruel act, and is rarely intended to cause harm to the animals.

I cant beleive you think owning a pet is comparable to hunting foxes... i dont really think the double facepalm is gonna cut it for you..


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

whats with the trend on this forum to post up pictures with phrases?

i mean, i get the impression its some sort of faceache sort of thing whereby people doing it think they are trendy and cool and clever?

but it just comes over as a bit shallow, unimaginative, and sheep like, to be honest


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lennythecloud said:


> Dog fighting never went away either. By the same logic, surely it's better to have that open and regulated too as opposed to under the radar...


From pathos to bathos 



emma20 said:


> Sorry of I don't come across right but if it was open and regulated would people that don't hunt now start hunting? Would those that hunt under the radar just hunt as they were?


I think they would be more open.



porps said:


> Yes it is sad that people would get sacked and wouldnt be able to feed their families if they are late to work too many times.. It is sad that there are so few jobs around that people are prepared to break the speed limit to make sure they dont end up out of work.
> 
> how is that relevant to killing animals for a bit of a laugh?
> 
> Sport hunters are just evil cowards. They need culling, not our wildlife.


I think maybe if peole didn't break the law by driving like idiots because they're in such a rush then maybe less roadkill would occur. Possibly. Who knows. I don't think it's necessary to break the law to get to work nor will it help you retain your job when you're done for speeding.



porps said:


> No, i'm one of those people who would never intentionally kill or harm an animal for my own amusement.


Google Red Lion slaughter house. Unless you don't eat meat and you only ever use sustainable organic food, then it's not possible to be Mr Clean, sorry. You don't need meat to live, you're not an obligate carnivore.



porps said:


> Fine.. but is the solution then to say 'this is cruel and accepted, therefore all cruelty should be allowed', or should we say, 'this is cruel and accepted, lets do something to make it less so'?
> 
> Here comes a cliche - 2 wrongs dont make a right.





porps said:


> I've got a solution - Legalise foxhunting, but also make it legal to hunt foxhunters. Then we'd see how highly you lot value your "sport". Pretty sure there'd be a lot less people playing this sick game if there was ANY chance of the quarry fighting back.
> 
> The life of a fox is worth WAY more than that of a foxhunter.


See, you're saying SL is taking the mick with her arguments/posts, yet here you are also doing similar with ever more ridiculous arguments. What you've written here is just silly.

I agree whole heartedly with what Rona says about a few fluffy animals compared to livestock which is often incredibly badly treated so we can have a nice steak-consider how much of the rainforest is going each day so we can enjoy the occasional McDonalds or other fast food or your choice.

I agree that there are much bigger issues at stake and concentrating on a relatively minor issue such as whether fox hunting should be re-legalised is not ultimately going to matter, in my opinion.

These threads always end up with rows and stupid arguments going in circles. I don't know why I bother, I'm clearly an idiot. Rehashed and done to death with zero hope of an outcome that will satisfy anyone.


----------



## Roger Downes (Sep 17, 2013)

Referring to the original post, what I understand, one of the main concerns on the possible amendment to the Hunting act is that in Scotland where more than two dogs are allowed to flush out the hunted animal, there has been no successful prosecutions which is indicative of the law being unenforceable when more than two dogs are used. This in turn would effectively greatly reduce the potency of the Hunting Act. To me the following link is a level headed view by the Anti Hunting and Welfare loby why the Hunting Act should not be amended.
http://tinyurl.com/pczbj52
As humans I believe we have a duty of care to all creatures, whether that is pets, farm or wild animals. I dont have the answer to all questions, but I do what I feel I can to help alleviate the suffering and cruelty towards animals.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I cannot get over the fact people think it ok to get your jollies from hunting an innocent animal, but there you go.

I'm not going to bother doing this however, my MP is one of the main ones responsible for a lot of the worst policies that have gone through, sadly.  So there is absolutely no point appealing to his humane side.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I'm not going to bother doing this however, my MP is one of the main ones responsible for a lot of the worst policies that have gone through, sadly.  So there is absolutely no point appealing to his humane side.


I will not be mailing my MP on this as he will not be swayed. This was his reply to me bck in November when I put the point to him then:

_Dear __________,

Thank you for your email regarding the Hunting Act 2004.

I appreciate that there are always going to be very different views about fox hunting, and I completely respect your view. However, as you know, I am in favour of repealing the Act, which I believe does little to protect wild animals. I made my position on this issue very clear before the election, through public debates, newspaper articles and my own website, and my position remains the same.

Having considered this matter carefully, I just do not believe the current law works. While it is Parliaments job to make laws, and the courts job to interpret and administer them, a good law should always be clear on when a practice is lawful, and when it is not. The Hunting Act does not do this. Under the current law on hunting there are exemptions, so when someone is flushing out an animal, using no more than two dogs, with a view to shooting the animal once it breaks cover, they are operating within the law. Despite this practice being followed by a number of farmers on their own land there have been a series of wrongful convictions, which is just not acceptable. Farmers have to be able to effectively protect their livestock from attack by wild animals, and they should be supported in doing so, and I am concerned by reports that fox attacks on livestock are on the increase. In my view the Hunting Act is a badly written law that fails farmers and does not satisfy legitimate animal welfare concerns, for both livestock and wildlife. This is why after giving the matter careful thought, and after listening to the many strong opinions on both sides of the debate, I would support a repeal of the Hunting Act.

The Conservative Party was clear before the election that if elected, it would put forward a motion on a free vote to allow politicians to express their views on the repeal of the Hunting Act. However, because of much more pressing economic issues, a vote is not a priority. Helping the unemployed back into work, reforming our immigration system, and supporting hardworking families with the cost of living are amongst the most important issues facing our country at the present time, and I support the Government in making these absolute priorities.

I appreciate that you have sincerely held concerns about hunting and I do respect your view. However, as I say, after considering this matter carefully, I would vote to repeal the Act.

I am sorry if this is not the response you were seeking, but thank you again for taking the time and trouble to share your views with me.

Yours sincerely,

_______________

In my crass naivety, I thought the Hunting Act was a done deal and was not aware of the push to repeal it. I did not notice this part of his manifesto.

I will NOT be making the same mistake next year, let me assure you!!!! 

ETA: I have just emailed my MP again, despite knowing it will make no difference to his views, because I will know that I at least tried. 'Tis better to have tried and failed than to have not bothered my ass doing nothing. 
.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Google Red Lion slaughter house. Unless you don't eat meat and you only ever use sustainable organic food, then it's not possible to be Mr Clean, sorry. You don't need meat to live, you're not an obligate carnivore.


which part of "for my own amusement" are you having trouble understanding?



cinnamontoast said:


> See, you're saying SL is taking the mick with her arguments/posts, yet here you are also doing similar with ever more ridiculous arguments. What you've written here is just silly.


The difference being, a fox hunter isnt an inoncent creature, they're bloodthirsty cowards who in my opinion deserve a taste of their own medicine.

YOU might think foxes being horrifically killed by bloodthirsty idiots who think its funny is a minor issue. i, and clearly many others ,do not.

Aint it funny how the only argument put forward FOR fox hunting so far has been "cruelty happens elsewhere too" ? as if that makes it ok... as if that isnt actually admitting that they even they know its cruel, but theyre ok with that...

So, it's ok to do evil things- so long as there are other evil things going on that justifies it. "you eat meat therefore its ok for me to kill a fox for a bit of fun" Well if thats the logic we're using (where one bad thing justifies another) my conclusion is "if you kill foxes, that justifies someone killing you". More than justifies it.

"i know its cruel, but because i can think of something more cruel we should just ignore it"... thats what i'm hearing. In that case, shouldnt we be ignoring common assaults since murder is worse? Are we now only capable of caring about one issue at a time or what?

Like i said - the life of a fox is much more valuable than that of a fox hunter, and the only good fox hunter is a dead fox hunter.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> whats with the trend on this forum to post up pictures with phrases?
> 
> i mean, i get the impression its some sort of faceache sort of thing whereby people doing it think they are trendy and cool and clever?
> 
> but it just comes over as a bit shallow, unimaginative, and sheep like, to be honest


Lol, theyre called memes, and yeah i usually dont like em, they are kinda bandwagonny (yes its a word!) by definition.. Thats the first time i've ever posted one. I didnt do it to look cool, i did it because the arguments presented to me were so utterly idiotic that i didnt feel they warranted a proper response.

But for the record, you could count the amount i care about your opinion of me on the fingers of one knee.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ANd im out, lest i get this thread closed down, not in the mood to pussy foot around with evil ******s today.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

porps said:


> which part of "for my own amusement" are you having trouble understanding?
> 
> The difference being, a fox hunter isnt an inoncent creature, they're bloodthirsty cowards who in my opinion deserve a taste of their own medicine.
> 
> ...


I have understood everything perfectly, thanks, I'm not actually thick.

I think you missed the bit about me saying I don't hunt....

And to say an animal's life is more valuable than that of a human? Words fail me. I'm an animal lover, not an unbalanced person who thinks it would be ok to kill someone because they hunt. Dear me.  Perhaps I should pop round to the fram round the corner and batter the farmer with a shovel for having killed a fox a couple of years ago that was trying to get to his mini lambs? Or should I give my sister-in-law poison because she used to hunt? By your reasoning, yes, I should. Slightly askew, imo.

I'm an evil ********?! Funny. Not.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I think many people are clueless as to what is actually involved in fox hunting or hunting with dogs. Its a case of if they don't see it or mix in circles where this goes on, they have no idea.

I would be very surprised at somebody on the fence seeing the realities of hunting not being knocked sick by it and becoming very anti hunt.

On the other hand people who do know what is what.....how do they sleep at night?

it doesn't make any difference to comparing this barbaric practice....and its not a sport in my book, its for sicko uncivilised people of all walks of life who must have something missing in their heads to approve of any of this. Comparing bad farming practice to hunting re cruelty....so what? You can compare all you like to the evils in this world and cruelty will never stop....that doesn't give the green light and a so what attitude to carry on doing this. 

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.The more sensible people who see this vile practice, surely the more people will want to stop it?

Nobody owns our wildlife, its there for all to appreciate....its not there for any to abuse.

I find it strange too how soppy many people are re their own domestic pets are pro hunting or pro choice. Its not that long ago otter and badger were on the hit list either....thankfully, they are protected.unless of course you are the government


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> I find it strange too how soppy many people are re their own domestic pets are pro hunting or pro choice.* Its not that long ago otter and badger were on the hit list either....thankfully, they are protected*.unless of course you are the government


I think, in view of events over the last year, the badgers might be inclined to disagree with this comment. 

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> IMO, hunting has never gone away, it's just been advertised as no longer allowed. From what I hear (I don't hunt myself, haven't got the guts) plenty of hunts have carried right on. Surely better to have it open and regulatd as opposed to under the radar?
> 
> *Dons tin hat and goes out for the day*


Yes, I guess it takes guts to hunt a 14lb defenceless animal with a pack of dogs

Seriously?



Sterling said:


> Agreed. Hunter/gatherer comes to mind.
> 
> Dont attempt to forbid me from caring for offspring, please.....


 blood lust springs to my mind - we don't tend to eat foxes in this country.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Exactly! And yet when people post against random breeding in the breeding sections of the forum, quite often they're told they're being harsh. I really struggle to understand the *perception* of cruelty some people have.


So I see.

You'll find most right thinking people have common values, one example is the value to want to protect the defenceless from human abuses.



cinnamontoast said:


> From pathos to bathos
> 
> I think they would be more open.
> 
> ...


I started this thread to raise awareness & to appeal to like minded members to sign the automated email to their MP to lobby them to oppose the motion. If blood sports enthusiasts have taken it personally and chose to debate the issue, that is their problem - not mine.

,


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Not the issue being implemented. If we are going to debate the issue, let's debate it not mislead.


So this is what this topic is about


> Cameron plots to ease hunting ban
> 
> Jonathan Leake and Marie Woolf Published: 16 March 2014
> Comment (43) Print
> ...


I'd say its more misleading expecting people to believe that a pack of 40 hounds, that have been whipped up into a frenzy, chasing a fox, is suddenly going to stop and sit when they catch it up, and the fox will stand still waiting to be shot.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> I will not be mailing my MP on this as he will not be swayed. This was his reply to me bck in November when I put the point to him then:
> 
> _Dear __________,
> 
> ...


and that's all you can do - try

* The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (or good women in your case) to do nothing.

Edmund Burke
*

,


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Yes, I guess it takes guts to hunt a 14lb defenceless animal with a pack of dogs
> 
> Seriously?


Sitting on top of a 600kg horse flying along at over 30mph and jumping massive hedges not knowing what's on the other side-yes, noushka, it _does_ take guts. I'm not on about getting hold of the fox, as you know fine well.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> That's because you have your blinkers on again lol. When any organisation/government systematically sets about destroying our most precious assets; ie wildlife, the environment ~ our natural world, the NHS, I don't care who they are, I am going to shout it from the rooftops- it just happens to be THIS government.


What's blinkered.. accepting only one side of the debate or actually asking for information on both sides to be able to make an informed decision? Surely only looking at one side, dismissing everything else is blinkered.



noushka05 said:


> How convenient.


What, admitting "peer review" isn't the be all and end all instead of using the label to simply dismiss anything inconvenient. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association "'If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market". Or how about Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, "Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain". Hardly a glowing recommendation for dismissing things using that argument is it 



noushka05 said:


> The situation in Scotland is hunting with dogs is BANNED.


At the start of the legislation in 2002, 10 hunts existed (I assume fox), after bill was passed 9 were granted exceptions. Since then 2 more hunts have been allowed dogs. Very effective legislation.



> I started this thread to raise awareness & to appeal to like minded members to sign the automated email to their MP to lobby them to oppose the motion. If blood sports enthusiasts have taken it personally and chose to debate the issue, that is their problem - not mine.


Even here you are unable to simply post information so people can make an informed choice, choosing instead to label any person opposing your view as a supporter of blood sports. That's not the case. All you have is hearsay pushing for a kneejerk reaction. This is actually an opportunity if people could actually get their heads out of the clouds. Changes are being pushed for.. how about agreeing to the idea of change and make sure there's a debate including the addition of closing potential loopholes in the legislation. Of course that would mean actually getting factual information out.



MCWillow said:


> I'd say its more misleading expecting people to believe that a pack of 40 hounds


Yet where is the "pack of 40 hounds" coming from? It's supposition, not fact as to the change requested or to be debated.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Sitting on top of a 600kg horse flying along at over 30mph and jumping massive hedges not knowing what's on the other side-yes, noushka, it _does_ take guts. I'm not on about getting hold of the fox, as you know fine well.


I didn't know fine well actually, so thanks for clarifying.

Its only a pity there aren't more deterrents to stop people joining hunts.

..


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Sitting on top of a 600kg horse flying along at over 30mph and jumping massive hedges not knowing what's on the other side-yes, noushka, it _does_ take guts. I'm not on about getting hold of the fox, as you know fine well.


not guts...just loving the thrill of the ultimate white knuckle ride where man and horse do it for the sheer pleasure of doing it.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> I didn't know fine well actually, so thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Its only a pity there aren't more deterrents to stop people joining hunts.
> 
> ..


slap a massive surcharge on the hunt balls. Many don't go to see a kill, they go to rub shoulders with what they think are upper crust landed gentry...a cut above the rest and all that. I don't think anybody goes with a view of killing vermin.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> What's blinkered.. accepting only one side of the debate or actually asking for information on both sides to be able to make an informed decision? Surely only looking at one side, dismissing everything else is blinkered.
> 
> Blinkered to assume this >> purely anti-government politically driven propaganda appealing to people's emotions.
> 
> ...


Sorry but how on earth are we suppose to do that? This government know they would never win a vote to repeal the hunting act so they have found a sly way of weakening it - using the SI.

The Government is trying to bring back hunting
The Government have indicated that they are considering amending the Hunting Act by using an Affirmative Statutory Instrument (SI), a type of legislation that can be used to push unpopular changes through Parliament with less scrutiny than a full vote on repeal would require.

This SI would lift the limit on the number of dogs used to flush out wild mammals and in doing so, with a full pack of up to 40 hounds being used, would make the Act impossible to police and undermine the legislation to such an extent it would be made toothless.

We believe the vote could take place on Wednesday 26th March so we need you to contact your MP immediately and urge them to vote against this devious attempt to bring back cruelty.

League Against Cruel Sports


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> not guts...just loving the thrill of the ultimate white knuckle ride where man and horse do it for the sheer pleasure of doing it.


Thank you for this Lily, I don't ride but I imagine its quite a feeling



lilythepink said:


> slap a massive surcharge on the hunt balls. Many don't go to see a kill, they go to rub shoulders with what they think are upper crust landed gentry...a cut above the rest and all that. I don't think anybody goes with a view of killing vermin.


Good idea. Pity they cant just gallop around the countryside apreciating nature instead of killing it.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

In view of the fact that many of us are apparently only seeing one side of the debate, why not discuss dog fighting & various forms of animal baiting while we're at it? 

After all, they all come under the umbrella of 'blood sports'........ 

















Oh wait, because hunting is elitist & in the main practiced by the wealthy, Tory MPs & the like, so it's obviously a more acceptable way of an animal being killed for fun in the eyes of our Esteemed Leaders.

It saddens me that some of the pro-hunt people on here are pretty level headed about other subjects yet seem so indoctrinated they can't see why many of us see it as cruel but don't seem to have a reasoned argument to back themselves up  

What is so wrong with drag hunting & why is it not enough for so many people? Why do hunt supporters feel the need to involve tormenting & killing an animal? I would actually enjoy a day's gallop across beautiful countryside with friends, followed by a round & meal at the pub, why is it so hard to NOT include the death of an animal in that? What element does chasing an animal to exhaustion add to what could be a nice day out? I would be really interested to know.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Lol, theyre called memes, and yeah i usually dont like em, they are kinda bandwagonny (yes its a word!) by definition.. Thats the first time i've ever posted one. I didnt do it to look cool, i did it because the arguments presented to me were so utterly idiotic that i didnt feel they warranted a proper response.
> 
> But for the record, you could count the amount i care about your opinion of me on the fingers of one knee.


yes, i know all about memes, but i didnt know these things came under that category to.
memes are a concept discussed by richard dawkins to describe stuff that spreads around the internet in a virus like fashion, as people copy what everyone says or does on the net without thinking about it for themselves first. memes usually apply to things that go round the net as fact but is usually nonsense. such as a petition on a petition site couple years back that got hundreds and thousands of outraged signatures and comments and spread thru many dog forums. this petition was against the government adding staffies to the banned dogs list. but the petition had no reference to the law being proposed, and the fact was it was bullshit and totally untrue. yet everyone copied everyone else, as they didnt think for themselves. thats a meme, LOL.
didnt think of these pictures in those terms, but i can see how they could be.

at least the last line in your post isnt a phrase written over top of a picture of a knee :thumbsup:

(even though i never gave my opinion of you in particular )


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Good idea. Pity they cant just gallop around the countryside apreciating nature instead of killing it.


Well, as they are no longer allowed to horse-whip their serfs, the upper-crust bully-boys have to feed their power-ego somehow. :thumbdown:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

simplysardonic said:


> In view of the fact that many of us are apparently only seeing one side of the debate, why not discuss dog fighting & various forms of animal baiting while we're at it?
> 
> After all, they all come under the umbrella of 'blood sports'........
> 
> ...


hunting isn't an elitist past time, and its not just riders who go but also people follow on foot.

Its an expensive hobby, plenty low income people keep horses, any horse really could go hunting, hunt horses are not a specific breed or type. Joining fees and renewal fees can be expensive but hunting and all the gear to go with it can be managed.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> hunting isn't an elitist past time, and its not just riders who go but also people follow on foot.
> 
> Its an expensive hobby, plenty low income people keep horses, any horse really could go hunting, hunt horses are not a specific breed or type. Joining fees and renewal fees can be expensive but hunting and all the gear to go with it can be managed.


That's why I said 'in the main'  I have nothing against the social side, just the fact that the ultimate goal for many is to kill something, not for the pot, but for the hell of it, it's not even considered an effective method of vermin control.

When it boils down to it pitting a pack of dogs against a fox or other wildlife is no different to setting a dog on a bull or 2 dogs or gamecocks on each other, & the government isn't seeking to bring these back by stealth, so what is the essential difference?

That wasn't a question directed at you in particular lilythepink


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

I'm always astounded by the hunt, who feel the need to change horses after they've ridden it for a while because "it's tired and not running as fast" so they change it for a new horse, yet the fox is chased without rest.   In the field adjacent to me, there was a fox hunt there recently, the hunt-master was on his mobile 'phone ringing others telling them where to head off as he'd seen a fox head in that direction..." Oh yes, definitely a fair fight/sport. Killing for the pot is one thing, hunting for *sport* another.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> (even though i never gave my opinion of you in particular )


if i took your comment the wrong way i apologise


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> It saddens me that some of the pro-hunt people on here are pretty level headed about other subjects yet seem so indoctrinated they can't see why many of us see it as cruel but don't seem to have a reasoned argument to back themselves up


I've only seen one that *may* be pro hunt on this thread, and even they haven't ever hunted to hounds 

So who are you talking about?

I think it is the anti fraction that cannot see what people are actually writing.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> I've only seen one that *may* be pro hunt on this thread, and even they haven't ever hunted to hounds
> 
> So who are you talking about?
> 
> I think it is the anti fraction that cannot see what people are actually writing.


I can read what people are writing well enough 

If they aren't 'pro' hunting, but don't hunt themselves & have never done so, how are they in a position to defend it any more than someone who is against it?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I can read what people are writing well enough
> 
> If they aren't 'pro' hunting, but don't hunt themselves & have never done so, how are they in a position to defend it any more than someone who is against it?


But that's it, I've only seen one person even try to put forward any positive opinions on it. So who are they?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Sorry but how on earth are we suppose to do that? This government know they would never win a vote to repeal the hunting act so they have found a sly way of weakening it - using the SI.


With nothing to back this up supposition. You've already stated hunting with dogs are banned in Scotland which is only half correct. If your information is wrong on this, what else is wrong?

Now if "this government" is using an SI which still needs MP support it needs debate and deal making even if behind closed doors. Debate means changes can be implemented. Pressure to change the terms of the proposal rather than simply deny any change. It would mean more work, with the need to get correct, substantiated information out rather than simply appealing to emotions and relying of kneejerk reactions. Let's face it how often does kneejerk reactions create positive, workable, enforceable legislation. 



simplysardonic said:


> Oh wait, because hunting is elitist & in the main practiced by the wealthy, Tory MPs & the like, so it's obviously a more acceptable way of an animal being killed for fun in the eyes of our Esteemed Leaders.


Love to know how many people have had people in their family who fish either coarse and sea. Hardly view that as elitist and practiced by the wealthy.

Funny how people who are simply asking for substantiated information are automatically assumed to be pro something.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Yet where is the "pack of 40 hounds" coming from? It's supposition, not fact as to the change requested or to be debated.


I didn't say every hunt would use a pack of 40 hounds, I quoted the Sunday Times, saying where it would be _legal_ to use them.



> Cameron plots to ease hunting ban
> 
> Jonathan Leake and Marie Woolf Published: 16 March 2014
> Comment (43) Print
> ...


I have tried to highlight what the aim of the debate is, and what would then be legal to do whilst hunting.

Is that clearer?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> But that's it, I've only seen one person even try to put forward any positive opinions on it. So who are they?


I've counted around 4 or 5 who, while they don't come out & say it directly, imply that they are more pro than anti hunting, whether by trying to shift focus from the topic at hand or by using political jargon (I won't pretend to understand the workings of our Esteemed Leaders, but I know a to55er when I see one  & Parliament is seething with them).

In the whole time I've been on this forum, nobody, whether on the fence or pro hunting, has ever come up with a valid reason as to why it is even remotely necessary to include the killing of an animal in what would otherwise be a completely inocuous pastime.

As for the fishing debate Goblin, yes, I have family who fish, but I don't have to agree with them.

I also have a brother-in law who fishes, hunts, is pro fox hunting & also works as a pest controller advocating the use of poisons, I don't advocate any of those things & have voiced my reasons which he responded to in a very immature manner, which says all I need to know about the type of person he is. Sadly it's not possible to pick & choose family though, eh?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> I have tried to highlight what the aim of the debate is, and what would then be legal to do whilst hunting.
> 
> Is that clearer?


That's supposition though not fact  What are the facts? My understanding is fox hunting as most people understand it would still be banned.. How would this change modify that? Where does this 40 dogs number come from and how could they be used even if allowed with the current constraints?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I've counted around 4 or 5 who, while they don't come out & say it directly, imply that they are more pro than anti hunting, whether by trying to shift focus from the topic at hand or by using political jargon (I won't pretend to understand the workings of our Esteemed Leaders, but I know a to55er when I see one  & Parliament is seething with them).
> 
> In the whole time I've been on this forum, nobody, whether on the fence or pro hunting, has ever come up with a valid reason as to why it is even remotely necessary to include the killing of an animal in what would otherwise be a completely inocuous pastime.


Who are they?

What you see as shifting focus, I see as trying to get perspective.

Yes fox hunting is wrong and cruel, but why does it take up so much of animal rights peoples time when they could be focusing on something that prevents thousands of animals suffering rather than a few hundred? 
This is the thing that I will never ever be able to understand. Such vitriol against those that would rather concentrate on the 1000s.
If you want to go against anything in the countryside, make snares your objective.....again you are talking tens of thousands of creatures dieing an excruciating *slow *death.
And , no I'm not trying to shift focus. It's just the truth as I see it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Also, what about all those hares that come under the hunting act too and are the main focus of most breaches of the act


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> In the whole time I've been on this forum, nobody, whether on the fence or pro hunting, has ever come up with a valid reason as to why it is even remotely necessary to include the killing of an animal in what would otherwise be a completely inocuous pastime.


So lets also ban cats as they hunt.. What about Falconry? Where is the line?

I have my own personal line I will not cross and would never participate in a fox hunt or a deer hunt as a couple of examples. I approve of the bans. Falconry and rabbiting, possibly using a dog.. can see the appeal and no real difference from letting a cat out at night to hunt other than the fact a falcon will kill prey quickly rather than play with it and you have a specific target, probably using the kill afterwards unless it's obviously ill.

It's all about greys, not black and white which is why information is needed to make an informed choice. How many people actually know what the current legislation is in regards to small mammal hunting? I don't, yet we are expected to simply join a campaign without having actual information. In a similar situation we should support Breed Specific Legislation for dogs as media and certain individuals tell us all staffies are dangerous.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Also, what about all those hares that come under the hunting act too and are the main focus of most breaches of the act


It always staggers me that people refer to hare coursing when it's poaching, pure and simple. In hare coursing, it doesn't matter if the hare gets away, in actual fact, the majority do, it's how the two dogs perform against each other that's judged, not whether they catch the hare.

Yet another complete misconception, whether or not people agree with coursing.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Goblin said:


> So lets also ban cats as they hunt.. What about Falconry? Where is the line?
> 
> I have my own personal line I will not cross and would never participate in a fox hunt or a deer hunt as a couple of examples. I approve of the bans. Falconry and rabbiting, possibly using a dog.. can see the appeal and no real difference from letting a cat out at night to hunt other than the fact a falcon will kill prey quickly rather than play with it and you have a specific target, probably using the kill afterwards unless it's obviously ill.
> 
> It's all about greys, not black and white which is why information is needed to make an informed choice. How many people actually know what the current legislation is in regards to small mammal hunting? I don't, yet we are expected to simply join a campaign without having actual information. In a similar situation we should support Breed Specific Legislation for dogs as media and certain individuals tell us all staffies are dangerous.


A cat's not a human, & doesn't live by a code of ethics, so that bit's possible a little pedantic.

I don't see the situation in black & white though, or I'd say ban all hunting. Surely hunting should serve a purpose beyond some sort of 'thrill'- coursing, falconry, ferreting, ratting, shooting (not in the 'canned' or intensively reared commercial sense), fishing (to eat the catch, not to pose with it I mean!) serve to provide food and/or control vermin.

What does fox hunting do? There's nothing left of the fox at the end of it, so it's not for the pot, & as it's not considered an efficient or effective form of pest control it's not for controlling pests. So what is it for?

I'm struggling to understand this, as cinnamontoast says, apparently fox hunting has carried on anyway, much as dog fighting has, just less conspicuously, so why would it be acceptable to repeal the ban on that but not other forms of blood sport, all of which provide nothing bar entertainment for humans?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> A cat's not a human, & doesn't live by a code of ethics, so that bit's possible a little pedantic.
> 
> I don't see the situation in black & white though, or I'd say ban all hunting. Surely hunting should serve a purpose beyond some sort of 'thrill'- coursing, falconry, ferreting, ratting, shooting (not in the 'canned' or intensively reared commercial sense), fishing (to eat the catch, not to pose with it I mean!) serve to provide food and/or control vermin.
> 
> ...


Fox hunting controls a small number of foxes that are a nuisance, and aren't within an area that would suit being shot, generally. So the pack flushes them and then they are chased down and killed. Personally, I'd be happier if they were flushed and then shot, rather than chased down, but then do see the view that many foxes over the years have evaded the hunt, and in fact they are highly regarded and respected by the people who hunt them.

It also ensures foxes remain wary of us, these are wild animals, their best place is living and being wild. I hate seeing people feeding them and encouraging them to become half tame, I wish they'd leave them to being simply wild.

It also brings together people from a broad spectrum, across the community, from those who just follow on foot, to those who have a horse and join in, no matter whether they're well off or pretty poor. To go picking up and beating costs me nothing, yet if I were to shoot, it would cost me several thousand pounds per year, which I can't afford.

All hunting, whether or not something ends up in the pot, means the animals are stressed for an amount of time. But then all animal husbandry will involve stressing animals at some point in their lives, some of it is absolutely appalling and yet people don't want to see that they're supporting cruelty in different forms. You only have to think back to the recent story about the butcher receiving complaints about the array of dead animals in their window, I mean, what else do they sell?

As I've said before, I'm not particularly pro hunting, or anti hunting, it just baffles and annoys me that people focus on such a small section of what they perceive as the cruellest things happening to animals, when much worse (in my books) goes on, and ends up on their plate in fact!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Goblin said:


> That's supposition though not fact  What are the facts? My understanding is fox hunting as most people understand it would still be banned.. How would this change modify that? Where does this 40 dogs number come from and how could they be used even if allowed with the current constraints?


I'm not supposing anything.

That quote was taken directly from the Sunday Times, and that quote is what this thread was opened for.

The Sunday Times has stated the aim of the debate. It doesn't say _'the aim *might be*....'_ , its says _'the aim *would be*....'._

So where is the supposition?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Funny that Cameron's hunt was fined in 2012 for carrying on fox hunting, he must feel the pressure from them.

They have said it is to keep the number of foxes down, yes I see that lots of men riding horses with dogs all after one fox is the most humane and sensible option of keeping the numbers of foxes down!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Just received this:



> Thank you for your email dated 16 March 2014.
> 
> Your email was one of a large number of emails I have received since it became clear that the Prime Minister and a number of Conservative MPs are trying to engineer a vote to weaken the Hunting Act.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Who are they?
> 
> What you see as shifting focus, I see as trying to get perspective.
> 
> ...


Every little counts.

Different people for different reasons support banning hunting of various animals.

Others campaign for more humane farming and slaughtering.

A bit here and a bit there and put it altogether and you have plenty people all trying to stop this abuse.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

porps said:


> Just received this:
> 
> :thumbsup:


Wow, you have a good one there! What a nice letter from him. :thumbsup:


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> it just baffles and annoys me that people focus on such a small section of *what they perceive as the cruellest things happening to animals*, when much worse (in my books) goes on, and ends up on their plate in fact!


baseless assumption.

Just because a person campaigns for something, that doesnt automatically mean that-
-they do not campaign for other things
-they think that one issue is the worst or most important of all issues.

I get it, i really do. The meat industry disgusts you and you want to change it. Good luck with that, no sarcasm.

The fact that i oppose fox hunting doesnt mean that im ok with say, badger culls, or unethical meat or any other cause. I choose to "fight the battles" i think i have a hope of winning (tho it's obviously something of a joke to compare signing a petition, sending an email and ranting on a forum to fighting a battle)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> Every little counts.
> 
> Different people for different reasons support banning hunting of various animals.
> 
> ...


Fox hunting has been banned for 10 years and the focus is still on it, and not just now when Cameron is trying to highlight it again. 

In the intervening years I've seen and heard little about the method that probably increased in use because of the ban, snares. Leaving many foxes to die in just as much pain but much slower, fighting the wire that kills by strangulation while their flesh is cut into in their pointless struggle

Doesn't anyone think it's a smoke screen for something else that the Tories are sliding in?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> baseless assumption.
> 
> Just because a person campaigns for something, that doesnt automatically mean that-
> -they do not campaign for other things
> ...


So regardless of the fact that animal cruelty in our food chain far exceeds a few foxes dying, or even the few thousand badgers that were culled, whenever a thread like this pops up everyone slaps themselves on their backs and tells themselves they've done a great job at stopping animal cruelty.

Sorry, but if people voted with their feet and purse, bought ethically, and didn't treat their pets as disposable objects, that would by far outstrip any of these petitions about hunting that crop up every few days, and yet I have yet to see anyone seriously debate or say they are going to change how they shop. In fact I've regularly seen the opposite, where people say they can't afford to change how they shop, or simply they just don't want to. Why? Because that would mean changing their lifestyle, and that's a huge difference to signing an online petition that won't affect them one little bit.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Fox hunting has been banned for 10 years and the focus is still on it, and not just now when Cameron is trying to highlight it again.
> 
> In the intervening years I've seen and heard little about the method that probably increased in use because of the ban, snares. Leaving many foxes to die in just as much pain but much slower, fighting the wire that kills by strangulation while their flesh is cut into in their pointless struggle
> 
> Doesn't anyone think it's a smoke screen for something else that the Tories are sliding in?


totally agree re smoke screen. Hunting foxes with dogs may have been banned but it is still very much going on.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Fox hunting has been banned for 10 years and the focus is still on it, and not just now when Cameron is trying to highlight it again.
> 
> In the intervening years I've seen and heard little about the method that probably increased in use because of the ban, snares. Leaving many foxes to die in just as much pain but much slower, fighting the wire that kills by strangulation while their flesh is cut into in their pointless struggle
> 
> Doesn't anyone think it's a smoke screen for something else that the Tories are sliding in?


Have you got any idea what though? I wouldn't put it past them, seeing as they have done an excellent job of making scapegoats of the poor & disabled.

As I know very little about snares & traps apart from that my dad in his youth would disarm & remove them, I will go & do some research as I'm unfamiliar with the laws.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Have you got any idea what though? I wouldn't put it past them, seeing as they have done an excellent job of making scapegoats of the poor & disabled.
> 
> As I know very little about snares & traps apart from that my dad in his youth would disarm & remove them, I will go & do some research as I'm unfamiliar with the laws.


I believe, and don't quote me on this, but I think they need to be checked at least once a day; they are awful things and should be banned. One of my ex's cockers got caught up in one and was missing for over 24 hours, thankfully, the person who had set it did check it, and phoned the number on the posters we'd put out.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *I believe, and don't quote me on this, but I think they need to be checked at least once a day*; they are awful things and should be banned. One of my ex's cockers got caught up in one and was missing for over 24 hours, thankfully, the person who had set it did check it, and phoned the number on the posters we'd put out.


Yes, I found a site saying this, but I wasn't really convinced it was reputable TBH, the spelling was dubious for a start ('dears' instead of 'deer', made me wonder if the author wasn't trying to trap old ladies  ) but I have a few more trustworthy sources that I shall browse through.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Have you got any idea what though? I wouldn't put it past them, seeing as they have done an excellent job of making scapegoats of the poor & disabled.
> 
> As I know very little about snares & traps apart from that my dad in his youth would disarm & remove them, I will go & do some research as I'm unfamiliar with the laws.


Snarewatch - The law and snaring

They are by far more cruel than hunting with hounds purely because of the protracted death


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Well, as they are no longer allowed to horse-whip their serfs, the upper-crust bully-boys have to feed their power-ego somehow. :thumbdown:


It is comments like this which make the neutrals (like myself) question how much of the anti-hunting sentiment is about animal welfare and how much is inverted snobbery and a protest against the sort of person who is perceived to go hunting.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just to put this thread into perspective, in 2011, over 931 million chickens were killed in the UK alone. And that doesn't account for all the chicken meals we import from other countries. The vast majority of those are going to be slaughtered at eight weeks of age, after having lived a sad life crammed into cages or *barns*. Most are transported and slaughtered incredibly inhumanely, and yet people who eat meat, still eat more chicken than anything else. 

End that, and how much cruelty would stop straight away, and yet we're hooked on our two for a fiver chickens, or KFC drive throughs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

"The total number of animals killed in British slaughterhouses in 2011 was over 958 million.

This included 8.5 million pigs, nearly 15 million sheep, 17 million turkeys, 15 million ducks, over 931 million chickens and 2.8 million cattle. Add to that 4.5 billion fish and 2.6 billion shellfish you have a total of over 8 billion animals killed in the UK each year.

This equates to 22 million animals slaughtered every day; 919,000 an hour; 15,000 per minute and 255 every second."

And that, is why I don't buy cheap supermarket chicken, or eat turkeys, and buy most of my meat products at the local butchers and farm shop where I know they have come from farms where the animals are raised and treated well, and slaughtered locally. I don't eat meat at every meal, and would rather pay a bit more for the meat I do eat than ever buy anything off a supermarket shelf.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Pity they cant just gallop around the countryside apreciating nature instead of killing it.


They do and can: drag hunting is, IMO, a brilliant compromise. A simple hack with a blast across a stubble field offers the same feeling of wild freedom, especially of there are some handy logs on the way to practise jumping.



simplysardonic said:


> 1. Oh wait, because hunting is elitist & in the main practiced by the wealthy, Tory MPs & the like, so it's obviously a more acceptable way of an animal being killed for fun in the eyes of our Esteemed Leaders.
> 
> 2. It saddens me that some of the pro-hunt people on here are pretty level headed about other subjects yet seem so indoctrinated they can't see why many of us see it as cruel but don't seem to have a reasoned argument to back themselves up
> 
> 3. What is so wrong with drag hunting & why is it not enough for so many people?


1. Must tell my mate who lives in a caravan so she can keep her horse and go (drag) hunting this! Think she'd cry rather than laugh, tho.

2. Who are these pro-hunt people on here that I keep seeing reference to??

3. It is enough and many hunters do just that, they have fun laying a trail and it's a cracking day out. Contrary to some of the opinions on here which link hunters and dog fighting etc  most people who hunt love their animals and would actually prefer to drag hunt.

Whilst I don't wish to play shadows and mirrors, I have to say that the arguments for avoiding meat are valid, IMO, particularly meat slaughtered under religious auspices. I note that Denmark has just banned Halal slaughter as it's considered cruel. Shame they can't get rid of the annual mutilation and massacre of the dolphins that they encourage.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to put this thread into perspective, in 2011, over 931 million chickens were killed in the UK alone. And that doesn't account for all the chicken meals we import from other countries. The vast majority of those are going to be slaughtered at eight weeks of age, after having lived a sad life crammed into cages or *barns*. Most are transported and slaughtered incredibly inhumanely, and yet people who eat meat, still eat more chicken than anything else.
> 
> End that, and how much cruelty would stop straight away, and yet we're hooked on our two for a fiver chickens, or KFC drive throughs.


I hate hunting of any animals but I do have to agree with you on this one. :thumbsup: :laugh:

Some of the videos I've seen of the meat industry keep me awake at night and the worst thing is it's perfectly legal whereas as cruelty to pets, although it goes on, is an offence.

I'm a veggie but the charity I still donate the most money to is Compassion in World Farming.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So regardless of the fact that animal cruelty in our food chain far exceeds a few foxes dying, or even the few thousand badgers that were culled, whenever a thread like this pops up everyone slaps themselves on their backs and tells themselves they've done a great job at stopping animal cruelty.
> 
> Sorry, but if people voted with their feet and purse, bought ethically, and didn't treat their pets as disposable objects, that would by far outstrip any of these petitions about hunting that crop up every few days, and yet I have yet to see anyone seriously debate or say they are going to change how they shop. In fact I've regularly seen the opposite, where people say they can't afford to change how they shop, or simply they just don't want to. Why? Because that would mean changing their lifestyle, and that's a huge difference to signing an online petition that won't affect them one little bit.


You just assume so much in each and every post. You assume we slap ourselves on the back. You seem to be assuming that we either eat meat or support the meat industry. You seem to asume that because we are incensed by one area of cuelty we dont care about others. And all this has been pointed out to you ove and over again but all you seem able to do is keep making assumptions and trying to turn this thread into an anti meat thread. Noushka obviously made this thread because it's important to her. If it's not important to you, i dont think anyone is forcing you to partake. Not that im saying sod off (or that i'd expect you to pay any attention if i did), but if you wanna discuss the meat industry because you feel strongly about it, whats stopping us having 2 threads discussing 2 different issues? Are you incapable of opposing more than 1 type of cruelty at any given time or what? Why does an issue that is important to you have to derail threads about issues which arent important to you?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to put this thread into perspective, in 2011, over 931 million chickens were killed in the UK alone. And that doesn't account for all the chicken meals we import from other countries. The vast majority of those are going to be slaughtered at eight weeks of age, after having lived a sad life crammed into cages or *barns*. Most are transported and slaughtered incredibly inhumanely, and yet people who eat meat, still eat more chicken than anything else.
> 
> End that, and how much cruelty would stop straight away, and yet we're hooked on our two for a fiver chickens, or KFC drive throughs.


Yep, i still get it, you dont like the meat industry. You're not syaing stuff that isnt common knowledge you do realise that right? you keep arguing the same point again and again, but noone is disagreeing as far as i can see, who are you even preaching too right now? and are you certain about their meat buying habits?

or are you, as i suspect, simply assuming for some strange reason which i cant get my head around, that anyone who opposes fox hunting must not care about what goes on in the meat trade?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> You just assume so much in each and every post. You assume we slap ourselves on the back. You seem to be assuming that we either eat meat or support the meat industry. You seem to asume that because we are incensed by one area of cuelty we dont care about others. And all this has been pointed out to you ove and over again but all you seem able to do is keep making assumptions and trying to turn this thread into an anti meat thread. Noushka obviously made this thread because it's important to her. If it's not important to you, i dont think anyone is forcing you to partake. Not that im saying sod off (or that i'd expect you to pay any attention if i did), but if you wanna discuss the meat industry because you feel strongly about it, whats stopping us having 2 threads discussing 2 different issues? Are you incapable of opposing more than 1 type of cruelty at any given time or what? Why does an issue that is important to you have to derail threads about issues which arent important to you?
> 
> Yep, i still get it, you dont like the meat industry. You're not syaing stuff that isnt common knowledge you do realise that right? you keep arguing the same point again and again, but noone is disagreeing as far as i can see, who are you even preaching too right now? and are you certain about their meat buying habits?
> 
> or are you, as i suspect, simply assuming for some strange reason which i cant get my head around, that anyone who opposes fox hunting must not care about what goes on in the meat trade?


Have I mentioned *you* in one post?

Nope, because my posts are generic, not aimed at individuals, because I'm well aware that amongst the members, there are going to be people who make the effort to do their best in all areas of their lives. But the simple fact is, the vast, vast majority of people, who aren't members on here, but who make up the majority of the produce buying public, shop at supermarkets, and support cruelty. There is not one way you can dress that up as acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

Where have I said anyone opposed to fox hunting doesn't care about what goes on elsewhere? Please, enlighten me??!! I'm not opposed to the meat industry, I eat meat, I am openly in favour of *some* forms of hunting and shooting, I take my dogs out beating and picking up on a shoot. Geez!!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> They do and can: drag hunting is, IMO, a brilliant compromise. A simple hack with a blast across a stubble field offers the same feeling of wild freedom, especially of there are some handy logs on the way to practise jumping.
> 
> 1. Must tell my mate who lives in a caravan so she can keep her horse and go (drag) hunting this! Think she'd cry rather than laugh, tho.
> 
> ...


With regards to point one, I did say 'in the main', & I'm pretty sure most of them aren't living in caravans, I have caravan dwelling friends so that isn't meant to be construed as an insult.

Your posts come across to me that you're pro hunting, but maybe that's me reading too much into them.

I don't think anyone on here would disagree with people drag hunting, so this thread really isn't relevant to the sort of people you've described in the above post, as it's about repealing the ban of hunting live animals with a pack of dogs.

However, drag hunting is as far from both dog fighting & hunting to kill an animal, so I don't see what the issue is.

Can you see what I & others on here are getting at?



LynnM said:


> I hate hunting of any animals but I do have to agree with you on this one. :thumbsup: :laugh:
> 
> *Some of the videos I've seen of the meat industry keep me awake at night and the worst thing is it's perfectly legal whereas as cruelty to pets, although it goes on, is an offence. *
> 
> I'm a veggie but the charity I still donate the most money to is Compassion in World Farming.


It was watching these videos that persuaded me to go veggie again 3 years ago. I enjoyed eating meat & missed it quite a bit, but I can't do it now, somewhere along the line I've lost the taste for it, I'm hoping one day to do the same with dairy, some of the plant milks are good substitutes


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Have I mentioned *you* in one post?


I dont beleive so. Have i claimed that you did?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But the simple fact is, the vast, vast majority of people, who aren't members on here, but who make up the majority of the produce buying public, shop at supermarkets, and support cruelty.


Ah. So you're talking to non pf members.. cos that makes sense right? in backwards land.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

porps said:


> I dont beleive so. Have i claimed that you did?
> 
> Ah. So you're talking to non pf members.. cos that makes sense right? in backwards land.


So why is your post so specifically aimed at me, and questioning why I'm posting about PF members, when you've just said you know I am not specifically aiming my posts at members?

PS a lot more people read the threads on here than are actual members 

PPS there is a real world out there, and unfortunately, the views on here, are probably reflective of what people *know* about the meat industry, and shooting and hunting, which is sadly very little, and skewed by a minority


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I don't see the situation in black & white though, or I'd say ban all hunting. Surely hunting should serve a purpose beyond some sort of 'thrill'- coursing, falconry, ferreting, ratting, shooting (not in the 'canned' or intensively reared commercial sense), fishing (to eat the catch, not to pose with it I mean!) serve to provide food and/or control vermin.


Yet we aren't talking about purely fox hunting here. It's the emotional aspect latched onto and "being sold" as it's an easy sell. People have latched onto the idea of 40 hounds.. what about say 3 falconers rabbiting with 3 dogs on the same warren.. not currently allowed. Personally as I said, hunting foxes with a pack of dogs I wouldn't allow. the rabbiting example I would. Both are covered by the act in question.

Unbiased information not slanted simply to appeal to emotional aspects so people can make an informed decision.



> I'm struggling to understand this, as cinnamontoast says, apparently fox hunting has carried on anyway, much as dog fighting has, just less conspicuously, so why would it be acceptable to repeal the ban on that but not other forms of blood sport, all of which provide nothing bar entertainment for humans?


Let's face it, any legislation needs to be simple enough and clear enough that it can be enforced.


----------



## Kirstyrebe (Jan 20, 2014)

I am against hunting, ESP fox and badger or even Bambi! But I do eat meat, I
Love meat I could eat nandos 3 times a day. I know it's still the slaughtering of animals and I would never want to personally see it, but it's life and it's the food chain!


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Still catching up on thread but what a ridiculous comment about foxes being hunted and the excuse that there will always be predators after them. There is a huge difference to an animal hunting an animal for food in the wild compared to humans using dogs to hunt these foxes just for a bit of fun. The dogs tear the fox to pieces and that's that. A dog is domesticated in most cases, they do not live in habitats where the fox is and do not need to hunt them. Silly comment. 

And why is hitting animals in the road being brought up once again? I think people against fox hunting on this thread would also be against sick people who get a kick in deliberately hitting animals in the road. But then we're talking about fox hunting. And not everyone is some sicko who wants to hit an animal. You just cannot use that as an argument. 

Also, with the comments regarding some of us being meat eaters. One, fox meat is something I have never seen. It is not sold. I know nobody who eats it. Regardless, I wouldn't either way. There is enough meat anyway so why bother killing more animals. Greed? 

Fox hunting is a bloodsport. And regardless, if a few eat fox like some have said I will not support it. You cannot think it is more humane to have hounds hunt down a dog than shooting it. Lol. 

Also, I haven't given farmers a bad name. I'm not slamming them. Plus, it's not all farmers who kill foxes, is it? I cannot agree to having people think it's great fun to scare a fox almost to death and then have it torn to pieces whilst enjoying it. 

Shall we do that with pretty horses, dogs and cats? Bet you'd feel different about that. Oh, feck it actually. Let's just let people hunt other people. They're more damage to the planet than foxes.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Laurac said:


> It is comments like this which make the neutrals (like myself) question how much of the anti-hunting sentiment is about animal welfare and how much is inverted snobbery and a protest against the sort of person who is perceived to go hunting.


I am totally against hunting with dogs as a sport.
Plenty anti hunt people also come from this so called elitist section of society.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> I am totally against hunting with dogs as a sport.
> Plenty anti hunt people also come from this so called elitist section of society.


I agree - people of all sections of society are pro, anti and neutral - which is why I highlighted the comment I did as it was turning hunting into a class issue and not an animal welfare issue.

Just out of interest - is someone who attends a hunt meeting more guilty of actual animal cruelty than someone who doesn't hunt but cannot afford immediate vet treatment for their poorly pets?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

neither is good...how can they be compared?


If I said my husband beat me up 5 days a week....everyone would say thats terrible. If I said, No, my neighbour gets beaten up 7 days a week, thats really bad.

The common denominator here is its abuse and one lot is as bad as another.

Then if I said....forced marriages are bad aren't they? answer is of course....but so is making bears dance and so is hunting.

The only reason people go hunting is cos they like whatever aspect of it. It is now illegal, needs not relaxing but tightening up a good way more.

and if there is cruelty etc, do something about it, if you see it, report it


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> So peer reviewed things are the only thing worth looking at.. maybe you should read up on peer review and the fact even people like editors of lancet say they aren't worth much. Let's face it, the peer reviewers aren't even associated with the report so there's no comeback.


 He didn't argue for scrapping peer review altogether, he said it's in desperate need to improvement (I fully agree). There has to be some form of quality control in published research (currently the best we have is peer review) so that people can't publish rubbish and I can't produce a paper claiming, without doubt, that you came from the moon.



Goblin said:


> Backdoor to legalizing hunts, possible, however lets get the facts into the discussion and if people are going to protest, make sure the protest is to close possible loopholes using the opportunity.


It's not about closing loopholes, it's to stop the creation of big unworkable ones.



Goblin said:


> That's supposition though not fact What are the facts? My understanding is fox hunting as most people understand it would still be banned.. How would this change modify that? Where does this 40 dogs number come from and how could they be used even if allowed with the current constraints


It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going be fairly easy to get away with hunting like they did pre-ban if the law is amended. Now there is no defence for having more than a couple hounds on a fox. If this change to the law comes to pass then all you need is a guy and his gun milling about in the vicinity and you've got yourself a pretty strong defence.



cinnamontoast said:


> It is enough and many hunters do just that, they have fun laying a trail and it's a cracking day out. Contrary to some of the opinions on here which link hunters and dog fighting etc most people who hunt love their animals and would actually prefer to drag hunt.


I equated the act of hunting to dog fighting but I agree, most of the followers are not awful people. I hunt but I hunt a man (bloodhounds) and it's thrilling. Most of the mounted field in any hunt want a jolly day out but when that 'sport' is at the expense of a small canid then I'm afraid there's no real ethical distinction between it and dog fighting.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> There has to be some form of quality control in published research


But you cannot simply dismiss anything as it's not peer review just as you shouldn't trust anything simply as it has been.



> It's not about closing loopholes, it's to stop the creation of big unworkable ones.


Why not make it about it closing loopholes when the opportunity is there?



> It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going be fairly easy to get away with hunting like they did pre-ban if the law is amended. Now there is no defence for having more than a couple hounds on a fox.


I'd agree if the legislation was only about fox hunting which is the only aspect people are focusing on. It's not and I've not seen balanced information about other aspects of the legislation. I've given one example of using dogs and falcons from my limited understanding. I don't hunt so can't give precise details based on experience. In light of that more information about the impact of any changes is surely required rather than focusing on a single aspect and having a knee jerk reaction which may affect the wider area.

Are you saying that the legislation only covers fox hunting? Even with more dogs allowed while hunting, what people consider fox hunting is still going to be banned isn't it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

> Goblin said:
> 
> 
> > With nothing to back this up supposition. You've already stated hunting with dogs are banned in Scotland which is only half correct. If your information is wrong on this, what else is wrong?
> ...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You really are deluded if you believe this government can be reasoned with over this, they don't want workable, enforceable legislation, if you cant see that then I suggest you take off your rose coloured specs.


I'm not wearing rose colored specs.. I simply want information which you cannot or are unwilling to provide about the wider implications so people can make an informed decision.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> Just received this:
> 
> :thumbsup:


Wow fantastic Porps :thumbsup: - he didn't mess about getting back to you, did he 

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> I'm not wearing rose colored specs.. I simply want information which you cannot or are unwilling to provide about the wider implications so people can make an informed decision.


Heres what the compassionate Tories say on the matter > Conservatives Against Fox Hunting

Back door moves to relax the ban on hunting with dogs. March 2014

We are very concerned about reports in the media regarding a proposal to amend the Hunting Act 2004.The coalition government offered a free vote in their manifesto but this would not be a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act but a devious way to stop the Act working by amending a key clause which would allow a full pack of hounds to flush to guns.

The amendment would allow hunts to carry on hunting by simply having a firearm and claiming to be flushing to guns. This repeal by the back door would be serious step backwards for animal welfare.

There are rumours being circulated by ministers that the Government proposes to introduce an amendment to the Hunting Act 2004 which will enable more than two dogs to flush out a fox following a report produced by the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs in October 2013 and is supported by the hunting lobby. We believe that this is not some minor amendment but a backdoor attempt to legalise hunting with dogs again.

An amendment allowing an increase in the number of dogs used to stalk or flush a wild mammal would not simply amend the Hunting Act but would remove essential parts of it altogether and will result in wild mammals being chased and killed in much the way they were before the ban came in.

It is important to remember that it is not just foxes that would be affected by such a change and deer, hares and mink would also be put at increased risk as would other species that are accidentally disturbed by hunting activities, e.g. otters.

The current restriction of using no more than two dogs to stalk or flush a wild mammal to guns is very clear and easy to use when enforcing the law. Removal of this limited restriction is likely to make enforcement of the Act considerably more difficult and would pose a real threat to wildlife protection.

We are very concerned that the Government may decide to put forward an amendment that would in effect see hunting wild mammals with dogs return. The majority of the public and cross party MPs do not want to see hunting with dogs return. A free vote on the repeal of the hunting ban would fail.

The Prime Minister David Cameron has often announced his support to overturn the ban on hunting with dogs. It is a fact that the greatest support for repeal comes from within the Conservative partys leadership despite polls demonstrating that the majority of Conservative supporters support the ban. The party leaders should take heed that any attempt to relax the hunt ban will do untold damage to the image of the Conservative party. The electorate will see through any attempt to paint this as anything other than what it is  a devious approach to placate the hunting lobby minority

Some MPs may not recognise that the amendment will have a huge impact upon the legislation. Many people may overlook the impact of this amendment if they do not know the Hunting Act in detail, or have a broad knowledge of the history of prosecutions under it. Hunts can currently claim a defence under Section 4 of the Hunting Act, if they claim they reasonably believed the hunting was exempt.

We view any moves to amend the Hunting Act 2004 as a back door attempt by the pro-hunting lobby to bring about the repeal of the Act. We believe that the use of a SI is a devious approach to relax the ban which is supported by the majority of the public.

Blue Fox, also known as Conservatives Against Fox Hunting urge all MPs to oppose any attempts to undermine the Hunting Act through the use of an amendment

We urge the public to contact their MP and urge them to stand against any attempt to weaken the hunting ban. It is time to defend the hunting ban and essential that everyone is aware of the amendment threat.

For further information see the League Against Cruel Sports website : Hunting - League Against Cruel Sports

Read the International Fund For Animal Welfare article on the amendment threat: Hunting Act repeal


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> But you cannot simply dismiss anything as it's not peer review just as you shouldn't trust anything simply as it has been.


I'm not dismissing it just because it isn't peer reviewed, it's that together with the organisation funding it, the subject matter and the researchers credentials in the field.



Goblin said:


> Why not make it about it closing loopholes when the opportunity is there?


What loophole? The law is pretty clear.



Goblin said:


> I'd agree if the legislation was only about fox hunting which is the only aspect people are focusing on. It's not and I've not seen balanced information about other aspects of the legislation. I've given one example of using dogs and falcons from my limited understanding. I don't hunt so can't give precise details based on experience. In light of that more information about any impact any changes is surely required rather than focusing on a single aspect and having a knee jerk reaction.


The focus is on mounted fox hunting with this amendment because they traditionally use a pack of dogs and the proposed change would make it very easy for them to avoid prosecution. People are focusing on this single aspect only because that is the aspect that the government, hunting lobbies and everyone else is currently focusing on....If you want to talk about falcons go ahead.



Goblin said:


> Are you saying that the legislation only covers fox hunting? Even with more dogs allowed while hunting, what people consider fox hunting is still going to be banned isn't it.


How stupid and misinformed do you think I am to suggest that I don't know what species the legislation covers? The proposed change to the legislation has come off the back of fox hunting, of course it's going to be the focus.

Evidence of a pack of hounds following a scent, the huntsman sending the pack into a covert and emerging with a dead fox (insert alternative species of you choosing ) will all be very tricky to base a prosecution on. 'we flushed it and shot it gov' will be a valid defence even though it's the same scene you'd see in a traditional fox hunt.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Thank you to all those who care about animals & have taken time to sign the link. I've been a bit off colour today so im only replying to Rona's - for now! lol
> 
> Of course there is no 'absolute' proof that foxes harried to their deaths feel terror or feel pain Just as theres no 'absolute' proof that say a cat chased and savaged by dogs feels terror or pain - we cant talk 'cat' either. But that they do is the most rational proposition, is it not?. A contrary suggestion would be absurd.
> 
> ...


Don't think there has been any studies on foxes being hunted by dogs Noush but there was one on red deer.

Fear or Pain
When animals are faced with prolonged stressors, a pattern of nervous and hormonal activity produces a variety of physiological changes which help the animal adapt. In assessing criteria for suffering, psychological stress which is fear stress, should be considered as important as suffering induced by pain. Bateson and Bradshaw (1997) studied the physiological effects of hunted red deer and found that deer hunted by hounds were subjected to great physiological stress, compared to non hunted deer cleanly shot by professional hunters. The study found that the blood and muscles of the deer were damaged, but the authors neglected to fully discuss the damage caused by psychological stress. The cortisol levels in the hound hunted deer were very high and they never mentioned the word fear. Beringer, et al (1996) found that 12% of white tailed deer captured with a rocket net die within 26 days. Fear stress is highly aversive and subjecting an animal to intense fear stress would be very detrimental to welfare (Grandin, 1997).

Abstract:
Both fear and pain can cause suffering. When pain is being studied, experiments must be designed to separate the variable of fear from the variable of pain. Some investigators claim that a sharp cut off line exists between those animals who experience pain and suffering, from those who do not. These arguments are based on the assumption that the capacity to suffer is related to the size and complexity of the brain, i.e., small brained animals feel less pain and potentially suffer less than animals with larger more complex brains. This paper refutes these claims and explains the concept that all hierarchical levels of the nervous system are built according to the same functional principles. The ability of an animal to suffer from pain may be related to the amount of associative neural circuitry linking sub-cortical structures to higher levels of the nervous system. A reasonable criteria for assessing pain induced suffering is does the animal actively seek pain relief. We propose that animals who protect injured parts, reduce activity when sick, or self administer opiate and non-opiate drugs are capable of suffering from pain. Some investigators claim that many mammals are in a gray area when it comes to suffering from pain. We propose that only fish, amphibians and reptiles may represent the gray area of understanding, pain, but they may suffer from fear because they will avoid a place where an aversive event has taken place. 
Fear operates in a more primitive subcortical brain circuit than pain. When the cortex is removed, an animal will no longer suffer from pain but it can still learn a conditional fear response. A review of the literature indicated that prefrontal cortex activation tends to increase pain perception but reduce fear responses. Fear is extremely aversive and it is likely that it causes suffering in all vertebrates and possibly invertebrates such as the octopus that has a well developed nervous system. Pain perception requires more higher association circuits than responses to fear. Therefore it is likely that as the phylogenetic scale is descended there may be animals which would suffer from fear but not pain.

Experiments need to be conducted to determine if lower vertebrates will seek pain relieving medication in the same manner as warm blooded animals.

Distress in Animals: Is it Fear, Pain or Physical Stress?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The famously accurate Bateson report, with the opening paragraph saying something about 'anyone whose watched bambi and seen the mother killed' - two things, what on earth has a disney film got to do with culling deer, and the other, bambi's mother was shot, not hunted with hounds, which should have been the focus of the report. 

Two words, foot and shot!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Don't think there has been any studies on foxes being hunted by dogs Noush but there was one on red deer.
> 
> Fear or Pain
> When animals are faced with prolonged stressors, a pattern of nervous and hormonal activity produces a variety of physiological changes which help the animal adapt. In assessing criteria for suffering, psychological stress which is fear stress, should be considered as important as suffering induced by pain. Bateson and Bradshaw (1997) studied the physiological effects of hunted red deer and found that deer hunted by hounds were subjected to great physiological stress, compared to non hunted deer cleanly shot by professional hunters. The study found that the blood and muscles of the deer were damaged, but the authors neglected to fully discuss the damage caused by psychological stress. The cortisol levels in the hound hunted deer were very high and they never mentioned the word fear. Beringer, et al (1996) found that 12% of white tailed deer captured with a rocket net die within 26 days. Fear stress is highly aversive and subjecting an animal to intense fear stress would be very detrimental to welfare (Grandin, 1997).
> ...


The whole problem with that statement and I'm not saying they are wrong because to me it is obvious that animals feel both stress and pain, having spent a lifetime alongside them.
But to say you have a study that proves it (in the case of Bateson and Bradshaw) and not mention the proximity of humans when the animal was dispatched is a gapping hole in their study. A deer shot with a rifle is never aware of the human that takes it's life, a hunted deer most certainly is.
Did they also test deer startled by humans?

I've had animals die in my arms from the stress of me just holding them, literally died of stress 

Then again, I've watched the vixen I knew for 7 years seemingly to get pleasure from watching me from quite close quarters, she would play with her cubs not 25yds from me. She was a country fox on a farm, not the half tame types. I would have no doubt that if I'd got too close then her cortisol levels would have risen dramatically, but is that fear?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Plenty organised deer hunting where I live. Its supposed to be a hunter hiding somewhere and shooting deer.I am sure there are plenty practices where this is not the case, I don't do it myself and have never been out with someone else doing it.

I do know that with Roe deer and so possibly Red Deer, the hunter shoots the leader, the rest don't know what to do, the next leader takes over and it can go on...and this is how poachers manage to shoot several deer in a single area.

Butchers who sell game here have to have licences to do so but I have heard that plenty poached venison ends up way down the south of England anyway.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I do know about cows and stress. If you stress out a bull, the meat turns black with adrenaline pumping round and the animal can't be slaughtered for a while cos the meat turns black.

Cattle, deer,all intelligent animals whether wild or domesticated, all capable of feeling pain and getting stressed


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> Plenty organised deer hunting where I live. Its supposed to be a hunter hiding somewhere and shooting deer.I am sure there are plenty practices where this is not the case, I don't do it myself and have never been out with someone else doing it.
> 
> I do know that with Roe deer and so possibly Red Deer, the hunter shoots the leader, the rest don't know what to do, the next leader takes over and it can go on...and this is how poachers manage to shoot several deer in a single area.
> 
> Butchers who sell game here have to have licences to do so but I have heard that plenty poached venison ends up way down the south of England anyway.


Are you sure that's Roe and not Fallow?
Roe rarely herd they normally have small family groups, usually consisting of doe, last years young and this years young and certainly don't have leaders


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> The whole problem with that statement and I'm not saying they are wrong because to me it is obvious that animals feel both stress and pain, having spent a lifetime alongside them.
> But to say you have a study that proves it (in the case of Bateson and Bradshaw) and not mention the proximity of humans when the animal was dispatched is a gapping hole in their study. A deer shot with a rifle is never aware of the human that takes it's life, a hunted deer most certainly is.
> Did they also test deer startled by humans?
> 
> ...


Here's the science:

What we feel as fear or stress is merely due to a surge in the hormones in our bodies. When an animal - any animal - is fleeing from a predator, or is at bay from a predator, the sympathetic nervous system stimulates the adrenal glands to produce extra adrenaline and noradrenaline. This has the effect of honing the animal's body system to deal with fight or flight - but one of the side effects of all this extra adrenaline and noradrenaline in the system is extreme stress. Ergo any animal in a situation of flight (eg a fox being chased by hounds) or fight (eg a fox when it is caught by the hounds) will be in extreme stress. So, based in current scientific knowledge, a fox in flight or a fox in a fight will be in extreme stress. It will lack the knowledge to "call" it stress, but that does not mean that the stress will not be there and being felt just as keenly as a human would feel it

The only difference is that humans know to call it stress; a fox does not. He just feels what his body is doing to him as a side-effect of trying to keep him safe from the acts of callous and uncaring humans.


----------



## Fluketheduke (Feb 3, 2014)

lol,dont need no scientist report,of cause animals feel pain just the same as humans do.
Its not in the animals interest to show these emotions as the weakest in the pack is usually the one that gets eaten.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Here's the science:
> 
> What we feel as fear or stress is merely due to a surge in the hormones in our bodies. When an animal - any animal - is fleeing from a predator, or is at bay from a predator, the sympathetic nervous system stimulates the adrenal glands to produce extra adrenaline and noradrenaline. This has the effect of honing the animal's body system to deal with fight or flight - but one of the side effects of all this extra adrenaline and noradrenaline in the system is extreme stress. Ergo any animal in a situation of flight (eg a fox being chased by hounds) or fight (eg a fox when it is caught by the hounds) will be in extreme stress. So, based in current scientific knowledge, a fox in flight or a fox in a fight will be in extreme stress. It will lack the knowledge to "call" it stress, but that does not mean that the stress will not be there and being felt just as keenly as a human would feel it
> 
> The only difference is that humans know to call it stress; a fox does not. He just feels what his body is doing to him as a side-effect of trying to keep him safe from the acts of callous and uncaring humans.


What I'm saying is, would my fox or any animals approached or just startle by a human, show the same stress,extra adrenaline and noradrenaline as a fox chased (not caught) by hounds?
If it does, then I would argue that all humans are instilling fear into our wildlife. 
Should we be littering the countryside with our smelly bodies and creating fear/stress in our wildlife?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> What I'm saying is, would my fox or any animals approached or just startle by a human, show the same stress,extra adrenaline and noradrenaline as a fox chased (not caught) by hounds?
> If it does, then I would argue that all humans are instilling fear into our wildlife.
> Should we be littering the countryside with our smelly bodies and creating fear/stress in our wildlife?


Exactly! Feeling fear, running for your life quite literally, is part of the life (and death) of all animals, whether or not that's an imagined fear, or a real one.

Stopping hunting with dogs, whether or not you agree with it, will not automatically mean all those animals will heave a sigh of relief, or be free of fear and eventually a painful death.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Exactly! Feeling fear, running for your life quite literally, is part of the life (and death) of all animals, whether or not that's an imagined fear, or a real one.
> 
> Stopping hunting with dogs, whether or not you agree with it, will not automatically mean all those animals will heave a sigh of relief, or be free of fear and eventually a painful death.


Well not quite the point I was making 

I was just wondering if those that flood the countryside at weekends etc. are as much a fear as a pack of hounds, very similar I think.......................

I can remember a few years ago, I was walking regularly in this wood. Kept seeing a deer with her twin fawns. I'd stand still and watch, then move on when they'd passed.
In this wood was a fairly rare creature that was seen one year and it was posted all over the "conservation" sites for this creature. Well......all hell broke loose and when I went there for a quiet walk there were literally 100s of people wandering around. 
I saw the doe and one fawn fleeing in "fear" about 30 seconds after the other fawn came struggling through the undergrowth crying out 
I've never heard a deer cry unless it had been caught in some way...the little one was terrified.
When I mentioned this to the "conservationists, photographers" they could not even concede that they, walking through a wood could cause such distress


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

rona said:


> What I'm saying is, would my fox or any animals approached or just startle by a human, show the same stress,extra adrenaline and noradrenaline as a fox chased (not caught) by hounds?
> If it does, then I would argue that all humans are instilling fear into our wildlife.
> Should we be littering the countryside with our smelly bodies and creating fear/stress in our wildlife?


It's the duration of the pursuit that is concern when looking at welfare. Foxhounds are not bred to do the job quickly and being chased for an extended period of time is not an event a fox is built for.

I hate to use the comparison with dog fighting again but I'm going to. Many dogs don't like other dogs and are no doubt stressed by them, but they come into contact with them occasionally and their owners manage it - no major problem. If that same dog was put in a pit to fight then there's an ethical problem, because of both the intensity of the insult and the intention of the owner. Same difference between a fox being disturbed by the odd rambler and the pursuit of a fox with scent hounds.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> It's the duration of the pursuit that is concern when looking at welfare. Foxhounds are not bred to do the job quickly and being chased for an extended period of time is not an event a fox is built for.
> 
> I hate to use the comparison with dog fighting again but I'm going to. Many dogs don't like other dogs and are no doubt stressed by them, but they come into contact with them occasionally and their owners manage it - no major problem. If that same dog was put in a pit to fight then there's an ethical problem, because of both the intensity of the insult and the intention of the owner. Same difference between a fox being disturbed by the odd rambler and the pursuit of a fox with scent hounds.


Yes I can see that but I think many many pages back this line of thought started from the use of the word fear. Now, I know it's off topic a bit (well quite a lot actually) but I would find it interesting if the definition of fear based on SDH post about a study into fear/stress, not the purely physical consequences but the fear factor, were the same if an animal is just startled.

Anyone know?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Are you sure that's Roe and not Fallow?
> Roe rarely herd they normally have small family groups, usually consisting of doe, last years young and this years young and certainly don't have leaders


I don't know much about deer at all. I have never seen fallow deer around here. My friends ex husband is a deer poacher, she left him because of this. She came home one morning after working a night shift and there was blood running out of the garden shed. She opened the door and saw several deer on hooks.

Her ex told me how he plies his trade and never has any problem selling the dead deer. He also told me he sells a red deer carcase for around £300.

I see roe deer in groups of up to around 10 maybe at certain times of year. Friends ex says if you look at the group and take out the leader, the others don't know what to do so you can shoot them all.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Well not quite the point I was making
> 
> I was just wondering if those that flood the countryside at weekends etc. are as much a fear as a pack of hounds, very similar I think.......................
> 
> ...


Plenty of wildlife gets flushed and left to escape out on shoots. It's lovely to see them, and it's also lovely to me to see they've got a healthy fear of humans. They'll live much longer keeping away from humans.

I always wonder why on earth people think it's better to stick an injured wild animal into their car and drive it to the vets, particularly for animals that are pretty much on death's door.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Don't think there has been any studies on foxes being hunted by dogs Noush but there was one on red deer.
> 
> Fear or Pain
> When animals are faced with prolonged stressors, a pattern of nervous and hormonal activity produces a variety of physiological changes which help the animal adapt. In assessing criteria for suffering, psychological stress which is fear stress, should be considered as important as suffering induced by pain. Bateson and Bradshaw (1997) studied the physiological effects of hunted red deer and found that deer hunted by hounds were subjected to great physiological stress, compared to non hunted deer cleanly shot by professional hunters. The study found that the blood and muscles of the deer were damaged, but the authors neglected to fully discuss the damage caused by psychological stress. The cortisol levels in the hound hunted deer were very high and they never mentioned the word fear. Beringer, et al (1996) found that 12% of white tailed deer captured with a rocket net die within 26 days. Fear stress is highly aversive and subjecting an animal to intense fear stress would be very detrimental to welfare (Grandin, 1997).
> ...


Thank you so much for reminding me of this SDH



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The famously accurate Bateson report, with the opening paragraph saying something about 'anyone whose watched bambi and seen the mother killed' - two things, what on earth has a disney film got to do with culling deer, and the other, bambi's mother was shot, not hunted with hounds, which should have been the focus of the report.
> 
> Two words, foot and shot!!


Hardly

I cant really be bothered to go through this rigmarole _again_ So im just going to c&p my reply to you last time you dismissed the Bateson report. I really hope you don't mind Val, but im going to c&p your brilliant retort aswell. (I could never hope to do such a good post lol) http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/282545-hunting-ban-26.html#post1062559933

Here we go - again >

_ isnt that just typical of Countryside Alliance propagandists if things dont go their way then take it out of context to undermine!

In making judgments on the welfare of deer hunted with hounds, he(Professor Bateson) was castigated for using phrases such as "great suffering". The word "suffering" appears in at least two Acts of Parliament dealing with animal welfare and in the brief that Bateson was given by the National Trust. Its dictionary definition is perfectly plain, "suffering" is to have something painful, distressing or injurious inflicted or imposed on one. Bateson concluded that stag hunting creates in the deer a state that existing legislation already prohibits people from inflicting on animals in other contexts. "Ah," said his critics, who were determined to prove that he is anthropomorphic and has a closed mind, "What about the notorious reference to Bambi in the foreword of the report to the National Trust?" Either they did not look at what he wrote or they deliberately misrepresented him. He was merely describing the mindset of some of the protagonists in the stag hunting debate. He continued immediately afterwards to describe the other side as follows: "The hunt supporters, many of whom are excellent naturalists, have believed sincerely that very little suffering is involved in hunting with hounds. They regard this method of culling red deer not only as necessary for the protection of the environment but also as an entirely natural process."

It is clear from that quote that he was setting the scene. he was not adopting a position himself. _

The references to Bambi were taken out of all context by pro-hunt supporters. He was describing the mindset of some of the protagonists, and if you can't see that you are either not as intelligent as I have given you credit for, or you are deliberately using this in order to divert attention from the scientific truth of the report, which clearly and scientifically shows the effect of the stress on the hunted deer.

Ths paragraph from Noushka's link clearly show his intentions as understood by everyone who is not trying to take his words out of context in order to belittle his report:

What about the notorious reference to Bambi in the foreword of the report to the National Trust?" Either they did not look at what he wrote or they deliberately misrepresented him. He was merely describing the mindset of some of the protagonists in the stag hunting debate. He continued immediately afterwards to describe the other side as follows: "The hunt supporters, many of whom are excellent naturalists, have believed sincerely that very little suffering is involved in hunting with hounds. They regard this method of culling red deer not only as necessary for the protection of the environment but also as an entirely natural process."

It is clear from that quote that he was setting the scene. he was not adopting a position himself.

So, putting Bambi to bed forever in this debate, what do you have to say about the scientific results of his study, which clearly show a very raised level of cortisol (the stress shormone) in hunted deer?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...df/9447728.pdf 



rona said:


> What I'm saying is, would my fox or any animals approached or just startle by a human, show the same stress,extra adrenaline and noradrenaline as a fox chased (not caught) by hounds?
> If it does, then I would argue that all humans are instilling fear into our wildlife.
> Should we be littering the countryside with our smelly bodies and creating fear/stress in our wildlife?


we are animals are we not? our ancient ancestors would have been hunted by the large predators of the time & we still possess that fight or flight response. So how do _ YOU_ feel when you're startled compared to when your subjected to protracted fear? Just because animals cant tell us how they feel it would be arrogant to assume they dont feel very much the way we do in stressful situations.

.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> The whole problem with that statement and I'm not saying they are wrong because to me it is obvious that animals feel both stress and pain, having spent a lifetime alongside them.
> But to say you have a study that proves it (in the case of Bateson and Bradshaw) and not mention the proximity of humans when the animal was dispatched is a gapping hole in their study. A deer shot with a rifle is never aware of the human that takes it's life, a hunted deer most certainly is.
> Did they also test deer startled by humans?
> 
> ...


As far as I can see the fox had an option, had she thought her or the cubs were in danger then she had the choice and space to do something about it.
If she thought she or they were under threat then fear would have surely kicked in and she would flee or remove the cubs. The fact that she stayed and watched in close proximity through choice, then I would have thought she obviously didn't feel fear or threatened. Had you got too close for comfort and it made her fearful or unsure then yes she could well have shown fearful behaviour, the fact that she didn't though sounds that in that example or at least at that distance she cant have felt fear otherwise the fear instinct would have surely kicked in and she would have done something about it.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The famously accurate Bateson report, with the opening paragraph saying something about 'anyone whose watched bambi and seen the mother killed' - two things, what on earth has a disney film got to do with culling deer, and the other, bambi's mother was shot, not hunted with hounds, which should have been the focus of the report.
> 
> Two words, foot and shot!!


You obviously didn't read the whole study, and it wasn't just based on Bateson.
It was a study by 
Distress in Animals: Is it Fear, Pain or Physical Stress?
Temple Grandin and Mark Deesing
Department of Animal Science
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
80523-1171, USA 
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners - Symposium 2002
May 17, 2002, Manhattan Beach, California
Special Session
Pain, Stress, Distress and Fear
Emerging Concepts and Strategies in Veterinary Medicine

(Updated September 2003)

It was also based on over 60 references on all different species and by many different institutions and people not just Bateson.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

would we still hunt them and cause them such fear pain and terror if they could speak to us in a language we could all easily understand?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> would we still hunt them and cause them such fear pain and terror if they could speak to us in a language we could all easily understand?


Or would you feel the same about hunting if a pack of dogs chased your cat or dog and ripped it to pieces come to that even if it was in error or an unfortunate accident.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> Yes I can see that but I think many many pages back this line of thought started from the use of the word fear. Now, I know it's off topic a bit (well quite a lot actually) but I would find it interesting if the definition of fear based on SDH post about a study into fear/stress, not the purely physical consequences but the fear factor, were the same if an animal is just startled.
> 
> Anyone know?


This study may help, you would need to read the whole thing in context though. Below is only the last part of the summary.

Using meta-analyses of a systematic literature review, we have identified key factors associated with risk perception in animals. We have shown that prey can reduce their perception of risk and fear via behavioural, morphological or experiential modifications to the same degree that predator behaviour can increase the perception of risk in prey. Life history experience with predators and natural selection sensitize prey to cues from predator behaviour that reveal something about the predator's intent or motivation, and to modify their own behaviour and morphology to reduce the level of threat a given predator poses. It is likely that an animal pays attention to a small subset of the factors we have reviewed to generate an estimate of the relative risk in any given predatory encounter. Future studies should focus on this complex decision making process and identify the trade-offs individuals make when assessing risk. Specifically, future research must be aimed at studying the interactions between these factors (e.g. Cooper et al. 2003) and must go beyond simply identifying significant factors to examine the relative importance of significant factors. Additionally, we believe that attention should be given to modelling risk assessment and flight decisions using Bayesian or dynamic state techniques in order to elucidate how the continuous influx of information about an approaching predator (e.g. behaviour, state, etc.) affects the likelihood than an animal will flee.

Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Or would you feel the same about hunting if a pack of dogs chased your cat or dog and ripped it to pieces come to that even if it was in error or an unfortunate accident.


Not at all. It would knock me sick if this ever happened but what would make my blood boil would be if some people enabled this to happen and got pleasure out of it......but then that would put them in the same bracket as dog fighters, puppy farmers and other scum of the earth.


----------



## Kyria (Oct 29, 2011)

How can they even think of bringing back this barbaric sport.

Signed and shared.


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

Received this email in reply from my MP thought you may like to see it..............

Thank you for contacting me recently regarding the Hunting Act.

I agree there can be no place in a civilised society for animal cruelty and I believe that the vast majority of the British public also support the ban on hunting with hounds which was introduced in England and Wales by the previous UK Labour Government through the 2004 Hunting Act.

As you may be aware, animal welfare issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and as such the Hunting Act only extends to England and Wales. In Scotland, the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act was introduced by the previous Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament and effectively banned the practice of hunting for sport in Scotland. 

It is important that the Hunting Act, like other laws, is properly enforced and there have been 378 successful prosecutions in England and Wales under the Act between 2005 and January 2013. 

The current UK Government, however, made a commitment in the Coalition Agreement to hold a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act in this Parliament and as you will be aware, there has been speculation recently that the UK Government may revisit this issue shortly in the House of Commons. I appreciate this has caused very serious concern among animal rights supporters and organisations such as The League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA. 

I can assure you that I will vigorously oppose any attempt by the UK Government to repeal or amend the Hunting Act in England and Wales. 

I also believe that rather than seeking to revisit or repeal an Act that is working well and enjoys public support, the Government should be focusing on the issues that are affecting communities across the country; rising energy prices, protecting public services and addressing the cost of living crisis. 

Thank you once again for writing to me and for sharing your views. I can assure you that I will continue to bear these in mind if this is debated further in Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Murray

Labour Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South

Shadow Business Minister


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Fluketheduke said:


> lol,dont need no scientist report,of cause animals feel pain just the same as humans do.
> Its not in the animals interest to show these emotions as the weakest in the pack is usually the one that gets eaten.


Most of us don't need a scientist's report to know this. However, it's a ploy of pro-hunters to try to negate the anti-hunters' point of view with accusations of thinking about hunted animals as fluffy little disney creatures with human feelings. It is those people the science is aimed at. Of course, explaining about the science doesn't work - all the pro-hunters do is ignore it or try to belittle it (after all, their argument goes, they live in the countryside so they must know more about countryside issues than scientists!). If they didn't ignore it; they would not be able to justify what they were doing.



rona said:


> What I'm saying is, would my fox or any animals approached or just startle by a human, show the same stress,extra adrenaline and noradrenaline as a fox chased (not caught) by hounds?
> If it does, then I would argue that all humans are instilling fear into our wildlife.
> Should we be littering the countryside with our smelly bodies and creating fear/stress in our wildlife?


The greater the perceived danger by the animal, the greater the levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline produced. The more of these two hormones produced, the greater the feeling of stress. So to answer your question, it would depend entirely upon how each individual animal perceived the danger each individual situation.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> Evidence of a pack of hounds following a scent, the huntsman sending the pack into a covert and emerging with a dead fox (insert alternative species of you choosing ) will all be very tricky to base a prosecution on. 'we flushed it and shot it gov' will be a valid defence even though it's the same scene you'd see in a traditional fox hunt.


So how would this effect the obviously massive amounts of current prosecutions? I don't see the impact on prosecutions if the actual hunting is still banned. Is the only difference between prosecution and not the number of dogs used? I somehow doubt that is the case. Seems to me, proof of hunting and "exceptions" need to be clarified far better so why not concentrate on this aspect if changes are being proposed.

I have no doubt prey animals get stressed and hunting should be done, if necessary in such a way as to reduce suffering. To what level is this to be taken. Let your cat out at night.. it hunts causes stress on prey animals. I have 5 dogs, let them out in a field and one catches a rabbit.. (doubt if one would, but hypothetical). I'm now breaking the law as I am hunting with multiple dogs. Does this mean I can't take more than 2 dogs out at a time just in case?

Seems to be a mountain out of a molehill unless people inform themselves of what the current situation and make changes which mean the system works and is enforceable which it doesn't seem to be at the moment.

Edit: Guess it comes down to what is an illegal hunt and what isn't. Can anyone answer that?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> This study may help, you would need to read the whole thing in context though. Below is only the last part of the summary.
> 
> Using meta-analyses of a systematic literature review, we have identified key factors associated with risk perception in animals. We have shown that prey can reduce their perception of risk and fear via behavioural, morphological or experiential modifications to the same degree that predator behaviour can increase the perception of risk in prey. Life history experience with predators and natural selection sensitize prey to cues from predator behaviour that reveal something about the predator's intent or motivation, and to modify their own behaviour and morphology to reduce the level of threat a given predator poses. It is likely that an animal pays attention to a small subset of the factors we have reviewed to generate an estimate of the relative risk in any given predatory encounter. Future studies should focus on this complex decision making process and identify the trade-offs individuals make when assessing risk. Specifically, future research must be aimed at studying the interactions between these factors (e.g. Cooper et al. 2003) and must go beyond simply identifying significant factors to examine the relative importance of significant factors. Additionally, we believe that attention should be given to modelling risk assessment and flight decisions using Bayesian or dynamic state techniques in order to elucidate how the continuous influx of information about an approaching predator (e.g. behaviour, state, etc.) affects the likelihood than an animal will flee.
> 
> Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment


You're such a good finder SDH

I thought this paragraph was quite relevant to Rona's questions aswell.

_All of the predator density studies classified humans as the predator and measured differences in flight initiation distance between populations that differed in human density. If these populations with high human density have become habituated to humans in a non-threatening context (e.g. in a park or recreation area), they are likely to perceive less risk when approached by a human than would an individual from a population where contact with humans is rare. However, if the prey have not become habituated to the predator, and the predatory species, whether at high density or low density, is always a potential threat, animals that are more experienced or live in higher density areas should perceive higher risk and have higher flight initiation distances_



buffie said:


> Received this email in reply from my MP thought you may like to see it..............
> 
> Thank you for contacting me recently regarding the Hunting Act.
> 
> ...


That's brilliant Buffie, that's two MP's that have responded positively



Goblin said:


> So how would this effect the obviously massive amounts of current prosecutions? I don't see the impact on prosecutions if the actual hunting is still banned. Is the only difference between prosecution and not the number of dogs used? I somehow doubt that is the case. Seems to me, proof of hunting and "exceptions" need to be clarified far better so why not concentrate on this aspect if changes are being proposed.
> 
> The hunting act is quite clear - the law just needs enforcing.Maybe this will help you understand why animal lovers are concerned? http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Reference-material/Briefing-on-amending-Hunting-Act.ashx
> 
> ...


I'll refer you to this again > http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Reference-material/Briefing-on-amending-Hunting-Act.ashx



Spellweaver said:


> *
> Most of us don't need a scientist's report to know this. However, it's a ploy of pro-hunters to try to negate the anti-hunters' point of view with accusations of thinking about hunted animals as fluffy little disney creatures with human feelings. It is those people the science is aimed at. Of course, explaining about the science doesn't work - all the pro-hunters do is ignore it or try to belittle it (after all, their argument goes, they live in the countryside so they must know more about countryside issues than scientists!). If they didn't ignore it; they would not be able to justify what they were doing*.
> 
> The greater the perceived danger by the animal, the greater the levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline produced. The more of these two hormones produced, the greater the feeling of stress. So to answer your question, it would depend entirely upon how each individual animal perceived the danger each individual situation.


Absolutely bang on!

Someone said this yesterday, * "All one needs to have proof that hunting is cruel is a rational mind" *

Defenders of bloodsports ALL have the same fixed mindset, they can never be reasoned with - they don't have rational minds, just an unswerving belief in their own cruel ideology.

.

.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> You're such a good finder SDH
> 
> I thought this paragraph was quite relevant to Rona's questions aswell.
> 
> ...


Our local resident fox seems to confirm that. I went out just a week or two back into the garden and Kobi and Nan were just sitting together on the decking looking up the garden, and when I looked the little devil was sitting on the garage roof, like a dog just looking back at them an grinning from ear to ear, well not grinning but you know what I mean sitting there happy as larry.
As long as he isn't actually in the garden they don't even bother with him either. He doesn't even run when I approach him and am just a few feet away. Im sure he would move in with this lot if he had the chance he seems that tame.

OH saw him trotting down the road like a dog at 8.30am one Saturday morning, and stopping to wee up the lamppost just like a dog

Yes I have cursed him when he poos on the decking by the back door and Ive stood in it, and also when I have to remove and clean up the odd calling card with kennel disinfectant, and Ive also cursed him when he has spates of visiting the garden several times in the nigh for 3/4 days at a time and wakes this lot and me, doesn't mean I would like to see any harm done to him though, and to be honest I would be upset if I found him dead somewhere or run over.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Our local resident fox seems to confirm that. I went out just a week or two back into the garden and Kobi and Nan were just sitting together on the decking looking up the garden, and when I looked the little devil was sitting on the garage roof, like a dog just looking back at them an grinning from ear to ear, well not grinning but you know what I mean sitting there happy as larry.
> As long as he isn't actually in the garden they don't even bother with him either. He doesn't even run when I approach him and am just a few feet away. Im sure he would move in with this lot if he had the chance he seems that tame.
> 
> OH saw him trotting down the road like a dog at 8.30am one Saturday morning, and stopping to wee up the lamppost just like a dog
> ...


Hahaa smart little fox! - fancy cocking his leg up a lampost They are so adaptable little wonder they're such a successful species. Where my hubby works, he & his work mates sometimes leave food out for the resident foxes, though still wary they are well accustomed to urban life and the humans that go with it- and he says they seem pretty streetwise to traffic aswell So long may they and your fox roam

.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Hahaa smart little fox! - fancy cocking his leg up a lampost They are so adaptable little wonder they're such a successful species. Where my hubby works, he & his work mates sometimes leave food out for the resident foxes, though still wary they are well accustomed to urban life and the humans that go with it- and he says they seem pretty streetwise to traffic aswell So long may they and your fox roam
> 
> .


I must admit that I don't feed him, saying him could be a her, but if it was him weeing up the lamppost which is likely must be a him, although I know several neighbours probably do. I don't want to actually encourage him into the garden, as I know these are not happy when he is actually in the garden scouting about as they get territorial then, and the last thing I want is for them to meet up with him in those circumstances. But as long as he sits on his roof they are not particularly bothered.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I must admit that I don't feed him, saying him could be a her, but if it was him weeing up the lamppost which is likely must be a him, although I know several neighbours probably do. I don't want to actually encourage him into the garden, as I know these are not happy when he is actually in the garden scouting about as they get territorial then, and the last thing I want is for them to meet up with him in those circumstances. But as long as he sits on his roof they are not particularly bothered.


Our estate backs on to open farmland and foxes don't tend to venture into built up areas, but if they did I certainly wouldn't encourage them by feeding them either, the last thing I want in my garden, with the huskies, is a fox!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I am very pleased to hear that at least 2 MPs agree with the hunting ban
I have emailed my MP twice about it, and got the same answer each time, sorry its not the answer you wanted to hear, etc etc...
My MP though is a Tory and a farmer, also agreed with the Badger cull
I hope to god he doesn't get in at the next local elections


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

jaycee05 said:


> I am very pleased to hear that at least 2 MPs agree with the hunting ban
> I have emailed my MP twice about it, and got the same answer each time, sorry its not the answer you wanted to hear, etc etc...
> My MP though is a Tory and a farmer, also agreed with the Badger cull
> I hope to god he doesn't get in at the next local elections


Disgusting! another ignorant MP serving their own agenda!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Just seen this

Labour Press Officer, Andrew Knight has said this!! 
*Rumour in Westminster says Conservatives are trading hunting concession against badger cull postponement ....disgraceful * 

How disgusting if this is true! but then this is what the tories have been desperate for all along, repealing the hunting act - they are obsessive in their bloodlust! Utterly shameful.

.


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> That's brilliant Buffie, that's two MP's that have responded positively
> 
> .


I was pleasantly surprised to receive the email,it is good to see that at least some MP's are listening.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Just seen this
> 
> Labour Press Officer, Andrew Knight has said this!!
> *Rumour in Westminster says Conservatives are trading hunting concession against badger cull postponement ....disgraceful *
> ...


Liked your post for the information not what the buggers could likely be doing which wouldn't surprise me at all!!


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Just seen this
> 
> Labour Press Officer, Andrew Knight has said this!!
> *Rumour in Westminster says Conservatives are trading hunting concession against badger cull postponement ....disgraceful *
> ...





Sled dog hotel said:


> Liked your post for the information not what the buggers could likely be doing which wouldn't surprise me at all!!


It really is typical and as you say not in the least surprising.They would sell their own grannies to get what they want


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

buffie said:


> Received this email in reply from my MP thought you may like to see it..............


excellent 

Wow, at this rate i might even be forced to reconsider my long held opinion that theyre all as bad as each other :blink:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So the fact that there are a number of members on this forum, and a few other pet ownership forums, who own dogs, and think it's natural for their dogs to chase rabbits, because it's a natural prey. 

Never mind, it's ok for some but not for others, seems par for the course on here and elsewhere!


----------



## AubreyGecko (Feb 1, 2014)

I think I'm probably the only one on here who will agree to lift the hunting ban!! They are sly evil vicious creatures who kill for fun simply because there is food left behind!! They are nasty evil creatures who attack animals much bigger then themselves because they can!! I loathe them and will happily admit to having been hunting before both on horseback and on foot!! You may disagree with me but they are becoming a nuisance! And where I live it's custom to shoot an animal that's a nuisance! Plus I miss my Boxing Day gallop with the pony club! 
Rant over


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

AubreyGecko said:


> I think I'm probably the only one on here who will agree to lift the hunting ban!! They are sly evil vicious creatures who kill for fun simply because there is food left behind!! They are nasty evil creatures who attack animals much bigger then themselves because they can!! I loathe them and will happily admit to having been hunting before both on horseback and on foot!! You may disagree with me but they are becoming a nuisance! And where I live it's custom to shoot an animal that's a nuisance! Plus I miss my Boxing Day gallop with the pony club!
> Rant over


Rep for the honesty


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

AubreyGecko said:


> They are sly evil vicious creatures who kill for fun simply because there is food left behind!! They are nasty evil creatures who attack animals much bigger then themselves because they can!! I loathe them


Well that's a very good, honest description of some members of the human species..........now lets talk about the foxes


----------



## Linda Weasel (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm not sure if I'm gonna put this very well, but all animals have predators. The fox doesn't care if he's chased by one person, or forty, his natural instinct to run will be the same and he isn't, while running, thinking that he'll never see his wife and children again, or worrying about what the hounds will do if they catch up with him.
Without man as a predator we can see an example of what happens to the fox population in our over populated, under-resourced urban foxes. I have seen very few healthy urban foxes...most of them are underweight, undersized,mange-, tick-, worm-, and flea-ridden.

Hunting is not ideal, but what is left to control foxes is far worse.

Farmers will continue to seek to control foxes with whatever means are allowed them.
They are allowed to poison foxes; that's a horrible and slow death.
They can shoot foxes; most of them will be using a 12 bore, not a rifle, and they may not be great marksmen anyway,but that isn't important cos the fox will probably die from it's wounds eventually, specially if they use lead shot so if the gangrene doesn't get the fox then the lead poisoning will.
It is legal to trap/snare foxes, and I can't remember if the legal requirement is to inspect your trap/snare every eight or twenty four hours....well, if it's eight hours, or even if it were two, that's a long time for an animal to suffer that much.

Everybody has an opinion; nobody has an answer.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the fact that there are a number of members on this forum, and a few other pet ownership forums, who own dogs, and think it's natural for their dogs to chase rabbits, because it's a natural prey.
> 
> Never mind, it's ok for some but not for others, seems par for the course on here and elsewhere!


I treat everyone who thinks hunting is fun as I treat my dogs when they chase a rabbit - I tell them to stop.

The only double standard on this forum with regard to hunting is the double standard of pro-hunters who deliberately hunt and kill animals for fun and then try to say that they are animal lovers. Never have been able to, and never will be able to, get my head around that one.


----------



## AubreyGecko (Feb 1, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Well that's a very good, honest description of some members of the human species..........now lets talk about the foxes


I also believe in bringing back the death penalty or murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... But back onto foxes they are mangy nowadays they can't find enough to eat as the towns are getting larger so control the population! Personally I'd rather then be an animal you only saw if you went looking or went to a zoo (':


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Rep for the honesty


Aubrey 's openness certainly makes a change from the closet pros on here pretending they are indifferent about fox hunting while clearly supporting it lol



Linda Weasel said:


> I'm not sure if I'm gonna put this very well, but all animals have predators. The fox doesn't care if he's chased by one person, or forty, his natural instinct to run will be the same and he isn't, while running, thinking that he'll never see his wife and children again, or worrying about what the hounds will do if they catch up with him.
> Without man as a predator we can see an example of what happens to the fox population in our over populated, under-resourced urban foxes. I have seen very few healthy urban foxes...most of them are underweight, undersized,mange-, tick-, worm-, and flea-ridden.
> 
> Hunting is not ideal, but what is left to control foxes is far worse.
> ...


It is a fallacy that foxes have to be hunted or culled to maintain a healthy population. Foxes are highly territorial and their numbers are regulated by availability of suitable territories and food.

Here is a farmer with a grasp on ecology, without prejudice & who understands & appreciates the value of foxes. Conservatives Against Fox Hunting

MARCH 7, 2014
POSTED BY CAFH
Farmer speaks out against relaxation of Hunt ban. March 2014

Dear Mr Eustice

I gather that you/your department is angling to bring back hunting with dogs by the devious means of increasing the number of dogs allowed under the hunting act, which currently allows for 2 dogs.

I am a farmer in the Southwest  Mid Devon.

I have had and still hold interests in other businesses.

On my farm holding I have approx. 10,000 free range chicken (as high as 20,000 in the past) and at this time of the year plenty of lambs.

I have a healthy number of foxes which are not controlled in any way.

It is very simple and inexpensive to organise farming practice to avoid stock losses to foxes.

Foxes save me a great deal by controlling rabbits (reducing crop losses) and rats, they are more valuable to a farmer alive than dead.

There is no justifiable case for killing foxes.

Hunting is not a sport, it is plain and simple murder by cowards of creatures which cannot fight back.

When I was young I used to shoot but realised by my late teens (mid 1960s) that there was no competition and I had no moral right to destroy our natural heritage, creatures which belong to the nation.

Too many of our native species (flora and Fauna) have already been decimated  its time to stop the destruction.

I think that people who have a desire to kill for the sake of it need psychiatric help.

I was born into a staunchly Conservative family and been a Conservative all my life.

In common with approx. 80% of countryside people I am totally against the return of foxhunting in particular, a practice which has no value or place in a modern civilised society.

If hunting with dogs returns as a consequence of Conservative party action I will never vote Conservative again.

Yours sincerely

Graham Cooper

We receive many emails from Farmers who do not want to see a return of hunting or the relaxation of the ban. The above letter was sent to us in March 2014



AubreyGecko said:


> I also believe in bringing back the death penalty or murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... But back onto foxes they are mangy nowadays they can't find enough to eat as the towns are getting larger so control the population! Personally I'd rather then be an animal you only saw if you went looking or went to a zoo (':


It has been proven that culling urban foxes doesn't work, killing resident foxes merely creates a territorial void which is then filled by other foxes 

Pretty soon zoo's will be the only places many species will be found, what a depressing attitude to wild animals you have.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> excellent
> 
> Wow, at this rate i might even be forced to reconsider my long held opinion that theyre all as bad as each other :blink:


 this tickled me lol

Yesterday, I received a LETTER from my MP, regarding the badger cull, he was telling me he has written to Cameron & enclosed was a copy of that letter aswell. Pleased to see hes doing the job we pay him for


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

AubreyGecko said:


> I think I'm probably the only one on here who will agree to lift the hunting ban!! They are sly evil vicious creatures who kill for fun simply because there is food left behind!! They are nasty evil creatures who attack animals much bigger then themselves because they can!! I loathe them and will happily admit to having been hunting before both on horseback and on foot!! You may disagree with me but they are becoming a nuisance! And where I live it's custom to shoot an animal that's a nuisance! Plus I miss my Boxing Day gallop with the pony club!
> Rant over


Are we talking about humans here?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Aubrey 's openness certainly makes a change from the closet pros on here pretending they are indifferent about fox hunting while clearly supporting it lol
> 
> It is a fallacy that foxes have to be hunted or culled to maintain a healthy population. Foxes are highly territorial and their numbers are regulated by availability of suitable territories and food.
> 
> ...


well said Graham Cooper


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Aubrey 's openness certainly makes a change from the closet pros on here pretending they are indifferent about fox hunting while clearly supporting it lol


Bit of a dig there, Noushka? I've never hunted, I'd prefer not to chase down an animal that knows it's being chased, is stressed etc then have it torn up. Happy that I've said that? 

Saying that, if the dogs were to fetch me rabbits or birds, which they do, I'd be happy, because in my opinion, that is natural and I wouldn't discourage them. I'm also quite happy to consider shooting birds/rabbits etc as long as the gun is a good shot and can manage a kill shot as opposed to making the animal suffer. Surely preferable to sending an animal to slaughter with the stupid new rules that owners can no longer slaughter at home/on the farm.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

AubreyGecko said:


> I think I'm probably the only one on here who will agree to lift the hunting ban!! They are sly evil vicious creatures who kill for fun simply because there is food left behind!! They are nasty evil creatures who attack animals much bigger then themselves because they can!! I loathe them and will happily admit to having been hunting before both on horseback and on foot!! You may disagree with me but they are becoming a nuisance! And where I live it's custom to shoot an animal that's a nuisance! Plus I miss my Boxing Day gallop with the pony club!
> Rant over


Well done for describing humans down to a tee...

Humans kill for fun....foxes kill for food, the only difference is that we have set storage for all the excess that we kill...the fox has to come back to finish what he started..

Ohhh you can still have your boxing day gallop without chasing another creature until they are ripped apart... You do not NEED to be chasing a fox to go for a gallop ut:

I live in a town that has many urban foxes (wish we didn't but when you keep building on their territory then you will bump into them...) I have seen ONE mange covered fox in 13 years.... Not once have I been attacked by a fox...not once has my dog been attacked by a fox...and OMG not once have ANY of my rabbits been lost to the foxes....why? Well because foxes are not these evil killing machines people like to make them out to be...foxes do not attack for the sake of attacking  Foxes do not attack bigger prey just because they can  and finally...if you fox proof your enclosures properly....well..funnily the foxes can't get in :idea:

If the fox did get in, then the ONLY person at fault is ME..not the fox..

Sorry, but the only animal that can be described as evil are humans....

Oh and before anyone says "Oh look isn't the townee cute"....I am not and never will be a townee...I grew up on a working farm and know perfectly well how the countryside works...I have been on a fox hunt as a child....drag hunting is far more fun in my eyes....not so much stopping and starting and no bloodlust at the end..bonus 

If the foxes were shot by a professional marksman so that the kill was instant then I wouldn't be so against it...but hunting with a pack of hounds is barbaric...especially when those hounds manage to kill a few pets that got in the way...


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

For those who don't want to give up hunting on horseback or with a pack of dogs there are alternatives, its called drag hunting. So for the people who do seek a thrill from riding and following a pack of dogs chasing a scent, they don't have to stop or give up their pack of hounds. Its all explained in an article From Horse and Hound.

All about drag hunting |Horse & Hound

So it is a sport that doesn't need to be discontinued completely it can still carry on, the only difference is you don't need to chase a fox and have it ripped to pieces to do it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

AubreyGecko said:


> But back onto foxes they are mangy nowadays they can't find enough to eat as the towns are getting larger so control the population!


wow

But back to foxes, they are starving nowadays because we've destroyed much of their habitat, so lets kill more of them.

pandas too then? elephants? what kind of logic is this?]

If you saw a starving dog would you start culling dogs?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

_Foxes are sly, evil creatures._

Let's just generalise that to all foxes, ey, based on a few who may be a nuisance to farmers, etc.

Foxes go through bins in my gardens as I live right by an old railway track with lots of overgrowth. Do I think they're a nuisance? No, more than the cats in the neighbourhood who tear up bin bags and take food out, cats that poop in gardens, scream at night.

Nope, just what a fox would do and a cat too I guess. Perhaps we should stop building so close to their environments and they wouldn't keep coming into urban areas. But let's blame the fox instead.

Also, a fox is not evil. I really don't think foxes think like we do as to delibereately be a nuisance and hurt others.

Humans are the evil animals on this planet. Shall we hunt them down with knifes and guns and play a bit of hide and seek.

But, I guess I am generalising that all humans are evil, just like all foxes are evil.

At the end of the day it is extremely selfish to want to rid the foxes based on some who may be a nuisance.

Once again man wants to prove how he owns the planet (Which we do not own, we just live here) and wants to take control on what can live beside him.

Well, picking and choosing can lead to some nasty consequences when one tries to take the natural process and nature into their own hands.

If we are predators of foxes and this is okay because that's what animals do then let's forget all about the murder of humans. After all, we are animals no, so I guess it is just some old instinct coming out of some of us where we need to hunt others. Let's apply that with the destruction and murder of man.

Absolute bull once again.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I'll refer you to this again


Once again ignoring the question. What defines a legal hunt? This is the question which isn't being answered.

What is the difference between the England, Scotland and Wales in the type of hunts, prosecutions etc and how does it effect styles of hunts and ease of those prosecutions?

Facts, not suppositions.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I can't get my head around killing anything for pleasure.

If a person did that to another person, they'd be labelled a sadistic psychopath and locked up.

I believe fox numbers do need to be controlled. But there must be more efficient ways to do it than send a large group of horses and people in pinques trampling across the countryside after one or two foxes. 

Funny old country, this.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> A peasant hitting your car at 30mph does fair bit of damage.


Sorry lily, I know this is a serious subject but I couldn't help but laugh at this typo!  Darn serfs!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Shoshannah said:


> Sorry lily, I know this is a serious subject but I couldn't help but laugh at this typo!  Darn serfs!


A peasant hitting your car at 30mph does fair bit of damage.

Especially peasants in red jackets shouting Tally Ho


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Bit of a dig there, Noushka? I've never hunted, I'd prefer not to chase down an animal that knows it's being chased, is stressed etc then have it torn up. Happy that I've said that?
> 
> Saying that, if the dogs were to fetch me rabbits or birds, which they do, I'd be happy, because in my opinion, that is natural and I wouldn't discourage them. I'm also quite happy to consider shooting birds/rabbits etc as long as the gun is a good shot and can manage a kill shot as opposed to making the animal suffer. Surely preferable to sending an animal to slaughter with the stupid new rules that owners can no longer slaughter at home/on the farm.


Not a dig just an observation 

Still not getting the comparison between harrying an animal to its death with a pack of dogs and shooting animals for the pot or the suffering within livestock industry people keep bringing up?

I see the comparison between the latter two & I know full well the horrors of the livestock industry which is why I don't eat meat. As some obviously feel so strongly about this issue i'm curious to know if they still eat farmed meat? or do they just keep throwing that red herring in to distract from the topic in hand?



Goblin said:


> Once again ignoring the question. What defines a legal hunt? This is the question which isn't being answered.
> 
> What is the difference between the England, Scotland and Wales in the type of hunts, prosecutions etc and how does it effect styles of hunts and ease of those prosecutions?
> 
> Facts, not suppositions.


Legal > flush the fox out to guns using 2 dogs.

Hunting act explained > Myths & Realities | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

bit more indepth on the deceit behind the weakening of the act & why adding the loophole will make the law all but unenforceable. >>

David Cameron sends out fox hunting return signals - TEK Journalism UK

Facts! :001_tt2:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> I believe fox numbers do need to be controlled. But there must be more efficient ways to do it than send a large group of horses and people in pinques trampling across the countryside after one or two foxes.


Yes this  



Oh sorry, me highlighting this means I'm deflecting the debate from Hunting because I support it!!!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

No. Not traps and snares.

Have seen the horrific damage they can do to animals first hand. I've had to cut cats out of them before.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the fact that there are a number of members on this forum, and a few other pet ownership forums, who own dogs, and think it's natural for their dogs to chase rabbits, because it's a natural prey.
> 
> Never mind, it's ok for some but not for others, seems par for the course on here and elsewhere!


I have a dog that would hunt, given the chance - but I don't allow him to do it and take every step possible to prevent him from so doing.

He has occasionally managed to catch something, but certainly not at my behest.

And, definitely not because I have donned my tweeds and joddies and set off with my mates and a pack of dogs and dug out a fox from its den, chased it across country for hours, dug it out again when it has gone to ground, chased it again and eventually, when it is exhausted, scared witless, but can run no more, allowed the dogs to rip it to shreds. There is a difference.

My dog does not know any better. Humans should.

Fox hunting is barbaric IMO.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> Sorry lily, I know this is a serious subject but I couldn't help but laugh at this typo!  Darn serfs!


lol. I laughed too when I realised what I had written. need a new lap top.lol


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> I have a dog that would hunt, given the chance - but I don't allow him to do it and take every step possible to prevent him from so doing.
> 
> He has occasionally managed to catch something, but certainly not at my behest.
> 
> ...


You may not allow your dogs to chase and kill wildlife, but some actively do encourage their dogs to chase and catch their own meal(s). Apparently it's *natural* - still ends up with an animal running in fear of it's life, so EXACTLY the same cruelty people are wittering on about with banning fox hunting, and yet it's ok for one apparently, but not the other.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> I can't get my head around killing anything for pleasure.
> 
> If a person did that to another person, they'd be labelled a sadistic psychopath and locked up.
> 
> ...


Fox numbers have not increased in the 9 years the ban has been in place. Thus proving again there is no need for hunting.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> No. Not traps and snares.
> 
> Have seen the horrific damage they can do to animals first hand. I've had to cut cats out of them before.


People seem to think the alternative for those farmers that have a rogue fox is the gun. It's much more likely to be a snare because they only need checking once a day  Shooting would take up far too much of a farmers time.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You may not allow your dogs to chase and kill wildlife, but some actively do encourage their dogs to chase and catch their own meal(s). Apparently it's *natural* - still ends up with an animal running in fear of it's life, so EXACTLY the same cruelty people are wittering on about with banning fox hunting, and yet it's ok for one apparently, but not the other.


but if your dog chases after its own dinner, doesn't whatever its chasing have a fair chance to escape without any intervention from a human? I don't see this in the same light at all.

Also, a wild animal in its own environment does stand a good chance of getting away from a domestic pet.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I live in a totally rural area. I have seen foxes very occasionally....do they really need numbers controlling at all?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> but if your dog chases after its own dinner, doesn't whatever its chasing have a fair chance to escape without any intervention from a human? I don't see this in the same light at all.
> 
> Also, a wild animal in its own environment does stand a good chance of getting away from a domestic pet.


Yes it does, but then so does a fox. So what's the difference? Absolutely none to the animal that's chased, it's only that some people seem to think one's fine, the other isn't.



lilythepink said:


> I live in a totally rural area. I have seen foxes very occasionally....do they really need numbers controlling at all?


Yes, in some areas, not in all though. There's not a high fox population where I live, I see the occasional one, but rarely hear them, which is a better give away.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You may not allow your dogs to chase and kill wildlife, but some actively do encourage their dogs to chase and catch their own meal(s). Apparently it's *natural* - still ends up with an animal running in fear of it's life, so EXACTLY the same cruelty people are wittering on about with banning fox hunting, and yet it's ok for one apparently, but not the other.


But, if a dog chases and kills a rabbit, then it's one against one and the survival of the fittest and a quick chase, catch and despatch. Or, the rabbit gets away.

Fox hunting is a completely different scenario. The fox's means of escape are deliberately blocked off, aided by men with terriers who fill in fox holes to limit their means of escape, who send terriers into holes to chase them out, use spades to dig them out when they have gone to ground - not to mention the vast number of horsemen and women, hunt supporters and a large number of dogs. The odds are stacked against the fox.

If a dog owner is doing a similar sort of thing in order to enable their dog to catch their dinner, then they are no better in my book.

Also, the rabbit is being hunted for food, the fox is being hunted for fun.

Personally, as a veggie, I don't like either but dogs are not herbivores and better they should eat a free range rabbit than farmed animals.

I do get what you are saying about double standards, though.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> But, if a dog chases and kills a rabbit, then it's one against one and the survival of the fittest and a quick chase, catch and despatch. Or, the rabbit gets away.
> 
> Fox hunting is a completely different scenario. The fox's means of escape are deliberately blocked off, aided by men with terriers who fill in fox holes to limit their means of escape, who send terriers into holes to chase them out, use spades to dig them out when they have gone to ground - not to mention the vast number of horsemen and women, hunt supporters and a large number of dogs. The odds are stacked against the fox.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily one on one, lots of people own multiple dogs, and never bother stopping their dogs chasing wildlife.

With the large number of people and horses, the odds are pretty good for the fox, they all have to make it over obstacles the fox can simply sail through, and the odds are a lot better than being shot.

Makes no difference to the animal being chased if they *knew* they were going to be eaten, it only makes a difference to humans because of they way they think about things.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Yes this
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, me highlighting this means I'm deflecting the debate from Hunting because I support it!!!


Sickening, you have to question the mentality of someone who could subject a living creature to this aswell 

Firstly, fox hunting doesn't control the fox population & secondly do you seriously believe gamekeepers & farmers didn't snare foxes pre the ban?

Snares are barbaric & most certainly do need highlighting. I have brought snares up many times on here, yet the shoot supporters cry me down, don't they??

There is no place in a civilized society for hunting wild animals with dogs OR snaring them. No creature should ever have to suffer the horrors of either, we should be fighting to end BOTH.

Don't know if you noticed the petition i put on before > League Against Cruel Sports

I urge everyone to watch this video - it highlights the horrors animals are subjected to in snares.

_The pro gun lobby would have the public believe that there is currently no alternative to snaring; that it is an essential tool to manage wildlife populations; and that, if used correctly, it can be a humane way to capture predators. The truth is very different, as this report, our 2013 conference on shooting, Gunning For Change, and our investigative film, Gunsmoke and Mirrors, released 2012_

[youtube_browser]/prbPW-eNGG0[/youtube_browser]

Theres lots of information on here about snares > http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Fi...-Against-Cruel-Sports-Snares-Report-2013.ashx


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I really think this is going to be my last comment on this subject as it seems to be doing nothing but going around in circles.

I personally think there is a huge difference in, say, a cat going out and hunting down a mouse to what we do when it comes to fox hunting.

The cat is a natural predator, used to hunt to survive before it became domesticated so those natural instincts are there.

It will hunt, it will kill....

It doesn't mean I agree with it but having a dog is easier to control if it sniffs something out than a cat that can wander around and go far.

Fox hunting is where people use dogs to flush out a fox and then have those dogs tear it to pieces so the people can feel some form of power as if they are the almighty and strong.

They are using the dog for pure entertainment.

A big difference in a cat going out and catching something on it's own will, to people deliberately using dogs to kill something.

That is the difference. Do I round up live birds and let my cat kill them because it brings me some form of pleasure to see an animal in pain. Do I buy live mice and let them loose in my home for some fun.

No, I don't. No, I would never let dogs deliberately hunt down foxes.

There is a huge, huge, difference to an animal killing something naturally, like a cat wandering around and hunting, or your dog wandering ahead and getting a rabbit before you can intervene, compared to you using dogs to get at foxes.

So, people can call me a hypocrite because I eat meat
You can say everyone in cars (Nice generalisation once again) purposely mows down animals in the road
You can say that if someone accidentally hits an animal in the road they are a hypocrite for being against fox hunting

Also, it does seriously bug the freaking crap out of me that one uses the excuse time and time again that 'Wouldn't hear this if it wasn't something fluffy and cute'

Such a ridiculous comment. 

Yes, there may be people who do not protest against other animals being abused badly, hunted, etc, like foxes but then to be honest there is a lot of things I do not know about, lots of things this forum can teach me and help me to make my own decisions.

Maybe, Noushka or someone else may post another topic at some point in the future and I might become educated and agree.

So just because one does not think about other animals, does not mean because they may not necessarily be cute or fluffy or nobody cares.

My thoughts on this has nothing to do with how cute the fox is. It is the brutality used to kill a fox based on nothing but pure pleasure and fun.

It does not sit well with me

Murdering a human being because some people get power, sexual pleasure, entertainment from it, does not sit well with me.

If everybody had the attitude 'Well, you do this bad thing, naughty you, so how dare you being against something else that is bad' this world would be a worse place.

Because one may do something that is not environmentally friendly, hurts wildlife, damages the atmosphere, etc (Which we are all guilty of in some form) does not mean we should just be ignorant and uncaring and not try to raise such issues and battle some things.

Like Porps said, two wrongs don't make a right. So I do not believe that if one person does one bad thing (My example of me eating meat) means they should not bother and care about other things because they are deemed a hypocrite is stupid. My point made to Porps really in my environmental thread where I remarked because companies may pollute the Earth worse doesn't mean we shouldn't do our bit. Doing nothing because they don't is stupid.

I really would not want such an attitude that I should not be against anything, should agree with everything because of one bad thing I may do. I eat meat, I am against fox hunting. I will express my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> People seem to think the alternative for those farmers that have a rogue fox is the gun. It's much more likely to be a snare because they only need checking once a day  Shooting would take up far too much of a farmers time.


Snares are as indiscriminate as hunting with hounds, if a farmer genuinely wanted to kill _ 'a'_ rogue fox snaring would be a poor choice.

Farmers shouldn't need alternatives ways to kill foxes - they should let foxes live out their lives free of persecution.



lilythepink said:


> I live in a totally rural area. I have seen foxes very occasionally....do they really need numbers controlling at all?


No they don't Lily, foxes control their population density with territorial behaviour along with abundance of prey.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> I really think this is going to be my last comment on this subject as it seems to be doing nothing but going around in circles.
> 
> I personally think there is a huge difference in, say, a cat going out and hunting down a mouse to what we do when it comes to fox hunting.
> 
> ...


But our bits may be different to others. Who are they then to judge us?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm not judging anyone.

I am however being judged and it has not been me who has resorted to childish comments at some point in this thread either.

Never mind though.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blackcats said:


> I'm not judging anyone.
> 
> I am however being judged and it has not been me who has resorted to childish comments at some point in this thread either.
> 
> Never mind though.


No I know you haven't. You have made some very good points 
I'm responding to your point. I have been judged too


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Getting a little bored of the holier than thou vegetarian attitude. I think that unless you are sourcing as responsibily as possible and avoiding certain foods, you can't believe you have no impact on the environment.

Why is soy bad for the Amazon rainforest?

And sorry, Blackcats, it's true that if the animal weren't so cute, there wouldn't be a such a huge campaign.

Pick your cause and rant away.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm not a vegetarian and I have mentioned that many times on this thread.

I haven't seen anyone preach being a veggie on this thread unless I missed posts. I have seen many posts on how people are saying if you are a meat eater you are a hypocrite in being against fox hunting which is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course nobody is perfect which it stated in my above post and clearly states that, and my environmental thread where I got into a debate about it and some people wanted to claim they do no bad impact on the environment and planet itself.

We all contribute something bad but then we all fight for something. 

At the end of the day, I doubt anyone on this thread would preach veggie lifestyle and then slam us meat eaters as people who sign these sort of petitions, I am sure many, many, are meat eaters.

And nobody will turn down signings and people joining the cause if they are meat eaters.

Otherwise, I am sure there wouldn't be many supporters.

I also have to disagree. I know Noushka has been posting on badgers. I don't think they are cute and fluffy at all. I do have to admit I haven't joined those threads and signed petitions because I know very little on hunting of badgers, other than TB and cattle being hurt.

I'm all for learning though and if I research and agree I fight for the cause. Nothing cute and fluffy about it, otherwise I would have already signed such petitions on badgers. I fight for causes I believe in. Nothing to do with cute and fluffy, the same with this petition and thread.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Humans eat animals - I don't have a problem with that.

Humans hunting ANY animal for sport, regardless of how it looks - I have a problem with that.


----------



## Roger Downes (Sep 17, 2013)

Received a letter from my MP today, replying to the e-mail that I sent to him. Although probably a standard letter that he sends as reply to constituents who express concerns over this matter, and not surprisingly a little Labour flag waving is used, but he is firmly against any amendment to the Hunting act.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> getting a little bored of the holier than thou vegetarian attitude. I think that unless you are sourcing as responsibily as possible and avoiding certain foods, you can't believe you have no impact on the environment.
> 
> why is soy bad for the amazon rainforest?
> 
> ...


As soon as I mentioned I didnt eat meat I predicted a u turn on the horizon - you didn't disappoint  A few pages ago you were agreeing with those who were 'preaching' to others about the livestock industry -hilarious

(& for your information the almost all soya grown goes to feed livestock http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/livestock_impacts.pdf )



cinnamontoast said:


> whilst i don't wish to play shadows and mirrors, i have to say that the arguments for avoiding meat are valid, imo, particularly meat slaughtered under religious auspices. I note that denmark has just banned halal slaughter as it's considered cruel. Shame they can't get rid of the annual mutilation and massacre of the dolphins that they encourage.


quote]



cinnamontoast said:


> google red lion slaughter house. Unless you don't eat meat and you only ever use sustainable organic food, then it's not possible to be mr clean, sorry. You don't need meat to live, you're not an obligate carnivore.
> 
> I agree whole heartedly with what rona says about a few fluffy animals compared to livestock which is often incredibly badly treated so we can have a nice steak-consider how much of the rainforest is going each day so we can enjoy the occasional mcdonalds or other fast food or your choice.
> 
> I agree that there are much bigger issues at stake and concentrating on a relatively minor issue such as whether fox hunting should be re-legalised is not ultimately going to matter, in my opinion.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Roger Downes said:


> Received a letter from my MP today, replying to the e-mail that I sent to him. Although probably a standard letter that he sends as reply to constituents who express concerns over this matter, and not surprisingly a little Labour flag waving is used, but he is firmly against any amendment to the Hunting act.


Aw wonderful news Roger

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Wasn't on about you, Blackcats. I know you eat meat, read it on here.

And Noushka, I didn't say I was against meat, I eat it and I'm aware of the environmental impact and yet I still choose to eat it and to wear leather and to keep dogs and a horse in extremely unnatural conditions. I'm not a hypocrite, my posts were not denigrating meat eaters because I'm quite aware of how slaughterhouses work. I mentioned the issues, but I fail to see the point in campaigning against the whole idea of slaughterhouses which some idiots via various groups plus a Facebook group did. Yes, they're horrible places and hopefully the installation of cameras will be a workable tool in ensuring better standards, but I don't live the 'Good Life' nor will i ever. The media is a powerful thing. All they did was succeed in encouraging farmers to use live transport to ship animals abroad for slaughter. Charming. 

I was vegetarian for an awfully long time, but I don't feel bad for now being an omnivore. 

I think, Noushka, that you take this forum and what is said on it far too seriously.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> And sorry, Blackcats, it's true that if the animal weren't so cute, there wouldn't be a such a huge campaign.
> .


And sorry Cinnamontoast, but you are wrong. Your statement is not true. It is is nothing more than another excuse trotted out by pro-hunters in an attempt to devalue the opinions of anti-hunters.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the posts on this thead and any other of the numerous threads where pro-hunters try to justify their actions. The only people ever to mention fluffy creatures and the pro-hunters, not the anti-hunters.



cinnamontoast said:


> I think, Noushka, that you take this forum and what is said on it far too seriously.


Long may people take serious issues seriously. Thank goodness there are some people in the world who actually care.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blackcats said:


> I'm not a vegetarian and I have mentioned that many times on this thread.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone preach being a veggie on this thread unless I missed posts. I have seen many posts on how people are saying if you are a meat eater you are a hypocrite in being against fox hunting which is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Bless you BC an open mind is all anyone needs to make informed opinions & I have learned quite a lot about badgers & the badger cull that I could share with you


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Wasn't on about you, Blackcats. I know you eat meat, read it on here.
> 
> And Noushka, I didn't say I was against meat, I eat it and I'm aware of the environmental impact and yet I still choose to eat it and to wear leather and to keep dogs and a horse in extremely unnatural conditions. I'm not a hypocrite, my posts were not denigrating meat eaters because I'm quite aware of how slaughterhouses work. I mentioned the issues, but I fail to see the point in campaigning against the whole idea of slaughterhouses which some idiots via various groups plus a Facebook group did. Yes, they're horrible places and hopefully the installation of cameras will be a workable tool in ensuring better standards, but I don't live the 'Good Life' nor will i ever. The media is a powerful thing. All they did was succeed in encouraging farmers to use live transport to ship animals abroad for slaughter. Charming.
> 
> ...


lol Why? because i stand up for my beliefs? As it happens I enjoy a good debate & i never take it seriously enough to spit my dummy out with people.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And sorry Cinnamontoast, but you are wrong. Your statement is not true. It is is nothing more than another excuse trotted out by pro-hunters in an attempt to devalue the opinions of anti-hunters.
> 
> Don't believe me? Go back and read the posts on this thead and any other of the numerous threads where pro-hunters try to justify their actions. The only people ever to mention fluffy creatures and the pro-hunters, not the anti-hunters.
> 
> Long may people take serious issues seriously. Thank goodness there are some people in the world who actually care.


Think I made it good and clear earlier, having been pushed into a corner, that I'm not pro-hunt. Being a horsey person does not equal being pro-hunt.

Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Think I made it good and clear earlier, having been pushed into a corner, that I'm not pro-hunt. Being a horsey person does not equal being pro-hunt.
> 
> Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.


Do you think people who care about foxes don't care about bees aswell?  Some of us are more than capable of caring about both. Out of interest do you care more about bees because their decline will affect us?

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Think I made it good and clear earlier, having been pushed into a corner, that I'm not pro-hunt. Being a horsey person does not equal being pro-hunt.
> 
> Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.


This is how much interest there was in a Bee petition 

http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/300604-petition-stop-pesticides-harming-bees.html


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Who are these pro hunters?

Nobody seems to know


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

14 replies on that thread?  

I care about the decline of bees because I believe them to be fundamental to the ecology of this country whereas foxes simply aren't. *Waits for argument that they are irrevocably the foundation of the entire system*

I think that there has been one pro-hunter (not of foxes) on this thread bar Aubreygecko and it's an ongoing 'feud'. 

I must also say that if someone were to declare him or herself a hunter, I would still respect him or her if I already had that opinion. It is not the whole of the person, it is one aspect with which someone may not necessarily agree.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> This is how much interest there was in a Bee petition
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/300604-petition-stop-pesticides-harming-bees.html


Well ive already signed this one (along with all my family, I have their email addresses lol)- also shared it many times. But just done it again. Paterson wont listen though, bee killing neonicitinoids & GMO are firmly on his agenda.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> 14 replies on that thread?
> 
> I care about the decline of bees because I believe them to be fundamental to the ecology of this country whereas foxes simply aren't. *Waits for argument that they are irrevocably the foundation of the entire system*
> 
> ...


My sister contacted me the other day. A couple of blue tits had started building a nest in her bird box, and then bumble bees decided to take up residence, She wanted to know what I thought she should do. 
I said leave the Bumbles, we so need the bees


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> This is how much interest there was in a Bee petition
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/300604-petition-stop-pesticides-harming-bees.html


i signed that petition, though i didnt post in the thread. I got a letter from my MP about that 1 too.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

rona said:


> This is how much interest there was in a Bee petition
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/300604-petition-stop-pesticides-harming-bees.html


I didn't know there was a petition for it. Not everybody knows about these things because not everyone is aware and is educated.

I do care for the bee's actually and if I could be bothered to pull up some of my posts, there would be mentioned of how I feel about bees and their importance to us. We need bee's to pollinate everything. Without them, we would perish.

Just check out my environmental thread to show that I am prepared to be falsely accused of preaching to others because I show my care.

I care about the environment and the animals for it. They all serve a purpose to us. I care about trees and always feel upset seeing one cut down.

The amazon rainforest is being destroyed since man has gone into it. Twenty percent has always been destroyed. Tribes within the Amazon have been made to work for places like the Body Shop crushing nuts. We destroy land for gold mining, destroy tree's which is less co2 being absorbed and o2 being given out.

I care about a lot of things for the Earth and mother nature.

But, yes, I do agree with you there are a lot of important issues that do get ignored. But you may have educated people with this now Rona, so thank you. Education is what it is about.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

To be honest, it all depends on what you mean as hunting.

I think I said in that other thread about my thoughts on hunting. I know somebody who hunts rabbit, kills pigeons, etc, and takes them home and eats them.

That doesn't particularly bother me, nor fishing as long as they are put back in or only killed if eaten.

I am aware we will kill for food. After all, I eat meat.

But then I am aware some people use hunting as an excuse and try to push it in front of what their true aim is; evil fun.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> 14 replies on that thread?
> 
> I care about the decline of bees because I believe them to be fundamental to the ecology of this country whereas foxes simply aren't. *Waits for argument that they are irrevocably the foundation of the entire system*
> 
> ...


There'd probably be _less than_ 14 replies on this thread if people hadn't jumped on it to tell,those of us who care, that there are more worthy causes than trying to save 'a few' foxes from a horrendous fate lol

I guess I should thank you 'other antis' for keeping it going lol

Our ecosystem is already impoverished we have lost all our large carnivores, foxes are one of the largest we have left & an important native species. Not only that but they are sentient animals, they feel pain & terror & deserve just as much protection from abuse as the dogs at our feet do.

.

.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I just wish that we humans would learn to leave Mother Nature alone.

It's not our place to decide what lives and what dies.

We never seem to learn from our appalling mistakes. Hunting some species to extinction and introducing others, such as cane toads, and decimating natural species.

We didn't create them, we don't have the right to kill them in the name of sport.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> Humans eat animals - I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> Humans hunting ANY animal for sport, regardless of how it looks - I have a problem with that.


What about animals hunting animals for sport?


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Animals hunting animals for sport?

That's what over twenty of these pages has been discussing about.

Humans (animals) hunting other animals for sport.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What about animals hunting animals for sport?


Eeh? Surly we aren't talking about within nature here?

,


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Getting a little bored of the holier than thou vegetarian attitude. I think that unless you are sourcing as responsibily as possible and avoiding certain foods, you can't believe you have no impact on the environment.
> 
> Why is soy bad for the Amazon rainforest?


Urgh the soya argument...again - it's just ignorant. Why don't you research where the vast majority of soya grown goes to (livestock feed). Then go research where the second biggest demand comes from (biofuels). Then when you get to the relatively small demand for human food look at the tiny percentage that goes into foods aimed at the vegetarian market. Everyone alive has some impact on the environment but a person processing soy for nutrition is many times more efficient than a human processing a tiny portion of a 300kg soy fed cow. That's not 'holier than thou', it's reality.

"In South America, almost 4 million hectares of forests are destroyed every year, 2.6 million of them in Brazil alone. Although this is lower than in the 1990s, it is still far too high and can largely be blamed on heavily soy-dependent livestock farming.

Limiting consumption of animal-based food products, particularly meat, is one thing people can do to help end this devastating trend."

- From WWF - not a vegetarian organisation. WWF - Soy, you & deforestation


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Eeh? Surly we aren't talking about within nature here?


Of course, I've seen my two play with rabbits, tug of war, they weren't interested in eating it. Bear brought me a tiny baby bunny a couple of years ago instead of his ball: he had no interest in eating it even though he is fed raw. For him, it was a game, he lives to retrieve. The cat used to bring frogs in and make them jump by tapping them: that was fun and sport for him, not food.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lennythecloud said:


> Urgh the soya argument...again - it's just ignorant. Why don't you research where the vast majority of soya grown goes to (livestock feed). Then go research where the second biggest demand comes from (biofuels). Then when you get to the relatively small demand for human food look at the tiny percentage that goes into foods aimed at the vegetarian market. Everyone alive has some impact on the environment but a person processing soy for nutrition is many times more efficient than a human processing a tiny portion of a 300kg soy fed cow. That's not 'holier than thou', it's reality.
> 
> "In South America, almost 4 million hectares of forests are destroyed every year, 2.6 million of them in Brazil alone. Although this is lower than in the 1990s, it is still far too high and can largely be blamed on heavily soy-dependent livestock farming.
> 
> ...


FFS, forgive me for only bothering to give one link. Sorry, can't be on here all night, I have a life. Crops and the need for ever more land for them is causing the devastation of multiple tropical rainforests. I could link you the French studies into the African forests being burnt down to provide crop fields, but I really can't be bothered because I'm obviously ignorant.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Of course, I've seen my two play with rabbits, tug of war, they weren't interested in eating it. Bear brought me a tiny baby bunny a couple of years ago instead of his ball: he had no interest in eating it even though he is fed raw. For him, it was a game, he lives to retrieve. The cat used to bring frogs in and make them jump by tapping them: that was fun and sport for him, not food.


This isn't nature - Your dogs are domesticated they aren't wild animals surviving in nature.

.

.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Of course, I've seen my two play with rabbits, tug of war, they weren't interested in eating it. Bear brought me a tiny baby bunny a couple of years ago instead of his ball: he had no interest in eating it even though he is fed raw. For him, it was a game, he lives to retrieve. The cat used to bring frogs in and make them jump by tapping them: that was fun and sport for him, not food.


But surely that's a dog following it's instincts?

A cat will hunt birds and play with them. They don't have an ulterior motive.

You surely can't compare that to a Group of people assembling on horseback, with a pack of hounds, and chasing a fox for miles and miles until it collapses from sheer exhaustion and is ripped apart by the hounds?

Aren't we supposed to be the more intelligent species with the power to reason?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> FFS, forgive me for only bothering to give one link. Sorry, can't be on here all night, I have a life. Crops and the need for ever more land for them is causing the devastation of multiple tropical rainforests. I could link you the French studies into the African forests being burnt down to provide crop fields, but I really can't be bothered because I'm obviously ignorant.


If you weren't being ignorant then you were being deliberately misleading which I'm not sure is better. Crop and livestock systems are not independent of each other, livestock consume far more crops than man does for a start. If you're going to try and discredit a group of people out of the blue then please do try and get your facts right - then I maybe wouldn't feel obliged to correct you in such a holier than thou manner...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

The majority of the damage caused to the Amazon Rain Forest has been caused by the illegal felling of trees for the wood industry, not to make land available for the growing of crops.

We know this is having a critical effect on our climate, yet it continues.

I honestly believe that we can dress it up how we like, but when we humans decide to 'take control' of nature, we end up making a mess which can take decades to correct.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Good news everyone FOR NOW! -looks like our lobbying has paid off, we have a bit of a reprieve >

By TristanCork | Posted: March 20, 2014

UPDATE: No amendment planned to Hunting Act - yet
Comments (1)

Anti-hunting campaigners pledged to keep up their fight last night, even though the Government revealed it had no plans to try to amend the Hunting Act for at least the next fortnight.

The Government confirmed that they would not be placing a proposed amendment to the Hunting Act, which would allow up to 40 hounds to flush a fox to waiting guns rather than two, before MPs for the foreseeable future.

Anti-hunt groups including the League Against Cruel Sports and the Blue Fox group of anti-hunt Conservatives had launched a major campaign calling for supporters to lobby MPs over the issue. The Prime Minister was questioned twice in the past month, and the League even took out adverts in national newspapers claiming the amendment was repeal by the back door.

They claimed the Government plans to use a Statutory Instrument to amend the Hunting Act, and that such a technically procedural measure would be whipped, meaning that Conservative and Lib Dem MPs would be told to vote in favour of the Government.

This simply means that the expected amendment to the Act could come in the following weeks, said Joe Duckworth, the chief executive of the LACS.

What this means is that the threat to the Hunting Act remains real and imminent. We remain vigilant in our defence of the Act, he added.

The Countryside Alliance has long played down rumours that an Amendment was imminent and that it would mean effectively a repeal of the Act. A pro-hunt source said the amendment idea proposed by Welsh hill farmers, who are struggling to defend their flocks from foxes, was always going to take weeks to put together. He said that a Statutory Instrument was never going to be used to push through an amendment to the Hunting Act.

*Yesterday, Alliance chief Barney White-Spunner said the fury was being whipped up by Labour, and it was they who are obsessed with hunting.*

Unbelievable:lol: - idiot!!!

Read more: UPDATE: No amendment planned to Hunting Act - yet | Western Daily Press

UPDATE: No amendment planned to Hunting Act - yet | Western Daily Press


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sweety said:


> But surely that's a dog following it's instincts?
> 
> A cat will hunt birds and play with them. They don't have an ulterior motive.
> 
> ...


But I'm not comparing, I was answering Noushka's query about animals in nature (or not!) hunting for sport.



lennythecloud said:


> If you weren't being ignorant then you were being deliberately misleading which I'm not sure is better. Crop and livestock systems are not independent of each other, livestock consume far more crops than man does for a start. If you're going to try and discredit a group of people out of the blue then please do try and get your facts right - then I maybe wouldn't feel obliged to correct you in such a holier than thou manner...


Who am I trying to discredit? Vegetarians? I was one and incredibly fierce about it, be a bit dumb to discredit my former self!

I think I have a reasonable knowledge of global issues. Everyone talks about the Amazon and forgets to mention anything else like Nigeria's factories and the big corporate American groups that merrily pollute the seas and kill the wildlife there or the tropical forests in Africa where a hectare a minute is burnt down to make way for crops for humans, animals (Does it matter? We're the ones breeding and eating them)

I'm aware of just how much a large herbivore consumes, thanks. Small breeds like Jerseys may weigh 350kgish, bigger breeds go up to 500kg or more if they're meat givers. The horse is 560kg and the usual rule is 2-3% of bodyweight for forage, obviously very variable.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Undoubtedly, there are a lot of wrongs out there, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact that there is exploitation of workers, for instance, in other Countries, doesn't justify or excuse us exploiting wild animals.

One simply can't cancel out another.

It's just not relevant.

As far as bees are concerned. Yes, we seriously need to make a real effort to find out why bee numbers are declining so dramatically. Without bees, this Planet will be as dead as the Dodo that itself was hunted to extinction years ago by Humans.

It just isn't rational or reasonable, in my opinion, to say "Oh well, let's all worry about bees and let the Hunt fraternity loose on the fox population".

Again, it's not up to us to decide what lives and what dies. We're part of it, not masters of it.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Who is talking about exploiting workers?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sweety said:


> The majority of the damage caused to the Amazon Rain Forest has been caused by the illegal felling of trees for the wood industry, not to make land available for the growing of crops.


Nope, that's also not correct. Here's a handy pie chart.










Deforestation in the Amazon

Also:

Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Legal > flush the fox out to guns using 2 dogs.
> 
> Hunting act explained > Myths & Realities | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare
> 
> bit more indepth on the deceit behind the weakening of the act & why adding the loophole will make the law all but unenforceable.


Misses the point by a mile though doesn't it.



> Hunt monitors from the League had filmed a fox being chased by two hounds. Tony Wright's defence was that he believed that the hunting was exempt as he had been flushing foxes to guns. The judge ruled that the evidence showed that foxes were being hunted after being flushed as the dogs should have been called off as soon as the fox had been flushed. The film evidence showed foxes being chased for as much as two or three minutes after being flushed. In addition the judge found that the dogs were not under sufficiently close control and that reasonable steps had not been taken to ensure that a fox would be shot dead by a competent marksman as soon as possible after being flushed or found. The Court's view was that the foxes were chased with insufficient close control and insufficient marksmen. Wright is currently appealing against the conviction.


Now that same film evidence would be the same using multiple dogs. Also what constitutes exemptions isn't explained. The main difference with multiple dogs is that more ground could be covered, especially in places where terrain is broken. As soon as the dogs aren't suitably controlled you have the situation where the legal precedent has potentially been set to assist in successful prosecution. The 2 dog limit does nothing to increase the chance of successful prosecution.

Now how far away would dogs have to be to be counted as hunting together? Hypothetical scenario, say farm X decides to hunt a fox which has been killing livestock. Say they pick a 2 mile radius from the farm. At present 2 dogs would have to cover an area of over 12 miles. Not practical and so other methods would be used such as using snares. Hardly a win when looking at preventing cruelty.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Now how far away would dogs have to be to be counted as hunting together? Hypothetical scenario, say farm X decides to hunt a fox which has been killing livestock. Say they pick a 2 mile radius from the farm. At present 2 dogs would have to cover an area of over 12 miles. Not practical and so other methods would be used such as using snares. Hardly a win when looking at preventing cruelty.


Do you have any idea of how farmers, foxes or the countryside in general actually operates?

The solution to a problem fox would be a man with a rifle and a lamp not trailing around for miles with hounds or randomly setting snares.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> Do you have any idea of how farmers, foxes or the countryside in general actually operates?


I don't hunt, preferring to leave that up to those who may need to do so  Doesn't change the reasoning of the hypothetical example (notice you don't argue the point made), or the fact the number of dogs in a hunt would make no real difference in terms of prosecutions, one of the stated goals of the two dogs rule. If you allow dogs in the first place, make their use as effective as possible. If dogs aren't suitable, petition for the change of the two dogs rule for a no dogs rule (hell make your local MP pass it through using the method of this proposed change). Either legislation is to be effective in it's stated goal or not especially when it comes to something like this.. Just imagine it with slavery.. owning one slave is okay, just not more as it's cruel.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Misses the point by a mile though doesn't it.
> 
> Now that same film evidence would be the same using multiple dogs. Also what constitutes exemptions isn't explained. The main difference with multiple dogs is that more ground could be covered, especially in places where terrain is broken. As soon as the dogs aren't suitably controlled you have the situation where the legal precedent has potentially been set to assist in successful prosecution. The 2 dog limit does nothing to increase the chance of successful prosecution.
> 
> Now how far away would dogs have to be to be counted as hunting together? Hypothetical scenario, say farm X decides to hunt a fox which has been killing livestock. Say they pick a 2 mile radius from the farm. At present 2 dogs would have to cover an area of over 12 miles. Not practical and so other methods would be used such as using snares. Hardly a win when looking at preventing cruelty.


Are you sure you aren't a member of the insidious Countryside Alliance? lol

Knowing they could not win a free vote why do you think they've come up with this brainwave & are lobbying for this amendment (loophole) to allow 40 hounds to 'flush' the fox?

They know full well it will make it far easier to break the law & get away with it. If you cant see that then so be it.

,


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

The reverse snobbery on this thread astounds me! All hunters are rich toffs and anyone who makes a suggestion clearly knows nothing. I don't think we need to be farmers to understand the issues raised.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> The reverse snobbery on this thread astounds me! All hunters are rich toffs and anyone who makes a suggestion clearly knows nothing. I don't think we need to be farmers to understand the issues raised.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Think I made it good and clear earlier, having been pushed into a corner, that I'm not pro-hunt. Being a horsey person does not equal being pro-hunt.


Ddin't say you were pro-hunting, merely that you were putting forward an excuse that pro-hnters trot out - which is bad enough if you are pro-hunting but inexcusable if you are not.



cinnamontoast said:


> Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.


And this is another tactic pro-hubters use - highlighting other animal abuse/ecologial issues in order to divert attention from their animal abuse. Again, it tries to devalue the anti-hunting argument by wrongly and arrogantly trying to make out that anti-hunters don't really care about animal abuse/ecological issues. The reality is that most people who care about the effect of hunting also care about other issues - and as Noush has already pointed out, if the bee thread had had people on it trying to justify killing bees then that would have run to as many replies as this one.



rona said:


> Who are these pro hunters?
> 
> Nobody seems to know





cinnamontoast said:


> I think that there has been one pro-hunter (not of foxes) on this thread bar Aubreygecko and it's an ongoing 'feud'.
> .





rona said:


> That's all I've seen too


Do the two of you have Sleeping Lion on ignore then? :lol:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> What about animals hunting animals for sport?


Right, I see. On one hand you argue that animals don't have the capacity for feeling as humans do, yet on the other you try to argue that they do have the capacity to understand the concept of "sport".

You (wrongly) accuse anti-hunters of anthropomorphising hunted animals, then you actually do it yourself.

No fallacy there then!


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> The reverse snobbery on this thread astounds me! All hunters are rich toffs and anyone who makes a suggestion clearly knows nothing. I don't think we need to be farmers to understand the issues raised.


What? I hunt and I own a horse - I don't consider myself a toff and I'm pro ban. I haven't seen any inverse snobbery on this thread but it's undeniable that a number In the tory party and a number of wealthy individuals are in favour of repeal.

When the argument is trotted out that it's pest control (despite it being historically purely a 'sport') then it does help to see things from a farmers point of view to understand that.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> What? I hunt and I own a horse - I don't consider myself a toff and I'm pro ban. I haven't seen any inverse snobbery on this thread but it's undeniable that a number In the tory party and a number of wealthy individuals are in favour of repeal.
> 
> When the argument is trotted out that it's pest control (despite it being historically purely a 'sport') then it does help to see things from a farmers point of view to understand that.


must admit i too thought there was reverse snobbery comments on this thread too....all this stuff about the pretentious working classes trying to be tory when they should realise they are working class, and the toffs this 'n that.

Its almost all about people should recognise their status and not think outside of their place (AKA box).
I agree there is a faction of toffdom in the tory party and that fox hunting is culturally affiliated to said toffdom, but i can imagine said toffs also complaining about working class chaps being pretentious trying to convince themselves they are tories.
And just because these little clanish cultures do exist..."toffs" and the "working class"... doesnt mean the rest of us should define ourselves or our opinions by them.
I mean, just_ waaaay_ too much outdated tribalism in general

And yeh, whenever anyone tries to present any pro or anti argument its a common device to present bullet point lists, so the more bullet points the better. But, of course, some of those bullets are often a bit weak or tenuous and are only really their as fillers.
One of these is the 'pest control on behalf of farmers' bullet point
Then followed up by 'fox hunting is more humane that shooting' bullet point.

The first one farmers can deal with themselves.
And the second one is not really, its not that hard to shoot a fox cleanly, and farmers arent as bad a shots as these hunts make out.
In other countries farmers dispatch 'pests' on their land, including foxes, with no issue. Is anyone really seriously trying to make out that somehow british farmers cant shoot properly. I mean,_ really_?
If that were true, should we be allowing them to have guns 
And what amuses me, is when this argument is bigged up, neither the hunt nor the farmers actually think about what they are promoting. 
that being british farmers are awful shots, and the farmers then go along and support this argument against themselves 

so, yeh, if the fox is a nuisance on their land, the farmer can just shoot it


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Well I'd say these were pretty relevant to this thread lol - BINGO!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I so can't be bothered to look back over what has been far more entertaining (and educational) than any Tink thread! But I don't _think_ I trotted out any pro-hunt excuses. And really, they're not _excuses_ as such, are they? They're what people might believe/think so as valid, in my opinion, as any other point made. Whilst one may not agree with other opinions/reasons for doing something (and I certainly don't agree with hunting as pest control) they are all interesting and valid points.

I remember being told last time this was raised (I'm all for recycling!) that the farmer with the mini lambs should protect his stock better rather than killing the fox. I recall disagreeing and I still think I'm correct. Something is killing sheep violently in an area near me. The owner is very concerned, having seen dog attacks, she says it is not a dog that has ripped the legs off two of her sheep. If she catches whatever it is, she is entitled by law to shoot it. Would she be morally wrong because she should have protected her sheep better and if so, how? They need to be in a paddock for their welfare and she can't supervise them 24/7. Just throwing that one out again! OMG, hope this isn't a pro-hunting excuse!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Right...so the main thing I have got from this thread so far...

No one can give a good enough explanation as to why hunting with hounds is effective...

We should let hunting with hounds become legal again because twatish people decide that they will snare or use other barbaric "tools" to persecute a "rogue" (that's always made me laugh....we build on their territory and steal their food..yet they are the rogues ).... I recon we should start up bear baiting again then.....well there is worse out there...so who cares, right?

Because some people have mentioned "toffs" within their replies..all anti's are labeled as not knowing that all classes can hunt...and reverse snobbery (pahahahah...funny)

It's ok that we chase animals for hours on end until they are ripped apart because other domestic animals appear (that's the key word here, we can only guess what is going on...) to be hunting for "sport". Because our pets are supposed to live with the same values as humans and know that just because they are fed at home they have no need to brush up on NATURAL instincts that drive them to survive... We are humans, we are supposed to be the intelligent ones with morals and ethics to live by...pets do not..so to compare the two is down right ridiculous...

People here seem to forget or not know that farmers are fully capable of hiring a marksman to help with "vermin" control....Taking away hunting with hounds does not mean that they HAVE to jump to snares and poison....yeah some will, of course they will...but that is not a valid excuse to bring back the hounds...

Because the fox is cute and fluffy that will be the focus on all the anti's minds..and will be the only reason that the anti's appose the ban...really? You're still stuck on that one when the only people to bring cute and fluff into this are the pro's themselves? bless...

Err...oh yeah...and it is only possible to care and fight about one cause at a time...if you don't post on a thread, then you don't support it.....

Right, ok then 


This would be laughable if it wasn't living breathing sentient beings that we were discussing..


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Open season for those that don't totally conform to the LACs rather skewed points of view I see, even if those poor souls that are being preyed on are NOT pro fox hunting :lol::lol:

Such closed minds some people have on both sides. Surely a discussion about killing any animal (and the Bee thread was about the destruction of the bee by humans, in my book that's the same as this) should be used to highlight other crimes against nature  Surely as Blackcats has highlighted, it educates a few people about other issues that they would otherwise be oblivious too.

I sincerely hope that a plague kills off the human race soon, before they destroy all that is beautiful.

StormyThai
I mentioned Snares and it wasn't as a reason to start fox hunting again. I can't see how you read it that way. This is the trouble. People put their own weird way of thinking on to others posts. If they read what it written and not what they assume is written, they will see that all but two on this thread are anti fox hunting!!!

Oh and just for the record. I've been involved in farming most of my life


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

For your information I KNOW not all hunters are rich toffs  Though it was started as a pastime by the upper class, the aristocracy. Its an expensive 'hobby' & landowners & the middle class are at the heart of fox hunting today, if this were solely a poor mans 'sport' it would have been banned years ago like badger baiting was. This isn't about 'snobbery', its not a class issue, its a morality one.



rona said:


> Open season for those that don't totally conform to the LACs rather skewed points of view I see, even if those poor souls that are being preyed on are NOT pro fox hunting :lol::lol:
> 
> Surely a discussion about killing any animal (and the Bee thread was about the destruction of the bee by humans, in my book that's the same as this) should be used to highlight other crimes against nature  Surely as Blackcats has highlighted, it educates a few people about other issues that they would otherwise be oblivious too.
> 
> I sincerely hope that a plague kills off the human race soon, before they destroy all that is beautiful.


I agree, and i'll remind you of this post next time 'I' bring up snaring, or raptor persecution on grouse moors - you perhaps wont find it 'tedious' anymore

,

.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Right...so the main thing I have got from this thread so far...
> 
> No one can give a good enough explanation as to why hunting with hounds is effective...
> 
> ...


Most farmers that I know would sort out a rogue fox problem between themselves.
We don't have sheep or poultry any more so it isn't a problem for us. In the past when we did have a couple of problems with foxes stealing new lambs, neighbours got together and the fox was shot.
The most trouble we have ever had with livestock being injured is stupid dog walkers letting their dogs off in a field and letting it play with sheep.
The biggest losses we ever had of new born lambs and their mums was 2 legged vermin.
As we have land, we often get a knock at the door from someone wanting to shoot here and keep the vermin problems down. We always decline. We have deer, otters and pheasant as regular visitors. The only fox I have seen on my land here was a dead one that someone from my neighbours pheasant shooting party must have shot which was disappeared the next day.
There are plenty people of all social classes who enjoyed the hunt.Drag hunting is as expensive as hunting. People from all social classes go drag hunting.
You don't need a horse to follow the hunt. You can walk or offer to help with gates and repairing grass that has been turned up by horse hooves.
Even when we had sheep and poultry, we managed most of the time to have no problems with foxes.Rabbits caused us more of a headache cos they go underground and as heavy horses walk over the land they can trip down rabbit holes.
Of course, I am anti hunting before anybody gets confused.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Open season for those that don't totally conform to the LACs rather skewed points of view I see, even if those poor souls that are being preyed on are NOT pro fox hunting :lol::lol:
> 
> Such closed minds some people have on both sides. Surely a discussion about killing any animal (and the Bee thread was about the destruction of the bee by humans, in my book that's the same as this) should be used to highlight other crimes against nature  Surely as Blackcats has highlighted, it educates a few people about other issues that they would otherwise be oblivious too.
> 
> ...


I really hope the human race isn't killed off by some vile plague at all.

There will always be some evil humans, the majority are not and are beautiful too.

Some selfish money grabbing few are threatening to take away my children and grandchildrens futures. Its a beautiful world and no matter what we throw at mother nature, hopefully she will sort it out and leave some people behind.
The majority of people do not hunt.
The majority of people do not have horses.
The majority of horse riders have absolutely no interest in hunting at all.

Horses are expensive to keep but no more expensive than somebody who goes scuba diving or ballroom dancing.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

and I know about expensive hobbies cos my husband is a mad keen scuba diver and my twin grand daughters did Highland Dancing for a time....horrendously expensive.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Open season for those that don't totally conform to the LACs rather skewed points of view I see, even if those poor souls that are being preyed on are NOT pro fox hunting :lol::lol:


To continue your theme, anyone who posts their opinion on a discussion board is fair game for those who oppose their views! Seriously though, if poeple don't want their viewpoints to be discussed then why post them on a discussion forum in the first place? 



rona said:


> Such closed minds some people have on both sides. Surely a discussion about killing any animal (and the Bee thread was about the destruction of the bee by humans, in my book that's the same as this) should be used to highlight other crimes against nature  Surely as Blackcats has highlighted, it educates a few people about other issues that they would otherwise be oblivious too.


Closed minds? Not sure I agree with that. If anyone can come up with an argument for hunting that can actually stand up, then my mind is open to it. The fact that so far no-one has managed to convince me that there is a viable argument for hunting does not mean my mind is closed.

I thoroughly agree about highlighting other crimes against nature - but there is highlighting other crimes against nature, and there is using other crimes against nature as an excuse to justify your own particular crime against nature. That is what has been happening on here - in fact, it's what always happens on these sorts of thread.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> Do you have any idea of how farmers, foxes or the countryside in general actually operates?
> 
> *The solution to a problem fox would be a man with a rifle and a lamp *not trailing around for miles with hounds or randomly setting snares.


That may be, but I suspect you won't find many farmers wanting to waste the time sitting around with a lamp and rifle, though, on the offchance that particular fox comes by. Poison or trap-and-shoot are a much more practical and time efficient solution as far as they are concerned. Much the same way as allotment holders COULD go round at night with a torch manually picking off the slugs and snails from their crops (except you are guaranteed to find loads of them!  ), but slug pellets and beer traps are a lot more practical and time efficient.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> Open season for those that don't totally conform to the LACs rather skewed points of view I see, even if those poor souls that are being preyed on are NOT pro fox hunting :lol::lol:
> 
> Such closed minds some people have on both sides. Surely a discussion about killing any animal (and the Bee thread was about the destruction of the bee by humans, in my book that's the same as this) should be used to highlight other crimes against nature  Surely as Blackcats has highlighted, it educates a few people about other issues that they would otherwise be oblivious too.
> 
> ...


Funny, I have not stated my stance on any hunting... You are also not the only one to mention snares when it comes to the hunting debate so I would stop being so sensitive. If I was referring to your post, then I would have quoted or mentioned you by name  However, as your post was a response to someone saying there must be more effective ways than hunting with dogs, it is not a huge leap to assume you are using that picture as a "look if you ban hunting this will happen" now is it?

Closed mind? Well as I haven't stated where I sit I think you will find my mind is very open...give me ONE good reason why hunting with dogs is effective OR needed and you will find my mind is extremely open...but as of yet, not one person has been able to give me any reason as to why hunting with dogs is needed or ethical.

These threads always end up in circles and they always will, they are much more use to me as a form to study human behaviours


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Closed minds? Not sure I agree with that. If anyone can come up with an argument for hunting that can actually stand up, then my mind is open to it. The fact that so far no-one has managed to convince me that there is a viable argument for hunting does not mean my mind is closed.


But if someone does come on with an opinion of hunting and saying they're all for it, tough on Mr Fox, what would the reaction be? :yikes: Just interested.

And whilst I don't want to yet again put forward other creatures as being more important, I do think there are some that are more significant. I don't think the fox population will ever be decimated by hunting nor will there be a disaster (except morally) if foxes were to be hunted.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> But if someone does come on with an opinion of hunting and saying they're all for it, tough on Mr Fox, what would the reaction be? :yikes: Just interested.
> 
> And whilst I don't want to yet again put forward other creatures as being more important, I do think there are some that are more significant. I don't think the fox population will ever be decimated by hunting nor will there be a disaster (except morally) if foxes were to be hunted.


What is to say that those creatures are not being fought for as much as the fox...
Is it ok if we start hunting cats then? Well, I don't think that there will be a disaster if cats were hunted


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Case in point was Valanita's thread re bees-don't want to labour it cos I'll get told off again!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> But if someone does come on with an opinion of hunting and saying they're all for it, tough on Mr Fox, what would the reaction be? :yikes: Just interested.


Do you mean my reaction or the reaction of other anti-hunters? My reaction would be horror and disgust - unless they could give me a reason why I should not feel horror and disgust at such an attitude. I can't speak for other anti-hunters - I can but guess they would feel something similar because IMO that is what any right-minded person would feel.



cinnamontoast said:


> And whilst I don't want to yet again put forward other creatures as being more important, I do think there are some that are more significant. I don't think the fox population will ever be decimated by hunting *nor will there be a disaster (except morally)* if foxes were to be hunted.


The importance of ANY moral/ecological issue does not detract from the importance of ANY other. Saying other things are more important or more significant is a subjective judgement and is, yet again, just another way of trying to devalue an argument. And whilst the horror and immorality of an animal being ripped to shreds for the amusement of human beings may be nothing other than a bit in brackets for you, for some it is a very important issue in its own right. That does not mean that these same people do not think other moral/ecological issues are just as important. Most people can, and do, care about multiple issues.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> But if someone does come on with an opinion of hunting and saying they're all for it, tough on Mr Fox, what would the reaction be? :yikes: Just interested.
> 
> And whilst I don't want to yet again put forward other creatures as being more important, I do think there are some that are more significant. I don't think the fox population will ever be decimated by hunting nor will there be a disaster (except morally) if foxes were to be hunted.


Well my reaction would be pretty much the same as my reaction has been to the 'other antis' on this thread - pros tend to use the same arguments & constantly throw in red herrings to justify their cruelty.

I'd respect for them for being honest about it, but that's it, imo they're as low as someone who thinks its ok to microwave a kitten.

.

/

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Do you mean my reaction or the reaction of other anti-hunters? My reaction would be horror and disgust - unless they could give me a reason why I should not feel horror and disgust at such an attitude. I can't speak for other anti-hunters - I can but guess they would feel something similar because IMO that is what any right-minded person would feel.
> 
> The importance of ANY moral/ecological issue does not detract from the importance of ANY other. Saying other things are more important or more significant is a subjective judgement and is, yet again, just another way of trying to devalue an argument. And whilst the horror and immorality of an animal being ripped to shreds for the amusement of human beings may be nothing other than a bit in brackets for you, for some it is a very important issue in its own right. That does not mean that these same people do not think other moral/ecological issues are just as important. Most people can, and do, care about multiple issues.


Please show me where I tried to devalue the argument? This thread, as any about a hot topic, evolves and meanders and returns briefly to the actual issue then goes off again. Quite normal, human, one might say. There are, as mentioned, other creatures and yes, we can manage to care about more than one issue at a time. Jeez.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Please show me where I tried to devalue the argument?


Ok - if you insist (shrugs):



cinnamontoast said:


> And sorry, Blackcats, it's true that if the animal weren't so cute, there wouldn't be a such a huge campaign.





cinnamontoast said:


> Pick you quote and rant away





cinnamontoast said:


> Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.





cinnamontoast said:


> And whilst I don't want to yet again put forward other creatures as being more important, I do think there are some that are more significant.


Those will do - there may be more but I really can't be @rsed to comb the whole thread.

Saying people are only bothered because animals are cute, calling their argument a rant, saying that they are not bothered about other issues, and saying the cause they are fighting for is not as important as other causes are all ways employed to devalue someone's argument.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

And you think that devalues the argument? You have a different view from me! I already made my feelings clear that I'm not pro hunting. Saying that something is more important does not devalue the current argument. It raises the profile of other issues, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

For me, it isn't about whether fox numbers are in decline or in the ascendency, or whether the loss of a few will or won't have an impact on their numbers.

It's about the terror they must feel being chased by a pack of baying hounds, and the appallingly painful death they suffer when they're finally caught.

If I were to be chased for miles by a mad axeman and eventually hacked to death, the loss of my life wouldn't have an effect on the Human population, but it would be a horrifying end.

In my opinion, we don't have the right to inflict such cruelty on any animal, and I can't see any way it can be justified.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Case in point was Valanita's thread re bees-don't want to labour it cos I'll get told off again!


ok, you dont wanna labour the point but im gonna attempt to address it anyway.

As i previously mentioned, i did sign the bee petition, i did "take part" in that campaign and i did receive a letter from my mp confirming his support. But i didnt see or post in that bee thread... 
Even if i had, i doubt there would have been many replies saying "nah it's fine, its 'JUST A FEW' bees", or "they are evil sly creatures anyway" or (hopefully) "stop making a fuss about a few bees, X issue is more important".

The reason this thread has so many views and posts is because it is a contentious and divisive issue. It's not because a huge number of people are coming here, it's because many of us are posting multiple times, something which is much less likely to happen in a thread where the vast majority of posts (if not all) are in agreement with each other.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Think I made it good and clear earlier, having been pushed into a corner, that I'm not pro-hunt. Being a horsey person does not equal being pro-hunt.
> 
> * Where are the campaigns to save the bee, for example, on this forum? *
> 
> That, in my opinion, is more of a concern than foxes, who are not, from everything posted on here, in decline. Bees are, in a serious way and without them, we're up a creek properly.


HERE  >>>

http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/229149-garden-pesticides-wiping-out-honey-bees.html



cinnamontoast said:


> 14 replies on that thread?
> 
> I care about the decline of bees because I believe them to be fundamental to the ecology of this country whereas foxes simply aren't. *Waits for argument that they are irrevocably the foundation of the entire system*
> 
> ...


And yours wasn't one of them

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> For me, it isn't about whether fox numbers are in decline or in the ascendency, or whether the loss of a few will or won't have an impact on their numbers.
> 
> It's about the terror they must feel being chased by a pack of baying hounds, and the appallingly painful death they suffer when they're finally caught.
> 
> ...


Absolutely this!

The sad fact is that the pro hunt society and their ilk cannot empathise like we can. I really can't understand the pleasure derived from taking the life of a wild animal - nevermind so horrifically

.

..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> And you think that devalues the argument? You have a different view from me! .I already made my feelings clear that I'm not pro hunting. *Saying that something is more important does not devalue the current argument. It raises the profile of other issues, nothing more, nothing less*.


It all depends upon the way that you say it.

If you write something like, "I understand your argument about stopping fox-hunting. Where do you stand on what we are doing to the bees, because to me that's equally important?" then you are debating. You are acknowledging someone's argument, introducing and raising the profile of other related issues, and putting your own views forward.

But when you demand to know, as you did, why no-one on this forum is campaigning about bees because they are more important than foxes, you are (a) erroneuously saying no-one cares about bees, (b) inferring that no-one cares about bees because they are so taken up with foxes, (c) that what they are doing is wrong, (d) telling them they should be looking at something more important and (e) saying their argument is wasted. If that's not devaluing their argument, what is?

And are you really trying to say that telling someone they are only bothered about fox-hunting because foxes are cute is not devaluing their argument? How is that "raising the profile of other issues"? You are ignoring their real reasons for being anti-hunting and substituting their valid reasons with farcical reasons of your own in an attempt to ridicule.

Also, are you really trying to say that telling someone that their argument is a rant is not devaluing their argument? Again, how is that "raising the profile of other issues"? By using the word "rant" you are implying that they are just having a go instead of putting their arguments forward in a cogent way. It is an attempt to reduce their well-made points to ridicule.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> For me, it isn't about whether fox numbers are in decline or in the ascendency, or whether the loss of a few will or won't have an impact on their numbers.
> 
> It's about the terror they must feel being chased by a pack of baying hounds, and the appallingly painful death they suffer when they're finally caught.
> 
> ...


Well someone can make a very good point without insulting others.

rep for you


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Thank you.


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

There is going to be a peaceful demonstration against the repeal of the hunting ban in Warrington town centre tomorrow. (SAT) at 10.30 am. Meet at the skittles in the centre.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

tinamary said:


> There is going to be a peaceful demonstration against the repeal of the hunting ban in Warrington town centre tomorrow. (SAT) at 10.30 am. Meet at the skittles in the centre.


Brilliant, really hope its a good turn out 

.


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

Sweety said:


> For me, it isn't about whether fox numbers are in decline or in the ascendency, or whether the loss of a few will or won't have an impact on their numbers.
> 
> It's about the terror they must feel being chased by a pack of baying hounds, and the appallingly painful death they suffer when they're finally caught.
> 
> ...


Very well put. Explains how I feel too


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> HERE  >>>
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/229149-garden-pesticides-wiping-out-honey-bees.html
> 
> ...


Which of course means that I didn't sign the petition  Sure, whatever.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Was talking about this topic at the pub tonight. What happens if someone walks down a country lane, and there's a fox, which is frightened by the appearance of a human? The human might never see it, but what happens if the human does see it, and makes an effort to get a better view, even perhaps following it, to try and see what it does? 

Absolutely no intent to hunt, but the fox doesn't breathe a sigh of relief and think, thank goodness the hunting ban means they aren't going to be after me with a pack of dogs.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Was talking about this topic at the pub tonight. *What happens if someone walks down a country lane, and there's a fox, which is frightened by the appearance of a human? The human might never see it, but what happens if the human does see it, and makes an effort to get a better view, even perhaps following it, to try and see what it does?
> 
> Absolutely no intent to hunt, but the fox doesn't breathe a sigh of relief and think, thank goodness the hunting ban means they aren't going to be after me with a pack of dogs.


The bit in bold - take more water with it!  :huh:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> The bit in bold - take more water with it!  :huh:


Water and bitter? Not likely.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Was talking about this topic at the pub tonight. What happens if someone walks down a country lane, and there's a fox, which is frightened by the appearance of a human? The human might never see it, but what happens if the human does see it, and makes an effort to get a better view, even perhaps following it, to try and see what it does?
> 
> Absolutely no intent to hunt, but the fox doesn't breathe a sigh of relief and think, thank goodness the hunting ban means they aren't going to be after me with a pack of dogs.


I think I see what you're saying. Our curiosity about a wild animal may inadvertently startle it or cause it to be afraid. We mean it no harm, but the fox doesn't know that?

But, how can that possibly equate to chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of people on horseback with the direct intent to catch it and rip it to bits?

I'm a little baffled as to what point you're trying to make.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> I think I see what you're saying. Our curiosity about a wild animal may inadvertently startle it or cause it to be afraid. We mean it no harm, but the fox doesn't know that?
> 
> But, how can that possibly equate to chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of people on horseback with the direct intent to catch it and rip it to bits?
> 
> I'm a little baffled as to what point you're trying to make.


The fox has no idea, so what difference does it make?

The thing that pee's me off eternally about these threads, is that the vast majority of people are quick to sign any petition about perceived cruelty, but are less willing to make actual life style changes that will have any real effect, because that would mean changing their lifestyle.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The fox has no idea, so what difference does it make?
> 
> The thing that pee's me off eternally about these threads, is that the vast majority of people are quick to sign any petition about perceived cruelty, but are less willing to make actual life style changes that will have any real effect, because that would mean changing their lifestyle.


And you know this how? How do you know how the anti-hunters on this and other threads live their lives? You don't.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The fox has no idea, so what difference does it make?
> 
> The thing that pee's me off eternally about these threads, is that the vast majority of people are quick to sign any petition about perceived cruelty, but are less willing to make actual life style changes that will have any real effect, because that would mean changing their lifestyle.


Well, it makes a huge difference ..... to the Fox.

Bumping into us on a country lane is not going to end in a horrifying death for it.

I understand what you're saying, I think, that the fox doesn't know it's going to die? Even if that's so, at the hands of the Hunt, the fox does die and in excrutiating pain.

The fox doesn't know, but we do.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Well, it makes a huge difference ..... to the Fox.
> 
> Bumping into us on a country lane is not going to end in a horrifying death for it.
> 
> ...


So the fox could wander away, clipped by a car, and left to die a long slow death. Or have mange, and wander away, die a long slow death.

The perception that the hunting ban stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths really dismays me. Death by hounds is probably better than death by slow starvation and disease, yet people are so pro anti culling, they would rather see populations increase so far, that the inevitable happens.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the fox could wander away, clipped by a car, and left to die a long slow death. Or have mange, and wander away, die a long slow death.
> 
> *The perception that the hunting ban stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths really dismays me.* Death by hounds is probably better than death by slow starvation and disease, yet people are so pro anti culling, they would rather see populations increase so far, that the inevitable happens.


Can't say I have ever seen anyone claim such a thing, no matter what "side" they sit on 

I most certainly do not believe that hunting with hounds is the only horrific way in which an animal can die...it would be extremely naive to believe that surely...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Can't say I have ever seen anyone claim such a thing, no matter what "side" they sit on
> 
> I most certainly do not believe that hunting with hounds *is the only horrific way in which an animal can die.*..it would be extremely naive to believe that surely...


In your view, because that's how YOU perceive fox hunting. But as a flight or fight creature, hunting is natural to the fox, whether they are hunting or being hunted. So is it cruel for an animal to be hunted that lives in a flight or fight situation? Does it really matter what is chasing them?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> In your view, because that's how YOU perceive fox hunting. But as a flight or fight creature, hunting is natural to the fox, whether they are hunting or being hunted. So is it cruel for an animal to be hunted that lives in a flight or fight situation? Does it really matter what is chasing them?


What utter rubbish. Foxes are not a "fight or flight" creature any more than human beings are. The bodies of ALL animals - and that includes foxes *and* human beings - have the capacity to produce hormones that precipitate them into a fight or flight situation when threatened. (It's the noradrenaline and adrenaline being released that I was speaking about in an earlier thead). It is an animal's defense system - every animal, including humans.

It is as stupid to say that a fox lives in a perpetual state of fight or flight as it would be to say that a human does.

It is as stupid to say that a fox is used to being in a fight or flight situation as it is to say a human is.

Fight or flight situations - for any animal, including humans, are short-term solutions designed by nature to get them out of threatening situations. If there is no threat, the hormones are not produced and he animal is in a "normal" state. No animal could live for more than a few hours with the levels of noradrenaline and adrenaline coursing around its body that are needed to produce fight or flight

I really wish people would get their scientific facts right before posting half-baked theories to try to justify their cruelty.

Some links:
Fight and flight in humans:
http://www.thebodysoulconnection.com/EducationCenter/fight.html

in all animals:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/fear2.htm


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the fox could wander away, clipped by a car, and left to die a long slow death. Or have mange, and wander away, die a long slow death.
> 
> The perception that the hunting ban stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths really dismays me. Death by hounds is probably better than death by slow starvation and disease, yet people are so pro anti culling, they would rather see populations increase so far, that the inevitable happens.


I don't think the perception is that the hunting ban stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths. It doesn't. It stops them from dying a violent, painful, premature and unnecessary death.

Of course foxes, left in peace, will die a natural death. That may be from disease or old age.

That will come inevitably to all of our beloved dogs.

I can only speak for myself. Would I prefer that Rosie was hunted, chased and torn limb from limb rather than her reach old age and face the potential ailments that may bring? Most certainly not.

I can't believe you would want such a sickeningly violent end for your dogs who you obviously love very much.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> In your view, because that's how YOU perceive fox hunting. But as a flight or fight creature, hunting is natural to the fox, whether they are hunting or being hunted. So is it cruel for an animal to be hunted that lives in a flight or fight situation? Does it really matter what is chasing them?


To the fox it probably doesn't matter what he is being chased by, it does matter that the thing doing the chasing is doing it for nothing more than self gratification and entertainment...

Hunting with hounds is not an effective form or fox control, it never has been. If it was then my stance may be different, but the fact remains that hunting with hounds did not dent a fox population.

But then that is side tracking from my post.... you claimed that there is this perception that if hunting with hounds was stopped completely then that stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths.

I said that I have not seen that at all.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Which of course means that I didn't sign the petition  Sure, whatever.


Well there you go then, if someone as passionate about saving bees as you clearly are couldn't be bothered to reply on the thread but signed the petition, chances are other members did the same



cinnamontoast said:


> 14 replies on that thread?
> 
> I care about the decline of bees because I believe them to be fundamental to the ecology of this country whereas foxes simply aren't. *Waits for argument that they are irrevocably the foundation of the entire system*
> 
> ...





Sleeping_Lion said:


> Was talking about this topic at the pub tonight. What happens if someone walks down a country lane, and there's a fox, which is frightened by the appearance of a human? The human might never see it, but what happens if the human does see it, and makes an effort to get a better view, even perhaps following it, to try and see what it does?
> 
> Absolutely no intent to hunt, but the fox doesn't breathe a sigh of relief and think, thank goodness the hunting ban means they aren't going to be after me with a pack of dogs.





Sleeping_Lion said:


> The fox has no idea, so what difference does it make?
> 
> The thing that pee's me off eternally about these threads, is that the vast majority of people are quick to sign any petition about perceived cruelty, but are less willing to make actual life style changes that will have any real effect, because that would mean changing their lifestyle.





Sleeping_Lion said:


> So the fox could wander away, clipped by a car, and left to die a long slow death. Or have mange, and wander away, die a long slow death.
> 
> The perception that the hunting ban stops foxes from dying slow and cruel deaths really dismays me. Death by hounds is probably better than death by slow starvation and disease, yet people are so pro anti culling, they would rather see populations increase so far, that the inevitable happens.


So do you apply this warped logic to all species of wildlife; such as song birds? after all they are shy, easily startled, can get clipped by cars, succumb to disease - should we kill them in the most horrendous way imaginable while they're nice & healthy - just incase?

Really the arguments to justify sadism get more & more ludicrous by the day lol
Do you seriously expect people to believe these are the views of someone who is neutral on the subject

,


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lennythecloud said:


> Dog fighting never went away either. By the same logic, surely it's better to have that open and regulated too as opposed to under the radar...





emma20 said:


> Sorry of I don't come across right but if it was open and regulated would people that don't hunt now start hunting? Would those that hunt under the radar just hunt as they were?





porps said:


> No, i'm one of those people who would never intentionally kill or harm an animal for my own amusement.
> 
> You're whole argument seems to be "other people sometimes harm animals, often accidently or inadvertantly, or out of necessity (or perceived necessity in the case of meat i suppose). therefore it's fine to do it intentionally for fun"
> 
> Should this extend to people too?


Dont know why you included my stuff in there. You're quite offensive, you know. I already said I'm against fox hunting.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Can I give my opinion?... 

Don't shoot me down but from the age of 15 to 21, I used to take part in hunting (on horseback, with hounds). At the start, it was the sheer adrenaline... The horses and the pace, the speed and the obstacles, the pack of dogs and the atmosphere. It was so exhilarating.

I was 15 when I rode on my first fox hunt. 

Truthfully? At the beginning of the ride, it was just like any other hunt. The same feelings as I stated above. Being a competitive adrenaline junky, I was in my element. Then, 15 minutes in, the hounds caught scent and off they went. We followed on and took chase. After another 10 seconds, I got my first glimpse of the fox. It truly was running for it's life. 30 dogs on it's tail. Then they caught it.

Foxes scream, they really do. Above the shouting and the barking and howling of the dogs, the heavy hoofs of the horses and the sound of heavy breathing from all parties, that's all I could hear. The screams of a defenceless animal as it was torn apart by dogs. 

I never rode on another fox hunt. 

I took to trail hunting after that. Same buzz, no live bait to be mauled.

Now, I don't condemn anyone for doing what they enjoy doing, hunting or otherwise. Do I necessarily agree with it? No. But I don't shove my views down anyone's throat or try to change their minds about what they truly believe because it's futile. 

Yes, stand up and do what you believe is right. Educate people and fight for it... peacefully. 
Shoving your views in a harsh manner down someone's throat is not going to get them on your side. It's going to cause an argument and by arguing, you cementing their views and your own. You'll never win.

Saying that people, like me, who have participated in such a sport, should be hunted and torn apart by hounds is not getting people on your side. I don't agree with fox hunting anymore, I'm a reformed fox hunter... But if the only way some of you think the problem can be solved is by setting a group of hounds upon me, you should stop your argument before it begins, for you've already lost.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

saw your pic at the hunt...nice pony, looks like a fast ride.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> saw your pic at the hunt...nice pony, looks like a fast ride.


He was  And he was utterly fearless. Would do anything I asked without question or hesitation. I outgrew him but he now lives on a farm and belongs to a 14 year old girl who adores him just as much as I did 

He's still got a good few years left in him yet


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Thank you for giving your opinion Lauren Its a very emotive subject im afraid & unfortunately there is history between SL & I. If you look back at the many 'many' fox hunting threads there have been over the years lol, you'll see quite a of the same names that are on this thread. On those old threads I believe I probably was more diplomatic, but unfortunately rifts have formed between some of us and though I do try - I know I'm more blunt than I use to be. I didn't begin this thread, though, for a debate (not that I mind debates) but it was merely to raise awareness & an appeal to like minded members to contact their MP's. A few members don't think foxes are a worthy cause & this is why the thread has gone the way it has. SL pretends to have me on ignore, if my threads bother her this much, I wish she really would put me on, save us both grief lol.

The description of the hounds catching the fox is really powerful & upsetting, but I really appreciate you sharing that.

.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Thank you for giving your opinion Lauren Its a very emotive subject im afraid & unfortunately there is history between SL & I. If you look back at the many 'many' fox hunting threads there have been over the years lol, you'll see quite a of the same names that are on this thread. On those old threads I believe I probably was more diplomatic, but unfortunately rifts have formed between some of us and though I do try - I know I'm more blunt than I use to be. I didn't begin this thread, though, for a debate (not that I mind debates) but it was merely to raise awareness & an appeal to like minded members to contact their MP's. A few members don't think foxes are a worthy cause & this is why the thread has gone the way it has. SL pretends to have me on ignore, if my threads bother her this much, I wish she really would put me on, save us both grief lol.
> 
> The description of the hounds catching the fox is really powerful & upsetting, but I really appreciate you sharing that.
> 
> .


I get that, I really do. It's the reason I tend to stay away from threads such as this. It seems that I was damned from the moment I got on my horse that day, according to some people. And apparently people can't change.

I can understand both sides of the debate. I'll always agree more with one particular side but having actually witness and participated in one, I am well entitled to my opinion. Some people though, need to realise that damning the people who partake and saying such things like 'they all deserve to be shot' isn't going to get them any further in the argument and it only drives people, like myself, who have reformed (so to speak) further and further away. Especially when it is people like myself who can truly speak of what we know and how we feel and prove instrumental in such movements.

Sadly, because of the stigma my lifestyle entails, I no longer take part in anything to do with the fight against fox hunting.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lauren5159 said:


> Can I give my opinion?...
> 
> Don't shoot me down but from the age of 15 to 21, I used to take part in hunting (on horseback, with hounds). At the start, it was the sheer adrenaline... The horses and the pace, the speed and the obstacles, the pack of dogs and the atmosphere. It was so exhilarating.
> 
> ...


You saw (and heard) the horrors of fox-hunting first hand for yourself and realised that you could not continue to do something that caused an animal that much fear and pain. You are to be applauded for that. :thumbsup:

However, there are hunters who deny this sort of thing happens, who try to say the fox has a painless death, that the fox is killed before it is thrown to the hounds, that this sort of end is preferable to dying naturally, and who even try to pretend that the fox somehow enjoys it because it is a natural state of being for the fox. None of this is true. All of this is excuses that they use to justify their behaviour to themselves and others.

It is these sort of hunters, the sort who ignore what really happens so that they can avoid a crisis of conscience, the sort that are hell bent upon persuing their cruel sport regardless of the pain and cruelty they are inflicting upon an animal, that some posters wished they could set a pack of hounds on, *just* to make them realise just what they are subjecting another animal to.

These kind of hunters take no notice of the truth spoken by people like yourself, of the video evidence of live foxes being ripped to shreds, of the science of fight and flight, of the statistics that plainly show it is an ineffective method of pest control - nothing will nake them realise the horror and enormity of what they are doing. Suggesting that the only recourse is to subject them to the kind of horrors they happily subject other animals to is not an attempt to get anyone on an anti-hunting side. It is a last-ditch desperate attempt to try to make hunters recognise exactly what they are doing.

I personally could never wish any animal, including a human being, such a death. But I could happily subject such die-hard hunters to the chase, the fear, the stress, and have no objection to them _thinking _that they will be ripped to shreds at the end of it. It might just remove their blinkers and make them realise what they are doing to animals.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> You saw (and heard) the horrors of fox-hunting first hand for yourself and realised that you could not continue to do something that caused an animal that much fear and pain. You are to be applauded for that. :thumbsup:
> 
> However, there are hunters who deny this sort of thing happens, who try to say the fox has a painless death, that the fox is killed before it is thrown to the hounds, that this sort of end is preferable to dying naturally, and who even try to pretend that the fox somehow enjoys it because it is a natural state of being for the fox. None of this is true. All of this is excuses that they use to justify their behaviour to themselves and others.
> 
> ...


If you stuck to that diplomacy and that manner in which your words come across, then you may get more on your side -I'm talking about both sides here, for hunters can be stubborn and set on their views and beliefs just as much as you guys can 

The issue is, that all threads and debates, such as this one, decline in to a mass keyboard brawl which does absolutely nothing, achieves nada.

But we are all human.

You know what stopped me trail hunting?

I got battered and my nose broken by a group of anti-foxhunting protesters that _assumed_ I was off on a fox hunt. I wasn't. But that didn't stop them pulling me from my horse and battering me.

They stopped me from trail hunting. A sport I thoroughly enjoyed and that included no live bait of _any_ sort. Just scent. Human scent.

I couldn't leave the yard on my horse for a whole year.

What good were they doing then?

That's people on the same side as me, as you and as the foxes. Yet they don't have an ounce of peace in them, themselves.

Again, I'm not having a dig at you. Truly I'm not. But even though you assume all hunters are barbaric, their are people like ourselves who think they're doing good that are just as evil. I was 21 years old.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

There's never an excuse for violence or dishing out your own form of justice and what happened to you was wrong and inexcusable.

I'm not defending it in any way, but I think sometimes, those who would try and fight against the hunt become very emotional, frustrated and tempers tend to boil over.

I find it incredible sometimes that in our modern society and being that we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers, this kind of antiquated ritual still exists.

Was it Einstein who said "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by how it treats it's animals"?

Surely that has to apply to all animals and not just some.

Again, sorry you had to suffer such a traumatic incident.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

I went on several fox hunts as a kid. I loved the fox hunts, never was anywhere near the front to where I could see the fox, cant say I even thought about the fox. All I knew or cared about was that I got to take a horse out for an exciting ride.

I also attended literally hundreds of bullfights as a kid. The bullfights were pretty gory and cant say that I actually enjoyed them, but I did enjoy watching the bulls, watching as they adapted to being separated from the herd and defending themselves in an alien environment. I was mesmerized learning their body language, trying to gage their reactions, where their querencia was, when they would start figuring out it was the man to aim for instead of the cape.... 

Bullfighting wasnt what made me a vegetarian, but it did play a big role. At the time I dont know how clearly I thought it all through, but I do know that first hand experience seeing food animals die connected me to my food enough that I chose not to eat that particular food.

Today I am still a vegetarian, but I have no issue with humans eating meat. I have no issue with hunting either. My neighbors are hunters and I happily feed the dogs the deer meat they generously share. 

I think these things, like so many hot topics, are far more complex than our simple right/wrong human tendencies would like peg them. 
Hunting is a huge umbrella term for a vast array of activities. What my grandfather did - hunting deer and rabbit in the winter to feed his family, with much respect and appreciation for the animals who nourished him and his loved ones, falls under the same umbrella term as an aristocratic sport invented to entertain the bored nobles. 

I have no clue about foxes in Great Britain. I dont know if they need to be culled or not, if they suffer from overpopulation or not, but if there is a good reason to diminish their population, surely there are more humane ways to go about doing so than the traditional fox hunt?
Bearing in mind that Im thinking of what I participated in, and it was not the best thing in the world for the dogs or horses either. If hunts have changed in the *ahem* decades since I participated in them, then I happily stand corrected.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lauren5159 said:


> If you stuck to that diplomacy and that manner in which your words come across, then you may get more on your side -I'm talking about both sides here, for hunters can be stubborn and set on their views and beliefs just as much as you guys can
> 
> The issue is, that all threads and debates, such as this one, decline in to a mass keyboard brawl which does absolutely nothing, achieves nada.
> 
> ...


That's truly awful and I would not condone that sort of behaviour at all. I often say, in reply to the pro-hunting arguments such as "well factory farming is bad so that justifies my hunting", that two wrongs don't make a right - and that applies equally as well to hunt sabs. They may have thought their cause was justified - but using violence to stop violence (and picking an easy target of a young person to boot) is not an acceptable answer.

Sadly, it's the same as in any walk of life - there are good and there are bad - and what happened to you was bad.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lauren5159 said:


> I get that, I really do. It's the reason I tend to stay away from threads such as this. It seems that I was damned from the moment I got on my horse that day, according to some people. And apparently people can't change.
> 
> I can understand both sides of the debate. I'll always agree more with one particular side but having actually witness and participated in one, I am well entitled to my opinion. Some people though, need to realise that damning the people who partake and saying such things like 'they all deserve to be shot' isn't going to get them any further in the argument and it only drives people, like myself, who have reformed (so to speak) further and further away. Especially when it is people like myself who can truly speak of what we know and how we feel and prove instrumental in such movements.
> 
> Sadly, because of the stigma my lifestyle entails, I no longer take part in anything to do with the fight against fox hunting.


Unfortunately SL takes many of my threads personally lol - and if you look at that particular post I clearly didn't say she was a sadist.

I think I can safely say the antis I know wouldn't give you grief, they would be so heartened that you have turned your back on the cruel sport The reformed huntsman, Clifford Pellow, is very well respected by antis, sabs etc

,


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I went on several fox hunts as a kid. I loved the fox hunts, never was anywhere near the front to where I could see the fox, cant say I even thought about the fox. All I knew or cared about was that I got to take a horse out for an exciting ride.
> 
> I also attended literally hundreds of bullfights as a kid. The bullfights were pretty gory and cant say that I actually enjoyed them, but I did enjoy watching the bulls, watching as they adapted to being separated from the herd and defending themselves in an alien environment. I was mesmerized learning their body language, trying to gage their reactions, where their querencia was, when they would start figuring out it was the man to aim for instead of the cape....
> 
> ...


Fox hunting hasn't changed much. At least not as of 10 years ago. Shooting would be more humane to keep the population down. Like they do with deer.

My uncle is a gamekeeper in the Highlands of Scotland. I have NO issue with shooting to kill and then consume. I don't necessarily like it when animals are shot for fun. But my uncle can shoot two deer in a day and they and the dogs eat well for weeks  They also have cows that they keep and slaughter and they shoot rabbits... I have absolutely no issue with that.

Fox hunting still isn't great for the horses, unfortunately. I didn't realise that as such when I was 15.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I went on several fox hunts as a kid. I loved the fox hunts, never was anywhere near the front to where I could see the fox, cant say I even thought about the fox. All I knew or cared about was that I got to take a horse out for an exciting ride.
> 
> I also attended literally hundreds of bullfights as a kid. The bullfights were pretty gory and cant say that I actually enjoyed them, but I did enjoy watching the bulls, watching as they adapted to being separated from the herd and defending themselves in an alien environment. I was mesmerized learning their body language, trying to gage their reactions, where their querencia was, when they would start figuring out it was the man to aim for instead of the cape....
> 
> ...


No, foxes don't need to be culled. Like many species, their population is self controlling through territorial behaviour & abundance of food. Hunts exist because some enjoy hunting foxes for 'sport'.

,


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> In your view, because that's how YOU perceive fox hunting. But as a flight or fight creature, hunting is natural to the fox, whether they are hunting or being hunted. So is it cruel for an animal to be hunted that lives in a flight or fight situation? Does it really matter what is chasing them?


There's a vast difference between a single fox hunting its prey to a fox being hunted by a pack of hounds! I was out walking the Nottingham/Grantham canal three weeks back when the belvoir hunt were out! They were within touching distance of me and it was scary for me and milly so cannot even begin to imagine how the fox felt!

And hey!!! that's my view, hunting may be natural when its one on one Ill agree there! but when you have a load of stuffed twats in red jackets baying for blood it aint natural!! its barbaric!


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Going to try and make this short as on phone and for some reason i cannot space text. 

Firstly, i apologise if i have insulted or offended anyone. I don't think i have but have seen those with different opinions also being personal. I haven't taken it to heart but others may. Sorry, this is working both ways. I have not been personal, rude, swore, etc. If so, pull up for me please. 

I, however, am not apologising for my views, and i don't expect any of you too either. I am getting annoyed, however, that people are making assumptions they know me and others. How do you know what causes i fight for, how i help the environment? You don't. 

I do bad to the earth. I try and do good in some areas too. None of us are perfect. I am happy to admit that. We all do bad and we all do good in some way. There is really no need for personal attacks and snide comments. Comments then become weak. We will feel strongly on how we feel, but once lies come, bullshit, accusations, prejudging, i will not hear both sides. I will not take it seriously


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> Dog fighting never went away either. By the same logic, surely it's better to have that open and regulated too as opposed to under the radar...


wish burning witches hadn't gone away either
there's a few here I wouldn't mind sacrificing


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Makes me chuckle, all the law abiding and completely ethical people on here? As someone with a van that's tracked for work, I dread driving through rush hour traffic. Why? Because every single person is up my jacksy wanting to do more than the speed limit. I've had people overtake me in 30mph zones, doing far more than the speed limit as they simply MUST get to work, or wherever, in time. Including mowing down wildlife on their way to work, as they simply HAVE to get there on time.


makes you chuckle??? really!
you must be very sad if you can EVEN begin to compare an animal being ripped to shreads with someone breaking the speak limit!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A lot of people also used to keep pigs in their back yards, and culled their own meals. Linking fox hunting to slavery is about as relevant as linking line dancing to rugby!!


Yes! my grandfather did! 
And there is NO comparison!
Please don't take this the wrong way! but you really have lost the plot!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DT said:


> Yes! my grandfather did!
> And there is NO comparison!
> Please don't take this the wrong way! but you really have lost the plot!


My Grandad use to keep pigs aswell, my Mum was only small and dainty & when she was a little girl she use to ride on their backs 

.

.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

DT said:


> wish burning witches hadn't gone away either
> there's a few here I wouldn't mind sacrificing


Have Lauren's eloquent comments not got through to anyone? How statements like this, and people liking them, are meant to help the cause at hand are beyond me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Laurac said:


> Have Lauren's eloquent comments not got through to anyone? How statements like this, and people liking them, are meant to help the cause at hand are beyond me.


Its just a joke Laurac I'm sure no one takes it seriously do they? I thought it was funny.

,


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lauren5159 said:


> Fox hunting hasn't changed much. At least not as of 10 years ago. Shooting would be more humane to keep the population down. Like they do with deer.
> 
> My uncle is a gamekeeper in the Highlands of Scotland. I have NO issue with shooting to kill and then consume. I don't necessarily like it when animals are shot for fun. But my uncle can shoot two deer in a day and they and the dogs eat well for weeks  They also have cows that they keep and slaughter and they shoot rabbits... I have absolutely no issue with that.
> 
> Fox hunting still isn't great for the horses, unfortunately. I didn't realise that as such when I was 15.


I dont like that fox hunting hasnt changed, but Im liking your post for the thoughtfulness. Yes, shooting is more humane than fox hunting any day. *If* youre a good shot of course. Thinking of the deer hunting around here, hunting is allowed to keep populations in check, but lots of ******* hunters will shoot at movement, injure and not kill, and the poor animal is left to suffer a long, drawn out death. And dont get me started on the jerks who shoot the deer, take the antlers, and leave the rest to rot in the woods. 
I dont know how you would legislate hunting to make sure everyone does it with respect for the animal. Thats a heart thing, not a law thing. You cant legislate morality.

Nothing is a perfect solution.
Even though predation is not pretty either, ideally, you would allow the predator/prey balance to normalize, you stop habitat destruction and encroachment etc.

And yes, I do think it is possible to respect an animal and still use it as food. The same grandfather who hunted also raised and slaughtered chickens, ducks, and pigs. But back then the animals were slaughtered on site - not sent off to a facility and returned nicely packaged in plastic containers. Again, its about being connected to the entire process.

My grandfather was an animal lover through and through. There are plenty of people like that out there today. Hunters who respect and admire the animal they hunt. Meat eaters who appreciate the animal for providing them nourishment. A vet friend of mine is a weird quasi-vegetarian. She will only eat meat she hunts herself. Not for health reasons, but for ethical ones. The only animal she will eat is one she knows died humanely, and the only way she knows to make sure the animal died humanely is to do it herself.

We cant lump the respectful hunters in with the trophy and sport hunters. The respectful hunters I know are genuinely sickened by things like fox hunts out of true love and knowledge of the animal being hunted.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

QUOTE Ouesi A vet friend of mine is a weird quasi-vegetarian. She will only eat meat she hunts herself. Not for health reasons, but for ethical ones. The only animal she will eat is one she knows died humanely, and the only way she knows to make sure the animal died humanely is to do it herself. UNQUOTE

Why is that weird? Wish I had her strength of character.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> QUOTE Ouesi A vet friend of mine is a weird quasi-vegetarian. She will only eat meat she hunts herself. Not for health reasons, but for ethical ones. The only animal she will eat is one she knows died humanely, and the only way she knows to make sure the animal died humanely is to do it herself. UNQUOTE
> 
> Why is that weird? Wish I had her strength of character.


LOL maybe weird isn't the right word, I very much respect her for this. If I actually liked meat this is what I would do too. 
But there are plenty of AR wackos out there who would fault her for eating any meat regardless of how it's sourced.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

I love staying at my uncle's. They have a gorgeous log cabin in the middle of nowhere... You eat like royalty and everything on your plate has come straight from their land  

It's a dream lifestyle  

I always remember, when I was about 5 years old. My uncle, on his way home one night, hit and killed a deer on the road. He got out to inspect the damage. The deer was dead but he could hear the calling of a fawn in the bushes... It was days old, he raised it on the farm and it was great  I have a picture of me, in his hot tub and Scout (the stag by this point) standing over my shoulder... He was like a giant dog  amazing animal. He used to come and go for days at a time but would never stray too far and was still terrified of people he didn't know.

He was shot and left to die in the woods by poachers. My uncle found him the following day not far from the house. He had tried to drag himself home


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lauren5159 said:


> I love staying at my uncle's. They have a gorgeous log cabin in the middle of nowhere... You eat like royalty and everything on your plate has come straight from their land
> 
> It's a dream lifestyle
> 
> ...


I dont know what has to be broken within an human to be okay with injuring an animal and leaving it out there to die a slow, pained, frightened, horrific death. And I dont know how you fix that. I sure wish I did though


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

Quote:

Its just a joke Laurac I'm sure no one takes it seriously do they? I thought it was funny.




I tend to agree with lots of dt's posts so I will take it in the spirit it was meant then and separate it from some of the fanatical comments posted by others.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I dont know what has to be broken within an human to be okay with injuring an animal and leaving it out there to die a slow, pained, frightened, horrific death. And I dont know how you fix that. I sure wish I did though


I know 

My uncle still hunts deer. But he strives for a clean kill and as I said before, everything he kills is eaten and doesn't leave his land.

Some people are just clueless and don't care enough to consider that other beings feel, just like they do. It makes me sick.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> But there are plenty of AR wackos out there who would fault her for eating any meat regardless of how it's sourced.


Does having courage of their convictions really make someone a wacko? I don't necessarily agree with their stance just as I don't agree with people's heartfelt defence of foxhunting - I wouldn't describe either group as 'wackos' though.

Many people in the UK and the US would fault folk in certain Asian countries for eating dog regardless of how it's sourced - are they wackos too?


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Does having courage of their convictions really make someone a wacko?


No.
But if you dont know jack squat about the animal youre defending then how convicted can you really be?



lennythecloud said:


> I don't necessarily agree with their stance just as I don't agree with people's heartfelt defence of foxhunting - I wouldn't describe either group as 'wackos' though.


Having sat in on a few PeTA meetings back in the day, and having first hand experience with some of their terrorist tactics, I would definitely describe many of them as AR wackos completely out of touch. Trust me, wackos is kind compared to what I could call them.

To be clear, I also think some of the arguments in defense of fox hunting are pretty out of touch too. Same as I think there is something seriously wrong with a person who happily kills an animal, hacks the antlers off, and leaves the rest to rot.



lennythecloud said:


> Many people in the UK and the US would fault folk in certain Asian countries for eating dog regardless of how it's sourced - are they wackos too?


Depending on their argument base, yes, I would. Not based on what theyre arguing for or against, but based on their knowledge and understanding of what theyre arguing.


----------



## ALcatrazbirdman (Feb 27, 2014)

This old chestnut has reared its head on so many forums,with people insulting each other over differing views . It will run and run ,until mods block it.:Yawn:


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> No.
> But if you dont know jack squat about the animal youre defending then how convicted can you really be?
> 
> Having sat in on a few PeTA meetings back in the day, and having first hand experience with some of their terrorist tactics, I would definitely describe many of them as AR wackos completely out of touch. Trust me, wackos is kind compared to what I could call them.
> ...


There is an approach to AR that subscribes to the idea that it is wrong to eat any animal with a certain level of sentience and cognition. I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking but it is a pretty ethically consistent stance to take. Subscribing to this ethical principle also does not make you a terrorist or a PETA supporter.

I'm just curious as to whether this group of people would be classed as 'AR wackos' as they would certainly 'fault her for eating any meat regardless of how its sourced.' I may be wrong but that's what you seemed to be implying.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> There is an approach to AR that subscribes to the idea that it is wrong to eat any animal with a certain level of sentience and cognition. I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking but it is a pretty ethically consistent stance to take. Subscribing to this ethical principle also does not make you a terrorist or a PETA supporter.
> 
> I'm just curious as to whether this group of people would be classed as 'AR wackos' as they would certainly 'fault her for eating any meat regardless of how its sourced.' I may be wrong but that's what you seemed to be implying.


In the part you quoted, I clearly said that it depends on what kind of knowledge and understating (and logic frankly) the argument is based on. Not the stance itself.

But in the end, I would say to you the same thing I said to SleepingLion. If you (general you) are comfortable with your stance, why do you care what others think, or in this case, what descriptors others use? 
AR wacko is pretty tame if you ask me, didnt even get starred out like the descriptor I used for certain hunters. (Why arent you asking me about that one?) 
But if one is confident in one's stance, why would it matter what I or anyone else thinks?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> But in the end, I would say to you the same thing I said to SleepingLion. If you (general you) are comfortable with your stance, why do you care what others think, or in this case, what descriptors others use?
> "AR wacko" is pretty tame if you ask me, didn't even get starred out like the descriptor I used for certain hunters. (Why aren't you asking me about that one?)
> But if one is confident in one's stance, why would it matter what I or anyone else thinks?


Because that's the basis of debate, it's the questioning of others belief. People with the strongest belief will enter into debate with others and that includes questioning inappropriate descriptors. That was the case when the black rights movement took back the 'N word' and in the gay rights movement when they question the use of 'puff', '******' and 'queer' - are you really trying to tell me those people are not comfortable with their stance? I also happen to think SleepingLion is actually comfortable with her stance and this is evidenced in how strongly she defends it. People care what others think because like it or not their views can and do impact on their way of life and social standing, as well the way of life of those they care about.

You yourself have done the very thing you accuse me and Sleeping Lion of doing by caring about what the "AR wackos" think of your friend.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Because that's the basis of debate, it's the questioning of others belief. *People with the strongest belief will enter into debate with others* and that includes questioning inappropriate descriptors.


Way over-simplified.
Never mind how would you go about qualifying someones strength of belief.
My friend who runs an animal rehabilitation sanctuary is about as convicted as you can get, but you wont find her on on-line forums debating the minutia of hunting or animal rights. Shes too busy tending to the animals in her presence that need her help to spend time debating either on-line or in person. And frankly, shes too compassionate and empathetic to argue much. None of that has a thing to do with how strong her belief is.
Myself, some of the issues Im most passionate about I rarely get in to a discussion about. Not because I dont care, but because it doesnt matter to me what others think or have to say about the topic. For example, there is nothing anyone could say to me that would convince me it is ever okay to spank a child. Im not out to change the world or legislate any anti-spanking laws, I simply know in my heart that hitting a child is wrong. I dont need to discuss it, I dont need to convince anyone else, I just know its not for me, and I dont do it. End of. 
I know many animal lovers who feel the same way about killing animals for food. They simply know in their own hearts that is wrong and they dont do it. Its not about what others do, its not about convincing anyone else of their rightness. Its simply about living their own life in a way that makes sense to them.



lennythecloud said:


> That was the case when the black rights movement took back the 'N word' and in the gay rights movement when they question the use of 'puff', '******' and 'queer' - are you really trying to tell me those people are not comfortable with their stance?


See this is where youre going to lose credibility with me. 
Im IN the south of the US, Im living with real racism every day, Im hearing the n word and boy and listening to conversations of people who lived through the 60s and desegregation. If you think calling an AR extremist a wacko is the same as calling a black man boy then Id say you are totally out of touch. For one, wacko is not meant to emasculate, denigrate, or trivialize. It is an apt descriptor of someone who has no foothold in reality. Someone who thinks a barn full of domestic horses are better served by being turned loose to run on to the nearby highway and get hit by semi-trailers is a wacko in the sense that their concept of reality and animal welfare is completely warped.



lennythecloud said:


> People care what others think because like it or not their views can and do impact on their way of life and social standing, as well the way of life of those they care about.


Mmm... again, not quite right. You can think whatever you want to think. You (general you) can be the most racist, bigoted, misogynist, animal hater out there and I will defend your right to think and feel whatever it is you think and feel. 
Where I *will* have something to say is when you start acting on those thoughts. Its the whole your beliefs dont make you a better person, your actions do but kind of in reverse. Beliefs only matter when theyre put in to action. Its okay to be a racist bigot as long as youre not enacting laws that undermine the rights of others. I mean, I would obviously prefer that folks not be racist bigots but Im not the boss of the world, so its kind of out of my control.



lennythecloud said:


> You yourself have done the very thing you accuse me and Sleeping Lion of doing by caring about what the "AR wackos" think of your friend.


Actually, read my post:


ouesi said:


> LOL maybe weird isnt the right word, I very much respect her for this. If I actually liked meat this is what I would do too.
> But there are plenty of AR wackos out there who would fault her for eating any meat regardless of how its sourced.


It was a response to another post. Nothing about me caring what they called, her, no whole new thread started to point out that she shouldnt be faulted, just a passing comment. Me thinks you might be reaching a bit


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Way over-simplified.
> Never mind how would you go about qualifying someone's strength of belief.
> My friend who runs an animal rehabilitation sanctuary is about as convicted as you can get, but you won't find her on on-line forums debating the minutia of hunting or animal rights. She's too busy tending to the animals in her presence that need her help to spend time debating either on-line or in person. And frankly, she's too compassionate and empathetic to argue much. None of that has a thing to do with how strong her belief is.
> Myself, some of the issues I'm most passionate about I rarely get in to a discussion about. Not because I don't care, but because it doesn't matter to me what others think or have to say about the topic. For example, there is nothing anyone could say to me that would convince me it is ever okay to spank a child. I'm not out to change the world or legislate any anti-spanking laws, I simply know in my heart that hitting a child is wrong. I don't need to discuss it, I don't need to convince anyone else, I just know it's not for me, and I don't do it. End of.
> I know many animal lovers who feel the same way about killing animals for food. They simply know in their own hearts that is wrong and they don't do it. It's not about what others do, it's not about convincing anyone else of their "rightness". It's simply about living their own life in a way that makes sense to them.


It was YOU who suggested that someone 'confident in their stance' or 'comfortable in their stance' would not care what others think. I countered this with 'People with the strongest belief will enter into debate with others' how is that over simplified?

And you and others may be content in not entering into debate with others and that's fine. But IMO debate and arguing for what you believe to be right is essential to progress and every great thinker that's ever lived has known it. Do you think anything has ever changed in the world for the better by people sitting back and saying 'I don't really care what the other man is doing'? The lives of gay people, women, children, black people, animals ect have all been vastly improved by people saying 'actually, I think that's wrong because.....' - If that same person took your view of 'It's simply about living their own life in a way that makes sense to them' then we'd still be sitting in the dark ages.

Do I think the world is going to change because of an internet forum - no. But I've had my opinions changed and been educated by things on here and that to me says it's worth it.



ousei said:


> See this is where you're going to lose credibility with me.
> I'm IN the south of the US, I'm living with real racism every day, I'm hearing the "n" word and "boy" and listening to conversations of people who lived through the 60's and desegregation. If you think calling an AR extremist a "wacko" is the same as calling a black man "boy" then I'd say you are totally out of touch. For one, "wacko" is not meant to emasculate, denigrate, or trivialize. It is an apt descriptor of someone who has no foothold in reality. Someone who thinks a barn full of domestic horses are better served by being turned loose to run on to the nearby highway and get hit by semi-trailers is a wacko in the sense that their concept of reality and animal welfare is completely warped.


And there is the epitome of straw man, right there.

I did not say anywhere, in any sense, say that 'AR wackos' is the same as any racist term. I used examples of where people with great confidence in their stance argued against descriptors used against them. If you want to disagree with me go ahead but don't spin my argument to make me out to be an out of touch racist because that's being a little economical with the truth .

With regards to the word wacko, it's synonymous with being crazy, mad or insane - fairly disparaging to say the least.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Some talk some do........................


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> And you and others may be content in not entering into debate with others and that's fine. But IMO debate and arguing for what you believe to be right is essential to progress and every great thinker that's ever lived has known it. Do you think anything has ever changed in the world for the better by people sitting back and saying 'I don't really care what the other man is doing'? The lives of gay people, women, children, black people, animals ect have all been vastly improved by people saying 'actually, I think that's wrong because.....' - If that same person took your view of 'Its simply about living their own life in a way that makes sense to them' then we'd still be sitting in the dark ages.


Not necessarily. Living your own authentic life sets and example to others and opens doors for communication and connection. 
I dont participate in any parenting debates, but I do have many *conversations* with fellow parents. When the conversations veers towards punishment and spanking, I dont get on a high horse and tell them how wrong they are. I listen, I empathize with their struggles, I connect with them as a fellow parent who also struggles, who doesnt have all the answers either. There is no debate, simply connection. And lines of communication and exchange stay open.

Im not saying the above is right or wrong, and hey, I love a good debate for the exact same reasons you do, I learn a lot and question myself too, all of that is positive and helps a person grow. I just dont think that debate and argument is the only way to accomplish meaningful change.

Honestly, Ive stayed off this thread until now because I dont care to debate fox hunting. I know in my heart without question that no part of me can agree with fox hunting. And my true feelings about it would likely offend a lot of people on this thread to the point that they would not hear anything else I have to say. Im not going to go there for exactly that reason.



lennythecloud said:


> And there is the epitome of straw man, right there.
> 
> I did not say anywhere, in any sense, say that 'AR wackos' is the same as any racist term. I used examples of where people with great confidence in their stance argued against descriptors used against them. If you want to disagree with me go ahead but don't spin my argument to make me out to be an out of touch racist because that's being a little economical with the truth .


But thats not what I said is it? Nor did I say *you* were a racist, just that your analogy made you *sound* like you were out of touch.



lennythecloud said:


> With regards to the word wacko, it's synonymous with being crazy, mad or insane - fairly disparaging to say the least.


Im sorry, I dont know how else to describe someone who calls themselves an animal lover and then turns around and does the things that AR folks have done. It *is* mad, crazy, and insane what they do. I was there picking up the pieces from the death and destruction that they caused, and only someone who is completely warped in the head could think that what I witnessed was okay to put any animal through. 
In the same way that I think the poacher who shot the deer Lauren5159s uncle raised has to have something wacko going on in their head to be okay with treating an animal like that.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

I haven't read this thread in its entirety probably because it has inevitably raised the obligatory contentions as is already evident in two closed spin off threads regarding this matter.

However, I fully understand the need to control wildlife numbers, whilst our own numbers remain out of control, but what I will never fully comprehend is why man has to attach such cruelty to achieving an end to the age old problem of foxes.

Now the thing that strikes me as bewildering is this; as far as pest nuisance is considered I would have thought that the Rat was more of a concern. 
After all they are known to carry disease and, in all probability, there will be an infestation somewhere close to where you're sitting right this very minute foraging through someone's rubbish bin or carelessly discarded take away leftovers.

To be honest, I'd much prefer to see a fox in the street or on my land and in my out buildings /garden than a horde of rats.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Zaros said:


> I haven't read this thread in its entirety probably because it has inevitably raised the obligatory contentions as is already evident in two closed spin off threads regarding this matter.
> 
> However, I fully understand the need to control wildlife numbers, whilst our own numbers remain out of control, but what I will never fully comprehend is why man has to attach such cruelty to achieving an end to the age old problem of foxes.
> 
> ...


Ah, but you can't make quite a show of a rat hunt!

It's not considered quite as 'glamorous' for those involved :roll eyes:

I totally agree with your point.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lauren5159 said:


> Ah, but you can't make quite a show of a rat hunt!


Sure you can.
Thats where the pit part of Pit bull terriers comes in. 
Back in the day in the UK, people would set their terriers in to a pit of rats to prove the dogs prowess as a ratter. If I remember my reading right, it was based on time, which dog could kill the most rats in the least amount of time.
Folks would bet on dogs (just like we do with horse and greyhound racing today), and these events had high attendance rates.

The ratting dogs (terriers who ratted in a pit) were crossed with the bull baiting dogs to create a pit-bull-terrier.

Ratting events became illegal around the same time that bull baiting did, (mid 1800s?) and the legality of dog fighting ended shortly there after too. But dog fighting was easier to hide than bull baiting or ratting. Walking around with a bull or a wagon full of caged rats is harder to cover than walking around with a dog or two.

History lesson for the day... And kind of a sad commentary on the sadistic nature of humans in general  
(Yes, I used the s word - not aimed at anyone personally, just the human race in general. No offense meant.)


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Sure you can.
> Thats where the pit part of Pit bull terriers comes in.
> Back in the day in the UK, people would set their terriers in to a pit of rats to prove the dogs prowess as a ratter. If I remember my reading right, it was based on time, which dog could kill the most rats in the least amount of time.
> Folks would bet on dogs (just like we do with horse and greyhound racing today), and these events had high attendance rates.
> ...


Unfortunately though, it's not quite the same as the parade they make of a fox hunt. All dressed to the nines, horses immaculately turned out...

I still don't know why I keep using the word 'unfortunately'! There's nothing unfortunate about it!

It took me a while to realise what 's' word you were talking about lol!


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lauren5159 said:


> Unfortunately though, it's not quite the same as the parade they make of a fox hunt. All dressed to the nines, horses immaculately turned out...


Yes, its very weird isnt it? Animal being killed on one end, pomp and circumstance on the other end. Its a totally jarring dichotomy when you look at it with eyes wide open.
Which is why I likened fox hunting to bullfighting. Not just because Ive participated in both, but because of the same type of pomp and glitter (literally) that cloaks the whole event. The depth of tradition theyre both mired in, and defended with. Its all very fascinating on a human psychological level.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Yes, its very weird isnt it? Animal being killed on one end, pomp and circumstance on the other end. Its a totally jarring dichotomy when you look at it with eyes wide open.
> Which is why I likened fox hunting to bullfighting. Not just because Ive participated in both, but because of the same type of pomp and glitter (literally) that cloaks the whole event. The depth of tradition theyre both mired in, and defended with. Its all very fascinating on a human psychological level.


It's crazy... I participated from a horse riding point of view but the regulars there, they really _believe_ that they are keeping their ancestry alive. That one hunt, that one act links them to their ancestors. Almost like a nod to history.

I had to use the word 'delusional', but it does spring to mind.

The animal is worthless when compared to their ancestors.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Not necessarily. Living your own authentic life sets and example to others and opens doors for communication and connection.
> I dont participate in any parenting debates, but I do have many *conversations* with fellow parents. When the conversations veers towards punishment and spanking, I dont get on a high horse and tell them how wrong they are. I listen, I empathize with their struggles, I connect with them as a fellow parent who also struggles, who doesnt have all the answers either. There is no debate, simply connection. And lines of communication and exchange stay open.
> 
> Im not saying the above is right or wrong, and hey, I love a good debate for the exact same reasons you do, I learn a lot and question myself too, all of that is positive and helps a person grow. I just dont think that debate and argument is the only way to accomplish meaningful change.


To be honest I agree with you. I'm vegan with strong animal welfare leanings but have worked extensively in farming and have many pro hunt and pro intensive farming friends. I don't get on my 'high horse' with them but if they make a point I disagree with I'll normally say so and vice versa. I also think there are places for stronger discussion - on forums it will inevitably happen.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that people who are 'comfortable in their stance' do not care about what other people think or the descriptors used to describe them. You don't have to look far to see that's false.



ouesi said:


> But thats not what I said is it? Nor did I say *you* were a racist, just that your analogy made you *sound* like you were out of touch.


"If you think calling an AR extremist a wacko is the same as calling a black man boy then Id say you are totally out of touch."

Suggests that I actually came anywhere close to suggesting that I think that, which is completely false if you look at what I actually posted.



ouesi said:


> Im sorry, I dont know how else to describe someone who calls themselves an animal lover and then turns around and does the things that AR folks have done. It *is* mad, crazy, and insane what they do. I was there picking up the pieces from the death and destruction that they caused, and only someone who is completely warped in the head could think that what I witnessed was okay to put any animal through.
> In the same way that I think the poacher who shot the deer Lauren5159s uncle raised has to have something wacko going on in their head to be okay with treating an animal like that.


Not everyone who subscribes to an animal rights ideology is a 'wacko' and 'animal rights folks' are not one homogenous group of crazy, mad and insane people. 'Animal rights' is actually borne out of ethical philosophy and derives from the thoughts of various historical thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and modern thinkers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan. These are people are not wacko terrorists.

That's why I called you out on it. Generalising 'animal rights wackos' and 'animal rights folk' as believing or doing x is no different to saying 'dog-owning wackos are irresponsible and antisocial' or 'American folk are completely out of touch'. In any social rights organisation you are going to get people who use direct action, some of it misguided. But to criticise all, without qualification, because of the actions of a few is wrong.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> "If you think calling an AR extremist a wacko is the same as calling a black man boy then Id say you are totally out of touch."
> 
> Suggests that I actually came anywhere close to suggesting that I think that, which is completely false if you look at what I actually posted.


Youre still missing the if and then in the above. Ill leave it at that though. I really dont want to get in to a nit-picky war of words with you. Im okay with us being in disagreement on this 



lennythecloud said:


> Not everyone who subscribes to an animal rights ideology is a 'wacko' and 'animal rights folks' are not one homogenous group of crazy, mad and insane people. 'Animal rights' is actually borne out of ethical philosophy and derives from the thoughts of various historical thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and modern thinkers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan. These are people are not wacko terrorists.
> 
> That's why I called you out on it. Generalising 'animal rights wackos' and 'animal rights folk' as believing or doing x is no different to saying 'dog-owning wackos are irresponsible and antisocial' or 'American folk are completely out of touch'. In any social rights organisation you are going to get people who use direct action, some of it misguided. But to criticise all, without qualification, because of the actions of a few is wrong.


1. There is a significant difference between animal *rights* and animal *welfare*. I dont know of a single animal rights organization that does not have terrorist leanings and wackos at the helm. I am more than happy to be corrected on this notion if you or anyone else knows otherwise. 
2. By wacko, I specified a person who thinks a horse is better off dying of internal injuries on the side of the interstate than in a warm, safe, box stall cared for every day by people who respect and understand the animal for the domestic creature he is. This description does not include ALL animal rights supporters. 
In the same way I would say that any American complaining about how hard it is to live without a microwave is out of touch. Its not a generalization of Americans, its a statement of people who think ___ are ___.

If you are an animal rights supporter who respects the animals you support for what they are and fully understands their behavior and needs, then you are not a wacko. 
If you are a hunter who appreciates the animal that you hunt and treat it with respect, then you are not an *******.

It makes sense in my head


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Lauren5159 said:


> It's crazy... I participated from a horse riding point of view but the regulars there, they really _believe_ that they are keeping their ancestry alive. That one hunt, that one act links them to their ancestors. Almost like a nod to history.
> 
> I had to use the word 'delusional', but it does spring to mind.
> 
> The animal is worthless when compared to their ancestors.


Maybe not so much delusional as practicing very specific cognitive dissonance?

IDK, from a what can we do to change it POV, I am very curious. If we can figure out what happens in the brain that turns off the empathy switch and allows basically normal human beings to watch an animal get gorily slaughtered and make it okay in their brains, then we might be able to figure out how to turn that empathy switch back on.


----------



## ALcatrazbirdman (Feb 27, 2014)

right thats it ,i'm going for a pint !:thumbsup: but i'll be giving the Fox & Hounds a miss i think .


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Maybe not so much delusional as practicing very specific cognitive dissonance?
> 
> IDK, from a what can we do to change it POV, I am very curious. If we can figure out what happens in the brain that turns off the empathy switch and allows basically normal human beings to watch an animal get gorily slaughtered and make it okay in their brains, then we might be able to figure out how to turn that empathy switch back on.


You're completely right. And until we can turn those empathy switches back on, I hope we're not fighting a losing battle


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Youre still missing the if and then in the above. Ill leave it at that though. I really dont want to get in to a nit-picky war of words with you. Im okay with us being in disagreement on this


Adding "If" and "then" does not mean that you weren't strongly suggesting that I believed something that I don't or wrote something I did not. You implied it pretty strongly, so much so that I lost 'credibility' with you and you thought it apt to inform me of the situation in the southern states. I'll leave it at that .



ousei said:


> There is a significant difference between animal *rights* and animal *welfare*.


It's not that clear cut. Although there is a traditional difference between AW and AR many people would argue it's a false dichotomy. There are many 'animal rights' campaigners who's position comes from a concern for animal welfare and positions that many people hold that come from something more than welfare. The current concern over the canned hunting of lions is one example, people fundamentally disagree with shooting a tame lion in an enclosure even though the welfare issues are not that big. PETA is often held up as a typical example of and animal rights organisation, and whilst they may have some AR principles, many of their actions and campaigns are strongly welfarist. The lines are incredibly blurred.



ousei said:


> 1. I dont know of a single animal rights organization that does not have terrorist leanings and wackos at the helm. I am more than happy to be corrected on this notion if you or anyone else knows otherwise.


Easy. Animal aid is the UK's largest animal rights organisation and has never participated in terrorism Animal Aid: About Animal Aid . Also other big ones like BUAV and CAPS.

Sea shepherd's an interesting one - they do participate in direct action and are terrorists to some but total heroes to others.



ousei said:


> 2. By wacko, I specified a person who thinks a horse is better off dying of internal injuries on the side of the interstate than in a warm, safe, box stall cared for every day by people who respect and understand the animal for the domestic creature he is. This description does not include ALL animal rights supporters.
> In the same way I would say that any American complaining about how hard it is to live without a microwave is out of touch. Its not a generalization of Americans, its a statement of people who think ___ are ___.


But you didn't state that

"there are plenty of AR wackos out there who would fault her for eating any meat regardless of how its sourced."

Not animal rights wackos that think letting horses onto roads is good. Animal rights wackos. American wackos. Dog owning wackos. Christian wackos. One homogenous group - all wackos.

And then...

"then turns around and does the things that AR folks have done."

Not "some AR folks", not "a proportion of AR folks" - "AR folks".


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Adding "If" and "then" does not mean that you weren't strongly suggesting that I believed something that I don't or wrote something I did not. You implied it pretty strongly, so much so that I lost 'credibility' with you and you thought it apt to inform me of the situation in the southern states. I'll leave it at that .


Yes, and youre continuing to lose credibility with me for presuming to know better than me what my own thoughts, feelings and intentions are.
What you take from the words I wrote is on you.

This is where these conversations lose purpose IMO. Youre arguing points that dont really have a whole lot to do with helping actual animals, but that do have a whole lot to do with trying to make someone else be wrong.
Youre completely ignoring the connection and conversation Lauren5159 and I are having and continuing to nit pick details that are insignificant to the greater picture. 
And youre arguing this minutia with someone who is actually on the same side of the fence as you in the bigger picture. But your attitude and argumentativeness only alienates potential allies.

I appreciate the link to Animal Aid UK, I will be checking that out.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Yes, and youre continuing to lose credibility with me for presuming to know better than me what my own thoughts, feelings and intentions are.
> What you take from the words I wrote is on you.
> 
> This is where these conversations lose purpose IMO. Youre arguing points that dont really have a whole lot to do with helping actual animals, but that do have a whole lot to do with trying to make someone else be wrong.
> ...


When someone tries to damage your credibility by suggesting, as you did, that I trivialize racism then yes I am going to defend my position. You might claim that it's 'nit-picking minutia' (despite the fact that you're continuing to argue with me over the same point) but it matters to me that I'm being made out to be some thing I'm not. I lost credibility when I apparently said something that I blatantly didn't say and now I'm loosing further credibility by saying that I blatantly didn't say it - I just can't win.

I don't really care if I'm 'alienating potential allies'. If someone can't see past the personalities and look at the issues at hand then they have a lot of growing to do.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> I don't really care if I'm 'alienating potential allies'. If someone can't see past the personalities and look at the issues at hand then they have a lot of growing to do.


Wow, just wow


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

rona said:


> Wow, just wow


Oh come on, that's hardly the most shocking thing ever said. If someone reads this thread and thinks "gawd that lennythecloud is a right pedantic bitch - I suddenly feel like supporting my local fox hunt" then is their opinion on the subject ever going to be that valid?


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

Oh and noushka, meant to tell you, love the siggy 

Night lennythecloud, thank you for the link.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

ALcatrazbirdman said:


> This old chestnut has reared its head on so many forums,with people insulting each other over differing views . It will run and run ,until mods block it.:Yawn:


Old chestnut eh? so you saying we can't discuss it?

there will always be differing opinions! but the day we stop discussing it is the day we roll over!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

deleted for noush because this thread needs to stay open


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Oh and noushka, meant to tell you, love the siggy
> 
> Night lennythecloud, thank you for the link.


Thank you! Its great isn't it? Someone very kindly sent me that 



DT said:


> deleted for noush because this thread needs to stay open




That's very kind of you, thanks  xx


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

DT said:


> deleted for noush because this thread needs to stay open


meh what did i miss!?


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

It will not come back. 

As a regular follower of hunting the subscription numbers are high, the 
Public come out in much higher numbers and in some respects the riding is safer and therefore attracts more mounted persons.

I think some hunts will suffer financially now if the ban is lifted and at the end of the day it all comes down to money regarding everything.

But the tedious circling argument of for and against will never cease as neither has strong enough views to support either side. And in someways rightly so as that is how the world goes round.


----------



## ALcatrazbirdman (Feb 27, 2014)

right thats definatetly it this time im going for another pint and i AM going to the Fox&Hounds this time, and then on to The Poachers Rest, and may as well upset the gardeners too i'll finish up in the Slug & Lettuce ,im past caring .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ALcatrazbirdman said:


> right thats definatetly it this time im going for another pint and i AM going to the Fox&Hounds this time, and then on to The Poachers Rest, and may as well upset the gardeners too i'll finish up in the Slug & Lettuce ,im past caring .


Don't choke on that pint

,


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

> > toffee44 said:
> >
> >
> > > It will not come back.
> > ...


----------



## ALcatrazbirdman (Feb 27, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Don't choke on that pint
> 
> ,


aaaaawwwwww, i didnt know you cared,:001_wub:,Seriously im not taking the proverbial'' P '',just trying to release a little pressure from the thread.It will ramble on for ever and a day .ive seen these threads so many times in other places.There is nothing wrong with discussing issues, there are always opposing views and opinions [on most things not just fox hunting.Its just that it can get personal, and the thread goes off on a tangent,and it finishes up far far away from its initial point.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> When someone tries to damage your credibility by suggesting, as you did, that I trivialize racism then yes I am going to defend my position.s'.


i radicalized trivia once,

twas just terrible


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ALcatrazbirdman said:


> aaaaawwwwww, i didnt know you cared,:001_wub:,Seriously im not taking the proverbial'' P '',just trying to release a little pressure from the thread.It will ramble on for ever and a day .ive seen these threads so many times in other places.There is nothing wrong with discussing issues, there are always opposing views and opinions [on most things not just fox hunting.Its just that it can get personal, and the thread goes off on a tangent,and it finishes up far far away from its initial point.


and I appreciated your post for what it was - a bit of light hearted humour. You made me smile so job done! 

If you read my opening post you can clearly see that this thread wasn't started as a discussion on fox hunting. Some just joined in to challenge the worthiness of the cause - and it took off from there. I doubt this would happen with many other threads on animal cruelty issues. One thing this thread has done is expose the prejudices some still hold against these beautiful little animals.

,

;


----------

