The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yes that THING that just won't go away!
Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless. If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful death than the dogs.
If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison. Didnt think so.
So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
Thanks for reading.
Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other half of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think about it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would you hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless. If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful death than the dogs.
If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to eat a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison. Didnt think so.
So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox levels down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
Thanks for reading.
Page:
machine1 wrote:
> Sniper Master wrote:
> Yes that THING that just won't go away!
> Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
>
> Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument
> about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be
> chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other
> half
> of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think
> about
> it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
>
> If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would
> you
> hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless.
> If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it
> in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a
> wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful
> death than the dogs.
>
> If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful
> effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to
> eat
> a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison.
> Didnt think so.
>
> So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox
> levels
> down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Have you ever seen a fox hunt? it's one of the sickest things in this
> country. Just think of it this way would you like to be ripped limb
> from limb by a pack of ravenous dogs? No i bet you wouldn't. Do you
> really think that as soon as the dog catches the fox they kill it, NO
> they chase it to it's hole then dig it out and then let the dogs rip
> it to pieces.
>
> So all this time that fos is in total fear, and that is one of the
> worst ways to die. So think about it for a second yeah before you
> write your opinions.
I have seen a fox hunt and belive me i know that SOMEtimes the dogs "touture" the fox but alot of the time they just kill it.
And anyway i am just stating facts not much opinion in there :)
> Sniper Master wrote:
> Yes that THING that just won't go away!
> Post your view on it. But first heres mine:
>
> Fox hunting is needed to keep fox levels down there is not argument
> about that but the way it is done is contraversial. The fox would be
> chased frieghtened half to death before the dogs ripped the other
> half
> of its life away this would be a reletivly painless death(Think
> about
> it... Dog bites neck, Fox's neck snaps, Fox dead.).
>
> If you were to shoot them then another problem would arise: Would
> you
> hit a small, moving target. Even if you did would it be as painless.
> If you got it in the head then yes but you are more likely to hit it
> in the body. This then leaves the fox stuck in the rain and with a
> wound that is open to infection. This would be a much more painful
> death than the dogs.
>
> If you were to put some poison down then that would have dreadful
> effects on all animals in the area. And think... would you like to
> eat
> a sheep if it had been in an area where they had put down poison.
> Didnt think so.
>
> So i am actually on the fence as until a new way of keeping fox
> levels
> down is found then hunting is a fine solution.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Have you ever seen a fox hunt? it's one of the sickest things in this
> country. Just think of it this way would you like to be ripped limb
> from limb by a pack of ravenous dogs? No i bet you wouldn't. Do you
> really think that as soon as the dog catches the fox they kill it, NO
> they chase it to it's hole then dig it out and then let the dogs rip
> it to pieces.
>
> So all this time that fos is in total fear, and that is one of the
> worst ways to die. So think about it for a second yeah before you
> write your opinions.
I have seen a fox hunt and belive me i know that SOMEtimes the dogs "touture" the fox but alot of the time they just kill it.
And anyway i am just stating facts not much opinion in there :)
Like most of the people in the country, I have never lived in the country, and have never witnessed a hunt firsthand. Therefore, I am not in a position to judge whether hunting is good or bad - just as most of the politicians who vote on such decisions are not in a position to vote on it.
I will, however, say this...
The basis of my view is that we, as the general public, get two completely hardline views on hunting.
The anti-hunters (many of which are actually people who have never witnessed a hunt and lived in the city all their lives), distort views by saying rubbish like "how would you like to be ripped apart alive". In fact, it's well known that hunting dogs instintively go for the neck, killing foxes instantly. However, people (like some in this topic), get the idea of foxes being ripped apart alive from videos in which the hunters give the dead carcuss to the dogs to eat... and all we see in anti-hunting videos is a fox being ripped apart.
On the other end of the stick, the hunters can often be surrounded by an air of arrogance - "we've always hunted, and we understand the countryside but you don't". As such they can often not be open to any kind of compromise.
Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into the need for hunting.
Sonic
I will, however, say this...
The basis of my view is that we, as the general public, get two completely hardline views on hunting.
The anti-hunters (many of which are actually people who have never witnessed a hunt and lived in the city all their lives), distort views by saying rubbish like "how would you like to be ripped apart alive". In fact, it's well known that hunting dogs instintively go for the neck, killing foxes instantly. However, people (like some in this topic), get the idea of foxes being ripped apart alive from videos in which the hunters give the dead carcuss to the dogs to eat... and all we see in anti-hunting videos is a fox being ripped apart.
On the other end of the stick, the hunters can often be surrounded by an air of arrogance - "we've always hunted, and we understand the countryside but you don't". As such they can often not be open to any kind of compromise.
Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into the need for hunting.
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> In fact, it's well known that hunting dogs instintively
> go for the neck, killing foxes instantly.
No, that is a misconception.
I had a long chat years ago with a couple of anti-hunt people who run a fox refuge in Northamptonshire, and the showed me photos taken at a hunt in the area.
The dogs do not always go for the throat - being in a pack, they grab what they can, and shake it around like a rag doll. If one dog gets the neck for an instant kill, that fox is lucky. Usually it is far more messy, and the fox is alive through most of it.
They had one fox at the refuge that they saved from a hunt, but dogs had got hold of it. Its jaw was broken, and it could no longer eat solid food. Consequently it could never be released back into the wild.
Even if a fox does manage to escape, the shock alone can be enough to kill them - they are literally scared to death. That alone is barbaric enough.
Fox hunting is a barbaric and unnecessary form of 'entertainment' at the expense of a terrified, defenceless animal. It's the English equivalent of the Spanish bullfights, and we all know how uptight the English get over that.
> In fact, it's well known that hunting dogs instintively
> go for the neck, killing foxes instantly.
No, that is a misconception.
I had a long chat years ago with a couple of anti-hunt people who run a fox refuge in Northamptonshire, and the showed me photos taken at a hunt in the area.
The dogs do not always go for the throat - being in a pack, they grab what they can, and shake it around like a rag doll. If one dog gets the neck for an instant kill, that fox is lucky. Usually it is far more messy, and the fox is alive through most of it.
They had one fox at the refuge that they saved from a hunt, but dogs had got hold of it. Its jaw was broken, and it could no longer eat solid food. Consequently it could never be released back into the wild.
Even if a fox does manage to escape, the shock alone can be enough to kill them - they are literally scared to death. That alone is barbaric enough.
Fox hunting is a barbaric and unnecessary form of 'entertainment' at the expense of a terrified, defenceless animal. It's the English equivalent of the Spanish bullfights, and we all know how uptight the English get over that.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> There is no easy way to kill a fox - even shooting isn't humane. I
> read an article on the web several months ago, from a reporter who
> accompanied a hunter hired by a farmer to kill foxes
> "humanely". He shot a fox, but only succeeded in wounding
> it. The hunter didn't want to "waste" a second bullet, so
> to finish the fox off, he stamped on its head. That's really humane,
> isn't it?
What would you do if you'd hit a deer with your car, and it was lying in the gutter blatantly dying in agony? Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, and there's not much difference between a foot and a bullet if they both cause death.
Fox hunting is a bloody barbaric, savage activity - more inhumane than bullfighting. Shooting is in every way preferable - it's more effective at keeping fox populations down, it doesn't trash the countryside it's meant to protect and it isn't the most repulsive, lingering stain of British history still scarring this country today. I don't give a flying f**k how many people will be put out of work by banning fox hunting - if I ran a business hunting/torturing/killing rich backwards snobs, I would have no right to complain when I got closed down either.
> There is no easy way to kill a fox - even shooting isn't humane. I
> read an article on the web several months ago, from a reporter who
> accompanied a hunter hired by a farmer to kill foxes
> "humanely". He shot a fox, but only succeeded in wounding
> it. The hunter didn't want to "waste" a second bullet, so
> to finish the fox off, he stamped on its head. That's really humane,
> isn't it?
What would you do if you'd hit a deer with your car, and it was lying in the gutter blatantly dying in agony? Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, and there's not much difference between a foot and a bullet if they both cause death.
Fox hunting is a bloody barbaric, savage activity - more inhumane than bullfighting. Shooting is in every way preferable - it's more effective at keeping fox populations down, it doesn't trash the countryside it's meant to protect and it isn't the most repulsive, lingering stain of British history still scarring this country today. I don't give a flying f**k how many people will be put out of work by banning fox hunting - if I ran a business hunting/torturing/killing rich backwards snobs, I would have no right to complain when I got closed down either.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting
> with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow
> mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by
> the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into
> the need for hunting.
>
> Sonic
It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
> Now, back to my point. Most of the people who you will discuss hunting
> with have no idea what they are on about. They will often follow
> mainstream opinions based on factually incorrect evidence supplied by
> the media. What we really need is an in-depth independent study into
> the need for hunting.
>
> Sonic
It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Miserableman wrote:
> It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern
> Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are
> there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Errrr... would you like to explain why you think it's so cruel and barbaric then? You still haven't supported any of your views with facts and debate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that can save lives?
Sonic
> It really isn't very difficult to understand. It's not like Northern
> Ireland, or Iraq - what you get told happens happens. The facts are
> there for all to see, and no-one denies them.
Errrr... would you like to explain why you think it's so cruel and barbaric then? You still haven't supported any of your views with facts and debate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that can save lives?
Sonic
The reason I'm against fox hunting is quite simple: to me, it's a symbol of how humans can disconnect from compassion and take pleasure in cruelty and suffering.
If fox numbers need to be culled (which is questionable), it should be done in the most humane way possible and not turned into a bloodsport in which the participants take pleasure in seeing an animal killed.
If fox numbers need to be culled (which is questionable), it should be done in the most humane way possible and not turned into a bloodsport in which the participants take pleasure in seeing an animal killed.
I think what the argument comes down to is;
1) People who want every opportunity they can to protest about something, irrelevant of the subject - as long as it opposes business, coporations, or their other favourite word, "elites", then it must be a good cause.
2) Those who did actually care about foxes before the whole debate blew up, and not the animal rights groups who, faced with diminshing publicity and media attention, decided that supporting the anti hunt supporters was a solution to their problems - regardless of the fact fox hunting has gone on for ages, controls the fox population so that you rarely see them in cities, and that the UK has far more worthy problems than this. Sod the fact we've got out of control gun crime, drugs problems, rising crime overall, and everything else - save the foxes....
3) Everyone else who just jumps on the metaphorical bandwagon and only know what the anti hunt lobby has told them or shown them - inevitably biased info and images designed solely to prove their cause.
Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend to care.
At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to care !
~~Belldandy~~
1) People who want every opportunity they can to protest about something, irrelevant of the subject - as long as it opposes business, coporations, or their other favourite word, "elites", then it must be a good cause.
2) Those who did actually care about foxes before the whole debate blew up, and not the animal rights groups who, faced with diminshing publicity and media attention, decided that supporting the anti hunt supporters was a solution to their problems - regardless of the fact fox hunting has gone on for ages, controls the fox population so that you rarely see them in cities, and that the UK has far more worthy problems than this. Sod the fact we've got out of control gun crime, drugs problems, rising crime overall, and everything else - save the foxes....
3) Everyone else who just jumps on the metaphorical bandwagon and only know what the anti hunt lobby has told them or shown them - inevitably biased info and images designed solely to prove their cause.
Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend to care.
At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to care !
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and
> never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people
> show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend
> to care.
>
> At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to
> care !
Quite frankly, I don't care too much about the foxes either. I'm realistic - nature is bloody cruel, and equally worse things as fox hunting go on every day all around the world. However, what I DON'T like is humans actively contributing to this - there is a behavioural code which makes us civilised, and in no way can fox hunting be called civilised. On top of that it is needlessly ineffective and cruel - shooting is a much cheaper, more humane and effective way of keeping Fox populations down.
> Me ? Couldn't give a toss about foxes personally - never have and
> never will really, so I don't see the problem. Just because people
> show me pictures of ripped up foxes e.t.c. doesn't mean I'll pretend
> to care.
>
> At least I'm being honest to myself and others by not pretending to
> care !
Quite frankly, I don't care too much about the foxes either. I'm realistic - nature is bloody cruel, and equally worse things as fox hunting go on every day all around the world. However, what I DON'T like is humans actively contributing to this - there is a behavioural code which makes us civilised, and in no way can fox hunting be called civilised. On top of that it is needlessly ineffective and cruel - shooting is a much cheaper, more humane and effective way of keeping Fox populations down.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat
> for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we
> just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often
> horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that
> can save lives?
>
> Sonic
You don't actually need to live in a house with an electricity or gas supply. You don't need to run a car. You don't need to have money. I could go on. Electricity, gas, cars, money and meat are five ways in which our lives are enriched, helping make us a civilised society. Unfortunately, this can have negative impacts on other species, but we do a reasonable job of trying to keep this to a minimum. This is part of what makes us human.
I don't need to state why I think it's cruel and barbaric. I mean, what could possibly make me think that it's cruel and barbaric?!?!?!?!
> Oh, and here's something else to think about for you all. We eat meat
> for our enjoyment - it's clear we don't NEED meat to survive... we
> just like it. So, why is it ok to breed and kill animals in often
> horrible conditions, but not to breed them for medical research that
> can save lives?
>
> Sonic
You don't actually need to live in a house with an electricity or gas supply. You don't need to run a car. You don't need to have money. I could go on. Electricity, gas, cars, money and meat are five ways in which our lives are enriched, helping make us a civilised society. Unfortunately, this can have negative impacts on other species, but we do a reasonable job of trying to keep this to a minimum. This is part of what makes us human.
I don't need to state why I think it's cruel and barbaric. I mean, what could possibly make me think that it's cruel and barbaric?!?!?!?!
Page: