If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
of course we need rules but how do you police this ever growing list of things people can't do?
we already have medicine police running round like headless chickens trying to enforce drug laws that so obviously don't work.
so instead of the police protecting the comunity they are being forced to attack members of the comunity who choose a certain substance. with the result that ever more people are taking the drugs and hating the police. now the police are going to have to turn out in huge numbers when 150 people turn up to ilegaly hunt!the police and criminal justice system is going to cope ...how? next on the list is fucking fishing for gods sake ...so we'll have coppers chasing fishermen as well. whilst your granny is getting mugged ..she probably aint got a cute face though.
However I have nothing against culling if done properly, and I have nothing either against humane hunting if for feeding purposes. The same goes for fishing. Outlawing fox hunting should not affect this, although I understand your concerns that the government will not stop at that.
lions rip other animals to peices for their dinner. foxes ...a fox will kill a whole fucking crowd of chickens and then make off with one.
the countryside has never been tame and sweet. it's about blood and sweat. i keep chickens. on sunday i ate one which i had a couple of hours earlier taken a cut throat razor to and very tasty it was indeed.
if people want to raise animals for slaughter and others get pleasure in hunting them down with dogs and you don't like it ...stay in your digital city.
Another thing to note is that when the dogs and horses get to a certain age, they're killed. A friend of mine knows quite a bit about it and she's adopted horses and is pretty well up on animal cruelty. I myself am an avid animal lover... soooo...
The reason a fox kills a crowd of chickens and appears to take just one is because they can only carry one at a time, then take it and bury it and come back for another. Only they're disturbed and run off. Actually, a few people have told me in the past that they kill for fun, but it's just a myth.
In my own opinion, I don't believe in killing an animal for sport... fair enough, if they made a fox pie afterwards then it would bother me less. I only eat what I'd be prepared to kill with my bear hands - trust me, I have a strong stomach - and I can't in all honesty see the point of foxhunting. Look at articals in the paper, like that collie who was stabbed several times because it was barking and apparently disturbed a man who was reading (its owner had tied its leash to a tree when she went to get lunch)... well I see that as no different to foxhunting. Its killing for kicks, I don't see the purpose.
I'd love to see a ban. Not to breach anybody's freedom or rights, there are certain laws which I'd like to see dropped (i.e. the legalisation of cannabis), but foxhunting and badger baiting, I'd like to see made illegal.
Hunting is NOT just rich people on a day out, it WILL completly injure the horse/sporting industry and alot of horses/hounds will be put down because of a ban on hunting.....yes horses can be sold on to a certain extent but all cant be, who wants a hunting horse that is bred just for hunting, used just for hunting and only knows hunting and is too old/mature to be reschooled..do you THEN condone them to all be put down. On another note...do you know how many millions of hounds will have to be put down? NONE of these dogs know home life, is there enough resources/animals rescues out there to take them on and spend more than a year trying to "house" train them>?
A last note...99.9% of horses arnt just killed after their hunting career, they are valued family animals and arnt just machines that are thrown out when their finished. So im sorry creeper but you cant make a statement like that becasue it is not true. Yes a very few people only keep their horses for hunting and ONLY put them down if they have irriversable damage to legs/their quality of life is over etc. I am not 100% sure about hounds.
Once the hunt sabs get their hunting ban im sure they will be well happy with that and turn a blind eye to all the hounds that are put down......
Please try not to slate me bacause i think differently to the rest of you, this is just my thought on the matter and as im in the horse industry i feel that i need to defend my future and others like me.
Also on the point of control surely the fact is that if you let the stronger and faster foxes get away you therefore on Darwinian principles encourage the evolution of stronger and faster foxes who not only could do more damage to livestock but are also harder to cull by any method.
To be honest I think the people who live in the countryside in this country and are a large vested interest that need to be tackled, they are holding back the development of this country. We need more houses and more roads and airports and everyone agrees on this - however when it is proposed to build more houses or airports for the benefit of the country as a whole all the nasty little NIMBYs come crawling out of the woodwork halting the development. Only approximately 20% of this country is developed, there is the room for us all to have nice large houses and for us all to spread out enough so we could all enjoy a better quality of life but because of these selfish countryside interests we cannot do this. If I had my way we'd have certain protected areas for the countryside that is actually worth protecting and then have open season on the rest and also reduce the number of listed buildings and all that, if they are a tourist attraction or of sufficient historical importance then protect them otherwise let's move on, that's the trouble with this country we look too much to the past when we should look to the future.
You just hugely contradicted yourself there.
what next then after your victory ...the closing of slaughter houses?
You've clearly never been to the City of London. We could have some really imaginative and modern architecture. Besides at least building on the countryside would have some productive use to the country, trees and fields are all well and good but they pale into insignificance when you consider that we could be providing good, affordable homes; improving our transport links; building large superstores that we could get economies of scale from so improving our quality of living. When you compare my ideas of improving the quality of life for millions of people to yours of putting fields, trees and the selfish interests of minority ahead of others it is you who looks insane.
Therefore if the foxes that attack your livestock are weak and old it should therefore be relatively easy to kill them by other means apart from hunting so it can be banned and pest control can be dealt with by other means.
Are you saying that blood sports and pest control are mutually exclusive? If so then hunting most definitely is blood sport over pest control so it can therefore be banned as you feel it isn't a method of pest control?
Us city-types don't go charging down Oxford Street on a pack of horses if we get a mouse in our kitchen. We have no problems with you gassing, trapping or poisoning foxes in the name of vermin control - what we do have a problem is the sick pursuit of a fox in the name of sport when it is the cruellest method of controlling the fox population.
I am not a hypocrite either, please show me how I am. Am I killing animals for pleasure then speaking out against it?
you don't give a diddly squat about the fox ...it can die by all means, kill the fucker if thats what you want .......the problem isn't the fox hunting at all for people like you. the problem is that people actualy enjoy it.
Sorry who's being selfish.
You're protesting about how cruel fox hunting bu at the same time you want to destry it's natural habitat, along with thousands of other animals.
Fuck the fox, maybe we should be more worried about controling the human propulation first - therefore avoiding any need for any of this concrete country you suggest! You're fucking mad!!! :eek2:
I happen to believe I live in one of the most gorgeous places in the country - I enjoy shooting and fishing on a regular bassis, and I've worked on farms and golf course since I was a nipper. I appreciate where I live and I want to keep it that way.
The vast majority of anti-hunt protestors are hand-wringing liberals from the city, who have no idea about country life. They see a photo of a cute fox cub, and jump on this as something to be fought for.
If they really knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't make statements about "pillocks on poncy horses". There is a lot more to the hunt than just that.
I think it also comes down to their bitterness and jealousy about the lifestyle that comes with living in the countryside.
In exactly the same way it is natural for all carnivores\omnivores to kill. And yes, some animals aside from ourselves will kill for stupid reasons, such as territorial reasons. In the same way it is natural for them to kill, it is natural for us to kill.
Duffy
Fact: hunting with dogs makes little distinction between healthy and ill foxes. Young and old, healthy and ill alike, foxes are chased for as long as it takes, often after smoking them out of their holes, until they are caught and torn apart.
And with regard to the horrendous pests foxes are:
"Half of our farmland is grazed by cattle, where foxes are no trouble. The other half is predominantly arable; foxes kill three of the major pests to arable farmers - rabbits, voles and mice. So over much of Britain, foxes are actually a benefit to farmers". Professor Stephen Harris, University of Bristol, in the 'Radio Times', April 1995. "It is estimated that the loss of lambs to foxes does not constitute a loss of economic significance to the farming community nationally ... A MAFF survey of farmers' estimates of lamb losses in three predominantly sheep rearing counties in mid-Wales yielded a figure of 0.5 per cent loss of lambs to foxes". Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Infestation Control Board, 5 December 1979.
In a study carried out in upland/hill area of Powys stocked with 3,500 lambing ewes, lamb losses were found to be unaffected by foxes present in the area". Mammal and Bird Pests, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1983. "... studies in Britain show that losses of lambs to foxes are surprisingly low, and that most killed by foxes are weak and probably unlikely to survive anyway. The foxes seen round lambing fields are looking for afterbirths and stillborn lambs, rather than trying to catch live lambs". The Red Fox, The Mammal Society, Professor Stephen Harris, 1994.
As predators, foxes are well equipped to kill and sometimes they do take live lambs. I will argue, however, that this is not normal fox behaviour and that the number lost to fox predation is a great deal less than claimed. I am a shepherd and, over many years, I have come to realise that the case against the fox will not stand up to scrutiny ... I look upon the red fox not as a villain, but as my friend and benefactor of my sheep. As a countryman, I think that it is high time that cruel and unwarranted hunting of our principal carnivore must stop". Scottish Field, John Barrington, shepherd, March 1985. "Considering the number of foxes in most areas, if most of them killed lambs habitually the losses would be astronomical. Since they are not, I presume most foxes rarely or never kill a lamb". Running with the Fox, Dr David Macdonald, Unwin Hyman, 1987.
"It is not always appreciated that some two thirds of the losses of lambs are due to inadequate management of the ewe flock before lambing and that a significant proportion of lamb deaths are therefore avoidable through improvements in husbandry throughout pregnancy". British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation, 11th January 1996.
Well well, this couldn't possibly a case foxes getting the blame for bad management and otherwise being accused of horrendous and grossly exaggerated crimes in order to justify hunting with dogs could it? :rolleyes:
Fact: The British Field Sports Society's own fox hunting promotion film (Hunting - The Facts) shows a fox being killed by hounds. While the commentary by Ludovic Kennedy states that the fox is killed instantly by a bite to the back of the neck or back, the original unedited film sequence produced by the Blencathra Fox Hunt actually shows the animal being savaged in the stomach by the leading hound and still struggling while being savaged by several hounds. A postmortem by a professional veterinary surgeon of a fox killed by the Cottesmore Fox Hounds on 13 January 1996, concluded: "I feel that the most likely cause of death was that of shock (in the pathological sense) brought about by blood loss, organ damage, lack of oxygenation of the blood due to lower respiratory dysfunction and upper airway obstruction, and ensuing circulatory failure.
In short, the fox died a painful and unpleasant death which probably was not quick as evidenced by the areas of haemorrhage seen at many sites". A Merseyside veterinary surgeon carried out a video-taped postmortem examination of a fox killed by the Cheshire Fox Hounds in January 1994. The transcript of the veterinary surgeon's words states: "There are no bite wounds on the neck. I am not convinced that it has been bitten on the neck or killed in that way. Personally, you've got to be very suspicious that it's just been killed by being ripped apart.... It hasn't been killed with a single blow". A post-mortem was carried out by another veterinary surgeon on 30th January 1992 on a fox killed by the Isle of Wight Fox Hounds. The report concluded: "I could detect no external damage to neck or throat areas, but there were extensive wounds to the abdomen and thorax.
In fact the abdomen was ripped open and the intestines were hanging out. The wounds were consistent with the fox having been severely bitten by another animal or animals".
Source
I would like to point out that poisoning is also a very unpleasent way for a fox to die - especially if only small amounts of poison are consumed - the fox will suffer.
Don't get me wrong I don't particualry like the idea of hunting with dogs either, but then I also dislike most of the anti hunt protestors.
Too be honest I think people in the country should be left to run the country. They've been doing it well for hundreds of years, and their livelyhood rely's on it. The last thing they need is people who havn't got a fucking clue, telling them what they can and can't do just becasue they love ickle fox's!
All the while that the Hunts maintain it as a social event, I will oppose it.
But no matter. A while ago in another thread a posted a report noticing exactly the same kind of cause of death from another source: the Burns Inquiry. This is what it had to say in the subject of the killing:
"Hunt supporters claim that when the hounds reach the fox it is killed instantly with a bite to the neck. Post mortem evidence, however, has shown that some foxes have been literally disembowelled before being killed by hounds"
Whether it is animal rights organisations or independent enquiry experts, everyone seems to agree on something: the killing of a fox by a pack of dogs is anything but humane. The "instant kill by a bite to the neck" argument constantly voiced by the hunting lobby appears to be a very infrequent cause of death.
That healthy foxes are less likely to get caught doesn't put away the fact that most of them are caught. But anyway, let's suppose for a minute that most healthy foxes manage to escape. No harm done... Or is there?
Foxes which escape from the hounds after a long chase may die from trauma long after the hunt. In February 1999 a hunted fox was saved from the hounds and taken to Richard Edwards, a vet. He concluded that the animal would have died had it not been treated, not from its injuries but instead as a result of pathological stress caused by its being hunted. The fox had suffered severe bite marks across its body, but had none to its neck. "At the close of a good run the fox is pressed and is heated in blood. He scrambles to ground, let us say, in a narrow hole or damp drain. Hounds mark him, and the day being fine and further sport a probability, the Master, in deference to the wishes of his field, takes his hounds away for another draw.
Meanwhile the fox lies there, and the cold earth in which he is wedged will chill him and cramp his movements - he will quite likely die. I remember once, the day after a good run to ground, going with the keeper of the covert in which the mark occurred to see if the fox was still there. He was there - dead. There was once a drain between the Pytchley and Grafton countries, and there was an agreement between the two hunts not to dig it. After a time they had to open the drain to lay it fresh, and, within were the masks of thirteen foxes that had died of chill and cramp". 'Hunting for All', CR Acton, Witheby 1937. "Another curious incident happened when M.J.Chaworth Masters was hunting the Quorn.... Hounds lost their fox in a drain... they had lost a fox in the same drain several times that season.
So the Master had the drain opened up. Inside they found the skeletons of no fewer than ten foxes; all no doubt had died as the result of crawling into a damp drain when they were overheated, for in spite of their tremendous courage, tenacity and wiry energy, foxes are highly nervous, sensitive animals". 'Country Life', James Wentworth Day, 4th July 1947.
Give me poison (or rather a bullet) any time!
Poisons just as bad if not worse than hunting with dogs.
Shooting is indeed the most humane method. I myself have shot one or two foxes on the estate where I used to shoot. We don't have a local hunt on the estate where I shoot so we have to go lamping for foxes!