Hunting Ban & Sailing

Re: Somewhat overstated I think

I live in the country - rural Nth Yorks.

I do not feel my life has been destroyed

Three of the local four large landowners do not allow fox hunting on their land - the fourth is a Royal Duke.

The pro hunting side have persistently overstated the case, wrongly pitched the debate as town v country, run contradictory arguments and denied the simple case that they enjoy the activity and the government should not stop that enjoyment.

This is the simple truth, its a pastime carried out purely for pleasure and nothing more.

I find it difficult to see why a similar degree of pleasure cannot be gained by just missing out the bit where the fox gets killed.

Is seeing a fox torn apart really such a pleasant sight?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

> I do not feel my life has been destroyed

Are you employed in the rural economy?

> wrongly pitched the debate as town v country

How do you explain the existence of the "Countryside Alliance"? There are various groups of rural people who feel they are economically persecuted by an urban majority.

> just missing out the bit where the fox gets killed

I think this is called drag hunting, a farmer on R4's Farming Today programme Saturday morning explained that drag hunting is the Grand Prix end of the sport that excludes riders of average ability.

Personally I think the fox hunting fraternity could use more imagination but as I have said already this is now a debate about an oppressed minorty taking a stand.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

<How do you explain the existence of the "Countryside Alliance"?>

I was out of the country at the time the 'Countryside Alliance' sprang up so i don't know whether it was a range of rural issues hijacked by the hunting lobby or a hunting lobby group which added other issues to increase their respectability.

As a country dweller I resent the fact that our rural needs are lost among the strident pro-hunt demos. I have a moral objection to killing for fun yet I can't support the alliance without being taken for a supporter of hunting.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

You seem to be prioritising the debate as firstly preventing a form of pleasure that you disapprove of followed secondly by concerns over animal welfare. Is this what you meant?

If not, please explain why the fox hunting debate is not queuing up for parlimentary time behind improving animal welfare in industrial farming and domestic pet care standards?

The truth is an urban liberal majority is taking a pot shot at a minority rural group they dislike.

If you are a working rural bloke you have already witnessed 20 years of economic engineering by these same urban rulers that has polarised wealth to such an extent that these people can come and displace you and your children from the local property market, then they prevent you from responding to this economic stranglehold through regulation, then finally they declare that one of your traditional country leisure activities is abortant and illegal and through doing so they inflict further impovershment on your community.

These are the oppressive actions that breed a terrorist response.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

the problem is they banned hunting with dogs to get at the guys in the red jackets, thats only the tip of the iceberg, i used to hunt with two dogs, now is that illegal as well? as for the statement stand there and watch the dogs rip the fox to peices,99out of a100 you won't see even on horse back the dogs leave the horses trailing in the rear(sometimes for miles) and its all over by the time you get there, fox's that are caught by dogs quite often are old or maimed and very likely wouldn't last another winter, and what would you have the farmers do?, have you ever seen the suffering a snare causes? or would you prefer they went back to using poison baits, then its not only fox's, its dogs cats birds of prey,crows magpies etc that meet there end, normally from acute kidney failure, i used to hunt fox's in cornwall for the local farmers, using two dogs, is that also illegal?, if so you have just deprived the average working man of his pastime.......but if they carry on with the ban, the consequences could be even worse.........but then you won't see the consequences so that's alright,........isn't it??????????........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

Are you employed in the rural economy?

No

But then very few people are. The "rural economy" is farming, NOT fox hunting.

How many people does it take to farm 200 Acres? 1 or 2 with occasional contractors.

I wonder how many of the Countryside Alliance are employed in the rural economy, looking at the people locally 3 farmers are not members, they and their families make up the majority employed in the rural economy, Not sure if the Duke of ******** counts as being employed or not. Not sure about the people he employes.

Most certainly a few feed merchants, agricultural engineers, haulage contractors and similar occupations will not be affected one way or the other.

Certainly the few people I do know locally who hunt are not employed in the "rural economy", 2 are police officers (which should be interesting for them), one is wife of a haulage contractor, another is daughter of an electrical engineer and the final one is an estate agent. Hardly country yokels.

If you want to discuss persecution of people in the country there are lots of issues for you to get your teeth into.

Start with transport: I live 2 1/2 miles from nearest bus stop, and that has 2 buses in the morning and another two in the afternoon.

Go on to policing: Last time I called the police they rang back after 20 minutes to ask for directions. The entire area is not policed at night - at all.

Go onto fuel costs: If I want to buy a bar of chocoloate, or an ounce of baccy, it costs me more in petrol than it does in baccy, the nearest shop is 5 miles away.

Young people have to get jobs - the rural economy does not provide them, someone on say a modern apprenticeship will probably spend 20 - 25% of their take home pay on travelling.

A trip to the cinema is a 60 mile round trip.

I could go on

If the "Countryside Alliance" really had any concern for people living in the country they would be talking about these and similar issues, but they do not.

No: what they campaign for is to carry on with their selfish pleasures and use "rural issues" purely as a smoke screen.

Why is it so difficult to simply say you enjoy killing things?




<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Not pleasant

Very satisfying though. Particularly if you've ever kept fowl. Hunting is like any other endevour. You organize, you set out and if your lucky you succeed. The measure of success is if the hounds get to do what hounds do. The actual huntsmen don't tear the fox apart. It's just a case of biter bit.

I don't ride to hounds, it's got horses in it. I don't particularly like many people who do. I've stalked and fished and ferreted and shot things though and I find the whole debate mystifying. The way we pick and choose what furry friend is worthy and which manner of dispatch is humane is laughable.

Nothing is achieved by banning fox hunting. Foxes are still going to meet a nasty end. A wedge is driven between town and country for no good purpose. The government, beset on all sides by real issues, leaves itself open to ridicule by adopting a half baked policy that it really wanted no part of. The overstretched police are given a task they neither wanted or believe is possible. Hunt sabateurs are as redundant as foxhounds. Hunting goes underground, no, not literaly.

So whats next. Save the Bluebottles.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

Brian

I think your position is clear, and I for one can understand it. Even though I've argued against the ban, I can totally understand why some, like yourself, are for it. I can also understand why some people are anti fishing, some are anti abortion, some are anti fur trade and some are vegans.

That is their opinion, and I respect those opinions and the right to have them, even though I disagree with them.

The problem I, and I suspect many others have, is that it is one thing to have an opinion on something, but entirely another thing to impose that opinion on everyone else.

Whilst I cannot defend fox hunting, largely because I don't do it, so don't understand it, I feel justified in defending others rights to do it if they so wish. Partly because I believe it is not the place of government to interfere in such things, but largely because I am certain of the thin end of the wedge nature of such things.

Animal rights activists wont give up after fox hunting. Next it will be all hunting, then fishing, then zoos, then pet ownership, right the way down to wanting to ban the killing of all animals and the eating of meat. Eventually it will impact me and quite possibly you and as a civil libertarian I really don't think anyone has any right to interfere with another in this way.

By all means have an opinion, but don't expect everyone else to share it, and don't be angry when they don't. If more people concerned themselves with their own life and activities and stopped concerning themselves with what others were doing then the world would be a far better place.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

>The truth is an urban liberal majority is taking a pot shot at a minority rural >group they dislike.

Unfortunately anyone who thinks they know the "truth" about any political situation is a fool. Sorry. Urban liberal majority?? Sounds like you've been brainwashed!

>If you are a working rural bloke you have already witnessed 20 years of >economic engineering by these same urban rulers that has polarised wealth to >such an extent that these people can come and displace you and your children >from the local property market

They come and buy your houses at greatly inflated prices you mean?
Don't mean to point out the obvious but the only way you can get "displaced" from your home is if you sell it.

>These are the oppressive actions that breed a terrorist response.

Its hard living in the most developed democracy in the world isn't it.


Can we be quiet about the horses and the terrorism and talk about sailing please?


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Somewhat overstated I think

> Can we be quiet about the horses and the terrorism and talk
> about sailing please?

That's convenient, deliver a riposte then declare the discussion finished!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top