hunt sabs, animal lovers?????????

[kirstyhen]

Now now no need for the condescending tone, your starting to sound like one of those people who gets angry when someone disagrees with them!
I did not tell you to get off this forum, i merely asked why antis come on a PRO forum, as horse and hound is a pro magazine. I just see it as a pointless exercise!
I have no problem with people who disagree with me, and maybe if one of you could come up with a fresh argument id have the energy to discuss the subject with you.
Hitler would of had no problem with you, he was an anti too.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

i came on this forum because i share an interest in horses just like everyone else on here, i just don't share your views on hunting. I read h&h (i even quite happily read through the hunting section and read whats going on- without getting wound up! lol) because it's a good mag and whether it's pro or not is irrelavent, as an anti within the horse world, you get v.used to other pro hunts and eventually it becomes the norm and you just don't think about it.

 

[kirstyhen]

Im not saying that antis are not allowed to be on this forum, read horse and hound or do any of the others things that antis may wish to do!
However I am saying in my opinion its seems pointless to come on a forum in which the majority of people are pros and comment. If i was anti i would want to stay well clear of all things pro, but perhaps that is just me!!
I think the reason it annoys me is due to all the antis who feel the need to comment on threads which are nothing to do with debates, they are threads in which people are seeking information, wanting to share their enjoyment or just chat with like minded people and antis feel the need to post pointless comments regarding the nature of hunting and hunters or give some piece of pointless advice.
Just to clarify, so i dont get a barriage of comments, i am not lumping all antis as the same, as ive said before i have friends who are adamently anti! :grin:

 

[Tinkerbee]

But if there were no antis

Our life on here would be oh so dull

bit of a one sided discussion..hehe

 

[Reginald]

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?

 

[PaddyMonty]

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?

I think just turning up will do these days. Pencil not required.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

Just how easy is it to pass GCSE English? Do you turn up with a gonk pencil and they hand you an A*?

What relevance does this hold? lol, who is it aimed at?

 

[u04elw2]

Eagle_day, yes actually, I have and it was horrific. And that was at a young age and put me off killing anything for life.

My point was that the hound was in a trailer because the hunters put it there. Therefore they had an equal amount of responsibility in the events.

I am not on here to pick fights or cause arguments. I simply came across a topic that means a lot to me and commented so as to put across my views. If you really weren't bothered by what I had to say nobody needs to reply to any of my posts in the first place.

 

[PaddyMonty]

My point was that the hound was in a trailer because the hunters put it there. Therefore they had an equal amount of responsibility in the events.

Even as an anti (non practicing) I acnt agree with that. If it were the case then if I put my horse in my lorry and during transport end up in the middle of a riot / demonstration etc then no way would i consider it my fault.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

"Surely if population control were the primary motivation it would be better to trap and shoot them? People in general tend to find the most efficient way of accomplishing a given task. So it seems unlikely to me that a mechanism that requires many people, horse and dogs, and that results in most of the foxes escaping anyway is a feasible method of population control. My conclusion? That it is primarily a form of entertainment. And that, for me, sums up the real barbarism of hunting with hounds."

Can't say I can fault his argument.

Surely if it kills less animals and people have a better time then it is better than if they kill more foxes and have a worse time.

 

[u04elw2]

If it were for population control, like so many pro-hunts say it is, then less antis would be against it. My point is that people who say it's for population control are blatantly lying. Although if it WAS then trapping and shooting would be a far more humane and efficient way to do it.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I think that depends how you see population control working.

To me a good means of population control is where most animals can escape by dint of their wits and strength so that the weaker animals tend to get caught more.

 

[u04elw2]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,651695,00.html

Whatever you call it, breeding animals to kill and then claiming it's population control is not on. Bending the truth to suit the bloodthirst of the participants I'd say

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Well of course breeding animals is population control.

Good population control can mean making the numbers go up as well as down.

 

[u04elw2]

So why do it if you're just going to kill them anyway?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Well I think it is a good thing to have a healthy fox population. They are an integral part of our wildlife.

 

[Reginald]

So let's get this straight, Bobcats: you admit that hunts artificially enhance the fox population and then kill them in the name of pest control and you have no problem with this. Is that your position?

 

[u04elw2]

Well then why are there people who claim they're killing them for pest control because they're "vermin"?

Don't they realise they're contradicting themselves by supporting a hunt who is breeding the very same "vermin" they're out to exterminate?

 

[u04elw2]

So, because I don't want rats in my barn, I'll go and breed an entire ARMY of rats and set them free in my yard so that I have to spend all my spare time catching them...of COURSE, the answer was there all along! How silly of me!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

They certainly do. Both hunts and shoots do a huge amount of work to conserve and improve habitat for their quarry species.

I think that is a good thing yes.

"Kill them in the name of pest control." Where there are too many foxes then numerical control of the population might be justified. Generally I welcome the presence of the predator function of huts because it fulfills a role in ensuring a healthy and sustainable fox population.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Well then why are there people who claim they're killing them for pest control because they're "vermin"?

Don't they realise they're contradicting themselves by supporting a hunt who is breeding the very same "vermin" they're out to exterminate?

People think and claim all sorts of things. In some circumstances foxes are vermin, in others they are not. I'm not especially interested in what ppl who hunt think they are acheiving I am more interested in the actual effect of their actions.

 

[Reginald]

You seem like a nice, straightforward guy. Would you mind just clarifying your position?

Do you admit that hunts artificially enhance the fox population? A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I just answered it Reginald.

I'd have thought that good population management should involve increasing numbers when there are too few and reducing them when there are too many.

What do you think?

 

[Reginald]

Ok, we're making progress: you admit hunts artificially enhance the fox population.

Next question, since you're being so amenable: do you think Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment? Just curious for your views on this.

 

[u04elw2]

Surely if humans would stop interfering with the population of foxes then they would control their own numbers?

Nature is good at its own job, it doesn't need as much help as people seem to think

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

???

I'm not sure what the parallel is between enhancing woodland to encourage foxes and the world's largest nuclear disaster.

 

[Reginald]

Oh go on, indulge me.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Surely if humans would stop interfering with the population of foxes then they would control their own numbers?

Nature is good at its own job, it doesn't need as much help as people seem to think

Well, if we hadn't removed the fpxes natural predators then their numbers could and would be controlled entirely naturally.

Because they have been removed any 'natural' control will in fact be very unnatural and very bad for the fox population as a whole.

 

[Reginald]

I wonder why hunters deliberately introduced foxes and badgers to the Isle of Wight? Are there lots of natural predators there? I never heard of packs of Isle of Wight wolves but I suppose they could exist. Any thoughts on this Bob?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I'm not sure I do have many thoughts on the Isle of Wight.

I've been there; lot's of sand.