# hunt sabs, animal lovers?????????



## winterhorse (7 December 2007)

finally had 5 mins to read OH hounds mag, when came across the news page, reporting that sabs have started going out with the French hunts. One such incident reported that a hound trailer was held up in sweltering weather for 4 hours, with a hound dying from the heat. 
remind me why these people are doing this.

also know this has been touched on before but also mentioned the videoing of minors at meets.
under section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, REASONABLE steps can be taken to obstruct those videoing minors without consent.
as a mother myself this is of great importance to me, you have to sign a consent form to film at the school play so why should they be filmed by some one else????


----------



## GinaB (7 December 2007)

Sabs and animal rights people are the worst  They haven't a clue.


----------



## ISHmad (7 December 2007)

Everyone has the right to disagree with hunting, just as people have the right to support it.  But I couldn't agree more that the sabs, animal rights people et al might think they are saving a fox with their protestations but time and time again have been known to cause harm to horses and dogs.  So much for all creatures great and small.  They do their cause actually no good at all and jeopardise animals and people in the process.


----------



## Fairynuff (7 December 2007)

. One such incident reported that a hound trailer was held up in sweltering weather for 4 hours, with a hound dying from the heat. 

The French hunt in the 'sweltering heat'!!!!!!!!!! As far as Im aware, the French hunting season, boar or fox, is much like that of the English season-autumn/winter/early spring. Are you sure? M.


----------



## Reginald (7 December 2007)

winterhorse, I'm an "anti" but tend to agree with you. I wouldn't like people to video a child of mine and I can't stand sabs who intimidate horses/hounds. There are better, more responsible ways to voice a protest.


----------



## RunToEarth (7 December 2007)

Well whilst I agree sabs are a pain, I am also sure most of them keep within the law, and express their opinions sensibly. Its very sad that some sabs have given the rest such a bad name, I can recall some sabs unbricking our hound trailer and letting the trailer roll down the street, not causing any damage and no hounds were in, but I'm sure their intensions were to damage something. It is really rather sad, whatever happened to a healthy argument, without people stooping so low. It is like those kennels which were set on fire, disgusting behaviour, and much lower than the animal murdering scum they portray use as...


----------



## molehill (7 December 2007)

Reginald,I totally agree with you......I love going hunting to the point of being obsessed(it is my life),but beilieve that people have a right to protest about different things.Considering "antis" are animal lovers,they dont really give a thought for animal welfare.Alot are just out for trouble,and violence.They could protest in abetter way and probably their voice would be listened to.


----------



## winterhorse (8 December 2007)

mairi didn't say they were going hunting. a lot of hunts do hound shows and parades in the summer.


----------



## Fairynuff (8 December 2007)

Okay :grin:.


----------



## oakash (8 December 2007)

Not sure that we should all be so nice in commenting about antis being free to protest etc etc. Remember these people are extremists. WE say they should have the right to protest, but THEY say we should NOT have the right to hunt.

Shoot first and ask questions later is my motto!


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (8 December 2007)

it is by far an over generalisation to say that antis are extremists. im an anti and almost everyone i know (outside of the horse world) is an anti and none of us are extremists. It's not about saying that you dont have "the right" to hunt, we just simply disagree with the act, and in MOST cases it isn't a personal attack on the pro hunts. 
i can totally see the pro hunts point of view and i am not going to be dogmatic with my oppinions, but i stand by my right to be an anti hunt and believe that i am as free to protest as you are to hunt.


----------



## winterhorse (8 December 2007)

the point i am trying to make is not you expressing your opinion, it is the way sometimes that it is done. i.e allowing hounds/horses to become injured, whilst trying to say we are being cruel to another. since when is using a hunting horn to call hounds onto a road, not putting them in danger, or using pepper spray in their faces, to throw them off the scent not harmfull??


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (8 December 2007)

That kind of behavior is completely unacceptable and completely defeats the object of what they are trying to achieve. Unfortuanatly in all aspects of life you get extremists (looatics to put it into better words) who end up causing unfair steriotypes to imerge, and end up getting so worked up they foget the objective and become detrimentle to themselves.
Sabs irritate me immensly, because although im against this particular culling method for the fox, horses and hounds are much more important in my oppinion and i don't agree with these animals getting put at rist for the sake of a fox.


----------



## wrighty (9 December 2007)

I'm not surprised by the odd generalisation about Anti's but as I have said on numerous occassions I believe the people who hurt ANY ANIMAL are wrong and should be stopped.
I don't care who they are or what they are about as long as no harm comes to anything (Including humans)

Every side has extremists, every side has violent people who will fight for what they believe in and every side has people that give "thier cause" a bad name.

I am anti as I believe no animal should be killed by humans (or by animals controlled by humans) and I will do my best to do this but without any violence/threats.


----------



## soggy (9 December 2007)

I am anti as I believe no animal should be killed by humans (or by animals controlled by humans) and I will do my best to do this but without any violence/threats.
		
Click to expand...

Some might see that as a very admirable aim. I see it as total stupidity, based upon a total lack of understanding, knowledge, and   a non-comprehension of the practicalities and impact such a desire would have.

Its the same with these misinformed idiots saying we should be feeding everybody in the world organic food.


----------



## oakash (9 December 2007)

Wrighty, I'm afraid I would call you an extremist! Jess, I don't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to choose not to hunt - of course you have that right. But to me, people who try to stop hunting being allowed are control freaks, just as I would be if I decided that Badminton should be declared illegal.


----------



## wrighty (9 December 2007)

Is trying to stop war a controling behaviour? Is stopping dog/cock fighting controling behaviour? Is stopping racism controling behaviour? (Do I need to go on?)

Trying to stop something that is seen by a lot of people to be wrong is not controling behaviour it is a duty that we all should srep up and do.

"I see it as total stupidity, based upon a total lack of understanding, knowledge, and a non-comprehension of the practicalities and impact such a desire would have."
Once again I am acused of lack of knowledge and understanding, I have said (and been quizzed on by many people on here) that I am a countryman who has worked on farms and in the countryside for a long time. I agree that the practicalities wouldn't be easy but why should that stop people?


----------



## Nickijem (10 December 2007)

It seems to be that it is a pretty extreme view to say that no animal should be killed by humans.  
Does that include pest control and killing for food or are you just referring to those who kill for sport?


----------



## wrighty (11 December 2007)

I believe that NO animal should be killed.
That includes "sport", "pest" control and food, that may seem extreme but I am not an extremist in the same context as it is used on here, in the press etc.

This forum isn't the place to be discussing the food issue though so won't go into any detail.


----------



## soggy (11 December 2007)

Is trying to stop war a controling behaviour? Is stopping dog/cock fighting controling behaviour? Is stopping racism controling behaviour? (Do I need to go on?)
		
Click to expand...

Trying to stop it just because you don't understand it and disagree with it is controlling behaviour. Trying to make everyone march to the beat of your drum cos you think you have the right to call the tempo is controlling behaviour. ( Do I need to go on?)




			Trying to stop something that is seen by a lot of people to be wrong is not controling behaviour it is a duty that we all should srep up and do.
		
Click to expand...

Who are all these" lots of people" Tony Banks is dead now! 80% of the country don't care whether we hunt or not. 




			Once again I am acused of lack of knowledge and understanding, I have said (and been quizzed on by many people on here) that I am a countryman who has worked on farms and in the countryside for a long time. I agree that the practicalities wouldn't be easy but why should that stop people?
		
Click to expand...

You last statement just confirms you ignorance and lack of knowledge. I've read your claims about working a few weeks on various chicken farms. Hardly what I would describe as being a countryman with extensive experience of the practicalities of managing the countryside. In fact I wouldn't describe it as being a countryman at all.


----------



## soggy (11 December 2007)

I believe that NO animal should be killed.
		
Click to expand...

Oh No! A bloody veggie as well! 

Is there no end to your boringness?


----------



## Nickijem (11 December 2007)

Thanks for the reply Wrighty.  I was just interested as I have never met anyone with those views.  
Absolutely agree this is not the place to discuss the food issue! 
Am intrigued how you would deal with rat/cockroach infestations however but I don't want to hijack this post and get side-tracked.
At least you sound like an animal - loving anti rather than that group of so called 'animal-lovers' who use that title 'animal-rights' to subject innocent folk and their animals to terrorism.


----------



## JanetGeorge (11 December 2007)

I believe that NO animal should be killed.
That includes "sport", "pest" control and food,
		
Click to expand...

What about for humane reasons?  Should animals be allowed to die 'naturally' - (and slowly, and painfully??)  Some of the WORST cruelty in this country is caused by 'animal lovers' who cannot BEAR to put a much loved pet or horse out of its misery. (They seem to be able to bear watching it suffer, though!)


----------



## Eagle_day (11 December 2007)

"This forum isn't the place to be discussing the food issue though ..."

Why not? There's no moral difference between killing animals for food and killing the for sport.


----------



## wrighty (11 December 2007)

Soggy, I have spent more than a few weeks on a chicken farm, I worked for many years on various types of farms, this is where I learned how to look after animals without the need to kill other animals in the process.

I have never and will never need to put in the situation of putting down a pet  as I don't believe in keeping an animal for our use and/or entertainment.
Animals that die naturally is nature, let them get on with it.

"Oh No! A bloody veggie as well!"
Close but no cigar, vegan, I don't use anything from the animals.

I think this bit is ok for this forum as some hunters say they do it for pest control (I'm not saying they hunt cockroaches with hounds)
"how you would deal with rat/cockroach infestations"

By being clean and protecting your house/farm/grain etc from them in the 1st place.
I live by a farm and there are no rats, mice running around the farm, the house or the place I live, the farmer spent a bit more money to protect his things.

"There's no moral difference between killing animals for food and killing the for sport"
Oh yes there is.


----------



## soggy (11 December 2007)

Soggy, I have spent more than a few weeks on a chicken farm, I worked for many years on various types of farms, this is where I learned how to look after animals without the need to kill other animals in the process.
		
Click to expand...

LOL So you claim. I've read some of your accounts of such miracle work. I have only just finish laughing at the last one.




			I have never and will never need to put in the situation of putting down a pet  as I don't believe in keeping an animal for our use and/or entertainment.
Animals that die naturally is nature, let them get on with it.
		
Click to expand...

So easing suffering has no standing as far as you are concerned. Interesting" Yet you claim to be against cruelty. How does that work exactly? 




			Close but no cigar, vegan, I don't use anything from the animals.
		
Click to expand...

Oh god, your even more boring than I thought. How are those plastic  jesus sandals like at keeping your feet warm in the winter time? 




			By being clean and protecting your house/farm/grain etc from them in the 1st place.
I live by a farm and there are no rats, mice running around the farm, the house or the place I live, the farmer spent a bit more money to protect his things.
		
Click to expand...

And you expect people to actually believe that! Whats he spent his mone on exactly?




			"There's no moral difference between killing animals for food and killing the for sport"
Oh yes there is.
		
Click to expand...

Oh goody! I shall wait an detailed explanation of this one. So come on then wahts the moral difference?


----------



## wrighty (12 December 2007)

Soggy, believe what you like about my knowledge, I know from my experiences that it is possible.

Believing in nature has nothing to do with to do with cruelty but I doubt you will ever understand the difference.

My sandals are fine thanks, I do put my plastic boots on if it snows though. What is boring about making the choice about what to eat?
What is the Xmas meal for you this year? Chicken/turkey, roast spuds, carrots and maybe sprouts?

"Whats he spent his mone on exactly?"
Not a clue to be honest but he says he has no trouble.

"So come on then wahts the moral difference?"
Eating meat is natural for us (Humans) but not actually needed, for people to eat meat the animal needs to be killed, killing for fun is not natural.


----------



## soggy (12 December 2007)

Soggy, believe what you like about my knowledge, I know from my experiences that it is possible.
		
Click to expand...

As fine example of " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"!
[/quote]



			Believing in nature has nothing to do with to do with cruelty but I doubt you will ever understand the difference.
		
Click to expand...

But Nature is cruel! There sooner you realise that the less deluded you will be.




			What is boring about making the choice about what to eat?
		
Click to expand...

That depends upon what you choose to eat.




			What is the Xmas meal for you this year? Chicken/turkey, roast spuds, carrots and maybe sprouts?
		
Click to expand...

Nah. Roast Goose shot by yours truly. Can't stand sprouts, they make me heave. We shall be having venison casserole on our return from the Boxing Day meet. Again shot by yours truly. I expect we shall also have pheasant and duck at some point over the New Year again shot by yours truly. I'm having rabbit stew tonight. courtesy of a friend and his ferrets.




			"Whats he spent his mone on exactly?"
Not a clue to be honest but he says he has no trouble.
		
Click to expand...

LOL Of course he doesn't he's a wonder farmer!




			Eating meat is natural for us (Humans) but not actually needed, for people to eat meat the animal needs to be killed, killing for fun is not natural.
		
Click to expand...

Ah! but thats not true now is it. Meat is needed. B12 for instance.
Hunting is a natural state for man, why deny your heritage?


----------



## Nickijem (12 December 2007)

Wow Soggy - will you fit through the door after this festive season!  That sounds just my sort of festive food!  Especially if shot by yourself - the best, and if I'm honest, the only way meat should be eaten.
I had Sunday lunch last week at a friend's as he had recently shot a deer and needed some help eating it.  I properly enjoyed it because I knew where it had come from and how it got to be on my plate - full respect to the deer!
If you have a spare place at your table when eating food shot by your good self give me a call!!


----------



## wurzel (12 December 2007)

"I live by a farm and there are no rats, mice running around the farm, the house or the place I live, the farmer spent a bit more money to protect his things."


A farm with no rats or mice ?!?

You are SO believable.

I think this was a lie too far


----------



## kirstyhen (12 December 2007)

Can I come and eat at yours too!?
My dad struggles to hit a barn door, so I shouldnt think anything my mum cooks will be shot by him!
I never understand why antis come on this forum, what are they hoping to achieve, as far as im aware it is not ilegal to talk about hunting, so they cant use "monitoring" as an excuse! And who the hell do they think they are going to convert!?
No mice or rats! Can we have your secret? Despite rat-proof feed bins and clearing up spilt feed we still have no end of mice and rats! 
Have you never heard that your never less than 40m away from a rat!?"?


----------



## soggy (12 December 2007)

Have you never heard that your never less than 40m away from a rat!?"?
		
Click to expand...

Ah! But you forget Wrighty lives in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Where he walks , talks and eats with the animals.


----------



## soggy (12 December 2007)

I think this was a lie too far 

Click to expand...

I think the first lie came within his first 3 posts, and they haven't stopped since.


----------



## Fairynuff (12 December 2007)

Im an anti of the worst possible kind...my freezer is full of pheasant , partridge, hare and boar.I admit to being an anti,but with a taste for 'game'! At least I eat what is 'shot'


----------



## soggy (13 December 2007)

Im an anti of the worst possible kind...my freezer is full of pheasant , partridge, hare and boar.I admit to being an anti,but with a taste for 'game'! At least I eat what is 'shot' 

Click to expand...

Good for you.

How was your first day out "sock" hunting?


----------



## Vicki1986 (13 December 2007)

I have never and will never need to put in the situation of putting down a pet  as I don't believe in keeping an animal for our use and/or entertainment.
Animals that die naturally is nature, let them get on with it.

By being clean and protecting your house/farm/grain etc from them in the 1st place.
I live by a farm and there are no rats, mice running around the farm, the house or the place I live, the farmer spent a bit more money to protect his things.
		
Click to expand...

you have no pets at all ?! not even a horse?? how sad.

A farm no matter how clean tidy or how good their storage facilites are WILL have a certain amount of mice / rats paying regular visits - just becuase you don't see them "running around" the farm does not mean they are not there !!
We store our feeds well, have a tidy yard and have cats/dogs which case mice but every now and then you always find a dead one in the horses water/feed buckets - fact of life. they also live in the straw beds/hay etc.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (13 December 2007)

It is very ignorant of you to surgest that all Anti hunts are uninformed "townies" that don't have a clue about country life. This is another over generalisation that is quite often made by the Pro hunts. I am in no way a townie (not as though it would be such a horrific thing if i was!), i live amongst many farms in leicstershire (the heart of rural england) and i resent being told that i "don't understand" something just because i disagree with it. Do you accuse everyone of ignorance as soon as they offer a different point of view to your own? I acctualy know a lot about hunting, the majority of my family are pro hunt and hunt themselves, i have been hunting myself and since decided that it's a barbarric practice. So if you would please stop catogerising  me under your made up steriotype of what you have told yourself is an anti hunt i would be most greatfull.

A lot of people do think hunting is wrong, although there are many figures showing different results, so as far as i can see none are reliable as i have seen figures ranging from 80% of people disagree with hunting to only 16% disagree with hunting, i personally don't believe either. I just know from the amount of people i have spoken  to regarding the subject that a significant amount think it's cruel, and that is why it isn't controlling to protest against it, people can and should have the right to stand up for what the believe is right, regardless of whether this contradicts your views or not.

I appreciate that it is within the farmers interest to keep the fox population limited as they do undoubtedly cause a threat to chickens (free range ones in particular). The main problem i have with hunting with hounds is that the hunts claim to keep the population down, however don't kill nearly enough to make a significant difference to the fox population what so ever. People go hunting because they enjoy it - not because they are so very concerned about the fox population and the farmers welfare- and the result of their enjoyment results in the suffering of a living creature.  I am not in any way inclined to believe that everyone that goes hunting is there to  do the farmers a good deed.


----------



## Nickijem (13 December 2007)

I agree with you that it is ignorant to assume antis are townies.  The thing is, townies are often less likely to know the actual facts about hunting.  I grew up in rural leicestershire too but not with horsey or hunting family or friends and so I was unaware of the facts about hunting and was therefore quite anti-hunt.  
However, as I have grown up, I have learnt more about the facts and now I am pro-hunting. My best friend is anti-hunt, I know I will never change her opinion as she also knows the facts but she knows she will never change my views.  
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is important that they know the facts - not biased propaganda from either side of an argument.


----------



## soggy (13 December 2007)

i have been hunting myself and since decided that it's a practice.
		
Click to expand...





			and the result of their enjoyment results in the suffering of a living creature.  I am not in any way inclined to believe that everyone that goes hunting is there to  do the farmers a good deed.
		
Click to expand...

Emotive words, and so, so familiar. Almost as if I was reading the LAC's pamphlets.

Pray do tell how/why is hunting "barbaric"?
How does a living creature suffer if I hunt it?
Perhaps not everyone goes hunting to do the farmers a favour. But I certainly do.


----------



## Fairynuff (13 December 2007)

How was your first day out "sock" hunting? [/quote]
Highly embarrassing..we dont talk bout it . I was sooo embarrassed by the whole thing that I swear I will never go again. It was so tame and so very badly done.The turn out of the field was dreadful-dirty horses with manes like 'my little pony', riders who were a danger to themselves and ME  and the hounds.....!!!!!!!!!! Poor things, they were obviously as embarrassed as I was by the tootling of the horn..  :crazy:. Never again, well , here in Italy anyway!


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (13 December 2007)

and the result of their enjoyment results in the suffering of a living creature.  I am not in any way inclined to believe that everyone that goes hunting is there to  do the farmers a good deed.
		
Click to expand...

Emotive words, and so, so familiar. Almost as if I was reading the LAC's pamphlets.

Actually the majority of the human race would agree that the dismembering of an animal is a pretty emotive subject and it's not me that is over sensetive it is you thats totally desensetised to justify the fact that you are doing something that isn't morally right.


----------



## soggy (13 December 2007)

Actually the majority of the human race would agree that the dismembering of an animal is a pretty emotive subject and it's not me that is over sensetive it is you thats totally desensetised to justify the fact that you are doing something that isn't morally right.
		
Click to expand...

There you go again!  Whats emotive about hound breaking up a dead fox. ? Thats what canines do when they hunt in packs. The fox is dead before it hits the floor.

Hunting is morally and ethically correct! 

Where is the barbarism in hunting. You have failed to answer that simple question. Does that LAC's pamphlet not have the answer to that question?


----------



## soggy (13 December 2007)

Oh dear oh dear. LMAO

I can well imagine the scene. 

I'm so disappointed for you.

I have to admit to be sat here giggling to myself. Must have been like one of the weird Italian art movies. 

Perhaps one of the "girls" could arrange something for your next return trip to the UK, and then you can truely say you have been "unting`t' sock".


----------



## Reginald (14 December 2007)

You're quite right Jess. Foxhunting is completely self-serving. For example, foxes only exist on the Isle of Wight because several individuals shipped them in to hunt.

Several years ago the Masters of Fox Hounds Association wrote to 800 hunt masters and chairmen warning of a nationwide "shortage of foxes". It urged that landowners should be encouraged to breed more foxes to solve the "problem".

A prominent terrierman also advocated in one of his books a couple of years ago releasing large healthy foxes during digs so that they could further reproduce, ensuring a nice supply of foxes to be killed in future.

I also agree with your point Jess about how weird it is that people can enjoy an activity where the animals suffers. How can they enjoy chasing a stag for three hours until it's so exhausted it has to stop and wait for the bullet? How can they get gratification from this when a far simpler, more humane method of culling it is available?


----------



## PaddyMonty (14 December 2007)

It is very ignorant of you to surgest that all Anti hunts are uninformed "townies" that don't have a clue about country life.
		
Click to expand...

Well said   I'm another pro turned anti who does know the facts, probably more than most of the average field.  Started hunting at 6yo (1966) with the eridge.  Blooded etc and spent many days with the terrier men.  Last hunted in 97.

I afraid taking enjoyment in killing just doesn't sit well with me these days.  However, I certainly wouldn't attempt to stop others.  It is up to the individual to decide what is acceptable and what is not (where hunting is concerned).


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

Sorry but it's not the saboteurs problem if the hound died in the trailer - if they had proper, air conditioned transport for them and the driver had thought to let them out for some fresh air then it wouldn't have happened.  You cannot blame someone who holds up and hunt because they don't agree with a fox being torn limb from limb buy a bunch of arrogant snobs who give horse riders a bad name.


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

wrighty, I agree with you all the way.  How can people who hunt or eat meat call themselves animal lovers and yet will happily kill one animal but not another?  Why is there such a difference between murdering a fox and murdering a dog?

No animal should be subjected to a violent death.


----------



## winterhorse (14 December 2007)

air conditioned trailer? you saying one with air conditioning or windows/air vents?
if it the latter, what is the use if there is no breeze? can be stiffling hot with no air.
also you telling me they should have let a pack of hounds loose on a road?? are you insane that would cause more accidents. also if a group of thugs stopped you in your car and are being abbusive you tell me you would still get out, or stay where you are safe?
as a horserider i am neither arrogant or neglectful. i care for my horse better than some people who don't even hunt.


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

JessDoesItBetter, you put it into words much better than I could have!


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

I'm saying one with air conditioning - that's why I said "air conditioned"

Should the dogs not be easily enough controlled / put on leads on at a time and let out for a cool drink and a bit of air if the trailer had to stop?  What would have happened if the car had broken down and they'd had to stop anyway?  Do they not have a contingency plan for such things?

I'm not saying pro-hunt people don't look after their pets.  I know lots of people who are pro-hunt and they have some amazingly spoiled horses.  But I'm asking the same question I ask them - if you can shoot animals, hunt animals and yet own animals, where do you draw the line of what you will kill?  Because as it has been proven, fox hunting really does not reduce the fox population by NEARLY enough to claim that it is in the best interests of the farmers.  And if the farmers really need to kill a fox they would shoot it, not send a huge bunch of people chasing it through the countryside until it's exhausted and then rip it apart.

And Soggy, you need to allow other people to have their own opinions before you call anyone who doesn't agree with you stupid or a liar.  I don't expect you to be a vegetarian like I am.  I don't expect you to stop hunting.  I really don't care what you do with your time.  But please stop insulting people for their opinions.  Everyone is entitled to what they believe in, be it fitting with your views or not.

By the way I also don't agree with the way in which saboteurs act, scaring horses and hurting dogs.  That is not the way to help the situation.  Sadly it seems that some feel the need to take such violent action in order for their views to be heard.


----------



## winterhorse (14 December 2007)

air conditioned trailer, do you know how much one of those is?
contrary to popular belief, many packs are not wealthy, we use a metal sheep trailer, our masters do not even put money in we are solely profit based.
the point of not getting hounds out was because there are people there protesting against you. yes most probably have a plan in the event of a break down but it shouldn't see them stranded for 4 hours. also hounds are exercised without leads, so how long would it take 1 maybe 2 people to get every hound out individually? are you aware how many hounds, packs hunt with?


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

Well I'm sorry, but it's not my problem, or the saboteurs problems, that there isn't enough money for air conditioning or that the dogs are not trained well enough to walk calmly in an emergency.  And yes, I am well aware that a lot of hounds are used.  But like I said, you can't go blaming other people for the conditions the hounds are transported in.  That's nobody's fault but the people transporting them


----------



## wurzel (14 December 2007)

"Because as it has been proven, fox hunting really does not reduce the fox population by NEARLY enough to claim that it is in the best interests of the farmers."

I will be the judge of that.


----------



## wurzel (14 December 2007)

"Everyone is entitled to what they believe in, be it fitting with your views or not."

I am afraid they are not. 

Try the Libertarian Alliance for the theory.


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

As will the countless farmers that I know...all of whom are anti hunt and agree that fox hunting (before it was banned here) was not a valid method of reducing pest numbers but just a blood-sport for people who enjoy killing things that can't defend themselves.

As one person on the BBC website put so eloquently:

"Surely if population control were the primary motivation it would be better to trap and shoot them? People in general tend to find the most efficient way of accomplishing a given task. So it seems unlikely to me that a mechanism that requires many people, horse and dogs, and that results in most of the foxes escaping anyway is a feasible method of population control. My conclusion? That it is primarily a form of entertainment. And that, for me, sums up the real barbarism of hunting with hounds."

Can't say I can fault his argument.


----------



## u04elw2 (14 December 2007)

And actually, yes, everyone IS entitled to believe what they like.  I'm not condoning their actions if they choose to act upon what they believe but you cannot STOP someone believing in something.  Freedom of speech I'm afraid.  God, if we were all the same what a boring world it would be


----------



## winterhorse (14 December 2007)

Well I'm sorry, but it's not my problem, or the saboteurs problems, that there isn't enough money for air conditioning or that the dogs are not trained well enough to walk calmly in an emergency.  And yes, I am well aware that a lot of hounds are used.  But like I said, you can't go blaming other people for the conditions the hounds are transported in.  That's nobody's fault but the people transporting them
		
Click to expand...

bollocks so you have a horse and you are stuck on the m25 in peak traffic i bet you wouldn't get it out and walk it up and down the road just to let it stretch it's legs..
as for a pack of hounds walking up and down the road then yes it's possible but the whole story is about the fact that the vehicle in question was surrounded by anti hunt supporters and would you get out in that enviroment (i think not)
most hunt lorries and trailers are better looked after than most vehicles so dont talk bollocks about air con in trailers.
but i would love to put you in a metal trailer in temperatures higher than expected and see how you cope with not being aloud out.and get a load of pro hunt supporters  to frieghten the living daylight out of anyone who wanted to help and see how long it takes for your sorry arse to die in there !!!!!!


----------



## Fairynuff (14 December 2007)

I think you will find that since the "ban" more foxes have died than when they were hunted by hound  The hunt isnt there to control the fox pop to the extent that they become a rarity but are there to keep the numbers down AND enjoy themselves while theyre at it. Im anti but would prefer to see hunting reinstated as it was (MINUS STOPPING AND DIGGING) than see the fox pop devastated by uncontrolled shooting. I see it as the lesser of two evils! I wont hunt again through choice but I admit to missing it :crazy:


----------



## loobiloo (14 December 2007)

How does a living creature suffer if I hunt it?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but is that really a serious question or have I missed something?


----------



## kirstyhen (14 December 2007)

How is it not the antis fault that a dog died in a trailer they were holding up? As they were the cause of the hold up, which caused the death of a hound then they are responsible.

Hunting kills the weak, old and injured, shooting in general causes more injuries than death, gassing is slow and painful as are most traps. Foxes will always be controlled in someone, in my opinion hunting is the lesser of evils.

Have all the opinions you want, however why come and preech to people who are unlikely to ever convert to being an anti? 

As for stereotypes, I am often stereotyped as a heartless, blood-thirty toff, so why should I refrain from stereotyping the people who come uninvited to the hunt, just to throw abuse at us?


----------



## peakpark (14 December 2007)

I find it very odd that you have managed to put the blame on those in charge of the hounds. 
Hunting is obviously not a subject wbout which you know very much!


----------



## Nickijem (14 December 2007)

Well said Henmeister!


----------



## kirstyhen (14 December 2007)

I just love the thought of a pack of hounds being trained to walk calmly in an emergency!


----------



## catembi (14 December 2007)

It was a few pages back now, but can we please stop the 'vegan = boring' nonsense?  How does what I have (or don't have) for dinner automatically make me boring?  In respect of food, it has actually made me more adventurous than when I was just vegetarian as I've discovered all sorts of foods that I never knew existed.  Meat-and-two-veg isn't the only way.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (14 December 2007)

"Surely if population control were the primary motivation it would be better to trap and shoot them? People in general tend to find the most efficient way of accomplishing a given task. So it seems unlikely to me that a mechanism that requires many people, horse and dogs, and that results in most of the foxes escaping anyway is a feasible method of population control. My conclusion? That it is primarily a form of entertainment. And that, for me, sums up the real barbarism of hunting with hounds."

Can't say I can fault his argument.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, that was one of the reasons i turned anti, we rarely caught a fox and it just didn't make sense to me that these people were acctually claiming that their primary motivation was population controle!


and for who ever it was that seems to think that all my arguments are copied from a LAC pamphlet, i can assure you that they aren't! I don't have a LAC leaflet and have nothing to do with the LAC (i dont even really know what it is other than it doesn't agree with killing animals)  Perhaps in your arrogence you find it hard to contemplate that a 16yr old anti hunt can -unlike yourself- conduct an argument without resorting to insulting others whos oppinions differ from my own, and be aware of the fact that everyone is entitled to an oppinion be it fitting with my own views or not! Now lets see whether your capable of constructing a response without offensive insults to those who don't share your overbaring views...


----------



## kirstyhen (14 December 2007)

Again, if everyone is entitled to their own views, why come on this forum in the first place? Its quite clear that you will not agree with people. I have asked this question before and as yet know one has given me an answer.
The point of hunting is it manages the population in a natural way, it is not trying to wipe out foxes.


----------



## loobiloo (14 December 2007)

It is the anti's fault that a dog died and I completely disagree with many people's way of protesting against hunting, or any other animal welfare matter.  

I am one of those people who tend to lean one way and then the other generally because I can see both sides and understand both arguments.  However I personally don't like hunting.  That doesn't mean I think any one that hunts is blood-thirsty or whatever anyone wants to call them- I just don't like it and that is a personal choice.  

I do think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this or any other matter and there will ALWAYS be conflicting views but why should that mean they can't be discussed rationally without 'preaching' or stereotyping? I know that (besides the extremists) the 'sane' people on each side get very offended at such comments and yet it seems to be that these are the ones who end up throwing names around due to the tension between both parties.  

As far as converting people - a person can only be informed with information (on both sides) and then make a choice.  I know that my partner and many of my friends are in support of hunting where as I am generally not - but that doesn't mean we have to hurl abuse at one another! Sorry  - rant over  :crazy:


----------



## loobiloo (14 December 2007)

Again, if everyone is entitled to their own views, why come on this forum in the first place?
		
Click to expand...

Definitions of forum on the Web:

    * a public meeting or assembly for open discussion
    * a public facility to meet for open discussion

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## kirstyhen (14 December 2007)

However I wouldnt not go on a forum which had anything to do with anti hunting to put my points across to people i have no hope of converting. 
I have heard the argument against many times and have made my decision. As have people who are against, I respect that decision, therefore do not seek them out to put my point to them.
I have several vegan/vegetarian/anti friends, we agree to disagree, we dont not need to continually discuss a subject which has no hope of ever being closed.


----------



## Eagle_day (14 December 2007)

"It is very ignorant of you to surgest that all Anti hunts are uninformed "

Quod erat demonstrandum.


----------



## Eagle_day (15 December 2007)

"Why is there such a difference between murdering a fox and murdering a dog?"

Why is there such a difference between holding up a trailer in high temperatures and killing a hound, and killing a quarry species with hounds in a fair hunt?

I have seen dozens of foxes killed by hounds, and I know that they do not suffer. The fact that you delight in the death of a hound - and the suffering of the entire pack in those circumstances causes me concern  - shows you up for the fraud that you are.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (15 December 2007)

Quod erat demonstrandum. [/quote]

We all have acces to Latin interpretation, how sad are you to write that in the hope that i wouldn't understand!
PS Latin stopped being taught in 1979.


----------



## Eagle_day (15 December 2007)

"acces"

I wrote in the hope that you would know a common Latin phrase - it was apt, wasn't it?

I did, however, expect you to have better usage of English.


----------



## wrighty (15 December 2007)

"The point of hunting is it manages the population in a natural way."
I'm sure this has been said before but what is natural about breeding hounds to chase foxes when followed by people on horses?
Natural would be the packs of WILD dogs chasing something for food, not just to rip it to pieces.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (15 December 2007)

"acces"

I wrote in the hope that you would know a common Latin phrase - it was apt, wasn't it?

I did, however, expect you to have better usage of English.
		
Click to expand...

Lol gd retaliation! however please do bare in mind that i am drunk having just come back from a night out at the moment so my English will not be on the ball... i can barely focus on the keys!
 But just to clarify that i do know how to spell: access (c'mon i only missed an "S"!)

and no it wasn't apt... i never came this topic trying to change people's view on hunting, but to try and change the pejudice directed towards anti hunts via the pro hunts. I'm not really on here arguing about the morels of hunting - i know i will never change your oppinion, as well as i know that you wont change mine- i came on here trying to clarify that not all anti hunts are ill thought through "sabs", but in doing this i have felt the need to justify my point of view. It would be nice if pros and antis would agree to disagree and hunting wasn't such a heated subject, as there are pro hunts that i get along with very well, however i must keep my oppinions on hunting quiet to them as they have such prejudice views anti hunts that they would proberbly never speak to me again.
i don't see why people of different oppinions have to be enemys for the sake of a dead fox... surely there are more importent issues in the world!


----------



## madmav (15 December 2007)

I am now old enough to know better than to join in this debate, except to say:
When I was young, I deplored hunting, because it seemed horrif and cruel. Then I got - a lot - older and realised that the hunt way is actually better! And the anti-hunt reasoning is so off the mark, they could persuade anyone to be pro-hunting.


----------



## wrighty (15 December 2007)

Thanks for that great insight madmav.


----------



## winterhorse (15 December 2007)

Latin stopped being taught in 1979.
		
Click to expand...

incorrect i did latin at school and before you ask no i didn't go to private school and no i am not that old. without revealing my age was in the 90's.


----------



## WFL (15 December 2007)

Personally I'd have kept driving on and run anyone over who stood in my way... If the vehicle was surrounded by a mob, you'd have a good defence of panic/self preservation. Just don't stop and reverse back over any of them


----------



## peakpark (15 December 2007)

If someone wrote 'etc' would you say 

"We all have acces to Latin interpretation, how sad are you to write that in the hope that i wouldn't understand!"


----------



## Eagle_day (15 December 2007)

... or QED, even, PP?


----------



## Eagle_day (15 December 2007)

"Lol gd retaliation! however please do bare in mind that i am drunk having just come back from a night out"

A prima facie case of drunken posting. Some advice:

1. Download the Google toolbar
2. Use the spellcheck function.

Works for me everytime.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (16 December 2007)

Might just refrain from getting drunk ever again - it wont be hard considering how [****] i felt in the morning!


----------



## peakpark (16 December 2007)

quote/ i came on here trying to clarify that not all anti hunts are ill thought through "sabs", /quote.

I'm the first to admit I'm not the sharpest pitchfork in the haystack, and I really can't understand this sentence. Could someone enlighten me please?


----------



## Reginald (16 December 2007)

"I'm the first to admit I'm not the sharpest pitchfork in the haystack, and I really can't understand this sentence. Could someone enlighten me please?"

It means that you openly admit you're not the most clever person in the world and you're so befuddled you lose track of what you're on about.


----------



## peakpark (16 December 2007)

Very good Reginald. Now could you tell me what the following sentence means:

quote/ i came on here trying to clarify that not all anti hunts are ill thought through "sabs", /quote.


----------



## Reginald (17 December 2007)

I'd say it means: "The reason why I take part in the debates on the hunting forum is to reassure myself that although people might be against hunting they are not all "sabs" whose arguments don't hold water."


----------



## u04elw2 (17 December 2007)

LOL JessDoesItBetter, I have no idea what LAC is either, and what people don't realise is that we don't NEED to be part of some violent group or to have our monthly leaflets sent to us to have the opinions we have.  We can manage those just fine, without being spoon fed opinions by other people, it just so happens that whenever those opinions disagree with the views of pro-hunt people then we're the ones who get insulted.  

It's a sad world where people are told to get off of a forum - yes, Henmeister, a forum, a place of DISCUSSION - because their views do not agree with the vast majority.  Isn't that what people like Hitler wanted?  A world where nobody ever challenged his opinions?  Sorry but you might as well just shut H&amp;H online down right now if you're going to start telling people to stop disagreeing with your views cos until you do it will keep happening.

I am not trying to CONVERT you.  As you will not convert me.  I'm just trying to explain my view on the matter, as is everyone else who has commented here.  

There is no need for petty insults and Eagle_Day, I worry about your argument if you are grasping at straws so much as to feel the need to pick on someone for their "use of English" as opposed to the actual point in question.

QUOTE "Why is there such a difference between holding up a trailer in high temperatures and killing a hound, and killing a quarry species with hounds in a fair hunt?

I have seen dozens of foxes killed by hounds, and I know that they do not suffer. The fact that you delight in the death of a hound - and the suffering of the entire pack in those circumstances causes me concern - shows you up for the fraud that you are." UNQUOTE

Both are activities performed by hunters.  Therefore both are proving my point.  Neither should be performed and therefore I wouldn't have to choose between the two 

Oh and no, I didn't DELIGHT in the fact that poor dog died.  I just feel sorry for the poor animal that it was ever bred into such circumstances and its natural abilities used in such a barbaric fashion in the first place.

Oh and foxes killed by hounds do not suffer?  BULLSH*T


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (17 December 2007)

: "reassure myself"

well really to reassure other people bit yeah basicly...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Eagle_day (17 December 2007)

"I worry about your argument ..."

Spare me your concern. I don't need it.

"Oh and foxes killed by hounds do not suffer? BULLSH*T"

Ever seen it?

"Both are activities performed by hunters"

Including killing a hound by heat stroke? That truly is an exercise in moral gymnastics.


----------



## kirstyhen (17 December 2007)

Now now no need for the condescending tone, your starting to sound like one of those people who gets angry when someone disagrees with them!
I did not tell you to get off this forum, i merely asked why antis come on a PRO forum, as horse and hound is a pro magazine. I just see it as a pointless exercise! 
I have no problem with people who disagree with me, and maybe if one of you could come up with a fresh argument id have the energy to discuss the subject with you.
Hitler would of had no problem with you, he was an anti too.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (17 December 2007)

i came on this forum because i share an interest in horses just like everyone else on here,  i just don't share your views on hunting. I read h&amp;h (i even quite happily read through the hunting section and read whats going on- without getting wound up! lol) because it's a good mag and whether it's pro or not is irrelavent, as an anti within the horse world, you get v.used to other pro hunts and eventually it becomes the norm and you just don't think about it.


----------



## kirstyhen (17 December 2007)

Im not saying that antis are not allowed to be on this forum, read horse and hound or do any of the others things that antis may wish to do!
However I am saying in my opinion its seems pointless to come on a forum in which the majority of people are pros and comment. If i was anti i would want to stay well clear of all things pro, but perhaps that is just me!!
I think the reason it annoys me is due to all the antis who feel the need to comment on threads which are nothing to do with debates, they are threads in which people are seeking information, wanting to share their enjoyment or just chat with like minded people and antis feel the need to post pointless comments regarding the nature of hunting and hunters or give some piece of pointless advice.
Just to clarify, so i dont get a barriage of comments, i am not lumping all antis as the same, as ive said before i have friends who are adamently anti! :grin:


----------



## Tinkerbee (18 December 2007)

But if there were no antis

Our life on here would be oh so dull 

bit of a one sided discussion..hehe


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?


----------



## PaddyMonty (18 December 2007)

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?
		
Click to expand...

I think just turning up will do these days.  Pencil not required.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (18 December 2007)

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?
		
Click to expand...

What relevance does this hold? lol, who is it aimed at?


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

Eagle_day, yes actually, I have and it was horrific.  And that was at a young age and put me off killing anything for life.  

My point was that the hound was in a trailer because the hunters put it there.  Therefore they had an equal amount of responsibility in the events.

I am not on here to pick fights or cause arguments.  I simply came across a topic that means a lot to me and commented so as to put across my views.  If you really weren't bothered by what I had to say nobody needs to reply to any of my posts in the first place.


----------



## PaddyMonty (18 December 2007)

My point was that the hound was in a trailer because the hunters put it there.  Therefore they had an equal amount of responsibility in the events.
		
Click to expand...

Even as an anti (non practicing) I acnt agree with that.  If it were the case then if I put my horse in my lorry and during transport end up in the middle of a riot / demonstration etc then no way would i consider it my fault.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

"Surely if population control were the primary motivation it would be better to trap and shoot them? People in general tend to find the most efficient way of accomplishing a given task. So it seems unlikely to me that a mechanism that requires many people, horse and dogs, and that results in most of the foxes escaping anyway is a feasible method of population control. My conclusion? That it is primarily a form of entertainment. And that, for me, sums up the real barbarism of hunting with hounds."

Can't say I can fault his argument.
		
Click to expand...

Surely if it kills less animals and people have a better time then it is better than if they kill more foxes and have a worse time.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

If it were for population control, like so many pro-hunts say it is, then less antis would be against it.  My point is that people who say it's for population control are blatantly lying.  Although if it WAS then trapping and shooting would be a far more humane and efficient way to do it.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

I think that depends how you see population control working.

To me a good means of population control is where most animals can escape by dint of their wits and strength so that the weaker animals tend to get caught more.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,651695,00.html

Whatever you call it, breeding animals to kill and then claiming it's population control is not on.  Bending the truth to suit the bloodthirst of the participants I'd say


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

Well of course breeding animals is population control.

Good population control can mean making the numbers go up as well as down.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

So why do it if you're just going to kill them anyway?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

Well I think it is a good thing to have a healthy fox population.  They are an integral part of our wildlife.


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

So let's get this straight, Bobcats: you admit that hunts artificially enhance the fox population and then kill them in the name of pest control and you have no problem with this. Is that your position?


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

Well then why are there people who claim they're killing them for pest control because they're "vermin"?

Don't they realise they're contradicting themselves by supporting a hunt who is breeding the very same "vermin" they're out to exterminate?


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

So, because I don't want rats in my barn, I'll go and breed an entire ARMY of rats and set them free in my yard so that I have to spend all my spare time catching them...of COURSE, the answer was there all along!  How silly of me!


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

They certainly do.  Both hunts and shoots do a huge amount of work to conserve and improve habitat for their quarry species.

I think that is a good thing yes.

"Kill them in the name of pest control."  Where there are too many foxes then numerical control of the population might be justified.  Generally I welcome the presence of the predator function of huts because it fulfills a role in ensuring a healthy and sustainable fox population.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

Well then why are there people who claim they're killing them for pest control because they're "vermin"?

Don't they realise they're contradicting themselves by supporting a hunt who is breeding the very same "vermin" they're out to exterminate?
		
Click to expand...

People think and claim all sorts of things.  In some circumstances foxes are vermin, in others they are not.  I'm not especially interested in what ppl who hunt think they are acheiving I am more interested in the actual effect of their actions.


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

You seem like a nice, straightforward guy. Would you mind just clarifying your position?

Do you admit that hunts artificially enhance the fox population? A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

I just answered it Reginald.

I'd have thought that good population management should involve increasing numbers when there are too few and reducing them when there are too many.

What do you think?


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

Ok, we're making progress: you admit hunts artificially enhance the fox population.

Next question, since you're being so amenable: do you think Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment? Just curious for your views on this.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

Surely if humans would stop interfering with the population of foxes then they would control their own numbers?

Nature is good at its own job, it doesn't need as much help as people seem to think


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

???

I'm not sure what the parallel is between enhancing woodland to encourage foxes and the world's largest nuclear disaster.


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

Oh go on, indulge me.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

Surely if humans would stop interfering with the population of foxes then they would control their own numbers?

Nature is good at its own job, it doesn't need as much help as people seem to think
		
Click to expand...

Well, if we hadn't removed the fpxes natural predators then their numbers could and would be controlled entirely naturally.

Because they have been removed any 'natural' control will in fact be very unnatural and very bad for the fox population as a whole.


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

I wonder why hunters deliberately introduced foxes and badgers to the Isle of Wight? Are there lots of natural predators there? I never heard of packs of Isle of Wight wolves but I suppose they could exist. Any thoughts on this Bob?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

I'm not sure I do have many thoughts on the Isle of Wight.

I've been there; lot's of sand.


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

Aaar, you've gone all shy on us. Why don't you go and introduce yourself to the lovely ladies in the soapbox forum? I'm sure you'll get a nice reception.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

Not shy Reggie just wondering what the Isle of wight has to do with the proce of lamb.  

Does it have a nuclear power station?


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (18 December 2007)

So, because I don't want rats in my barn, I'll go and breed an entire ARMY of rats and set them free in my yard so that I have to spend all my spare time catching them...of COURSE, the answer was there all along!  How silly of me!
		
Click to expand...

LMFAO!!!

Foxes don't need a nateral preditor to keep the population down, If the numbers get too high then they will run out of nateral recorces due to the competition for space, food etc and after that the numbers will fall, nature is capable of regulating itself. 

Rubbish that hunts like a "healthy" number of foxes, they just enjoy hunting -it's fun!- and as i've said, i don't think it's justifyable enjoyment if it comes at the cost of a life for no good reason.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

LOL thanks JessDoesItBetter, I was impressed even with myself for that one  :smirk:


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

"nature is capable of regulating itself"  And the number #1 natural sustainable way that it regulates itself?  Through predation.  Populations increasing in size so they run out of food and then dieing en masse is a sympton of an eco system that is completely out of balance.

'Rubbish that hunts like a "healthy" number of foxes'  Is it?  I'd have thought that when they go out that is precisely what they want to find so they can have a good days hunting.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

LOL thanks JessDoesItBetter, I was impressed even with myself for that one  :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Rats are a different animal to foxes though.

We keep down our rats by hunting them with cats and dogs.  It's a great method!


----------



## Reginald (18 December 2007)

"Rats are a different animal to foxes though."

You're very observant!!!


----------



## soggy (18 December 2007)

Surely if it kills less animals and people have a better time then it is better than if they kill more foxes and have a worse time.
		
Click to expand...

You cant fault that logic. All though the usual suspects will undoubtedly  try.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

I really don't get the antis logic on this.

Hunting causes less suffering to fewer animals and gives more pleasure to more people.


----------



## u04elw2 (18 December 2007)

Why do people get pleasure from killing something?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (18 December 2007)

I'd imagine that it's the Hunting that gives them pleasure rather than pure killing.  In this day and age you hardly need to go out with a pack of hounds to kill something.  There are much more efficient ways to do it.  Ones which 'antis' prefer like shooting foxes.  These are more efficient because you can kill more animals for less effort.  They also cause more suffering to foxes.

That's :

More dead foxes, more killing, more suffering - all LEGAL

Less dead foxes, less killing, less suffering - ILLEGAL


----------



## kirstyhen (18 December 2007)

Whats wrong with my english, even if i spelt things wrong or didnt use the correct grammer im sure you got the jist!
No need for personal attacks reginald!
And as a matter of fact i did get an A* in gcse english. No gonk pencil required!


----------



## Nickijem (18 December 2007)

The argument about a hunt sustaining a healthy population of foxes surely has its answer inthe last few centuries of the fox population.  There has, as far as I know, always been a healthy fox population and coincidently (or not imo) there has been fox hunting.
I do wonder what will happen if there is no population control, I particularly wonder about the sick and injured foxes that are routinely eliminated by the hunt - will they now be able to go on and breed more and more unhealthy foxes by passing on weak genes?
The fox population was at a healthy level up until the ban so if it ain't broke why did we need to fix it?!


----------



## Eagle_day (18 December 2007)

"Why do people get pleasure from killing something?"

People like eating meat when an animal has died.

People like hunting when an animal may die.

What's the difference?


----------



## severnmiles (18 December 2007)

whats a healthy population got to do with it????
sick , injured or healthy they were still killed
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, but look where foxes are hunted alot, the foxes you see out lamping are far healthier than in areas they aren't hunted hard.


----------



## Reginald (19 December 2007)

At last, an honest hunter.


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

skiddaw_lad, you may be pro but at least you're telling the truth - fox hunting has nothing to do with helping out the population (which would sort itself out if it got out of hand) or "picking off" sick or injured foxes.  People just do it because they like killing foxes.  

And Eagle_day, yes you're right some people do.  I don't eat meat either though and therefore that argument has nothing to do with my point


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

"I don't eat meat either though and therefore that argument has nothing to do with my point "

It has a lot to do with your point.  You choose not to eat meat, fair enough however I assume you don't support a law banning everybody from eating meat on the basis that you have moral problems with it.

That is however the situation with hunting.


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

As much as I'd love everyone to stop eating meat I know it'll never happen and there are far more people who eat meat than go foxhunting.  I would be happier with the meat industry if I knew the animals definitely didn't suffer when they were raised, transported and eventually slaughtered.  

The same goes for foxhunting.  If I knew the animal went through the very bare minimum of suffering then I would still disagree with the practice but would be less vocal about my opposition.  But I know that this is not the case with either industries.  Plus this thread is about foxhunting.  If you'd like to open up another one about us damn vegetarians being a nuisance to society then feel free and I'll have my tuppence worth in there too


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

lol I'm not the slightest bit against vegetarians.

Do you think hunted foxes suffer more than ones that are shot and merely wounded?


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Yes I do think that they suffer by being chased and terrified by the army of dogs, horses and people chasing them.  

The definition of a farm animal suffering is an increase in stress and therefore cortisol in it's system and this is a well used indicator of bad transport and slaughtering practice, so why then is it considered fine and "humane" to hunt the fox in such a way as to cause huge amounts of stress?  Surely if it was shot by a skilled marksman on first sighting it would be kinder to the animal?


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

I know for a fact that a professional games keeper has a good shot and can quite often kill a fox pretty swiftly, the only problem with shooting is that it isn't difficult for anyone to get a gun and it's the "anyones" that have a bad shot and end up merely wounding a fox. I think there should be made more difficult for anyone to get a gun.
However if a fox gets away from the hunt it can often die from exhaustion later or go into hiding and die from hypothermia, neither of which aren't particularly pleasent ways to die. 
I'm not against the killing of animals because animals don't have the same level of conciousness as human beings and therefore death isn't the same to them as it is to us, however i do believe that animals have rights and that any killing should be made as humain as possible (which is why i'm also a veggi because the slaughter of animals is no longer as humain as it once was due to overseas transportation) and i'm sorry but hunting with hounds is not the most humain way to kill a fox. It has only been accepted for so long because it's a middle class pass time. If it was a bunch of working class youths from a council estate contributing to pest controle on their mopeds then it would be considered by all to be barbarric, but to some it is more acceptable because it's middle class folk riding accross the countryside on horse back. (and before i'm accused of being a working class "townie" i again would like to remind you that i'm acctually a fairly middle class country person)


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Lol JessDoesItBetter, don't you find it funny that anyone who's against hunting was branded a townie earlier in this thread?  

I find it quite ironic, having been born and brought up in and around the countryside with a father who used to shoot and hunt and fish.  Just because you live in the countryside doesn't mean you HAVE to be a pro.  Just as anyone who lives in a town isn't necessarily an anti.

Just my little dig at soggy there cos he seems to think that's the way things are


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

yep i completely agree! hit the nail on the head with regards to soggy as well!! lol


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

I asked you which one you feel suffers more?  Not whether they suffer at all.

On a second point seeing as shooting kills and wounds so many more foxes which foxes do you think suffer more:

a) the 80,000 or so foxes that escape the hunt.

b) the 80,000 or so foxes that get shot or wounded by guns.


----------



## faerie666 (19 December 2007)

LOL, I find it quite funny how you and JessDoesItBetter are complaining about being stereotyped as "townies", yet Jess just said in her last post that all people who hunt are Middle Class.
I'm most certainly not Middle Class, I wish I was as then I wouldn't have to work every hour of every bloody day to be able to afford my horse. :crazy:


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

I do love replying to these things just to see what he comes out with next.  So very entertaining!  Although as all of us vegetarians are "boring" I suppose I should really get back to doing boring vegetarian things rather than allowing myself the frivolity of reading this thread.

Oh if only I ate meat, my life would just be filled to the brim with more interesting things to do!!


----------



## faerie666 (19 December 2007)

Actually, I don't eat meat either, but I hunt.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

With respect tegoz you maybe relying but you most certainly are not answering the questions.


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

and before i'm accused of being a working class "townie" i again would like to remind you that i'm acctually a fairly middle class country person)
		
Click to expand...

Faerie, I think she was more having a bit of a dig at Soggy_Bottom_Boys who seems convinced that anyone who is against hunting is living in a tower block somewhere in the centre of London rather than being a wellies and wax jacket country type such as himself.  Just having a bit of a laugh at his expense.


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Lol give me chance!!  I'm attempting to do QC some paperwork at the same time as eating a pear and replying to this!  I may be a woman but I can only multitask so far!





			On a second point seeing as shooting kills and wounds so many more foxes which foxes do you think suffer more:

a) the 80,000 or so foxes that escape the hunt.

b) the 80,000 or so foxes that get shot or wounded by guns.
		
Click to expand...

I think that both wounded and hunted foxes suffer.  But those that are shot and killed outright are killed in by far the most humane manner and I just don't see why people can't trap and kill them from close range if keeping the population down is what it's really about.

But it's not, is it?


----------



## faerie666 (19 December 2007)

Do you think trapping a wild mammal and leaving it until someone gets back to check the trap and kill it (could be several hours, if not more) causes less stress than chasing for a much shorter period of time with hounds, followed by a very quick death?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

But it's not, is it?
		
Click to expand...

The reason I support hunting is because I think it benefits the fox population by making it healthier.


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Personally I think both are cruel.  The best and most humane way to kill anything is to make it quick and as painless as possible.  Shooting from a distance is obviously the method that does this best but only if the marskman's aim is true.  And hunting foxes with hounds is inefficient and stressful for the animal being hunted.

The best solution in my mind is to leave the population alone to control itself, although since hunting is nothing about population control that comment is null and void.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

" I just don't see why people can't trap and kill them from close range "

Would you also prefer a method that tended to only trap and kill weakened animals who otherwise will die of disease etc?


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

And what would you consider to be a natural death for a sickly animal wandering round the countryside?


----------



## u04elw2 (19 December 2007)

Are we going back to the point that hunters kill only sick and weak animals?  Cos I'm pretty sure someone earlier stated that this was definitely not the case.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

No hunts don't only kill sick and weak animals.  However they do kill them in a higher proportion than less discriminating methods like shooting.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

LOL, I find it quite funny how you and JessDoesItBetter are complaining about being stereotyped as "townies", yet Jess just said in her last post that all people who hunt are Middle Class.
I'm most certainly not Middle Class, I wish I was as then I wouldn't have to work every hour of every bloody day to be able to afford my horse. :crazy:
		
Click to expand...

I actually wasn't saying that only middle class people hunt, but you can't get away from the fact that hunting/ horse riding in general is percieved as a middle class activity, and the fact that it is seen as a middle class activity is the reason why it has been tolerated for so long!


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class.  Upper class maybe but not middle class.

Also what's all this about the middle classes not having to work.  they are the one class that does have to work.  The upper classes don't because they are so rich and the working classes don't because they are genetically adapted to being poor.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

Hunting with hounds doesn't cull enough to make a significant difference to the population, therefore i do believe that the culling of foxes isn't a necessary practice.  The fox population can regulate itself without a nateral preditor. Foxes are very competative animals when it comes to space and they are very terotorial. Also If things are getting over crowded within their population they instinctively no not to mate that season ( there are also other animals that do this). 

However my father does own chickens and has done for the past 10 years. He lives in a part of the country where there are many foxes roaming around (you can see them in broad daylight) and there has only been one occasion where one chicken went missing - and even then we cant be sure it was a fox as we didn't see it and i am led to believe that foxes do kill ALL the chickens they see.  So i don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmers chickens is a regular occurence.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

Also what's all this about the middle classes not having to work.  they are the one class that does have to work.  The upper classes don't because they are so rich and the working classes don't because they are genetically adapted to being poor.
		
Click to expand...

It's not me that said that!




			hunting is definatly not seen as middle class, upper class mabie but not middle




			Thats not the point, my point is that if it were associated with working class it would have been banned years ago. The fact that it's associated with the upper class reinforces my point even more if anything!
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

Do you have any evidence that foxes in stinctively don't mate if overcrowded?

It seems very strange to me that you would object to fox hunting because it does not kill enough animals.

Surely the fact that it kills fewer animals while tending to take out the weaker animals which need to be culled counts in it's favour.

Of course animals 'regulate themselves' without a nautural predator.  They die unnatural and very unpleasant deaths from starvation and disease.  In the absence of a predator (or human control) these are pretty much the only options.

Do you think that animal populations are best regulated through predation or through starving/disease?

Take herds of grazing animals in africa for example.  Do you think lions benefit the health of these herds?


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (19 December 2007)

The point i was making whilst saying that fox hunting doesn't kill enough foxes to make a difference was that the whole process of hunting isn't to keep the population down at all, it's to have a good time. And i think we have already established that foxhunting doesn't only kill the weaker ones, it's as indiscriminatory as any other culling method.
Dying of nateral causes is natures way, nature itself takes out the weaker ones without your very kind assitence. Please don't even try to pass hunting with hounds of as humain because that is the whole reason why i have the problem with it in the first place!

Forgive me for my sarcasm but i don't believe the herds of grazing animals in africa hold much relevance to this topic. Are you in the right forum? lol
No but on a more serious note the process you discribed in africa is nateral and very different to what you do. for example a lion doesn't chase it's pray for what could be hours accross a vast stretch of countryside, it will stalk its pray and pounce, chasing it for no longer than a couple of minutes. Hunting with hounds is in no way nateral.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

"Dying of natural causes is natures way" - Exactly and what is a natural cause for a mid range predator to die from?  - Being caught and eaten by a larger predator.  Except for animals at the top of the food chain this is THE natural way to die.

"And i think we have already established that foxhunting doesn't only kill the weaker ones, it's as indiscriminatory as any other culling method."  Do you think that a fit and cunning fox has the same chance of escaping the hounds as an unfit, sick or stupid one?  Come on!

The average length of a fox being chased by hounds is most certainly not hours.  It is a few minutes.

The point about herds in Africa is that where there are predators animals DO N OT die in the way that you favour which is a long slow death through disease and/or starvation.  You say that this is a 'natural' death.  It is not.  It is a very unnatural death.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (19 December 2007)

Do you think that those grazing herds in Africa would be better or worse off if the lions did not exist?


----------



## Eagle_day (19 December 2007)

"Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself"

Now that is barbaric. I would always intervene to end an animals suffering.

By nature, you mean starvation and disease, and with luck predation. Thank God the countryside is managed by practical, humane people; not moral fantasists like yourself.


----------



## Eagle_day (19 December 2007)

"So I don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmer's chickens is a regular occurrence."

So that's all right then.


----------



## winterhorse (19 December 2007)

The fox population can regulate itself without a nateral preditor.
		
Click to expand...

what proof do you have? it is not like foxhunting is new, some form of hunting has always been about.


----------



## winterhorse (19 December 2007)

.  So i don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmers chickens is a regular occurence.
		
Click to expand...

tell that to my boss, who gave up keeping chickens on her stud farm for this reason.


----------



## soggy (19 December 2007)

"Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself"

Now that is barbaric. I would always intervene to end an animals suffering.

By nature, you mean starvation and disease, and with luck predation. Thank God the countryside is managed by practical, humane people; not moral fantasists like yourself.
		
Click to expand...

Damn! You beat me to it.

It makes one wonder at the truth of their claims to be country born and raised, doesn't it. It makes you wonder at all of their claims in fact.

Ignorant, boring, carrot crunching, rabbit food eating townies. All of um! :grin:


----------



## soggy (19 December 2007)

Foxes don't need a nateral preditor to keep the population down, If the numbers get too high then they will run out of nateral recorces due to the competition for space, food etc and after that the numbers will fall, nature is capable of regulating itself.
		
Click to expand...

PMSL

You've been reading that LACS pamphlet again. I see we have had the, leave it to nature, foxes don't kill chickens or lambs, if it was working class it would have been banned years go, i'm a boring veggie, standard anti bullshit.
Are there any more classic anti views you would care to put forward for our delight and delectaion?


----------



## soggy (19 December 2007)

half the pro's on these page might never have seen a hunted fox , out of the other half very few will have been there at the kill and out of those have given the fox the"death holler"and praised their hounds for a job done , probably less than FIVE.
		
Click to expand...

Well thats you and me. Who's the other three?


----------



## winterhorse (19 December 2007)

half the pro's on these page might never have seen a hunted fox , out of the other half very few will have been there at the kill and out of those have given the fox the"death holler"and praised their hounds for a job done , probably less than FIVE.
		
Click to expand...

Well thats you and me. Who's the other three?
		
Click to expand...

as a lowly huntsmans wife, do i count too? :grin:


----------



## Reginald (20 December 2007)

"Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class."

Hunting is hopelessly middle class, with a majority desperately hoping to be viewed as toffs by their participation.


----------



## winterhorse (20 December 2007)

"Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class."

Hunting is hopelessly middle class, with a majority desperately hoping to be viewed as toffs by their participation.
		
Click to expand...

now that proves the point to everyone clearly that the hunt ban was brought about through predjudice not animal welfare ...
all you are bothered about is people being better off than the rest.

and i think you will find that people from all classes go hunting but i will agree that also the same applies for the people against hunting..


----------



## u04elw2 (20 December 2007)

No matter how much money someone has, it makes no difference if they are opposed to hunting.  Reginald is not JUST arguing because of class differences, he cares about animals welfare far more.  It's just a stereotype but to be honest, one that not all hunters are trying very hard to prove wrong.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

It's just a stereotype but to be honest, one that not all hunters are trying very hard to prove wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Why should they want to prove it wrong?  

What is wrong with people being lower/middle/upper class?  

Shouldn't people have a right to their culture and heritage?


----------



## u04elw2 (20 December 2007)

If hunters don't mind being seen as upper class, why are there people getting upset at Reginalds comment?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

I am sure that 'hunters' think all sorts of different things tegoz.  People that lump a group of people together and make assumptions about what they collectively think etc are generally referred to as prejudiced.

I think also some people don't like discrimination based on class.


----------



## u04elw2 (20 December 2007)

Lol, well I'm working class all the way and proud of it!


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

Good for you Tegoz!


----------



## Reginald (20 December 2007)

Nonsense. If I was motivated by antipathy towards toffs this would make me less likely to dislike hunting because the great majority of hunters aren't toffs - although they'd like to be.


----------



## u04elw2 (20 December 2007)

Am I imagining it or did they just delete page 5?


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

Am I imagining it or did they just delete page 5?
		
Click to expand...

Page 5 of what?

I thought we'd just got to the poiint where you'd aknowledged that the Hunting Act is flawed.

Maybe that was on another thread?


----------



## Reginald (20 December 2007)

No, "toff" isn't a term of abuse. There aren't many toffs in hunts, just lots and lots of people who'd like to think they are. SO lower middle.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

lol Reginald.  When I go out and chase deer with dogs there's just me!

So I am not sure that class comes into it.

I do hope it is still legal to chase deer with dogs as you seem to think it is.

Something tells me though that you are full of bull's shite!!!!!


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (20 December 2007)

Yes because everyone who dares to disagree with you is of course, without a doubt, talking bullshit. 
Moving away from the class issue... You are all talking about how you heroicly intervine with the suffering wild animals in the countryside, and put them out of their misery. If this was the case i'd be more than up for it, however im sorry but chasing a wild animal across the countryside untill it's either malled to death by a pack of hounds, or escapes and dies a slow death via exaustion/hypothermia is not what i call humain. I don't think your really botherd whether your putting something out of it's misery at all, you enjoy hunting. end of.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

I don't go fox hunting Jess.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (20 December 2007)

yes but you do hunt for enjoyment.

a study i found:

Now, a study by a longtime fox researcher and colleagues suggests that it is not. The researcher, Dr. Stephen Harris of the University of Bristol, found that a ban on hunting, instituted for 10 months during the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 2001, had no effect on the fox population. 

''Statistically there was no difference from previous years,'' Dr. Harris said. ''If anything, the trend was slightly downward.'' 

Dr. Harris said his survey plots, which were randomly selected, included both well-hunted and hunt-free areas. ''And that's important for the results,'' he said. ''There was no difference between the two.'' 

Dr. Lindley said he was not surprised at the study's results, given that there are an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 foxes in Britain, and, even by generous estimates, hunting kills only 15,000 of them a year. ''Fifteen-thousand animals in the scale of things wouldn't make much of a difference,'' he said. 

Dr. Harris said that over the years he had observed that foxes appeared to do a good job of regulating their numbers on their own -- for example, by producing smaller litters in overpopulated areas. ''Our data suggest that the way foxes regulate their own numbers is as important as any culling that is done,'' he said.


----------



## Fairynuff (20 December 2007)

Ignorant, boring, carrot crunching, rabbit food eating townies. All of um! :grin:
		
Click to expand...

Soggy, Im hurt at your generalisation


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

''If anything, the trend was slightly downward.''  Was he talking about numbers or the health of the population?

Where is the data that suggests foxes have smaller litters when overcrowded?     Are there any studies that actually show this?


----------



## Fairynuff (20 December 2007)

Jess, Bob doesnt hunt anything, he flushes! It that may well be a hormonal problem though . Mairi.


----------



## Bobcats_Livid_Issue (20 December 2007)

Oh no!  I thought they insisted that flushing WAS hunting.  LOL.  What i can't understand is why they seem so against something when they don't even know what it is.

The I have FB on here telling me it's fine to chase deer with dpgs as long as it's not too far.

Tis all So confusing I think I will just ignore the numpties and carry on!!!


----------



## u04elw2 (20 December 2007)

LOL you guys must think I'm mental but when I clicked refresh on the PC at work half of this discussion had disappeared!  I thought the moderators had deleted most of todays comments or something.

No fear, its all back now.

I am actually losing it, I tell you...


----------



## Nickijem (20 December 2007)

Sorry to go back to the class issue (I've only just read this thread) BUT I honestly believe it is BECAUSE hunting is thought of as an upper class pursuit that it has been banned.  It is a known fact in Britain that we can't be pleased for anyone who has done well for themselves - we always support the underdog and 'toffs' have been hated for generations.
I believe the ban has very little to do with the fox - if all the antis were worried about an animal suffering, there are far more needy cases than a fox that they could put their energies into.  I'm not going to list all the suffering in the world here but very few cases have had the 900 parliamentary hours that fox-hunting seemed to warrant.
BTW - I come from a working class background and have never hunted.  I have worked hard and now have a good job and consider myself middle class.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (20 December 2007)

Honey it really isn't a dig at "toffs", as i've said i'm middle class myself. The reason hunting has been allowed to continue for so long is because it's associated with the ritch. Many people simply believe that your practices are simply barbarric. Simple as. By saying that the ban is a dig at upper/middle class is in some way suggesting that all anti hunts are working class, another untrue steriotype based on fiction.


----------



## Nickijem (20 December 2007)

But what I can't understand is why pick on fox-hunting?
There is so much suffering in the world caused by the barbaric actions of humans why isn't there more parliamentary time given to those.  As I said - I'm not a hunter and I have never been hunting and if there were not children starving, old ladies being mugged, animals being transported live for slaughter, pet birds being kept in cages etc etc then I might give a F**k about a fox who has had a charmed life until it meets a quick death by hounds.
That's why I think that it is another dig at the wealthy - same as 4 x 4 drivers! The upper classes are despised for doing well for themselves.  Or at least that's the impression this government gives!


----------



## countess (20 December 2007)

Barbaric does not describe foxhunting pre ban, they lived or they died. Now suffering foxes are being found in this part of the countryside. This worrys me as this has never happened before where i live.


----------



## Reginald (21 December 2007)

But as Bob pointed out the other day hunts artificially boost fox numbers then kill them in the name of pest control.


----------



## Reginald (21 December 2007)

A tiny proportion of people who hunt are toffs, and the ones who do must be appalled at the chavs and wannabes who know nothing about the countryside and go hunting in the desperate hope that people will think they're "posh". Ghastly!


----------



## CARREG (21 December 2007)

Your ignorance on the subject of hunting is amazing, you have to be jesting, you couldnt be as ignorant as you seem about a subject and expect people to hold your opinion in any seriousness.............Carreg


----------



## soggy (21 December 2007)

"Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class."

Hunting is hopelessly middle class, with a majority desperately hoping to be viewed as toffs by their participation.
		
Click to expand...

LMAO

Where did you come up with that BS from?


----------



## soggy (21 December 2007)

LOL you guys must think I'm mental but when I clicked refresh on the PC at work half of this discussion had disappeared!  I thought the moderators had deleted most of todays comments or something.

No fear, its all back now.

I am actually losing it, I tell you...
		
Click to expand...

its that veggie only diet luv!

You realy do need to start eating meat again.


----------



## soggy (21 December 2007)

There are exceptions to every rule.

I am full aware of your wonderfull dietary selection, my little haggis cruncher you.


----------



## Reginald (22 December 2007)

Have you plucked up enough courage yet Carreg to corroborate the authenticity of the description of animal abuse posted on the forum you moderated? Go on, you're a big brave man who boasts about the number of foxes you kill - pushing a few buttons on a pc isn't really that frightening.


----------



## soggy (22 December 2007)

I guess that proves your claim to be a work of fiction. Strange that! Its not as if everything you post isn't a work of fiction now is it.?)))


----------



## antiantianti (22 December 2007)

But as Bob pointed out the other day hunts artificially boost fox numbers then kill them in the name of pest control.
		
Click to expand...

This is quite true.  If hunts really wanted to reduce the number of foxes they would be better spending there time removing woodland and hedgerows that give shelter to these animals.

In actual fact they spend time doing the opposite.  How can they claim to be anti wildlife when they plant trees and hedges?

Also if as the hunters claim their activities tend to target weak animals then this also discredits their claim to  control the population.  Efficient modern population control would target the strong animals as the weak ones will die anyway.


----------



## soggy (22 December 2007)

&gt; How can they claim to be anti wildlife when they plant trees and hedges?&lt;

You words not mine. Do you need to be anti wildlife to manage it?


----------



## antiantianti (22 December 2007)

The simple and unavoidable fact is that if you encourage more wildlife then you will have more suffering.  By providing additional habitat they are increasing the numbers of foxes, badgers, hares, deer etc on their holdings.

All these animals will at some point suffer.

People who really care about animal welfare would seek to remove habitat resulting in less animals and less suffering.


----------



## Reginald (22 December 2007)

Giles thought Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment. What do you think?


----------



## Reginald (22 December 2007)

Poor bullied Carreg could simply deny my claim. Why doesn't he? If he's scared about replying he could always have a quick toke on some g13 first to cushion the blow.


----------



## antiantianti (22 December 2007)

Giles thought Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment. What do you think?
		
Click to expand...

I think that is just the sort of statement that someone would make who is so arrogant to take it on himself to illegally refuse to kill red deer.

Hunt scum, pure and simple.

How about you; what do you think?


----------



## Nickijem (23 December 2007)

The simple and unavoidable fact is that if you encourage more wildlife then you will have more suffering.  By providing additional habitat they are increasing the numbers of foxes, badgers, hares, deer etc on their holdings.

All these animals will at some point suffer.

People who really care about animal welfare would seek to remove habitat resulting in less animals and less suffering.
		
Click to expand...

What an incredible statement - I can't work out whether you are being cynical/sarcastic or whether you really have no idea what you are talking about!!?
You have to agree that the English countryside is one of the prettiest in Europe and it looks that way thanks to the people who manage it.  Part of this management is for hunting (the prettiest areas have a history of hunting eg New Forest, Exmoor etc).  The advantages to hunting are that it preserves wildlife by maintaining hedges, copses etc and it keeps the countryside the way it is.
Are you suggesting that we turn England into a desert of arable fields with no hedgerows? 
As I said, I hope you are just being a bit sarcastic!


----------



## Fairynuff (23 December 2007)

:shocked: I cannot believe what I have just read! Oh my good gods, I am disturbed that someone can write this nonsense let alone believe it . At some point in your life you will suffer (its called, being alive) so what is the answer? I know, Im a bit slow-its called "mass abortion" or "mass sterilization"= no one being born,= no one suffering ever again. Why didnt we think about this concept thousands of years ago, it would have been so simple and yet....? I am so glad to be alive in my sufferance. Sometimes Im ashamed to be an "anti"! Mairi.


----------



## CARREG (23 December 2007)

Reggie
I think you've a fetish about bullying, probably stems from the fact you've been bullied in the real world all your life, Ive told you before you're not capable of bullying me, on an internet forum or in real life, you simply dont have the tools,  what would you like me to deny, or admit, Im sorry I havent read the whole thread, I take it its something to do with Moochers, you tell me what it is and you'll get your reply................Carreg
P.S Had to knock the blow, random blood tests at work, been 2 yrs now


----------



## antiantianti (23 December 2007)

?? confused ??  what does Reginald want this guy to deny or admit???


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (23 December 2007)

But what I can't understand is why pick on fox-hunting?"
I don't "pick" on fox hunting, I simply don't agree with it, there is no victimisation going on here.
"There is so much suffering in the world caused by the barbaric actions of humans"
 Yes and fox hunting is one of them! Just because i care about fox hunting doesn't mean that my life revolves around that soley and that i haven't got enough time to care about starving children etc of course i don't even put fox hunting in the same catagory as this, but i do think fox hunting is unnecessarily barbarric. The other [****] going off on this planet really isn't relevant to this thread, if you want a debate about old ladies and starving children i'll say my piece on that as well! 
  "That's why I think that it is another dig at the wealthy - same as 4 x 4 drivers! The upper classes are despised for doing well for themselves.  Or at least that's the impression this government gives!"
New Labour can hardly be considered a far left socialist government, and polliticly seem to be occupying the middle grounds. It's just that society has changed from what it was fifty years ago, and the upperclass can't assume that they can behave and carry on as they always have done unquestioned by society.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## antiantianti (23 December 2007)

Less wildlife means that less animals suffer.  I'd have thought this is obvious.  I used to have moles in my front garden but I concreted it over.  If there are no moles then no moles will suffer.

people go on about the importance of conserving the exmoor herd of deer.  Surely it is better for there to be no deer than for there to be deer that suffer.


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (23 December 2007)

^Just to clarify that this isn't what i think...lol


----------



## Fairynuff (23 December 2007)

if thats the case you should be out there with the pros trying to kill as many animals as pos. What a terrible world it would be without animals and nature, sorry, I think you are warped :crazy:.


----------



## antiantianti (23 December 2007)

I would never hunt with dogs it is far too inefficient. 

I would never kill animals however the law makes it clear that shooting is preferred.  This is because it kills so many more animals.  If all the people that hunt now start shooting deer then there would soon be no more suffering.


----------



## Nickijem (23 December 2007)

Less wildlife means that less animals suffer.  I'd have thought this is obvious.  I used to have moles in my front garden but I concreted it over.  If there are no moles then no moles will suffer.

people go on about the importance of conserving the exmoor herd of deer.  Surely it is better for there to be no deer than for there to be deer that suffer.
		
Click to expand...

OK now I know you're being sarcastic!
Let's concrete over the whole of the countryside. No more suffering - phew!


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (24 December 2007)

But what I can't understand is why pick on fox-hunting?"
I don't "pick" on fox hunting, I simply don't agree with it, there is no victimisation going on here.
"There is so much suffering in the world caused by the barbaric actions of humans"
Yes and fox hunting is one of them! Just because i care about fox hunting doesn't mean that my life revolves around that soley and that i haven't got enough time to care about starving children etc of course i don't even put fox hunting in the same catagory as this, but i do think fox hunting is unnecessarily barbarric. The other [****] going off on this planet really isn't relevant to this thread, if you want a debate about old ladies and starving children i'll say my piece on that as well! 
"That's why I think that it is another dig at the wealthy - same as 4 x 4 drivers! The upper classes are despised for doing well for themselves. Or at least that's the impression this government gives!"
New Labour can hardly be considered a far left socialist government, and polliticly seem to be occupying the middle grounds. It's just that society has changed from what it was fifty years ago, and the upperclass can't assume that they can behave and carry on as they always have done unquestioned by society.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## JessDoesItBetter (24 December 2007)

omg bump


----------



## antiantianti (27 December 2007)

omg bump
		
Click to expand...

did you fall off your high horse?


----------

