Well you have missed half of my argument for Fox hunting :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
:rolleyes:
Printable View
Well you have missed half of my argument for Fox hunting :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
:rolleyes:
I was going to reply Pino, as I disagree with some things, but I guess if I do I'd get banned? - So much for a 'forum'. I think some people forget the meaning of the word unfortunately. Or wait for it, is this going to be construed as a personal attack? :dozey:
Reply as much as you want as long you stick to the topic which is Fox Hunting !Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Sorry, I wasn't planning on quoting everyone's reply. However if you want me to reply to your points I will happily do so :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I know someone asked you how many lambs have been killed by foxes. I don't expect you to have an exact figure. But maybe you could find out a rough some. Is it near the 100 mark? Or the 5-10 mark?Quote:
Not all farmers grow crops.
Take my brothers farm as a case. This year he has had over 700 lambs. The average value of a lamb is around £30. If 5% are killed by predators, then thats over £1000 lost every year.
What other points do you want me look at? The only other points you've made (unless I've missed something) is about how its unpractical to have buildings to protect your chickens. And yes...it is.
Do you think the hunting of tigers, of polar bears, or dolphins is just as acceptable as fox hunting then? Afterall, people who kill those animals are doing it for a living. People fox hunting are doing it for their own pleasure.
Inflicting cruelty on an animal for your own personal pleasure - for me - that's wrong.
Pino, we're not allowed to point out someone's hypocrisy then? :(
If I may I should like to add my own humble take on this rather fraught topic :)
In an earlier post Eki stated quite categorically that foxes do not have super powers.
Well I have because I am none other than Fashion Disaster Beef Stock Warrior and if you don't stop shouting at each other and referring to having sexual relations with beasts of the field I will have no other choice than to shlep over to the nearest phonebox and don a diamond pattern sleeveless pullover, a pair of World War Two American General trousers and skin diver's flippers before spraying you all right in the face with scalding beef stock.
Nice bit of Fox liver for tea tonight.
Go down nice with a bit of Spanish Fighting Bull pate that will.
(climbs to top of Telecom tower and throws off cat) Ai Caramba!!
Foxes aren't an endangered species and my brother IS trying to make a living.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
If people want to hunt foxes for pleasure then they should be able to make the moral decision whether it is wrong or not for themselves. :rolleyes: Not someone in Westminster. By taking away that decision you are taking away their human rights.
Yeah well, your brother should blame his customers and not the foxes if he fails to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Why?? :confused:
Because they aren't ready to pay more for your brother to protect his livelihood or cover his potential losses because of the foxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
But pointing out the hypocrisy in ones argument is part of arguing your own view on any topic, in this instance fox hunting - thats just how you argue!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You're complaining about killing foxes and then you suggest an electric fence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
What you suggested with the electric fence is a lot more expensive, and no more "ethical". Why would people pay more for livestock protected by an electrified fence?
I don't agree with fox hunting as a sport though. But if the farmers need to protect their livestock, they should be allowed to.
Electric fences don't kill or permanently injure animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's pleasure is acceptable. I think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's own personal pleasure is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
People who torture dogs and cats, and kill them, which we always hear about from the RSPCA, do you think that's acceptable as well?
If your talking about killing foxes who try to kill your animals, fair enough, shoot them when they come near. I can fully understand that. However, if your going out for a day in the forest or the countryside, and looking to go inflict pain on a fox, and eventually death, because you think it's fun...then no, I don't think that's acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Why do you need an electrical fence anyway?
Why not have an agricultural building or something? If the purpose is to protect the live stock.
I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I would never take part in Fox hunting, but if other people want to hunt then they should make the moral decision themselves.
I don't think that you can compare hunting wild animals with torture to domestic pets.
Remember, it's not about the cruelty. It's about the sport. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Fox hunting couldn't have been a proper sport, because I never saw it on Grandstand.
So the individual should start making moral decisions themselves? That's a bit of a cop out. Should the individual start making moral decisions on other things too then, maybe such as whether domestic abuse is acceptable? :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
What about horses then? Someone who inflicts cruelty on a horse for their own pleasure. Should we leave that up to the individual and their conscious to decide if its right or wrong?
What about stray dogs, should we let the individual decide if its right or wrong to inflict cruelty on it for a bit of 'fun'?
If it was hunting for food, or protecting your lively hood, I can perfectly understand the reason. Killing and inflicting pain and cruelty on an animal for fun though....sorry, I think that's wrong. Do you think it's wrong? Yes or no?
Ok Jon,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I'll decide to hunt YOU! Now don't YOU decide what I can and can't do.
Is that alright? :laugh:
lol :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Of course not. That is just taking the discussion way out of context. Why are you trying to compare fox hunting to domestic abuse? Your making mountains out of mole hills.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I wouldn't go fox hunting because the idea of riding around on a horse in stupid outfit doesn't appeal to me. However, if I did I wouldn't care less if a fox was killed or not. I wouldn't get any pleasure from killing a fox, but I wouldn't feel guilty if I killed one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Well you can if you think animal rights are more important than human rights, and only idiots believe that is true.
We already pay for the losses caused by shop-lifters and marketing. I haven't heard anyone demanding the shop-lifters and marketing people to be killed (well, maybe some would like to kill the marketing people).Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
No, I was trying to use your way of thinking, that the individual should choose what is morally right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
There you go then. Are you glad I answered your points? :) Was it worth it? :laugh:Quote:
I wouldn't go fox hunting because the idea of riding around on a horse in stupid outfit doesn't appeal to me. However, if I did I wouldn't care less if a fox was killed or not. I wouldn't get any pleasure from killing a fox, but I wouldn't feel guilty if I killed one.
BDunnell and my canadian friend Schemke. Are you going to quote this man and tell him it's not stupid to believe animal rights are as important as human rights? Afterall, a contrary opinion to another peron isn't necessarily stupid, it's just different, isn't it :dozey:Quote:
Well you can if you think animal rights are more important than human rights, and only idiots believe that is true.
No, only if you think human rights are as useless as animal rights. Privileges aren't the same as rights. I think nobody should be allowed to kill their competition in order to increase your own profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I would love to know why anyone would think Hunting is a version of torture yet shooting isn't :confused:
I'd also love to know how you know about this torture, because if it's from one-sided animal right videos taken in the early seventies (I've not seen any newer ones ;) ) perhaps you'd consider doing what I did and get both sides before making a judgement. As a kid I was bang against Hunting, shooting, poisoning and gassing of foxes, feral cats, escaped fur farm animals, rabbits and deer. Then I learned about them all and made an educated choice.
I'm still against shooting, poisoning, gassing and actively fight using sighthounds to course or lamp. Some Hunting is cruel, some is far and away the best, fastest, cleanest method. Depends on the quarry and all sorts of other things.
Of course, I'm wasting my time posting the above - some of you are obviously soooo well versed on the subject you're talking about ......
Electric fences, by the way, won't work in about 50% of cases. UK weather breaks the wires that carry the current and no farmer has time to check every length each day, nor ability to supply power in some remote areas. Cutting grass and hedges to stop earthing is also a problem, as are deer hung up on the fence as they try to move from area to area. Larger animals such as horses and cattle break the fences sometimes, too. We use electric and it's a pain the backside both on fixed posts and mobile ones.
Ok, maybe I should re-phrase it. I think killing animals for your own pleasure is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Hunting down an animal before letting the dogs rip you to pieces, and shoot them? Maybe it's not torture in your eyes. It's killing anyway. And killing animals for 'fun' is wrong in my eyes.Quote:
I'd also love to know how you know about this torture,
I think hunting, shooting, poisoning animals for fun is wrong. However, for some purposes it's perfectly ok (in my opinion). If it's to protect your livelyhood I can perfectly understand why you'd want to get rid of them.Quote:
perhaps you'd consider doing what I did and get both sides before making a judgement. As a kid I was bang against Hunting, shooting, poisoning and gassing of foxes, feral cats, escaped fur farm animals, rabbits and deer. Then I learned about them all and made an educated choice.
Why don't you tell us what you learnt? Maybe some people can be persuaded to change their opinion on the matter :)
What kind of hunting is cruel, and what kind of hunting is the cleanest method?Quote:
I'm still against shooting, poisoning, gassing and actively fight using sighthounds to course or lamp. Some Hunting is cruel, some is far and away the best, fastest, cleanest method. Depends on the quarry and all sorts of other things.
At the end of the day, if you kill them for your pleasure, whether its done cruelly, or the 'clean' way, I think it's wrong. Killing for pleasure isn't right.
Why not tell us what you know. Educate us :)Quote:
Of course, I'm wasting my time posting the above - some of you are obviously soooo well versed on the subject you're talking about ......
Anyway, as I say. If you have to kill them, I'd rather you do it the 'nice' (if there is a nice way to kill an animal) way. However in my opinion, killing for fun is wrong, I'm not objecting to the fact it may be a better way to die, its the fact your killing for fun which I don't approve of.
You seem to have completely missed that point :(
The dogs don't rip the fox to bits. That's a common mistake made by people who don't know about it. As I already said, I've never been at a kill, but I have Hunted for years prior to the ban. The idea is that dogs, being pack animals, have a leader and he or she (some packs are all bitch) grabs the fox and kills it with a shake. I've seen sight hounds do it and it's incredibly fast, the prey is dead within a half second often as not. If it's already dead, so what if the hounds did rip it to bits anyhow? They don't, but if they did would it matter at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
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.
Already did that in earlier posts.Quote:
I think hunting, shooting, poisoning animals for fun is wrong. However, for some purposes it's perfectly ok (in my opinion). If it's to protect your livelyhood I can perfectly understand why you'd want to get rid of them.
Why don't you tell us what you learnt? Maybe some people can be persuaded to change their opinion on the matter :)
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.
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.
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.Quote:
What kind of hunting is cruel, and what kind of hunting is the cleanest method?
At the end of the day, if you kill them for your pleasure, whether its done cruelly, or the 'clean' way, I think it's wrong. Killing for pleasure isn't right.
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.
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!Quote:
If you have to kill them, I'd rather you do it the 'nice' (if there is a nice way to kill an animal) way. However in my opinion, killing for fun is wrong, I'm not objecting to the fact it may be a better way to die, its the fact your killing for fun which I don't approve of.
You seem to have completely missed that point :(
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.
The fact that some people want to use their horses in a thrilling way is what offends you, that's all. 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. 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.
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.
Let me re-phrase what I said, they are not stupid. They are liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
So you are saying that it is okay for foxes to kill my brothers 'assests'? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Why are you trying to drag me into this? Why the bold font? :sQuote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
If he can't protect his assets properly without killing anybody, he's part to blame. BTW, have foxes ever actually killed your brother's assets, or are you just afraid they could?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
: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