PDA

View Full Version : The Hunting debate - some thoughts.


Captain Blackadder
23rd Oct 2004, 12:07
I have long had a few things on my mind with regards the Ban on hunting so I thought I'd air my thoughts.

Foxes are a pest, which we all know. Foxhunting is one of the oldest sports in the land, older even than football. Now if we tried to ban football there would be uproar.

Foxhunters are people like you and me that have a sport as a hobby, attend regular hunts and are not there to get in peoples way. It is the demonstrators and protestors that are the ones causing the problems.

The Government is here to do what the majority of the British public wants, they are here to listen to us all and do what we want. Now they have listened to the minority of people and done what they want. The people who are kicking up a fuss about this are the single minded inner city pencil pushers that have no reality of what goes on in the countryside, and have probably never lived in the countryside.

Now if hunting is banned, then where does that leave the sport of fishing, surely that is classed as hunting. AND surely that is inflicting more harm than good on the fish. Fish are living thing, much like foxes. Now with foxhunting, the fox usually dies at the end of it. Now with fishing, what you are really doing is tempting the fish by dangling a maggot (who incidently is a living thing which ends up dying) on a hook into water. the fish then goes to eat the maggot and by doing so has a hook slice through the side of its face. The fish is then dragged against its will out of the water and then it is being tortured by suffocation and then has to go through the agony of having its face pulled around while you get the hook free. It is then put back into the water only to have the same thing happen to it again in the future. The fish is suffering a prolonged period of pain, when surely the best thing to do is kill it. So the question here is what is in it for the Fish? and the maggot for that matter?

Now take this scenario for example. A major earthquake or something of the nature which you are using animals to hunt out survivors. Buildings collapse, people trapped, etc, etc. Now how would you hunt out survivors if hunting has been banned?

I would like to say here that I am niether for or against Foxhunting, Fishing or anthing that involves eating maggots!! I am trying to look at this from every angle and I realise this is sensitive to alot of people, but, as I said I just wanted to air some thoughts.

Edmund.

El Grifo
23rd Oct 2004, 12:17
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought a decision had already been taken.

:confused: :cool:

Leftpedal
23rd Oct 2004, 12:23
Okay CB, since I'm a bit bored at the moment.....

Just because Foxhunting has been around for a long time does not mean it is a good thing! Human sacrifice, slavery, morris dancing...

It's true though that a lot of the anti-hunting lobby are city dwellers with little idea of rural life (and death). It's also true that fishing is a blood sport and no doubt many of the anti-hunting lobby would also like to see it banned. The fact that more people go fishing than go foxhunting shouldn't make it any more acceptable, although the fact that the fish is not usually killed may be a factor.

Personally I've no desire to do either, although if I was hungry enough I think I would go for the fish first.

LP

tony draper
23rd Oct 2004, 12:25
I do not think the Government is here to do what the majority of the public want at all, they are here theoreticaly to run the country for the benifit of the majority,that is not necessarily the same thing, if public opinion was followed to the letter we would still be hanging murderers and asylum seekers would be shot at the borders
If it ever happens that public opinion rules, the luvvies in the media would wring their hands in glee, for then they would truly rule the land, because they can manipulate the way the public thinks at will, and they are becoming very good at it after all they have been practising it for the last twenty years.

419
23rd Oct 2004, 12:34
I'll admit that I've read some shite over the years, but this must be the best so far.

Now take this scenario for example. A major earthquake or something of the nature which you are using animals to hunt out survivors. Buildings collapse, people trapped, etc, etc. Now how would you hunt out survivors if hunting has been banned?

419

Feeton Terrafirma
23rd Oct 2004, 12:36
Since Adam was a boy (and I mean that literally) mankind has killed animals for food. Not long after day one I'm sure there were other reasons to, such as removal of a threat to our children, removal of competition for food, and sooner rather than later, for sport. Before you go off crying about that I have seen many TV documentaries of wild animals playing deadly games with other animals, seeming ly for the sport of it and no other reason, so this is not something that only mankind does.

Fox numbers need to be kept under control as much as any other species and the traditional hunt is just another method of doing that. I have never been on a fox hunt (in that sense) but I'm sure those that carryout that sport do it because they enjoy the day out on horse back and the company it brings.

The fox is only the excuse really.

I have been out shooting foxes in years gone by and not just for the bounty which the government offered at the time.

Your points on fishing and the magot are valid too.

In many ways most people would consider me to be a friend of nature these days, and I do support the preservation of wildlife but I acknowledge that this sometimes means that a species needs to be culled, relocated or otherwise controlled.

If hunting serves this purpose and foxes are not an endagered species then I dont have a problem with it.

If people are serious about not killing animals, then step one is to become a vegitarian, not to stop hunting.

SyllogismCheck
23rd Oct 2004, 12:38
The fox that doesnt get hunted now will most likely end up meeting its fate by the hand of man or mans trained animals anyway when it becomes a pest to the local farmers hens or similar and has to be exterminated.
Whats the difference in the end? Its the same dead fox.

From start to finish a good deal of life is brutal, trying to pretend its not is hypocritical and futile. Ah yes, that sounds about right in fact. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, I notice since the ban my neighbours seem to have taken up mouse hunting using cats. Should they be reported, devious so and so's that they are? :suspect:

Captain Blackadder
23rd Oct 2004, 12:42
But maybe because the fish are not being killed is what should be being addressed here, they are being tortured and then set free while still in pain. The Fox is just killed and therefore has no knowledge of the pain it just suffered. Also there is no danger of it suffering again unlike the fish.

I have no real desire to go fishing either, I can't imagine a more boring sport. However, I do live in the countryside and I would like to participate in a Hunt to see what goes on. Like I said already I am not for foxhunting or against it. I have been fishing before and I have made up my mind on that sport, so I would like to go on a hunt so I can make my mind up on that as well. Call me old fashioned but I like to try things before I make my mind up about them.

As for the media, well we all now that they control the way the majority of people in this country think and what they believe, the tabloid papers are read by people who are easily led and are easily brainwashed!

I for one think we should bring capital punishment, hang murderers and paedophile's but that is a different topic.

Snakecharmer
23rd Oct 2004, 20:59
I don't reckon it's got anything to do with animal cruelty at all... it's 'class war' pure and simple. Perhaps I should say 'perceived class' war. Regardless of who actually hunts and for what purpose, the intolerant urban left feels the need to inhibit the lives of those of whom they disapprove.

In the words of an anonymous urbanite: "they don't seem to understand that, while they might still own the countryside, they don't run the country any more". Great.

Never felt strongly about foxhunting either way but, as a member of HM Forces, I've always believed in 'live and let live' in the context of a (reasonably!) liberal democracy. I'm now tempted to take up foxhunting purely as its the only way (as a disenfranchised white middle class heterosexual male) I have left to protest against the illiberal left. But then, there's plenty of opportunity with more horses than people in my particularly picturesque village!

timmcat
23rd Oct 2004, 21:14
I can see both sides of the argument - but -

I do have a real problem with the celebration, glorification and possible tittilation in witnessing the death of an animal.

Are these the same people who download videos of beheadings?

VFE
23rd Oct 2004, 21:42
This reminds me that I must buy some worms (preferably in can?) when I go fishing for the first time next week.....

VFE.

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD
23rd Oct 2004, 23:07
Of course it's a class issue!
If the "sport"wasn't dominated by toffs and suported by the aristos and ruling classes it would have been banned years ago.
Badger Baiting,Dog Fighting,Cock Fighting were all part of our quaint rural tapestry for years you know.Mostly practiced by foul working class types though so thankfully long gone.Put thousands of Badger Tongers on the dole though.Tragic.
Here's an Idea-
Foxes are more common in urban areas,and Fox hunting has a bad "Toff" rep,,,,so,,
Let the council house dwellers dress up in matching shell suits and chase urban foxes on motorbikes with their Pit Bulls.The young kids could be "blooded" after witnessing thir first street kill.A whole social scene could revolve around the new hunt with cans of Superlager handed to the riders.Jobs could be created breeding staffies and supplying bikes.Toffs could tag along at the back on horseback and be dragged onto camera for interviews to prove what an eclectic group the hunters really are.Within a few years this sport would form the very fabric of urban life.The vermin foxes would be controled and every one would have a rare old time and not harm a sole.A few do-goody country types who just have no idea about life in a scheme would probably object but we could always block any opposition in the Lords once it's entirely made up of retired social workers.
How does that sound?

Leftpedal
24th Oct 2004, 07:21
HSLC - brilliant idea!

But;

every one would have a rare old time and not harm a sole

So are you opposed to the working class bloodsport of fishing then?

GROUNDHOG
24th Oct 2004, 12:20
Well I have a plan:- What about introducing some suicide foxes - much more sporting. Strap semtex to a couple and when the pack are about to rip the animal to bits... BOOM!

criticalmass
24th Oct 2004, 14:01
Here in backwoods, underdeveloped and uncivilised Australia, foxes are not perceived as noble animals to be hunted by the upper class on their horses in hunting pink - they are introduced vermin, otherwise known as ferals. Our upper class - such as it is - are too busy hunting money and eligible partners to be bothered with foxes.

We don't pursue foxes with hounds. Most of us don't have a horse, most of us don't own a set of hunting pink. Doesn't fit in well with the Aussie bush, you see. We hunt foxes by whatever means we have, be it lying in wait on a known fox-trail, or using a fox whistle, or just wandering about the place keeping the eyes open.

When we find them, we shoot them with whatever piece we happen to be carrying. From the humble 12Ga, through the 17 Remington, the 222 and 223, the 243 and even 308 calibres, foxes are shot at and killed as often as we can physically get around to it. Even our Greenies (known as watermelon greens because they are green on the outside and red all the way through to the centre) don't stand up for foxes.

If we see a fox on the road we try to run over it. We poison them with Sodium Monofluoroacetate (called "1080" or "Ten-Eighty"). We set traps for them. No matter how we do it, we kill the little red bastards. Vermin and ferals deserve nothing but death.

The English may hold foxes in high regard - out here they are interlopers, ferocious predators that have no place in our ecology, along with many other species introduced by our English settlers. Foxes in Australia deserve just one thing - instantaneous death. Nothing less will do, nothing less is expected.

What you English allow your limp-wristed, wet, Labor Governments to inflict on you is your own fault - you voted them in! England always fares worse under Labor governments than under Conservative ones. How many times do you have to sup with the devil before you learn to use a very long spoon? But you put 'em there. Nobody else. You did.

The solution is obvious - see to it at your next turn at the ballot-box, and if you want to hunt foxes, do it properly - get a shotgun and get serious about destroying the rabies-carrying Reynards.

Flying Lawyer
24th Oct 2004, 14:47
'Watermelon Greens'

I like that one. ;)

airship
31st Jan 2005, 18:54
Start a new thread for something as mundane as a clampdown on animal activists? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4221427.stm) Not likely! A little searching came up with this one which should do.

Because I have found the argument to thwart the UK hunting ban. A solution which has escaped the most brilliant legal minds, even those of Davaar and the Flying Lawyer!

Which is to associate hunting foxes with research! After all, the same strategy has worked very well for Norway and Japan ever since the International Whaling Commission (http://www.iwcoffice.org/) was established in 1946. Is it any more or less cruel, to use an explosive harpoon as a weapon, compared to a pack of hounds?! Together with the proposed amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, this should be all that is necessary to keep Basil down for a very long time into the future.

I rest my case.... :p but am not quite finished!

Having read this handy thread through, I couldn't let the last post from criticalmass pass without comment...

One notes in passing that some people truly believe that man has dominion over all other creatures. Who knows where that idea came from, but it must be good? Unless it's a trick?! And anyone who mistakes pink from a scarlet red may need help. In more ways than immediately come to mind. But let's not jump to conclusions. Poison is a great way to deal with all vermin. And the other 90% of creatures, that maybe are not in the strictest sense of the term. But what's really great about poison, is that it's relatively slow in action. So that when you eventually come across the dead vermin, you can congratulate yourself on your efforts and blame this dead vermin for the deaths of all the non-vermin you came across earlier. This paragraph deserves special attention though: The English may hold foxes in high regard - out here they are interlopers, ferocious predators that have no place in our ecology, along with many other species introduced by our English settlers. Foxes in Australia deserve just one thing - instantaneous death. Nothing less will do, nothing less is expected. I think there must be a few aborigines who would generally share this point of view concerning introduced species...

Many years have passed:

The Ozzie finally regains consciousness and finds himself fixed to a post on some sort of conveyor belt. He looks to the left and sees Tony Blair. "Am I in heaven yet he asks?" And as an after-thought, "what the 'eck are you doing here?". Just then, a shot rings out (.223) closely followed by several more (.308?). Tony slumps, but manages to get out "I only did it for the votes..." "Streuth" goes Ozzie, turning to his right. Where he is confronted by the sight of a fox, barely alive, and with multiple bullet wounds. "I died of old age" mumbles the fox, "never in my wildest dreams did I expect to be confronted by this in heaven!" he goes. "Well, who's shooting at us then?" goes Ozzie. "Maybe those that believe that they have dominion over us...I'd have been better off against a few hounds?!" replies the fox, before falling against the straps. Ozzie shouts aloud with rage, "Is this some sort of a Castlemain :mad: XXXX trick?" :}

HOVIS
31st Jan 2005, 21:30
England always fares worse under Labor governments than under Conservative ones.

There are (or were) several mining communities who would ever so slightly disagree with you on that point. But well done for dragging the thread off topic.:p

Ah what the hell, while we're off topic. There are a couple of million former unemployed who will also disagree with you.:}

and,

Longest period of sustained economic growth on record.:ok:

and,

A rugby world cup win.:E

Back to the thread.

Foxes in UK are a natural wild animal, if you can't passively protect your own domestic animals from them it's your own look-out.

I just object to people (sic) enjoying the persecution, torture and murder of living creatures....just for fun!! :mad:

White Hart
31st Jan 2005, 22:39
The decision to pursue the ban on hunting with dogs was taken purely as a political “points scorer”. Tony Bliar had promised his bickering anti-Euro/Europe/anything backbenchers a “titbit” just to get them off his back – an act of appeasement. The need to use the Parliament Act to finally force through this legislation only highlights the fact that the case against hunting with dogs was, if not losing ground (credibility?), certainly wasn’t gaining any.

What we're seeing now is just another facet of the in-vogue Politically Correct minorities flexing their new-found muscle. I just wonder how many of you out there would be so keen to show your support for another "element" of the PC minority when they buy the empty field next to your comfortable housing estate and start their own little "community" in it? It's very easy to say "Oh yes, I totally disagree with hunting - let's ban it" when the effects don't actually land on your doorstep. Now that the deed is done, just take a moment to think of the effect this ban is going to have on entire country communities. I hope that you will never have to live with an unpleasant legacy imposed on you by the views and wishes of a "minority" element.

A vote winner? Certainly, if you’re one of the in-a-very, very-small-minority anti-everything in the countryside activists, or a NIMBY. If you’re a country dweller/lover – definitely not.

Joe Public (the MAJORITY!!) probably couldn’t have really cared less – there were far more pressing issues to deal with. Too late now, though:sad:

Elliot Moose
1st Feb 2005, 01:03
Where I'm from, we follow a simple rule
"You Kill It--You Eat It"

I've no problem with hunting (do it myself) as long as one uses what one kills. Aside from the obvious problems of ferals that Criticalmass relates from Oz, it isn't a bad way to live.

Oh, and by the way, yes that includes anything that was salvageable after I smoked it with my truck, or in one case, chopped it in two with a 748 propeller.

justregistered
1st Feb 2005, 01:36
Excuse my ingorance, but has the hunting of foxes by all means been banned, or just the traditional fox hunt with lots of dogs and people on horseback? - being in Oz I havent really heared much about this.

I have no problems with dispatching foxes with high speed lead poisoning but the
traditional fox hunt, to my mind, is barbaric and should be banned.

BTW, I to practice the "if you kill it, eat it" moto (except for funnelweb spiders - don't think they would be very tasty :) )

MungoP
1st Feb 2005, 05:30
JustReg.....
You are no doubt some sort of Ace shot ...If you can guarrantee killing a moving animal the size of a fox then you deserve an Olympic gold.....
I came across a fox a few years back....shot in the hind quarters it was dragging itself across the field looking at me pathetically...the whole of the wound (rear left leg torn almost completely off) was alive with maggots....
As for poison....that's not exactly painless and how does one arrange for only foxes to eat the stuff..put up a sign ?.even stuffing a dead rabbit or chicken with poison will guarrantee the deaths of several other species including birds....

For the record I'm neither pro not anti (fox) hunting...

BenThere
1st Feb 2005, 06:49
We should recognize the ban on fox hunting for what it is: A repudiation of the traditional values of the upper classes, and exercise of political power by the elements of society dedicated to sacrificing individual freedom for their perception of the common good.

To me, it's the same as prohibiting a pub owner from allowing smoking on his premises. Someone is offended so you can't do it anymore. See how we've made life so much better for you?

If you want to experience the classic British tradition of the fox hunt, you can still go to the British Museum and find a grand pastoral painting by Constable or somesuch depicting it. Hurry, though, before the purists have it removed to the archives, or destroyed altogether.

allan907
1st Feb 2005, 07:07
We still have fox hunts in this part of Oz (Western Australia). In a very egalitarian country nobody gives a rats ar*e when a hunt is on - even with the red coats and pampered horses.

BTW 1080 poison only affects feral (introduced) species because it is derived from a naturally occuring plant poison that native critters and birds have adapted to and are immune from. However, dogs and cats that pick up the baits....or sheep, horses and cattle that munch the offending plants....they're history.

Windy Militant
1st Feb 2005, 08:15
Foxhunters are people like you and me that have a sport as a hobby, attend regular hunts and are not there to get in peoples way. It is the demonstrators and protestors that are the ones causing the problems.

You've obviously never tried to get past the convoy of horse boxes and 4X4s that traipse after every hunt.

Oh yeah and the dozen or so 4X4s and the idiot on the quad bike that nearly wiped myself and me mums dog out over Christmas. :mad:
I'm presuming that as I didn't read about any horrible crashes down that road that nobody came the other way whilst they were careering after the meet.

Anyway seems fair to me Maggie closed down the collieries Tonys banned hunting. The balance of nature is restored. ;) ;) :p

teeteringhead
1st Feb 2005, 09:00
Windy M Anyway seems fair to me Maggie closed down the collieries Tonys banned hunting. The balance of nature is restored. For completeness, may I ask how you then stand on the number of "Miners' Hunts" that still exist in South Wales, even if the mines no longer do?

The "toffs' pastime" argument, like much of what the government says, does not stand up to even the most cursory of investigations....

Windy Militant
1st Feb 2005, 10:37
Yscaith. I didn't know that sort of thing went on. We had a lot of rellos out that way on my Mums side of the family, all gone nowadys, mostly miners lung, apart from my mums Uncle Jack who was killed by a Volvo Driver who T boned his Reliant Regal.
However the rellos were all Motorbike nuts In fact Uncle Jack never held a car licence till the day he died, the Regal had reverse gear blanked off so he could drive it on his bike licence.
I guess that the Gilfach Triangle, Merthyr sprint club and the Isle of man TT would have held more sway than foxhunting which is probably why I never got to hear about it.

I guess the poor Dabs don't which way to turn first the Tories take away their jobs and then Tony takes away their hobby. They might just have to vote Lib Dem.

eal401
1st Feb 2005, 10:58
Foxhunters are people like you and me that have a sport as a hobby, attend regular hunts and are not there to get in peoples way. It is the demonstrators and protestors that are the ones causing the problems.
An interesting statement that, co-incidently, is utter bull.

I am anti-fox hunting, but believe it or not cannot bring myself to endorse a ban. Yes, there is tradition and all that and it's part of life, so carry on.

I only ask one thing of the fox-hunters.

Please, please, please stop insulting our intelligence with the rubbish of hunting being about controlling the fox population. It isn't. It's a bunch of people whose hobby is to get off on killing animals for no other reason than getting turned on over the thrill of the chase. There is no other reason for it. If it was population control, it'd be done by individual farmers or have been contracted out to someone like Rentokil a long time ago. people don't go rat hunting do they?

Start portraying yourselves truthfully like that, we may actually give you a bit of credit.

Windy Militant
1st Feb 2005, 12:32
people don't go rat hunting do they?

Actually they do there's a number of terrier groups that do it.
It's also a less salubrious tradition in the country side, usually carried out when the Hay/straw barns are nearly empty to get rid of the vermin before putting the fresh crop in.

No pink coats for this, the most popular fashion accesory is a bit of binder twine round the bottom of the trouser leg for obvious reasons. :uhoh: :ooh: :eek:

eal401
1st Feb 2005, 12:58
Actually they do there's a number of terrier groups that do it.
But is it not for a purpose as opposed for just entertainment? After all the fashion accessory you refer to is practical, unlike a red jacket.

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2005, 13:23
Please, please, please stop insulting our intelligence with the rubbish of hunting being about controlling the fox populationActually you are misinterpreting what I have always heard from the pro-hunt side. That is that the hunt is pest control. You interpret that to mean population control, but that is not necessarily the case. Healthy foxes are not generally considered to be a pest, and need not be controlled. They tend to live off wild game. Lame and old birds are killed by the hunt to stop them taking livestock as a desperate way of surviving. That is one reason that the suggestion of shooting or trapping (indescriminately by necessity) instead shows such ecological ignorance.

Is it not you that insults people's intelligence, by arrogantly dismissing their statements on a subject which they actually know more about than you do?But is it not for a purpose as opposed for just entertainment? It is fairly clear that both have the same dual purpose: entertainment and pest control.

eal401
1st Feb 2005, 14:17
That is that the hunt is pest control.
Sorry, but in my book "pest control" is a day-to-day activity/job, it is not a grand get together with food and drink provided.

That is one reason that the suggestion of shooting or trapping (indescriminately by necessity) instead shows such ecological ignorance.
Whilst I'd agree with the point on trapping, how can a hunt be able to identify an old fox, but a shooter could not? Concurrently, why does an old fox need hundreds of hounds and masses of people on horses?

Is it not you that insults people's intelligence, by arrogantly dismissing their statements on a subject which they actually know more about than you do?
So someone is not allowed to have an opinion unless they have had an involvement in what they protest about?

Fox hunting is cruelty, in my opinion. How else can a single animal being overwhelmed by baying hounds be described? But, as I have said, I will not condone a ban, because I am not part of the communities that get involved. Please don't forget that.

Windy Militant
1st Feb 2005, 14:23
Eal 401 you asked if people hunted Rats. you didn't ask if they did it for fun! ;)

Mind you considering that Rats carry Hepatitis, leptospirosis (spel?) and can cause tetanus if they bite you, most people I know treat it as a fairly serious undertaking these days.

eal401
1st Feb 2005, 14:29
you didn't ask if they did it for fun!
I don't think I really want to know if they do it for fun!!

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2005, 14:37
Sorry, but in my book "pest control" is a day-to-day activity/job, it is not a grand get together Why? And why is your book more valid than that of the people involved?

A hunt identifies the old or lame fox as the one that is caught. Even the healthiest fox has little chance of outrunning a bullet or surviving poisoning, and may even be made lame and a threat to chickens by a trap.

You stated that hunting was not about control as a fact, not an opinion, and you accused those that said otherwise of insulting your intelligence. They, also, are entitled to your opinion, and as I said their opinions are better informed than yours. If you have an opinion then state it and back it up with reasoned argument, preferably based on facts, don't just present it as an assumption as if it is an accepted fact.

Taildragger55
1st Feb 2005, 14:44
Hard to say.

My gut feeling sees a bunch of upper class twits on horses, and in Ireland that once meant "nasty foreign oppressors", is aware of the cruelty, and disapproves. Of course I am wrong. It has always had a wide following here and been largely locals.
Gut instincts are nasty things and need to be watched.

Logic says that a fox who can be caught by dogs is hardly likely to die in bed surrounded by grieving relatives anyway, but will come to some equally miserable end. As a townie I can often be guilty of a you-shot-Bambi's-mom view of hunting and wild animals.

A big part of the hunt, I am told, is all the horsy stuff and racing across country at some personal risk. So at least there is some sporting element.

The clincher is that I indulge in an unpopular sport, to wit flying in a noisy and ecologically unnecessary small airplane, and, if we allow the killjoys to stamp out other unpopular hobbies, some day they will come for us.

In other words, I suppose I am a reluctant hunt supporter.

Capt.KAOS
1st Feb 2005, 15:20
Actually fox-hunting as we know it, was a Georgian invention. In the 18th century horses and hounds were bred to new peaks of running, jumping and following a scent, that hunting clubs with annual subscriptions were founded. Once an upper class hobby now mostly being executed in Range Rovers and Defenders. Pest control, gimme a friggin break... :rolleyes:

http://www.encore-editions.com/artists/european2/thm_heywoodhardythemeet.jpg

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2005, 15:37
KAOS

Your post achieves nothing but the perpetuation of a stereotype. It neither advances the debate nor supports your suggestion that pest control is not achieved by the hunt. Why do you bother putting something based only on your prejudices in a sensible debate?

Taildragger has come up with one of the soundest arguments around, and shows he understands ecology. Animals don't tend to die happy deaths.

eal401
1st Feb 2005, 15:44
And why is your book more valid than that of the people involved?
I believe I was expressing an opinion. So sorry if it affronts you own vie....oh wait, that's what you're having a go at me for!

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2005, 15:57
You were expressing an opinion. I was pointing out that this was all you were doing, as you had originally expressed the opinion as if it was a fact, or a basic assumption. Incidentally I also pointed out that your opinion went against that expressed by people who were better informed, and I pointed out a large fallacy in your opinion, that it argued against a misinterpretation of the case, not the actual case for fox culling by hunts.

I never said your opinion affronts me. You are welcome to it. Putting it as fact, or twisting the arguments of others would be an affront if I was affronted by anything in a rational debate.

justregistered
1st Feb 2005, 21:58
MungoP,

Trick is to shoot them when they are not moving. Shooting at a moving target is a waste of ammo - unless your up close with a shotgun :)

The other trick, when using a scope, is to check whether the barrel of the rifle is clear of the outside mirrors when shooting from the car - otherwise you are in for a big suprise..... and a new mirror..... (and possibly a change of underpants) :}

Dead_Heading
1st Feb 2005, 22:10
Looks like D-H is gonna have to invest in some No. 1 Shot :}

feet dry
2nd Feb 2005, 10:00
I am anti-hunting; I dislike the idea of animal cruelty for a pastime/sport/hobby etc. Unfortunately though the act banning it will, I fear, have little effect on the demise of the practice.

Looking at the number of activities that will continue to be allowed, against those that will be outlawed the Police will have a very difficult job in deciding what is criminal and what is not.

I know this has been discussed before but as in the case of previous legislation, rushed law is usually bad law (though I know in this case the hunting ban was hardly rushed!!).