luluphoto63
Active Member
How wrong you are.
Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
That has nothing to do with you accusing Michen of lying. You have spoiled a good adult discussion about this topic with your ranting.
You are a troll and not worth feeding. And I'm anti fox hunting!
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
..dupe
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Right so everyone else's stuff 'Saying it doesn't make it so'
Your stuff saying it makes it true cos internet & google.
What fabulous logic to live by.
Your stuff saying it makes it true cos internet & google.
What fabulous logic to live by.
luluphoto63
Active Member
An untruth is a lie and describing my posts as "ranting" is exaggerating.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
it wasn't an untruth either though you see, that's the issue.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
rabatsa
Confuddled
Hounds do not attack the stomachs, that is wolves going for much larger prey.
Hounds go for breaking the neck like terriers do with rats.
Some people are easily fed misinformation and show their ignorance by not checking for real facts, not for a moment would I dare say that luluphoto63 falls into this category....
luluphoto63
Active Member
"Some people are easily fed misinformation and show their ignorance by not checking for real facts, not for a moment would I dare say that luluphoto63 falls into this category...."
I agree, get the facts right.. "Nip to the back of the neck" simply another untruth. This is from the RSPCA, there are many other sources, easily found on the internet which back this up.
Fiction: Hunting is humane, foxhounds are trained to kill with a nip to the back of the neck
Fact: You don't need to be a scientist to know that chasing a mammal, often to the point of exhaustionand allowing a pack of dogs to rip it apart, in the name of 'sport', is inhumane.
A study of post-mortem examinations of foxes killed by hounds above ground undermined this claim, indicating that the animals died from profound trauma inflicted by multiple dog bites rather than a 'quick bite to the neck'.
The study showed that in many cases foxes are disemboweled first. The Burns report also concluded that hunting with dogs causes animal suffering both during the latter stages of the chase and at the kill.
I agree, get the facts right.. "Nip to the back of the neck" simply another untruth. This is from the RSPCA, there are many other sources, easily found on the internet which back this up.
Fiction: Hunting is humane, foxhounds are trained to kill with a nip to the back of the neck
Fact: You don't need to be a scientist to know that chasing a mammal, often to the point of exhaustionand allowing a pack of dogs to rip it apart, in the name of 'sport', is inhumane.
A study of post-mortem examinations of foxes killed by hounds above ground undermined this claim, indicating that the animals died from profound trauma inflicted by multiple dog bites rather than a 'quick bite to the neck'.
The study showed that in many cases foxes are disemboweled first. The Burns report also concluded that hunting with dogs causes animal suffering both during the latter stages of the chase and at the kill.
luluphoto63
Active Member
You said.
Rowreach
🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
Which LACS group are you a member of, out of interest?
luluphoto63
Active Member
I'm not a member of LACS.
Fred66
Well-Known Member
Right back at you ?
You are mixing the sections up. The latter part you are quoting relates to the hunting of deer. The section relating to foxes in respect of welfare actually states that it is probable that the banning of hunting with hounds will be detrimental to their welfare.
The middle ground of licensing and making welfare the prime motivator was always what should have happened.
Last edited:
luluphoto63
Active Member
No it isn't, it's an extract from an RSPCA article about the Fox hunting.
Fred66
Well-Known Member
Well their article is therefore mixing sections from the Burns report. Section 51 which includes the part about latter stages of the hunt relates to deer.
Sections 54-61 cover foxes with section 61 stating that banning of hunting with hounds may be to their detriment.
It’s a freely available document so maybe you should read it as your point of reference rather than resorting to Chinese Whispers which will inevitably lead you into mistaking opinions as facts.
luluphoto63
Active Member
Call it what you will.
We're all capable of empathy, there surely is a disconnect with humanity when we try to justify the act of hunting and killing for the purpose of pleasure. To name call me as an evangelist is the modern problem, to care is to be weak. Shame on everyone here desperately trying to defend unnecessary suffering
paddy555
Well-Known Member
luluphoto63
I guess you are a member of a sab group. That is no problem. Everyone is entitled to their views.
Our local sabs were pretty nice people when we spoke to them and they soon realised we were not part of the hunt. I am anti hunt for several reasons. I am however also anti sab violence to either people or animals although I do appreciate that it works from both sides.
However, the discussion was previously going pretty well on here. Some people who supported hunting had clearly kept out of the thread. Most of the rest were getting on pretty well batting backwards and forwards.
I am afraid with your arrival the atmosphere sees to have changed a fair bit. You will never get through to people by lecturing them and I am afraid that is how it is coming across. I think many on here agree that illegal hunting is wrong. It is against the law and we should work on that basis. There are many arguments for and against hunting from the foxes POV. However with a ban on fox hunting those are now irrelevant. Many would agree with you from a welfare POV.
Monitors need to obtain evidence of illegal hunting and the police need to do something about it.
In the meantime please don't spoil what was a pretty reasonable (for HHO) thread. I see you are pretty new here. Perhaps tone it down a little whilst people get to know you and your views?
I guess you are a member of a sab group. That is no problem. Everyone is entitled to their views.
Our local sabs were pretty nice people when we spoke to them and they soon realised we were not part of the hunt. I am anti hunt for several reasons. I am however also anti sab violence to either people or animals although I do appreciate that it works from both sides.
However, the discussion was previously going pretty well on here. Some people who supported hunting had clearly kept out of the thread. Most of the rest were getting on pretty well batting backwards and forwards.
I am afraid with your arrival the atmosphere sees to have changed a fair bit. You will never get through to people by lecturing them and I am afraid that is how it is coming across. I think many on here agree that illegal hunting is wrong. It is against the law and we should work on that basis. There are many arguments for and against hunting from the foxes POV. However with a ban on fox hunting those are now irrelevant. Many would agree with you from a welfare POV.
Monitors need to obtain evidence of illegal hunting and the police need to do something about it.
In the meantime please don't spoil what was a pretty reasonable (for HHO) thread. I see you are pretty new here. Perhaps tone it down a little whilst people get to know you and your views?
Rumtytum
Have Marmite, will travel
Very well put Paddy
Chinchilla
...
What Paddy said. ^
Rowreach
🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
Well it's instantly clear from this post that you didn't bother to read the thread, which is actually one of the most civil threads there has been on this forum (well, until it got derailed today). If you had read it you would know that (a) nobody is defending the hunts that are breaking the law and (b) a lot of us who were former hunt followers have changed our views on the subject over the past couple of decades, so you can wind your neck in.
luluphoto63
Active Member
"I am also anti sab violence" very emotive comment, please back this up with evidence, can you?.. In light of the recent exposure of senior hunting officials teaching 150 hunt masters on ways of covering up illegal cruel fox hunting, how do you justify your comment that sabs, ie, those trying desperately to protect those animals from suffering and terror, are in any way guilty with NO evidence. Are you protecting illegal Fox hunting?
luluphoto63
Active Member
Not all, read the thread of comments
Rowreach
🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
luluphoto63
Active Member
Oh, I have[/QUOTEwithout bias?
paddy555
Well-Known Member
have you read the thread? have you read my earlier comments.? Many people have and I think that they will agree that I am not protecting illegal fox hunting and in fact I was anti before it was even banned.
I think you have been given the chance to try and join in with the friendly discussion on this thread. It is a very emotive subject for a forum called horse and hound but we were doing OK I think. Obviously you don't want to keep it friendly. That is a shame.. We all learn from each other's comments.
I appreciate you are new here. We have what is called UI that is user ignore. I think that for the most part this thread had run it's course however it may be something to consider. That means that your posts will not be seen by whoever choses to put you on UI so people can just carry on as they were without your input. That's what I'm going to do so please don't waste your time replying. I won't see it.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
I'm against fox hunting but let's not pretend Sabs don't ever do anything wrong (even if they think they are on the side of good and the defenseless they can't break the law).
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/hunt-saboteur-sentenced-giving-police-4526498
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/hunt-saboteur-sentenced-giving-police-4526498
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
For any antis on or reading this thread, hunt sabs are not looked on favourably on here but hunt monitors are (except, of course, for those who want to carry on illegal hunting and they want neither).
Intelligent monitoring will catch out the naughty hunts with valid evidence that can be used in court. Plus now, of course, the Hunting Office have shown everyone just what to look out for on a hunting day.
Intelligent monitoring will catch out the naughty hunts with valid evidence that can be used in court. Plus now, of course, the Hunting Office have shown everyone just what to look out for on a hunting day.
Rowreach
🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
And just to add, people with extreme views on either side never do their cause any favours. Good thing most of us are reasonably well balanced!
luluphoto63
Active Member
without bi
have you read the thread? have you read my earlier comments.? Many people have and I think that they will agree that I am not protecting illegal fox hunting and in fact I was anti before it was even banned.
I think you have been given the chance to try and join in with the friendly discussion on this thread. It is a very emotive subject for a forum called horse and hound but we were doing OK I think. Obviously you don't want to keep it friendly. That is a shame.. We all learn from each other's comments.
I appreciate you are new here. We have what is called UI that is user ignore. I think that for the most part this thread had run it's course however it may be something to consider. That means that your posts will not be seen by whoever choses to put you on UI so people can just carry on as they were without your input. That's what I'm going to do so please don't waste your time replying. I won't see it.
luluphoto63
Active Member
evidence please