- This topic has 58 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Razeen – There ARE more important things to worry about rather than foxhunting!! Like humans killing humans and stuff like that…we can get to the morality of foxhunting when the more important things are discussed and ideas are put forward to help sort them out.
I think the governmant are contemplating banning foxhunters not because it is cruel etc, but because they think it will win them votes which it probably will.
And also, why is it ok for a fox to rip apart a hen but not ok for a hound to rip apart a fox?
If we humans were to shoot foxes would that be worse than hunting them with hounds or more humane? <br>
Kathy your spouting this out like it is a written law!!<br>1) Not all farmers give permission to the hunt to cross their land. Large hunts can cuase huge amount of damage to a farmers land especially if he is sowing or relaying a field.<br>2) Many farmers feel presured into doing by people like the countryside alliance(alliance my arse!).<br>3) You talk again about what the foxes do to the animals…………….who’s bloody fault is that?If your a farmer you HAVE to provide safe dwelling for your animals.If you get do this get out of the job!<br>4) Farming is in my family and they DO NOT allow hunts across our land though that at times goes ignored by many of these "sportsmen".<br>To Adrian:"I hunt foxes for the love of the ride and to support the hunt which does a good job"……………….Can you not just ride out?And how many times do we here hunt supporters say most of the time the fox gets away?If that is the case how can the hunt be seen to do a "good job" as you put it.<br>"Only last week we despatched a fox which probably killed all the chickens and ducks at a nearby farm"<br>Probably is the word that stands out here……………….you know your self if a cat gets at hens or ducks it’ll do the same so slaughter all cats maybe too???<br>"With regard to mink they were let out by well meaning do gooders and now they are killing our indigenous river wildlife. I consider it a good ecologoical thing to get rid of them as they should not be there in the first place. What would be the alternative if hunting is banned here – to let mink kill all our voles, amphibians, fish etc? " I think this is the best bit………………..you talk about the natural state of the countryside and its ecology stating how minks should be killed as they were never meant to be there yet a fox who was probably there before man even settled in some of these areas is still slaughtered despite its natural place in the eco system of the countryside!!!It just cant win can it!!
I don’t remember saying foxhunting was less important than dogfighting…just that dogfighting wasn’t small change.
Foxhunting is wrong in your opinion Razeen. That doesn’t mean all those registered to vote agree.
I’m not debating whether it is right or wrong. Just that there are more important things for the government to discuss. I don’t think foxhunting is very high on Mr Blair’s list of priorities.
Sorry Razeen, didn’t quite put forward what I mean. Dogfighting isn’t really more or less important that foxhunting. They both involve animals being injured/killed.
Why do we need to look at banning foxhunting over creating a safer society for ourselves? Why do we need to talk about banning foxhunting over talking about how we can help those worse off than ourselves?
I guess what i’m trying to say is, why do animals come before humans?
Humans are more important than animals. We must look out for each other rather than putting animals first. The government needs to look out for its people, the poor, the sick, the lonely, the unfullfilled…the government needs to look out for its people, rather than look out for foxes.
Obviously, Blair is not on your list for future dinner guests Kathy. :laugh:
Regards- Matron<br>:cool:
(Edited by Matron at 3:36 pm on Feb. 18, 2002)
how about "it’s not important as" argument Razeen?
If it were a choice between you getting ripped up or a fox, which would you choose?
If i had the choice, i’d choose the fox, because you are a fellow human and more important than a fox. Humans must look out for each other rather than animals…that is why so many people eat meat, and yes, i’m a meateater.
The hunting of foxes has some importance Raz, but it is not as important as other subjects. It shouldn’t be taking up so much of the governments times.
Just make a decision Mr Blair…either ban it or keep it. I’m not really bothered which…just as long as it is sorted out ASAP and then we can all move on to discussing more important things that mean helping fellow people.
The huge difference Razeen, is one of human obligation.  Dogs, cats, chickens, horses, goldfish, all these have been domesticated over the centuries by human for their own purpose and pleasure – restricting their liberty and dampening their survival instincts.  As such they are dependent on humans and we should not abuse that trust (by hitting puppies with golf clubs or however :biggrin: ).
Wild animals are DIFFERENT.  They are able, through their freedom and genetics, of fending for themselves.  We do not have the same obligation over them – and in many cases it is better to leave them alone.  However, with cases such as the fox and the mink, they no longer have any NATURAL predator. Since the wolves and bears died out in Britain, fox-hunting has played the role of natural control of the fox population in many areas.  The job of humans with regard to wildlife is to care for the environment around – and if that means culling the animal at the top of the foodchain then that should be done.
The fox, in amongst all this, doesn’t spend his days worrying about the nasty humans that he thinks enjoy chasing him.  Foxes, like most things in the real world, live by the hunt and be hunted rule.  They don’t have a big moral issue about it.  Watch a nature programme, something like lions on the Serengeti, to get the idea.
:wave: ÂÂÂ
And while I’m on the issue….:biggrin:
Nobody seems to have any problem with the widescale destruction of rats, mice and bugs that goes on in urban areas (ie Rentokil).  I think I would prefer a sporting chance running across my ‘own’ fields, rather than undergoing slow death by poison.  The fact that this sort of death of animals is accepted, whilst riding to hounds is not, suggests that the welfare of the particular animal is not the main issue for many people.
I can completely understand that many people find the death of mammals (foxes especially) distressing – it is not something I would wish to witness.  However you have to accept that other people experience animal deaths every day in one way or another, and although it does not stop people caring about animal welfare it also makes them much more pragmatic.  Like Kathy says, seeing the destruction and death that can be wrought by foxes would make you more understanding about the natural life-cycle.
People have different attitudes towards all aspects of life – and we have to accept these differences.  You may find a hunt riding to hounds for fun repulsive.  I cannot stomach grown men being paid huge sums to hurt each other in a boxing ring while a paying crowd screams in blood lust.  A  vegetarian may be revolted that you find pleasure in eating the corpse of a dead animal. ÂÂÂ
Everyone is entitled to these views, but I don’t believe we should enforce our moral views onto someone else’s lifestyle.
:wave:
<br>sal<br>u talk about obligation is there some sort of divine rule that gives huntsman the right to chase and kill foxes or stags.
u mention there are no natural predators like bears and wolves this i presume is a result of them being hunted in the past.
you mention minks not having predators but they are not natural to this country they were specifically imported to be killed to make fur coats were they not with some idiots releasing them
at the end of the day the claims of hunters about controlling the enviroment etc are simply a smokescreen it is a sport for them a days enjoyment for which they do not even have the bottle to admit and that should lead to the conclusion it is wrong and is a morally bankrupt sport.
or should we allow cock fighting to control the cock population dog fighting to control the dog population perhaps we can return to the 16th/17th century and burn heretics after all we did that for a few hundred years and for some the excuse that fox hunting has been carried out for over 100 years seems a valid excuse to continue with it.
pr, :wave:
Do lions have divine right to chase gazelles, zebras etc?  Hawks to catch rabbits? Sharks to catch, er, littler fish?  Its the way of the world, deal with it.
I think the depletion of bears and wolves was due to a variety of factors – yes hunting, but also climate change and mostly human encroachment into their natural habitat, rather like towns are creeping into the countryside today, a process which can be stemmed by money from hunts preserving fields and woodland.
I don’t think, from interviews I have seen on tv that hunters are shy to admit that they love riding to hounds, and that mostly they are keen to see the way of life continue.
I’m sorry, but I think you may have missed a couple of points with your last comments.  The obligations humans have is to domesticated animals, such as dogs (and in danger of entertaining Jim :biggrin: , cocks), not to abuse their trust as they have been enslaved for human enjoyment.  This does not apply to foxes, wild rabbits, rats, etc.  As I said before, the human obligation for these animals is to sustain their environment, so the fox does not go the way of the wolf and bear.
And as for burning heretics…..:laugh: exactly which part of my suggesting we respect other peoples moral views did you not understand? :biggrin: ÂÂÂ
Sal, wash your mouth out! :biggrin:  I’ve seen cock fighting once and was spewing up everywhere, given the chance I’d rather watch lesbiens :laugh::laugh: (you asked for that) ;)
<br>sal
lions and tigers are animals without power or reasoning and they know no better humans do , or should . know better plus of course the need for food comes into the animal equation
i also disagree that humans should not have any concern for animal welfare except if it concerns there pets. i agree that killing animals for food is absolutly neccarsary my objection is to when they are killed for fun.
we are now changing the agenda from protecting chickens and sheep to the enviroment but i still think this is an excuse and not a reason as there must be lots of other ways of protecting the enviromement
my point re heretics was in reply to i think yours that as hunting as been around for centuries that is reason alone to continue with hunting. ie if u can get away with something for a period of time keep it up.
Pr,  :wave:
I’m sorry I think you still misunderstand me.  I believe animal welfare is very important, not just for ‘pets’ but for the environment as a whole, which therefore includes all wild animals.  As the lions in the Serengeti show, there is a natural cycle to these things.  Too few lions = too many gazelles = not enough vegetation = starvation of gazelles = not enough food for lions, etc etc.  In areas of the environment where humans have already intervened we then have a duty to care for that environment, if necessary by controlling the number of animals present.  Our responsibility for domesticated animals is different – we have made them almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter, so our responsibility is for the animal itself. ÂÂÂ
Raz mate, I did a previous post trying to show grey areas of morality.  Unless someone is very arrogant, they have to accept that what may seem to them as so clearly morally wrong, might in other cultures or societies be socially acceptable.  As humans need no longer depend on animal products for food, there is a growing lobby that it is morally wrong to unnecessarily slaughter living creatures to be eaten for our enjoyment.  A vegetarian may hold this view as strongly as you hold yours, it does not mean that either of you are correct to impose this view on people who do not hold your beliefs.
:wave:
And equally Razeen, holding a strong view on something does not lead to the right to ban whatsoever you choose.  Tolerance cuts both ways.
Now if the law forced you to fox-hunt against your will – then you would have a case…
While talking about "rights" etc alsoran it is also arrogant and offence to many others to here the term "rights" used when describing hunting. Hunting is not a RIGHT.
Aidan I understand how you feel, but the freedom to hunt is a right, especially for those who wish to protect their property and environment (for example elk hunting in Scandinavia, bear hunting in Russia or North America).
If you suggest that humans do not have the right to kill animals, then you are getting into very murky water.  Why should we be able to slaughter animals for food when we are capable of adapting to vegetarianism?
If the people affected by hunting choose not to hunt (farmers not allowing hunts on their land, etc) then all well and good.  The chief objection is to, as alsoran very passionately put (wow, JS Mill, haven’t heard about him in a while :biggrin: ), a well-meaning but ultimately uninvolved section of the community dictating their moral code onto the rest.
:wave:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.