Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    Shooting is a 365 days a year sport.
    You seem to have misunderstood me. I proposed shooting as an alternative to fox hunting in terms of pest control not in terms of being an alternative sport. Part of the reason I oppose it is that it is a sport. Shooting, as pest control, would too be seasonal, giving consideration to mothers and cubs.

    Also, it is not a general rule that marksmen must be bad and experienced. Indeed the populations of many animals are already controlled by marksmen who are competent and not inexperienced.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    You seem to have misunderstood me. I proposed shooting as an alternative to fox hunting in terms of pest control not in terms of being an alternative sport. Part of the reason I oppose it is that it is a sport. Shooting, as pest control, would too be seasonal, giving consideration to mothers and cubs.

    Also, it is not a general rule that marksmen must be bad and experienced. Indeed the populations of many animals are already controlled by marksmen who are competent and not inexperienced.
    I havent misunderstood you in the slightest. At the end of the day foxes must be controlled. Dogs are by far the best way of doing that. You cannot regulate shooting anywhere near as easily as you can regulate hunting with hounds. There are 200 or so hunts in the UK, but many thousands of people with gun licences. Hunts are organised things, but whats to stop Joe Bloggs seeing a fox on his field and taking a few shots from a window. The idea of regulating that is simply daft.

    And no, there are some excellent marksmen out there, but if you look at populations which are efficiently controlled by guns (namely deer) the movement of the animal is completely different. A deer stalker will spend a whole morning, tracking, sighting and then waiting to take the shoot. Deer move very slowly and present a huge target. You can be much more sure of hitting an area which will kill the animal. On a deer the area of "almost certain death" is about the size of a dinner plate. Now, think about trying to achieve the same on a small and rapidly moving fox. You cant track it - they move too fast, dont leave tracks, and can disappear down underground only to reappear 200 meters away. You cant line it up really even when you have found it, all you can do is take the best possible shot and hope. Army marksmen who train for years would struggle to achieve a good hit rate on such a small and fast target, so to expect the average licence holder to come anywhere close is silly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I am undecided on fox hunting. I was anti- for years and years, but a while back there was a debate on TSR and one person (it was only one - most people's arguments for it were the usual **** about tradition and "townies know nothing" and all that) made a few REALLY decent arguments that I'd never come across before. And they made sense. Since then I've been a bit confused. However, I think I will always find people who go hunting and shooting for pleasure a bit distasteful.

    I am totally for having a referendum on it though. Surely that's what democracy is about?
    Offline

    14
    Not this BS debate again....it's banned keep it banned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    foxes are bаstаrds and used to eat the chickens on my farm. in an attempt to stop that from happening, they got shot at.

    whatever people's objections to fox hunting, i strongly object to London-folk who proclaim it barbaric to kill foxes when they have no experience of rural life.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    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.

    Surely when living in a modern democracy people should be able to have a fun day out without partaking in animal cruelty?
    Sorry...umm how does having a day out not involving cruelty relate to democracy? :confused: I'm not advocating cruelty, I just really fail to see how you've come to a point where you can make such a...strange link between two seemingly unrelated things. And seeing as you brought democracy up, why is it you're against holding a free vote on the issue then? If a majority of the British public vote in favour of bringing it back then that is democracy in action... You have some weird ideas.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I don't like the ban tbh. I don't like fox hunting, but I don't think that should be imposed on others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    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.
    Yes, nothing like a clean kill to show you care.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Yes, nothing like a clean kill to show you care.
    :confused:

    The animal has to be controlled, I would rather see that done efficiently and relatively painlessly, rather than causing undue harm and suffering. Whats wrong with that. Everyone agrees that some foxes must die - that is not the question. What method would you rather see?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really care enough about fox hunting either way.

    However as a matter of principle the ban should be lifted. Based on mills harm theory it is an unjust interference with peoples lives, property and culture. When will this government get off it's high horse and realise people do not need to be told what is right and wrong 99.9% of the time, for the other 0.1% there is the criminal law.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    :confused:

    The animal has to be controlled, I would rather see that done efficiently and relatively painlessly, rather than causing undue harm and suffering. Whats wrong with that. Everyone agrees that some foxes must die - that is not the question. What method would you rather see?
    Leaving them the **** alone.

    If I put a bullet between your eyes, people would think I was pretty nuts if I then claimed that I cared about you. People wouldn't congratulate me for giving you a quick death.

    So you'll keep doing what you do but please don't pretend that you care about the animals you chase, terrify and kill. If you really cared you'd find a job which didn't require it, or you'd build a fence to protect your animals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    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.
    Actually, no. Shooting, in general, is crueller, more dangerous and less efficient. Still, this is a liberal society - people are not legally obliged to be 'efficient'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Leaving them the **** alone.

    If I put a bullet between your eyes, people would think I was pretty nuts if I then claimed that I cared about you. People wouldn't congratulate me for giving you a quick death.

    So you'll keep doing what you do but please don't pretend that you care about the animals you chase, terrify and kill. If you really cared you'd find a job which didn't require it, or you'd build a fence to protect your animals.
    Oh for gods sake. The fact that foxes are a pest and have to be controlled is not in question. I live in the real world, not in some happy happy la la land where everything can live side by side and get along just fine. The world doesnt work like that. Sorry to burst your bubble. And yes, I would say that I have huge respect for the animal, most hunters do, whether that be hunters of foxes, deer, game birds or whatever. As I say, we are discussing the methods of culling foxes, not the need to do it. As far as I am concerned I am after a quick, clean, relatively painless kill, which causes minimum distress to the animal.

    As for choosing a job which doesnt require killing - sorry, im a farmer. Its kinda what we do. You want to eat meat? It requires killing. Vermin are a real problem and must be controlled. If its not me who does it, it will be someone else.

    Your whole post is naive and tbh I find it very insulting. You dont know me or the relationship I have with my animals. Any farmer or hunter would be insulted if they were told they had no respect for the animals they are killing.

    EDIT; If I had to die, I would much rather you put a bullet through my brain, or killed me with a pack of dogs, rather than shooting me in the leg and letting it get infected, then dieing a week later.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotpot)
    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
    Even if foxes were driven out - and the most common practice is to stuff the foxholes prior to the hunt - your point would still be pretty poor. The contention is that a healthy fox can outrun a pack of hounds. It generally holds true, whether they go to ground or not.

    It is also not instant! Besides that the fear that the fox goes through before its killed is awful.
    So what? That's what happens to wild animals.

    If your concerned about disease for the foxes it would be more humane to shoot the sick ones etc.
    It amazes me how people who don't use guns attach mystical qualities to them. Foxes are nocturnal and move quickly: that effectively necessitates lamping if you're going to shoot them. Lamping is not only dangerous - it has caused numerous deaths in Britain - but barely possible at all given how our landscape is divided up.

    On the off-chance that you get a clear shot at a fox (which is not easy with a shotgun), you will not be able to detect if it is old or sick.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    So you'll keep doing what you do but please don't pretend that you care about the animals you chase, terrify and kill. If you really cared you'd find a job which didn't require it, or you'd build a fence to protect your animals.
    You know nothing about the countryside.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riderz)
    Oh for gods sake. The fact that foxes are a pest and have to be controlled is not in question. I live in the real world, not in some happy happy la la land where everything can live side by side and get along just fine. The world doesnt work like that. Sorry to burst your bubble. And yes, I would say that I have huge respect for the animal, most hunters do, whether that be hunters of foxes, deer, game birds or whatever. As I say, we are discussing the methods of culling foxes, not the need to do it. As far as I am concerned I am after a quick, clean, relatively painless kill, which causes minimum distress to the animal.

    As for choosing a job which doesnt require killing - sorry, im a farmer. Its kinda what we do. You want to eat meat? It requires killing. Vermin are a real problem and must be controlled. If its not me who does it, it will be someone else.

    Your whole post is naive and tbh I find it very insulting. You dont know me or the relationship I have with my animals. Any farmer or hunter would be insulted if they were told they had no respect for the animals they are killing.

    EDIT; If I had to die, I would much rather you put a bullet through my brain, or killed me with a pack of dogs, rather than shooting me in the leg and letting it get infected, then dieing a week later.
    I don't eat meat, I thought that would be obvious from the tone of my post.

    What's insulting is you saying you respect for and care about these animals. You are better than the people who don't care how much pain they go through, but you still chase them down and kill them.

    If you had to die, yeah me too. But if someone wanted to kill me so that they could protect their business, I don't think I'd count that as a valid reason for why I had to die.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You know nothing about the countryside.
    I don't need to to believe that it is wrong to kill foxes or any other animal.

    Were I a meat eater who was in principle OK with killing animals, then yeah I wouldn't have the authority to say what method of killing foxes is the most 'humane'. I don't know which is quickest or least stressful. But as far as I'm concerned fox hunting is the killing of animals to protect an industry which kills animals; clearly I'm not going to be in favour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Theres some very strong opinions flying round here. Glad someone agrees that hunting is a historical part of Britain and that it is very similar to life hundreds of years ago for foxes, being hunted by pack animals. There is also the fact that the foxes are a strong breed which havent been wiped out or come close overe hundreds of years of hunting, our royal family have hunted, also probably alot of friends and family of our government have aswell. Id put money on even labour members having hunted too. We kill pigs by slitting there throats for abit of smokey bacon. We also coup chickens in horrendously small cages so we pay about £1 for 15 eggs and yet none of this is banned because theres not a nice, tax contributing middle class person, paying there own way, to do something they enjoy and working hard for an ever better life fpr themselves behind it. Would these so called 'animal lovers' come out of there city centre living and come see the real world and put all this effort into something that may actually help save the world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I don't eat meat, I thought that would be obvious from the tone of my post.

    What's insulting is you saying you respect for and care about these animals. You are better than the people who don't care how much pain they go through, but you still chase them down and kill them.

    If you had to die, yeah me too. But if someone wanted to kill me so that they could protect their business, I don't think I'd count that as a valid reason for why I had to die.
    Its like arguing with a door post. You wont listen to reason. I do care and respect the animals, how is that insulting? Pests, such as rabbits, rats, mice and foxes all have to be controlled. Do you object to business' putting down rat poison? Or is it one rule for the the cute fluffy things and one for the not so fluffy things?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,224

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.