:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Of course foxes have killed his assets before, I'd I have already explained to you why it is unfeasible to protect them. It isn't my brothers fault that foxes chose to kill his lambs.
Printable View
:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Of course foxes have killed his assets before, I'd I have already explained to you why it is unfeasible to protect them. It isn't my brothers fault that foxes chose to kill his lambs.
Can't he keep his lambs indoors until they grow up? I guess grown sheep are too big for the foxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Not 700
As I've said. The way they are killed, though is of some importance, it's the fact they are killed...for pleasure which I'm against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Just to clarify, they don't 'have a leader and he or she (some packs are all bitch) grabs the fox and kills it with a shake'?Quote:
Most foxes are so covered in mange the hounds never actually go near it, they're just used to flush it out for a gunman waiting at a specific place. Hounds would be infected if they got near the fox, so they don't. That's why some hound bloodlines are slower moving than others, they are just there to chase out a fox to open ground where he can be shot.
Oh is it? Earlier on you said 'hunting as we think of it was a damned good day out, a chance to ride a horse very fast over dangerous land that's private and unavailable at any other time. Foxes were rarely caught if the truth be known. It was more about enjoying a race among sixty or so other horses and then getting plastered on somebody else's expensive gin before lunch 'Quote:
Already did that in earlier posts.
Hunting foxes is to protect assorted other interests, like lambs, chickens and so on. Getting rid of foxes near a school or boarding kennels will stop mange (scabies) affecting humans or pets, lowering a fox population will help rarer wildlife like adders, newts, frogs, dormice and so on. So, numbers do need to be controlled and there's no way around that fact.
Have you had a change of heart then? One minute your saying it's a good day out, and foxes are rarely caught, now your saying it's to protect other live stock, and a way of controlling the number of foxes.
And as has already been pointed out, though not all farms grow crops, foxes have an important role in nature of hunting rabbits, who cause more harm to farms crop than foxes do to chicken stock. As they said, 5% of lamb deaths are due to predation (not just foxes, but all predators) and only 0.7% of free range chickens are lost to foxes. Farmers suffer more from rabbits, because they do damage to their crops. And 45% of a foxes diet (on average) is rabbit (in the countryside obviously, not town centres).
If it was to provide jobs, it could maybe used as an arguement, but as I think you yourself said, very few jobs have been lost with the ban. The only difference is killing foxes for pleasure has now been banned.Quote:
The fact that some bright spark hundreds of years ago saw wolves preyed on foxes and decided to chase foxes with his own domesticated wolves means we now have Hunting as an organised thing. Now, in our financial climate, everything costs money, so Hunting bacame a serious business perhaps 80 or so years ago. Hunts needed to cover costs. This meant land owners could call on a Hunt to clear out (out being off his land as much as dead) foxes and expect to be paid for his broken fences and trampled crops too. It gave men a job before horses became the pets they are now. It now means somebody like me pays twenty quid to basically be allowed on private land twice each week to thunder about on a horse legally. For my twenty quid the hounds are kept fit and the land owner feels he's sorted his fox worries without resorting to paying somebody with a gun - a win/win you could say.
Thanks :up: Btw I notice you say not many foxes are caught.Quote:
Hunting with terriers is cruel. Hunting without them isn't. A Foxhound pack is maybe 30 hounds who chase a scent then stop when the scent ends at a fox hole. If terriers are employed, once the fox runs down a hole the Hounds are removed and the ride is over, then terriers are put in the hole to drag out or kill the fox. That is very, very cruel and is killing for the sake of it. Not many packs use terriers so therefore not many packs actually catch foxes. They just move them about from one bit of land to another.
They know how to escape? So are they often caught? So is this arguement that fox hunting is a way of pest control, is this true or not?Quote:
I've seen hundreds of foxes, both during and away from Hunting. I've only a few times seen one run at full speed. More often when being Hunted they will happily have a sit down and scratch, stop for a drink, scent mark and just lop about at half speed. They know the score and know how to escape a Hunt.
Maybe nice isn't the right word. Killing for the right reasons is maybe more appropriate. Killing for pleasure, or a sport, or a 'good day out' isn't, in my eyes, a good reason for inflicting cruelty (I'd say killing = to cruelty, no matter how quickly it's done) on animals.Quote:
What's you 'nice' way then? The fox is naturally prey only to the wolf in the UK. We have no wolves. Alternatives are shooting, gassing, poison and hounds. Shooting a small animal is hard, so in actual fact most foxes killed by Hunts have previously been shot and only injured hence the pack's ability to catch them up. Shooting doesn't work, then. It leaves a fox hurt and more liable to attack easy prey like chickens. Gassing is just plain wrongness, as is poison. Both kill anything under the ground, whatever the species. If the body isn't taken away it also kills things that eat the corpse - especially birds of prey. Hound use is the most natural method, quick when they catch one and I genuinely believe a fox would rather take on a pack then some bloke with a gun - his odds are far better!
Your previous arguement was about why it wasn't torture, when my whole reasoning for being against fox hunting, was the fact it was killing for pleasure, not the way it was killed. So I think you did miss the point.Quote:
I haven't misunderstood anything. You simply don't like the idea of anyone appearing to enjoy a fox being chased and perhaps killed. Problem is that those who shoot love doing that, those who set traps, use gas and lay poison wouldn't do it if the job offened them plus they make a damned good living out of it - so every method of killing a fox brings pleasure in some way. I learned that and live with it. Even the man who came to shoot one of my horses said he loved his job and wouldn't do anything else. He hated that split second when the trigger was pulled, yet loved that he clears up fallen stock from the countryside, meets so many interesting people and goes to lovely places.
And your right, I don't like the idea of people being legally allowed to have a good day out hunting animals and trying to kill them. I don't think I'm alone. It's as if your trying to make it sound absurb I object to it. I'm going to stick with my guns here, and say I don't like it, and am glad it's banned.
I like how you started off saying it's a necessity to protect lambs, chickens etc, and as your post progresses, it becomes about the love of the 'job'. That's what I disagree with. Fox hunting, for pleasure is not right in my eyes.
I wouldn't describe it as thrilling. Riding their horses at high speed, fair enough. Go do it. Just don't kill the fox. If that's your idea of a thrill, fair enough, but I'm glad those people are no longer legally allowed to carry it out. To suggest I'm offended by people using horses in a thrilling way is nonense. It's the inflicting crueltly on an animal for one's personal pleasure I disagree with, and am offended by.Quote:
The fact that some people want to use their horses in a thrilling way is what offends you, that's all.
That's a silly arguement. If you used that philosophy in any other situation it would be ridiculed.Quote:
It offends thousands of people. I can't see the problem as the fox would be hunted and killed anyhow, with or without the riders paying to follow.
Depends on your definition of cruelty. I would say the killing of an animal is enough to be described as 'cruel'. If you were hunting and shooting dogs in the street, I'm sure the RSPCA wouldn't be happy about it. And couldn't help you notice say riders slow down, letting foxes get away. So it's not for controlling the amount of foxes then?Quote:
However, that crowd of riders do mean Hunt staff can't get away with much by the way of cruelty - I would have happily gone home from a day's Hunting and called the RSPCA had I seen anyone treat any animal in a cruel way just for the sake of it! The riders slow down the Hunt too, so foxes do get away as I've already said.
Why is that? And does that mean you don't really agree with anything you've said previously in that post, which was all pointing towards why fox hunting wasn't a bad thing?Quote:
Anyway, this is all pointless. It's been banned ...... and even though not one of you appear to have noticed it, I do support that ban.
Btw, it's nice to have a discussion with someone who obviously knows all about the subject :up: :)
Because I'm interested in your view point :) I found it ridiculous, when I described someone's comment as stupid, you replied an opinion contrary to mine isn't stupid, it's just different. I thought it was quite nonsense to try and say no opinion is stupid. Then we get Jon Brown saying the same thing, describing another persons opinion (this time about human rights and animal rights) as being stupid (which I agreed with btw). I was wondering if you were going to say the same thing, or whether it was just reserved for myself :)Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Anyway, Jon Brown has changed his stance on things, changing his words disappointly I find. Apparently thinking animal deserve the same rights as human isn't stupid :dozey:
Have you found out roughly how much live stock he losses through foxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
As Hazell points out, they don't actually kill that many. I don't agree with the way Eki is going about the arguement, but at the same time I think you know his arguement is weak, so are picking at it.
I don't agree with fox hunting, but if your brother was to short a fox which he saw killing his stock, I would have nothing against that. Would he be able to do that? Has he got a gun?
As has been said, fox hunting doesn't result in many kills, so the excuse it protects chickens, lambs etc isn't really an excuse for why fox hunting shouldn't be banned.
Thanks, but I don't require a solicitation to provide my opinion in a thread :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Also it seems that you are attempting to use this thread to continue a debate from a previous unrelated thread.
My bad :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Let's relate it. Is it stupid or not to say animal rights are as important as human rights?
In your opinion :)
I'm glad the ban came in.
They don't have the Hunt down here any more which never bothered me but because theres no reason to have wild foxes any more, they have been all but erradicated from the farms now. No more ripped bin bags, road kill, chickens killed etc. Good riddence to the vermin.
i wouldn't be surprised if they dont all but dissapear within the next decade.
Well done townies. About time you did something useful for the country :)
Why? I thought this thread was about the ban on fox hunting?Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123