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