Exciting and essential Tory legislative proposals

[Glaucus]

Because the pain and suffering dished out to the victim, mainly for fun, is disproportional for the end result.

Dressing up, horses, horns, packs of dogs, to kill one animal is ridiculous for anything other than a "good laugh", especially when the victim is ripped to pieces (in many cases) in an inhumane way.

If you can justify that, over a skilled gamekeeper with a rifle culling many more foxes, cheaply, humanely and effeciently - then do so. Don't try and justify barbarism by simply saying "We can, and so we should" because thats the reason it for banned in the first place.

Actually it;'s a good way of control, regardless of fun. Especially as it's rather selective.
why ridiculous. Does the dressing up change the outcome in any way, does it add to the animals pain. Don't be silly. The fun has no bearing on the welfare.

No they are "ripped" to shreds in very very few cases and even hen hey die in seconds and aren't really ripped to pieces. They have extensive wounds to abdomen and internal organs.

Again even the governess report says lamping can't be used everywhere and that hunting is better than many other methods (which are still legal)

It got banned due to public opinion, nothing else and that is the problem with the law and why it will be over turned, next may.

 

[Tefal]

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.

where as a fish is just dragged around by it's lip till it can't fight any more and is then dragged out of it's breathable atmosphere for a few minutes to suffocate a little before with being caged for a while or thrown back or killed depending on it's species.


Yeah that's fine.

 

[V-Spec]

Actually it;'s a good way of control, regardless of fun. Especially as it's rather selective.
why ridiculous. Does the dressing up change the outcome in any way, does it add to the animals pain. Don't be silly. The fun has no bearing on the welfare.

Uh?

So a load of people dressed up on horses chasing a fox with packs of dogs, eventually killing it - has no bearing on its welfare?
Because thats the fun part right ? dressing up, sounding the horn and chasing the fox down. If thats the fun part - and it ends up in the death of the fox then of course its having a bearing on welfare, the whole thing is for fun.

As far as i'm concerned, if they didn't dress up, left the horses at home - they'd be more fun in shooting them with a rimfire!

No they are "ripped" to shreds in very very few cases and even hen hey die in seconds and aren't really ripped to pieces. They have extensive wounds to abdomen and internal organs.

Well I doubt neither of us can even say for certain or predict how each situation will end, when the dogs eventually catch up with the fox after a long and tiring chase.
Apart from it must be a rather unpleasant way to go maybe some die within 6 seconds, maybe some go on longer. Again compared to a .22 round through the head, it seems like a total waste of time and energy.

It got banned due to public opinion, nothing else and that is the problem with the law and why it will be over turned, next may.

Who knows, morally - you can't justify hunting foxes with dogs for anything other than fun, regardless of what the law says.

 

[CaptainComedy]

where as a fish is just dragged around by it's lip till it can't fight any more and is then dragged out of it's breathable atmosphere for a few minutes to suffocate a little before with being caged for a while or thrown back or killed depending on it's species.


Yeah that's fine.

agreed, "killing for sport" is just saying "killing for fun" the funny thing about it is it's still killing. I would agree that if it was for food etc fine. but just for the sake of doing something. Surely that energy can be put to better use.

 

[Nitefly]

where as a fish is just dragged around by it's lip till it can't fight any more and is then dragged out of it's breathable atmosphere for a few minutes to suffocate a little before with being caged for a while or thrown back or killed depending on it's species.


Yeah that's fine.

I think it's fairly easy to distinguish between a fish and fox - let's not go down this route unnecessarily. There are oodles of differences between fishing and pack hunting regardless that we could argue to death, it really isn't a worthwhile comparison.

 

[regulus]

where as a fish is just dragged around by it's lip till it can't fight any more and is then dragged out of it's breathable atmosphere for a few minutes to suffocate a little before with being caged for a while or thrown back or killed depending on it's species.


Yeah that's fine.

I thought the jury was still out if cold blooded animals like fish feel pain or not? I certainly remember being taught at school that cold blooded animals ( and by that definition it include fish) don't feel pain.

 

[Glaucus]

So a load of people dressed up on horses chasing a fox with packs of dogs, eventually killing it - has no bearing on its welfare?
Because thats the fun part right ? dressing up, sounding the horn and chasing the fox down. If thats the fun part - and it ends up in the death of the fox then of course its having a bearing on welfare.

How does dressing up have any bearing on the welfare or the horns. Lets look at the actual welfare, not your class biased.
What diffrence in welfare would it be if hey didn't dress up? Nothing, nout none. Shows your biased.

Well I doubt neither of us can even say for certain or predict how each situation will end, when the dogs eventually catch up with the fox after a long and tiring chase.
Apart from it must be a rather unpleasant way to go maybe some die within 6 seconds, maybe some go on longer. Again compared to a .22 round through the head, it seems like a total waste of time and energy.

Agin you are looking a few cases and over exaggerating it. Shall we ban Rifles for he 1% which are clean kills. where the animal wonders of and takes hours to die raehr than seconds in teh cases with hounds? Shall we also ignore teh report ah says lamping can't be used everywhere. Shall we also ignore legal methods are worse than hunting but not only legal but publicly acceptable.

Who knows, morally - you can't justify hunting foxes with dogs for anything other than fun.

Why not? it's an effective method and better than other methods.

 

[stockhausen]

I thought the jury was still out if cold blooded animals like fish feel pain or not? I certainly remember being taught at school that cold blooded animals ( and by that definition it include fish) don't feel pain.

Much as the jury is still out on "Climate change", there are some people who would have to be reincarnated as fish before they would believe that fish can feel pain.

Have a look HERE.

 

[V-Spec]

How does dressing up have any bearing on the welfare or the horns. Lets look at the actual welfare, not your class biased.
What diffrence in welfare would it be if hey didn't dress up? Nothing, nout none. Shows your biased.

I'd argue that because the whole thing IS for fun, you can't have a traditional hunt without, horses, horns, uniform and packs of dogs because thats all part OF the fun and tradition. If it wasn't they wouldn't bother, and they'd all go out wearing jeans or whatever, but they don't so its pretty much a moot point.

I'm not biased, I just can't stand animals being hurt or killed inhumanly simply for fun, in any shape or form. From unlicensed dog fighting to hare coursing and fox hunting with dogs.

I cannot stand the pleasure and satisfaction some people obtain from watching something get brutally killed.

Agin you are looking a few cases and over exaggerating it. Shall we ban Rifles for he 1% which are clean kills. where the animal wonders of and takes hours to die raehr than seconds in teh cases with hounds? Shall we also ignore teh report ah says lamping can't be used everywhere. Shall we also ignore legal methods are worse than hunting but not only legal but publicly acceptable.

There is never going to be a perfect solution, although I would argue that a gamekeeper with a rimfire rifle is trying his best to cull the fox in a humane way. They use rifles and ammunition which is certified to kill the animal humanley.
The very nature of the act makes it impossible for the gamekeeper to get a 100% headshot ratio on the fox, but you'd be very very silly to argue that fox hunting with dogs would be a better and more humane solution.

Why not? it's an effective method and better than other methods.

How is it better, when a gamekeeper can despatch several hundred foxes in a season, and local hunts are in double figures?

 

[Nitefly]

Much as the jury is still out on "Climate change", there are some people who would have to be reincarnated as fish before they would believe that fish can feel pain.

Have a look HERE.

What do you make of the 74 journal articles that cite it? How has the pain been quantified in this study?

Really, let's not go down this route please.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

How is it better, when a gamekeeper can despatch several hundred foxes in a season, and local hunts are in double figures?

He didn't say better than all methods. It's better than digging out and snaring though and those still continue.

I guess it's because the people doing it are miserable about it that that's allowed.

 

[Glaucus]

I'd argue that because the whole thing IS for fun, you can't have a traditional hunt without, horses, horns, uniform and packs of dogs because thats all part OF the fun and tradition. If it wasn't they wouldn't bother, and they'd all go out wearing jeans or whatever, but they don't so its pretty much a moot point.

= Tradition, clothes etc Have zero bearing on the welfare of the animal. The welfare is the the killing and to a much much much lesser extent the chase. That is what matters. Not clothes or anything else in your blinkered view. And not everyone dresses up.

I'm not biased, I just can't stand animals being hurt or killed inhumanly simply for fun, in any shape or form. From unlicensed dog fighting to hare coursing and fox hunting with dogs.

if you think clothes have a bearing, you are massively biased. So you agree humanely is the argument we should be looking at. well lets look at it then. Stop with your biased class view. that is what you complaining about dress is about. It has nothing to do with how humane it is.

I cannot stand the pleasure and satisfaction some people obtain from watching something get brutally killed.

Brutally

I can't stand people who force their opinions on others without just reason. can't stand people who deny are hunter gather past and hate people who do not realise where meat comes from.

There is never going to be a perfect solution, although I would argue that a gamekeeper with a rimfire rifle is trying his best to cull the fox in a humane way. They use rifles and ammunition which is certified to kill the animal humanley.
The very nature of the act makes it impossible for the gamekeeper to get a 100% headshot ratio on the fox, but you'd be very very silly to argue that fox hunting would be a better and more humane solution.

Where did I say it is better than lamping? I saying it is better than many legally and publicly acceptable methods and does a good job of controllign numbers.

How is it better, when a gamekeeper can despatch several hundred foxes in a season, and local hunts are in double figures?

because it's not pure numbers. We do not want to eradicate foxes, we simply want to keep the population under control. Killing mainly the week and injured is much better for the fox population than just shooting any you see.

And why not read the report where it says lamping can not be used everywhere.

 

[Nitefly]

Brutally

I can't stand people who force their opinions on others without just reason. can't stand people who deny are hunter gather past and hate people who do not realise where meat comes from.

I don't really think that's a fair point - practices or entertainment that we used to think as acceptable are now clearly not. Regardless, we are hardly hunting the foxes for food (unless I have totally misunderstood your point) - it's entertainment, and nothing more.

Whether it is an acceptable form of entertainment is something different entirely.

 

[V-Spec]

He didn't say better than all methods. It's better than digging out and snaring though and those still continue.

I guess it's because the people doing it are miserable about it that that's allowed.

I'd say hunting with dogs vs snaring is a difficult comparison because snaring doesn't bear much glory, fun or entertainment value, its simply a harsh and cruel way of catching a fox, its probably also very cost effective.

In terms of whether it yeilds better results than traditional hunting with dogs - I'd have no idea.
I could perhaps argue that where a snare is deployed, its done so because the fox is a very real pest and needs to be dealt with, the difference here is that the reason for using it is to definitley kill the fox because it's a pest, not because we want to have some fun on horses chasing it.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't really think that's a fair point - practices or entertainment that we used to think as acceptable are now clearly not. Regardless, we are hardly hunting the foxes for food (unless I have totally misunderstood your point) - it's entertainment, and nothing more.

Hows it not fair? Where's his evidence to back his argument other than a hatred of the clothes they wear and the sport. Lets focus on the issues animal welfare.

Animal welfare doesn't suddenly stop when we get to food. We all eat meat for fun and entertainment. It's not as if we have any real reason for eating meat and certainly no for eh amount of meat we eat, which leads to the modern farming processes.

I'd say hunting with dogs vs snaring is a difficult comparison because snaring doesn't bear much glory, fun or entertainment value, its simply a harsh and cruel way of catching a fox, its probably also very cost effective.
.

Again evidence of your class biased. What has fun got anything to do with the animal welfare. Lets look at how humane fox hunting is. Not the sport aspect or what clothes they wear. That is irrelevant.

 

[V-Spec]

= Tradition, clothes etc Have zero bearing on the welfare of the animal. The welfare is the the killing and to a much much much lesser extent the chase. That is what matters. Not clothes or anything else in your blinkered view. And not everyone dresses up.

I would argue here, that the welfare of the animal is destroyed by a bunch of people on horses with packs of dogs, tearing it to pieces. Simple really.

If its not for fun why do it?? How can you talk about welfare whilst trying to justify this sort of barbarism because thats what it is.

if you think clothes have a bearing, you are massively biased. So you agree humanely is the argument we should be looking at. well lets look at it then. Stop with your biased class view. that is what you complaining about dress is about. It has nothing to do with how humane it is.

Why am I biased? And even if I was, would that make my argument ineffective or wrong?

Why do I have a class based view? All I'm saying is "If you have trouble with foxes on your land, employ a gamekeeper and watch the foxes disappear" not a load of people on horses with dogs, to kill one fox a week.

Brutally

I can't stand people who force their opinions on others without just reason. can't stand people who deny are hunter gather past and hate people who do not realise where meat comes from.

Rubbish!

I probably eat more meat than most people, we farm animals to kill for food and we do it mostly humanely.
We don't chase cows around fields with spears trying to catch them like we did thousands of years ago, we've advanced out of that period in our history... Well apart from people on horses with packs of dogs, I guess they're still stuck in the dark ages

Where did I say it is better than lamping? I saying it is better than many legally and publicly acceptable methods and does a good job of controllign numbers.

You said, lets ban rifles because 1% of targets get wounded. My argument is that there isn't a perfect solution, but we can try our best to do it humanely, after all we can't ask the fox to leave can we?

because it's not pure numbers. We do not want to eradicate foxes, we simply want to keep the population under control. Killing mainly the week and injured is much better for the fox population than just shooting any you see.

Does this justify a load of people on horses in fancy dress, horns and packs of dogs, which then rip the animal to pieces?

The bit you keep skipping around

 

[Glaucus]

The issue is welfare. that's it. not people in dress or anything else. But the welfare. That is why you are baise. because you keep talking about dress codes and horns. This does not matter it is the welfare. As the report shows your view is not correct.

We keep animals in cramped horrible conditions for years far worse than hunting with spears. The killing might be humane, their lives aren't. Doesn't bother me, but it should you.

I did not say ban rifles at all. You might want to read that again.

Again this is where your views are biased. I shouldn't need to justify fox hunting. You need to prove fox hunting is cruel to foxes above all other legal methods. Or also ban all other legal methods that are worse.

 

[I get around]

Another 2 reasons I won't be voting for them.

 

[V-Spec]

Hows it not fair? Where's his evidence to back his argument other than a hatred of the clothes they wear and the sport. Lets focus on the issues animal welfare.

Animal welfare doesn't suddenly stop when we get to food. We all eat meat for fun and entertainment. It's not as if we have any real reason for eating meat and certainly no for eh amount of meat we eat, which leads to the modern farming processes.

I don't need to back my argument up, because it comes down to basic "right and wrong".

The world I live in, hunting foxes with dogs is wrong because it dishes out pain and suffering to the animal, mainly for fun and entertainment, when the basic purpose is simply to cull it.
It shoudn't need explaining that this is morally wrong.

Again evidence of your class biased. What has fun got anything to do with the animal welfare. Lets look at how humane fox hunting is. Not the sport aspect or what clothes they wear. That is irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant, they do it because they like to dress up, put their makeup on, jump on horseback sound the horns and set the dogs loose - if it was all about culling the fox and nothing more then they'd shoot or snare the damn thing wouldn't they?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I would argue here, that the welfare of the animal is destroyed by a bunch of people on horses with packs of dogs, tearing it to pieces. Simple really.

If its not for fun why do it?? How can you talk about welfare whilst trying to justify this sort of barbarism because thats what it is.

Make up your mind; the welfare of the animal has nothing to do with how people dress or even that they are on horses; it's the fact that the fox is chased and killed by dogs, that's the only thing that is relevant, hence it was hunting with dogs that was banned, not hunting in a red jacket whilst blowing a bugle.

You said, lets ban rifles because 1% of targets get wounded. My argument is that there isn't a perfect solution, but we can try our best to do it humanely, after all we can't ask the fox to leave can we?

He was being sarcastic when he said that; even I spotted that and I'm usually terrible for facepalms when I miss these things.

Does this justify a load of people on horses in fancy dress, horns and packs of dogs, which then rip the animal to pieces?

Again you are obsessed with the horses and the fancy dress rather than concentrating on the killing with dogs. This is what makes me think this is a class issue for you rather than an animal welfare one; it's a complete red herring, but you can't leave it alone.