Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    - Hunting with hounds is the equiv of when packs of wolves would Shooting and trapping doesn't do this as it doesn't discriminate.
    Not necessarily, I have talked to game hunters that control the population of deer and foxes through shooting and they do discriminate between sick and old and the young and healthy.

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    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.
    Alternative hunting methods (ie - shooting) would keep numbers down and do it more humanely.

    (Original post by adamnrules247)
    - A fox killed by dogs is near instant.
    As they would be in properly regulated shooting and they wouldn't under go the trauma of being chased for (in some cases) hours. Plus, many hunters, I have witnessed, stop they fox holes up with earth before a hunt so even if the fox out runs the hounds, it cannot escape to safety - very inhumane. [/quote]


    (Original post by adamrules247)
    - 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).
    I'm from the countryside and have lived here all my life and I'm against it more than most urban dwellers, primarily because its an issue where I live and I do not feel it as an attack on my values, i welcome it. I think its a common misconception that hunting is an upper class thing. Although this is the media's portrayal, a large cross section of society are involved in it and the strongest proponents of fox hunting I know are rural working class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    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).

    I really couldn't disagree with you more here.
    Firstly- a fox killed by dogs is not near instant! A fox is chased untill it is UTTERLY EXHAUSTED and then ripped to shreds. Most hunts for a single fox can last hours. All to the amusement (and yes it is amusement PLEASE DONT TRY AND ARGUE AGAINST THAT) of some prats on horseback. And yes I am resorting to personal insults, they really are prats on horseback.
    I don't see how you can honestly see it as an efficient way of dealing with a problem. A farmer has permission to shoot a fox that is killing his livestock etc, or professionals can be assigned to deal with it. I hardly think parties of 40 gentlemen with hounds is the most effective way to kill a fox humanley.
    Also your point about controlling foxes to help maintain rare bird numbers completely contradicts your frst point about natural selection.
    And the spread of diseases? If you are talking about bovine tuberculosis (probably the most dangerous and costly disease a farmer can deal with in their cattle) foxes have proven not to transfer it to cattle. Thats only badgers.
    And yes, maybe it was an attack on class. An attack on why on earth wealthy people like this would want to engage in a "traditional" cruel practice that we should be ashamed of. Why is it so entertaining to tear a fox to pieces?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    you still get at least 1 shot in 100 not going as intended.
    I agree, that is an unaviodable flaw but isn't it a 'necessary evil' (in a sense) as it is better for 1 or even 5 in a hundred to under go a traumatic experience due to shooting than 99% experiencing fear due to being hunted and chased?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    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.
    People in riding costumes on horses following dogs chasing foxes is not part of natural selection, no matter how you try and dress it up as such.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    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).
    Natural selection? Doesn't that occur as a result of natural forces, not human sport?

    Also, regarding your comment about the death of a fox being instant, have you ever seen a dog 'maul' an animal? I can tell you, the death is nowhere near instant; dogs' tend to tear the animal apart, not go for an instant kill.

    And, no, the ban was not an attack on 'countryside values' - whatever they are - it was as a result of increased pressure from animal based charities demanding that the 'blood sport' be banned. It was not an attack on the 'values' of simple farm labouers.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Not necessarily, I have talked to game hunters that control the population of deer and foxes through shooting and they do discriminate between sick and old and the young and healthy.
    Yes, someone with years of experiance with shooting can tell, but many can't. Hunting with hounds works this out naturally.
    Alternative hunting methods (ie - shooting) would keep numbers down and do it more humanely.
    Shooting isn't humane. Most hunters will use a 12 bore which will hit the fox in the flank or the hind, the fox will most likely drag itself off to its hole where it'll take hours, even days, to die. I have spoken with people who have used 12 bores and they have said it isn't humane.


    As they would be in properly regulated shooting and they wouldn't under go the trauma of being chased for (in some cases) hours. Plus, many hunters, I have witnessed, stop they fox holes up with earth before a hunt so even if the fox out runs the hounds, it cannot escape to safety - very inhumane.
    Yes, but as we have already said most hunters won't discriminate. The trauma can be great I agree, but that is what would have happened with the wolves. And if the fox survives he is a wiser fox. I disagree with stopping up holes and I think this needs to be stopped, as do hunts where people catch the fox and lets it out later to be chased.

    I'm from the countryside and have lived here all my life and I'm against it more than most urban dwellers, primarily because its an issue where I live and I do not feel it as an attack on my values, i welcome it. I think its a common misconception that hunting is an upper class thing. Although this is the media's portrayal, a large cross section of society are involved in it and the strongest proponents of fox hunting I know are rural working class.
    I too agree that it is a common misconception that hunting is a upper class thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    The problem is with shooting them is that it takes the natural selection element out of the hunt.
    ...which is hypocritical in itself. It's not the 'older' and 'slower' foxes that are the vermin.

    In a modern age, when there are many more humane ways of killing vermin, it is inexcusable to resort to such measures in killing foxes. The equivalent is like letting children born with birth defects die because they might be 'slower' or 'weaker'. You cannot selectively apply the 'natural selection' argument to one species and not another.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    Natural selection? Doesn't that occur as a result of natural forces, not human sport?

    Also, regarding your comment about the death of a fox being instant, have you ever seen a dog 'maul' an animal? I can tell you, the death is nowhere near instant; dogs' tend to tear the animal apart, not go for an instant kill.

    And, no, the ban was not an attack on 'countryside values' - whatever they are - it was as a result of increased pressure from animal based charities demanding that the 'blood sport' be banned. It was not an attack on the 'values' of simple farm labouers.
    It represents natural selection because, if you read my post properly, you will see they represent the wolves which used to attack them. It weedles out the weak, old and ill foxes.

    By time the animal is torn apart it is dead. What you just said is the same as looking at a chicken carcass after I have just eaten it and said I was cruel because I ripped it apart.

    Yes it was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is disgusting. Fair enough, foxes can be pests for farmers, but does that mean we should all make a field day out of it, take joy in racing through the countrie with a pack of hounds chasing a poor terrified fox across the country. Exhausting the fox till it can run no more, and have so many hounds ripping it apart? IS THAT RIGH? No.
    Pro-fox hunting people say that 'it's tradition'. Many things in the past in culture were highly barbaric traditions, does that mean people should hold on to the barbarism simply because it's a tradition?
    Also, statistics show that the number of people fox hunting has vastly increase since the ban. So no more horses/ hounds have been put down/sold. Yet the tories say that the reason more people are fox hunting is because they are trying to make a point. No, it's that so much more people are willing to enjoy the hunt, without actually tearing a fox apart at the end of it. Proving that the ban is very successful.
    There is no way i will ever approve fox hunting.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mydearthing)
    ...which is hypocritical in itself. It's not the 'older' and 'slower' foxes that are the vermin.

    In a modern age, when there are many more humane ways of killing vermin, it is inexcusable to resort to such measures in killing foxes. The equivalent is like letting children born with birth defects die because they might be 'slower' or 'weaker'. You cannot selectively apply the 'natural selection' argument to one species and not another.
    You have missed my point completely. Let me give you a quote:
    (Original post by Statement supported by over 500 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons)
    “Hunting by hounds is the most natural and humane way of controlling the population of all four quarry species - fox, deer, hare and mink - in the countryside.”
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by domino0806)
    It's just fun. Like honestly, Labour would like to ban everything.
    It's just fun!?
    Oh i'm sure it's fun for the fox to be chase down, terrified, past the point of exhaustion only to be ripped apart by hounds?
    Is it fun for the hounds who are forced to chase foxes through the country, and are put down when they are too old? Have you seen some of the old foxing hounds, they have so many scarrs on them, and some walk around bloody limping.
    Give some thought to the animals for god sake! Don't just think from the humans side of things, i'm sure they have a whail of a ******* time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Why not? Banning it actually done a lot of damage to the economy in areas with regular hunts.
    How has it?
    Many more people have joined the hunt now actually, because drag hunting is involved (although some people still do bloody fox hunting) so i knwo of many people who are now willing to enjoy the hunt without the tearing apart of an innocent animal at the end of it.
    How does that damage the economy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    You have missed my point completely. Let me give you a quote:
    What point have I missed?

    I would also love to know where you sourced your quote from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The ban should stay in place, its completely pointless, if the foxes are annoying them so much then shoot them, don't scare them almost to death then let a pack of dogs rip them limb from limb.

    I can't stand the tories :/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's a fox. Who cares?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peachesishere)
    How has it?
    Many more people have joined the hunt now actually, because drag hunting is involved (although some people still do bloody fox hunting) so i knwo of many people who are now willing to enjoy the hunt without the tearing apart of an innocent animal at the end of it.
    How does that damage the economy?
    A lot of money was made from hunting fox. It was a huge part of the lives of the people who done it often, and they made a lot of tourism money from it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    A lot of money was made from hunting fox. It was a huge part of the lives of the people who done it often, and they made a lot of tourism money from it.
    You can still make tourism form drag hunting, it's essentially the same. Like i said so, it's even bigger than before, so i don't see how there'd be any drastic loss.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peachesishere)
    You can still make tourism form drag hunting, it's basically the same.
    But there's no fox at the end of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    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).

    Wow there are so many ways your argument is flawed, I live in the country and I know about fox hunting, firstly it doesnt just kill the old/sick, it may used to have been like that but now many hunts use small dogs mostly terriers to chase the fox out from where its gone underground, they continue to do this , most of the time, till basically the fox is too exhausted, its lungs ready to explode and the actual fear is beyond any belief that the dogs get to it. Its not humane and cannot be called a way of exterminating the ill and stop spreading diseases. It is also not instant! Besides that the fear that the fox goes through before its killed is awful.
    Foxes dont kill just rare species of birds, I think you will find we did that, these rare birds are native to our land just like foxes and are definitley not the only prey of foxes.
    If your concerned about disease for the foxes it would be more humane to shoot the sick ones etc.
    The ban wasnt just an attack on countryside traditions the fact is hunting can still continue, jobs maintained and none of the hounds SHOT, bearing in mind most of them dont live past 3 yrs of hunting, if they do drag hunting. Most horsey people who are involved in hunting have said its more about the excitement and thrill of galloping across fields and that society not the actual opinion that foxes are a huge pest.
    this site shows all arguments proven wrong by facts http://www.labour4guildford.com/Foxhunting.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    It represents natural selection because, if you read my post properly, you will see they represent the wolves which used to attack them. It weedles out the weak, old and ill foxes.

    By time the animal is torn apart it is dead. What you just said is the same as looking at a chicken carcass after I have just eaten it and said I was cruel because I ripped it apart.

    Yes it was.
    No matter what way you try to twist it, Fox hunting is not 'natural selection' because nature has nothing to do with it. If a fox dies during a drought or an especially cold winter, that is 'natural selection' because it is a scenario dictated by nature itself, not a group of huntsmen from Yorkshire.

    Foxhounds are not incredibly efficient killers - they will catch a fox and literally tear it apart, limb from limb. The fox will experience intense pain before it dies. It is not in the same vain as me cutting up my sunday rost; in reality, it is an incredibly painful experience.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.