Again apologies about the lateness of this reply, but I have been snowed under with UCAS applications etc. only if you buy into the myth that anyone involved honestly believes it's a form of population control in the first place! … Not realistic So no one involved thinks hunting with hounds is a control. Ok here are some quotes from letters (unfortunately excluding the one entitled “Many benefits of electro-ejaculation”) from Farmers Weekly. “The only method now to control numbers is shooting. Fox numbers are on the increase.”8-17 october 2004 “The government has ignored the evidence about hunting, ignored the wishes of the NFU [National Farmers Union], ignored the Farmers Union of Wales and ignored the 400,000 people who took to the streets.” 8-14 october 2004 “I have seen the damage a fox can do in its ability to kill and any form of control should be maintained.” 15-21 october 2004 “Do foxes need to be controlled? If your answer is “No”, buy a dozen chickens. After you’ve picked up 10 decapitated carcasses one morning, your next question is: “What is the least cruel way to kill them?” “Who could forget the RSPCA threatening to prosecute MAFF rifleman taking pot-shots at sheep during the foot-and-mouth outbreak? It seems odd that this is now the preferred method of fox culling.” Talking Point 15-21 october 2004 By the way these do not necessarily represent my views these are of other people. If fox-hunting is ultimately illegalised, it is the views of these people and others like them that will mean an increase in the crueller methods of population control. You've got access to the internet. Look it up. Fair enough. Could you give me a name at least? I would suggest the burden of proof should lie with the hunt. So guilty of cruelty until proven innocent? How progressive of you. Or to put it another way, "I don't want to believe it so it can't be true"… What the fuck?!? How do you arrive at such a bizarre conclusion?!? It has nothing to with choosing to believe anything. The study is, as far as I can tell from what you’ve written, bullshit. The very fundamental of science is to conduct a fair test, this was not a fair test. It had too many complex and random variables, rather than one independent and one dependent. For example hunting with hounds taking place and not taking place, the fact that many herds were being culled and other associated behavioural and environmental differences inherent with an instance like FAM. My “bizarre conclusion,” was reached as such. Fox hunting was not being conducted, there is little to no change in fox numbers, not survey was carried out as to the conduct of the human population of the countryside, therefore it is perfectly possible that other population controls were reinforced. There are too many outside actions and changes that could influence the result of the test. I am not choosing to disbelieve your arguments, I simply have not been provided with good evidence that, in my own mind, is not quickly answered. hunted to the point of exhaustion…until it gets ripped to shreds The trauma involved in being “ripped to shreds” is such that I don’t feel much suffering will take place. For example what is going to cause you more suffering, being cut across the wrist, and bleeding to death taking many minutes, for most of which you will still be feeling pain from the severed sensory nerves. Or shooting yourself in the head, which causes more physical trauma but takes a fraction of a second. Fox hunting is similar, even if you don’t take it to be a control, using other control methods as a comparison is not, I feel, a bad idea. And as ive already explained I don’t feel hunting with hounds is any more cruel than shooting (due to the difficulty in killing the fox instantly with this method), snaring, or poisoning. I have already posted quotes from the statement signed by 500 members of the Royal College of Vets and the official independent survey issued to the government. Besides as ive said before it is much more likely that for the most part the fox is killed by swift trauma to the throat rather than being “ripped apart.” Yup. Got it in one. How dare you make a judgement like that based on one of my arguments that you seem determined not to understand. Get it through your skull - HUNTING IS NOT A FORM OF POPULATION CONTROL. I disagree, but I asked “ do you advocate banning all forms of hunting and population control.” The vast majority of which are, I feel, for crueller than hound hunting. Reproduced here for your elucidation: Why thank you kind sir. Yes you are quite right, and I am perfectly happy to concede at least partially on this. The use of artificial earths for the specific purpose of breeding foxes is wrong. But I would agree that there is a strong possibility that they are “decades old”, and see no problem in them if they are used directly in the management of the countryside. Hunting is an upper class activity. If you believe anything else, you're a fantasist. Not that I give two fucks though. I'd ban it whoever was involved. I disagree that is isn’t solely an upper-class organisation, for numerous reasons. And your quite correct is really doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t. I see. So following your logic, cock fighting and bear baiting shouldn't have been banned… No, I feel to make a decision, peoples rights to make up their own mind, and the degree of suffering must BOTH be taken into account. good starting point would be a society where people don't kill other creatures for shits and giggles. Fox hunting is not about killing animals for fun. Its more to do with riding in the countryside at speed, the social aspect and probably stupid tradition, and people enjoy all this. Hunting benefits rural economy, it also (probably indirectly) benefits the environment in hunted areas. It has many of these fringe benefits, which will be lost if hunting is banned (and it hasn’t yet). If hound hunting was prolonging and increasing suffering when compared to other ways in which a fox can be culled, then I would agree with you but I don’t agree that it does.
I''ve provided you with ample evidence that hunting doesn't do anything to control the fox population (which probably doesn't even need controlling in the first place, but hey). If you choose not to believe the facts, then that's your call. I hardly see a few quotes from Farmers Weekly as proof of anything. So by that logic, you'd kill all foxes. Oh, and I've owned chickens by the way. No it won't. These people are blowing hot air in the hopes of preventing a ban of their favourite bloodthirsty sport. They know hunting has no significant impact on fox numbers. Remind me what we were talking about? I think what you're trying to say is "not allowed to pursue a cruel activity until it has been sufficiently demonstrated to have some form of social worth". So yes, I'd call that quite progressive. It was a fairer test/study than has ever been provided by the hunt to justify fox hunting as a method of population control. Nor have you provided any evidence to support the notion that fox hunting is actually a valuable (or needed) form of population control. If people want to hunt an animal to exhaustion before having it ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs, then they should be required to at the very least demonstrate some justification for their actions. It's for them to prove their case. Genius. That statement's hilarious. I think you'd find most people would shit their pants at the prospect of being ripped to death by dogs. Quite aside from the barbaric nature of the actual kill, there's the whole duration of the hunt to consider, where the fox is driven beyond the point of exhaustion, presumably terrified in the hours leading up to its death And as I've repeatedly said, fox hunting has no value as a form of population control, so your argument is irrelevant. Ah yes. That'd be the guys who make money from attending the horse and hounds, eh? That's what they call a vested interest. Just because I don't agree with your arguments, it doesn't mean I don't understand them. I understand them, but I think they're wrong. I also believe that any person who supports the hunting of an animal to exhaustion before having its throat ripped out by a pack of dogs lacks compassion. Sue me. Your question has no relevance because HUNTING IS NOT A FORM OF POPULATION CONTROL. LOL, that's a really desperate argument! Why should they be decades old? And what purpose do they serve in managing the countryside, apart from BREEDING MORE FOXES that the hunt's meant to control? Which is exactly what has happened. Parliament believes the level of suffering produced by fox hunting does not justify the continuation of this 'sport'. You, presumably, don't agree with them. That's democracy. Tough shit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh boy, that's a good one! In the bizarre alternate universe in which this statement was true, then they'd be quite happy to replace their sport with a drag hunt, wouldn't they? As I said, a good starting point for a civilised society would be one where people don't kill other creatures for shits and giggles.
Man, i don't understand how people can argue for like 20 pages about hunting, it's killing things: murder. it's quite simply not a good thing. i understood the discusion about the protesters and "did they get there just deserts" but when it comes to the actual hunting, it's bad. doesn't need to be put in any fancier wording, doesn't need quotes from reports. the hunters are the same kind of people that say playing violent computer games and watching power rangers turns kids into violent blood thirsty hooligans, man it's just wrong.
“it's quite simply not a good thing.” I disagree, this isn’t a simple issue. I agree that it would be best to leave the world to get on with it, but I don’t think that that’s a practicable way to manage the countryside. Population control is a necessary part of countryside management (ill get to fox hunting being a population control in a minute). Your right, killing is not a good thing, but unfortunately it’s a necessary evil. I''ve provided you with ample evidence I don’t agree that you have, you’ve provided a write up of a study that is effectively worthless (do you know the name of the study by the way, id like to try and find a study page or something dedicated to it so I can see a more detailed write up) since it seems to completely disregard science in its approach, because as I mentioned before, it has too many variables and grey areas. Another example of this is, for the most part of the FAM crisis, hunting would not have been going on because it was out of season, fox hunting was stopped (and im not convinced it was actually banned, certainly the hunt near me, the grove and rufford, stopped voluntarily) just before the end of the season, when relatively low numbers of foxes are caught. Further evidence of the study being fairly poor, it concluded that over the time of the foot and mouth outbreak, when fox hunting was not going on, there was little to no change in fox numbers, this contradicts the knowledge of fox breeding patterns which indicates that the fox population doubles during the breeding season (springish, when the hunts do not take place) and fall steadily back to the original population over the next year. Nor have you provided any evidence to support the notion that fox hunting is actually a valuable (or needed) form of population control Ok you’re perhaps right. According to BBC statistics, which I feel are going to be less biased than either pro or anti hunt groups statistics, “About 100,000 are reckoned to die by shooting and snaring. And the hunts (the registered, "official" ones, at least) say they account for just 16,000 foxes a year.” That means the fox hunts are accountable for roughly 10% of population control. That is a viable population control, if an inefficient one. But that inefficiency causes no harm to anyone, including the foxes culled, who, if there were a ban, would probably be killed by much crueller methods. Because (this was what the FW quotes were meant to illustrate) many farmers believe that hunting is a population contol. It's for them to prove their case. I disagree, if you want to remove the freedom of an individual to partake in an activity, whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is up to you to prove the case. This is supposed to be a free society, it sure as hell aint that democratic. If it is right that a freedom should be removed, ok, but it should not be up to the individual to prove their right to that freedom. where the fox is driven beyond the point of exhaustion Only in a small number of cases, this would imply that all foxes are just less fit than the hounds, if not, the hounds would get the fox quickly (at one extreme) or not catch the fox at all (the other extreme), if the fox is hunted to exhaustion, that would mean a long hunt, this would imply that the hounds were tired/ near exhaustion and this is not in the best interests of the hunt. Im aware that my argument doesn’t sound very good but that’s not the argument itself it’s the fact that im rubbish at English. Ah yes. That'd be the guys who make money from attending the horse and hounds, eh? That's what they call a vested interest. Perhaps, but I still think that they are a more reliable source than a strongly pro/anti hunt group. Just because I don't agree with your arguments, it doesn't mean I don't understand them. I didn’t say that, what I mean is if you think I am uncompassionate, you must be misunderstanding at least parts of my argument. Or else making snap judgemnets you have no qualification or right to make. You, presumably, don't agree with them. That's democracy. Tough shit. The same parliament who decided to wage war on iraq? Hardly infallible are they? If that is your view of democracy, then I think you hold a very shallow one. Besides, parliament commissioned an independent inquiry (the Burns Inquiry) which concluded that fox hunting was not a cruel way to control the population. This bill is the determined fascination of a party unpopular with voters, looking for a way to gain votes. If I take my dogs out and one, the other or both of them chases a hare across a field, I will be in breach of the law for hunting with dogs, now I don’t agree with hare coursing, but that is how silly parts of this bill are. then they'd be quite happy to replace their sport with a drag hunt, wouldn't they? Most of those who go along with the hunts probably would go drag hunting. But as ive said, I doubt you would get the permission of land owners and estate managers. And so hunts would dwindle and the fringe benefits of hunting would also.
My friend has an organic sheep farm. He stops foxes attacking sheep by painting this tar type stuff on the backs of there heads. It repells the foxes. He says that works a treat and he has never had to kill a fox in the decades his family has had the farm. Why do they need controlling if there are other ways to stop them attacking farm animals? Or am I missing a point? I agree however with your point on population control man. There are way too many people living near me they do my nut in! So I have taken your advice and am going to go out and cull a few hundred this evening... Tally Ho!
That's actually a debatable point. But regardless, fox hunting doesn't work as a form of population control, and people participate in it for the fun of killing things - not out of some need to control the fox population. I can't even be arsed to argue with you any further over statistics, because frankly I regard you as a snivelling apologist for a barbaric and antiquated activity. But this line did stand out as particularly ridiculous: Again, you're assuming that fox hunting is a form of population control. It isn't. Unless you regard it as an accidental form of population control, in which instance you'd also need to take road kill into account. However, even one in ten is such a farcically low figure that it makes you look daft to even suggest that this would have any noticeable impact. No they don't. Pro-hunting farmers might say they believe this, but this is just propaganda. Not where it involves torture and killing. It disgusts me that you should be arguing that people have a fundamental right to abuse animals unless someone can demonstrate why they shouldn't. Frankly, you're just demonstrating why the pro-hunt lobby is a throwback to a less civilised time. Free to torture and kill in the name of fun? Are you fucking retarded? If you hunt an animal to the point where it's no longer capable of running any further, then you've hunted it to the point of exhaustion. This happens in fox hunts all the time. Or do you think that there's any other way to catch a fox? Do you think that a pack of hounds and a load of twats on horses crashing around the countryside are able to catch a fox by sheer speed? Again, are you retarded? You think that people with a vested financial interest have more of a biased agenda that people who are acting out of a simple moral compunction? Not at all. I think you're socially dysfunctional. I understand your argument, but I think you've allowed a twisted logic to retard your moral capacity to the point where you no longer exercise compassion. Let me see. The majority of the population oppose hunting. The Labour party wins two elections with a clear manifesto commitment to banning hunting. What part of that isn't democratic? The fact that a few sadistic twats don't like it? My heart fucking bleeds. Oh please, this is too funny! Unpopular with the voters?!? You're kidding, right? That'd be why even towards the end of their second term in office, the tories are still incapable of overtaking them in the polls? The Labour party, love 'em or hate 'em, has an absolutely rock solid guarantee of a third term in office. I'll even bet you a years wages on it. Find me a bookie who'll arrange the bet for us, and I swear to god I'll make it. The Labour party absolutely does not need votes. What a load of bollocks. Again, you're sticking to this fantasy that anyone believes fox hunting to be a form of population control. They don't. Fox hunting is barbaric, cruel, sick and completely out of place in the modern world. Fortunately, whatever your antiquated views may be, they'll soon be history.
While fox hunting may well be a cruel sport will banning it work? I don't think so because for one the fox is considered a pest and so other means to reduce the fox population will be used such as hunting, trapping and poison baits. The latter too could afect other animals and are far from humane. Trapping could leave foxes to starve to death or die or cold. Poison baits are totally inhumane as they work like rat poison causing the animal to die of internal bleeding. Not only that but established fox hunt have said that they will have too slaughter up to 26,000 hounds, the hounds are said to be too wild to be useful as pets and a ban will cause the loss of 6,000 rural jobs. There is however a compromise which is to licence fox hunts, which would allow the sport to be regulated and thus the most cruel aspects of it such as digging out foxes which have gone to earth banned. I think licencing is therefore the best option.
Myth. Nobody seriously considers hunting to be a form of population control. Funny how it was hardly ever mentioned in this context until a ban became a distinct possibility. This is just another bullshit argument wheeled out by a load of sick fucks who enjoy killing animals for fun. Funny, isn't it? One minute, the hunt's whining on about how they're all really animal lovers. The next minute they're apparently ready to exterminate 26,000 dogs once they're no longer useful to them. Oh, and I couldn't give two fucks about 'rural jobs'. That's like arguing to keep the concentration camps going until alternate employment could be found for oven makers. That's not a compromise. That's a cop-out. Foxes will still be hunted to exhaustion and ripped apart by packs of dogs. Fortunately, this prehistoric barbarity will soon be history. Pro-war, pro-hunt..... you seem to be addicted to killing!
No I am totally against fox hunting, but I think about the consequences of a ban unlike most other people. A fox hunt ban will not save a single fox will it? Not only that but other forms of fox culling are hardly cruelty free are they? The fox has no natural predators left in Britain therefore, people like farmers will use other methods to kill foxes to stop their numbers growing out of control. And I am anti-war but would you have ignored Hitler or allowed Milosevic to ethnically cleanse Bosnia and Kosovo? Do you think the millions who volunteered to stop fascism in its tracks during World War II actually liked war?
The problem is, these 'consequences' are largely an invention of the pro-hunt lobby. Having realised that there's no way they can defend the activity of hunting, they've attempted to detract attention from the core issue by creating a series of decoy arguments that are essentially just hot air. Ummmm..... I think it will save a large number of them from being ripped apart by dog, actually. *yawn* Fox hunting is not, and never has been, about population control. It's a myth. It's bullshit. It's made up to detract attention from the real issue. Oh for fuck's sake, what a load of bollocks!!! Animal populations self-regulate. If this wasn't the case, every animal, fish and bird near the top of the food chain would be in danger of taking over the world!!! And again..... farmers know damn well that hunting has no significant effect on fox hunting and so are extremely unlikely to suddenly feel the need to go out and butcher more foxes!!!! How many foxes do you think your average hunt kills in one weekend? How many farms do you think this affects? It's fucking insignificant. We know it and the hunt knows it, and you'd better bloody well believe the farmers know it.
There are many animals that have no natural predators, or else there'd be no such thing as 'the top of the food chain'. Why did lions never take over Africa? Quite the opposite. As the natural predator of rabbits, voles and mice, the fox actually does farmers more good than harm. No they don't. They may consider them a pest, but they certainly don't consider them a serious pest. If that was the case, then you'd expect farmers to be attempting to pretty much eradicate them, wouldn't you? There's also evidence that foxes actually kill only the weaker lambs, those being the ones that would fail to survive anyway. Considering the numbers of foxes in the countryside, if they were habitual killers of lambs, you'd expect the problem to be massive. Which clearly, it isn't. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You're a bullshitting apologist who's repeatedly regurgitating the lies of the hunting lobby. Nobody seriously believes that fox hunting is effective as a form of population control.. Thus, farmers won't suddenly feel the need to go out and kill more foxes once hunting is banned. Right, so being chased to the point of exhaustion and then ripped apart by a pack of dogs is more humane than being shot. Of course. It's so obvious now you've pointed it out. But of course, you're missing the point.... . Nobody seriously believes that fox hunting is effective as a form of population control.. Oh my heart fucking bleeds. So it's ok to continue a barbaric practice because it's convenient for disposing of dead animal bodies? LMFAO!!!! Oh this is getting more pathetic by the minute! Perhaps we should have kept concentration camps open as they provided a useful social focus for the guards? Are you fucking serious or are you just high? Y'know, I live in the countryside, and I've never been bored. I've never attended a hunt event either. I must be weird. No they don't. Firstly, the fox population doesn't need keeping down. Secondly, cars kill more foxes than hunting. Thirdly, the fox population self-regulates, so numbers will remain pretty stable without a huge cull being implemented. Fourthly, hunts breed foxes. Oh this is just so funny it hurts! I live in the countryside. I've never met one fucking person who believes they're going to lose their job because of a hunt ban. Clearly the effect will be massive. Yeah, right. Quite aside from which, guess what? I couldn't give a fuck! Economic arguments are no argument at all for perppetuating an outdated, cruel and barbaric activity.
We studied this in Biology last year. The fox population will learn to control itself. If there is an abundance of food, there will be an abundance of foxes. This then means that there is less food and so the foxes start to die, resulting in an abundance of food again. Every species learns to control itself. Human intervention never works.
Oh look, the pro-hunters doing what they do best again. They do their case wonders dont they. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3960279.stm
I would like the anti-hunt campaigners to explain to rural people who either hunt or work in businesses related to hunting why they feel the need to destroy their way of life. Hunting isn't just about killing foxes it is a major social event for rural people, a chance for the rural rich and the rural poor to mix, a boost for rural pubs where hunts meet, thus keeping rural pubs open. A way of keeping people employed in the countryside who work in hunting related businesses. Fox hunting also protects the Green Belt as landowners who hunt are not going to sell off land they use to hunt on. Why the hell do you think 400,000 mostly rural people marched against a ban? I was originally in favour of a ban but I was prepared to listen to rural people who do hunt or depend on hunting for their livihoods and allow them a voice. We live in a democracy and democracy means allowing everyone to have a say. It does not mean dictatorship by the majority!
