Death knell for hunting ban as police abandon monitoring operations

arknor · 17 May 2009 at 02:46

from how you have been going on in this thread i would have bet money on you beeing taken on hunts since a very young age.

whats the right enviroment for this fox then? obviously its not in the countryside so maybe a zoo?

ecosystems managed themselfs fine for how many years before humans decided to get involved? wasnt it humans who ruined most of them in the first place and over hunting which lead to problems with the food chain?

Rainmaker · 17 May 2009 at 02:53

arknor said:
from how you have been going on in this thread i would have bet money on you beeing taken on hunts since a very young age.

Well you'd have lost your cash lol

whats the right enviroment for this fox then? obviously its not in the countryside so maybe a zoo?

ecosystems managed themselfs fine for how many years before humans decided to get involved? wasnt it humans who ruined most of them in the first place and over hunting which lead to problems with the food chain?

Modern farming - that beastly industry that feeds our population, most of whom would starve in a week if they didn't have food provided on a polystyrene, shrink-wrapped platter - is a large and complex mechanism. The very act of converting massive swathes of our land to cultivate and produce almost un-natural levels of grain and livestock to meet the needs of a growing, and increasingly global, population by its very nature unbalances the ecosystem around it.

From the very first time man planted grass seed and cultivated grain, or kept a few half-tame goats and cattle, he has needed to manage the land and ecosystem (and its inhabitants) to succeed. To say that snobs obliterated wolves and wondered who to pick on next is an exceedingly narrow minded, frankly ludicrous statement which only serves to further demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the world around you (the one without a concrete substrate, I mean).

Get a job as a farm hand for a few years, and move to 'the sticks'. Come back in 2014 and tell me you feel the same way.

arknor · 17 May 2009 at 03:18

To say that snobs obliterated wolves and wondered who to pick on next is an exceedingly narrow minded, frankly ludicrous statement which only serves to further demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the world around you (the one without a concrete substrate, I mean).

Get a job as a farm hand for a few years, and move to 'the sticks'. Come back in 2014 and tell me you feel the same way.

so where is this ludicruous statement i aparently made in my post without any knowledge of it at all? :rolleyes:

if anyone is narrow minded it is you, you have been preaching the same crap throughout the entire thread and posting replies as if watching this thread is a priority to you.

we all know your views any fox in the countryside in its natural habitat is a nuisance.

the only good fox is either dead or an urban fox

Rainmaker · 17 May 2009 at 03:30

arknor said:
so where is this ludicruous statement i aparently made in my post without any knowledge of it at all?

if anyone is narrow minded it is you, you have been preaching the same crap throughout the entire thread and posting replies as if watching this thread is a priority to you.

we all know your views any fox in the countryside in its natural habitat is a nuisance.

the only good fox is either dead or an urban fox

Priority? I haven't replied in this thread in 24 hours before now, unlike some! I've been too busy managing the dogs and checking round a farm I control vermin for. Not to mention spending time with the family. If I've confused you with someone else with that particular statement (the one your quoted post refers to) I apologise. But it's the sentiment running through this thread's anti camp.

I could equally say 'we all know your views on hunting foxes in the countryside' etc etc. BTW, urban foxes aren't much better - they just kill rabbits, chickens and bite/maul the odd sleeping baby rather than lambs and suchlike. But hey ho. I'm off to bed.

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 08:04

If an animal is going to be killed, does it really matter if people enjoy doing it?

Is it somehow better for the animal to be killed by someone not enjoying the challenge?

deuse · 17 May 2009 at 08:18

Dolph said:
If an animal is going to be killed, does it really matter if people enjoy doing it?

Is it somehow better for the animal to be killed by someone not enjoying the challenge?

I take it you are joking in that statement

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 08:24

deuse said:
I take it you are joking in that statement

Actually, I'm not. The hunting ban has not resulted in any reduction in the number of foxes killed (the evidence from scotland suggested it actually rose), nor has it resulted in better deaths (because the evidence that it makes any difference compared to shooting doesn't exist), so with that in mind, it boils down to one point (and it's one repeatedly brought up by some in this thread), that seems to object to the fact that those involved in hunting enjoy it.

There is no objective rational reason to ban it, so I'm trying to get a handle on the subjective, emotive and irrational reasons why people still support the ban.

james.miller · 17 May 2009 at 08:48

pests need to be controlled, but why we have to make it a passtime and actually enjoy doing it i dont know. I'd like to think i'm above that sort of thing. I see no logical reason to enjoy killing animals.

RDM · 17 May 2009 at 08:54

james.miller said:
pests need to be controlled, but why we have to make it a passtime and actually enjoy doing it i dont know. I'd like to think i'm above that sort of thing. I see no logical reason to enjoy killing animals.

Because it isn't the death that is the enjoyable part of the hunt would be my guess.

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 08:57

james.miller said:
pests need to be controlled, but why we have to make it a passtime and actually enjoy doing it i dont know. I'd like to think i'm above that sort of thing. I see no logical reason to enjoy killing animals.

because that's not the enjoyable part, as evidenced by the continued drag hunting. the point is that the ban has no animal welfare benefits...

james.miller · 17 May 2009 at 09:06

Dolph said:
because that's not the enjoyable part, as evidenced by the continued drag hunting. the point is that the ban has no animal welfare benefits...

i know what your point is. I know that fox hunting does nothing for controlling the fox population. why, then, is that used as an excuse? why do people have to socialise on horseback and hunt foxes to 'have a good time'. horse riders manage to do it without killing anything?

fox hunting is an inefficiant and inhumain way of dealing with the fox population and i wouldnt be upset if it were banned outright.

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 09:09

james.miller said:
i know what your point is. I know that fox hunting does nothing for controlling the fox population. why, then, is that used as an excuse? why do people have to socialise on horseback and hunt foxes to 'have a good time'. horse riders manage to do it without killing anything?

fox hunting is an inefficiant and inhumain way of dealing with the fox population and i wouldnt be upset if it were banned outright.

it seems you've missed the point entirely...

james.miller · 17 May 2009 at 09:10

Dolph said:
it seems you've missed the point entirely...

humour me then :rolleyes:

even the pro-fox hunting groups will tell you the kill is not enjoyable, so again im asking why the need for it? your point was that banning it did nothing for the fox numbers either way - with or without the ban nothing will change. tell me, what point am i missing?

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 09:19

are less foxes being killed... no.

are the foxes being killed in a more humane way? no. the animal welfare research commissioned by the goverment showed no difference between hunting and shooting.

is the ban therefore a good law? no, it provides no benefit to animal welfare

james.miller · 17 May 2009 at 09:28

does fox hunting make a positive difference to the fox population? no, not if banning it has done nothing either.

hunting and shooting - i bet farmers wouldnt mind destroying a fox if it were hunting his chickens. but at the same time, i bet he wouldnt join his friends, don red coats, drink beer and sing songs whilst doing so. is that 'more humane'? yes, i believe so

a ban wouldnt change the way pests/intruders are shot, of course it wouldnt. but that's besides the point, its the hunt i take issue with, not pest control. i dont agree with it, whether its 'only' the buildup you enjoy or the kill itself - it is nothing i would take pleasure in doing.

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 09:32

ah, so its an irrational dislike of an activity rather than anything relevant. emotion and opinion have no place in lawmaking.

deuse · 17 May 2009 at 09:33

Dolph said:
Actually, I'm not. The hunting ban has not resulted in any reduction in the number of foxes killed (the evidence from scotland suggested it actually rose), nor has it resulted in better deaths (because the evidence that it makes any difference compared to shooting doesn't exist), so with that in mind, it boils down to one point (and it's one repeatedly brought up by some in this thread), that seems to object to the fact that those involved in hunting enjoy it.

There is no objective rational reason to ban it, so I'm trying to get a handle on the subjective, emotive and irrational reasons why people still support the ban.

I see where you are coming from.
Its also known that 100,000 foxs are killed on our roads
which says to me that the few that are letf are killed by people
that like killing a bit like the dog fighters(sick sob) they like to see
things killed for the fun. When do we say STOP.

james.miller · 17 May 2009 at 09:37

Dolph said:
ah, so its an irrational dislike of an activity rather than anything relevant. emotion and opinion have no place in lawmaking.

right so because i dislike people taking joy in hunting, especially considering it does nothing useful anyway, makes me irrational?

illogical? unreasonable? how so Dolph?

Dolph · 17 May 2009 at 09:44

james.miller said:
right so because i dislike people taking joy in hunting, especially considering it does nothing useful anyway, makes me irrational?

illogical? unreasonable? how so Dolph?

because the position is not based on evidence of harm.

negger · 17 May 2009 at 09:45

I do like reading these threads, i take points from both sides of the argument, however i have never finished reading one yet where i've said to myself 'thats it, thats the argument that is correct and beyond all doubt'.
Why is that ?

Later today i'm going to sit on my garage roof with my pellet gun, which overlooks some land aside a farm yard, and shoot some rats.
This year i've only killed about five since easter.
I don't put poison down because that would remove the enjoyment i get from shooting them.

If i had fifty pairs of pidgeons s****ing on my house roof i'd kill most of them too, and enjoy it. I only have a couple of pairs so i leave them be.

Am i wrong and how does the above differ from fox hunting?