# Not sure where I now stand.



## Fairynuff (28 November 2006)

Once upon a time I was pro hunting. I then had a good think about the whole kit and caboodle and became anti in that I personally couldnt go hunting again with a clear conscience. I still feel this way..BUT! I heard on the news today that the province of Roviga has systematically wiped out the whole fox population in their region. This was carried out using guns, traps ,digging with dogs and probably poison and snaring although that wasnt mentioned. Dont ask me what the point was because I havent got a clue. Rabies isnt on the rampage and fox damage here is pretty minimal. Hunting with hounds here is almost unheard of, I think there may be two packs who actually hunt live foxes-the rest are drag. Now , maybe if there were more packs hunting properly then this wouldnt happen.
Im beginning to think that a total ban in GB would ultimately lead to 100% culling by other means. Im becoming totally confused and not sure what to think. I still wouldnt partake but thats my personal belief. Truely sickened, Mairi. :shocked:


----------



## metalmare (28 November 2006)

I sometimes become very confused, too.  I used to be very pro, believing that it was the most humane way as others are impractical or crueler.  I also believed that without culling the fox population would boom leading to starvation.  But I have since been told that the population regulates itself if it becomes overcrowded with vixens having less cubs.  So now I don't know what to think...


----------



## Thistle (28 November 2006)

The number of foxes in Scotland has gone down since they banned hunting a few years before the rest of the UK. It is now open season on the fox there all year round. Same happened with Red deer on Exmoor during WW2 when hunting stopped.


----------



## Hercules (28 November 2006)

And the same is already happenning to the exmoor deer herd today.

Although no official survey has been done on the fox population post ban, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the fox population is also on the decrease.

No suprising really.  I would never have shot a fox pre ban.  Since the ban however, I have shot upwards of 30.  There are many more like me.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (28 November 2006)

But I'm afraid Hercules that is irrelevant to the reasons that Hunting was banned.  it was banned because it is a sport that involves killing animals and people have a moral objection to that.

The effect on the fox and deer population as a whole was and is completely irrelevant to the banners.  They had and have no interest in ecology or conservation whatsoever.

Fox and deer populations could well be adversely affected, however as long as they aren't being chased by dogs and people on horses then the people behind the ban will be happy.


----------



## Hercules (28 November 2006)

E-J,

Agreed.  However the government was warned time and time again that this would happen.  They chose to ignore it and the wildlife will suffer.  Not, I hasten to add because I am now killing foxes to prove a point, but because I don't want them anywhere near my gamebirds and property and the hunt can no longer legally despatch and disperse them instead of me.


----------



## Fairynuff (28 November 2006)

So it looks like a case of, the deaths of a few will be the saving of many! Still confused. M.


----------



## flying_change (28 November 2006)

Sorry to hear about this, and also about your doubts.  It's a tough one.  I guess I'd look at it this way.....

The unnecessary cull is obviously sickening, and in a way, immoral.

Hunting with hounds in the traditional sense is (to my mind) immoral, and therefore equally bad.

However, banning hunting need not imply that 100% culls will always happen instead.  They are both equally bad and unneccessary.

The fact that we're forced to compare the two together is not the fault of the idealism and the morality, it's the fault of the stupid people.

I dont think it's acceptable to say 'I have to accept hunting because otherwise something worse will happen.'

I dont think it's morally acceptable to say 'let me hunt some foxes for fun, and I wont kill them all'.  That's just moral blackmail.

To my mind, the perfect solution (and I know it's ideal rather than pragmatic) would be to ban both immoral activities, or control them better.

Sorry this is a tad random, it's coming straight off the top.

RS


----------



## AlanEE (28 November 2006)

Once upon a time, I was anti-hunting. (Yes, it was a LONG time ago!)

Then, as I learnt more about the natural world, I realized that hunting was probably the most natural and humane way to kill a pest species: certainly far more humane than 'nature's way'. It was no defence of an anti-hunting standpoint to say that just because animals suffered horrendous deaths in the wild and cannot normally be seen by humans, then that was alright. I was about 10 years old.

Add to that, that a hunter has a vested interest in conserving the quarry species which he hunts, and you have a perfectly balanced ecosystem. Wonderful!


----------



## wurzel (28 November 2006)

"The fact that we're forced to compare the two together is not the fault of the idealism and the morality, it's the fault of the stupid people."


Its called reality baby !!!

You think I am stupid because I am now shooting the deer on my farm (and from what I hear so are most others on eastern Exmoor and the Brendons).

I have to protect my grass. I would be stupid not to.


----------



## Clodagh (28 November 2006)

I find stag hunting cruel, sorry TF!! But I support it as I believe that the bad luck for the individual is a benefit to the species as a whole.

Ditto hare hunting.

Foxes deserve whatever they get! And hunting hares with lurchers is less cruel than with beagles, IMO, as there is no protracted chase.

As long as people provide environmental conditions that are beneficial, as in grass for red deer or coverts for foxes the species is better off than it would be without it.


----------



## wurzel (28 November 2006)

"I find stag hunting cruel, sorry TF!! But I support it as I believe that the bad luck for the individual is a benefit to the species as a whole."


Boooo !!!

Hooray !!!!!


----------



## severnmiles (28 November 2006)

I sometimes become very confused, too.  I used to be very pro, believing that it was the most humane way as others are impractical or crueler.  I also believed that without culling the fox population would boom leading to starvation.  But I have since been told that the population regulates itself if it becomes overcrowded with vixens having less cubs.  So now I don't know what to think...
		
Click to expand...

Does it heck!  I know of a farm, not even a large one (small compared with english ones) and we saw 8 foxes within two hours (not the same ones  :smirk, thats just what we saw.  The lady is at her wits end as they've already had 3 of her Christmas geese...and those things were large..even Ernie was scared of them.  So that shoots that theory down in flames.


----------



## dieseldog (28 November 2006)

Same happened with Red deer on Exmoor during WW2 when hunting stopped.
		
Click to expand...

That might have had more to do with war time food shortages and poaching than the lack of hunting


----------



## endymion (28 November 2006)

Thats sounds really awful! It must have been a hell of a lot of bloodshed because it's incredibly difficult to exterminate foxes!

The way I see things is that banning hunting with hounds does not force the hand of those who had hunted in this manner to kill as many foxes as possible through other means. If they were to do this is would only show their barbarity and discredit their claim to respect wildlife. 

I don't think the fox population will ever become endangered in this country. As a result of hunting with hounds foxes are now the most studied of all British mammals and any changes in hunting methods and pressures will be picked up soon enuff.


----------



## wurzel (28 November 2006)

Might.

But might not.

Facts remain, no hunting, deer population goes down.

Work it out.

The police are starting to throw people in cells even when they attend the station voluntarily.

I have started to shoot all the deer on my land.


----------



## wurzel (28 November 2006)

"The way I see things is that banning hunting with hounds does not force the hand of those who had hunted in this manner to kill as many foxes as possible through other means."

Why?

No hunting = Out go the snares.

No hunting = Shooting all the deer


"If they were to do this is would only show their barbarity and discredit their claim to respect wildlife."

I don't allow deer and foxes on my land for credit. Its not a zoo !!!

I like to see them but is their numbers are'nt controlled..........


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

You're killing *all* the deer ?

Are you doing it for no reason ?


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

Read his posts.  

He is doing it because he does not want them eating his grass.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

No it's the countryside and animals live there funnily enough, quite a lot of them actually!

Where is the logic in killing as many foxes/deer as you can due to the ceasation of hunting with hounds rather than killing as many as would of been killed by the hunt?


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

I am trying to kill as many foxes as the hunt used to.  However, so are about 80 other farmers/landowners in the vicinity.

Strangely enough, we don't all meet up and discuss our tallies and consequently do not know how many each of us has killed.

Before the ban we knew exactly how many were killed because the hunt did it.  Very of us allowed foxes to be shot on our land.

Different story now.  You were warned of the consequences but thought that you knew best.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

"here is the logic in killing as many foxes/deer as you can due to the ceasation of hunting with hounds rather than killing as many as would of been killed by the hunt? "

The logic is that as I have heard again and again from antis is thast shooting is a better method of killing foxes as it is more efficient.  That means more animals die for less effort expended.

Quite why that makes it better beats me.  Give me innefficient slaughter methods any time.  Innefficient pest control and inefficient farming practices are more wildlife freindly.

I'd personally like to see a hundred people fly fishing in an innefficient manner and, yes enjoying what they do than one guy going out and using the more efficient method of dynamiting the fish.  Maybe what he is doing is less immoral, especially if he's a miserable bastard, give me the immoral fishermen any day.

Killing more animals and having less fun doing so isn't more ethical in my view, but it is in RS's.  That's twisted morality if ever I saw it.


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

You misunderstand.   

Again.

As far as I read, he's not killing all the deer, and he's not doing it for no reason.

This contrasts with the opening post in which it appears that *all* the animals are being killed and that there is no reason for doing so.


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

You are muddled.

Again.

Here are the facts:

Pre ban, Tom tolerated deer on his land and I never shot foxes.  Post ban, Tom has started killing all the deer on his land.  I have started shooting all the foxes on my land.  

The reasons for this are that Tom does not want deer eating his grass,  I do not want foxes eating my gamebirds. 

With many others doing exactly the same, in certain areas it won't be too long until all the foxes and deer are gone.

Not too difficult, is it?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

The difference is between an animal being seen as quarry and a pest.  RS thinks an animal being our quarry is morally wrong and should therefore be banned.  Once animals stop being quarry they cease to have use to people and people stop tolerating them.

Deer culling is unregulated.  There's nothing to stop them being wiped out in certain areas, especially on moors where there are a few very large landowners.  This can easily happen over the next few years.  The Government are not monitoring the effects of the ban on wild mammal populations because they are completely uninterested in how it effects them.


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

"Once animals stop being quarry they cease to have use to people "

A good example of the immorality, I think.....


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

Nope, you've misunderstood the context of the question.


----------



## Shoveller (29 November 2006)

Furthermore, because antis don't live in the real world they think that we should all be delighted to have foxes all over the place eating all the ground nesting birds, game birds, leverets etc. They think that we should just like looking at them. 

Trouble is that in the real world we know that if you kill all the foxes then there will be more game birds, ground nesting birds and leverets (and therefore hares). so you shoot them all.

In areas where some hares were tolerated for hunting and legal coursing, they may now all be shot and totally eliminated to prevent illegal coursing. That isn't going to help the biodiversity action plan to increase hare numbers is it? The game conservancy have a moto:- 'Conservation through wise use'. I can't think of a better way of putting it.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

All of the animals you mention are threatened much more by modern conventional farming practices than by foxes.


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

"they may now all be shot and totally eliminated to prevent illegal coursing"

who dreamed that one up ?


----------



## severnmiles (29 November 2006)

All of the animals you mention are threatened much more by modern conventional farming practices than by foxes.
		
Click to expand...

You'll never change farming methods though.  And I'm not sure when you last came to Wales, Dartmoor or Exmoor last but its definately the fox and not farming methods that are threatening birds/leverets e.t.c


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

"Once animals stop being quarry they cease to have use to people "

"A good example of the immorality, I think..... "

And so what?  You can't expect the environment to be conserved for moral reasons, you have to try and get a situation where it is in people's direct interest to conserve it.

Our countryside is the direct product of hundreds of years of economically and culturally motivated activity.  The future of our countryside will be dictated by the same factors.  

It's not something that has been produced by a bunch of do gooders following their morality and it won't be conserved by such people either.


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

"they may now all be shot and totally eliminated to prevent illegal coursing"

who dreamed that one up ?
		
Click to expand...

It's not dreams, it's reality.  Like it or not, such actions are happenning.  Two of the large estate owners in my neck of the woods are doing exactly that.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

Really?? I think you'll find farming methods ARE changing in many places. 

...and ask yourself why hares and certain birds are in declined in the first place.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

I believe that large scale hare shoots are organised to combat problems due to illegal hare coursing.  It's hard to argue that shooting hares on such a scale is more welfare freindly than allowing far fewer to be killed by hunting with dogs and legal coursing.

Hares are generally shot while running at speed with shotguns, something that is bound to end up with a high wounding rate.  They scream in a most alarming manner.

Thank god it's still legal to follow them up and kill them humanely with dogs afterwards.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

hmmm, isn't there a statistic banded around by pro's that only 1 in 9 hares coursed actaully get caught?? Apparently it's all about the sport and the skill of the dog and not about killing the hare. But then that contradicts what you say doesn't it.....?


----------



## severnmiles (29 November 2006)

Really?? I think you'll find farming methods ARE changing in many places.
		
Click to expand...

Elaborate...




			..and ask yourself why hares and certain birds are in declined in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Because fox populations grew....?  Ok fair do's farming isn't always the most environmentally friendly of businesses...BUT...how many things that make money are?  In fact, how many people in this country can honestly say they are evironmentally friendly?


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

Your statistics are probably quite near the mark.  The point of the discussion is that estate owners do not want illegal coursing and the associated damage that comes with it to take place on their land.  The best way to prevent illegal coursing (the police couldn't do it pre ban) is to shoot the hares, thereby denying the coursers their quarry.

The estate owners who once held coursing events no longer have a requirement for hares on their property.  Therefore the hares are being shot in huge numbers.

A fine friend to thehare you are.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

"hmmm, isn't there a statistic banded around by pro's that only 1 in 9 hares coursed actaully get caught?? Apparently it's all about the sport and the skill of the dog and not about killing the hare. But then that contradicts what you say doesn't it.....? "

Not at all both coursing and beagling are as you often complain highly 'inefficient' ways to kill hares.  They pale in comparision to what you term as better ways to kill hares such as large scale organised hare shoots.  These kill more hares, cause more wounding and infinitely more suffering.  The use of dogs during these shoots is not coursing, they are used to locate and dispatch the wounded hares.

I'm presuming your not so obsessed with your anti hunting with dogs views to actually suggest it would be better to just let a wounded hare die slowly in the undergrowth rather than sending in a dog to hunt and kill them humanely.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

OK. Monoculture, destruction of hedgerows, reduction in the size of field margins, spraying of synthetic chemicals ect ect. All these practices have reduced the populations of an infinite number of birds, invertebrates and small mammals. Lots of farmers are now subsidised to use Integrated Pest Management schemes, to re-build hedgerows, to delay sillage cuts if appropriate (i.e for corn crakes in some ares) ect ect. 

But then you know all this don't you, country girl??


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

So we're all being held to ransom by those who partake in illegal coursing then are we?


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

I have often said the best method of dispatching a wild mammal is probably by the gun of a skilled marksman with dogs on hand to track any wounded escapees. 

I don't buy into the 'let us hunt or we'll kill everything we see' bully tactic.


----------



## severnmiles (29 November 2006)

Yes....problem is though Bendy, in our part of Wales, very few tore the hedgerows out.  There are also a good few organic farms around here that cringe when they see other farms spraying.  I'm aware that in parts of England they have prairie type 100 acre + fields.  Down here you're lucky to find a 20 acre field....


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

We look after a small area of moorland and I have no doubt we have far more ground nesting birds because our neighbour lamps all the foxes and 'black and whites', whatever they are.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

But why were the ground nesting birds in your area scarce in the first place? 

Think about it, if magpies and foxes declined bird pops then these birds would of been extinct thousands of years ago. Instead they are endangered now. It's not rocket science to work out why.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

Ground nesting birds exist in balance with their predators habitat and food supply.  

Fox populations are limited through predation (natural or artificial) and through limited food supply and habitat.

Foxes exist in balance with their predators.

Hunting IS predation.

We have changed the baance by providing a food source for foxes and limiting their natural predators.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

How can you say that hunting re-addresses the balance of predation re foxes when foxes were never predated upon??

...and if prey exists in balance with predator then how can you claim foxes are the culprit in declining birds ect??


----------



## flying_change (29 November 2006)

Hunters seem to be in favour of 'the balance of nature' only when it suits their current argument.


----------



## Hercules (29 November 2006)

What will soon become very evident is that the hunting ban has tipped the balance of nature to the detriment of the 'quarry' species.  Well Done.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

Foxes have allways been predated on and still are although less so now we have got rid of the major predators.  Sick and injured foxes are still killed by badgers.  When there were wolves, bears and lynx then they would have been caught and killed more readilly by them.

In a natural situation an animals death other than by being caught and eaten by another animal would be rare.

Predators that exist in balance with their prey generally get bthye weaker specimens.  The balance between predator and prey is a fine one as you point out, otherwise either the predator or prey species would simply die out.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (29 November 2006)

What makes you refer to me as a 'hunter'?  Can't you just address the argument.  When am I not in favour of the 'balance of nature'?


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

Quarry of whom? Only people not other animals. If people CHOOSE to intensify their persecution of foxes as retaliation for a hunt ban then that's unfortunate but the result of human wrong and not of nature's.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

Wolves, lynx, bear ect all hunted BIG GAME. Why on earth would a pack of wolves chase a puny fox? It would hardly feed a pack would it. Foxes have always been top of their food chain. 

Badgers picking off sick, old foxes is still relatively rare, many setts boast co-habiting foxes and badgers which live happily together. Anyway, picking off sick/old/injured animals that would die anyway is not population control.


----------



## Faithkat (29 November 2006)

Don't take this the wrong way, Mairi, but at last, the penny drops!!!!  I've spent many an hour trying to explain to antis that a ban on hunting with hounds will NOT mean that foxes will not now be killed.  Like you say, they will be/are being killed all the year round by all sorts of unsavoury traps/snares/poisons/shooting, all of which are far less acceptable than hunting with hounds.  At least with hounds, at the end of the day, the fox is either dead or has got away, it isn't injured or maimed to die a horrible slow death somewhere.


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

Many ARE injured and maimed and die slow deaths (see above). 

If someone gave me the choice of deaths, I'd pick the bullet any day.


----------



## wurzel (29 November 2006)

"You misunderstand. 

Again.

As far as I read, he's not killing all the deer, and he's not doing it for no reason."

Why is this so hard for you to understand.

A Red Deer eats my grass. I shoot it. Maybe not straight away, but I will shoot it.

Understand?


----------



## wurzel (29 November 2006)

"Where is the logic in killing as many foxes/deer as you can due to the ceasation of hunting with hounds rather than killing as many as would of been killed by the hunt?"

Think about it.

I am not out to kill all the deer on purpose.

The hunt used to control the culling.

Who is controlling it now?

Do you think we do it in the pub?


----------



## endymion (29 November 2006)

So answer the q. Why kill more than the hunt would normally take?


----------



## wurzel (29 November 2006)

"So answer the q. Why kill more than the hunt would normally take?"


Jesus Christ !!!!!!!!!!!

Is this SO complicated?

Mr Harding lives next door. 

Apart from everyday friendship, I don't give a toss how he manages his grass.

He can let the deer eat it or he can shoot the deer. Up to him.

Me? I am going to shoot the deer who eat my grass.

I am not going to hunt them down through every parish on Exmoor, but I am going to shoot them.


How do I know what the hunt would normally take?

They don't just hunt on my farm you muppet !!!

A deer they harboured on my farm might run through 6 parishes before they killed him !!

They keep records not me !!

From now on it is.

1. See deer
2. Try and shoot it.
3. Eat it.
4. end of story.

Understand?

If they die out it is you fault.

I don't run a Zoo.

Try Cricket St Thomas or Longleat.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

"Wolves, lynx, bear ect all hunted BIG GAME. Why on earth would a pack of wolves chase a puny fox? It would hardly feed a pack would it. Foxes have always been top of their food chain. "  Wolves etc will hunt and eat sick, weak or young foxes.

"Badgers picking off sick, old foxes is still relatively rare, many setts boast co-habiting foxes and badgers which live happily together. Anyway, picking off sick/old/injured animals that would die anyway is not population control. "  Weakened animals can live for a long time, they become diseased and spread thoise diseases.  Picking off weak animals IS population control because it makes the population stronger.  It also releives those animal's suffering.  You completely misunderstand the meaning of control and confine it to mean limiting numbers.  Control keeps numbers at an acceptable level either increasing or decreasing them, it is also qualitative.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

"So answer the q. Why kill more than the hunt would normally take? "  

Because shooting, which YOU favour because it is MORE efficient kills MORE animals for LESS effort.  This is why YOU think it is a BETTER means of control.  It produces MORE death, MORE disease, MORE wounding and MORE suffering.


----------



## suestowford (30 November 2006)

Wolves, lynx, bear ect all hunted BIG GAME. Why on earth would a pack of wolves chase a puny fox? It would hardly feed a pack would it. Foxes have always been top of their food chain.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure I recall seeing on some documentary (way back when) about the smaller cats in Africa, saying that their biggest threats came from the bigger cats. The bigger cats predated on the smaller ones, to eat them, not just to prevent the smaller cats taking food. I take this to mean that in general, predators will take whatever they can, and not be too fussy about whether it's another predator or not. Dare say I'm wrong though...


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

hahaha! 


T your explanations are ridiculous, u should listen to yourself!


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

Shooting does NOT kill more animals. Stupid people with guns who should know better do.


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

Wolves, bears, lynx would have a hard time catching an adult fox. As we all know wolves run their prey down and then  tear it apart, a huge waste of energy when all they get is a fox at the end of it. 

All these animals hunted dear. Check it out, I sh*t u not!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

In making laws people should consider the consequences of that law.  If the consequences of banning handguns meant that more people dies then it would be a bad move.  That's not giving in to criminals it's sensible public policy.

If banning hunting results in more animals suffering then it's bad for animal welfare.  Your just indulging your morality at the expense of animals. 

The comparision between shooting and hunting in terms of animal welfare is highly relevant if you leave shooting legal and ban hunting.  It's also highly relevant to determine whether banning hunting will result in an increase in animals being persecuted by other means.


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

If criminality starts holding the law to ransom then democracy goes out the window and we're all ruled by the minority. 

It is far from idealism and it is something we must uphold. 

I'm not a big fan of the way the ban was put together, it could of been much better, but it is a ban nevertheless and I will support it and continue to lobby for improvements, something my local Lib Dem MP helps with agreat deal. 

I know people who shoot, for fun and for culling means. I have to get on with them because my family live close to them and I dont want to cause bad feeling. I have had many talks about this very issue. Some laugh and say it's unessessary to kill so many foxes through shooting, others get a bit more angry as they feel it's irresponsible and that their sport is getting a bad press. They probably just don't want to put shooting in the public eye in case people start talking of banning that. Look at the way the Hawk Board (society?) distanced itself from the hunt when it started using birds of prey. 

People know that pro's will get on the charm offensive or do and say anything to get hunting back. 


These tired old arguments have been banded about for decades every time some other cruel sport is banned. Trouble is, no-one buys that BS.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

An effective law would regulate all forms of kiiling animals by the same criteria.  That is the law that I would support.  So should you if you're against animal cruelty.  That's the type of law my Lib Dem MP supports.  He's a member of the Middle Way Group.


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

"T your explanations are ridiculous, u should listen to yourself!"


Bit of a generalisation !!!

Which bit is ridiculous and why?


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

"People know that pro's will get on the charm offensive or do and say anything to get hunting back. 


These tired old arguments have been banded about for decades every time some other cruel sport is banned. Trouble is, no-one buys that BS."


What involvement do you have with Red deer on Exmoor ?

Do you think it is important they survive or not?

The BS is coming from you. You are happy for them to be wiped out as long as your ideological ends are met.

Why do you hate them so much?


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

No one law can regulate ALL forms of animal cruelty. 

 Could livestock be legislated in the same way as pets? 

Middle Way is a lobby group same as LACS and the CA, I dont support any of them. Yes thats right I dont support LACS.


----------



## Clodagh (30 November 2006)

I am probably going to repeat what other people have said here as gave up reading all the posts!

Modern farming did do damage to a lot of animals, but why then was there always sufficient hare numbers to hold the Anglia Cup? (Is that what its called?!!). I assume its because as those landowners wanted to see the coursing they farmed in such a way as to benefit the hare. Now, what benefits hares also benefits buttlerflies, insects and lots of ground nesting birds.
I wonder (and I don't know the answer) if they are still bothering with all that.
The ELS is a good thing on the whole around here, although its not too prairieish in Essex.


----------



## Hercules (30 November 2006)

''Middle Way is a lobby group same as LACS and the CA, I dont support any of them. Yes thats right I dont support LACS.''

But you do support and are a member of NELS.  That odd group of unwashed misfits who take pleasure from distressing young children, laugh at fatally injured hunt followers, spray hounds with ammonia and regularly commit trespass.

You are a really responsible pillar of the community, aren't you?  Odd ball.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

"Could livestock be legislated in the same way as pets? "

From what I understand the Animal Welfare Bill applies to both.  It excludes wild animals.  Our duty of care is clearly different as, for example it shouldn't be a criminal offence to allow a wild mammal to starve, however laws can be framed to apply to different categories of animals differently.

There's no reason that a law could not be made that applies to all activities that kill wild animals.  Such a law would be based on prevention of cruelty.  Cruelty being causing unnecesary suffering.  What is needed to make such a law work is political will.


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

There's no getting away from the fact that agriculture has created all the ecological inbalance we have now and although I know some farmers are changing their methods many many species are still in a very precarious situation. Hare coursing alone may help locally but is too small too to have any real impact. Personally I find it distasteful to hunt a BAP species in the first place. 

I have a problem with the mentality of people who promote nature only if it is in their own personal interests.


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

Ammonia? Fatally injured hunt support? 

Do I miss all the fun or something??


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

Why do you want to wipe out the biggest herd of Exmoor Red Deer in your own personal interest?


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

That law would have to be very ambiguous. I am of the opinion that laws should be as subject specific as possible. It is vital to understand the ecology and biology of an animal before deciding what constitutes cruelty.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

There's no getting away from the fact that agriculture has created all the ecological imbalance

err what about house building, industrialisation, landfill, tree felling, wars, industrial pollution, acid rain, global warming, horticultural imports.

Agriculture has contributed to biodiversity as well as damaging it.  Why do you think we have hedges?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (30 November 2006)

"I have a problem with the mentality of people who promote nature only if it is in their own personal interests. "  

I promote self interest as being the best way to safeguard nature.


----------



## Fairynuff (30 November 2006)

I now know why there was the extermination of the foxes in Roviga-they were preying on released pheasent, hare and co which the hunters import from other regions and from Romania to shoot for fun. Oh dear. Italia fa schiffo.. Mairi


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

Thousands of miles of hedgerows have been removed in the past few decades. 90% of our unimproved grasslands have been lost. How many deciduous woodlands have been converted to useless coniferous plantations? How much damage has spraying organochlorides caused? You have to go back a long way to find a time when agriculture was environmentally friendly. 

You forget that even tho I dont eat meant, I too depend on agriculture. The damage it does can be minimised but it certainly cannot be said to increase biodiversity. Any new farming methods that encourage rare species are really just undoing the harm other farm practices have caused before. 

And, yes, all those things you mentioned are factors but agriculture is the main culprit. Imagine if commercial development covered the area agriculture does, there wouldn't be a countryside. Monocultures are what cover the countryside and are as equally hostile to many animals as houses.


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

"You have to go back a long way to find a time when agriculture was environmentally friendly. "

What a load of crap ! My farm is perfectly environmentally friendly.


"Monocultures are what cover the countryside and are as equally hostile to many animals as houses."


What a load of crap !!

I saw 30 red deer tonight in two herds (remember, the ones you want me to feed for free).  You don't get many of those in housing estates.

Today i have also seen 3 foxes, 1 badger, 1 stoat and about 60 rabbits.

Also endless birds. In particular a red, green and yellow flash of a green woodpecker. hear them often but don't often see them.

Don't you just love their undulating flight Endy ?


Tell me Endy, as you seem such a farming expert, if you were in my shoes what would you do about the red deer ?


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

So why is this country not covered in forest anymore? Why are our flood meadows and un/semi-improved grasslands disappearing? Why have so many British invertebrates that used to flourish gone or on their way out? 

Do you think the countryside would look the same if we stopped farming? No it would regenerate back to it's former glory. How can you possibly say that destruction of a natural habitat for crops ect actually increases biodiversity, thats absolute rubbish. I'm not anti-farming but I recognise the huge impact it has and I recognise my role in it also. 

.....and yes, there are deer in housing estates. A herd of red live in Glasgow and I have Roe than often run through my friends back garden in Aberdeen (a council estate). Don't believe me? Call The Deer Society up in Scotland. They also have a herd in Dundee I believe. In London we have Peregrins nesting in buildings, urban foxes, badgers and songbirds. The more robust species can adapt to urban life just as they can adapt to life in a monocultural environment with little suitable habitat. The most vulnerable are those which are habitat specific. Red deer, foxes, badger are in the robust category. Most of our endangered species are invertebrates and small mammals. 

Tom, this is one debate you can't win. Don't make me start giving you specific examples, you'll just get embarrased.


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

"So why is this country not covered in forest anymore? Why are our flood meadows and un/semi-improved grasslands disappearing? Why have so many British invertebrates that used to flourish gone or on their way out? 

Do you think the countryside would look the same if we stopped farming? No it would regenerate back to it's former glory. How can you possibly say that destruction of a natural habitat for crops ect actually increases biodiversity, thats absolute rubbish. I'm not anti-farming but I recognise the huge impact it has and I recognise my role in it also. "


I think you said monocultures cover the countryside? Was I wrong ? Another little side step?

But lets look at your questions. Unlike you I won't dodge !

"So why is this country not covered in forest anymore?"

Because it has been removed by our ancestors. starting at about 4500 B.C.

"Why are our flood meadows and un/semi-improved grasslands disappearing?"


I don't believe they are. My semi improved grassland is the same as it was iin my great grandfathers day.

"Why have so many British invertebrates that used to flourish gone or on their way out?"

Global warming ??

"Do you think the countryside would look the same if we stopped farming?"

No. It would slowly revert to wildwood. We would start to import all our food and then suffer severe food shortages.

"How can you possibly say that destruction of a natural habitat for crops ect actually increases biodiversity, thats absolute rubbish. "

I didn't say that. read again




"......and yes, there are deer in housing estates."

Of course there are. Thats why they asked the inhabitants of the roman Road for a submission to the hunting enquiry !!

What do the Exmoor national Park authority know?



"Tom, this is one debate you can't win. Don't make me start giving you specific examples, you'll just get embarrased. "

how did I know someone from London would know more about farming and Exmoor red deer than me ??!!!

I am a long way from being embarrased.

Why not confront my request to know what i should do about the deer that come in off Mansley combe?

Is that specific enough?


----------



## endymion (30 November 2006)

I may live in London but I dont come from London and I am certainly not afraid to answer any question you put to me. 

Semi-improved and unimproved grasslands are failing nationally due to agriculture. It would be great if your land could sustain the entire british fauna but alas it cant, therefore we have to look at the bigger picture. 

My analogy to the wildwood was to illustrate the change in the ecosystem. Our ancestors cleared mainly for farming, no? 

Global warming cannot explain extinctions that have been occuring over the past few decades and in some cases actually make the british climate kinder for some species at the edge of their range, such as certain butterflies. You are clasping at straws with this one, haha!

I am aware for the need for farming, I have never said otherwise. I just promote a move towards more environmentally friendly methods. 



For someone who comes from a small corner of exmoor u seem to know everything about the entire countryside! I was always under the impression that Exmoor was somewhat of a unique environment.......

...and Tom I will think carefully about what i would do in your position re deer. What species did u say, red? How many? What do you farm? What damage do they cause? What hunting pressures exist? 

If you want a proper response there are things I need to know.


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

"Semi-improved and unimproved grasslands are failing nationally due to agriculture."

Are they? I will take your word for it. In what way are they failing?

I am prepared to learn.

"It would be great if your land could sustain the entire british fauna but alas it cant, therefore we have to look at the bigger picture."

Sure. I agree. I wish everyone would farm like me. I just took issue with you saying the british countryside was a mono-culture.

"Our ancestors cleared mainly for farming, no?"

Yes.

"Global warming cannot explain extinctions that have been occuring over the past few decades and in some cases actually make the british climate kinder for some species at the edge of their range, such as certain butterflies. You are clasping at straws with this one, haha!"

Not really. Ha ha!!

I can't see much becoming extinct.

"I am aware for the need for farming, I have never said otherwise. I just promote a move towards more environmentally friendly methods."

Good. Me too.

"For someone who comes from a small corner of exmoor u seem to know everything about the entire countryside! "

Thanks. But I can ensure you I don't.

"I was always under the impression that Exmoor was somewhat of a unique environment......."

In many ways yes, you are right. 

"I may live in London but I dont come from London and I am certainly not afraid to answer any question you put to me. "

Interesting.

OK. I will try again.

Put yourself in my shoes (should be easy knowing so much about farming).

What would you do about my deer problem ?


----------



## wurzel (30 November 2006)

Apologies Endy. I missed this bit. Only 10" monitors on Exmoor


"....and Tom I will think carefully about what i would do in your position re deer."

Thanks. 

"What species did u say, red? "

Yes Red. Exmoor is kind of famous for them.


"How many?"

what do you mean, how many?
30 this evening. 


"What do you farm?"

Sheep and single suckler beef.


"What damage do they cause?"

Grass eating.


"What hunting pressures exist?"


What does this mean?

Thanks


----------



## Ereiam_jh (1 December 2006)

"Semi-improved and unimproved grasslands are failing nationally due to agriculture."

And how much grassland do you think covered the mainland Britain before agriculture?  Not very much, most of it was covered in woodland.  The picture is not as black and white as you make it seem.  Agriculture has good and bad effects on the environment.

What's our biggest crop in the UK?  Grass.

Some of our most bio-diverse habitats are forest edge ones.  We have MORE of such habitat here in the West Country due to farming not less.  The biggest providers of this habitat are hedgerows which in the main only exist and continue to exist because of agriculture.

Some of our hedges are thousands of years old.  In Cornwall there are field boundaries that are five thousand years old.

Extensive grass based meat and dairy production is the great preserver of our bio-diverse beautiful landscape.  Grazing cattle preserve precious habitats.  Our woodlands suffer from too little sustainable exploitation not too much.   Britain has some achingly beutiful and ecologically rich countryside forged by millenia of agricultural activity.

If you want to preserve semi improved and unimproved grasslands the one thing you need is the right kind of agriculture and if you want that to happen you have to create a situation where it is in people's interest to carry it out.

If I wasn't grazing my culm grassland then it would cease to exist.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (1 December 2006)

"What damage do they cause?"

My main problem with deer is that they destroy growing trees.  So I just chase them with my dogs.  I find that for me it is the best way to keep them out of any regenerating woodland I have.

Illegal apparently, but laws are there to be broken.


----------



## endymion (1 December 2006)

Let me clarify....

How many herds do you have a problem with? Is it just one herd which utillises your land, is this all year round and is 30 a good estimate of the average size of the herd at this time of year? 

As for hunting pressure I mean how are they hunted and how intensively, e.g are they currently just shot? If so how often and is this seasonally for culling or all year round for sport? 
Do u have any idea of how many are shot? I think you'll agree that it is important to have at least some info on births and deaths before you can come to a conclusion on how many need to be culled annually.


----------



## endymion (1 December 2006)

Woodlands were so vast that they had transitory grasslands and meadows in areas where trees had fallen due to storms ect. The grassland would exist until succession began. Woodlands are too small for this now. There were also coastal grassland. 

Monocultures of grass are not really a good thing. Grass habitats should surely be diverse to encourage a diverse range of species? 

Forest rides and clearings can provide good habitat if managed correctly. 

Grazing is v important in maintaining grassland habitats but the balance has to be right. Often grazing pressure is too high in these days of mass production. 

Giles, my point was not that agriculture is always bad for the environment but that very often it is. It has caused enormous destruction. Very few people farm (not always their own fault I know) in an environmentally friendly way.


----------



## Hercules (1 December 2006)

Endymong,

Who are you?  Charles Darwin, Bill Oddie or John Craven?


----------



## endymion (1 December 2006)

Here comes Hercules with more intelligent and insightful comments, hehe!

When you have nothing of note to say why not revert to name calling, eh? 

I love it, keep it coming........ :grin:


----------



## Eagle_day (1 December 2006)

Tom
I saw Ann Mallalieu recently quoted as saying the Exmoor red deer herd fell by 25% in the year after the ban. I hadn't seen this figure before but I can't say I'm surprised. Typical NuLab law of unintended consequences: invade Iraq to bring democracy to the oppressed and spark a bloody insurgency and civil war; ban hunting because we shouldn't enjoy it and cause the quarry populations to crash ...
ED


----------



## endymion (1 December 2006)

Why did it fall....?


----------



## Shoveller (1 December 2006)

Modern farming did do damage to a lot of animals, but why then was there always sufficient hare numbers to hold the Anglia Cup? (Is that what its called?!!). I assume its because as those landowners wanted to see the coursing they farmed in such a way as to benefit the hare. Now, what benefits hares also benefits buttlerflies, insects and lots of ground nesting birds.
		
Click to expand...

There is in my opinion a huge myth surrounding hare numbers. They are in fact the only species that I can think of that benefits from modern prairie farming, as practiced in East Anglia. This is why eastern England has vast hare populations. 

Yet, in the west of the country and in the Sussex Weald, where farming is much more unchanged and mixed in the way that we are always told wildlife likes, there are hardly any hares at all. The only places where there are lots of hares in these areas are where there are shooting estates and few predators as a result. Hares like factory farmed prairies, not woods, hedges, grass and small fields.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (1 December 2006)

There are more hares than you might think in the west country.  Try beagling.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (1 December 2006)

If it did fall then most likely because more are being shot because land owners are starting to see them as just a pest rather than a quarry.


----------



## Clodagh (2 December 2006)

I understand that hares need a diversity of habitat to flourish. We have grown a lot of rape for the first time this year and we have no hares in it (that I can tell). However, the winter wheat has plenty. I believe that they need rotational type grazing, so in fact prairie type farming shouldn't be of benefit to them.
Can't quote anything at you, cos I can only speak from experience, not, like Endymion, from textbooks.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

oooh, cheeky!

Yes I am quite studious sometimes but most of the people I learn from really know their stuff. I probably know more about the countryside in the NE of Scotland but I have a room in Essex I use for field work as and when req and I do spend rather a long time in the SE England countryside every Saturday remember!!  :grin:


----------



## Jerome (2 December 2006)

I agree with you that you are "totally confused". Perhaps a few months' self-imposed abstinence from sites like this will help clear your befuddled mind?


----------



## Fairynuff (2 December 2006)

Jerome, if you have nothing constructive to say, bog off! I expect youll disapear back down the drain youve managed to find your way out of soon enough. Did they give you a map? Where do these irritating eedjits come from? M.


----------



## severnmiles (2 December 2006)

Jerome, if you have nothing constructive to say, bog off! I expect youll disapear back down the drain youve managed to find your way out of soon enough. Did they give you a map? Where do these irritating eedjits come from? M.
		
Click to expand...

Hahahaha....go Mairi! :-D


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"How many herds do you have a problem with?"

I have a problem with the whole Exmoor Red deer herd if they eat my grass.

"Is it just one herd which utillises your land, is this all year round and is 30 a good estimate of the average size of the herd at this time of year?"

Some are particularly local but they do gradually move about. I don't know which individuals utilise my land.

I don't give them names !!!

Yes it is all year round and the numbers vary from day to day. Sometimes I see 30-40, sometimes I see 5.

I also have a sneaking suspision they sneak about at night !!!!!!!!!!!

"As for hunting pressure I mean how are they hunted and how intensively, e.g are they currently just shot?"

They are still hunted by the DSSH. But now we are starting to shoot them as well.

"If so how often and is this seasonally for culling or all year round for sport?"

Are you winding me up?

Both hunting and shooting is in season. 

"Do u have any idea of how many are shot?"

None at all. Only those that are shot on my property. And maybe not all those !!

I suspect there are people sneaking about at night as well !!!! 


"I think you'll agree that it is important to have at least some info on births and deaths before you can come to a conclusion on how many need to be culled annually."

No I don't agree. The hunt used to study this. Now the culling is down to each individual farmer. 

They can kill none or 100 per year.

Up to the individual.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

You got it.

Don't know about 25% but it wouldn't surprise me. They will all be gone in 10 years.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

More are being shot and poached.

Masters are being thrown in urine and puke soaked cells when they attend police cells voluntarily.

No hunting = uncontrolled shooting.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"Yes I am quite studious sometimes "

Is the bit about stag hunting sinking in?


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I didnt ask for individuals, dont be silly Thomas!

Some areas only carry out shooting for culling purposes during a very short period. 

I'm sure there must be someone surveying the deer. It's bloody Exmoor and it's the Trust! How can you agree with someone on the one hand that the population is falling and on the other say no-one even does an inventory? 

No figures on pops ect then it's impossible to anything of note about the deer one way or the other. It's all guess work.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I was talking to Clodagh, it's rude to but in to other people's conversations.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"I didnt ask for individuals, dont be silly Thomas!"

Sorry Endy !!!

"I'm sure there must be someone surveying the deer."

Sure all sorts of people do! 

Whats your point? When it comes down to it I am only interested in the numbers on my farm.


"It's bloody Exmoor and it's the Trust!"

Come on student !! More than 78% of Exmoor is privately owned.

"How can you agree with someone on the one hand that the population is falling and on the other say no-one even does an inventory?"

Pardon? I said I am not surprised. i say this because I know individuals are shooting them. Individuals who used to rely on the hunt. I have never said no one counts the deer.

I don't.

All sorts of other bodies do. Including the hunt.

" No figures on pops ect then it's impossible to anything of note about the deer one way or the other. It's all guess work. "

There is between 2000 and 2500 deer on Exmoor. The number fluctuates.

Here is a quote from the national park....

"7.7    Exmoor area has one of the largest herds of wild red deer in England. There is a strong association between the National Park and red deer, which is reflected in the use of this species as the logo of the National Park Authority. The wild red deer are an important part of the ecology of Exmoor and peoples enjoyment of the area is enhanced by seeing red deer. The maintenance of a healthy herd in balance with the environment is in keeping with the purposes of the National Park.

7.8    Management by people is essential to maintaining the herd, and traditionally a mixture of hunting and shooting has achieved this. The relationship between the deer, the hunt and those who manage the land is complex and the key to the continued success in maintaining the fine herd of red deer. Should legislation be introduced to ban hunting with hounds, it is essential that adequate arrangements are in place to ensure the continued conservation and management of the red deer herds on Exmoor. Measures will also have to be taken to address any adverse effects on the social and economic well-being of Exmoors rural community."


I am still not embarrassed Endy !!!


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

Don't be so precious Endy !!


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

Thomas I will root around for more numbers. You must accept that numbers outside your land are going to affect numbers inside your land. 

Much of Exmoor may be privately owned but I can't believe the trust doesnt take an interest in goings on in it's own back yard. 

I believe the embarrased thing was from a different topic when we were discussing agriculture and how it has affected biodiversity. You seemed to think it hadn't. I'm still willing to prove you wrong if you insist.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I can't help it, it must be my gay side coming out, haha! I'm sure SBB would say so..


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"Thomas I will root around for more numbers."

Happy rooting !

"You must accept that numbers outside your land are going to affect numbers inside your land."

I accept that.


"Much of Exmoor may be privately owned but I can't believe the trust doesnt take an interest in goings on in it's own back yard."

Does this have any relevance? My farm is not the National Trusts back yard.

They are generally quite confused people.

Look at their recent behaviour over Stag hunting.


Do you think the National Trust want the Red deer wiped out?

Or are they relying on the surrounding farmers to feed the deer for them?

The trust and the national park seem somewhat at odds, don't you think? 

"I believe the embarrased thing was from a different topic when we were discussing agriculture and how it has affected biodiversity. You seemed to think it hadn't. I'm still willing to prove you wrong if you insist."

Sure. prove me wrong. I don't see how my farm negatively effects biodiversity.


I am probably over twice your age Endy. My days of embarrassment are long past.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

So what do you think Endy?

Uncontrolled shooting OR controlled hunting and some shooting ?


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

Well, I'm not huge fan of the Trust and was unaware that you lived so far from their land. 

I didn't say your farm negatively affected biodiversity (but to be really technical anything other than the natural ecosystem does), I said agriculture as a whole has had a huge adverse a effect on it.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

Tom, why is there a need to chase the stag? 

If it is selected to hunt why not shoot it then and there?


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"Well, I'm not huge fan of the Trust and was unaware that you lived so far from their land."

I am not far from the trust at all. My land abuts trust land.

They are my rather embarrassing back yard.

I don't know what they want. They want me to feed their deer I suppose.




If one jumps off Dunkery on to my hedge I will shoot it.


"I didn't say your farm negatively affected biodiversity "

Thanks. I know it is very diverse. As much as it can be at 1000 feet on the edge of the Atlantic.

With hunting I am even happy to support the largest wild Red deer herd in England.

I am a kind of conservation hero.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

You are truly are an un-sung hero. 

A wildlife martyr.  :smirk:


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"Tom, why is there a need to chase the stag? 

If it is selected to hunt why not shoot it then and there?"

If the harboured stag is where they often are there is no way they can be shot. 

It is the topography you see.

Have a look at a map. Get-a-map on the ordnance survey.


Of course there is no actual NEED to chase stags.

But, No chasing = No Stags.

They will all be shot by farmers or poached.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

Well, I'm glad you admit there is no need to chase a stag. 

Why more poachers though?


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"You are truly are an un-sung hero. 

A wildlife martyr. :smirk:"


Oh no, not a martyr.

I enjoy what i do and I am flourishing.

I enjoy a successful farm plus a tolerable amount of every sort of wildlife. You might find it strange but I have actually taken steps to encourage Water Voles. The Somerset wildlife trust identified an area where there were some trying to get established and I was happy to help.

It is people like you who (not on purpose I am sure) cause more harm than good.

The Red Deer will become extinct because of people like you.

More foxes are dying and struggling in snares because of you.

I am sure you don't mean this to happen but it is reality.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"Well, I'm glad you admit there is no need to chase a stag. "

I don't think you are quite getting the message are you?


There will be more poachers because many potential poachers enjoy stag hunting.

More cold reality for you !!!

Mind if I ask how old you are?


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I am not surprised at all that you take conservation seriously but there is a huge gulf between conservation and animal welfare. Having enough of everything does mean that they are treated in an ethical matter. This is the basis of the argument. 

......and may I remind you that if it wasn't for people like me who live in built up city areas then there wouldnt be a countryside in the first place. What would you do if 5 million Londoners decided they wanted some country air?


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

So let me get this straight people who enjoy stag hunting will poach deer if they can't hunt with hounds? Do you mean poaching with dogs or shooting? 

If it's the latter can't they get licenced?


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"I am not surprised at all that you take conservation seriously but there is a huge gulf between conservation and animal welfare. Having enough of everything does mean that they are treated in an ethical matter. This is the basis of the argument."

Exactly and this is the gulf between us. To win the argument you would happily scarifice the deer.


" ......and may I remind you that if it wasn't for people like me who live in built up city areas then there wouldnt be a countryside in the first place. What would you do if 5 million Londoners decided they wanted some country air?"

We have too many already thanks. But to answer your question...... emigrate.


You can all have your 1 acre each.

See how many wild red deer there are then !!


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I don't think there has to be a trade off between welfare and conservation. The Wildlife Trusts have banned hunting on their land for many years now and only shoot occasionally when they are forced too. 

You have basically admitted that sometimes there is no need to chase the stag but if you are denied this pleasure then you will shoot more deer out of what? Spite it sounds like to me.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"So let me get this straight people who enjoy stag hunting will poach deer if they can't hunt with hounds? Do you mean poaching with dogs or shooting?"

Some of them yes. And both I expect. 


"If it's the latter can't they get licenced?"

By who? And where?

I don't like people out at night on my property with dogs and guns. !!!!

Come on Endy !!!


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"I don't think there has to be a trade off between welfare and conservation. The Wildlife Trusts have banned hunting on their land for many years now and only shoot occasionally when they are forced too."

This is irrelevant. I own a business. The deer are a pest.

Work it out. 


"You have basically admitted that sometimes there is no need to chase the stag but if you are denied this pleasure then you will shoot more deer out of what? Spite it sounds like to me. "

No spite. They eat my grass.

What is the alternative?

I am not going to go out tomorrow and try and shoot every deer.

But there will be uncontrolled shooting.


To hunt the deer we need to chase them.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

I presumed you were generalising about Exmoor. Doesn't the Trust issue shooting licences


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

No you dont. 

You chase them because you enjoy it. 

You can control them by other means. 

Anyways, this is getting silly and I have work to do. Time will tell if your predictions come true.


----------



## wurzel (2 December 2006)

"You chase them because you enjoy it. 

You can control them by other means. 

Anyways, this is getting silly and I have work to do. Time will tell if your predictions come true."

Yes. I enjoy chasing them.

And yes they can be culled by other means. Just not effectively.

This is silly, i am off to the Lion in Timberscombe.

If my predictions come true it will be very sad. don't you think Endy?

Luckily there are a lot of people round here prepared to break the law. So there is still hope.


----------



## endymion (2 December 2006)

Yes it will be very sad if a minority of vindictive ex-hunters massacre deer out of vengence. Sad and also pathetic. 

Enjoy your drink. Good night.


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

"Yes it will be very sad if a minority of vindictive ex-hunters massacre deer out of vengence. Sad and also pathetic. 

Enjoy your drink. Good night. "

Well I have enjoyed my drink. A real world drink.



I think that you and I recognise that you are being a bit slopey-shouldered !!

Do you understand what that means?

You have demands but the consequenses have nothing do with you !!!

you take no resonsibility yourself do you?


Short of embarrassing me, you have shown what a fake you are.

You are not prepared to say how old you are.

Why not?


You call us pathetic fot shooting deer.

Tell me, what are you doing right now to ensure the deer survive?

The answer is nothing, isnt it?

I have asked you what  I should do about the deer.

You have no answer !!!!

This is a real  issue..

you are full of accusations. give us some real answers and stop sounding like a fake Endy !!!!!


----------



## severnmiles (3 December 2006)

I can't help it, it must be my gay side coming out, haha! I'm sure SBB would say so..
		
Click to expand...

Talking of the devil....where is he?

Endy I had a dream (or should that be nightmare?) about NELS the other night...and guess who was the 'ringleader'................................ none other than that annoying little weed from I'm a Celeb Scott Henshall...very random!


----------



## severnmiles (3 December 2006)

Forget the Itchy and Scratchy show this is the Faggus and Endy show....you two were busy boys last night!


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

Were u pissed last night? 

I'm 25.


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

Yeah, a Friday night as well. 

Think we need to get a social life and quick.  :grin:


----------



## Jerome (3 December 2006)

Endy, ignore this Fag character. He's simply one of many pros who uses the countryside as a zoo for his private entertainment.


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

I assure you it's water off a ducks back to me.

 In fact I rather enjoy getting Tom all worked up, it's turning into a sport in itself, haha!


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

"Were u pissed last night?"

No more than usual.

I am 50.


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

"In fact I rather enjoy getting Tom all worked up, it's turning into a sport in itself, haha!"

Oh its a long time since I got all worked up. Probably the Maitresse club in Copenhagen was the last time. Know it? Its on Lygten in Norrebro.


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

"Endy, ignore this Fag character. He's simply one of many pros who uses the countryside as a zoo for his private entertainment."

Well Jerry, i DO own a chunk of it.

Tell you what. I'll do what pleases me on my property and you do what you want on yours.


I am merely trying to understand why Endy hates the deer so much !!!


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

50? Going a bit senile then, hehe


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

Oh do tell.......


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

Possibly.

Do you think the Exmoor national park should do anything to save the Exmoor Red deer ?


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

Tom haven't we already had this debate a million times? I think it's time we acknowledged that our opinions are different and we are never going to agree. 

Or we can keep going round in circles. I'm never one to back away from a rigorous debate.  :grin:


----------



## wurzel (3 December 2006)

""Tom haven't we already had this debate a million times? I think it's time we acknowledged that our opinions are different and we are never going to agree"


I guess you are right.

I think there should be a viable population of about 2000 Re Deer on Exmoor. The National Park agrees.

You and the LACS want to wipe them out.

Quite perverse !!

Please stay in London.


----------



## endymion (3 December 2006)

Like I said, time will tell although maybe those that hunt should make up their minds whether their quarry are going to explode in numbers or disappear completely!!


----------



## Jerome (4 December 2006)

I admire your persistence in trying to explain to zoo keepers like Fag why the great majority of people object to animal abuse like stag hunting, but I suspect it's a lost cause. These people are completely blinkered and intolerant.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (4 December 2006)

Jerome, I think people would take your posts seriously if you were actually able to engage with what other people are saying in some sort of meaningful manner.


----------



## Fairynuff (4 December 2006)

Ej, hes not here to say anything constructive or meaningful. Im sure he was here a while ago under a different name. He will probably fade away like the rest of them. M.


----------



## peakpark (4 December 2006)

Just what I was thinking, Mairi. His style has a familiar ring to it.


----------



## endymion (4 December 2006)

Mairi, I've been busy sparring with Tom and completely forgot to ask you if your thoughts have changed either way since posting this thread....? 

E x


----------



## wurzel (4 December 2006)

"Like I said, time will tell although maybe those that hunt should make up their minds whether their quarry are going to explode in numbers or disappear completely!! "


Have you not been reading?

I hunt. I have made up my mind.

I believe that if there is no hunting, the Exmoor deer herd will be decimated. They will nearly all be killed. Not completely. But near as makes no difference.

Dead.


Surely that is quite clear ??


----------



## endymion (4 December 2006)

Did I say your name Tom?? No I said 'those who hunt'. You see you all have different stories. An answer for everything I think it's called.


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"Did I say your name Tom?? No I said 'those who hunt'. You see you all have different stories. An answer for everything I think it's called."

But I do hunt.

With the DSSH.

And Minehead Harriers.

I am quite consistent.


----------



## Eagle_day (5 December 2006)

At the risk of appearing pedantic, it's already worse than that. Decimation means reducing by one-tenth (perhaps we can use it for crap civil servants) but the red deer herd is reported to have decreased by a quarter. LACS must be so pleased: red deer down by (say) 500 but, hey, Tony Wright was convicted and fined £500. That makes it all right then.


----------



## Jerome (5 December 2006)

Ok Mairi, here's something constructive: if you have to cull an animal why not do it in the most humane way? This, by definition, excludes hunting deer with hounds. The countryside isn't some large-scale zoo which exists to provide Fag &amp; Co with animals to abuse for their own gratification. Animals should live and die with dignity.


----------



## endymion (5 December 2006)

Who reported this? 

Also Q for both Tom and EDay, what are your opinions on people who shoot vast amounts of deer and poach now that there is a ban?


----------



## Fairynuff (5 December 2006)

Endy, I cant comment on deer hunting as Ive never seen nor taken part in it but the IDEA of it is repulsive to me. Regarding fox hunting, my feelings havent really changed.  I cant see the need to hunt to take out the supposedly old or sick, why not let nature take her course.I also cant see the need to hunt any fox unless its a proven rogue, then it faces its fate. No, I dont agree with the supposed need but those who do will never agree with the antis.Were all running in circles at the moment and Im getting dizzy. Italy is another planet and their reasons for taking out the fox population was based on money and pure selfishness. Hunting here is very expensive and a huge whack of the proceeds goes to the government so I guess nothing will change-Italy is also the last member of Europe to use lead in the cartridges and plastic casings(?) all of which are toxic.Heyho, the make nice clothes though!!!  . Anti Mairi.


----------



## flying_change (5 December 2006)

.... and Italy is a beautiful place for a holiday....


----------



## Fairynuff (5 December 2006)

Jerome, I dont think Tom and co see the countryside as a huge zoo.As hes said , hes farming his grandfathers land so its not as though hes decided to leave the city bank and play at being a country squire like many do. Farming on Exmoor is hard and doesnt make millions so I expect hes still there because he loves his roots and his land. I dont know very much about deer populations etc nor very much about the hunting of them. I dont like the idea of it and would never have gone even when I was pro.I did once say that the deer could be shot by marksmen but there may be a reason why its not practible. Ask Tom why, Im sure he will tell you. Mairi.


----------



## Jerome (5 December 2006)

I don't need to ask him. I see from one of his posts that he's shooting them himself. I just hope he's a good shot. If not, he should get someone else to do it for him. In any case, stag hunting  is unnecessary and cruel.


----------



## Fairynuff (5 December 2006)

It sure is  . M.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (5 December 2006)

Why ask him if you won't listen to his answer.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (5 December 2006)

"why not let nature take her course."  

But nature can't take it's course.  The natural death for a diseased fox is predation by a wolf, lynx etc.  It's nonsense to say a fox would have no natural predators all sick animals have predators.

What you call nature's course for a sick diseased animal is the most unnatural and welfare unfreindly death possible.


----------



## Jerome (5 December 2006)

I didn't ask him, sweetheart. I know why people hunt deer with hounds - for kicks. They may be nice people "out of the saddle" but, sorry, what they do is just cruel.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (5 December 2006)

Exactly, what's the point in asking someone something if you already know the answer?

Really if you disagree with someone there's no point in talking with them at all is there?

What a great way to go through life.

Not that your mind is closed or anything.

Thank god you don't engage in dialogue or debate or any of those awful things.


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"The countryside isn't some large-scale zoo which exists to provide Fag &amp; Co with animals to abuse for their own gratification. Animals should live and die with dignity."

You have it exactly Jerry !!

The countryside is not a zoo. It is usually a business. Owned by someone.

You aren't doing very well.

Who judges what is a dignified life and death for an animal?

Shooting in the ass?

Snaring?

Do rabbits have a dignified death at the hands of a Stoat?


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"Also Q for both Tom and EDay, what are your opinions on people who shoot vast amounts of deer and poach now that there is a ban?"

My opinion is that people are being forced into shooting vast amounts of deer.


Poaching is always wrong and has always gone on. Now it is increasing.

Again Endy, It is real life.


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"Jerome, I dont think Tom and co see the countryside as a huge zoo.As hes said , hes farming his grandfathers land so its not as though hes decided to leave the city bank and play at being a country squire like many do."

Good post.

I farm the same farm as my grandfather. And my family has farmed either in this or one of the surrounding parishes since 1590.

But of course, some dopey Londoners know how to manage the land in a better way !!

Doh !


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"I don't need to ask him. I see from one of his posts that he's shooting them himself. I just hope he's a good shot."

Actually I am not particularly. And the old hatton round isn't too clean !!

But I will keep trying.

"If not, he should get someone else to do it for him."


Who?


----------



## wurzel (5 December 2006)

"I didn't ask him, sweetheart. I know why people hunt deer with hounds - for kicks. They may be nice people "out of the saddle" but, sorry, what they do is just cruel. "


I don't think you know anything about the subject.

Have you ever been hunting.


I will let you in to a secret.

I hunt deer for fun (I don't do anything for "kicks") and to kill deer.


The fun bit is hard to explain, I am not a philosopher, there are a lot things I do for fun, most of them involving adrenaline.

The killing is simpler. Jointly, farmers control the number of deer eating our grass.

Simple.


----------



## Eagle_day (6 December 2006)

I've heard some unsettling reports of the mass deer cull in Scotland but I don't know enough about that to form an opinion.

As for the post-ban fall in fox and deer populations, I don't think they're being shot out in a fit of pique but it's more a case of landowners, most of whom don't hunt after all, thinking 'well if the hunt's not coming anymore, then I'm not keeping deer/foxes on my land'. Just a thought.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (6 December 2006)

I think that's a good point.  Whether or not hunts do much to keep fox numbers down, the point is that people think they do.  When the hunts stop killing foxes, landowners think they need to take over and therefore start killing more foxes.

The MPs behind the ban were aware that shooting might well increase in the wake of a ban:

"Hunt ban not meant to save foxes' lives "  http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2029245.ece

That is why comparing the welfare impact of shooting and hunting is so relevant.  Unless your only aim is to stop people 'killing for sport' irrespective of whether by doing so you cause more suffering.


----------



## endymion (6 December 2006)

......and good wine! I'm off to Naples next year, first time in Italy, can't wait!

My bro has just come back from Porto Fino, he's a regular there and loves it. It's way out of my price range though


----------



## Fairynuff (6 December 2006)

Porto Fino is next door to me! Its a bit out of my pocket money limits but Ive been often, taking my own sarnies and wine of course! Be careful in Naples-its a gun happy and theyd nick your dirty underpants if they could. Im not joking-be careful and dont take ANYTHING of value. You have been warned. Id love to meet you but your going to the wrong end of Italy for that to happen-maybe next time youll come to the north. M.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

"Do rabbits have a dignified death at the hands of a Stoat?"

Do they strangle the bunnies? Stick to zoo-keeping.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

"Exactly, what's the point in asking someone something if you already know the answer?"

Sometimes it's a good idea to ask a question ONLY IF you know the answer already. 

For example: Ereiam_jh, did you all the stag hunt across your land BEFORE the ban?


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

"I am not a philosopher."

Well, I suppose we should be grateful for at least a tiny ray of self-enlightenment.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

read "allow" for "all".


----------



## Ereiam_jh (7 December 2006)

Yes and I still illegally permit them to flush out deer.  Yes I flushed out and chased deer on my land prior to the ban and still do so now illegally.

There's nothing you could do to stop me.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

Why do you think I want to stop you?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (7 December 2006)

Ah just assuming you want the law enforced.


----------



## Eagle_day (7 December 2006)

Despite the change of name, we can probably guess what Jerome used to be, but I wonder what he's going to be.

Given his skill at reading from a prepared script, perhaps he could front the new Jackanory?


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

It's a matter of conscience. If you want to let the hunt across your land that's a matter for you, but - in my opinion - it means you can't at the same time condemn animal abuse. As I said before I'm sure people who hunt deer with dogs can be perfectly nice and pleasant but I personally think what they do is cruel. And so the world keeps on turning...


----------



## wurzel (7 December 2006)

"Do they strangle the bunnies? Stick to zoo-keeping. "

It sounds like it. I don't own a zoo Jerry.

Are you feeling a little bit inadequate?

Your futile insults are quite poor.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

If you think that's an insult you must have led a very sheltered life. 

Stoats kill rabbits - that's how nature works. Get used to it or move to Esher.


----------



## wurzel (7 December 2006)

"If you want to let the hunt across your land that's a matter for you, but - in my opinion - it means you can't at the same time condemn animal abuse."

I hunt and allow the hunt to hunt on my land. I break the law myself, encourage my children to break the law, and insist hunts crossing my land break the law.

I also provide habitats for most british wildlife and am currently working with The Somerset Wildlife Trust to help preserve Water Voles.

I also condemn animal abuse.

Hard  for you to understand?


----------



## wurzel (7 December 2006)

"If you think that's an insult you must have led a very sheltered life."

Yes I have. Do you object to that as well ? 

"Stoats kill rabbits - that's how nature works."

People kill deer. Thats how nature works.

It has happened for a long time.


"Get used to it or move to Esher."

No thanks. You can keep it.

I will try and get used to nature.


----------



## Jerome (7 December 2006)

But it's not "nature". In evolutionary terms man (and indeed animal) wants to kill his quarry as quickly as possible.  Compare the two options: killing the deer instanteously with a shot, or chasing it for seven or eight hours with hounds and then killing it. The latter, of course, is highly UNnatural. It is, indeed, quite perverse. 

The townies, of course, love it when they visit your zoo at weekends, thinking they're living the "natural life" with the hunt, not realising that what they've signed up to has as much to do with how nature works as a Parisian poodle parlour.

Stick to zoo keeping.


----------



## wurzel (7 December 2006)

"In evolutionary terms man (and indeed animal) wants to kill his quarry as quickly as possible."

Not always true though, is it Jerry?

"Compare the two options: killing the deer instanteously with a shot, or chasing it for seven or eight hours with hounds and then killing it. The latter, of course, is highly UNnatural. It is, indeed, quite perverse."


But as you know, its not quite as simple as that is it?

Which was the last Stag hunt you went on that lasted that long?

Are deer always killed instantaneously by shooting?

Compare the two options. No deer after 10 years of shooting OR 2000 dear with numbers controlled by hunting.

I know who and what is perverse !!

(Don't rush with the last 8 hour stag hunt you were on)


" The townies, of course, love it when they visit your zoo at weekends, thinking they're living the "natural life" with the hunt, not realising that what they've signed up to has as much to do with how nature works as a Parisian poodle parlour."


Do townies visit me at weekends?

Who is that ?

Or are you saying that townies only hunt at the weekend?

Do you hunt at the weekend?

You don't know anything about it do you?


----------



## endymion (7 December 2006)

It's one of those places I've always wanted to go but never had the chance. Only there for a week because it's all the holiday time I can get next year so far :-( 

Still plan to take it as much as I can. Thanks for the advice. I I ever convince my brother to spend his money taking me to Porto Fino next time he's over I'll pop in for a cuppa! 

E


----------



## Fairynuff (8 December 2006)

Let me know when to put the kettle on! Do you prefer PG tips or Tetleys? M.


----------



## Jerome (8 December 2006)

Staghunting is simply a grotesque townie-inspired pantomime, masquerading as "a country pursuit". I wouldn't particularly care about this  - if you want to mince around in the mud in your silly constume that's up to you - if it didn't involve abusing animals in the process.


----------



## wurzel (8 December 2006)

"Staghunting is simply a grotesque townie-inspired pantomime, masquerading as "a country pursuit". "


This is too easy !!!

Townie inspired ?!!? Are you sure ?

Which one was a townie?

Maurice de la Barre ?
Hugh Pollard ?
Edward the Second ?
Thomas Acland ?
Fenwick Bisset ?

Answers on a postcard ?

As challenging as the date and meet of the last stag hunt you went on.

You don't have a clue do you?

"if you want to mince around in the mud in your silly constume that's up to you - if it didn't involve abusing animals in the process."

Have you ever been?


----------



## wurzel (8 December 2006)

Come on Jerry !!!!!


Don't be scared !


----------



## Fairynuff (9 December 2006)

Is this going to be "game set and match" to TF? Come on J lets see a good lob! M.


----------



## wurzel (9 December 2006)

Trouble is Mairi, unlike you, this character has an honesty problem

It is a mixture of dishonesty, prejudice and a complete lack of knowledge on the subject in hand.

Not a winning combination !!! 


I'll take game, set and match against both Endy and Jerry/Jerry Boy/Jerome/Karl/Burnsall or whatever the jerk is calling himself today.


----------



## endymion (9 December 2006)

As if! 

Don't flatter yourself Tom. You dont debate anything. You're rude, sarcastic and use the same tired idea again and again in every argument you have. If anyone lets you have the last word it's because they are exasperated at having to listen to your monotonous repetitions!! Or they've fell asleep reading your replies.  :smirk:


----------



## Jerome (9 December 2006)

Townie,

I presume you've never engaged in paedophilia. Does this mean you can't say it's wrong?

I object to animal abuse. That's why I dislike chasing deer to the point of exhaustion, as well as other grisly activities like terrierwork.


----------



## wurzel (9 December 2006)

"Don't flatter yourself Tom."

Why not ?


"You dont debate anything. You're rude, sarcastic and use the same tired idea again and again in every argument you have."


I try and debate, truly I do. But it is very hard with people who are blindly opposed to something they have never experienced or know nothing about.

And I use the same tired argument because people like you will not (and of course cannot) debate the subject.

For example Endy.. Do you think the Exmoor National Park Authority has an interest in protecting the deer ?

If you think they do, why do you think they are pro Stag hunting? 



"Or they've fell asleep reading your replies. :smirk:"

But not monotonous enough for you to resist, eh Endy?


----------



## Jerome (9 December 2006)

Just out of interest, Fag, did you go to boarding school?


----------



## wurzel (9 December 2006)

"Townie,"

In what way ?

"I presume you've never engaged in paedophilia. Does this mean you can't say it's wrong?"

Presuming again. This is a sign of your problem.

Do you mean the habit of being attracted to prepubescent children or adults being attracted to individuals below the local age of consent ?

The first in my mind is criminal. The second is less clear cut. Age 16 i believe in this country but 14 in Iceland.

Are we moral paragons but the people of iceland criminals ?

See Jerry, more to every story than meets the eye !!!

Which was the last stag hunt you went on ?




"That's why I dislike chasing deer to the point of exhaustion,"


And to get your way you would sacrifice the deer wouldn't you Jerry?


Which of the DSSH  hunt staff is a townie?


----------



## wurzel (9 December 2006)

Blundells.

Why?

If you find this answer confusing the answer is no, I did not.


Is this relevant ?


----------



## Jerome (9 December 2006)

I'm not sure you've done yourself any favours with this. Let's be charitable and presume you're drunk.


----------



## wurzel (9 December 2006)

"I'm not sure you've done yourself any favours with this. Let's be charitable and presume you're drunk. "

Why do you insist on speaking like an idiot ?

Which bit do you mean?

The fact I went to Blundells?


If you mean the age of consent, I will say it again.

Different people have different ideas. Sex at 14 in Iceland, 15 in Denmark, 16 in the U.K.

You can be imprisoned for homosexual relations in Oman.

People have different ideas.

You want everyone to think like you.
Anyone who doesn't is a pervert.


And if you are making a weak effort to suggest that I think that sex with pre-pubescents is ok, well, It doesn't surprise me.

You bought up paedophilia. I have no idea why. I suspect it rests heavier on your mind than mine.

Back to the subject.

What was the last stag hunt you attended?


----------



## Ereiam_jh (9 December 2006)

you object to chasing deer to the point of exhaustion.

Ok.

I chase deer with dogs but not to the point of exhaustion.

Do you object to that?

Do you think I should shoot them?

The law says I should.

Do you agree with it?

I don't.

So I just break it.

After all why shouldn't I break a stupid law?

It's fun and I'm not being cruel.

Oh and the police let me.  

It seems to me I am above the law.

That's not to say I am superior to everyone else.  Rtaher that it is inferior.

What do you think Jerome?

Should I shoot those deer or let them go?


----------



## endymion (10 December 2006)

Nah, I just have too much time on my hands!

For all you can accuse me of being a young, naive, inexperienced townie (none of which are true may I add) I can accuse you of being old, stuck in your ways and unable to see the other side of the argument. Thing is Tom this is the way the world is going. More and more people are becoming intolerant of animal cruelty. 

You don't seem to listen to others people's points of view by claiming that if they have never hunted stag they dont know what they're talking about. But if someone is against stag hunting it's highly unlikely that they're gonna go out hunting stag, innit?


----------



## Fairynuff (10 December 2006)

Now this is bloody cruel. Why cant they just dag like anyone else? Would you do this Tom? M. :shocked:http://www.webgroups.us/animalliberationfront/viewtopic.php?t=2011
Ps, I only browse through curiosity


----------



## wurzel (10 December 2006)

"For all you can accuse me of being a young, naive, inexperienced townie (none of which are true may I add)"


How could you possibly be ?

"I can accuse you of being old, stuck in your ways and unable to see the other side of the argument."

Right with the first one. I can see your side of the argument but it is totally illogical.  


"Thing is Tom this is the way the world is going. "


Really ? 


"You don't seem to listen to others people's points of view by claiming that if they have never hunted stag they dont know what they're talking about. But if someone is against stag hunting it's highly unlikely that they're gonna go out hunting stag, innit?"


But you don't know what you are talking about do you ?

I am against black people.

I think they should be banned.

Is my opinion valid ?

Of course it isn't. It is irrational.

just like you being "against" something you know nothing about.


----------



## wurzel (10 December 2006)

"Would you do this Tom?"

Is this a joke?

Besides being keen on my sheep and wanting them to survive on Exmoor, it is illegal.

So the answer is no.


----------



## endymion (10 December 2006)

It is perfectly logical to reason that you are ignorant to the real issues of stag hunting due to to your long history with it. It has become a way of life for you. You are obviously biased. 

You may argue that you are against black people (or any other people) if your argument was based on research and valid points. I have always admitted that I have never been to sab a stag hunt. However, I have been to numerous foxhunts and since most people (even those who hunt foxes) recognise that stag hunting has less redeeming features than hunting small mammals it also seems logical to form an opposing opinion against it. For example, do we need to go to a war zone to form an opinion on war? Do we need to go to Sudan to believe people are in crises? Do we need to witness a mugging to decide it's wrong? The mugger may make a good case that he is poor and to rob a wealthy person is justified. The point is we are all entitled to form opinions IF those opinions are informed.


----------



## Fairynuff (10 December 2006)

I didnt think for a minute that you would Tom. 
Cruelty comes in many forms and whats acceptable to one person is unacceptable to another. I dont agree with hunting, others do. I doubt if there will be much change one way or another in the near future. M.


----------



## wurzel (10 December 2006)

"It is perfectly logical to reason that you are ignorant to the real issues of stag hunting due to to your long history with it. It has become a way of life for you. You are obviously biased. "


Do you also think that the Exmoor National Park Authority (a well known conservation body) are ignorant to the real issues of Stag hunting ?


Do you mean that due to the fact that I, and my family for hundreds of years, have been involved in stag hunting, we can no longer understand it ?

The more knowledge we have the less we know !!??

Strange concept !!!


"You may argue that you are against black people (or any other people) if your argument was based on research and valid points."

I wouldnt myself, but I am aware that research exists that says they are less intelligent than us whitey's.

The research is based on prejudice. And racism. Just like your anti research.


Stephen Harris thinks the deer will stay at the same population levels with no hunting. He has been told to his face they will be shot. There is a lot of extra venison on dinner tables Endy.

I wonder which bit of "shot" you lot don't understand !!!


You can imagine what standing your "research has on Exmoor". About as much as the Ku Klux Klan's.


----------



## wurzel (10 December 2006)

"I didnt think for a minute that you would Tom."

Thats ok. Remember it is usually suggested that I am a paedophile or that i beat my wife.


"Cruelty comes in many forms and whats acceptable to one person is unacceptable to another."

Yes. This country thinks it is ok to snare foxes but ok to hunt rabbits. Or look at the way old people are treated.

Very few people understand what cruelty is.

Tell you one thing...when there is no deer left on Exmoor there certainly wont be no deer cruelty !!


----------



## endymion (11 December 2006)

Didnt say I was an expert on Exmoor. 

I live in the city and see lots of homeless people every day. I'm hardened to it. Thats what happens when you repeatedly do something. Like hunting.


----------



## Jerome (11 December 2006)

You're wasting your breath Endy. I happen to know Fag has hot-footed it to Reykjavik.


----------



## wurzel (11 December 2006)

"Didnt say I was an expert on Exmoor."

This is obvious.

"I live in the city and see lots of homeless people every day. I'm hardened to it. Thats what happens when you repeatedly do something. Like hunting. "

A good try Endy but you will have to get some more years in.

I have seen people with their guts hanging out or half there face missing after being shot.

I never completely hardened to it. I think you find normal people don't. 

What does going hunting harden you against ?

Jumping beech hedges ?

I kill lambs to eat. Have done since I was about 14. Can't say I am hardened to it. They are just an awful problem on the table if they are still running.

None of this has anything to do with hunting has it?


----------



## wurzel (11 December 2006)

If only, unlike you, I have no problem with the age of consent in Iceland.

Keflavik was always one of the more fun stops on the way to central america.


----------



## Jerome (11 December 2006)

Bad news, Fag. The age of consent is 18 there if you pay them.


----------



## Fairynuff (11 December 2006)

PMSL!!  M.


----------



## Fairynuff (11 December 2006)

Talking from experience are we?  M.


----------



## wurzel (11 December 2006)

"Bad news, Fag. The age of consent is 18 there if you pay them."


Is this about hunting?

If I pay who ?


----------



## endymion (12 December 2006)

Do you think Joe public (town or country) could slaughter a lamb as easily as you do? Didnt it get easier the more you did it? 

I used to get upset every time I saw suffering animals but now I've seen so much I only feel sadness and empathy, not the horror and shock I did at first. 

Lets not take dead people into this. I think we can both agree that is a bigger issue and not to be compared to this. 

Anyway, J's right talking to you is a waste of time because you don't listen to other people. 

Oh and your gonna have to try and live without me for a while, it's my xmas hols. Can't say I'll miss ya but have a good one anyway....


----------



## wurzel (13 December 2006)

"Do you think Joe public (town or country) could slaughter a lamb as easily as you do?"

Yes. Why not?

"Didnt it get easier the more you did it?"

Its more routine. Not easier. I never like killing anything. People or animals. 

"Lets not take dead people into this. I think we can both agree that is a bigger issue and not to be compared to this."

Course it can be compared. Why not? 

"Anyway, J's right talking to you is a waste of time because you don't listen to other people. "

No. I do listen. Is it a waste of time only because I think differently to you?

You want to interfere in my life. I don't want to interfere in yours.

That is the difference between us.


----------

