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

[u04elw2]

Lol give me chance!! I'm attempting to do QC some paperwork at the same time as eating a pear and replying to this! I may be a woman but I can only multitask so far!

On a second point seeing as shooting kills and wounds so many more foxes which foxes do you think suffer more:

a) the 80,000 or so foxes that escape the hunt.

b) the 80,000 or so foxes that get shot or wounded by guns.

I think that both wounded and hunted foxes suffer. But those that are shot and killed outright are killed in by far the most humane manner and I just don't see why people can't trap and kill them from close range if keeping the population down is what it's really about.

But it's not, is it?

 

[faerie666]

Do you think trapping a wild mammal and leaving it until someone gets back to check the trap and kill it (could be several hours, if not more) causes less stress than chasing for a much shorter period of time with hounds, followed by a very quick death?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

But it's not, is it?

The reason I support hunting is because I think it benefits the fox population by making it healthier.

 

[u04elw2]

Personally I think both are cruel. The best and most humane way to kill anything is to make it quick and as painless as possible. Shooting from a distance is obviously the method that does this best but only if the marskman's aim is true. And hunting foxes with hounds is inefficient and stressful for the animal being hunted.

The best solution in my mind is to leave the population alone to control itself, although since hunting is nothing about population control that comment is null and void.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

" I just don't see why people can't trap and kill them from close range "

Would you also prefer a method that tended to only trap and kill weakened animals who otherwise will die of disease etc?

 

[u04elw2]

Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

And what would you consider to be a natural death for a sickly animal wandering round the countryside?

 

[u04elw2]

Are we going back to the point that hunters kill only sick and weak animals? Cos I'm pretty sure someone earlier stated that this was definitely not the case.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

No hunts don't only kill sick and weak animals. However they do kill them in a higher proportion than less discriminating methods like shooting.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

LOL, I find it quite funny how you and JessDoesItBetter are complaining about being stereotyped as "townies", yet Jess just said in her last post that all people who hunt are Middle Class.
I'm most certainly not Middle Class, I wish I was as then I wouldn't have to work every hour of every bloody day to be able to afford my horse. :crazy:

I actually wasn't saying that only middle class people hunt, but you can't get away from the fact that hunting/ horse riding in general is percieved as a middle class activity, and the fact that it is seen as a middle class activity is the reason why it has been tolerated for so long!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class.

Also what's all this about the middle classes not having to work. they are the one class that does have to work. The upper classes don't because they are so rich and the working classes don't because they are genetically adapted to being poor.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

Hunting with hounds doesn't cull enough to make a significant difference to the population, therefore i do believe that the culling of foxes isn't a necessary practice. The fox population can regulate itself without a nateral preditor. Foxes are very competative animals when it comes to space and they are very terotorial. Also If things are getting over crowded within their population they instinctively no not to mate that season ( there are also other animals that do this).

However my father does own chickens and has done for the past 10 years. He lives in a part of the country where there are many foxes roaming around (you can see them in broad daylight) and there has only been one occasion where one chicken went missing - and even then we cant be sure it was a fox as we didn't see it and i am led to believe that foxes do kill ALL the chickens they see. So i don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmers chickens is a regular occurence.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

Also what's all this about the middle classes not having to work. they are the one class that does have to work. The upper classes don't because they are so rich and the working classes don't because they are genetically adapted to being poor.

It's not me that said that!

hunting is definatly not seen as middle class, upper class mabie but not middle

Thats not the point, my point is that if it were associated with working class it would have been banned years ago. The fact that it's associated with the upper class reinforces my point even more if anything!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Do you have any evidence that foxes in stinctively don't mate if overcrowded?

It seems very strange to me that you would object to fox hunting because it does not kill enough animals.

Surely the fact that it kills fewer animals while tending to take out the weaker animals which need to be culled counts in it's favour.

Of course animals 'regulate themselves' without a nautural predator. They die unnatural and very unpleasant deaths from starvation and disease. In the absence of a predator (or human control) these are pretty much the only options.

Do you think that animal populations are best regulated through predation or through starving/disease?

Take herds of grazing animals in africa for example. Do you think lions benefit the health of these herds?

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

The point i was making whilst saying that fox hunting doesn't kill enough foxes to make a difference was that the whole process of hunting isn't to keep the population down at all, it's to have a good time. And i think we have already established that foxhunting doesn't only kill the weaker ones, it's as indiscriminatory as any other culling method.
Dying of nateral causes is natures way, nature itself takes out the weaker ones without your very kind assitence. Please don't even try to pass hunting with hounds of as humain because that is the whole reason why i have the problem with it in the first place!

Forgive me for my sarcasm but i don't believe the herds of grazing animals in africa hold much relevance to this topic. Are you in the right forum? lol
No but on a more serious note the process you discribed in africa is nateral and very different to what you do. for example a lion doesn't chase it's pray for what could be hours accross a vast stretch of countryside, it will stalk its pray and pounce, chasing it for no longer than a couple of minutes. Hunting with hounds is in no way nateral.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

"Dying of natural causes is natures way" - Exactly and what is a natural cause for a mid range predator to die from? - Being caught and eaten by a larger predator. Except for animals at the top of the food chain this is THE natural way to die.

"And i think we have already established that foxhunting doesn't only kill the weaker ones, it's as indiscriminatory as any other culling method." Do you think that a fit and cunning fox has the same chance of escaping the hounds as an unfit, sick or stupid one? Come on!

The average length of a fox being chased by hounds is most certainly not hours. It is a few minutes.

The point about herds in Africa is that where there are predators animals DO N OT die in the way that you favour which is a long slow death through disease and/or starvation. You say that this is a 'natural' death. It is not. It is a very unnatural death.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Do you think that those grazing herds in Africa would be better or worse off if the lions did not exist?

 

[Eagle_day]

"Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself"

Now that is barbaric. I would always intervene to end an animals suffering.

By nature, you mean starvation and disease, and with luck predation. Thank God the countryside is managed by practical, humane people; not moral fantasists like yourself.

 

[Eagle_day]

"So I don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmer's chickens is a regular occurrence."

So that's all right then.

 

[winterhorse]

The fox population can regulate itself without a nateral preditor.

what proof do you have? it is not like foxhunting is new, some form of hunting has always been about.

 

[winterhorse]

. So i don't believe that the situation where a fox kills a farmers chickens is a regular occurence.

tell that to my boss, who gave up keeping chickens on her stud farm for this reason.

 

[soggy]

"Nope, I'd let nature deal with those ones itself"

Now that is barbaric. I would always intervene to end an animals suffering.

By nature, you mean starvation and disease, and with luck predation. Thank God the countryside is managed by practical, humane people; not moral fantasists like yourself.

Damn! You beat me to it.

It makes one wonder at the truth of their claims to be country born and raised, doesn't it. It makes you wonder at all of their claims in fact.

Ignorant, boring, carrot crunching, rabbit food eating townies. All of um! :grin:

 

[soggy]

Foxes don't need a nateral preditor to keep the population down, If the numbers get too high then they will run out of nateral recorces due to the competition for space, food etc and after that the numbers will fall, nature is capable of regulating itself.

PMSL

You've been reading that LACS pamphlet again. I see we have had the, leave it to nature, foxes don't kill chickens or lambs, if it was working class it would have been banned years go, i'm a boring veggie, standard anti bullshit.
Are there any more classic anti views you would care to put forward for our delight and delectaion?

 

[soggy]

half the pro's on these page might never have seen a hunted fox , out of the other half very few will have been there at the kill and out of those have given the fox the"death holler"and praised their hounds for a job done , probably less than FIVE.

Well thats you and me. Who's the other three?

 

[winterhorse]

half the pro's on these page might never have seen a hunted fox , out of the other half very few will have been there at the kill and out of those have given the fox the"death holler"and praised their hounds for a job done , probably less than FIVE.

Well thats you and me. Who's the other three?

as a lowly huntsmans wife, do i count too? :grin:

 

[Reginald]

"Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class."

Hunting is hopelessly middle class, with a majority desperately hoping to be viewed as toffs by their participation.

 

[winterhorse]

"Hunting most definitely is not seen as middle class. Upper class maybe but not middle class."

Hunting is hopelessly middle class, with a majority desperately hoping to be viewed as toffs by their participation.

now that proves the point to everyone clearly that the hunt ban was brought about through predjudice not animal welfare ...
all you are bothered about is people being better off than the rest.

and i think you will find that people from all classes go hunting but i will agree that also the same applies for the people against hunting..

 

[u04elw2]

No matter how much money someone has, it makes no difference if they are opposed to hunting. Reginald is not JUST arguing because of class differences, he cares about animals welfare far more. It's just a stereotype but to be honest, one that not all hunters are trying very hard to prove wrong.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

It's just a stereotype but to be honest, one that not all hunters are trying very hard to prove wrong.

Why should they want to prove it wrong?

What is wrong with people being lower/middle/upper class?

Shouldn't people have a right to their culture and heritage?

 

[u04elw2]

If hunters don't mind being seen as upper class, why are there people getting upset at Reginalds comment?