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.
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
The analogy is far from exact. If foxes were bringing themselves into vets' surgeries, or it was feasible to send packs of vets armed with syringes into the forest, then maybe the analogy would stand. Currently, foxes aren't that obliging and culling foxes isn't in a vet's job description.
Sure, it'd be more humane to bring a fox into the vet and have it put down with a lethal injection. And I'd rather have my dog put down by a vet that ripped apart by dogs - we're just not dealing with reality framing the debate this way.
If it could be argued, as Jamelia did by further qualifying my earlier question, that fox culling was necessary, and that logistically death-by-dog was the quickest way to kill a fox, would you still be against fox hunting?
Seek and ye shall find:
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=2273094&postcount=84
Foxes will be left alone as soon as chickens are left alone by foxes.
To be honest, I'm so bored of arguing this so hopefully, this will be it, once and for all.
- Foxes kill chickens
- Chickens = farmers' livelihoods
- Therefore, foxes kill farmers' livelihoods
- Fox hunting, even if it doesn't result in a kill (as many do) disperses the local fox population
- Therefore, fox hunting is an effective way of dispersing foxes and keeping their numbers in check
- Scientific evidence (see above) corroborates the long-held view amongst the hunting community that hunting with dogs is the most humane way to kill foxes
- Shooting, poisoning and even lamping are far more inefficient and cause immeasurably more distress to the animal
And a few pikeys trespassing on your land to go lamping does not mean that all hunts are trespassing. That is a complete fallacy.
That post doesn't actually answer either of the questions I asked. Read them again carefully.
I didn't ask whether it was an effective means of killing an individual fox. I asked whether fox hunting made any impact on the population and was an effective method of culling.
My knowledge of population science is poor. But I read somewhere that in order to make any dent at all in the fox population, you would have to kill something like 70% of the entire population in a given year. And we all know that can't be achieved by chasing one fox with horses, a pack of dogs and a bugle.
Neither does that post indicate that there are good reasons to need to cull the fox population.
So until those questions are answered, my position remains anti-hunting. If you are able to answer my questions, I'm open to having my mind changed.
Yes, i'm still against it & ain't going change now. I have never seen any "fox-culling" being necessary here in Ireland, as the Fox population isn't actually very large. It seems the most effective method for Fox's & Badger's to die in this country, is to try to cross the road! Having said that we can't change that fact that fox-hunting happens, although the amount of hunts of late are few & far between.
Organised hunts need permission from all farmers who's lands they wish to cross.....most farmer's are co-operative, I don't know if they get paid or something?!
Your scientific evidence is out of date. The burns inquiry in 1999 left a much more open verdict and said that hunting was
a) hutning with dogs from a conservation point of view is pretty much a null point
b) hunting with dogs was likely to cause distress to foxes
Finally, dispersing a fox population is good, in the sense that it encourages foxes to form breeding pairs - if there are 6 or 7 foxes in a den, only one pair will breed at a time to stop overpopulation / lack of food, normally the alpha male / female. By splitting the group up you could create 2 or 3 breeding pairs = more for hunting. This was achieved deliberately by creating artificial earths and cubbing (or cub hunting), in order that there were more foxes come hunting season.
Regardless though, fox hunting isn't the worst thing and there are worse things - but it is by and large not 'humane' or 'necessary for population control' as indicated by the Burns report, and we have banned inhumane treatment of other animals (or uneccessary suffering), so why should fox hunting be different?
The real motive is that people like it (which the Burns report touches on - if it is a main hobby for so many people you are depriving them of a big part of their life - imagine how a jocky would react if we banned horce racing). This is a real benefit and through this it helps other people, but do the cost vs benefit and you see that why make an exception for the fox and allow cruelty (which would upset people, afterall wouldn't murder be legal if it didn't upset people?) for the benefit of a few - the 'significant' portion of that benefit being the reduction of the pest which the Burns report indicated that a ban would not have a significant impact upon.
It's still dead I'm afraid, just by other means.
Just goes to show that people arn't actually concerned about the fox - it still gets killed and often in unpleasant ways. But as long as fox hunting's banned your happy. :rolleyes:
OH I'm concerned about the fox alright, once we picked up a fox that had been hit by a car crossing the road, & took her to our vet... & our vet called us "noble"! Imagine that! Unfortunately she did die, & to make it worse she was pregnant, but our vet not only didn't charge us for the visit, he said our next visit would be free for being so kind! So, I can sleep at night, knowing I tried to help a defenceless animal!
P.S. Are you going to see "fantastic MR. Fox" in the cinema? My one quarter french arse you are...:p
Well you seem content the ban on fox hunting because you think it means foxes arn't culled, which they are.
I don't go to the cinema. And I don't know what relevance a cartoon character has on the issue. I didn't stop fishing after watching Finding Nemo.
Well bully for you.
I'm sure that if you were a chicken farmer, that little parable might have had a different outcome.
Most angling is done for sport not to food.
And why is hutning foxes with dogs a big deal whilst hunting rats with dogs not such a big deal. And I wonder how many anti fox hunters own cats - animals that have had a massive impact on garden wildlife by killing all manner of creatures in horrific ways?
It always make me think that in some people's heads it's a class issue as well as an animal issue. You know the usual everyone who hunts is rich, upper class, braying toffs thing etc. When really if you look at it properly 80% of hunting people actually aren't. Same as everyone who shoots obviously is posh and wears tweed and so on
I get a lot of inverted snobbery because i own horses. God forbid i might actually work hard 6 days a week to have them. But then hey that's another thread isn't it really
I certainly think class snobbery plays its part. Even if fox hunting was exclusively the reserve of manor house-owning toffs, I don't see how that's an argument against hunting.
Not at all. I'm quite pragmatic about it these days. I think fox hunting with hounds is wrong as there are serious concerns about the welfare impact on the fox (i.e. is it "humane"?) and we have already set the precedent in society of banning inhumane treatment (lets start at an easy point - slavery was banned despite the economic benefit because it was inhumane).
Add to that questions of it really being the most effective method (Burns report indicates lamping is probably the most effective except for areas where it is difficult to traverse by car) and the real question is then why should fox hunting be allowed when so many other things aren't that are on a parallel? (e.g. bloodsports)
Fish, ultimately, aren't on the same level in my opinion. They're not mammals. Nobody cries about pesticides killing insects because we do make a subjective judgement on which animals are ok to kill inhumanely and which aren't and for what reasons. Afterall, we have no issues being barbaric almost to poultry for food. I know animals suffer to bring me meat on a plate, but I like meat on a plate - and if enough people like meat on a plate - it's legal. In practical terms the benefit foregone by preventing people eating meat (a lot of really miserable people) is far far greater than the benefit to the welfare of those animals that would be spared poor treatment and slaughter.
This is politics for you, though I don't think banning foxhunting with hounds is especially wrong - in fact I think for a long time it was the exception to the rule in being allowed when other animal welfare issues had already been addressed. If we can't be rational, at least we can try to be consistent in drawing a line or a semblance of a line on what is ok. And remember, it wasn't a quick decision, they spent ages reviewing the issue of fox hunting and then voted on it parliament, and not everyone voted the same way. It was obviously a split issue and perhaps that is why it's important.
You can look into the government's inquiry here: http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/huntingframe.htm I suggest just going to the final report section and reading the abstract / conclusions at the beginning, because reading the main evidence is boring and tiresome. You will see it leaves a fairly open verdict and says that it's up for parliament to decide. In my judgement and apparently many MPs judgement, upon reviewing the conclusions it would seem there are merits to fox hunting but they are not sufficient to warrant the costs in terms of welfare and so on.
It isn't. Well not in my book anyway. But i think it does serve as a backbone to some people's stance against fox hunting (for some reason). I've come across a quite a few people who start off with the fox hunting is barbaric argument and swiftly descend into the class debate as well.