hahahahaha! quality thread

some nice sensible posts recently in this thread, and some new candidates for my ignore list
I once heard an argument for the ban with an explanation of what to do with all of the surplus fox hounds - "They could go and live with people who want to have them as pets."
Where is the 'rolling about on the floor in side-splitting laughter' emoticon when I need it?
Fox hounds are magnificent animals in whom the hunting/pack instinct has bred true, unlike most
domestic dogs where it lurks under the surface and is rarely seen, except when the family pet mauls to death a toddler because of a negligent and foolish owner - not the animals fault.
Now that might sound like all hounds are rabid killers, not so. Having said that they hunt very efficiently as individual leaders and as a pack. But they are not domestic animals, even when adolescents, with no experience of hunting, they are considerably more of a handful that the average family pet - they need a lot more exercise and need to be handled accordingly.
I rather suspect that, given the attitude of some to the concept of 'dangerous dogs', pit-bull terriers and the like, hounds would quickly be added to the list of animals the law says it is acceptable to destroy for the safety of the public interest.
I hear very little objection from the anti camp in this (not necessarily on this forum) which just further illustrates the singular view that they can feel all the compassion in the world for the fox (an animal which behaves as its instinct dictates - bred true through survival of the fittest) and at the same time demonstrate such a lack of compassion for another animal which similarly does only as its nature dictates (and though it has been bred as such the result is the same as the process of natural selection - efficient hunters and killers).
Such a disparity of logic is the main reason why I have no sympathy or support for those who are anti hunting, and why (though I don't hunt myself anymore) I believe that those who wish to do so should not suffer the interference of either nativity, nor the insult of corrupted legislation.
I would strongly suggest (however difficult it might be for those of a squeamish disposition) that no opinion regarding hunting of any type should be formed until an individual has had a chance to go and see it for themselves; and I don't mean the one sided 'sabbing' view, but to see first hand the life and community that exists in rural britain.
One informed decision is worth ten based upon reactionary emotion. Something our legislators omitted when devising the ban in the first place. Incidentally, the same 'reactionary thinking' lead to the white man condemning the black as an inferior being. I know my point is somewhat digressinoary, but there is far too much emotional interference in topics like these, mirroring the the failure of the legislative process, which ought to be based upon facts and reason, not hearsay and fatuous emotion.