Hunting debate.....nb

Re: Democratic process

Erm, isn't this about one animal (hound) killing another (fox)? And isn't that just part of the natural process, part of what foxes do to other animals? Most of the people who decry hunting will pay vast sums of money to go on safari to watch various endangered species tear each other to bits - what's the difference? And most people decrying cruelty to the fox will do so whilst sitting in leather shoes and contemplating a nice meal of animal or fish. Ever stop to think what happens in slaughterhouses? If you're a vegan anti-hunter, I might have some respect for your views; otherwise your thinking, and this Bill, just seems muddled.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Men in tights

Only saw a brief piece on the news but yes the bobbies did seem to be dishing it out a bit.

I was forced to laugh at the so called security, old boys in tights and tail coats dashing in to arrest the invaders, real Dad's Army stuff. Most disappointing thing was that the chap with the sword didn't unsheath his weapon so to speak, and do the full Erroll Flynn bit, that would have truly wonderful. Suppose it would'nt have been so funny if they'd had 10 kilos of Semtex round their waists.

Dunno about inside help - I suspect it was easy enough without, according to the news this AM they used a forged letter. A lot of so called security is dead easy to evade.

I bet there are a few people reading sits vac this morning

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

Jimi,

This a valid point, but I do wonder how it would be policed. What's to stop hounds picking up a trail of a fox on the drag? Then who get's arrested - the Master, the landowner, the hound perhaps? Country coppers are hard pressed - proven by the fact that some kit was pinched from the family farm last week, and we've yet to see the law turn up to even have a look at the scene of crime. They'd be pressed even further if they were trying to sort out who's dog exactly killed that fox. I'm not saying that illegal activity shouldn't be policed, but I can't see how it would work.

To be honest, I find this debate a little farcical, and unworthy of the anger and time that it consumes. But I do sympathise with the hunting fraternity when they claim that they are being dictated to by a body of people who have largely done nothing to prove that they care for the future of the countryside except for banning a fieldsport. If the government summoned up equal amounts of energy to deal with the crisis in dairy farming for example, then maybe it would be easier to accept their interference in something as trivial as the current debate.

I don't think that we're likely to agree on this; shall we talk about sailing instead? Lovely day in Devon, sunny and a steady F4. Great day for hunting whales... (-;

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

The arguments I have heard from the pro hunters are about as convincing as the arguments we hear for red diesel. Jobs? Infrastructure? Land lubbers don't understand the how the coast works? Too small to be significant?

Ring any bells.

Anyhow, I promised to stay out of these debates and here I am feeling compelled to write. Flameproof suit going on.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>
 
On a similar note Jimi, I fished happily for two years in my early teens and loved it until I caught my first fish, decided that it was barbaric and gave up. I fully suport subsistance fishing and feel that it is a very effective way of supplying an excellent source of nutrition to the table without the waste that must be a part of an industry. i just prefer to get mine from Tescos freezer.

I also have a friend who is a game keeper and I spent some time as he worked his moorland. In answer to my questions, he shoots crows, foxes etc because they take the pheasant chicks. When asked why they shoot the pheasants he replied that they would run out of control. Given that thier predators have just been removed then this isn't surprising. I did not describe these predators as "natural predators" as pheasant arent even native to this country!

Regarding the invasion of the Commons last night. Given recent security breeches, arent they lucky that it was a bunch of bumpkins and not the Penguin, Joker and Riddler ;-)

Regards
Camero

<hr width=100% size=1>Work to live, live to sail
 
the control issue

can't really see the control argument. if they were to make a contribution to controlling the fox population they'd need to be out there 7 days a week.

i have heard from a gamekeeper that foxes are sometimes bred for hunting when local supplies are inadequate. not something they like to let on about.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: the control issue

Hi Chris

There simply did not appear to be any valid argument. The premise appeared to be that if it moved you shot it!

Regards
Cameron

<hr width=100% size=1>Work to live, live to sail
 
I think the hunting bill...

has little to do with hunting. Its a distraction to turn the public gaze away from

1) Iraq
2) Taxation Increases
3) Law & Order breakdown
4) Decrepit schools and hospitals
5) The deliberate distruction of 66,000 pension schemes
6) Degradation of societal fabric
7) Transport problems
8) Europe

...and on and on and on


<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>
 
Re: the control issue

Of course fox hunting is cruel, but that's hardly the point. It's none of my business what someone else wants to get up to in their spare time.

I don't do it and neither do those that protest against it, so will never understand and will always disagree with the justifications of those that do. The fact is that like many things it's none of the governments business and we let them make it their business, experience shows that it wont stop there.

In time, people will evolve beyond these sorts of pastimes, but to encourage governments to interfere is opening the door wider for future curtailment of liberties. This is the way of government.

Income tax was intoduced as a temporary measure, look what happened there. Crash helmets were imposed on motorcyclists, which led to seat belt laws. Smoking bans will no doubt become a reality and I can guarantee the next target on from that will be public drinking.

If we pass a law based on cruelty to animals, then the floodgates will be open to god knows what. Hunting and fishing will be the obvious next step, but what then. Windermere has imposed a speed ban, based on spurious ecological grounds, but that can only really be imposed on motor boats. How soon before all boating is deemed a threat to wildlife and it's habitat. What about farming and meat eating, surely that's cruel? Horse racing? Dog racing? Zoos, safari parks. In fact keeping pets ultimately must be cruel as it is keeping an animal in enforced captivity. The list is endless.

Politics never stops once it reaches a sensible level. It can only survive, like anything else, if it continues to march onwards and evolve. Like an army of ants, once it's devoured what's in it's path it moves on unstopably to the next thing down the line.

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with foxes or cruelty to animals, and everything to do with civil liberties and individual freedoms.

Bill






<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: the control issue

Well said Bill!
This is exactly Lord (David) Steel's argument. "I don't agree with it myself but defend your right to your own opinion".
A part of the problem is the increasing trend for our representatives to be professional politicians rather than people giving up a large part of their personal and business life to "represent" us rather thanthemselves. I'd prefer to have M.P.s with other interests - rural, professional and/or comercial - so that they retain experience of the real world - "our" world.
Today's rant over - or is it just beginning ?

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

So if I haven't lived in the countryside, I have no right to comment on how its inhabitants operate, no matter how immoral it might seem. Quite right. "Get orf moi land!"

And of course I have absolutely no comment to make about female circumcision in parts of Africa too, because I don't come from there either. The Bill is about hunting. Just because you don't like it, please don't try to broaden into an argument about ignorance, supression of livelihoods, even liberty (oh perleeze). Government makes rules, otherwise anarchy prevails. Labour had this proposal in their manifesto and they were elected with a large majority. This is democracy. I'm surprised countrysiders feel this to be a novel concept. Some people in urban areas quite like driving round in cars at night doing donuts and racing each other. Is that an urban (sub)culture that should be protected?

I don't really care whether a ban on hunting with dogs will inconvenience people, lose a few people their livelihoods or narrow their choice of pastimes. It's immoral and barbaric. Whilst it may not be earthshatteringly important in the greater scale of things, there's no doubt the government can, and will, ban it. I doubt whether it will lead to an endless list of further bans on things like fishing, though I suppose it might. Decisions will be taken on a case by case basis. Countrysiders, move on and, incidentally, stop biting the hand that feeds you and embrace the wider world.

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

Zefender

Whilst I disagree with your viewpoint, I understand it and that of those opposed to hunting.

However, when this Government went to war against a man who was far more cruel to his own people than foxhunters are to foxes, those supposedly against cruelty opposed this course of action.

It's funny how easy it is to predict which side of the fence many of these people will sit on in any given issue. People are sheep, who follow whichever crowd they want to belong to, regardless of how much they know or how spurious the arguments are. This is why they're so easy to manipulate.

It is my belief that the majority of people on the left of these arguments (the right are no better by the way) are fed a set of views on certain subjects at an early stage and led down a continuing path of following them, no matter ridiculous or contradictory. Most people, whilst well meaning and well intentioned are manipulated by those with a larger agenda to support whatever bandwagon suits them.

This is pushed as a largely anti elitist ticket by those on the extreme left, who use cruelty as a dubious platform.

If townies can justifiably interfere with the business of those in the country then we can equally justifiably interfere in the middle east.

Another point is that you state it is immoral to hunt foxes. NO IT ISN'T. You may not like it, but it has bugger all to do with morals.

In my opinion, the world would be a better place if people concerned themselves more with their own actions and responsibilities rather then continuing to meddle in those of others.

"Let he who is without sin...", and " people in glass houses..." and all that

Bill

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
And so do I.

Another bit of manipulation by the masters of "spin".

But remember - we are probably next.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
Re: Democratic process

Hear hear to Zefender!!

Bill - if you think that hunting foxes has b*gg*r all to do with morals, then I can only say you must have grown up in a strangely amoral wasteland.


<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

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

one thing we hear constantly about today is rights and liberties. Strangely those that shout loudest about them seem often to forget that the other side of this coin is RESPONSIBILITY

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

I sort of agree with much of what you are saying. Sadly, with almost every argument for change there is an (often valid) cry of inconsistency or hypocracy to those changes that have not been applied. Things happen bit by bit and not acting in one area just because you can't/won't in another is just a stalemate.

People can certainly be manipulated. But they can also fight back when challenged (hopefully through the election box). But I feel quite comfortable that my views on foxhunting are not a result of manipulation. For years and years there has been a strong movement against hunting. It's a very emotional issue for young people in particular which has been ignored for years by successive governments. I was actually getting rather cross with the labour government when they looked like they were going to back down on the issue, disenfranchising squllions of newbie voters who saw one reason (at least) for bothering to vote for them.

Although I've some time for the notion of self-analysis before 'meddling' in the actions of others, I'm not convinced our society would get anywhere if that concept were implemented. Let's let people get plastered and fight and threaten communities all over cities, leave muggers alone, let teenagers kick the sh&t out of young puppies etc etc. Won't work.


Ooh I've come across all serious. Must revert back to type pronto... :-)


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

I think you've replied to Zefender in a far more constructive and reasonable way than I could have done. As I've said already on this thread, I do not hunt. But relating hunting to the larger issue of crisis in the UK farming industry is not helpful. ie "cannabalistic" stock keeping. Good for Zefender for being a self-sufficient vegan and not needing UK farms to feed him. However, this leaves me a little puzzled as to why he feels so strongly about hunting. Does it cause him regular and insufferable inconvenience I wonder? I can only presume so, otherwise surely he's be finding something more important to worry about... Nice comment about not caring about the livelihood of a few kennelmen too. Good to see that you've got a balanced and considered overview of the debate. And you preach about morals...

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

Share this page

Top