Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thor)
    Ok 3 on 1 is getting hard to reply to so quickly!

    1.You believe that economic argument about keeping kennel and saddle people employed don't you? Very luddite to me. You might as still have cotton mills in Norwich or the whole of the mining industry to keep going. These things come and go, people are adaptable and are able to find other areas of employment or we would never progress. What happens to the bullfighters, the bull handlers etc when there market goes i could here you whine in Spain...lol its social luddism

    2.Toff, townie they are derogatory words and i use them, its not naivety its dislike.
    Fox hunting is a self sufficient industry. It functions profitably without government intervention.

    Surely you can't argue that jobs which are provided by the free market without intervention are anything but socially and economically beneficial? Sure as hell beats Labour's New Deal in both social and economic ways.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Fox hunting is a self sufficient industry. It functions profitably without government intervention.

    Surely you can't argue that jobs which are provided by the free market without intervention are anything but socially and economically beneficial? Sure as hell beats Labour's New Deal in both social and economic ways.
    drag hunting and game keeping would also provide jobs without having to chase a fox across miles of countryside
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    drag hunting and game keeping would also provide jobs without having to chase a fox across miles of countryside
    True.

    But you do lose the plain-as-day fact that fox hunting serves a practical purpose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    True.

    But you do lose the plain-as-day fact that fox hunting serves a practical purpose.
    about ten or so pages ago we argued that fox hunting does not serve any practical purpose in keeping fox numbers down (I think it reduces the numbers by 6% or something). also- using a gamekeeper would keep the fox numbers down more efficiently without having to trample over the countryside disturbing the wildlife.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    about ten or so pages ago we argued that fox hunting does not serve any practical purpose in keeping fox numbers down (I think it reduces the numbers by 6% or something). also- using a gamekeeper would keep the fox numbers down more efficiently without having to trample over the countryside disturbing the wildlife.
    Efficiency being what exactly? Something that is self-sufficient to me is efficient.

    A game keeper would need to be paid. People hunt foxes for free. Is that not more 'efficient'?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Efficiency being what exactly? Something that is self-sufficient to me is efficient.

    A game keeper would need to be paid. People hunt foxes for free. Is that not more 'efficient'?
    depends whether fox hunting is primarily for pleasure of to control foxes. If it is to control foxes, then one person as gamekeeper would be more efficient because paying one person is less expensive than keeping horses, arranging hunts etc. any who felt foxes were a problem in the area could contribute.

    if it is for pleasure, and people would not pay for a gamekeeper, then fox hunting serves no practical purpose, and should be banned on the grounds of cruelty to the fox involved and the damage to countryside caused by the hunt
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    depends whether fox hunting is primarily for pleasure of to control foxes. If it is to control foxes, then one person as gamekeeper would be more efficient because paying one person is less expensive than keeping horses, arranging hunts etc. any who felt foxes were a problem in the area could contribute.

    if it is for pleasure, and people would not pay for a gamekeeper, then fox hunting serves no practical purpose, and should be banned on the grounds of cruelty to the fox involved and the damage to countryside caused by the hunt
    I can see we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this...

    Yes it might work out overall that employing a gamekeeper, at the expense of keeping horses and hounds, might be cheaper. But the people who take part in the hunt are paying for the joy they get from riding, hunting, whatever. It is money they happily part with for the pleasure it brings them.

    The foxes are controlled, and some people (often highly stresses professional people) get to get out in the fresh air, enjoy the countryside, and do something they love. There are a lot of winners... more winners than a single gamekeeper being employed instead.

    I'm also not 100% sure I buy the gamekeeper argument either. Foxes are bloody quick, and a pretty small and low to the ground. It is very hard to shoot to kill a fox at pace. I can imagine just as many bullets going through the foxes stomach, legs etc as successful killing the creature first time. And traps are hardly more humane, and you run the risk of catching other animals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    I can see we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this...
    we shall agree to disagree then :rolleyes:

    Yes it might work out overall that employing a gamekeeper, at the expense of keeping horses and hounds, might be cheaper. But the people who take part in the hunt are paying for the joy they get from riding, hunting, whatever. It is money they happily part with for the pleasure it brings them.
    why can't they get that joy without trying to kill a fox?

    The foxes are controlled, and some people (often highly stresses professional people) get to get out in the fresh air, enjoy the countryside, and do something they love. There are a lot of winners... more winners than a single gamekeeper being employed instead.
    the foxes are not controlled- the amount of foxes given birth to merely increases to match the shortfalls in the population, and there are other ways of relieving stress than chasing a defenceless animal across miles of countryside

    I'm also not 100% sure I buy the gamekeeper argument either. Foxes are bloody quick, and a pretty small and low to the ground. It is very hard to shoot to kill a fox at pace. I can imagine just as many bullets going through the foxes stomach, legs etc as successful killing the creature first time. And traps are hardly more humane, and you run the risk of catching other animals.
    I agree that traps are impractical, but with experience it is possible to get within a reasonable shooting distance without disturbing the fox.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    why can't they get that joy without trying to kill a fox?
    Maybe they could. But equally, why shouldn't they be allowed to get joy from killing a fox? I feel if foxhunting were to be banned it will again demonstrate the world is going P.C. mad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Maybe they could. But equally, why shouldn't they be allowed to get joy from killing a fox? I feel if foxhunting were to be banned it will again demonstrate the world is going P.C. mad.
    errm- because it is cruel? if they need violent sports and want to relieve stress why dont they take up boxing and slug it out with each other? why should an innocent animal have to suffer for their amusement?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    errm- because it is cruel? if they need violent sports and want to relieve stress why dont they take up boxing and slug it out with each other? why should an innocent animal have to suffer for their amusement?
    This is a cruel world. Much as people would like, it is not possible to wrap us up in cotton wool and pretend bad things only happen 'to other people'. People suffer. Animals suffer. Tomorrow is another day and always will be.

    And foxes aren't so innocent when you factor in the damage they cause.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    This is a cruel world. Much as people would like, it is not possible to wrap us up in cotton wool and pretend bad things only happen 'to other people'. People suffer. Animals suffer. Tomorrow is another day and always will be.
    errm- what has this got to do with the debate? yes people and animals suffer, which is why it is important to reduce the numbers afflicted e.g. by banning foxhunting

    And foxes aren't so innocent when you factor in the damage they cause.
    look back along the thread- I think it was the british farming authority that ruled that foxes were not a pest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    errm- what has this got to do with the debate? yes people and animals suffer, which is why it is important to reduce the numbers afflicted e.g. by banning foxhunting



    look back along the thread- I think it was the british farming authority that ruled that foxes were not a pest
    Foxes killed 30 of my uncle's chickens just last weekend when I was staying with him... hardly a tragedy I know but equally, hardly what an 'innocent' animal would do. Worst thing was it wasn't as if the fox ate any of them... it just killed or maimed them.

    To me there is nothing wrong with people getting joy from a sport even if their joy is at the expense of a animal like a fox. Yes it's a controversial view point to have, and it is non-PC. But I do have it. And I'm not alone in having it. The state should stop trying to be a nanny by telling law-abiding tax-paying wealth-generating people what they can and can't do for fun on their weekends.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Foxes killed 30 of my uncle's chickens just last weekend when I was staying with him... hardly a tragedy I know but equally, hardly what an 'innocent' animal would do. Worst thing was it wasn't as if the fox ate any of them... it just killed or maimed them.
    was the fox disturbed whilst killing them? I read somewhere that a fox will try and return to get as many of the dead animals as possible- so that it can store them for use later.

    To me there is nothing wrong with people getting joy from a sport even if their joy is at the expense of a animal like a fox. Yes it's a controversial view point to have, and it is non-PC. But I do have it. And I'm not alone in having it. The state should stop trying to be a nanny by telling law-abiding tax-paying wealth-generating people what they can and can't do for fun on their weekends.
    in that case, why was bear baiting and **** fighting banned?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    was the fox disturbed whilst killing them? I read somewhere that a fox will try and return to get as many of the dead animals as possible- so that it can store them for use later.



    in that case, why was bear baiting and **** fighting banned?
    Unless the fox killed them at 8 in the morning when my uncle went outside no the fox was not disturbed.

    Bear baiting and **** fighting were spectacles at which you could see animals suffer. The whole idea was for two animals to maim each other as much as possible. If you've ever followed a hunt, you'll know that you very rarely watch the actual kill. And the kill is not much of a spectacle anyway. Comparisons between the sports just seem flawed to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Unless the fox killed them at 8 in the morning when my uncle went outside no the fox was not disturbed.
    ok- maybe it was wrong

    Bear baiting and **** fighting were spectacles at which you could see animals suffer. The whole idea was for two animals to maim each other as much as possible. If you've ever followed a hunt, you'll know that you very rarely watch the actual kill. And the kill is not much of a spectacle anyway. Comparisons between the sports just seem flawed to me.
    but the animal still suffers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Unless the fox killed them at 8 in the morning when my uncle went outside no the fox was not disturbed.

    Bear baiting and **** fighting were spectacles at which you could see animals suffer. The whole idea was for two animals to maim each other as much as possible. If you've ever followed a hunt, you'll know that you very rarely watch the actual kill. And the kill is not much of a spectacle anyway. Comparisons between the sports just seem flawed to me.
    Fox hunting is a much a social occasion as bear baiting and **** fighting, if it was just pest control why would everyone get dressed up?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    ok- maybe it was wrong



    but the animal still suffers
    But the suffering is not the point of the activity. It is a by-product. This doesn't make it right. But I don't feel it justifies destroying an entire industry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions but not all volunteer work is motivated by self interest i would agree many are and your advice about not going is sound if you dont want to do the whole deal howard.

    Anyway back to fox hunting

    I think its a marmite issue, your either going to to want to ban it or not and i don't think this is an issue where may people change there minds, i know i will not

    Furthermore, ban it! :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And Tednol, to give an example a by-product of Mcdonalds is that vast amounts of land in south america has to be destroyed to provide ground for cattle, this causes severe disruption to villagers, resulting in malnutrition, death or poverty from nautral crop destruction, contamination of habitat erc. (Source Actionaid)

    This suffering is a by-product of the fast food industry. It isnt right and i do feel it IS worth destroying a whole industry over if it can't adapt to better ways.

    Just like fox hunting.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.