The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pro-Hunt campaigners. For a start, it's a barbaric sport, causing unneccessary suffering to cut ickle foxes. And now it turns out the people that support can only express their opinions through violence. The reporter trying to interview people with blood running down their faces has to compete with mongoloids running up to the camera shouting "It suuuuucks!!!" in their finest mongol tones. Complete dickwads, in my opinion - just waiting for the Police to set the alsations on them, see how they like it.
Page:
They say they're keeping the fox population down - but the fox populaton is put up artificially so they've got something to hunt anyways.
gerrid wrote:
> Is anyone here against the barbaric policy of the government to poison
> the living daylights out of Britain's rat population? If Lord
> Moustachio and co. were going around hunting rats with dogs, would
> any of you care? Would yuo be rallying to 'save the rat'?
Fair point. Anything likeable is worth saving. Anything else that lives yet is slightly less cute is disgusting - rats, bugs, wasps etc. ALL must be KILLED as soon as possible.
On the other hand, hunting can hardly hold itself up as a really, really, really effective way of keeping fox numbers down. How often is there a hunt? How many foxes does each one kill? Is it really very nice to tear foxes to pieces?
Personally, it's an incredibly, incredibly inflated topic, and one which really has no impact on anything whatsoever........just double standards on both sides.
> Is anyone here against the barbaric policy of the government to poison
> the living daylights out of Britain's rat population? If Lord
> Moustachio and co. were going around hunting rats with dogs, would
> any of you care? Would yuo be rallying to 'save the rat'?
Fair point. Anything likeable is worth saving. Anything else that lives yet is slightly less cute is disgusting - rats, bugs, wasps etc. ALL must be KILLED as soon as possible.
On the other hand, hunting can hardly hold itself up as a really, really, really effective way of keeping fox numbers down. How often is there a hunt? How many foxes does each one kill? Is it really very nice to tear foxes to pieces?
Personally, it's an incredibly, incredibly inflated topic, and one which really has no impact on anything whatsoever........just double standards on both sides.
For one you can't change the enviroment to suit your needs. Nature works things out well. If you change what foxes eat you change other things. Other animals get hurt. Oh and "blair = dictator" is slightly silly, if he was a dictator we would not be able to have all this free speach and protest and whine and complain. Conservatives and Lib Dems would have just as many problems as Labour and would probly go and fk up all the good things labour have done.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> gerrid wrote:
> You can't just mess with the food chain like that. It would cause
> untold problems and have huge effects on the ecosystem.
>
> A very bold statement, that. It just as easily might not. The point
> is, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd trust science-type
> people to come up with something that wouldn't do that. Surely a
> toxic pinch on a fox's nutsack wouldn't cause too many problems.
Unfortunately it would be exactly how gerrid said, even the smallest amount of poison would do this as it condences as it passes through one animal to another.
> gerrid wrote:
> You can't just mess with the food chain like that. It would cause
> untold problems and have huge effects on the ecosystem.
>
> A very bold statement, that. It just as easily might not. The point
> is, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd trust science-type
> people to come up with something that wouldn't do that. Surely a
> toxic pinch on a fox's nutsack wouldn't cause too many problems.
Unfortunately it would be exactly how gerrid said, even the smallest amount of poison would do this as it condences as it passes through one animal to another.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> You don't think this sort of thing goes on already? Species' being
> controlled via vegetation, diet and surroundings? It's the stuff you
> don't hear about that works.
Well, I've never heard of any of that - any examples? Common sense implies to me that putting chemicals and such into a animal's natural food is foolish.
Anyway, since when did foxes eat vegetation? They eat small mammals, birds, carcasses, frogs..
How would you go about introducing toxins to that lot?
> You don't think this sort of thing goes on already? Species' being
> controlled via vegetation, diet and surroundings? It's the stuff you
> don't hear about that works.
Well, I've never heard of any of that - any examples? Common sense implies to me that putting chemicals and such into a animal's natural food is foolish.
Anyway, since when did foxes eat vegetation? They eat small mammals, birds, carcasses, frogs..
How would you go about introducing toxins to that lot?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> So by controlling vegetation and foxes' diets, you're still killing
> them? Of course not. I'm not trying to come off as some fox expert
> here, don't even care for them really, but I'm pretty sure there
> would be ways to control their population by introducing toxins into
> their diets to sterilise them. I dunno, you'd think there would be.
If you could manage to sterilise foxes via the food, then that might be a good idea - I was thinking more along the lines of removing food so that some foxes starve. Although some problems do still seem to emerge here:
Is it possible to sterilise them through diet?
How do you make sure that only certain foxes, or only foxes at all, eat the stuff? We don't want the entire countryside sterile.
> So by controlling vegetation and foxes' diets, you're still killing
> them? Of course not. I'm not trying to come off as some fox expert
> here, don't even care for them really, but I'm pretty sure there
> would be ways to control their population by introducing toxins into
> their diets to sterilise them. I dunno, you'd think there would be.
If you could manage to sterilise foxes via the food, then that might be a good idea - I was thinking more along the lines of removing food so that some foxes starve. Although some problems do still seem to emerge here:
Is it possible to sterilise them through diet?
How do you make sure that only certain foxes, or only foxes at all, eat the stuff? We don't want the entire countryside sterile.
cookie monster wrote:
> Why dont the foxes just claim asylum in scotland? They are clearly
> being persecuted in their own homes.
Hehheh, funny yet practical.
> Why dont the foxes just claim asylum in scotland? They are clearly
> being persecuted in their own homes.
Hehheh, funny yet practical.
These dudes were shouting so loud they stopped Trevor Kavanagh (political editor of The Sun) making a speach at school.. they kept interupting him, t'was entertaining :-)
RoJ wrote:
> As gerrid said. Introducing toxins would have untold risk.
You don't think this sort of thing goes on already? Species' being controlled via vegetation, diet and surroundings? It's the stuff you don't hear about that works.
> As gerrid said. Introducing toxins would have untold risk.
You don't think this sort of thing goes on already? Species' being controlled via vegetation, diet and surroundings? It's the stuff you don't hear about that works.
gerrid wrote:
> You can't just mess with the food chain like that. It would cause
> untold problems and have huge effects on the ecosystem.
A very bold statement, that. It just as easily might not. The point is, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd trust science-type people to come up with something that wouldn't do that. Surely a toxic pinch on a fox's nutsack wouldn't cause too many problems.
> Fox hunting may be barbaric and not particularly effective at
> controlling fox populations, but at least it doesn't disrupt the
> environment.
No, but it does kill kids and encourage toffs.
> You can't just mess with the food chain like that. It would cause
> untold problems and have huge effects on the ecosystem.
A very bold statement, that. It just as easily might not. The point is, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd trust science-type people to come up with something that wouldn't do that. Surely a toxic pinch on a fox's nutsack wouldn't cause too many problems.
> Fox hunting may be barbaric and not particularly effective at
> controlling fox populations, but at least it doesn't disrupt the
> environment.
No, but it does kill kids and encourage toffs.
Page: