G
Guest
Guest
Post deleted by danfoley
Hunting debate.....nb
- Thread starter Bejasus
- Start date
Mirelle
N/A
Consider a move to Beijing
The city fathers of Beijing have two sensible rules. One is that motorcycles over 125 cc must tow a sidecar. The other is that dogs living in the city must stand no taller than X cms at the shoulder - X is the height of...a Pekinese!
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
The city fathers of Beijing have two sensible rules. One is that motorcycles over 125 cc must tow a sidecar. The other is that dogs living in the city must stand no taller than X cms at the shoulder - X is the height of...a Pekinese!
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Mirelle
N/A
Seen it done
Thirty years ago, Boxing Day meet of the Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds. Watched from the bar of the W&FYC as Remus ran over the saltings north of Bedwell's yard, sat on his haunches, looked behind him, waited for the hounds to close, then dived into Foundry Reach and swam over to the old millpond side, looked back, could almost be seen to smile, and loped off.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Thirty years ago, Boxing Day meet of the Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds. Watched from the bar of the W&FYC as Remus ran over the saltings north of Bedwell's yard, sat on his haunches, looked behind him, waited for the hounds to close, then dived into Foundry Reach and swam over to the old millpond side, looked back, could almost be seen to smile, and loped off.
<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
Bejasus
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
Brian, I have not put my views on this topic forwards, as that was not my intent.
I hate needless cruelty to animals, although I can see it's benefits against certain members of our society/forums/images/icons/wink.gif.
However, I dread the idea of people out in numbers hunting them with high velocity rifles, this would be indiscriminate killing of young healthy and old infirm foxes alike. Poisoning is a definite no-no in my views again because it totally indiscriminate against all wildlife.
I know it's a bit of a cliche, but I do find that indeed lots of city dwellers have very little understanding of how the countryside works. However, they are entitled to their views on cruelty as much as the next person, but should not do from a purely, aww poor reynard, he's so cute, point of view. Cute Reynard is indeed a ruthless killer of other animals and a great oppertunist and is as much of a pest as the mink which is now absolutely devastating ground nesting birds in my area of the Norfolk Broads.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Brian, I have not put my views on this topic forwards, as that was not my intent.
I hate needless cruelty to animals, although I can see it's benefits against certain members of our society/forums/images/icons/wink.gif.
However, I dread the idea of people out in numbers hunting them with high velocity rifles, this would be indiscriminate killing of young healthy and old infirm foxes alike. Poisoning is a definite no-no in my views again because it totally indiscriminate against all wildlife.
I know it's a bit of a cliche, but I do find that indeed lots of city dwellers have very little understanding of how the countryside works. However, they are entitled to their views on cruelty as much as the next person, but should not do from a purely, aww poor reynard, he's so cute, point of view. Cute Reynard is indeed a ruthless killer of other animals and a great oppertunist and is as much of a pest as the mink which is now absolutely devastating ground nesting birds in my area of the Norfolk Broads.
<hr width=100% size=1>
whisper
Well-Known Member
What a beautiful and painfully correct description - tee,hee,hee.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
BarryH
Well-Known Member
I've read these replies with interest. I partake in "country sports" as they're called although the proper term is field sports. Never witnessed a hunt or taken part in one. Though some of the replies have moved me to bash the keys. The often quoted term "country ways" etc to ave a bearing on the continued ways of life in the sticks. And no most people who were raised in urban areas have no idea apart from what they see when they go out into it on their hols.
Country sports do and will affect the way the land is managed. The person who said look at the way the bird population has declined. Think about it for a min. If a land owner runs a pheasant shoot then he'll need civer to raise the birds in, Its their habitat. So the cover comes from woodland areas, which funnily enough is also the habitat for other feathered creatures. Along with all the insects creepy crawlies that go with them.
OK so it has nothing to do with hunting. Well yes in a way it does.
As for huntin with dogs. No, it holds no attraction for me, but then my hobby of shooting holds no attraction for other people, but I've a good idea once hunting with dogs has gone my hobby will be next on the long list!
It still amazes me the diversity on the forum. Some refreshing, some......not. To make a balanced desicion on issues such as these you need to know ALL the arguments/facts. Somehow I don't think that you can get it from the media in general. Alot of what the government is doing is not what "should" happen, more what they think the voter wants to see them do. Look at the handgun ban, that stopped gun crime in it tracks didn't it!
Just a few ramblings of mine from someone who's watching with interest and reading between the lines.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Country sports do and will affect the way the land is managed. The person who said look at the way the bird population has declined. Think about it for a min. If a land owner runs a pheasant shoot then he'll need civer to raise the birds in, Its their habitat. So the cover comes from woodland areas, which funnily enough is also the habitat for other feathered creatures. Along with all the insects creepy crawlies that go with them.
OK so it has nothing to do with hunting. Well yes in a way it does.
As for huntin with dogs. No, it holds no attraction for me, but then my hobby of shooting holds no attraction for other people, but I've a good idea once hunting with dogs has gone my hobby will be next on the long list!
It still amazes me the diversity on the forum. Some refreshing, some......not. To make a balanced desicion on issues such as these you need to know ALL the arguments/facts. Somehow I don't think that you can get it from the media in general. Alot of what the government is doing is not what "should" happen, more what they think the voter wants to see them do. Look at the handgun ban, that stopped gun crime in it tracks didn't it!
Just a few ramblings of mine from someone who's watching with interest and reading between the lines.
<hr width=100% size=1>
BarryH
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
.22 rimmy running subsonics is more than enuff for mr fox. Anything above subs will render the moderator useless. So it would be one shot a night!
Mink and who's fault was that. The do goodrs who liberated them from the farms. They know not what a pain in the arse problem they started. They know nowt about how it hunts, lives and what predators it has. You got the antis to thank for that one. Mink have devistated a fishery near me, so much so I got the firearms liason officer to grant me permission to hit the place 3 time a week with a rifle. In august I was taking about 8/9 a night in less than 3 hours.
<hr width=100% size=1>
.22 rimmy running subsonics is more than enuff for mr fox. Anything above subs will render the moderator useless. So it would be one shot a night!
Mink and who's fault was that. The do goodrs who liberated them from the farms. They know not what a pain in the arse problem they started. They know nowt about how it hunts, lives and what predators it has. You got the antis to thank for that one. Mink have devistated a fishery near me, so much so I got the firearms liason officer to grant me permission to hit the place 3 time a week with a rifle. In august I was taking about 8/9 a night in less than 3 hours.
<hr width=100% size=1>
bobnewbury
Well-Known Member
Not wishing to upset h00 too much but...
Judging by two recent events, showing any lights at all in the vicinity of shooters seems a somewhat dodgy activity.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Judging by two recent events, showing any lights at all in the vicinity of shooters seems a somewhat dodgy activity.
<hr width=100% size=1>
bobnewbury
Well-Known Member
There\'s a very good rule...
in many discussion fora. It states "The first party to compare the other with Hitler or the Nazis has, ipso facto, lost the argument."
<hr width=100% size=1>
in many discussion fora. It states "The first party to compare the other with Hitler or the Nazis has, ipso facto, lost the argument."
<hr width=100% size=1>
BarryH
Well-Known Member
Re: There\'s a very good rule...
Is that what you call "check mate"
<hr width=100% size=1>
Is that what you call "check mate"
<hr width=100% size=1>
Bejasus
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
Baz, your right and my mention of high velocity small arms was a bit over the top, but the wounding of an animal by any means, that can then crawl off in pain for what may be a significant time, makes it also a bit of a hit or miss<sic> method?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Baz, your right and my mention of high velocity small arms was a bit over the top, but the wounding of an animal by any means, that can then crawl off in pain for what may be a significant time, makes it also a bit of a hit or miss<sic> method?
<hr width=100% size=1>
BarryH
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
Agree wholeheartedly, one shot,one kill. But then thats down to the marksman. Also needs to make sure that he/she is within "killing range" Shot too long and you don't get the desired effect. Shot too short and you get "over kill". The bullet passes staright thru and if your unlucky the animal will live to die painfully. Thats not what it is about. Also I use expanding ammo to make sure. Head shot only too. which is harder than it sounds. Its all down to fieldcraft. Approaching from downwind etc.
I was raised to respect the quarry. I still do. Must admit the fox/mink control I do is a bit demoralising. Very clinical, but it does mean that the pest is removed.
The rabbits and woody's etc are shot strictly for the pot. Only take what I can eat.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Agree wholeheartedly, one shot,one kill. But then thats down to the marksman. Also needs to make sure that he/she is within "killing range" Shot too long and you don't get the desired effect. Shot too short and you get "over kill". The bullet passes staright thru and if your unlucky the animal will live to die painfully. Thats not what it is about. Also I use expanding ammo to make sure. Head shot only too. which is harder than it sounds. Its all down to fieldcraft. Approaching from downwind etc.
I was raised to respect the quarry. I still do. Must admit the fox/mink control I do is a bit demoralising. Very clinical, but it does mean that the pest is removed.
The rabbits and woody's etc are shot strictly for the pot. Only take what I can eat.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Bejasus
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
I haven't mentioned my political view on this post, which was about what I was watching on the box. However, I want to know where the scumbag Tony B Liar(imho) is today while this debate has been going on in the House. I am sure that even though he wasn't there he will be leaping on the platform as soon as possible.
I do hope the Lords do reject this bill, and it has nothing to do with foxhunting, just as the incessant pushing of this bill has nothing to do with foxhunting either.
The sooner the issue of impeachment of this government over the conjured up legality of the war on Iraq, raises it's ugly head, the better. IMHO
I now bow out of this one feeling a bit of a troll, in the way it has drifted off of what I was getting at initially. I should have known better really.
Oops, forgot to add, that Michael Howard was noticable by his absence also.
Am I missing a parliamentary point of order here?
<hr width=100% size=1>
I haven't mentioned my political view on this post, which was about what I was watching on the box. However, I want to know where the scumbag Tony B Liar(imho) is today while this debate has been going on in the House. I am sure that even though he wasn't there he will be leaping on the platform as soon as possible.
I do hope the Lords do reject this bill, and it has nothing to do with foxhunting, just as the incessant pushing of this bill has nothing to do with foxhunting either.
The sooner the issue of impeachment of this government over the conjured up legality of the war on Iraq, raises it's ugly head, the better. IMHO
I now bow out of this one feeling a bit of a troll, in the way it has drifted off of what I was getting at initially. I should have known better really.
Oops, forgot to add, that Michael Howard was noticable by his absence also.
Am I missing a parliamentary point of order here?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Bergman
Well-Known Member
Yes take your point but:-
WhenI hear the pro lobby saying how much they are concerned for countryside and people who live there this sort of act (and I believe there have been other similar events) rather undermine the argument.
Similarly the "dead hen" argument rather falls flat when you consider the conditions that battery hens are kept in.
Also find it difficult to resolve the arguments that "most foxes that are hunted escape" and "its the most effective form of pest control"
An infringement of Human Rights - well perhaps, but then so were the Ten Commandments, no harm in a quick covet of neighbour's ass, and what about the out of work image graveners eh?
<hr width=100% size=1>
WhenI hear the pro lobby saying how much they are concerned for countryside and people who live there this sort of act (and I believe there have been other similar events) rather undermine the argument.
Similarly the "dead hen" argument rather falls flat when you consider the conditions that battery hens are kept in.
Also find it difficult to resolve the arguments that "most foxes that are hunted escape" and "its the most effective form of pest control"
An infringement of Human Rights - well perhaps, but then so were the Ten Commandments, no harm in a quick covet of neighbour's ass, and what about the out of work image graveners eh?
<hr width=100% size=1>
StellaGirl
Well-Known Member
I shall keep my opinion on hunting to myself but am suprised that nobody has mentioned the barbaric way the police were treating the protestors. Some of the injuries looked horrific?!
Ok - a small minority probably went with the intention of causing trouble but I believe most people wanted a peaceful protest.
Imagine you are in the front fow by the barriers and the police when a sudden crowd surge (which can happen for many reasons) pushes you further towards the barrier and the waiting police. You are not deliberatly pushing forward but find yourself on the receiving end of a truncheon and end up needing endless stiches in your head. The police seemed to me to be just lashing out at anyone and looked more barbaric than some hunters I have come across. I think this is the new blood sport. There should be an enquiry into their behaviour too.
Alsoo, next time you see the footage on the TV of the protestors running onto the floor into the house watch the man in tights sat in the bottom right of your screen. He watches the protestor coming in from the top right of his screen, allows him a good way in before removing his glasses and then half heartedly gets up to do something about it.
I wouldnt be suprised if this was an "inside job" and they invited these 5 men in and offered them a cup of tea before opening the door for them.....
<hr width=100% size=1>Its 11.59am - lets open the beers...
Ok - a small minority probably went with the intention of causing trouble but I believe most people wanted a peaceful protest.
Imagine you are in the front fow by the barriers and the police when a sudden crowd surge (which can happen for many reasons) pushes you further towards the barrier and the waiting police. You are not deliberatly pushing forward but find yourself on the receiving end of a truncheon and end up needing endless stiches in your head. The police seemed to me to be just lashing out at anyone and looked more barbaric than some hunters I have come across. I think this is the new blood sport. There should be an enquiry into their behaviour too.
Alsoo, next time you see the footage on the TV of the protestors running onto the floor into the house watch the man in tights sat in the bottom right of your screen. He watches the protestor coming in from the top right of his screen, allows him a good way in before removing his glasses and then half heartedly gets up to do something about it.
I wouldnt be suprised if this was an "inside job" and they invited these 5 men in and offered them a cup of tea before opening the door for them.....
<hr width=100% size=1>Its 11.59am - lets open the beers...
Nickel
Well-Known Member
It is patently not the answer that raising birds for shooting is good for wildlife - all the figures, together with the massively declining numbers of those birds unshot prove this.
In essence this 'townies don't understand the countryside' is nonsense, because the undeniable fact is those living in the country don't understand it either - otherwise we wouldn't be moving towards the sterile pasture that much of Britain is becoming.
We need a completely new philosophy [or perhaps it's an old one] of respect - respect for the land and respect for life. The concept that we can rape and pillage our own environment for profit or 'enjoyment' has to stop!
<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel
Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
In essence this 'townies don't understand the countryside' is nonsense, because the undeniable fact is those living in the country don't understand it either - otherwise we wouldn't be moving towards the sterile pasture that much of Britain is becoming.
We need a completely new philosophy [or perhaps it's an old one] of respect - respect for the land and respect for life. The concept that we can rape and pillage our own environment for profit or 'enjoyment' has to stop!
<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel
Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
Becky
Well-Known Member
Re: Democratic process
It saddens me somewhat to read the very varied opinions of people who have replied to this subject. It is very British to ride to hounds, we have done this for hundreds of years. But does that make it right? The Spanish have felt the same way about their matadors. Yet I suspect that many who support foxhunting would not condone bull fighting. But, if hunting foxes is allowed in the UK, how can anyone British condemn bullfighting. Or badger bating. Or cockfighting.
I am happy to state my position here; I am a pacifist. Fighting and/or killing people has never changed public opinion in favour of the aggressor. It has in fact intensified the feelings of the involved parties.
Reducing this theme to foxhunting, we have the same emotional language. Hoo states that foxes are 'ruthless killers'. Fatipa on the other hand describes foxhunting as indefensible. Joe Cole says that 'foxes are a pest'.
Basically all these statements are true. But to look dispassionately at this subject, one needs to try and realise how a crowd of penned-in chickens would look to a fox. Foxes kill for food. What they cannot eat immediately, they bury, if they have the time, of course. Don't humans do the same thing?
They are territorial animals; you kill one and another moves in to the space. They are much less ruthless killers than we are. If there is plenty of food for the taking, we take it, process it, store it and finally distribute it. So would foxes, left to their own devices. They are 'pests' only in as much as they are successful in living among humans and eating what we leave around. By all means shoot foxes that kill your chickens. But keep in mind why they have killed them.
I had a friend who was a sheep farmer in Devon, and for him foxes were useful. They ate the lambs that died, so saving him the trouble and cost of disposal.
For me, what is sad is that some people derive pleasure from killing them. That is not to condemn those who ride to hounds; I believe that thier greatest pleasure is the ability to ride across country on horseback without let or hindrance, and the hunt is the excuse. But nevertheless the basic reason that a hunt exists is to kill foxes. And logically it must be the most inefficient method anyone could dream up. Cars kill most foxes, especially the young ones.
However, as long as we support fox hunting, we can NEVER condemn the Spanish for bull fighting, the Pakistanis for bear bating and the Middle Eastern countries for cock fighting and dog fighting, and the English for badger bating. I believe that most people on this forum would not condone these so-called blood sports, but as long as we support fox hunting we are seen as blood sport supporters.
In the 21st century, shouldn't we take a longer view of this subject, and see it for what it really is, (in my opinion), the expression of a baser and more primitive instinct that in a so-called civilised society should be more controlled?
<hr width=100% size=1>
It saddens me somewhat to read the very varied opinions of people who have replied to this subject. It is very British to ride to hounds, we have done this for hundreds of years. But does that make it right? The Spanish have felt the same way about their matadors. Yet I suspect that many who support foxhunting would not condone bull fighting. But, if hunting foxes is allowed in the UK, how can anyone British condemn bullfighting. Or badger bating. Or cockfighting.
I am happy to state my position here; I am a pacifist. Fighting and/or killing people has never changed public opinion in favour of the aggressor. It has in fact intensified the feelings of the involved parties.
Reducing this theme to foxhunting, we have the same emotional language. Hoo states that foxes are 'ruthless killers'. Fatipa on the other hand describes foxhunting as indefensible. Joe Cole says that 'foxes are a pest'.
Basically all these statements are true. But to look dispassionately at this subject, one needs to try and realise how a crowd of penned-in chickens would look to a fox. Foxes kill for food. What they cannot eat immediately, they bury, if they have the time, of course. Don't humans do the same thing?
They are territorial animals; you kill one and another moves in to the space. They are much less ruthless killers than we are. If there is plenty of food for the taking, we take it, process it, store it and finally distribute it. So would foxes, left to their own devices. They are 'pests' only in as much as they are successful in living among humans and eating what we leave around. By all means shoot foxes that kill your chickens. But keep in mind why they have killed them.
I had a friend who was a sheep farmer in Devon, and for him foxes were useful. They ate the lambs that died, so saving him the trouble and cost of disposal.
For me, what is sad is that some people derive pleasure from killing them. That is not to condemn those who ride to hounds; I believe that thier greatest pleasure is the ability to ride across country on horseback without let or hindrance, and the hunt is the excuse. But nevertheless the basic reason that a hunt exists is to kill foxes. And logically it must be the most inefficient method anyone could dream up. Cars kill most foxes, especially the young ones.
However, as long as we support fox hunting, we can NEVER condemn the Spanish for bull fighting, the Pakistanis for bear bating and the Middle Eastern countries for cock fighting and dog fighting, and the English for badger bating. I believe that most people on this forum would not condone these so-called blood sports, but as long as we support fox hunting we are seen as blood sport supporters.
In the 21st century, shouldn't we take a longer view of this subject, and see it for what it really is, (in my opinion), the expression of a baser and more primitive instinct that in a so-called civilised society should be more controlled?
<hr width=100% size=1>
CLP
Well-Known Member
Tony and his cronies want to ban hunting. It won't be long before the tossers want to ban sailing.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Aja
Well-Known Member
Hunting has not been banned in Scotland. Hunts are still allowed to use hounds to hunt the fox. They are not allowed to kill the fox. The pleasure of that must go to a human with a gun.
Regards
Donald
<hr width=100% size=1>
Regards
Donald
<hr width=100% size=1>
AlexL
Well-Known Member
personally I was indifferent on the issue - probably siding against the government - however I emphasize the WAS as I just spent 2 hours in a traffic jam beacuase some selfish, arrogant w*****s parked their horse boxes on the M12/A12 junction and bought half of essex to a standstill.
Demos in london and in parliament square are fine, but 4 horse owners just pi55ed of a couple of thousand people on the M25 for no reason what so ever - there was no media coverage and everone stuck in the traffic wanted to kill them, so as far as i'm concerned the whole lot of them can go hang and i'm buggered if i'm being considerate to horses and horse boxes any more.
Rant over
<hr width=100% size=1>
Demos in london and in parliament square are fine, but 4 horse owners just pi55ed of a couple of thousand people on the M25 for no reason what so ever - there was no media coverage and everone stuck in the traffic wanted to kill them, so as far as i'm concerned the whole lot of them can go hang and i'm buggered if i'm being considerate to horses and horse boxes any more.
Rant over
<hr width=100% size=1>