I agree completely...as i outlawed before, it is far more barbaric now, less environmentally friendly, and the system has equilibrated to hunting with dogs to allow it to be fair and productive.
I just cant wait for them to try the same thing with deer stalking, grouse shooting or fishing (officially the most popular past time in britain - apparently...), they wouldn't last minutes.
Grouse or any type of game shooting is a pathetic sport. It's not difficult as the birds are so tame because of over and in breeding, why not go clay pigeone shooting?
no - he didn't vote at all...if you call that a compromise your deluded.
Also, despite claiming a decrease in whipping under labour (which isn't a surprise considering his majority - theres not a great need...), but there was very strong whipping for that vote...claiming "every vote is needed", but still didn't want to put his hand up for it...
Its a typical tonyism...he doesn't want to be held responsible for anything, so he simply doesn't vote and isn't accountable
Basically your problem is thus--
Foxes need to be killed. It's not a desirable task, but it needs to be done. Might as well make a day of it and have a bit of fun considering that the fox is essentially a very graceful form of vermin. Hunting with dogs is the most humane way I can think of to kill the aforementioned creatures. What's the problem?
my point exactly - theres also the whole natural selection thing which keeps the greens happy too. It is, as an environmental policy, without flaws.
Good for rural economies too - if people are going to pump their money into horses and hounds who are we to complain.
Don't you think killing foxes with chemicals or other ways is an easier and more efficient way if they are vermin as you say, rather than get on horses with lots of dogs dressing like it's Rio during carnival...
The myxomatosis virus has always been an easier and more efficient way to kill rabbits, since it does all the work itself. Of course, anyone who has had to put one of its victims out of its two weeks of brain-swelling, eye-exploding, puss-trail misery would surely attest that it ain't a nice way to go. Ceasar's fun'n'games or the Black Death? Hmm..
The thing about killing with poisons, guns.etc., is that it is done indiscriminately, so therefore you do not kill the slowest, weakest, oldest.etc.etc.
This therefore has a detrimental effect on the population, and, as is being seen now, has resulted in the population dropping significantly.
Also, you cannot posibly regulate for the number of foxes you will kill with poisons - it might be none, it might be a family of 10.
Hunts regularly rotate their riding grounds, therefore removing the old and weak from a population throughout a year - it is not as if they are trying to hunt the fox into extinction, as they are effective in controlling rabbit populations.etc., and it is all interlinked.
But, this does not mean we can stop hunting them at all, because if we do, then the increased agricultural use of land means that the pre agricultural equilibrium cannot be restored...unless you suggest we cover the whole country in trees again and stop eating...at all...
If we're arguing for fox hunting on a basis of control, is there any reason hounds are bred so that they prolong the chase? Why not just kill the foxes quickly?
when you say the hounds are bred so they can prolongue the chase - i guess you mean with greater stamina? they have to keep up with horses remember.
or, are you suggesting the purposefully breed slower dogs?
I think I read that somewhere. I'm not totally sure though, I don't really know much about the fox hunting debate / care about it much. One thing I don't understand is why just shooting the foxes is out of the question, as they need to be controlled?
Its a fair assumption - currently they shoot foxes and drag them behind the horses for the new form of fox hunting (which i believe is obscenely barbaric).
On average, when shooting foxes, 1 in three will be injured, not killed, so will limp off into the woods and die a slow, painful death.
Also, like poisoning, it is non-discriminative - the poor fox that runs across the back of the farmers field is hardly the most deserving, therefore this can have a degenerative effect on the population by not singling out the old, weak, etc.
I dont disagree that fox hunting is barbaric, but it is purely the best way to do it.
They do not infact tear a fox limb from limb to kill it though - it is trapped then shot at close range then torn apart.
But, however horrific that may sound, would you rather a quick end or be slowly poisoned, or shot wounded and dying a slow and painful death.
Despite its obvious flaws, it is still the best method for controlling foxes.
The best way to control foxes is to use expierienced and trained hunters like the ones that are used to control deer populations.
So when the fox is cornered the dogs jsut stop and wait for somsone to walk over and shoot it? for soem reason me thinks that more than one fox would of been ripped limb from limb by a pack of dogs, taking enjoyment in the sport is even worse.
Im a tory voter but if they said theywould or did repeal the ban i would never vote for them again, poably jsut vote labour to get them out!
well then it appears you are not a tory, since this is one of the mainstays of their efforts in parliament.
The dogs are trained to surround the fox and then the hunt leader will shoot it, usually withing 5 seconds, so it isn't as bad as it sounds.
There are two key differences between hunting foxes and deers:
Foxes are individual and highly mobile compared to the communal existence of deers which live lives similar to that of cows - not significant movement.etc.etc., but this is due to the different strains on the lives of herbivores and carnivores.
Deer are significantly larger than foxes, and are often standing still when shot. Foxes are much less likely to stand still and let you get a good aim, and the distance you need to keep to means that they will still be hard to hit.
Also, to show how easy it is to shoot a dear (from personal experience in this case), they do not use experienced and trained hunters, they flog the right out to the rich and the tourists - not quite the same, is it...
Its not that i disagree with you - my personal views are that you should only kill animals if you plan to eat them, but the simple fact is foxes need to be killed, and hunting with dogs is the best way to do this, but sadly a small minority derive pleasure from it - i say let them get on with it and concentrate on stuff that really matters.