- This topic has 141 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Everyone else seems to have given their views on this…..As usual it’s a straightforward argument about whether foxhunting is cruel/necessary etc……But what about the ban? What about its consequences?
Cruelty is a subjective thing, but I dislike hunting and it is something I would never involve myself in in any way. But is the ban a greater evil?
What are the positives?<br>Some foxes will die a little less painfully than they do now…..It’ll make people feel better……I can’t think of anything else.
Negatives? (None certain….But all distinctly possible)
Destruction of rural communities….Financial hardship….Loss of jobs…..Destruction of hounds…..Destruction of horses….Alienation of large minority of law abiding people……Increasingly desperate civil disobedience, of which this week was just a taste.
In a perfect world, hunting would never have even started….But it isn’t a perfect world.
Balancing positive and negative…..Which is worse?…..Hunting or banning it?
Foxhunting should be banned along with all sports where pain, suffering and death of the animal are the object of the exericise.<br>Racing does not fall into this category although injury to horses is an inevitable consequence of the sport.<br>Angling, ferreting, hunting with terriers, fox hunting of a variety of kinds, inhumane trapping, etc, all fall into my category of ‘sports’ whose days are numbered.
The problem with that Cormack, is that the death of animal will occur anyway, whether it is treated as a sport or not.  Most people with a degree of land management knowledge would agree that the fox numbers need to be controlled, preferably by culling the select old and sick animals that are the worst vermin.
If hunting with hounds is the most efficient (and natural) way of doing this, would you be happy for it to continue if it were relabelled ‘pest control’ rather than ‘sport’? ÂÂÂ
If people then choose to go out riding at the same time to follow the pack of hounds, but as an earlier poster mentioned, see very little of the fox, then why is this a problem?
Fox hunting is in two separate parts, the hounds catching the fox and the hunt riding across country.  No-one has a problem with drag hunting.  Few have problems with the need for pest control.  Why is it such a big deal when both are done simultaneously?
Humphrey.<br> You state that a positive of a ban on fox hunting will be that some foxes die less painfully: I don’t think that that is so. Gangrene, starvation, hypothermia, road kill, snares, gassing – surely can’t be considered an improvement?<br>All wild foxes die painful deaths (as do all wild animals) that is nature. No fox will die of old age because of this law.<br> There is a myth that shooting foxes is somehow "clean" and swift. Occasssionally this may be so, but, if you use a high velocity rifle you would need to be a marksman in order to ensure that your first shot went through an organ that ensured rapid death (say, the brain). Miss this and the likelihood is that the fox will limp away to endure a slow, tortuous death: not something fox lovers want is it? Use a shotgun and, although you’re more likely to hit a vital organ, as the body is "peppered" most of the shot will get caught near or just under the surface of its skin, a foxes coat is dense, its skin thick, and pelletts will lodge in its skin to eventually go gangrenous ensuring a slow, wretched death. Snares and gassing have major disadvantages too.
Clivex<br> You state that farming is the only industry we subsidise. Don’t want to go too far off the subject here, but that just isn’t so. Railways, and the car industry (British Leyland) spring immediately to mind as industries that have received dollops of public cash. But I feel this aspect is going off at a tangent.
Sal – you and I both know that people ‘following the hunt’ are not interested in ‘pest control’ for it’s own sake. They have a different agenda altogether and dressing foxhunting up as merely ‘pest control’ belies a naivety which I know you do not possess.<br>In my opinion, and I know it is only my opinion and I respect the right of others to have differing opinions, anyone getting on a horse to follow a pack of hounds chasing a fox is either mentally incapacitated or plain and simply ignorant.<br>In a hundred years or so humanity will look back and reflect that, while we have enough intelligence at the beginning of the twenty first century to make the most amazing of scientific and technological breakthroughs, we, as a society, are still not possessed of a morality which recognises that obviously cruel and barbaric ‘pastimes’ as foxhunting and bullfighting are relics of a bygone age which should be consigned to history.
(Edited by cormack15 at 1:23 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)<br>
(Edited by cormack15 at 1:24 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)
Cormack, i hope you mean most riders follow the hunt for the thrill and the excitement of the cross country riding? The whole ‘different agenda’ suggestion implies something much darker and if you think this is the case you have been to very different hunts than me.
As someone said earlier, following the pack means you very rarely see a fox killed, I can assure you seeing the kill is not the reason the public hunt with the huntsmen. If you think all the riders are crowding round to watch some bloodthirsty end to the fox then sadly it is you being naive.
Cormack,<br> You may well be right in how foxhunting is perceived in years to come. How will they view the ready sanction of abortion nowadays?<br> Not too many foetus escape the kill I’d imagine. Perhaps in the future this disparity in morals will be more of an eye opener than our tolerance of fox hunting.
No, Cormack, I wasn’t suggesting that the hunt followers were riding purely for altruistic reasons such as pest control.  From my (limited) experience of hunt followers they go for the thrill and unpredictability of riding across country.  For many of them, hounds catching the fox (particularly a troublesome one) would bring the satisfaction of a job done, but I haven’t known anyone screaming in blood lust or being desperate to see a carcass at the end of the day.
Do you accept that it is ok for a pack of hounds to chase a fox, in the interests of pest control?  And it is ok for riders to follow a pack of hounds that are chasing a scent (a drag hunt)?  So why can you not combine the two, particularly, as I suggested earlier, when the people involved would be less emotionally damaged by the death of an animal, given that death may make up a large part of their everyday lives?
Spook – I have never been to a hunt so you are probably correct to assume that I may not be best qualified to comment on the prevailing agenda of those involved. What I was hinting at was that there are a variety of reasons why people attend hunts of which ‘pest control’ is likely to be low on the list of priorities. While I accept that not everyone who goes out hunting is a bloodthirsty maniac dying to smear themeslves in the blood from the mutilated fox I would nevertheless argue that anyone wanting to enjoy the pleasure of riding across country can do so without having to become involved in the ugly and immoral spectacle that comprises the ‘hunt’.
Sal – The trouble with combining the two is that it then becomes something different. Following a group of hounds chasing a fox is NOT the same as a drag hunt and using a pack of hounds to cull foxes in a controlled and humane manner is NOT the same as the barbaric spectacle of a group of Tally-Ho merchants whooping it up in delight and taking pleasure in the fact that they’ve achieved another ‘kill’. Whether hounds are the most effective and/or humane way to control foxes is an extremely debateable point anyhow.
Insomniac – you raise an interesting philosophical point there my friend.
(Edited by cormack15 at 3:04 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)<br>
(Edited by cormack15 at 3:05 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)
Cormack, that is the problem (I know this is an old argument) – there are very few ways of riding across country like hunting, if you want an alternative. Yes you can hack around the bridlepaths – but the farmers give the hunts access to ride over their land which would otherwise be trespassing – and few local councils build you jumps to tackle like leaping over the hedges or  fences or maintain the ground for a good gallop. You could go to a cross country course – which may take you 30 minutes, not all day like hunting can, and you can’t ride round there with all your mates!
The alternative is drag hunting – which is surprisingly scarce – it is feasible if the farmers still let you use their land (big if), although having said that the drag hunts in Scotland set up after fox hunting was outlawed have so far been popular and successful.
(Edited by Spook at 3:15 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)
This is a scenario where we have no middle ground, you are either for or against (I am of the latter opinion). I could list numerous reasons why we should be against it. Then to be fair someone of the former could issue as many reasons why we should be for it. I dont buy this culling foxes reason though as hunting is a very unsuccesful way of doing this. There is a well known substance that is known to poison foxes this is used in culling. The idea of the hunt is to KILL something not to CULL it.
Yes Spook – drag hunting is the alternative and I am sure that, as in Scotland, there are enough people in England with a desire to continue with the ‘good’ aspects of hunting (i.e.. the social side and the thrill of riding cross-country) without the unwholesome aspects.
This is a scenario where we have no middle ground, you are either for or against (I am of the latter opinion).
Actually, I really don’t really care either way.
However, I think the arguments against hunting are, in the main, massively hypocritical.
All these meat eaters talking about the rights of foxes remind me of that routine the comedian Dennis Leary had:
"…how we decide which animals to save. It’s all a matter of how cute they are.
"Oh, look at the baby seals with the big brown eyes and the furry little fur. Don’t do anything to them. Leave them alone."
"But the cows are big and dumb and stupid. ****
them. Let’s eat them all. C’mon. Let’s make jackets out of what’s left over. C’mon."We might as well just have animal auditions and line them up one by one and judge them individually.
"What are you?"<br>"I’m an otter."<br>"And what do you do?"<br>"I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands."<br>"You’re free to go."
"And what are you?"<br>"I’m a cow."<br>"Get in the ****
in’ truck, okay, pal?"<br>"But I’m an animal."<br>"You’re a baseball glove."<br>"I’m an animal."<br>"You’re a hat. Get on that truck."…Here’s what sums up the animal rights movement to me.
You’ve all heard this one, haven’t you?
"Don’t eat the tuna fish." <br>"Why?"<br>"Dolphins are getting stuck in the nets!" <br>"But what about the tuna fish?" <br>"Well, ****
them. They taste good. They never had their own TV show, for crissake. They never swam next to our boats and made cute little sounds. Get out of here, tuna fish. I’m gonna make a sandwich out of you."<br>………..Meat eaters, the aminals you eat were killed for pleasure. Full stop. They didn’t die of old age.
So, what rights do foxes have that pigs and cows don’t  have?
And where’s the morality that drew that dividing line?
Steve
Cormack, I’m worried about where you get these images from.
The people I know who go hunting are normal, rational human beings, who love animals, especially their horses and dogs.  One was blooded on her first hunt (50 years ago!), but none have shown any psychopathic tendancies over the years.
The difference may be that they are used to the deaths of animals in a way that you may not be – whether hitting a rat with a spade that has been in the feed bins, disposing of squashed piglets, sending lambs to be slaughtered or scraping rabbits off the tines of a plough.  They deal with these things in a practical, sensible manner as part of their daily lives.  I can never imagine them "whooping it up in delight and taking pleasure in the fact that they’ve achieved another ‘kill’".  That’s not the way it is for them.
for those ill informed replies…
Farming subsisdies are £5 BILLION PER YEAR
British Leyland? What? Im talking about now…
Railways? Not an industry by most definitions.
Sal
Call me bleeding heart but I think those foxes that you classify as diseased, injured or elderly should be allowed to to die in in their own dignity or shot humanely rather than be  subjected to a terrfying  chase and bloody death in order that monkeys on horseback can escape the misery in their own lives by inflicting it on another sentient.
Even the privileged Uncle Oscar  a century ago could see the foxhunters are "the unspeakable after the inedible" I hope he is enjoying the prospect of the ban from Pere Lachaise !
<br>
Sal – I hear what you are saying and, having been brought up in a rural area and spent much of my first twelve years on a farm, understand the pragmatic approach to the harsh realities of life for inhabitants of the animal kingdom. I also accept that the image of the hunt follower as a bloodthirsty despot is a generalisation which is inappropriate.<br>What does not change however is my opinion that those involved in foxhunting are misguided and have no moral foundation upon which to defend their activities. Pretty soon, thankfully, they will have no legal foundation either and I, for one, will be delighted to see those participating in such activity reduced to criminal status.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.