Bring Back Fox Hunting

[Pierre]

If people want to hunt foxes with dogs.........................let them.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If people want to hunt foxes with dogs.........................let them.

So if people want to hunt man with dogs should we let them.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If people want to hunt foxes with dogs.........................let them.

I would rather hunt the huntsmen/women with dogs to see how they like it, seems fair to me.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If people want to hunt foxes with dogs.........................let them.

Why ,any reasons or is that just a random remark

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's not killing with dogs ,it's a different type of hunt, killling the fox with a gun is different to killing with a dog .Most of the objections to fox hunting were because of the use of dogs to carry out the kill

Killing with one dog and I guess it doesn't make much difference to the fox or the people chasing it considering they don't see it killed...

---------- Post added at 16:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Thats a pretty old report " Saturday 20 November 2004 " wonder if that's the same now ?.

Worse I'd say, not a bad article even if the Mail couldn't help itself in places from sensationalising. I never knew this either

And far more pregnant vixens are being killed, too. When a marksman takes aim or a snare is set, it is almost impossible to tell if the victim is an expectant female.

Yet, in one of nature's strange quirks, a vixen gives off no scent when she is pregnant. So, ironically, pregnant females were completely safe from the hunts as the hounds could not follow her trail.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ular-ever.html

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

The claim that hunting with dogs is 'inefficient' is an assertion that is frequently and loudly repeated by the anti-hunt lobby, and one which they seem to hope everyone will buy in to if they repeat it loudly and frequently enough.

It's an assertion that sadly doesn't get challenged often enough. So I think it's fair for me to re-post something I said in this thread back in March:



The link is well worth reading. I would be very grateful if some of the people who have been so passionate to assert that hunting with dogs is 'inefficient' and 'unnatural' and 'inhuman' could give a thoughtful, reasoned response to the expert opinion it contains.

The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management has long been considered the "veterinary" mouthpiece for the pro-hunting lobby and the Countryside Alliance. Their opinion is not considered to be balanced nor unbiased.

Not once in that report do they state who the four hundred are, how their opinion has been sought and what methods they have used to canvas these anonymous members.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

You speak as if fox hunting is the sole example of animals suffering painful deaths for the sake of human comfort or expediency.

You have the right to trap or poison a mouse or a rat, do you not?

The difference being you don't send many dogs, multiple horses and many huntsmen off to catch mice or rats.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not really - we don't just live in a democracy. We live in a modern Western liberal democracy. That means politicians are not supposed go around using their five-year lease on power to make wholesale, mandatory changes on the lifestyles of citizens. Criminalizing a widely enjoyed and historic pastime was counter to almost every convention and tradition of our Parliament, which is why it took such a vast amount of Parliamentary time to get it into law.

Well it's as just as well they considered all of that when they banned dog fighting, bear and badger baiting and cock fighting, isn't it.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not being patronising - I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in your position. You accept that trapping and releasing farmyard rats is impractical, but that simply underlines the inconsistency in your argument. How do you balance your compassion for animals feeling pain with that impracticality?

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------



I do read the other posts on here, and that's why I am aware of your scarcely concealed joy at getting one over on those you perceive to be from the upper classes. Please don't try to use the political sympathies of other anti-hunt posters in this thread as a fig leaf to disguise your personal prejudice.

Really? Such as where? I don't think I have written anything about class (apart maybe a little joke here and there and I can't remember that either).

Re 'innocent': please give more detail on your understanding of the concepts of guilt and innocence as applied to non-human species.

Innocent = without guilt, undeserving of action taken.

---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No because they are twice as likely to be on a hunt where a fox is killed, in fact I am sure I remember hearing one hunt killed as many foxes on its first day of hunting once the ban was brought in than it did in the entire previous year...

Seems to me that the ripping of foxes to death was inefficient.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Interesting turn of phrase from the master of hounds in Daddy's link

So, it wasn't pest control before, despite their usual excuses.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Seems to me that the ripping of foxes to death was inefficient.

Yep shootings much better, especially if you can get a pregnant one...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yep shootings much better, especially if you can get a pregnant one...

And how did hunting with dogs ever make that distinction?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yet, in one of nature's strange quirks, a vixen gives off no scent when she is pregnant. So, ironically, pregnant females were completely safe from the hunts as the hounds could not follow her trail.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ular-ever.html

I would heavily disagree with that statement ,it is a known fact in the foxhunting community that pregnant foxes give off a reduced scent ,not no scent .The hounds are specifically bread for the ability to pick up these scents and are very valuable animals with the right pedigree

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And how did hunting with dogs ever make that distinction?

Yet, in one of nature's strange quirks, a vixen gives off no scent when she is pregnant. So, ironically, pregnant females were completely safe from the hunts as the hounds could not follow her trail.

Or reduced scent at any rate according to Marty...

At the end of the day the huntsmen have nothing to complain about .A badly thought out piece of legislation has failed miserably to do what it intended .It has however managed to revive a tradition/industry that was in decline and is now enjoying unprecedented levels of membership ...so that has dispelled the myth of mass unemployment ,mass culling of dogs/horses.Many more foxes are being killed according to the huntsmen,so that has dispelled the myth of a fox population explosion and it means the pest is being controlled .So really the pro hunting lobby should shut up and realise when they have a good thing or we could reverse the legislation and take the hunts back to the position they were in 4 yrs ago

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yet, in one of nature's strange quirks, a vixen gives off no scent when she is pregnant. So, ironically, pregnant females were completely safe from the hunts as the hounds could not follow her trail.

Or reduced scent at any rate according to Marty...

Incorrect on two counts. First of all vixens give off less scent, when pregnant, no no scent at all. Secondly, if this were true, the dogs flushing out will not be able to spot her either, therefore the gamekeeper would have nothing to shoot.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Why ,any reasons or is that just a random remark

I have given my reasons many, many times in this thread.

The ban on hunting with dogs was not equitable as other forms of hunting with animals is is still alllowed.

The ban was not brought in for the welfare of the fox but instead to put an end to a countryside pursuit enjoyed by, in the opinion of the government of the time, wealthy upper class countryside toffs (most likely to be tory voters).

Thers's no point going round in circles.

My opinion is that the ban should be overturned, I doubt it will be.