- This topic has 83 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Surely nobody seriously thought that the banning of fox hunting in Scotland would lead to a reduction in the number of foxes being killed?!<br>
While I believe Cormack is correct in stating the majority of the populace want fox hunting, I’d also suggest that the majority of the people in this country (including me) don’t really have a firm basis on which to evaluate fox hunting.
If the media was full of stories about chasers dying during and after races, if there were reports on how frequently they suffer from lameness or bleed through the nose, if the people of Britain were bombarded with images of Tony McCoy trying to get Deano’s Beano to line up at Cheltenham (ok, it was a hurdle, but you get the idea), do you really think they’d have an accurate view of chasing?
Would a majority of them not think it was a cruel sport?
And, if that was to happen, would their belief that chasing is cruel, make chasing cruel?
Just because I, in my ignorance, find fox hunting barbaric, doesn’t make it so.
It’s an incredible conceit to believe that we townies are living in the modern age while a sizable proportion of the rural population are savages, when we don’t have first hand experience of what foxes can do to their livestock.
(the same livestock that most people here want killed for their own pleasure – as long as they can delude themselves that the killing is humane and they don’t have to watch it happen)
Let’s open our eyes and realise that there’s two sides to every story.
If you truly care about animal rights, don’t eat animals. That would have an impact far greater than any ban on blood sports could have.
When the majority of the population care enough about animal rights that they don’t eat meat, feel free to come and talk to me about banning fox hunting.
Until then, it just sounds like moral hypocrisy.
Steve
Hunting with dogs was the ban in Scotland, hunting wasn’t banned altogether. Apparently hounds are allowed to be used to push foxes towards people with guns – it is illegal for the dogs to kill the foxes but the foxes can be shot (although not by the dogs…).
(Edited by robgomm at 1:03 pm on Nov. 21, 2004)
Good post Steve, although I do not agree with your view of hunting I admire your open mindedness. People have to realise the hunting ban is not all about ‘animal rights’.
Regards the don’t eat meat Steve, as i said before on the thread archive you spoke about, how many animal rights supporters don’t use daily medicines and vaccinations because they are tested on animals.
I don’t believe for a minute that none of them don’t use them, isn’t that being hypocritical.
You don’t eat meat that is up to you, i do eat meat and i really don’t mind if the hunts aren’t banned or not, i used to go out rabbiting as a kid with my grandfather, no doubt some would see that as barbaric, but when it ended up in the pot , it was one of the best meals you could ask for on a cold winters day.
Nothing democratic about the ban. It was rejected by one of the Chambers and then the Parliament Act was grotesquely misused to override the dissent. And NB, the ban was NOT in Mr. Blair’s manifesto. I write in disgust and shame as someone who was stupid enough to vote for him.
I find badger baiting entirely disgusting. And, of course, the badger gassing brought in at the behest of Lord Zuckerman, prominent politician, and his mates, on the dodgy premise that badgers spread bovine TB. The fact remains that foxes are actually vicious killers, EC.
You should be ashamed EC for saying that Dilysb should be ashamed just because she holds a differnt view from you.<br>richard
So it’s ok to have one view but not another EC, well as long as the view is the same as yours of course.
Phunter
I remember you making that point, and it’s a good one.
Imagine one of these anti-animal testing types having a child who will die if he doesn’t use a medicine which has been tested on animals. What would he choose?
As I said "moral convenience"<br>……………….<br>EC
When it comes to meat eating, I support the right to choose (even though it hit’s me in the pocket and damages the environment).
But let’s not pretend that somehow killing animals for meat is a necessity. It’s a choice.
You’re free to make that choice, but if you do, just don’t get preachy about animal rights.
Steve<br>
The debate has moved on guys! time to move with it.
The rights & wrongs of Fox hunting has been decided upon whether you like it or not. What we are now talking about is the rights & wrongs of breaking the law.
As for the Lords being a democratic chamber well that takes the biscuit. This was an open vote in the commons (the democratic chamber ) with a resounding support from all parties. I think it was the 10th time they voted for a ban over the years which truely reflects majority public opinion over the years.  Hard to see any case for anything but hard cheese and hard to see how Blair can be the scapegoat for this and absolutely everything else.
Nobody has any problem in people dressing up in their hunting gear and riding about the countryside with their dogs if they want to and all of the social life that surrounds the activity. The law now states it is illegal to do so for the purpose of hunting fox which is perceived as cruel.
Can’t see what all the fuss is about. Time to put up or shut up.
I reckon in 10 years time there will still be everything associated with Hunting in place in the UK bar the bloodsport and we will be wondering at all of the fuss.
<br>
Just a view, but I do feel sorry for people who cannot accept that someone else can hold a different opinion to their own strongly held views. <br>For what ’tis worth, think it is a great shame that debating points are made in the form of personal attacks on other people, rather than about the actual issue.<br>richard
Richard, you hit the nail on the head, <br>"it is a great shame that debating points are made in the form of personal attacks on other people, rather than about the actual issue. "<br>This is what is happening in the Commons. Those who are arguing the Hunting Ban on account of cruelty to animals seem to be very naive IMO. <br>Tony Blair said in a statement he is in favour of a regulated Hunt. <br>
Missing the point Grass…
Its gaining "pleasure" from killing animals thats repulsive. Rather like some might like to take seats at an abatoir or spend time hanging around a hospice…
Its rubbish to say that you almost have to be vegan to be against hunting.
last week i saw a video of a bull with its horns set alight in spain for "entertainment". Do I ahve to be vegan to be repulsed by that?
And yes, Fox Hunting is a class issue…agreed
If it was a working class pursuit it would have been banned years ago along with dog fighting and cock fighting. And at least in those games the animals are bred for the purpose.
"If it was a working class pursuit it would have been banned years ago along with dog fighting and cock fighting. And at least in those games the animals are bred for the purpose"<br>A rash statement Clive. This construes to me that you associate Dog & Cock fighting with the working class. Also that you are of the opinion that Hunts are in the same sport genre as Dog & Cock fighting. Quite a sweeping and inacurrate jumble of words IMHO. <br>Is this how you wanted it to come across?
Well, not exclusively working class im sure…
But tell me what the difference is? Killing animals for sport…one way or another…is not on
In fact I belive Dog and Cock fighting is more legitimate given that the particpants are purely berd for the purpose. Foxes are wild and although we are always told what "vermin" they are, they have the right to exist…
Personally they can ruin as many farmers as they like. I wish the foxes were big enough to eat the farmers direct (GM anyone?) cos that would save the rest of the country A LOT OF TAXES TO SUBSIDISE THE WHINGING SROUNGING b*****d
S :angry: <br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.