Fox hunting & the banning issues

[Lisa]

What is everyones opinions on this?

 

I am all for banning it, I think it is a cruel sport full of posh ponces

[kingster28]

It makes me so angry that in a world when people are dying almost every hour what does our government do? They use it as a shield to rush though a parlimentary bill which will cost thousands of people their jobs and livelyhoods. I resepct/agree with your comments on the 'sport' being a upper class persuit, but isn't it often the case of those working for them/under them who will pay the harshest penalty i.e. with their jobs.

 

If my job was under threat then I'd certaintly want to make my voice heard but Labour hasn't given them an opportunity to do so.....banning fox hunting may be a vote winner for Labour but it isn't going to stop the countryside fox hunting, and therefore honest law abiding people will be breaking the law, the same kind of situation as using cannabis as a pain killer type scenario.... (((runs around the offices shuting power to the people!....

Edited September 15, 2004 by kingster28

[Lisa]

Im asking about how people feel about the sport. I personnaly feel it is savage & totally unnessacary.

 

People getting dressed up, sitting on horses like ponces, whilst dogs, chase & petrify these poor animals before ripping them to pieces etc is not a sport IMO & certainly is not a way in which to keep the fox populatiion down

[Alex]

To be honest I couldn't care less if the "county set" lost the right to pull foxes to pieces with hounds, before heading home for a G&T.

 

If it is about controlling fox populations, one man and rifle can do that job with the minimum of pain caused to the creature before death.

 

The hounds can easily be re-homed, as opposed to the view (or weak argument) that they would all need to be shot.

 

As for the animal rights protesters, I could not care less for their campaign and to be honest every action they do puts me off even more from the cause. Idiots.

[Guest]

BAN.

[kingster28]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Sep 15 2004, 11:44)

Im asking about how people feel about the sport.  I personnaly feel it is savage & totally unnessacary.

As a sport it's redundant, and for those involved to use sport as an umbrella to defend their actions would be deplorable, so I agree with the thread, i'm much more concerned about the people who will lose their £5/£6 hourly jobs because of it, the effect it will have on communities (it wil have a knock on effect) rather than the loss of a jolly up at the weekend for the stuck up toffs as you eloquently put it, although I realise that's a different point to the original.

[alasdairm]

QUOTE (kingster28 @ Sep 15 2004, 03:18)

It makes me so angry that in a world when people are dying almost every hour what does our government do? They use it as a shield to rush though a parlimentary bill which will cost thousands of people their jobs and livelyhoods.

that's a strange, and not entirely helpful way, to look at political issues. every issue has both relative and absolute merit - for just about any political issue you could mention, i'm sure somebody could come up with another issue which has, it could be argued, greater relative merit.

 

what does that achieve? in my opinion very little. you have to look at these issues on their merits in absolute terms.

 

there was a fox-hunting thread here (or perhaps on the 'old' ctw) a while ago and it was pretty clear back then that most of the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting lobby had very little grounding in fact, common sense (or any other important criteria*)

 

i'd like to see some evidence, if you can supply it, that this ban will lead to thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods. further, from a societal point of view, what does it say about us if such a livelihood is built on needless suffering?

 

if comebody could show you that hunting children could be made to turn a profit and create jobs would that be a reason for doing it? i think you're guilty of arguing a false dilemma.

 

regards

 

alasdair

 

* i accept that the importance - or otherwise - of thse criteria is a subjective thing.

[kingster28]

I'm a little confused but are you saying that British soldiers being killed in Irag has the same political relevance as fox hunting?

What I don't want to do here is present myself as Pro-hunting, if fact I've already said that as a sport it's totally unacceptable; but innocent hard working people inevitably will lose jobs because of this bill; stable hands who do it for the love of horses and not neccesarily for the love of hunting. 500,000 people marched for the last Liberty and Livelihood demo; they are not all upper class toffs who have enough money not to care about a ban, surely their are genuine people who have a case to state.....or are they not allowed freedom of speech because you don't agree with fox hunting. You may not agree with the BNP but they are allowed freedom of speech; the same should apply to the Pro Hunting Fraternity....

[Alex]

British Soldiers dying as part of their duty and how this ranks on the political scale is another and very seperate issue.

 

The question is, should people have a livelihood based on the short season of fox hunting?

[Lisa]

"farmers losing their stock due to fox attacks"

 

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (now DEFRA) regard the threat from a fox as 'negligible' (0.5% of all lamb losses were to foxes - far far less than the number of lambs lost to poor farming practises by the farmers themselves).

 

Studies have shown that a fox may take dead or dying sheep (still born etc), but a healthy sheep is easily a match for a fox.

 

Sometimes foxes may get into sheds and take chickens however again studies have shown that this is because sheds are inappropriate and insecure. In a study in Wales where electric fences were employed there was not one loss. Also the majority of chicken farming is factory based.

 

"Hunts are the most efficient method"

 

Fox hunting kills around 20,000 foxes annually, but represents around 2.5 % of the fox population and a tenth of the number of foxes killed annually. Overseas, control programmes have indicated that in order to reduce fox numbers, the annual cull needs to be approaching 70% of the population

 

On the future of dogs

 

I accept that the dogs are not suitable to be rehoused. However switching to the drag hunt method will allow the dogs, jobs and industry to continue.

From what I've read very few foxhounds die of old age. A very small number may become minkhounds however, most are killed as soon as they become to slow for the pack. (usually at 5-7 years)

 

The Duke of Beaufort, who runs a large hunt, recommends breeding a large number of puppies and then killing all but those who prove to be the best hunting material.

[alasdairm]

QUOTE (kingster28 @ Sep 15 2004, 05:55)

I'm a little confused but are you saying that British soldiers being killed in Irag has the same political relevance as fox hunting?

no - that's not what i'm saying at all.

 

i'm saying that, to different people, different issues like soldiers dying and fox hunting have different relative values. that doesn't alter the fcat that, as political issues, they also have absolute levels of importance.

 

hence, saying "x is more important than y" is a poor argument for discussing the absolute value of y. that seems to be what you're doing here and i'm pointing out what i think is a simple logical flaw in your argument.

 

QUOTE (kingster28 @ Sep 15 2004, 05:55)

but innocent hard working people inevitably will lose jobs because of this bill

 

you have to look at the costs and benefits. if you choose to only focus on one or the other, your argument holds no water at all.

 

QUOTE (kingster28 @ Sep 15 2004, 05:55)

surely their are genuine people who have a case to state.....or are they not allowed freedom of speech because you don't agree with fox hunting.

 

who said they shouldn't be allowed to state their case. there's a huge difference between the lobbying for the activity and the actual activity itself - surely you can see that?

 

QUOTE (kingster28 @ Sep 15 2004, 05:55)

You may not agree with the BNP but they are allowed freedom of speech; the same should apply to the Pro Hunting Fraternity....

 

of course. to distill this, they should be allowed the freedom to state their case about fox-hunting publicly. the should not be allowed to fox hunt. there's an obvious difference.

 

alasdair

Edited September 15, 2004 by alasdairm

[teabag]

Every Englishman must have a hobby. Some like to collect the stamp. Some like to make the jam. But the most fun is to kill a little animal with a shotgun or rip him up with a wild dog. This is why I come to the countryside to find out about English hobbies.

 

[Alex]

Pro-hunt protesters storm Commons

 

These people love watching foxes pulled apart by hounds way too much.

[alasdairm]

i read today that during the foot and mouth epidemic in 200/2001, fox hunting was the subject of a year long ban. there was no corresponding increase in the number of foxes in that time.

 

this, and a body of other evidence, shows very clearly that fox hunting really has nothing to do with fox population control and everything to do with killing for fun.

 

alasdair

[LiquidEyes]

Kingster, are you seriously implying that we should consider continuing to do something immoral just for the sake of money?

 

A comparable issue (i.e. morals versus money) would be that of pollution / global warming. It may well be cheaper to use fuels that harm our environment, but that hardly justifies fucking up our planet!

 

I don't think you understood Alasdair's argument. The fact that a few people (or even a lot of people) will lose their jobs is trivial if you look at the bigger picture, i.e. that we live in a society that condones certain kinds of animal cruelty -- which, in principle, is the thin end of a highly dubious wedge.