That's because it won't be. Her majesty's constabulary vs. a few toffs on horses. Know which side my money's gonna be on.
But the countryside is vast it is immpossible to patrol the whole countryside! There is loads and loads of land where it would be possible to carry out illegal fox hunts at secret location. For example have a look at Dartmoor on the map its nearly the size of London!
Oh.... hang on...... so you're suggesting that people would hunt foxes wherever they could? Wouldn't that mean..... well..... that they were doing it for fun? And there was silly old me thinking it was about pest control! You keep contradicting yourself and undermining your own arguments. Keep up the good work!
But the conservatives plan to repeal the hunt ban when they get elected which proves a hunt ban is a non-starter.
Dick head. The Tories stand about as much chance of getting elected as pigs have of flying. Even if they do get elected, they'll never repeal the ban in exactly the same way as the Labour party failed to repeal the union legislation of the tories. But you know all this. You're just being a trollish twat. Glad you're leaving. Don't let the door slam behind you.
Well, I just read ALL of this topic in one go! FIrstly, I will say that personally I grew up in a country village but went to a suburban school. I am opposed to hunting with dogs on a personal level (ie I would not do it myself). Showmet made some really excellent philosophical points earlier on with which I agree wholeheartedly. DoctorAtomik started out making some interesting arguments but degenerated quickly and has come across as a highly abusive extremist with a very closed mind and an inability to listen to anyone elses point of view. Chill out mate! Firstly, the population issue - if the fox population were not controlled by culling it would not self control adequately, what would happen is the population would increase to a certain level where the foxes would just about survive on the available food, they would then be constantly hungry and would frequently resort to attacking farm animals. Population management keeps the levels down to the point where foxes are rarely hungry enough to attack farm animals and go for easier targets like rabbits. I would doubt that your figures on road deaths etc. are accurate anyway because they probably include urban foxes which are irrelevant to the debate! Each fox which a hunt kills will, over the course of its life, chase to exhaustion and tear to shreds dozens of cute fluffy animals, whose lives will be saved by killing the fox... which is the lesser evil? Hunting with dogs may only account for 10% of culling but that 10% will still need to be killed otherwise the population would increase 10% every year and therefore DOUBLE in about eight years! Since it is mostly accepted that shooting the fox is just as cruel as hunting with dogs, there will be no change in the amount of cruelty to foxes as a result of the ban because those 10% WILL have to be shot instead. For me though, none of that is the real issue. I would never take part in a fox hunt myself, but I simply do not believe I have the right to force another human being to live according to my own beliefs. If you want people to stop hunting, you can educate them, put up posters, give them leaflets, give them the information to MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION, but it is totally wrong for the majority to repress the minority in this way. Having been involved in free parties for some years, I have direct experience of what it is like to be in a minority who believe we are doing the right thing but have been outlawed by the government. This is an issue which only affects the countryside, and if a referendum was taken of people in living and working in the countryside, there would be no ban. This is essentially about city people telling country people how to live their lives because more people live in cities than the country. That is the very ugly side of democracy. The danger of going down this road is deciding where to stop - should we ban peaceful protests just because the majority of people don't take part? If you force the majority view onto how people live their daily lives you soon end up living in a police state - the precedent this sets for the government to outlaw any group which doesn't conform to the 'norms' of society is terrifying - will the hippy lifestyle be the next one to be outlawed? my 2p.
Well you've managed to make a prick out of yourself really quickly. Well done! Yes, I'm an extremist. Wanting to protect wild animals from a bunch of twats pursuing them around the countryside with a pack of dogs is obviously an extreme position. Far more extreme, obviously, than say.... chasing a wild animal around the countryside with a pack of dogs. Yes, after a particular point, I do become abusive. You're entirely correct in that regard. I don't easily suffer fools, and while I'm quite willing to enter into polite, intelligent debate, I don't feel inclined to pussy-foot around morons who seem to believe that cruelty is somehow acceptable. If that bothers you, my heart bleeds. I'm not your mate, and I don't feel any inclination to 'chill out' (you're not at a free party now, by the way. Mate.). Why should I be 'chilled out' about an issue that deserves a passionate response? Just because you don't think it's important? What a load of shite. Perhaps the black rights movement should've 'chilled out' rather than getting all worked up about something? Or perhaps we should 'chill out' over the war with Iraq? Absolute bollocks. The problem with people like you is that you just repeat the propaganda that you've heard on the TV without actually having any understanding of the issue at hand. If what you say were true, given the negligible impact of fox hunting on overall numbers, the fox population would already be out of control. Which it patently isn't. Furthermore, animal populations self-regulate to the level of the available food supply. When culled, breeding will often increase to compensate for attempted human intervention. And in case you hadn't noticed, humans don't exactly have a shining track record of managing to get anything right once they start to interfere with nature. The lesser evil would be the fox, since it's killing predominantly for food, and presumably doesn't possess a refined sense of morality. And what's 'fluffy' got to do with anything? Are you making the extremely ignorant assumption than an opposition to fox hunting is based upon the cuteness of the prey? Oh please. And I'm sure the fox population will carry on increasing forever until they take over the whole world, and we're all slaves to our evil fox masters! Myth. As has been established, animal populations self-regulate. Even were this not the case, shooting is far less cruel than ripping an animal apart with a pack of dogs. That's the most vacuous, idiotic argument I've ever heard! According to such a philosophy, we'd still have bear baiting and cock fighting. In fact, we wouldn't have a single piece of animal welfare legislation on the statute book. As soon as you have laws, you're forcing another human being to live according to your beliefs. That's how civilised societies work. The way you're bleating on you'd think someone was attempting to remove their right to religious worship! Apparently, their right to pursue a cruel and barbaric 'sport' is more important than the right of an animal to live free from exploitation for human 'fun'. Good analogy. Are you sacrificing chickens at free parties now? The abuse of animals affects us all, no matter where we live. Morality isn't confined by geographic boundaries. What if child abuse was being practiced in the countryside? Would you say the same thing? I seriously doubt it. What this demonstrates is your singular lack of concern or compassion for non-human forms of life. Bullshit. Of the people who live in the countryside, the majority of those with whom I've spoken are anti-hunting. Again, you're just spouting propaganda. Genius! Somehow you've made the leap from banning a cruel sport to the imposition of a police state! And you wonder why I have a hard time being polite to idiots like you. Did banning cock fighting lead to a police state? Did banning bear baiting lead to a police state? Did laws protecting the abuse of animals in other walks of life lead to a police state? This is pathetic. The hunt seeks to dress itself in the language of the civil rights movement in order to disguise the barbarity at its heart. Frankly, anyone with more than a passing interest in human rights should find this deeply offensive. Just in case anyone's forgotten - hunting is the practice of chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion, then watching as it gets ripped apart by a pack of dogs. If you think the freedom to pursue such an activity is a 'human right', you're an idiot. PS. For someone who's allegedly read the whole topic, you seem to have repeated all the same tired old shite that's already been discussed to death a hundred times before.
Interesting. Do you believe that murder is wrong? Rape is wrong? Theft is wrong? I imagine you do, but of course, you'd never stop anyone commiting those things because you don't believe you have the right to. How noble. God forbid anyone should ever make any changes for the better in the world.
Personally I think fishing is a crueler sport. Every week up and down the UK in rivers and lakes thousands and thousands of fish are killed for the sake of sport. or fun. Surely the collective cruelty suffered by fish far outweighs that of a few dozen foxes? Besides foxes piss me off. They keep me up at night with their wailing and then go through the bins and leave rubbish all over the place. Fish on the other hand are calm, tranquil and elegant creatures that never hurt anyone (except for sharks) yet I don't see anyone fighting their cause. Does anyone know of any fishing saboteur groups that I could join.
I could say the same about beer boys. Doesn't mean I want to hunt them down with a pack of dogs. http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/
Hmm.. hunting Beer Boys with dogs...that sounds like a good idea. Could make good television as well.
Don't know if this has been covered but anyway i was wondering about scotlands ban..is it working does anyone know ?? i have read that not many Hunts have been disbanded they just don't use dogs anymore ..merely shoot the poor blighters with shot guns. ?? . is this true. Also one of the legal ways to kill a fox on a farmers land is with a gruesome snare..does this kill other aniamls as well ??.
Scotland bans hunting The Scottish Parliament went through a long and tortuous procedure on the road to a ban on hunting in Scotland. Mike Watson MSP announced his intention to introduce a Members Bill to ban hunting with dogs in Scotland in Autumn 1999. He was supported in this by many MSPs including Tricia Marwick MSP and Bristow Muldoon MSP. Following lengthy consideration in the hostile Rural Development Committee, the Parliament rejected a negative committee report voting on September 19, 2001 in favour of the general principles of the Bill by 84 votes to 34. The Bill was then sent back to the Rural Development Committee for line by line butchery, and returned to the Parliament on February 13, 2002 where MSPs reversed a series of committee amendments and passed the Bill by 83 votes to 36. The revised Bill obtained Royal Assent in March and became an Act of the Scottish Parliament, the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act. on March 15, 2002. Following the laying before the Scottish Parliament of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002 it was brought into effect on August 1, 2002. Hunting with dogs is now illegal in Scotland. You may have seen media reports that hunts in Scotland have been going out with dogs, flushing to guns, and that the dogs have killed foxes in the course of that activity. One report in the Telegraph (14/11/2002) stated that hunts are taking advantage of the flushing amendment and that the Kincardineshire hunt "used hounds to despatch a fox". Despite media speculation to the contrary, the hunt ban imposed on the 1st August 2002 is achieving its objective of banning hunting with dogs. It bans the hunting, mounted or on foot, of wild mammals, including foxes with dogs, where the dogs are used to chase and kill the fox, hare coursing, lurcher work, mink hunting and the use of dogs to fight foxes underground. Hunting deer with dogs has been illegal in Scotland since 1959. The real truth is that : o The Berwickshire hunt has acquired a pack of blood hounds to conduct a form of drag hunting o A new drag hunt has started in Fife o The Dumfriesshire hunt has disbanded o Allan Murray, of the Scottish Countryside Alliance, stated on BBC Southwest that the Duke of Buccleuch's hunt were not going out hunting as hunting with dogs is outlawed in Scotland, but that they were operating within the limits of the law There have been two petitions entered against the Act on European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grounds, one by Trevor Adams and others, and one by Messers Friend and Whaley. Both of these have been deemed incompetent and have been thrown out by Scottish Courts. These cases seek judicial review of the Act, they ultimately want the Act to be struck out because they claim it contravenes their human rights. They have both been dismissed by Scottish Courts. The initial decision was appealed by th e hunters, which was again rejected in May 2004. This clearly shows to the Government that there are no human rights obstacles for legislating for a ban on hunting in England and Wales. The League Against Cruel Sports will continue to monitor the situation in Scotland carefully, both on the ground and in the various court cases. We feel confident that as the campaign progresses in England and Wales, the hunting ban in Scotland will be seen to set an important precedent that a ban on hunting is achievable. A recent decision by the Scottish Courts has proved that the Act does not breach any human rights. The current situation in Scotland Hunting with dogs is now illegal in Scotland. The Countryside Alliance took the Scottish Executive to court in a bid to have the ban over-turned, but the decision of the Court was to dismiss the appeal as "incompetent." Click here for more details on what was discussed in the Court Case. The judge dismissed the petition as incompetent, ruling that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that the Act does not interfere with the private lives of the petitioners (under Article 8), that there are no infringements of ECHR relating to the control of their possessions (under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention) and that it does not discriminate against the petitioners (under Article 14). There have been two petitions entered against the Act on European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grounds, one by Trevor Adams and others, and one by Messers Friend and Whaley. Both of these have been deemed incompetent and have been thrown out by Scottish Courts. These cases seek judicial review of the Act, they ultimately want the Act to be struck out because they claim it contravenes their human rights. They have both been dismissed by Scottish Courts. The initial decision was appealed by the hunters, which was again rejected in May 2004. This clearly shows to the Government that there are no human rights obstacles for legislating for a ban on hunting in England and Wales. The League Against Cruel Sports will continue to monitor the situation in Scotland carefully, both on the ground and in the various court cases. We feel confident that as the campaign progresses in England and Wales, the hunting ban in Scotland will be seen to set an important precedent that a ban on hunting is achievable. http://www.league.uk.com/politics/scotland/
On the contrary, I don't believe that you can say anything is ALWAYS wrong, there might just occasionally be circumstances where murder is right because it would prevent a greater evil. Some people may believe (rightly or wrongly) that fox hunting is right because it might prevent the greater perceived evil of farm animals being killed by foxes. They might be right, they might be wrong but it certainly hasn't been proven either way so we have no right to interfere in this case, just to educate. Doctor Atomik has clearly not read my last post properly before replying - to reinforce what I said, yes - the fox population WOULD self regulate but because the fox population has no natural predators left, the population will only self regulate when foxes start dying in huge numbers of starvation, at which point they will be desperate for food and attacks on farm animals would increase dramatically. Is death by starvation really preferable to death by hunting, because thats what 'self regulation' of the fox population actually means. If you must have 'natural' population control, then there is an alternative - to reintroduce the wild species such as wolves which might naturally hunt foxes. Oh, but what do those wild predators do? Chase the foxes to exhaustion and tear them to pieces (naturally!). Or should we start leaving condoms out for the foxes so they can self regulate their own population? Think of the outcry from the catholic church!
Rubbish. No moral case can ever be proven. It's simply a matter of accepted social norms. The majority view of the country and of parliament is that fox hunting is morally unacceptable, and therefore this has now been reflected in legislation. You really are setting out to be an arrogant shithead, aren't you? Again, you're mixing fact and fiction. Animal populations self-regulate based on reproductive rates, not by starving to death a portion of the population once born. Animal populations generally stabilise according to the available food supply, so the level of the fox population is unlikely to be affected by hunting one way or the other. To suggest that banning hunting is going to result in a countryside full of starving foxes is laughably infantile. However, wolves don't do it for fun Of course, this is still a flawed line of reasoning. Given the negligible impact of hunting on overall fox numbers, according to your theory we should already be seeing a fox population that's out of control and breeding wildly. Where is it, huh? I'd far rather leave condoms out for stupid people in the hope that they might stop breeding. Perhaps country manors would be a good place to start?
But if it is acceptable for the majority accepted social norms to force their opinions on the minority, surely they can now pick on any minority they want? Very dangerous. That comment says a lot more about you than it does about me. You are clearly highly intolerant, have a blinkered viewpoint and a closed mind. I wonder why you are on the hippy forums, surely a big part of being a hippy community is about open-mindedness, understanding and tolerance? You appear to have an irrational hatred of anyone who disagrees with you. You contradict yourself - either they stabilise due to reproductive rates or according to the food supply. Foxes can't stabilise reproductive rates - a vixen will have x amount of cubs whether she is hungry or not, they will just be less healthy if she is starved. Reproductive rates remain pretty constant whatever, until the countryside is saturated with foxes and they are starved to death. The normal rules of population self regulation simply dont apply to foxes because the natural predators are all extinct. The reason population levels DONT explode is because people kill foxes by various means to keep levels stable. If the population gets high in an area and farm animals start getting killed, the farmers calls in the local hunt, or a bloke with a shotgun, to sort it out. The ban will only change the method by which a small number of the foxes are killed, they still have to die one way or another. The population will not actually increase because farmers will just find other (possiblymore cruel) ways to kill the fox. But all that is beside the point. The point is none of us has the right to tell another human being how to live their life unless their actions are proven to be harming ourself or someone else. If you go as far as to class the fox as 'someone else', then you must also class the farm animals which the fox kills as 'someone else' and you are saving their lives by killing the fox. The foxes are already largely controlled by shooting not hunting with dogs. The ban will simply result in more foxes being shot instead of killed by dogs, so as to maintain the same population. Not one fox will be 'saved'. Sorry to break this to you but your arguments about population simply don't make logical sense or fit with known and proven scientific theories of how animal populations control themselves. Foxes in the UK cannot control their own population at any level which is acceptable to the human population due to our foolish destruction of their natural predators. The british contryside has been managed by humans for millennia and is now no longer capable of sustaining itself without that management. Very sad but true I'm afraid. If we gave up on the idea of farming and imported all our food then sure enough the natural animalpopulations would eventually sort themselves out, but I don't think importing all our food is an ecologically sound thing to do.
Thats a thing I have been trying to explain to people on here for ages but they wont listen! And another thing the farmer, most farmers infact consider the fox a pest especially at lambing time when young lambs are at risk from foxes. And you cant keep a flock of sheep in a shed they have to roam around to graze on the grass.
