Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

Badgermonkey

Batsy wrote: »

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284836/Hackney-twins-fox-attack-Fantastic-No-Mr-Fox-vicious-pest.html#ixzz1hrCVKLed

Mind if I don't?

It'd spoil Xmas and all that.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

You said it right here. Keep up.

I linked to the definition of the word in the post after that. You really should read it. Culling and killing are not the same thing.

Show me the first post in which you mentioned lamping before I brought up the burns report.

Lamping is a way of hunting. When I say shooting I mean shot with a gun as opposed to killed with dogs after a long chase. I said "farmers would only shoot at close range. Hunters have the gear and experience to get one shot kills". Lamping and shooting with a rifle is how they do that.

Dyr

Batsy wrote: »

The truth, however, is that foxes are aggressive and nasty creatures.

And with that I stopped reading.

Foxes are predators and scavengers, they tend to need to be aggressive. As for "nasty" lol are preying mantis "pious"? are dolphins "considerate"? ****eing on about people fantasizing about foxes is funny when you're doing the same thing yourself.


Most my country relatives when I was growing up were far more guilty of applying human attributes to wild animals than any city slicker.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

I take no notice of polls which show that the majority of people in Britain are against foxhunting. This is because the vast majority of British people live in urban areas, with only a tiny percentage living in the countryside. And urban dwellers have a mythical view of the fox. They see them as cute and cuddly. This was reflected in Labour’s ban on fox-hunting, which caused an eagerness to fantasise about the fox. This fantasy manifested itself when Labour MP Mike Foster (who was then the MP for Hastings and Rye before he lost his seat to Tory Amber Rudd last year) held up a furry toy fox outside Parliament to celebrate the passing of the legislation.

The truth, however, is that foxes are aggressive and nasty creatures.

The fox attack on baby twins Lola and Isabella Koupparis in Hackney last year was not "alleged." It actually happened.

And it was not the first time a fox has attacked children.

In July 2002, a fox entered the sitting room of Peter and Sue Day in Dartford, Kent, and tried to grab their 14-week-old baby son Louis in his cot.

The boy was left with severe bite marks on his head and arms.

‘We are now afraid to leave him alone,’ the Days said.

Fox expert Bruce Lindsay-Smith, an experienced marksman and trapper who disposes of about 70 urban foxes a week, said: 'Anybody who thinks they’re cuddly creatures is living in cloud cuckoo land.'

‘I’ve had clients who have lost dogs, cats, gerbils, chinchillas and even a £1,500 koi carp to foxes. I know two people who have been bitten in their beds.’

And the fox population in Britain's towns and cities is actually growing, making such attacks more likely.

Also, Britain's 11 million cats, and other pets, are at risk from foxes. This is because cat is a favourite food of the fox.

In one case in Edinburgh, the heads of three pet cats and two rabbits were found in the garden of a suburban property where 11 foxes had taken over a summer house.

Yet we let the urban fox flourish - and this flourishing is partly due to the ban on foxhunting. There are estimated to be 30,000 foxes in London alone – 28 per square mile - and the fox population is expected to hit a record high.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284836/Hackney-twins-fox-attack-Fantastic-No-Mr-Fox-vicious-pest.html#ixzz1hrCVKLed

The truth, however, is that you are talking out of your hat, as usual. There is no evidence to suggest that fox hunting would have prevented these attacks.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

I linked to the definition of the word in the post after that. You really should read it. Culling and killing are not the same thing.

It effectively is, actually
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cull

When you've finished familiarising yourself with the English language, I suggest a day following hounds. Might loosen you up a little, you might even enjoy yourself.

Batsy

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Mind if I don't?

It'd spoil Xmas and all that.

I think the truth hurts for some people, so they can't bear to face it.

Batsy

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

The truth, however, is that you are talking out of your hat, as usual. There is no evidence to suggest that fox hunting would have prevented these attacks.

There is no doubt in my mind that the number of fox attacks in Britain has increased since the ban on foxhunting.

And those people on here who are anti-foxhunting may change their minds if they ever find their headless pet cat in their garden or if a fox mauls their child or if a fox keeps causing damage to their garden and property.

Discodog

We know that the Hunters are at a loss when they start quoting the Daily Mail

The Mail is pro hunting - always has been. I have personally handled several hundred foxes many of which were in extreme pain. I have never met an aggressive fox & I never will.

When people kill purely for pleasure they have to justify their actions otherwise they appear cruel & un-compassionate. A few shooters will admit that they enjoy killing & in a strange way I actually admire their honesty when they do.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that the number of fox attacks in Britain has increased since the ban on foxhunting.

And those people on here who are anti-foxhunting may change their minds if they ever find their headless pet cat in their garden or if a fox mauls their child or if a fox keeps causing damage to their garden and property.

Key part here. In one's mind does not always equal reality, and judging by some of your posts here it doesn't often, if ever, equal reality when it comes to yours

Discodog

Batsy wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that the number of fox attacks in Britain has increased since the ban on foxhunting.

And those people on here who are anti-foxhunting may change their minds if they ever find their headless pet cat in their garden or if a fox mauls their child or if a fox keeps causing damage to their garden and property.

Foxes very, very rarely kill cats. They never maul kids & they do little damage. What's next in the list of myths - are they talking to aliens ?

seanybiker

dont see how they're supporting it to be honest.

They report on murder and rape aswell , that doesnt mean that they support murder and rape.
Im sure I read the whether in it before, damn them people supporting rain and snow.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

It effectively is, actually
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cull

When you've finished familiarising yourself with the English language, I suggest a day following hounds. Might loosen you up a little, you might even enjoy yourself.

It effectively is or it actually isnt ? I'll go with the latter and say its yourself who needs to familiarise yourself with the English language as well as to try and argue your points without lying and misrepresenting other peoples arguments.

Batsy

Discodog wrote: »

We know that the Hunters are at a loss when they start quoting the Daily Mail

Just like the Europhiles are at a loss when they quote the BBC or the Guardian.

. I have never met an aggressive fox & I never will.

Yes, you have. All red foxes are aggressive. It's just that most foxes you encounter are scared of adult humans. They aren't, however, scared of baby humans - as those attacks on children in London and Kent have shown - and they aren't scared of people's pet cats and farmers' chickens. If you want to see how aggressive a fox can be just leave a baby alone with it in a room and watch the fox take a bite out of it.

When people kill purely for pleasure they have to justify their actions otherwise they appear cruel & un-compassionate.

Fox hunting is justified because it cuts down the population of an aggressive and vicious - and often disease-ridden - creature which has no qualms about attacking humans, particularly children.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

It effectively is, actually
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cull

When you've finished familiarising yourself with the English language, I suggest a day following hounds. Might loosen you up a little, you might even enjoy yourself.

I have spent many hours with Hunts & it is not anything to be enjoyed because it's purpose is to terrify, chase & kill a harmless animal.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

Just like the Europhiles are at a loss when they quote the BBC or the Guardian.



Yes, you have. All red foxes are aggressive. It's just that most foxes you encounter are scared of adult humans. They aren't, however, scared of baby humans - as those attacks on children in London and Kent have shown - and they aren't scared of people's pet cats and farmers' chickens. If you want to see how aggressive a fox can be just leave a baby alone with it in a room and watch the fox take a bite out of it.



Fox hunting is justified because it cuts down the population of an aggressive and vicious - and often disease-ridden - creature which has no qualms about attacking humans, particularly children.

Why do you insist on harping on about something which you clearly know nothing about?

later12

Discodog wrote: »

I have spent many hours with Hunts & it is not anything to be enjoyed because it's purpose is to terrify, chase & kill a harmless animal.

The hunt is not a personality.

For most casual followers and subscribers, their aim is to have an exciting day out following hounds, meeting friends and enjoying the countryside.

For the hunt servants and the MFHs, the aim is to ensure the financial stability of the hunt and to control the local fox, or hare, population.

If you seriously think anyone climbs out of bed on a hunt day and says to his wife "Oh darling I really do hope we terrify some animals in the most brutish way possible" then you have far bigger problems than fox-hunting with which to concern yourself.

Batsy

Discodog wrote: »

Foxes very, very rarely kill cats.

They still do eat cats.

But cats aren't the only pets that people keep. If you keep a domestic rabbit or guinea pig foaming freely in your garden you are leaving it open to attack from a fox. And, of course, farmers and other people hate foxes because they prey on their chickens and lambs. In Australia, it has been estinmated that foxes may prey on 10–30% of lambs, costing Australian sheep breeders more than A100 million annually.

They never maul kids & they do little damage.

• On 26 June 2002, a fox attacked a 14-week-old boy in Dartford, Kent, UK, grabbing the child's head and attempting to drag him outside before being chased off by the boy's parents.
• In June 2010, an urban fox entered a family home in London, UK, and attacked twin baby girls, who were sleeping in their cots.
• In October 2010, it was alleged in the press that a fox bit off the nose and 2½ fingers of a comatose 37-year-old man in Inveresk, East Lothian, UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox#Attacks_on_humans

Foxes also do a lot of damage to people's gardens.

later12

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Why do you insist on harping on about something which you clearly know nothing about?

Because Batsy is English and thinks because foxhunting is viewed as a traditional English pursuit, s/he must defend it. You'll probably have Keith AFC in here next.

The foxhunting debate would be served far better - on both sides - if people didn't stick to these crude and silly misconceptions about those who enjoy hunting and why they do so.

ItsAWindUp

later10 wrote: »

Because Batsy is English and thinks because foxhunting is viewed as a traditional English pursuit, s/he must defend it. You'll probably have Keith AFC in here next.

The foxhunting debate would be served far better - on both sides - if people didn't stick to these crude and silly misconceptions about those who enjoy hunting and why they do so.

Plus he is also a troll, and swoops into every thread determined to disagree with the majority

Batsy

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Why do you insist on harping on about something which you clearly know nothing about?

I'm obviously not one of those numpties who believe that foxes are cute, little, cuddy-wuddly, harmless, vegetarian animals which never attack and eat animals and which only like eating grass and lettuce.

I know it might not be what some people, for whatever bizarre reason, like to believe, but the truth is that foxes are aggressive predators who eat meat.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

I'm obviously not one of those numpties who believe that foxes are cute, little, cuddy-wuddly, harmless, vegetarian animals which never attack animals and like nothing more than eating grass and lettuce.

Who the hell believes that? Nobody that has posted on this thread, not that you've bothered to read it I'm sure.

The King of Moo

Batsy wrote: »

I'm obviously not one of those numpties who believe that foxes are cute, little, cuddy-wuddly, harmless, vegetarian animals which never attack and eat animals and which only like eating grass and lettuce.

I know it might not be what some people, for whatever bizarre reason, like to believe, but the truth is that foxes are aggressive predators who eat meat.

That's strawman silliness.

Not one single person in this thread has claimed to have such an opinion of foxes.

Most people have acknowledged that they can be pests, and are tackling the way in which they're hunted, rather than the nature of the animals.

They're not particularly aggressive compared to other wild carnivores though: look at the number of people who tame them and keep them as pets.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

For most casual followers and subscribers, their aim is to have an exciting day out following hounds, meeting friends and enjoying the countryside.

For the hunt servants and the MFHs, the aim is to ensure the financial stability of the hunt and to control the local fox, or hare, population.

If you seriously think anyone climbs out of bed on a hunt day and says to his wife "Oh darling I really do hope we terrify some animals in the most brutish way possible" then you have far bigger problems than fox-hunting with which to concern yourself.

Hunts do not control foxes. I agree that many "followers" do not see the kill & some would be put off if they did. Just as many people wouldn't go Greyhound Racing if they had to witness thousands of dogs being killed because of the "sport"

Discodog

Batsy wrote: »

They still do eat cats.

But cats aren't the only pets that people keep. If you keep a domestic rabbit or guinea pig foaming freely in your garden you are leaving it open to attack from a fox. And, of course, farmers and other people hate foxes because they prey on their chickens and lambs. In Australia, it has been estinmated that foxes may prey on 10–30% of lambs, costing Australian sheep breeders more than A100 million annually.

• On 26 June 2002, a fox attacked a 14-week-old boy in Dartford, Kent, UK, grabbing the child's head and attempting to drag him outside before being chased off by the boy's parents.
• In June 2010, an urban fox entered a family home in London, UK, and attacked twin baby girls, who were sleeping in their cots.
• In October 2010, it was alleged in the press that a fox bit off the nose and 2½ fingers of a comatose 37-year-old man in Inveresk, East Lothian, UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox#Attacks_on_humans

Foxes also do a lot of damage to people's gardens.

From the Daily Mail to Wikipedia :rolleyes:

The alleged attack on the children in 2010 was never proven or witnessed.
Neither was the earlier attack verifiable. The comatose man could be believable but you can't blame the fox

So we have cities of millions of people living with ten of thousands of foxes & your proof is two very debatable cases. If Foxes are as dangerous as you claim there should be incidents every day.

By the way the reason that a Fox will not attack a cat is because the cat poses an injury risk to the fox & there is plenty of easier food. Most studies agree that Foxes eat a huge quantity of rats which is why many farmers welcome them.

Ave Sodalis

Haven't read every post but read a huge majority of them and there seems to be a common occurrence... those against the hunt know nothing the nature of horses and the horse industry.
Just so it's clear, in a hunt, only a select few are there to kill the fox and they're usually the ones in front. The rest are there to give the horses a good gallop, get them used to different fences and if you knew anything about horses, you would know that they like nothing better than a long gallop. They rarely take part in the killing of the fox. No, you cannot organise one on any day of the week and no, you can not decide to simply go whatever way you please. As for the comment about riders just sitting on and it being only posh people involved, I actually have no words for...
Drag hunts are fine but they take away from the unknown and would get boring after a while, especially for the marker.
The horse industry would seriously suffer from the loss of the hunts. The truth is, it's apart of our identity and it's what Irish horses are known to be best for. The Irish Draught horse is lighter than most draught horses, yet it has wide feet and sturdy bone that makes it the ideal mount. It is also a money maker for the country. The horses and the hounds are sold off to other countries also involved in the sport and I've known many people coming from other countries to take part.
Banning the sport altogether would be a disaster. Horses are already suffering severely because of the downturn. The level of abandonment is already at staggering heights from people with horses as pets who cannot look after them anymore. The numbers of horses and dogs that would have to be put down would be devastating.
What I think would be the best way of solving it would be for the main people in the hunt to desensitize their horses to the sound of a gun, and use that once the fox is caught, using the dogs to sniff out the fox in the first place and retrieve it afterwards.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

Hunts do not control foxes.

We don't have any reliable figures for Ireland, but in the UK the figure was about 20,000 foxes per year (since the hunting ban, this may need to be revised even further upwards).

There is no legitimate reason as to why the figure should not be proportional in Ireland, in which case it would indicate that hunts do assist in the eradication of foxes.

foxinsox

Batsy wrote: »

The truth, however, is that foxes are aggressive and nasty creatures.

Oh Hai!

I'm rather lovely

joela

MungBean wrote: »

They can go out and train their horses any day of the week in that terrain and the fact they treat their horses so well shows how hypocritical they are. They dont give two flying fcuks for the fox as long as they enjoy themselves. Not what I'd call animal lovers or opponents of animal cruelty.

So it isn't cruel that the "Hunt Sabs" have been seen damaging/injuring hounds in the past? Is it appropriate that same animal lovers terrorised my kid sister aged 8 on her pony out for the day as she was a local farmers child? She was TERRIFIED after the experience as were many of her friends....so protect the fox but terrorise small kids and label other people not conforming to your views as vermin?

Extremism in any form is not attractive, I can see views from both sides but the animal rights people quite frankly do themselves eff all favours by patronising and abusing those of us who wish not to be quite so extreme and are perhaps undecided. FWIW I grew up as a farmers daughter who hunted regularly as a child, I was NEVER blooded as it had been done away with by most progressive hunts, the dig was also abandoned by most hunts as were most of the other frankly unfair and cruel practices. Oh and I rarely saw foxes caught over the years I hunted for a number of reasons:

1. Hounds are dumb, cannot move as quickly and do not know the terrain in the area like the fox does.
2. Foxes are smart and if they are healthy they out run the hounds very quickly.
3. When caught the fox dies instantaneously, so quick that he/she is usually pretty much devoured by the time the hunt catches up.

I no longer hunt, no time, no money, no horse and not hugely interested anymore but it isn't up to me to berate, lecture and harangue someone for their beliefs. Isn't that how religious fanatics function?

John_Rambo

Batsy, there is always a small risk with wild animals, be they deer, dolphins, foxes, lions, tigers, otters etc... I don't know one person that was bitten by a fox, it was a pet, I know one person that was hurt by a dolphin. A seal bit me two years ago, it was a pup and didn't get through my wetsuit.

The reaction to this very small danger is education and knowledge. Not knee jerk fear reactions.

Not feeding foxes, taking small precautions, not cornering them, keeping them wild and fearful is what needs to be done. Complete elimination of any indigenous species that could cause the smallest bit of danger is a thing of the past. Wildlife management is whats done if the populations cause problems, culling can be part of this management, it happens to the deer in the phoenix park in Dublin.

In Ireland, city foxes are not a problem.

later12

joela wrote: »

So it isn't cruel that the "Hunt Sabs" have been seen damaging/injuring hounds in the past? Is it appropriate that same animal lovers terrorised my kid sister aged 8 on her pony out for the day as she was a local farmers child?

We had a similar experience with a protestor and a claxon which ended up in the local district court. It's a little hypocritical that these people can show such little regard, particularly for children & horses, as to deliberately frighten them before setting off or worse, during a chase.