# FOX HUNTING OPINIONS PLEASE- Pro and Anti



## ellie1988 (16 September 2006)

Firstly hi, as you can see i'm new to the forum. I'm an A-level student, i own 5 horses and live on a farm with lots of animals- 4 dogs, 8 cats, 60 free range hens and 700 lambing ewes. 

I have been asked to conduct a survey for Leisure Studies at school and chose to do fox hunting.

Please could you all give your opinions on....
1. fox hunting in general
2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting 
3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting 
(e.g. do you regularly hunt).

I would be very grateful for any and as many opinions, it would be a huge help.

Thanks loads, Ellie


----------



## rrose (16 September 2006)

im more against than for

1. fox hunting in genral i feel is a horrible sport. why drive the fox so much that it is nackard so it can be mutilated by hounds!!! fair enough people says 'its the thrill of the chase' .. whats fun about that?? 

2. the ban hasn't helped at all... people are still hunting. although i am unaware of what has been banned nowdays as it keeps changing!!

3. im not involved and i dont want to be!! a mock hunt *or whatever its called* then yes i would. im not out there to kill wilds foxes!! what people dont get its apart of the food chain!!!

xx


----------



## MillionDollar (16 September 2006)

Hi and welcome to the forum.

I'm definitely For, i also live on a farm!

1. Fox hunting is the best way of controlling the pest. Shooting, poisoning and snaring only leads to a lot more pain.

2. The ban is useless, thank god.

3. I hunt regularly.

Hope this helps.


----------



## buckybee (16 September 2006)

1 - I think its the least cruel way of fox control.  Its a way of life for thousands of people and fantastic fun!!

2 - The oposite of what it was supposed to do - from an animal welfare point of view - most hunts are continuing as they were (maybe in a slightly different format) but farmers are also using there own tecniques more because they're not sure whats going on with thier local hunt.  Also, I think hunting popularity has increased since the ban, more people are giving it a go and good hunters are selling for more money than ever.

3 - Hunt regularly.

Hope you stick around!


----------



## welshiewhiskers (16 September 2006)

I am DEFINATLEY FOR hunting!

1)I think its the nicest way to get rid of foxes; it enables you to meet lots of people; the horses LOVE the day out!

2) the ban has had NO effect, numbers for my hunt anyway have gone up which is great!

3) My family and i hunt regularly


----------



## Clodagh (16 September 2006)

Hi and welcome!

1. Hunting, althuogh having elements of cruelty, benefits the quarry species in many ways
2. The ban has made it more cruel, and caused more deaths.
3. My whole family hunt.
(We live on a farm, too!)


----------



## Ereiam_jh (16 September 2006)

Both 'pro' and 'anti' are complete rubbish!

A LACS slogan was 'there is no middle way'.

The truth is that their is no other way.

It's wrong to say that we should be able to do whatever we wish to animals.

It;s also wrong to say that all control meaures are wrong.

The Hunting Act bans even activities with dogs that don't kill animals.  

It's obvious that it has gone to far.

To say there 'is no middle way' is an extremist position.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (16 September 2006)

People should be entitled to hunt wild mammals with dogs within a sensible legal framework.

In the absence of a sensible law I have no alternative but to break the one they have.

I illegally hunted deer with dogs this morning.

If a law is totally stupid, like the Hunting Act then it's fine to break it.


----------



## daddyaddy (16 September 2006)

Hi Ellie,
 I'm a newcomer too. My girlfriend is an avid "hunter" and has rode with a hunt since she was 6. Personally I'm c**p at riding and wouldn't have the guts for it. I say hunter in quotations because from what I've seen and heard (and I've heard a lot) most people who ride with hunts are not overly bothered about killing foxes at all. So as an observer here's what I think:

1. Fox hunting is a traditional sport with foundations based on a real agricultural problem i.e. foxes. It is an effective way of controlling the population which if left to run a mock has the potential to severely damage farmers animal stocks. Fox hunting that goes on today, however, is only loosely based on these traditional principals and hardly ever actually catches any foxes. As I said before, most people who ride with hunts today don't seem that bothered about catching foxes. The pleasure seems to come from the thrill of riding horses in a way that no other sport offers.

2. The ban seems to of had quite a positive effect on hunting. It has pushed the people who were mostly interested in killing foxes into the minority and created a much more horse driven sport. Also, more and more people are getting interested in it just as an enjoyable way of riding horses.

3. As I said above, my girlfriend is an avid rider who has riden with a hunt since she was 6 and drags me along to lots of hunt balls and diners.


----------



## wurzel (17 September 2006)

"nackard so it can be mutilated by hounds!!!  "

Nackard ???

Foxes are kiled by hounds. 

Don't make things up and learn to spell.

"im not out there to kill wilds foxes!! what people dont get its apart of the food chain!!!"

I thought I might answer you but I have given up. You are too stupid to contemplate.


----------



## buckybee (17 September 2006)

Aegidius_Ahenobarbus and tom_faggus - can't you just answer the girls f**king questions like everyone else???? 


sorry your men, hence boring!! :smirk:


----------



## Ereiam_jh (17 September 2006)

(I was responding to clodagh's post actually)

ok:

1. fox hunting in general

If foxes are going to be controlled then I think hunting them with dogs is a good way of doing it because it cannot kill all foxes in an area and naturally targets weaker foxes.  I'd like to see less cruelty in hunting and less digging out.

2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting 

Made it more popular.

Made it illegal for the stag hounds to select which flushed out deer to shoot which, if they are obeying the law will result in more deaths.

3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting 

Hunting as defined by the government involves much more than traditional fox hunting.

I hunt deer with my dogs without ever killing them.

I also go beagling occassionally.


----------



## flying_change (17 September 2006)

I'm anti..

1) Even if there is a need to cull foxes (though I think this is unproven) I believe it's immoral to make a sport out of killing them

2) I understand that most hunts say they are hunting within the law

3) I ride but I dont hunt.

RS


----------



## Ereiam_jh (17 September 2006)

The ban has nothing to do with whether hunting is done as a sport or not.  If it did then it would only ban sport hunti ng which is only part of hunting in general.

RS suipports the ban because it attacks sport hunting, he sees all the other things that it bans which he doesn't think should be banned, many of which no one would call cruel as acceptable collateral damage.

I think laws should be as tightly defined as possible so as to only ban that which they intend to ban.

If they aren't then people are justified in ignoring them.


----------



## flying_change (17 September 2006)

"RS suipports the ban because it attacks sport hunting, he sees all the other things that it bans which he doesn't think should be banned, many of which no one would call cruel as acceptable collateral damage."

I'm sure you dont mean to be so rude as to put words in my mouth.


----------



## AlanE (17 September 2006)

1) Foxhunting has evolved over many years to the point where, in the past, it has been considered the national sport of England. It is now a minority interest, considered in many rural areas as an intrinsic part of country life and culture; part of our identity. Foxes are rigorously controlled all over the UK, and hunting forms one part of that control. Hunts influence the countryside far beyond the actual number of foxes killed, since they have an extended social network, which generally is perceived as doing a good job.

2) The ban is the adoption of foolishness into the legal code of this country. There was no excuse for the vitriol with which Labour MPs tried to target a small minority of people. The ban has nothing to do with animal welfare, as quarry species are now controlled by crueller methods than hunting. 

Morally, the ban is inot defendable, and those that attempt to defend it can only do so with a large measure of hypocrisy. It is a wicked abuse of power which will crumble within the next few years. 

3) I hunt regularly.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (17 September 2006)

I don't think it's rude to challenge people's views by summarising them.

This is my understanding of your position.

If this isn't your position then your free to say so.


----------



## Clodagh (17 September 2006)

I don't see what relation your reply had to my post?? Sorry, I'm none too bright.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Looking at it now, I'm not sure I do either!


----------



## brighteyes (18 September 2006)

Well said!


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

Hello ellie,

1. Foxhunting has little to do with pest control. It's a sport. That's why hunters imported foxes (and badgers) to the Isle of Wight in the nineteenth century. That's why hunts even today maintain artificial earths. In Victorian times hunters were more honest about why they hunted. Sadly in today's Britain they have to dress up the reasons in unbelievable politically-correct nonsense about pest control etc. People hunt because they enjoy it. This must be the starting point in any discussion about the subject. My objection isn't that they enjoy it but that it's unnecessary. Hunting with hounds make no real difference to the fox population. It also involves activities which are clearly cruel such as digging out.

2. Good question. I personally don't agree with the ban but would definitely like to see the end of hunting deer with hounds which even deer hunters openly concede is cruel. 
Hunts are flouting the existing legislation but doing so in an underhand skulking way. They've started to occupy the twilight world of shadows and deceit. I would have had more respect if they'd openly paraded in the sun-lit vistas of the hunting declaration. (I'm feeling poetic today.)

3. I don't hunt. I can understand why people enjoy riding across beautiful country and the social aspect but the notion that this depended on trying to kill an animal would spoil it for me.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Why don't you agree with the ban?


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

Avalcab, 

You have been drinking again, haven't you?

''Hunts are flouting the existing legislation but doing so in an underhand skulking way. They've started to occupy the twilight world of shadows and deceit.''

Because the Law is so badly written, you wouldn't know the difference between legal hunting and an illegal act.


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

I'm sure there are cases where it's not clear whether the law is being infringed, but equally there are cases where the law is quite evidently being broken - for example, using more than two dogs etc. But in one sense it doesn't matter whether the law is clear or not: hunters in their many thousands signed an undertaking openly to flout the law in the event of a ban. It would be the simplest thing in the world to honour this undertaking but hunters have chosen not to. The silly bombast and posturing of the hunting declaration was just hot air. The vast majority of those who choose the defy the ban do so in the twilight world of shadows and skulking and furtively looking over their shoulder. It's not very edifying.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Sorry to repeat my self but you said in your post that you don't agree with the ban, could you let us know why?


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

For quite a few reasons: the law isn't well drafted; it was passed for grotesquely cynical reasons of expediency; for the vast majority of people it simply isn't a priority; hunters quite rightly point to other forms of animal abuse which are still legal (eg keeping dogs - which may have been bred for hunting - locked up all day). etc.


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

The reason that there was no open defiance of the Law was due to the fact that at the time of the Hunting Declaration, no-one knew what the Hunting Act would either ban or permit.

As it happenned, the Law is so riddled with loopholes that we can carry on as before.

Noone is being furtive other than the LACS cretins who waste their time lurking in bushes hoping in vain to catch someone doing something naughty.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

I have to say I completely agree with you on these points.

Regarding drafting of the law.  I think it goes further than that.  IMO a good law clearly demarcates between what you want to ban and what you don't want to ban.

A good law also has to have it's purpose clearly defined.

Presuming the purpose of the Act is to reduce cruelty I can't see that it makes sense unless there is some sort of test of cruelty.  Otherwise you are left with the situation where clearly un cruel activities are banned which is not only unjust but also leads to the law not being enforced.

I think they banned the wrong thing.  They should and could have revised the anti cruelty laws.


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

Your answer exemplifies the furtive and ultimately deceitful attitude of most hunters. When you signed the Hunting Declaration you knew PRECISELY what the proposed law would ban. Since your cronies in the unelected House of Lords would never approve a ban the only option left was to invoke the Parliament Act and this could only happen if exactly the same bill was approved by the elected chamber. This is what happened. 

Stick to skulking in the shadows, Hercules.


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

Avalcab, 

In November 2002 when the Hunting Declaration was signed by 10k people, the Hunting Act had NOT been finalised and it was therefore not clear what the exemptions (if any) to that Act there would be.

As it happens, the Act is so poorly written and with so many loopholes, we can carry on as before.  You (the ignorant) would not know the difference.

Stick to your worthless campaigning, Avalcab.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

How could he have known precisely what it would ban then when he doesn't know what it bans now.

Do you know precisely what the law bans?

Could you tell us?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Furthermore how could he have known precisely what it would ban when parliamnt were actively still debating it and redrafting the Act.

Is Hercules clairvoyant?

Hercules do you have the gift?

Or have you already answered my post?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Ah yes, I think you'll find he answered it in a thread last week.

No he isn't clairvoyant.


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

The first hunting bill was presented to and rejected by the unelected second chamber in July 2003. People were still signing the declaration then. That's why the CA produced a page on their site entitled "Your questions on the Hunting Declaration answered. Tuesday, 28 October 2003".

But the timing doesn't matter anyway. If you look at the actual declaration you signed, you pledged:

"Consequently, we the undersigned declare our intention to disobey, peacefully, ANY LAW PURPORTING TO BAN HUNTING; any such law would be manifestly unjust." [my caps]

You didn't pledge openly to defy the law, UNLESS WE COULD FIND ONE OR TWO LOOPHOLES. You promised, quite explicitly, to disobey any law purporting to ban hunting. You broke this promise.

The other sad point is that hunts are defying the ban even without using loopholes. Cubbing is still going on, so is olde-worlde hunting with hounds. You've not just broken your pledge in the hunting declaration, you've reduced yourselves to acting like common criminals: you've prepared for yourselves an unsavoury diet of dishonesty and cowardice.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

"You didn't pledge openly to defy the law, UNLESS WE COULD FIND ONE OR TWO LOOPHOLES. You promised, quite explicitly, to disobey any law purporting to ban hunting. You broke this promise."


mmm intersting it seems I might be one of the few people publicly abiding by the letter of the Hunting Declaration.  As do publicly and peacefully disobey the Hunting Act.

Even though I didn't actually sign it.

:smirk:


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

If I go out and deliberately break the law then what am I but a common criminal?

What on earth is wrong with being a common criminal.  What other types of criminals are there?

It seems most unfair to expect me to be anything else.

I am after all a member of the common people.

As a common person I asert my right to be a common criminal.


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

Avalcab,

Why do you insist on complaining? LACS and its supporters got the ban that they had spent 80 years campaigning for.

In one breath you criticise the hunting community for not abiding by their declaration to continue hunting.  In the next, you criticise them for hunting and therefore acting like 'common criminals'.  What is it to be?

''dishonesty and cowardice''

Something to which you and the little people are well acquainted


----------



## avalcalab (18 September 2006)

You may be committing the crime of being a bore but I doubt whether you're infringing the Hunting Act with your childish attention-seeking stunts in the undergrowth, so relax.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

What, so your saying it IS legal to pursue wild mammals with dogs?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

I get the horrible feeling we're going to get to the same conclusion that we did with RS and Karl, that actually chasing, flushing, scent trailing, stalking wild mammals with packs of dogs IS actually still legal.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Oops I forgot searching with dogs.  That's legal too?


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

Avalcab is all confused.  Its little mind is clogged up with fantasy.  It can't remember what it has said, its arguments are collapsing and it is in danger of embarrassing itself.

A pitiful sight, but not unexpected.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Which of the activities I've mentioned are illegal A.

I've taken them all either from the text of the law or from Government advice.

Maybe you have the answer.


----------



## flying_change (18 September 2006)

You're at it again ! I dont believe I agreed that.  Consider your wrist slapped.  

However, to be formal for a moment.  I hereby place you on notice that if you continue to misrepresent or misquote my statements or beliefs I may consider a legal remedy.

RS


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

Just trying to draw you in.  Actually what you said was that you didn't know if chasing wild mammals with packs of dogs is legal or not.

Isn't your view that the law shouldn't be intelligible until a judge decides what it is?

Completely unclear laws are a foundation of our illiberal democracy.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

One can imagine the headlines.

"An internet forum user flying change aKA RS is suing a character from a Tolkein children's story in the high court today.'

Solicitor for RS.

'I haven't got a clue what is going on, but I'm hoping the Judge will.'

I will marshal my legal team.


----------



## flying_change (18 September 2006)

Is that an apology ?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (18 September 2006)

No, it's a piss take.

You're not actually upset are you?

I gthink I may have got your positions wrong actually I think they are something like this.

You don't know if deliberately using dogs to chase wild mammals is illegal.

You think that flushing out and stalking is illegal but only if you then chase.

Karl thinks that flushing out and stalking are completely legal and chasing is illegal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is my best understanding.

:grin:


----------



## Hercules (18 September 2006)

''I hereby place you on notice that if you continue to misrepresent or misquote my statements or beliefs I may consider a legal remedy.''

Really?  There s more chance of A-A getting prosecuted for his illegal acts, if they are illegal.  Who knows?  The police don't, the CPS dont, no-one does.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

Just for the record, it's worth noting that avalcab is unable to answerrt this.

It's the questions they don't answer that are most revealing.


----------



## flying_change (19 September 2006)

An apology would have been accepted.  Pity you didnt make one.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

Do you think you're being a tad precious RS?


----------



## flying_change (19 September 2006)

You have been deliberatly misrepresenting my statements and beliefs.  Apart from anything else, this contravenes the forum T+Cs.  There will be no more warnings.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

Rubbish you admit that you don't know what the Hunting Act bans and doesn't ban yet you support it.  You think it is up to the courts to define what it bans and doesn't ban rather than parliament.

You are unable to say whether it is legal or illegal to search for chase, stalk or flush out wild mammals with dogs.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

"this contravenes the forum T+Cs."

Just out of interest where does it say that?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

I bet if you answer you'll say 'what you have poisted is wrong and that's against the forum T&amp;C's'

What a vacuous way to debate that would be.


----------



## Shoveller (19 September 2006)

Lets just remind everyone of a bit of arithmetic that the antis seem to forget. Even if all the hereditry peers and all the tory peers had not voted at all on the hunting bill, there was still enough opposition from crossbenchers, Liberal and Labour peers for it to have been comfortably defeated in the lords.

I didn't know what it would ban - or more to the point allow. And i didn't sign the declaration either.


----------



## Hercules (19 September 2006)

You have been deliberatly misrepresenting my statements and beliefs.  Apart from anything else, this contravenes the forum T+Cs.  There will be no more warnings.
		
Click to expand...


Tough Guy!!!

Stop crying and state your opinions more clearly.  That way your views will not be misinterpreted.  Any more threats or weasel words?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (19 September 2006)

I think by 'no more warnings' he's threatening to stop talking to me.

:sniffle:
:wiping away tears expression:


----------



## NK12 (10 March 2021)

I would enjoy letting hounds rip foxes apart if they didn't feel anything, but we aren't in the middle ages to cause unnecessary suffer, now we can kill humanely, that's why I prefer "normal" hunting instead.
Also Fox Hunting is a waste of land.
Another thing that really bothers me is cubbing, I know they face many dangers in the wild and they will probably die, but that doesn't mean we have to force them to die, what if they survived if we didn't kill them???
In conclusion, it's unnecessary and the land they occupate to fox hunt can be used for better purposes, and even though foxes die in cruel ways in the wild, it doesn't mean we have to do the same when we can kill them wthically.


----------



## mini_b (10 March 2021)

New user, first post on contentious Zombie thread?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (10 March 2021)

NK12 said:



			I just joined to create a stink.
I have no idea how to create my own thread .
		
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum,  why didn't you start your own thread instead of bouncing a FIFTEEN year old one?


----------



## paddy555 (10 March 2021)

mini_b said:



			New user, first post on contentious Zombie thread?
		
Click to expand...


bit of an out of date user.  I didn't think we hunted foxes any longer, or at least we were not supposed to.


----------



## ArklePig (10 March 2021)

1. Extremely anti, I can't imagine getting a kick out of chasing an animal til it's death

2. I'm in NI where fox hunting is sadly still legal.

3. No never have never will


----------



## ArklePig (10 March 2021)

Oops, that'll teach me to read the dates! I didn't realise this was a resurrected zombie... *backs out quietly*


----------



## mini_b (10 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			bit of an out of date user.  I didn't think we hunted foxes any longer, or at least we were not supposed to. 

Click to expand...

think they just had a quiet 5 mins on their hands don’t you 😜


----------



## RTJ2 (3 August 2021)

ellie1988 said:



			Firstly hi, as you can see i'm new to the forum. I'm an A-level student, i own 5 horses and live on a farm with lots of animals- 4 dogs, 8 cats, 60 free range hens and 700 lambing ewes.

I have been asked to conduct a survey for Leisure Studies at school and chose to do fox hunting.

Please could you all give your opinions on....
1. fox hunting in general
2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting
3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting
(e.g. do you regularly hunt).

I would be very grateful for any and as many opinions, it would be a huge help.

Thanks loads, Ellie
		
Click to expand...


----------



## RTJ2 (3 August 2021)

ellie1988 said:



			Firstly hi, as you can see i'm new to the forum. I'm an A-level student, i own 5 horses and live on a farm with lots of animals- 4 dogs, 8 cats, 60 free range hens and 700 lambing ewes.

I have been asked to conduct a survey for Leisure Studies at school and chose to do fox hunting.

Please could you all give your opinions on....
1. fox hunting in general
2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting
3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting
(e.g. do you regularly hunt).

I would be very grateful for any and as many opinions, it would be a huge help.

Thanks loads, Ellie   

Click to expand...

Hello...
1. I feel it's an archaic, barbaric and wholly unnecessary pastime.
2. I feel the ban has driven it underground...but its still there.
3. I am not and would never be involved in hunting ✌🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


----------

