Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    But there's no fox at the end of it.
    Which is good.
    Like a win-win situation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Foxes are territorial animals, when one is killed another will take its place so killing foxes around a farm will only be very short term, only 0.4% of lambs that die are due to attacks by all animals, including foxes, and hunting only kills a small percentage of foxes in the UK. They do however keep the rabbit and rat population down.

    I can see no good reason for fox hunting, except for enjoyment, and hunting and killing something for your own enjoyment is very wrong.

    The ban will not be scrapped as the majority of the electorate are in favour of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    It's a fox. Who cares?
    The picture of Margaret Thatcher pretty much sums it up. 'It's the working class. Who cares?'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    But there's no fox at the end of it.
    Why would that matter? If all the hunt followers attended purely for the enjoyment of witnessing a fox being maimed to death by hounds hunting would have (and should have) been banned long before labour did it.

    With draghunting there is still the 'thrill of the chase' and ample opportunity to dress out and blow horns and have a drink with one's chums, but none of the mindless animal cruelty attached.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    The picture of Margaret Thatcher pretty much sums it up. 'It's the working class. Who cares?'
    I am working class you idiot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    But there's no fox at the end of it.
    (Original post by Peachesishere)
    .
    Resorting to that just undermined your whole argument; justification on the grounds that it supports the economy. Peachesishere displayed that having no fox benefits the economy even more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I am working class you idiot.
    Then you are grossly misguided.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Then you are grossly misguided.
    I have aspirations. I don't wish to be mediocre.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    Then you are grossly misguided.
    Because he's working class and likes the Tories? Or Thatcher, specifically? I detest class politics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I have aspirations. I don't wish to be mediocre.
    The aspirations are still in themselves questionable. Anyway, this is digressing from the topic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Because he's working class and likes the Tories? Or Thatcher, specifically? I detest class politics.
    Thatcher
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mydearthing)
    What point have I missed?

    I would also love to know where you sourced your quote from.
    Here is the source SOURCE Regardless of what you say, that is 500
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Here is the source SOURCE Regardless of what you say, that is 500

    That website seems like a completely unbiased source of information :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    That website seems like a completely unbiased source of information :rolleyes:
    Pathetic. Regardless of whatever the source is 500 qualified, well informed vets said that it was humane.
    Offline

    1
    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?
    actually drag hunting is very different- it requires a different temperment of horse completely (the mad jolly chases you see are drag hunting- proper hunting is much more sedate and in bursts). drag hunting has always been availiable to people so its not more people getting involved because the fox doesnt get killed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Here is the source SOURCE Regardless of what you say, that is 500
    www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk ... I wonder where they stand on the matter and how reliable they are. They of course would quote supporting facts and individuals and conveniently ignore those that contradict their claims. For example, 500 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons support fox hunting, I wonder how many don't and I also question where their statement is on the website?

    Lord Burns says "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel…The short answer to that question is no.” Nice, evaluated argument, well explained. Just because someone holds a position of power doesn't mean we should unquestionably regurgitate their statements. Also, I'd like to know who commissioned the "Inquiry into Hunting with dogs" - did they appoint an bias person to head the inquiry in order to hear a conclusion that fits nicely with their beliefs and in what mind set did Lord Burns begin the Inquiry - did he began already having established what he wanted to prove?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Foxes are a pain. They kill anything they can. Fair do's if they wanted to eat it but no. They just go and rip the head off and leave it.
    I've been brought up associating foxes are bad and around hunting etc. but from the people I know who do it they don't all sit on their horses and laugh smugly when they see the fox being killed. It's just a tradition. The dogs live for hunting, you can tell they enjoy it and I don't think it's fair/easy to enforce getting them to track down a fox and just leave it!
    I don't totally aggree with it though, we just go out at night with the rifle and headlamps in the field. It's uneccesary to turn pest control into a game but I can really see both sides of the story.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Pathetic. Regardless of whatever the source is 500 qualified, well informed vets said that it was humane.
    The most humane way would be not killing them at all.

    That website is ridiculous though, they say that only 36% of the public want a ban and give the telegraph as a source(with a link to the telegraphs homepage not a news article). I am reading a survey on fox hunting carried out for the telegraph and it contains the following pieces of information

    a) Do you believe the government should make hunting foxes with dogs a criminal offence?
    It should be made a criminal offence 50
    It should not be made a criminal offence 44
    Don’t know 6


    The government is proposing three broad options concerning the future of hunting with
    dogs. Which of these do you most agree with?
    Hunting should carry on as now 17.6
    Hunting should be licensed by an independent authority 30.3
    Hunting should be banned completely 49.9
    Don’t know 2.1

    What is your view on hunting with dogs?
    Hunting with dogs is ALWAYS acceptable 13
    Hunting with dogs is NEVER acceptable 57
    Hunting with dogs is SOMETIMES acceptable 28
    Don’t know 3


    That website is a complete joke and I wouldn't believe anything you read on it.

    I should also point out that them figures are taken from an unbiased website, and taken from a large sample size.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    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?

    Fear goes, quite quickly. They will find a hole, after a few hours be back as right as rain as if nothing had happened. There is no physical pain and I would argue no psychological harm. They are wild animals, being chased by wolves is something which has been going on for many thousands of years, long before humans thought of domesticating the hunting animal. Imho this is much better than even 5 in 100 being injured and taking days to die. Also as I suggested earlier, fox hunting has a season, so mothers with cubs arnt really affected. Shooting is a 365 days a year sport. You could easily be left with cubs underground who die of starvation and hunger because mum has been shot.

    Shooting has its place, but on open ground, with inexperienced or badly trained marksmen, usually with the wrong type of gun (shotgun vs rifle), just isnt it. If the fox is trapped in a small area by its own doing - goes into a shed say - then shooting is by far the quickest and most humane way of dispatching it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    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.
    Nothing is natural selection. That beef you eat on a sunday - not natural selection. Your dog/cat - not natural selection. The milk you drink - not natural selection. Even that carrot you eat - not natural selection. Nothing you eat is natural selection. All of them have been bred for specific traits by only breeding the best from each category. Hence why you can take 1 species of cow and from that produce 2 very distinct variants, those for meat and those for milk. And god knows how many different variants of dog there are. Everything from lap dogs to working collies to rescue dogs. All descended from wolves.

    Fox hunting is roughly the same, by killing the weak you artificially select the strongest to survive. These genes are then passed onto the cubs and you have a more intelligent or stronger genepool. How is that difficult to understand? It is natural selection. The interaction between hound and fox is very natural. Wolves would hunt foxes in the wild, and have done for hundreds of thousands of years. We are just directing the wolves towards the fox. The chase, and whether the fox gets away or not is still up to the abilities of the 2 species. The fox gets away about 60-70% of the time.

    And the fox will not experience that much pain. The hounds make a pretty efficient kill, they are natural born killers. Its in their blood. The fox will be dead in under 10 seconds. And if you knew anything about physiological trauma injuries, you would know that the body would be in a state of shock so quickly that the fox would have no concious idea about what was happening past about 2 or 3 seconds.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.