I went into 'LUSH' today...


They don't tell the truth. They tell a very biased & extremely one sided, tiny percentage of the whole story.

The issue isn't about how right/wrong hunting is but how completely biased & one sided this literature is.

If you think this is about the rights & wrongs of hunting then you have completely missed the point.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Cant see anything wrong with the leaflets they tell the truth hunting with hounds is sooooooooo wrong in every way. I dont agree with lilling anything but in such a barbarrick way is just evil

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but very lazily c&p'd my post to a similar thread in Soapbox. I would be very interested in your reply.......

You have to remember though that there is not a single inch of natural land in the UK - every little bit of the countryside that you see is man made, managed by man etc. Even here on Exmoor where tourists would consider this a wilderness, infact it has been completely reshaped by Man over the centuries.

Obviously this then has an impact on the ecology, natural food chain and wildlife.

It is also very important to remember that these large areas of rurality are only in existence because of the gain to the local people who shaped them over the years - lets not forget that authorities such as the National Parks and National Trust are extremely young in the timescale of our being here on earth! If it were not for the farmers/small holders/crofters of centuries back who maintained this countryside - it would not exist now for the Government to take over and control with their subsides, planning etc.

In conclusion it has now come about that foxes and other wildlife have to be culled by human resources in order to keep a healthy balance - ie that is how we have made it. To people who work and farm the countryside that you so enjoy, vermin control has to be carried out by ourselves.

The argument for and against hunting then comes as whether you feel that vermin control could be carried out in a more appeasing manner than hunting. Currently we have the alternative options of snares, shooting or poison.

Which would you choose?

Have you ever heard a litter of fox pups crying night after night because the vixen has been shot? Probably not, but at least hunting is done within a closed season and prevents this. Have you ever come across an animal caught in a snare? I assure you it is not pleasant.

So, unless an alternative to hunting can be found - in my mind, the traditional way wins hands down. It really doesn't matter who follows and for what reasons if you have the quarry's welfare at heart.
 
^ agree 100%
Not to mention that the other methods of population control are completely indiscriminate. If the fox is fit and healthy its got a very good chance of out running/smarting the hounds whereas is stands no chance with a gun/snare/poison. When I was younger my dad told me a fantastic story about when he was out and the fox practically had the hunt/hounds running circles round it. From what i've heard hounds are not the most intelligent canine out there
smirk.gif


As for the ridiculous leaflets I think we need lots of people to politely go in to the Lush shops, take a handful of them and dispose of them.
grin.gif
 
I thought the reason people were upset about the Lush campaign was that Lush are financially supporting the Hunt Sabs Association?
If you start to get into the pro and anti fox hunting debate isn't that going to muddy the water and dilute the message? Fox hunting is illegal. The issue, for me at least, is that Lush are supporting an organisation that is prepared to condone violent action which can endanger horses, hounds and riders.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the reason people were upset about the Lush campaign was that Lush are financially supporting the Hunt Sabs Association?
If you start to get into the pro and anti fox hunting debate isn't that going to muddy the water and dilute the message? Fox hunting is illegal. The issue, for me at least, is that Lush are supporting an organisation that is prepared to condone violent action which can endanger horses, hounds and riders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh that IS the issue,but ti wouldnt be HHO if a debate wasnt looked at from every possable angle
wink.gif

The HSA have been happy to be violent to people going about a lawfull activity and to brag about it for many years-giving them money from such a big company can only make the situation worse.

Whichever side of the hunt debate you are on,the HSA are bad news.
They hurt the reputatoin of peacefull anti's and put people and hounds out hunting in danger.
Why on earth Lush thought they are a good cause is beyound me.
 
I am sure Lush don't hate horsey people or horses. They just support something that some people agree on and some people don't. If you don't agree on their standards/actions do not shop at Lush. If you don't give a fig then buy, buy, buy. Not rocket science.
 
Nanny_Ogg or someone else, can you point me to some evidence of HSAs violent action etc - I need some ammunition to give to a friend, and I'm afraid googling comes up only with their own propaganda
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering how there have been no bannings over these postings on LUSH and the attacks on their promotion of hunt sabs. Lucretia got banned for far less from what I can see.
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm inclined to think it has something to do with the fact Lush do not advertise in H&H so the powers that be don't give a f**k what we say about them. Making a valid arguement against a paying customers product may well get you ousted. It's all about as fair as black dye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top