FOX HUNTING OPINIONS PLEASE- Pro and Anti

[ellie1988]

Firstly hi, as you can see i'm new to the forum. I'm an A-level student, i own 5 horses and live on a farm with lots of animals- 4 dogs, 8 cats, 60 free range hens and 700 lambing ewes.

I have been asked to conduct a survey for Leisure Studies at school and chose to do fox hunting.

Please could you all give your opinions on....
1. fox hunting in general
2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting
3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting
(e.g. do you regularly hunt).

I would be very grateful for any and as many opinions, it would be a huge help.

Thanks loads, Ellie

 

[rrose]

im more against than for

1. fox hunting in genral i feel is a horrible sport. why drive the fox so much that it is nackard so it can be mutilated by hounds!!! fair enough people says 'its the thrill of the chase' .. whats fun about that??

2. the ban hasn't helped at all... people are still hunting. although i am unaware of what has been banned nowdays as it keeps changing!!

3. im not involved and i dont want to be!! a mock hunt *or whatever its called* then yes i would. im not out there to kill wilds foxes!! what people dont get its apart of the food chain!!!

xx

 

[MillionDollar]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

I'm definitely For, i also live on a farm!

1. Fox hunting is the best way of controlling the pest. Shooting, poisoning and snaring only leads to a lot more pain.

2. The ban is useless, thank god.

3. I hunt regularly.

Hope this helps.

 

[buckybee]

1 - I think its the least cruel way of fox control. Its a way of life for thousands of people and fantastic fun!!

2 - The oposite of what it was supposed to do - from an animal welfare point of view - most hunts are continuing as they were (maybe in a slightly different format) but farmers are also using there own tecniques more because they're not sure whats going on with thier local hunt. Also, I think hunting popularity has increased since the ban, more people are giving it a go and good hunters are selling for more money than ever.

3 - Hunt regularly.

Hope you stick around!

 

[welshiewhiskers]

I am DEFINATLEY FOR hunting!

1)I think its the nicest way to get rid of foxes; it enables you to meet lots of people; the horses LOVE the day out!

2) the ban has had NO effect, numbers for my hunt anyway have gone up which is great!

3) My family and i hunt regularly

 

[Clodagh]

Hi and welcome!

1. Hunting, althuogh having elements of cruelty, benefits the quarry species in many ways
2. The ban has made it more cruel, and caused more deaths.
3. My whole family hunt.
(We live on a farm, too!)

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Both 'pro' and 'anti' are complete rubbish!

A LACS slogan was 'there is no middle way'.

The truth is that their is no other way.

It's wrong to say that we should be able to do whatever we wish to animals.

It;s also wrong to say that all control meaures are wrong.

The Hunting Act bans even activities with dogs that don't kill animals.

It's obvious that it has gone to far.

To say there 'is no middle way' is an extremist position.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

People should be entitled to hunt wild mammals with dogs within a sensible legal framework.

In the absence of a sensible law I have no alternative but to break the one they have.

I illegally hunted deer with dogs this morning.

If a law is totally stupid, like the Hunting Act then it's fine to break it.

 

[daddyaddy]

Hi Ellie,
I'm a newcomer too. My girlfriend is an avid "hunter" and has rode with a hunt since she was 6. Personally I'm c**p at riding and wouldn't have the guts for it. I say hunter in quotations because from what I've seen and heard (and I've heard a lot) most people who ride with hunts are not overly bothered about killing foxes at all. So as an observer here's what I think:

1. Fox hunting is a traditional sport with foundations based on a real agricultural problem i.e. foxes. It is an effective way of controlling the population which if left to run a mock has the potential to severely damage farmers animal stocks. Fox hunting that goes on today, however, is only loosely based on these traditional principals and hardly ever actually catches any foxes. As I said before, most people who ride with hunts today don't seem that bothered about catching foxes. The pleasure seems to come from the thrill of riding horses in a way that no other sport offers.

2. The ban seems to of had quite a positive effect on hunting. It has pushed the people who were mostly interested in killing foxes into the minority and created a much more horse driven sport. Also, more and more people are getting interested in it just as an enjoyable way of riding horses.

3. As I said above, my girlfriend is an avid rider who has riden with a hunt since she was 6 and drags me along to lots of hunt balls and diners.

 

[wurzel]

"nackard so it can be mutilated by hounds!!! "

Nackard ???

Foxes are kiled by hounds.

Don't make things up and learn to spell.

"im not out there to kill wilds foxes!! what people dont get its apart of the food chain!!!"

I thought I might answer you but I have given up. You are too stupid to contemplate.

 

[buckybee]

Aegidius_Ahenobarbus and tom_faggus - can't you just answer the girls f**king questions like everyone else????


sorry your men, hence boring!! :smirk:

 

[Ereiam_jh]

(I was responding to clodagh's post actually)

ok:

1. fox hunting in general

If foxes are going to be controlled then I think hunting them with dogs is a good way of doing it because it cannot kill all foxes in an area and naturally targets weaker foxes. I'd like to see less cruelty in hunting and less digging out.

2. how you feel the ban has effected hunting

Made it more popular.

Made it illegal for the stag hounds to select which flushed out deer to shoot which, if they are obeying the law will result in more deaths.

3. finally how you are actually involved with hunting

Hunting as defined by the government involves much more than traditional fox hunting.

I hunt deer with my dogs without ever killing them.

I also go beagling occassionally.

 

[flying_change]

I'm anti..

1) Even if there is a need to cull foxes (though I think this is unproven) I believe it's immoral to make a sport out of killing them

2) I understand that most hunts say they are hunting within the law

3) I ride but I dont hunt.

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The ban has nothing to do with whether hunting is done as a sport or not. If it did then it would only ban sport hunti ng which is only part of hunting in general.

RS suipports the ban because it attacks sport hunting, he sees all the other things that it bans which he doesn't think should be banned, many of which no one would call cruel as acceptable collateral damage.

I think laws should be as tightly defined as possible so as to only ban that which they intend to ban.

If they aren't then people are justified in ignoring them.

 

[flying_change]

"RS suipports the ban because it attacks sport hunting, he sees all the other things that it bans which he doesn't think should be banned, many of which no one would call cruel as acceptable collateral damage."

I'm sure you dont mean to be so rude as to put words in my mouth.

 

[AlanE]

1) Foxhunting has evolved over many years to the point where, in the past, it has been considered the national sport of England. It is now a minority interest, considered in many rural areas as an intrinsic part of country life and culture; part of our identity. Foxes are rigorously controlled all over the UK, and hunting forms one part of that control. Hunts influence the countryside far beyond the actual number of foxes killed, since they have an extended social network, which generally is perceived as doing a good job.

2) The ban is the adoption of foolishness into the legal code of this country. There was no excuse for the vitriol with which Labour MPs tried to target a small minority of people. The ban has nothing to do with animal welfare, as quarry species are now controlled by crueller methods than hunting.

Morally, the ban is inot defendable, and those that attempt to defend it can only do so with a large measure of hypocrisy. It is a wicked abuse of power which will crumble within the next few years.

3) I hunt regularly.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I don't think it's rude to challenge people's views by summarising them.

This is my understanding of your position.

If this isn't your position then your free to say so.

 

[Clodagh]

I don't see what relation your reply had to my post?? Sorry, I'm none too bright.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Looking at it now, I'm not sure I do either!

 

[brighteyes]

Well said!

 

[avalcalab]

Hello ellie,

1. Foxhunting has little to do with pest control. It's a sport. That's why hunters imported foxes (and badgers) to the Isle of Wight in the nineteenth century. That's why hunts even today maintain artificial earths. In Victorian times hunters were more honest about why they hunted. Sadly in today's Britain they have to dress up the reasons in unbelievable politically-correct nonsense about pest control etc. People hunt because they enjoy it. This must be the starting point in any discussion about the subject. My objection isn't that they enjoy it but that it's unnecessary. Hunting with hounds make no real difference to the fox population. It also involves activities which are clearly cruel such as digging out.

2. Good question. I personally don't agree with the ban but would definitely like to see the end of hunting deer with hounds which even deer hunters openly concede is cruel.
Hunts are flouting the existing legislation but doing so in an underhand skulking way. They've started to occupy the twilight world of shadows and deceit. I would have had more respect if they'd openly paraded in the sun-lit vistas of the hunting declaration. (I'm feeling poetic today.)

3. I don't hunt. I can understand why people enjoy riding across beautiful country and the social aspect but the notion that this depended on trying to kill an animal would spoil it for me.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Why don't you agree with the ban?

 

[Hercules]

Avalcab,

You have been drinking again, haven't you?

''Hunts are flouting the existing legislation but doing so in an underhand skulking way. They've started to occupy the twilight world of shadows and deceit.''

Because the Law is so badly written, you wouldn't know the difference between legal hunting and an illegal act.

 

[avalcalab]

I'm sure there are cases where it's not clear whether the law is being infringed, but equally there are cases where the law is quite evidently being broken - for example, using more than two dogs etc. But in one sense it doesn't matter whether the law is clear or not: hunters in their many thousands signed an undertaking openly to flout the law in the event of a ban. It would be the simplest thing in the world to honour this undertaking but hunters have chosen not to. The silly bombast and posturing of the hunting declaration was just hot air. The vast majority of those who choose the defy the ban do so in the twilight world of shadows and skulking and furtively looking over their shoulder. It's not very edifying.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Sorry to repeat my self but you said in your post that you don't agree with the ban, could you let us know why?

 

[avalcalab]

For quite a few reasons: the law isn't well drafted; it was passed for grotesquely cynical reasons of expediency; for the vast majority of people it simply isn't a priority; hunters quite rightly point to other forms of animal abuse which are still legal (eg keeping dogs - which may have been bred for hunting - locked up all day). etc.

 

[Hercules]

The reason that there was no open defiance of the Law was due to the fact that at the time of the Hunting Declaration, no-one knew what the Hunting Act would either ban or permit.

As it happenned, the Law is so riddled with loopholes that we can carry on as before.

Noone is being furtive other than the LACS cretins who waste their time lurking in bushes hoping in vain to catch someone doing something naughty.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I have to say I completely agree with you on these points.

Regarding drafting of the law. I think it goes further than that. IMO a good law clearly demarcates between what you want to ban and what you don't want to ban.

A good law also has to have it's purpose clearly defined.

Presuming the purpose of the Act is to reduce cruelty I can't see that it makes sense unless there is some sort of test of cruelty. Otherwise you are left with the situation where clearly un cruel activities are banned which is not only unjust but also leads to the law not being enforced.

I think they banned the wrong thing. They should and could have revised the anti cruelty laws.

 

[avalcalab]

Your answer exemplifies the furtive and ultimately deceitful attitude of most hunters. When you signed the Hunting Declaration you knew PRECISELY what the proposed law would ban. Since your cronies in the unelected House of Lords would never approve a ban the only option left was to invoke the Parliament Act and this could only happen if exactly the same bill was approved by the elected chamber. This is what happened.

Stick to skulking in the shadows, Hercules.

 

[Hercules]

Avalcab,

In November 2002 when the Hunting Declaration was signed by 10k people, the Hunting Act had NOT been finalised and it was therefore not clear what the exemptions (if any) to that Act there would be.

As it happens, the Act is so poorly written and with so many loopholes, we can carry on as before. You (the ignorant) would not know the difference.

Stick to your worthless campaigning, Avalcab.