Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Animals should only be killed under the strictest supervision and with the highest care taken to keep suffering to a minimum - I would also draw a certain distinction between domesticated/agricultural/lab animals and wild animals.

    Fox hunts are all about the social aspects, the enjoyment of the chase and giving the horses a good ride. The suffering and cruel death of a wild animal at the end seems to be of minor significance to those engaged in this activity. Killing for pleasure is acceptable to you? Animal welfare is not?
    the suffering and cruel death was not something that a government report found to be consistent with most hound hunts across the country. Fox hunts have a relatively low success rate, with only the weak and old being killed in manner consistent with and as part of its natural habitat. much pro-hunt argument is based on considerable evidence suggesting that a well organised fox hunt is among the most humane and natural methods to control fox populations. taking pleasure from nature and man's place in its kingdom is acceptable to me. i fear for the battery chicken who is never offered a chance, the fox that bleeds to death in a trap or with a gunshot wound for days.

    The only legitimate reasons you seem to be able to come up with to defend retention of hunting with hounds is that livelihoods and the vague notion of 'civil liberties' may be at risk.
    i) these are very important issues. as a political person myself, i take great offence in the actions of the government on this matter, when it is clearly an issue of great debate. for that matter, every Englishman should be concerned.

    ii) no reasons are required to retain fox hunting until such time as advice is provided to the government that suggests a ban on fox hunting would be of benefit to English society.

    Or do you think animals do not deserve to have any rights whatsoever? You believe we are entitled to do whatever we like with them?
    I believe man has a role in the animal kingdom and it betrays nature to not accept that we should and can kill to better our existence in it. Fox hunting is a pastime and livelihood for the minority and way of life for thousands. Controlling a fox population is an integral part of that and I do not see maintaining it as breaching any rights,a human concept in itself, that we may afford an animal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    Is that not a reason to ban fox hunting all together then?
    no, i dont believe it is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Tune in to BBC News, its all kicking off in the Commons over Fox Hunting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    All are reasons which justify a banning.
    not in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report.
    you may find differently, if so id be glad to here your justifications.

    Also, I think you'll find, that those who wish to preserve are NOT in the majority.
    Facts, not claims.
    i dont think youve really built on what has already been discussed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    the point they are making by claiming this is all to do with class envy is that it is not a class based sport?
    they suggest it is not a class based sport and therefore oppose false or empty judgements/opinions, that they see as being purely motivated by a class envy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. Except the Countryside A-liar-ance [is that how you do it?]

    I'll think you'll find the NHS, Transport, Pensions, Benefits and Defence are being sorted out to greater or lesser extents. Or do you believe Michael How'liar'd [like that?] or Char'liar's Kennedy [again?] would do better?
    please try and keep comments on the thread sensible for everyone's sake.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    not in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report.
    who exactly are you talking about consulted in the Burns report - the hunting/rural population or the countryside alliance or someone else? Because there is almost no 100% agreement about what does and doesn't justify a banning from the different groups consulted - and the Burns report doesn't make any solid recommendation on the matter (indeed it was set up as a fact/opinion finding report and not as a report to decide on future policy).

    Here's the entire report if you'd like to direct us to any particular paragraphs: http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mai...tingreport.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    please try and keep comments on the thread sensible for everyone's sake.
    I was responding in kind to a previous thread, so kindly keep your admonishments to yourself, for everyone's sake. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    who exactly are you talking about consulted in the Burns report - the hunting/rural population or the countryside alliance or someone else?

    1.9 In carrying out our work we tried to be as open and as even-handed as possible. For example, we made available on our website as much as possible of the written evidence which we received from the main organisations and a number of individuals.[4] We were also accompanied on visits by representatives of the two main "pro" and "anti" organisations: the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000.[5] This helped to provide reassurance to us and to others that we were seeing hunting activities as they would normally take place.

    1.10 The following paragraphs describe the main ways in which we collected evidence.

    Written evidence

    1.11 We issued a request for written evidence on 19 January 2000 inviting responses by 21 February. This request was sent to 247 organisations and placed on the Committee's website. We received written evidence from 317 organisations and 53 individuals. A list of the main organisations which responded is at Appendices 1 and 2.[6][7] Appendix 3 contains an analysis of the written evidence sent to us by members of the public. We subsequently issued a further request for written evidence on 17 April 2000. This invited brief observations on evidence which had already been submitted and on other material which we had posted on our website. This request was sent to those organisations which had submitted evidence on the first round and was also posted on our website. We received 79 responses, all of which were placed on our website.[8]

    Oral evidence

    1.12 We took oral evidence from the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 on 6 and 10 April 2000. These sessions were held in public and transcripts were placed on the website.[9]

    [5] The Countryside Alliance (CA) represents the following organisations: Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles (AMHB), Central Committee of Fell Packs (CCFP), Federation of Welsh Packs (FWP), Masters of Basset Hounds Association (MBHA), Masters of Deerhounds Association (MDHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), Masters of Mink Hounds Association (MMHA), National Coursing Club (NCC) and National Working Terrier Federation (NWTF). Deadline 2000 comprises the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).


    or just have a look at Appendix 1 and 2.

    the Burns report doesn't make any solid recommendation on the matter
    indeed, the conclusions drawn are mixed, but not with the benefits that society would see, but between the extent of damage a ban would cause. there is no suggestion or conclusion that the overwhelming cruelty to the animal is either extreme or of concern. there is no conclusion to suggest that the government be advised far more humane methods exist in controlling a fox population. there is no conclusion to suggest that the capital lost through hunting adversely effects lives or communities. it does conclude and advise that,

    "We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern"

    "The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. "

    "None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications"

    "We estimate that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting, although the number of people involved may be significantly higher. About 700 of these jobs (involving some 800 people) result from direct employment by the hunts. Another 1,500 to 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs (perhaps involving some 2,500 to 5,000 people) result from direct employment on hunting-related activities by those who are engaged in hunting. The remaining jobs, in a wide variety of businesses, are indirectly dependent on hunting. Of these, many will be in urban, rather than rural, areas."

    "In the event of a ban, it seems plain that a large part , at the very least, of the existing service would cease. This would clearly have financial consequences for farmers if they had to use a licensed knacker’s service instead. Although it has been argued that this cost would not be significant, this would not necessarily be true for those farmers who had come to rely on the service provided by hunts. Moreover, the cost would need to be seen against the backcloth of the depressed livestock industry."

    "3.61 A reduction in the fallen stock service would also have potential implications for the environment since farmers might resort more frequently than at present to burning or burying carcasses. The latter carries a serious risk of contaminating water courses."

    "Most jobs that are directly dependent on hunting are in the land-based sector. Some of those directly affected have specialised skills which would not transfer easily, and they would find it hard to find alternative employment. For these people especially, the adjustment process could be painful. Some thought would have to be given to the possibilities for re-training and acquiring new skills."

    "3.74 For some businesses that are on the borderline of viability, the loss of revenue could lead to a bigger impact than the direct effect may suggest. For a small number of local communities which depend to a significant extent on hunting, and where there are limited alternative employment opportunities, the effects could also be more serious"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    I was responding in kind to a previous thread
    why post here then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    why post here then?
    I was responding in kind to a previous post. :rolleyes:

    This one:

    (Original post by tele-skier)
    Its a fox. Wow.

    You have to look at the real reasons why Labour and El Presidente B'Liar are pushing it though so vigorously at the cost of other things such as the Childrens Bill. It is so they can galvanise the apathetic vote in their favour. It sickens me that anyone would put animals before people so that the can get a vote. It's even worse that those apathetic wnakers would vote for B'Liar and his cronies. Our species comes first!! Why not sort out the NHS, Transport, Pensions, Benefit and (shock horor) Defence before we waste money on sodding foxes!!!

    TS
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, or even one of vienna's posts, but I was just wondering, vienna, are you for or against fox hunting?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, or even one of vienna's posts, but I was just wondering, vienna, are you for or against fox hunting?
    Apparently he's for civil liberties and the political process, as though the rest of us aren't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    I was responding in kind to a previous post. :rolleyes:
    oh, you should have said. (and quoted it.)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Summary of conversation so far:

    (Original post by RiffRaff)
    foxhunting does not significantly curb numbers of foxes
    foxhunting can often cause damage to other people's property
    hounds have been known to attack people
    hounds are not easy to control and can go onto roads/ railway lines causing disturbance and possible accidents
    many people in both the country and cities would like foxhunting to be abolished
    (Original post by V)
    none are reasons to ban an activity and sport that the majority wish to preserve.
    (Original post by MC)
    All are reasons which justify a banning.
    (Original post by V)
    not in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report
    The burns report does not give any opinion as to whether any of these reasons are or aren't reason enough to justify the ban* - all it does is try to ascertain the accuracy of the claims and quantify it more accurately where it can.

    In fact it backs up with evidence every one of these "reasons" but draws no conclusions from them (as that wasn't it's remit).

    I can't understand why you would bring a report commissioned for information gathering purposed into a debate about whether an issue is "reason enough" to justify a ban?

    (Original post by Burn's Report)
    10.1: We stressed in paragraph 1.4 that we had not been asked to consider whether hunting should be banned. We also stressed that nothing in our report should be construed as indicating that we had formed any view on whether there should be a ban.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, or even one of vienna's posts, but I was just wondering, vienna, are you for or against fox hunting?
    essentially neither. although i have been on hunts before and found them to be rather enjoyable, i can see the need for a closer look at some of the practices involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Apparently he's for civil liberties and the political process, as though the rest of us aren't.
    she is also reserves the right to answer for herself, accurately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Summary of conversation so far:
    all it does is try to ascertain the accuracy of the claims and quantify it more accurately where it can.
    In fact it backs up with evidence every one of these "reasons" but draws no conclusions from them (as that wasn't it's remit).
    the 'Conclusions' are ill-worded then? anyone reading the findings, advice AND CONCLUSIONS of the report can see that the reasons listed above are neither of primary concern or individually worthy of legislation.

    I can't understand why you would bring a report commissioned for information gathering purposed into a debate about whether an issue is "reason enough" to justify a ban?
    "a report commissioned for information gathering purposes" on issues that "in the eyes of those consulted on the matter", dont justify explicit legislation.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by vienna95)
    issues that "in the eyes of those consulted on the matter", dont justify explicit legislation.
    I don't suppose you could point out the paragraph number that that statement appears in?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I don't suppose you could point out the paragraph number that that statement appears in?
    why, the reasons were not justified in the eyes of those consulted on the matter as part of the Burns report. the Burns report findings consists of conclusions and clarification based on the those consultations and such evidence. the Burns report is reflective of that opinion and finding, the Burns report makes no such conclusions that would suggest any of those reasons substantiate any concern or need to consider explicit legislation. the report is not intended to advise on policy, but it is intended to highlight and/or advise on the possibility of salient matters of concern or urgence to the Home secretary, pertaining to possible legislation. on the issues listed, based on evidence from those consulted(that I have already listed or given reference to), the report does no such thing.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.