antiantianti
Well-Known Member
from the Facebook LACS group:
"Pros have no interest in debate, they just want to disagree."
"Pros have no interest in debate, they just want to disagree."
A classic anti quote
- Thread starter antiantianti
- Start date
Maesfen
Extremely Old Nag!
Now there's intelligence for you!
Must have been really hard work for them to come up with that one!
Must have been really hard work for them to come up with that one!
M_G
Well-Known Member
is that the League Against Cruelty to Socks???? I only ask as socks are the only thing we hunt these days
u04elw2
Well-Known Member
Now I'm REALLY not wanting to get into a debate here but why is it that whenever foxhunting is discussed both sides try to bring intelligence (or lack of) into it?
I'm very much an anti but I am also a very intelligent and well educated invidual, who just so happens to have made a life choice not to participate in killing anything. I'm sure the same can be said for most of the pro hunt and anti hunt people out there.
But everytime I get into a debate on this forum someone always tries to prove their point by calling the other one stupid.
Please don't always assume that we're all this way just because some muppet came out with a stupid quote like that
I'm very much an anti but I am also a very intelligent and well educated invidual, who just so happens to have made a life choice not to participate in killing anything. I'm sure the same can be said for most of the pro hunt and anti hunt people out there.
But everytime I get into a debate on this forum someone always tries to prove their point by calling the other one stupid.
Please don't always assume that we're all this way just because some muppet came out with a stupid quote like that
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
I thing MFH was just saying that it was a stupid statement made by a muppet.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
Can you fathom this statement for me then tegoz, because I got a little lost at this point.
Nothing in the Act requires people to kill deer, save where they are already hunting them with dogs and with the intention of and proper arrangements for, killing them in the manner set out in the Act.
"
Nothing in the Act requires people to kill deer, save where they are already hunting them with dogs and with the intention of and proper arrangements for, killing them in the manner set out in the Act.
"
wombat
Well-Known Member
i could say the same about anits.. even when i don't want to talk about hunting 9/10 they have to go into one.. it always happened at the pub... i used to say look i agree with it. deal with it. and still had to go into it... so i think its that same for both sides... more them than us...
u04elw2
Well-Known Member
Not that old chestnut again...there are pages and pages of discussion of that in here somewhere! Its a stupid and pointless law.
Then again, I also cant work out when pros say they're hunting foxes to keep the population down and yet there are areas where they feed them and encourage them to breed so they can hunt them... I guess there are idiots on both sides, huh?
Then again, I also cant work out when pros say they're hunting foxes to keep the population down and yet there are areas where they feed them and encourage them to breed so they can hunt them... I guess there are idiots on both sides, huh?
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
well I think the point is that good management keeps the population at a sustainable level isn't it? So it's good to bring numbers up when they are too few and bring them down when there are too many.
Seems quite obvious to me but maybe I lack your refined mind.
Seems quite obvious to me but maybe I lack your refined mind.
u04elw2
Well-Known Member
Personally I think its better to just leave them to it. They'll control their own numbers the way nature intended.
But that's getting into a discussion and I really cant be bothered cos Im ill and tired, lol.
But that's getting into a discussion and I really cant be bothered cos Im ill and tired, lol.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
and wrong lol.
Nature intended things to CATCH them!
Nature intended things to CATCH them!
u04elw2
Well-Known Member
:-X my lips are sealed. So much to say but so cant be arsed. And my keyboard got stood on so it keeps putting g5 and h6 wh6enever I type. Far too much effort lol
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"and wrong lol.
Nature intended things to CATCH them! "
Nature didn't intend them to be chased by people on horseback blowing horns and sipping sherry, if nature wants the foxes/deer killed in a natural way let the wild dogs have a go without all the fanfare.
Nature intended things to CATCH them!
"Nature didn't intend them to be chased by people on horseback blowing horns and sipping sherry, if nature wants the foxes/deer killed in a natural way let the wild dogs have a go without all the fanfare.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
"and wrong lol.
Nature intended things to CATCH them!
Nature didn't intend them to be chased by people on horseback blowing horns and sipping sherry, if nature wants the foxes/deer killed in a natural way let the wild dogs have a go without all the fanfare.
I'm glad you are now calling for foxes to be caught and killed by dogs. It's a much better way of keeping the population in balance than other control methods as I am sure you realise. The foxes are killed quickly and outright and it tends to select the weaker foxes. It is an all round better means of dispatching foxes than letting them starve to death or die from diseases which take longer and involve more suffering.
I completely agree it would be great if it could be done by wild dogs, wolves and lynx however this is not entirely practical in heavily populated and farmed lowland Britain so fox hunting is the next best thing.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
Once again you miss the point.
I have always agreed that nature is the best way, organised hunts and dogs bred in captivity is not nature.
Using hunting of population control is just ONE of your excuses to chase and kill wild animals.
Leave nature to nature, not to human intivention.
I have always agreed that nature is the best way, organised hunts and dogs bred in captivity is not nature.
Using hunting of population control is just ONE of your excuses to chase and kill wild animals.
Leave nature to nature, not to human intivention.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
lol another quote from another anti:
"As said, foxhunting is NOT a cause for debate."
"As said, foxhunting is NOT a cause for debate."
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
LOL I LOVED these ones:
"Now this topic is at an end,"
"For the interest in sanity i suggest that all stop posting on this topic."
"Now this topic is at an end,"
"For the interest in sanity i suggest that all stop posting on this topic."
carolmalin123
Well-Known Member
Under what circumstances and in who's mind would there be too few? I not following your way of thinking!!
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
well I guess when you go out all day and don't find any?
rubyslippers
Active Member
Since you're such a fan of quotes:
"Very little of the great cruelty shown by men can really be attributed to cruel instinct. Most of it comes from thoughtlessness or inherited habit. The roots of cruelty, therefore, are not so much strong as widespread. But the time must come when inhumanity protected by custom and thoughtlessness will succumb before humanity championed by thought. Let us work that this time may come" ~Albert Schweitzer
Quick question - If you lot are so great at managing the countryside, why is it in such a poor state? Up until now, the idea of 'managing populations' hasn't really had such great results - unless extinction and endangered species was the intention all along.
"Very little of the great cruelty shown by men can really be attributed to cruel instinct. Most of it comes from thoughtlessness or inherited habit. The roots of cruelty, therefore, are not so much strong as widespread. But the time must come when inhumanity protected by custom and thoughtlessness will succumb before humanity championed by thought. Let us work that this time may come" ~Albert Schweitzer
Quick question - If you lot are so great at managing the countryside, why is it in such a poor state? Up until now, the idea of 'managing populations' hasn't really had such great results - unless extinction and endangered species was the intention all along.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
What extinction and what cruelty are you trying to blame me for? I very much doubt you could attribute any more to me than if you were frank and honest you could attribute to yourself.
rubyslippers
Active Member
antianti, I wasn't pointing the finger at you psersonally - I doubt you have the power to affect what colour socks you wear, so the wider world need not worry.
I was talking about the self proclaimed 'guardians of the countryside', eg. the CA. The landowners, farmers and hunters (not all), that use the countryside as if it were there personal theme park. To encourage species which they enjoy killing, whilst indiscriminatly destroying species which might interfere with their 'sport'.
The result? There is little natural balance left. Too few birds of prey (endangered species), which has led to an increase in pests, such as rabbits, rats and grey squirrels. Meanwhile, despite foxes ranking very low as a harmful pest to the majority of landowners, the CA has tried (but failed) to convince the public that it takes thousands of horses, hounds and spectators to keep the dreaded fox in check!............ but as guardians of the countryside, we'll encourage them to breed in areas where they're not plentiful??
"I very much doubt you could attribute any more [cruelty] to me than if you were frank and honest you could attribute to yourself"
- That's because you do not accept that what you do is cruel, and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
Ruby
I was talking about the self proclaimed 'guardians of the countryside', eg. the CA. The landowners, farmers and hunters (not all), that use the countryside as if it were there personal theme park. To encourage species which they enjoy killing, whilst indiscriminatly destroying species which might interfere with their 'sport'.
The result? There is little natural balance left. Too few birds of prey (endangered species), which has led to an increase in pests, such as rabbits, rats and grey squirrels. Meanwhile, despite foxes ranking very low as a harmful pest to the majority of landowners, the CA has tried (but failed) to convince the public that it takes thousands of horses, hounds and spectators to keep the dreaded fox in check!............ but as guardians of the countryside, we'll encourage them to breed in areas where they're not plentiful??
"I very much doubt you could attribute any more [cruelty] to me than if you were frank and honest you could attribute to yourself"
- That's because you do not accept that what you do is cruel, and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
Ruby
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
But the bird of prey population has increased massively over the last few decades because of changes in the practices of the people you appear to despise so much.
And studies have shown that land owned by people who hunt and support hunting habours more not less wildlife than thise who do not participate.
So actually what you are saying is just plain wrong.
What I do is not cruel. Do you know what I do? Why don;t you find out before assuming it is cruel.
And studies have shown that land owned by people who hunt and support hunting habours more not less wildlife than thise who do not participate.
So actually what you are saying is just plain wrong.
What I do is not cruel. Do you know what I do? Why don;t you find out before assuming it is cruel.
u04elw2
Well-Known Member
*sigh* rubyslippers and all the others valliantly trying to get through to these guys, this is why I didnt bother getting into the debate. Theres no way of getting through to them. Not even when you hold the facts in front of their faces. Youd get a better result bashing your head off a brick wall
Fairynuff
Well-Known Member
As an ex pro now anti(ish) I have descovered that THEY are correct in what they say regarding hunting with hounds . I live in a country where hunting with hounds (foxes) is almost unheard of. Here, foxes are snared, poisoned or shot. I have had the sad honour to see the results of the snares and poisoning .I have had to wrestle with a roe deer to get him out of a snare set for the fox, I have taken various cats and dogs to the vet when Ive found them full of poison which was left out for the fox.I am turning back to the trad way of things, at least nought else is going to be killed by mistake! This does not mean to say that I would participate,but, for those of you who can stomach it, well... get on with it!
PS, how I envy you, its a bloody brill day out
. I live in a country where hunting with hounds (foxes) is almost unheard of. Here, foxes are snared, poisoned or shot. I have had the sad honour to see the results of the snares and poisoning .I have had to wrestle with a roe deer to get him out of a snare set for the fox, I have taken various cats and dogs to the vet when Ive found them full of poison which was left out for the fox.I am turning back to the trad way of things, at least nought else is going to be killed by mistake! This does not mean to say that I would participate,but, for those of you who can stomach it, well... get on with it! PS, how I envy you, its a bloody brill day out
wrighty
Well-Known Member
Morr, you don't sound anti(ish) to me, you still sound pro.
Like many against hunting I am also against any form of animal control, it is not needed.
Let nature control nature for most of the wild animals, for animals such as rats it is down to us to clean our (human) act up so there is less for them to eat therefore there will be less "vermin"
Like many against hunting I am also against any form of animal control, it is not needed.
Let nature control nature for most of the wild animals, for animals such as rats it is down to us to clean our (human) act up so there is less for them to eat therefore there will be less "vermin"
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
when you say 'let nature control' would this include reintroducing predators to keep the numbers balanced through hunting? Or do you just mean let the numbers increase till they destroy their food supply and start starving?
rubyslippers
Active Member
antianti - "But the bird of prey population has increased massively over the last few decades because of changes in the practices of the people you appear to despise so much."
- Have they, perhaps you could give us some stats to back that statement up?
According to John Hardie from the North East Raptor Study Group; "The Peregrine Falcon population in the North East, on grouse moors, has declined by about 40% over the past six or seven years. Our Hen Harrier population in the North East could very easily become extinct in a few years."
He said that he had no doubt that this decline was down to estates and gamekeepers deliberately killing the birds.
According to the SW Observatory Environment Module
- " Increasingly intensive farming over the last 30 years has been directly linked to declines in farmland bird population"
And before you accuse this group of bias; In 2006, 185 reports of shooting and destruction of birds of prey, and 475 reports of shooting and destruction of non birds of prey, including trappings and nest destructions were recieved by authorities. They are just those reported - considering the privacy of most land, these figures are quite disturbing.
As for "reintroducing predators to keep the numbers balanced" - that wouldn't be necessary if they weren't persecuted in the first place.
All members of the CA no doubt!
Morrigan - I think you need to look up the meaning of the words 'anti' and 'pro'.WHile you're at it, why don't you make a donation to the CA. What kind of people poison and snare an animal that isn't even a pest? The same kind of people who hunt them for fun and dig them with terriers.
If you think hunting is a brill day out, you should try following bloodhounds, it takes a little more guts, and far more skill.
Ruby
- Have they, perhaps you could give us some stats to back that statement up?
According to John Hardie from the North East Raptor Study Group; "The Peregrine Falcon population in the North East, on grouse moors, has declined by about 40% over the past six or seven years. Our Hen Harrier population in the North East could very easily become extinct in a few years."
He said that he had no doubt that this decline was down to estates and gamekeepers deliberately killing the birds.
According to the SW Observatory Environment Module
- " Increasingly intensive farming over the last 30 years has been directly linked to declines in farmland bird population"
And before you accuse this group of bias; In 2006, 185 reports of shooting and destruction of birds of prey, and 475 reports of shooting and destruction of non birds of prey, including trappings and nest destructions were recieved by authorities. They are just those reported - considering the privacy of most land, these figures are quite disturbing.
As for "reintroducing predators to keep the numbers balanced" - that wouldn't be necessary if they weren't persecuted in the first place.
All members of the CA no doubt!
Morrigan - I think you need to look up the meaning of the words 'anti' and 'pro'.WHile you're at it, why don't you make a donation to the CA. What kind of people poison and snare an animal that isn't even a pest? The same kind of people who hunt them for fun and dig them with terriers.
If you think hunting is a brill day out, you should try following bloodhounds, it takes a little more guts, and far more skill.
Ruby
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
Areas of the USA have NO birds of prey because they did not realise in time the effect that pesticides were having. If we had not changed our pesticide use drastically several of our pird species would now be extinct in this country.
Intensive agriculture can indeed have drastic effects on wildlife. This is why it is a good thing if landowners have a motivation for planting and maintaining hedges and woodland and also allowing more rough areas. Guess what? farmers who engage in shooting and hunting maintain and encourage more such areas.
The idea that hunting and country sports are bad for conservation is nonsense. They provide a key incentive to farm less intensively. Large areas of cover are maintained in this country in order to provide sporting potential. This boosts wildlife.
Limiting the numbers of foxes badgers and deer in an area can further boost biodiversity. There are studies to show this,
Intensively managed farmland is CRAP for hunting and shooting. We have a fantastic shoot which is so good because it is a myriad of small fields coppices and hedgerows and hiost to a plethora of wildlife.
Intensive agriculture can indeed have drastic effects on wildlife. This is why it is a good thing if landowners have a motivation for planting and maintaining hedges and woodland and also allowing more rough areas. Guess what? farmers who engage in shooting and hunting maintain and encourage more such areas.
The idea that hunting and country sports are bad for conservation is nonsense. They provide a key incentive to farm less intensively. Large areas of cover are maintained in this country in order to provide sporting potential. This boosts wildlife.
Limiting the numbers of foxes badgers and deer in an area can further boost biodiversity. There are studies to show this,
Intensively managed farmland is CRAP for hunting and shooting. We have a fantastic shoot which is so good because it is a myriad of small fields coppices and hedgerows and hiost to a plethora of wildlife.
antiantianti
Well-Known Member
Lets look at one species: Black Grouse:
Increased winter survival of red and Sika deer and lower culling rates has resulted in densities of more than 20 deer/km2 in some core black grouse areas. Grazing by an estimated 600,000 deer in Scotland, combined with grazing by sheep, has led to a decline in the quality and quantity of many moorland plants on which black grouse depend for food and which provide cover for nesting, brood-rearing and roosting. Additionally, browsing prevents the regeneration of native woodlands that could provide valuable future habitat for black grouse and necessitates the use of deer fences, which brings its own serious problems.
Thus, in some parts of Scotland, enhanced levels of deer culling is necessary. This is organised through Deer Management Groups, assisted by the Deer Commission for Scotland, which set culling targets according to the integrated objectives of the land holding and wider deer population. The DCS focuses effort on Priority Sites, identified because of the damage that is being caused to agriculture, woodland, natural heritage or public safety. For more advice, contact your local Deer Management Group or the DCS.
Increased winter survival of red and Sika deer and lower culling rates has resulted in densities of more than 20 deer/km2 in some core black grouse areas. Grazing by an estimated 600,000 deer in Scotland, combined with grazing by sheep, has led to a decline in the quality and quantity of many moorland plants on which black grouse depend for food and which provide cover for nesting, brood-rearing and roosting. Additionally, browsing prevents the regeneration of native woodlands that could provide valuable future habitat for black grouse and necessitates the use of deer fences, which brings its own serious problems.
Thus, in some parts of Scotland, enhanced levels of deer culling is necessary. This is organised through Deer Management Groups, assisted by the Deer Commission for Scotland, which set culling targets according to the integrated objectives of the land holding and wider deer population. The DCS focuses effort on Priority Sites, identified because of the damage that is being caused to agriculture, woodland, natural heritage or public safety. For more advice, contact your local Deer Management Group or the DCS.