Celebrating the demise of cruel stag hunting

djpbarry · 07-01-2010 1:44am

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Death is the wild is rarely a good death. If you have ever witnessed an animal dying from "natural" causes in the wild then you'd realise that it is usually cruel and painful, often taking days with the animal in pain and open to predators to make the suffering worse. Many starve to death who are not attacked by other animals in their weakened state.

So man should administer a cruel and painful death to save the animal from the possibility of a cruel and painful death? Hmm...

fairplay · 07-01-2010 2:01am

I see the stag hunters are back with the same old nonsense...all animals die, so why not by being hunted to death or injury rather than have them waiting around for nature to take its course...Nice people go hunting and it's not only toffs...etc

Loads of people get killed on roads....does that justify murder, which can be far more humane, depending on what method is involved?

That may sound like a crazy question to pose...but it's the kind of parthetic argument put forward by animal baiters in defence of their cruelty...it's always "what about" something else...never about their own involvement in the infliction of deliberate, and AVOIDABLE suffering.

The attitude or mode of dress of those engaging in the deliberate tormenting of animals is not the issue...deliberate cruelty is the issue...though there's a public safety concern in the case of stag hunting...

robtri · 07-01-2010 10:02am

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Death is the wild is rarely a good death. If you have ever witnessed an animal dying from "natural" causes in the wild then you'd realise that it is usually cruel and painful, often taking days with the animal in pain and open to predators to make the suffering worse. Many starve to death who are not attacked by other animals in their weakened state.

One of the problems with the urbanisation of life is that many of us buy meat in nice plastic packets in the supermarket, with little or no understanding of how it got there, or how the animal lived or died. And so, it's natural we conclude that any animal who is killed by man must be worse off than those who die from natural causes.

Does a fox who dies from natural causes have a less painful and better death than one who is killed by a pack of hounds? Or a stag who is stalked?

Death is never nice, but it's a fact. And if a fox, or a stag, is killed by us or through natural causes, it's not always clear which is the better death. A knee jerk reaction that it must be better for a fox, or stag, for example,to die from natural causes simply ignores the fact that many animals which die from "natural" causes die painfully and cruelly and, often, the pain lasts for days.

I don't expect many here will acknowledge that, and will just conclude that it must be wrong for man to kill, in any circumstances, and it's better to leave them to die of "natural" causes.

that is the weakest argument i have ever heard for the continuation of this sport.....

ConsiderThis · 07-01-2010 1:42pm

robtri wrote: »

that is the weakest argument i have ever heard for the continuation of this sport.....

I never argued for the continuation of this sport. I merely made some observations from my own experience about death and dying.

djpbarry · 07-01-2010 2:53pm

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I never argued for the continuation of this sport.

No, you just condoned it.

ConsiderThis · 07-01-2010 3:27pm

djpbarry wrote: »

No, you just condoned it.

No, I didn't condone it and didn't express any views on it. It would be great if you could read what I actually said, rather than misinterpreting what I have said and telling me I have said something which I didn't say. Thanks.

djpbarry · 07-01-2010 4:07pm

ConsiderThis wrote: »

No, I didn't condone it and didn't express any views on it.

You implied that death from natural causes may be as bad as death at the hands of a pack of hounds, tacitly condoning the practice of ‘the hunt’. Regardless of your own position on hunting with hounds, your point is a poor one. Put it this way; suppose an individual is diagnosed with <insert terminal condition here>, which may result in a slow, painful death. How likely do you think it would be that this individual would agree to being chased through the woods by a pack of hounds?

ConsiderThis · 07-01-2010 6:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You implied that death from natural causes may be as bad as death at the hands of a pack of hounds, tacitly condoning the practice of ‘the hunt’. Regardless of your own position on hunting with hounds, your point is a poor one. Put it this way; suppose an individual is diagnosed with <insert terminal condition here>, which may result in a slow, painful death. How likely do you think it would be that this individual would agree to being chased through the woods by a pack of hounds?

If you insist on reading into what I said things which I didn't say, then that's your choice. I wasn't making any point, so to claim that the point you (wrongly) assume me to me making is a poor point, seems silly. I did not, as you claim, tacitly or otherwise, make any judgement on the practices of any hunt, and you are incorrect to claim that I did. Any implication which you read into what i wrote is in your mind, and not in mine or in what I wrote.

What seems more extraordinary is that, when I point out that I didn't make any point about the hunt, nor was I intending to make any point about the hunt, you continue to claim that I did!

What was in my mind was last year in Botswana I saw an old lion, hardly able to walk from malnutrition and weak and emaciated, eventually being attacked by wild dogs who killed him by biting lumps out of him until he died a slow and horrible death. While it was a "natural" death in the wild, it was weeks of suffering for the once proud and virile lion, which consisted of much pain.

If he was an old stag in the scottish highlands, for example, stalked and shot as happens there to old stags who are likely to suffer a long drawn out death, we can all decide for ourselves which is the "better" death.

If anyone wishes to read into this any implication that I support bear baiting or slavery or infanticide etc etc from this post, then please feel free to do so, but i'd prefer if it was read at face value and not misread into things which I am not saying and not claiming. thanks.

fairplay · 07-01-2010 9:22pm

The case against carted stag hunting really has nothing to do with "death" as such...all creatures die at some point...it has to do with animal suffering of a kind that is neither necessary (from any reasonable humane point of view) or defensible.

Roosters die at some some stage..but would Doctor Evil or any of the other pro-hunting people advocate that we legalise cock fighting?

Or dog fighting, or bear baiting?

I wouldn't get hung up with concern about an animal being killed...the issue is around subjecting that animal to a lot of unnecessary suffering BEFORE IT DIES, as in carted stag hunting, hare coursing, bul-fighting, and fox hunting.

Shooting is different, though I don't engage in it and never will, certainly not as a "sport"...it's different because dispatching a bird or animal with a clean shot is the exact opposite of what happens in those other activities I mentioned.

Angling? catching a fish and landing it is hardly on the same level as tormenting an animal for HOURS...or to be compared with coursing where the hares are abused (stressed, subject to confinement unnatural for wild animals) from the moment of capture up to the day they are baited on the big day...

The late Deputy Tony Gregory, who opposed stag hunting, hare coursing, and fox hunting, actually was a keen angler! He fished for trout which he and his partner Annette fried on their picnics....I know some purist animal rights people are annoyed about that, but I see a vast difference between "hunting" for food and what amounts to torture.

doctor evil · 07-01-2010 10:04pm

Not every shot is a clean one and there are some fools who do no use the right ammo. With fox hunting the same fox is not chased for hours, it either escapes, is caught and killed within seconds or it goes to ground. If it goes to ground it is often left alone unless the landowner/farmer wants it dispatched.

I do not agree with cock/dog fighting or bear baiting.

If fish were more cuddly looking would you be against it?

fairplay · 08-01-2010 1:59am

doctor evil wrote: »

Not every shot is a clean one and there are some fools who do no use the right ammo. With fox hunting the same fox is not chased for hours, it either escapes, is caught and killed within seconds or it goes to ground. If it goes to ground it is often left alone unless the landowner/farmer wants it dispatched.

I do not agree with cock/dog fighting or bear baiting.

If fish were more cuddly looking would you be against it?

If fish were deliberately tortured as the victims of foxhunting, hare coursing, and stag hunting are, then I would oppose it completely.

Of course if a shot bird or animal is merely wounded and left to die that again involves unnecessary suffering, though the shooter in that instance has not intended such suffering. As I say, I don't shoot but a clean shot is more humane than hounding animals to death or injury, or for hours until they drop from exhaustion or injury.

A hunted fox does indeed a prolonged period of terror and distress (not "seconds") as part of the ritual hunting tradition that deliberately targets it for "sport". The killing of the fox is only the culmination of the fun-cruelty session organised for the benefit of hunt followers and riders.

The landowner? Many thousdands of them don't want hunts on their land in the first place, let alone congregating in the middle of their property and deliberating with them about the future of yon fox in that hole over there!

A farmer who has trouble with a fox will simply shoot the fox...he doesn't as a rule invite loads of hunters, horses and hounds in to trample on his fields of crops, tear down fencing, and send herds or flocks berserk with the fright! (Hunts do that of course but NOT WITH PERMISSION OF FARMERS OR OTHER LANDOWNERS. ever seen those reams of "hunt ban" notices in the county newspapers?)

Your comment about a fox that goes to earth being either left alone or "dispatched" is a little bit airy-fairy and excuses one of the worst abuses in foxhunting...

To see what this digging out process involves have a look at the brief video on www.banbloodsports.com

As the man said, foxhunting ain't cricket...and neither is staghunting!

ConsiderThis · 08-01-2010 10:28am

fairplay wrote: »

If fish were deliberately tortured as the victims of foxhunting, hare coursing, and stag hunting are, then I would oppose it completely.

You don't consider it torture for a fish to have a barbed hook caught deep in the flesh of its mouth to be torture? And then to have it kept taught on a line pulling the fish through the water via the line and barbed hook, while the fish struggles against it, sometimes for minutes or hours?

Whatever about catching fish in this way to eat, I have heard rumours that some people catch fish in this way for their own pleasure, and then throw the fish back once they have landed it!

djpbarry · 08-01-2010 11:27am

ConsiderThis wrote: »

What was in my mind was last year in Botswana I saw an old lion, hardly able to walk from malnutrition and weak and emaciated, eventually being attacked by wild dogs who killed him by biting lumps out of him until he died a slow and horrible death.

So dying at the hands of a pack of dogs is a pretty horrific death? Great. Glad we're agreed.

ConsiderThis · 08-01-2010 11:43am

djpbarry wrote: »

So dying at the hands of a pack of dogs is a pretty horrific death? Great. Glad we're agreed.

I think most death is pretty horrific, and your apparent attempts to score one upmanship points here come over as veering towards petty. What is interesting is that some seem to think that hunting foxes with dogs is wrong, but that fishing and torturing a fish is not wrong or somehow less wrong. Any maybe they are right, I am not sure. Maybe swatting flies is also wrong. Just because they are small does that mean they feel less pain? I simply don't know.

Interestingly, I have seen foxes shot, and if anyone thinks that that's a humane way to kill a pest then I suggest they may not be entirely accurate in their judgement. Both shooting foxes, snaring foxes, gassing foxes and hunting foxes, which results in the fox being killed, are all horrific ways to kill an animal.

Maybe shooting foxes, where it's unusual to kill a fox outright with one cartridge, is a more humane way to kill them that hunting. perhaps, but both are still pretty horrific.

djpbarry · 08-01-2010 11:50am

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I think most death is pretty horrific...

I disagree. Being chased and subsequently torn apart by a pack of dogs doesn't compare to being taken out by a single gunshot - one is not going to know too much about the latter, so I'm not sure it could be described as "horrific".

ConsiderThis · 08-01-2010 12:00pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I disagree. Being chased and subsequently torn apart by a pack of dogs doesn't compare to being taken out by a single gunshot - one is not going to know too much about the latter, so I'm not sure it could be described as "horrific".

If only the fox is usually "taken out" by a single gunshot, then I'd agree. But that's not my experience of what happens when I've seen foxes shot. But you may be right, even where a fox is shot with 2 or three cartridges and still staggers half way across a field. I simply don't know.

I notice you don't mention whether you think hooking fish with barbed hooks is wrong for (i) catching them for food and (ii) catching them for sport, or where both are on the scale of humans killing or torturing animals. Maybe you think it's ok? Or maybe not?

I think all torture is wrong and to differentiate between fish being played on a barbed hook for sport and, for example, killing a fox for sport, seems morally difficult to do.

In fact, while swatting a fly seems reasonably likely to be painless for the fly, why is killing a fly any more or less morally acceptable than killing a fox or a bird or a fish?

Mahatma coat · 08-01-2010 12:48pm

whatever abot the Zen buddhist does a fly have feelins stuff, swattin Mozzies??????

foxes are pests too, so there is legitimate argument for control in that repect, this Stag huntin concept as discussed by the OP is a bit of a strange one, Captive stag released , hunted, recaptured same day, over and over, just so some pretentious wannabee tosspots can faff about with other tossers on horses, withthe only actual huntin beeing done by the dogs and 'the help'

tis a strange one, I'd have no objection to a takin that stag and releasin him in the forest for a week, invite yer mates round for a BBQ and the mooch off one mornin and find him, those opposed to blood sport can go fishin or si on te deck swattin flies:D

fairplay · 09-01-2010 8:46pm

ConsiderThis wrote: »

You don't consider it torture for a fish to have a barbed hook caught deep in the flesh of its mouth to be torture? And then to have it kept taught on a line pulling the fish through the water via the line and barbed hook, while the fish struggles against it, sometimes for minutes or hours?

Whatever about catching fish in this way to eat, I have heard rumours that some people catch fish in this way for their own pleasure, and then throw the fish back once they have landed it!

I don't fish or shoot but I regard both activities as far less inhumane than the deliberate prolonged torment of animals for sport. I don't understand that practise of catching fish and throwing them back into the water. Sounds daft, and time-wasting, apart from annoying the fish for no good reason!

One could object to either activity on humane grounds but I see each as being very far down the scale...at the top I would place maybe badger baiting, bull fighting, dog fighting...then foxhunting, hare coursing, stag hunting...maybe not precisely in that order.

Provided an animal is killed with a clean shot then shooting couldn't be considered remotely as cruel as the other "pastimes" I mention.

Re fishing...this is always brought into a debate on bloodsports by the pro-bloodsports side, not because they oppose fishing, but merely to distract from their own support for proven acts of cruelty. When Richard Martin the Galway MP introduced a Bill to ban bear baiting and bull baiting in the early 19th century, his opponents cited fishing in the House of Commons debate...how, they demanded, could the MP want those wonderful countrysports outlawed when fishing was every bit as bad?

Hare coursing fans love to drag fishing into the debate too...always as a Red Herring.

ConsiderThis · 10-01-2010 10:57am

fairplay wrote: »

I don't fish or shoot but I regard both activities as far less inhumane than the deliberate prolonged torment of animals for sport. I don't understand that practise of catching fish and throwing them back into the water. Sounds daft, and time-wasting, apart from annoying the fish for no good reason!

Where we appear to differ is that I consider hooking a barbed hook into the mouth and flesh of a fish, and then trying to drag the fish onto land, while the fish naturally pulls away from land and opposes being dragged onto land via a barbed hook lodged in its flesh, to me appears slightly more than merely "annoying" a fish.

fairplay wrote: »

Provided an animal is killed with a clean shot then shooting couldn't be considered remotely as cruel as the other "pastimes" I mention.

How does one ensure an animal is killed with a clean shot? As mentioned, i've seen foxes shot who have had two BB shotgun cartridges shot into their bodies, and they have still managed to run/stagger a long way, in what is apparently obvious pain and distress. How do you propose to make sure the animal is killed with a clean shot?

Having said that, the late Auberon Waugh was accidentally shot numerous times in his back, and injury which was to cause him a lifetime of pain and distress needing frequent hospitalisation for the remainder of his life, and he never tired of saying that being shot was completely painless, in his experience.

fairplay wrote: »

I

Re fishing...this is always brought into a debate on bloodsports by the pro-bloodsports side, not because they oppose fishing, but merely to distract from their own support for proven acts of cruelty. When Richard Martin the Galway MP introduced a Bill to ban bear baiting and bull baiting in the early 19th century, his opponents cited fishing in the House of Commons debate...how, they demanded, could the MP want those wonderful countrysports outlawed when fishing was every bit as bad?

Hare coursing fans love to drag fishing into the debate too...always as a Red Herring.

It's very convenient to avoid the argument by claiming that you judge fishing and hare coursing to be red herrings. I mentioned fishing, and judge it somewhat differently, and it would be great if you could actually discuss if you think hooking a fish on a barbed hook deep in its flesh and pulling it into land while it tries to swim in the opposite direction is a red herring, rather than ascribing devious motives to those who think it might be.

fairplay · 11-01-2010 12:27am

I certainly ascribe dubious motives to pro-hunting/coursing/animal baiting people who enlarge on the "horrors" of fishing...of course they are not being sincere, as they certainly are not anti-fishing.

I consider some activities, quite reasonably in my view, to be more more cruel than others and hence more deserving of legal sanction.

There is a great deal of uncertainty about the extent to which fish suffer when hooked...though the fish does not in any event suffer for as long as a hunted fox or stag, or for as long as the baited badger or dog in a staged fight.

I take it you are opposed to ALL bloodports, and believe that fishing and shooting should also be banned?

wild_cat · 11-01-2010 7:27am

About a month ago there was a hunt on a secondary road in Wexford near the Killurin area, they were trotting the horses back to the boxes, I presume they were finishing up.

We were caught behind them for 30 minutes, in that time two Garda cars came out along to tell them to pull in and they didn't. At one stage a girl that looked about 16 turned her horse on to the other side of the road while a car was approaching to cross the road in order to talk to someone parked in on the side of the road.

There must have been 9 of them ahead of us at one stage and only two of them pulled in at a point on the side of the road with room for all of them. I should have reported them as well when I got home.

Not to fond of hunting but the pure disregard for other road users really bothered me, thinking back on it I'm going to research what hunt was on and write a letter. Probably way to late to report it.

Mahatma coat · 11-01-2010 7:44am

I'm from Wexford Originally too, The above post is fairly close to my experience of these Chunts, Cept I went to School wit a lot of them:(

Absolute disregard for anyone else on the road, but if you beep at them Yer the worst in the world, 'shush peasant and get back in your box'.

these guys are 'Hunters' in the same vein that Baz from the Happy Mondays was a 'Dancer'

to the 'hunt' its more about lookin good in yer stupid red coat and trampling as much of the peasants crops as possible, then hold up the traffic for a bit and retire to some Lodge for a Circlejerk.

ConsiderThis · 11-01-2010 3:01pm

fairplay wrote: »

I certainly ascribe dubious motives to pro-hunting/coursing/animal baiting people who enlarge on the "horrors" of fishing...of course they are not being sincere, as they certainly are not anti-fishing.

its a shame you can't engage and deal with the argument, rather than use what you imagine might be someone elses's motives to appear to avoid the argument.

fairplay wrote: »

I consider some activities, quite reasonably in my view, to be more more cruel than others and hence more deserving of legal sanction.

While I understand your point, cruelty, by definition, is cruel, and all cruelty is deserving of our attention. To suggest, as you seem to, that some cruelty is acceptable because some other form of cruelty is judged to be more cruel, is a bogus argument.

fairplay wrote: »

There is a great deal of uncertainty about the extent to which fish suffer when hooked...though the fish does not in any event suffer for as long as a hunted fox or stag, or for as long as the baited badger or dog in a staged fight.

So there is "uncertainty" about the extent to which a fish suffers, but not about the extent to which some other animals suffer?

You appear to think there is "uncertainty" that a fish, who is caught on a barbed hook and sometimes played for hours on a line (think of a marlin, for example), feels any pain or if that is cruel?

But you can say with certainty that , for example, a fox is in considerably more pain than that when chased across the countryside, and that that is more cruel?

fairplay wrote: »

I take it you are opposed to ALL bloodports, and believe that fishing and shooting should also be banned?

You take it incorrectly as I really have no opinion either way.

fairplay · 11-01-2010 9:37pm

I have not failed to engage in the argument, and I have at no point stated or implied that some forms of cruelty are acceptable. What I have opined is simply that some forms of cruelty are worse than others, a view I base on my own observations of the various activities mentioned.

I fully agree that all forms of cruelty merit attention, but I believe it is perfectly reasonable to point out that, for example, badger baiting is more cruel than say...beagling or fox hunting, and that shooting (in cases where the animal is dispatched instantly) is obviously less cruel than hunting with hounds hare coursing or animal baiting.

I have never said I was in favour of fishing. It is simply a view I hold...that fishing is less cruel than hunting with hounds or animal baiting, this based on my observation of all these practises.

I do however point out that in very many of the public radio debates on the cruelty of hare coursing and fox hunting over the years, the pro-bloodsport side has frequently held up fishing as something that the "antis" ought to be concerned about instead of opposing those other bloodsports.

I am perfectly entitled to deduce that that such bloodsport advocates are not making a case against fishing, but rather using it as a RED HERRING to distract attention from the proven and well-documented cruelties they are seeking to promote or defend.

Your own insistence that you have no views on bloodsports strikes me as somewhat disingenious, given the tone and content of your previous postings.

In all my years on this earth I have never come across ANYONE who had such detailed knowledge of the various bloodsports and yet had no opinion on the subject....

ConsiderThis · 12-01-2010 11:53am

fairplay wrote: »

I have never said I was in favour of fishing. It is simply a view I hold...that fishing is less cruel than hunting with hounds or animal baiting, this based on my observation of all these practises.

So your view is , following the example I gave, that fishing a marlin, by catching a hooked barb in its mouth, and pulling the line taught and trying to drag it in while it struggles and tries to swim away, all the time the barbed hook is tearing its flesh and getting lodged deeper and deeper into its flesh, sometimes for a couple of hours, is less cruel than some dogs chasing a fox across a few fields?

I'm afraid I don't have your certainty of conviction that one is more cruel than the other, and I simply don't know.

fairplay wrote: »

I do however point out that in very many of the public radio debates on the cruelty of hare coursing and fox hunting over the years, the pro-bloodsport side has frequently held up fishing as something that the "antis" ought to be concerned about instead of opposing those other bloodsports.

I have no idea what radio debates have to do with this argument. Are you saying that because you judge those who are pro bloodsport to have held up fishing as worthy of examination, then the issue can be ignored because,in the past, some pro bloodsports people have advocated it?

For me I'd prefer to argue and discuss it, rather than avoid discussion citing what some pro bloodsports people have said or not said on some radio programme in the past.

fairplay wrote: »

In all my years on this earth I have never come across ANYONE who had such detailed knowledge of the various bloodsports and yet had no opinion on the subject....

Thats the problem. You seem to have an opinion and fall into what Edward de Bono calls the intelligence trap whereby you decide on your opinion, then skew your arguments to favour it, and ignore any evidence which might challenge or contradict it.

So, for example, you seem to feel unable to consider how cruel and barbaric fishing might be, and to help you avoid considering it you cite the most unusual arguments of guessing the motives of some people you seem not to like on a radio programme some time ago!

Have you ever considered that they might even have a point? Or does the fact that you judge them to be pro-bloodsports automaticall make anything they say be incorrect and not even worthy of analysing?

planetX · 12-01-2010 6:38pm

but this IS the classic red herring in action. The thread is about stag-hunting. If you want to debate fishing you should start a different thread. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard hunt supporters try deflect the attention of their own 'brand' of sport by bringing up fishing. Give it up. Stag hunting is the issue here, not fishing, wearing leather, growing a beard, etc....

sheesh · 12-01-2010 6:40pm

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Where we appear to differ is that I consider hooking a barbed hook into the mouth and flesh of a fish, and then trying to drag the fish onto land, while the fish naturally pulls away from land and opposes being dragged onto land via a barbed hook lodged in its flesh, to me appears slightly more than merely "annoying" a fish.

Fish are thrown back alive if they are not being kept for the pot. When you are fishing sometimes you will catch immature fish or fish that would not be eaten. It is often done as a conservation measure.

Anyway back to stag hunting.... I honestly don't get it you could just as easily have a drag hunt and nobody would be bothered also I think it is a bit contrived if you bring the animal you are hunting with you to the hunt.

I fish.
I have cousins that go coursing but I would have no interest in it myself it again seems to be a bit boring. I'm not really shocked by it but if it died out it would not be such a great loss.
I don't like the name calling that goes on in these kinds of threads. e.g. pinko urbanite, cave dwelling something or other, culchie it does not add anything to the discussion.

fairplay · 12-01-2010 9:25pm

Re. "Consider this"...I have not ignored the evidence about fishing or in any way attempted to avoid the issue. I have simply stated that I personally regard the other activities mentioned as being far more cruel, based on my observations of all of them, and what I know of animal suffering. Re. that throw- away comment about a fox being chased across "a few fields" ...a hunt can chase a fox for miles.

While I don't fish or shoot, I have no hesitation in asserting that both activities are far lower down the scale where cruelty is concerned than activities that contrive to make animals suffer...such as carted stag hunting, badger baiting, dog fighting, or hare coursing. Fox and stag hunting are not just cruel...they create lots of problems for farmers over whose land they pass, causing havoc along the way.

I have not fallen into any "intelligence" trap in my opposition to those cruel activities, or sought to evade any issue relevant to the debate on bloodsports.

By the way, pro-coursing/animal baiting people have not asked for fishing to be held up for "examination"...they merely drag it into a debate on their own activities as a diversionary tactic.

That is very different from expressing a sincere wish to have a closer look at aspects of angling.

For a person who claims to have no view either way on bloodsports, "Consider This" seems very anxious to ridicule and attack the fishing community while at the same time downplaying the proven and well documented cruelty of hounding animals to exhaustion, injury or death. His reference to "a few fields" in relation to the duration of a foxhunt displays either ignorance on his part of the "sport" or a desire to whitewash the savagery involved.

And yes, this thread was actually about stag hunting...other forms of hunting with hounds come to mind when one mentions stag hunting, and some of the same people are involved in the various horse-riding activities...but fishing is worlds removed from any form of horse-riding.

I suggest that "Consider This" open a thread on fishing and see how he tackles the reaction he gets from anglers and others...instead of digressing so far from the subject, getting all hot and bothered about my opposition to animal baiting, and then claiming he doesn't have a view on bloodsports at all!

ConsiderThis · 13-01-2010 10:01am

fairplay wrote: »

Re.
While I don't fish or shoot, I have no hesitation in asserting that both activities are far lower down the scale where cruelty is concerned than activities that contrive to make animals suffer...such as carted stag hunting, badger baiting, dog fighting, or hare coursing. Fox and stag hunting are not just cruel...they create lots of problems for farmers over whose land they pass, causing havoc along the way.

I applaud your conviction that fishing and shooting are "lower down the scale where cruelty is concerned", all the while noting that you produce no evidence for it.

fairplay wrote: »

Re.

For a person who claims to have no view either way on bloodsports, "Consider This" seems very anxious to ridicule and attack the fishing community while at the same time downplaying the proven and well documented cruelty of hounding animals to exhaustion, injury or death. His reference to "a few fields" in relation to the duration of a foxhunt displays either ignorance on his part of the "sport" or a desire to whitewash the savagery involved.

it is ironic indeed that you accuse me of being anxious to ridicule, then you go on to try to ridicule my views!

It would be great if you could stick to the arguments and try to avoid attacking the person making then and misinterpreting their arguments. It's a shame you have to resort to attacking me for what you claim is my "ignorance", but my experience is my experience, and your claim that I want to "whitewash any savagery involved". Nowhere did I say this or claim that, and that you claim I did merely exposes the paucity of your arguments that you have to resort to making up lies about what I have said.

Some foxhunts don't even amount to chasing a fox over a few fields, some do precisely that, and some end up with killing a fox.. Playing a marlin on a line ( the example I used) can last for hours.

My position is stated that I really have no views either way, and bringing in marlin fishing was an attempt at comparing different forms of cruelty, as you seem unwilling to consider that fishing might be cruel. That you twist that to suggest that I want to "whitewash the savagery" involved in foxhunting belittles you and belittles your argument.

While I understand that we both feel deeply about cruelty, making thing up about what I have said and attacking me for things I have not said does little for your credibility.

planetX · 13-01-2010 10:55am

considerthis
If you have no views, why don't you actually debate STAG HUNTING? All you've produced so far are convoluted diversions.

Celebrating the demise of cruel stag hunting

Comments