- This topic has 141 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So Karly are your trying to say:
1) Hound hunting doesn’t catch many foxes?<br>2) Hound hunting catches many foxes but you dont see?
Karly Flight said:
Racing fans who cannot see that a ban on hunting is the beginning of a slippery slope are very short sighted.
People who cannot see that the possibility of racing being targeted as a consequence of its "support" for hunting has increased markedly are "very short sighted" in my view.
As can be seen from this thread and from the Letters Page of the Racing Post over the years, there are many different views within racing about hunting. It is nothing short of scandalous that the BHB, without consultation, saw fit to state on everyone’s behalf that racing supported hunting.
I wish to support racing, you, presumably, wish to support racing and hunting. You are entirely free to hold that view, just please don’t pretend that I have to do likewise. ÂÂÂ
If the "antis" come after horseracing next I know exactly who I will blame. I also know that I will feel justified in defending the existence of horseracing, with a few modifications, in a way that I could never possibly do with hunting.
Well said Karly F. There is much truth in what you say.<br> I used to work shifts with  an ordinary guy, son of a postman, who was a huntsman. When I first met him, I used to argue in favour of banning hunting with hounds. Fortunately I was open-minded enough (despite my age) to listen to his arguments for fox hunting. I began to realise how little I knew about the reality of hunting and the flaws in alternative methods of pest control. Eventually, he won me over to his point of view and made me realise how much my instinctive anti fox-hunting stance was borne of ignorance and the automatic adoption of perceived working class/labour opinion. I see my old short-sighted anti-fox hunting stance mirrored in the outpourings of Banks, Prescott, Kaufmann and co. and I am embarrassed to recall how I voiced opinions as bigoted as theirs.<br>
(Edited by insomniac at 3:01 pm on Sep. 16, 2004)
Grasshopper said:
<br>One final question. How many people have died in Iraq (whether they be "Coalition" soldiers, "insurgents" or just plain run-of-the-mill Iraqi’s), since this Post was kicked-off yesterday.
Sorry, I can’t help you on that one.
If the implication is that we shouldn’t be troubling ourselves with discussion of this issue, I would say that this is a Racing Forum. Due to jump racing’s historical association with hunting—an association which those who are interested in hunting have fought assiduously to maintain to the arguable detriment of racing itself—this is still an issue where racing people are concerned.
I’m afraid I can’t find a racing angle among the sad events taking place in Iraq.
Perhaps all the anti_Hunting brigade can start yelling Tally ho and get lots of dogs to chase someone who approves of hunting, then let them meliciously tear them to shreads whilst we chortle to ourselves on our horseback! That seems fair to me.
At least the fox is living its own life and doing what NATURE intended.
I do agree however, that our government does not believe in democracy and they are using this issue as a potential vote winner.
Quote: from beaker on 4:07 pm on Sep. 16, 2004[br]I do agree however, that our government does not believe in democracy and they are using this issue as a potential vote winner.
Beaker
Surely that sentence is a contradiction in terms?
Rob
Elaine (Roberty Lea),
Whilst I don’t want to ban them I would not participate in shooting or fishing because:
1. In shooting the game is bred to be shot and I don’t like the use of guns anyway.  I think lamping of foxes (which killed a young boy this week) will be a problem if hunting goes.
2. In fishing I don’t like the idea of hooking a fish and putting it back just to do it all again.  I’m not against salmon fishing etc (where the catch is eaten) but I think I’d just find it boring!
Quote from Grasshopper:
If it’s merely pest-control, the hunt lobby should probably have moved away from their incessant larking around in fancy attire, tootling on their stupid little horn’s, and giving it "Tally-ho" left and right. If they had put their Barbour’s on instead, it would have looked more blue-collar, and easier to sell as pest-control. <br>It looks elitist, and for the large part, it probably is elitist. That buys the hunt lobby no favours, with the detritus which makes up the voting public.
Grasshopper, I absolutely agree with you that hunting has not put itself in the best of lights with the general public with some of it’s customs.
However only the huntsmen and his staff wear red – so we in the field can see them a long way off and know who to follow.  Only the huntsman carries a horn and he only uses it to signal to the hounds and the fieldmaster (who leads the main group of riders) what is going on.
The hunting clothes of the average field member are <br>a thick coat (usually blue or black) with riding breeches and long boots.  In the Autumn riders are much more casually dressed in hacking jackets etc.
In bad weather riders often wear barbours for waterproofness and warmth and I’ve never seen anybody turned away for what they were wearing as long as they were smartly turned out. ÂÂÂ
Of course a huge proportion of people who follow the hunt are in cars or on foot and just wear everyday wear.  Certainly in bad weather "foot-followers" would outnumber the mounted riders with the pack I follow.
<br>(Edited by Adrian at 5:21 pm on Sep. 16, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Adrian at 5:23 pm on Sep. 16, 2004)
Grasshopper,
I would agree that there is an imbalance in the two cases.
However, the argument that many pro-hunters have made that foxhunting is "too insignificant" to be taking up parliamentary time is clearly disingenuous. The one body above all others who seem to regard this issue as significant are the pro-hunters, to the degree that they march, protest, sponsor and lobby most vigorously on the matter.
Where the government and Iraq is concerned, it has to be pointed out that The Labour Party allowed its own members to debate a resolution on the subject at the Party Conference in 2002 (I spoke out against the government line) and allowed a debate in parliament some months later (after which I finally resigned from the party), though in neither case as openly or as thoroughly as you and I might have liked.
(Edited by Prufrock at 5:25 pm on Sep. 16, 2004)
just like rats foxes are vermin and should be treated as such.<br>its hard to belive that blair has wasted valueble time on this. what next.. a driving ban for splatting a fox on the road? whats the difference?<br>its been proven over and over again that the horses love it and return to racing fresh and revitalised.<br>if hunting was only done by black people would blair still want to ban it???? i think we know the answer to that one;)
Thats a crap post Runandskip
cock fighting is popular with, shall we say, ethnic minorities…
But its not legal
And vermin? Farmers can take measures to prevent incursions, (see the independent today) but, without their usual handouts, they presumably dont…
But frankly if the foxs destroy the living of the bloated lazy scrounging whinging fat farmers…then im on the foxes side
And remeber that this goverment bailed out the scum when their filthy methods spread foot and mouth. Any other industry would have been expected to insure against such circumstances…but oh no…not the green welly brigade
The coutryside lobby should remember taht tehir industry is THE ONLY ONE THE REST OF US SUBSIDISE.
If I was Blair I would waive the threat of "no more handouts"
but i would deliver a shotgun to each doorstep of course…
people who name hunting as elitest maybe they should look again. the overview to most of the general public is that of it being a toft sport, but how wrong are they. look behind them people and envolved in hunting is many other classes especailly of the hunting backbone, the kennel men the grooms the hunting staff these are the people who WILL be affected by the hunting ban. these are the people whos jobs will be no longer, whos houses that come with the job will be gone whos liberties and livelihoods will be taken away. farmers will be effected, in return for the hunt being allowed on farmers land the hunt takes away the dead carcasses for them, who will be the people doing that now or will we find dead animals being left untill farmers have the time to do it themsleves?? what about the other industries effected in hunting, farriers feedmerchants vets the list goes on! what bout the business suppiled to these people through the hunt! what about the hounds no way can you re home hounds theyve never been on a lead in there life never been house trained never lived on there own! if you try and retrain them as soon as they get let of a lead off they will go after a fox and what then! try telling a hound ‘or sorry huntings now banned’ also the hunt horses alot of them will be put down as there are few other jobs for them and few people will take on ex hunters. point to point will be effected national HUNT racing will be efected working hunter and show hunter classes at shows will be effected what will they rename them classes????? at the end of the day foxes are vermin they are still going to be killed there going to be shot a lot of the time in the leg so the fox will get gangreen and suffer far longer! foxes dont lick there wounds they wont heel!foxes are a nuisance to farmers they kill there stock and not to eat they kill them and leave them! so before you all paint an elitest picture of the hunting world take a look a good hard look and see who will actually be effected!look at the REAL picture<br>LIBERTY AND LIVELIHOOD!<br>shelly
Sorry, mate, but I just couldn’t follow all of that.
However, on the "elitist" issue, it has struck me for some time now that the people who keep emphasising this are the pro-hunters themselves. I do not doubt that there are some among the "antis" who regard this as some sort of class war.
That doesn’t apply to me, and it shouldn’t apply to the argument itself.
Whatever the motives might or might not be of the "fors" and the "againsts", the argument should be judged on its own merits not on some irrelevant side issue.
By the way, I bet many people found themselves out of a job when the Allies liberated Auschwitz. Questions of employment should never be used to justify the morally repugnant.
<br>run and skip posts
<br>if hunting was only done by black people would blair still want to ban it???? i think we know the answer to that one <br>
my last post on your comment was deleted but i will repeat myself as i find it amazing that only flagship amongst the other posters has the decency to pick u up on this.
barring the rest of your post leaves a lot to be desired do u think cheap rascist remarks will further your cause
is the pro hunting lobby now so desperate they are clinging on to the britain is white vote
i do wonder sometimes atthe makeup of the countryside alliance
you and i wont prejudge youmay not be rascist or even have thought of the effects of this statement
but that is how commentslike this come accross
It’s ironic that, now the security of the House Of Commons has been breeched, those in charge of defending it (with swords!) are threatened to be replaced.
Their defence?
It will do away with centuries of tradition!
run and skip,
while i don’t agree with all of your post i get the principle – although not sure i will explain it any better!
In this multicultural country, Blair seems to be prioritising protecting the rights of the minorities who are likely to vote for him and is positively against anything considered to be traditionally British. Now I have no issue with the idea we should develop and move with the times but IMO the goverment treads very carefully through the rights of people who could call the racist card, yet tramples on others. Now, before this is atall misinterpreted :biggrin: I am not in anyway racist towards people I meet, and I respect others religions and I think all should be treated equally – it’s where people are treated unequally (on EITHER side, and there are examples of both) that annoy me. ÂÂÂ
However the main point is that banning fox hunting is an example of Blairs ‘anti anything traditional stance’ which is prejudice in itself, although I personally don’t think it’s his strongest reason for wanting to enforce the ban….. and I have rattled on a lot now!
By the way, after paving the way to force this law through,  apparently Blair didn’t even vote himself  :confused:
By the way, Clivex, you really don’t have a clue, do you? Explain the common agricultural policy to me and tell me you’ve spent at least a day working on a farm and I might think you do. If you think runandskips post was racist, i would say you got a much bigger prejudice you need to deal with yourself.
(Edited by Spook at 10:16 am on Sep. 17, 2004)
Spook, it’s pretty obvious why Blair didn’t vote, he’s spent the last 7 years cosying up to the rich and powerful and always backs away from anything that might antagonise them. He doesn’t want foxhunting banned but on this occasion has given in to his backbenchers in an attempt to appease them after the Iraq fiasco.
Despite clivex’s language being somewhat intemperate (that’s what this topic does to you) i think his rant contains some truths. Despite being born, bred and living in the country nearly all my life I, like him, abhor blood "sports". If, in a rare compassionate moment I dredge up a shred of sympathy for the countryside alliance brigade, I only have to picture their chief apologist for foxhunting and that even more grisly pursuit called hare-coursing, and my sympathy quickly evaporates.
I refer of course to Clarissa Dickson Wright…..yuuuugh ÂÂÂ
highflyer, i have no problem who is for or against fox hunting on here as long as you can put forward an informed debate. As you say, this is a very emotive topic and irrational prejudices can come to the fore.
As for Blair, I know it is a backbenchers sweetener – personally I would rather have a PM who was willing to pass opinions and a voting system that doesn’t pass a judgement even though a third of our elected representatives decline to vote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.