The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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:
> 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.
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
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 :)
Sorry fox not fos in the last sentence
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.
> 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 was going to write a well written reply.
Sod em.
Sod em.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Did the farmers suffer increased livestock losses? No.
I mean due to foxes, obviously!
> Did the farmers suffer increased livestock losses? No.
I mean due to foxes, obviously!
Ban it outright. It's not needed.
So a fox gets the odd chicken - big deal.
During the Foot & Mouth outbreak, hunting was banned anyway. Did the farmers suffer increased livestock losses? No.
As an anti-hunt campaigner once said to me - most farmers keep their chickens locked up in one way or another, and foxes don't carry keys.
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?
So a fox gets the odd chicken - big deal.
During the Foot & Mouth outbreak, hunting was banned anyway. Did the farmers suffer increased livestock losses? No.
As an anti-hunt campaigner once said to me - most farmers keep their chickens locked up in one way or another, and foxes don't carry keys.
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?
Page: