Hunting debate.....nb

The reason birds are declining is the simple fact that their habitat is going fast. If a farmer stops raising birds for the shoot the woodland he does it in becomes unprofitable. He clears it for crops. The woodland goes the birds and other wildlife go fact.

And as for townies not understanding the "ways" of the countryside. That also is fact. You've only got to look at ramblers for that! Most of which come from the towns.

Your philosophy comment is a valid one. But how far do you take it. The reason the world can feed itself is thru intensive farming. I don't agree with battery farming of chickens, but how many people would stick the price hike going back to "traditional" methods. not many. Look at the uproar about the red diesel, and thats not even an "essential" for life as far as the pleasure boater in concerned!

<hr width=100% size=1>
captain.gif
 
Re: Democratic process

Sorry Becky, without taking pro or anti sides, the belief in your statement, 'Foxes kill for food. What they cannot eat immediately, they bury, if they have the time, of course.'.
A fox in a chicken coup doesn't just take a bird for food or perhaps to bury it for later. A fox loose in a chicken run, will slaughter them all, regardless of it's needs. A mink will also do the same.
Funnily enough, I don't hear a great outcry to ban mink hunting, and they don't even belong in this country.
To keep this political, which is what it is, why have they proposed an implementation delay of 18 months instead of by the end of this year. It is purely a political decision not to upset the voter by putting down dogs, getting rid of horses and depriving people of their livelihood, prior to the next election. After which, if they are succesful in winning, they will not give a toss. Oh, and they have no intention of offering any form of compensation for the destruction of livelihoods which they have terminated. Good for the working man comrade. Sorry. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I sympathise broadly with the 'rational/philosophical' views of the anti-hunt lobby; it can hardly be said that the taking of pleasure from an activity which involves inflicting extreme terror and/or physical suffering on another living creature is uplifting of the human condition. That applies to fox-hunting but also, perhaps, to game-shooting, fishing ... and pulling the wings off flies (surely we should strive to rise above our baser instincts). Also, perhaps indirectly, to some forms of intensive livestock farming (veal production for example? foie gras?).

The substantive issue, on which I am somewhat agnostic, is whether the offence caused to the majority (if it is a majority) is so grave as to justify the majority imposing its will on a minority. There is or should be a willingness to 'live and let live'. It is undeniable that the majority has imposed its will in not dissimilar cases - cock-fighting, bear baiting etc. - and it is hard to find persuasive arguments that fox-hunting is so different. Except - where will it stop? The justification of 'grave offence' is subjective. That which one man may find offensive or deeply offensive another will find entirely inoffensive. Should we seek to legislate to protect the sensibilities of the tenderest souls in our society or hold to the live and let live principle.

It appears that our representatives have decided the matter. Although I instinctively dislike the sport and would wish it to wither and disappear, I think I would have held the freedom of others to pursue a traditional sport above that desire.




<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
Re: Democratic process

The fox in the chicken coup is a very false situation. Yes they will keep on killing until all the chickens are dead. But it is the sam emotion that drives a human hunter to shoot as much game as he can. In the wild, the chickens would run away. But we have caged them. It happens with other animals in the same circumstances. Even humans will go on killing more deer, fish etc. than they can eat. The blood lust rises and reason is ignored.
Nature programs animals to kill as much food as they can. Normally this is only one or two. But the principle of leaving food out for animals and then condeming them for eating it isn't a good argument. Elephants destroy crops. Deer eat everything they can, dolphins will eat a whole shoal of fish, bears eat only the heads of Alaskan salmon because there are so many of them. The examples are endless. It still doesn't make killing foxes right.
What also upsets me is that we are told that foxhounds will be destroyed if the hunts are disbanded. Yet the hounds are only useful while they are young enough to hunt. Then they are destroyed anyway.
I lived in the country for many years, then I lived in London. Now I am back in the country. It isn't jealosy of the so-called rich huntsman that upsets me, my sons and my friends, It is the idea that people seem to get pleasure from killing. They just don't allow animals any value. It is part and parcel of our attitude to ecology and our environment.
John Ridgeway spent some time in the Southern Ocean in a compaign to raise awareness of the destruction of albatrosses. This to me is a similar situation. Albatrosses are not important when compared with the world's need for fish, so they become expendable. Foxes are expendable too. When I lived in London, just a mile from Tower Bridge, there were loads of foxes around. There was a den with cubs in my neighbour's garden, and we used to watch them playing. Nobody wanted to kill them. Yet another neighbour had a dozen bantams, but she kept them penned or her Newfoundland was on guard. No contest.
There is no difference between urban foxes, well known to 'townies', and the true wild fox, except that the latter is probably healthier.
Another point; several farmers round here do not allow the hunt on their land because of the damage they do.
I think that this discussion will never end. Emotion, not reason is the basis of the argument.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Foxes by their nature are scavengers and hunters. By their way of life, like all scavengers, they must prepare for lean times - hence they will always kill and bury. The chichen coop is the smae.. By instinct the fox will simply try and kill in order to provide for another day. Left to his own devices the fox would bury all twenty or thirty chickens he had killed. The problem is not essentially the fox, it is keeping chickens in an enclosure from which they cannot escape.

As for mink - it is an interesting fact that otters do not tolerate them. If we had rivers full of otters, the mink would have died out long ago. Why do we not have rivers full of otters. Well mostly admittedly its poluttion - but hunting played its part in almost wiping out these wonderful creatures.



<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
Re: Democratic process

"Even humans will go on killing more deer, fish etc. than they can eat. The blood lust rises and reason is ignored"

I can't agree with that statement. I treat my shoots as natures pantry. I shoot what I can eat. I fish, I take what I can eat. I'd rather see the food I eat staying fresh until the time comes to eat it.

OK the pest control jobs are just that, pest control. I'll never hunt indiginous species to the point that my shoots are barren of them. Its control and not irradication.

<hr width=100% size=1>
captain.gif
 
Its going....Get over it.

Any chance of them protesting subsidy junkies actually doing a fair days work any time in the near future./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Nastro Azzurro.Hoegaarden.Chang.Tiger.
 
Re: Democratic process

Not at all - Everyone <font color=red>is</font color=red> out to get you! I presumed that was why you were a pessimist! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
Re: Democratic process

<Left to his own devices the fox would bury all twenty or thirty chickens he had killed.>

Sorry, this statement does just not hold water. Sure, if the carcasses were left lying around the fox may well come back and grab another, but it certainly would not spend 4 or 5 hours returning for bird after bird, just to take it away and bury it.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

He does - there was a worthy David Attenborough or some such on Beeb2 not so long ago - exactly that behaviour - took the fox all afternoon!

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
erm .. yes ... erm .. I used to be a prolific dry fly game fisher for many years (brought up with it) but acshully gave up cos I thought it was cruel .. do'nt tell antbody cos they'll think i'm a wee softee .. I know Para has similar views but is in denial and still pretends tae fush

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
thocht the debate improved after the protesters broke in and harangued the labour front bench with "you've muddled up pensions, now you're muddling up countryside etc" (change "muddle" to something more appropriate) ...


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
See you've hit the nail on the head. Buzz word now is security. The hunting thing in the 10.00 news was a by line. ooh and nasty police brutality......and this is a civilized world we live in is it!

<hr width=100% size=1>
captain.gif
 
Och a way and bile yer heid .. all these bloodied hunt supporters claiming police brutality .. at least they were torn to pieces by the pigs rather than a pack of hounds .. makes you think does it not?

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

Share this page

Top