Woman saves fox from hounds

[Teknobry]

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.

Are grey wolves officially classed as vermin in the UK?

Foxes do not simply kill a chicken and take it away to eat, they will butcher every one they can catch and just leave them there.
I don't see many of you holding placards up about the ghastly, brutal behaviour of the fox...

They are a pest, their numbers need keeping under control. Be that by gun or hound.
I don't get the hatred for the hunt though, it is performing a good service and just because people following the hunt enjoy the hack that somehow makes it 'ghastly'.

The fox being killed by a pack of dogs, doesn't get more natural than that, am sure for hundreds of years thats how foxes met their end anyway!

 

[Xordium]

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!

But you said the urban folk don't understand the rural areas and their quirks! Surely if city folk are in these rural areas, visiting their second homes, hit and running foxes over by the score then they actually do appreciate the rural argument as they experience it. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Castiel]

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.

Except the decision was largely made emotionally, totally ignoring much of the evidence.

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.

Fox hunting has good social and economic arguments as well as serving a practical and necessary service in rural Britain. The morality argument is entirely subjective.

 

[estebanrey]

Except the decision was largely made emotionally, totally ignoring much of the evidence.

And what is wrong with basing laws on the emotions of the people? If we didn't do it, we'd have eugenics.

 

[Castiel]

But you said the urban folk don't understand the rural areas and their quirks! Surely if city folk are in these rural areas, visiting their second homes, hit and running foxes over by the score then they actually do appreciate the rural argument as they experience it. You can't have it both ways!

Foxes are more likely to be killed in urban or suburban areas than they are in rural areas by road vehicles....the life expectancy of an urban fox is around a third of that to its rural counterpart.

Besides which your post makes little sense, as you are making assumptions on why people are travelling and assuming that driving a car down a country road is indicative of understanding or knowing about the whole gamut of issues and lifestyles associated with a rural community.

 

[Xordium]

Except the decision was largely made emotionally, totally ignoring much of the evidence.

That's rather a bold claim to make without any impartial evidence to support the statement.

Fox hunting has good social and economic arguments as well as serving a practical and necessary service in rural Britain. The morality argument is entirely subjective.

All issues of morality are subjective that does not mean we can't find a consensus view for them, as a nation, even when the outcome is not desirable to a small minority. Part of being with the collective I am afraid if you don't like it well tough. I am sure most people in Walsall and Bradford would rather like to be governed by Sharia law ... I don't fancy their chances mind you.

In this case the view take is that any perceived social and economic arguments are counteracted and overridden by your moral responsibilities as custodians of the nations image, our broad ethical and moral direction, and the image portrayed of our nation on the international stage.

 

[wannabedamned]

ha, At the earlier posts stating that fox hunting is done solely to control vermin and protect live stock.

Sometimes yes, Maybe. But it was often done for sport, fun and often not by farmers

 

[Castiel]

And what is wrong with basing laws on the emotions of the people? If we didn't do it, we'd have eugenics.

Nothing as long as it is emotions of those directly affected by the institution of legislation and that it is supported by evidence and research.

 

[G18241]

And still even as a job (which it is for some) You are not going to hit your target 100% of the time and kill it outright.

Then you walk over to it and put a bullet in its head...still a lot more humane and less painful than being torn apart by dogs.

 

[Xordium]

Foxes are more likely to be killed in urban or suburban areas than they are in rural areas by road vehicles....the life expectancy of an urban fox is around a third of that to its rural counterpart.

And incidents with cars will always happen where there are more cars and more roads strangely enough.

You find me statistics to demonstrate that the amount of foxes left in pain following a hit and run is larger (% wise) in urban areas and I'll happily accept what you say in relation to the irony of the point. However, even if you did it would not change the argument that the practice is barbaric it would demonstrate an ironical nature to the argument for a small select few urbanites that you presume would be anti-fox hunting and have actually hit a fox and left it. I would wager that is not really a significant proportion of the people who have an opinion on this matter so is hardly relevant.

Besides which your post makes little sense, as you are making assumptions on why people are travelling and assuming that driving a car down a country road is indicative of understanding or knowing about the whole gamut of issues and lifestyles associated with a rural community.

I was being flippant.

You are making the assumption that people who live in urban areas are too ignorant to actually understand the arguments made for hunting and yet still dismiss the notion as entirely barbaric and without merit in this day and age.

 

[Xordium]

And what is wrong with basing laws on the emotions of the people? If we didn't do it, we'd have eugenics.

You don't need to add emotion into the mix to see eugenics doesn't work in an absolute fashion. It is easily disputed by science as a total mechanism although we partly apply some of its principles in a very limited fashion.

 

[wilber]

Then you walk over to it and put a bullet in its head...still a lot more humane and less painful than being torn apart by dogs.

Yes because an animal that has been shot and wounded will not try and escape..

What a dumb comment.

 

[Castiel]

That's rather a bold claim to make without any impartial evidence to support the statement.

The point is that there is no impartial evidence, the closest thing to it was the Burns Enquiry which made the distinction that hunting with hounds was not cruel but did seriously compromise the welfare of the fox..(the latter being pretty self-evident).

All issues of morality are subjective that does not mean we can't find a consensus view for them, as a nation, even when the outcome is not desirable to a small minority. Part of being with the collective I am afraid if you don't like it well tough. I am sure most people in Walsall and Bradford would rather like to be governed by Sharia law ... I don't fancy their chances mind you.

In this case the view take is that any perceived social and economic arguments are counteracted and overridden by your moral responsibilities as custodians of the nations image, our broad ethical and moral direction, and the image portrayed of our nation on the international stage.

There has been no referendum to determine the actual consensus, so again that is subjective.

Also there is a social and cultural persepective to consider, which is dependent on the actual communities in which they exist not on those that have no connection to them.

The argument about national image and the international stage is just poppycock....fox hunting with hounds is legal in some parts of the UK so that undermines that line of justification.

 

[elmarko]

The main reason this is such an issue is one of assumed class distinctions

Assumption.

but other issues such as battery farming

Isn't done for entertainment purposes.

culling

Isn't done for entertainment purposes.

slaughter techniques

Isn't done for entertainment purposes.

steeple chase horse racing

The purpose of the event is not the intentional death of animals for amusement.

use of animals in scientific testing

Isn't done for entertainment purposes.

Attempting to justify hunting with dogs (which isn't the most efficient form of pest control) by comparing the act to a number of other instances in which animals are killed (either intentionally for food, or un-intentionally) isn't logical.

Regarding your point on allowing rural communities to have a law unto themselves - I respectfully disagree, but ignoring that - most of the rural population are also against fox-hunting with dogs (to a lesser degree compared to city dwellers I admit, but they are still in the majority for all voter groups & dwelling types).

 

[yer_averagejoe]

I cam into this debate pretty un-educated if I'm honest and I still have a pretty naive view here so two main points I've learnt are:

A) Foxes need to be culled. They cause problems for "rural folk" and aren't cute. Controlling their population is a necessary evil

B) The most effective (in terms of cost, time and humanity) way to accomplish this cull is by shooting.

So I'm struggling to see why, other than for sport, fox culling is still done via horse-back and pack hounds.

 

[Twirlywoos]

In my eyes fox hunters are no worse than poachers and religious extremists. People who do things for their personal gain, with no respect towards animal welfare or other views. The whole lot of you should be lined up and shot!

What gives anyone the right to call such creatures pests, vermin etc? Are the decreasing population of English Adders pests too?

The women is an inspiration and a hero!

 

[JaffaJedi]

Fox proof fences?

win win

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

All this 'the numbers need controlling' has been utterly debunked many times and the outright ban during the foot and mouth outbreak compounded it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2235775.stm

Massive respect for the brave and selfless lady who without a doubt saved that poor fox from an excruciatingly painful death.
People that support or partake in fox hunting are utter scum who need to take a long hard look at themselves !

 

[bitslice]

Sometimes yes, Maybe. But it was often done for sport, fun and often not by farmers

Some farmers hunt, although it's quite expensive to keep a suitable horse. Certainly the hunt requires permission from them to hunt on his land, so it is a cooperative event anyway.


Gypsies are a more serious countryside pest, I fully support the hunting and dismemberment by dogs of ***** travellers.


As for the morality of hunting sports, I recall the comments from helicopter crew were quite appreciate of Johnny Talibian going splat after being targeted with missiles.

 

[Castiel]

You are making the assumption that people who live in urban areas are too ignorant to actually understand the arguments made for hunting and yet still dismiss the notion as entirely barbaric and without merit in this day and age.

Actually I have made no such assumptions, I have said that where policy issues are limited to certain communities then those communities should be making the decisions that affect them directly. I grew up in a urban environment so that kind of accusation is simply not justified.

You are talking about a majority consensus against fox hunting based on the perceived cruelty involved, yet are now trying to justify what would presumably be at least some members that same majority leaving a fox to die on the side of the road when they hit it with their car without a second thought (except how it might affect their NCD if there is any damage)

The whole point I am making is that the perceive barbarity is entirely subjective and it is more likely to be though of as such by those with little or no contact or experience of the practice than those who do.

Personally I am not bothered whether the hunt uses dogs or not, I am just concerned with people not being able to make decisions within their own communities about issues that directly affect their communities simply because they are outnumbered by those who are not directly affected by the policies they are making.

The Govt promised localism, lets see it.