Bring Back Fox Hunting

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I believe that Fox hunting, being a Londoner is down to the individual, in the countryside, and l cannot see why it was banned in the first place, If l was farm owner and saw foxes killing my stock, it wouldn't need dog to kill it, l would shoot it myself.

I have worked in the lovelly countryside and seen what foxes do to cattle and other animals, and it is heartbreaking, l was in Ledbury, Glos once and came across protestor's against fox hunting, and they were a pain in the backside, but it should not be up to outsiders of the country side to decide what should happen, it is down to the people that live in this surroundings, and we should keep our noses out of it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by danielf

But there's nothing stopping them doing that now, is there? It's just that the fox needs to be replaced.

True, Just that I don't have any objection to them chasing the fox, as they have done for hundreds of years.

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I believe that Fox hunting, being a Londoner is down to the individual, in the countryside, and l cannot see why it was banned in the first place, If l was farm owner and saw foxes killing my stock, it wouldn't need dog to kill it, l would shoot it myself.

I have worked in the lovelly countryside and seen what foxes do to cattle and other animals, and it is heartbreaking, l was in Ledbury, Glos once and came across protestor's against fox hunting, and they were a pain in the backside, but it should not be up to outsiders of the country side to decide what should happen, it is down to the people that live in this surroundings, and we should keep our noses out of it.

What's that Arthur? Democracy and common sense?

You're in the wrong country mate

[Angua]

Originally Posted by danielf

But there's nothing stopping them doing that now, is there? It's just that the fox needs to be replaced.

Exactly! All the outrage about the fox hunting ban boils down to this. They have managed with clay pigeons, just need to find a similar version for horse riders who like a chase.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Still not sure what the point is.

The point is, as you go on to point out, that this was in your estimation..

Originally Posted by Pierre

An unfortunate incident, where an innocent pet was killed by people undertaking a pastime.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.

I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort.

That might raise a few hackles.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort.

That might raise a few hackles.

They don't go out with the intention of killing a cat, it's fox hunting not cat hunting.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They don't go out with the intention of killing a cat, it's fox hunting not cat hunting.

Where as of course your fox is quite happy to kill a cat...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They don't go out with the intention of killing a cat, it's fox hunting not cat hunting.

I think that was Mr. A's point in response to your question if people would call for recreational driving to be banned in response to the accidental killing of a cat through recreational driving.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They don't go out with the intention of killing a cat, it's fox hunting not cat hunting.

Unless there is a coordinated national sport of running over cats using cars or motorcycles that I'm not aware of then I'm afraid that's a not very good try at flawed analogy avoidance there Pierre.

You introduced the idiotic notion of people perhaps calling for a ban on leisure driving in the event that someone ran over a cat whilst out on a leisurely drive. Assuming that the "leisurely drive" is the prime motivation for them being out on / in a motorcyle or car then one might reasonably assume that they did not intentionally go out to run over a cat.

As for fox hunting (the clue is in the name) as you kindly pointed out above it is the intention to chase and kill a fox - there is a very clear difference between the two situations. Trying to justify "hunting" by drawing analogies involving accidents is really clutching at straws.

On the matter of straws...with a straw poll of even just the posters partaking in this thread / debate I'm pretty sure one will find that the public will afford the accidental death of an animal as a result of leisure driving a greater degree of sympathy / understanding than a planned organised quasi ritualized hunting and killing of same - especially by those they view (rightly or wrongly) as "toffs" or whatever.

EDIT...

Danielf - got there before me!!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Unless there is a coordinated national sport of running over cats using cars or motorcycles that I'm not aware of then I'm afraid that's a not very good try at flawed analogy avoidance there Pierre.

I think it's a good analogy.

Show me where there is a "coordinated national sport of hunting cats using dogs".

I go out on my motorcycle with upto 10 others all wearing the same kind of clothing. If we run over a cat should we be lambasted for it??

The hunt is not after cats, they're after foxs, if a cat is killed it is an accident

You introduced the idiotic notion of people perhaps calling for a ban on leisure driving in the event that someone ran over a cat whilst out on a leisurely drive. Assuming that the "leisurely drive" is the prime motivation for them being out on / in a motorcyle or car then one might reasonably assume that they did not intentionally go out to run over a cat.

As for fox hunting (the clue is in the name) as you kindly pointed out above it is the intention to chase and kill a fox - there is a very clear difference between the two situations. Trying to justify "hunting" by drawing analogies involving accidents is really clutching at straws.

Why??? both are accidental. The hunt doesn't want to kill a cat, it doesn't go out with the express intention of killing a cat.

You pushed the whole cat angle anyway.

With a straw poll of even just the posters partaking in this thread / debate I'm pretty sure one will find that the public will afford the accidental death of an animal as a result of leisure driving a greater degree of sympathy / understanding than a planned organised quasi ritualized hunting and killing of same - especially by those they view (rightly or wrongly) as "toffs" or whatever.

Well that's sort of my point

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Where as of course your fox is quite happy to kill a cat...

It is,

I've had a fox "intentionally" attack my cat strangely they never seem to do it by accident.

I've never had my cat attacked by a hunt.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

I think that was Mr. A's point in response to your question if people would call for recreational driving to be banned in response to the accidental killing of a cat through recreational driving.

Well it wasn't was it, becuase his response implied that hunts were intentionally going out to kill a cat.

Anyway I think the cat angle is skewing the debate somewhat

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think it's a good analogy......

Does anyone know if there is a "Well now, that obviously went right over your head" emoticon / smilie available anywhere?

[Angua]

The biggest difference between a vehicle killing a pet and the hunt killing a pet is in location. Vehicles (except for irresponsible green laners) are on the public highway or a designated track. The hunt goes willy nilly wherever the fox may take them. The former is a controlled situation the latter comparatively uncontrolled.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well it wasn't was it, becuase his response implied that hunts were intentionally going out to kill a cat.

Anyway I think the cat angle is skewing the debate somewhat

You asked:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.

and Mr. A. replied:

I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort.

Simple Q&A really...

[Pierre]

Christ it's not difficult is it?

Try to get your brain around it.

I did indeed ask

Originally Posted by Pierre
I suppose if someone was out for a leisurely drive in their car or on their motorbike and ran over a cat we'd all be reeling back in shock and horror, and calling for driving for enjoyment to be banned.

In which I was making the point that if a group of people went out and "accidentally" killed a cat whilst pursuing a leisure activity would we want to ban the activity they were pursuing.

Understand that bit? Good.

Mr A then replied

I don't think so, unless of course the persons in question went out with a collection of their friends all similarly dressed with the express intention of running over a cat in the guise of it being a sport of some sort.

Ok now focus on this bit:

with the express intention of running over a cat

Thereby implying that a hunts express intention was one of killing a cat.

This will be a really long debate if we have to waste several posts whilst their meaning are explained.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

I used to go fox hunting in my days as a single man. Didn't catch many foxes, but did end up with a moose or two

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Poor kids, didn't like this line either

As the law stands, hunts are not held liable for the actions of their hounds.

The irony of this is, if you live near a hunt location, and legally own a shotgun, (Clay pigeon shooting use) and was to shoot any hunt dogs who were in your garden ripping to pieces your pet. You would get done for animal cruelty.

Go figure