Hunting Banned From February - just announced

[TiggerTheTroll]

Hunting for food, for pest control I could understand, though has become less justified, this is where it came from. The reason I want hunting banned is too stop what the pro hunt protestors do it for, hunting/killing for pleasure. No other reason than they want to kill something for their own entertainment and amusement. And I've always hated wot that said about them, and therefore us and society.

 

[zaban]

i dont want to inflame this issue by coming down hard on one side, but living in the countryside, having ridden since i was a young 'un, and going to schools in cities has brought me into contact with people for and against, and it amazes me how many people have a view point on an issue THAT THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

1. how many of you have seen what a fox does to animals? if it gets into a chicken run or other livestock pen, it doesn't just kill what it needs to eat, but everything.
2. once hunting has been banned, farmers are going to have to resort to other methods to control this vermin. scotland have already had to go this way, with trapping and shooting the prefered methods. this has illustrated the futility of these methods. in both cases the fox is more likely to die over a prolonged period of pain - trapped or heavily injured.
3. what will happen to the hounds? slaughtered and turned to dog feed. very humane. (where will the animal rights activists be.. in the pub toasting their 'victory')
4. posh people and hunting. yes there are posh people, but there are also middle class people, working class people: banker, doctors, shop-owners, lawyers, those who depend on hunting and/or horses for their livelyhood. this issue gets blown into a class war by those who want to antagonise the issue further and get the less privileged on their sides, as only the phrase 'posh-pastime' can do.

please be aware of all sides of hunting before coming to a conclusion. the arguments against are articulated very well, whilst the CA looks to promote itself as an almost revolutionary movement of civil disobedience, missing the oft-opportunities to make a case for itself.

:peace:

 

[JPsychodelicacy]

....whilst the CA looks to promote itself as an almost revolutionary movement of civil disobedience, missing the oft-opportunities to make a case for itself.

Actually it makes the Lord Herbert Buntingley-Smythes look like a bunch of spoiled children who've just had their toys taken away, which is exactly what they are.

There are many equestrian and canine pursuits that don't involve hunting - so why the fixation on the practice?

It's a complete non-issue IMO - just as city-dwellers have had to adapt to the 21st century, so must they.

J. (lackadaisical class warrior)

 

[natacherry]

why do the hounds have to be killed though?

 

[JPsychodelicacy]

why do the hounds have to be killed though?

Because they've been bred and raised for the practice, which means they're quite aggressive - it's bloody hard to train them out of it.

The fact is that they'd be put down anyway as soon as they became too old to run with the pack...

J.

 

[natacherry]

why do the hounds have to be killed though?

Because they've been bred and raised for the practice, which means they're quite aggressive - it's bloody hard to train them out of it.

The fact is that they'd be put down anyway as soon as they became too old to run with the pack...

J.

oh

 

[TiggerTheTroll]

why do the hounds have to be killed though?

Because they've been bred and raised for the practice, which means they're quite aggressive - it's bloody hard to train them out of it.

The fact is that they'd be put down anyway as soon as they became too old to run with the pack...

J.

oh

Its another one of the very weak arguements used by the pro-hunters. "We've breed and trained a load of animals to be savage, wot shall we do now?". As we all know there are loads of retirement sanctuaries for retired blood hounds.

 

[Technognome]

1. how many of you have seen what a fox does to animals? if it gets into a chicken run or other livestock pen, it doesn't just kill what it needs to eat, but everything.

Which wouldn't happen if the farmer actually secured the pen properly! The fox is merely killing that which moves (natural instinct like a cat chasing string). If the other animals could escape the pen then no futher killing would occur. So not the foxes fault but the farmers!

Some form of insurance would seem to be in order - tho I suspect the insurance companies are going to want the pens secured properly before they pay out!

2. once hunting has been banned, farmers are going to have to resort to other methods to control this vermin. scotland have already had to go this way, with trapping and shooting the prefered methods. this has illustrated the futility of these methods. in both cases the fox is more likely to die over a prolonged period of pain - trapped or heavily injured.

I'd imagine the sessation of the practice of creating artificial sets for foxes by hunts would somewhat reduce the so called need for control. Also with the stopping of Beagle and Harrier packs, some form of natural rabbit control will no doubt be welcomed by the farmers.

3. what will happen to the hounds? slaughtered and turned to dog feed. very humane. (where will the animal rights activists be.. in the pub toasting their 'victory')

Actually hunts feed old hounds to the pack to save on the food bill and provide a cheap & convenient disposal method. I'd imagine that quite a few anti-hunt types would take in unemployed hunting hounds.

I would!

Of course these busineses (hunts) could convert to drag hunting but obviously continuing to kill things is of more concerne to them. Sad bastards that they are.

I think I should provide an example of the ease with which a hound can become a house pet.

In the 1980's Ecclesfield Beagles 'lost' their entire pack of hounds :lol1: these hounds proved to make great house pets and I have met some of the dear little fellows. A dog trained to fight however is far more unsuitable but with love can be rehomed.

The reason that hounds are not rehomed at the end of their hunting lives (5-7years old) is due to the number that are put down every year by every pack. A rough estimated would be 10-20 hounds per pack per year. with over 200 packs of hounds in the country rehoming 2000-4000 hounds every year is nigh on impossible and the countryside would be awash with them. Much easier to just feed them back to the youngster.

You will also note that I have failed to include the vast numbers of puppies bread by hunts to replace their old hounds who don't make the grade...

To be honest I'd ban these people from ever owning any animals ever again. :ph34r:

PHLUR :sun:

 

[SkizZ]

Personally I feel sorry for any animals that are killed or reared in an inhumane manner - However there are 2 things that concern me with all this:
1. The whole planet is gonna go tits up sometime soon due to humankinds ruthless consumption and pollution - fox hunting in England seems to be a diversion from much more important issues [a distraction the govt keeps pulling out to it's advantage].
2. This kind of urban voter control over longstanding countryside practices [in my view] seems to be a part of humankinds continuing slide away from nature - and whether or not you like what goes on - it can only be a bad thing this severing of our ties with mother earth.

 

[canyouhearthegoblins]

just to say

the only reason farmers allow the hunt on their land
(which causes a huge damn muddy mess, broken fences (yes by the posh pillocks who can;t actually ride and are probaby sitting the wrong way round with a hip flask up their bottom) and causes the need for cattle to be moved prior to the day etc)
is because it saves them the time of having to deal with the rouge foxes in their area themselves. they dont have time, full stop

if they're not gonna get somehting out of it (ie foxes killed) they are no way gonna let 100 horses gallap acorss their land and trash it

ps my sister was master of a drag hunt for 3 years
they used around 14 hounds for each hunt and had about 30 in total
these were hounds that were retired from hunts becassue they were either crap or old
and aniceed was rubbish so they would have to use a foxes leg they would get from the local hunt (haha)

normal hunts have at least 80 hounds so whats gonna happen to the other 50? yes they will die

farmers dont like drag hunting it provides them no service and drag hunts do not kindly collect the carcasses of dead cattle for farmers and provide other free services too

drag hunting is not an option for all these animals
and so as the punters wouldnt get bored and the landowners pissed of by having a drag hunt every other week (because drag hunts need a big course whereas foxes go in circles), the drag hunt needs to cover the area of arounf 5/6 local packs ie 80 * 6 hounds -> 30 hounds = 450 dead

yes the posh city wankers who go out on saturday are twats but the lovely fluffy farmers out hunting in the week who work their arses off are some of the loveliest peple i've met in my life with none of the bullshit egos of loads of trancers, they live a simple life like a 'hippy' and they are the guys who need the foxes controlled whilst during the week the wankers are living it up in holland park


raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

:runaway:

 

[El Huevon]

Personally I feel sorry for any animals that are killed or reared in an inhumane manner - However there are 2 things that concern me with all this:
1. The whole planet is gonna go tits up sometime soon due to humankinds ruthless consumption and pollution - fox hunting in England seems to be a diversion from much more important issues [a distraction the govt keeps pulling out to it's advantage].
2. This kind of urban voter control over longstanding countryside practices [in my view] seems to be a part of humankinds continuing slide away from nature - and whether or not you like what goes on - it can only be a bad thing this severing of our ties with mother earth.

Agree on point one, its hardly the most important thing in the world what with Iraq and Bush and poverty and the environment etc.,
but banning foxhunting as 'severing our ties from mother nature' are you having a laugh?!

What has a bunch of toffs on horses chasing round a landscape largely berefit of biodiversity due to centuries of monocropping got to do with ties with mother nature?

What insenses me about the whole thing is not really the farmers, and those who work on the hunt, after all they're just making a living, but with the 'the countryside alliance' who claim to stand for the 'countryside' but who really stand for the parochial interests of a comparative minority.

I mean with all the stuff that is negatively effecting farmers (agroindustry, supermaket dominanace of food chains), the rural environment (pollution, construction of infrastructure etc.)

It is this which gets them marching.

The right to chase a bloody fox around some fields. of all the myriad things that deserve protest; they are most bothered about something which is very unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Twats, mindless, ignorant, self-interested relics of a feudal system which is thankfully disappearing.

Oh, ranting again :unsure:

 

[JPsychodelicacy]

1. The whole planet is gonna go tits up sometime soon due to humankinds ruthless consumption and pollution - fox hunting in England seems to be a diversion from much more important issues [a distraction the govt keeps pulling out to it's advantage].

We all need to do our bit, and some of us are trying... the problem is that the US insists on sticking its head in the sand on environmental issues (official US policy is currently that global warming and climate change are unproven theories). The Bush Administration basically allowed the Fossil fuel/Nuclear industries write their environmental policies energy-wise, and allowed logging firms to write their conservation policies.

Of course, many Bush supporters think this is fine because Jesus is coming to rapture them away in a few years, so to them it's all good.

2. This kind of urban voter control over longstanding countryside practices [in my view] seems to be a part of humankinds continuing slide away from nature - and whether or not you like what goes on - it can only be a bad thing this severing of our ties with mother earth.

Mother Earth has a finite lifespan as well - all the conservation in the world can't change that. While I agree we should all do our bit, we must ultimately seek to fly the nest at some point in our future.

While tradition is a fine thing, rural economies need to adapt to changing times, just as urban ones do.

J.

 

[SkizZ]

"but banning foxhunting as 'severing our ties from mother nature' are you having a laugh?!"
Hehe I must admit I do like having a laugh [not generally at other peoples expense though]
I actually said "a part of humankinds continuing slide away from nature etc." so yes I do believe what I wrote - the argument about cruelty to foxes is fair enough - it's not nice seeing hounds tearing to pieces our indigenous species nor are you wrong about the way the countryside has been 'modified' - but much of our urban society does not seem to want to face up to the realities of nature - kids not knowing where meat comes from etc. - yes fox hunting isn't really a part of our food cycle - but it can be argued it is part of the process - a part of the slide away; not a causal factor but a definate part of the increased seperation of Britains urban and rural populations - but that's only my viewpoint.

 

[Technognome]

<snip>

(because drag hunts need a big course whereas foxes go in circles), the drag hunt needs to cover the area of arounf 5/6 local packs ie 80 * 6 hounds -> 30 hounds = 450 dead

<snip>

You really haven't got a clue have you?

Foxes do not run in circles, that would be rabbits :rolleyes:

But putting aside that 'fact', what is to stop the human trail layer in a drag hunt laying a trail in a circle? :lol1:

The reason why a drag hunt would cover a area of 5-6 fox hunts country is that they cannot get access to the land that a foxhunt does. Therefore they need to approach famers in other hunt countries.

The reason why a drag hunt would have so few hounds is that they cannot afford to keep anymore, as Foxhunts attract the big money and more followers partly because they already have access to the land.

Thus giving the riders a good long ride.

Not as you suggest riding round in circles. :lol1:

Oh btw a pack of 80 hounds is refered to as 40 couple of hounds but I suspect you new that eh! Being so knowledgable and all!

A drag hunt with 40 couple of hounds that arn't 'old or crap' would have an easier time of following an aniseed trail. Especially once they start breeding for it.

PS All hunts employ a group of burley 'fellows' to mend the fences that the riders (field) inevitably dammage. These 'fellows' occasionaly become involved in 'dealing' with hunt protestors (hunt saboteurs). I look forward to the constabulary 'dealing' with these 'fellows'

'Riding to hounds' is not usually conducted by incompetent riders. Riding at high spped accross country is very difficult and can easily result in death if you don't know what your doing!

As to Farmers allowing hunts on their farms... many are tenant farmers and have no say in the Hunting, Shooting & Fishing rights to the land they farm.

PHLUR :sun:

 

[TiggerTheTroll]

From my perspective and I woulda thought RSPCA, is there any difference between feeding a live fox to 80 hounds and pit bull fighting, cock fighting etc?
And if pest control has to happen, has no one come up with a better method than 80 hounds and 50 horseriders and their horses galloping around the countryside?
Perhaps they'll modernise and take a american idea, an AC-10 Gunship, perfect for close quarter urban warfare and small furry animals.

 

[SkizZ]

Technognome do you know what PHLUR stands for?

 

[ChrisCabbage]

Personally, being brought up in rurally connected a mining village, I don't have much sympathy with people bleating about loss of livelihood in the hunting world.

I remember well the hunting types I knew dissing the miners at the time of the strike.

I also find it amusing that the same people wanting to pull out of Europe are now those running to the European courts to plead human rights violations. Irony?

Only my opinions though - natch.

 

[evilwill]

there are many, many more important issues to deal with before stopping some rich twats killing a few poor foxes...

I'd be interested to here of these many more important issues which can garner such an overwhelming majority in parliament on a free vote. Start a separate thread tho!

erm, sorry, but it's completely irrevalent to the importance of an issue what kind of majority a ruling on it would get in parliament!

Or perhaps you could mention a non-partisan issue upon which the majority of the country would like change but is opposed by parliament. The reintroduction of the death penalty perhaps!

it's also fairly irrelavent what the public think... they don't know shit. (as you've just said yourself)

my point is that fox hunting is completely insignificant. how many foxes die a year from hunting? (i dunno but i'd guess a few hundred, maybe thousand max?)

to be honest, compared to the utter shit going on all over the world who gives a f*ck about a few foxes dying? yeah its wrong and its happening here in the uk, and probably should be banned, but the amount of time & money spent discussing it, especially by our government, is ridiculous.

Also for your and others information the population of fox hunters includes a wide selection of society not limited by class, wealth, religion or colour.

yeah that's not what i said/meant - the reason that the majority of the public get _so_ worked up about this issue is because it's _perceived_ to be the sport of upper class twats.

ps technognome i can see this is an issue you feel strongly about and i do agree its wrong, but looking at the wider picture i just don't think its _that_ wrong.

peace an all that...

 

[Technognome]

there are many, many more important issues to deal with before stopping some rich twats killing a few poor foxes...

I'd be interested to here of these many more important issues which can garner such an overwhelming majority in parliament on a free vote. Start a separate thread tho!

erm, sorry, but it's completely irrevalent to the importance of an issue what kind of majority a ruling on it would get in parliament!

But not irrelevant to the wasting of the time of parliament.

or good use of government time?

I'd love to see debates in parliament where the important issues are sorted out but given their abismal track record to date I'm not holding my breath. Infact given that abismal record we are probably better off if they discuss this sort of thing than invading other countries!

It has been the will of the people, expressed by the house of commons for some 9 years, to ban hunting;

BBC

1995 - Labour MP John McFall is unsuccessful with his private member's bill to ban hunting with hounds. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill passes its second reading in the Commons. But it is heavily amended before it falls in the Lords.

What, or in this case who, has wasted the time & money would have been the House of Lords and the pro hunting lobby unable to accept the will of the people.

IMHO one of the most important issues within a representative democracy is that the 'will of the people' is seen to be applied to all the members of that democracy equally. That a minority of people can ignore (for 9 years) that will, through the offices of an unelected chamber, is perhaps as important an issue as the invasion of Iraq (to amoungst other claims 'bring democracy to the world').

PHLUR :sun:

 

[Meijin]

Canuhearthegoblins stated:

'normal hunts have at least 80 hounds so whats gonna happen to the other 50? yes they will die'

which just sums up the sort of ruthless and inhumane mentality of many who are happy to use animals as factors of production - as with the hounds for the hunt, or greyhounds for gambling - and then feel they have a right (from whom?) to abandon or kill those animals they have used for their own ends. Those people have absolutely NO right to treat other animals like that and if they think they have I would like to know on what grounds they justify it.

One of the key reasons the govt has banned hunting is not from some base of class conflict or the politics of envy but because the actions of hunting for sport are inhumane and cause unnecessary distress to animals BEFORE they are ripped to pieces.
There are other laws that the state passes in order to inculcate a greater sense of moral responsibility and humane behaviour amongst the population - the abolition of capital punishment is one such example. Many people used to believe (and it may still be a majority number) that capital punishment was a good thing but the govt abolished it because it did not feel it was humane or the appropriate moral punishment - even for taking a life. So although the majority of the population at the time did NOT agree with abolishing the death penalty the govt got rid of it and hoped to encourage a higher moral appreciation of life.
In a way the banning of hunting is also the action of a paternalist government but I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing because over time it will eventually come to seem abhorrent to the overwhelming majority that people could have ever killed for profit or fun or culture, and will view it in the same terms as we view the death penalty today - as an immoral act.

PS. I know I'm going to have a drink to celebrate tonight :drinking: