Woman saves fox from hounds
- Thread starter Mr Joshua
- Start date
Right so the fox just ran onto their land after knawing his own leg off then I suppose, the men on horses and the hounds were just there by coincidence.
There you go again, reading what you want to, they might not have injured it in the first place but they did stop it from being killed quickly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Like you've done with me. The hunters were ultimately responsible for that foxes and death and condition, yet you took issue with me pointing that out.
That is what most hunts used to do, and all hunts do today. I was the marksman on the hunts I participated on, specifically because I was a better shot and able to kill the fox once it was flushed before the hound(s) could injure it.
I don't hunt anymore (not really my thing) but I do occasionally help the local farmers with vermin problems including foxes who worry the chickens, better me than some of the alternatives.
What you said was that Castiel made it sound like they were responsible for it's death, when what he said was that they were responsible for its extended suffering, that's what I've taken issue with.
They might not have harmed the fox but I don't see how you can deny that their actions prolonged its suffering.
Can't say I've got strong views either way on this one - I think people who derive pleasure from killing a fox with a pack of dogs and watching it get ripped apart are a bit odd. Then again I've got no issue at all with farmers killing them - its more the chasing/killing for fun part that I'm a bit uneasy with - dressing up and turning a necessary task that involves a death of an animal into a social event they derive pleasure from. (not that I'm in favour of the ban per say - if that's what they want to do in the country then each to their own)
Fair play to that woman - can't say I'd want to go and pick up a wild fox.
Fair play to that woman - can't say I'd want to go and pick up a wild fox.
They are devolved nations and having your own laws was the entire point, unless you want to see devolution within England. That is not a counter point.
What compensation and grants exist for environmental pollution? A city which pollutes it's river won't then go claiming money for clean up costs in a devolved scenario. Also we are bordering on external costs which can be quantified.
What I am referring to are things which infringe on the rights of people and animals.
If there were fox hunts in Peckham should the people in Peckham suddenly have the right to have a say on what happens hundred of miles away? How was that a point?
Last edited:
Good on her I say.
Yes foxes need to be controlled but they way they do it on horses with dogs is ******* cruel and sick.
I understand why farmers want to control foxes due to the amount of damage they do to the lively hood (and it is a hell of a lot). Fences don't keep foxes out they just dig under them and if one fox gets into a chicken coup of 200 chickens the fox will kill every single one and maybe take one for food. This is just some of the damage that foxes do.
Foxes are very easy to trap you dont need dogs to kill or even track them if you know how.
Yes foxes need to be controlled but they way they do it on horses with dogs is ******* cruel and sick.
I understand why farmers want to control foxes due to the amount of damage they do to the lively hood (and it is a hell of a lot). Fences don't keep foxes out they just dig under them and if one fox gets into a chicken coup of 200 chickens the fox will kill every single one and maybe take one for food. This is just some of the damage that foxes do.
Foxes are very easy to trap you dont need dogs to kill or even track them if you know how.
Last edited:
Something to do with dressing like knobs.
Your reply just illustrates the pointlessness of continuing.....the whole devolving of power to local communities is exactly my point...
The are a myriad of grants and exceptions made to a whole range of laws for a whole range of reasons including ones based on regional variances....county and parish councils have powers over all kinds of bylaws and policy decisions..... there is no reason why hunting cannot be one of them. That includes peckham.
Last edited:
Attack the poster not the post....
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 5,428
- Location
- Bristol
She was brave to run in among the hounds to get the fox out.
It's the cruelty of hunting with hounds I don't like. If fox numbers need to be controlled it should be done by a skilled marksman with a suitably powered rifle.
It's the cruelty of hunting with hounds I don't like. If fox numbers need to be controlled it should be done by a skilled marksman with a suitably powered rifle.
Powers and prohibitive laws are very different. People from Peckham (or wherever) don't want to devolve power, they want to uphold a law across the country which is to be applied uniformally based on animal welfare.
This is completely different to the point you are trying to make. What law which is related to welfare and rights, differs within England? Show me one.
Last edited:
Surely if you're against fox hunting you'd be against this? Oh wait, you're not against fox hunting, you just don't like posh people, NEVERMIND!