Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[Endovelicus]

I was also disappointed with Chinahand's post - cats are semi-domesticated creatures - they are not, as far as I know, capable of the rational thought that is supposed to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Endovelicus, I'm a little confused what you are disappointed about - my issue is that if you were concerned about animal welfare then you would be unhappy with people artificially introducing a predator into domestic gardens - with all the animal welfare consequences of doing that - cats are hugely damaging to natural environments and their toll on bird populations is very significant. They are cruel animals and often cause their prey to suffer and the only reason they exist in the numbers they do is down to us. Our actions in maintaining the cat population directly result in serious animal welfare issues - that isn't the fault of the cat, it is our fault for introducing them into our environment.

 

Cats are treated like vermin on many an Isle for the death toll they do - maybe the suffering of a rare sea bird is seen as being so much more important than a robin's, but if a dog killed as often as cats do it would be put down or controlled, with cats its just assumed to be natural - their behaviour may be, but their numbers are entirely artificial and down to us - and so we must bear responsibility for what they do.

My mistake. I'm still quite new here, so I tend to follow the original posting rather than going off at a tangent.

The thread is about foxhunting - which I regard as hunting for fun, just as hare coursing is. I think its very wrong.

I'm not especially concerned about animal welfare but if I were, then I would agree with what you say about keeping cats as pets

[Chinahand]

Although I think it cowardly and rather stupid that many make the argument that because one thing is accepted it makes another form of behaviour acceptable. Rather it should be seen that where hypocrisy exists, it should be dealt with by stopping the bad behaviour.

But then you've got to work out how to prioritize your attempts to stop "bad behaviour", and to be aware of the unforseen consequences of your actions - ie banning hunting and so increasing the numbers of wounded, suffering foxes. You have to accept the hypocisy because it isn't possible to solve all issues - and attempting to do so would cause other problems. Plus what is "bad behaviour" and who decides.

 

In my view the animal welfare elements of the fox hunting debate have been massively exaggerated while the main reason - dislike of tally ho etc - is the true political issue and the reason why a government chose to commit large resources* to change the law and (fail to) enforce it.

 

*relative to the issue

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not sure what you mean about the consequences. Although I don't see how there is an issue, such that would be an impediment or problem due to how things are prioritised, but then I don't know what you mean by consequences.

Wounded, suffering foxes?

 

We don't have to accept hypocrisy, we can recognise that it exists and try and deal with it. For instance, where people allow suffering in one respect, we can look at others areas where suffering is condoned through ignorance or a non-application of principles that have been applied elsewhere and we can work to apply them.

 

Bad behaviour, i.e. doing what is immoral, is debatable and down to one's moral understanding of the subject, but I apply mainly utilitarian principles and not accepting the assumption that the suffering of human beings is far more significant than the suffering of animals.

[Ruger]

Are you a vegetarian LDV if not then stop and think what a hypocrite you sound when you say your apposed to all forms of hunting. Do you think meat grows on trees or something?.

I don’t eat meat.

 

Or are you an ignorant vegetarian that likes to think no rabbits, pigeons, etc had to be "hunted" in order to protect your salad while it was still growing in the field?. What about the millions of rats and mice that are poisoned, shot, and hunted with dogs (yes that’s right, still legal if its not a 'cute' fox), to protect and keep clean (keep the shit and piss off it) the stored grain that goes into your bread and breakfast cereals?.

Not a hypocrite in the least. Because I am aware of the immoral behaviour surrounding food use. That’s why I want to make my position less immoral. That means going from eating meat to stopping eating meat, to then looking to stop dairy food consumption and looking to be vegan.

I am fully aware of the immorality of my position in many respects to where animals are used as a resource. I am aware and wish to change that. It is simply a matters of changing the worse aspects of my behaviour and then continuing. Hunting is a more serious example of this immorality towards animals. I am not being a hypocrite in pointing that out,

I think as a society we need to have a greater respect for them.

 

I object to the shooting of animals to protect our food use. If that means less food around then that’s our problem. A problem that we have caused and to which our behaviours and lifestyle should be changed.

And I think you are confusing matters. This is made clear by your use of quotation marks for ‘hunted’.

An animal that is poisoned is not hunted. (Not to say that is poisoning is moral, more often it is not). But it is quite difference from the perverse pleasure that someone takes from taking a gun to an animal or the pleasure from a fox hunt.

 

"Completely apposed to all forms of hunting", you haven’t got a clue have you?. Just another ill-informed town dweller that likes to shout their mouth of about something they know nothing about, a bit like Blair except that tosser thought he would pass laws on something he knew nothing about.

I have not come across a good argument for maintaining fox hunting nor for hunting for pleasure.

 

 

So your putting yourself in direct competition with most if not all wild herbivores by becoming a Vegan, but you don’t believe the producers of that food should be entitled to protect it. Ok, so yes that means less food around, for an ever increasing human population, its also means this food a helluva lot more expensive, which is no big deal for us its just means we have less money to throw at non-essentials, but its funny you should mention "poverty and starvation across the word" earlier as it seems you would like to contribute to this yourself. So maybe if you understood the full implications of not shooting to protect our food you wouldn’t object, trouble is you don’t understand.

 

Your confusing and sidetracking matters by suggesting a further ban on all "other forms of hunting". Who cares if poisoning is not technically hunting, but correct me if I'm wrong its has the same effect, no?. The ultimate result of either is what you have a problem with. What’s this about "perverse pleasure", you've certainly been fed some serious shit somewhere if that's what you believe, and more fool you for taking it.

 

Nor do I see a good argument for implementing the ban. Nor for that matter does the dildo that passed it in the first place, so that should tell you something. Oh so hunting for food is all right now is it?. Its just early you seemed to think that all other forms of hunting were a good place to resume banning things.

 

That’s fine if you want to be a vegan, I kind of feel sorry for you taking that decision, having seen the effect it has on a person, but I sure hope you don’t believe it’s the right way for everyone to go. All I can say is you must think very little of yourself and lead a very physically inactive lifestyle for you to be able to cope with it.

[Ruger]

You don't have to be a vegetarian to oppose the louts who go hunting for fun.

Hunting for food, or even 'hunting' to protect foodstuffs is nothing like the same. And if you're next going to tell us about foxes killing chickens etc, the fact is that I think most farmers would reach for a shotgun rather than call out the local hunt!

 

 

I wasn’t referring to fox hunters (the hound variety) or "local hunts" t so have you actually got an argument with me?. As I said I have no interest in it, but I've still got a problem with the ban.

[ballaughbiker]

Maybe you just need to explain more.

Here we go....... I don't like killing things and I don't like the idea of killing animals for fun, therefore don't like fox hunting. However, I'm not daft enough (or clueless enough having lived in the country for 80% of my life) to think wildlife populations don't need to be controlled etc etc. With this in mind, I saw TB's determination to pass this law which exploited many voters preconceptions and ignorance of the countryside and I disagreed with that cynical tactic. I have therefore always been against the law. Cruelty exists everywhere around us yet that is conveniently ignored. I see that as dual standards. I trust this clarifies matters (but I bet it doesn't....)

 

The vast majority of hunt saboteurs do what they do in the name of animal cruelty. Whilst they really might be at a hunt for other reasons (eg some perceived class warfare) it's always the animal cruelty that places them on the moral high ground giving apparent justification to commit crime. I therefore think that both these evil ends of the spectrum should be considered and discussed together. You say you support them no matter how bad their behaviour yet want to discuss hunting on its own suddenly alleging the sabs actions as no longer relevant. Well I think it is.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So your putting yourself in direct competition with most if not all wild herbivores by becoming a Vegan...

Not competition. Food is produced for our needs (sort of). The more people who choose not to eat meat, the more non-meat products are produced. To think that I might be competing or depriving other animals of their foods is quite silly considering how such foodstuffs are grown and why they are grown.

 

...but you don’t believe the producers of that food should be entitled to protect it.

Not if protection means the death of animals. Of course, is shooting of animals were to stop now and that would result in starvation at the current levels of human needs, then such killing would be warranted. But it is in no way a desirable situation for us and ought to be remedied. It is a problem.

 

Ok, so yes that means less food around, for an ever increasing human population, its also means this food a helluva lot more expensive, which is no big deal for us its just means we have less money to throw at non-essentials, but its funny you should mention "poverty and starvation across the word" earlier as it seems you would like to contribute to this yourself. So maybe if you understood the full implications of not shooting to protect our food you wouldn’t object, trouble is you don’t understand.

As mentioned, the issue lies with us. The ever increasing population is OUR problem, not theirs. Maybe population growth should be reigned in if the result is the killing of animals.

 

Your confusing and sidetracking matters by suggesting a further ban on all "other forms of hunting". Who cares if poisoning is not technically hunting, but correct me if I'm wrong its has the same effect, no?.

Well, it isn't hunting. My understanding of the term hunt does not cover the poisoning of an animal. Why do you think it would?

 

The ultimate result of either is what you have a problem with. What’s this about "perverse pleasure", you've certainly been fed some serious shit somewhere if that's what you believe, and more fool you for taking it.

Is pleasure not taken by people who go out fox hunting or who go out shooting pheasants?

 

Nor do I see a good argument for implementing the ban. Nor for that matter does the dildo that passed it in the first place, so that should tell you something. Oh so hunting for food is all right now is it?. Its just early you seemed to think that all other forms of hunting were a good place to resume banning things.

Then what are your arguments for allowing fox hunting?

 

That’s fine if you want to be a vegan, I kind of feel sorry for you taking that decision, having seen the effect it has on a person, but I sure hope you don’t believe it’s the right way for everyone to go. All I can say is you must think very little of yourself and lead a very physically inactive lifestyle for you to be able to cope with it.

Of course I think it is right for people to not eat meat and to not treat animals as a resource. I think it is the right way for everyone to go. It is more moral to reject eating meat when we have the choice to do so. And it is in fact that converse, vegetarian and vegan diets are healthier.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

However, I'm not daft enough (or clueless enough having lived in the country for 80% of my life) to think wildlife populations don't need to be controlled etc etc

They are only perceived to require control (through killing) because of our food needs, i.e. eggs and chicken meat. That our food preference, based on tastes, weighing against the life of an animal whose life has a great deal of value (or ought to). It is in the cases of foxes simply a question of what we think is more importantL satisfying our tastebuds or letting an animal continue to enjoy its life. They are largely only a pest when it comes to interference with our tastes.

 

 

.

With this in mind, I saw TB's determination to pass this law which exploited many voters preconceptions and ignorance of the countryside and I disagreed with that cynical tactic. I have therefore always against the law. Cruelty exists everywhere around us yet that is conveniently ignored. I see that as dual standards. I trust this clarifies matters (but I bet it doesn't....)

That might be true. Although unless I am mistaken, the argument of foxes being a pest was quite a vocal argument made by the opposition. I don't think it passed people by. I think another to bear in mind is that the government decision was not the result of the public being in support and demanding it. It is merely incidental that people agreed or didn't.

 

Cruelty does exist everywhere. There are dual standards all around. What do you do about it? Eliminiate the dual standards by stopping cruelty or accepting cruelty?

 

The vast majority of hunt saboteurs do what they do in the name of animal cruelty. Whilst they really might be at a hunt for other reasons (eg some perceived class warfare) it's always the animal cruelty that places them on the moral high ground giving apparent justification to commit crime. I therefore think that both these evil ends of the spectrum should be considered and discussed together. You say you support them no matter how bad their behaviour yet want to discuss hunting on its own suddenly alleging the sabs actions as no longer relevant. Well I think it is.

Ok, you see a dilemma where it is just as wrong to break the law as it is to hunt or do other immoral actions.

 

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to break the law yet do the right/moral thing?

[Ruger]

So your putting yourself in direct competition with most if not all wild herbivores by becoming a Vegan...

Not competition. Food is produced for our needs (sort of). The more people who choose not to eat meat, the more non-meat products are produced. To think that I might be competing or depriving other animals of their foods is quite silly considering how such foodstuffs are grown and why they are grown.

 

...but you don’t believe the producers of that food should be entitled to protect it.

Not if protection means the death of animals. Of course, is shooting of animals were to stop now and that would result in starvation at the current levels of human needs, then such killing would be warranted. But it is in no way a desirable situation for us and ought to be remedied. It is a problem.

 

Ok, so yes that means less food around, for an ever increasing human population, its also means this food a helluva lot more expensive, which is no big deal for us its just means we have less money to throw at non-essentials, but its funny you should mention "poverty and starvation across the word" earlier as it seems you would like to contribute to this yourself. So maybe if you understood the full implications of not shooting to protect our food you wouldn’t object, trouble is you don’t understand.

As mentioned, the issue lies with us. The ever increasing population is OUR problem, not theirs. Maybe population growth should be reigned in if the result is the killing of animals.

 

Your confusing and sidetracking matters by suggesting a further ban on all "other forms of hunting". Who cares if poisoning is not technically hunting, but correct me if I'm wrong its has the same effect, no?.

Well, it isn't hunting. My understanding of the term hunt does not cover the poisoning of an animal. Why do you think it would?

 

The ultimate result of either is what you have a problem with. What’s this about "perverse pleasure", you've certainly been fed some serious shit somewhere if that's what you believe, and more fool you for taking it.

Is pleasure not taken by people who go out fox hunting or who go out shooting pheasants?

 

Nor do I see a good argument for implementing the ban. Nor for that matter does the dildo that passed it in the first place, so that should tell you something. Oh so hunting for food is all right now is it?. Its just early you seemed to think that all other forms of hunting were a good place to resume banning things.

Then what are your arguments for allowing fox hunting?

 

That’s fine if you want to be a vegan, I kind of feel sorry for you taking that decision, having seen the effect it has on a person, but I sure hope you don’t believe it’s the right way for everyone to go. All I can say is you must think very little of yourself and lead a very physically inactive lifestyle for you to be able to cope with it.

Of course I think it is right for people to not eat meat and to not treat animals as a resource. I think it is the right way for everyone to go. It is more moral to reject eating meat when we have the choice to do so. And it is in fact that converse, vegetarian and vegan diets are healthier.

 

So you think because it is produced for us, that wild animals realize this and wont feed on it if allowed?. Or will simply go elsewhere?. You clearly have no idea about food production which is not surprising in fairness or we wouldn’t still be debating this one. Why it is grown is beside the point, a wild animal doesn’t know why its there or who its for, all they know is to gorge themselves while they can which is not acceptable considering the cost and time involved in growing it. This is not helped by the producer having such little profit margin to play with. It doesn’t take many wild animals to turn a small profit into a large loss, believe me I've seen it enough times.

 

Non lethal methods of protecting a crop almost always fail, or get to the point where it is counter productive by adding additional costs/losses.

 

There are to many people I do not disagree however restricting or somehow even reversing our population growth wont make it go away any time soon!.

 

No not hunting, I'm sorry I just assumed you had a problem with any killing of animals, if it was ok to you to kill animals in a way that cant be classed as hunting then you wouldn’t be a vegetarian would you. So as I say who cares, its the same thing to you if I'm not mistaken?.

 

You seem to be confused about where exactly the pleasure in those activities is drawn from. I'll leave it to someone who participates in either to explain for themselves but I suggest you broaden your mind a little and think more than just 'in the killing'. I have to laugh when people suggest these hordes of horse riding toffs would go out and make such an effort just to gain pleasure from killing something!. Come off it.

 

Ok LDV I've read up on the bullshit spouted by scum such as SABS and the like, I've also taken the time to research the other side of the argument and I know which makes the most sense. I'll post a more helpful link for you, purely because I’m loosing interest and really cant be arsed with it tonight . I'm certainly not going to go off on another tangent revolving around the pros and cons of Veganism, I'll spare the poor bastards that are here for the original subject thanks!.

 

 

http://www.irishfoxh...ukbooklet09.pdf

[Ruger]

They are only perceived to require control (through killing) because of our food needs, i.e. eggs and chicken meat.

 

Wrong.

[prism10]

I would amend the law so it is workable and enforcable!

 

 

 

That sums up my view.

[ballaughbiker]

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to break the law yet do the right/moral thing

Possibly although I can't think of an example at the moment but I wouldn't rule the concept out.

 

Unfortunately what is right and moral in an extremist's head might not match the beliefs of the rest of us.I don't think the (admittedly rare) acts of terrorism can ever be condoned no matter how moral the cause might seem to them.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am sure you can think of some examples, not just simply surrounding laws in the UK and Isle of Man, where the moral act is to break the law or ignore the law. And there are plenty of laws which you would consider immoral.

 

I think acts of terrorism can be condoned in exceptional circumstances. Consider a possible situation where a minority in a country are targeted by the State or the people of a hypothetical democratic nation and subjected to unwarranted violence or deprived of much of their freedoms. Now stressing that the popular will has determined this policy, terrorist action could be justified as a last resort to end such violence.

In the case of animal rights, it would depends on the circumstances, there was Silver Springsepisode in the USA where a number of primates were the subject of animal 'testing'/abuse. Now, were it to prove futile to try and stop such 'testing' through legal means, I would have no issue with threats to those who undertake the work, if that is necessary to end such cruelty.

That would be considered terrorists behaviour. But were the subjects to be other human beings, it would be readily recognised as a moral act.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They are only perceived to require control (through killing) because of our food needs, i.e. eggs and chicken meat.

Wrong.

That isn't enlightening. Why not explain why you disagree.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

This is not helped by the producer having such little profit margin to play with. It doesn’t take many wild animals to turn a small profit into a large loss, believe me I've seen it enough times.

But there are methods that can be applied, which although expensive, can reduce the population or prevent animals from getting into certain areas. With the farmer responsible for food production on his/her own I appreciate that his situation is extremely difficult, but I have no problem with farmers receiving more support if necessary from the public given their essential and very important role in society in providing food.

 

Non lethal methods of protecting a crop almost always fail, or get to the point where it is counter productive by adding additional costs/losses.

What methods are you referring to?

 

There are to many people I do not disagree however restricting or somehow even reversing our population growth wont make it go away any time soon!.

I agree. It won't go away soon. I am only stating that the problem of overpopulation and increasing population where intensive farming must be conducted is of our own making.

 

No not hunting, I'm sorry I just assumed you had a problem with any killing of animals, if it was ok to you to kill animals in a way that cant be classed as hunting then you wouldn’t be a vegetarian would you. So as I say who cares, its the same thing to you if I'm not mistaken?.

Come again? I would not object to some instances where animals are killed. It depends on the situation.

 

You seem to be confused about where exactly the pleasure in those activities is drawn from. I'll leave it to someone who participates in either to explain for themselves but I suggest you broaden your mind a little and think more than just 'in the killing'. I have to laugh when people suggest these hordes of horse riding toffs would go out and make such an effort just to gain pleasure from killing something!. Come off it.

That's not what I think. And I don't believe most think that either. But fox hunting has a characterisation where the presumed necessity of killing the fox is a pleasurable pursuit.