Pro Hunt / Anti Hunt Debate (split from Toffbusters)

Discussion in 'UK Parties and Protests' started by dibblydowcus, Dec 18, 2004.

  1. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    OI, I DON'T REMEMBER STARTING THIS THREAD!!There was a recent case here in Scotland you might have heard about...if not, hunting with dogs has been banned under Scottish law for a while now, however the first test of the 'teeth' (excuse the pun) of this law came when a farmer, and hunt co-ordinator was taken to court for using dogs to kill a fox. He clamed that he was simply walking the dogs when they flushed out a fox and destroyed it. Which, for some reason, it not illegal. In England the same loop hole exists, however there can only be 2 dogs attacking any fox for it to be 'accidental' death.
    The farmer walked from the court a free man.
    This just goes to show how this bill is utterly unenforceable. Hunters in England and Wales will be able to continue almost unimpeeded, and make a mockery of the law.

    All this I feel in any case is a smoke screen obsquring the important issue of Iraq, and Blair's role in manipulating facts to justify an illegal invasion. We almost never hear about this on the news and it's safe to say he's got away with it again.
    I'm not denigrating the importance of the hunting with dogs bill, but I do feel that we are arguing over something which is taking the country round and round in circles. And all this retoric about 'class war', and incidents like the dead cow tipping at the Labour party conference are irrational and imflammatory.
    If it's class you want to fight, know your enemy. Most of the people who support the hunt, are people dependant economically on it's survival. It's not the days of the British Raj anymore!
  2. bluegill

    bluegill Member

    i think its a god damn shame that people can't enjoy the sport of hunting, with dog's, which were bred to and love to hunt, for the sake of 1 group of people....since the begining of time man has used dogs to hunt, though we need not hunt like we used to , there is still a certain mystique about it....these hunters have to put alot of time and effort into teir sport....the dogs don't just pop out hunting, like so many on here think......these people have put alot of time into training and care....and now, on account of a handful of whiny asses, with degree's, who have NO CONCEPT of the reality of the sport, who think that a fox is too pretty to hunt.......even though, 80% of the time the damn thing isn't even killed....i mean come the fuck on....if someone tried to stop me from hunting with my dogs....i doubt they'd try very long.....and i hope to hell that you brits that do hunt stand up for your rights and tell the jack asses who try to arrest you to fuck off..........fuckin ridiculous ass law........come on people gets some balls.....end rant
  3. Alomiakoda

    Alomiakoda Boniface McSporran

    Has Treehouse come back?:p
  4. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    Look, fair enough, it's a stupid law, made by city folk who really don't have a concept of the processes of train dogs to kill (in the main part!).

    But let me respond to your rant, as a city dweller, and non-dog owner.

    You say that 80% of the time the fox isn't killed. Firstly, I'm suspicious of your source, it seems very round figured. Secondly, those that are killed, are not shot and have a swift death. And this is what people object to, it's the fact that the animal is chased for some 10-20 miles, caught and ripped to pieces. It's a question of animal rights. At some point a society has to ask it's self 'to what standards are we obliged to load ourselves in the treatment of other creatures'. And that's not some 'whiny asses' who question this method of death (as it could equally be called, rather than sport).

    Do you agree with the clubbing of seal cubs?

    Do you condone the wearing of real fur?

    Do you support vivisection?

    Should you hunt 'live' via the internet?

    All these are tied into the larger question I mentioned, of whether there are more 'humane' killing methods we could employ.
    One of the arguements hunters give is that the Fox is a pest and attacks sheep. Well, if that is the case then fine, shot it. For which you would need one or two dogs at the most. Not a retinue of animals trained to kill followed by numerous horsebacked riders baying for blood!

    I don't agree with these Countryside Alliance people, who would resort to violence to stop a hunt. I don't think violence can be meet with violence to reach an equitable goal. And I certainly don't think that comments like; "tell the jack asses who try to arrest you to fuck off..........fuckin ridiculous ass law........come on people gets some balls....." Have any place in a debate on this subject. Along with, I might add, retoric of 'class warfare'!
  5. Claire

    Claire Senior Member

    huh?...Countryside Alliance are pro hunt!:p
  6. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    Your right Claire, 'skuse that. Replace with Animal Liberation Front.
  7. Claire

    Claire Senior Member

    I guess they feel they are protecting life in all its forms....i am in awe that they put themselves up for such kicking week after week.....cos it's never the aLF that come off best:(
  8. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    I don't doubt it, since the police are often quick to wade in. But I'm refering in the main to the idea of a violent protest. I'm not a Gandian and don't think non-cooperation would work in this case. But I would lean more towards the standpoint of non-violent resitence as not only preferable for the people involved, but also as a tool for courting public support. I think it detracts from a perfectly valid cause to have the message overshadowed by violence. Even, I would argue, the 'custard pie' approach is too much. To attack someone in that way is obviously more about the humiliation inflicted than the message intended.

    And in this way I'd say that ALF violence is not the answer. As it's more about redressing the imbalance of power physically than the message.
  9. Claire

    Claire Senior Member

    what if they dont listen to the message? the alf keep letting lifes die?:( ...a few bruises etc versus death....eeeekkkk! ...whats the answer?:&
  10. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    The Hunt Sabs are the group who organise the vast majority of anti-hunt action in the field in this country. Not the ALF. And certainly not the countryside alliance. Getting this fundamental detail right might add a little credibility to your arguments.
  11. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    Perhaps there's no way to avoid 'a few bruises', I'm not against protesting where people would put themselves into a situation that might present physical danger. What I'm against is the active pursuit of confrontation, for an ideological purpose. As for the message and 'getting listened to', I think the pro-hunt strategy is more efficient in their method. It would be advisable, I think, for the anti-hunt organisations to encourage greater media exposure through the use of image.
    . For instance, joining the hunt on horse back armed with cameras to record the full scene.
    . Turning up to political press conferences, to countermand the pro-lobbyists.
    . If need be, focusing on one aspect of the issue above the really topic, i.e the physioloical effects of the hunt on the fox, or the dog's mecanisims in killing the fox.
    . In the way the anti-fir lobbyist used celebraties dressed in coats with blood oozing from them.
  12. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    Look, it's usually a good idea to have an idea what you're talking about before you start offering advice on a subject. Hunt sabs have been following hunts with cameras and camcorders for years. Despite the inherent difficulty that this presents (where, exactly, do you suggest that sabs obtain horses? How do you suggest they obtain riding lessons? How do you think they feel about subjecting horses to the potential danger of such a pursuit), much video and pictorial evidence has already been gathered. Oh yeah, and that's despite the attacks and beatings that people have regularly been subjected to for the crime of pointing a camera in the direction of the hunt.
  13. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    If you had read and understood the content of my posts, you would have realised that a dispute over the statisitics of who does more is not the purpose of the tread. The mode of protest is in question in my posts.
    Although having heard about your style and read some of your post, I know not to take your mental myopia seriously.
  14. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    You've levelled a criticism at a specific group. The ALF are not involved in opposition to hunting in the field. The countryside alliance certainly are not. Your ignorance of the organisation that you're apparently criticising undermines your argument. That has nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with the content of your posts.

    I think by resorting to personal abuse you've more than adequately demonstrated what an ignorant little shit you are, so I won't worry about taking you seriously either :)
  15. dibblydowcus

    dibblydowcus Member

    That's enough little man, sit down.
    My 'Myopia' comment was directed at your inability to focus on the whole issue raised in my original post.
    As I conceeded to Clare, the Countryside Alliance is not the group in question. I could have edited that out of my post, but chose not to and instead wrote a correction.
  16. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    Nice riposte. I cower before the might of your intellect. Not too sure why you're talking to your penis though ;)
  17. matthew

    matthew Almost sexy

    Why not work with the RSPCA ... or in co-operation with the police.. I can see this is prety dull and working with the fascist pigs might irk some people ... but thats what i would do.. Getting up at the crack of dawn ... shouting blue murder at the hunters has achieved what ?? confrontation aggravation and a complete lack of respect for each others point of view imho.

    As for the ALF/The Justice Department/Hunt Retribution Squad .. letting animals into the 'wild' and calling it 'freedom' is missing the point were the poor things can't survive and die ... short lived freedom compared to 'torture' i suppose the reasoning is ?.
  18. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    I agree with the first part of this, but if by "getting up at the crack of dawn" etc you mean hunt sabbing, I'd have to disagree. It's achieved a lot. The hunt sabs have been the ones actually putting their princples into action and saving the lives of fixes. I've met very few sabs who waste their breath arguing with the hunt. They just get on with the job at hand.

    Animal liberationists only release animals that are capable of surviving in the wild in this county. Domesticated animals, non-native species and animals that are too frail to survive are all re-homed.
  19. Koolaid

    Koolaid Member

    Not necessarily true as has been demonstrated over the years with minks etc being released..

    I am 100% against hunting and believe a number of valid points have been raised here..Dok I think you may have been a little harsh on the poor guy he was just trying to get a point across and a heart in the right place is always a good start to have....

    I am not sure anymore what point is being argued anymore, are we arguing methods of sabotaging hunts, or who does it or whether it should be done at all or are we just having a good old christmas crack at the class war debate...

    I think the best thing to do is the best you can..Get out there and protest at all opportunities, get out there and shout abuse at the twats who think hunting is FUN!!! Go out and put posters up do what you can but do it for the right reasons and do it together...Every persons contribution no matter how small or badly put matters and we are all on the same side at the end of the day....
  20. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    Yeah, there's always gonna be a couple of idiots in any movement though. These incidents are very rare however.

    I agree. I would point out, however, that I was only truly harsh once he started spouting personl abuse out of the blue. Prior to that, I was simply pointing out the obvious gaps in his understanding of the topic. Offering advice on a subject about which you're ill-informed is always gonna be a bad idea.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice