Woman saves fox from hounds

mmj_uk said:
Could use a tranquilizer gun and put them down humanely, I have a feeling none of these 'farmers' would be willing to pay for a professional to do the job they claim is so necessary though.
Click to expand...

Well your "feeling" is pretty wrong. We actively pay 3 separate individuals to shoot across our land in the winter/spring months.
 
Castiel said:
Alternatively they feel that predominantly urban decision makers should not be deciding laws that unduly affect them without proper consultation and that the decisions should lie with those it actually affects rather than those who judge from a distance.
Click to expand...

So you'd like to gerrymander decisions that affect rural communities?

We know how they feel. They feel their way of life should be protected despite it conflicting with the moral position of the majority of people in this country.

They also feel they should be given cheep petrol, subsidised internet and ferocious planning laws which set their communities in aspic whilst those (the majority) in the cities have to bare the brunt of over population and all the problems that brings.

My point is they want to benefit from the wealth city's create but they don't want to accept the view of those that live there.
 
Last edited:
Kenai said:
It makes perfect sense - people object most strongly to it being turned into a sport.

If hunting is a utility, treat it as such.

If it's more than that, then stop the laughable denial that it's a sport and done for enjoyment more than utility.

Treating the death of an animal as an enjoyable past time and then trying to hide behind 'but it's pest control' is pathetic frankly. It's one or the other, you can't have both IMO.
Click to expand...

So soon as it is viewed from horseback rather than foot it is a sport? Complete rubbish.
 
Where did I make the distinction that it's just between being on foot or horseback?

Oh that's right, I said no such thing.

Try a better strawman next time, or better yet, address the actual argument. I understand trying to justify double standards might be difficult though, and so you will try to avoid giving a direct answer for as long as possible.
 
Kenai said:
Where did I make the distinction that it's just between being on foot or horseback?

Oh that's right, I said no such thing.

Try a better strawman next time, or better yet, address the actual argument. I understand trying to justify double standards might be difficult though, and so you will try to avoid giving a direct answer for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

You quoted me saying this and replied above:

"Quite a few hunts don't have a horse back following, yet they do exactly the same, and from people I have spoken too (anti hunt) they feel this is more acceptable. It makes no sense."
 
Why don't they just shoot the foxes with a gun instead of getting all gayed up in their tight trousers, prancing around on horses and getting vicious dogs to do their dirty-work?
 
Stretch said:
We know how they feel. They feel their way of life should be protected despite it conflicting with the moral position of the majority of people in this country.

They also feel they should be given cheep petrol, subsidised internet and ferocious planning laws which set their communities in aspic whilst those (the majority) in the cities have to bare the brunt of over population and all the problems that brings.

My point is they want to benefit from the wealth city's create but they don't want to accept the view of those that live there.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that people in the country don't create wealth in the City ...
 
wilber said:
You quoted me saying this and replied above:

"Quite a few hunts don't have a horse back following, yet they do exactly the same, and from people I have spoken too (anti hunt) they feel this is more acceptable. It makes no sense."
Click to expand...

Still skirting the actual thrust of the argument.

I won't hold my breath for a straight answer, I fear I could be in with a pretty long wait.
 
yer_averagejoe said:
Why don't they just shoot the foxes with a gun instead of getting all gayed up in their tight trousers, prancing around on horses and getting vicious dogs to do their dirty-work?
Click to expand...

They do, and as has already been pointed out not even the best marksmen hit the target 100% of the time and get a kill, the animal is then left to suffer a cruel prolonged death from the wound.
 
I've split up many accidental dog fights with my bare hands fights in the park. - used to have a SBT. :rolleyes:

However to run in and pluck a wild animal out from a pack of hounds takes guts.

I bet that fox was terrified, she is lucky that she wasn't bitten. Good on her though.

Pompous prats.
 
wilber said:
So soon as it is viewed from horseback rather than foot it is a sport? Complete rubbish.
Click to expand...

I think more of the point is that it's the 'event' surrounding it. It's clearly not a pest control issue, whereby they're doing what has to be done. They're doing it because they love the idea of mauling foxes. They love the sport of it. Why wear the silly costumes and prance around like sacred defenders of the realm against the evil foxes?
 
wilber said:
They do, and as has already been pointed out not even the best marksmen hit the target 100% of the time and get a kill, the animal is then left to suffer a cruel prolonged death from the wound.
Click to expand...

Oh, good. I know a gunshot can sometimes fail to instantly kill the animal and in that case a show to the head upon reaching it would put it out of it's misery.

So why do they still use dogs? If a gunshot results in a horrible death 50% of the time, surely it still beats a horrible death 100% of the time, with dogs ripping it apart?
 
Stretch said:
So you'd like to gerrymander decisions that affect rural communities?

We know how they feel. They feel their way of life should be protected despite it conflicting with the moral position of the majority of people in this country.

They also feel they should be given cheep petrol, subsidised internet and ferocious planning laws which set their communities in aspic whilst those (the majority) in the cities have to bare the brunt of over population and all the problems that brings.

My point is they want to benefit from the wealth city's create but they don't want to accept the view of those that live there.
Click to expand...


I think that each community should be empowered to make their own decisions on issues that predominantly only affect them, local policy should be decided by local people. You think that rural Britain is a charity case to be tolerated by Urban Britain? By that logic the decisions about community policies should all lie only with the most wealthy in our society rather than by the people that those policies affect the most.

Give over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom