Hunting Ban - A good thing or not

[fizzwheel]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it

[BURNER]

Like the way we raise animals for food, pumped with drugs to stimulate growth, starved of space and daylight?

We humans are killers. Bloodsport is in the blood. It also keeps the toffs busy and out of the shopping centres on the weekend you know what they're like.

[Gforceuk]

we should start hunting down the toffs... and who ever gets the kill gets to keep part of their estate :lol:

[Ash999]

Its tradition, keeping fox numbers down that reak havock on farms killing lambs, chickens, etc. I live out in the country and yeah it gives the toffs something to do. If ya think about it thousands of dogs will be put down as they cannot be kept as domestic pets. Weve been hunting hundreds of years, why stop it now?

[jonboy]

Next year the US military want to spend $275bn. This worries me. Fox hunting doesn't.


.

[Patch]

Bad news, bad law fuelled by a popularist government. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, now they have got away with banning this what do you think will be next?? I'll tell you what it will be whatever they think will win the most votes.

If they suggested banning M/bikes my mum would vote for them your liberty is at risk with Tony BLiar in power vote to get him out in May

[Jabba]

This is just one item in a string of bad law. Is it really that important? Or police are overstretched as it is. How will this be enforced? We're going to end up with hunt-sabateurs giving "evidence" for the prosecution. How unsafe is that?

I agree with Patch 100%. And jonboy has hit the nail on the head.

Why now?

[BillyC]

Okay... I'm about to have a little speak-my-mind rant, take it or leave it, they're just my collected thoughts....

I've thought long and hard about this over the past few years, and if I'm honest I thought a ban would be inevitable, however rediculous and hippocritic the reasons.

I can't help but feel that the drive behind the ban has not been for the animal rights reasons, but for the class and stereotypes of those associated with the activity.

If animal rights were really an issue, there are thousands of more effective areas that could/should have come under legislation; not to mention government attention. If hunting is inhumane, then why limit it to just hunting foxes with dogs?

I don't think I was for or against the hunting; but I am for country ways of life, of which, I feel this is one. What I am against, is the application and invention of law just because of opinion and political correctness. Police state?

Because of that, I think the ban is a bad thing. We should now ban cattle, sheep and pig farming. Fishing with nets and rods. Hare coursing. Pheasant shooting. Some of these are also considered sports, but are unaffected by the ban. Suffering to the animals is inevitable ... ever walked your dog past an abatoir? They can smell the death.

We've not solved any problems here, in fact, we've created new ones. Foxes will still need to be controlled. Instead they will be hunted with rifles that are unlikely to kill from a distance, leaving the animal to die slowly and rot. Consequently, the fox populations will rise... and they will need to feed. Few have seen the devastation caused by a single fox who managed to get into a chicken coup.

[Sid Squid]

I voted no, not necessarily because I agree with hunting, but simply because this is a nasty spiteful piece of legislation that, as Bill says, has absolutely nothing to do with animal rights or encouraging humane methods of pest control.
It's another outward manifestation of flawed politics driven by ideaology, not facts or evidence.
And as pointed out, it could be your activity next, be worried.

[Carsick]

Next year the US military want to spend $275bn. This worries me. Fox hunting doesn't..
This was pretty much my point.
It is an issue, but there are much bigger issues that need sorting first.

[northwind]

According to recent estimates, 9/10 of all foxes killed, are killed on the road... Hunting with hounds is a rubbish way of controlling fox numbers, it's incredibly inefficient. A mate of my dad's used to be head gamekeeper for a big highland estate, ran 2 commercial grouse moors, so he know a bit about fox damage... And he simply wouldn't allow the hunt on land he controlled- he found them disrespectful of property, and very damaging. Once he caught members of the local hunt cutting deer fences the week before a hunt to clear better paths for the chase...

So they shot them for pest control instead, 2 skilled men with rifles, and reckons they killed most with the first shot, almost all with the second. This is not a bleeding hearts animal rights guy, he made his livelihood from bloodsports...

Anyway. I'm basically against killing for fun, is all. There are many bigger problems in the world, but I don't see that that means we should ignore smaller ones.

And anyone who thinks it's a sliding slope to banning biking has lost it, frankly.

[chutz]

right, here goes....

i don't give a f**K about why you think the law was brought in or whether it is effective. I don't give a toss if you think it is more or less efficient to kill foxes one way or another. I don't think practicalities are even relevant. In my eyes hunting animals for fun is a demonstration of being and inferior *****. These creatures have the right to exist independent of any values we might see fit to place upon them. If it is right to do so then I'll be shooting your cats and dogs next tuesday, just for a laugh.Show me the dividing line and I'll be more than happy to support you.

If you are going to kill them them be honest and genuine in your reasoning. Don't hide behind "it's the country way" or "It's how it's always been done". If you personally feel that it's ok and have NO problem at all then who am i to tell you different. But be sure coz I think anyone who kills anything for pleasure is a sick f**k and should be shot themselves!!!!

the vegetarians rest m'ludd.

cheque please :oops:

[Clunk]

If ya think about it thousands of dogs will be put down as they cannot be kept as domestic pets.

They get killed anyway when they get too slow, at about 6 years old. A dog of that size should live to about 12.

[mysteryjimbo]

Like the way we raise animals for food, pumped with drugs to stimulate growth, starved of space and daylight?

We humans are killers. Bloodsport is in the blood. It also keeps the toffs busy and out of the shopping centres on the weekend you know what they're like.

Yes, but the animals we eat arent generally torn apart by dogs in the name of "sport". I'd understand if the toffs were doing the hunting, but all they are really doing is trying to chase a pack of dogs and keep up. The dogs do the hard work.

Maybe if they were to do the tracking and kill with one or two gun shots it'd be more humane (however i wouldnt agree with that much unless they were killed for food!).

Its tradition, keeping fox numbers down that reak havock on farms killing lambs, chickens, etc. I live out in the country and yeah it gives the toffs something to do. If ya think about it thousands of dogs will be put down as they cannot be kept as domestic pets. Weve been hunting hundreds of years, why stop it now?

Tradition? Its only been around for 500 years. It's not essential to the human way of life. There is no point to it. Pest control is not an excuse.

On the whole, i think its the first step towards the bigger picture of better treatment of animals. This needs to be addressed. I wouldnt mind paying double for my meat if i knew the animals were being treated better. But i refuse to buy something saying "organic" as a lot of the time it is mislabelled, much like "free range" where the farmer opens the door to the darn for a couple of hours a day but the chickens are afraid of daylight.

[timwilky]

I have hunted, but don't now.

Foxs are vermin and have to be controlled. I use my dogs for lamping is that "hunting with dogs" and is mr plod going to lock me up for that.

The ban is just political one upmanship, ie
We caring new labour don't have many MPs in rural areas to loose so lets hit out at a group of people who are predominately tory voters.

They banned my sport (Pistol Shooting), now fox hunting, what's next fishing?

[Nutkins]

I voted Yes .... but I still like badger baiting. :wink:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Although I agree with Chutz that hunting is vile, that isn't the reason why it was banned.

I as alot of people don't like fox hunting, but that's no reason to ban it. If the precident is set that it's ok for the government to restrict minority rights, it'll only be a matter of time before they ban something you or I enjoy. In fact as motorcyclists, we should be the last people celibrating this latest attack on liberty, it's only a matter of time before the oppertunity to ride a bike comes under threat.

[Moo]

Don't care let them get on with it.

[BillyC]

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:10 am

Something makes me wonder if Chutney had been on the ciders and didn't have to go to work today! :lol:

[helen]

Are you feeling alright Billy?

I only ask because ranting from you is such unusual behaviour! :D

[wyrdness]

Foxs are vermin and have to be controlled.

No, foxes are just foxes. The biggest threat to the countryside and the enviroment as a whole is us humans. We deserve to be labelled as "vermin" and "pests" far more than any animals, which are just going about their natural lives. Look at the examples of rabbits and cane toads in Australia which are having a devastating effect over there. People seem to be blaming those animals for the destruction, rather than the humans who introduced them there.

I've feeling particularly beligerent towards the hunting lobby today, as a car with a Countryside Alliance sticker is parked in the Motorcycles Only bay of our company car park today. This is just one example of the arrogant nature of these ****s. His/her selfish actions are depriving all of the bikers who usually park there of their parking places.

[BillyC]

've feeling particularly beligerent towards the hunting lobby today, as a car with a Countryside Alliance sticker is parked in the Motorcycles Only bay of our company car park today. This is just one example of the arrogant nature of these ****s. His/her selfish actions are depriving all of the bikers who usually park there of their parking places.

Yes, that's nearly as selfish as the townies buying second homes in the countryside and rural areas, completely and utterly devastating the housing market and pricing locals out of their home villages and areas.

Devil's advocate just stiring the pot! :twisted:

[Sid Squid]

Yeah !

That makes sense, I've never ever been cut up/knocked off/found a car in a bike bay, that didn't have a "Kill All The Fluffy Animals & Babies" sticker on it.

Good point , well made.

Or possibly, entirely irrelevant.

OH dear I just can't decide.

[wyrdness]

Yes, that's nearly as selfish as the townies buying second homes in the countryside and rural areas, completely and utterly devastating the housing market and pricing locals out of their home villages and areas.
A bit offtopic, but I agree with you, that's not a good thing. But rich people are buying second (& third etc.) homes in towns as well (often as 'buy to let'), pricing locals out of the market there too. Have you looked at London house prices recently?

[Spiderman]

Next year the US military want to spend $275bn. This worries me. Fox hunting doesn't.


.

True Jonboy, True.And hoping most of it will go toward robot soldiers too :roll:
Why are peeps so wound up about foxes?

C'mon People...get wound up about the important issues will ya? I so often hear the same people who say "so what about ID cards" then go on and on about "the poor foxes"

I couldnt give a fox about hunting when there are so many bigger problems in the world that are not even being discussed let alone resolved.

Isnt it more important that people are killing people rather than foxes??

[Clunk]

C'mon People...get wound up about the important issues will ya?

Just because some people care about animal cruelty it doesn't mean they don't care about other, more important things.

If you want to discuss other, more important issues then start another thread so we can all give an opinion.

[Spiderman]

C'mon People...get wound up about the important issues will ya?

Just because some people care about animal cruelty it doesn't mean they don't care about other, more important things.

If you want to discuss other, more important issues then start another thread so we can all give an opinion.

I would but i'm about to go out on the bike. WooHoo \:D/
Might start one when i get back. Might actualy look for a job too.
Who knows?

[Bud]

I too live in the country and am totally against fox hunting. I agree with the comments about the bill being put through for ulterior motives, but ultimately it's good news.

We humans have provided an environment where nature is unbalanced and then we penalise foxes, pigeons, whatever, for having the ability to adapt.

Hunting is a dreadful sport. It's about killing with all the odds in your favour. How's that a sport for a start? Other than Don King promotions, I can't think of any other sport with such unbalanced competition.

Also, when you see children going for their first hunt and they get "blooded" (dead fox blood smeared on the face) it's truely revolting.

Finally, I don't accept the argument that there are other more important things to worry about. We've knackered natures balance, the earth, the atmosphere and are even junking up the space around the earth!

It's time we at least tried to put things right again and this is a step in the right direction.

[jonboy]

Finally, I don't accept the argument that there are other more important things to worry about. We've knackered natures balance, the earth, the atmosphere and are even junking up the space around the earth!

Exactly. These are the more important things to worry about.


.

[Kate]

Just out of interest, does this ban also include drag hunting?

Quite frankly I lost all interest in this subject as I consider the protester's actions as bad as watching an animal being torn to pieces.

[kevbuck]

1. its a class thing no other reason.
my dad has alway hunted and fished as have I. Since Mr Blurr came to power my parents have become members of the anti blood sport brigade not because it is cruel but because the toffs do it

2. when i was a kid we reared a fox cub whose parents had been kill by my dad!!!!!

3. The blue rinse brigade will be calling for fox culling within two years. WHY? because foxes are not stupid once they start being shot they will move full time into the city (the new chavs) and then they will start killing cats (YES!) at least it will stop them killing the birds in my garden.
10,00 foxes a year are killed in london that will double.

4. I am a animal lover I have always been kept dogsand taken i stray animals and birds. I keep greyhounds and lurchers as pets these are the best dogs in the world friendly with people and kids but hate rabbits and cats. my wife is scared to death that the dog will kill something and will have to be put down.

5. I have worked with vegitarians who have said that un wanted babies should be eaten in stead of animals HOW SICK IS THAT.

6. The police have enough on their plate with rapists, murderers, guns, peadophiles, drugs, kids with knives etc etc the list goes on and on.

Grow up people this ban was a ban on toffs and nothing to do with cruilty!!!!!!!!!!!!.

I am disabled when I go to park my car there is always some lazy tosser there already they are not country alliance supporters, nazis, klu klux klan etc they are just ignorant lazy human beings

Who`s Next to be banned

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Just out of interest, does this ban also include drag hunting?

No, which is one of the many reasons this whole situation is a complete farce. The ban is uninforcable - people will go on 'drag hunts' then claim the dogs saw the fox and went for it and that it had nothing to do with them.

To those who think that this ban will help to redress the natural balance, I think you're being nieve. There are far more important species under attack from humans. A few sick inderviduals bumping off the odd fox at the weekend are the least of the worlds problems. People might agree with the ban because it's the 'right' thing to do, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Mogs]

I voted yes, cause I don't like the idea of any animal cruelty, the hunt, certainly in SW is not confined to a lot of toffs.

I not in favour of the police wasting time trying the enforce this law. I would much prefer them out there catching the Burglars, Muggers and Rapists.

Oh! and drivers on mobile phones.

[Biker Biggles]

Ive never been hunting and never would,and Im totally against it but Im also against bad law and Im fed up with these *******s banning things.Im astounded by the complacency of those who think other minority interests like biking are safe from these control freaks.Cast your mind back 20 years and think how funny it would have seemed to predict the banning of hand guns bull terriers and,yes,hunting.Its really all about the wielding of power,and that only stops when lazy sods like us stand up to these tossers.Good rant eh?

[Spiderman]

Finally, I don't accept the argument that there are other more important things to worry about. We've knackered natures balance, the earth, the atmosphere and are even junking up the space around the earth!


This baffles me :?: :?:
We need to stop global wars and global warming. Saving 1 or 10,000 foxes aint gonna change those things is it?

I agree that its not much of a sport.... but neither is sailing imho... and thats in the olympics!!!!

I dont agree with killing anything you dont plan to eat (Jonboys bunny was a perfect example). We as humans are the biggest threat to this planet. Not horses or hounds.

I think the point i'm making is we need to prioritise the problems.

Lets "save" things in the order of importance is all i wanna say.
The planet is more important than the foxes
My personal freedom from a spy society of (s)cameras at every turn is more important.
Not being froced to provide my retina scan if i plan to visit america is more important.
Removing GwB from office and proving that he and his cronies are guilty of human rights abuses and war crimes at Guantanamo and Abu Graib is more imortant.
Stopping our natural countryside from being taken over by Monsanto and GM crops is more important.

Its the peeps who loose sight of the above that take away the impetus for others to get behind the real issues we should all be facing up to.

What next... save the ants? How many of those do we destroy thru chemicals etc. And they are very intelegent creatures.... more intelegent than foxes, i think, anyway!

[Cronos]

It's about time those south of the border caught up with us. :wink:

There is only one relevant point here and that is that hunting with dogs is cruel and should have been outlawed almost 200 years ago along badger baiting.

All misguided attempts to align this issue with those of minority group interest such as bikers are just smoke designed to detract from the main issue.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It's about time those south of the border caught up with us. :wink:

There is only one relevant point here and that is that hunting with dogs is cruel and should have been outlawed almost 200 years ago along badger baiting.

All misguided attempts to align this issue with those of minority group interest such as bikers are just smoke designed to detract from the main issue.

Wrong, quite frankly. Let me explain why. You assume that the government is 'moral' (whatever that means) which is an obsurd suggestion. Therefore they must have another reason - the aquisition of more power and control over the population. More control is gained by creating more laws (bans) because laws by definition say what you cannot do - they restrict freedom (control).

As we live in a demoracy the government must be elected into power by the majority. They won't be elected if they restrict the rights of majority groups, so they target minority groups instead. Motorcyclists are not only a minority group, but we are also motorists which makes us even bigger targets.

Bikes WILL be banned if the government feels it can get away with it. As they become even more brazen and their unabaited destruction of libery continues, we will no longer be able to persue the activity that us bikers hold so dear.

[kevbuck]

Anything can be banned, it just needs the right people in the right place with a big gob.eg Captian pickard and a Toofy has been who can afford to live somewhere nice and want to ban bikes from enjoying the area then it will be people and so one. it is a snowball effect all for one and feck the rest.

In the eighties you had ronnie slipping maggie one and now we have blair taking a wrong un from gwb were all doomed!!!

indviduality and freedom of speech will soon be a thing of the past :twisted:

[Nutkins]

We need to stop global wars and global warming. Saving 1 or 10,000 foxes aint gonna change those things is it?

Of course it will!!!

Give them the vote I say! Then once the right honourable Foxy Loxy is in parliment, he will represent the country and farmyard majority. I will then insist that he backs the bill to control animal flatulence as this is a major cause of global warming. Or, I'll go to the papers with incriminating photos of him with Henny Penny in his mouth.

Animals have a blatant disregard for the safety of humans and show no manners concerning their bodily functions. Many a time, whilst taking a pleasant stroll in the country, I've had a horse fart or deficate as I walk past it. Imagine the uproar, if a human was to do the same.

Also, I have seen the 'playful' dog who mounts the unsuspecting human's leg! I thought "see if he likes it", so I mounted that very dog in the same fashion and was promptly reported, and later, arrested for it.

It's alright this "Do-gooders" harping on about animal rights, but there seems to be one rule for them and another for us!

[jonboy]

:lol:


.

[BillyC]

10,00 foxes a year are killed in london that will double.

I'd have thought this figure was a little low. Unbeknown to the majority of the public, Exterminators are engaged in contracts worth millions of pounds by Cities and Towns all over the country, specifically to remove foxes. Because of the political incorrectness, this is kept very very quiet! Not only because the exterminators themselves, don't want to be identified.

At the end of the day, hunting is cruel. Yes, I'm sorry, it is. But, that's life I'm afraid. Oh how sensitive we've become in our modern lives! Nature is cruel. Foxes are wild animals, and generally they're not cuddly little dogs. They hunt themselves, and the only way in history they've been kept at bay from livestock, is to know that they are hunted themselves - this is basic instinct!

Okay, so hunting is a little old fashioned, but at one time, it was an effective way of keeping foxes away from farms and communities where they would cause damage. I wonder how much the effect of dogs, horses and people leaving their scent over the countryside to deter the fox from invading other's territory, has been overlooked.

continues to stir :twisted:

[RenamedMonkey]

Next year the US military want to spend $275bn. This worries me. Fox hunting doesn't.


.

I'm with this wise man.

[RenamedMonkey]

According to recent estimates, 9/10 of all foxes killed, are killed on the road... Hunting with hounds is a rubbish way of controlling fox numbers, it's incredibly inefficient. A mate of my dad's used to be head gamekeeper for a big highland estate, ran 2 commercial grouse moors, so he know a bit about fox damage... And he simply wouldn't allow the hunt on land he controlled- he found them disrespectful of property, and very damaging. Once he caught members of the local hunt cutting deer fences the week before a hunt to clear better paths for the chase...

So they shot them for pest control instead, 2 skilled men with rifles, and reckons they killed most with the first shot, almost all with the second. This is not a bleeding hearts animal rights guy, he made his livelihood from bloodsports...

Anyway. I'm basically against killing for fun, is all. There are many bigger problems in the world, but I don't see that that means we should ignore smaller ones.

And anyone who thinks it's a sliding slope to banning biking has lost it, frankly.

I like your comments, a good point made.

[Spiderman]

We need to stop global wars and global warming. Saving 1 or 10,000 foxes aint gonna change those things is it?

Of course it will!!!

Give them the vote I say! Then once the right honourable Foxy Loxy is in parliment, he will represent the country and farmyard majority. I will then insist that he backs the bill to control animal flatulence as this is a major cause of global warming. Or, I'll go to the papers with incriminating photos of him with Henny Penny in his mouth.

Animals have a blatant disregard for the safety of humans and show no manners concerning their bodily functions. Many a time, whilst taking a pleasant stroll in the country, I've had a horse fart or deficate as I walk past it. Imagine the uproar, if a human was to do the same.

Also, I have seen the 'playful' dog who mounts the unsuspecting human's leg! I thought "see if he likes it", so I mounted that very dog in the same fashion and was promptly reported, and later, arrested for it.

It's alright this "Do-gooders" harping on about animal rights, but there seems to be one rule for them and another for us!

Gotta tell ya this.... i've missed your wit :lol:
nothing like off the wall nonsense to get me giggling. :D

[Cronos]

Wrong, quite frankly. Let me explain why. You assume that the government is 'moral' (whatever that means) which is an obsurd suggestion.

No, not true! I make no assumptions on the morality of the government at all.

My point is that I form my opinion on the subject based on my moral view of it and not on other non-related issues.

[Spiderman]

My point is that I form my opinion on the subject based on my moral view of it and not on other non-related issues.

So you dont believe in the interconnectedness of all things?

Are you judging fox hunting from the side of the hunted or the hunter? And in judging, are you considering the implications for those whose jobs depend on this too?

Not having a go... just curious what makes up you"moral view" of this topic.

Morally its Ok to hunt for food isnt it?

[Frosty]

Look at the examples of rabbits and cane toads in Australia which are having a devastating effect over there. People seem to be blaming those animals for the destruction, rather than the humans who introduced them there.

I have never been introduced to a rabbit or a cane toad ?.......
How rude! :shock:

But I am told that, cane toads.....if you lick em.... they taste like normal toads. :D :D

Sorry, I like foxes...(altogether now) but couldn't eat a whole one ! Boom Boom

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Wrong, quite frankly. Let me explain why. You assume that the government is 'moral' (whatever that means) which is an obsurd suggestion.

No, not true! I make no assumptions on the morality of the government at all.

My point is that I form my opinion on the subject based on my moral view of it and not on other non-related issues.

I understand where you're coming from. You support the governments actions whatever their reasons because the result is something you approve of. What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

[Clunk]

I understand where you're coming from. You support the governments actions whatever their reasons because the result is something you approve of. What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

So you support tearing wild animals apart with dogs for fun because some day biking might be banned :?: :?

When has any political party ever mentioned banning bikes? It'll never happen.

All thats banned is hunting with dogs. People can still ride horses over other peoples land, dress up in their jackets, enjoy the social aspect of it. They just need to more imaginative and adjust their hobby slightly to accomadate the new laws.

[Clunk]

I keep greyhounds and lurchers as pets these are the best dogs in the world friendly with people and kids but hate rabbits and cats. my wife is scared to death that the dog will kill something and will have to be put down.

Got to agree with you there Kev.
Our greyhound is so laid back, but if there's a cat in our garden its on his patch, and he turns into a killing machine. All of the local cats scarper as soon as they hear the back door open.

[chutz]

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:10 am

Something makes me wonder if Chutney had been on the ciders and didn't have to go to work today! :lol:

Cider ? Me ? Oh alright, I'm so predictable Bill :wink:

Stand by my post though. I'm not really telling anyone what to think or do, apart from to be honest with themselves on the reasons for their actions.


Then If I don't agree with them I will call them a c***!!! :lol:

[RenamedMonkey]

Okay fine. I was going to just throw a comment in here and there, but I have little else to do, and I haven't gotten involved in a proper debated for quite sometime, so I will air my real opinion on this. Or at least debate the matter with myself, openly..... :? yup.


So it's bad because they are hunting for fun, the dogs kill the foxes with ruthless, relentless force. Possibly 10-15 dogs will attack the fox at once, ripping it apart in 20-30 seconds. Even if the fox isn't caught, some foxes who are chased very hard collapse in cold drains and die slowly of pneumonia. This is not a humane way, if any, to be killed.

Hunting kills about 3 percent of foxes in the country, it's not the most efficient way of getting rid of the 'vermin'. Apparently some research suggests that hunting makes them reproduce more, I am not sure what evidence exists to support this.

Hunters carry whips, so when they whimper because they are tired and had enough, a whip is raised to show who is boss.

The hounds are known to get hurt doing hunts, on barbed wire or glass. Some say instead of paying the vet bills the owners will simply shoot the dog. And if the dog is ready for retirement it will be put down, as it wont be happy without the rest of the pack, and usual daily exercise. The RSPCA have tried to encourage hunters to release the retired hounds into private homes, but they rarely do.

Another angle is that the hunting destroys the countryside and wildlife.


Right. Why should fox hunting be allowed. First the fox. If fox hunting is banned 50,000 foxes will be saved: that's 50,000 'vermin' attacking farmers sheep and chickens. The foxes are usually shot, and that is certainly what should happen under the hunting rules. About 70% of foxes get away anyway.

The dogs. The whip is only for show, it is never used. Hunters love their hounds as much as we love our pets, they are looked after well. They simply will not be happy and will not be any good as a pet, so when they are ready to retire the most humane thing to do, is put them down.

Many people will lose a lot of jobs, and many hounds will be left with little to do.

My conclusion.

If the dogs were never brought up as hunting hounds, they would not have that attachment to the rest of the pack. It would be useful no matter how fast it could run. If it didn't want to jump through that bush, it didn't matter. It was loved by it's owner, no matter what. When a dog gets old, it ages and dies, without a bullet to it's head.

People are going to lose jobs because of this ban, if it is actually properly inforced. But they will live, they will find another job, the hounds can find homes, if the hunters release them and don't use that as their scape goat.

I see it as a sport, nothing more. It's not a way to keep the count of foxes down, that's rubbish, if you wanted to do that you'd go out with a rifle a shot them, why waste all that money on hounds, horses and red coats?

It is a tradition, but that does not make it right. If you go to the East, they make lions and monkeys fight eachother to the death, it's tradition, but I don't think it's very humane.

After that I'm still a little unsure, although most evidence suggests I'm glad it's been banned. I'm open to hearing further evidence For Hunting.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I understand where you're coming from. You support the governments actions whatever their reasons because the result is something you approve of. What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

So you support tearing wild animals apart with dogs for fun because some day biking might be banned :?: :?

When has any political party ever mentioned banning bikes? It'll never happen.

All thats banned is hunting with dogs. People can still ride horses over other peoples land, dress up in their jackets, enjoy the social aspect of it. They just need to more imaginative and adjust their hobby slightly to accomadate the new laws.

No I don't support hunting, I think it's repulsive. However, I don't support despotic governments, and whether you admit it or not, opposition to abuses of power is more important than a few foxes.

Why wouldn't the government want to ban bikes? The government dislikes motorists at the best of times. Bikers would be especialy easy to get off the road, because few people would have sympathy for us if that happened. It wouldn't be difficult. Start off with a power restriction - because power means speed and thats bad. Generate some ficticious statistics showing that this reduces accidents, and you have a case for reducing power still further. This continues untill you're down to 125 range power... no point in owning one of those, so you might as well ban them completely. Ok that's a little contrived, but the "it'll never happen" attitude is an unrealistic proposition. If the conditions allow, then the government would ban bikes in a heart beat. For 'our own safety' if nothing else.

Noone cares untill their own minority interest comes under threat. Everyone else who participates in a different minority activity is thinking "it'll never happen to me", those who appose a specific ban at any one time remain in the minority, so bans gets pushed though without difficulty. This "it'll never happen" attitude is exactly what's allowing the government to systematicaly destroy liberty without most people really caring.

It's scarey, I think we'll have a CCTV camera in every room of our house and a government appointed social worked for every house hold containing children (to make sure we don't raise our voices, cos that scars them for life you see) before people realise the government's gone too far, by which time it'll be too late to do anything about it.

[Clunk]

I can see where your coming from Mr Squirrel, but I think your taking it a bit too far.

I agree that the "democracy" that we have isn't ideal, but what's the alternative ?

The majority of people in this country are against fox hunting, I don't think a majority would be against biking. Its not an emotive subject like hunting is.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The states purpose should be to protect its citizens, not tell them how to live. It may be that the majority want fox hunting banned, but that shouldn't matter. It is not the governments business to get involved.

The fact that people lose all sense of perspective and reason when considering an emotive subject is precisely why we need strong leadership that will resist the will of the missguided masses and won't jump on the band waggon. Unfortunately we don't have strong leadership, so the government is making massive concesions to our freedom for short term political gain and aquisition of petty power.

Only when the government has gone too far (well, I think they have already, so by too far I mean in the eyes of the majority) will people start to resist. By the time this happens, the government will be using 'anti-terrorist' acts to watch everything we do, so forming any resistance will be impossible. I think if things carry on the way they are, the government could very easily become a dictatorship. You might say this is over the top, but just look at the speed the world changed over the last 100 years - and things are changing even faster these days.

What I find really ironic however, is that 60 years ago 50 million people died fighting against foriegn powers that tried to take away their freedom. But now when our own government do the same, noone bats an eye lid :?

[UncleBob]

Its tradition, keeping fox numbers down that reak havock on farms killing lambs, chickens, etc. I live out in the country and yeah it gives the toffs something to do. If ya think about it thousands of dogs will be put down as they cannot be kept as domestic pets. Weve been hunting hundreds of years, why stop it now?

Because it should have stopped hundreds of years ago. This is the 21st Century and proffesional pest controllers should be utilised to stop this rediculous tradition kept alive by mass groups of people relying on this inhumane 'sport' to survive and make a very good living. They're more scared about change than the real reason behind it.

The new law does state that if in a hunt, and a fox is found it must be shot. This is fairer by far, but still doesn't address the attitude of the people too stubborn to move on and realise this is a sick pastime that discredits the nation.

And squirrel - its hardly anything to do with freedom, how to kill a fox - people can still hunt, still go on jollies around the coutryside - this isn't enforced.

Mis-informed people and the 'bandwagon' keeps rolling. It's not about the govenment, the fact is gets put towards this as an arguement is severely missing the point, and a deliberate act to disengage the link between humane and inhumane 'hunting'.

[Spiderman]

The states purpose should be to protect its citizens, not tell them how to live. It may be that the majority want fox hunting banned, but that shouldn't matter. It is not the governments business to get involved.

The fact that people lose all sense of perspective and reason when considering an emotive subject is precisely why we need strong leadership that will resist the will of the missguided masses and won't jump on the band waggon. Unfortunately we don't have strong leadership, so the government is making massive concesions to our freedom for short term political gain and aquisition of petty power.

Only when the government has gone too far (well, I think they have already, so by too far I mean in the eyes of the majority) will people start to resist. By the time this happens, the government will be using 'anti-terrorist' acts to watch everything we do, so forming any resistance will be impossible. I think if things carry on the way they are, the government could very easily become a dictatorship. You might say this is over the top, but just look at the speed the world changed over the last 100 years - and things are changing even faster these days.

What I find really ironic however, is that 60 years ago 50 million people died fighting against foriegn powers that tried to take away their freedom. But now when our own government do the same, noone bats an eye lid :?


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

[Dicky Ticker]

Governmeny is put in place by YOU the electorate. This thread seems more about knocking governmemt,who's going to ban what,who's spending what The only people who can cause change are the people you elect and the facts stand that the bill has been passed by the majority of a democraticly elected number of M.P.s BUT the minority involved in this sport are saying they will defy the law,is this because its right,or the fact that "they" have the money to afford to treat the law with contempt

I have no objection to game hunting as what is killed is normally eaten
[fish/bird/animal]

Hunting an animal to have it ripped to shreds by a pack of trained dogs
so you can be "BLOODED" is in my opinion barbaric

We banned bull baiting but still have bull terriers

I was brought up in the wilds of Scotland and if something becomes a pest you cull Pidgeons/deer/rabbits/fox/squirrels whatever

If mankind hasn't progressed enough to stop killing for fun should we return to stoning criminals/burning witches surely that would be more "fun" than setting a pack of dogs loose

[Spiderman]

Governmeny is put in place by YOU the electorate. This thread seems more about knocking governmemt,who's going to ban what,who's spending what The only people who can cause change are the people you elect and the facts stand that the bill has been passed by the majority of a democraticly elected number of M.P.s

The same Govt who happily go to war with a country under the most illegal pretences. Using a thesis they stole from the internet that was actualy about the last Gulf War. Same Govt who ignore the fact that a MILLION of its own people came out to show they were against such a war.

Do you know the reason why its a "war on terror" and we never actually declared war against Iraq?? Just so the sleezy poloticos can legally argue against needing to apply the Geneva Conventions when it suits them.
War must be a "declaration" by one Govt to the other and have an aim and a purpose. Overthrowing a leader cos you dont agree with him is not a legitiame reason so they couldnt declare war. Hence the "war on terror" campaign started :(

Call this democracy? Dont make me laugh. Every 4 years or so we can vote for 1 of 3 major parties based on their pre-elction promises. They are not held to account about not sticking to those same promises after winning power. All people say is "well i wont vote for them again" and then they do cos its better the devil you know. :roll:
And during their time in power they can rush thru policies that suit them...... yet take years debating things we all (the electorate) want.
Like a real sense of justice agaist predatory peadophiles or rapists. Not for people to be "named and shamed" for dropping litter in the city centre.

I dont have kids but it incenses me that this Govt say peeps are not allowed to know if they have a chiled rapist living near them or not, but the local paper prints pics of teens with ASBOs. Who's more of a real danger i ask?

If this thread has turned into knocking the Govt its because some others are choosing to defend them and acting as tho they are concerned for our welfare or something.

Govt wants what they want... and they have a job of selling that to us in a way that we as a populace find acceptable.

Like FS said, 20 years ago you woulnt stand for some of the things that are going on now, yet now they say " we want a retina scan in your passports" to protect us etc etc.

A determined terrorist is going to be squeemish about cutting your eye out after he's killed you is he? Specially as he's on the way to the Channel Tunell with all you faked docs and a bomb to try and cause it to collapse.

if we alow them to erode our freedoms, we encourgae their behaviour.

As a wise man once said "In the struggle of the powerful against the weak which side must you take? You must take the side of the weak for to do nothing is to side with the powerful"

[Sid Squid]

The majority of people in this country are against fox hunting.

As this not been tested in any sort of way at all, therein lies a huge problem with any arguament against hunting, you don't know that's true and you can't possibly know either.

There has been no attempt to gauge public opinion on the subject of hunting, as such there can be no claim that it is the work of a democratic administration, further, this is precisely the reason this is a bad law, badly formulated and badly applied.
Interesting that some people think that in this circumstance, because the issue is so emotive, that the end justifies the means, the means in the question is the prostitution of the democratic process to serve the desires of a small number of people who have not and cannot demonstrate that there is any concensus on the issue.

As things stand if we are truly to consider this as a measure introduced to further the cause of animal rights, why stop here? Let us for a moment consider angling, not nice if you're a fish huh?, so why not rid ourselves of this barbaric pastime, I mean fish get injured and killed and that's just for 'sport', so it's wrong, right?
Well not if you're a Labour politician, no. As that 'sport' is likely to be practised more by the members of the population who might vote for you.
The hunting ban is spiteful politicking, no more, no less.

I still have no opinion on whether hunting should or should not be legal, but I do know irresponsible government serves none of us well, if you can't see that bad law cheapens all law, you need to think harder about it.

[22]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it


Whats the more humane ways then fizzwheel?.....................
Shooting ? NOBODY can guarantee a clean kill every time, so then youv'e wounded animals dying a slow death with a bullet in them or part of them missing. It is certain that when the hounds catch a fox it is dead in moments or if it escapes it is totally unharmed, not injured.

[Allie]

http://www.waleswatch.welshnet.co.uk/images/4fox-cubs6.jpg

‘The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable’ – Oscar Wilde

[northwind]

What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

Why do people keep un jumping to this "link"? The only, and I do mean only, connection is that they're both sports followed by a minority. However, the difference is that biking isn't a sport hated by a block vote. I really think you have to be either a) trying too hard to prove a point or b) delusional, if you think that banning bikes is somehow in line after fox hunting. Yu can make a case that way for fishing, say, or hunting with birds, ferrets, or guns. But biking's a completely unrelated issue, because it doesn't have the trigger point- it's not based around cruelty.

It's only a matter of time before someone compares the government to the Nazis. Oh, you just did :roll:

[Anonymous]

well i dont like it - therefore i dont do it. apart from that i have no strong feelings one way or the other - but im a lazy sod like that :?

[Akula]

Governmeny is put in place by YOU the electorate. This thread seems more about knocking governmemt,who's going to ban what,who's spending what The only people who can cause change are the people you elect and the facts stand that the bill has been passed by the majority of a democraticly elected number of M.P.s

The same Govt who happily go to war with a country under the most illegal pretences. Using a thesis they stole from the internet that was actualy about the last Gulf War. Same Govt who ignore the fact that a MILLION of its own people came out to show they were against such a war.

Do you know the reason why its a "war on terror" and we never actually declared war against Iraq?? Just so the sleezy poloticos can legally argue against needing to apply the Geneva Conventions when it suits them.
War must be a "declaration" by one Govt to the other and have an aim and a purpose. Overthrowing a leader cos you dont agree with him is not a legitiame reason so they couldnt declare war. Hence the "war on terror" campaign started :(

Call this democracy? Dont make me laugh. Every 4 years or so we can vote for 1 of 3 major parties based on their pre-elction promises. They are not held to account about not sticking to those same promises after winning power. All people say is "well i wont vote for them again" and then they do cos its better the devil you know. :roll:
And during their time in power they can rush thru policies that suit them...... yet take years debating things we all (the electorate) want.
Like a real sense of justice agaist predatory peadophiles or rapists. Not for people to be "named and shamed" for dropping litter in the city centre.

I dont have kids but it incenses me that this Govt say peeps are not allowed to know if they have a chiled rapist living near them or not, but the local paper prints pics of teens with ASBOs. Who's more of a real danger i ask?

If this thread has turned into knocking the Govt its because some others are choosing to defend them and acting as tho they are concerned for our welfare or something.

Govt wants what they want... and they have a job of selling that to us in a way that we as a populace find acceptable.

Like FS said, 20 years ago you woulnt stand for some of the things that are going on now, yet now they say " we want a retina scan in your passports" to protect us etc etc.

A determined terrorist is going to be squeemish about cutting your eye out after he's killed you is he? Specially as he's on the way to the Channel Tunell with all you faked docs and a bomb to try and cause it to collapse.

if we alow them to erode our freedoms, we encourgae their behaviour.

As a wise man once said "In the struggle of the powerful against the weak which side must you take? You must take the side of the weak for to do nothing is to side with the powerful"

:takeabow: :takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow: :takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow: :takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow: :takeabow::takeabow::takeabow::takeabow: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Martin

[UncleBob]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it


Whats the more humane ways then fizzwheel?.....................
Shooting ? NOBODY can guarantee a clean kill every time, so then youv'e wounded animals dying a slow death with a bullet in them or part of them missing. It is certain that when the hounds catch a fox it is dead in moments or if it escapes it is totally unharmed, not injured.

Good god - clearly having a fox chased until it's last energy has been used, then ripped apart by a vast number of dogs is a much more humane way... WHAT THEY HELL ARE YOU THINKING?? When wild animals are involved its NEVER CERTAIN.... christ, what a load of rubbish :roll:

There are proffessional pest controllers out there that do this for a job.. not a tradition..

Oh and having its blood spread over the faces of the hunters... nice..


NEW THREAD ABOUT THE GOV PLEASE! :roll:

[22]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it


Whats the more humane ways then fizzwheel?.....................
Shooting ? NOBODY can guarantee a clean kill every time, so then youv'e wounded animals dying a slow death with a bullet in them or part of them missing. It is certain that when the hounds catch a fox it is dead in moments or if it escapes it is totally unharmed, not injured.

Good god - clearly having a fox chased until it's last energy has been used, then ripped apart by a vast number of dogs is a much more humane way... WHAT THEY HELL ARE YOU THINKING?? When wild animals are involved its NEVER CERTAIN.... christ, what a load of rubbish :roll:

There are proffessional pest controllers out there that do this for a job.. not a tradition..

Oh and having its blood spread over the faces of the hunters... nice..


NEW THREAD ABOUT THE GOV PLEASE! :roll:



done it and been there, have you ?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

Why do people keep un jumping to this "link"? The only, and I do mean only, connection is that they're both sports followed by a minority. However, the difference is that biking isn't a sport hated by a block vote. I really think you have to be either a) trying too hard to prove a point or b) delusional, if you think that banning bikes is somehow in line after fox hunting. Yu can make a case that way for fishing, say, or hunting with birds, ferrets, or guns. But biking's a completely unrelated issue, because it doesn't have the trigger point- it's not based around cruelty.

It's only a matter of time before someone compares the government to the Nazis. Oh, you just did :roll:

The link is less to do with the two things being sports followed by minorities, rather than being two things that the government can ban to restrict our freedom and gain power without suffering too badly politicaly. People don't have to hate something for it to be banned, all the government requires to ban something is for people to just not care either way. Take smoking for example. Sure most people will have an opinion, but they don't feel extremely strongly either way about it, so pushing though the ban was easy. Biking is no different - the only people who really care are bikers them selves, and we're not significant enough to matter. There is nothing to stop biking becoming a target. It might take time, but people are become increasingly accepting of government interfearance - and the government IS getting worse. Even Charles Clark admited recently that the government is taking the greatest steps to increase state power in 300 years. When the government admits something like that, you should worry.

[northwind]

The link is less to do with the two things being sports followed by minorities, rather than being two things that the government can ban to restrict our freedom and gain power without suffering too badly politicaly.

Ah, so it does stem from the same old paranoia that the government are out to limit freedom, for a laugh. They have absolutely nothing to gain by banning motorcycling, it would only be a vote loser.

Nice attempt to get smoking into the debate, but again, the difference is that it harms other people- not the case with biking. Also, as with the hunting debate, all polls show a majority are in favour of the limited smoking bans that have been introduced. You seem to think that they banned smoking because it was something they could ban easily, not because it might- gasp- have any benefits.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ah, so it does stem from the same old paranoia that the government are out to limit freedom, for a laugh. They have absolutely nothing to gain by banning motorcycling, it would only be a vote loser.

Nice attempt to get smoking into the debate, but again, the difference is that it harms other people- not the case with biking. Also, as with the hunting debate, all polls show a majority are in favour of the limited smoking bans that have been introduced. You seem to think that they banned smoking because it was something they could ban easily, not because it might- gasp- have any benefits.

Vote loser? People rarely vote on a single issue, let alone one of civil liberty. And given the state of government opposition these days, I think bikers would still think about voting twice for a party as inept as the Tories even if biking was banned tomorrow. Even if we assume for a minute that you're right and that they lost every biker vote, we make up about 3% of the population, the government wouldn't care. Since bikers are not only in the minority, but also an unpopular group, those lost votes could probably be recouped if people were to vote exclusively on this issue anyway.

They don't ban things for a laugh, they ban them to increase their strangle hold over the electorate. That isn't paranoia, it's blatently obvious. The government has no place in instructing citizens how to live, but they're doing it anyway. In a democracy the government should be answerable to the people, not the other way round, but this is exactly whats happening.

So you think its ok to ban smoking because it harms other people then? Even fox hunting doesn't do that, but it didn't stop them anyway.

Besides, the argument could easily be made that biking harms people. Higher accident probabilities, resulting policing/health care costs etc. That might seem rediculous to you and I, but to the majority it is believable.

[Dicky Ticker]

I'll probably get flung to the dogs for this[Where did that saying come from]

22wrote Been there done that have you


Well cocker I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD OF YOURSELF


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Tigerrrr.......]

Instead they will be hunted with rifles that are unlikely to kill from a distance.

Well, if I were a soldier in Iraq, I think I'd rather have a rifle than a pack of hounds.

Wouldn't you?

[Dicky Ticker]

In that situation you would be better of with a herd of pigs

Why don't they use guard pigs instead of dogs?

[Iansv]

cos they'd have to keep them hungry all the time to be useful.... ala Hannibal

[fizzwheel]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it


Whats the more humane ways then fizzwheel?.....................
Shooting ? NOBODY can guarantee a clean kill every time, so then youv'e wounded animals dying a slow death with a bullet in them or part of them missing. It is certain that when the hounds catch a fox it is dead in moments or if it escapes it is totally unharmed, not injured.

I'm not saying I have an answer I never did

OK I'll play devils advocate with you

How would you like it if you were chased by a pack of animals bigger than you, scare the **** out of you and then when they do catch you proceed to rip you apart and eat you

Dont tell me thats they way you'd like to do die coz it sure isnt the way that I would

[nickj]

So when the fox is shot and runs off into it's hole and bleeds too death for a few hours is this humane??

After eating a load of poison, throwing it's guts up and taking hours to die is humane as well?

Killing an animal is killing an animal and unless they are going to catch every fox and put it to sleep then i don't think you can class it as humane.

Foxes are classed as vermin, i don't see anybody giving a s**t or trying to save the rats because it doesn't give them something to jump on their high horse about and nobody wants them in their house. The farmers don't want the foxes on the land killing their stock and affecting their livelihood either.

[snoopy]

Let's not forget the fox is chased until it can no longer run. There should be no fun in killing anything period, and deriving fun from tearing an animal apart is neanderthal.

[Frosty]

I think it's time for everyone to kiss and make up now.
I think a peace offering is called for.......
BBQ'd stoat anyone ? :wink:

[22]

Let's not forget the fox is chased until it can no longer run. There should be no fun in killing anything period, and deriving fun from tearing an animal apart is neanderthal.

Andrew, have you been on a fox hunt?........with your statement that "the fox is chased until it can no longer run " I think not. And who said anything about fun by watching a animal get torn apart? not me. My enjoyment comes from watching the hounds work, just as many people watch the wild dogs work to bring a zebra down ( that can take over a hour to kill ) on Wildlife On One, but thats different !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In my view if you do not know the facts dont preach, Iv'e hunted, shot, snared & dug, so yes I do know what I am talking about.

[Dicky Ticker]

I think feelings are starting to run very high with regard to this subject
and no matter how we are for/against the law has now been passed so what is the point of falling out?????????? Let our own common sense rule

[chutz]

Let's not forget the fox is chased until it can no longer run. There should be no fun in killing anything period, and deriving fun from tearing an animal apart is neanderthal.

Andrew, have you been on a fox hunt?........with your statement that "the fox is chased until it can no longer run " I think not. And who said anything about fun by watching a animal get torn apart? not me. My enjoyment comes from watching the hounds work, just as many people watch the wild dogs work to bring a zebra down ( that can take over a hour to kill ) on Wildlife On One, but thats different !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In my view if you do not know the facts dont preach, Iv'e hunted, shot, snared & dug, so yes I do know what I am talking about.

Hmmmmm, I have never murdered someone but know it to be wrong so I'm not sure you need to have taken part in such an activity as fox hunting to have an opinion on whether it is cruel or fair or not. Andrew has a right to his opinion I reckon.

[snoopy]

So some of us enjoy watching hounds tear another animal to shreds. Whatever floats your boat mate.

If something must die, for human consumption or for culling, it must do so without avoidable pain or suffering. You have no right to inflict, nor watch, such a barbaric act of cruelty.

In fact, I see no reason why we don't throw YOU in a pit, full of hungry lions. Oh yes, that will be so much fun to watch, you will agree.

[snoopy]

As for the guy whinging about the Government, get of your fat **** and form your own bloody party then. You should know how much demand there is for a new party to save us from all the horse-**** out there at the moment.

Just don't do a Killroy :lol:

[Ed]

As for the guy whinging about the Government, get of your fat **** and form your own bloody party then. You should know how much demand there is for a new party to save us from all the horse-sh*t out there at the moment.

Just don't do a Killroy :lol:

BH did you get out of bed the wrong side, Andrew? People are entitled to complain about the Government, we have freedom of speech here - or at least I think we do.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

If something must die, for human consumption or for culling, it must do so without avoidable pain or suffering. You have no right to inflict, nor watch, such a barbaric act of cruelty.

I trust you don't have, or never have, made use of any products from the second or third world then.

[snoopy]

Thw way I see it, the world is a **** hole, but if one person, or one group, can make it just a little bit better, then we are a little closer to a world that we all want to live in.


Sythree: I'm not so sure either.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Thw way I see it, the world is a sh*t hole, but if one person, or one group, can make it just a little bit better, then we are a little closer to a world that we all want to live in.


Sythree: I'm not so sure either.

Let me get this right, it's only your personal view on morality that's universaly correct? So lets say someone who goes hunting on the weekends but never drives is less moral than you? I'd consider the atmosphere more important than a few foxes.

And short of someone being a baby killer, noone has any right to accuse anyone else of being amoral, because there will always be something that can be found that you do that is just as bad.

[wheelnut]

Hunting with dogs is banned, its about time,

Its cruel, in my opinion, if the dogs are hungry, buy a few extra tins of pedigree chum. I dont need to employ 200 gayly dressed men to feed our Fido

Its a hooray Henry pastime that is going into the anals of history.

The only reason do it is to get a souveneir brush and to smear babies and childrens faces with the blood of a fox

Its Barbaric.

And before you tell me I dont know what Im talking about, My family have been involved in the Holderness Hunt for 50 years

[RenamedMonkey]

Is the hunting ban a good thing or not

I think its a good thing, Yes I appreciate that foxes and such like need to be controlled but I think there are more human ways of doing it


Whats the more humane ways then fizzwheel?.....................
Shooting ? NOBODY can guarantee a clean kill every time, so then youv'e wounded animals dying a slow death with a bullet in them or part of them missing. It is certain that when the hounds catch a fox it is dead in moments or if it escapes it is totally unharmed, not injured.

Certainly more humane than being ripped apart by a pack of dogs though, wouldn't you say :?:

[RenamedMonkey]

Hunting with dogs is banned, its about time,

Its cruel, in my opinion, if the dogs are hungry, buy a few extra tins of pedigree chum. I dont need to employ 200 gayly dressed men to feed our Fido

Its a hooray Henry pastime that is going into the anals of history.

The only reason do it is to get a souveneir brush and to smear babies and childrens faces with the blood of a fox

Its Barbaric.

And before you tell me I dont know what Im talking about, My family have been involved in the Holderness Hunt for 50 years


:lol: :lol: LMHO :lol: :lol:



But sir, you are quite right, I concur.

[RenamedMonkey]

Talk about disillusioned.

Forget government, forget hidden agendas. You sound like a bunch of conspiracy artists, your talking nonsense.

The question was 'do you think that the banning of fox hunting is a good thing?'. Stop trying to make it something else.



The point is, and no one so far has been able to justify otherwise, that fox hunting is a cruel blood sport, and it is inefficient at it's original said purpose. I await to here why this is not true.

[Nutkins]

Forget government, forget hidden agendas. You sound like a bunch of conspiracy artists ...

You thought that too! :lol:

... your talking nonsense.

<sits back with smug grin on face, safe in the knowledge that he has been truly appreciated>

The point is, and no one so far has been able to justify otherwise, that fox hunting is a cruel blood sport, and it is inefficient at it's original said purpose. I await to here why this is not true.

:thumbsup:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Forget government, forget hidden agendas. You sound like a bunch of conspiracy artists, your talking nonsense.

The question was 'do you think that the banning of fox hunting is a good thing?'. Stop trying to make it something else.

The hunting ban DOES have polical and social remifications, whether you choose to see it or not. If you didn't want to have to have a serious debate on this then you should have asked "do you think it's nasty that fluffly animals get torn limb from limb" and you'd get a response you like. Most people would say yes, including me who said no to the original question of whether the ban is a good thing.

This is not a black or white issue, few things in this world are.

[RenamedMonkey]

Forget government, forget hidden agendas. You sound like a bunch of conspiracy artists, your talking nonsense.

The question was 'do you think that the banning of fox hunting is a good thing?'. Stop trying to make it something else.

The hunting ban DOES have polical and social remifications, whether you choose to see it or not. If you didn't want to have to have a serious debate on this then you should have asked "do you think it's nasty that fluffly animals get torn limb from limb" and you'd get a response you like. Most people would say yes, including me who said no to the original question of whether the ban is a good thing.

This is not a black or white issue, few things in this world are.

Your wrong.

Political issues aside, should it be banned? Yes.

Are you saying that because it has implications of politcal scale that it should not be banned?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Political issues aside, should it be banned? Yes.

Political issues asside, should it be banned? Yes, I agree it should. However, political issues are the only reason it was ever banned anyway, nothing to do with animal rights so...

Are you saying that because it has implications of politcal scale that it should not be banned?

Yes, absolutely.

[fizzwheel]

After reading all this I still think it should be banned, but I also think its about time that the governement, the pro hunt and the anti hunt people all sat down and talked about a viable alternative..

I was watching the news the other day and a policeman said that, fox hunting is classed as a lower type of crime than letting off a firework after 11pm.. so the police still arent going ot do anything about it

Also they said it would be hard to prove the intent behind the hunt anyway

i.e. they have to prove that the hunt set out with the intent to kill the fox with dogs.. how hard is that going to be to prove

[RenamedMonkey]

Political issues aside, should it be banned? Yes.

Political issues asside, should it be banned? Yes, I agree it should. However, political issues are the only reason it was ever banned anyway, nothing to do with animal rights so...

Are you saying that because it has implications of politcal scale that it should not be banned?

Yes, absolutely.


It's concerning that you think that.

Politics is not important to the people that wanted this ban. To them, animal rights is what it's about. Thousands of people protested for a ban, they did it because the sport is cruel.

Banning fox hunting leads to nothing else, to think it will lead to banning bikes is ludicrous, what planet do you live on :?: It's entirely different. You are creating a conspiracy out of your pessimism towards the government.

There's nothing anyone can say here that will change the mind of others. I have learnt that although we have some fantastically heated debates on this Forum, few end with a conclusive result.

They just keep going until we get bored of the topic! :lol:

[Cronos]

So you dont believe in the interconnectedness of all things?

Are you judging fox hunting from the side of the hunted or the hunter? And in judging, are you considering the implications for those whose jobs depend on this too?

Not having a go... just curious what makes up you"moral view" of this topic.

Morally its Ok to hunt for food isnt it?

It is, in my opinion, morally wrong to hunt for pleasure. A society that condones such behaviour desensitises itself to violence against animals and, I would argue, to violent behaviour in general. In that respect I believe in the interconnectedness of things and that this is an issue that affects all of us in some way.

[Cronos]

I understand where you're coming from. You support the governments actions whatever their reasons because the result is something you approve of. What I'm saying is that this is an unwise standpoint. One day the government will deem a minority activity (like riding a bike) in which you participate unacceptable and attempt to ban it. Then everyone like yourself who cares little for the governments motivation but approves of the result will think it's a good idea, and yet another minority activity is outlawed.

I support this move because I believe that it is morally the correct thing for society to do (see my earlier post).

That doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose other legislation if I felt it was made without foundation or without purpose. There are plenty of examples where I would, but that doesn't mean I should abandon my principles and support opposition to a ban which is, in my opinion, totally justified.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Politics should be important to the people who wanted this ban, because the resons they support it are completely different from those of the government. You really can't ignore that - the ends do not justify the means.

The government wants to interfere to such an extent that they'll sacrifice money for it. Smoking for example. Smoking is a simply fantastic thing from their point of view. An addictive substance that forces you to hand over wads of cash and then kills you before you can draw a pension. It makes no sense for them to ban that, but they have, simply because they want more control over peoples lives. The government even had the audacity to claim that people WANTED to be told how to live their lives, yet you say I'm a conspiracy theorist?! You may want to belive that but it simply isn't the case.