[blinkbelle]

(Original post by Chriz M)
My friend who does hunt argues that they only catch the weak old foxes, and therefore kill it without it suffering, and killing extra livestock. Also the benefit of killing foxes is less killed sheep and chickens which are brutally murdered by foxes. I have a personal hatred of foxes as they were responsible for the death of my two pet guinea pigs.

Surely if they're killing off the weak old ones, the whole idea of killing them to prevent death to livestock goes out of the window - if they're so weak and old I don't think they'd manage to kill that many livestock..

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by MichaelG)
The ban hasn't stopped me from the occasional 'hunt'. I've never really liked people who don't live rurally commenting on fox hunting. its like me talking about football, out of my depth and absolutely no understanding or appreciation for it.

I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement to make. People form opinions and comment on things they have no practical experience all the time! It's like saying people who don't live in London can't complain about the congestion charge, or white people can't object to racism against other races. I don't need to kill an animal myself to know that I am against killing animals. Period. There is no 'appreciation' within me for something I find so abhorrent, unnecessary and needlessly cruel. You talk about fox hunting like it's some brand of fine wine.
This is the kind of 'indoctrination' of 'country folk' I was referring to earlier.

[Preasure]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
Surely if they're killing off the weak old ones, the whole idea of killing them to prevent death to livestock goes out of the window - if they're so weak and old I don't think they'd manage to kill that many livestock..

You'd be surprised. If even a weak old fox gets into a hen house it will kill every bird - most animals predated by foxes aren't fast or strong enough to escape, and foxes hunt by stealth rather than brute force.

Fox hunts never actually killed that many foxes - many times more are simply shot. And as much as people like to be classist and pain huntsmen as posh toffs laughing over foxes 'getting ripped apart', they're normal people who have no desire to cause too much suffering to the animal. There's a respect for the quarry.

[Seven_Three]

Wonder how many of the far-left arguing against fox hunting are against Halal slaughter?

This whole argument boils down to classism from socialists and placid and uneducated middle class liberals. This is why they don't attack anyone elses 'cruelty to animals', indeed this is why they can't offer an explanation as to what is 'cruel' in the first place. To shoot an animal doesn't kill it quickly, they can walk for miles bleeding. These people don't have any idea how animal farming works and what is involved, doubtless they don't even know what happens to the meat they eat or what goes on in a abotoir.

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by Seven_Three)
Wonder how many of the far-left arguing against fox hunting are against Halal slaughter?

This whole argument boils down to classism from socialists and placid and uneducated middle class liberals. This is why they don't attack anyone elses 'cruelty to animals', indeed this is why they can't offer an explanation as to what is 'cruel' in the first place. To shoot an animal doesn't kill it quickly, they can walk for miles bleeding. These people don't have any idea how animal farming works and what is involved, doubtless they don't even know what happens to the meat they eat or what goes on in a abotoir.

I am against every single part of cruelty to animals, and try to remove myself from any scenario involving it as much as I physically can.
I think you should think hard before making such sweeping generalisations. Would you be comfortable with someone opposed to fox hunting making generalisations about 'toffs enjoying killing innocent animals'? I think it's easy to make statements like that, but in reality there's rarely any truth to them.

[Ehmo]

(Original post by Lukeh :])
Its part of our heritage, get over it.

We should bring back slavery too, that was a right laugh. Tradition ftw.

[Preasure]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
I am against every single part of cruelty to animals, and try to remove myself from any scenario involving it as much as I physically can.

I see. Might I ask who made your clothes? If the answer is that they were made in china/india etc then you might want to have a think about your sense of priority.

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by Preasure)
I see. Might I ask who made your clothes? If the answer is that they were made in china/india etc then you might want to have a think about your sense of priority.

OFFTOPIC, but I do all I can to live as ethically as I can. For me, eating vegan foods is extremely simple and an easy thing I can do the further my morals and the way I want to live. In the culture we live in today, and as a student, I find it more difficult to make ethical choices about the clothes I wear but where possible, yes I do prioritise good working conditions for humans.

It really irks me when people come back with statements like you have. As if, because I have put myself out there to try and make some form of difference, no matter how small, I'm a hypocrite because I don't live like a martyr and adapt my whole lifestyle to some sort of 'ethical code'. The majority of the time, the person making that statement lives a much less ethical life than the person the question is posed to.

BACK ON TOPIC....

[Seven_Three]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
I am against every single part of cruelty to animals, and try to remove myself from any scenario involving it as much as I physically can.
I think you should think hard before making such sweeping generalisations. Would you be comfortable with someone opposed to fox hunting making generalisations about 'toffs enjoying killing innocent animals'? I think it's easy to make statements like that, but in reality there's rarely any truth to them.

Lol, this must be one of those rare times where the generalisation is true. I think you probably fit in to both categories, far-left and middle class liberal.

I find it hard to take there arguments seriously because I know this is really just a veiled attack on a British tradition which is seen as a bump in the road to your glorious socialist future.

[Preasure]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
OFFTOPIC, but I do all I can to live as ethically as I can. For me, eating vegan foods is extremely simple and an easy thing I can do the further my morals and the way I want to live. In the culture we live in today, and as a student, I find it more difficult to make ethical choices about the clothes I wear but where possible, yes I do prioritise good working conditions for humans.

It really irks me when people come back with statements like you have. As if, because I have put myself out there to try and make some form of difference, no matter how small, I'm a hypocrite because I don't live like a martyr and adapt my whole lifestyle to some sort of 'ethical code'. The majority of the time, the person making that statement lives a much less ethical life than the person the question is posed to.

BACK ON TOPIC....

I never said I lived an ethical life and, frankly, I don't. But I wasn't trying to take the moral highground, simply point out that you're that bothered about animal suffering but turn a blind eye to human suffering.

If as you say you try to ensure good working conditions in your purchases, good on you. But what irks me is when people make their lifestyle choices and then proclaim themselves superior and get a 'holier than thou' attitude because of them.

[Schmokie Dragon]

Hunting with hounds is actually an effective and relatively humane way of controlling fox populations.

It sounds brutal, but it is exceptionally fast and the chase itself is comfortably within the foxes sphere of experience. Animals are ingrained with an understanding of fight or flight situations, and know all about the predator/prey relationship. They are used to chasing and being chased and this isn't overly distressing for a wild animal. If the hounds catch the fox, they kill it almost instantly. A healthy fox stands a very good chance of escaping. The hunting community helps maintain a sustainable population of healthy foxes rather than letting them breed out of hand and allowing sickly foxes to infect the gene pool too much.

Now look at the alternatives - trapping, poisons, shooting.

Trapping and poison don't discern between adult foxes and baby foxes. They don't discern between healthy foxes and sickly foxes. They don't disern between foxes and badgers, or deer, or domestic cats. Being poisoned or trapped is also a very distressing and often painful and/or prolonged experience for the animal. It isn't something they are used to or conditioned to deal with. It is an utterly human imposition on them and thus terrifying.

Shooting is little better. It is difficult to discern between a healthy fox, or a mother fox, or an adolescent fox and and old or sickly one at range. Many foxes are not killed outright and instead limp off to die slowly. Even if they are finished off, having to be shot twice is a brutal and unbearably painful experience for the fox.

I'm sure some of you will contend that foxes don't need to be killed at all. Two points -

1) Foxes are a threat to famers and pet owners. They'll attack and/or kill chickens, geese, ducks, small pets, cats and even other dogs. When they do, it is an instinct for them to kill everything they can get their teeth on. This isn't because they are 'evil' and 'kill for fun', as some people would have you believe. It is a natural survival instinct. Kill everything and bury it to eat later. As a result, they lead to massive emotional and financial losses for rural people.

2) Farmers will hunt foxes, whether they are allowed to or not. They see them as pests and will go in there with guns, traps and poison. By having the hunt on their land, they hand that duty over to the hunt and the animals are killed quickly and with relatively little distress.

Why was it banned? Because Labour thought it would win them popularity. Many people feel fox hunting is immoral for two reasons -

1) Animal welfare. They can't understand how fox hunting could be compatible with animal welfare. A poor foxy is getting ripped apart - oh no!

2) They resent 'rich toffs' prancing around on horses and engaging in 'blood sports'. It's a mix of disgust and jealousy.

Most people who think like this have never been hunting, have never really thought about what it really entails and have never thought about the alternatives.

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by Seven_Three)
Lol, this must be one of those rare times where the generalisation is true. I think you probably fit in to both categories, far-left and middle class liberal.

I find it hard to take there arguments seriously because I know this is really just a veiled attack on a British tradition which is seen as a bump in the road to your glorious socialist future.

I am not far-left, and I'm not a middle class liberal. I am a working class socialist. However that has got absolutely nothing to do with this debate. I have, and always will be, a strong believer in animal rights. My passion for animal welfare began long before I ever developed a true political orientation. I find it strange that you seen to think that I am 'attacking' 'British tradition'. Firstly, I opened this thread up to have a debate as I enjoy reading other peoples' opinions and having people challenge my views. I find it educational and enlightening. Secondly, I don't understand why fox hunting has anything whatsoever to do with socialism?

(Original post by Preasure)
I never said I lived an ethical life and, frankly, I don't. But I wasn't trying to take the moral highground, simply point out that you're that bothered about animal suffering but turn a blind eye to human suffering.

If as you say you try to ensure good working conditions in your purchases, good on you. But what irks me is when people make their lifestyle choices and then proclaim themselves superior and get a 'holier than thou' attitude because of them.

How can you point out something that doesn't exist? I do not 'turn a blind eye to human suffering', and I don't understand how the information you have gathered about me from this thread could possibly lead you to that conclusion? I find it easier to be more 'active' in terms of animal rights because in our culture we don't eat humans, or wear them, or abuse them - so it would be difficult to make the same choices about humans as I do about animals.

I am also confused about when I 'proclaimed myself superior'. All I did was respond to questions that were posed to me about my beliefs about animals and how those beliefs shape my daily life. I certainly don't think I'm 'holier than thou', and I don't understand what led you to believe I was.

[Tishy]

i hate fox hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its soo pathetic!! the fox suffers such a painful death...
and for what? TRADITION???
hello?
havent you fox hunters heard of a lil thing called DRAG HUNTING?? nooo
i think if you can go hunting and see a fox being shredded apart by hounds then you are disgusting!! eeeeh
i hate hearing people complaing about the ban 'ohhh but its TRADITION!' so what?? just becuase somethings has been happening for a long time doesnt mean its good? its brutal >;o
eeeh im sorry, but this makes blood boil, humans brutally killing animals just for pleasure! grrrrrrrrrrr

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
Many people feel fox hunting is immoral for two reasons -

1) Animal welfare. They can't understand how fox hunting could be compatible with animal welfare. A poor foxy is getting ripped apart - oh no!

2) They resent 'rich toffs' prancing around on horses and engaging in 'blood sports'. It's a mix of disgust and jealousy.

Most people who think like this have never been hunting, have never really thought about what it really entails and have never thought about the alternatives.

I found your post extremely interesting and informative.
However I object to your bad attitude towards people who are not pro-hunt like yourself. What is it with pro-hunt people resorting to language such a 'poor foxy' when they are trying to describe the views of the opposition? Frankly I find it petty, immature and patronising.
Another thing I contest is your idea that people object to fox hunting because they're jealous. Believe me, I am not jealous of someone who hunts foxes, regardless of their wealth or standing. It has nothing to do with wealth in my opinion.
Also your statement about how most people who are anti-hunting haven't been hunting - that's suprising to you? Of course people aren't going to engage in something that they don't like and find distasteful. Why would they? More importantly, why would you expect them to?

[Renner]

It’s strange, the same lefty types who like to stamp on British tradition and identity will be the first to project the rights of some Amazonian tribe to live in peace without interference.

[Renner]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
- you just made everything you said so far in this thread lose all it's significance

I have argued time and time again with people like you and the fact is, and this isn’t your fault, you are ignorant to the truths of the countryside. It isn’t something pretty for you to have walks in and nor is it a natural wilderness. It’s a working landscape that has been managed successfully for hundreds of years for the sole purpose of food production and providing jobs for the local people. Blood sports in general are a way of managing the land and bringing vital money into the area.

Your attitude towards animals is also one you would never get from actually working from them, we care for our livestock and have some the best animal husbandry practices in the world but we also have a living to make and understand from the very start that these animals are going for slaughter. We do not like to see animals we have raised from birth and invested heavily in killed by a fox, badger or air rife wielding chav alike.

[Schmokie Dragon]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
I found your post extremely interesting and informative.
However I object to your bad attitude towards people who are not pro-hunt like yourself. What is it with pro-hunt people resorting to language such a 'poor foxy' when they are trying to describe the views of the opposition? Frankly I find it petty, immature and patronising.
Another thing I contest is your idea that people object to fox hunting because they're jealous. Believe me, I am not jealous of someone who hunts foxes, regardless of their wealth or standing. It has nothing to do with wealth in my opinion.
Also your statement about how most people who are anti-hunting haven't been hunting - that's suprising to you? Of course people aren't going to engage in something that they don't like and find distasteful. Why would they? More importantly, why would you expect them to?

I'm not against anti-hunt people. I am only against those who make judgements based on little reason and with an unhealthy does of prejudice and emotion. I respect anyone who makes their own opinions based on consideration of the facts at hand.

"Poor foxy" is a term an anti-hunt person used with me. In fact, more than one. Of course, it is plain to see that someone whose feelings are backed up by 'poor foxy' isn't likely to be forming an opinion in a sensible manner. Still, it happens.

I don't expect people who hate fox hunting to go fox hunting. What I hate is the authority with which some of them speak on matters such as the cruelty of the sport, the attitudes of the people who are involved and the reasons people have for doing it. If someone feels entitled to speak with authority on these matters, I would expect them to have fairly direct experience.

[Origami Bullets]

Livestock have got to be protected - large numbers of young lambs and poultry are lost every year to foxes, and the foxes kill them in a less-than-humane manner (I have seen the devastation that one fox can cause - and it's not like they're just hunting for food - they will kill an entire flock and only take one).

My own preferred method, however, is to use a humane trap and then shoot them. My neighbours down the road (in suburbia) do this. I say humane trap because it is far too easy to snare a cat etc. otherwise - I know my neighbours caught a ginger tom once, thought it was a fox, went to shoot it and then discovered it was a cat. It hadn't come to any harm - it had just feasted on the bait and gone to sleep before being let go.

[karate_kat]

(Original post by Lukeh :])
Only around 1 in 50 hunts results in a kill. Hunting is a natural instinct. Protesters are worse, I know people who have had to have their horses killed as a result of protestors creating makeshift trip wires using barbed wire causing them to - in many cases fall and break their legs. Its part of our heritage, get over it.

It doesn't sound an effective way of 'curbing the population' then, if it only 1/50 hunts results in a kill.
As for humane? - There is much post-mortem evidence of foxes having been literally nibbled from behind towards the head, so I wouldn't call that humane. Also, many vets have had foxes brought to them that appear to have been injured by a fox hunt, but not killed. So, these would have died slowly and painfully, if medical help hadn't be sort after.
I don't like it when people think that non- farmers/rural people are so ignorant regarding this issue, it's prejudging people when you don't even know them.

[Preasure]

(Original post by karate_kat)
As for humane? - There is much post-mortem evidence of foxes having been literally nibbled from behind towards the head, so I wouldn't call that humane. Also, many vets have had foxes brought to them that appear to have been injured by a fox hunt, but not killed. So, these would have died slowly and painfully, if medical help hadn't be sort after.

The same is true for shooting and other control methods - no method of pest control is 100% humane and there will always be cases like you point out unless foxes are made protected. As it stands they are considered pests - it's illegal not to control their populations.

I don't like it when people think that non- farmers/rural people are so ignorant regarding this issue, it's prejudging people when you don't even know them.

The problem lies in where people get their information from. An anti-hunt website, for example, will publish the most graphic information and only use data that supports it's cause. If a member of the public read this they'll often form an opinion without considering the other side of the debate. There's no substitute for first hand, non-biased experience of something for forming your opinion on it, but lots of people (including the government) are forming views based on the bias of the person who told them, making their view not as informed as it could be.