- This topic has 141 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
So, would it be too simplistic to put the pro and anti fox hunting forum members into one of the following categories? :-
PRO FOX HUNTING: Types 1:<br>  Evil, bloodthirsty upper-class b*****ds. Probably  heavily subsidised landowners / farmers. They enjoy seeing wild animals killed. They also delighted in the demise of the coal, steel, ship-building and motorbike industries. They are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their opinion on anything, especially fox hunting.
PRO FOX HUNTING: Types 2:<br> An eclectic mix of toffs, rural folk and townies who are horse, dog, fox and countryside lovers. They have weighed up the pros and cons of foxhunting without listening to the rabid rantings of either side and have concluded fox hunting is acceptable.
ANTI FOX HUNTING: Types 1<br> Chip shouldered, lefty, bearded vegetarian townies. Probably social-workers. Lefty class envy makes them certain that Arthur Scargill played no part whatsoever in the demise of the coal industry and that unions have never been so stupid or short-sighted or unable to handle power as to hasten their own demise. Margaret Thatcher is the cause of all this countries current ills. Intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their opinion on anything, especially fox hunting.
ANTI FOX HUNTING: Types 2:<br>An eclectic mix of toffs, rural folk and townies who are horse, dog, fox and countryside lovers. They have weighed up the pros and cons of foxhunting without listening to the rabid rantings of either side and have concluded fox hunting is unacceptable
(Edited by insomniac at 4:41 pm on Sep. 20, 2004)<br>
(Edited by insomniac at 4:45 pm on Sep. 20, 2004)
terencel
It’s a good point about money and I hope you’re right.
"Farm animals are bred specifically for that purpose."
You could breed dogs with the intention of killing them. Would that justify it?
"I understand that most lead happy lives and are well looked after until their time has come."
Is there any evidence to prove this?
I’d imagine some are and some aren’t, but I’m a city boy and I’ve no real idea about farming practices.
What about battery chickens?
"It is unfortunate that they have to be slaughtered"
Have to be?
"If we were all vegetarian could the world grow enough food to feed us all?"
Farm animals eat most of the food in the west.
It takes 16lbs of grain to provide 1lb of beef.
Here’s a quote for you:
"If Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10%, it would free over 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption. That, all by itself, would be enough to adequately feed every one of the 60 million human beings who will starve to death on the planet this year"
Lloyd Brown of the US Overseas Development council, 1974   ÂÂÂ
Please don’t think I’m getting preachy about this, folks.
I’m not trying to claim the high ground when it comes to the treatment of animals. I own a leather jacket for chrissakes. <br>……
clivex
The death and pain of animals isn’t the INTENTION of animal testing of medicines but that doesn’t stop animal testing being a target of animal rights groups.
Nor does the fact that the death of horses isn’t the intention of NH racing stop animal rights types targeting the grand national.
I’ve lost count of the number of people who, on finding out I’m a racing fan, asked ""isn’t it cruel on the horses" or "isn’t it dangerous for the horses".
Racing is the victim of a distorted representation in the media and in society.
And it’s the image, not the reality that’s going to determine the view of the majority.
Do you really think that, should a racing ban be proposed, the average person would go along to their nearest racecourse to see how things really are?
(any more than anti-foxhunting types went along to a hunt)
Abortion is way off the mark
Really, why?
The religous nutters havent runied all our lives yet
"Yet". You presuppose that they will in time?
If so, how?
Maybe because the majority are happily apathetic towards the freedoms of others?
It’s clear from your posts on this that you have an ingrained hatred of farmers, hunters and various related others and that you regard them as subhuman ("vermin").
I think that speaks for itself.
It’s funny how there are two groups of people we have the right to hate – those born into wealth and farmers.
I guess it’s better than hating people because of their religion or skin colour.  ÂÂÂ
Steve
(Edited by stevedvg at 4:42 pm on Sep. 20, 2004)
Grasshopper
I just can’t get the quotes to work for me today. I reckon it’s my flu.
Steve
Are Foxes not pests? Therefore, dealt with accordingly by means of control.
Poor defenceless foxes? Give me a break. They may appear to be fighting a losing battle during the hunts, but thats the principle behind the controlling of fox numbers. How many people have seen the state of a chicken pen after a visit from these poor foxes? Thats hardly fair in my eyes.
If hunting is banned, it will never cease to happen. The police have admitted that the policing of hunts would be close on impossible. The only difference for the farmer will be that he/she will have to pay for alternative/no more humane ways of …..killing the foxes.
I honestly think some people have no idea as to how the English countryside has been maintained for the last 900 years.
Grasshopper,
The problem which distinguishes foxhunting from the farming of animals is that  the targeting of foxes it is gratuitous and involves individuals, young and old, descending to the pack instinct  of their dogs in pursuit of a victim. Most people today consider this kind of behaviour as cruel and unacceptable. That is why its abolition deserves immediate attention. There is no reason why the hunt tradition cannot continue without the use of live bait.
Of course we are all in favour of more compassionate practices in farming.
Insomniac
i fit absolutely none of those catergories.
the others…<br>the vegetarian argument is a bit wide of the mark. these animals are BRED for consumption. the fox is wild…<br>I appreciate most animal farming is horrible ( I buy organic/free range, for taste admittedly), but there is an end result, whether you lie it or not<br>Fox hunting does not go all the way towards controlling the so called pest. If it really has to be done, then there are better ways as we all know..<br>But given that the farmers livestock is paid for by us so called townies, both at market and subsidies, then i think once in a while, we can dictate a little bit to these people what we want too…
I’ll tell you what let’s just all give up eating meat and listen to Cliff Richard for the rest of our days.:biggrin:
"and I suspect it’s scant consolation to the cow, that her genetic purpose is to be an entree, and that she will have a swift death as means of compensation"
I take it you know one of my ex – girlfriends too. :biggrin:
My originial point on the thread was i thought that the jockeys shouldn’t have been walking up the racecourse with banners, if they wanted to go on protests with the alliance at Westminster then fair play to them that is their right.
But racing IMO is putting it’s jacket on a shoogly peg by letting them do this, folk who perhaps don’t take such a big interest in racing might think that both go hand in hand.
As i have said before i don’t want to see a ban purely down to the fact i don’t go hunting, but if the law say’s they can’t well then they have to abide that.
The minority as i also said before gave us the Poll Tax, especially up here in Scotland first as it was used as a trial session, i certainly didn’t agree with it along with the fact that only Scotland was paying it at first, but it was law and i paid it because of that, it was eitehr that or not pay and face going to prison, hardly the best thing to show my kids, if it is law then that is it, you just vote differently next time and encourage your MP to get it changed again.
Some random points:
1. I know nobody who hunts for the pleasure of seeing a fox killed. To most huntsmen/women, the death of the fox, if it happens, is almost an incidental. Certainly when I hunted, the thrill lay  in facing the challenge (and sometimes the sheer terror) of galloping over hill and dale and jumping big fences along a completely unpredictable route dictated by the fox. Horses loved it. The herd instinct could turn the most timid horse into a warhorse for the day. If you were as brave as your horse, you kept up with hounds. If you wimped out at a big hedge you took the long safe route and lost them. It was and is an adrenaline sport like no other. At the same time you have the privilege of being allowed to ride through England’s most glorious countryside and see it from a perspective that roads and cars will never allow.  It is a deeply satisfying and exhilarating experience, whether or not a fox is killed at  the end of it. Foxes do need controlling but that is not the reason most followers hunt. It is however the reason that many landowners allow hunts over their land.
2. To say that drag-hunting can be a satisfactory substitute for fox-hunting ignores two vital points. <br>a. The enjoyment of hunting is largely the unpredictability of it. The fox does not choose a route which is safe for horse and rider to follow. It is a wild being, pitting its wits against other wild beings i.e. hounds (it is not running away from the horses as people often assume). It is the elemental nature of this battle of wits (which the fox in at least two out of three cases wins) which is at the heart of hunting. <br>b. Farmers permit hunts over their land because the odds are they will NOT cross their land on any particular day. The path of the hunt is at the whim of the fox. If, in contrast, a draghunt rang  up a farmer and said ‘Can we drag an artificial  trail through your sugarbeet / winter wheat/ sheep pastures/ tomorrow  and over two post and rail fences and and follow it with a pack of hounds and fifty or sixty mounted followers  who will try to jump your fences but will almost certainly break them in several places what do you think their answer would be? Farmers in most areas will not permit drag hunts because of the certainty, as opposed to the possibility ,of damage to crops and fences.
3. On a different point, I think the idea that our meat animals meet a humane death displays a certain ostrich like attitude to the facts as laid bare by numerous secretly filmed documentaries. If you want to see sadism and blood lust I suggest you go undercover in a slaughterhouse for a week. Unpleasant jobs tend to attract unpleasant personalities and all too often the people drawn to this occupation ensure that an animal’s last hours are anything but humane. Two friends who are vets have witnessed this at first hand and as a result anything killed off our own farm goes to a small local slaughterhouse where we know the owners and the standards that are met. Don’t assume that just because we live in the country we are barbaric and care nothing for animal welfare. Perhaps we just have a realistic view of what welfare really is.
When the fox has been chased back to it’s hole in the ground. The Nimrods then set to it with the spades. Pull the fox out and feed it to the dogs while it is still alive, is that alright?
I would be interested to hear any pro-hunting views on this particular point because it’s pictures of things like this that have really fuelled public support for the ban, or perhaps more accurately removed public support for hunting.
From a personal point of view I couldn’t care less …
Grasshopper’s right, they just don’t want to talk about Iraq anymore. They need to get it off the telly, because it’s only going to get worse over there. The fact that there is a debate going on about fox hunting at all is evidence enough that the spin is working.
IMO, this chapter of history will go down as the age of the ANTI. I would think people in the future will look back and wonder how we could be ar$ed with it all! As far as I am concerned people can do exactly as they see fit with their own lives, including the following pass-times;
Hunting, smoking, drinking, gambling, TXTing on mobiles, driving cars, working, not working, be a single parent, sponging off the state, eating meat, not eating meat, having a huge mortgage, having no mortgage, believing in any religion they want, taking drugs, not taking drugs Being miserable or being happy. And almost all other activity.
I am ANTI the following pass-times;
Trying to claim the moral high ground, getting rich from other peoples misery, causing gratuitous wars, interfering in peoples lives when they haven’t asked you to, not being able to see the wood for the trees, trying to force your views on others, having a closed mind, not looking after your kids, lying, stealing and committing murders. Believing in one thing to the exclusion of rational debate. Working class people with posh accents, people with no talent who are very ambitious. Anyone who prejudges.
And that’s me …  :biggrin: <br>
Dave,
This is what the Masters of Foxhounds Association have to say about digging out:
If a fox is run to ground, digging may only take place with the expressed permission of the landowner or farmer. It can only be carried out by those licensed by the appropriate governing body. Normally the terrierman will be accompanied by only one assistant. Due to the possible use of a humane killer (licensed firearm) and to avoid unnecessary noise and disturbance, participation is limited to the terrierman and his assistant with sometimes the presence of the relevant farmer or gamekeeper.
What usually happens if a fox goes to ground (on land where the owner has specifically asked the hunt to dig out) then the field are kept well back from the dig. The hounds are also taken away and kept quietly by the hunt staff. The huntsman and terriermen do their stuff by putting the terrier down the hole and when the fox comes out he is netted and shot.
Only then is the dead fox given to the hounds as their reward.
I can understand that this may be the sort of activity which has to be curtailed if we are to appease the general public who may see digging out as "unfair".
Just one other side to the line about countryside days at racecourses. Whilst it may put off some people it can encourage others. I know that my next door neighbour only went racing because it was a countryside day – to see the hounds etc – and loved it so much he now has a share in a jumper.
I’m sure that these meetings are commercially viable for the racetracks (they certainly attract big crowds at Cheltenham, Newmarket etc) and I expect their market research encourages them to continue otherwise their accountants may try to discontinue them.
Also have a look at the jockeys (and trainers), both flat and jumping, that support hunting (from wealthy top ones down to those from the grass roots) – they are not the terrible people that some antis would have you believe.
Adrian,
Thanks for the explaination of the digging out rules.
I really don’t mind either way… ÂÂÂ
From a personnal point of view I don’t listen to anyone who is anti anything. They should really concentrate on their own lives and leave others alone to conduct theirs how ever they see fit. Because of this I tend to be more PRO hunting than anti, but not because I think it’s good!
In Scotland at the moment we have a very ANTI executive who plan to ban smoking in public places. This will cost jobs and damage the economy. We already have business rates 8% higher  than in England and poor economic growth. The population here is falling because of it.
ANTI in general is bad for everyone. :angry: ÂÂÂ
This debate seems to have  been flogged but for any Antis with any doubts, have a look at this site
Vermin ?  Black Propaganda – too much like your own cat or dog
I was thinking about what Grasshopper wrote and something came to mind.
It’s the difference in the attitude towards wearing fur and wearing leather.
Wearing fur has been a no-no for a long time. It’s seen as cruel and selfish.
But what’s the difference between wearing fur and wearing leather?
I thought about that a few years ago and could only come up with 3 things:
(1) Leather is cool. Cool people wear leather jackets. They don’t wear fur coats.
(2) The vast majority of people wear leather, whether it’s a jacket or a pair of shoes. Few people wear leather.
(3) Fur coats are expensive and typically unavailable to the average person. Banning then would, therefore, have no effect on the vast majority of people.
However, when it comes down to it, it’s all just wearing dead animals.
The reason fur wearing got it in the neck and not leather jackets was that it was a vulnerable target, not because of a moral consistency.
Perhaps, part of the idea was that, if fur could be banned, that would set a moral precedent for undermining leather.
Anyway, I’m off to go and buy the paper…. where’s my leather jacket and DMs?
Steve
Food or Fashion? You get both from a cow, this will justify leather wearing to some.<br> Does it matter? If you stick a small insect under a micrscope and have a look, you’ll see that mama natures beauty is in all shapes and sizes. Only a handfull of nutters walk around clearing their paths with a brush, and even then, they’ll be crunching the odd thing to DEATH.:biggrin:  ÂÂÂ
You kill it, I’ll eat it.;) or wear it if I like the cut.
(Edited by CPGagie at 11:09 am on Sep. 23, 2004)
<br>Adrian,
Your point about the popularity of Countryside days at racecourse is absolutely valid, but there are negatives as well.
When Whitbread withdrew from the exclusive sponsorship of the Cheltenham three day November meeting, they cited their need to appeal to a younger market as the reason.
But I was told at the time that the C4 pictures of a pack of hounds being hunted down the run-in past Whitbread advertising banners, accompanied by a raucous cheer from the Countryside crowd, was a major factor in their disappearance from NH sponsorship.
Racing’s support for hunting is understandable, given the overlap in their followers, but commercially it’s potentially suicidal.
If the hunt protestors move on to racing and adopt the policies of those who are trying to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences, how many sponsors will feel inclined to resist that sort of pressure?
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.