Fox Hunting

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

these things have been known to attack babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be interested to see the source.

 

However, also known to attack babies are rooks, rats, cats, dogs, hawks and too often, their own parents.

 

Should we all don the red and go out hunting rooks, rats, cats, dogs and hawks, just on the one in a million offchance that a baby is at risk?

[Bill Posters]

I heard some guy from the Countryside Alliance saying that MPs coundn't vote on fox hunting 'because they've never done it so can't know anything about it'

 

If that argument worked, we'd still have slavery and be burning witches.

 

The ban gets my full support. Let the 'hooray Henries' find some other way to fill their leisure time.

[batman]

these things have been known to attack babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be interested to see the source.

 

However, also known to attack babies are rooks, rats, cats, dogs, hawks and too often, their own parents.

 

Should we all don the red and go out hunting rooks, rats, cats, dogs and hawks, just on the one in a million offchance that a baby is at risk?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The entire point in this is that it has never done anyone any harm. Apart from the fox. So why change it now, society is getting very liberal.

[Tee]

these things have been known to attack babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be interested to see the source.

 

However, also known to attack babies are rooks, rats, cats, dogs, hawks and too often, their own parents.

 

Should we all don the red and go out hunting rooks, rats, cats, dogs and hawks, just on the one in a million offchance that a baby is at risk?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The entire point in this is that it has never done anyone any harm. Apart from the fox. So why change it now, society is getting very liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Whale hunting has never done any harm to anyone should that continue too how about the ivory trade?

[WilDDog]

I voted Yes

There are less barbaric ways to kill a fox like there are less barbaric ways than Miximotosis to kill rabbits.

Any type of gun will do the job in a much more humane way.

[batman]

The only reason the government want to pass this through is to stick two fingers up at the opposition it. The same people want to ban fishing because fish ‘have feelings’ millions of people in this country go fishing as a hobby. Do we have to be more humane with the fish as well perhaps use a pistol instead of a hook? Either way you look at it, many of you say that you’d prefer a more ‘humane way’ does it really matter at the end of the day, if it solves the problem, many people just want to ban it because of the prejudices they have of the people that do it. On a friends farm the same foxes you want to be more human towards ripped the throats out of 7 chickens and ducks and then just left them there without even taking them for food, whether the solution is to hunt them with dogs and horses or to shoot them with a pistol does it matter if it gets the job done?

[simon]

I do kind of agree with the people who say that the government has acted now on this issue in order to please the left of the Labour Party, ahead of the party conference and in the run - up to an election. Finally doing what they said they'd do in 1997. Back in the days when Labour was, more or less, united.

 

But the hunts have had a good long time now to gradually switch to drag hunting. New breeds of dogs etc. They've had fair warning.

 

Someone interviewed on the radio, yesterday, was saying, for example, that farriers and blacksmiths faced economic difficulties as a result of the ban. This is rubbish AFAIK - since keeping horses is ever more popular.

 

But I do wonder whether this is the most important issue right now. I'd have thought that Iraq and our relationship with the crazy US was a more important subject.

 

I think I agree with DtCB. I think that I think that hunting should also be about eating. (So I've never really understood the people who go fishing - but have no intention of eating anything they catch. Those sinister blokes who sit by canals, in England, toying with the perch.)

[Bill Posters]

does it matter if it gets the job done?

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes.

 

 

Would you have your tooth pulled out without anesthetic ?

Or

Would you choose to have an injection to numb the pain?

 

does it matter if it gets the job done?

 

 

Your argument is not quite so clever after all.

[Observer]

I voted yes to support it on the basis that even if the animal is a pest there are better ways to conduct a controlled culling exercise. Let's be honest, those who take part in the hunt are not really doing it to help keep fox levels down, they're taking part in a blood sport - the thrill of the chase, kill, etc etc etc. I put it in the same league as cock fighting and so on, but that is just my own personal view.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

On a friends farm the same foxes you want to be more human towards ripped the throats out of  7 chickens and ducks and then just left them there without even taking them for food,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Foxes getting into chickens is rare, and should not happen if the farmer kept his hens properly and secure.

 

He keeps the hens by the way, to use them, and eventually kill them. The foxes just got there first, the only harm done is economic to a farmer.

 

Modern ways of producing and growing chickens are totally horrendous. If the chickens had a choice, no doubt they would go for a quick throat rip from a fox rather than being force fed, growing at four times the natural speed, hips painfully collapsing just before slaughter, unable to bear the excess weight. That is what Man does to chickens. Foxes do it better.

 

As to fishing and shooting - we are not arguing about that now. Maybe the day will come, but it is not even a small blip on the political horizon yet.

 

Sports fishermen who do not eat their catch do try to throw back as unharmed as possible.

 

Not pleasant, but I don't see any bloodlust or red jackets amongst the fishermen I know. Just lots of waterproof clothing.

[simon]

It's a "blood - sport". That's a fairly nasty term when you stop and think about it. I'm not opposed to hunting, per se, and I'm certainly not a vegetarian liberal type. I often eat meat almost raw. But I won't eat factory meat. I don't believe that you should eat (or catch) anything unless you would be prepared to kill it. And I don't believe you should kill something unless you are prepared to eat it. Unless it poses a direct threat.

 

The only reason for putting a fish back in the water (IMO) is if it is under sized, or a rare breed. Fishing should be much better regulated IMO. Far too much line and far too many hooks attached to line are left about. Often by lazy children. Ever tried to free a bird trapped in fish hooks and line?

 

Actually - I've more respect, much more respect, for someone who can kill an animal to eat (and delight in the quality of the meat and the cooking) - than I have for someone who could never kill an animal but who will buy factory produced supermarket chicken breasts (or ready meals, or KFC) without even thinking about it.

 

In many countries - hunting is a pursuit of the ordinary - man. And the kill is butchered and divided amongst the party. To be eaten. Fox hunting, by contrast, just seems rather crappy to me. As Oscar Wilde said, ..... etc.

[Mission]

I voted yes to the ban, pretty much for all of the reasons quoted above so I won't just repeat what's already been said.

 

I can't wait until steven sees this topic, he'll be in full swing for weeks!

[Tee]

[Mission]

HA HA, very good Tee.

[Bill Posters]

vegetarian liberal type

 

That's a pretty big pigeon hole. Why lump the two terms together?