Woman saves fox from hounds

[grimm]

1) My field is not genetics.
2) Why would you chose something you knowingly know to be false to substantiate something you believe to be correct?
3) I didn't know what you meant I just assumed you didn't know what you were on about.
4) Would you care to show the the statistics to demonstrate the a hunt discriminates against the healthy in favour of focusing on the old/sick. I would think the hunt would be flushing out what it geographically came across once a scent was picked up. Unless of course you have something to actually prove your assumption.

I can't really be bothered to go around in circles with you on this. It is more the fact that the older or less able foxes are more likely to be culled using this method when compared to shooting, poisoning etc. which is indiscriminate and may even kill off more of the healthier/younger fox population. If I have used the incorrect terminology I apologise.

So you are not correct then because smoking has pretty much ceased in areas where it is legislated against but not in areas where it isn't controlled. So the government can control it. The opposite of what you said.

The smoking ban just stops people smoking in public/enclosed areas. I don't see why you're banging your drum about this one, becuase it doesn't prove your point at all. The government can't control anything entirely, see drugs/prostitution etc. It just doesn't have the resources

And yet for other barbaric and arcane practices they seem to have a remarkable amount of success (I didn't say they were perfect merely disputed your assertion they have no control).

Slavery in the UK? Not really going on.
Forces child labour in the UK? Not really going on
People being restricted from the vote? Not really going on bar prisoners.
Racism? Reducing
Sexism? Reducing
Homophobia? Reducing

See those last 3 there - not in any way fixed but on the path too. Are you that naive that you only accept success if it is instant. Most of these are timely sociological adjustments either from acceptance of law and changing of attitudes or a changed attitude which is then written into the law.

These are human rights issues, not animal rights issues, therefore not comparable.

Can't control us. Now I know you live in cloud cuckoo land. You live in a country which is governed by a minority government that was in itself voted for by a small percentage of the population. That government consistently instigates protectionist policies that prejudice against large proportions of the population and yet their are hardly any riots. There is no open discontent. People rise every morning to attend jobs they dislike to run the rat wheel of the system. If that is not a pretty good method of control I don't know what is. All the while our children are being taught about acceptance, equality and all the very fundamental principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights from the off - things and principles that people not only didn't accept 50 years ago but open joked about and poked fun at. And you say that they can't control and we can't change. Right.

Tinfoil hat alert. It is natural that perceptions change. Some of it is symptomatic of the technology we have and general standard of living being higher. In fact, I don't really know what you're getting at with this. We have an exceptional amount of freedom within this country, broadly speaking, especially when compared to other countries.

No, it has just afforded me the ability analyse situations and have a healthy appreciation of what is wrong and right and just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should do something.

Obviously not to the point where you can provide diplomatic solutions that actually work in the real world.

 

[Xordium]

A whole day out on the moors will net two foxes, if they're lucky.

With efficiency like that they should consider running for a rail franchise.

 

[McGray]

These are human rights issues, not animal rights issues, therefore not comparable.

Edited.

I'm out of this....

 

[Woden]

With efficiency like that they should consider running for a rail franchise.

2 trains on time a day? Bit optimistic.

 

[FARGO]

A whole day out on the moors will net two foxes, if they're lucky.

Seems like a lot of effort for such a small return.

 

[Gilly]

Some people need to wind their necks in.

This type of thread is always going to attract bloodthirsty brutalist neanderthals as well as tree hugging hippies. Those diametrically opposed to each other and that won't see the other side of the argument. That hunting with dogs is inherently wrong isn't the issue here, keep it civil please.

 

[Xordium]

I can't really be bothered to go around in circles with you on this. It is more the fact that the older or less able foxes are more likely to be culled using this method when compared to shooting, poisoning etc. which is indiscriminate and may even kill off more of the healthier/younger fox population. If I have used the incorrect terminology I apologise.

You keep saying it is a fact but I don't see anything from you demonstrating it is a fact whatsoever. Just because you say so or assume so doesn't make it true. If you are going to say something is advantageous then you need to not only show that it is advantageous but that it is actually occurring. You seem unable to do this. Only assume that is the case.

The smoking ban just stops people smoking in public/enclosed areas. I don't see why you're banging your drum about this one, becuase it doesn't prove your point at all. The government can't control anything entirely, see drugs/prostitution etc. It just doesn't have the resources

Again you said the government couldn't control things. I demonstrated it could. I never said it could achieve total control. I have no need to prove a point. You stated something I disputed it. That's why you have to be careful making this broad sweeping statements as fact because along comes someone like me to show you a few exceptions and suddenly you are shown to be wrong.

These are human rights issues, not animal rights issues, therefore not comparable.

No, these are ethical issues. The balance of human and animal welfare are often weighted differently but the fundamental principles are the same. So they are comparable because they are using the very same theories and thought patterns.

Tinfoil hat alert. It is natural that perceptions change. Some of it is symptomatic of the technology we have and general standard of living being higher. In fact, I don't really know what you're getting at with this. We have an exceptional amount of freedom within this country, broadly speaking, especially when compared to other countries.

Oh it's natural perception change. Well I am glad you now see that. A few posts ago you were saying that people couldn't change such things and the government couldn't.

The very reason we are given freedom by our government is a method of control surely you can see that?

Obviously not to the point where you can provide diplomatic solutions that actually work in the real world.

And yet the hunts are not fit for purpose as a method according to the statistics.

And I did offer a solution. Farmers enclose the animals better. There is always a price to pay for any decision and not always monetary.

 

[grimm]

.. thread has since been edited .

Lol that's a bit inappropriate isn't it?

I'm not for or against fox hunting anyway. Most of the arguments against fox hunting on this forum though are completely emotive and unrealistic.

If you want to ban something on the basis that it is cruel to the animal, when all the other methods are just as cruel, then you just come across as prejudiced, toff hater, whatever and it weakens your argument.

I don't like fox hunting, but I don't think a knee jerk reaction is going to solve anything and provide a solution that is best for the animal.

 

[elmarko]

The main point is, unless hunting is done on a massive scale (which isn't going to happen with hunting with dogs due to the slow/time consuming inefficient nature of it - isn't going to have a notable impact on there populations.

If the problem is that they are causing damage & killing farmers produce then you fence off & remove the food supply - nature will take care of the rest.

Fox hunting is akin to stamping on ants as they crawl out of the wood-work one at a time towards a large jar of honey left open in the kitchen.

Remove the supply of food (by using sonic deterrent machines, better fences etc) & the populations will decrease naturally.

The massive resistance to simply & effective measures really does seem to indicate that perhaps pest control isn't the main motivation after all.

 

[Xordium]

keep it civil please.

Bar one comment on this page which was then edited we are keeping it civil. The uncivil bit occurred yesterday but those posts are allowed to stand.

 

[grimm]

You keep saying it is a fact but I don't see anything from you demonstrating it is a fact whatsoever. Just because you say so or assume so doesn't make it true. If you are going to say something is advantageous then you need to not only show that it is advantageous but that it is actually occurring. You seem unable to do this. Only assume that is the case.

I didn't say that it was a fact, I said that it being "more likely" is the fact, as in probability increased. Anyone with half a brain can understand that a young healthy fox is more likely to escape than an old sickly fox.

Again you said the government couldn't control things. I demonstrated it could. I never said it could achieve total control. I have no need to prove a point. You stated something I disputed it. That's why you have to be careful making this broad sweeping statements as fact because along comes someone like me to show you a few exceptions and suddenly you are shown to be wrong.

You haven't demonstrated anything though...

No, these are ethical issues. The balance of human and animal welfare are often weighted differently but the fundamental principles are the same. So they are comparable because they are using the very same theories and thought patterns.

Ethical issues yes, but nobody in this thread has come up with a realistic and workable solution yet. We are also dealing with an animal that is technically classed as vermin as far as I am aware. The knee jerk "let's ban this" reaction has obviously failed, because you can get around it merely by having a quad bike with you.

Oh it's natural perception change. Well I am glad you now see that. A few posts ago you were saying that people couldn't change such things and the government couldn't.

The very reason we are given freedom by our government is a method of control surely you can see that?

I'm happy for you to believe that. By no means do I believe our government is perfect, but I believe it's better than the most.

And yet the hunts are not fit for purpose as a method according to the statistics.

And I did offer a solution. Farmers enclose the animals better. There is always a price to pay for any decision and not always monetary.

I agree that the hunts are not ideal. Until a better method is proposed/introduced though it will be difficult to challenge. Shooting/poisoning/trapping are not better methods from a cruelty perspective.

Enclosing animals better is just not a viable and cost effective solution, unless you are offering to pay for it? It would probably involve six foot high electric fences that were also protected against tunneling underneath. I don't think anything less would keep a fox out.

 

[Xordium]

I didn't say that it was a fact, I said that it being "more likely" is the fact, as in probability increased. Anyone with half a brain can understand that a young healthy fox is more likely to escape than an old sickly fox.

The problem is you can't assume that. Strangely enough anyone with a brain could also assume that as a hunt passes through a geographical route with will hunt whatever is along that route irrespective of the foxes health. So it may be geographically sensitive more than age or infirm. We don't know but you are using an assumption to prove a point and therefore need to demonstrate that assumption is correct.

You haven't demonstrated anything though...

I have given examples of how society has changed due to governmental decree guided sometimes by individual pressure. Which you said doesn't happen.

Ethical issues yes, but nobody in this thread has come up with a realistic and workable solution yet. We are also dealing with an animal that is technically classed as vermin as far as I am aware. The knee jerk "let's ban this" reaction has obviously failed, because you can get around it merely by having a quad bike with you.

I have - we do not know it is workable and whether people would accept it. Or whether the cost would be too much for them to bear in inconvenience and cost etc.

I'm happy for you to believe that. By no means do I believe our government is perfect, but I believe it's better than the most.

You said governments don't control people I demonstrated they did by a variety of mechanisms. Allowing us freedoms being one. How we are educated another.

I agree that the hunts are not ideal. Until a better method is proposed/introduced though it will be difficult to challenge. Shooting/poisoning/trapping are not better methods from a cruelty perspective.

Maybe they are not but they are more effective methods of culling. And who says culling is actually required.

Enclosing animals better is just not a viable and cost effective solution, unless you are offering to pay for it? It would probably involve six foot high electric fences that were also protected against tunneling underneath. I don't think anything less would keep a fox out.

I would be happy to pay a surplus to my food bills for such to occur as I expect many others would. If people value these stances they would agree to the cost if they didn't agree to the cost then as you rightly suggest they would be rather hypocritical.

 

[RDM]

Difference being the kill precedes the enjoyment of eating and thus has to be done to enable it. The hunt is done before the kill so if that's the bit you enjoy, why not just become bird watcher or wildlife photographer and have the same 'hunt' but end it with a shot from a camera instead of a gun?

Worded far more eloquently than I could, well said.

How are they even comparable? I am not really sure estbanrey even knows what fox hunting is if he thinks that guns are used and being a wildlife photographer or birdwatcher is in any way comparable.

Riding across the countryside at speed over varied terrain is somehow the same as taking photographs of birds?

If you read the entire post I addressed this point.

I'm aware of the inherent hypocrisy of people eating meat & being against other forms of cruelty - but this isn't an "all or nothing" dichotomy.

Concern for animal welfare is a gradual sliding scale of social attitudes, killing for the pleasure of killing isn't comparable to killing for consumption, for one we need food to live (I agree alternatives exist, but we have a biological drive to eat certain types of food - meat being one of them, we do have canines).

Really? Canines and biological drive are your justification for the continuation of killing animals just because you like to eat meat? Seems fairly weak as all those vegetarians seem to get by quite happily with the same biological drive and the same teeth...

It seems more like justifying to yourself why it is acceptable to slaughter many more animals than a hunt ever will for your personal pleasure than any real difference. We don't need meat any more, the environment would be better, our diets would be better and animal welfare would be better if we didn't eat meat. It would make considerably more impact than banning fox hunting too.

For the consumption of meat, the killing of the animal is a by-product of the activity (which science has already made steps to address), for fox hunting with dogs the killing of the animal IS the activity.

Not really, the activity is mainly the riding.

They are not the same.

They are similar enough that your justifications sound a little hollow.

 

[elmarko]

How are they even comparable? I am not really sure estbanrey even knows what fox hunting is if he thinks that guns are used and being a wildlife photographer or birdwatcher is in any way comparable.

Riding across the countryside at speed over varied terrain is somehow the same as taking photographs of birds?

I think he was implying that they could do the exact same activity but without the killing at the end.

Really? Canines and biological drive are your justification for the continuation of killing animals just because you like to eat meat? Seems fairly weak as all those vegetarians seem to get by quite happily with the same biological drive and the same teeth...

I never said it was a justification, it was an explanation.

It seems more like justifying to yourself why it is acceptable to slaughter many more animals than a hunt ever will for your personal pleasure than any real difference. We don't need meat any more, the environment would be better, our diets would be better and animal welfare would be better if we didn't eat meat. It would make considerably more impact than banning fox hunting too.

And?, these are not arguments for allowing fox hunting, these are argument against meat consumption.

A different subject - you can't justify fox hunting on the grounds that other things are done which result in animal suffering (While also ignoring the key point, the reasoning behind the action) - the death of an animal is a by-product of humanity's desire to eat meat, one which is substitutable in the long term (through artificially created meat).

For hunting the same does not apply.

Not really, the activity is mainly the riding.

Then why don't they just ride, an activity already exists for riding horses, it's called "Horse riding".

They are similar enough that your justifications sound a little hollow.

Subjective, I don't agree they are similar enough on any level.

You also seem to be selectively ignoring my point earlier - that pointing out hypocritical views on eating meat & fox-hunting doesn't strengthen an argument for or weaken an argument against (it's a form of ad-hominem).

 

[Gilly]

Bar one comment on this page which was then edited we are keeping it civil. The uncivil bit occurred yesterday but those posts are allowed to stand.

That's why I've posted to remind people that they should keep it civil.

I didn't say 'stop incivility that I've seen on this page'.

 

[Craterloads]

Then why don't they just ride, an activity already exists for riding horses, it's called "Horse riding".

Quality

 

[RDM]

I think he was implying that they could do the exact same activity but without the killing at the end.
...
Then why don't they just ride, an activity already exists for riding horses, it's called "Horse riding".

Because normal horse riding and hunt riding are completely different? For horse riding there is no random element, you pretty much choose where you are going to take your horse.

I never said it was a justification, it was an explanation.

It is a pretty poor explanation considering the large number of vegetarians. I know I don't eat meat due to either my canines or the biological imperative but because I really do like the taste and I just have to accept a wholesale slaughter of animals.

And?, these are not arguments for allowing fox hunting, these are argument against meat consumption.

A different subject - you can't justify fox hunting on the grounds that other things are done which result in animal suffering (While also ignoring the key point, the reasoning behind the action) - the death of an animal is a by-product of humanity's desire to eat meat, one which is substitutable in the long term (through artificially created meat).

I am only justifying fox hunting due to the fact it is something people enjoy that involves the death of animals. Much like eating meat is something people enjoy that involves the death of animals. The fact that at some point in the future artificial meat may be produced doesn't really justify all the dead animals.

I personally see it as little different. You, however, seem to be quite keen to point out the subtle differences as to why animals dying for your enjoyment is OK.

For hunting the same does not apply.

Who knows, maybe at some point in the future an artificial fox can be developed too for hunts to chase?

Subjective, I don't agree they are similar enough on any level.

Subjective, I entirely disagree. Animal dies for human pleasure is what both can be distilled down to.

You also seem to be selectively ignoring my point earlier - that pointing out hypocritical views on eating meat & fox-hunting doesn't strengthen an argument for or weaken an argument against (it's a form of ad-hominem).

I am not ignoring it, I just find it somewhat irrelevant. I was not in anyway justifying fox hunting, just refuting your assertion that it differs considerably from meat production.

My argument would be that some people find fox hunting enjoyable, for it to take place animals die. As I am relatively happy for animals to die for me to eat meat I would feel somewhat uncomfortable trying to stop people doing something else where the end result is the same. Dead animals for personal enjoyment.

 

[Calabi]

How long would it take to successfully reduce fox numbers by about a hundred using this method?

I'm betting it would take quite a while.

 

[Woden]

With the numbers posted here, around 2 years.

 

[elmarko]

<Snip>

It's not a great argument that boils down to.

Well, people already do X, I may as well do Y.

It's still no defence for fox hunting, just arguments against eating meat (which I agree causes massive amounts of animal suffering) - but I don't expect social attitudes to change on eating meat instantly.

Moral changes in attitudes happen very slowly & over numerous generations - it's pretty predictable to expect fur/blood-sports to be the first things which the population deem unacceptable - once these are "settled" in the moral standard of the population other forms of abuse will be focused on.

It's unrealistic to have an "all or nothing" attitude to this kind of thing when historically change has always been slow & gradual, as isn't an overall slight reduction in suffering better than none?.

Also with the attitude presented regarding "people eat meat which is bad, so hunting should be ok" - how will anything ever change?, if a currently acceptable negative behaviour is used to excuse other forms of negative behaviour society will never progress.