Woman saves fox from hounds

Castiel said:
I think that each community should be empowered to make their own decisions on issues that predominantly only affect them
Click to expand...

However, this is not the case is it with fox-hunting. The hunting of foxes with dogs reflects the attitudes of the country on the international stage and it also encapsulates a viewpoint we attempt to hold as a nation ie being against barbaric practices.
 
I'm amazed she didnt get bitten by the dogs or fox!
I've seen a pack of dogs on one and they don't think twice about what there biting! those hounds were amazingly restrained.
 
I always felt if you going to hunt, you should do it by a gun or bow. Through I don't see nothing wrong with using the dogs to find the foxes and chase them, but they shouldn't be used to kill, leave that to the hunters.

Also I don't like to see any animal die or killed, but we don't live in a world where we can have everything we want.

Very brave women.
 
Xordium said:
However, this is not the case is it with fox-hunting. The hunting of foxes with dogs reflects the attitudes of the country on the international stage and it also encapsulates a viewpoint we attempt to hold as a nation ie being against barbaric practices.
Click to expand...

The argument for many in the regions where hunting is practised is that the practice isn't necessarily barbaric and that the definition of such has been made by those who are by and large judging from isolation. The main reason this is such an issue is one of assumed class distinctions, not one of barbarity, otherwise the argument would encompass the whole issue of compassionate farming and banning not only fox hunting, but other issues such as battery farming, culling, slaughter techniques, steeple chase horse racing, use of animals in scientific testing and a myriad of other examples where it can be argued the practice is barbaric.
 
Last edited:
yer_averagejoe said:
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?
Click to expand...

The majority of the time the fox is killed instantly, hunting with dogs catches the older and sick of the species the young and fit escape.

Killing with hounds was not deemed cruel by the Burns inquiry, which was set up by the Labour government who brought in the ban!
 
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...
I don't know if you have ever been on a shoot, but if a marksman doesn't make a one shot kill, they soot it again straight away. That scenario has considerably less suffering than the slog that is trying to escape for a pack of hounds. One guy, going out over one night on a quad with a shotgun will finish up with twenty foxes, whereas a day of hunting will get you two if you're lucky.

Why don't the people that do these things admit why they do it, because they enjoy it and love going out for a good day's riding. By trying to justify it in terms its utility just shows that they know they're doing something 'wrong.'
 
Castiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't only affect them. Most people have a wider interest in what happens in their country and that's perfectly reasonable. There are many examples of this outside hunting with dogs.

Take wind farms for example or the HS2 rail link. The local communities directly affected would say this is a decision they should be entitled to make alone. They should be consulted yes, but the final decision needs to consider the bigger picture.

I feel that rural communities wish to isolated themselves when it suites them which is unreasonable. There's no compelling reason for them to be treated as a special case.
 
Last edited:
Teknobry said:
Foxes are vermin and need controlling, they do not deserve the cute, cuddly image that people have of them.

Always well meaning do gooders interfering in things they don't understand.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand how you can say that. Foxes are a natural part of our countryside. This is where they belong. Are you the same type of person that would call Grey Wolf vermin? To the vast majority of people in this country foxes are not vermin.

If anything it is incapable and sloppy practices that have turned foxes into pests in many areas.

Hunting for food and necessity is fine, but I cannot stand the wasteful pleasure-seeking practice of fox hunting that has developed in the UK.
 
Castiel said:
The argument for many in the regions where hunting is practised is that the practice isn't necessarily barbaric and that the definition of such has been made by those who are by and large judging from isolation.
Click to expand...

You want decisions to be based on evidence and fact objectively as possible which can only really be done by people isolated from what they are examining.

Castiel said:
The main reason this is such an issue is one of assumed class distinctions, not one of barbarity, otherwise the argument would encompass the whole issue of compassionate farming and banning not only fox hunting, but other issues such as battery farming, culling, slaughter techniques, steeple chase horse racing, use of animals in scientific testing and a myriad of other examples where it can be argued the practice is barbaric.
Click to expand...

Which would be the case if things were simplistic. Objective reasoning would argue: scientific experimentation on animals (when no other alternative is available) is a clear case of 'greater good', battery farming a case of economic sense, slaughter techniques a case of human rights trumping animal rights, etc steeple chasing well something I have never looked at but not something I would agree with either and something that is being questioned more and more. The case for hunting fox with dogs is not really that strong or substantiated - if there was something enshrines in law like a religious attachment etc then the case would be stronger then however there is not such a stipulation.

And of course I am sure you don't need me to state two wrongs don't make a right. Of course we can say it's a class thing but the same decision was applied to dog fighting, badger baiting, etc which was hardly the preserve of the elite.
 
There's some noisy foxes living under a shed a few doors down here in Sunny Hornchurch. Little Mofos are always ripping open my bin bags too :)
I wouldn't be too fussed if 20+ "upper" class ponces and 100 dogs wanted to trample down our back gardens to get rid of them. I could get some Pimms in and make a killing on hunt days.

Im of the opinion that im a City dweller and whilst i don't like the idea of hunting with hounds for fun i understand the need to cull them.

I wish people were just honest and say we do it cos we love the thrill of the chase and it makes us feel all big and Aristocratic not to pretend its humane or a remotely sensible way to go about population control.
 
Naffa said:
I don't know if you have ever been on a shoot, but if a marksman doesn't make a one shot kill, they soot it again straight away. That scenario has considerably less suffering than the slog that is trying to escape for a pack of hounds. One guy, going out over one night on a quad with a shotgun will finish up with twenty foxes, whereas a day of hunting will get you two if you're lucky.
Click to expand...

Oh please, one guy and twenty foxes...

and by going on a shoot are you referring to a pheasant shoot as that is completely different.
 
All forms of hunting should actually revolve around a solution to a problem, it should not be just about blood sports, for example fox hunting (by whatever means) happens because there is a need to control fox populations on farmland, the same as hunting for rabbits and so on....that there are a set of social traditions surrounding the end result is no different from any other social convention that grows around a practical solution to a problem.

Hunting foxes by stalking alone is impractical and while some foxes do (did) get killed by the packs, the packs are (were) trained to corner the fox rather than kill it, and being killed by a pack is arguably quicker and less painful for the fox than other forms of control....the issues about the relative morality of pack hunting as opposed to snaring and lamping are so subjective as to make the whole argument based on morality to be pointless particularly as most foxes die on the side of the road from injuries sustained by road vehicles, ignored and left to die in part by the same people who call hunters barbarians.....

Go figure!
 
wilber said:
Oh please, one guy and twenty foxes...

and by going on a shoot are you referring to a pheasant shoot as that is completely different.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just thinking about the dead foxes that ended up on the compost heap at my organic farm, when we paid someone to do what I just described. Cheers.
 
robj20 said:
Stupid woman. While im not a fan of the way they still hunt them, they need to be kept under control like any other pest around such areas.
Click to expand...

Yes without a doubt, and that control should come in the form of an appointed individual with the relevant calibre firearm. Fox hunting is not about pest control. Its about people who enjoy hunting foxes with dogs and watching them ripped to pieces. Pest control has nothing to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom