Scratchline
Well-Known Member
From the mouthy mare with nothing other than aggression and name calling to add to this site it will be a pleasure to be on ignore AGAIN luv! But this time, dont take me off. There's a good girl x x x
Hunting: The Tide is Turning
- Thread starter DavidDent
- Start date
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Wide mouth??? PMSL 'I cant read and I cant write..............' ROTFLMAO
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
You swine ;0) YOU have upset Sallmonela! lol lol lol
DavidDent
Member
salimali
the 'causes' my apparently long winded posts are helping is to arm people with the information they need to expose the animal rights lobby as not at all animal lovers but rather they have a far more sinister agenda which will stop at nothing short of elimination of all domestic animals including pets and even guide dogs.
Scratchline now is desperately trying to distance himself from their ethos.
If what he says is true that he does shoot and have an interest in animals, but just dislikes hunting with hounds, then he will - and indeed has - acknowledged I have a point about Animal Rights ideology.
We are left therefore, giving Scratchine the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and I wonder if he will also acknowledge now; having criticised PETA, that:
1. IFAW are also an American animal rights organisation
2. They have close links with PAL who were run by Tony Banks sister and who donated a million pound to Labour's coffers and expecting a hunting ban and fur farm ban to become policy
3. IFAW have fraudulently used fake and snuff video evidence in their campaigns
4. IFAW recruit for Hunt monitors
So while this may seem long winded to you Salimali, I ask you to bear with it.
If Scratchline and others are NOT involved in an animal rights group, then what is their motivation for being here?
Well if the average animal lover may object to hunting with hounds on welfare grounds, then they should ask themselves what it is about a hound killing a fox as opposed to a gun snare or poison that they find so bad they feel obliged to attack those involved with it?
Few people apart from animal rights brainwashed folk would suggest the fox does not have to be controlled in some way.
Quite simply, to me the best way of controlling any inbalance in the eco system is by restoring its natural enemy.
SO for example we have the problem with Japanese knotweed at the moment being dealt with by the introduction of the insect that deals with it. Though this may result in other problems, one can see this is logical.
Likewise, when one has a problem with aphids, ladybrids need to be encouraged.
With mice, one keeps cats as a deterrent.
With pigeons, a hawk/falcon does the job.
For rabbits, a ferret is used
For the rats, a terrier.
Now the fox. In eco systems throughout the world the top predator tends to be a big cat, or pack dogs or wolves. Thus the fox is never top of the food chain. Foxhounds are merely putting back into place what would be the fox's natural bio control.
Now some antis say at this point yes we can see that BUT its the people folowing on horses I most strongly object to; the fact that there is apparent enjoyment by people at a wild mammal, much as a pain in the butt he may be to livestock, of a wild mammal's death; that they rejoice at the fox being torn apart alive.
Now we know these ideas are based on misconceptions about what is occurring, but they do not.
The origins of the Hunt lay in dealing with the fox in an organised and orderly way above all fair and chivalrous. To a peasant, whose laying chicken was his most valuable asset, the fox was an enemy he'd have rather seen wiped out but the combination of Celtic and Norman landowner hunting traditions liked to ensure fair play and balance in land management and came up over the years with the manifestation of Fox Hunting we see today. [ The saxons were less feudal ] Indeed, the very code of chivalry also led to the continuim one associated with manners and fair play one sees throughout many aspects of British culture. Opening doors for ladies or the rules of cricket for example.
What method of hunting has as its aim to give the chance for the quarry to escape 99 per cent of the time? In the wild, a big cat or wolves would see the fox off in much the same way so it does not become established as the top dog.
Those who ride to hounds do not often see the fox killed. Rather, it is that the horse is excited to a level it may be in the wild by the very nature of the Hunt; the adrenalin flows, and in the safe hands of a good rider one can have a fantastic day out riding across countryside that otherwise wouldn't be alllowed; and certainly not if UK animal farming is not supported as we'd have a prairie landscape.
So that is the enjoyment bit: not seeing the fox killed but riding in the midst of some primal connection with adrenalin of the hunt without being confined to bridleways. The human need for adrenalin may in urban cultures be satisfied by games like football, which are pretend spear chucking team work; but in all rural cultures throughout the world the need is more directly connected with actual hunting of some type.
But it is NOT the death of the animal that is enjoyed as such. As an alpha hound take about 3 seconds to dispatch a fox neither is the quarry torn apart alive on the odd time it is actually caught rather than dispersed. A gun will seldom kill a fox so surely. You do not get wounded fox resulting from a Hunt with hounds - or you didn't until this ridiculous law came about.
What may be enjoyed by many is to see the hound work. If you do waht you claim Scratchline you will also identify with that. A dog/hound is a pack animal and the way they work together is very endearing to those that love them; in the case of a man working with a dog it is the combination that becomes the pack; the fact the sheepdog does not kill the sheep or the retreiver retrieves shows the animals defference to the human as alpha.
SO any true dog lover is going to enjoy watching dogs hunt.
I think there is nothing different in terms of human enjoyment that watching a cheetah bring down a gazelle on tv; it is simply admiration for nature; both the skill of the predator and the elusive actions of the prey. In the gazelles case it is the zig zag, and in the case of the fox it is his wiliness and success at escaping; admired by most hunting folk.
In any chase in nature, the animal - both hunter and hunted - is infuelled with adrenalin. This is natures mercy. It gives all animals - us included - a 'high' . As animals other than humans are incapable of abstract thought, and therefore do not understand horror movies or soccer, the animal enjoys adrenalin as a pure biological stimulant as motivator. In a very real way hunter or hunted enjoy it. One can see this evident in the way horses , a flee animal, when bored attempt to induce an adrenalin rush by spooking at a carrier bag in the wind or by a cat playing with a moth even though it has just eaten. They do it because they enjoy adrenalin; junkies for it removed from human sensibilities in fact. BUT adrenalin is also an incredible pain surpressor. A fox shot out of the blue will therefore feel pain in a way one that has been chased will not. Any vet will tell you this. At the Battle of Waterloo on of Wellingtons Generals watching the battle was so engrossed and full of adrenalin he had no idea his leg had been shot off by a canonball. Sodiers in the heat of battle are capable of great acts of courage because they are full of adrenalin and do not care for their safety or feel pain immediately.
The fox therefore does not suffer in any way. In a very real way, the pro hunt banner on the March that proclaimed, 'if the fox didnt like it he wouldnt join in' may have some truth in it. A terrfied animal - or person - freezes; and does not flee.
So simply when this is all explained to people who do not understand hunting, they begin to accept that hunting with hounds is NOT after all cruel.
As I assume that Scratchline is already familiar with these arguments, and if what he say is true, then his motivation here may be something completely unconnected. I can't say it was him; but the abusive emails I received from some of the antis here indicate that it was the [competely wrong] assumptions I had money, hunt myself, and have a girlfriend who is a model [therefore dim and moneygrabbing rather than the quaternary scientist she is] that most angered them.
Those who are motivated by hate and envy - well one is never going to be able to sway them; unless they come to realise that that same hate they nurture consumes them and can destroy them whereas we can shrug our shoulders and forget about it.
Anyway Salimali, while I agree that we shouldn't have to explain ourselves fully when merely living according to our traditional way of life but unfortunately when the full weight of the law is against us we have to campaign against it to show it is based on prejudice and ignorance. That is the same whoever the victim of such unjust laws are. If pro hunt folk do not wish to read about the animal rights lobby and help explain to the general public what they are really about they will grow under their insidious veneer; but some of us want to stop them; in my case mainly for the benefits of Conservation.
As for Scratchline, it is not too late to acknowledge your prejudices are hurting nobody but yourself and that it isn't too late to change. Former senior members of the League Against Cruel Sports have done just that.
the 'causes' my apparently long winded posts are helping is to arm people with the information they need to expose the animal rights lobby as not at all animal lovers but rather they have a far more sinister agenda which will stop at nothing short of elimination of all domestic animals including pets and even guide dogs.
Scratchline now is desperately trying to distance himself from their ethos.
If what he says is true that he does shoot and have an interest in animals, but just dislikes hunting with hounds, then he will - and indeed has - acknowledged I have a point about Animal Rights ideology.
We are left therefore, giving Scratchine the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and I wonder if he will also acknowledge now; having criticised PETA, that:
1. IFAW are also an American animal rights organisation
2. They have close links with PAL who were run by Tony Banks sister and who donated a million pound to Labour's coffers and expecting a hunting ban and fur farm ban to become policy
3. IFAW have fraudulently used fake and snuff video evidence in their campaigns
4. IFAW recruit for Hunt monitors
So while this may seem long winded to you Salimali, I ask you to bear with it.
If Scratchline and others are NOT involved in an animal rights group, then what is their motivation for being here?
Well if the average animal lover may object to hunting with hounds on welfare grounds, then they should ask themselves what it is about a hound killing a fox as opposed to a gun snare or poison that they find so bad they feel obliged to attack those involved with it?
Few people apart from animal rights brainwashed folk would suggest the fox does not have to be controlled in some way.
Quite simply, to me the best way of controlling any inbalance in the eco system is by restoring its natural enemy.
SO for example we have the problem with Japanese knotweed at the moment being dealt with by the introduction of the insect that deals with it. Though this may result in other problems, one can see this is logical.
Likewise, when one has a problem with aphids, ladybrids need to be encouraged.
With mice, one keeps cats as a deterrent.
With pigeons, a hawk/falcon does the job.
For rabbits, a ferret is used
For the rats, a terrier.
Now the fox. In eco systems throughout the world the top predator tends to be a big cat, or pack dogs or wolves. Thus the fox is never top of the food chain. Foxhounds are merely putting back into place what would be the fox's natural bio control.
Now some antis say at this point yes we can see that BUT its the people folowing on horses I most strongly object to; the fact that there is apparent enjoyment by people at a wild mammal, much as a pain in the butt he may be to livestock, of a wild mammal's death; that they rejoice at the fox being torn apart alive.
Now we know these ideas are based on misconceptions about what is occurring, but they do not.
The origins of the Hunt lay in dealing with the fox in an organised and orderly way above all fair and chivalrous. To a peasant, whose laying chicken was his most valuable asset, the fox was an enemy he'd have rather seen wiped out but the combination of Celtic and Norman landowner hunting traditions liked to ensure fair play and balance in land management and came up over the years with the manifestation of Fox Hunting we see today. [ The saxons were less feudal ] Indeed, the very code of chivalry also led to the continuim one associated with manners and fair play one sees throughout many aspects of British culture. Opening doors for ladies or the rules of cricket for example.
What method of hunting has as its aim to give the chance for the quarry to escape 99 per cent of the time? In the wild, a big cat or wolves would see the fox off in much the same way so it does not become established as the top dog.
Those who ride to hounds do not often see the fox killed. Rather, it is that the horse is excited to a level it may be in the wild by the very nature of the Hunt; the adrenalin flows, and in the safe hands of a good rider one can have a fantastic day out riding across countryside that otherwise wouldn't be alllowed; and certainly not if UK animal farming is not supported as we'd have a prairie landscape.
So that is the enjoyment bit: not seeing the fox killed but riding in the midst of some primal connection with adrenalin of the hunt without being confined to bridleways. The human need for adrenalin may in urban cultures be satisfied by games like football, which are pretend spear chucking team work; but in all rural cultures throughout the world the need is more directly connected with actual hunting of some type.
But it is NOT the death of the animal that is enjoyed as such. As an alpha hound take about 3 seconds to dispatch a fox neither is the quarry torn apart alive on the odd time it is actually caught rather than dispersed. A gun will seldom kill a fox so surely. You do not get wounded fox resulting from a Hunt with hounds - or you didn't until this ridiculous law came about.
What may be enjoyed by many is to see the hound work. If you do waht you claim Scratchline you will also identify with that. A dog/hound is a pack animal and the way they work together is very endearing to those that love them; in the case of a man working with a dog it is the combination that becomes the pack; the fact the sheepdog does not kill the sheep or the retreiver retrieves shows the animals defference to the human as alpha.
SO any true dog lover is going to enjoy watching dogs hunt.
I think there is nothing different in terms of human enjoyment that watching a cheetah bring down a gazelle on tv; it is simply admiration for nature; both the skill of the predator and the elusive actions of the prey. In the gazelles case it is the zig zag, and in the case of the fox it is his wiliness and success at escaping; admired by most hunting folk.
In any chase in nature, the animal - both hunter and hunted - is infuelled with adrenalin. This is natures mercy. It gives all animals - us included - a 'high' . As animals other than humans are incapable of abstract thought, and therefore do not understand horror movies or soccer, the animal enjoys adrenalin as a pure biological stimulant as motivator. In a very real way hunter or hunted enjoy it. One can see this evident in the way horses , a flee animal, when bored attempt to induce an adrenalin rush by spooking at a carrier bag in the wind or by a cat playing with a moth even though it has just eaten. They do it because they enjoy adrenalin; junkies for it removed from human sensibilities in fact. BUT adrenalin is also an incredible pain surpressor. A fox shot out of the blue will therefore feel pain in a way one that has been chased will not. Any vet will tell you this. At the Battle of Waterloo on of Wellingtons Generals watching the battle was so engrossed and full of adrenalin he had no idea his leg had been shot off by a canonball. Sodiers in the heat of battle are capable of great acts of courage because they are full of adrenalin and do not care for their safety or feel pain immediately.
The fox therefore does not suffer in any way. In a very real way, the pro hunt banner on the March that proclaimed, 'if the fox didnt like it he wouldnt join in' may have some truth in it. A terrfied animal - or person - freezes; and does not flee.
So simply when this is all explained to people who do not understand hunting, they begin to accept that hunting with hounds is NOT after all cruel.
As I assume that Scratchline is already familiar with these arguments, and if what he say is true, then his motivation here may be something completely unconnected. I can't say it was him; but the abusive emails I received from some of the antis here indicate that it was the [competely wrong] assumptions I had money, hunt myself, and have a girlfriend who is a model [therefore dim and moneygrabbing rather than the quaternary scientist she is] that most angered them.
Those who are motivated by hate and envy - well one is never going to be able to sway them; unless they come to realise that that same hate they nurture consumes them and can destroy them whereas we can shrug our shoulders and forget about it.
Anyway Salimali, while I agree that we shouldn't have to explain ourselves fully when merely living according to our traditional way of life but unfortunately when the full weight of the law is against us we have to campaign against it to show it is based on prejudice and ignorance. That is the same whoever the victim of such unjust laws are. If pro hunt folk do not wish to read about the animal rights lobby and help explain to the general public what they are really about they will grow under their insidious veneer; but some of us want to stop them; in my case mainly for the benefits of Conservation.
As for Scratchline, it is not too late to acknowledge your prejudices are hurting nobody but yourself and that it isn't too late to change. Former senior members of the League Against Cruel Sports have done just that.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Nice one David 
Chunkie
Well-Known Member
Well said DD
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Looks like I will be the only one to answer your post since salami cast you aside and put you on ignore.
You claim I am 'desperately', trying to distance myself from the ethos of Animal rights organisations. How so? My opinion on hunting as was is my opinion, not one goaded into being by a bunch of animal rights lunatics. Sadly, you never actually asked my opinion before jumping to the wrong conclusion about me and now claim to know my mind and call me desperate?! lol lol lol
Not once on this forum or in life have I supported any animal rights group. Strong words but I hate the RSPCA and PETA and couldnt give a stuff about any of the others.
Indeed, as a once pit bull owner and breeder before the ban and during until my last dog died of old age. And still as a huge fan of that breed, I dare say I have more gripe with animal rights nutters than even you.
The fact I am anti hunting, only in your mind made me a fan of theirs, not any truth or fact. Thats that one put to bed.
Next. Why am I here. Because I like horses and dogs and this is a public forum covering such. I post on other threads and other topics. Sadly, the topic of illegal hunting is the only subject on this forum that leads to attacks and name calling but I just put that down to over emotional idiots who wouldnt say boo to me in the flesh. I do not believe chasing foxes over the countryside is right and firmly believe they should be shot. If a clean kill cannot be made then the shot shouldnt be taken. I live by that belief and hunt by it. Anybody who doesnt, or will not, or isnt capable of making that decision shouldnt be out with a firearm.
As for any true dog lover enjoying watching dogs hunt. That is only true if you also enjoy watching two dogs fight. Dogs are not wild animals and nothing they do is natural. Man once more messed with nature and created dogs, enhancing the qualities he required in individual animals. The early hunts involved scent, then sight then killer hounds. Pit bulls are direct decendants of those killer hounds as shown clearly by 16th century tapestries. Just because I admire a breed ( in my case pit bulls), and understand the effort man went to, to breed only from the best in the breed, by testing them in their own field certainly doesnt automatically mean that I like the methods or wish to see them continue today. I would if forced to, choose to watch two equally matched dogs bred, trained and conditioned for the pit, fight rather than a wild animal who man cannot live alongside, be chased down and killed by mans creation.
I can assure you I will not be changing my mind nor would I ever e-mail someone away from this forum because I disagree with their opinion.
I have always made it clear that I would rather be shot than chased and killed by dogs. I am allowed to feel that regardless of attacks on me, my name or my supposed 'real', beliefs by people who have decided who I must be for their own agenda on this forum.
You claim I am 'desperately', trying to distance myself from the ethos of Animal rights organisations. How so? My opinion on hunting as was is my opinion, not one goaded into being by a bunch of animal rights lunatics. Sadly, you never actually asked my opinion before jumping to the wrong conclusion about me and now claim to know my mind and call me desperate?! lol lol lol
Not once on this forum or in life have I supported any animal rights group. Strong words but I hate the RSPCA and PETA and couldnt give a stuff about any of the others.
Indeed, as a once pit bull owner and breeder before the ban and during until my last dog died of old age. And still as a huge fan of that breed, I dare say I have more gripe with animal rights nutters than even you.
The fact I am anti hunting, only in your mind made me a fan of theirs, not any truth or fact. Thats that one put to bed.
Next. Why am I here. Because I like horses and dogs and this is a public forum covering such. I post on other threads and other topics. Sadly, the topic of illegal hunting is the only subject on this forum that leads to attacks and name calling but I just put that down to over emotional idiots who wouldnt say boo to me in the flesh. I do not believe chasing foxes over the countryside is right and firmly believe they should be shot. If a clean kill cannot be made then the shot shouldnt be taken. I live by that belief and hunt by it. Anybody who doesnt, or will not, or isnt capable of making that decision shouldnt be out with a firearm.
As for any true dog lover enjoying watching dogs hunt. That is only true if you also enjoy watching two dogs fight. Dogs are not wild animals and nothing they do is natural. Man once more messed with nature and created dogs, enhancing the qualities he required in individual animals. The early hunts involved scent, then sight then killer hounds. Pit bulls are direct decendants of those killer hounds as shown clearly by 16th century tapestries. Just because I admire a breed ( in my case pit bulls), and understand the effort man went to, to breed only from the best in the breed, by testing them in their own field certainly doesnt automatically mean that I like the methods or wish to see them continue today. I would if forced to, choose to watch two equally matched dogs bred, trained and conditioned for the pit, fight rather than a wild animal who man cannot live alongside, be chased down and killed by mans creation.
I can assure you I will not be changing my mind nor would I ever e-mail someone away from this forum because I disagree with their opinion.
I have always made it clear that I would rather be shot than chased and killed by dogs. I am allowed to feel that regardless of attacks on me, my name or my supposed 'real', beliefs by people who have decided who I must be for their own agenda on this forum.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Are you aware of research showing that the proportion of animals killed vs wounded is the same for expert shots and bad shots?
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
I am very aware that it shouldnt be shot at if it cannot be cleanly killed. So any shots in said research should not have been taken IMHO.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Scratchline, your posts are very interesting too when you calm down.....and no, I am not forming a fan club!!!
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Well the research was conducted in circumstances mirroring the actual circumstances in which thousands of foxes are actually shot. This is what is actually going on and it's perfectly legal.
Far more suffering is caused to foxes by shooting than hunting.
Far more suffering is caused to foxes by shooting than hunting.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
lol lol I'm glad to hear that and thankyou. There is a real problem with this 'us and them attitude', to hunting and sadly that is what is heard the loudest on most occasions, not real discussion.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Completely agree I don't think I am us and them at all personally. I very rare;ly go hunting and I manage my land without killing any wildlife on it whatsoever. My interests are animal welfare and conservation.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
I understand what you are saying and do not disagree with the facts. What I would change is the legality of such shooting.
I agree the law is wrong, I just want it tightened not repealed. We all have an interest in farming and livestock but also animal welfare. I believe absolutely that wild animals deserve the same humaness we show our animals at the time of slaughter if they must be killed. If that cannot be guaranteed in individual cases then the animal must live and the law should protect them.
I agree fox numbers need to be controlled, but do not believe that animal needs to be chased to do so in this day and age.
I agree the law is wrong, I just want it tightened not repealed. We all have an interest in farming and livestock but also animal welfare. I believe absolutely that wild animals deserve the same humaness we show our animals at the time of slaughter if they must be killed. If that cannot be guaranteed in individual cases then the animal must live and the law should protect them.
I agree fox numbers need to be controlled, but do not believe that animal needs to be chased to do so in this day and age.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
I didnt for one second mean your good self and hopefully I dont come across as anti for the sake of it as that certainly isnt the case.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
No means of control will ever be perfect in terms of animal welfare. However looking at hunting vs shooting as it is practised now in my opinion the net effect of hunting for animal welfare is not as bad and it has significant benefits in that it actually needs to kill less animals to achieve the effect I desire due to dispersal effects and prey selection.
In legislating you have to consider the effect of the legislation and I don't think that HA has improved animal welfare or the ecology.
IF you wanted to regulate shooting as you say you do then you would have to make massive changes to how animals are controlled. probably the state would have to start doing it. This is a massive mistake iMO.
Local communities are best placed to manage the local ecology not the government.
In legislating you have to consider the effect of the legislation and I don't think that HA has improved animal welfare or the ecology.
IF you wanted to regulate shooting as you say you do then you would have to make massive changes to how animals are controlled. probably the state would have to start doing it. This is a massive mistake iMO.
Local communities are best placed to manage the local ecology not the government.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
But in practical terms the burns report did not conclude that hunting was more cruel than shooting regimes as they are practised now. The idea that foxes can be effectively controlled by people only taking a head shot when they are guaranteed an instantly fatal shot is a myth. No one shoots to wound.
DavidDent
Member
Scratchline
I will address your points .
I was suspicious you were one of the antis who sent abusive emails yes. LMAO is a phrase you do use; it was used in one of the emails. But I never accused you; I was just suspicious.
I have not at any time been rude and have adressed the main rationale for foxhunting mainly to you; most others here know the arguments.
You have not asnswered my points about welfare of the fox re adrenalin. For this reason alone I do not approve of shooting foxes. At least when shooting game birds the hound finishes the job and the bird is a small target. The larger the target the harder it is to kill outright. However; in some circumstances whilst I do not approve I will accept it especially when it is explained rationally.
Neither do I approve of the concept, air time, lowest common denominator targetting and audience of Big Brother but I do not think it should be banned.
If there is no virtually absolute moral agreement on something the law has no right to interfere. Morality is for personal definition other than the basics.
Otherwise, in Clints immortal words, "you start executing your neighbour cos his dog has pissed on your lawn" (Magnum Force)
Once lies are told in the pursuit of a cause, no matter how apparently benevolent, that destroys any truth or validity in it. The very idea that a fox is torn apart alive or suffers is ridiculous. Adrenalin prevents suffering and any chased animal is full of it.
You have also failed to say what your verdict on IFAW is.
Otherwise; why didn't you just say without venom to start with what your objections were? Anyway. I still do not know them. I will listen.
You compare dog fighting, an abhorrent activity which is entirely unatural as neither jackus or lupus fight to the death. As soon as command of the pack is established the challenger slinks off.
This is not the case with their attitude to a rival species. They will give chase and kill it. They will kill its cubs. This is nature.
The greatest threat to cheeath survival is Lions killing their cubs.
May I ask do you also object to a hawk taking a pigeon and acting as deterrent causing them to take flight and disperse?
I have no us and them attitude to reasonable people who can discuss rationally.
You must realise your post came at the same time as some very intimidating and personally abusive emails. If I was defensive I apologise.
Okay. Is there any common ground here? I think the hunting fraternity would have accepted a 'third way' . I think that third way should be a mutual love of the countryside as it exists. When we are all batting for the same team; whether we put a fast bowler or a spinner out is a matter of tactical rather than ethical discussion.
HeeBeegeeBee is so clearly somebody who has a deep understanding of Conservation and management issues. I have a less detailed understanding of that as applied to the UK; but a very deep one as applied to Hunting cultures in scandinavia Canada and Siberia for example. I hope you realise we are not the 'tallyho and bugger the fox brigade'; so why do we support it?
If there is no compromise so be it. I have a Rorshach attitude so respect another when I see it. Look into your heart and if you know there is no prejudice and you are absolutely right morally then tell us why.
I will address your points .
I was suspicious you were one of the antis who sent abusive emails yes. LMAO is a phrase you do use; it was used in one of the emails. But I never accused you; I was just suspicious.
I have not at any time been rude and have adressed the main rationale for foxhunting mainly to you; most others here know the arguments.
You have not asnswered my points about welfare of the fox re adrenalin. For this reason alone I do not approve of shooting foxes. At least when shooting game birds the hound finishes the job and the bird is a small target. The larger the target the harder it is to kill outright. However; in some circumstances whilst I do not approve I will accept it especially when it is explained rationally.
Neither do I approve of the concept, air time, lowest common denominator targetting and audience of Big Brother but I do not think it should be banned.
If there is no virtually absolute moral agreement on something the law has no right to interfere. Morality is for personal definition other than the basics.
Otherwise, in Clints immortal words, "you start executing your neighbour cos his dog has pissed on your lawn" (Magnum Force)
Once lies are told in the pursuit of a cause, no matter how apparently benevolent, that destroys any truth or validity in it. The very idea that a fox is torn apart alive or suffers is ridiculous. Adrenalin prevents suffering and any chased animal is full of it.
You have also failed to say what your verdict on IFAW is.
Otherwise; why didn't you just say without venom to start with what your objections were? Anyway. I still do not know them. I will listen.
You compare dog fighting, an abhorrent activity which is entirely unatural as neither jackus or lupus fight to the death. As soon as command of the pack is established the challenger slinks off.
This is not the case with their attitude to a rival species. They will give chase and kill it. They will kill its cubs. This is nature.
The greatest threat to cheeath survival is Lions killing their cubs.
May I ask do you also object to a hawk taking a pigeon and acting as deterrent causing them to take flight and disperse?
I have no us and them attitude to reasonable people who can discuss rationally.
You must realise your post came at the same time as some very intimidating and personally abusive emails. If I was defensive I apologise.
Okay. Is there any common ground here? I think the hunting fraternity would have accepted a 'third way' . I think that third way should be a mutual love of the countryside as it exists. When we are all batting for the same team; whether we put a fast bowler or a spinner out is a matter of tactical rather than ethical discussion.
HeeBeegeeBee is so clearly somebody who has a deep understanding of Conservation and management issues. I have a less detailed understanding of that as applied to the UK; but a very deep one as applied to Hunting cultures in scandinavia Canada and Siberia for example. I hope you realise we are not the 'tallyho and bugger the fox brigade'; so why do we support it?
If there is no compromise so be it. I have a Rorshach attitude so respect another when I see it. Look into your heart and if you know there is no prejudice and you are absolutely right morally then tell us why.