You're correct. It's just the majority of them. Having been sabbing, I've seen this first hand. So unless you have any direct, personal experience, I suggest you stop blathering on about something you know nothing about. Oh please! Did you know her? Did you ever see what went on behind closed doors? Or did you just read a few papers that said how nice she was? Incorrect. Proportionately, there's more violence practiced by hunts than by social drinkers. I thought it was pest control? So it's a sport again now, is it? So you'd define hunting an animal to exhaustion and then watching it get ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs as a 'sport'? So feeling passionate about something is an excuse for violence? You think if someone disrupted an activity of mine, I'd be likely to twat them round the head a few times with a riding crop? I don't think so. Hunting is natural. It's also cruel. Or are you now arguing that nature isn't cruel? The whole point of society has been to attempt to overcome the more aggressive and violent instincts of our species. And of course if you're going to argue that hunting is OK because it's natural, I expect you'd support the idea that hunts should only be allowed if the participants stripped naked and went after the fox with their bare teeth? Now you're just blindly repeating propaganda. Do you seriously think that when a pack of dogs closes in on a fox, scrabbling to get a grip, the first hound that gets a hold conveniently manages to get a clean and swift bite to the neck? I'm assuming you're not stupid, so I can only imagine that you're repeating this rubbish because you're so blindly pro-hunting that you're not interested in the facts. LOL!!!!! So if I set out after you with a rifle, that'd be ok so long as I gave you a head start? I'm sure the fox feels a lot better knowing it has a chance of escape. I imagine while it's getting ripped to shreds, the last thing going through its head is probably "oh well, it was a fair chase. These huntsmen are a decent sort, really". I spend a great deal of time and energy tending to my computer. Doesn't mean I feel compassion towards it. It's a hobby. It provides my entertainment. You've scraped right through the bottom of that barrel and you're digging up the soil now. By your argument, unless an individual was capable of living a life that was entirely free of cruelty, they'd never have the right to stand up for anything they believed in. Quite aside from anything else, any school child would be able to point out to you "two wrongs don't make a right". Does your argument now come down to "hunting's ok because other things are cruel too"? That's a bit pathetic, don't you think? But still, given that you're attempting to defend an outdated, cruel and barbaric activity such as hunting, I suppose it should come as no surprise that this is the best argument you can muster. I also find it interesting that all you've seemed to do since you've arrived at this forum is to justify one form of killing or another.
I am not trying to defend hunting just show why people in the hunting community feel so pissed off at the prospect of a hunt ban. I don't personally like the idea of fox hunting, but then I don't like the idea of boxing either, but I don't try to force my ideas down other peoples throats. If you want to stop fox hunting then the way to do so is by reasoned argument not by using the law to impose something which is of personal conscience. I am trying to show that most people in the hunting community actually don't think it is a cruel sport. Just because we think its a cruel sport why should we impose our views on them?
Then it might be an idea to stop repeating their propaganda, eh? Does boxing have the intent of killing another living creature for entertainment? Look, I can see that this point is obviously hard to grasp for you, but there's been a reasoned argument. It's been won. As a result, hunting is now being banned. Just because you don't agree with the outcome, it doesn't mean that a debate has not been had. And I don't believe that hunting an animal to exhaustion and watching it get ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs should be a matter of 'personal conscience' any more than I believe that rape and murder should be a matter of 'personal conscience'. Maybe we shouldn't impose our views on paedophiles either, but rather argue with them rationally?
No the argument has not been won, the house of lords rejected an outright ban instead favouring a licencing system. They rejected an outright ban after hearing all the evidence about the impact it would have on rural communities as well as hearing the arguments for a ban. Out of both houses in Parliament therefore a majority of MPs opposed a ban.
LMAO, what complete and total bullshit! A 'majority of MPs'? Since when have Lords been "members of parliament"? MPs are considered to be the democratically elected representatives of the people of Britain - not hereditary and appointed peers! So your argument now hinges on the opinion of an unelected body? Keep scraping that barrel.
Treehouse you seem to be arguing for arguments sake and make no sense whatsoever. Good wo/man! Keep it up!:H
Why do they need controlling if there are other ways to stop them attacking farm animals? Or am I missing a point? Yeh you are right, however these other methods have got to be cost effective. I don’t know anything about the stuff your organic farmer friend, but I know from my job that sheep are not hugely profitably anyway, and a lot of farming is really a struggling industry. Again I don’t know the ins and outs, but with organic produce, with its higher market value it may well be feasible, but I don’t know weather any large scale operation of this type would be. 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. Look if your going to carry on answering that fox hunting is simply not a population control, at least give something substantial to back yourself up, not a study that is worthless. I actually got my calculations wrong 16000 is roughly 14% of 116000. 14% is a notable amount, an amount worth replacing in terms of most things including this. No they don't. Pro-hunting farmers might say they believe this, but this is just propaganda. Oh come on. Most people involved in rural jobs and the rural economy believe it’s a population control, and most don’t want it banned. In fact generally only those already very strongly anti-hunt, and those who want to believe that believe that. Free to torture and kill in the name of fun? Look, for the most part hunters do not hunt purely to “kill in the name of fun,” and even if there is a small number of them who do, and this is my point, whos to say tht is wrong. You evidently think it is, and so do I, but that doesn’t mean we can simply stop people doing it. In the same way, I disagree with probably every one of the BNPs policies, you probably do to, but I wouldn’t dream of telling them they can’t stand for election. Even though I think that every BNP member in any kind of power is dangerous and harmful. Or do you think that there's any other way to catch a fox? Ok this is you misunderstanding my point, its probably my fault but as I explained when I tried very inadequately to make this point, im not particularly good at expressing what I mean. Are you suggesting that the hounds are so much fitter than foxes that every one chased is chased to exhaustion? You may well be, but I would suggest that perhaps you’ve just accepted a conventional anti hunt argument. 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? What the BBC have vested financial interest? It has nothing to do with agenda, if you strongly believe something, especially if it is so morally ingrained and your trying, as pro and anti hunt groups obviously are to persuade someone to you opinion. Id think you’d be very likely to choose which evidence to put forward, which arguments to use, that’s bias. What part of that isn't democratic? To me anyway, democracy is about more than simply doing what the majority want, or voting for which ‘leader’ you want. Its more about freedom, rights and representation, including that of the minority. My point is democracy is more than what your making it out to be. Animal populations self-regulate. Yes but not necessarily at the correct, harmless level. Just look at humans, we self-regulate for the most part, but we self-regulate at such a high level that other populations would be, and have been seriously affected by the size of our population. So it's ok to continue a barbaric practice because it's convenient for disposing of dead animal bodies? There are other benefits of the hunt, as ive mentioned before, including the help farmers received from the hunts during the FAM oitbreak. I live in the countryside. Great, good for you, so do I, but what does that prove. I still don’t see what you have against regulating hunting to reduce, or remove any cruel aspect that may actually occur, or to remove intrusion, where this applies. As I have asked before please can we not debase ourselves to simply insulting each other with degrading comments: I think you're socially dysfunctional, Are you fucking retarded? Come on, just because I disagree with your opinions does not make me stupid, and does not warrant you making these comments, let alone making judgements like this. Have you heard of attacking the just the argument and not the person making it. It doesn’t do any good.
Just picking up one point here Yes you are right that minorities should be given freedoms within a democratic structure. However, the issue I have is very clear..... Murder is murder... whether it's a human, a dog or a fox... Animals can't speak for themselves so we have to be the mouthpiece for them. I know that animals kill each other in nature, but that is no excuse for us to do that aswell.... Surely humanity is supposed to be progressing positively? If we believe that, we should be looking inside ourselves and becoming more compassionate.... Ripping Foxes to shreads in the name of sport (or population contol ) doesn't fit that remit. What would the fox say if he had a chance to vote?
That would be such a good compromise, well its called a sport, at least this would guarantee a fair two sides like in a propar sport. Cummon, more violence in hunts than from drunken people on the streets after a night out? I disagree. Violence can come from anywhere, including animal rights protestors, there was a case on the local news of animal rights campaigners digging up the dead body of the mother of an animal tester. If you say all hunters are violoent to humans because some of them have hit someone, you could say that all animal rights protestors dig up bodies. Some hunters are violent, most are probably not. I agree though, there is no excuse for violence like that. I dont quite understand how this bill can encompass hunting with dogs, and there not be any bill include battery farming, or ritual slaughter techniques used. Or even testing on animals. Personally i think these should be banned.
The problem i have with your point is that a fox is not human. I believe animals have to have rights, but not the same rights as humans, they are not concious in the same way as humans. S yes animals should have rights and not be treated cruelly, but i dont believe hunting with hounds is as cruel as you believe. I think that an opinion on this must be based yes in part on the cruelty involved, but including other factors as well.
I accept your opinion.... but the cruelty factor outways all other factors in my opinion. The point you picked up on was out of context and also had a "" behind it... so was obviously a semi-joke.... but do as you wish
Yeh thats a fair enuff viewpoint. Its just how is it more cruel than shooting a fox, or snaring, and these are allowed to continue legally. Yeh i know, but i am stupid and didn't see the smiley thing (that i dont know how to use still). I think its still probably a legitimate comment, just not in reply to voting foxes.
Is that right. Well, let's see what Lord Whitty (pro-hunt) had to say on the matter: "My Lords, I certainly accept that a greater number would be killed by other means. The point I make is that a small percentage of the total deaths of foxes result from hunting with hounds. Clearly, there are different situations in different parts of the country, but the average is well below 10 per cent of all fox deaths." Bullshit. I live in the country, and I've hardly met a single person who's pro-hunting. I've certainly met nobody who believes hunting to be a form of population control! Everyone I've spoken to is perfectly aware that it's just 'entertainment'. Nice to see you showing your true colours. If you think killing in the name of fun is acceptable, then you're sub-human filth as far as I'm concerned, and barely worth wasting my breath on. And if hunters don't kill for fun, what exactly do you think they're doing out there? Bird spotting? Uhhhh.... wtf? Well I'd have no problem with fox hunting being put to the vote in a referendum. Ignorant crap. Foxes, when pursued, run as far and as fast as they can. Hounds, on the other hand, have been bred for their stamina. They do, however, run more slowly - thus prolonging the chase. Of course, if the hunt was really about pest control, it makes you wonder why they don't use greyhounds or lurchers - either of which would catch the fox very quickly. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Piss off. The majority of the country want hunting banned. The majority of MPs want hunting banned. The government has been elected with a manifesto commitment to get hunting banned (twice). You don't get more democratic that that. Oh please! We have food on demand, clothing, shelter, medicine...... and you think that the human population can be compared to the fox population?!? Humans don;t self-regulate because they've learned to manipulate their environment. If fox populations don't self-regulate, it makes you wonder how farmers manage to survive the onslaught of huge, roaming packs of slobbering foxes in those areas where they have no hunts, eh? Pay attention and you might have worked it out. I live in the countryside. I've yet to meet a single person whose livelihood depends on hunting. Sorry, I kinda think you're socially dysfunctional. *shrug* I never called you stupid. If you were stupid, I'd have more respect for you. As it is, you don't have the luxury of that excuse. You're justifying killing for pleasure in the full understanding of what you're doing. Pay fucking attention. I'm getting bored of wasting my breath on you. I explained myself adequately in the first instance, so I don't really see why I should bother doing so again. To help you along though, here's a clue - 'proportionately'. Hardly. Violence is extremely common amongst the hunt. I've seen it. You'd be hard pressed to find a more unpleasant bunch of sociopaths. I agree. It should all be banned. Still, hunting ain't a bad place to start. Yeah, you believe that humans should have the right to kill, but foxes shouldn't. Very clever.
But then wht happens? Foxes are preditors, if their population gets too high, because the rabbit population is higher, because they eat the crops we produce. What other species' are they going to eat, and by how much. Im not 100% on the details, im only an a level bio student, lol, but population control is a neccessary part of managing our impact on the countryside. Just like heathland is burned off to keep some species thriving.
Shit, makes you wonder how nature ever managed to regualte itself for all those millions of years before we came on the scene, eh? Thank fuck for humans. Where'd nature ever be without us?
My Lords, I certainly accept that a greater number would be killed by other means. Ok, I disagree with his stats, ill try an find some more at some point. But he also agrees that a larger number of foxes will be killed “by other means,” indicating his believe that fox hunting is a population control. Bullshit. I live in the country You have got to stop hiding behind this an similar statements. Fine you live in the countryside and this is your experience, just because you live there does not mean that you know about the countryside, it doesn’t mean that you speak to farmers ona regular basis, it could mean that you live in a little commuting village somewhere near London. To say “I live in the countryside,” is meaningless. So do I, I work on a farm, I deal with farmers and rural workers everyday that im at work, and I have a different experience of people’s opinions than you do. I have also provided other sources indicating at least some farmers beliefs that fox hunting is a population control. The NFU supports fox hunting, the body designed to represent the views and interests of farmers. If you think killing in the name of fun is acceptable Personally, I don’t. But I don’t agree that fox hunting is predominantly about directly enjoying the death of another animal, nor do I believe it to be particularly cruel, especially taking into account other things that are legally done to foxes. And nor do I believe taking my last comment into consideration that it is the right of anyone to force their views on to other people. Well I'd have no problem with fox hunting being put to the vote in a referendum. My point was to do with not taking away the rights of others, despite finding their views and actions dangerous and wrong. Or being morally opposed to them, ie racism and the like. have been bred for their stamina The mammalian body is evolved for either speed or stamina, or inverse degrees of both, not speed and stamina. The hounds will be running, or at least out and exercising for perhaps a whole day, it would be stupid to breed them for speed, which means that they will be very tired after a short amount of exercise. Ill use the cheetah as an example of my point, it can run very fast, but after a few minutes it can no longer run and must rest for a substantial length of time. it makes you wonder how farmers manage to survive the onslaught of huge, roaming packs of slobbering foxes in those areas where they have no hunts, eh? Perhaps they increase the use of shotguns and snares and the like. Perhaps there are not such large numbers of foxes in some areas than others. Besides I said that the population would self regulate, but at a much higher level than is harmless. I'm getting bored of wasting my breath on you Don’t then. You keep saying that everyone who argues is arguing using pro-hunt propaganda. Im sorry but I am seeing your argument as the same for the anti side. By the way, do you know the name of that study, I would like to look at it more thoughly?? Besides I understood what you meant I just disagreed with it. Yeah, you believe that humans should have the right to kill, but foxes shouldn't. Very clever. Sorry I don’t quite understand, how did you get that, I am writing in tongues again? What I mean is, yes animals should have rights, but not the same rights as humans. A fox does not have the same consciousness as a human, its death, will affect others in it species very little in an emotional sense, for example a fox will eat its own dead young. Okay, this is a very simplified analogy, but have you every killed a wasp or a bee? If so why was it not wrong for you to do so? Shit, makes you wonder how nature ever managed to regualte itself for all those millions of years before we came on the scene, eh? Thank fuck for humans. Where'd nature ever be without us? Yeh but it’s us that has screwed up the balance, large scale crop production is not a natural occurrence, rabbits is the Neolithic era didn’t suddenly come across a plentiful, virtually risk free food source in a field full of wheat. The volume of organisms from the producers (plants) is greater so everything else in the chain in thrown off balance, then the predator can eat other animals not part of the original chain (thereby not reaping the benefits of the increase in plant matter available) so this species’ population is reduced, is one example of problems caused. Another is the affect on humans that the increase in populations has (increased crop loss due to rabbits, chickens, lambs etc if not over stringently looked after, by foxes). I hope that helps in some way to explain my point.
Which nicely illustrates the hypocricy of the hunt. Whether few or many foxes are killed, you still argue that it's an important form of population control. Make your fucking minds up. Bullshit. Your point was that a ban would have a devastating effect on the countryside community. If this were the case, by the sheer law of averages you'd expect that I might have bumped into at least one person who thought it would directly affect them, what with this being the country 'n' all. Ah, I see. So by the 'rural community', you actually just mean farmers? The NFU supports battery farming. Big fucking deal. I suppose that's just coincidence then? Ripping a fox to shreds? Here we go again. Let me remind you: hunting an animal to exhaustion and ripping it to shreds is cruel. It's really not that complicated. Well, not unless you have an agenda of cruelty I suppose. That happens every day, muppet. It's called "law and order". Laws get passed. Some people don't agree with them. They have to live with it. I agree entirely. Just like racists, hunters should be free to express their views. It's just the practice of them that should be illegal. I'm glad to see you agree with me. Obviously, if the cheetah was to run for extended periods of time instead of resting, it could reasonably be defined as being exhausted. Oh, I see. So it'll self-regulate, but just to a level conveniently high enough to justify hunting? What a coincidence! I know, I'm shamelessly biased towards not killing living creatures for sport. Evil, huh? No, you just don't seem able to follow your own line of reasoning. You argue that humans should be free to kill whatever they want, but as soon as a fox picks of a chicken it needs hunting and killing. Quite. You believe humans should be allowed to kill for sport, but foxes shouldn't be allowed to kill to survive. No, actually. I don't kill wasps and bees. And to follow your analogy, if an advanced species arrived on Earth from another planet, they'd be perfectly justified in butchering us because we were, comparitively, less developed than them. I see. So we've screwed up the balance, but you're suggesting that we're best placed to restore the balance by.... oooh, screwing with the balance again? Genius! Humans obviously have such a good track record in this department. All of which, of course (as I'm sure is your intention), somewhat diverts us from the point: hunting an animal to the point of exhaustion and then watching it get ripped apart for 'sport' is an outdated, cruel and barbaric activity that belongs in the history books.
