Can you back that up with a non-pro hunting source?
Exciting and essential Tory legislative proposals
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Can you back that up with a non-pro hunting source?
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I'd be glad to see the fox hunting ban repealed; I don't see the harm in it and there is nothing wrong with enjoying a little pest control. It's certainly more humane than snares.
Besides, if hunting is banned then why not fishing since that is supposed to be very traumatic for the fish? Dogs are efficient predators and are capable of killing a fox quite quickly once caught. I don't see anyone crying out for rats that get poisoned......
Besides, if hunting is banned then why not fishing since that is supposed to be very traumatic for the fish? Dogs are efficient predators and are capable of killing a fox quite quickly once caught. I don't see anyone crying out for rats that get poisoned......
the own government commissioned report on fox hunting. Or was that pro fox hunting, even though they clearly wanted it banned for popular opinion.
I don't quite understand why fox hunting is a large grey area (or even completely according to those who think it shouldn't be banned) whereas dog fighting or similar is clearly illegal and carries very heavy penalties.
One might think that it's to do with the status of those involved, and the finance that they command, but maybe that's just me being sceptical.
Considering dog fighting is very similar in the end result, with the notable exception that no one outside of the ring is forced to be involved, noones land has ever been trampled by a dog fight.
I don't approve of dog fighting obviously, but don't see why fox hunting is considered any differently from it, when it's a greater social nuisance
One might think that it's to do with the status of those involved, and the finance that they command, but maybe that's just me being sceptical.
Considering dog fighting is very similar in the end result, with the notable exception that no one outside of the ring is forced to be involved, noones land has ever been trampled by a dog fight.
I don't approve of dog fighting obviously, but don't see why fox hunting is considered any differently from it, when it's a greater social nuisance
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,637
- Location
- Xbox Live
On my way to and from work in the past 2-3 weeks I have counted over 10 separate fox corpses on the way, all having been hit by cars... I doubt they died humanely. And those are just the foxes that were not removed from the road or did not drag themselves off to die in a bush.
Social nuisance, how on earh is it a social nuisance?
And how is it the same. It is not two dogs force to fight. It is predator vs prey in open ground.
I think the bit in bold is rather the swinging point of your own argument, up until it's caught on a line a fish is rather happily swimming along. A fox gets chased for miles, to exhaustion, until it is caught by the dogs.[DOD]Asprilla;15123646 said:
agree with repealing the ban - although i reality it has made little or no difference.
disagree with the BBC. i love the BBC, i love no adverts! they still make some of the best programs. see all of David Attenborough programs for example.
disagree with the BBC. i love the BBC, i love no adverts! they still make some of the best programs. see all of David Attenborough programs for example.
[DOD]Asprilla;15123646 said:
If fox hunting is about pest control then why do some hunts need to breed foxes in the first place? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/17/hunting.ruralaffairs
Also why did settlers to Australia introduce the European red fox there? So that they had something to hunt to the cost of the native environment.
plenty of fit foxes get away. are fish not fighting sometime for hours until it is knackered and able to be wheeled in. The chase is neither here nore there, both are acting on natural instincts.
How is it not a social nuisance? If you have open land the hunt don't stop to ask if they can go through it (by go through, I mean trample with tens of horses, with no due care about any property they might damage, livestock/pets they might scare. Several hunts have been issued with ASBOs. That to me suggests they have presented themselves as a nuisance to more than just myself.
land trampled?? a hunt must have permission from a land owner to cross his land. otherwise its trespass.
Because it's done with owners permission. Seeing as it is farmland and the farmers either support or are in the hunt. Total nonsense.
well, foxes are dogs, but instead of being forced to fight, it's forced to run off in sheer terror, I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't the torment of the fox beforehand, hearing a pack of dogs chasing just to ravage you.
again, neither pro, nor anti, as it doesn't affect me, just think it's an excuse for the upper classes to sink to prime urges of hunting and killing
You raise another interesting point, the statistics from both sides suggest the fox isn't caught in a high percentage of hunts. So how can it be argued that the purpose is pest control?
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,869
- Location
- Landan.
I think that's missing the point entirely, the point being the animal cruelty thing... If golfers were chasing rabbits and clubbing them do death with their clubs, I think you'd be right to want golf banned
But it's not, I've had my land trampled by the hunt, as have my neighbours and family. And the ASBO I know the most about was issued for exactly that reason.
It's not nonsense, because it's happened.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Now that just underlines how little people understand fox hunting and the countryside. I think the at average salary of someone who goes hunting was about £16,000, though I can't find the report to back that up. Hunting is a country thing, not an upper class thing.
I think fox hunting was banned precisely because of a perceived class seperation that simply doesn't exist.
You think that once the fish is hooked it just gets pulled out into a net? I've spent hours fighting Vundu cat fish and Marlin, and an average Tiger Fish takes about 30 minutes.
Must admit, that's news to me and that shouldn't be allowed. However, it doesn't mean the whole exercise should be banned, especially when the alternatives are no better.
What's that got to do with anything?
But if they're following a scent, they won't bother to stop and ask permission, the only time they'd consider stopping is somewhere they've previously been in trouble for crossing. Yes it's trespass, but you'd be surprised at how hard it is to take any legal action when it does happen.
because you are still culling them. even if you don't catch them all the time. It is also effective culling. I is usually the week/injured ones that are caught. Which is good for fox population, but still con rolling their numbers.
The government report into all of this does not fin with that of the ban and as such the ban should be removed at the earliest opportunity.