Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

Sonics2k

SisterAnn wrote: »

No quotes needed - it is sport. Not for city people maybe but I don't care what football or basketball they play.

It has the added benefit of helping to control vermin on the land. The British legislators made a mistake, but I am happy to see no threat to our tradition here in Ireland. The only electoral threat was sent buried six feet under when the Green Party vote imploded. Good riddance to those types. Hunting of foxes will be done winter after winter across this land for many's a year yet. If some aren't cool with that I can only advise that they accept the things they cannot change.

It'll change.

How about you brave 'hunters' go track down an animal that's an actual challenge or threat to you. Sod off to the Safari and go toe to toe against a lion or rhino with a spear.
Going in a group for 20+ people with dogs against a lone fox, you guys must be proud.

For the record, I have been on a Fox hunt many many years ago when I was a young lad, as I was a huge fan of horse riding. We spent a fair few hours riding, and it was fun. Until I got to see what they allowed the dogs do to the fox they eventually caught. There was no sport involved in it, not even slightly civilised.
I left the club the following day, and haven't even slightly regretted it.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

...except saving the lives of more productive animals like lambs and fowl, or crops in the case of other hunted animals.

doctor evil

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

People shouldn't feed foxes and anthromorphisise (sp) them is what I mean. They are wild animals not cute cuddly toys.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

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.

Numbers dont a valid method make. Just as it wouldnt be a valid method if we burnt 20% of the population alive. Huge numbers but hugely wrong at the same time.

The fact that it is unlawful in the UK is a pretty clear indication that its not deemed a valid method.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

You seem like a decent guy, but really this is just typical uninformed guff, tbh.

You have it totally backwards. Even when shooting in daylight without horses, the most humane way of doing so is with dogs so that they can flush out the fox.

Even that's less humane than hunting in terms of morbidity and injury, but hey, at least there won't be any riders in pink or navy coats to hurt anyone's feelings.

The King of Moo

doctor evil wrote: »

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.

That would be hunting with intention to kill foxes, not hunting them for fun. I oppose both if they're conducted in a cruel manner.

doctor evil wrote: »

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!

I'm entitled to make any judgements I like. Everyone is.

Someone mentioned the "don't go hunting if you don't like it" idea earlier and it's nonsensical. Don't you understand I disapprove of the cruel treatment of a fox for entertainment?
It's not enough for me to simply not go fox hunting as it's something I find morally reprehensible and I would like it to be banned.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

The fact that it is unlawful in the UK is a pretty clear indication that its not deemed a valid method.

No it isn't. The fact that it's (technically) illegal in the UK is a pretty clear indication that the Labour Government, who in fairness took the time to investigate the matter, didn't consider foxhunting to be adequately humane.

The Government didn't ban hunting because it's not an effective method of controlling foxes. 10% of a pre-breeding population eradication is a serious chunk of the population to lose.

As a method of population control, it does work.

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

You seem like a decent guy, but really this is just typical uninformed guff, tbh.

You have it totally backwards. Even when shooting without horses, the most humane way of doing so is with dogs so that they can flush out the fox.

Even that's less humane than hunting in terms of morbidity and injury, but hey, at least there won't be any riders in pink or navy coats to hurt anyone's feelings.

I was referring to Doctor Evil's idea of keeping nature wild, and showing how if that were applied wholesale it might not be such a useful idea.

I'm not against the use of dogs at all in hunting; it's the idea of a huge number of dogs chasing one fox for hours that I find most cruel.
I understand that in some areas fox populations need to be controlled and that some foxes would suffer a great deal of physical pain in any situation in which they're hunted.

I just don't believe that hunts like the one in the article are the best method to control fox numbers.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

No it isn't. The fact that it's (technically) illegal in the UK is a pretty clear indication that the Labour Government, who in fairness took the time to investigate the matter, didn't consider foxhunting to be adequately humane.

The Government didn't ban hunting because it's not an effective method of controlling foxes. 10% of a pre-breeding population eradication is a serious chunk of the population to lose.

As a method of population control, it does work.

As a method of population control it is illegal. How on earth can you call something which is deemed to be illegal a valid method ?

Its no more valid than beating your dog to death because you dont want it no more. It would work and you would no longer have a dog to look after but no logical and reasonable human being would call it a valid method of doing so.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm not against the use of dogs at all in hunting; it's the idea of a huge number of dogs chasing one fox for hours that I find most cruel.

For hours?

It would be quite the achievment for any field master to follow the same fox for hours on end.

And you're not against one dog, but many,so how many is your limit: two? five? ten? And why? A pack of twenty pair is only as fast as its fastest pair, so maybe be should ban fast dogs?

later12

MungBean wrote: »

As a method of population control it is illegal. How on earth can you call something which is deemed to be illegal a valid method ?

I'm talking about validity in terms of numbers. As a way of controlling the fox population, despite what you seemed to believe earlier, it can control the numbers very well.

It's legally invalid, indeed. Even though it happens now more than ever in the UK.

doctor evil

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm not against the use of dogs at all in hunting; it's the idea of a huge number of dogs chasing one fox for hours that I find most cruel.

The same fox is not chased for hours, this is a common misconception. The fox is either caught gets away or goes to ground. I don't know what hunts (both mounted and on foot) still dig out. The hunt will then go onto another area to see if the hounds can get the scent of another fox.

The hounds follow each other or the scent, they don't all fan out in a straight line. As I have stated in other posts the lead hound kills the fox, great numbers of dogs don't mean much.

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

For hours?

It would be quite the achievment for any field master to follow the same fox for hours on end.

And you're not against one dog, but many,so how many is your limit: two? five? ten? And why? A pack of twenty pair is only as fast as its fastest pair, so maybe be should ban fast dogs?

Whatever the minimum number of dogs needed to catch the foxes is.
Preferably one or dogs per fox.

And one rider. I really don't see what they're all for.

Hunting foxes around their dens and around farms without attracting their attention as much as possible would also make sense, rather than chasing them over distances.

It would also be less cruel than chasing them over distance with a large group of dogs, horses and people chasing them trying to kill them.

SisterAnn

The King of Moo wrote: »

Someone mentioned the "don't go hunting if you don't like it" idea earlier and it's nonsensical. Don't you understand I disapprove of the cruel treatment of a fox for entertainment?
It's not enough for me to simply not go fox hunting as it's something I find morally reprehensible and I would like it to be banned.

It is far from nonsensical. It could be nonsensical to take offence on a fox's behalf. Vermin must be managed and if people get a bit of enjoyment out of it en route, that can't be a bad thing.

I demand the right to hunt foxes as a free person. I don't demand that you also enjoy it alongside me and give up your tennis, football, golf, or whatever your buzz is. That would be arrogant.

The King of Moo

doctor evil wrote: »

The same fox is not chased for hours, this is a common misconception. The fox is either caught gets away or goes to ground. I don't know what hunts (both mounted and on foot) still dig out. The hunt will then go onto another area to see if the hounds can get the scent of another fox.

The hounds follow each other or the scent, they don't all fan out in a straight line. As I have stated in other posts the lead hound kills the fox, great numbers of dogs don't mean much.

I'd say it does to the fox.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

I'm talking about validity in terms of numbers. As a way of controlling the fox population, despite what you seemed to believe earlier, it can control the numbers very well.

It's legally invalid, indeed. Even though it happens now more than ever in the UK.

You challenged my statement that it wasnt a valid method of controlling fox populations in the UK. So avoiding the fact that it actually isnt a valid method to say its valid in terms of numbers is pointless and your just trying to confuse the point.

Its not a valid method of controlling fox populations in the UK. It is a sport and nothing else. So those numbers you brought up are kill numbers from fox hunting the sport not fox hunting the valid means of population control.

The King of Moo

SisterAnn wrote: »

It is far from nonsensical. It could be nonsensical to take offence on a fox's behalf. Vermin must be managed and if people get a bit of enjoyment out of it en route, that can't be a bad thing.

I demand the right to hunt foxes as a free person. I don't demand that you also enjoy it alongside me and give up your tennis, football, golf, or whatever your buzz is. That would be arrogant.

I've explained earlier that I have a moral objection to the treatment of the fox in hunts like this, so I do take offence at others doing it.

To take your logic to an extreme example, if I saw someone beating a child in the street, I wouldn't just walk past and say "Well, I've no right to interfere, that's their way of doing things."
No, I would intervene as I object to such treatment of a child, as I object to unnecessary cruelty to animals.

I don't object to anyone playing tennis as it doesn't involve animal cruelty.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

You challenged my statement that it wasnt a valid method of controlling fox populations in the UK. So avoiding the fact that it actually isnt a valid method to say its valid in terms of numbers is pointless and your just trying to confuse the point.

Sigh.

Fox population is x and rising
We want it (say) 10% below x where 10% is the replacement rate
This makes the fox population stable

Fox hunting kills approximately 10% of the pre breeding population in the UK.

This makes it a valid way of controlling foxes - it does work - even if it is invalid in the eyes of the law and even if it shouldn't happen from a humane perspective.

You're the one who insists that hunts don't cull foxes, who insists that foxhunting is not a real way of controlling the population.

Explain, in an Irish context, why that is so.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Sigh.

Fox population is x and rising
We want it (say) 10% below x where 10% is the replacement rate
This makes the fox population stable

I'll try and explain this as simply as I can because I'm getting tired going in circles with you.

Fox hunting kills approximately 10% of the pre breeding population in the UK.

No it doesnt. It did 12 years ago and then was deemed to be an invalid method of population control.

This makes it a valid way of controlling foxes - it does work - even if it is invalid in the eyes of the law and even if it shouldn't happen from a humane perspective.

That makes it not a valid method but makes it instead a sport which is now illegal. If it was valid it would not only be legal but would be used to control fox populations. Effective at killing foxes does not make it a valid method of doing so. You may want to get the dictionary out again.

You're the one who insists that hunts don't cull foxes, who insists that foxhunting is not a real way of controlling the population.

Explain, in an Irish context, why that is so.

Your jumping back to points from the first few pages now and mixing up two arguments. Here we are discussing the figures from the UK and hunting in the UK. You dont have numbers for Ireland which is why we are discussing the UK. If you want to bring this back to yesterdays argument and debate whether or not it is used to cull foxes here then we can argue that again I suppose. But I'd rather stick to what we are talking about now as opposed to heading off on another tangent.

later12

I'll repeat.

Why does the hunt 'not cull foxes'?

The illegality of the hunt (in the UK) is not in question.

Discodog

SisterAnn wrote: »

Though taking you at your word, I'm happy for your particular experience with raising fowl. I can assure you it is not most people's sadly. If it was only that easy.

Yes drag hunting has the buzz but then foxes have to be kept in check.

It's incredibly easy. You keep them in proper housing & make sure that they are secure at night.

But hunting doesn't keep them in check. It's got nothing to do with Mr Cute Fox. I would hold the view that it is wrong to torture & kill any wild animal. I accept that sometimes an animal has to be killed but this should only ever be by a humane method & preferably by a qualified operator.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

I'll repeat.

Why does the hunt 'not cull foxes'?

The illegality of the hunt (in the UK) is not in question.

This is painful, we discussed culling yesterday and it culminated in the fact that you didnt know what the word meant.

If your not questioning the illegality of the hunt then you have absolutely no grounds to call it valid.

Buy a dictionary and look up 'culling' and 'validity' then reread the thread and some of what I have said may sink in. I'm done going in circles.

I love fox hunting. I shoot game too. If you have a problem with it then I think you should give out about it more on the internet.

Also in about 20 hunts I've seen about 3 foxes and killed one. Shooting them with a high powered rifle is better imo. I rear pheasants and those ginger bas­tards are the fu­cking bane of my existence as one can cost me thousands in damage.

Paparazzo

Discodog wrote: »

It's incredibly easy. You keep them in proper housing & make sure that they are secure at night.

But hunting doesn't keep them in check. It's got nothing to do with Mr Cute Fox. I would hold the view that it is wrong to torture & kill any wild animal. I accept that sometimes an animal has to be killed but this should only ever be by a humane method & preferably by a qualified operator.

A lot of people thinks it's inhumane to keep a dog as a pet. Or go to the Vegans forum, we don't need them for food either. So keeping chickens locked up is inhumane too.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

If your not questioning the illegality of the hunt then you have absolutely no grounds to call it valid.

Oh but wait, hunting is legal in Ireland.

Does that mean if you're questioning the legality of the hunt, you have absolutely no grounds to call it invalid?

Secondly,

since you're returning to the issue, I want to know what you meant when you said 'hunts don't cull foxes'?

MungBean wrote: »

The hunt doesnt cull foxes

MungBean wrote: »

A hunt is not hunting and doesnt keep the numbers down

I'm sure you won't ignore these 2 questions... will you?

Discodog

Paparazzo wrote: »

A lot of people thinks it's inhumane to keep a dog as a pet. Or go to the Vegans forum, we don't need them for food either. So keeping chickens locked up is inhumane too.

I would agree depending on how you keep them. My dogs are kept well & have everything that a domesticated animal could need. When I kept hens they had a big run & were only locked in at night - when the roost in any case. But battery farming is inhumane & Foxhunting is killing for pleasure.

joela

later10 wrote: »

I'll repeat.

Why does the hunt 'not cull foxes'?

The illegality of the hunt (in the UK) is not in question.

Mung Bean I'd like to hear you answer this question and those I posed to ItsaWindUp earlier in the thread.

1. Do you understand that there is no such thing as a balance in nature and that nature is cruel in its methods when judged with human emotions.
2. Do you have a better idea for preventing overpopulation or would you prefer to watch nature being nature and cruelly starving the fox population or decimating it through disease? It makes no odds to me but it is still suffering and cruelty so how is one better than the other in terms of cruelty as humans understand it?
3. Banning hunting will inevitably result in more lamping, much greater in terms of cruelty imo, poisoning, shooting and maiming. So is this a better alternative to a really quick instantaneous death when caught by hounds?

Hounds, horses etc. may be domesticated but they are still nature as are human beings and we continuously project our own values and emotions onto animals which really isn't what nature intended.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Oh but wait, hunting is legal in Ireland.

Seeing as we were discussing the hunt in the UK that doesnt really make much difference when you claim the hunt is a valid method of population control in the UK. Notice how one is in Ireland and the other one (one you are talking about) is in the UK.

Does that mean if you're questioning the legality of the hunt, you have absolutely no grounds to call it invalid?

You agree its illegal, dont question the fact that its illegal but still hold the opinion that its valid ? I'd be surprised if you even had a clue what your argument was to be honest.

Secondly,

since you're returning to the issue, I want to know what you meant when you said 'hunts don't cull foxes'?

LOL since I am returning to the issue ? Your returning to it because you talked yourself into a knot about the validity of hunting in the UK.

Its pointless if you dont know what the word means. I've explained it to you twice before to no avail so its a waste of time doing it again.

I'm sure you won't ignore these 2 questions... will you?

I have answered both several times. The difficulty lies with the fact you dont understand the meaning of the words your using.

rothai

This is more bleeding heart bul****. People can't feed their children in this country, Suicide....There are real issues in this country that need debate.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

Seeing as we were discussing the hunt in the UK that doesnt really make much difference when you claim the hunt is a valid method of population control in the UK

Ok fair enough.

Lets talk about Ireland.

Now, you said

If your not questioning the illegality of the hunt then you have absolutely no grounds to call it valid.

(i) does the same maxim apply to ireland, why or why not?
(ii) If it does, then you have no grounds to call the hunt invalid here.

You didn't answer my second question, Mung, which is what you meant by the following

Originally Posted by MungBean
A hunt is not hunting and doesnt keep the numbers down

Why are you ignoring our questions?

Why?