Never mind fox hunting.....

[chriscom]

My question to you then is this. When so many country folk marched to support their way of life. Where was the counter march from the country folk who want to ban tht way of life? Or was it such a done deal everyone sat at home giggling at the tv at the hopeless attempt of people in the face of overwhelming govt?

Just what are the figures on for and against? Not hypothetical or polls of merely a thousand people. Real figures. Only way to find that out would be through referendum. This is not an outdated and failing industry but a self supporting one. It is not an environmentally damaging industry. The basis of banning this lie in concepts niether side of which have been proven. So the ban comes about because that's what government wants.

Foxes are pests. I don't want them in my garden. I know when they've been. I have to clean up after they have ripped through bin bags and scattered the contents around. Something that is happening more and more in urban areas as teh foxes move into towns. They also are known to carry disease so watch out if you ever get bitten by one. They happen to look very pretty. I ask you. If foxes looked and sounded like hyenas, would the call for a ban be so vociferous?

Firstly the whole countryside didn't march, a large majority of the countryside stayed at home. Secondly, many of the marches weren't just about fox hunting but also covered other issues. For example the MORI poll into the countryside march revealed that 40% gave fox hunting / hunting with dogs as the single main reason for being there, 28% said they were marching primarily for the rights of rural people, and 12% gave farming generally (or beef / beef farming / BSE / beef bans) as the main reason for attending.
However, The violent demonstration outside the houses of parliament were solely about hunting as was the demonstration in Brighton.

On the issue of support for hunting, the countryside Alliance were found guilty of misleading people by making false claims about those who are against a ban. Furthermore, the polling company they used was criticised for failing to ask objective questions of respondents, for failing to carry out research "objectively and in accordance with established scientific principles" and for "being guilty of conduct" which "might bring discredit on the [market research] profession."
If there was the support for hunting, the body responsible for protecting it wouldn't have to lie and cheat in order to show such support.

Secondly, I'm not sure what sort of killer foxes you have but the chances of one getting close enough to be bitten by one are extremely slim. If foxes were the disease ridden pests you're talking about there is more danger of hounds passing on the disease right across the country as the disease would be spread to and by them.
On the bin issue you should get hold of the bins us countryfolk here have, they have these heavy lids that are fox proof.

[RVF500]

Same as the bins us country folk here have. See, I bet you thought you were unique But when the bin is full we tend to take the bag out and replace with a fresh one.

Your figures would have put me in the 28% as I have said repeatedly my opposition is more against the way the legislation has been presented and implemented. There are cases, rare I admit, that people and foxes get close enough that people get bitten. However that wasn't my point. You merely assumed it was. My point was that these are after all a pest and are known to carry disease. Notably they are believed to be a rabies carrier. Fortunately our strict controls have kept incidences of that particular problem at a minimum in this country. You paint them as pretty and cuddly. Which they are not. When I worked as a farm labourer (many years ago now) I saw at first hand what one could do in terms of damage.

Finally, could you answer my hyena analogy? I'd be interested in your real and objective view not one sanitised for the sake of this forum.

[chriscom]

Same as the bins us country folk here have. See, I bet you thought you were unique But when the bin is full we tend to take the bag out and replace with a fresh one.

Your figures would have put me in the 28% as I have said repeatedly my opposition is more against the way the legislation has been presented and implemented. There are cases, rare I admit, that people and foxes get close enough that people get bitten. However that wasn't my point. You merely assumed it was. My point was that these are after all a pest and are known to carry disease. Notably they are believed to be a rabies carrier. Fortunately our strict controls have kept incidences of that particular problem at a minimum in this country. You paint them as pretty and cuddly. Which they are not. When I worked as a farm labourer (many years ago now) I saw at first hand what one could do in terms of damage.

Finally, could you answer my hyena analogy? I'd be interested in your real and objective view not one sanitised for the sake of this forum.

But if the reason for controlling the fox population was due to a fear over them carrying disease then hunting with dogs would be banned immediately. As you state, in this country rabies is not a problem and that is something hunts must be extra pleased about.
Foxes can look pretty, especially when seen in a backdrop of snow but I wouldn't class them as cuddly or pretty. I'd be equally anti the hunting of hyenas for the same following reasons.
I dislike hunting because it is unnecessary, it is an activity based on cruelty and the hunt have no regard for whose land nor whose animals they disturb when in pursuit of a fox.
In this way, my local hunt has been far more of a pest than foxes ever have been.

[bleep]

[QUOTE=Rave]A closed mind is the preserve of the bigoted and willfully ignorant. If you don't want people criticisng your opinion then keep it to yourself. Or is that too complicated a concept for you to understand?



well it must be - ur right.. always...

[bleep]

People, stop the insults. If you cant deal with other members tearing your opinions to shreds, dont come into this thread.

Next offender gets slapped with a Russian Shotputter.

sorry da.....

[Rythmic]

Well I used to sit slightly on the ban it side of this argument (see my last posts ) but theres something that recently came up that changed my mind.

Smoking

Now I smoke. I appreciate that smoking is really bad for you, but it's my choice. I don't smoke at your work, in your house or in front of your children, I go outside and freeze instead. I basically don't bother you with it (cause I'm nice like that ).

On a saturday morning I really enjoy going with my mates, and sitting in a greasy spoon cafe, having a cup of coffee, full english and a smoke. All the staff smoke, and virtually every customer does. We're happy with this the way it is. If you don't want to sit in a smoke filled atmosphere, or don't want you kids exposed to it, don't go in. Theres plenty of places to eat nowadays that don't allow smoking - go in them instead - if the country really wants this, then smoke free establishments will florish even better.

But you wouldn't come into my house and tell me not too smoke there would you?

The goverment would. Oh yes. Such a simple pleasure is soon to be against the law - you have to think of the children you see.

And this got me round to thinking. What right would I have to go tell someone that they can't do what they've been doing before, because I don't like it?

Provided of course, that evey land owner that the hunt goes across agrees to it, I don't believe that I'll be caught arguing against it again.

[chriscom]

Well I used to sit slightly on the ban it side of this argument (see my last posts ) but theres something that recently came up that changed my mind.

Smoking

Now I smoke. I appreciate that smoking is really bad for you, but it's my choice. I don't smoke at your work, in your house or in front of your children, I go outside and freeze instead. I basically don't bother you with it (cause I'm nice like that ).

On a saturday morning I really enjoy going with my mates, and sitting in a greasy spoon cafe, having a cup of coffee, full english and a smoke. All the staff smoke, and virtually every customer does. We're happy with this the way it is. If you don't want to sit in a smoke filled atmosphere, or don't want you kids exposed to it, don't go in. Theres plenty of places to eat nowadays that don't allow smoking - go in them instead - if the country really wants this, then smoke free establishments will florish even better.

But you wouldn't come into my house and tell me not too smoke there would you?

The goverment would. Oh yes. Such a simple pleasure is soon to be against the law - you have to think of the children you see.

And this got me round to thinking. What right would I have to go tell someone that they can't do what they've been doing before, because I don't like it?

Provided of course, that evey land owner that the hunt goes across agrees to it, I don't believe that I'll be caught arguing against it again.

But that's the thing, every land owner doesn't give permission. As a hunt can't dictate which areas a fox will run the chances are that during a hunting day the hunt will trespass on someone's land. This includes residential gardens, animal sanctuaries, public highways etc. From experience it doesn't matter how many times one complains it happens over and over.

[RVF500]

The basic flaw with this legislation is as rythmic has poined out. What next? As I said in an earlier post, the use of the parliament act to ramrod this through suited the anti lobby. This bulling approach is what has landed me in the pro camp. It suited the banners but how will these same people feel once it is their turn to be on the receiving end of something that they see as THEIR way of life?

Does ferreting and ratting with terriers fall under this legislation? And before some smartar*e pipes up I do know that ferrets aren't dogs. Also if the argument is about trespass then control is required not an outright ban.

[autopilot]

My 10 pence worth...

Firstly, I could not give a monkey's about the ban. I won't lose any sleep over the ban. I don't hunt and never will. But what I really hate is ignorant people jumping on thier high horse about it and pretending to care about animals/the environment.

1) The fact is that if the government really cared about animal cruelty they would ban factory farming which is far more cruel. Go and see where your eggs/KFC came from if you want to see cruelty. If the public really cared that much we would all be vegaterians. "but you should not hunt for fun" I hear people moan. Well, you go out to a resturaunt and eat a steak for your ENJOYMENT, no? I bet that cow had a worse life and death than any fox.

2) If there is a genuine need to cull fox's, hunting with dogs is the best way. 90% of the time it will be a quicker death than any other method. Poison - you can't be sure it's only the fox that get's it and it's a nasty way to go. Shooting - Not even an SAS marksman could get a head shoot on a fox's small and fast moving head with any kind of regularity. Fox's are smart, move quickly and smell a human from a long distance off. How nice would it to hit it in the leg and have it go to ground and bleed slowly to death.

3) "They are a bunch of toff's!" - Well, we have got to the real issue here, havn't we . lets not pretent this ban is anything other than social revenge. Knock that chip off your shoulder and get over it. I come from a working class background and I have nothing against rich or posh people. So what if some people were born with a silver spoon in their gob. They are not eating babies are they? Life is too short. And besides all that, more working class and middle class people hunt than 'toffs' anyway.

4) Regards to running accross peoples land - this happens less than you might think. But if damage is done they should be made to make it good and pay for damage - maybe even be done for tresspassing. But ban it on these grounds? If someone crashed thier car into yours, would you want all drivers band?

Anyway, like I said, I don't really care either way. But I do wish those people who moan on about could, A) get thier facts straight, and B) stop being so hypocritical and admit it's only because they have a chip on their shoulder about the 'toffs' who mostly aint toffs anyway. The way those people were treated in London was sickening.

But don't get me wrong, there is propagada coming from both sides - often they hunt where there are no farm animals at risk - in area's where there is mainly crops and therefore pletty of rabits, which in turn means lots of fox's. Therefore they should be considering the fox their friend. That should be stamped out like tresspassing.

As for hunt sabateurs; Scum. they are just making a bad situation worse. People will always look for an excuse for thuggish behaviour.

What we need is more control a licence system that works with say non-biased moderators that assess the need for hunting and make sure it's done properly. Not a total ban.

One last thing. Does anyone here who is for the ban eat at McDonalds? Do you realise how much of the rainforest has been cut down to rear cows on for thier ENJOYMENT?.

[Skii]

Best post i've read in a long time Dom

[autopilot]

Futhermore, I wish people were not such suckers for this governments cheap ploys. The govenment could not give a rats ass for animal rights. Hell, they don't even seem to value human rights that much (jail for immigrants without trial?!).
Can't people see this for what it really is? A cynical attempt to win a few brownie points from the ignorant masses in light of the forthcoming general ellection. And people have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. Wake up people.

[Rave]

Agree with your last post. However, you've chosen a bad example with the cows that go into your burgers. My grandad was a beef farmer; albeit that the industry has probably changed a little since he retired 20 years ago, in general cows are well treated and live very nice lives until they're taken away to be slaughtered. Sheep too to a large extent. Chickens and pigs OTOH are raised in some fairly appaling conditions and I agree that the ignorance of people who moan about fox hunting while eating supermarket value sausages is pretty disgusting.

At the end of the day, there's a fact that people ignore: if we didn't eat cows, then there wouldn't be any in this country. There's simply not enough room for them to wander about as wild animals. If they weren't kept as a domestic animal, pretty soon they'd all be gone.

Rich :¬)

[autopilot]

Agree with your last post. However, you've chosen a bad example with the cows that go into your burgers. My grandad was a beef farmer; albeit that the industry has probably changed a little since he retired 20 years ago, in general cows are well treated and live very nice lives until they're taken away to be slaughtered. Sheep too to a large extent. Chickens and pigs OTOH are raised in some fairly appaling conditions and I agree that the ignorance of people who moan about fox hunting while eating supermarket value sausages is pretty disgusting.

At the end of the day, there's a fact that people ignore: if we didn't eat cows, then there wouldn't be any in this country. There's simply not enough room for them to wander about as wild animals. If they weren't kept as a domestic animal, pretty soon they'd all be gone.

Rich :¬)

hey mate

Firstly, I don't think my cow example was wrong - my point was not really about the UK cow welfare (although as you point out, other animals might have been better to illustrate my point). My point was that people choose to eat them for their enjoyment - as do people hunt for enjoyment. There is fundimentaly no difference. Actually i think that many fox hunts kind of repect the fox's like a soldier at war should repect their enemy. Also, riding a horse with some friends and thier dogs through the country looks quite fun. Not that i am into it. I don't think i would enjoy fox hunting, i think its rather unpleasent. However, that does not make it wrong. Also most hunters love animals - they love thier horses and dogs very much. They are not anmimal hating sicko's. Strange contradiction there i guess.

Secondly, that large portions of the rain forrest have been cut down for catle grazing - anyone who eats mcdonlands, or any food produced from these mass farms is very hypcritical when being anti-fox hunting.

Thirdly, by talking about these other animals does not distract from my main points. That was just an example of peoples ignorance and twisted morality.

I must also, with all due respect mate, add that i find your point about cows fanishing a little strange (if i am understanding it correctly). Cow's are not a natural feature of the UK contryside. They were introduced here. Albiet a very long time ago. Anyhow, that besides the point.

That said, I am sure many farm animals in the UK are well kept (even though the term "free range" is used in the loosest of ways). However, most processed food is made from imported meat which is not well kept. Did you see that documentory about where KFC chicken and meat bought in a supermarkets comes from? Sick. I will never eat thier. Thats just the tip of the iceburg.

People will always make a hypocritical stance on some issues such as fox hunting - because it eases their conscience and makes them feel good about themselfs. Possibly they even think it might impress some people, even though they can't be bothered to open their eyes to the other real wrong doings in the world. Thats what so sad about these people.

Are you a meat eater? if you are i bet you have eaten animals that have been far worse treated than any fox x100. Why are you not talking about that. if you are vegitarian, then you might have a serious argument.

Nice chatting to ya

i think i might drop out of this one now, fox hunting is a contentious issuse and i don't claim to have all the anwsers. I have said enough Maybe I will change my mind one day - but it won't be by some of the ignorant dorks who have posted here. Believe it or not, i used to be anti fox hunting

[autopilot]

Sorry Rave, i have just been reading some of your other posts in this thread and it seem's we have a fairly simular stand point on all this nosense. I may have missjudged you somewhat.

[floppybootstomp]

I keep getting e-mails cos I participated in this thread at the beginning, so I came back & read through the rest of it.

Cows dying out? OK, what about the large numbers of cows that are bred purely for milk? We don't eat them all you know. That would also mean it would be a tad difficult to get cheese, yoghurt, butter & cream as well.

Unless, of course, we wanted to start breeding thousands of goats I suppose.

I still stand by my original stance - fox hunting is wrong. My opinion, and I stand by it.

Dangerous_Dom:

Some fairly convincing arguments you've put forward there, kinda like a politician would do. Pointing out other wrongs in the world does not justify one singular wrong.

I agree, the destruction of the rain forest is a far greater wrong than a bunch of country folk getting a stiffy over seeing a wild animal ripped to shreds by a pack of specifically bred (by man) other animals.

But, putting other wrongs forward as an argument to justifying one particular wrong is no argument. It's just smokescreening.

Let's tackle one wrong doing at a time, if we can.

I was veggie, for a while, I felt that strongly about it. From 1997 to 2003. Didn't eat meat, eggs or fish at all. And only vegetarian cheese. Didn't feel much different to tell the truth, except I was never bloated and seemed to have more energy. But I'm weak, and went back to eating meat.

To be honest, main reason I stopped eating meat for a while was the way they were producing it, mad cow disease, battery farming et al, so it wasn't a total moral standpoint, there was also some idea of self-preservation at work here.

I hate McDonalds, don't eat there, and am picky about my meat.

I seem to have meandered off the subject, but, basically, what I'm trying to say is something of an old saying - two wrongs don't make a right.

[autopilot]

...a bunch of country folk getting a stiffy over seeing a wild animal ripped to shreds by a pack of specifically bred...

You did not have to say anymore than that really. That sums up the rational behind you stance quite nicely. Your misguided distaste for the people involved rather than an act you don't understand or have ever witnessed; one which is rather unpleaset but not fundimentaly any worse than your reacquired enjoyment in eating any virtually any processed food. Just knock that chip off your shoulder! No offence, but it is you that sounds rather like a hypocritical politician. I won't really care if the ban finally comes into effect. But please, please don't make out like you care.

I don't point out wrongs to hide another wrong. But to show that we should be questioning people motives and judgement when they are so unquestionably hypocritical, ignorant and missinformed.

It is better to kept fox hunting than to get ride of it - but i agree the margin between the two camps is smaller than the fox hunters would have us believe. Either way, we need to start employing some logic and intelligence rather than getting hot headed.

I don't mean to offend you if i have (or anyone really). I guess we will have to agree to dissagree. I don't know you, you don't know me. I am sure you are a top guy. And I realise won't be changing your mind by saying what I am saying, your probably just going to dissagree more. There is little more left to say in this tired thread anyhow. Take care