Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[P.K.]

I still stand by this:

 

But killing something inedible because you get some kind of gratuitous enjoyment out of seeing a small exhausted native mammal torn apart by a pack of dogs? If you like that kind of thing you must have some serious personal issues. Ban the lot and be done with it.

 

But what a load of guff has been posted about the use of animals in medical research. Take this for example:

 

Perhaps the answer is that the animals used in these experiments are simply unfortunate – that we have them in our power and their suffering is a regrettable but unavoidable result of our using them for our benefit? This certainly seems to be the case in most peoples’ minds, but it is ethically bankrupt – we do it because we can, without any moral or ethical justification. Why are so many prepared to dispense with morality in this area when they insist on it in other areas of life? Is perceived human need or desirability sufficient justification for anything and everything?

 

Firstly these animals simply wouldn't exist unless they were needed for medical research.

 

Secondly animals are needed for research because simply put lifeforms, especially mammals, are so complex that you can't use modern tools like computer modelling to test experimental results - it simply can't be done.

 

Why do you think we have artificial insemination and cloning? It was a huge breakthrough for medical research. With artificial insemination and cloning animals like rats can be used in research over a period of time to create a level testbed. Basically during research over time you know the animals used in the testing are genetic copies of those used previously which removes any genetic variables from the results. This is hugely important.

 

It's not nice but it's necessary - just like the abattoir producing bacon. Every lapsed veggie I know admitted it was the smell of frying bacon that did for them. Welcome to the real world....

[Butters]

And there is the rub. Is the shooter who cleanly kills his quarry and consumes it to be lumped in with those who ride to hounds and torment the fox? Clearly there is a world of difference between them. However, I have the courage of my convictions enough to support the hunt, despite my reservations, in order to protect all legal hunting from further restrictions.

The one million people who took to the streets to demonstrate against the ban indicates I am not alone in this respect.

 

(in reply to BB's last post)

[Chinahand]

Or trophy hunters wanting to mount that stags head over their bed!

 

Look I would never in a million years want to do such a thing - but in a similar way to grouse moors large areas of Africa are maintained to ensure large animal hunters can get their shot.

 

I assume there will be lots of moral outrage about such people, but without them their would be fewer bufflo, lion and elephant in the world living in habitats deliberately preserved with all the ecological advantages for the other animals the hunters don't want to hunt.

 

I genuinely question whether this is so different from killing a billion chicken a year or whatever the figure is so we can eat KFC.

[P.K.]

And there is the rub. Is the shooter who cleanly kills his quarry and consumes it to be lumped in with those who ride to hounds and torment the fox? Clearly there is a world of difference between them. However, I have the courage of my convictions enough to support the hunt, despite my reservations, in order to protect all legal hunting from further restrictions.

The one million people who took to the streets to demonstrate against the ban indicates I am not alone in this respect.

 

Bullshit. Banning hunting foxes on horseback with dogs will not affect shooting woodies for example. The "one million" people who took to the streets (divide by 4) were mostly motivated by the decline in rural areas but surprise surprise most of those ont' committee are foxhunters. "Well I never!" I hear you say. In the evening of the famous "rally" I was standing behind a guy who had been bussed in for the march in the queue at a motorway service station "restaurant". He had to enquire about the price of a cuppa because he was pretty sure he couldn't afford it. He decided he was right so I bought it for him. Rural poverty was the main reason for the numbers on that march and you just couldn't get further apart than the guy who couldn't afford a couple of quid from the landed gentry who hunt foxes and who organised the rally for their own agenda.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If we treat them kindly and finally despatch them painlessly then we have met our moral duty.

I disagree. I think we need to go further than that. The issue is not simply one of treating them kindly whilst alive, but asking ourselves how we can justify ending the life of intelligent and self-aware animals for the sake of taste.

[Ruger]

Self aware?. Very few animals are self aware that we can be sure of, certaily none we regularly eat.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The last thing I'd like to say is over eating meat - if we could farm sustainably - say by terraforming a separate planet to allow cattle to roam and live as the bison did, would it be an immoral thing to appreciate these animals - and there is a magnificence in a prize bull - for their flavour.

But that would be appreciating them for the wrong reasons, i.e. for the taste of their flesh, rather than valueing the lives of individual beings.

[Butters]

And there is the rub. Is the shooter who cleanly kills his quarry and consumes it to be lumped in with those who ride to hounds and torment the fox? Clearly there is a world of difference between them. However, I have the courage of my convictions enough to support the hunt, despite my reservations, in order to protect all legal hunting from further restrictions.

The one million people who took to the streets to demonstrate against the ban indicates I am not alone in this respect.

 

Bullshit. Banning hunting foxes on horseback with dogs will not affect shooting woodies for example. The "one million" people who took to the streets (divide by 4) were mostly motivated by the decline in rural areas but surprise surprise most of those ont' committee are foxhunters. "Well I never!" I hear you say. In the evening of the famous "rally" I was standing behind a guy who had been bussed in for the march in the queue at a motorway service station "restaurant". He had to enquire about the price of a cuppa because he was pretty sure he couldn't afford it. He decided he was right so I bought it for him. Rural poverty was the main reason for the numbers on that march and you just couldn't get further apart than the guy who couldn't afford a couple of quid from the landed gentry who hunt foxes and who organised the rally for their own agenda.

 

Not so. Bear in mind that L.A.C.S. and their ilk have stated publicly that once fox hunting was banned they would turn their attention to all other forms of hunting. And then target recreational fishing. And yes, they would stop woodie shooting..

This is the thin end of a very big wedge. If you believe that a very small but vocal minority should hold sway over the activity of potentially millions ( yes millions) of hunters, shooters & fishermen then so be it. I won't stand for it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Firstly these animals simply wouldn't exist unless they were needed for medical research.

I come across this argument a lot and it misses the point entirely.

 

Say it was other humans we were undertaking testing on. If we bred lots of other people who would never have existed otherwise would it make it all right? Obviously not. The moral issue is about our use and the moral value of that use, not about how many beings are brought into existence. Besides, most animals used for testing have brief lives.

 

Secondly animals are needed for research because simply put lifeforms, especially mammals, are so complex that you can't use modern tools like computer modelling to test experimental results - it simply can't be done.

They are not needed for research but forms of research that are more efficienct and effective for us cannot be undertaken.

 

Why do you think we have artificial insemination and cloning? It was a huge breakthrough for medical research. With artificial insemination and cloning animals like rats can be used in research over a period of time to create a level testbed. Basically during research over time you know the animals used in the testing are genetic copies of those used previously which removes any genetic variables from the results. This is hugely important.

It may very well be important to us, but what is important to us is a different matter to whether we are justified in using animals (and subjecting them to varying degrees of suffering and only allowing them to live for a short time) to get something important from it. I haven't seen any good justification yet.

 

It's not nice but it's necessary - just like the abattoir producing bacon. Every lapsed veggie I know admitted it was the smell of frying bacon that did for them. Welcome to the real world....

Eating meat is necessary? Are you pulling EG's leg? It obviously isn't.

[P.K.]

Not so. Bear in mind that L.A.C.S. and their ilk have stated publicly that once fox hunting was banned they would turn their attention to all other forms of hunting. And then target recreational fishing. And yes, they would stop woodie shooting..

 

Yes it IS so. Angling is the UK's #1 participant sport with over 3 million taking part (myself included, although on my last outing between the two of us we caught 6 fish over 8 days) and LACS have about as much chance of banning it as I have of filling my keepnet - if I had one. The foxhunters mobilised all sorts to try and make out that foxhunting was a huge part of rural life - and is it bollocks. It's a privileged few that can afford the horses, stables, whipper-in etc etc and that's the facts of the matter. A pack of hounds is expensive to maintain because despite the breed being able to easily live up to fourteen years the hunts put them down when they're only about six years old as they're not able to hunt that well anymore - that's the foxhunters for you - it says it all, doesn't it.... In any event hunting with hounds is a barbaric way to kill anything and they actually enjoy it. Disgusting people.

[P.K.]

Eating meat is necessary? Are you pulling EG's leg? It obviously isn't.

 

Of course eating meat is necessary. You wouldn't need a BBQ otherwise.

[Butters]

There is room for all gods creatures on this earth. Next to the potatoes & veg on my plate.

[Butterflies]

Haha, so funny. My opinion is that as civilized evolved people, we should minimize suffering wherever possible, and that definitely means no fox hunting. Fox hunting is the tip of the iceberg in cruelty, but a great stepping stone for those of us who are against unnecessary cruelty.

 

Fox hunting is a key issue, if we can't stop practices that are only about killing for the fun of it, then there is no chance of convincing people of the true cruelty involved in Meat, fish, leather and any other products directly derived from another animal's death. The suffering involved with farming, breeding & killing animals for our plates & palate are unnecessary, we don't need it anymore. I know because these products are something I've avoided for over 10 years. It's no hardship. It's easy. It's better for the world, the animals, and us. There really is no downside.

 

For what it's worth I agree with everyone who has commented against animal experiments, breeding/killing for meat (in case that wasn't clear). We are sentient beings, like them. But one of the things that sets us apart is our compassion. And our opposable thumbs!

[paswt]

Not so. Bear in mind that L.A.C.S. and their ilk have stated publicly that once fox hunting was banned they would turn their attention to all other forms of hunting. And then target recreational fishing. And yes, they would stop woodie shooting..

 

Yes it IS so. Angling is the UK's #1 participant sport with over 3 million taking part (myself included, although on my last outing between the two of us we caught 6 fish over 8 days) and LACS have about as much chance of banning it as I have of filling my keepnet - if I had one. The foxhunters mobilised all sorts to try and make out that foxhunting was a huge part of rural life - and is it bollocks. It's a privileged few that can afford the horses, stables, whipper-in etc etc and that's the facts of the matter. A pack of hounds is expensive to maintain because despite the breed being able to easily live up to fourteen years the hunts put them down when they're only about six years old as they're not able to hunt that well anymore - that's the foxhunters for you - it says it all, doesn't it.... In any event hunting with hounds is a barbaric way to kill anything and they actually enjoy it. Disgusting people.

 

It may be the chase that gives the "buzz" rather than the "kill" however the fox either is killed or gets away , if you rely on a muppet with a gun you may end up with an animal dying a slow and painful death, as you may with poison. Foxes may appear endearing to some people but having seen what they can do if they get into a henhouse (killing every bird ) some folk may disagree. As previous posters have stated land owners/farmers who are in favour of the hunt do leave /hedges/copse/woodland to provide cover for the fox which benefits other wildlife/fauna/flora. The hunt also provides employment for the local population.

I find it strange that PK can take the moral high ground with hunting (perhaps because he can't afford to participate?) but defends fishing for "sport", as he takes part .

[Chinahand]

Agree with you Paswt, the purpose of fox hunting is to kill a fox, and a pack of hounds dispatches a fox very quickly, or not at all. Those who talk of cruelty should be careful about absolute standards, but rather look at the relative cruelties involved in controlling foxes – are they so sure shooting foxes, or poisoning them is so much better? I honestly suspect enforcing shooting (or whatever) over hunting with dogs will increase cruelty not reduce it.

 

I've commented before that I don't really understand the argument that if fox hunting was done by a group of morbid, regretful people who deeply regretted the hounds catching the fox then it sudddenly changes its moral content compared to it being undertaken by a group of people who have combined it with a social activity.

 

That social activity is entirely subsidiary to the purpose – complaining about the practice being undertaken by people who say Tallyho and drink from hip flasks is pure class politics and nothing to do with the ethics of cruelty. But then again P.K. is the classic class warrior, who sees no irony in defending his “working man’s” sport will attacking the “rich” for doing essentially the same thing – killing an animal in a manner where the pleasure of the activity is of equal, if not greater importance than the need – there is a fish and chip shop round the corner, as they say, so why fish, for the pleasure.