Fox Hunting. Opinions please.

Flukey

On Monday in the "The stupidest thing anyone has said to me today is:" thread I put up the following post:

Well not said as such, but from a regular contributor on another board that I post on, in relation to fox-hunting saboteurs:

Fresh from imposing their Puritanical will on England, the British anti-hunt fascist groups are threatening to export their politics of envy, class warrior crusade to Ireland.
They say they will come over here mob handed and teach local saboteurs how best to disrupt a good day's sport.

My reply was:

You mean they are going to disrupt Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer, Rugby, Golf, Basketball, Athletics, Cycling etc?
Imagine that. Here was I thinking they were coming to disrupt the disgusting, inhumane, savage practice of men and women in circus outfits riding around the country with dogs, ripping foxes to shreds for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then calling this barbaric escapade sport.

I got some positive and negative reps points in response and through subsequent correspondence by PMs on the issue I decided to put up this thread to test the opinions. I am sure it has been done before, but it has become topical again of late.

I have never heard any justification for it that stands up. People can still ride through the country all they want, they just don't have to kill foxes to do it. I've often seen people riding horses and they were able to do it without killing a fox, so the hunters can too. They can still have their day out riding through the country having all the fun they want. I have no problem with that, but all that can be done without killing anything.

Foxes are vermin we are told. They do indeed kill chickens and hit farmers livelihoods etc. They are doing that to eat, the same reason as the farmer keeps his animals. The foxes do indeed get in and cause a lot of damage, killing a lot of chickens and maybe only eating one or two. So a lot of them get killed for nothing. Strange then the pro-hunt people criticise the fox for that, but see no problem when they do the same. If farmers want to protect their poultry and other animals, there are lots of ways of doing it if they want to, that doesn't involve killing foxes. They can make stronger hen houses for them. Chicken wire isn't very strong so they could get something stronger. They claim that is expensive, which is true. But if on the other hand they are losing money by not doing so, isn't it worth it? Foxes are clever, but I don't think they can open padlocks and a padlock isn't very expensive. There are plenty of ways of doing this if they want to. In fox hunting there are indeed vermin involved. They are the ones sitting on the back of the horses.

We are told it is traditional. It may well be, but does that make it a good thing? Lots of things had been traditional for a long time, but are now looked on as being a bad thing and have been abandoned. Should we bring all those things back because they are "traditional"?

They tell us they love the countryside and are into protecting it and all its creatures, including the foxes. They have a strange way of going about it. They say they are only killing the old and sick. The old and sick ones are not such a big threat to farmers then. Do the dogs ask them for medical records and then just pick out the sick ones? The next time someone is up in court for murder, maybe he can plead that he loves humanity, or that the person he killed was old and sick or that it is a tradition and people have been murdering people since time began. Would those be accepted as vald excuses?

They tell us that it will cost jobs. As I have already pointed out there is nothing to stop them riding through the country all they want without killing anything. Even if they want to do some hunting, there are other things that can be used as the object of the hunt and that the dogs can follow. Lots of people have done this and used a person as the object to hunt or something else that is not alive or that can't be killed. We are told that the dogs would have to be put down if they are not allowed to hunt with them. It is a bit ironic that they complain about their dogs being killed when they have no problem hunting foxes. This is even more ironic, given that the fox is a relative of the domestic dog. As I said they can keep the dogs and have them hunt something else, so they can still keep them and all the jobs involved.

Those are most of the reasons normally given, all of which I have dealt with. They can still do all they have done, with just one difference, the absence of the senseless practice of killing foxes. We saw at the House of Commons recently that some of the people involved in hunting are just as violent off their horses as when they are on them. I can think of one very good way of dealing with people like that: Set the dogs on them!

Blub2k4

Ah emulating the colonial masters, if it's your cup of tea to act like a dinosaur :rolleyes:
Personally I see no reason not to replace all hunts with "drag hunts" the sport is the same, minus one gory detail.

gimmick

Fox hunting, put simply, is wrong, its cruel. It takes a depraved mind to think that by chasing a defenceless animal until it drops from exhaustion, and have it ripped apart by hounds is less than cruel, let alone fun.

It is in the same category as badger bating, and hare coursing. It is somewhat akin to a bunch og big rugby players going out for a figght, and picking on the guy who is smallest and most weak.

ven0m

I say if you wanna do it, fine go do it. If you're not into it - that's fine too. We live in a world of choice..... don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over it personally..... more important things in the world to get knickers in a twist over to be frank...... that's just my view. Everyone's entitled to their own view...


::: ven0mous :::

ixoy

ven0m wrote:

I say if you wanna do it, fine go do it.

That's fine but what about the fox? S/He doesn't get that choice.

ven0m

ixoy wrote:

That's fine but what about the fox? S/He doesn't get that choice.

DO we get a choice when a shark decides they wanna see if we're a fat seal or not? For all we know THAT is THEIR sick game when we decide to enter the waters.....


::: ven0mous :::

meepmeep

gimmick wrote:

Fox hunting, put simply, is wrong, its cruel. It takes a depraved mind to think that by chasing a defenceless animal until it drops from exhaustion, and have it ripped apart by hounds is less than cruel, let alone fun. /

Absolutely.

monkeyfudge

I'm no great animal lover (except monkeys of course) but surely if the fox is a vermin that is killing livestock, then there are more effective ways of exterminating it than galloping around on a horse wearing silly clothes and blowing a trumpet...

Dave

ven0m wrote:

I say if you wanna do it, fine go do it. If you're not into it - that's fine too. We live in a world of choice..... ::: ven0mous :::

Murder is a choice too. So that's ok aswell is it.

Are foxes not protected in this country? I've no facts on this I could have just dreamt it, but for some reason I thought they were. They are beautiful animals, if you're lucky enough to see one. Getting entertainment from slaughtering a helpless animal seems a little depraved.

There's no difference between this type of "sport" and knackers shoving a banger up a cats arse on halloween.

ven0m

Dave wrote:

Murder is a choice too. So that's ok aswell is it.

Are foxes not protected in this country? I've no facts on this I could have just dreamt it, but for some reason I thought they were. They are beautiful animals, if you're lucky enough to see one. Getting entertainment from slaughtering a helpless animal seems a little depraved.

There's no difference between this type of "sport" and knackers shoving a banger up a cats arse on halloween.

Man has murdered, raped, pillaged & hunted since he got here & little has change. Evolved society? Don't let all the bells & whistles of life today fool you - man is no more evolved than when he first started on his mission to destroy himself & all life around him - we just now find bigger & worse ways to commit attrocities, more efficient ways to murder on masse & more reasons to justify the destruction humans are intent on pursuing .... I'm not saying it's ok, but do you really think banning something makes it go away? That's naieve.....


::: ven0mous :::

Dave

So what you propose to do is absolutley nothing. If nothing's going to change why bother? That's some attitude. Inaction folks is the solution to all of lifes problems. We should legalise murder, rape etc as they are just going to happen anyway, so there's no point in doing anything.

tribble

ven0m wrote:

I say if you wanna do it, fine go do it. If you're not into it - that's fine too. We live in a world of choice..... don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over it personally..... more important things in the world to get knickers in a twist over to be frank...... that's just my view. Everyone's entitled to their own view...


::: ven0mous :::

So nobody should object to me atop a horse, shooting you, dragging you through a field and finally setting my dogs on you?

I can even do it properly seen as how I can ride, shoot (rifle club) and can borrow some (pet) hunting dogs from a mate of mine. If your up for it PM me.

ven0m

tribble wrote:

So nobody should object to me atop a horse, shooting you, dragging you through a field and finally setting my dogs on you?

I can even do it properly seen as how I can ride, shoot (rifle club) and can borrow some (pet) hunting dogs from a mate of mine. If your up for it PM me.

You obviously have little respect for those who have views that differ to your own & it is apparent that any view that seems to run contrary to your own should be met with an anit-social response, which frankly is typical....& bully-boy tactics

As I stated quite clearly - my view was my own, I don't expect anyone to agree with it - but I will respect anyone elses view regardless of it conflicting with my own, nor will I try to ram my view down someone's throat as the 'ONLY' acceptible view or engage in a justification exercise ..... therefore I will digress on this topic. I've said my piece & I'll leave it at that. Democracy allows everyone to have a freedom of opinion & discussion of that - but it is obvious that some elements in societ regardless of how perosnally distasteful they may find something would rather there was an undemocratic level of conformity of thought & opinion..... my don't we feel oh so 'evolved' now......

UPDATE @ 16.57, 25/11/04: Thank you to those who negative repped me - you truly are a pillar & bastion of democratic free speech, which I believe is part of the boards charter - you truly make this world a better place!!!! Long may we bask in your facist controlled world & we will in future be sure to run all comments, thoughts, opinions & idea by your first so that you may truly realise your dreams of a 'new world order'.


::: ven0mous :::

WhiteWashMan

surely the odd fox being killed is pretty insignificant to the number of homeless people left to die on the streets of our cities and towns every year?

while i am not a fox hunter, and i do not object to it in any great way, i think a sense of perspective may be needed to remind people that there are far worse things happening on our own doorsteps, that we can have a direct involvment in to help out and make life better.

but if you are going to start banning blood sports, at which point should we stop. does boxing need to be banned as well? in fact, those saudi arabian friends of ours amputate limbs, and occassinoaly heads for crimes in their country. perhaps we should go and have a protest about that. im pretty sure the person getting executed would apprecaite our involvement!

but getting back into context, does this now mean that we cant shoot pheasant?
that we cant catch fish?
perhaps we shouldnt even be rearing farm animals, because at the end of the day, they will be slaughtered and killed?
what about the barbaric ways that animals for your consumption are kept. we all know about battery farms, we all know about the absurd ways farmers fatten animals and mistreat them, so that we can have some burgers. or a nice jacket.
is this any worse than killing the odd fox?

or is just that foxes are little cuties and we dont like to see them harmed?

while cows are just meat.

Dave

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but if you are going to start banning blood sports, at which point should we stop. does boxing need to be banned as well? in fact, those saudi arabian friends of ours amputate limbs, and occassinoaly heads for crimes in their country. perhaps we should go and have a protest about that. im pretty sure the person getting executed would apprecaite our involvement!

People who box have a choice in the matter. Foxes don't. Regarding the middle east, protesting won't do a hell of alot to change those countries as we aren't citizens of those countries (stating the obvious tbh). Whereas fox hunting is an active sport in our own country. I don't even see how you link boxing and fox hunting.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but getting back into context, does this now mean that we cant shoot pheasant?
that we cant catch fish?
perhaps we shouldnt even be rearing farm animals, because at the end of the day, they will be slaughtered and killed?
what about the barbaric ways that animals for your consumption are kept. we all know about battery farms, we all know about the absurd ways farmers fatten animals and mistreat them, so that we can have some burgers. or a nice jacket.
is this any worse than killing the odd fox?

I think it's more the fact that foxes are tortured, rather than humanely killed. I'm not some tree hugging hippy, but I am an animal lover (who eats meat ), That being said I always buy where possible organic and free range foodstuffs.

Rabies

I had started a thread on this a few months ago in Animal/Pet Issues.

I am pro hunting. Haven't hunted in a long time but my younger brother and sister hunt at times. I think drag hunting should be used for younger people and allow adults the choice.
More often than not the fox escapes

][cEMAN**

WWM beat me to the reply to this (twice in 1 day i've agreed with WWM. What's the world coming to? :P).

People who cry about banning hunting need to get things into perspective. I agree that the way it is done is cruel and inhumane, but I don't disagree with hunting per say. To do so would mean I would have to disagree with fishing (which i'm quite fond of when I get the time) or eating any meat of any kind because something had to be slaughtered for me to get it on my plate. To look to outlaw is rediculous when instead stricter guidelines would be more appropriate, or a new look on how it is performed. The way things are going, all hunting is looking like it'll be banned.

There are other things out there that need to be looked at more pressing than this. Yes it's cruel and people disagree with it, but at the same time look at society around you and tell me you're happy with what goes on and tell me you have your priorities in the right place!

Also just to note - i've seen enough of the video footage of the demonstrators being just as violent, if not more so, than those taking part in or associated with the hunt.

Jim

ven0m wrote:

DO we get a choice when a shark decides they wanna see if we're a fat seal or not? For all we know THAT is THEIR sick game when we decide to enter the waters.....


::: ven0mous :::

Hardly relevant. A shark needs to this to survive (eat).
I wouldn't mind fox hunting if someone was stuck in the woods with no food and needed to kill the fox for survival.

This is all for personal amusement.
Its cruel, and unnessicary.

Gurgle

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']To do so would mean I would have to disagree with fishing (which i'm quite fond of when I get the time) or eating any meat of any kind because something had to be slaughtered for me to get it on my plate.

The only problem with your argument is that it makes no sense. Otherwise, an excellent point.

Many animals are made of food, you have to kill the animal to get the food out. Some animals are not so good for food, like foxes. Sometimes you have to kill these animals because they try to eat your food, like sheep.

Sometimes you have to kill animals because they want to eat your family, like lions. There are other circumstances where animals have to be killed, like if they have diseases.

If an animal isn't diseased or trying to eat your food or your family then there is no fùcking reason to kill it.

*dumbed down version for the boardsies who couldn't understand this argument a few weeks ago.

Canis Lupus

I live in the country and I can see the damage a fox can do to a flock of sheep with lambs for example. I have no issue over fox hunting where the local farmers go out at nite with a rifle and cleanly shoot any foxes they stumble accross it's unfortunately just one of those things. What I can't condone is the chasing down and tearing apart of these animals for "sport" and then attempting to justify it by calling foxes vermin particularly when in England they breed the foxes and release them for the hunt. I just don't think it's on.

WhiteWashMan

Canis Lupus wrote:

particularly when in England they breed the foxes and release them for the hunt. I just don't think it's on.

you mean kinda like breeding cows so we can make baseball gloves?

Gurgle wrote:

If an animal isn't diseased or trying to eat your food or your family then there is no fùcking reason to kill it.

so what do we do with all those lovely likkle kitties and puppies every year that people throw out approx. 1 month after christmas?

well, they get killed more often than not. and there is a thousand and more cases of this happening than fox hunting. i dont really see anyone jumping up and down about it.

i just dont understand why people get all upitty about fox hunting, and not about other things in life which i feel are far worse.

as far as im concerned, anyone who has ever eaten meat, hasnt got a leg to stand on when it comes to animal cruelty.

sionnach

i agree with what wwm says, fox hunting is just a small piece of a vast puzzle of human cruelty to animals, but getting it banned isn't exactly a bad thing is it? Yes we tend to all band together against one form of cruelty if the animal in question is particularly cute and damned cool, and it may be utterly hypocritical of those people when they don't give a damn about the fate of the greater spotted uglyfish, but the end result is that there are a few more animals out there that don't have to suffer needlessly and that surely is a good thing?

well anyway, until then it's every sionnach for himself

][cEMAN**

Gurgle wrote:

Many animals are made of food, you have to kill the animal to get the food out. Some animals are not so good for food, like foxes. Sometimes you have to kill these animals because they try to eat your food, like sheep.

Sometimes you have to kill animals because they want to eat your family, like lions. There are other circumstances where animals have to be killed, like if they have diseases.

If an animal isn't diseased or trying to eat your food or your family then there is no fùcking reason to kill it.

Many animals are made of food? What is this food you speak of? Spaghetti? Or would it be meat? Cause I don't think that's many - I think that's all. Yet the conditions many animals are slaughtered under are totally inhumane. So are you saying we should only eat diseased animals? Wasn't that a major problem in the last couple of years and the reason why thousands of cattle were burnt?

My argument may not be well worded - I often find when i'm at work I can't always concentrate from one sentence to another as i'm always being called away and have to catch up to what I was already saying, but my point none the less is a valid one. What I was saying is that I would love to disagree with the idea of the hunt but to do so would mean i'd have to stop fishing. It's a case of either setting better conditions and rules for the hunt, or drawing a line and saying all hunting or sport killing should be ruled out. But the later in this day and age is still not something I could see happening. Maybe i'm a hypocrite because I fish and don't eat them - but I do only fish when I can garauntee that someone will eat them. It's not out of necessity but it is completing the order of kill to eat.

Actually i'm going to stop now because i'm finishing work and i'm finding it hard enough to concentrate with a mind dulled from monotony. I think i'll finish my view on this later when I can string together a sentence which says what I mean and doesn't accidentally contradict because i'm wording it wrong.

WhiteWashMan

sionnach wrote:

the greater spotted uglyfish,

lol.

i agree with you though.

but while it is not pleasant to be a fox, i do think there are more important issues that people like to gloss over in favour of some 'sport', that as far as they are concerned is carried out by english toffs and bunch of baying beagles, and know little more about it than that.

as the saying goes, opinions are like arseholes....

for me its similar to people preaching about how terrible George Bush getting re-elected is, and there is famine in africa.

still, people will prioritise as they see fit.

tribble

ven0m wrote:

You obviously have little respect for those who have views that differ to your own & it is apparent that any view that seems to run contrary to your own should be met with an anit-social response, which frankly is typical....& bully-boy tactics

Ha, ha ha oh dear....

You are well entitled to your opinion but surely you accept that if you voice it then you are likly to be met with opposing ones?
As for "bully-boy" tactics I don't see where you get that from, I simply asked if anyone objected to me slaughtering your good self - not that I would, I am oppose to all unnecessary killing.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

surely the odd fox being killed is pretty insignificant to the number of homeless people left to die on the streets of our cities and towns every year?

Absolutly - that is a problem that society has to deal with.
But we don't deal with social problems in a serial fashion (one after another) - many can be addressed at once.

Gurgle

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']I often find when i'm at work I can't always concentrate from one sentence to another as i'm always being called away and have to catch up to what I was already saying

I just degenerate into vicious sarcasm.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']
drawing a line and saying all hunting or sport killing should be ruled out.

Thats exactly what I'm advocating.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**'] Many animals are made of food? What is this food you speak of? Spaghetti? Or would it be meat?

Yes, meat.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']Cause I don't think that's many - I think that's all.

Do you eat cat ?, fox ?, dog ?, badger ?, mink ?, rat ?
I'm sure they are edible but as a general rule they aren't raised for food.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']Yet the conditions many animals are slaughtered under are totally inhumane.

Yup, Oh well!.
We'll try to improve that when we've stopped people from torturing animals to death for fun.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**'] So are you saying we should only eat diseased animals? Wasn't that a major problem in the last couple of years and the reason why thousands of cattle were burnt?

No, I'm saying we should kill only animals under 3 general circumstances:
1. For food
2. For protection
3. To prevent the spread of disease

1 & 3 should not be combined.
Any other combinations are valid.

Canis Lupus

WWM we hardly chase the cows first and then tear em apart with dogs

WhiteWashMan

but they are treated in a completely inhumane way for several months, and then killed.

i fail to see the difference.

Gurgle wrote:

No, I'm saying we should kill only animals under 3 general circumstances

what about scientific research?

seamus

Off to Humanities...

Canis Lupus

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but they are treated in a completely inhumane way for several months, and then killed.

Not by my family nor any farmer locally to me, in fact a lot of time, effort, money and care is expended on them. While I agree on the otherhand that some places are inhumane in dealing with animals bred for food but thats not really the issue in this thread is it. The question at hand is whether or not foxhunting for sport is a particularly nice thing.

pretty-in-pink

my aunt and uncle have a farm, the animals are free ranges, and killed in a humane way. They don't go fox-hunting, they don't set cruel traps and they love animals. Any blood sport is WRONG, rearing animals for fashion is wrong, as is treating animals cruely, it should not happen. People do more harm to their enviroment then animals. The same rules should apply, you killed that animal for kicks/clothes? Life in jail. You treated it with severe cruelty- same punishment as you would give if the animal was a person.

It boils my blood, and then people banging on about human rights? Fair enough, they are important, but guess what? People can speak, so they can tell us if they are suffering, so we can look after them. Now this might come as a shock to some of you but- animals can't actually speak, so they can't tell us they are in trouble, so how we we defend their rights in the same way?

Animals live in the great outdoors too- in forests, fields, on the street etc, so if your gonna bring "equality" into(homeless people), think about it. If i found someone hurting an animal, or a person weaker the them etc, I'd flip out. Its sick. When I rule the world, such things won't happen due to instant, severe, fitting punishments if it does. We do not have more right to be here, we are taking over animals territory, its NATURAL for them to strike out. ITs not NATURAL to chase them down with metal traps and guns, its not natural to torture them. In fact humans have fecked up the circle of life, its all so wrong, and people being all P.C, and people can do what they like about it should back off. If that rule is to do for animal murder and torture it should do for human murder and torture too.

I have to go now, before I say something dumb

Gurgle

WhiteWashMan wrote:

what about scientific research?

Scientific research generally has a greater purpose, eg. fighting diseases, which fits neatly (sideways) into number 3. Otherwise its just taking animals apart for fun.

Hunting a fox on horseback with dogs is no different, when it all comes down to it, than throwing a puppy on a bonfire.

Do you think that should be allowed ?

As far the inhumane treatment of animals - I grew up on a small farm, surrounded by farms of varying sizes and apart from the occasional castration I never saw animals being abused.

... cue the battery chicken farming rant....

Zombrex

To me the idea of killing the fox isn't the disgusting part. It is the fact that the hunters take such pleasure in it. So much so that they are willing to fight tooth and nail to presure what they feel is their right to enjoy this act.

It is necessary to kill animals all the time. We do it for food, we do it for protection, we do it for science etc. What is not necessary is to enjoy doing it, to recieve pleasure and satisfaction from the act of hunting down and killing another creature.

If a vet came to your house to put down your dog (happened to me twice) you would be completely disgusted if you gaged that he/she was actually enjoying what he was doing. Likewise if a person applied to a job at a abattoir and gave the reason the he liked killing animals you would probably call the police. As far as I know killing an animal or making them suffer for your own pleasure is often the beginning stage of a serial killer.

But for some reason the "sport" of fox hunting has developed this aura of nobality around it. Oh it is good for the community, a part of country life bla bla bla. The simple fact is it is a group of people directly or indirectly enjoying the killing of a creature, and for that reason alone it is disgusting.

Zombienosh

i think foxes are cool , snooping around in bins and whatnot.
the animals of farthing wood

orangerooster

I love animals and will always argue to the end that killing them for pleasure or clothing is totally wrong.As for fox hunting im opposed damn damn damn opposed!Would love to do awful awful things to some of the hunters I've met and spoken to about this.

And Sky News reports on the ban always involve some dumb cute little toff kids in their uniform talking about the hunt-makes me sick-those little bastards should be shown what happens to the fox in great detail.....

Doper Than U

Personally, as a horse rider, I hate the typical response from those anti-hunting. We wear silly clothes, are toff nosed, stuck up snobs. It's so far from the truth you have no idea. We wear the same jackets that are worn is showjumping, it's just a dinner jacket ffs! What's the big deal? Horses are seriously expensive animals to keep, they require massive amounts of food, and alot of space. But the majority of people who own horses (myself included) earn the same amount of money as everyone else, we just choose to spend it on our horses (This is why I don't go out at the weekends, why I haven't bought new clothes for myself in a year (I'm not joking, I have only one pair of shoes)).
I myself am against fox hunting, as it is very cruel. If the fox is killing livestock, shoot it if you are skilled enough, and reproof your stock fencing. I do go drag-hunting however. This is where a false scent is trailed through the countryside (ALWAYS with farmers permission), and the hounds follow that instead of a live quarry. At the end of the hunt they get some sausages or dog food. No animals are killed. We do it for fun, it's wonderful to be out galloping at full speed around the countryside, the horses get so excited when they've done it a few times. Even some of the local horses who we pass out in the fields jump their fences and join in. It seems to be such an ideal solution, I don't know why people don't do this all the time. I've seen no argument that can justify fox hunting. But please, don't assume all those who go horse riding (and/or hunting) and put on their show jackets once in a while are rich snobs, we're not, we just love horses.

Incidentally, there is nothing so beautiful as riding out at dawn, and seeing foxes and their cubs playing in the field, you can get quite close, as they don't feel as threatened by the horse, it's a beautiful sight.

pretty-in-pink

Wicknight wrote:

To me the idea of killing the fox isn't the disgusting part. It is the fact that the hunters take such pleasure in it. So much so that they are willing to fight tooth and nail to presure what they feel is their right to enjoy this act.

It is necessary to kill animals all the time. We do it for food, we do it for protection, we do it for science etc. What is not necessary is to enjoy doing it, to recieve pleasure and satisfaction from the act of hunting down and killing another creature.

If a vet came to your house to put down your dog (happened to me twice) you would be completely disgusted if you gaged that he/she was actually enjoying what he was doing. Likewise if a person applied to a job at a abattoir and gave the reason the he liked killing animals you would probably call the police. As far as I know killing an animal or making them suffer for your own pleasure is often the beginning stage of a serial killer.

But for some reason the "sport" of fox hunting has developed this aura of nobality around it. Oh it is good for the community, a part of country life bla bla bla. The simple fact is it is a group of people directly or indirectly enjoying the killing of a creature, and for that reason alone it is disgusting.

I couldn't agreee more. And you're right, psychologists have discovered that people who torture and kill animals for kicks lack the morality of a normal person*, and that it eventualy leads to them being a serial -or psychotic killer (the two are seperate under the law, on the basis that one knows they are doing wrong, enjoy the power and keep doing it. They are methodical and careful. Less likely to get caught UNLESS they want too. The other is "crazy", during the crime, it is a frenzied attack, no pattern, its generally a random killing and while doing it they are not aware of how wrong it is. These are generaly people who, when killing, have placed someone else in their victims place - such as someone who abused them, or someone who they feel treated them badly)

*before the pro-hunt people start to say "o I hunt,its fun, I'm not evil, I don't want to kill somebody". You mightn't, but the majority of people who delibrately hunt down and torture animals progress through other crimes untill they reach murder. Its a FACT. Killling is a violent thing, killing for fun is beyond my comprehension of compassion, love and indeed humanity. So am I saying that you lack humanitarian feelings? That you lack compassion? Yes, I am, Yes psychologists are, Yes decent citizens are- because its true. It lacks humanity and compassion to outnumber, torture, maim and kill another living thing FOR FUN. This also applies to medical research, as we differ from animals, the effects won't be the same, so its a cruel and inaccurate way to judge effects of drugs. Also breeding animals for fashion, and for lab. testing (make up, perfum etc) is wrong. The only three times killing an animal is acceptable are:

1) Food, and only if all parts have a use (eskimos and seals etc-they use everthing, so its not wrong)

2) Protection - if you are alone, and an animal is going to kill you. Though killing them should be a last option. They are probably just defending their territory

3) Put them out of pain- if they are really sick/hurt. So much so that they won't survive, tey its less cruel to put them down(make it quick!!) they force them to live in pain. Same theory as euthinasia.

oscarBravo

WhiteWashMan wrote:

for me its similar to people preaching about how terrible George Bush getting re-elected is, and there is famine in africa.

still, people will prioritise as they see fit.

This all-or-nothing attitude bugs me. It's like asking why we're wasting money building schools when there are waiting lists in hospitals, or for that matter why we're wasting money on hip replacements for Irish people while people starve in Africa.

Prioritising doesn't mean ignoring every problem that's perceived as less important than some other problem. Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to be passionate about foxhunting, American plutocracies and African famines all at the same time.

The Corinthian

All together now...

Awe...

It’s actually remarkable how the English speaking World gets a hard on for protecting the rights of cute fluffy animals. Ever see the effects of rat poison? Nah, rats are nasty and dirty, so who cares?

What a bunch of molly-coddled buffoons.

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

All together now...
It’s actually remarkable how the English speaking World gets a hard on for protecting the rights of cute fluffy animals. Ever see the effects of rat poison? Nah, rats are nasty and dirty, so who cares?

What a bunch of molly-coddled buffoons.

It would not surprise me if people got up in arms about rat killing eventually as well. Some people already have them as pets. (I discovered this on a crowded subway, the girl squashed up against me had one perched on her shoulder. Urgh.)

monkeyfudge

simu wrote:

It would not surprise me if people got up in arms about rat killing eventually as well. Some people already have them as pets. (I discovered this on a crowded subway, the girl squashed up against me had one perched on her shoulder. Urgh.)

You've obviously never had a friend like Ben...

simu

monkeyfudge wrote:

You've obviously never had a friend like Ben...

???

monkeyfudge

ha.. sorry... it's a reference to an old Michael Jackson song about a boy and his rat...

Ben, the two of us need look no more
We both found what we were looking for
With a friend to call my own
I'll never be alone
And you my friend will see
You've got a friend in me
(You've got a friend in me)

Ben, you're always running here and there
(Here and there)
You feel you're not wanted anywhere
(Anywhere)
If you ever look behind
And don't like what you find
There's something you should know
You've got a place to go
(You've got a place to go)

I used to say, "I" and "me"
Now it's "us", now it's "we"
(I used to say, "I" and "me")
(Now it's "us", now it's "we")

Ben, most people would turn you away
I don't listen to a word they say
They don't see you as I do
I wish they would try to
I'm sure they'd think again
If they had a friend like Ben
(A friend)
Like Ben
(Like Ben)
Like Ben

pretty-in-pink

The Corinthian wrote:

All together now...

Awe...

It’s actually remarkable how the English speaking World gets a hard on for protecting the rights of cute fluffy animals. Ever see the effects of rat poison? Nah, rats are nasty and dirty, so who cares?

What a bunch of molly-coddled buffoons.

Actually, I am opposed to all mistreatment of animals. I happen to think all creatures have the right to exist- regardless of their cuteness, scariness etc. So don't judge everyone who cares with one brush. All abuse is wrong. Its much wronger when the victim cannot speak up for themselves. Most -if not all- testing/"sport"/clothing/decent,healthy meals can be acchieved without killing animals. Its pretty much pointless in modern sociey- not to mention brutal. And if everyone is all in a know about it, then why are the people who hint an kill foxes etc for sport, or the people who killed those seals alive? In teh end God will judge, and it will see justice sought and acchieved when the twisted sickos pay for their heinous crimes.

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

Nah, rats are nasty and dirty, so who cares?

I do, I have them as pets and they are beautiful smart animals, I wouldn't be without them now.



Drag hunting is the way to go, big up to Doper than U for sticking up for the drag hunt and knowing that the "real thing" is not necessary.

Kell

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s actually remarkable how the English speaking World gets a hard on for protecting the rights of cute fluffy animals. Ever see the effects of rat poison? Nah, rats are nasty and dirty, so who cares?

What a bunch of molly-coddled buffoons.

As the new statesman would put it "b'stard, ****, b'stard".

I was just about to voice my opinion re how many people here have got their knickers in a twist over the life of a poxy animal, and I do love animals, specially horses and dogs.

Having rubbed shoulders with the hunting poulation of Britain for a number of years I have to point out that there is a radical difference between hunting here and in the UK. Things like-

1) There are people in full time employment from it
2) The hunt pays for the maintenance of the national hedgerows and country by-ways (Ireland's ones are in ****e)
3) The hunt pays for pony clubs
4) The hunt organises charity events
5) The hunt organises bloody great social events
6) shall I go on?

Now when you consider that 000's of dogs are going to be put down because their sole purpose in life is about to vanish and also that people are going to be out of a job, do those fox do-gooders have much sympathy for the fox anymore. If you do, consider how much damage anti-hunt protestors do to horses, and also riders at hunts. I have seen footage of riders being beaten by protesters and also horses being beaten when the anti-hunt protestors are complaining about cruelty?

Now are you do gooders going to tell me that foxes life is worth more than that of a human, or for that matter, a horse that cost a bucket and that likely competes in national cross country events? Fúck off.

Someone mentioned that its a matter of choice, and that it is. A great big industry in Britain has developed around it. However, some pro-fox bunch of prícks want to buckle a small industry employing people.

I re-cap. Fúck off and cop onto yourselves.

K-

pretty-in-pink

Kell wrote:

As the new statesman would put it "b'stard, ****, b'stard".

I was just about to voice my opinion re how many people here have got their knickers in a twist over the life of a poxy animal, and I do love animals, specially horses and dogs.

Having rubbed shoulders with the hunting poulation of Britain for a number of years I have to point out that there is a radical difference between hunting here and in the UK. Things like-

1) There are people in full time employment from it
2) The hunt pays for the maintenance of the national hedgerows and country by-ways (Ireland's ones are in ****e)
3) The hunt pays for pony clubs
4) The hunt organises charity events
5) The hunt organises bloody great social events
6) shall I go on?

Now when you consider that 000's of dogs are going to be put down because their sole purpose in life is about to vanish and also that people are going to be out of a job, do those fox do-gooders have much sympathy for the fox anymore. If you do, consider how much damage anti-hunt protestors do to horses, and also riders at hunts. I have seen footage of riders being beaten by protesters and also horses being beaten when the anti-hunt protestors are complaining about cruelty?

Now are you do gooders going to tell me that foxes life is worth more than that of a human, or for that matter, a horse that cost a bucket and that likely competes in national cross country events? Fúck off.

Someone mentioned that its a matter of choice, and that it is. A great big industry in Britain has developed around it. However, some pro-fox bunch of prícks want to buckle a small industry employing people.

I re-cap. Fúck off and cop onto yourselves.

K-

Oh aren't you very mature. Whats the matter? Did some nasty peasent throw a stone at the princess while they were out mutilating animals? Take your own advice DEARIE. This was a question about MORALITY not ECONOMICS. Sad for you that you can't tell the difference. Having an indusrty makes this all ok? Going by your "logic" if I was to kill people who go out and delibrately kill, maim and torture animals for money it would be ok.

The people who are "pro-fox" here are saying all mistreatment of animals is bad. "Oh hedgerows are in ****e"....hey guess what they have wild animals living in them, and they are in a something close to their natural state. Good thing surely. Surely if you love animals you can see that?

"1) There are people in full time employment from it
2) The hunt pays for the maintenance of the national hedgerows and country by-ways (Ireland's ones are in ****e)
3) The hunt pays for pony clubs
4) The hunt organises charity events
5) The hunt organises bloody great social events
6) shall I go on?"

So go live there , if its all so great. Wear a fox fur coat, have their poor bodies lie all around your manor, oh great one.

Yes its wrong that the dogs might be put down, but if these people had any morality- surely they would LOVE the dogs and horses regardless. Get off your hunting horse and face reality. There is NOTHING good about hurting or killing any creature. Though I guess some might make an excption for pompous, ignorant, cruel patrons of such "sports". So why don't you go live about your obviously hollow life-and lets face it, what else can it be if blasting anyone with strong or otherwise moral beliefs is how you get your kicks- and let us "do-gooders" live ours. Toff

Doper Than U

Whats the matter? Did some nasty peasent throw a stone at the princess while they were out mutilating animals? Take your own advice DEARIE. This was a question about MORALITY not ECONOMICS

If it's not about economics then wtf are you doing barking on about "princesses" and "Toffs"?? Like most anti-hunters (and I happen to be anti fox hunting myself) you assume that those who hunt are rich snobs. Do me a favour and find out the bloody facts before you tar all those who hunt with the same f*cking "snob brush". Did you entirely miss the point about the Hunt actually WORKING for a living (albeit from the killing of foxes, which I DO NOT agree with), not sitting around in big castles in their fur coats??

And also, who the hell is going to do the jobs mentioned above that the hunt do? You? Do you think the countryside just sits there looking after itself, providing the bounty of wonderful fruits and veg that you all enjoy for dinner, not to mention the chickens, pigs and cows you eat (if you are a meat eater)? You think the hedgerows look after themselves? Go work on a farm and find out the truth.
And before I get the "yes, let everything fall back into it's natural state, after all nature has done a great job before humans interfered" argument, let me say that if we did that, then there would no food for you to eat. Unless of course you go out and hunt it for yourself.

I'm against the killing of animals for any purpose other than food and survival. The idea of foxes being ripped apart for enjoyment sickens me, as does the idea of fur coats.
I own horses, I go drag hunting (where no animals are hunted), I am not a snob, I work for a living, I sacrifice many things so I can keep my horses, I am a country person, I love animals... and I f*ckin hate extremists who say animal cruelty is wrong while at the same time throwing bottles at horses. How the hell can anyone justify that??
Do us all a favour, if you're gonna be anti-hunting, at least get your facts right and stop pushing the stereotype of the rich "princess" whose daddy buys them lovely ponies, and who wear fur coats, and who love killing nasty animals. It's not reality, so don't assume it is just to make it easier to hate hunters. Truth is, they're normal people who work damn hard. Not saying I support hunting, once again I reiterate I DO NOT. Please, give it a rest with the bullsh1t...

oscarBravo

Kell wrote:

1) There are people in full time employment from it

There used to be people in full time employment in the asbestos industry.

Kell wrote:

2) The hunt pays for the maintenance of the national hedgerows and country by-ways (Ireland's ones are in ****e)

The end justifies the means?

Kell wrote:

3) The hunt pays for pony clubs

Ditto. Anyway, the horse industry isn't entirely dependent on hunting.

Kell wrote:

4) The hunt organises charity events

And again.

Kell wrote:

5) The hunt organises bloody great social events

Oh, well that's alright then.

Kell wrote:

Now when you consider that 000's of dogs are going to be put down because their sole purpose in life is about to vanish and also that people are going to be out of a job, do those fox do-gooders have much sympathy for the fox anymore.

That's a strange angle to be arguing from. You're suggesting that this particular form of cruelty is OK, because (a) some people make a living from cruelty, and (b) dogs (hounds?) are specifically bred for cruelty.

Kell wrote:

If you do, consider how much damage anti-hunt protestors do to horses, and also riders at hunts. I have seen footage of riders being beaten by protesters and also horses being beaten when the anti-hunt protestors are complaining about cruelty?

Again, it's a funny perspective. Now you're saying it's OK to be cruel to a fox because some nutters are cruel to people and horses? Seems to me it would make more sense to be opposed to cruelty to foxes, people and horses alike.

Kell wrote:

Now are you do gooders going to tell me that foxes life is worth more than that of a human, or for that matter, a horse that cost a bucket and that likely competes in national cross country events?

Straw man. Reasonable and sane anti-hunt people don't beat people or horses. Like I say, why not treat the fox as humanely as the horse? Because you didn't pay for it?

Kell wrote:

Fúck off.

Not constructive.

Kell wrote:

Someone mentioned that its a matter of choice, and that it is. A great big industry in Britain has developed around it. However, some pro-fox bunch of prícks want to buckle a small industry employing people.

Thing is, there are some choices you don't get to make. You used to have the choice of owning slaves in some parts of America. Things change. Deal with it.

Kell wrote:

I re-cap. Fúck off and cop onto yourselves.

Again, less than constructive.

pretty-in-pink

Doper Than U wrote:

If it's not about economics then wtf are you doing barking on about "princesses" and "Toffs"?? Like most anti-hunters (and I happen to be anti fox hunting myself) you assume that those who hunt are rich snobs. Do me a favour and find out the bloody facts before you tar all those who hunt with the same f*cking "snob brush". Did you entirely miss the point about the Hunt actually WORKING for a living (albeit from the killing of foxes, which I DO NOT agree with), not sitting around in big castles in their fur coats??

And also, who the hell is going to do the jobs mentioned above that the hunt do? You? Do you think the countryside just sits there looking after itself, providing the bounty of wonderful fruits and veg that you all enjoy for dinner, not to mention the chickens, pigs and cows you eat (if you are a meat eater)? You think the hedgerows look after themselves? Go work on a farm and find out the truth.
And before I get the "yes, let everything fall back into it's natural state, after all nature has done a great job before humans interfered" argument, let me say that if we did that, then there would no food for you to eat. Unless of course you go out and hunt it for yourself.

I'm against the killing of animals for any purpose other than food and survival. The idea of foxes being ripped apart for enjoyment sickens me, as does the idea of fur coats.
I own horses, I go drag hunting (where no animals are hunted), I am not a snob, I work for a living, I sacrifice many things so I can keep my horses, I am a country person, I love animals... and I f*ckin hate extremists who say animal cruelty is wrong while at the same time throwing bottles at horses. How the hell can anyone justify that??
Do us all a favour, if you're gonna be anti-hunting, at least get your facts right and stop pushing the stereotype of the rich "princess" whose daddy buys them lovely ponies, and who wear fur coats, and who love killing nasty animals. It's not reality, so don't assume it is just to make it easier to hate hunters. Truth is, they're normal people who work damn hard. Not saying I support hunting, once again I reiterate I DO NOT. Please, give it a rest with the bullsh1t...

The rich-person statments were directed at Kell, more for their attitude- which is sterotypicaly "rich snob"*. I know not everyone who hunts is rich. Highly dissappointed by Kell, they seemed like a decent sort of person.........

*All of Kells arguments are based on social and economic factors, so I'm going to guess that money is a high factor for Kell, and its only ever that important when someone is dirt poor, or dead rich. And what dirt poor people can afford to go a hunt? The majority of "hunters" are rich, or at least posh and aspire to be rich. Money seems to take prioroty over all else in their hearts.

Doper Than U

Fair enough, your points were aimed at Kell, but your opinion that the majority of "hunters" are rich is entirely erroneous. Take it from someone who drag-hunts (which requires the same funds to participate in as a regular fox-hunt) that money is not something that horsey people have alot of. Horses cost thousands per year. The majority (and I mean majority) of horse owners are pleasure riders with one or two horses who work for a living like everyone else, and choose to spend their money on horses. It means we have precious little money to be throwing around elsewhere.

Incidentally, it is not "hunting" (drag, fox or otherwise) that costs the money, it is the horse, plain and simple. If you pay the yearly cap, it's between 70-150 Euro (depending on what part of the country you're from). Not that much money for the year/season when you consider that people spend that much in two weeks of clubbing (which I cannot afford if I wish to keep my horses, not a huge problem for me, I prefer my horses to clubbing anyway.)

As for your assertion that the majority of hunters are posh and aspire to be rich, tell me, where on earth did you get that from? From going to a hunt and meeting people there? Or from tv? Like I said, get your FACTS straight. If you feel money should have no importance in an argument about morality, then why are you continually using the "hunters" supposed wealth as a reason to disagree with their actions? It is irrelevant how rich or poor a person is, cruelty is cruelty. Don't sully the argument by reducing it to socio-economic factors. There are plenty of rich people who are against hunting, just as there are plenty of poor people who support it. Go to the country, find out for yourself.

I still don't agree with Fox hunting, but every time I see the talk about the rich snobs, I have to wonder how many people actually know the facts about country life and people. What must you think of us?