Thread: Purgatory: Boxing Day Hunt; Is this a good thing? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001064

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I am not a British subject so I cannot vote in UK but I learned to ride in 1962 and I cannot see the point of 'The Hunt'. Who benefits besides dog-breeders, horse-trainers and gentlemen's tailors? Is the countryside over-populated with foxes? What think ye?

[ 01. February 2004, 17:26: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
A former neighbour of mine in Pasadena was a member of The Valley Hunt Club but their only activity that comes to mind is dressing funny on 1 January and riding in The Rose Parade.....

We used to have coyotes behind the local golf course, but they never seemed to hunt them like English foxes. I wish someone could explain the concept of 'The Hunt' and why it was not abolished/banned at the turn of the century.....

 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
tangent .... Do you mean St. Stephen's Day?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I cannot see the point of 'The Hunt'. Who benefits besides dog-breeders, horse-trainers and gentlemen's tailors? Is the countryside over-populated with foxes?

---

I cannot see the point of football. Who benefits besides footballers, club-owners and manufactures of over-priced merchandise? Is the country over-populated with inflated pig's-bladders?
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
I work in the horse industry and I'm really not sure where I stand on the hunting issue. Foxes can be a problem in the countryside as they kill lambs, piglets and chickens. You can understand why the country people who are a pretty pragmatic lot decide to combine the chore of getting rid of vermin with a cracking day out. I've never hunted as I'm far too scared to go that fast over country I don't know that well, jumping anything that comes between me and the hounds. People who do hunt say that it is a brilliant sport.

From a practical point of view there will be several unfortunate side effects if hunting is banned.

Firstly there will be thousands of hounds that have to be put down. They cannot be retrained as house dogs and would have to be slaughtered. I don't know if the anti hunt people could stomach this and the RSPCA would be forced to kill them all if they were dumped onto their rescue shelters. The horses are easier to retrain. As someone who has done it I can say it is bloody hard work!

Secondly there will be a collapse in the economy of some rural areas. The pro hunt lobby overstate their case but hunting does support areas like Exmoor and does provide jobs for the hunt workers, kennel hands and grooms. Many of these jobs come with tied accomadation and people will be forced into the towns and into new occupations which they are not trained for and don't want to do. It will mean more houses for incommers to tart up though.

A final practical point and the one that would directly affect me is the fate of dead and dying horses. At the moment the hunt will take your horse from you if it dies in the night. Without hunting you are left with a large piece of meat in your stables, you can't bury it (illegal), you can't sell it for petfood if it is already dead (illegal) and it costs of fortune to cremate it.

You can't sell your horse for meat in Europe as live exports have been banned and licenced horse abatoirs are about to go out of business as horse passports (imposed by Brussles) mean that most pleasure horses can't go into the food chain.

The RSPCA may find itself picking up the pieces as people abandon their animals. I have to restrain myself here as the RSPCA does not have a good reputation in the horsey community. They will rescue a lame sparrow if there is a film crew around but won't touch horses in distress until they are a couple of days from death.

From a pratical point of view banning hunting will cause problems for the countryside and the horsey businesses.

I'll leave the ethical stuff to someone who is wider awake.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Kev, the opposition to hunting with dogs in this country is chiefly fuelled by inverted snobbery. If, however, you are opposed to hunting (with or without dogs) then you should be out there campaigning against it where you live. I wish you luck And in the meantime, if it's toffs you object to, perhaps the remedy begins with your title.
 

---

Posted by Balaam, the red nosed donkey. (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
tangent .... Do you mean St. Stephen's Day?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Kev, the opposition to hunting with dogs in this country is chiefly fuelled by inverted snobbery. If, however, you are opposed to hunting (with or without dogs) then you should be out there campaigning against it where you live.

---

Inverted snobbery? Nope, when I have the misfortune to see the local hunt, I feel sickened to the gut!

So much so that I cannot attend the Barrel Rolling event in our town center because the Hunt sets off from there.

Keeping the horses and hounds has to be paid for somehow, but I cannot see how this can possibly provide enough jobs to fully support the economy of any significant area, other than in a circular manner.

Gremlin, not feeling particularly eloquent today, but the Hunt doesn't exactly bring out that side of him.
 

---

Posted by Santa's Little Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
Amos, I'm considering calling you to Hell but I'm not going to be online much over the next few days. So I'll bite my tongue and try to deal with your post in a purgatorial manner.

If you support hunting with dogs I suggest you either come up with some actual arguments or remain quiet. Instead, you decide to label the foxhunting movement as inverted snobbery.

Actually, there are people who care about animals, and aren't driven by dislike of "toffs". (On a tangent, the title of Sir isn't a toff's title as it, theoretically, is based on merit, not birth).

Of course, there are inverted snobs in the movement, but most people who actively campaign against foxhunting are doing it on moral grounds. They object to animals being killed for sport, and a large number of them are vegetarians and object to animals being killed at all.

Chapelhead- If footballs were living creatures, your analogy might have some validity. As it is, there is an obvious flaw is comparing a sport which involves killing with one that does not.
 

---

Posted by Balaam, the red nosed donkey. (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Balaam

I am more accustomed to using the names and terms that the Church uses.

---

quote:

---

A Lurker wrote:
the title of Sir isn't a toff's title as it, theoretically, is based on merit, not birth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
in the area of Scotland I come from we shot the pesky foxes when they caused too many problems.

---

The problem can then be that foxes are wounded and die slowly. At least with a hunt the fox either ends up alive or dead, no half measures.
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
If we don't hunt foxes then they will be shot or poisoned. Banning hunting will not save any foxes. They are vermin and will be destroyed and who is to say if a long slow death through poison or gangrene is better than being pulled apart by a hound.

From my biased viewpoint the anti hunt lobby do not seem to be concerned with the hounds that will be put down if hunting is banned. Neither are they concerned with the horses who are frightened by their tactics on demonstrations. I have heard of hunt sabs spreading tacks on the road to lame the horses and hounds. The source for this is pro hunting so it may not be true. However it would not be out of keeping with the virulent hatred shown by many sabs who seem more concerned with hating the riders and the class that they believe they represent rather than any cruelty to the foxes.

If the sabs are so concerned about animal cruelty why aren't they on the South Downs where gangs of men set lurchers onto hares ripping them apart. Why aren't they protesting at dog fights? Or badger baits? If they are so concerned about animal cruelty then the puppy breeding farms in Wales or the out of control ponies in some urban estates are all areas that could do with attention. But then none of the people in these cruel practices wear red coats or live in nice country houses.

If someone could convince me of a humane way to control foxes other than hunting I would back it.


If you can convince me that the screaming hatred of the hunting fraternity seen at hunts up and down the country is not class based then I could take their arguments more seriously.

[ 26. December 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Poppy ]
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
We used to live out in the countryside.
The local estates' gamekeepers kept the foxes under control....I might be wrong on this, but I seem to remember hearing that a dog fox will protect his territory, so overcrowding wasn't too likely.

My real problem with fox hunting is that the people involved have a day's pleasure out of a pastime where the end result is the death of an animal.

I know that a fox isn't all that often caught, but any time it is.....ugghgh.

As above posts have asked...why not a drag course if it's not the killing that gives the pleasure?
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Poppy, you asked why people weren't protesting at dog fights and badger baiting. These things are already illegal and organised in secret.
I understand that hunting in order to kill foxes is illegal in Denmark, where hunting is a popular sport. This has not stopped hunting, and no hounds have had to be put down. They choose one rider, who is the quarry, and carries a fox's tail pinned to his coat. The hunt continues until another rider has captured the tail. They then have the honour of carrying the tail for the next hunt.
For the pro-hunters out there, I'd like to ask a question. I have a book written by a Scottish shepherd, called Red Sky at Night. In it, the author estimates how many lambs can be killed by a family of foxes living on his land. He contrasts this with the number of voles a fox will kill over a year. Voles eat grass and therefore compete directly with the sheep for food. He estimates that the foxes save him quite a lot of money on extra fodder by killing the voles, and this offsets the small number of losses he may have at lambing time. Can anyone knowledgeable comment on this idea?
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
The hunt seems like a particularly inefficient way of keeping down vermin. As said earlier, there is something very unpleasant about having a fun day out with the goal of having a fox torn apart by hounds. I don't know what a more humane solution might be. Is it really that much of a problem, considering other vermin that the foxes keep down?

We had a school in my district that was absolutely swarming with gophers, and one summer a family of foxes moved in and cleaned them all out. The groundskeepers were delighted, but district rules required them to get rid of the foxes before the children came back. I suppose they were poisoned. It does seem a shame. I wish I knew what the solution was.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
Just a couple of points.

What I dislike about fox hunting is the ritualisation of slaughter. Killing lesser animals is sometimes justifiable. (E.g. taking antibiotics, destroying a troublesome wasp nest) but making it into a ritual is distasteful.

Secondly I believe the balance of evidence is that fox hunts have no appreciable effect on the fox population in Britain. The limiting factor on numbers is available habitat; kill a few and others will replace them - fewer will die through lack of suitable habitat or food. And hunts do only kill a small number ... and don't address at all the problem of the urban population, from which the rural could always replenish. Indeed some hunts actually create habitat to attract foxes so they can have their "sport". At one stage some used to breed foxes to set loose to hunt.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Amos, professional gamekeepers, yes, but also all the gaffers on the farms were good shots with shotguns. I was only a kid when I had lessons in shooting. We used to practise with bottles on the dykes ( vandalism nowadays ). The keepers and shepherds had to be able to shoot dogs worrying the sheep too, and they definitely made sure they were dead - not much bigger then foxes. I think if you are used to using a gun regularly, you are probably more skilled. Some of the toffs who come out on the shoots need extra training for safety; they don't just damage the birds, they damage the beaters and themselves at times.

At least the birds are eaten...

And hunt saboteurs should behave themselves too. I respect the ones who don't act violently.
 

---

Posted by Flounder (# 3859) on :
 
As an American horsewoman who'd love to go on a good chase, but who hates the idea of animals being mauled to death and who abhors the slaughter of horses, my question is this:

Why not have a drag hunt? A drag hunt is simply a scent laid down for the hounds. There's no kill: The dogs are rewarded in some other, less unpleasant way. This way, the riders get their fun and the horses and dogs still have a living. It seems to be a much better solution for everyone than doing away with hunting altogether.

BTW, it seems to me that a well-trained hunter should be a reasonably safe, sound and versatile horse. If not, then something is very wrong with the way they were trained.

I don't know about the UK, but foxes in the US are good mousers and help keep the rodent population under control.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flounder:
Why not have a drag hunt? A drag hunt is simply a scent laid down for the hounds. There's no kill: The dogs are rewarded in some other, less unpleasant way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flounder:
I don't know about the UK, but foxes in the US are good mousers and help keep the rodent population under control.

---

quote:

---

Hunting exists only with the permisson of the farmers whose land it crosses - the farmers may or may not hunt themselves.

---

A Hunt was started up where we were by one of the local landowners...probably for their Holiday Guests.

The local farmers were usually tennants and couldn't object.
 

---

Posted by Flounder (# 3859) on :
 
Ariel,

You should see the skunks and raccoons here. They're always raiding the trash and I get to clean up after them. Lucky me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flounder:
I don't know about the UK, but foxes in the US are good mousers and help keep the rodent population under control.

---

(Laughs sourly) Foxes in the UK seem to be adept at strewing the contents of dustbins all over the road as noisily as they can, and thereby encouraging the local rodent population. As if they needed it. There are now 2.5 rats for every person in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Kev, the opposition to hunting with dogs in this country is chiefly fuelled by inverted snobbery. If, however, you are opposed to hunting (with or without dogs) then you should be out there campaigning against it where you live....

---

 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I said too much too slowly and meant to add THAT MY TITLE IS Ship's Gaffer and the other is only a nickname - see 'recent posts' for ful details!

Thanks Poppy - you have provided better and more detailed background on the 'Hunt Problem' than any 50 episodes of The Archers, formerly my one-stop source for info on rural England in the 21st century.

I'll read more and write again after dinner.....


 

---

Posted by Flounder (# 3859) on :
 
Hunts don't need foxes. That's what drag hunts are for.

I didn't know about that foxhounds were automatically put down. Ugh. I voted against greyhound racing in Massachusetts for that reason — we lost - but that's another thread that belongs in Hell.

Definitely agree with the following:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
...What angers me is the lies told by people who support hunting.

Hounds will have to be put down? All fox hounds are put down anyway. They don't make suitable pets. There is no retirement for them. When they can no longer keep up they are shot. And probably fed to the pack.

[Foxes] ...are part of the countryside's ecology. They kill chickens when they can, and occasionally larger stuff. The answer is to protect livestock. Calling foxes vermin and saying how much damage they do is just a way of emotionally justifying hunting. It has nothing to do with the realities of farming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flounder:
I guess I'll stick (to)other kinds of riding, then ? not that I've ever gone on any hunts anyway. One can still go for a good gallop without indulging in cruelty.

---

Strongly Agree

The score so far as refereed by he who wd b from Devon:

Foxes: nil
Hunters: two
p.e.t.a.* one
Poppy: four

* = people eating tasty animals (but mildly opposed to fox stoles and mildly in favour of faux fur and off-duty super-models in the buff)


 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Hounds will have to be put down? All fox hounds are put down anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Lost employment? Hunts don't actually produce any marketable good beyond a leisure activity. It's just about money going round. It will go round in other ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Fox hunting is not about keeping fox numbers down. Hunting country is full of little woodlands. You can see them on a map, often called coverts. They are there in order to provide habitat for foxes so the hunt has something to do. Hunts need foxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
The answer is to protect livestock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Calling foxes vermin and saying how much damage they do is just a way of emotionally justifying hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
All foxes have to die as well. If we [are]unconcerned about shortening the life of a dog, why be concerned about shortening the life of a fox?



It is also quite possible that those coverts would be removed as an obstacle to efficient farming if they served no purpose in providing habitat. Fortunately hunting protects the environment be keeping those attractive woodlands and the habitats they provide for a great range of animals and plants.


Factory farmed lamb with the animals kept indoors for their whole lives would indeed be one solution. Not one I would care for, though.

---

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


I am for factory-farmed bears myelf but until they come into existence, North Americans shall hunt them on foot so they won't ravage our cities, threaten our children, damage our motorcars and strew the dregs of our garbage cans which they find unappetizing all over the roadway and in private gardens!




[Edited for UBB in quote.]

[ 27. December 2003, 08:34: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
I think it is a thorny issue.

I do agree with Amos about the inverted snobbbery aspect. I agree because I can recognise that element of response within myself.

There are long- standing class-based resentments within British society.

Elements of this around huntin and shootin include;

the punishment of poachers trying to feed their starving families in days gone by, to preserve game to be shot/hunted/fished (whether eventually eaten or not) as a recreation

the trampling of the gardens and small holdings of ordinary people by hunts on some occasions (don't know if it happens now)

the red livery of the hunt being seen as much as a badge of class as of anything else

the possibly apocryphal stories of low ranking people being hunted down with dogs and horse;

and the hunt as a statement of power, of who is "in" this particular elite, though granted you don't have to be an aristocrat to go hunting, certainly these days

the association of the hunt with a way of life that passed with the Second World War, wiht servants & etc. (cf Brideshead Revisited which has an elegaic quality to it, remembering a way of doing things that is now lost...)

the blooding of children (smearing their faces with the fox's blood) is a rather unpleasant element of this - presumably an encouragement to them not to be squeamish about the death of the fox...but I wonder what else you can extrapolate from that. It certainly has some sort of semblance of an initiation ritual, not just to huntin, but maybe to how we do things as upper middle class overlords...

I think there is a real debate, as we see in the arguments above, about the most humane way to proceed with the need to cull foxes.

I am sure however that much of the feelings generated are to do with the class issue...if they went riding in less ostentatious gear, for instance, maybe the lower classes (such as myself) wouldn't feel their hackles rise as they drive past a hunt in full swing.

Thing is, it's not just about the fox, is it?
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
I do agree with Amos about the inverted snobbbery aspect. I agree because I can recognise that element of response within myself.

There are long- standing class-based resentments within British society.......
the red livery of the hunt being seen as much as a badge of class as of anything else

and the hunt as a statement of power, of who is "in" this particular elite, though granted you don't have to be an aristocrat to go hunting, certainly these days

..... maybe the lower classes (such as myself) wouldn't feel their hackles rise as they drive past a hunt in full swing.

Thing is, it's not just about the fox, is it?

---

quote:

---

Hunts manage fox numbers. In towns and cities there are no habitats provided for foxes, and fox numbers have increased dramatically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:

quote:

---

Hunts manage fox numbers. In towns and cities there are no habitats provided for foxes, and fox numbers have increased dramatically.

---

What nonsense! The numbers of foxes in towns and cites have increased precisely because we have provided a suitable habitat with plenty of food in our dustbins and shelter under our garden sheds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
As a townie, I try not to have too many opinions on "country pursuits", but I went to see the Hunt off for the first time yesterday (at Lewes).

Just a couple of impressions:

* Being Lewes, there were lots of very well-spoken people on horse-back. However, there were also lots of people with Sassix accents too.

* Some of those lovely animal lovers/anti-hunters were amongst the most stupid, hypocritical, downright cruel people I've encountered. So concerned are they about animals, they decided to TERRIFY the horses by banging, and screaming, and blowing hideously high-pitched whistles. Serves themselves right if the horses did kick out at them!

I know which side I was more inclined towards!

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
I do stand by my post, which you have significantly misquoted.

---

quote:

---

What I said was that the anti-hunting movement was mostly fuelled by inverted snobbery. Note that word 'mostly'. The anti-hunting movement principally manifests inself as an anti-fox-hunting movement.

---

quote:

---

Your confidence in the meritocratic basis of the honours system is touching, by the way; IMO it's fairly hit-and-miss, like a pheasant shoot, in fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:

if they went riding in less ostentatious gear, for instance, maybe the lower classes (such as myself) wouldn't feel their hackles rise

---

I'm not sure that this would make a difference - there are about two million riders in the UK who already do just that, and most of them will be able to tell you stories of the hostility they have encountered from complete strangers without going anywhere near a fox.

Perhaps if the Government followed up a ban with a promise to legislate for better off-road access for riders, this would go some way towards cheering up former hunters and would also benefit all the other riders too.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
In my experience the wave you give the person who has given you the right of way is modified by the necessity of controlling the horse on the highway, and the fact that you should have both hands on the reins. When you ride Western style, you're only holding the reins with one hand, so a more populist wave becomes possible.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree:
And animal rights activists are everywhere these days, foxhunting is just the issue the papers are covering because it is what the politicians are debating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I don't recall seeing any mass protests at the meat counter in Sainsbury's, or picketing of the turkey farms before Christmas (or Thanksgiving).

There does seem to be a particular objection to hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
It is the ritual aspect which is so objectionable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
It is one thing to have slaughterhouses to create meat;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
but shouldn't our celebrations focus on the more wholesome aspects of life, rather than activities which are at best regrettable necessities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree:
Quite a lot, Sine, it is hard to handle a gun properly with paws.

---

Obviously then the solution isn't to ban hunting, but rather to give the foxes better training.
 

---

Posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree (# 1384) on :
 
O.K.

Serious answer time. According to Advocates for Animals submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (you can read it here, the site contains submissions from several organisations, both pro and anti), around 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs each year. This is about a tenth of the total mortality, so hunting does not have that much of an effect on the population.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Just curious, but does anyone know approximately how many foxes are killed each year hunting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree:
around 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs each year. This is about a tenth of the total mortality,

---

quote:

---

Eating meat is not a necessity, and there seems to be much less enthusiasm for opposing the "unwholesome" consumption of a dead animal at Christmas and Thanksgiving than for opposing hunting, despite the fuss and ceremony of the great turkey-fests.

---

You make a good point. I have often, on being asked to say grace publicly over a huge deceased fowl, been tempted to start "In the midst of life we are in death..." My son and I shared a very modest turkey leg joint from ASDA this year, and my wife and daughter had a home-made nut loaf, which we also shared. I did find myself reflecting that the ceremonial presence of the kind of multi-kilogramme gravitational anomaly of turkey-meat that makes the moon wobble in its orbit overhead is something I don't miss from our Christmases. We do have meat, but the Flaunting of the Meat always struck me as an egregious part of the ritual.

(Since we married and until last year, our Christmas dinner was a turkey breast roast from M&S,and four chicken drumsticks from Iceland, arranged deconstructively on the one plate in the middle of the table, for convenience not show. Our children grew up thinking that turkeys were four-legged and had rectangular bodies. Maybe that's why our daughter is a vegetarian. And my son likes construction kits...)
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

 

---

Posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree (# 1384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Lurker in a Pear Tree:
around 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs each year. This is about a tenth of the total mortality,

---

The Burns report also suggested a total fox populaation of around 217,000 before the breeding season so unless foxes have a life-expectency of only a year hunting being responsible for only a tenth of total mortality seems a low estimate.

---

quote:

---

It is estimated that at its peak in the spring, the fox population of the United Kingdom may be over 500,000. By the winter, when mating takes place, some 300,000 foxes will have died. Much of this mortality will be due to natural selection ie the deaths of the weakest cubs. It is estimated that around 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

One thing I have noticed is that farmers and country people tend to be not the least sentimental about animals as city people frequently are.

---

Partly a result, I suspect, of the Disneyfication of animals - but that may be more of a Hellacious subject.

A proposal to ban all portrayals of animals as little people behaving in a human way - but nice and cuddly and never hurting each other - would be a fine thing.

 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Lots of hunting dogs in the States, Sine, though fewer horses. Just think of all the different kinds of hound the American south can brag of: Redbone Coonhounds, Black-and-Tan Coonhounds, Treeing Walker Coonhounds, Plott Hounds (bred for bear), English Foxhounds, American Foxhounds, Bloodhounds, Beagles, Harriers....still ubiquitous. Interestingly, there are Societies devoted to finding homes as pets for abandoned coonhounds (there are a lot of 'em).
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
True. I guess I was being parochial. Around here it's mostly sitting up in a tree waiting for a deer or a turkey to wander by.

Come to think of it, one of my great-grandfathers was reputed to breed and train the best bird dogs in the state. After he lost both his legs to diabetes he would still be carried out into the fields in his wheel chair to shoot.

As a farm owner, I doubt he would have had much concern for the suffering of the fox. He was more concerned for his tenants.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
To your grandfather, the fox would be a varmint. At least you can eat a possum or a coon. (Do you remember the article in the New Yorker a few years back about an East Coast doctor who believed that he'd found Kreutzfeldt-Jacob Disease among people in the mountains of, I think, West Virginia, people for whom squirrel brains were a particular delicacy?)
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Amos, please don't give the Coot ideas for his Iron Chef cook-off.
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
This is the most civilized hunting debate I have ever seen. I wasn’t keen to put any view on the web as I’ve seen how nasty it can get but so far so good.

Personally I don’t like hunting types. They can be arrogant and obsessive about their sport. I don’t see the problem with transferring over to drag hunting and if I went hunting it would be with a bloodhound pack which meets near a friends father’s farm. They hunt people and go much slower than foxhounds. However Hatless said:

‘I don't much mind if people hunt foxes. Many more die on roads than because of hunts. What angers me is the lies told by people who support hunting.’ That will be me then. Thanks Hatless.

‘Hounds will have to be put down? All fox hounds are put down anyway. They don't make suitable pets. There is no retirement for them. When they can no longer keep up they are shot. And probably fed to the pack.’ Yup that’s right. After a full and well cared for life they are put down. Farmers and hunts people are not sentimental about their animals. There is a thriving scam in retirement horses at the moment. People who are too chicken to make the decision to put down and old and sick horses send them off to farms in Wales to be cared for. They disappear into the food chain pdq. If you own an animal then you need to make the decision about it’s death. It is the only humane thing to do.

‘Lost employment? Hunts don't actually produce any marketable good beyond a leisure activity. It's just about money going round. It will go round in other ways.’ So the kennel men, whippers in, grooms etc just loose their homes and move into the town to sign on? That’s ok then. Labour’s revenge for all the miners who lost their jobs during the 1980’s is how it looks to the countryside groups.

‘Fox hunting is not about keeping fox numbers down. Hunting country is full of little woodlands. You can see them on a map, often called coverts. They are there in order to provide habitat for foxes so the hunt has something to do. Hunts need foxes.’ Absolutely right. Much of the countryside is maintained in its present condition by the hunting and shooting industry. When they are banned then there is no reason to keep unprofitable woodlands and coverts. They can be grubbed up or concreted over and turned into housing for townies who want to live in the countryside. Trouble is that there is no money in farming and there will be no money in country sports. Who is going to look after the countryside if the farmers don’t? We could nationalise it and truly become theme park Britain.

‘Calling foxes vermin and saying how much damage they do is just a way of emotionally justifying hunting. It has nothing to do with the realities of farming.’ Sorry, foxes are vermin. So are rats, so are squirrels. Squirrels and foxes are prettier. It doesn’t stop the damage they do. The most beautiful pests are mink. They are really nasty. Just think of foxes as rats in a glam fur coat. That’s what they are. It makes you less sentimental about them.

It is so hard to keep emotion out of this. The nineteenth century romantic movement has a lot to answer for. We invest a lot of emotion into the big green spaces of our country. We find God in mountain tops and rugged places, in glades and riversides but the countryside is also an industry and a way of life to the people that live there. So many people from the towns see it as a place to escape the pressures of city life. It is. But someone owns those woods that you like to walk in to commune with nature. Someone owns the fields that are bounded by hedgerows. They have to pick up the rubbish left by townies when walking on the footpaths. They have to deal with broken gates and sheep mauled by townies’ dogs. Perhaps hunting is the the final straw to the countryside groups. Maybe that is why it has been blown up out of all proportion.

Don’t know if any of this makes sense.

I do know that riding a big horse makes some people very nasty towards me. Hey I’m the hired help. But be nice, my horse kicks and he bites!

[ 27. December 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: Poppy ]
 

---

Posted by Amphibalus (# 5351) on :
 
Could I add a brief-as-possible, and maybe slightly tangential, thought to the debate. I, perhaps, need to say that I have no great and passionate feelings about hunting, though my natural instinct (before any application of logic or reason) is anti-hunting - but then I am a townie who came out into the countryside to work after ordination, and have been here ever since.

A good friend and former colleague of mine, now incumbent of a parish even further out into the sticks, went on a recent Countryside Alliance march in London to raise awareness about the real and urgent issues which face rural communities these days: rural isolation and poverty, the need for agricultural diversification, and the problems of farming in an area which has been devastated by foot and mouth and where much farming is on marginal land which is increasingly uneconomic.

She and her husband, both of them children of farming families, were appalled by the fact that the march was then presented by a vociferous minority as being solely and entirely about the right to hunt. In interviews with both local and national media, she was asked only about her attitude to hunting, and was given no opportunity to raise the other, far more important, issues that she had come to march about.

It does seem to me that much of the debate about hunting is actually the creation of an incredibly well-oiled lobbying organisation which seeks to preserve its own lifestyle at the expense of other, more pressing, matters. I am well aware of many cogent arguments which are pro-hunting, but on balance I cannot help but think that - as has been suggested earlier - this is not about foxes, nor is it about hounds or horses, but about a much more basic confrontation between an overly-privileged (but now outdated) way of life and a righteous (but too-piously militant) opposition - and the only thing which will suffer is a sensible and properly thought-out approach to a much-needed programme of rural reconstruction.

But I am more than happy to have my own prejudices and misunderstandings challenged and corrected.....
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
As a disinterested foreign party, but one who does check out the Guardian, Telegraph, and BBC (I try to be impartial ) regularly, I must say that the stench of class warfare and, frankly, jealousy seems to hover over the entire controversy.

Otherwise, 20,000 foxes hardly seems worth the energy.

Maybe the solution is to take underprivileged children from the inner-city and send them to fox hunting camps. Then all classes will have the chance to be the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
What a good idea, Sine. I understand something similar is already being done over here by the angling fraternity, and, up north, there are sportsmen teaching Underprivileged Youth to do fun things with ferrets.
 

---

Posted by Amphibalus (# 5351) on :
 

quote:

---

Then all classes will have the chance to be the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.

---

I chickened out of quoting Oscar Wilde - but I'm glad someone has!

[Edited for UBB in quote.]

[ 27. December 2003, 18:03: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
It is the ritual aspect which is so objectionable.

---

So it would be better if it didn't involve people on horses wearing hunting clothes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
It is one thing to have slaughterhouses to create meat;

---

Animals die to give humans pleasure in all sorts of ways, sometimes to provided nice clothes, sometimes a ride out and sometimes for the taste of meat. Eating meat is an option, we can quite well live without it (and would probably be better off if we did so). To object to hunting while continuing to eat meat is to allow the death of an animal to give one pleasure while denying others a similar benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
but shouldn't our celebrations focus on the more wholesome aspects of life, rather than activities which are at best regrettable necessities?

---

Eating meat is not a necessity, and there seems to be much less enthusiasm for opposing the "unwholesome" consumption of a dead animal at Christmas and Thanksgiving than for opposing hunting, despite the fuss and ceremony of the great turkey-fests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
This is the most civilized hunting debate I have ever seen. I wasn’t keen to put any view on the web as I’ve seen how nasty it can get but so far so good.

---

quote:

---

...

quote:

---

Hounds will have to be put down?

---

All fox hounds are put down anyway. They don't make suitable pets. There is no retirement for them. When they can no longer keep up they are shot. And probably fed to the pack.’ Yup that’s right. After a full and well cared for life they are put down. Farmers and hunts people are not sentimental about their animals. There is a thriving scam in retirement horses at the moment. People who are too chicken to make the decision to put down and old and sick horses send them off to farms in Wales to be cared for. They disappear into the food chain pdq. If you own an animal then you need to make the decision about it’s death. It is the only humane thing to do.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Lost employment? Hunts don't actually produce any marketable good beyond a leisure activity. It's just about money going round. It will go round in other ways.

---

So the kennel men, whippers in, grooms etc just loose their homes and move into the town to sign on? That’s ok then. Labour’s revenge for all the miners who lost their jobs during the 1980’s is how it looks to the countryside groups.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Fox hunting is not about keeping fox numbers down. Hunting country is full of little woodlands. You can see them on a map, often called coverts. They are there in order to provide habitat for foxes so the hunt has something to do. Hunts need foxes.

---

Absolutely right. Much of the countryside is maintained in its present condition by the hunting and shooting industry. When they are banned then there is no reason to keep unprofitable woodlands and coverts. They can be grubbed up or concreted over and turned into housing for townies who want to live in the countryside. Trouble is that there is no money in farming and there will be no money in country sports. Who is going to look after the countryside if the farmers don’t? We could nationalise it and truly become theme park Britain.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Calling foxes vermin and saying how much damage they do is just a way of emotionally justifying hunting. It has nothing to do with the realities of farming.

---

Sorry, foxes are vermin. So are rats, so are squirrels. Squirrels and foxes are prettier. It doesn’t stop the damage they do. The most beautiful pests are mink. They are really nasty. Just think of foxes as rats in a glam fur coat. That’s what they are. It makes you less sentimental about them.

---

quote:

---

It is so hard to keep emotion out of this. The nineteenth century romantic movement has a lot to answer for. We invest a lot of emotion into the big green spaces of our country. We find God in mountain tops and rugged places, in glades and riversides but the countryside is also an industry and a way of life to the people that live there. So many people from the towns see it as a place to escape the pressures of city life. It is. But someone owns those woods that you like to walk in to commune with nature. Someone owns the fields that are bounded by hedgerows. They have to pick up the rubbish left by townies when walking on the footpaths. They have to deal with broken gates and sheep mauled by townies’ dogs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
If Blair wanted revenge on the countryside groups he wouldn't have been so supportive - at taxpayers' expense - during recent BSE and Foot & Mouth crises.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
If it was done in a less visible way as a regrettable necessity, this might be acceptable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
In one case it is the death which gives pleasure, in the other the eating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Possibly true but irrelevant to the point, which was that since foxhounds are always put down, the argument that a ban would cause them to be put down is largely negated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The death of the fox is not what gives pleasure to most people hunting. Most of the people won't even se the death on any paricular occasion, and if no fox is caught then they will still derive much pleasure from the day out.

---

From what I have read, if you like that sort of thing, it's absolutely wonderful. And from everything I've ever read, catching the fox is indeed secondary to the pleasure of the day.

On the other hand, pictures of Mrs. Parker-Bowles on her horse, with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth, don't exactly help the cause.
 

---

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
- tangent - If the problem is enjoying hunting, or using it as a sport, why does there appear to be no great movement to ban fishing for sport? - end of tangent

Re Caro's comment about hostility to non-hunting riders, I can back that up. I don't hunt, but used to hack around the countryside a bit, which meant crossing roads sometimes. Many people speed up when they see you, toot their horns or pretend to steer towards you - even lorries. Trying to control a ton of frightened horseflesh is no joke.

The whole thing to do with riding horses seems to be fraught with perceptions of class. Perhaps it is partly to do with the fact that one person is higher - literally - than the other?
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Possibly true but irrelevant to the point, which was that since foxhounds are always put down, the argument that a ban would cause them to be put down is largely negated.

---

Surely if the early death of a foxhound is irrelevant then so is the early death of a fox.

---

quote:

---

Not so at all. The death of the fox is not what gives pleasure to most people hunting. Most of the people won't even se the death on any paricular occasion, and if no fox is caught then they will still derive much pleasure from the day out. The suggestion that people hunting derive pleasure from death is a misleading aspersion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.
Many people speed up when they see you, toot their horns or pretend to steer towards you

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Bonzo:
I don't believe that 'hunts' would become less popular if they didn't hunt foxes, I think they would become more popular.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
If this was indeed the case then drag hunts would be just as good and as popular as fox hunts. So the countryside activity of the hunt could continue unabated, no-one would loose their jobs and the cruelty would be avoided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
If this was indeed the case then drag hunts would be just as good and as popular as fox hunts. So the countryside activity of the hunt could continue unabated, no-one would loose their jobs and the cruelty would be avoided.

---

Once again, hunts can hunt only if land-owners allow themto (and the land-owners might or might not hunt). A wholesale move from fox-hunting to drag hunting might well entail many landowners deciding that as they are not going to benefit from control of fox numbers then they will no longer allow the disruption to their livlihoods that hunting causes them.

"Switch all hunting to draghunting" sounds good, but in practice would be unfeasible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
First point - Not always true. There have been a number of disputes between landowners and hunts who have trespassed on their property and caused damage. In the heat of the chaase, if a fox runs through a hedge, the hunt tends to follow without pausing to consulting maps etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Second point - most people here seem to be agreeing that fox hunting with dogs has a minimal effect on the UK fox population numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Can anyone seriously imaging our Lord going hunting. The WWJD approach has many drawbacks (see SoF threads passim) but it stopped me hunting. My own choice is not the same as desiring legislation to force the same decision on others.

---

I can't imagine Him having a 9 to 5 job either, but I don't think I'll be giving mine up just yet.
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
ptmargin, I'm sure you don't drop litter but you see how easy it is for me as a sort of country person to start into the them and us mentality. I just work in the countryside (the family farm was lost to compulsory purchase a couple of generations back) but there is a staggering ammount of ignorance about how the countryside works by the majority of people who live in the towns. There seems to be so much romanticism and wistfulness about the countryside yet it can be a very unhappy place to live. Suicide rates amoung farmers are at an all time high. But every day on the TV there are programmes about people wanting to escape to the country. There are the same problems in the country as in the towns but just spread out a bit.

I can understand the frustration of the countryside lobby even if I don't always agree with how they are dealing with it.

[ 28. December 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Poppy ]
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
I might even spell your name right ptarmigan if I wan't trying to do two things at the same time. Whoops.
 

---

Posted by Intégriste (# 4959) on :
 

quote:

---

M. asked:
If the problem is enjoying hunting, or using it as a sport, why does there appear to be no great movement to ban fishing for sport?

---

quote:

---

Trisagion:
Can anyone seriously imaging our Lord going hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Intégriste:

quote:

---

Trisagion:
Can anyone seriously imaging our Lord going hunting.

---

No, but the Apostles went fishing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Second point - most people here seem to be agreeing that fox hunting with dogs has a minimal effect on the UK fox population numbers.

---

Whether people here believe that hunting has a significant effect on national fox population is irrelevant. What is important is whether farmers think it affects fox population on their land, otherwise we just have one group of people tying to tell others (who probably know far more about the situation) what's best for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Intégriste:

quote:

---

M. asked:
If the problem is enjoying hunting, or using it as a sport, why does there appear to be no great movement to ban fishing for sport?

---

The reason for this is that a large number of fishermen are Labour voters whom the government would not wish to alienate.

---

quote:

---

Drag hunting is simply very, very dull.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:


(i) Drag hunting is simply very, very dull.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker in a Pear Tree:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trisagion:


(i) Drag hunting is simply very, very dull.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the fox-hunting lobby are always saying "it's not about the kill", so drag hunting would presumably be as much fun for them as the real thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I simply don't see the argument for fox hunting....So why is it so important to carry on hunting foxes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
... Fox hunting is already legal. It is for those who wish to change the status quo to make the argument. The principle in English Law is, and has been for over 700 years that all things are lawful unless they are against the law. Those in favour of hunting have to no more prove the argument for hunting than you do your right to live free under the law. It is for those who wish to curtail that right to prove their argument. They were conspicuously unable to do so before Burns and still, it seems to me, rely on prejudice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
The burden of proof has shifted. The pro-hunting lobby are on the back foot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker in a Pear Tree:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trisagion:


(i) Drag hunting is simply very, very dull.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the fox-hunting lobby are always saying "it's not about the kill", so drag hunting would presumably be as much fun for them as the real thing.

---

I think what Trisagion means is that drag hunting is a set route with no unpredictability - you go round the trail and then... go round it again, maybe. It would take a limited amount of time.

This might be dull for some people, but there are plenty who would find it fun - many riders already take part in sponsored rides where you go round a set route and have a great time. I personally could never find riding dull - even on a short plod round the block there is always something new to learn or to see, but then maybe I'm just not very exciting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
... Fox hunting is already legal. It is for those who wish to change the status quo to make the argument. The principle in English Law is, and has been for over 700 years that all things are lawful unless they are against the law. Those in favour of hunting have to no more prove the argument for hunting than you do your right to live free under the law. It is for those who wish to curtail that right to prove their argument. They were conspicuously unable to do so before Burns and still, it seems to me, rely on prejudice.

---

Completely wrong there I'm afraid Trisagion. Do I detect a "the best form of defence is attack" methodology?

The UK has progressively outlawed so called field sports which changing sensibilties have deemed unacceptable. E.g Bear baiting, cock fighting, badger baiting etc. At this stage in our history, for the majority of the UK population and the majority of MPs, fox hunting is now regarded as unacceptable. The Burns report demolished some key claims of the pro-hunting lobby, in particular the claim that it is an effective method of pest control. It isn't. The pro-hunting lobby have all but lost the argument, at both the popular and intellectual levels, and if they don't want to be consigned to history very soon, they need to turn the tide in a pretty dramatic way. The burden of proof has shifted. The pro-hunting lobby are on the back foot.

---

quote:

---

The raising of the straw man of bear-baiting and cock-fighting - quite dissimilar activites - shows an argument based on emotionalism with the anti-hunting lobby having lost the argument on rational grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
... Fox hunting is already legal. It is for those who wish to change the status quo to make the argument. The principle in English Law is, and has been for over 700 years that all things are lawful unless they are against the law. Those in favour of hunting have to no more prove the argument for hunting than you do your right to live free under the law. It is for those who wish to curtail that right to prove their argument. They were conspicuously unable to do so before Burns and still, it seems to me, rely on prejudice.

---

Completely wrong there I'm afraid Trisagion. Do I detect a "the best form of defence is attack" methodology?

The UK has progressively outlawed so called field sports which changing sensibilties have deemed unacceptable. E.g Bear baiting, cock fighting, badger baiting etc. At this stage in our history, for the majority of the UK population and the majority of MPs, fox hunting is now regarded as unacceptable. The Burns report demolished some key claims of the pro-hunting lobby, in particular the claim that it is an effective method of pest control. It isn't. The pro-hunting lobby have all but lost the argument, at both the popular and intellectual levels, and if they don't want to be consigned to history very soon, they need to turn the tide in a pretty dramatic way. The burden of proof has shifted. The pro-hunting lobby are on the back foot.

---

I certainly detect a "best form of defece is attack" methodology, but it is in ptarmigan's post which quite fails to address the point in Trisagion's post, that it is for those who wish to make something illegal to prove there is a good reason to make it illegal - something that has not, in my view, been achieved in this thread.

The raising of the straw man of bear-baiting and cock-fighting - quite dissimilar activites - shows an argument based on emotionalism with the anti-hunting lobby having lost the argument on rational grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
It's cruel to foxes to chase them and rip them apart

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And why should emotions be completely dissed anyway? Our emotions and thoughts are tied together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
The other parallel, I guess, might be greyhound racing. Presumably the dogs originally chased after a real rabbit or hare...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

And if cruelty is the issue then why is hunting being singled out rather than, say, factory farming. Anyone who eats factory-farmed meat is involved in a process that is far crueller than hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Should we legislate on the basis of our emotions? Should we meet out punishments to criminals on the basis of our emotional responses to their crimes, should we legislate on immigration policy on the basis who whom we like? We are discussing the criminalising of an activity and thus turning into criminals people carrying on what has been lawful activity for generations.

---

quote:

---

And if cruelty is the issue then why is hunting being singled out rather than, say, factory farming. Anyone who eats factory-farmed meat is involved in a process that is far crueller than hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One question:

Why do so many people think they should have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do?

---

quote:

---

As long as no harm comes to another person, I say let them get on with it, whatever the "it" in that statement is.

---

So you would have no legislation prohibiting cruelty to animals? In fact harm to humans would be the only ethical value guiding legislation???
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the fact that some people see it as their role in life to boss other people around. If Ptarmigan had been made milk monitor at school...
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I don't see why raising baiting and fighting as straw persons of indeterminate gender - they are activities which involve the injuring or killing of an animal in a way that gives pleasure to human participants. Just like fox hunting.

The reason the latter is still legal is because it is an activity practiced by rich people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
1. there are regulations governing the raising, treatment and killing of animals raised for producing meat, and farmers who do not follow them can be prosecuted.

2. these farm animals, as I understand it, by law, have to be killed humanely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
3. if we object to the treatment of factory farm animals then we should take a care what meat we buy...and get the law changed to protect these animals further...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
4. they are being raised for food, for a purpose widely accepted in our society, and having a clearly important or essential use

5. they are not being slaughtered, by being torn apart by other animals for sport, or for amusement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I would never knowingly eat battery hens. Nor factory farmed meat from other animals. Our house is veggie mainly, plus a bit of veganism. If I have to buy any meat, I buy free range because the living conditions are better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Assuming for a moment that hunting is cruel, the anti-hunting lobby has yet, ISTM, to demonstrate that alternatives to hunting would be less cruel.

---

quote:

---

And if cruelty is the issue then why is hunting being singled out rather than, say, factory farming. Anyone who eats factory-farmed meat is involved in a process that is far crueller than hunting.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And why should emotions be completely dissed anyway? Our emotions and thoughts are tied together.

---

Should we legislate on the basis of our emotions? Should we meet out punishments to criminals on the basis of our emotional responses to their crimes, should we legislate on immigration policy on the basis who whom we like? We are discussing the criminalising of an activity and thus turning into criminals people carrying on what has been lawful activity for generations. If we travel down that path what else shold we criminalise - adultery, sexual practices that we find unpalatable, smoking in private? Laws passed on the basis of emotionalism are very likely to be bad laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And animal slaughter - it's the eating, not the watching the tearing apart that gives the pleasure - not the same buzz from watching the kill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And animal slaughter - it's the eating, not the watching the tearing apart that gives the pleasure - not the same buzz from watching the kill.

---

Does it matter to the animal how the pleasure is derived?

---

quote:

---

Does it matter to the animal how the pleasure is derived?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
What matters mostly to me about hunting is not what it does to the foxes; it's the effect on the hunters and on society as a whole.

Somewhere on the South East coast (of Britain) I believe they still have bonfires in which they burn an effigy of the pope. If I understand it, it is a celebration of hatred of Roman Catholicism.

---

It probably won't comfort you to know (or surpise you ) that the last Catholic to be burned locally was in 1863, I believe - but then we're very primitive round here.

Would you wish to ban boxing, wrestling, toy soldiers or guns. And what is your evidence that hunting brutalises those involved?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
if we are going to eat an animal, we should try to kill it as quickly and hamanely as possible.

---

quote:

---

So if hunting causes less suffering than shooting, hunting should be preferred?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
It probably won't comfort you to know (or surpise you ) that the last Catholic to be burned locally was in 1863, I believe - but then we're very primitive round here.

---

quote:

---

Would you wish to ban boxing, wrestling, toy soldiers or guns.

---

quote:

---

And what is your evidence that hunting brutalises those involved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
It probably won't comfort you to know (or surpise you ) that the last Catholic to be burned locally was in 1863, I believe - but then we're very primitive round here.

---

Had no idea I was talking about your neck of the woods.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would you wish to ban boxing, wrestling, toy soldiers or guns.

---

All are activities I find distasteful and boycott, and I hope the tide of opinion will in the fulness of time swing to such an extent that they either die out or are banned prior to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...
As I see it, there is an inherent brutality in humanity. Why else do people slow down to stare at car accidents? Why are war movies so popular? It WILL manifest itself one way or another.

If that way is pulling the legs off insects, or hunting foxes, or something else that doesn't hurt other people, then fair enough I say.

Otherwise all that natural aggression will spill out into people's dealings with other people, and that would be far worse.

The pacifist, non-brutal utopia where everyone is kind to every living thing is never going to exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ereiamjh:
1) We live in the 21st Century. The hunt is woefully inefficient. The Hunt is basically a chance for the so called "well bred" to dress up like clowns, romp over the countryside for a while, and then watch as their dogs rip a terrified fox to pieces. That's if they can find one in the first place.

5) Most hunt participents probably come from families with very shallow gene pools. If the so called "Upper Crust" think it's ok to shag their sister, then it explains why they call hunting sport.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ereiamjh:
(4) Why hunt something that we aren't going to eat. If a farmer has a problem with a fox, trap it, shoot it. Far more humane and efficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
What a good demonstration of the accuracy of my first post on this thread. Q.E.D. Are you there, Lurker?

---

quote:

---

Traps are cruel. A slow lingering death. Most studies seem to have concluded that they are more cruel than hunting (see earlier posts on this thread)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ereiamjh:
What I mean is a trap to contain the fox. Then shoot it!

---

And that isn't cruel?
 

---

Posted by ereiamjh (# 5186) on :
 
In comparison to being ripped to pieces by dogs, while their owners cheer and clap in appreciation!


 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Sounds like someone has been out hunting lots of times.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It strikes me that these "arguments" are the main factor behind the opposition to hunting. So much for principled objection.

Class warfare is alive and well in the 21st Century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
If instead you want to try to win the argument, try answering some of my responses to your earlier post.

---

quote:

---

ptarmigan's earlier post:
You are taking as accepted a given model of aggressive behaviour, i.e. that we all have a certain amount in us and we need to find a suitable outlet which harms other people as little as possible.

That is not the only possible model.

For instance another model is that the more brutal or agressive behaviour we encounter and are involved in, the more our appetite for agression will grow. The more we stimulate our aggressive emotions, the more we will become addicted to those feelings, and we will need increasing amounts of agression to achieve the same level of stimulation.

I'm not sure whether either of these is a biblical model - or indeed whether we could infer a single model from the views of the various biblical authors.

---

quote:

---

Will a non-brutal Utopia ever exist? I don't know, but that shouldn't stop us trying to become less brutal. Such a process might be thought of as part of spiritual growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ereiamjh:
5) Most hunt participents probably come from families with very shallow gene pools. If the so called "Upper Crust" think it's ok to shag their sister, then it explains why they call hunting sport.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Laws are (and should only be IMHO) to protect other people from harm.

A ban on foxhunting serves no such purpose, hence I oppose it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Laws are not just for preventing harm to people. They can have profound effects for good, & I think a ban on fox hunting would be of this sort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Then there is the question of how far laws should express values. I think ptarmigan has the better of this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Marvin - there is an obvious question here -

The logical end of your statement here is that dog fighting, for example, should not be illegal and the RSPCA investigations and prosecutions are wrong. Is this your view? If not, why not?

---

• Most of the people who lived in my village were not involved in hunting in the slightest. As DaisyMay (?) said, if people needed to get rid of a fox they shot at it, or asked a gamekeeper to come and shoot at it.
• A great number of the people I knew strongly disliked hunting\hunters. There was probably a class element to this, but also the fact that hunters would troop across your land or garden without so much as a by-your-leave, never mind compensation for squashed cabbages. And be thoroughly arrogant about their right to do so.
• The most avid hunters I knew at school were not country people, but city stockbroker commuter types who were anxious to mix with the toffs at the weekend and gain their huntin', shootin' credentials.

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0