Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

ItsAWindUp

joela wrote: »

No it is NOT and you make light of the abuses and brutalities in the world by comparing it to a brutal slaughter.

Not really. Needless suffering is needless suffering

k.p.h

Somebody think about the chickens ...

joela

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Not really. Needless suffering is needless suffering

Have you ever volunteered at any of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens, have you answered phone calls for the Samaritans or the ISPCC, have you worked with women in Africa who have been genitally mutilated? If not I suggest you do so pronto if you really believe that this is an issue of grave concern and brutal slaughter.

I understand your belief that it is cruelty but brutal slaughter and needless suffering smacks of humanising animals, narrow world views and poor understanding of the world and the word suffering.

ScumLord

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Fox hunting is brutal slaughter

That's just an emotive way of putting it, you could say the statement is technically true but it's just over the top way of saying they kill foxes. In most cases being killed by a human is much quicker and less painful than just about any other animals method of killing.

ItsAWindUp

joela wrote: »

Have you ever volunteered at any of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens, have you answered phone calls for the Samaritans or the ISPCC, have you worked with women in Africa who have been genitally mutilated? If not I suggest you do so pronto if you really believe that this is an issue of grave concern and brutal slaughter.

I understand your belief that it is cruelty but brutal slaughter and needless suffering smacks of humanising animals, narrow world views and poor understanding of the world and the word suffering.

Just because there may be more suffering going on elsewhere in one stance does not mean you should still ignore the lesser suffering

ItsAWindUp

ScumLord wrote: »

That's just an emotive way of putting it, you could say the statement is technically true but it's just over the top way of saying they kill foxes. In most cases being killed by a human is much quicker and less painful than just about any other animals method of killing.

Perhaps, but I don't believe that human beings have a right to interfere in nature this way

joela

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Perhaps, but I don't believe that human beings have a right to interfere in nature this way

Interfere in nature??? How so? Do you understand how nature works? You do know about prey and predator, how animals (including humans) have a fight or flight mechanism? Humans inerfere in nature all the time in much more destructive ways, humanising wild animals being one of the worst.

Listen lesser suffering also happens all the time, I have suffered, you have suffered but it doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer too. I would not compare my suffering to those I have mentioned previously and describing the almost instantaneous death of a fox caught by hounds as suffering is laughable really.

ItsAWindUp

joela wrote: »

Interfere in nature??? How so? Do you understand how nature works? You do know about prey and predator, how animals (including humans) have a fight or flight mechanism? Humans inerfere in nature all the time in much more destructive ways, humanising wild animals being one of the worst.

Listen lesser suffering also happens all the time, I have suffered, you have suffered but it doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer too. I would not compare my suffering to those I have mentioned previously and describing the almost instantaneous death of a fox caught by hounds as suffering is laughable really.

Fox hunting is unnecessary suffering, it does not have to happen. That is where the brutality element comes into play

k.p.h

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Fox hunting is unnecessary suffering, it does not have to happen. That is where the brutality element comes into play

Do you know that when a fox gets into a hen house it kills all the hens, but will only eat one...?

That's unnecessary suffering also, why is the fox so vicious.

I think people completely misunderstand the situation, foxes have been a hindrance to any type of fowl keeping for hundreds of years, they are vicious and kill unnecessarily. The also pick of small live stock such as lambs at will..

joela

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Fox hunting is unnecessary suffering, it does not have to happen. That is where the brutality element comes into play

You haven't answered any of my questions though?

So it is unnecessary suffering, right so how will you control the fox population as they do not have any wild predators remaining?

So no control usually ends up with the animal population reaching a crisis point when it gets too large and then lack of food sources and disease tend to be what reduces the population. You could argue that is natural and natures way of coping but seems like crueller and slower type of death and suffering to me but hey at least it is natural.

Organised culls through shooting, again have to be a damn good shot, some animals may end up injured and suffer in pain before they die a slow death. Needless suffering I guess but at least it isn't people hunting the fox on horseback.

Poisoning? That is definitely going to happen if you stop fox hunting, again slow and horrible death unlike a quick simple end being caught by hounds.

So you have a suffering free solution or knowledge of nature that I don't have?

Again I suggest you put your empathy and care for suffering would be put to better use by working in an animal shelter or homeless shelter where you really can make a difference to suffering.

k.p.h

But rat traps, unnecessary suffering in all fairness. What if the rat just catches his leg, alive for days. It's scandalous really. I say ban Rat traps...

joela

k.p.h wrote: »

Do you know that when a fox gets into a hen house it kills all the hens, but will only eat one...?

That's unnecessary suffering also, why is the fox so vicious.

I think people completely misunderstand the situation, foxes have been a hindrance to any type of fowl keeping for hundreds of years, they are vicious and kill unnecessarily. The also pick of small live stock such as lambs at will..

Whatever about the fox, the problem here is the humanisation of nature and the natural world. Nature is cruel, nature naturally culls populations through disease and lack of food although humans are trying to outsmart nature and have managed to overpopulate the world nicely at this point in time.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

In 1911 it was decided that terrifying or infuriating any domestic animal was cruelty. A wild animal has the same ability to feel pain so if it is cruel to a dog then it is also cruel to a Fox. So the Act does not apply to Foxes but it is not "irrelevant".

I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

The law is not there to define cruelty in an intrinsic or in a philosophical sense. It exists to describe what is illegal and what is legal, anything else is pure waffle from you.

I agree that foxhunting can be construed as cruel (although just how cruel is questionable). In theory it is not necessary. But in practice, foxhunting helps to control fox numbers, in practice it is less cruel than daylight shooting (yet I don't see anybody criticising foot hunts or gunclubs) and in practice it is fun and does a great deal for the rural economy and for the Irish sport horse industry.

later12

joela wrote: »

So you have a suffering free solution or knowledge of nature that I don't have?

The most minimal suffering possibility is lamping with shooting, and this is beset with legal difficulties and practical problems meaning it would never work.

The next best possibility, in welfare terms, is foxhunting with hounds.

Shooting, poisoning and trapping can lead to horrible, slow and painful deaths for foxes (and other unintentionally killed wildlife)

This isn't just hearsay btw, these were the findings of the Burns Inquiry into Hunting by the Labour (UK) Government.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

Again I suggest you put your empathy and care for suffering would be put to better use by working in an animal shelter or homeless shelter where you really can make a difference to suffering.

Didnt you have a shít fit last night because you felt people were trying to tell you how to live your life ? Yet here you are telling someone what they should care about.

As already pointed out to you countless times needless suffering is needless suffering and all arguments to try and justify it for sport have failed. The hunt doesnt keep the population under control, its not a valid way to protect livestock, its nothing more than a sport.

If the same thing was done to a family pet that is done to the foxes not one of you would say it isnt cruel. The fact that foxes are considered vermin does not give you the moral right to torture it needlessly.

Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. Needless suffering is needless suffering and just because people want to do it isnt grounds for them to do it. Your bending over backwards to try and justify the fact that people want to inflict pain and suffering on an animal for enjoyment.

k.p.h

joela wrote: »

Whatever about the fox, the problem here is the humanisation of nature and the natural world. Nature is cruel, nature naturally culls populations through disease and lack of food although humans are trying to outsmart nature and have managed to overpopulate the world nicely at this point in time.

Oh I see your point, It's a tough one really.. Is it not nature itself for us humans to try to outsmart nature and the natural system, after all we are still a part of the natural system and we have evolved like any other creature.

TBH that subject could be a complete thread on it's own, and even at that it would be fierce hard to quantify.

I'm not a hunter and I have no interest in it, but I do see it as a natural thing especially when put into context with something like fox hunting. Foxes interact with us and are very harmful in the context of farming it's natural to hunt to protect your stock. It's also a very natural thing to hunt for food, where I see it being a problem is when hunting endangered species or hunting animals that generally have no contact with humans.

The fact that fox hunting has developed into a sport is almost trivial, the simple reasons behind this were more than likely just a way to get a group of people together to rid themselves of a harmful predator. These reasons still stand.

It's a confusing thing to try to defend because I would never have anything to do with it and I don't particularly want to support it, but I have seen the remnants of a fox visit and it was not a pretty sight, after some questioning it dose turn out that they are predators and target livestock especially. e.g checking places where people keep livestock or fowl every night..

The phrase unnecessary suffering is flaky at best

Rocket19

I completely disagree with the use of live foxes in hunts.

As a rider, I love hunting, but I've only ever been to drag hunts. I don't see why they don't all do this, and to be honest, the idea of a fox being brutally killed for our 'fun' is upsetting to me.
Whether or not an animal gets killed by the hounds makes no difference to the rider. It's not 'more fun' if it ends in bloodshed. It's all in the name of tradition, and one that is in my opinion, on its way out.

I was at a hunt about a week ago in Wicklow, where the hounds chased and killed a dog. I think it was a cocker spaniel or something like that. It was absolutely torn apart by the hounds apparently, and i'm glad I didn't see it. I believe it got loose from it's owner or something.
I doubt anyone would see the dog's death as a bit of craic - it was horrific - so i don't see why the same compassion wouldn't be given to a fox.

ScumLord

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Perhaps, but I don't believe that human beings have a right to interfere in nature this way

It's not interfering, we are nature. I think it's the height of human arrogance to assume we're something loftier than every other life form on this planet and that we're somehow above being an animal.

I think when people see themselves as something outside of nature and nature as something pristine and good it's just as daft as an otter thinking the same thing (which they probably do in their own way).

Humans and our behaviour is a natural part of this world. It's not at all unusual or unique that we can be cruel it's the default state of every living thing. It's nice that we have loftier goals but we can't overlook the cold hard facts, we are just ordinary living creatures.

later12

Rocket19 wrote: »

the idea of a fox being brutally killed for our 'fun' is upsetting to me.

I realise this upsets people, but do you think the fox cares whether he's shot for fun or in po-faced gravity

Whatever method of curtailing the fox population - daylight shoots, lamping & shooting, or hunting to hounds, the hunters are always going to be at least partially motivated because they find it fun.

What I would like to know is why people are rounding on hunting to hounds, when it has been established that this is less cruel than daylight shooting with guns, for example, where morbidity is a serious welfare issue.

--LOS--

As much as I am against blood sports, all the meat-eaters in here condemning it annoy me just as much ¬_¬

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

I realise this upsets people, but do you think the fox cares whether he's shot for fun or in po-faced gravity

The fact that the fox will die anyway isnt licence to abuse it before hand.

Whatever method of curtailing the fox population - daylight shoots, lamping & shooting, or hunting to hounds, the hunters are always going to be at least partially motivated because they find it fun.

Partially but when you have a sport such as fox hunting where the entire thing exists because people find it fun then you have an issue. Foxes dont exist so their deaths can provide people with entertainment.

What I would like to know is why people are rounding on hunting to hounds, when it has been established that this is less cruel than daylight shooting with guns, for example, where morbidity is a serious welfare issue.

If hunting with hounds was established as less cruel and adopted as a means of protecting livestock if and when it was necessary then I'd have some time for it.

But its not, your taking one aspect of the hunt and saying its less cruel. But the fact is its done for sport not necessity, a farmers shooting a fox is done to protect his livelihood and its done when the fox enters the land and is a direct danger to livestock.

Hounds tracking and killing a fox in a hunt is pure entertainment. If it wasnt you wouldnt have 100+ people on a hunt to make a day of it.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

The fact that the fox will die anyway isnt licence to abuse it before hand.

Nobody said it was.

Read the post. I'm responding to a poster who said "the idea of a fox being brutally killed for our 'fun' is upsetting to me".

I'm simply pointing out that whether any fox is shot or hunted in fun is immaterial to the fox if that fox is being shot or hunted as part of a population control scheme, which is in part what hunting and shooting legitimately are.

In other words, if I work in a bank and my job is to harass customers for loan repayments, any satisfaction I may get from such distasteful work is quite immaterial to the legitimacy of that work. It's the same for hunting. The fact that people enjoy it is irrelevant.

where the entire thing exists because people find it fun then you have an issue.

Ridden hunts kill approximately 20,000 foxes per year in the United Kingdom. That's about 10% of the total fox population in that country, making it an important source of population control in itself.

We don't have any reliable kill figures from Ireland, but tell me why that should be any different in Ireland, with so many hunts, and such a small geographical area, and such rideable countryside? If Irish hunts eradicate 10% of the fox population here too, that would be more than enough to justify their role in protecting livestock by keeping the fox numbers stable.

Foxes dont exist so their deaths can provide people with entertainment.

Nobody said they do. But it is important that the fox population is kept stable.

byhookorbycrook

A dog/hound kills by biting the prey in the neck. Yes, the carcass may be then torn apart, but the fox is dead by then,

doctor evil

Sonics2k wrote: »

We eat those animals.

These people hunt down a single fox in large packs, with groups of dogs that will rip the animal to shreds if they catch it.

Very civilized aren't they.

If you were hungy enough I'm sure you would eat a fox!

I'm amazed by the 'its farmed to be eaten' what difference does this make to the animal.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Nobody said it was.

Read the post. I'm responding to a poster who said "the idea of a fox being brutally killed for our 'fun' is upsetting to me".

I'm simply pointing out that whether any fox is shot or hunted in fun is immaterial to the fox if that fox is being shot or hunted as part of a population control scheme, which is in part what hunting and shooting legitimately are.

In other words, if I work in a bank and my job is to harass customers for loan repayments, any satisfaction I may get from such distasteful work is quite immaterial to the legitimacy of that work. It's the same for hunting. The fact that people enjoy it is irrelevant.


Ridden hunts kill approximately 20,000 foxes per year in the United Kingdom. That's about 10% of the total fox population in that country, making it an important source of population control in itself.

We don't have any reliable kill figures from Ireland, but tell me why that should be any different in Ireland, with so many hunts, and such a small geographical area, and such rideable countryside? If Irish hunts eradicate 10% of the fox population here too, that would be more than enough to justify their role in protecting livestock by keeping the fox numbers stable.

Nobody said they do. But it is important that the fox population is kept stable.

Your missing my overall point which is that the kills from fox hunting are kills for the purpose of entertainment. In the UK it has been determined that it wasnt a valid method of population control. So those figures you are talking about are just the result of a sport and not population control.

Your trying to justify a sport based around animal cruelty using the fact the animals are vermin and every kill helps towards population control. The same could be said for burning them alive on a bonfire. It would be sick and disgusting and morally wrong but it may be fun to some people and it would help towards population control.

I just dont see anything to justify the cruelty to the animal. If hunting with packs was the best way of killing foxes for population control (which the burns report doesnt show by the way but I wouldnt hold the burns report as proof of anything necessarily) then I wouldnt oppose it being used as a method to do so.

But fox hunting as a tradition is about the chase, its about running the fox and making a day of it. In stark contrast to actual hunting which is about stealth and marksmanship and getting a clean kill fox hunting is about terrorising an animal into flight so they can chase it and kill it for a bit of fun.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

In the UK it has been determined that it wasnt a valid method of population control.

Eh...By whom?

How is eradicating 10% of the population per annum not a significant (if not even bordering on excessive) population control?

It was determined in the Hunting Inquiry that hunting to hounds was not the most welfare conscious method, but it certainly is a valid method in terms of numbers.

The King of Moo

doctor evil wrote: »

If you were hungy enough I'm sure you would eat a fox!

I'm amazed by the 'its farmed to be eaten' what difference does this make to the animal.

It makes a difference to us.

Farming animals sustainably gives us useful things (clothes, etc.).

Killing animals in a cruel way for fun is borderline psychotic and nothing is gained from it.

doctor evil

The lead hound kills the fox very fast with a strong crushing bite to the neck and by shaking it. The pack may devour the remains but at this point the fox is dead so big whoop. There may other methods of control that bring a quicker turn around in reducing fox numbers but hunting with hounds can take out older/injured/diseased foxes.

A territory will always be repopulated but no one is going for total erradication.

Anyone who thinks nature should be left alone and will find a balance has got their head in the sand, humankind has messed up and neglecting the mess will make it worse (mink/zebra mussel/japanese knotweed etc)

Nature is red in tooth and claw

Keep nature wild.

The King of Moo

doctor evil wrote: »

The lead hound kills the fox very fast with a strong crushing bite to the neck and by shaking it. The pack may devour the remains but at this point the fox is dead so big whoop. There may other methods of control that bring a quicker turn around in reducing fox numbers but hunting with hounds can take out older/injured/diseased foxes.

A territory will always be repopulated but no one is going for total erradication.

Anyone who thinks nature should be left alone and will find a balance has got their head in the sand, humankind has messed up and neglecting the mess will make it worse (mink/zebra mussel/japanese knotweed etc)

Nature is red in tooth and claw

Keep nature wild.

So people shouldn't hunt foxes with domesticated dogs and horses.

doctor evil

The King of Moo wrote: »

It makes a difference to us.

Farming animals sustainably gives us useful things (clothes, etc.).

Killing animals in a cruel way for fun is borderline psychotic.

Handy to throw terms around like borderline psychotic.

A fox can cause damage in different terrians even in a vegetable patch they can take a bit out of produce or dig up bulbs as well as the more 'traditonal' damage they do. Taking out foxes that could be the ones doing this is useful to us.

What makes a difference to one does not give that one entitlement to make snap judgements on others.

If you don't like hunting, don't go!