Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good or bad? Apparently the Tories want it back and are planning (if they get into power and probably they will, sadly) to hold a free vote on repealing the ban. What do you think? I know the ban is, in reality completely non-effective, but would you have it back or would you keep the ban or make it stricter?

    In my opinion, coming from a rural background with both my parents relying on horses for their income, it is completely wrong and the ban should be stricter and more widely enforced. My family is split over it but it is a completely inhumane way of dealing with a pest. The main argument put forward in support of fox hunting is that it deals with vermin, but surely shooting or another practice that isn't as cruel would be more effective and efficient. Surely when living in a modern democracy people should be able to have a fun day out without partaking in animal cruelty?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't really effect me if it does come back or not.

    Surely it's as easy taking a pack of dogs out just to find a fox, why would they want to take the ban off, just for the simple reason of shooting a fox is too much to do?
    Offline

    11
    It's just fun. Like honestly, Labour would like to ban everything.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Surely when living in a modern democracy people should be able to have a fun day out without partaking in animal cruelty?
    In a democratic society, people should be given a free vote on the issue, something you are against? No?


    Anyway, I would vote for fox hunting and against the ban. Thing with dogs is you either get a kill or the fox gets away, with guns or traps or poison then you can seriously injure the animal which causes longer term pain and suffering.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no expert on the subject, but as far as I know it is considered the best way to stop them attacking other animals. I agree with you though, having a dog gnawing on it isn't the best way, so the ban stops dogs attacking them but allows them to follow their scent to the people can "dispose" of them... is this right? Like I said, I'm not expert.

    Anyway, putting a bullet in a foxes head is more humane than having a dog maul is to death... Lovely as that sounds.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bartram)
    Surely it's as easy taking a pack of dogs out just to find a fox, why would they want to take the ban off, just for the simple reason of shooting a fox is too much to do?
    It would be much easier and efficient to shoot and not hunt with dogs. Hunt meetings themselves can be massive and require a lot of organisation as there are loads of people and animals involved. Much easier for two people with shotguns.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    It would be much easier and efficient to shoot and not hunt with dogs. Hunt meetings themselves can be massive and require a lot of organisation as there are loads of people and animals involved. Much easier for two people with shotguns.
    I agree, but don't dogs still track the fox's??

    It'd would be very hard to find many fox's with only a few people searching.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    . Thing with dogs is you either get a kill or the fox gets away, with guns or traps or poison then you can seriously injure the animal which causes longer term pain and suffering.
    True, with guns there's always the possibility of only maiming it, getting away and bleeding to death but if it was carefully regulated so they could only shoot if they were sure it would kill it would be better. With hunting the fox does either get away or killed but a kill is often the result of an hour or so of chasing, during which the fox is terrified and plus when it is killed it is ripped to shreds, which, although quick, doesn't appeal to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_x)
    I agree with you though, having a dog gnawing on it isn't the best way, so the ban stops dogs attacking them but allows them to follow their scent to the people can "dispose" of them... is this right?
    Same here, I'm no expert either. I think that technically a huntsman, once the dogs have found and trapped the dog, shoots it, but this isn't realistic mainly because once a pack of hounds have finally cornered a fox it would be nearly impossible to suddenly call them off in the height of the chase to kill it. Plus the whole process of the dogs chasing the fox must be terrifying for the fox. Thats the main reason I don't like it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bartram)
    It'd would be very hard to find many fox's with only a few people searching.
    Laying out bait (meat or urine) in an area with lots of foxes and waiting there would work instead of tracking.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I heard that if the Tories come back into power they'll build an amphitheatre and there will be gladiator fights.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    True, with guns there's always the possibility of only maiming it, getting away and bleeding to death but if it was carefully regulated so they could only shoot if they were sure it would kill it would be better. With hunting the fox does either get away or killed but a kill is often the result of an hour or so of chasing, during which the fox is terrified and plus when it is killed it is ripped to shreds, which, although quick, doesn't appeal to me.
    That is a shocking naive comment. What anti-hunt, anti-farming, anti-animal testing people dont understand is that the people who work with, kill, or farm animals on a daily basis have much much more respect and care for the animals than those who claim to be "animal rights" sort of people. No marksman would ever take a "pop shot" on the odd chance he killed the animal. We, more than anyone else want a clean kill. You wait for a time when in your opinion you can make a good clean kill, ideally into the area at the bottom of the neck where the lungs and heart are. With the right gun and right ammo then your almost certain of instant death. However, if you take the shot and a gust of wind catches it, or something like that, then suddenly you end up with the bullet embedding itself into the animals pelvis, maiming it but not causing death til many hours or days later. You cant regulate to make all kills clean, its just impossible. There are too many variables, and even the best marksman with the best gun can sometimes miss.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    its part of our history so it should be lifted, its not exactly enforcable at the moment anyway
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Banning fox hunting was the most imhumane thing the govt could have done.

    - Hunting with hounds is the equiv of when packs of wolves would hunt/compete with foxes in the 17th century before all the wolves were killed off. It is the same as natural selection as the young, fast, intelligent foxes will get away whilst the slow, old, ill foxes will get killed off. Shooting and trapping doesn't do this as it doesn't discriminate. Also those two methods it takes days for the animal to die.
    - By keeping the fox numbers down it allows rarer species of birds such as Grey Grouse to flourish. Since the ban their numbers have gone down. Also because you are killing the old, sick, etc. it means that diseases won't spread throughout the fox packs.
    - A fox killed by dogs is near instant.
    - You cannot enforce the ban.
    - It was made by an urban labour govt as an attack on the Countryside and countryside values. It was based as an attack on class (despite many hunt members being farm labourers).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    No marksman would ever take a "pop shot" on the odd chance he killed the animal. We, more than anyone else want a clean kill.
    Therefore, how is my comment naive; that makes regulating the shooting of foxes even easier is people were compliant in wanting a clean kill, unlike hunters who want to hunt and therefore find loopholes in the regulations.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why not? Banning it actually done a lot of damage to the economy in areas with regular hunts.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    Anyway, I would vote for fox hunting and against the ban. Thing with dogs is you either get a kill or the fox gets away, with guns or traps or poison then you can seriously injure the animal which causes longer term pain and suffering.
    Aw, so you're looking out for the fox's best interests? How nice.

    (Original post by scorpion95)
    its part of our history so it should be lifted, its not exactly enforcable at the moment anyway
    Slavery and exploitation are also a part of our history. Doing something because we've always done it is a very weak justification.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Therefore, how is my comment naive; that makes regulating the shooting of foxes even easier is people were compliant in wanting a clean kill, unlike hunters who want to hunt and therefore find loopholes in the regulations.
    The problem is with shooting them is that it takes the natural selection element out of the hunt.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Therefore, how is my comment naive; that makes regulating the shooting of foxes even easier is people were compliant in wanting a clean kill, unlike hunters who want to hunt and therefore find loopholes in the regulations.
    Because your original statement suggested that you could regulate to make all kills clean. You cant, most will be clean, some inevitably wont be. Just because someone misses a shot doesnt make them a bad marksman. Also is impossible to enforce, the only person who knows what is happening at the time and takes the decision to pull the trigger is the shooter. You cant hold an enquiry or regulate it because you only have one version of events. The marksman might be 99% sure of a hit, but if the animal is spooked in the split second between the decision to shoot and actually shooting, or the marksman misses, then you still get at least 1 shot in 100 not going as intended.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Aw, so you're looking out for the fox's best interests? How nice.
    Yes. They have to be controlled, and I want to use the most efficient method for doing so. In a typical hunt about 60-70% of the foxes escape anyway. The ones which are caught are the weaker ones, aiding natural selection. Also there is a season, to try and ensure that when they are breeding the mothers arnt killed, which is something you dont get with traps, poison or shooting.

    As I said, what anti hunt people dont realise is that hunters have utmost respect for the animal they are killing.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.