Ban Fox Hunting?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Star_One, May 13, 2004.

?

Ban Fox Hunting

  1. YES!

    29 vote(s)
    64.4%
  2. NO!

    15 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Not Sure

    1 vote(s)
    2.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    This isn't true hunting, it is a rich persons idea of fun. A true hunter would track animals on foot and kill only if it was needed for food or survival. Why don't they use cameras instead, then they could relive the "chase" over and over again having their tea and crumpets!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    In my book hunting to protect husbanded livestock and therefore enhance the available food supply is every bit as legitimate as hunting in order to eat the quarry, cosmic traveller.

    And making use of the available resources (including, in this case, hounds and horses) is what man has always done best.

    Does something that is otherwise justifiable cease to be justifiable if the person who is doing it enjoys doing it? If not, then the fact that we enjoy our hunting is as spurious a point as ever there was.

    Does something that is otherwise justifiable cease to be justifiable when it is done by a rich person? If not, then the alleged fact that fox hunters are all rich people (which is patently untrue in any event - get out to a few hunt meets and open your eyes, if you don't believe me) is even more of a red herring.

    If you want to go round with your fingers in your ears saying "La la la I can#t hear you" and forming your own views of matters totally uninformed by any consideration of the actual facts, that's up to you. But if that's what you want to do, you should at least have the grace to keep your prejudices to yourself rather than advancing them in support of a misconceived proposal to have my activities criminalised.

    If you've something worthwhile to say, I'll happily discuss it with you. If not ...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    885
    Your pissing into the wind. It will be banned. Who gave you the right to kill for fun? A fox has as much right to live on this planet as you. Protect livestock my arse, when have you seen a fox take down a cow? What have you got to say about all of the cases seen in the media of obvious cruelty dished out by hunt supporters etc?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Aha!

    So the test of morality is not whether something is right or wrong, but whether it will or will not happen? How very enlightening.

    Cows are not the only livestock, and I do not recall saying that foxes took down cows. I seem to recall saying that they took lambs, poultry and game birds. I notice that you are not disputing that - presumably because you are aware that it is true?

    And I happen to believe that those whose livelihood consists of raising livestock for food are perfectly entitled to protect that livestock by killing predators or - alternatively - by inviting others onto their land to kill their predators for them.

    So far as media reports are concerned, it is a bit difficult to respond to a generic enquiry of that kind. Bring forward a specific example, and I will give you a specific response. I do not condone lawlessness, and where it exists than I would support the prosecution and punishment, according to law, of any offenders. That applies irrespective of whether the offenders be my friends, or people who in their eagerness to prevent animals from suffering seek to further their cause by stubbign cigarettes on my horse's rump.

    However, do please bear in mind that many such press stories are fed by sensationalist press releases from the opponents of hunting. Many of these releases are subsequently, when the case comes to court and is duly thrown out, to have been hopelessly inaccurate. But the press doesn't report THAT bit. You don't sell newspapers with the headline "Hunt supporter didn't eviscerate saboteur's poodle after all".
     
  8. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    885
    So all the video tapes of hunters, and their supporters barbaric acts that we have seen, their all faked? Sensationalist some of them may be, but that does`nt mean that its not true. I`m not a "townie" ,some of my family farm. So i do understand your point of view. Your economic case for hunting is exceedingly weak, all costings for game birds take into account losses due to road deaths, foxs etc. When did you last see a field with 50,000 chickens in it? their pretty much all battery farmed indoors.Sheep are more likely to be savaged by an idiot walking his dog off the lead , and you know that the farmer will shoot the offending dog- not give you a call to stampede all over his crops to hunt it down. By all means enjoy riding cross country, drag hunting. But don`t try to defend the countryside alliance`s stance.( That has been shown to be utterly wrong by government report) Yes from the farmers point of view foxes are vermin, and as such shoot them. Sprouting about that is a cruel method does`nt wash either, if the farmer does`nt kill the fox outright they don`t give a toss. You know that if he`s winged it, he knows it will crawl off to die, and as far as the farmer is concerned it won`t be bothering his livestock again.
    As to your morality statment, 70% of the UK think it is morally wrong. Now if you enjoy the hunting scene, tell me whats wrong with drag hunting? all the thrills but none of the kills. The public would have no trouble at all with that, but i don`t think you and your ilk would go for it. No barbarism eh?
     
  9. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Hmmm ... if you are untroubled by the idea of a fox which has been shot and winged crawling off to die a slow and agonising death, I have difficulty seeing what your objection is to death at the jaws of the hounds. Those who label hunting cruel generally do so on the grounds that they consider it causes the fox to suffer to a degree which, to them, is unacceptable.

    It cannot seriously be argued that the fox who has been wounded by the shotgun and then dies slowly over the next week suffers LESS than the fox who dies at the jaws of the hounds, even if he first has to endure a pursuit as long as an hour or an hour and a half (and I have never known such a pursuit). So given your stated position on the shot fox, your objection to hunting cannot logically be based upon the extent of suffering involved. So it is based on ... what, exactly?

    You seem to be prepared to accept that farmers should be entitled to kill foxes on their land - why are you unable to accept that they should be able to invite others onto their land to kill their foxes for them?

    Economic case for hunting weak? How so? We provide a fox control function to farmers which is free at the point of delivery. We bear the cost in its entirety. Sure that cost to us exceeds the cost to the farmer of buying a few shells for his shotgun and investing a few hours of his time touring his hedges and coverts; but that is not the point, is it? From the farmers' point of view we are cheaper - more economically efficient - than going out with his gun. Why? Because the other aspects of hunting appeal to us sufficeintly that we are prepared to shoulder that cost. It is a complicated interaction of a number of different considerations.

    Countryside Alliance stance shown to be wrogn by government report, eh? Which report is that, then? Chapter and verse, please. It's a bit difficult to respond to vague innuendo other than to say that I know of no government report that has shown the Countryside Alliance stance to be wrong. So, following the usual rule of civilised debate that he who alleges must prove - your allegation. Your proof, please?

    Video clips .. hmm. Notoriously apt not to tell the whole story, and dangerous to form a judgment on the basis of them. But even assuming that the clips you have seen all tell an accurate story of unacceptable brutality by some people who support hunting - so what? It is a non-issue. How can you say that what I do when I follow my hunt is wrong, because of what somebody else may have doen following a different hunt? Let us put the same argument into the context of your farming background, shall we? Some farmers have been convicted of cruelty to animals - that doesn't make all farming wrong, does it?

    70% of the British public think hunting is morally wrong, do they?

    How many of those 70% are actually properly informed as to the issues? Tell me that.

    I used to think hunting morally wrong, too, when I wasn't properly informed as to teh issues. I didn't favour a ban, mind you, because I am not so arrogant as to think that my views on such matters should be enshrined into law and forced upon other people. I am a tolerant individual, you see, and prepared to accept that there is room for more than one view on many an issue. But then people who tried to convince me that I ought to be in favour of banning it told me that I shoudln't take any position if I wasn't properly informed as to the issues. So I went out and got myself properly informed - and discovered, in the process, that in my ignorance I had been completely wrong.

    But then it's easy to put together a simplistic argument such as "killing things is wrong - hunting is killing things - therefore hunting is wrong".

    But just because an argument is easily constructed, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right, does it now?

    Back to your 70%: how does that compare with capital punishment? What percentage of the UK population think that we should reintroduce hanging? If you count those who will say "Yes - but only for certain offences" then I imagine you're well over the 70% mark. Doesn't make it right though, does it? Capital punishment is morally wrong - no matter what the offence charged. And mere statistics of public opinion doesn't alter that one iota.

    And then we have the delightful red herring of drag hunting.

    We're discussing whether or not fox hunting should be banned. The cogent arguments in favour of a ban are based upon cruelty and cruelty alone. If they are well founded then they are well founded, irrespective of whether or not some or all of us could hunt drags instead of foxes.

    The fact is, of course, that draghounds and bloodhounds need a much larger country and have to restrict their numbers in a way that fox hunts do not. In part this is because drag hunts do not confer any benefits on the farmers over whose land they hunt, but there are other aspects ot it as well. If you're interested in reading up on them, there's a very good article abotu it on the Masters of Draghounds & Bloodhounds website. But that fact is a red herring. If you are right - and if our activity is cruel - then it is not a sensibel response to say "But you must let us continue it anyway because there's nothing else we can do instead" is it? If you are right that (a) our activity is cruel, and (b) that all cruel activities must be turned into criminal offences, then the draghunting question is irrelevant. And if you are not right on both (a) and (b) then it doesn't help you, because you have already lost the argument.

    I don't have a convenient drag hunt. If I did, I doubt I should follow it. But that's a personal preference. If that was ALL I was after - a hard run over a predetermined route - I could get that any time I wanted by joining UK Chasers and boxing out to any of their excellent cross-country routes.

    But the attraction of fox hunting for me does not lie ONLY in that one element - as you will note if you refer back to my earlier posts on the subject.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    You can try to "justify " fox hunting any way you want but it really comes down to believing what you do is somehow correct and the right thing or not. I don't think that fox hunting for sport or pleasure is right but do think foxes should be kept in check if they are killing farm animals. I just do not think that trying to kill something just for the "sport" of it is in any way a good thing society should put up with.
     
  11. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    How about preventing foxes from killing farm animals in the first place? Farmers do bugger all to prevent any killings and then when something dies call in the cavalry to chase the thing down, what do you expect a fox to do? It is a predator, if chickens are easy pray it will kill the damn chickens, it aint rocket science.
    It is barbaric to make the animal suffer, whether you shoot it and leave it for dead or chase it, its cruel, i tell you what cob nut, we'll chase you with some dogs and horses and see if you like it, or perhaps we'll shoot you and leave you for dead, think thats fair? You think your above everything else because your 'civilized' which is total bullshit because you dont even hunt it to survive, you do it for sport, the fox is trying to survive, you survive anyways, and dont use your arguement about foxes running wild if you dont keep them in check, they have a limited food supply in the wild that could only sustain a limited number of foxes, get the farmers to protect their land better and you wont have any problems will you? Apart from of course you lose your barbaric sport, and you want everyone to feel sorry for you because of it.
     
  12. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    885
    Well said Lemming, off to football now, laters folks
     
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Again I suggest a change, to take photographs or video the fox but do not actually run the fox down and kill the fox. See how great your videos are instead of the fox dying. That way you can trot after the fox (without dogs) on horses then video the fox running into its burrow where its babies are.

    Cob Nut you seem to want to do something so why not start a POLO club and get your friends to play with their horses in a game you can all enjoy and afterwards you can gloat about all the scores you made.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2004
  14. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Lemming - you may be too young to remember this, but farmers used to try your solution.

    They shut up all their chickens in intensive rearing units.

    And people like you shouted "that's cruel - let them run free". And there was a big backlash against factory farmerd chicken. And of course, it was compeltely tasteless anyway, so nobody in their right mind would want to eat it anyway.

    So - free range chickens are the thing these days. The fashionable thing. The things your sophisticated urbanites who pull all the economic levers of power but actually know bugger all about the reality of the industry which puts their nice, neatly packed free-range chicken carcass on the shelves of their Tesco Metro week in, week out choose to eat.

    So what exactly do you propose the farmers do to keep the predators at bay from their free-range poultry? Do you have any ideas? And are they both effective and cost-effective? Or are they both hopelessly impractical and guaranteed to drive the farmers out of business?

    Cos you see, the farmers I know (shrewd business men all, who know what they're talking about) are very clear about the best way to stop predators taking their poultry. It's easy really. You have an ongoing cull of predators, to keep their numbers down at a level where they are not going to cause you major problems.

    And no, they don't wait until the foxes are actually taking their poultry and then "call in the cavalry". They take active steps to prevent it, all year round. If they're out with their gun and they see a fox, they shoot it. A couple of times a year they invite the hunt to cross their land and clear the coverts. It all adds up to one thing - prevention of predation before it takes place. That's what it is all about, so far as the farmers are concerned. Like I said, it's a complicated activity which you need to understand fully before you condemn it. The farmers want us there to control their pests. We want to be there because it is fun. If you pretend that it is ONLY happening because it is fun - then you are mistaken. If you deliberately turn a blind eye to this fact havign had it explained to you, then you are willfully misrepresenting the truth. But then, I'm sure you'd never do that, woudl you now? Perish the thought!

    And yes - this control of pests involves killing animals. Some of you seem to recoil from that thought. I don't understand why.

    Every time I put down poison for ants or rats, or slug pellets to protect my lettuces, or spray my fruit trees with aphicide, or set a trap for the mouse which has been defacating in my larder, or hang a fly paper, or call in Rentokill to deal with a cockroach infestation, I am killing animals. I have yet to meet anybody who has a problem with this. Every piece of meat I eat comes from an animal that has been killed. I don't have a problem with this. The poultry I eat has reached my table because it has been protected from predators. Some of those predators have been killed. I don't have a problem with that.

    Mankind as a whole has claimed the right to kill animals for his own ends. I don't have a problem with that guys - but if we as a species claim that as a right, who the hell are any of you, as other members of the species, to tell me that as an individual member of the species I do not have that right.

    OK - back to the hunting. I go hunting because I enjoy it. But the hunt isn't there solely for the enjoyment of the participants, the way the drag hunt is. It is there to fulfil a useful rural function - the control of predators. That's why there's a whole load of farmers will let a fox hunt cross their land which would never let a drag hunt cross their land. 40 or 50 horses don't cross your land in winter without causing it a certain amount of damage. If they're doing you a favour, you tolerate that damage. If they're not, why should you?

    Back to the Rentokill man who kills cockroaches, is that OK? If so, does it make any difference to how OK it is if he actually ENJOYS killing cockroaches? Is it a job which should only be done by somebody who hates every moment of his job?

    Of course it's not.

    We accept the utility of killing cockroaches. Therefore we are content that Rentokil is killing cockroaches - and don't give a hoot whether or not the man who does the killing derives enjoyment from his job.

    Now tell me what's different about hunting?

    The rural community - the community that is actually engaged in the day-to-day task of making a living off the land and putting food onto the shelves of urban supermarkets accepts the utility of killing foxes. They don't give a hoot whether or not the hounds who kill the foxes and their professional handlers are followed by a field of followers who enjoy being there for the occasion and the ride (but seldom actually see any killing taking place). But your sophisticated urbanites have suddenly decided that there IS a problem with it.

    And so they've looked about for arguments against it, and are hell bent on turning it into a criminal offence, even though for the most part they haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

    A certain lack of coherence in their arguments is the inevitable result.

    "It's cruel" they say.

    What's cruel? The fact of killing, or the method?

    The fact - say some. An argument that I will take from a committed vegetarian, but not from somebody who happily includes dead animals which SOMEBODY has killed in his diet, and doesn't condemn THAT as cruel. And even then I'd expect my committed vegetarian to eschew insecticides and other things that might protect the vegetable crop - because if a vegetarian thinks it's OK to kill animals to protect his vegetable crop, who the hell is he to lecture us on the morality of killing animals to protect our meat crop?

    The method - say others. But most of them don't actually have the first idea how the method actually works (see me earlier posts if in doubt); and in any event they are unable to suggest any adequate, less cruel alternative method of killing. So they fall back on "why kill foxes at all" - but we've already covered that, have we not?

    Then others at all just spit venom about us being rich (I'm not), privileged (what does that mean to somebody who has no chip on his shoulder then??), or making fatuous comments about red coats (which seem quite popular in the context of other British institutions such as the Brigade of Guards and the Tower Warders - so plainly there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a red coat).

    Now, Lemming dear - do me a favour will you and stop trying to tell me what I think. You do not have some telepathetic ability to read my mind. If you want to know what I'm thinking, then ask. But to present your own prejudices about me as though they were fact and refuse to listen to what I actually say about the matter is not the way to carry on civilised debate, is it? And I thought these forums were about civilised debate?

    No of course I wouldn't like to be hunted myself. But come to that, I wouldn't like to be farmed, transported to an abattoir in a cattle lorry, killed, cut into pieces and sold as steaks in Tesco. And nor, I imagine, would the vast majority of the population.

    But I'm happy to buy a steak in Tesco and eat it, even though I wouldn't personally like to have been through the process that that steak has been through to get onto my plate. And so, dear boy, are the vast majority of the Great British public - including those urban sophisticates who are baying for the criminalisation of my healthy outdoor winter recreation (and probably bemoaning the couch potato tendencies of their own uncouth offspring in much the same breath).

    But the great difference between them and me is that I am no hypocrite. I do not apply a different standard to the two things. If the charge is that I think I am above animals, and the fact that I am prepared to kill or be responsible for the death of animals is sufficient proof of that charge, then yes I'll plead guilty to that - as should every other meat-eating bug-blatting rat-poisoning Rentokill-hiring member of our society. And that is most of them. So don't pretend that it is some great failing on my part - it is the normal condition of the human race. It's just many of them haven't the moral courage to recognise it in themselves, nor the honesty to recognise that this makes it hypocrisy in them to condemn it in others.
     
  15. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Cosmictraveller - I'm not overlooking your point, honest.

    It's just in your case I think the answer is very simple.

    First - it is simply factually incorrect to say that we are hunting foxes "just for sport". We are not. The followers are there for the sport of following the hounds. The huntsman and the hounds and the whips are there to control predators for the farmers over whose land they hunt. Hunts which do not kill foxes soon lose their permission to hunt their territory. It is a complicated balance - and the job of the Masters is to ensure that teh farmers get their foxes killed and the followers get their sport and that everyone is happy (which, by and large, they are).

    Therefore, as I say, it is simply factually inaccurate to describe fox hunting as killing foxes "just for sport".

    But if, despite that, your position remains that you can accept the need to control predators but not that it be done by foxhunting, I will ask you two questions:

    1. Would you agree that, if predators have to be controlled, the use of the least cruel method available must by definition be entirely unobjectionable under all circumstances? and

    2. What method of controlling foxes do you believe there is, that is safe and practical to use in these overcrowded islands of ours, which involves a lesser degree fo cruelty than hunting them with hounds?
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    In my humble opinion I'd still look at the way you hunt foxes is for sport since you are not the ones affected by the foxes doings. There are other ways to dissuade foxes from eating ones livestock, one being having the livestock protected by dogs or other animals that foxes don't like. That means the dogs are on your property and set free to protect the livestock by chasing the foxes away.Another idea would be to enclose the animals that you want protected better so that foxes won't get into to their cages. Another way is to feed the foxes something that keeps them full so that they need not kill your livestock. I will still say that to shoot a fox you catch in your livestockes area would be just as good if that is what happens.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  17. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    To my knowledge intensive rearing units were cramped, and thats why they were called cruel, that was far from what i suggested.
    I would hope your not grouping me in that, i live in the countryside and foxes are beautiful in the wild, and it is very cruel to hunt them.
    How stupid do you have to be not to realise that placing a solid wooden fence will keep foxes out and free range chickens in, no need for cruelty to anything then.
    The predators come back, again and again, try keeping them out then they wont come back as they cant get anything, and get it through your head their numbers wont go sky high, the population can only go as high as the availability of their prey, which as it is must be pretty high if these chickens are such easy prey for them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I disagree with that practice aswel, and this isnt helping your case, they shoot foxes without them doing anything, thats even worse.
    And its not the only way so dont use this arguement.
    You said yourself its prevention, their not even pests yet and your still killing them, they havnt done anything you just go out and 'prevent' them from doing anything, by your logic i can kill you to 'prevent' you from killing a human(which you may or may not do, see the problem here?).
    Tell me something i dont know.
    You wont consider any alternatives, because it would prevent your sport and fun, your just cruel and a poor excuse for a human.
    When you eat the fox maybe i'll let you kill it, you dont, you do it for fun.
    Its not the only method, its just the most fun method for you, and thats why you do it no matter what you claim.
    They wouldnt have the damage if they kept the foxes out in the first place.
    If you can come up with a way to keep them away i'd prefer that to killing them, same goes with foxes and there is a way to keep them out, you just wont look for it.
    Again with that word, use it on someone else please.
    Killing when theres a reasonable alternative without killing, the fact its done for sport only, and the method is very cruel, you dont hunt the cockroaches do you? Your not content to shoot foxes you must hunt them, that says something about you.
    You dont kill the fox for food, you do it for fun, nice try.
    I'd hope the vegetarian would be smart enough to protect his crops without the need for shooting innocent creatures before they even touch his crop.
    Yes and you confirmed you do it for fun, before the fox has even done anything.
    Never heard the red coat arguement, cant say i agree with it, and its mostly undertaken by rich people but i dont give a shit if your rich or poor your still barbarically cruel.
    You admitted all you needed to, and i never said what you think, i said what i think about your practice that you admit is for fun.
    If i wasnt listening i wouldnt be responding to you, i'd be saying im right your wrong nanana, did i do that? I think not.
    Again you eat the steak not the fox, and you dont hunt the steak for fun.
    Again with those words that dont always apply, and theres a large difference between not being a couch potato and being a hunter for fun, just because its an active 'sport' doesnt give it anymore credit.
    Actually i think the charge is you kill for fun and ignore alternatives that dont involve killing and so wouldnt satisfy your bloodlust, if you wish to raise a fox for the sole purpose of food and kill it please do, but dont find a wild one and hunt it for fun and no other purpose, it is cruel no matter what you claim, there are alternatives but you dont wish to explore them, or even look for any because you like the way it is. Theres a difference between raising cattle for steak and hunting a creature for fun, the problem is you fail to see it, you are not defending anyones livestock as you said earlier you do it for prevention aswel, the fox doesnt have to do anything to incur your wrath except be living, if people are reincarnated i hope you come back as a fox.
     
  18. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Very well - lets clear the air of a few misconceptions shall we?

    The actual killing is no part of the fun of hunting. There is no "bloodlust" involved. I have heard claims such as that many a time, and they're all a load of baloney. Go out and follow a few hunts. See what goes on. Then see whether you still think it's all about "bloodlust" and "killing for fun". (Oh - and just so you don't go getting the wrong idea, a "holloa" is nothing to do with bloodlust - it is a means of communication.)

    The killing is about pest control; and it is done at the behest of and for the benefit of the people whose livelihoods will suffer if predators are not kept in check. Virtually the only people who get to witness the kill are the professionals who are employed to work the hounds.

    If you do not believe this, then explain what you think is going on when the fox goes to ground, and the hounds and the mounted followers go off somewhere else, and the terriermen stay behind to dig the fox out and shoot it. Fun? Bloodlust? Or part of a fox control operation for the benefit of the landowners who have told the hunt that they want any fox that goes to ground dug out and shot?

    If, as you allege, hunting was a case of killing solely for the pleasure of the hunt followers, there would be no digging out. But there is. And that fact alone is sufficient to prove that you are mistaken.

    Solid wooden fences to keep foxes out? Don't make me laugh! Have you any idea of the economics of food production in this country? The low margins that most farmers work on? And the cost of solid wooden fencing? The only way most hill farmers will be able to keep their lambs enclosed by a solid wooden fence is if some kind, altruistic person goes and builds it for them. Are you volunteering for the task? No - I thought not.

    It's easy to sit with your head in the clouds - whether thye be urban clouds or rural clouds - and tell other people that what they do is wrong, they must do it some other way, or they must not do it at all. But before you attempot to meddle in other people's lives you really ought to make sure that first of all you understand what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

    Banning hunting will not save one single fox - and arguments about whether farmers shoudl be killing foxes on their land or not have no place in teh hunting debate. The fact that farmers are going to want foxes killed is a given, whether you like it or not.

    There is no more numane way of killing a fox than hunting it with hounds - with the possible exception of "lamping" with rifles. That was the conclusion of the Burns enquiry, commissioned by a government which was considering legislating on fox hunting. But the use of rifles over most of Britian is ruled out by simpel consideratiosn of safety and population density. Therefore, in most of Britain there is no more humane way to kill foxes than to hunt them with hounds.

    I do not see you arguing otherwise.

    You say you do not like the farmers shooting foxes. Ban hunting, Lemming, and there will be a lot more of THAT.

    We never leave a wounded fox to suffer. We either catch it - in which case it is killed - or it gets away. No crawling off with a shattered leg to die in a ditch of starvation or gangrene after three agonising weeks of suffering. Does that count for nothing with you?

    You purport to care about animal suffering. If so, then given that you cannot stop farmers from killing foxes (and that is a given - you cannot and you never will) can you not see that the most beneficial thing you can do is ensure that as few foxes as possible are shot, and that as much of the fox cull as possible takes place by more humane methods?

    Oh - except you claim that hunting is barbaric and inhumane. You haven't explained why you think that yet. indeed, you haven't even defined what you mean by "barbaric" and "inhumane" - have you?

    And no - we don't eat the foxes we catch. But I cannot see that there is a moral difference between killing a lamb to eat it, and killing a fox to stop it killing and eating a lamb which we want to kill and eat. If it is acceptable to kill for food, then that must encompass both the killing of the actual animal that you will eat, and the killing of a predator that would otherwise take the animal from you before you can eat it. Both are properly described as killing "for food".

    Similarly, your suggestion that farmers must wait until a fox has actually taken their stock before killing it because it is only then that it becomes "a predator" is spurious. Foxes are a predatory species. Left unchecked they WILL take livestock - lambs, poultry, and game birds. There is no speclation involved there. It is not a question of "if" - but only of when, and where.

    It's back to the slugs and the lettuces really. Do you say to teh gardener that he must wait until the slugs have eaten his lettuces, and that only then may he put down the slug pellets? Or are you content for him to put down slug pellets to protect his lettuces even before any of them have been attacked.

    Most gardeners I know would think you more than a little deranged if you were to try to tell them that they must not put down slug pellets until AFTER their lettuces had been attacked. Why do you suppose that a different rule should apply to farmers who are raising lambs, poultry, game birds or other stock which is at risk of fox predation?

    For myself, I can see no meaningful distinction between the two scenarios. If we as a society are prepared to tolerate gardeners killing slugs to protect their lettuces, we must equally be prepared to tolerate farmers killing foxes to protect their stock.

    And I go further and say that we should be prepared to tolerate both. If you don't like killign slugs or foxes - that's fine by me. Nobody's saying that you have to do it if you don't want to. But I do not think we as a society should be turning gardeners or those acting on their behalf into criminals if they kill slugs, nor farmers or those acting on their behalf into criminals if they kill foxes.
     
  19. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Then why dont you chase one of your own dogs or just not kill the fox? Did you think of that? Perhaps now you see why everyone feels you only want to kill.
    Again with the same arguement, we already covered this, theres no need to keep predators in check if you keep them out, nature will keep them in check, and your idea of pest control is to go out and kill something even if its not on your land, thats like me walking 2 miles to kill a cockroach because its a pest, its far from sound logic.
    Hold on, why do you dig it out? To kill it. Now read your sentance again and see your mistake, if you was not going to kill it there would be no digging out, but there is, and that fact alone proves you dont have a clue what your saying.
    That was a solution off the top of my head, took all of 10 seconds, how many months/years have you spent hunting instead of trying to think of alternatives? And you claim its not bloodlust. Since my idea might work, why dont you propose it to everyone in the country that opposes the killing of foxes on condition hunts are banned along with shooting foxes and get your own response to the question, instead of making up your own response without asking everyone. Or better yet why dont you do it? If you really dont have a bloodlust for killing foxes and want their land protected? Since I wont answer for you, would you be willing to do it?
    Your explaining it for the 3rd time and i answered it the first time, so you keep playing the 'you dont understand us' card as long as you want, you wont get anything new.
    So if they are kept off their land its a given they will still want them killed? Now THATS just cruel, and slightly sick(though i doubt they'd care).
    Thats because these kind of arguements have no place here im against their killing when there are alternatives, that includes shooting and hunting(for at least the third time of saying it).
    Of course, if you ignore any alternatives.
    Since i never used that arguement against you i wonder why you suddenly bring it up, and no it counts for nothing since you still kill it.
    Theres no need for a cull, can you not see that?
    Actually i thought i did, but for you benefit its cruel to chase a creature when it hasnt done anything just to kill it, at least if all you did is shoot it when its on the farmers land its likely at the least you'd wound it and could finish the job without the need for chasing the thing.
    And this may be where the problem lies, the lamb is specifically raised for food, thats its purpose, the fox is not, it is a hunter, and catches many more voles, shrews and mice than lambs, it may or may not want to kill the farmers lamb, but you kill it regardless because it might decide to.
    Dunno where you got that from, perhaps you could quote it?(thats if i actually said it), a fox is a predator, but you act like all it eats is lambs and chickens, like it lives off a farmers livestock, which as everyone who knows anything about foxes is aware is bullshit.
    Prove that every fox takes something from a farmer. If you can.
    And its back to my exact same arguement then, Im all for any method that stops their killing if you have one, like with the foxes.
    Who said a different rule? Theres an alternative to fox hunting, if you know how to keep slugs away from lettuces without killing them please share it.
    I believe if animal rights stretch to endangered species, and domestic creatures why shouldnt they extend to everything else we dont eat for food? Foxes and slugs shouldnt be excluded from that, if theres an alternative method than killing then it should be welcomed by all with open arms, unless of course they enjoy the killing, the test of whether you enjoy it or not is if your open to alternatives, the ones who arnt are the ones who enjoy the kill, the ones open to alternatives do it for the fun of the chase, which are you?
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Cob Nut, you make a fairly eloquent, if flawed case.

    Firstly, I grew up in arable farmland, there was still a hunt. It was therefore about hunting and killing for pleasure. nothing more.

    I wondered if you would mention game birds. Interestingly, it's not just foxes that have to be killed to protect the game bird population is it? There was a movement to add certain birds of prey to the Defra approved quarry list, to protect a bunch of stupid non-viable game birds that are going to get shot anyway. Do you understand how false this sitation is? How many of different species do you have to kill, to preserve game long enough to be slain for pleasure.

    Shooting is far more humane than using hounds. A .223 through the brain is pretty damn quick. OK you have to get the land approved for that type of round, but it's no big deal.

    You mention pest control, this is the single most flawed argument ever made wrt fox hunting. A single fox could decimate your game bird population, so having any around is still a risk. So it certainly isn't about population management. All farming has losses, whether it's rain battering your wheat, pigeons crapping in your grain silo, or frost getting to your sprouts. Foxes are just another loss. Deal with it.

    Few other countries hunt foxes on horseback, and they are not overrun with them, nor do they have major problems with losing livestock.

    Simply, if the public think it's cruel, it will be banned. After that time, _if_ anything you have said proves to be true (and I doubt it) you'll be able to gather the evidence that the ban was wrong, and demostrate scientific proof for it to be re-instated, to cure our Fox epidemic.

    You also seem to forget, that we got on just fine farming before fox hunting on horseback. We'll be fine afterwards too.

    Fox Hunting will get banned hopefully, and that will be that. Maybe farmers should get more involved in the big farming issues, like the common agricultural policy, rather than bleating about 'tradition', and their 'right' to hunt.
     
  21. Cob Nut Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Phlogistician - thank you for that gracious compliment.

    Thank you also for not suggesting anything so crass as that it is possible to keep foxes out altogether. You and I know that it isn't.

    Yes, just one fox CAN destroy a whole flock of poultry - especially if it manages to get INTO a coop, run or whatever designed to keep it OUT (wily buggers, ain't they?). But it's about risk management, isn't it? If you've got fifty foxes loose on your farm, there's a much greater risk that ONE of them is going to achieve this feat of livelihood destruction than there would be if there were only five or ten.

    Yes, it IS just one of those losses - and farmers must just deal with it if it happens. BUT they are also, I think, entitled to try to see that it doesn't happen. Either you believe that they are entitled to do this by killing the predators, or you are not. I happen to think they are. I think they are entitled to shoot crows, rats, foxes, whatever. And if they are entitled to shoot, they are also equally entitled to have somebody else come in and kill their pests by any other method which causes no more suffering.

    And I do not consider that hunting foxes causes more suffering, in the round, than shooting them, for reasons which I have set out but will happily repeat.

    Game birds - yes, they are eventually going to be shot. And eaten. So what? They are part of the diversified farmer's livelihood, and surely he is just as entitled to protect them as he is entitled to protect his lambs, ducks, geese ... I mean, when I go to my game butcher and pay £5 for a brace of pheasant, and when I go to Tesco and pay £5 for a pound of lamb, they are both food that I am going to eat, and that the farmer has made a living by raising to the point of slaughter. Is there really any great deeper significance to the fact that the economics of pheasant production include somebody paying the farmer £100 for the privilege of shooting a dozen brace of pheasant, one of which he gets to keep, and the rest of which the farmer sells on to the game butcher? I think not. It is all food production; and the fact that one part of it involves somebody whose motive might be something other than the production of food, whether for himself or anybody else, is irrelevant in exactly the same way that the shooting of foxes and the hunting of foxes is all pest control, despite the fact that one of them involves somebody whose motive might be something other than to control pests.

    Doubtless hunting did take place in pure arable areas in the past. Nowadays, however, with diversification there is scarcely such a thing as a purely arable area. And moreover, even if a particular farmer is purely arable, he understands that foxes move about and that if his stock-rearing neighbour clears his land of foxes that is of little use to him if his farm is immediately repopulated by foxes moving off the arable farm. Therefore, even pure arable farmers are often prepared to allow the hunt to control their foxes (no skin off their nose: it costs them nothing) out of consideration for their stock-rearing neighbours.

    You will recall that country folk tend to stick together in this sort of way. And maybe some time in the future, the stock farmer will be able to scratch the arable farmer's back, too ...
     
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The worst problem makers that create the most terrible problems are humans themselves. Foxes play a key role in taking care of other problems in nature but humans don't give about what they screw up in nature.
     
  23. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    ahhhh crap i accidentally chose 'no'. how absent-minded.

    I really meant 'yes'.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page