Viewing Thread:
"Fox Hunting"

So much for the ban on fox hunting. Even though the legislation is not due to become law until February, I found out today that the Country side alliance or someone are launching a legal fight to overturn the law. But get this.....they can continue to hunt until the matter is settled (could be 5 years).

Now imagine this, what if an individual launched a legal fight not to recognise the law on say armed robbery. Does this mean that person could continue robbing until the matter was settled? I think not.

This government has bowed under pressure, from a few toffs and upper class ninnies. What messages are you sending Blair.....why bother with laws when the rich and powerful just choose to ignore them anyway??? You muppet

Charleyann wrote:
> i agree. If foxs were en-dangered i may think differently. But they
> are animal pests and they're hardly killing 100's a day. It's just an
> exciting sport that in fairness a fox does to a chicken?

i'd like to introduce you to a lil thing called the food chain....

> It's hardly animal cruelty when it's a hound attacking a fox.

surely it's the purest form of animal cruelty? or is it simply natural?
so by that rationale, it's not assault when a human attacks a human.

> I feel sorry for
> the hunters who have to stop a tradition they have grown up in.

i feel sorry for them too, but for entirely different reasons.

> in some cases its best to put a "blind eye" to things if you don't agree
> with it.

i wonder if Nelson agreed with telescopes?

i agree. If foxs were en-dangered i may think differently. But they are animal pests and they're hardly killing 100's a day. It's just an exciting sport that in fairness a fox does to a chicken? It's hardly animal cruelty when it's a hound attacking a fox. I feel sorry for the hunters who have to stop a tradition they have grown up in. It's out the way of everybody and in some cases its best to put a "blind eye" to things if you don't agree with it. It certainly doesn't make it wrong.

Cycloon wrote:
> Erm, the argument about 'pest-control' holds no water at all -
>
> 1) Foxes are killed in other ways

I think this needs to be underlined. Let's rationally consider the logic in wasting many hours, spending a fortune on dogs, horses and posh toff huntwear, to chase one fox for up to several hours across a large expanse of land.

Now let's consider the logic of jumping on the back of a land rover pick up with a rifle, be driven round and pick off tens of foxes in a single evening.

As he says, it holds no water.

It's unfair to compare it to fishing - as far as I know the fish are usually released afterwards, not torn to pieces.

I may sound anti-hunt, but if we're talking cruelty here, keeping animals locked in cages for years then shooting them through the head with a nail is worse in my view. The fox may be scared, but at least it has the opportunity to out-wit the hunters, a luxury the doomed cows, sheep and pigs that are slaughtered each day, do not have.

I can't see too much of a problem really. As long as the hunts are not a direct cause of the foxes population dwindling, and they don't cause too much damage to land, I think people should be free to do what they want.

The problem with our society in the towns and cities is that we are far too removed from the whole thing. We're so distanced from the whole reality of the slaughter of animals, that some people probably think pork chops are grown on trees.

I say, make it legal if they don't use dogs.

Lets look at the "Cute Badger" its protected now and is a menace here in my rural lands the Cute Badger can eat a Hedgehog and leave the skin in tackt! they undermine the road foundations, and generally run amock. They are often found lying at the road side apperently victims of hit and run?? I doubt it I reckon they are dumped after illeagal hunting, my point is if you make it illeagal it will still happen, these animals are not CUTE and they need controlled some how, left alone they will become a cute problem.

Keep it legal and at least you can control some elements of hunting make it illegal and you bring back to good old days of Poaching and poisins etc. the problem how ever cute will not go away.


Charleyann wrote:
> Foxs may be cute looking animals but does that in anyway stop it being
> a savage and a pest? You cannot denie something it is because it is
> "cute". You don't see any of you protesters setting up
> debates against "rat poisoning" or "fishing"
> surely these are being cruely dealt with but no, they're not cute
> looking so you wont. Its a British tradition that the up-tight
> society decide should be stopped because we are ruining a life stock.
> They are not in any way en dangered species and most of the hunting
> is done on the hunters land. When a cat brings down a mouse there is
> no debate on that, you say it's not in our nature to kill but what
> did our great ancestors do before ready made meals?

I couldn't care less either way to be honest.

Erm, the argument about 'pest-control' holds no water at all -

1) Foxes are killed in other ways
2) They never ever overpopulate an area. So in that respect, they are far brainier than us.

Foxs may be cute looking animals but does that in anyway stop it being a savage and a pest? You cannot denie something it is because it is "cute". You don't see any of you protesters setting up debates against "rat poisoning" or "fishing" surely these are being cruely dealt with but no, they're not cute looking so you wont. Its a British tradition that the up-tight society decide should be stopped because we are ruining a life stock. They are not in any way en dangered species and most of the hunting is done on the hunters land. When a cat brings down a mouse there is no debate on that, you say it's not in our nature to kill but what did our great ancestors do before ready made meals?

You don't understand, it's a ploy by Labour to stop civil unrest interfering with the election. There was talk of the hunt lobbyists trying to get the ban put forward, so they'd have a chance to demonstrate en-masse before the election and undermine Labour.

forkboy68 wrote:
> So much for the ban on fox hunting. Even though the legislation is not
> due to become law until February, I found out today that the Country
> side alliance or someone are launching a legal fight to overturn the
> law. But get this.....they can continue to hunt until the matter is
> settled (could be 5 years).

It's a new law and not in practice people have the right to protest and try to stop a law that is being created if it's going to effect them.

> Now imagine this, what if an individual launched a legal fight not to
> recognise the law on say armed robbery. Does this mean that person
> could continue robbing until the matter was settled? I think not.

It's kinda a bad comparason as i think armed robbery has been around for a while and no-one wants to be robbed so everyone's for the law to be there. Where as this law will not effect alot of people and so many don't care either way.

> This government has bowed under pressure, from a few toffs and upper
> class ninnies. What messages are you sending Blair.....why bother
> with laws when the rich and powerful just choose to ignore them
> anyway??? You muppet

They haven't bowed under any pressure, it is the law that they can try to stop it coming in to action. If they just said this is the law like it or lump it.People would go crazy at it.

I don't think they should be allowed to hunt but it doesn't matter what i think, i'm not a fox and i'm not a hunter.