Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Fox hunting to be legalised if Tories win 2015 General Election Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Just how is the fact that a few aristocrats and wannabes aren't able to go out and slaughter foxes for sport 'a problem'?
    Any state intrusion upon the liberty to do that which harms no one is a problem. The fact that the ban is also detrimental to the culture and tradition of the countryside is salt in the wound. Your class politics are beneath this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Actually, I was a Tory until relatively recently (and New Labour before that). It sends a horrendous message. As a PR man, Cameron must know how much of a stupid move this is. It will further convince the middle classes that he is as out of touch as we all suspect, and convince the poor to vote UKIP, who arguably are much worse on this front. They have a baron (or is a viscount?) for an MEP.

    So, as you say it affects only a small percentage of the population, surely it is politically useless to make it legal again? Well, that is if we don't consider party and campaign donations. It's clearly politically damaging to even consider it.
    So it pushes the people that are at lerast seen as unlikely to vote for them away? Big freaking deal, it's like, say, if I was making racist comments and somebody said I should stop because I'll never score a black girl, but the black girls were never interested in the first place. And while it may only affect a small percentage of the population, if you have reason to believe that a sizeable enough portion of that has drifted away from you then you could win back votes. It also has to be considered that there are going to be people beyond those who actually partake who are very much in support of it, and it's probably more these people who they're trying to win over.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    Any state intrusion upon the liberty to do that which harms no one is a problem. The fact that the ban is also detrimental to the culture and tradition of the countryside is salt in the wound. Your class politics are beneath this.
    Well it obviously harms the foxes. Animal welfare comes before pointless nostalgia about 'culture and tradition'. Tradition for its own sake is a terrible position to take, and a Tory hallmark. Tradition devoid of reason.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Well it obviously harms the foxes. Animal welfare comes before pointless nostalgia about 'culture and tradition'. Tradition for its own sake is a terrible position to take, and a Tory hallmark. Tradition devoid of reason.
    Like everybody else who has mentioned animal welfare, I propose you go and actually read the rest of the thread, assuming you're open minded enough to consider the position in favour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Well it obviously harms the foxes. Animal welfare comes before pointless nostalgia about 'culture and tradition'. Tradition for its own sake is a terrible position to take, and a Tory hallmark. Tradition devoid of reason.
    And state interference without reason is the hallmark of the left. Tradition for its own sake is not my position. Tradition for the enjoyment of participants and the retention of community is my position.

    Still, this is beside the point. It may come as a shock for you to discover that foxes are not people. Human liberty comes before pointless personification of animals and class politics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    And state interference without reason is the hallmark of the left. Tradition for its own sake is not my position. Tradition for the enjoyment of participants and the retention of community is my position.

    Still, this is beside the point. It may come as a shock for you to discover that foxes are not people. Human liberty comes before pointless personification of animals and class politics.
    I am aware that foxes are not people. I am not the staunchest animal rights supporter, and of course human liberty comes before it. I just don't understand the need for fox-hunting. And I'm not a leftist for your information. Killing animals for food is one thing, and of course I am a supporter of that. No problems with how they die either. But killing animals for the sake of sport simply seems in poor taste for me, and thoroughly uncivilised. At least pheasant shooting and deer hunting sometimes results in food. Fox hunting just seems barbaric, and for no apparent reason. But if you want to retain it for the sake of 'retention of community' then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    I am aware that foxes are not people. I am not the staunchest animal rights supporter, and of course human liberty comes before it. I just don't understand the need for fox-hunting. And I'm not a leftist for your information. Killing animals for food is one thing, and of course I am a supporter of that. No problems with how they die either. But killing animals for the sake of sport simply seems in poor taste for me, and thoroughly uncivilised. At least pheasant shooting and deer hunting sometimes results in food. Fox hunting just seems barbaric, and for no apparent reason. But if you want to retain it for the sake of 'retention of community' then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
    Foxes are a pest. The reason behind fox hunting is pest control. Nothing kills a fox better than dogs which are bred for that very purpose.

    How long do you think it takes 30 hounds to kill 1 fox once they have caught it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    I am aware that foxes are not people. I am not the staunchest animal rights supporter, and of course human liberty comes before it. I just don't understand the need for fox-hunting. And I'm not a leftist for your information. Killing animals for food is one thing, and of course I am a supporter of that. No problems with how they die either. But killing animals for the sake of sport simply seems in poor taste for me, and thoroughly uncivilised. At least pheasant shooting and deer hunting sometimes results in food. Fox hunting just seems barbaric, and for no apparent reason. But if you want to retain it for the sake of 'retention of community' then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
    There are two tiers to my argument.

    Firstly I want it to be LEGAL for the purpose of liberty.

    Secondly, once legal, I would like it to continue for those purposes attached to tradition.

    The debate relevant to policy is only concerned with the first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The reason behind fox hunting is pest control.
    No it isn't nor has it ever been. Hunting with hounds was developed as a royal sport and the game was boar and deer. When deer numbers declined in the 18th century foxes were selected as the new quarry to allow the sport to continue.

    The excuse of 'pest control' was a fantasy dreamt up in modern times when hound pack realised they were on shaky ground and needed to raise their status above dog fighting. If you read older hunting publications then there is much said about increasing the fox population in an area with artificial dens and supplementary feeding and even importing foxes from Europe when there was a shortage.

    Farmers use guns to control problem foxes, that was true before the ban and it's true now.

    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Nothing kills a fox better than dogs which are bred for that very purpose.

    How long do you think it takes 30 hounds to kill 1 fox once they have caught it?
    Foxhounds are slow compared to sighthound or lurcher and that is quite deliberate. A prolonged chase = sport for the followers. If you really believed that a dog was the best way to kill a fox then you'd go out at night with a high powered lamp and some fast dogs - though that's probably a bit too 'gypsy' for most foxhound followers.....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares, foxes are vile animals anyway I still wonder why haven't just culled them


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    There are two tiers to my argument.

    Firstly I want it to be LEGAL for the purpose of liberty.
    Would you legalise dog fighting for the purpose of liberty?

    (Original post by BitWindy)
    Secondly, once legal, I would like it to continue for those purposes attached to tradition.

    The debate relevant to policy is only concerned with the first.
    The ban has been in place for over 10 years and 'tradition' has not gone anywhere. The same traditions (the dress, the meet, hounds etc) can be found in drag packs and bloodhound packs that hunt artificial and human scent respectively. Fox, stag and harrier packs are still reeling from being told they can't hunt live quarry as they used to but in their slow and painful transition to becoming drag packs they can keep all the traditions they value bar those few that involve a live animal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonfacebear)
    Foxhounds are slow compared to sighthound or lurcher and that is quite deliberate. A prolonged chase = sport for the followers. If you really believed that a dog was the best way to kill a fox then you'd go out at night with a high powered lamp and some fast dogs - though that's probably a bit too 'gypsy' for most foxhound followers.....
    That is completely irrelevant, how long does a fox last once 30 hounds have caught up?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Foxes are a pest. The reason behind fox hunting is pest control. Nothing kills a fox better than dogs which are bred for that very purpose.

    How long do you think it takes 30 hounds to kill 1 fox once they have caught it?
    Fox hunting kills so few animals that it literally has no effect on the population. Its is literally the most inefficient form of pest control. If it was a good method of pest control it would be used in conservation to get rid of introduced cats and dogs, mongooses etc, but no, what you use is poison and fences.

    To claim it controls numbers is simply inaccurate.

    Also in what way are foxes pests? They sometimes kill chickens, big whoop...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Fox hunting kills so few animals that it literally has no effect on the population. Its is literally the most inefficient form of pest control. If it was a good method of pest control it would be used in conservation to get rid of introduced cats and dogs, mongooses etc, but no, what you use is poison and fences.

    To claim it controls numbers is simply inaccurate.

    Also in what way are foxes pests? They sometimes kill chickens, big whoop...
    How much do you know about agricultural systems in the UK?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    How much do you know about agricultural systems in the UK?
    A lot. I've worked for the National Trust and Wildlife trust, interned at DEFRA and am currently doing my PhD with the chief scientist on the badger cull pilot.

    Oh and I did my undergraduate dissertation under the leading UK fox expert. On fox territory use.

    So I know a hell of a lot more than you about the effects of killing native animals on the agricultural land and ecosystems I would imagine. But feel free to correct me if you've been studying or working in that field for longer than 6 years.

    I do find it ironic though that people get so worked up about fox hunting when driven grouse shooting is decimating our countryside. The animal welfare implications of fox hunting are unpleasant but at least they haven't destroyed our rural landscape and had huge impacts on conservation policy...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    A lot. I've worked for the National Trust and Wildlife trust, interned at DEFRA and am currently doing my PhD with the chief scientist on the badger cull pilot.

    Oh and I did my undergraduate dissertation under the leading UK fox expert. On fox territory use.

    So I know a hell of a lot more than you about the effects of killing native animals on the agricultural land and ecosystems I would imagine. But feel free to correct me if you've been studying or working in that field for longer than 6 years.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    A lot. I've worked for the National Trust and Wildlife trust, interned at DEFRA and am currently doing my PhD with the chief scientist on the badger cull pilot.

    Oh and I did my undergraduate dissertation under the leading UK fox expert. On fox territory use.

    So I know a hell of a lot more than you about the effects of killing native animals on the agricultural land and ecosystems I would imagine. But feel free to correct me if you've been studying or working in that field for longer than 6 years.

    I do find it ironic though that people get so worked up about fox hunting when driven grouse shooting is decimating our countryside. The animal welfare implications of fox hunting are unpleasant but at least they haven't destroyed our rural landscape and had huge impacts on conservation policy...
    The organisations listed, when was the last time they actually supported this kinds of thing anyway, because the only times I ever hear anything about them it's when they're taking offense to stuff being killed which, to me, would suggest that if you worked for them of course they would give the impression that it's only a bad thing and no good can come from it; it's like asking your stereotypical banker about what they think of banker's bonuses: not big enough.


    (Original post by Reue)
    Hmmm, I must admit, on most threads if somebody were to post this they would be done for being off topic and non-constructive, but I guess as a section moderator it's fine?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    That is completely irrelevant, how long does a fox last once 30 hounds have caught up?
    Of course it's relevant. If you're after the most effective way of killing foxes and genuinely believed it was dogs then why would you choose a long chase and a kill (scent hounds) over a much shorter chase and a kill (sighthounds)? If anything the chase is probably the most stressful aspect for the fox, being chased to exhaustion or facing a terrier when gone to ground is not a pleasant experience for a predatory animal.

    To answer your point then the kill itself obviously doesn't last long but that does not mean it's free from suffering. You'll get people saying that hounds kill with a 'nip to the back of the neck' - again a fantasy made up to sanitise the process in the minds of the public. Hounds are not cats, they do not 'go for the neck'. Dogs kill by grabbing and traumatising whatever piece of the animal they can get hold of. If a fox is lucky then that might be the neck but it could equally lead to them being torn alive limb by limb.

    We wouldn't accept a domestic canine (dog) being killed in that manner so why should we accept it for a wild canine (fox)?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonfacebear)
    We wouldn't accept a domestic canine (dog) being killed in that manner so why should we accept it for a wild canine (fox)?
    Because people get overly attached to domesticated animals, they don't for wild animals? Well, some do, but that's besides the point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The organisations listed, when was the last time they actually supported this kinds of thing anyway, because the only times I ever hear anything about them it's when they're taking offense to stuff being killed which, to me, would suggest that if you worked for them of course they would give the impression that it's only a bad thing and no good can come from it; it's like asking your stereotypical banker about what they think of banker's bonuses: not big enough.



    Hmmm, I must admit, on most threads if somebody were to post this they would be done for being off topic and non-constructive, but I guess as a section moderator it's fine?
    Well you know a big part of the job is working with farmers and local communities - the proportion of society that might find foxes 'pests' (of course there are urban foxes but we shall ignore those as clearly they have nothing to do with fox hunting). Surprisingly enough most in rural communities hate the hunts - mainly out of town people making a huge racket and parading around pompously is how they see it. As for farmers they'd much rather just be able to shoot a fox that comes on their land, they know hunting serves no purpose in population control.

    Also are you sure we are talking about the same DEFRA? The DEFRA that relish every opportunity to kill animals, whether it be the badger cull, getting rid of beavers and wild boar or blasting parakeets with a shotgun?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.