# Simon Cowell thinks hunting should stay banned!



## countrygirl45 (14 December 2009)

Simon just said on Newnight that "hunting should stay banned" and that the "prime-minister should know what the general public want". Used to admire the man - just gone off him!


----------



## joy (14 December 2009)

Who is Simon Cowell and what is his opinion worth?


----------



## countrygirl45 (14 December 2009)

Well the only problem is that a lot of young people out there happen to think what he says is all good - which is a bit worrying. Mind you, as he was speaking on newsnight most of them wouldn't be watching! 
It's not all bad :grin:
Oh and he is the man who runs X-factor and Britains got talent (for those that don't know). :grin:


----------



## spacefaer (14 December 2009)

I think he lives on another planet - the one where politicians are ethical, moral &amp; honourable and where the "general public" look up to them as they look after our best interests....

he freely admits that he doesn't like the country, it being muddy, full of weather and noisy, dirty, smelly animals.  Since he lives in LA, it really shouldn't bother him too greatly!!


----------



## dorani (15 December 2009)

Brave man!


----------



## BBH (15 December 2009)

Sensible man


----------



## combat_claire (15 December 2009)

I wish 'celebrities' would stop spouting their uninformed views about things. First of all we have Paul McCartney hammering the agriculture industry and declaring we need a meat-free Monday. Then Pink calling Prince William a redneck for his involvement in hunting, now Simon Cowell wants to dumb down politics and takes the chance to hold forth on the hunting ban.


----------



## muffinino (15 December 2009)

I could care less what Simon Cowell thinks, I'm just not sure how!

Why on Earth was he on Newsnight?


----------



## combat_claire (15 December 2009)

I can explain the second question. He wants an x Factor style debate in the run up to the election, where studio audience can vote on key issues such as immigration or the Iraq war. Apparently he thinks hunting is one of the key concerns of the average bloke on the street!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html


----------



## the watcher (15 December 2009)

and let me guess, no doubt there would be a money spinning phone in vote too.


----------



## cavalo branco (15 December 2009)

Simon Cowell has surely never even worn wellies, like most of our "politicians". They all live on another planet, and I hope that they stay there!!!!! Simon Cowell, if you are listening, stick to the music business and leave countryside issues to those that actually live there.


----------



## muffinino (15 December 2009)

I can explain the second question. He wants an x Factor style debate in the run up to the election, where studio audience can vote on key issues such as immigration or the Iraq war. Apparently he thinks hunting is one of the key concerns of the average bloke on the street!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html

Click to expand...

 :shocked:


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 December 2009)

here we go, another clueless celeb. sticking his ignorant nose in! i admire Cowellfor his entertainment knowledge but that'sa where it should end. i know he's an animal lover which is good but he should keep out of this one- trouble is, people will listen to him who know no better!!!


----------



## Girlracer (15 December 2009)

I don't think we cam criticise his opinion, be it an informed or un-informed opinion. For all we know he could be extremely clued up!


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Simon Cowell is a person and he has a vote in a democracy. He and people like him who believe in the ban deserve more respect for their opinions. If they had  more respect from hunters then maybe they wouldn't think people who hunt are a bunch of toffs with no interest in ordinary people, as many of them do. Reading stuff like some of these comments on forums like this would just confirm them in their beliefs.

And please will people who think everyone who lives in the country supports a repeal of the ban think again and stop writing as if no country dweller could possibly think hunting with hounds was wrong? There are plenty of us who don't want the act repealed who live and work in the country. Will you please stop making broad and incorrect statements on my behalf! 

It is perfectly possible, also, to have an INFORMED belief that hunting with hounds is past its time and not acceptable in the current age. It is incredibly arrogant to write off anyone who disagrees with hunting with hounds as "uninformed". Speaking personally, it's insulting.

There ARE two sides to this argument. It is not black and white. There are shades of grey. People who want the ban repealed need to be cleverer and less alienating about the way they argue for a repeal if they are to succeed in the aim to hunt legally with hounds again. 

The CA campaign featuring the nurse hunting was the way to do it, not slagging off a celebrity for having a valid opinion. The answer to that is to find an equally well known celebrity of your own to put the opposing view. If you can find one.


----------



## Girlracer (15 December 2009)

Simon Cowell is a person and he has a vote in a democracy. He and people like him who believe in the ban deserve more respect for their opinions. If they had  more respect from hunters then maybe they wouldn't think people who hunt are a bunch of toffs with no interest in ordinary people, as many of them do. Reading stuff like some of these comments on forums like this would just confirm them in their beliefs.

And please will people who think everyone who lives in the country supports a repeal of the ban think again and stop writing as if no country dweller could possibly think hunting with hounds was wrong? There are plenty of us who don't want the act repealed who live and work in the country. Will you please stop making broad and incorrect statements on my behalf! 

It is perfectly possible, also, to have an INFORMED belief that hunting with hounds is past its time and not acceptable in the current age. It is incredibly arrogant to write off anyone who disagrees with hunting with hounds as "uninformed". Speaking personally, it's insulting.

There ARE two sides to this argument. It is not black and white. There are shades of grey. People who want the ban repealed need to be cleverer and less alienating about the way they argue for a repeal if they are to succeed in the aim to hunt legally with hounds again. 

The CA campaign featuring the nurse hunting was the way to do it, not slagging off a celebrity for having a valid opinion. The answer to that is to find an equally well known celebrity of your own to put the opposing view. If you can find one.
		
Click to expand...

I'm actually pro, but i think your 100% right. The sort of reply this thread has got is why anti's can say pro hunters are arrogant and un-interested in others views.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Thanks for that. And I have no problem with you trying to get the law repealed, that's the whole point of a democracy. You have a big fight on your hands now it's in place. Badly framed as it is, it's easier to leave it than take it away, escpecially as it probably won't gain many Tory voters but it could lose some who might have switched from Labour.

Oh, and I LURVVVVED X-factor this year!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 December 2009)

after all this i wish i hadn't given my opinion, i'm not being toffish or arguing against the antis- just my own, obviously wrong opinion! i'll shut up in future and leave it to the others on here to get slated!!


----------



## BBH (15 December 2009)

An excellent post.

I live in the country and don't like hunting but more so I don't like the people who hunt. IMO its totally arrogant to diss the views of others because you don't agree with them and flout the law because you think you are above it.

I totally accept there are people who hunt who are not arrogant but unfortunately they are not the ones who are loud.


----------



## combat_claire (15 December 2009)

I don't like football, I don't like people who try and bore me to death on the defensive strategies of Peterborough United FC when I have gone to the pub for a nice pint, however I wouldn't want to see hunting banned. That is what is commonly known as tolerance. Hunting brings many benefits to local economies, the environment, farming and social communities. 

It feels and I appreciate that this is based on an article by the Daily Mail that he hasn't made a view based on the wider benefits, but just jumped to a conclusion that hunting looks messy and cruel and therefore should remain banned. You cannot make sweeping statements unless you are certain of all the facts. 

Yet again someone of an anti-persuasion claims the law is being routinely flouted and yet cannot present any evidence of it. I'm still waiting for CPtrayes to present her evidence of law breaking, perhaps you can help out. 

As for 'dissing views' is that not exactly what the parliamentarians did in passing the act? They ignored their own commissioned report to push ahead in bringing in an act. An act incidentally that has condemned more animals to more brutal deaths than ever before (Middle Way Group research paper) 

No offence, but you really can't take one or two arrogant folk and extrapolate that to conclude that every hunting person is arrogant. If I were to take that methodology then I would have concluded long ago that ALL horse riders were snobbish and unsafe individuals


----------



## BBH (15 December 2009)

The Bottom line is, no matter how many airy fairy niceties you spin regarding its benefits , that most decent thinking people do not derive any pleasure in ripping an animal apart for sport. 

This sort of activity was confined to the dark ages and has no place in modern society, God knows I'm sure people thought there were benefits to Victorian workhouses but thankfully we've moved on.

The trouble with tolerance in this case is that a fox if caught  dies an awful death and for me where pain and death are involved tolerance goes out the window. I'm not interested in reading reports to support hunting, a report can be aligned to support any conclusion according to who is commissioning it.  

Oh and your post does nothing to dispel the ' snob' connotations.
Its a long time since I've ever seen the word extrapolate used. In fact i'll look it up. No offence.


----------



## speedbird (15 December 2009)

I go foxhunting but that doesn't mean i expect everyone to agree with it. I have lots of friends that are anti but i appreciate that everybody is entitled to their opinion and im still friends with them, and them with me. I think simon is great, and a nice person. He s a big animal lover and donates lots of money to animal charities, so he s highly unlikely to support hunting ! The people i have a problem with, is the so called animal lovers like the anti hunt sabs, that encourage hounds across roads and railway tracks to kill them, to me thats hypocritical.


----------



## combat_claire (15 December 2009)

And then you wonder why hunting people get so angry and  state that uninformed opinions are rife. 

Fox control is necessary and for me hunting is the most preferable. Let us have a quick look at the other options - gassing, poisoning and gin traps have been rightly outlawed, or you can snare them - can't always guarantee that the fox caught in snare won't be left for hours till the next check. 

Alternatively you could shoot the fox - but how do you guarantee the fox that is shot is the one that has been predating livestock? How can you guarantee that the shot is accurate 100% of the time? The fact is that you can't make those guarantees, which means some foxes will be condemned to a death from starvation because a botched shot took its jaw off, or a slow, lingering death from gangrene. If you really think that is better than a quick kill with two certain outcomes - death or a clean get away, then you really need to read some of the independent reports - the Burns report was commissioned by the government. Hardly a slanted pro-hunting report. It is laughable that you won't even consider reading a report that doesn't align with your view of the issue. 

I was a waverer about the hunting argument, then I went to see for my own eyes. I have witnessed several pre-ban kills and am convinced that a quick death by hounds would be my preferred method. The fox is not ripped apart as you graphically claim, but is broken up by hounds once it is dead. 

You really think that using a word of longer than three syllables makes me a snob. What a ridiculously flawed argument.


----------



## MrWoof (15 December 2009)

Yes please - could we please deport ALL of them - to a far off planet from the one on which I live.
SC and the "townies" (the imported townies are 100 times worse actually - anyone ever lived or lives near one?) really should just mind their own business and let us country folk get on with what we have been doing for centuries.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

I don't like football, I don't like people who try and bore me to death on the defensive strategies of Peterborough United FC when I have gone to the pub for a nice pint, however I wouldn't want to see hunting banned. That is what is commonly known as tolerance. Hunting brings many benefits to local economies, the environment, farming and social communities. 

It feels and I appreciate that this is based on an article by the Daily Mail that he hasn't made a view based on the wider benefits, but just jumped to a conclusion that hunting looks messy and cruel and therefore should remain banned. You cannot make sweeping statements unless you are certain of all the facts. 

Yet again someone of an anti-persuasion claims the law is being routinely flouted and yet cannot present any evidence of it. I'm still waiting for CPtrayes to present her evidence of law breaking, perhaps you can help out. 

As for 'dissing views' is that not exactly what the parliamentarians did in passing the act? They ignored their own commissioned report to push ahead in bringing in an act. An act incidentally that has condemned more animals to more brutal deaths than ever before (Middle Way Group research paper) 

No offence, but you really can't take one or two arrogant folk and extrapolate that to conclude that every hunting person is arrogant. If I were to take that methodology then I would have concluded long ago that ALL horse riders were snobbish and unsafe individuals  

Click to expand...


You want me to NAME the hunts I know are breaking the law? You want me to take responsibility if the sabs kill another man? I wouldn't even PM you with it, I don't know who you are. For all anyone knows you are a very clever member of the LACS.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you do not accept that there are hunts, particularly midweek with small fields, regularly hunting fox. Do you REALLY think that they are laying a trail on a wet Monday with seven in the field?

To be honest, your sort of reaction is doing hunting no favours at all. I am an informed not-for-me-thankyou. You can do whatever you like within the law, as far as I am concerned. I have hunted fox with the Beaufort, the Berkeley and the Curre.  For years I stabled with the master of the Garth and South Berks.  

You beat me, you really do. You think people like me  won't hunt fox because it "looks messy and cruel". No, we won't hunt fox because we personally believe that it is not a way that we should get our fun by causing fear and pain to another creature.  I have seen foxes running for their lives and it's not something I want to be part of again.

We have had a pro-hunter turned anti-ish who became a lamper post on here. He/she says that of the two, lamping is far more humane. They are in a very good position to know. I suspect that professional hunting with hounds is being compared with amateur lamping in the reports that suggest lamping is more cruel. There is nothing but lamping around here (and lots of it) and I have never in 19 years seen an injured fox, any signs of an injured fox, or one who died later of the effects of being shot.

What is it that there are people who cannot accept that there are perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for feeling that fox hunting with hounds is wrong? You may not agree, but it will get you nowhere to keep treating intelligent and informed people as if there is no validity whatsoever to their point of view.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Yes please - could we please deport ALL of them - to a far off planet from the one on which I live.
SC and the "townies" (the imported townies are 100 times worse actually - anyone ever lived or lives near one?) really should just mind their own business and let us country folk get on with what we have been doing for centuries.
		
Click to expand...

Dancing bears were legal for centuries and every town had one. Congleton famously swapped its bible for one. Do you want that brought back too?

I'm sorry for you but in a democracy what you do IS my business. Go live in a dictatorship if you don't like it.


----------



## SueEllen (15 December 2009)

Just my opinion based on the original post (with no knowlege of what SC knows or doesnt know). 

What worries me is that he has influence and could/probably has influenced people who dont know a thing about Hunting or would ever care to know anything about the sport.

If you think about the demographic of the UK whats the percentage of people living in the country versus the citys/suberbs? 

Plus what about  the natural ballance of  life and death, which to me is what the countryside is all about, its just too easy for people who dont know any different to look at things with their Animals of Farthing Wood glasses on.

Now I am not saying that everyone in the country is pro and in the city anti, just generalising which I think its fair to do in this type of discussion.


----------



## combat_claire (15 December 2009)

You never seem to read my posts before jumping in do you??

I am fed up with these consistent allegations that hunts are routinely breaking the law. If you have evidence take it to the police, if you don't stop making unfounded allegations. Member of LACS, love it, Best giggle I've had in ages, so thank you. 

From my experience of a range of packs across East Anglia, The South East and the West Country I am convinced that they are doing their best to comply with the law. I have seen my mates go out and lay a mid-week trail, in vile conditions for small numbers. I don't see any reason why hunts elsewhere wouldn't be doing the same. 

I did not say that people like you 'won't hunt because it looks messy. Go back, read the paragraph again and you will see that what I actually said was it feels like SIMON COWELL [the man we are discussing in this thread, not your good self] has jumped on an anti-hunting band wagon based on a perception of it being messy. 

I have no problem with you experiencing hunting and deciding it isn't for you. Indeed I have never implied that, you jumped to that conclusion. I have seen plenty of wounded foxes and carcasses left behind after lamping, so forgive me if I don't share the view that lamping is the solution. 

I have never intended to treat people as if their view didn't matter, I apologise if it came over in that manner, but I also have my right to present my view on the issue.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Sue Ellen your generalisation is perfectly sensible and almost certainly true. The counter to it is to find a celebrity will equal impact who will talk for you every time a Simon Cowell talks against you.

Unfortunately Otis Reading won't do - it was his Dad I was in love with at 15 !


----------



## SueEllen (15 December 2009)

The fox is not ripped apart as you graphically claim, but is broken up by hounds once it is dead.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, its well gone by the ripping apart stage. 

Last year we had a half dead and gunshot infected fox crawl into the hay barn to die not very nice at all.


----------



## Starbucks (15 December 2009)

Gone a bit of topic from Simon Cowell then. 

Seems like hes getting a bit big for his boots at the moment!


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Combat-Claire,  this one is a catch 22. It is, of course, impossible for me to name the hunts that I know are hunting fox without endangering lives. Come and visit me in person with references from your hunt and I will send you out with a hunt hunting fox. Until then, please stop accusing me of lying, I do not lie.

I have told you before that I am not intolerant, and I happen to believe the Police have better things to do with their time than catch illegal fox hunters. I'd rather it was burglars in Court and they haven't enough time to chase both.


----------



## muffinino (15 December 2009)

*Disclaimer*

I don't care what Cowell's opinion on hunting is because I don't care what his opinion on aything is.


----------



## Girlracer (15 December 2009)

The trouble is IMO is the hunting act can very very easily be perceived in many different lights. So when one person believes the law is being broken, anothers view may feel it isn't. And that's why the hunting act is so usless in many ways, it's un-clear and has to many 'grey areas'. 

I do believe personally that the majority of hunts are sticking to the law, however i have witnessed those that aren't. 

I really wish we could all do as the law suggests and then at least we can't look like the one's breaking the law, IMO that would do it the world of good. Just wish you could slap some people and tell them to think ahead a little!!! If we want the ban repealled i think we have to be on our best behavouir and give no reason for anti's to say we're breaking the law!! 

Un-fortunately a small majority still wish to continue as before and that's no help in the long run.


----------



## SueEllen (15 December 2009)

I think if the city/country numbers was more even you would get more celebs standing up for the sport but  at the moment it would be viewed as career sucicide to stick your neck out, given the masses are in the citys/subberbs etc. I pressume.


----------



## MrWoof (15 December 2009)

Hello there - this is ME you replied to. 
Did you mean this post for someone else? 
I thought that me and thee were batting for the same side?


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Well siad Lanim.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 December 2009)

well, Simon Cowell has certainly reopened a can of worms!!come on everyone, its christmas, just say to yourselves, there are those who hunt and those that don't, there are those that approve and those that disapprove- we are never going to all agree, SC or no!!on this hunting forum we should really be supportive of each other else what hope have we?


----------



## countrygirl45 (15 December 2009)

Well, as ever, there are 2 sides to every argument. As someone who hunted for many years, I can say I have never been that happy at the thought of the fox being chased (watching the Belstone Fox never helped either mind!) and the panic that it must feel. On the other hand, as a farmer and landowner who has always let the hunt over my land I have been furious with them galloping down the middle of the fields. A later conversation the suggestion was made that I go up and down the field a couple of times with a quad to put the divots back in. They are very lucky they did not get banned altogther - and that was one of the masters!  It really does make you wonder.
Still not sure where I stand but the pro-hunting camp could really do with some famous figures shouting their corner.
The only problem is that with no "proper hunting" we have too many foxes and that will mean a  less lambs surviving to summer.


----------



## spacefaer (15 December 2009)

Sue Ellen your generalisation is perfectly sensible and almost certainly true. The counter to it is to find a celebrity will equal impact who will talk for you every time a Simon Cowell talks against you.

Unfortunately Otis Reading won't do - it was his Dad I was in love with at 15 !
		
Click to expand...

(quietly, not wishing to cause offence at your ignorance, as you know all about fox hunting )

I think you mean Otis Ferry.....


----------



## countrygirl45 (15 December 2009)

Unfortunately Otis Reading won't do - it was his Dad I was in love with at 15 ! [/quote]

(quietly, not wishing to cause offence at your ignorance, as you know all about fox hunting )

I think you mean Otis Ferry.....  [/quote]

hee hee hee - could not work out what was wrong with that name - thanks.  :grin:


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Combat-Claire,  this one is a catch 22. It is, of course, impossible for me to name the hunts that I know are hunting fox without endangering lives. Come and visit me in person with references from your hunt and I will send you out with a hunt hunting fox. Until then, please stop accusing me of lying, I do not lie.

I have told you before that I am not intolerant, and I happen to believe the Police have better things to do with their time than catch illegal fox hunters. I'd rather it was burglars in Court and they haven't enough time to chase both.
		
Click to expand...

it seems like you have "evidence" and are not prepared to use it , if you are afraid to why ? or is it the same as most of the other evidence the antis have come up with , just supposition and what they thought the saw . 
as far as being intolerant , you are , if i want to kill foxes by any legal means then i should be allowed to , if you want to kill a horse by riding it , then you should be allowed to .

back to the topic . 
if coell wants to stick his awe in to my life then i say we should ban all tv shows like his as they give a lot of feckless people the dream they are a superstars
		
Click to expand...


Skiddaw lad tell me how I can win on this one - you don't even post under your real name and I have no idea who I am talking to. A man was killed by antis earlier this year, have you forgotten. Come here and see for yourself. I'll even offer you a bed for the night. My name, by the way is C P Trayes. What's yours?


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Of course I meant Otis Ferry. I'm getting old timers disease!

Why was the sarcasm necessary? It does not help your cause to be gratuitously nasty to people who don't share your opinion.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

You accuse me of lying. You offer me no way of proving that I am not without naming names on a public forum to people whose identity I have no idea of.

Come and see for yourself and until then stop accusing me of lying, I do NOT lie.

Your name is relevant because you don't even want people to know who you are yet you are happy to accuse me, anonymously,  of being a liar. I think the least you owe me if you are going to be so rude is to tell me the name of my accuser.


----------



## spacefaer (15 December 2009)

Not being sarcastic - merely pointing out that if you set yourself as the expert  in fox hunting (and as such, one who chooses not to take part), then you should get your facts right. and I had a fab image of Otis Reading too...

I truly have no problem with your drag hunting - I do have difficulty with your very aggressive attitude to everyone who you perceive as disagreeing with you - it makes for very uncomfortable reading.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Good grief! The sensible people who want to see the fox hunting ban removed must be pulling their hair out about some of the posting going on on this thread! Who needs antis when people on your own side are shooting themselves in the foot the whole time!


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Not being sarcastic - merely pointing out that if you set yourself as the expert  in fox hunting (and as such, one who chooses not to take part), then you should get your facts right. and I had a fab image of Otis Reading too...

I truly have no problem with your drag hunting - I do have difficulty with your very aggressive attitude to everyone who you perceive as disagreeing with you - it makes for very uncomfortable reading.
		
Click to expand...


Do we forget on these forums that people are humans? I made a human slip with Otis Ferry's name, which was completely immaterial to the argument going on, and your comment in response certainly read as sarcastic. Since the boy is named after Otis Reading it was hardly comparable with not knowing my facts, was it?

When did I set myself out as an expert? 

When was I aggressive?


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Have I got that wrong? Was he named after the lift company instead, I'm not sure now ..... :grin:


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

You accuse me of lying. You offer me no way of proving that I am not without naming names on a public forum to people whose identity I have no idea of.

Come and see for yourself and until then stop accusing me of lying, I do NOT lie.

Your name is relevant because you don't even want people to know who you are yet you are happy to accuse me, anonymously,  of being a liar. I think the least you owe me if you are going to be so rude is to tell me the name of my accuser.
		
Click to expand...

I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF LYING DID I
you seem to have a complex about lying  as i said you are afraid to use the evidence you have , that hasnt stopped antis in the past , btw they must be the people i know then seeing as we are in the same county
		
Click to expand...


You are strongly implying that you do not believe me that I know of hunts hunting fox. If you do not believe me when I say that I can show you the evidence, then you must, by definition, be accusing me of lying. 

I am not an anti, by the way, or I would have already told the LACS and got them stopped. I'm a not-for-me-thankyou and you can do what you like as long as you stay within the law,


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 December 2009)

we are farmers and landowners too, although we have the hunt pack here we still enjoy seeing healthy foxes in summer, also late spring when cubs are about. we are not heartless human beings but the fox numbers have to be controlled as they are as you know prolific breeders! we do not want our lambs decimated either- as i pointed out as decently as poss.earlier there are2 sides to every arguement- but why argue???


----------



## countrygirl45 (15 December 2009)

I wasn't really arguing - just thinking that I am not sure where I am these days in regard to hunting (the old way- not that it makes a jot of difference!).  Great to see more people out these days at the meets anyway.
Good to see someone else on here besides cptrayes and skiddaw - chill now people. Think nice thoughts. Agree to disagree.


----------



## juventino (15 December 2009)

How about buying Killing in the Name by Rage Against The Machine in the current campaign to prevent Johhh from getting his Christmas number one?


----------



## countrygirl45 (15 December 2009)

what's happening there then??? I know, I know, I'm just nosy


----------



## countrygirl45 (15 December 2009)

Great idea - come on people - let's do it!!


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2009)

Skiddaw lad please stop and think for a moment. If I say "this happens" and you say "I don't believe you that happens", then you MUST be saying that I am not telling the truth.  I happen to object to anonymous people saying that I am not telling the truth. Wouldn't you?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 December 2009)

thank god there'ssomeone on here talking sense. why all the accusations etc. its crazy!! and all because of bloody Simon Cowell!!


----------



## tootsietoo (15 December 2009)

It's good to read some articulate and balanced posts on the subject.

And Simon Cowell's got by far the most posts on the hunting forum tonight.  He's going to make a shedload from the phone in afer his election debate, isn't he?!


----------



## Daisychain (15 December 2009)

I personally would absolutely love to hunt for the thrill of the ride, and the sheer magic of the hunting field.  I have worked with hunters for many years.

BUT i still can't justify that wonderful and thrilling ride across country knowing there is an animal (very similar to my own pet collie) fleeing for its life.  And i am also very aware of all the sinister things that go on within the inner core of fox hunting, and i just can't get my head round it.  A hunt local to me takes foxes to another hunt many miles away.... the stress etc on the animal is inexcusable.   

Its no good thinking its all about pest control, to my mind this is a bit of an excuse too many...

But it is much easier to believe this, and i have been in the past and it is easy to desensitive yourself to it, because you love the ride!  

I am not an out an out anti by any means, but i am just very well informed and aware of what really happens and i wish i could switch off and enjoy the'chase' but you know what... I can't.


----------



## spacefaer (15 December 2009)

but daisychain.... since the ban, we're hunting within the law - you should have no problem with it now 

Come out and have some fun this Christmas!

Who's your local hunt?


----------



## Herne (15 December 2009)

Quote CPTrayes:  

&lt;&lt;What is it that there are people who cannot accept that there are perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for feeling that fox hunting with hounds is wrong? You may not agree, but it will get you nowhere to keep treating intelligent and informed people as if there is no validity whatsoever to their point of view.&gt;&gt;


That is a fallacious claim. It is not logically possible to accept that there are "perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for feeling that fox hunting with hounds is wrong" and yet still think that it is right.

There are valid and justifiable reasons for thinking that fox hunting MIGHT be wrong, and valid and justifiable reasons for not liking it or wanting to take part.

But, if you believe, as we obviously do, that the other factors outweigh these ones, then it is not possible to belive that there are valid and justifiable reasons for feeling that fox hunting with hounds IS wrong.


Especially when we then read statements like: &lt;&lt;we should  [not] get our fun by causing fear and pain to another creature&gt;&gt;. 

Hunting people do NOT derive fun from causing fear and pain to another creature. We derive fun from other aspects of an activity that also involves causing fear and pain to another creature, and there is a very significant difference.

People who do the former are sadists, people who are able to do the latter are merely more callous or harder-hearted than you - and, again, there is a very, very significant difference.


The problem is caused by people who choose to say "My moral judgement is superior to yours, therefore I am going to pass laws to prevent you from exercising yours" - especially when said moral judgements are based on erroneous assessments in the first place.


----------



## Herne (16 December 2009)

So to clarify, the above:

It is entirely possible and reasonable to respect someone's reasons for not liking hunting and not wanting to take part.

It is entirely possible and reasonable to respect someone's views about the downsides and flaws of hunting - and even to agree with them.

And you are entirely justified in expecting people to treat those views with respect, even if they don't agree with them.

But it is not reasonable to demand that people who disagree with your *conclusions* in an argument should accept that your conclusion is "valid and justifiable", just because they accept that some of your evidence and/or your arguments are valid and justifiable.

There is a huuuuuge difference.


----------



## SueEllen (16 December 2009)

Well written, I'm with you on this.


----------



## spacefaer (16 December 2009)

Herne - couldn't agree more - you put into words what I was thinking (but WAY more articulately!!)


----------



## dunthing (16 December 2009)

After all this bickering, I'm not sure that Simon Cowell's comments are valid. He has chosen to abandon his own country and live in the USA. I don't give a damn for his opinion. Hunting was, is and always will be the finest way to control vermin. The next "hobby horse" will be that nobody can own a jack russell because it may just kill a rat, oh! and you can't keep cats because they catch birds and mice. Bloody nanny state!!


----------



## maresnest (16 December 2009)

QR The trouble with people like Simon Cowell is that they get in a position of power and think they can say what they like about anything, even when completely uniformed and out of touch with reality. Most of the anti hunting fraternity have no idea what the reality of killing foxes without the use of dogs is, and sadly as they are vermin, there will always have to be a way to control them. Perhaps some should attach a gintrap or snare to mr cowell and leave him to suffer for a few days or perhap he would prefer a slow bleeding gunshot would where an amateur marksman has winged him? Or  a does of warfarin, that might take a day or two to kill him if he is careful about not banging his leg? Some people just have no idea. Does he not realise that the reason foxes are so successful as a species in this country is that hunting with dogs ensures the survival of the fittest.


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2009)

"think they can say what they like about anything"

They don't "think" they can. They can.

If people want the ban repealed they need to find someone with an equally big mouth as Cowell's to speak in public in favour of hunting with hounds.


----------



## Daisychain (16 December 2009)

What i mean is wild foxes are caught and transported in a vehicle down to another hunt and used in another hunt.

And no i am not mistaken.....

It is these sort of going on's, i can't just ignore and think it doesn't happen.   Its the blood thirsty lot im not keen on tbh.  As i said, it really isnt that black and white to me.  I am very aware of both sides.


----------



## blackstar (16 December 2009)

I am a moderate 'anti' who is interested and who has learned a lot from reading the different opinions on this part of the forum. I want to say that once again I am sad to see that the automatic assumption of so many is that anyone who comes out against hunting is an ill informed townie.  I think this attitude is the singular thing which is most likely to get backs up. It does your cause no favours.

ETS - This was QR and not a direct reply to Combat Claire


----------



## Daisychain (16 December 2009)

Don't catch foxes anymore....

Hmmmm you really are deluded lol! :grin:


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2009)

"Especially when we then read statements like: &lt;&lt;we should [not] get our fun by causing fear and pain to another creature&gt;&gt;. "

I have been puzzling all day over why this statement upset the poster who quoted it and I have finally worked it out. I wrote "we" and I meant "we - people who hunt to have fun". The reader read it as "we - all people who hunt" and assumed that I was having a pop at people hunting "wanting to have fun by causing fear and pain to another creature". 

Apologies if what I wrote was so badly worded as to be easily misunderstood. 

To clarify. I am not saying that anyone hunts for the fun of causing fear and pain to another creature.  I am saying that I hunt for the fun of riding across country on my horse and that I cannot justify to myself that it needs another animal to experience fear and pain for me to get that fun.  

Countrygirl45 we have no hunting with hounds around here and I live in the middle of hill farming country which is almost exclusively sheep. Foxes here are shot and no-one complains about the number of lambs surviving the foxes, just surviving  the weather. While the ban exists, surely you are having foxes shot, not losing valuable lambs just because fox can't be hunted with hounds?  

As a not-for-me sceptic, not an out and out anti, I think the campaign to overturn the ban needs to understand that the argument that fox numbers can't be kept down without hunting with hounds does not stand up with the general public and badly damages your overall message  that you believe it to be the most humane way to do it.


----------



## dorani (16 December 2009)

I'm glad to see that this topic has stirred up some thought!Many years ago I worked for a MFH caring for his horses and I have owned my own horses for nearly 40 years so... despite the ever ready attitude of claiming anyone who is anti hunting is ill informed, which is what the pro's consistantly claim,... I DO know what I am talking about. I am well aware that foxes were transported to other hunts on a regular basis. I cannot understand how people are able to convince them selves that running our only indiginous dog until exhustion before it is torn apart is anyway humane.  A valid point too is that foxes are not the "danger" and taker of livestock claimed. It is up to the owner in this day and age with electric fences to protect it. No , the real danger for the hunting/shooting clan is that the fox may take game birds!! Heaven forbid!! Foxes could have been wiped out centuries ago if it wasn't so enjoyable to race around the countryside chasing them! they are just another "game " creature.
, used for "fun".
Have you noticed how if a fox gets in amongst a flock of hens everyone says "He  killed them all, just for fun, he only needed one to eat,he is a mad killer!" Yet.... if you put a Jack Russell in with 100 rats and it kills them all....it is praised...what a wonderful dog...killed all those rats! 
No , I think there is a little something missing inside the heads of anyone who wants to cause mental and physical torture to ANY  animal. Its no better than organised dog fighting,bear baiting etc etc.


----------



## spotty_pony (16 December 2009)

Well if he was really bothered about 'what the public want' he would see thay 59% of the public say keep hunting...


----------



## dorani (16 December 2009)

Another very sneaky move by the hunting fraternity is to involve farmers to swell their numbers by forming the Countryside Alliance. How naive was that!!!!


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2009)

For heaven's sake, do you want to turn the world against you?!?!?!

If a horse is killed eventing or hunting it is an unwelcome and unplanned and rare accident which happens to a horse which is thoroughly enjoying itself at the time.

That does not compare one bit with deliberately setting out to chase an animal for as many miles as it takes to catch it or send it to ground,  and then kill it.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

For heaven's sake, do you want to turn the world against you?!?!?!

If a horse is killed eventing or hunting it is an unwelcome and unplanned and rare accident which happens to a horse which is thoroughly enjoying itself at the time.

That does not compare one bit with deliberately setting out to chase an animal for as many miles as it takes to catch it or send it to ground,  and then kill it.
		
Click to expand...

why target hunting?  Surely shooting causes just as much if not more suffering to foxes.

A rifle bullet actually does tear a fox apart.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

Foxes could have been wiped out centuries ago if it wasn't so enjoyable to race around the countryside chasing them! they are just another "game " creature.
, used for "fun".
		
Click to expand...

Interesting point.  Could there be an advantage to a species if it is seen as a quarry rather than just a pest?

There didn't used to be hardly any hares round us but our local beagle pack has imported thousands from up country over the years.

Stag hunting is another good example.  Those pesky hunters actually take steps to maintain a healthy herd for their sport.


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2009)

to me there is NO difference , as you say the horse might well have enjoyed its self but its dead giving YOU pleasure and it wouldnt have died if YOU hadn't ridden it would it ? 

How do you know the fox isnt enjoying himself ?
		
Click to expand...


Oh please, spare us! The difference is that very few horses die eventing or hunting and  no one wants it to happen. And to answer your question, yes, it might well have died of colic, broken leg, etc etc etc if I hadn't been riding it. The difference is in the intention. You intend to get enjoyment from an activity where you intend to kill foxes. If my horse dies hunting with me, it will be a pure accident, with no intention on anyone's part that it should happen.

Do you REALLY think you are doing your cause ANY favours with this kind of argument?


----------



## SueEllen (16 December 2009)

Has no one herd the term "Cute as a Fox" they arent stupid animals nore are they sweetnes and light, they have been around for generations  and will be for many more. It's natural selection, the weak the sick and the not so smart will be caught which is as nature intended. Fair enough its not wild packs of dogs/wolves hunting them but 14 couple of Hounds but its not far from the original is it.

 (ok so for the UK I'm talking pre ban)

Also if Hunting is so cruel to the poor little foxes then what about the cute little mice that we poison the rats we set traps for the spiders that we splatter the flies that we swat........ and what about fising shooting etc surley thats cruel as well..............infact how dare we kill any animal ever or how dare we allow one animal to kill another  ever. 

OK I will shut up now.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

to me there is NO difference , as you say the horse might well have enjoyed its self but its dead giving YOU pleasure and it wouldnt have died if YOU hadn't ridden it would it ? 

How do you know the fox isnt enjoying himself ?
		
Click to expand...



Oh please, spare us! The difference is that very few horses die eventing or hunting and  no one wants it to happen. And yes, it might well have died of colic, broken leg, etc etc etc if I hadn't been riding it.

Do you REALLy think you are doing your cause ANY favours with this kind of argument?
		
Click to expand...

Actually to a certain extent it is a fair point.  We assume that running away from something we perceive to be out to kill us is a horrendous experience and it would be for us but of course animals do this all the time.  Walk into wood and any deer in it will 'think' you are a predator and flee.  That doesn't mean they are suffering.

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that a fox enjoys the whole process of hunting , that would be absurd but I doubt the any suffering starts quite where a lot of people think it does.

Another factor which I used to think was a stupid argument but actually dopes make a lot of sense is that by the time a fox is caught it is pumped up with adrenaline which considerably reduces its pain.

Wound a fox with a shot gun and I reckon it suffers considerably more because there is no adrenaline.  Unless it is killed with a second shot (or a dog) it will also suffer far longer than a fox caught by hounds.

The real question is do foxes need to be killed at all?  and if so what is the best method in the circumstances.  The answer to the second question very much depends on likely wounding rates and also the objectives.  These are the issues that any welfare/ conservation based law would address.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

Fair enough its not wild packs of dogs/wolfs hunting them but 14 couple of Hounds but its not far from the original is it.
		
Click to expand...

Good point.  Apex predators such as wolves and Lynx have a key role in an ecosystem and have been shown to keep fox numbers in balance in Sweden.


----------



## SueEllen (16 December 2009)

"Apex preditors" thats the word


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

another thing I really don't get is why antis are so obsessed with Hunting with dogs.  Even as far as the fox population is concerned it is a very minor factor in terms of fox welfare and when you look at wildlife in general there are far bigger issues both in terms of welfare and conservation.

Why not look at land management in general?  Massive areas of Britain are managed for country sports.  Why not work with land managers to improve outcomes rather than antagonising them?

There's much that is good but also factors that could be improved to the benefit of wildlife.

It's just ridiculous to take the overly moralistic black and white us and them position of people like LACS where any concession to 'the enemy' is seen as a defeat.


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2009)

Can we clarify something about shooting foxes? I have been doing some research (I've never bothered before because I really didn't care whether other people hunted or not, but some of the posting on this forum has piqued my curiosity.)  I just found on supportfoxhunting.co.uk website the following statement:

"The inquiry also found that shotgun use in the day &amp; snaring - the main alternatives to hunting - are worse for animal welfare."

I take that to mean that lamping, shooting at night, has been found to be at least as good for animal welfare as hunting with hounds. Is this a correct interpretation?

Can someone also give me the reference for researching  the statement that 59% of people support  hunting with hounds, because I can't find it on google anywhere. All I can find is an LACS poll which found 59% of Conservative voters supported the ban. I'd really like to read the other side.

Thanks.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

The burns enquiry found that in SOME circumstances using dogs is preferable to guns.  It specifically mentioned welsh foot packs I believe.

Since then the middle ways group commissioned research was published in Animal Welfare Journal.  This is peer reviewed which means it's methods have been found to be valid by the scientific community.

This found far higher wounding rates under some shooting regimes than previously thought.

wounding is a massive issue in terms of animal wel;fare.  Wounded animals that are not quickly found and killed suffer horrible and drawn out deaths and also spread disease.

An interesting conclusion of the study is that wounding to killed ratio does not vary very much from unskilled to skilled shooters.  Skilled shooters merely hit more.

Ie if you are going to be shot at then hope its by a bad shot which is kind of obvious when you think about it.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (16 December 2009)

59% figure was those who opposed any ban + those who wanted hunting to continue under license


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2009)

Thankyou. Do you know who did the survey and when it was?

I can answer your question  

"another thing I really don't get is why antis are so obsessed with Hunting with dogs. Even as far as the fox population is concerned it is a very minor factor in terms of fox welfare and when you look at wildlife in general there are far bigger issues both in terms of welfare and conservation." 

but PLEASE don't shoot the messenger!! I am not an "anti" I am just a "not-for-me".

The reason antis are so obsessed is because of the enjoyment that hunting gives people. It's not a welfare issue at all for most of them,  it's that they can't bear thinking of people having fun which needs an animal to go through being chased and killed to provide it.

The fact that drag hunting looks so much the same convinces them that there is no reason for a fox to be involved at all. From that, they draw the conclusion that people who choose to hunt fox on horseback instead of drag hunting must actually enjoy the fox being killed. 

It's an understandable conclusion to have come to and one that is very hard for the CA to overcome.  

Something else that should be worrying the CA is the 10% increase in people hunting since the ban. They use this repeatedly as evidence that the ban should be repealed. Most non-hunting people will look at the fact that those people started AFTER the ban was in place, and draw the entirely opposite conclusion as to repealing it.

I really feel for you guys, totally sincerely. You are absolutely passionate about your sport and a politically motivated and badly drawn law has deprived you of it. But the fact that the dire predictions of the CA pre-ban (hounds put down, farriers out of business, livery stables bankrupt) have not happened, but instead 10% more people hunt, is going to give you a dreadfully uphill battle in getting something removed which has been in place for several years with no obvious consequences.


ps I have really enjoyed this discussion with the reasonable people. When my hunter has hardened off his splint and is fit to ride again, I'll miss spending so much time here!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (17 December 2009)

I agree with Mr Cowell. We British led the way in banning the slave trade and in banning slavery in the Empire, we led the way in banning bear baiting and cock fighting, and we led the way in banning hunting and hare coursing. We must continue to make progress and not let our civilisation take a backward step. For those who agree with me regarding hare coursing in particular, go to - 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoToHareCoursing/


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (17 December 2009)

"It's natural selection"

It's not natural, SueEllen: it's unnatural. Nature is very cruel without man's help. But man needn't make natural cruelty more so for his own amusement. Go drag hunting and give 'the kill' a miss!


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (17 December 2009)

"It's natural selection"

It's not natural, SueEllen: it's unnatural. Nature is very cruel without man's help. But man needn't make natural cruelty more so for his own amusement. Go drag hunting and give 'the kill' a miss!
		
Click to expand...

I think what she means is that it most closely mimics the natural effect of predation by animals like wolves.

Yes nature is cruel but actually predation in some ways relieves suffering.  these things just aren't black and white.

BTW personally I do give the kill a miss.  Unfortunately my non lethal means are illegal unless I do kill the animal which is most unfortunate as I am sure you would agree.


----------



## winterhorses2 (17 December 2009)

sorry but you will find that mr hitler in germany was the first to ban fox hunting my friend not the british so look through your history a bit better before making comment 's my friend...
oh and look where that got him and his policies!!!!!

oh and as for your cheshire drag hunt have a chat with your huntsman and ask him why he hunts 3/4 day;s a week as whip to most of the foxhunts up that way and ask why he does it ...
and then maybe you will understand the whole situation...

rant over..


----------



## Mike007 (17 December 2009)

I agree with Mr Cowell. We British led the way in banning the slave trade and in banning slavery in the Empire, we led the way in banning bear baiting and cock fighting, and we led the way in banning hunting and hare coursing. We must continue to make progress and not let our civilisation take a backward step. For those who agree with me regarding hare coursing in particular, go to - 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoToHareCoursing/

Click to expand...

  It always makes me laugh when someone trots out the Bear bating,cock fighting, argument, oblivious to the fact that they were not banned for any animal welfare reason,but to control gambling amongst the working classes.Mind you ,when you come to think of it the fox hunting ban had precious little to do with animal welfare. I think I will give your anti hare coursing a miss ,too. Not because I support it, but because ,having listend to the likes of john Prescott and other "socialists"it seems to me that  it is all about inventing a class struggle where none exists ,rather than any concern for animals.


----------



## Simsar (17 December 2009)

Well said!!


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2009)

winterhorses, I wouldn't dream of asking someone I drag hunt alongside why he hunts as whip to foxhunts. That is entirely HIS choice and none of my business. He's a really nice man. I draghunt alongside a number of other really nice people who are in the field of local fox hunts on other days too. I  don't see what point you are trying to make, to be honest, since I have made it clear that my choice is my choice and I don't make choices for anyone else.

But since you point out that they choose to drag hunt on the busiest day, a Saturday, instead of fox hunting that day, the antis reading this will have even more trouble understanding why they can't drag hunt the other days as well. 

If pro-hunters are going to win this battle with the government, then they are going to have to get cleverer with understanding the motivation and psychology of the people they are up against.


----------



## Simsar (17 December 2009)

Sue Ellen your generalisation is perfectly sensible and almost certainly true. The counter to it is to find a celebrity will equal impact who will talk for you every time a Simon Cowell talks against you.

Unfortunately Otis Reading won't do - it was his Dad I was in love with at 15 !
		
Click to expand...

Well I know that they don't speak up on it but we have Jodie Kidd, Jim davidson and a few others that I can't think of right now come to some of our meets, I know that they are not quite in Simon Cowells leage and don't tend to speak about it but there are some celebs that do support hunting.

There are quite a few well known celebs that support blood sports Eva Longoria, Kevin Costner, Guy Ritchie and Tiger woods to name a few.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2009)

You obviously need someone who couldn't give a damn about losing a few record sales or cinema tickets from fervent antis. Madonna would be great, wouldn't she? Does she hunt??

Plllllleeeeeasssse not Jordan!!!! :shocked: :grin:


----------



## Simsar (17 December 2009)

Unfortunately Madonna felt a bit queezy(sp) after shooting her first pheasant so I don't think she would be the one!!

Jordan is a bit z list compared to SC so i think not.


----------



## SueEllen (17 December 2009)

Nature is cruel for a reason, the weak and sick have to die for any species to survive.

Hounds killing a fox is a lot more natural than other methods.

In my very secure opinion.


----------



## SueEllen (17 December 2009)

There are quite a few well known celebs that support blood sports Eva Longoria, Kevin Costner, Guy Ritchie and Tiger woods to name a few.
		
Click to expand...

Oh interesting knew about Guy Ritchie but not the rest.

Madge would be great wouldnt she.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## DunRoamin (18 December 2009)

sorry but you will find that mr hitler in germany was the first to ban fox hunting my friend not the british so look through your history a bit better before making comment 's my friend...
		
Click to expand...

The fact you called that dicusting excuse for a human being 'mr' goes to show what a sad individual you are and i'm sure as hell not your friend!!!!! your discusting.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

Mr is the english word for 'Herr'


----------



## anne83 (18 December 2009)

Firstly foxes have never been classified as vermin and I challenge anyone to show me where that is act by any legal and respectable body able to classify

Secondly foxes are in decline. In the 17th century they were hunted almost to extinction and the hunts imported foxes for france,,,,look up the history anywhere The hunts breed the foxes to hunt. 

So you see this vermin pest case is really rubbish. The Countryside alliance started life as the British Field Sports Association..checkout the historythey are now and have always been about hunting.

The Burns report said it was inhumane and the European court has said yesterday

"The bans had been designed to eliminate the hunting and killing of animals for sport in a manner causing suffering and being morally objectionable,"

You can drag hunt but not savage a fox with a dog. Hoodies do it in towns and the pinks do it in the country. Dogs trained to kill have attached and killed children. This is not acceptable.

The wolves argument is just ludicrous. We used to get eaten by saber tooth tigers so does that mean a serial killer with a sharp knife should be allowed. We used to behead people do we want that back too.

There is no pest any increase in foxes so the only reason to kill them with dogs is a love of blood. Look up the facts before you write hearsay. 

Thank G-d for Simon Cowell and people like him. Anything he can do to show the truth is fantastic.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

What evidence do you have that hunting is responsible for any long term decline in fox numbers?   Overall numbers are limited by habitat.

approx 400,000 foxes die each year - 20,000 through hunting.

The wolf argument is not ridiculous at all  Loss of predators mean that numbers get controlled by other means.  Deer are another classic case.  are you suggesting we should not manage the deer population?

Wolves would tend to take out old and sick deer maintaining population health.

and no I don't propose using wildlife management techniques on the human population although the current ecological crisis is definitely partly a result of one species' untramelled growth.

The Hunting Act recognises the need for the use of dogs in pest control.  We don't have a law that allows people to go out and gun down nuisance people so I think arguing from human to animal is perhaps the ridiculous argument.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

Can you please quote where the Burns report said hunting was 'inhumane'?


----------



## Daisychain (18 December 2009)

I agree with alot of what your saying here.  I'm not anti everyone has a free choice....

But the old pest control thing is such a load of crap, its just easy to justify....

I wish they would honestly hold up there hands and say 'I love chasing foxes, for the thrill it gives me'...

As i stated earlier, if the pest control really were the issue, then why take healthy foxes and transport them to another hunt to pursue????

Im sure many old and sick foxes are got rid of, but surely its the nice healthy ones which give a good chase!

Don't get me wrong i could easily go hunting and love it (for the ride) which i believe most people want that, but you have to train your brain to thinking its about pest control, thats all.

There is some SERIOUS cruelty gone on within hunting, in my mind its not acceptable. (First hand information).


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

I don't hold my hands up and say that because I don't go fox hunting.

How many hunts transport foxes in this manner?  v v few i suspect.

That being said and like I said before our local beagles have restocked the area with Hares over the years and also do a fair amount of conservation work to encourage hare habitat.

Many coverts especially in arable areas are there because of hunting.

A huge area of the country is actively managed for field sports.

personally i think that is a good thing for the hares.  The staghounds also do a lot of positive deer management.

It's not hunting which threatens deer,fox and hare populations it is habitat loss and bad management.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

"Im sure many old and sick foxes are got rid of, but surely its the nice healthy ones which give a good chase!"

I am sure they do and also are much more likely to escape which is why hunting tends to select weak animals to be culled and is the only form of wildlife management that does.


----------



## SueEllen (18 December 2009)

Anne83 and Daisy Chain. I'm just not with you on this.

Any fox would be far more apt at evading hounds than evading being shot or any other method *. Its what they are designed to do its instinct. Just as its instinct for the hound to chase and kill. My two little Heinz 57 terriers, who are house dogs and pets have the same instinct its natural.

*Just to clarify its more natural for a hound to kill a fox than for a human to shoot a fox.

I think if you asked farmers that have stock killed by foxes they would classify them as vermin. 

Look everyones obviously entitled to an opinion I just hope that its an informed opinion, not that based of a false reality of the countryside.


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

I agree with you Sue.

To me even with all our technology dogs kill foxes in a far better way than people with guns.  There are all sorts of reasons for this.

I'm not pro all hunting nor everything that hunts do but that isn't the point.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 December 2009)

i have never come across in my 58 years foxes being ferried from one hunt to another. i've hunted with packs all over the country in my lifetime, from Derbyshire to Leicestershire, from Gloucestershire to Wiltshire, from Somerset down to Devon and even the Fourburrow in Cornwall. this has never been done. what does still go on is the trapping of town foxes being loaded into vans and dumped in the countryside, mostly by the RSPCA. if ever ther was a cruel act then this is it, as the country is totally alien to urban foxes.this is an ignorant thing to do but it still goes on- then they cant hunt for themselves, end up mangy, thin and weak, there's nothing nicer than to see a good, deep coloured,rounded healthy mountain fox!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 December 2009)

i go by the facts, not hearsay, no hound has ever killed a child to my knowledge, in fact they are delightful creatures with wonderful temperaments. also, foxes are certainly NOT in decline i can assure you!!


----------



## HeWasGeeBee (18 December 2009)

The foxes in decline argument is a little silly.  She said they were almost extinct in the 17th century -= well they aren't now so surely numbers have gone up?  and isn't that round abut when hunting started?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 December 2009)

mant hunts can be traced back 400 years-why we need this history lesson i don't know, it's not at all relevant now!!


----------



## NeedNewHorse (18 December 2009)

Good on Simon Cowell. At last someone with some public interest is finally doing something for animals!

We don't like hunting becasue it is cruel. Period. It's not a class thing, it's not because we don't understand the countryside and it's not because of any other odd reason. It's because we deem it to be cruel! That is it.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 December 2009)

you are entitled to your opinions of course( i doubt SC has any clue about hunting, doubt he even knows how to put wellies on!) i could be wrong of course- BUT, if charlie fox gets our chickens, geese,(foxes hunt in the day as well as night)or he has our lambs in spring he is deado!!! end of-


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2009)

OK here I go again - a  translation of pro-hunting statements into what the antis will hear and their response -

Statement
land is well managed and deer and hare are conserved by people maintaining the countryside for hunting fox

Anti answer (Please remember I am not one, just a messenger don't shoot me!)
Conservation does not require hunting of foxes, it is done perfectly well without it by people like the National Trust. Huge amounts of conservation work has been done with EU grant money for ESAs and SSSIs  too, and the current Single Payment Scheme is firmly linked to land management.


Statement
hunting is the most humane way of killing foxes

Anti answer
Actually lamping is just as good, but let's find an even better one. Trap them alive and shoot them at point blank range. Feed them or dart them with contraceptives. 


Statement
It is natural for hounds to kill foxes

Anti answer
It is natural for dogs to kill each other, but we only allow that to happen by accident and even then the owner of a killer dog can be prosecuted for failing to control his dog and for criminal damage of the other dog.  There are lots of natural things that are against the law for people to deliberately organise.

And back on a personal level, I do have a lot of sympathy with the statement made above   " I'm not anti everyone has a free choice....But ...... I wish they would honestly hold up their hands and say 'I love chasing foxes, for the thrill it gives me', because I completely understand that thrill, and (not for want of trying) I can't get my head around any other justification for it.


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

I don't fox hunt so how could I say that!


----------



## SueEllen (18 December 2009)

I enjoy being out in the countryside on my beautiful horse and the work that goes into maintaining her, I enjoy the social side of it and the adrenaline buzz that comes from covering ground. I rarely see the business end of things but I appreciate the abilities of the Huntsman. I also appreciate the fact that they do a job that in my opinion needs to be done.

Thats that for me.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2009)

Sorry, the quote doesn't refer to antis, "they" refers to pro-hunters, I cut and pasted it badly!

Great statement SueEllen. I hope we'd shake hands if we  met.


----------



## SueEllen (18 December 2009)

I hope we'd shake hands if we  met.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure we would.


----------



## DunRoamin (18 December 2009)

Mr is the english word for 'Herr'
		
Click to expand...

I dont give a toss!! that dicusting thing does not deserve the respect of being called Mr,'herr', or anything else for that matter


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

Just emailed LACS as follows. 

Dear Douglas,

Thank you for your letter.  I contacted the RSPCA regarding flushing out
the deer recently and a Mr John Pollock responded with a message in my
voicemail.  He is the RSPCA officer at West Hatch.

He said that because the law is ambiguous he had had to get advice from
his legal team.  Interesting in itself as you claim the law is clear.

He went on to say that he has no problem with me flushing out deer with
dogs as it (and I quote) 'seems like an ideal way to move the deer
through the wood.'  The current advice from the RSPCA to me is that I
can flush but with only two dogs as long as I don't chase the deer.

Not actually what the law says of course!

I have also been writing via my MP to Jim Fitzpatrick the farming
minister.  As you know defra have given varying advice on the legality
of flushing out.  At first they said as it involved 'chasing away' it
was legal, then they said it is illegal, now Mr Fitzpatrick in his
letters has said the legality of my activities is 'uncertain', when
pushed he has said that flushing out is 'probably' not hunting as
defined in the Act.

Personally I don't think the man has a clue what he is talking about.

You say that I refuse to accept that flushing out and chasing the deer
is hunting.  Not so, I have always argued that it is illegal under the
hunting act.

Interestingly of course the law does not actually make it clear if the
definition of hunting under the Act requires an intention to catch the
animal or not.  We know it does not include all the ordinary English
meanings of the word following the Tony Wright case where the judge
found that 'searching' was not illegal.

Yes I am deliberately using my dogs to chase deer.

I recently had a number of emails from your Joshua Kaile threatening to
send some LACS monitors down to observe me intentionally using my dogs
to hunt deer.  I made it very clear to Joshua that the monitors were
welcome and I would do my best to ensure they got plenty of footage of
any chase that occured and a signed statement from me that I was
deliberately using my dogs to hunt the deer.

Needless to say the monitors did not turn up which was a shame as I got
up at dawn on the Saturday as I often do and the dogs found some deer in
the woods which they chased.

I am not the slightest bit ashamed of what I do as you probably realise.
I am afraid I do regard the hunting Act as it applies to me as a bit of
a joke.

The fact is Douglas as you perfectly well know you will not lift a
finger to prevent me breaking the Hunting Act.  Inspite of your alleged
support for what i do being illegal you have never taken any action
whatsoever to prevent me breaking the hunting Act.  You've not even
reported me to the police.

I discussed the flushing out exemption with your Joshua Kaile and put a
direct question to him as to whether he supported it.  His answer was
quite clear.  'No'.

LACS claim that shooting flushed out deer is a humane alternative to
illegal hunting.  I'm sorry but in my case it is not.  It is completely
ridiculous for you to suggest that me taking a few dogs into a wood and
flushing a deer out is less humane than gunning the animal down as it is
fleeing from hounds.

I simply do not believe that you think this is the case.

I am copying this letter to Stephen Otter my Chief Constable.  As you
know the police are well aware of my activities and some time ago the
force legal advisor Rober Glass wrote to me to assure me it was unlikely
that I would face prosecution as it would not be in the public interest.

I fully support the police's position on this and so should you.

At the end of the day no one is prepared to take any action whatsoever
to prevent me from breaking the Hunting Act.  Not you, not the RSPCA and
not the police.  This is due to one simple fact.  By not shooting the
flushed out deer I am not hurting them.  If I obeyed the law and took
reasonable steps to shoot the deer after they are flushed out I would be
causing them massive trauma and pain.

A condition to shoot animals dead where there is no sensible argument
for it has no place in the Hunting Act.  You know this, the Government
know this and the police know this.  It is simply a bizzare and stupid
piece of legislation.  There is a fundamental principle here and that is
that people have a perfect right to break absurd laws where the
Government is unable to enforce them.  I have fought hard for the right
to break the Hunting Act and I have won it. 

There is a proud heritage of breaking unjust and ridiculous laws in this
country.

Please understand that although i copy James Barrington my actions are
entirely off my own bat and not sanctioned by MWG, CA etc.

I am also posting this onto your website.

I am very proud to do just that.

Best wishes to you and your family over Christmas.

Giles

cc james Barrington
  Stephen Otter
  Jim Fitzpatrick MP
   Joshua Kaile
Louise Robertson
John Pollock c/o west hatch




On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 15:49 +0000, Douglas Batchelor wrote:
&gt; Dear Giles,
&gt; 
&gt; I am glad to hear that you have never killed a deer.
&gt; 
&gt; The bit that you persistently refuse to accept is that setting your dogs
&gt; onto deer is every bit as much hunting as killing them would be. The
&gt; chase is an unnecessary and deliberate disturbance organised by you
&gt; using your dogs, and that in law appears to me to be hunting with dogs
&gt; as defined in the Act.
&gt; 
&gt; Surely if you have the best interests of the deer at heart, you would be
&gt; allowing them appropriate shelter on your land from the activities of
&gt; any hunts and hunters you mention who may wish them harm. You can of
&gt; course legally use appropriate fencing to keep the deer out of any areas
&gt; where they might cause damage to crops or trees.
&gt; 
&gt; Yours,
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Douglas
&gt; 
&gt;  
&gt; 
&gt; -----Original Message-----
&gt; From: Giles Bradshaw
&gt; Sent: 18 December 2009 10:54
&gt; To: Douglas Batchelor
&gt; Subject: letter
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; I sent this to Joshua Louise and Steve too:
&gt; 
&gt; I really don't get why the League does not accept that my method of
&gt; managing deer is less cruel than shooting them.
&gt; 
&gt; What seems especially ironic is that it is precisely the flushing out
&gt; exemption which I campaign on which is used by the Hunts to carry on
&gt; killing animals.
&gt; 
&gt; Can't you see that?
&gt; 
&gt; Fair enough I am pro and you are anti but why don't we appeal together
&gt; to get the Government to recognise flaws in the law.  From your point of
&gt; view you could use this to try and get the exemption in the law under
&gt; which the hunts are killing animals removed.  Obviously I feel that
&gt; where there is no chance of the deer being hurt then what I do should be
&gt; legal but that could be debated.
&gt; 
&gt; I am being completely honest when I say I have never killed a deer.  I
&gt; genuinely love the animals on my land.  They are truly beautiful
&gt; creatures.  I am standing up for a humane and non lethal way of managing
&gt; them.
&gt; 
&gt; Do you not realise how much worse it would be for a fleeing deer to be
&gt; mown down by bullets?  It's ridiculous to argue that that is more
&gt; 'humane'.
&gt; 
&gt; It's just plain wrong for the Hunting Act to contain a condition that
&gt; animals are shot dead.  And it's wrong that the law is framed so it can
&gt; be openly broken.
&gt; 
&gt; I am sure that you accept this.
&gt; 
&gt; best wishes for xmas.
&gt; 
&gt; BTW I am sure we could debate this in an open manner as we all clearly
&gt; care a lot about the issues.
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt;


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

Sorry, the quote doesn't refer to antis, "they" refers to pro-hunters, I cut and pasted it badly!

Great statement SueEllen. I hope we'd shake hands if we  met.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not an anti I just don't hunt foxes.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 December 2009)

nothing wrong with that at all!!


----------



## Eagle_day (18 December 2009)

"We used to get eaten by saber tooth tigers"

Oh, bad luck.  What part of the country was that then?


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2009)

I peed myself reading your email Giles. I truly had no idea that the law was such an incredible mess. I knew it wasn't well drafted, but for goodness sake!


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

um


----------



## dorani (18 December 2009)

I agree with you Sue.
So .. in that case I take it that if you had to die for some reason ..you would prefer to be chased by a pack of hounds, after your blood......running untill you had no breath to run any further to be then torn to pieces whilst you were still alive,  compared to being shot with a gun????? Or are you too supreme a being for that??? 
All sorts of reasons, of which you make no mention because you have been brainwashed into believeing such utter tripe. Use a few brain cells, do!!


To me even with all our technology dogs kill foxes in a far better way than people with guns.  There are all sorts of reasons for this.

I'm not pro all hunting nor everything that hunts do but that isn't the point.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

If I had the choice I would take the hounds because I would have a reasonable chance of being able to escape from them.

If I had the choice between a quick death from a massively more powerful animal and being wounded and left to die from my wounds I would choose the quick death too.

Let me ask you a question.  If someone or something scared you to the extent that they forced you to run away would you choose

a) a 100% chance of escape or

b) being shot in the back as you run.

 I DON'T kill the deer I flush.  It is the Hunting Act which says that I can only deliberately flush them IF I shoot them.

If option b) isn't the more humane one for you why is it for a deer?


----------



## Xlthlx (18 December 2009)

ps what do you actually think a rifle bullet does to a fox apart from tear it apart when it is still alive?

Have you ever seen a fox rotting alive from a bullet wound?

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...70548854844_1559808200_30155688_5464105_n.jpg


----------



## dorani (19 December 2009)

If I had the choice I would take the hounds because I would have a reasonable chance of being able to escape from them.

If I had the choice between a quick death from a massively more powerful animal and being wounded and left to die from my wounds I would choose the quick death too.

Let me ask you a question.  If someone or something scared you to the extent that they forced you to run away would you choose

a) a 100% chance of escape or

b) being shot in the back as you run.

 I DON'T kill the deer I flush.  It is the Hunting Act which says that I can only deliberately flush them IF I shoot them.

If option b) isn't the more humane one for you why is it for a deer?
		
Click to expand...

Your youth and inexperience of life shows! what 100% chance did you have in mind????? !00% sweety means NO chance of getting caught.Think you got a tad confused there.Any claim will do though won't it!  as long as it avoids the truth! and what massively more powerful animal do you talk of?? a shot in the back is infinitly preferable. Foxes around here are shot so they don't kill the game birds....you may ask what about the poor game birds that are shot and wounded and die a slow death ....or is it "ok" for them.
Unless you can dig yourself into the ground you wouldn't have a hope in hell of escaping a pack of hounds after your blood and even if you could dig a hole you would only be dug out by the terrier men. What a jolly time you would have!!


----------



## dorani (19 December 2009)

ITs" Sabre" tooth tiger.
Ain't it strange that although this topic has so much response it remains so low on the board of recent topics"? anyone know why?


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

ITs" Sabre" tooth tiger.
Ain't it strange that although this topic has so much response it remains so low on the board of recent topics"? anyone know why?
		
Click to expand...

go you your profile and change it to order by latest post.

'strewth why are antis so god damned thick?


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

Your youth and inexperience of life shows! what 100% chance did you have in mind????? !00% sweety means NO chance of getting caught.Think you got a tad confused there.Any claim will do though won't it!  !
		
Click to expand...

I've been flushing deer with my dogs for well over 10 years now and they've not caught one yet so I would say there is pretty much a 100% chance of them not getting caught.

What probability would you put on it seeing as you seem to think you know so much.

Shooting deer is not a humane alternative to what I do.  It is absurd for the law to only allow flushing on condition that the flushed out deer is shot dead.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

"Unless you can dig yourself into the ground you wouldn't have a hope in hell of escaping a pack of hounds after your blood"



Personally i don;t allow digging out on my land.  The last time the hunt was here they chased several foxes and didn't catch a sausage.  The gamekeeper next door shoot about 80 a year.

The last time I came across a shot and wounded fox half of its leg was hanging off.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

The other reason I strongly object to killing the deer I flush out is that not only do I consider that gunning an animal would cause it both unnecesary suffering and physical harm I also consider that the use of high powered firearms to shoot fleeing deer no matter how expertly done innevitably poses a risk to members of my family and also the general public.

I would far rather just break a stupid law than threaten someone's life and/or well being.

There is no need for me to kill the deer I flush and I will not do it.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

I've read all the posts on this thread and it seems to me no one knows much about shooting at all.

These days, with the right scope and gun, you can take out a fox and it wont know a thing about it. In fact you'd have to be pretty talentless to miss. The argument that shooting is crueller than hunting with dogs is just wrong (I've seen both types of death). If you know what you're doing, the fox dies pretty much instantly and without a murmur. It just lies down and that's it.

If you have a fox troubling your chickens, you lie in wait and shoot that particular fox as it comes in to feed. You don't go out and just find any old fox and chase that! Also, with shooting you definitely take out the fox that's causing trouble, whereas with hunting there's a good chance the fox will get away.

There are marksmen on any shooting forum who are queueing up to come and get some practice in, for free, so any farmer can get a man with a gun in to do the job. It will be a lot less intrusive on the land, and no fences get broken/yards muddied etc.

In any case, it's not an either/or situation. Most foxes that are killed are killed with guns and that was true even before the ban, many times more than are killed by hounds. Hunting with hounds doesn't work as a method of pest contol.

Finally I'd like to say that a lot of folk who shoot feel really betrayed by the hunting with dogs fraternity, who asked for our support and then turned round and tried to make us out to be the villans.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2009)

The Gunman thankyou very much for your post. You risk some "less than polite" replies by having posted, but I found it very, very interesting to hear a first hand view of shooting fox, particularly as that is how fox around my area are controlled. They have to be culled and it's good to know how cleanly it can be done.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

Sorry if I have offended some, but I feel people whould know how it is in the field. There are too many myths about shooting. To me the bottom line is efficiency, and that also happens to be the most humane method. If I have a fly in my room I'll swat it, I'll not release a box of spiders and hope for the the best.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

Fair enough and all power to you but I don't have a scope and a gun and I don't want to have one.

I have found a perfectly satisfactory way to deal with the deer on my land which simply involves taking my dogs down to the woods and letting them get on with it.

I am sorry that people find this offensive but I am not going to stop even if it is illegal.

maybe I trust to luck but on balance it works for me so I will carry on.

In my opinion from the deer's point of view it has the massive advantage in that it has never actually caused any of them any damage or pain.

To me that outweighs it being illegal.

Shoot your foxes by all means Gunman I don't actually object to what you do at all.  I just think my method is kinder and ask you to respect it too.

Everything has a downside and an upside.  Surely the fact that I am not actually harming any animal has to count as a bonus?


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

"To me the bottom line is efficiency" for me that is the last consideration.  I would rather be less efficient and employ a method which although it is illegal does not kill anything and is also great fun.

Maybe it is less efficient because the deer keep coming back but that just means i can flush them out and chase them with my dogs again and i enjoy that so i don't really see that as a downside.

Give me an inneficient but fun activity any day and I'm sorry but I just would not enjoy killing a deer so i am not going to do it.

What i do is actually more fun now it is illegal.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

I like a clean quick kill. Whatever I was doing I would always look to cause the miniumum suffering so no I would not chase deer for the hell of it. Deer are, as you know, easily stressed and can die from pure terror. I especially wouldn't do something like that "just because it was illegal". I find that a very strange attitude, tbh. I was born and bred a countryman, and I feel I know the limits of different species, and work within them to dispatch efficiently and humanely.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

"Finally I'd like to say that a lot of folk who shoot feel really betrayed by the hunting with dogs fraternity, who asked for our support and then turned round and tried to make us out to be the villans."

well sorry about that but in my opinion flushing a load of deer pout of a wood and gunning them down when they are running at speed is highly irresponsible and is not a humane alternative to anything in any way shape or form.

I am NOT against shooting deer.  I just think non lethal means of dispersing them using dogs should not be illegal.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

If you don't have a scope and gun I can point you in the direction of many who do and would come and work on your land for free and gladly. You would also find yourself with a nice haunch of venison, which is excellent meat.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

Gunman maybe they can.  I have a bout thirty deer which frequent my land.  I love them and I know them by name.

I regularly encounter them with my dogs.

TBH to them i think it has become a bit of a rigmarole.

They don't die of sheer terror from the means i employ.  I know this because i see them again and again.

Deer have evolved over millions of years to evade canines.  It's absurd to say they will drop dead just from encountering someone out with three collies.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

I don't shoot deer myself but you can shoot them without flushing so they know nothing about it.

My point about the hunting was that they asked for the support of BASC and then called us cruel.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

If you don't have a scope and gun I can point you in the direction of many who do and would come and work on your land for free and gladly. You would also find yourself with a nice haunch of venison, which is excellent meat.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I have thought of getting one shot now and again ta.  

One of the problems with the flushing exemption is that the courts ruled you had to have enough guns to kill the whole herd.  if I shot one it would be for meat.

That wouldn't stop them eating my trees.

I want to maintain a healthy herd and just use my dogs to move them gently out of areas of my land where they do damage.

i think it should be legal for me to flush them out of cover with my dogs without killing them.  That's all.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

I don't shoot deer myself but you can shoot them without flushing so they know nothing about it.

My point about the hunting was that they asked for the support of BASC and then called us cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I am fully ware you can shoot them with out flushing them.  That's my point.

You should also be able to flush them without shooting them.  Unfortunatly under the if you want to flush them you have to shoot them.

If I wanted to shoot a deer i wouldn't flush it and if I wanted to flush a deer I won't shoot it.

I do not want to kill the deer i flush.  the law is clearly wrong to require them shot.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

I see where you are coming from now. OK.

Just for the record, though, deer can and do die from stress: 

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ress&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=uk
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420780.800-deer-succumb-to-the-stress-of-the-chase.html

It is to do with the build up of a certain chemical which affects the heart as I understand. Deer management often involves selective culling, but you can do that humanely with a single hunter, no need to alarm the animal first.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

to be honest I am a slightly overweight 42 year old on foot and my dogs cop,me back after 5 mins or so.  The deer are fit athletic animals adapted to the chase by millions of years of evolution.

if anyone is going to peg out during the exercise it ain't going to be them.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2009)

I have a bout thirty deer which frequent my land.  I love them and I know them by name.
		
Click to expand...


WOW! You talk DEER??? Fantastic )))


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

Ha ha!

Seriously, though, if anyone wants a troublesome fox dispatching they need to contact BASC or register with a shooting forum and ask there if there's anyone in your area. Unless you live on the moon, there will be! 

You can pick someone you like the look/sound of, someone with a responsible attitude and who's got a good background of experience and has decent equipment (check their forum posts). They will come at your convenience and make no fuss or mess at all on your land. They will kill the fox that's causing the bother, not just the first fox the hounds happen to scent.

The cases you hear of foxes being wounded and left to die are not the victims of professional-attitude shooters. More likely some kid mucking about with an air rifle! Not representative of what actually happens in the field.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

I don;t have any trouble from foxes which is why I let the hunt on my land but don;t let them dig out.

It's much less 'efficient' which is what I prefer.

More fun and less killing, everyone benefits.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

The fox still has a damn bad of it though. Only benefits if it gets away by a mile. Not fun in my book, making an animal suffer.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

I think you are possibly a little naive if you think that shooting foxes does not make them suffer.

Personally in the best of all worlds I'd like to see foxes kept in check by superior predators although I know in practice that is  it going to happen here.

Current ecological thinking is rediscovering the importance of apex predators and the damage that is caused by their loss.  Top down control is crucial to a well balanced ecosystem.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

Macdonald is a good guy to read up on foxes.  he rated hunting as very unimportant in the overall picture of fox welfare and he's not a pro by any means.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

"you are possibly a little naive if you think that shooting foxes does not make them suffer."

- They only suffer if the job's not done well, by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Otherwise the fox just rolls over, goodnight Vienna. 

I agree that foxes need controlling sometimes but the thing to do is use the most efficient method possible. That rules out a chase by hounds, as a) it takes a longer time b) it uses more resources c) it might well get the wrong fox. Let's be honest, HWD is not about pest control, is it?

In my experience I also suspect animals feel greater fear than we do. How many of us have actually been on the verge of a violent death? It's not a muscle we exercise at all unless we're in the army or similar. But for an animal it's a central survival mechanism and a very very keen. instinct  I have seen animals of a lower order than foxes expire through it. Therefore I would never willingly put a fox through this.


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

It's about respect for nature and working with the species. Mink respond best to trapping and shooting, deer to stalking, foxes to stalking. Animals have to die, but let's be clean about it.


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

What I find totally hypocritical about you is that you say you feel 'betrayed' by the hunting fraternity because they make out you are cruel.  But that is exactly what you are doing regarding them.

I'll continue letting the hunt my land.  There are significant benefits that hunting has over shooting in terms of selection.  Also they kill far less animals and create more fun for more people.  That's a good thing.

I'd rather see more people haveing a great time than more few grim faced camoed killers out with lamps efficiently killing in the middle of the night.

Doesn't mean I am against what you do I just think there is room for both.

However I do think hunting should be regulated just not like it is.

Do you think my non lethal flushing should be illegal unless i shoot the flushed deer?


----------



## thegunman (19 December 2009)

"you say you feel 'betrayed' by the hunting fraternity because they make out you are cruel. But that is exactly what you are doing regarding them."

- The difference is, I never cosied up to them and asked them for their support!

"There are significant benefits that hunting has over shooting in terms of selection."

- No, shooting kills the specific foxes that are causing the problem. Hunting with dogs just kills the first fox scented, and is therefore hugely inefficient in that sense as well.

"Also they kill far less animals"

- Shooting kills *exactly* as many foxes as need killing. Name your number. Hunting with dog's completely hit and miss. Are we trying to take out pests or not?

 "few grim faced camoed killers out with lamps"

- Tbh the misrepresntation of shoooting on this thread's really peeing a lot of us off. 

If you deliberately chase deer for the hell of it, causing them stress, then yes, I think that's wrong - see the link I posted about repeated stress causing heart failure. If the deer need culling, then get on and do it, humanely.

And I don't think "fun" justifies any sort of behaviour in itself, otherwise it would be fine for kids on rough estates to go TWOKing of an evening and torching cars. There are wider considerations here than "I want to do it".


----------



## Xlthlx (19 December 2009)

You have this stupid argument that maybe some deer my dogs have flushed has had a coronary and yet you stick lumps of lead in animals.

My dogs never chase a deer for more than 50 yards or so.  they are border collies for [****]'s sake.

You quite clearly have no clue what you are on about.

and the idea that i should shoot an animal because there is a remote chance it might have a heart attack.  Is completely absurd.

Would you gun down a granny in the street because she looked a little flakey?

If you took three border collies into a wood and some deer ran out what is the chance that one of them will drop dead from the exertion?

Seriously?

And would you shoot it dead just in case?

I have never heard such a ridiculous foolheaded argument for shooting an animal before in my life.


----------



## anne83 (20 December 2009)

Thank G-d for Simon Cowel and all who speak out against the savage death of a fox. Population control is not relevant to a fox. They are self regulating and extremely territorial and in decline. Huntsmen wiped them out in the 17th century and had to import them from France. There has been no increase only decline in their numbers. Please read the facts. Drag hunting is a fantastic way to hunt.  All the fun without the blood. Surely thats the way forward. You do no service to fox hunt just disservice to humanity.


----------



## Xlthlx (20 December 2009)

hang on if they were wiped out in the 17th century and there numbers haven't increased how come there are approximately 400,000 now?

it's been a while since i studied maths but surely 400,000 is a larger number than zero?


----------



## Xlthlx (20 December 2009)

also I flush deer and refuse to shoot them.  There is no blood.  It's the Hunting Act which says that flushing is only legal if they are shot.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (20 December 2009)

sorry Anne, but foxes are not "extremely" territorial and neither are they in decline! this is 2009, not 17th cenury, as i've said before, no need for history lessons. i dont know where these fcts are that you suggest reading, LACS no doubt, also foxes do need population control and are by no means self regulating-


----------



## Daisychain (20 December 2009)

I have enjoyed reading your opinions.  I agree with much of what you have written.

I also think if foxes need culling then shooting has got to be the best option by far.  Often when i am down my field, quietly watching the various wildlife, if you sit quietly foxes will come very close to you, and i have often thought how easy it would be to take one out.   I am actually over run with rabbits, and find the foxes quite useful in pest control!

Come on people that hunt, just admit you love the thrill of the chase.... it aint about pest control! BE HONEST!!!!


----------



## Xlthlx (20 December 2009)

But my deer DON'T NEED CULLING!

shooting them would be completely over the top when all i want to do is flush them out and chase them a bit.


----------



## Xlthlx (20 December 2009)

It woukd be easy to kill one but that is hardly the point.  Just because ot would be easy does't mean i should have to!


----------



## Mad_Banana (20 December 2009)

I agree with Gunman.  I can understand your obvious distaste at killing animals however the kind of methods you use are not efficient because the deer come back and you have to keep clearing them off.

I'm sorry if it upsets you but you really do have to kill them if you want to flush them out with your dogs.

making deer run off is dangerous to them.  there is a high probability that they will trip up and hurt themselves or have a heart attack.

You should kill them as soon as possible.

It is also worth remembering that what you do is actually now illegal.

At the end of the day being shot causes no pain whereas with dispersal there is always the possibility that the animal will suffer.


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (22 December 2009)

I hated Cowell for years, but now he is at the top of my Christmas card list!

Will you lot be protesting outside the X-Factor studios and using your bully boy tactics like you did with lush?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (22 December 2009)

what a load of rubbish!


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (22 December 2009)

I think the guy talks sense! He has done a lot for Animal charities over the years and I really think he deserves a pat on the back. Its not often you see people with lots of money helping animals. I hope he continues to bring attention to this debate and that people take notice of him.


----------



## Eagle_day (22 December 2009)

Like they didn't for the Christmas no. 1?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (22 December 2009)

i really do appreciate the work he does for animals and childrens hopices- brilliant- but interfering  in the hunting debate is a step too far.


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (23 December 2009)

May I ask why you think it is a step too far?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (23 December 2009)

cos i dont believe he knows the first thing about hunting! no doubt you'll argue that black is blue but that is my belief!! ( i think you knew my answer before writing your question!)


----------



## cptrayes (23 December 2009)

I do wish these debates could stay reasonable :-((

It is impossible for black to be blue, but perfectly possible for Simon Cowell to be completely ignorant or well informed about fox hunting. To say "no doubt you'll argue black is blue" is to say "I am absolutely correct and you are wrong". None of us knows what he knows, but what I know is he has an absolute right to "interfere" - i.e. state his point of view - in any debate he chooses to in a democratic country where freedom of speech is still, mostly, allowed.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (23 December 2009)

that wasn't my point at all,no way was i saying that i am right and you are wrong!! i thought to be honest you were more of a friend towards me than you are, i'm wrong as usual- no point me posting on here any more so i'll take my leave and leave you all to it and keep my old fashioned opinions to myself.


----------



## cptrayes (23 December 2009)

salimali I don't have a problem with your opinions. It's telling Simon Cowell what opinions he is allowed to have that I have a problem with. I'm sorry my post irritated you but I would still like to hear your opinions if you carry on posting.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 December 2009)

i see that you are a farmer, but i assume that living in Cambridgeshire you farm arable. ok, so what are we sheep farmers to do to keep the fox killing our lambs in spring?perhaps as someone intending to stand as an independent you might have some bright ideas that generations of shepherds might have overlooked? i look foreward to your reply!!


----------

