|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Boxing Day Hunt; Is this a good thing?
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chapelhead:
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.
I don't think so. They were hobbies of cruelty to animals which were made illegal, as is badger-bludgeoning. It's cruel to foxes to chase them and rip them apart (and cruel to children to blood them). The RSPCA did trials on deer to show they were distressed by being chased, never mind being savaged by dogs, and so why should we think the fox is relaxed about being hunted?
This is not emotional, it's rational examples.
And why should emotions be completely dissed anyway? Our emotions and thoughts are tied together. There is emotion on both sides of this debate.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
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.
We live in a democracy.
The majority of the population (approx 70%) think, according to various polls that hunting is wrong and should be banned.
I am sure that class perceptions have a significant part to play in all this.
But there is also an issue about public sensitivities being heightened where cruel treatment of animals *for sport* is involved.
There is a common perception that the tearing apart of a live animal by a pack of dogs, apparently for the amusement of a group of humans, is wrong.
This is I suppose an "emotional" reaction, in the sense that many ethical judgements are "emotional" reactions to a given situation or question. The "emotional" or "ethical" opinion of many people in the twenty-first century, (probably, it would seem, the majority) is that this is not a pastime that the government should endorse.
It seems that there are other ways to keep down the fox population; there are also other ways to enjoy riding in a group.
I would agree that there are probably more important matters for the government to deal with than the hunting issue; and I don't feel particularly strongly about it.
But I suspect that its demise is inevitable in the age we live in. The law will need to reflect the opinion and mores of the time.
The connection made with bull baiting annd cock fighting seemed obvious to me; these are also sports in which cruelty to animals played a part and which have now been banned, pretty much for that reason.
The other parallel, I guess, might be greyhound racing. Presumably the dogs originally chased after a real rabbit or hare...
...so drag hunting anyone?
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It's cruel to foxes to chase them and rip them apart
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.
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 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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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...
Greyhound racing is an interesting point - animals bred to provide entertainment for humans and then their lives cut short. Ban hunting and greyhound racing surely should follow.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
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.
Well, I agree that there are ethical problems with factory farming.
but
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.
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...
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.
I suspect the last 2 points are the key ones...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bagpuss
Magical saggy cloth cat
# 2925
|
Posted
Flicked through this thread the other day and can't remember who said it - but someone was like me - form the horsey industry and sitting on the fence if you pardon the pun.
Years back I worked for the local hunt master as a groom. In reality they were usually too pissed to catch much!
Contrary to popular belief it is not just arich man's sport - plenty of local kids on their 'mongrel' shoestring budget ponies would ride out too.
I've never hunted, but couldn't honestly say if I'm for or against it. I would be more anti battery farming etc. My neighbour forgot to shut her chickens up the other night and awoke to mass devastation. Mine have escaped before now and my kids have been in tears worried that they'd been eaten (luckily not)
That said I don't like crulety for the sake of it, if fox numbers need to be kept down - it is better to be ripped alive instantly by a pack of dogs than to have a gangrenous piece of lead shot festering over ages, or to be poisoned etc.
Reminds me of an office I worked in - public office and we had a rat inside (helped in by one of our clients I suspect) the council pest control killed it and said the most humane way was to poison it - greta we had to watch it through the window trapped in our stairwell slowly dying over 3 days without water pumped full of poison. I hate rats with a passion but this was vile. The council on our local TV show about environmental health was often seen shooting them if he had a clear range - I know which option I'd want if I was the rat.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
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.
Well, presumably with, say, bear baiting, the opinion of what was acceptable changed .
This happens sometimes.
Apparently bear baiting and dog fighting went back until at least the 12th century.
Then, in 1835, some new fangled do-gooders passed the Humane Act and there you go, an ancient sport banned from Albion's lovely lands.
No doubt the bear owners and dog breeders were put out.
It had been a grand tradition in these lands for 600 or so years. It even had royal approval in Tudor times!
And then people decided to ban it!
But what was different about bear baiting in 1834 compared with 1836?
Same bear, same dogs.
People had suddenly decided that seeing a live bear torn apart was a bad idea.
For what reason?
It was no doubt still fun for some people. And they didn't have telly then...
But ethical considerations had changed...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chapelhead:
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.
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.
However, as others have pointed out, the animals are slaughtered for food, not fun. The slaughter-house workers don't ritually blood the faces of their children, do they? They don't collect the tails of the beasts either.
Just because one thing is not good, or is cruel, does not mean that we should not be trying to stop something else that is also cruel. We can't do everything at once, or instantaeously.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
One question:
Why do so many people think they should have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do?
As long as no harm comes to another person, I say let them get on with it, whatever the "it" in that statement is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
I apologise in advance for the long post.
This morning on Radio 4 ("the Choice") I heard a fascinating interview which raised some interesting points.
The subject was Miles Cooper, who had spent much of his youth as an active hunt sabateur. As he started to have doubts about the methods which were used by 'sabs' he joined the League Against Cruel Sports and worked on a report into alternatives to hunting. Part of this work involved the study of foot packs, which use hounds to flush foxes towards guns. The foxes are shot, rather than killed by the hounds. This technique has historically not been banned under the various proposals for 'hunting with dogs' legislation during the 1990s and the first years of this Century (?the noughties? the Oooos?) for a number of reasons, including:
- it is perceived as pest control rather than sport
- it is perceived as a pastime of the politically acceptable small farmer and rural peasant rather than the unacceptable landed gentry (wax jackets good, hunting pink bad)
- it is assumed to be less cruel
During his work Mr Cooper came to believe that at least some of these perceptions were inaccurate. In terms of cruelty, flushing to guns caused many injuries which did not kill the fox outright but certainly lead to a slow and painful death. Mr Cooper had seen many foxes killed by hounds over the years and all these deaths were very swift.
As this work seemed to cast doubt (at the very least) on the cruelty arguement, he was disappointed when the League and other campaigners still supported the omission of flushing to guns from anti hunting legislation and he came to believe that the main motivating factor for most of the anti hunt movement was based on prejudice against the type of people who are assumed to go hunting.
I hope that I have represented accurately the views of a thoughtful man who has obviously been very courageous in publicly expressing his opinion that his previous stance was wrong, that fox hunting should not be banned and that much anti hunting action is not based on considerations of cruelty or animal welfare.
My views on hunting are tempered by my background and experience (pure-bred peasant, 15 years working in the agricultural industry, having always lived and worked in rural areas - I have never gone mounted to a hunt although members of my family do, I have never shot or wired a fox although members of my family have.) Foxes are a pest in livestock areas, they need to be controlled.
It seems to me that the least cruel option is a clean shot (which cannot be guarenteed)shading through caught and killed by hounds, to snared or shot badly, both of which are likely to cause suffering over a period of time - and neither of which would be made illegal under any legislation currently proposed.
The arguement that people should not enjoy themselves whilst controlling pests doesn't take much account of human nature. Groups of people working together on any task will often form social relationships and enjoy one another's company and this need not demonstrate bloodthirsty intent. A few days before Christmas a dozen or so of my family and their friends got together and killed, feathered and dressed out 80 turkeys. The birds were treated with respect and killed cleanly. We did not revel in the killing, we didn't glory in the blood, but we did have a good time, we did laugh and we did enjoy ourselves. This was a job that needed to be done and we did it, whilst enjoying one anothers company. Pest control is a job that needs to be done and I cannot see that it is more reprehensible when done by people who are enjoying a ride, enjoying the countryside and enjoying one anothers company.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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?
It's called civilisation. We don't all do our own thing. We ahve a democratic system which determines certain boundaries to acceptable behaviour, which then form part of legislation.
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???
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
But fishing is still allowed because poor people do it. So it's the polictics of envy.
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.
Is factory farming, under currecnt legislation, free from cruelty. I don't believe it is by a very long way, much worse than anything that happens in hunting.
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...
But we're not. There are moves to stop hunting, but not to ban factory farming. the latter provides us with the cheap food we want and happens well out of sight - aren't they the reasons why it is still allowed.
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.
There is nothing essential about eating meat. And they are being slaughtered to give pleasure to the eaters. A nice, detached pleasure so that what happens in the factory farms doesn't impinge on the sensibilities of the shoppers and diners.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chapelhead,
I think fishing is still allowed because the fish don't scream when they are hooked, and because they don't bleed like humans and so we don't have the same identification with them.
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.
[ 30. December 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: daisymay ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
I think that’s terrific. And if everyone else who wants to ban hunting on grounds of cruelty can put their hand on their hearts and say that they have no involvement in the practices of factory farming then we may well be in a position to move onto hunting. And that doesn’t just mean buying free range chicken when we can be bothered, it means avoiding all factory farmed food, every chicken sandwich, every bit of chicken we eat if we go out to a restaurant, every bit of fast food, every pie and everything we eat when we visit friends and family.
Animal welfare is a complex business – how cruel is it to keep a cat as a pet, or a rabbit? How much cruelty is involved in wearing leather shoes, a fur coat, photographing a sunset, eating an egg or buying a piece of furniture?
If I thought that I had looked at the complex issue of animal welfare and had drawn a line conveniently so that the things I wanted to do were on the “acceptable” line and the things I didn’t want to do fell on the “unacceptable” line I would almost certainly think myself an even bigger hypocrite than I already do.
Daisymay, I think you have found an honest position and, for what it is worth (which you probably won’t think is much) I respect you greatly for it.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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.
I would have thought this was obvious. Fox hunting does little or nothing to control the UK fox population. The alternative is not to hunt foxes. The people who used to enjoy hunting foxes can do something less harmful, e.g. learn to play the cello, or go to church, or even go drag hunting. These activities would not only be less cruel to foxes, but might also be emotionally and spiritually healthier for the individuals and for society as a whole.
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.
Some of us try to avoid factory farmed meat as well. But as I have said before, it is not just the cruelty, it is the public celebration of cruelty which is so distasteful. A behind-the-scenes culling program for foxes, as there is for other species, might be perfectly acceptable if it could be effective. A suitable culling program would be designed to be efficient, effective, to minimise cruelty and to be low key. Hunting seems to the opposite. (On the cruelty matter, the kill by dogs may be quick, but is not the chase also cruel?)
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.
All laws are based on ethics which can't really be rationalised. In fact the very areas you mention are areas where legislation has changed to meet changing understandings of morality in these areas. In some areas (e.g. sexual mores) liberalised, in others (e.g. smoking in public areas) tightened up. Another example: some think we should be able to drive cars with far fewer restrictions (licensing, speed, cameras, traffic lights, alcohol). They take the view that personal freedom and transport for the many are more important than worrying about accidents which probably won't happen. Even if the statistics are agreed, the judgement cannot be made in a totally rational way. We have to balance freedom of travel with safety.
There is no such thing as pure reason; it is a discredited Platonic notion. What we very often see and do (especially we males) is to make a decision based on emotion and then rationalise it and present it as though it was a decision arrived at rationally!
I'm interested to know what sort of proof you (and Trisagion) would expect before something can be outlawed.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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?
This is back to my main point. 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. I think of this in a similar way to the way I think of fox hunting. In one case a fox suffers, in the other an effigy doesn't suffer. But both are public celebrations of hatred and therefore deeply upsetting.
I have no idea of the social class profile of the pope burners; it is not relevant.
Ptarmigan (a rarely hunted game bird!)
(And not a Roman Catholic)
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chapelhead:
quote:
Does it matter to the animal how the pleasure is derived?
I think it does, because if we are going to eat an animal, we should try to kill it as quickly and hamanely as possible. The Jewish laws make us aware that we are shedding life-blood and to respect the death and life of the animal.
When the pleasure is a kind of torture and stressing of the animal by chasing it and then ripping it apart then obviously it does matter.
The attitude of the humans affects the extent of the suffering of the animals.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) 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?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
So if hunting causes less suffering than shooting, hunting should be preferred?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chapelhead:
quote:
So if hunting causes less suffering than shooting, hunting should be preferred?
Yes, if the animal being hunted was to be eaten and that was the only way of catching and killing it. Red deer are shot efficiently without being "hunted."
Yes, if the hunting was truly necessary. Many posts on the thread have pointed out that it's not necessarily so.
No - if it's for "fun". No shooting for "fun" either.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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:
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:
And what is your evidence that hunting brutalises those involved?
Ah ... difficult one! I have no evidence. It's just a judgement. How do we know that anything brutalises us?
The huge numbers who used to turn out to watch public executions were in my view almost certainly all brutalised by it to some extent, and I guess we all accept now that the move to hold them in the privacy of prison accommodation was a step forward.
When a parent sees their child systematically removing the legs from a live spider, we instinctively know that this is brutal behaviour and needs to be discouraged, not just for the sake of the spider but also for the sake of the child.
[ 30. December 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: ptarmigan ]
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
Sorry, I may have phrased that badly.
I don't live in the south coast town to which you refer - they continue to burn effigies, we went in for the real thing rather too recently for comfort.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Ptarmigan -
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.
Then what? Ban rugby, or ice hockey, or football? All are activities with an inbuilt violence.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Being a 'country lad' I don't have a problem with the traditional Boxing Day hunt as such. I'd rather people made a point of being at the altar to celebrate the feast of St Stephen though! For sad but, perhaps understandable reasons, the holy days which immediately follow Christmas Day are often sadly neglected and this is a pity. Many clergy can rightly claim that they've worked hard on Christmas Day and during the weeks immediately prior to it, and this is often used as justification for cutting out services on the days following. Is it such a big job though to spare half an hour on each of the 'red letter days' following Christmas Day for a short celebration of the Holy Communion? I don't think so.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
I agree with Dyfrig that it is entirely sensible to raise the issue of bearbaiting and cockfighting. They were banned, so unless the law is skewed and inconsistent to protect the rich then we would have to distinguish why fox hunting as a sport is different and should be exempt.
The arguments in favour of fox hunting are all about social utility - primarily that fox are vermin and would have to be tracked and killed in any event. If this is the case then I cannot really have any objection to hunting except perhaps from deep seated class resentment or an emotional dislike of the idea that someone might enjoy the violence (but then which of us hasn't enjoyed some quite nasty violent films or even the controlled violence of some sport)
On the other hand if foxes are not really a vermin problem and don't need to be culled then there is little social utility or justification.
So do foxes need to be killed or not to protect the countryside? Answer that someone.
The pro-hunting lobby is of course getting much of its support in the UK from groups like the Countryside Alliance who have the wider agenda of protecting "country life". This is not just about protecting the traditional squirarchy but about the reality that many farmers can barely make ends meet, villages are losing their economic life, village schools, post-offices and even pubs and churches are closing at an alarming rate. The whole fabric of the countryside is falling apart.
If we want the countryside to be the nice pretty environment of patchwork fields, hedgerows, and little wooded copses rather than a wild land of impenetrable forest, marsh and moorland then we have to sustain whatever keeps farming and countrylife economically viable. I do believe that fox hunting probably provides an important diversified source of income to landowners, village shops and rural industries like blacksmiths and farriers, stables etc. (all of which the government is ironically trying to encourage) The campaign against hunting has come at a bad time for country people when country economic life is at a low ebb. The countryside just does not need this further blow at this time.
All in all, I do not want to see fox hunting abolished at the moment as it seems to be partly justified by social utility (i.e. foxes need to be culled anyway) and by the wider picture that the country economy should not be undermined further when it is already in decline.
Politicians have to look at the wider picture, which is why they can never satisfy single interest campaign groups (inc the pro-hunt lobby and the animal rights groups). It is unfortunate that young people are only signing up to single issue campaigns when above all our political thinking today needs to be coherent with joined up policies. But then I am a member of a political party, which incidentally is strongly anti-fox hunting, but I feel I can still have my own personal view.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ereiamjh
Apprentice
# 5186
|
Posted
Until recently, I lived in South Croydon, and used to have foxes "playing" outside my window most nights, normally keeping me awake!
However, I too am STRONGLY anti hunt. ere's why!
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.
2) FACT - It is NOT a sport. It is nothing even slightly resembling sport. IT WILL NEVER BE A SPORT!
3) FACT - The Fox was so close to extinction in the late 1800's that thousands where imported from mainland europe to allow hunting to continue.
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.
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.
--------------------
Newly responsible (!) for www.suttonvillagechurch.co.uk
Posts: 20 | From: St Helens, Lancs | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
What a good demonstration of the accuracy of my first post on this thread. Q.E.D. Are you there, Lurker?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
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.
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)
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
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?
Well, class is only one of the points raised by ereiamjh, who is hardly a good sample of the anti-hunt movement, being one person.
and I never said class wasn't part of it, I disagreed with your statement that class is most of it.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ereiamjh
Apprentice
# 5186
|
Posted
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)
What I mean is a trap to contain the fox. Then shoot it!
Class is only a tiny, tiny part of the argument.
...And I'm not much less scathing about the Sabs either!
--------------------
Newly responsible (!) for www.suttonvillagechurch.co.uk
Posts: 20 | From: St Helens, Lancs | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ereiamjh:
What I mean is a trap to contain the fox. Then shoot it!
And that isn't cruel?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ereiamjh
Apprentice
# 5186
|
Posted
In comparison to being ripped to pieces by dogs, while their owners cheer and clap in appreciation!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Newly responsible (!) for www.suttonvillagechurch.co.uk
Posts: 20 | From: St Helens, Lancs | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Sounds like someone has been out hunting lots of times.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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.
Great idea Marvin - try and score a few petty points for your "side" by attacking the easiest target.
If instead you want to try to win the argument, try answering some of my responses to your earlier post.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
OK. For the record, I felt the two points I quoted were also cheap shots, which deserved a reply in kind.
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.
Granted, other models of behaviour are possible. Indeed I would imagine either or both can be true depending on the subject in question.
It does not necessarily follow that someone who enjoys hunting will feel compelled to be violent to other people. They could just as easily go hunting more often.
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.
As individuals we are certainly responsible for our own spiritual growth, part of which should indeed be suppressing our innate brutality.
We are not, however, responsible for anyone else's spiritual growth (or lack thereof). We can guide and advise, but I strongly believe we should not force anyone down any path, even the one to salvation. Denying people the right to hunt for such a reason would, IMHO, be wrong.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
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.
*A-hem*
This seems to me rather a "low blow" for Purgatory, and not a good way (to put it mildly) to convince neutrals or "the other side" to your way of thinking.
I'd strongly suggest kicking the rhetoric *down* a few notches from this if you want to stay here in Purg.
No, I'm not a hunter, even the different style of hunting we do in the American West (in my family it usually meant ducks for dinner). But I'm not about to take someone who throws gratuitous and unsubstantiated accusations of incest (OR child abuse, OR illegal drug use, OR ... well, you get the idea) around very seriously. I've been on the receiving end of such accusations (plus more) and think it the last refuge of scoundrels.
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
Post edit window, I realized I may have been a bit un-Purgatorial myself in my language. I did not intend to paint ereiamjh as a "scoundrel" but my unfortunate choice of words may have been taken by some to imply such (by proximity). I apologize for my error.
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
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.
Thanks Marvin; that's a better argument. But I still disagree. Laws can have profound impacts on the behaviour and values of the population at large, even though we're not always aware of it at the time.
This can occur in many ways; e.g. a law can have an iconic value. (So for instance when Tony Blair finally got rid of the death penalty in Britain, it changed the way many of us feel about our Britishness and about ourselves. It changed the way we relate to organisations such as Amnesty International. The fact that nobody had been executed for many decades was neither here nor there; it was still in principle possible.)
Another way laws can change behaviour and therefore values is by putting boundaries on our behaviour, which encourages to think more creatively about how to live within those boundaries, and to discover territory we hadn't met. An example of this might be race relations legislation. It is a blunt-edged instrument, easy to criticise, mock and charicature. But I'm sure it has made space for people in former marginalised or discriminated-against communities to gain confidence, access education, advice, support, training, jobs and civic life. It has also made space for the majority to explore relationships with people different to themselves in a way that they might not have done otherwise. (E.g. Attitudes such as "I'm not having my daughter going out with one of them" are becoming rarer.)
So to fox hunting. If this were banned I believe it would have both an iconic value (the focus of community life in some areas would not be an inefficient pest culling exercise) and also make space for people to explore new and healthier activities, possibly still including horses and dogs and fresh air if that's their preference.
So to re-iterate my main point:
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.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
I agree with every word before the ampersand. That laws can have beneficial effects on society beyond their initial focus is beyond doubt. The law you highlighted, the race relations act, has its roots in the protection from harm (physical or psychological) of members of ethnic minorities, yet no-one would argue that it's beneficial effects do not go far beyond that.
I would still argue that the principle purpose of any given law should be the protection of people. Legislating to ban a leisure activity which does not harm others (foxhunting in this case) smacks too much of the 'nanny-state' to me, however much secondary or tertiary long-term benefit it may have.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
If it's wrong to legislate against a leisure activity that doesn't harm others, as Marvin says, why don't we start having cockfighting again?
Cockerels in the farmyard will fight naturally - I've watched them do it (and the loser was killed and eaten for dinner), so where's the harm?
The reason, of course, that cock fighting was banned was the cruelty of the activity, and it was possible to ban it fairly easily because it was a lower class activity. Fox hunting is a primarily upper class activity, and many people who have been involved in it are in positions in government where they are able to block legislation. That's the only reason it wasn't banned with all the rest of the cruel "sports" like bear and bull baiting, dog fighting, badger baiting and cock fighting.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I've just enjoyed myself by reading through this thread. (I particularly enjoyed the virtuosity of ptarmigan's precise posts.)
Despite the occasional 'ripped apart' language, I don't think the life experiences of the British fox population is felt to be that important. It is society's response to the activity of foxhunting in its traditional, upper-class, countryside colourfulness which most matters.
Then there is the question of how far laws should express values. I think ptarmigan has the better of this point.
I'm with the antis, mainly for reasons of class envy. I don't, though, want to see a law passed until there has been a much better discussion. As things are I think a ban would feel like a crude exercise of power against a minority. (Admittedly a rich and well-connected minority, used to having their own way, but even so ...)
What strikes me as odd as I try to relate to this is that, having driven a car up and down Britain's roads for more than 25 years, averaging more than 12,000 miles a year, I've never seen a fox hunt.
(I've seen plenty of foxes. Most of them dead.)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Can we get this class thing out of the way on this thread.
The suggestion that fox-hunting is an upper class past-time is, frankly, nonsense. I have lived in rural England for 35 years and until five years ago followed fox hunts and beagles regularly (mounted in earlier less corpulaent times, on foot in later years). The overwhelming majority (75% plus) of those who go hunting follow hounds on foot and are working class, often poor. Of the mounted followers, the wealthy, rich and influential make up a small proportion - the rest are usually farmers and their families.
As for cock-fighting, bear-baiting et al., sadly the truth is that they were banned largely because of the uncontrolled gambling and disorder associated with them rather than for reasons of humane concern. Cock-fighting and dog-fighting are still incredibly common.
For the sake of completeness, I will reiterate that I no longer hunt for reasons of personal taste and morality but that my own conscience, like my prejudices, is no measure of the appropriateness of legislation.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
Whose values? Think very carefully before you answer.
I'll say it again - laws should not be to protect somebody's idea of morality, they should be to protect people from harm.
Otherwise, where do you stop? After foxhunting, which "immoral" activity will be next? Fishing? Medical research? Eating meat?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
Morally, I think dog fighting is wrong.
Legally, I don't think it should be banned unless any inextricably linked activity causes harm to others*.
But then, I've always been comfortable to live and let live on matters like this. If I find an activity immoral, I just don't do it. I don't feel a need to campaign for it to be eradicated.
If I were to succeed in stopping someone doing something they enjoy just because I don't like it, what's to stop them hitting back at something I enjoy but they don't like?
-
* - For example while drug use in and of itself harms no-one but the user, it can be proved that drug addiction causes people to commit crimes such as burglary and muggings to get the money for their next 'fix'.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
