Fox Hunting

The Saint

Do you think
a) All Hunting should be banned
b) All Hunting should not be allowed
c) Hunting with dogs should be banned
d) Hunting for food is OK

Gordon

Causing any living consciousness to fear for their life is a bad thing, I don't object to having animals for food though.

Typedef

Actually I'd like to be a vegan, but never seem to get it together, plus I like the odd steak.

I voted all hunting should be outlawed, as I don't in fact think that hunting for food is necessary when you can get what you want from the supermarket and I don't really subscribe to the notion that it is in any way good to take pleasure from the act of killing the food you eat.

That seems a little sadistic to me.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Typedef

as I don't in fact think that hunting for food is necessary when you can get what you want from the

um, cows on aisle 9....

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't really subscribe to the notion that it is in any way good to take pleasure from the act of killing the food you eat.

That seems a little sadistic to me.

how does your attitude to the way you go about you business make change your mid from allowing to disallowing?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't in fact think that hunting for food is necessary when you can get what you want from the supermarket

ROFL

You're joking? Right?

Not everything's farmed (assuming farming is in some peverse way more moral than hunting for you, btw).

Saboteur

Typedef, Veganism is a major step to take. As hard as home cooking is concerned, trying to find a restaurant to cater for vegans can be difficult. And even more difficult in a lot of foreign countries. But once you find out what you can and can't eat, it starts to get easy. I was vegetarian for many years before I took the final step into becoming a vegan.
Your heart is in the right place. Why don't you take it one step forward and become active?

Jak

Causing any living consciousness to fear for their life is a bad thing, I don't object to having animals for food though.

Visit an abattoir Gordon. Trust me, when the animals are penned before being brought to slaughter with the stench of dead animals in the air and the squeals and panic from other animals they are fearing for their life. If possible it is a situation I would like to see improved, but it does not bother me significantly. I would wager many here will talk about their ideals but few will be motivated enough to take peaceful meaningful action.

I voted all hunting should be outlawed, as I don't in fact think that hunting for food is necessary when you can get what you want from the supermarket

Typedef, I'd urge you to read your above statement and think a little about where exactly you and your principles stand. Personally I think many would agree that hunted animals enjoy a greater freedom and quality of life than the animals in more industrialised production. Hunted animals are as free range as you can get.

I did not vote as the issue is more complex than the choices.

I would encourage and support the development of more shooting and the provision and management of the birds and their environment.

I would support the continuation of Fox hunting and coarsing in their current form with muzzled dogs. I do not feel the fear of the fox during the hunt is such an issue to be frank. They endure fear everyday. In addition I feel the benefits to the local economies and for local communities is considerable.

I would even support selective culling of animals through hunting. It is a form of management. Take a look at the Kruger national park example and how selective culling of animals has allowed them to bring numerous species which were in decline back to a thriving level.

Animals require management.

I accept that animals and people may suffer and die in this world. As much as a vegan who is true to their beliefs, I am true to mine. I eat meat, I am prepared to kill it.

Typedef

Why don't you take it one step forward and become active?

On the one hand I care passionately about animals, on the other my primal side just doesn't care.
It's too Freudian I reckon.

In any case that sort of ties into the topic in that hunting animals such that you may participate in the thrill of the chase and watch a pack of dogs tear another animal to shreds is in my view totally barbaric.

Still in principal since humans don't actually have to eat meat, since we dominate the planet and no longer have to be omnivorous I don't think humans should. So on a sliding scale, I accept that since humans eat meat that farming animals for meat is an evil that exists, who's merits are for another thread. I don't support shooting birds for sport, because as has been suggested the shot animals can suffer for quite some time if they are not killed with the first shot.

What I can't abide is fox hunting, purely for sport. It seems to stem from a time of gentry that has somehow hidden itself from the glare of the media, it is certainly never reported on in the news, but then again perhaps that is because people just don't care about it enough.

I would certainly encourage politicians in the UK to take the step to outlaw bloodsports like fox hunting, where you could make no legitimate claim to wanting to eat the animals you kill. What's more I think that Ireland should follow suit and I was frankly amazed to find out hunting with dogs was actually legal in Ireland, I had a pious post ready and waiting to post about English eliteism, but sadly it seems the English are further down the road of outlawing fox hunting than the Irish.

I don't support militancy towards fox hunting, that is completely counter productive as it makes the protester into the bad guy.

I would really like to hear from someone who supports fox hunting and can make a argument in it's favour, I will most likely disagree with that argument, but I would find the rationale intriguing.

The Saint

B]Animals require management. [/B]

Why? If they are left alone without human interferance they manage themselves. It is only when man interferes with them that they need protection and management. I think that it is very arrogant to think that these animals need humans to survive when obviously they would be far better off if we didnt exist. As for culling weak animals. These are the ones that if die naturally will feed a host of other animal, birds and insects which runs all the way up the food chain. I think the best form of management is to preserve their natural environment and leave them alone.

Typedef

Just on a subtext in this thread I do have to say that I can find a certain level of logic in what Jak says.

True enough pheasants reared for shooting do enjoy a freerange style of life and I would be a hyprocrit to say that it is wrong to kill animals to eat them, if eating them is the intention then that is at least palletable if you pardon the pun.

I do think that eating the animal is not really what the shooting is about, but rather the act of shooting, which I find slightly repulsive.
It seems wrong to derive pleasure from killing an 'inferior' animal and I just can't condone a pheasant or similar suffering apres being shot, it sort of seems like a really umm, barbaric, ignorant and crass thing to do.

Why not just shoot at clay pigeons and farm the pheasants, without actually having to put said pheasant through the possible trauma of bleeding to death apres being shot from the air?

It's thoughts like these that lead me to want to be a vegetarian, but mostly what holds me back on that front is having the nutrition I need, especially when compared to the balanced diet of Coca Cola and instant noodles I like to treat my body/temple to on a daily basis.

Hyprocracy ©

seamus

I also believe the "They experience fear everyday already" argument is irrelevant too. You experience stress everyday too. It's OK then with you, if I chase you down with a gun for one day a week? Maybe I'd shoot you, maybe I won't. After all, you're subjected to fear everyday of your life, what harm will a little more do?

Jak

Veganism is not an option for everyone and frankly I do not think it is healthy.

I would not be able to maintain my level of training on a vegan diet. Both myself and my brother are involved with bodybuilding and power lifting etc. - we pay a lot of attention to nutrition and what we need to maintain weight etc. I don't even want to think about how many fkin kilos of cous cous I would need to eat a day to get the nutrition I need.

I would not be me if I became a vegan.

The world will never make that change by choice.

I don't support shooting birds for sport, because as has been suggested the shot animals can suffer for quite some time if they are not killed with the first shot.

As regards the suffering of birds at shoots typedef. 9 out of 10 are dead when they hit the ground. Each shooter has a marker with a set of dogs behind him. Every kill is marked for pick up.

Winged birds are noted as to where they have gone down - and I have seen the dog handlers spent up to an hour at the end of a drive to make sure every bird is brought back. It is very rare that a wounded animal would get away. And frankly I can live with that statistic.

Why? If they are left alone without human interferance they manage themselves. It is only when man interferes with them that they need protection and management. I think that it is very arrogant to think that these animals need humans to survive when obviously they would be far better off if we didnt exist. As for culling weak animals. These are the ones that if die naturally will feed a host of other animal, birds and insects which runs all the way up the food chain. I think the best form of management is to preserve their natural environment and leave them alone.

The pheasant population in this country would not survive without management. They are not indigenous to the country. They would suffer a similar fate to that of the wild grouse in western Ireland which is on the brink of extinction in this country following the lack of management in the 1930's and 40's after large landed estates pulled out.

Look up the Kruger national park. The elephant population was in serious decline until selective culling and site management was put in place. The elephants were destroying their environment and weakening. Now the population even with culling is at it's highest. The animals are thriving.

And frankly a license issued to kill an old bull abandoned by the herd is a more humane death in my eyes than leaving him to have his belly eaten out by Hyenas. Think of it as euthanasia for animals.

Animals do need management if they are to survive. The modern world is a changing place and unless you are planning to cull the human population, animals will need to make space for mankind. Without our help many species will not survive the next century and the modern threats that come with it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Typedef
Still in principal since humans don't actually have to eat meat, since we dominate the planet and no longer have to be omnivorous I don't think humans should.

We don't have to have sex either. We can be celibate - look at the Catholic Church, for example. Upps... :rolleyes:

Being an omnivore is not just a simple question of conditioning, anymore than you can teach a shark to live on tofu. We eat vegetables, but we also eat animals and their products (such as milk). That's a balanced diet.

Frankly, if veganism was such a good dietary idea, why do vegans need to take such incredible care that they don't suffer scurvy, rickets or other forms of malnutrition. Answer - they/we are not herbivores. This is a fairly good article on the dangers of ideologically based diets, if anyone is interested.

After all, if God hadn't wanted us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food...

Jak

Originally posted by seamus
I also believe the "They experience fear everyday already" argument is irrelevant too. You experience stress everyday too. It's OK then with you, if I chase you down with a gun for one day a week? Maybe I'd shoot you, maybe I won't. After all, you're subjected to fear everyday of your life, what harm will a little more do?

They experience fear every day yes. They are wild animals. It is part of their life.

I do not live in an environment where this is the case. But being human if you were to try and chase me down with a gun each day the result would likely be a different one at the end of that first day.

seamus

In terms of a balanced diet, what you eat is irrelevant, as long as you have the correct proportion of nutrients. In theory, a person can live perfectly healthily on nutrient tablets. You can have an omnivorous diet and still suffer malnutrition problems. You don't need an omnivorous diet to be healthy, therefore it's not a better choice than veganism, just an easier one. FYI, scurvy and rickets are caused by lack of Vitamins C & D respectively, both of which are primarily obtained by most humans from sources other than meats.

This is OT anyway.

"We don't have to have sex either". Quite true, but by having sex, normally, we're not causing suffering and endangerment to anyone. Different situation. Why do you think paedophilia is classed as a 'sickness' while S & M and anal sex are classed as 'fetishes' or sexual choices? Because in the latter two, no-one is subjected to harm (unless it's consentual). The same applies here.

They experience fear every day yes. They are wild animals. It is part of their life.

I do not live in an environment where this is the case. But being human if you were to try and chase me down with a gun each day the result would likely be a different one at the end of that first day.

I can't see your point.

The Saint

The pheasant population in this country would not survive without management. They are not indigenous to the country. They would suffer a similar fate to that of the wild grouse in western Ireland which is on the brink of extinction in this country following the lack of management in the 1930's and 40's after large landed estates pulled out

The phesant should not be here and maintained if it is not an indigenous species. As for the grouse, the reason they are nearly extinct is due to farming as they lay their eggs on the ground and get destroyed during harvests. If their habitat was maintained there would not be a problem.

Animals do need management if they are to survive. The modern world is a changing place and unless you are planning to cull the human population, animals will need to make space for mankind. Without our help many species will not survive the next century and the modern threats that come with it.

Why should animals make way for us. Shouldnt it be the opposite. And without our existence there would be no threats in the future. I dont understand why we should play god when these species have evolved and thrived for millions of years until people started meddling with nature. After all, we are the ones who created the problem and without us no managment would be needed. Anyway, non-indigenous species should not be let loose in a foreign country. Look at the mink, and the rabbit in Australia. So keeping pheasant to set free and shoot in a non-natural environment is hardly a good idea.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by The Saint
Why should animals make way for us. Shouldnt it be the opposite.

Take your pick:

1. We're sentient and they're not
2. Because they're lower down on the food chain.
3. That's evolution for you.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
In theory, a person can live perfectly healthily on nutrient tablets.

Yes, but why?

"We don't have to have sex either". Quite true, but by having sex, normally, we're not causing suffering and endangerment to anyone. Different situation.

Actually my point is that bucking natural instinct is not always a good idea. No one here has come close to convincing me why I should with regard to eating meat and hunting.

As I said in the other thread, all too self-indulgant.

Jak

Seamus.

I know for a fact that I would not be able to practically maintain my diet on vegan limits. 5-6000 calories a day and an intake of ~300 grams of protein a day is difficult to maintain even with supplements and meat as it is. Just because you can survive on a vegan diet does not mean the rest of should have to.

In any case it is a silly argument. The world will never become a vegan society by choice.

As for the fact that you cannot see my point - well too bad.


The Saint.

Pheasant are here. The world is full of non indigenous species who have been moved. They can thrive with proper care.

As for your grouse argument. Yes this is part of the reason they are dying out - management would prevent this. Which was the point you missed.

As for your final paragraph ..

Why should animals make way for us. Shouldnt it be the opposite. And without our existence there would be no threats in the future. I dont understand why we should play god when these species have evolved and thrived for millions of years until people started meddling with nature. After all, we are the ones who created the problem and without us no managment would be needed.

Then by all means kill yourself as you are just part of the problem.

seamus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Take your pick:
We're sentient and they're not

Prove it.

Because they're lower down on the food chain.

The food chain is defined by your enviroment though. If you lived on the serengeti, then you would either be lower down on the food chain, or part of a common group of predators who may kill eachother. The food chain isn't a set of rules stating how we should act towards other animals, it's just something they teach kids in school to demnostrate the nature of nature.

That's evolution for you.

If we are more evolved, should we not respect those which are less fortunate than ourselves to possess this intelligence?

Actually my point is that bucking natural instinct is not always a good idea. No one here has come close to convincing me why I should with regard to eating meat and hunting.

Wholeheartedley agree. If we deny ourselves too many basic instincts, we deny our humanity. But to be human means that we have the ability to exercise control over those instincts, and we should, for the greater good. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, but I view killing an animal for food in exactly the same light as killing a human for food. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference.

As I said in the other thread, all too self-indulgant.

What is?

I know for a fact that I would not be able to practically maintain my diet on vegan limits. 5-6000 calories a day and an intake of ~300 grams of protein a day is difficult to maintain even with supplements and meat as it is. Just because you can survive on a vegan diet does not mean the rest of should have to.

This is a obviously a special diet, which you will not maintain for a particularly long period of time. 6000 calories a day is about 3 times the normal intake for a man, so you cannot say that this is a *normal* diet, therefore vegetarianism is impossible for you - sooner or later you will come back into the realm where vegeterianism will suffice. Besides, 6000 calories are much easier sourced from non-meat, starchy foods. Seeing as you have to make a special effort to get that much protein too, it wouldn't make much of a difference, taking a couple extra tablets a day.

I'm not trying to convert you, perish the thought, but just illustrating that vegetarianism isn't half as difficult as people make out. Veganism is for the truly dedicated (and relatively wealthy).

Jak

The food chain is defined by your enviroment though

Your environment determines the menu that is all. Mankind left the starting blocks with nothing and rose to the very top of the food chain. Now while you might argue that if we were to dump a fat kid in the serengetti and paste him with honey - he would cease to be top of the food chain (and I agree) - as a species we are undeniably at the top.

This is a obviously a special diet, which you will not maintain for a particularly long period of time. 6000 calories a day is about 3 times the normal intake for a man, so you cannot say that this is a *normal* diet, therefore vegetarianism is impossible for you - sooner or later you will come back into the realm where vegeterianism will suffice. Besides, 6000 calories are much easier sourced from non-meat, starchy foods. Seeing as you have to make a special effort to get that much protein too, it wouldn't make much of a difference, taking a couple extra tablets a day.

At the moment it is, however even when just trying to maintain a set weight I will need 4k a day and the same quantity of protein. To take a different example, the English women's coxless 4's each burn approx 5,000 plus calories a day in year round training (exceptional I agree - but fact). These girls need that amount simply to maintain their body weight. Your calorie intake and the effect it has is entirely dependent on your output.

In any case that is a little off topic, but my basic point is that veganism is not a practical option for many people. In addition many people have trouble eating well even with a full world menu available to them - these people could - but would not - manage on vegan limits.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
Prove it.

Why? It’s actually up to them to prove it.

The food chain is defined by your enviroment though. If you lived on the serengeti, then you would either be lower down on the food chain, or part of a common group of predators who may kill eachother.

Then foxhunting should probably not be carried out in the Serengeti.

If we are more evolved, should we not respect those which are less fortunate than ourselves to possess this intelligence?

Why? Why are you assuming that your moral viewpoint is right?

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, but I view killing an animal for food in exactly the same light as killing a human for food.

Yes, I fear we will just have to agree to disagree. Humans are too stringy.

What is?

The self-indulgent moral imperative that personifies animals to the point that our morality becomes warped enough that we would care more for our pets than our own offspring. A New Age, middle class psudo-morality that is happy to buy slabs of meat in a supermarket, yet squirms at the thought of a slaughterhouse. An ideology that breeds brats handing out ALF leaflets on Grafton Street, while wearing leather jackets and that would care more for species who would happily and obliviously pick off our bones give a chance.

All because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling. That is self-indulgence.

The Saint

We're getting a bit off the subject now. The point is why kill an animal if your not going to eat it, as in a fox. They are not even a part of our food chain.