(Original post by Bismarck)
Why should the rights of animals be placed above the rights of human beings? Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
I didn't realise the right to tear an animal limb from limb for kicks was a human right. In fact, it every other case it has been illegal for years. Would you advocate that someone should be allowed to buy a dog, and mutilate it how they'd like?
Of course that fails to take into account the idea of pest control. But of course, fox hunting results in a tiny percentage of fox deaths anyway, so that isn't a valid argument. I have no problem with pest control, but why it can't be done humanely with a bullet I don't know. I have no problem with the new method of shooting a fox then trailing it behind a horse, after all it's already dead and not suffering.
The amazing thing is, that the number of foxes killed since the introduction of the "ban" has actually increased, by a factor of 2 or 3 in some reason, as that way every time they have a "succesful" hunt...
A point to remember is that the number of deaths that you are saying have increased are the deaths caused by fox hunting, which is a very small number anyway. Also, the foxes that would have survived a hunt could have just ended up being shot by farmers anyway, so unless you can say in total fox deaths have increased by a significant margin your point is almost invalid.
As I say, I have no problem with pest control, just why not do it humanely?
One more thing...they way fox hunting is being plied now, isn't in keeping with the environment. The traditional method results in the killing of the old and weak foxes, therefore furthering the principles of natural selection.
There's nothing natural about being chased through a field by tens of hounds followed by people on horseback. It is not natural selection, it is artificial selection, and nature is perfectly capable of doing its own selection without interference from us. So again, that point has pretty much been made invalid.
And to put the final nail in the coffin of the 'natural selection' argument, there is evidence that the trauma a fox receives, even after escaping a hunt, can lead to a fox's death.
Whereas, the foxes being killed now are just those stupid enough to wander across the farmers back gardens. Of the foxes they shoot, approximately 1 in 3 is shot but not killed, so limps off, dying a slow and painful death.
Okay, so 2/3 foxes that are shot get a humane death. That is actually mathmatically
better than the 0/3 of fox hunt foxes that receive a humane death.
I wouldn't be too surprised that as a result of this you see a decrease in the fox population, possibly to the extent that they need to start reintroducing the fox to the countryside.
And to quote myself from earlier on:
(Original post by Me)
...unless you can say in total fox deaths have increased by a significant margin your point is almost invalid.
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.
it is far more barbaric now
Humane killing equates to barbarism? Don't think so.
less environmentally friendly
How an artifical action of killing can ever be considered environmentally friendly is beyond me. I might agree with pest control, but I don't kid myself it's helping the environment. It helps farmers. And if you're refering to the natural selction thing you were on about earlier, then see my response to that.
the system has equilibrated to hunting with dogs to allow it to be fair and productive.
I don't even know what that means? How can traditional fox hunting be considered more fair and more productive than shooting? And what the hell does that have to do with a system?
Hunting with dogs is the most humane way I can think of to kill the aforementioned creatures. What's the problem?
That you're actually stupid if you seriously believe hunting with dogs is humane?
How is shooting the fox - giving it at least the chance of a humane death - then dragging it behind any less humane? It's not.
theres also the whole natural selection thing which keeps the greens happy too.
I very much doubt you'd get a 'green' to agree with you there. Or anyone who actually understands natural selection for that matter.
It's artifical selection, damn it! It's only happening because we're interfering and it effects the entire ecosystem!!
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.
*SLAMS HEAD ON TABLE*
Promoting the survival of a species artifically is not a good thing!! Why do you get the idea it is? Shooting foxes, which is effectivley random, would keep everything the way nature wants. It wouldn't cause a decrease in population (other than the ones you shoot)!
Also, it just occured to me, if foxes are pests why would you be doing something that encourages their proliferation (like artifical selection) anyway?? Surely it's better for you to do it randomly! (But oh wait, it's not as fun)
Despite its obvious flaws, it is still the best method for controlling foxes.
How can it be a better method of controlling foxes than shooting them? I don't understand the logic. I mean, you can kill more in a day with a gun than a day on horseback, it's cheaper, you give them a humane death.... how is traditional fox hunting a better method??
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).
How is it obscenely barbaric? And how could it possibly be called more barbaric than traditional fox hunting? The thing is shot, a more humane way to die. After that surely it's pretty much the same as attaching a piece of meat to the horse? How the hell is that obscene?
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!
You're not exactly committed, are you?
It's not about commitment, it's about a passion to a cause.
Well said LibertineNorth - it does appear there are more than 2 or 3 people on TSR who actually understand the environmental intricacies of foxhunting - have some rep...
*BANGS HEAD EVEN HARDER*
Sorry for mammoth post, I wanted to address every issue raised that I disagree with.
In my mind, the only argument for traditional fox hunting is because it's a tradition, the way it has always been. And if we followed that logic all the time we'd be stuck in the dark ages.