At the very least it would be criminal damage as the dogs are owned by someone.
Exciting and essential Tory legislative proposals
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
At the very least it would be criminal damage as the dogs are owned by someone.
Because its the enjoyment of an inhumane and barbaric act, which causes unnecessary pain and stress on the animal in question. I think the entertainment and enjoyment of such a thing is morally wrong in our society.
People enjoy shooting, but I wouldn't have a problem with that in most cases, because shooting wouldn't normally put an animal through the same pain and stress as being hunted by dogs. In this case it wouldn't be morally wrong, because the job is being done as quickly and humanely as possible.
The Burns report disagrees with you apart from one very specific and often unavailable approach (Lamping). Government commissioned study vs emotional opinion...
One shot kills are very rare in normal shooting circumstances, death is normally long, slow and painful from blood loss or septicemia. Is that really better than the hounds? All the evidence suggests it isn't.
I've read most of the report, although not all of it. I couldn't find any part which says that hunting with dogs doesn't cause unnecessary suffering. I did find parts that say it actually compromises the welfare of the fox and does in many cases cause pain and suffering.
Its not just emotional opinion or not. People gaining enjoyment from a barbaric and inhumane act is morally wrong, and that is what happens in a traditional foxhunt, like it or not.
One shot kills are very common in my experience and others I know, (having done lots of shooting myself!)
In this case, as I've said earlier - there is never a perfect solution for perfect 100% success every time when humanely killing something. The difference is here that the act of shooting doesn't generate enjoyment over several hours of chasing down an animal to exhaustion to then kill it with a pack dogs. As a result, it is generally far less barbaric.
All the evidence doesn't suggest that hunting with hounds is more humane than shooting.
Last edited:
As stated above, this is not the case. Being experienced in this area myself, I can confirm that 99% of shots do produce an instant death. Of all the times I've been present when our marksman (or 'Rifle Rick' as he's known 'round these parts) has been our shooting, he's grazed the fox once which didn't result in an instantaneous death, but two seconds later, another shot was taken and it was dead. If it doesn't die instantly, it will die seconds afterward.
I agree, that arguement always puzzled me. If a fox is hurt by the first bullet the second one will finish it off pretty damn quick!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Can anyone point me to the independent report that suggests that foxes actually enjoy being chased across fields by a pack of baying dogs and a bunch of idiots in fancy dress and mounted on horses?
It is probably the same report as suggests that dog fighting is fun for the dogs involved and that cats just love to have a tin can attached to their tail, be doused in petrol and set alight.
It is probably the same report as suggests that dog fighting is fun for the dogs involved and that cats just love to have a tin can attached to their tail, be doused in petrol and set alight.
you clearly haven't read the burns report at all. you may have read an opinion piece adding its own slant to the work. I linked to it earlier, please read it rather than simply giving anecdotes as a counter to data.
Has anyone suggested they do or are you just being retarded again?
He was quite clearly using an exaggerated example to demonstrate his point, and if you need that pointing out to you then he's not the one that's 'retarded'.
Oh come off it he was just being his usual **** self. Does a cow enjoy being slaughtered for steak?
Is this seriously your argument?Oh come off it he was just being his usual **** self. Does a cow enjoy being slaughtered for steak?
Of course a cow doesn't enjoy getting 'slaughtered for steak', but a cow is stunned before it happens and doesn't feel anything. A cow does experience a degree of anguish prior to this happening, but it's incomparable to what a fox or a stag experiences. A cow is slaughtered for a legitimate purpose of entering into the food chain and providing people with food. The real beef with this hunting deal is the fact that people go out killing wild animals for sport and for fun, it's something that I (and many others) find both ethically and morally unacceptable in this modern time.Is this seriously your argument?
Yes it is a stupid question to ask, yet for some reason for stockhausen to ask it about fox hunting it is perfectly valid.
You've lost me... I don't get what you're trying to say.Yes it is a stupid question to ask, yet for some reason for stockhausen to ask it about fox hunting it is perfectly valid.
My argument against it is that I hate the fact people hunt and kill wild animals for sport. The fact that the fox or stag goes through such a horrible amount of pain before just adds to an opinion I already held. This is a massive contrast with the slaughter of livestock, because the livestock is bred for said purpose and the livestock is slaughtered in an efficient, humane way.
My other problem with the hunting brigade is the fact that they have to tell blatant lies about their motivations for partaking in such activities. It's like they know they're doing something morally wrong so they have to lie and say they're doing it to keep the fox population under control or some other bs... It's so painfully obviously that it's a cruel practice that only exists as a sport.
That asking "Does the fox enjoy it?" is as stupid as asking "Does the cow enjoy it?" yet for some reason (possibly because he agrees with you) you don't think stockhausen asking the question is stupid.
And lots of people hate the fact that people kill animals for food.
Yet the livestock also suffer but you accept that because you like eating meat. How much suffering is pretty debatable, you yourself admit that transporting animals to slaughter is a pretty unpleasent experience for the animal. The stress of waiting for slaughter with the sights, sounds and smell of it probably isn't great either. The only difference I can see here is that you feel meat is necessary and you like eating meat so accept the sufferering and death.
And yet you too are trying to downplay the suffering livestock animals undergo. It smacks of hypocirsy.
It's not the same because the two events are spawned from legitimate stimulus, ie creating food to feed the population and the other is killing for sport. How can you not understand that?
Which is not an opinion that I hold, but I see your point.
The stress comes from the animal being in an unfamiliar environment that smells drastically different to green pastures. But the suffering that a cow goes through is more of an inconvenience than genuine fear for it's life... Your average cow can't interpret the sights, sounds and smells to actually mean they're about to die. You may love it or hate it, but like mobile phones, computers and clothes (all of which are things we once survived without), our population needs meat to survive. People base their diet around it and it is a necessity for meat to be available to people. But the difference is that the animals are bred for this purpose and their destiny was always to become meat. The deal with hunting is that the foxes or stags are killing for sport and there is no other reason for it. How many times do I have to say this?
I don't downplay it, it just simply isn't as stressful for an animal going to slaughter but no one can deny that they do undergo stress. But again, the animal is in said situation for a legitimate purpose, unlike the wild fox or stag.
It's not the same because the two events are spawned from legitimate stimulus, ie creating food to feed the population and the other is killing for sport. How can you not understand that?
So why is asking "Does a fox enjoy it?" a legitimate question?
Which is pretty much the point. You are happy for animals to suffer and die for meat because you like meat. You are not happy for animals to suffer and die for hunting because you do not like hunting.
Once again you try and downplay it as much as possible. "It isn't upset it is just confused"
I best tell my vegetarian mother in law that she should in fact be dead as she needs meat to survive.
So you're of the opinion that the statement "I'm happy for animals to be bred and slaughtered for food" and "I'm happy for wild animals to be killed for fun" have an equal footing? I think we should leave this here.
what about killing for pest control?