- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
09 Sep 04
Originally posted by Mat KelleyMatt,
Again I ask the question do you believe that banning hunting will reduce the number of foxes being killed?
I would turn the question to, if you believe foxes need to be killed do you think that hunting is the best way to do it?
It is not a nice subject but animal populations do sometimes need to be managed, that I accept. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. If you wrote down on a piece of paper an effective stategy for controlling fox numbers today you would not come up with hunting.
Hunting is a social event, a social event where people take joy in killing an animal in an horrific manner. I personally find this abhorent. The real argument is that a load of upper middle class country toffs don't like being told what they can or can not do in "their" country. I have heard all the crap arguments that come out about culture, society, and rights. It is all a load of drivel. Society moves on, these people need to do so also.
We can put a man on the moon I think we can find a better way to kill one fox other than 30 people dressed up like numptys chasing it around for a couple of hours with a load of hungry dogs???
Andrew
09 Sep 04
Originally posted by gumbieTwo bits from the Buren report conclusions:
Ok we seem to be understanding each other now 🙂. I would rather say that it has the instinct to survive than that it wants to stay alive.
And on the foxhunting issue, I understand that most of the foxes hunted in this fashion actually escape, how does this control the population?
"In lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population, and terrierwork, especially by gamekeepers, may be more important. In these areas, in the event of a ban, other means of control have the potential to replace the hunts' role in culling foxes. (Paragraph 5.42)"
"In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out. (Paragraph 5.43)"
Not sure if this answers you question.
09 Sep 04
Originally posted by latex bishop"The real argument is that a load of upper middle class country toffs don't like being told what they can or can not do in "their" country."
Matt,
I would turn the question to, if you believe foxes need to be killed do you think that hunting is the best way to do it?
It is not a nice subject but animal populations do sometimes need to be managed, that I accept. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. If you wrote down on a piece of paper an effective stategy for contr ...[text shortened]... up like numptys chasing it around for a couple of hours with a load of hungry dogs???
Andrew
The demographic of hunts cover the full spectrum of "classes".
I do not disagree that they look like numpties.
"If you wrote down on a piece of paper an effective stategy for controlling fox numbers today you would not come up with hunting."
Please see my previous post Lord Burns and his team do appear to disagree with you in upland areas.
"killing an animal in an horrific manner"
Please expand on this - not sure I agree.
PS Andrew I probably won't make it 'til Saturday or Sunday stuck in the N Sea due to weatherðŸ˜
09 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by gumbieit is interesting that you'd put it that way.
Ok we seem to be understanding each other now 🙂. I would rather say that it has the instinct to survive than that it wants to stay alive.
you see when a person tries to stay alive, we say he wants to.
when an animal tries to do it, we say it has an instinct to.
when a human mother shows affection for her baby, we say she loves.
when an animal shows the same, we say it is instinctive.
when a child plays, we say he is expressing joy.
when an animal plays (and some scientists didn't believe that animals could do that), we say the animal is acting according to its instincts.
what happens is that we use a totally different terminology for animals. as a result, they can never be allowed to have any of the qualities we consider valuable.
scientists have tended to be more stubborn in this respect than people who actually work with animals or have animal companions. someone who has a dog may tell you the neatest things about the dog.
in friendship,
prad
09 Sep 04
Essentially we have the same instincts as animals. However human beings may choose to ignore or even go against these instincts. Some are easier to ignore than others. But I don't think there is a single instinct a human being cannot with sufficient training or concentration go against. An animal cannot choose and will always follow it's instincts. A human being chooses whether to follow them or not.
09 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Mat KelleyI think sometimes "I don't like it" is enough, as long as it is a view held be enough people.
I assume you are in favour of the bill - why I ask the question is what is the point of the bill? What is the reason for banning hunting - and simply "I don't like it" isn't good enough.
If you believe hunting is cruel what are th ...[text shortened]... ion this will continue. What are the options for killing foxes?
My personal feelings are not relating to the death of the fox (even though I have been a vegetarian for 32 years), my objection is to the ritual of dressing up and turning a killing into a sport and a day to be looked forward to and enjoyed. I have no doubt that the foxes will continue to be killed, and this may, or may not, be justified, but this isn't my objection.
I live in a country without the death penalty, but as a simple example to try to explain my objection, imagine that a US state decides that henceforth all executions will be held in public arenas so that the public can 'enjoy' the occasion and make a day of it - buy a couple of hotdogs, take your girlfriend along as a first date, etc...
Is it irrelevant how the execution occurs? I'm not sure, but I believe it would be very hard for this method of execution to be accepted by a great many Americans already in favour of the death penalty.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
09 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by Mat KelleyMatt,
"The real argument is that a load of upper middle class country toffs don't like being told what they can or can not do in "their" country."
The demographic of hunts cover the full spectrum of "classes".
I do not disagree th ...[text shortened]... ke it 'til Saturday or Sunday stuck in the N Sea due to weatherðŸ˜
We will get down on Saturday.
The demographic of hunts cover the full spectrum of "classes".
Others may be involved, but to own a horse and the associated costs of being on the hunt you tend to need a bit of wedge. Hunting may involve people from a cross class background, but its core in undeniably run by upper midde class toffs. I also understand that people are "invited" to a hunt, elitism? I doubt you get many Labour voters in the hunt sect!!!
Please see my previous post Lord Burns and his team do appear to disagree with you in upland areas
Fine, but are Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire or Surrey remote upland areas? If the most effective way to control fox numbers in remote areas is by a man hunting with a dog and a gun then I do not have a problem with that. I know this is how they control numbers of many animals in such areas - but I stress - this is work carried out by a trained professional who is looking to kill his required quoter in a humane and efficent manner .
"killing an animal in an horrific manner"
Please expand on this - not sure I agree.
OK, you have the choice of a shot in the head with out knowing about it, or I, along with my mates on horses, chase you till you are exhausted upon which point you are ripped to shreads by my pack of dogs. Which do you take? Is empathy not what supposedly seperates us from other animails?
I just can not see how on any grounds hunting can be supported. The argument just seems to lurch from keeping fox numbers down to social cultural issues about life in the country.
The fact is that a belief along the lines of "we have always done it so don't you city folk come and tell us how to run our business" remains at the core of the objection to a ban on fox hunting by a labour government.
Andrew
09 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by gumbieyou may be surprised as to the research availble to the contrary.
An animal cannot choose and will always follow it's instincts. A human being chooses whether to follow them or not.
some obvious examples are dogs rushing in to save humans even at the risk of their own lives - hardly instinctive.
a particularly barbaric experiment was done with monkeys where one of them was immobilized and set up to receive very painful electric shocks whenever a monkey opened the food tray. the results were quite human-like. some monkeys followed their instincts and didn't 'give a damn' for the misery of their colleague, while others refused to eat and nearly straved to death.
you even have acts of interspecies altruism - eg elephants rescuing a baby rhino from a mud pond even though there didn't seem to be any instinctive rationale for it.
i can get you the actual specifics on these and innumerable other documented events. they are quite fascinating and researched by some of the top animal behaviourists of our times.
one of the common mistakes made is that of specieal characteristic attribution. it is assumed that just because a dog is a member of the canine species, all dogs will display the same characteristics. again, a little investigation proves the remarkable and complex individuality of animals.
it goes well beyond what we label as instinct.
in friendship,
prad
09 Sep 04
Originally posted by latex bishopThere certainly won't be any Labour supporters now😀
Matt,
We will get down on Saturday.
[b]The demographic of hunts cover the full spectrum of "classes".
Others may be involved, but to own a horse and the associated costs of being on the hunt you tend to need a bit of wedge. Hunting may involve people from a cross class background, but its core in undeniably run by upper midde class toffs. ...[text shortened]... mains at the core of the objection to a ban on fox hunting by a labour government.
Andrew
[/b]
I have never been to a hunt but I think you will find that the highest cost of a horse is the livery - In the country this is often not such an issue as many people own and borrow bits of land. I will try and find something on who belongs to hunts and there jobs etc.
[b] but are Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire or Surrey remote upland areas?
No and Burns does imply there are other options here.
[b]OK, you have the choice of a shot in the head with out knowing about it, or I, along with my mates on horses, chase you till you are exhausted upon which point you are ripped to shreads by my pack of dogs
I will take being shot in the head please🙂. You do guarantee not to miss don't you? 😕 You missed and now I have a broken leg I will crawl off and die somewhere slowly and painfully:'(:'(
What was my other option? Oh that's right a bit of a chase followed by - I quote - from Burns enquiry "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught"
Many animals are chased - I have several dead mice deposited on my doorstep by my cats.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
09 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Mat KelleyThere certainly won't be any Labour supporters now😀
There certainly won't be any Labour supporters now😀
I have never been to a hunt but I think you will find that the highest cost of a horse is the livery - In the country this is often not such an issue as many people own and borrow ...[text shortened]... ed - I have several dead mice deposited on my doorstep by my cats.
they are still the best option for an effective government in the UK
highest cost of a horse is the livery
Well the horse box and car to pull it are not too cheap either.
No and Burns does imply there are other options here.
well if there were no other options we would not be having this discussion
"insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught"
and do really believe when Dr's say death was instant, they felt no pain - how do you know!!!
Many animals are chased - I have several dead mice deposited on my doorstep by my cats.
this is a preditorary act, this is their natural behaviour - humans are supposed to be better than that. Are we civiliased?
Andrew
09 Sep 04
Originally posted by latex bishopThere certainly won't be any Labour supporters now😀
[b]There certainly won't be any Labour supporters now😀
they are still the best option for an effective government in the UK
highest cost of a horse is the livery
Well the horse box and car to pull it are not too cheap either.
No and Burns does imply there are other options here.
well if there were no other options ...[text shortened]... natural behaviour - humans are supposed to be better than that. Are we civiliased?
Andrew
[/b]
I meant amongst those who hunt
Well the horse box and car to pull it are not too cheap either.
No but these are one off expenses
well if there were no other options we would not be having this discussion
Quite right and as I said earlier I am not Pro hunting and I am open to suggestion and debate
and do really believe when Dr's say death was instant, they felt no pain
This was an independent report and from commisioned by the Government and this quote was from "the evidience we have seen" Do you know they do suffer - I am going by the facts that are available to me, presented by people who have studied this issue in great depth. I do not pretend to know for sure but I am certainly not going to make a judgement on how I "think" an animal might feel. Emotion should be taken out of this debate IMHO.
this is a preditorary act, this is their natural behaviour - humans are supposed to be better than that. Are we civiliased?
The hounds do the chasing this is in their natural behaviour, the huntsmen follow.
Not sure how civilised we are there are many examples which will show we are not!
Mat