Woman saves fox from hounds

Castiel said:
Lol.........again you either do not understand or are intentionally misrepresenting what I have said. The hunting ban disproportionately affects rural communities, there are no active hunts in central London for example, the individual may not be directly involved but to some degree they do benefit from the social and economic aspects of hunting, be it fox hunting or other forms of hunting...it is a large part of many rural economies. And my position is not simply about hunting bans, but policies that ignore the impacts on the communities that are asked to comply as opposed to those who are making the actual decisions who do not have to live with the policies they are deciding.

The argument that everything should be decided by everyone whether they are involved, invested, interested or informed or not as the case may be simply gives the power to those who can gain the largest voice, not the voice of those greatest effected by the decisions being made. By that logic I suppose we should bring back capital punishment or any number of other policies that are likely to see significant support by a majority. That is supporting tyranny of the majority.

You are basically creating an argument ad populum whereas I simply want to see more local representation (and no that isn't just limited to rural regions but everywhere) each community should have the authority to make its own decisions on most things that affect that community but may not affect others. If other communities do not want hunting then they should also be allowed to decide for themselves, this isn't about dictating to anyone, but people making decisions for themselves based onthe consequences in their communities and not being 'railroaded'as you put it, by other communities who do not have to deal with the consequences just because they are more populous.

There is no prejudice involved, people are free to chose whatever position they want and the ayes should have it, but in issues that disproportionately affect minorities then the minorities voice must not be allowed to be drowned out by the majority.
Click to expand...

A wall of text in answer to something I never said ...

I never said everything should be decided by everyone. What I said was decisions that are made should be facilitated by giving a voice to everyone who perceives themselves to be a stakeholder. You seem to think that group such be kept rather select and narrow.

The only people who are being drowned out in this issue is a very tiny minority of sadists. But it appears you would like such very minority groups to overrule the general principles this country seems to stand for.

Argument ad populum and obfuscate in one post. This is like an NHS thread between me and the strangely absent lolph.
 
It is a Sport to these idiots. They just call it pest control to disguise the fact.

And pretty shocked by some of the reasoning in the thread. Maybe some would like to grand the Muslim population their right to practice Sharia law in this country.
 
Xordium said:
A wall of text in answer to something I never said ...

I never said everything should be decided by everyone. What I said was decisions that are made should be facilitated by giving a voice to everyone who perceives themselves to be a stakeholder. You seem to think that group such be kept rather select and narrow.
Click to expand...

I think that communities should be able to decide what happens in their communities for themselves, and not by those outwith those communities who do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. As I said and you keep trying to misrepresent, I support devolution of power to the local communities wherever possible, that is not the same as what you are trying to imply.

Xordium said:
The only people who are being drowned out in this issue is a very tiny minority of sadists. But it appears you would like such very minority groups to overrule the general principles this country seems to stand for.
Click to expand...

You are showing prejudice here by referring to hunters and those who support hunting as sadists, I have already given evidence from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management that counters the argument based on purely on animal welfare, so whether fox hunting is in opposition to the general principles this country seems to stand for is entirely subjective and dependent on your prejudices one way or the other...personally I am, as I have said plenty of times, ambivalent about pack hunting. The suffering of an animal in pack hunting is not much different than the other most common forms of culling and hunting according to many Vets.

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/HWMMI-12-11.pdf

In short my opinion is that the decision on whether to ban hunting and what form that ban takes should be a decision taken by the communities in which hunting occurs, it should be a democratic decision that includes everyone in the community, with the communities based on the legislatures we have in place. (Local councils). If they vote for or against means little to me personally.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
The supporters of hunting do not call it pest control, they are very clear that their is significant difference between pest control and wildlife management, of which hunting is part.
Click to expand...

Wildlife management / hunting is not the same as the barbaric pastime that is fox hunting by those idiots on horseback!!
 
koolpc said:
Wildlife management / hunting is not the same as the barbaric pastime that is fox hunting by those idiots on horseback!!
Click to expand...

Many people disagree with you, it is the same as hunting and forms part of the overall management of wildlife, particularly predatory wildlife. There is a good case (as put forward in the various links above and the burns report) that it is a humane way to hunt and offers less suffering to the quarry animal than many of the alternatives.

This difference in emotional response is why these things should be decided at the local level.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Many people disagree with you, it is the same as hunting and forms part of the overall management of wildlife, particularly predatory wildlife. There is a good case (as put forward in the various links above and the burns report) that it is a humane way to hunt and offers less suffering to the quarry animal than many of the alternatives.

This difference in emotional response is why these things should be decided at the local level.
Click to expand...

You dont half type some codswallop.

Fox hunting is cruel. A very small minority love the cruel 'Sport'

How can it be humane?
 
koolpc said:
Wildlife management / hunting is not the same as the barbaric pastime that is fox hunting by those idiots on horseback!!
Click to expand...

Many a farmer can hardly hit a barn door with a shotgun and ends up wounding the fox resulting in it slow painful death of starvation. With fox hunting the fox either escapes or dies there is no in between. Your vision of "wildlife management" is probably a trained marksman with a rifle resulting in an instant humane death, this is simply not the reality with most farms.
 
Why would you want to get on a horse and hunt down a fox? Because you're an upper-middle class, entitled, posh **** thats why.

I may hate them more than most because the stupid horn used to wake me up at 7am on the weekends through my school/early work days, plus im very fond of wildlife.

Much respect to that lady.
 
Castiel said:
I think that communities should be able to decide what happens in their communities for themselves, and not by those outwith those communities who do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Click to expand...

Do you reckon slavery would have been abolished if they only people asked at the time were slave owners? Do you think a ban on smoking pubs would have been enacted if only landlords were consulted?

You must be able to see the flaw in your policy.
 
crackerman said:
Many a farmer can hardly hit a barn door with a shotgun and ends up wounding the fox resulting in it slow painful death of starvation. With fox hunting the fox either escapes or dies there is no in between. Your vision of "wildlife management" is probably a trained marksman with a rifle resulting in an instant humane death, this is simply not the reality with most farms.
Click to expand...

Yea, a fox escapes with half his leg ripped off, an eye missing etc No hardship for the fox then (Fact as i have seen this happen)
 
estebanrey said:
Do you reckon slavery would have been abolished if they only people asked at the time were slave owners? Do you think a ban on smoking pubs would have been enacted if only landlords were consulted?

You must be able to see the flaw in your policy.
Click to expand...

And the Muslim community;)
 
koolpc said:
Yea, a fox escapes with half his leg ripped off, an eye missing etc No hardship for the fox then (Fact as i have seen this happen)
Click to expand...

Does not happen. Dies or escapes simply no in between fact. It also probably wont please you to know that when it does escape down a hole which 95% of the time it is dug up and shot point blank. Very rarely is it the hounds that actually physically catch the fox.
 
estebanrey said:
Do you reckon slavery would have been abolished if they only people asked at the time were slave owners? Do you think a ban on smoking pubs would have been enacted if only landlords were consulted?

You must be able to see the flaw in your policy.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what I am proposing. I am not saying only asking the hunters, quite the opposite......but the communities most affected by the policy....if we were to use your analogy it would be like asking the slaves as well as the slave owners and the families of those taken as slaves and the anyone else impacted by the legislation proposed in any given community or like asking the everyone who lives by and uses pubs in any given community.

I think the point is actually not the assumed, but non existent flaw in my policy but whether you can see the flaw in your assumptions?
 
Last edited:
crackerman said:
Does not happen. Dies or escapes simply no in between fact. It also probably wont please you to know that when it does escape down a hole which 95% of the time it is dug up and shot point blank. Very rarely is it the hounds that actually physically catch the fox.
Click to expand...

Seen it happen where a fox was savagely attacked by the hounds, one leg hanging apart, eye hanging out of socket, still managed to escape!!! Guess it died 'eventually'. Humane? Yea, not!
 
koolpc said:
Seen it happen where a fox was savagely attacked by the hounds, one leg hanging apart, eye hanging out of socket, still managed to escape!!! Guess it died 'eventually'. Humane? Yea, not!
Click to expand...

Sure you have.....just how many hunts have you actually participated in. And why didn't you do something to help the fox, how did it escape from a hound pack with three legs and only one eye and obviously with major blood loss and in no fit state to run?

The evidence shows the exact opposite to what you have said, with the fox being killed outright within seconds of being cornered, and there is a reason why there is a marksman present in hunts that still use packs.
 
Last edited:
crackerman said:
Many a farmer can hardly hit a barn door with a shotgun and ends up wounding the fox resulting in it slow painful death of starvation. With fox hunting the fox either escapes or dies there is no in between. Your vision of "wildlife management" is probably a trained marksman with a rifle resulting in an instant humane death, this is simply not the reality with most farms.
Click to expand...
Id agree about the shooting of foxes with shotguns, theyre not an ideal weapon for fox control due to range limitation. I do a bit of shooting, and have found a rifle to be a far more humane way to shoot foxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom