Ban all hunts

Nancykitt said:
……..

Seriously, is anyone - including the antis on here - going to try and make a case for why I shouldn't go out with the Bloodhounds on a Sunday?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's the use of the word 'Blood' in the first part of the Hound's name! It'd be something which was that daft! :D On the other hand of course, if the Bloodhounds were known as Trailhounds, it would all tickle their sensibilities and we'd then all live in a manner which would fit in well with their cosy and ill-informed opinions!

Alec.
 
The way I see it Nancy is that some of the strongest opposition isn't unified; you've got groups including.

1) Those who dislike "the man" or "the rich" or "the upper classes" or whatever you want to insert. In short they see it more as a cultural and social statement rather than one upon animal rights or ecology. In short they want the hunt gone; because it is or reminds them of oppression or some element of society that they greatly dislike.
That many real hunts involve local populations and are not all high class rich affairs isn't the point to this group.

2) That if you keep hunting going; even if no hunt were to EVER hunt a fox; there would still be the "threat" of it returning to its roots. In short they want it fully gone because they feel that they've not yet won. That a single change in government could bring it all back and their good work in getting it restricted would be undone.

3) Those who think that unless you ban it fully you will still get those who hunt real foxes. And as such since they consider it impossible to police this activity they consider the next best to be banning the whole activity itself.


The first group won't be happy till its gone and chances are little would change their point of view easily.

The second group could be convinced of a lack of need to ban fully if more strength is put into alternatives (eg scent trails) to the point where hunts don't want to hunt foxes at all. Not because its against the law, but because they have more fun/more gain/less loss than hunting the fox. Ergo one strengthens the alternatives within the existing structure.

The last group is much like the second and the solution is much the same; again you strengthen the alternatives to the point where its not just tolerated, but accepted and encouraged.



However all those approaches rely upon working with hunts. So we are back to that warzone of pure antis and pure pros again.
 
Very good points from Alex and Overread!
I think that when we do the Mori poll question we should include a picture of a beautiful, softy kind-faced bloodhound (which all of ours are, of course) and say something like 'Are you in favour of this lovely cuddly dog having a wonderful time by going for a nice run with his doggie friends and some humans who may be walking, running or riding horses - and no other animal gets harmed?'
 
c-t, whilst I agree that polls are perhaps a way to reflect public opinion, when they focus on the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of life, and from either side, it seems to me that they're useless as the loaded questions will be biased in the direction of the person who writes out the cheque! Those who are opposed to Hunting, and considering that West Midlands group, spout such emotive twaddle, that even those who wouldn't know a Hound from a Hamster, would see through the stupidity of their claims.

It's my view that the general public have more than enough going on in front of them, which is plastered all over our news programmes as to not really give a fig about Hunting. Similarly, I'd doubt that many with the right to vote would consider one party or member of parliament over another, simply because of their stance on Hunting. Both sides of the argument claim public support, ignoring the fact that in the main, they're basing there pyramid upon a false and futile general apathy! I suspect that the general public, upon whom both sides rely, view both arguments as coming from those who are an irrelevance to them. :)

Alec.
 
If I am totally honest I personally could not see the logic in trying to get the law repealed as I think it is never likely to happen in the future . I feel all it has done is wind things up again which may actually bring about a worse outcome for the hunts! The bill was never drafted to be watertight and I suspect that was done purposefully. Most hunts realistically have not seen a huge change to what they do however at least they still exist which if things are made tougher wont be the case.
 
There is no chance that the law would be changed to ban hunting altogether, it is just an opportunity for the LACS to keep their agenda a live issue in the media.
It is relatively easy to repeal a law compared to making a new one, but the issue is a political hot potato. So sleeping dogs will be let lie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top