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
Fox hunting: the beginning of the end?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As you will have heard the government will attempt to pass the bill against hunting with hounds today, then invoke the Parliament Act to overrule yet another block attempt from the Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm
I for one will be very happy if this finally happens. I see hunting with dogs as a barbaric and cruel way to dealing with the fox population.
What this debate has highlighted however is a flaw in the Parliamentary system. The majority of the public is against fox hunting. The immense majority of MPs are against fox hunting. And yet, every attempt since 1997 to pass the bill has been repeatedly torpedoed by a House of Lords that represents nobody's interests but themselves and their friends.
Then incredibly, fox hunting supporters argue that there are far more important things to debate in Parliament and that this is a waste of time.
Well it wouldn't have been a waste of time had their Lordships not blocked the Bill repeatedly for the last 7 years, would it??? :mad:
What are your views on this issue then?.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm
I for one will be very happy if this finally happens. I see hunting with dogs as a barbaric and cruel way to dealing with the fox population.
What this debate has highlighted however is a flaw in the Parliamentary system. The majority of the public is against fox hunting. The immense majority of MPs are against fox hunting. And yet, every attempt since 1997 to pass the bill has been repeatedly torpedoed by a House of Lords that represents nobody's interests but themselves and their friends.
Then incredibly, fox hunting supporters argue that there are far more important things to debate in Parliament and that this is a waste of time.
Well it wouldn't have been a waste of time had their Lordships not blocked the Bill repeatedly for the last 7 years, would it??? :mad:
What are your views on this issue then?.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Snares: Barbaric, everyone agrees on that, the fox will chew it's own leg off and die slowly of an infection like gangrene. It's unlikely that the fox will be found before death. They also affect other animals.
Poison: Need I go into detail?
Shooting: Would need to have the level of skill of a sniper, you would need to be good enough, and have a rifle of high enough spec to shoot with one shot. The likelyhood is that you would miss entirely, or hit in a place that won't kill instantly, but the fox will succumb to a painful infected wound.
Hunting: With trained hounds, once the fox is caught it is dead within seconds. Hounds are trained to go for the throat, the quickest way to cause death in nature. Look up big cat's death grip, or the way wolves bring down pray.
It may not sound very nice, but it's actually the best and most viable option for controlling fox population.
There are more important things for parliament to be debating on.
There are more important things, assuming this law is passed, for the police to be doing.
And of course, the horses and hounds that will be put down because there is no other use for them.
Have a look at this:
http://www.league.uk.com/cruel_sports/pack_of_lies/foxes_and_fox_hunting.htm#lie18
I know that website has its own agenda, but I'm pretty sure they're not making things up either. There have been countless veterinary reports over the years that confirm that foxes die a horrific death at the jaws of the hounds.
Then there is the agony and prolonged suffering of the chase itself. Even if the fox manages to escape the hounds, in many cases the exhaustion is enough to kill them later.
As for the hounds themselves, isn't it true that many of the caring, animal-loving hunts end up shooting them when they become older and not fast enough for the hunt's needs?
The single greatest fallacy of this all is that the hunters are doing this with the best interests for the animals at heart. They don't care about animal welfare, they don't care about their own dogs, they don't care about pest control or keeping the balance in the population of foxes. They do it because they enjoy running on a horse and seeing foxes being torn up to pieces by dogs. Simple as that.
Here's another point for you to mull over. 52% of the country don't want to ban hunting with hounds. Also the majority of people who do want to ban hunting with hounds live in cities.
Two flaws, firstly that those who live in cities have no idea what country life is really like, not until you've done it for years, the second is that there isn't an overwhealming majority of people who want to ban hunting with hounds.
There's me thinking we lived in a democracy, why do the minority with little understanding, dictate to the majority, who know why?
To be honest I struggle to get a strong opinion on this issue, the foxes need to be killed, though this should be done in the best way possible.
They do, and it does, and hunting with hounds is the only viable option.
We know what happens when people hunt foxes with guns. That little boy last week wouldn't have died if he'd been hunting with hounds.
As for that survey poll, those figures are most interesting. Because unless there has been a massive and sudden switch in public opinion, I have been consistently hearing figures of up to 75% against hunting with dogs.
Today on radio one the poll is sayd 68% for hunting, 32% against.
I have also been consistantly saying that at least 50% of the country are against a ban, and a further 20% don't give a fart.
Shooting is not a perfect viable alternative. You suggesting is just says that you really don't have any idea.
It's bollocks from blair again.
In fact, he's not even there. As far as I can see.
It is still my right to oppose cruelty and barbarity on others, be humans or animals.
You're pro-choice on abortion, yet against pest control?
Why don't you argue about something that matters like this
Hmm, thats clouding the issue and I think you know it.
Aladdin isnt saying we shouldnt kill the fox, what he is suggesting is that the method is cruel.
So the comparison with abortion doesnt hold.
I'm against cruelty.
Is that the best you can do?
Is that the best you can do?
There's something I remember a while back with I think Shell wanting to drop an oil well into the sea. Greenpeace were against this blatant polution of the planet. Shell replied it's the cleanest way, sorry. Greenpeace kicked up a fuss, and shell ended up dismantling it peace by peace to be decommisioned on land.
After the event it turned out Shell knew what they were talking about, it would have been cheeper, quicker and cleaner just to sink it.
It's a similar thing here, people talk about how barbaric it is to hunt foxes to death. But it's the quickest, cheepest and safest way for necessary pest control. The country-side have been doing what they do for generations. They know what they're talking about.
I've given you plenty of reasons you're ignoring them.
I still think the comparison with abortion was un called for.
None the less, it may well be the most effective way to kill the fox, however the arguement that 'its the way we have been doing it for generations' doesnt really wash with townies anymore.
Farms are still the biggest poluters of water ways for example.
Ok, abortion was uncalled for. Farmers may polute water-ways, but they come up with the best ways to produce food. It's not 'we've been doing this for generations' arguement on it's own, it's more 'townies don't really have a clue'.
But all that aside, there really aren't better options than hunting with hounds.
Hunting stags, that's another matter, hare coursing should be banned and should have been banned with bear baiting and cock fighting.
Foxes, however, are pests that need controlling.
We will accept your groveling apology about the abortion remark.
You say shooting is not viable. I say it is.
I say that hunting with dogs is an extremely cruel way to deal with foxes- you probably know this but choose to ignore it.
I also point out the hounds themselves are very often shot like worthless rubbish by the caring, welfare-concerned huntsmen once they get older and cannot run as fast as before- you also ignore it.
So it all seems to revolve around the issue of whether hunting with dogs is an acceptable way to control the fox population. I'm saying its appalling cruelty is simply unacceptable and that shooting would do the job required just as well. You seem to disagree, so I guess we're not going to get any further in this issue...
Shooting would work because it's simple too hit and miss, literally. You know how to shoot a gun, but to hit a fox and 200 metres with enough accuracy to kill isntantly is just not the kind of expertise that exists in this country. It doesn't help that the sniper rifle necessary to do the job properly is illegal in this country.
Hunting with hounds is not the cruelest way to deal with a pest.
As to your 'point' about owners shooting elderly hounds, being shot at point blank range is not a cruel way to be put down. I wouldn't have a problem with it.
My major point is that there isn't a majority against hunting with hounds, in fact every source I have seen has said that at least half the country are against the ban.
story here
animal testing is another cruel and barbaric process, that's not been banned. why should hunting be?
Hounds are natural predators, hunting is an act of nature.
Yes, but animal testing has very strict legal guidelines, you have to prove you cant use any other method. I'm not convinced that the fox hunting loby has done this.
Strict legal guideline the hunt would accept. There also aren't any other methods, not methods that work better.
You can't guarentee that it'll only be foxes that get at it. Kids eat anything, as do dogs. You have to be able to take responsibility for every animal that eats the poison and dies.
Would a fox that had been killed by poison damage the environment with it's corpse? By being poisonous to eat, damaging water supplies and spreading disease?
ETA: good poisons are also expensive. That is a factor.
Technically he was part of the hunting party and they were out lamping which is always dangerous. But yeah, who shoots a 13 yr old boy lethally thinking it's a fox.
It is nonetheless a very cruel method, much much more so than shooting.
Nor would I if the dogs were very old and ill. But in many cases they aren't. In many cases they're only 5, 6, 7 year old animals. In perfect state of health, but not as fast as younger dogs.
If an opinion poll came tomorrow and said a majority favoured a ban, would you change your mind?
Would you have agreed with the ban if it had been approved a few years ago, when official and impartial polls were saying about 70% of people were in favour of a ban?
Birds are shot with something call duckshot, a spread of lead pellets that are designed to shock the bird to death, it doesn't work on someting the size of a fox, and tends to be used at a closer range than you are likely to get with a fox. Big game, as it's name suggests, is big, and slow, and you are more able to close in on big game. You don't need to be the best shot in the world to shoot and kill a deer.
No it's not. And the level of shooting cruelty depends very much on the skill of the shooter.
Well, other than that fact that as I said before you're only repeating rumour and propaganda. Being shot at point blank isn't a cruel way to be put down. Dogs that are trained to kill are also not always safe to be re-homed. I'm sure you know that every dog that fails the police and army training course is put down.
I wouldn't change my mind, because I know about hunting. I also know that the majority of those in favour of a ban live in cities. It's about as fair as scottish MPs voting for tuition fees.