What I don't get about fox hunting is that basically, the people in favour of it claim that it is a method of population control (I don't believe it is) and, regardless of which proportion or which figure of foxes it kills or not, wouldn't it be easier (from their perspective) to just use a sniper rifle or something? Think about it. You're going out to supposedly sustain the population of an animal. You believe the numbers of that animal to be way, way high. Surely you'd be looking for a much quicker way to hunt and kill them than chasing them for potentially hours on horseback and with 30 hounds. Wouldn't that be a big waste of time and resources for your population control efforts? Does seem rather unnecessary for the sake of achieving that proclaimed goal.
And isn't it interesting how the very same people who go out shooting for a hobby suddenly start arguing that shooting's cruel when anyone suggests it as a method of fox population control (which obviously isn't needed in the first place)?
I was talking to someone the other day whose local farmer regularly goes out at night, shooting rabbits as a form of 'population control'. He doesn't collect the carcasses to use them for food, instead he leaves them there for foxes to feed on instead ... Where is the logic in that?
Shooting foxes is cruel because it is not done by trained sportsman who know how to do a clean kill. When hunters kill by shooting they shoot either slow moving animals like deer and aim for the heart producing an instant kill, or else birds like phesants who are instantly killing by the impact of a shotgun blast. A clean kill with foxes is much harder to achieve as foxes move fast and so its difficult to aim for the heart. They are also much bigger than phesants and so are not instantly killed by the impact of gun shot. So shooting them often results in injury with the fox dying a slow death through loss of blood or gangrene. Especially when done by farmers for pest control who are using inaccurate shotguns and not the accurate rifles used by deer hunters.
Not got bored of arguing in favour of killing yet then? So it's beyond the ability of farmers to learn how to use a gun properly? And last time I checked, rabbits were a lot smaller than foxes. Funny how they can hit a rabbit but not a fox, huh? Not to mention that it still seems a little suspicious to find farmers suddenly reluctant to shoot things.... So again, farmers are able to hit rabbits at a distance, but killing a fox with a clean shot is beyond their skill? That's some good shit you're smoking. Of course, as always, these are the sort of ridiculous points you're reduced to arguing over in order to detract from the central fact that 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. Did you just come to these boards with the single purpose of advocating killing in one form or another, or do you actually have anything humane to contribute?
No it is you who is inhumane, if people like you were in power, then Milosivic would have ethnically cleansed all of Bosnia and Kosovo, The Taliban and Saddam would still be in power in Iraq terrorising and torturing dissidents. If you want to know just how evil and barbaric these regimes were then speak to a Bosnian, Afghan or Iraq refugee. Now people like you in the so called peace movement want to abandon the Iraqi people to the Islamic fundamentalist militias who want to turn Iraq into an Iranian style fundamentalist muslim state. Just because most wars are wrong such as Vietnam does not mean that all wars are wrong. If we never went to war as you want then rogue dictators and fundamentalists like Akl Qaeda would rule the world. You would also throw thousands of people out of their jobs and many their homes, waste two million pounds a year of public money on banning a sport which is centuries old and which is not actually seen by most people as very cruel. A fox is killed very quickly by a pack of hounds on being caught, usually with the first hound biting through the neck and severing the spinal collumn so causing almost instanious death, before it is ripped to pieces by the other hounds. If fox hunting was as cruel as you claim it is then the RSPCA founded in 1871 would have lobbied the government for a ban many, many years ago.
This has been discussed thoroughly already so I'll just pick up on two points: 1. most people DO see it as cruel 2. I don't know whether the RSPCA have lobbied against this or not... but that is unimportant. The RSPCA is a charity against the cruelty of animals, it isn't the only charity there is. Their view is one view amongst many. Trying to use them as a pro-hunt argument dosn't wash. Gees this is getting tedious... but we shall no doubt continue
TREEHOUSE. I know this thread is a little long for you but you might try reading it incase you miss anything, know what I mean? Do keep up! Oh bollocks I'm feeling generous....http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCACampaigns/Banhunting/BanhuntingHomepage
LMAO, well you've really hit rock-bottom, right after I thought you couldn't sink any further! So by opposing hunting, I'm supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosovic? I mean I know it's a struggle to find an argument in favour of hunting, but there are limits, dude. You're just making yourself look silly now. I can see why you might want to turn a debate on hunting into a debate on Iraq, seeing as there's fuck-all justification for hunting an animal to exhaustion and watching it get ripped apart by a pack of dogs, but I'm afraid I'm not going to humour you there. So rant away to yourself in your own little corner, ok? Yes, all these mythical people whose jobs depend on hunting, who I've never met a single one of despite living in the countryside for over ten years. Oh, and do I suppose you'd have kept the concentration camps open to protect the local economy? Aha! You've given yourself away, I'm afraid. So not pest control then, but a sport? An activity which people indulge in for fun? For shits 'n' giggles? Not to mention that it will only cost money to enforce if the semi-human filth who enjoy such a 'sport' break the law. Which kinda makes them the ones wasting the money, not me. Maybe not in your local conservative club. I assume that's where you drink? But I can assure you that most people I've ever spoken to view it as barbaric. And that holds true in my current home in the countryside. Again, I have to ask.... how exactly do you imagine that in the middle of an assauly by an entire pack of dogs, one hound magically manages to kill with a swift bite to the neck every time? Seems a little unlikely, doesn't it? Fox hunting involves hunting an animal to exhaustion, which is then killed by being ripped apart by a pack of dogs. If you don't think it sounds too bad, I suggest you try it some time. Here's a clue. ROYAL Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
I was just showing how out of touch your morality was, as you seem to see things in simple terms ie war = bad, which it is, so your logic = never use war. Fox hunting = bad, which it is, so your logic = ban all fox hunting. You are not looking at the implications and consequences of those simplistic statments. I personally don't like the idea of fox hunting. But! I don't want to see thousands of people put out of work, I don't want to see 26,000 hounds slaughtered, I don't want to see police resources wasted, I don't want tax money wasted enforcing a ban, I don't want to see rural businesses which depend on hunting go to the wall. In my personal opinion the consequences of a ban outweigh the advantages. The advantage being that instead of hunted with dogs foxes will instead be shot, trapped and poisoned and we can all feel good about ourselves for banning a cruel sport. Thats not much of an advantage in my opinion. It is the same with your opinion on war, yes war is always bad, but sometimes the consequences of not going to war are worse than of going to war. Infact I can't think of a better reason for going to war, than to remove a regime as evil and cruel as Saddam's was. You seem to have difficulty weighing up all the pros and cons of a situation. Maybe its because you only read left wing newspapers, while I read both left leaning like The Mirror and right leaning newspapers like the Sun so I hear the whole argument, not just one biased view all the time.
You guys really shouldn't encourage the TREE...he's positively barking! Although reading his rants are working wonders on my insomnia, thank you for that. Here is a link I'm sure you'll all enjoy! http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rpm/rap/rap1.html Night night!
