Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)
- Thread starter AnaV
- Start date
micki
Well-Known Member
Thought i'd understood the ban correctly. It still doesn't really explain why they didn't shoot the fox that ran across the fields in full view of the fox hunt where it wasn't too far from them to be shot safely and easily. They certainly don't follow a trail around here, they definitely follow foxes.
As for keeping the numbers down the local man that goes out lamping does that the best.
As for keeping the numbers down the local man that goes out lamping does that the best.
Sherston
Well-Known Member
...... because you can only flush a fox to guns with a couple of hounds in England, not a full pack. Unlike Scotland. Different again in N Ireland. Thats how consistent views on what is ok in the UK is.
Oh yes the man that goes lamping, never misses and never wounds a fox, he's perfect of course. Perhaps we should hunt a night, whats out of the public eye must be acceptable to the uneducated masses.
This thread is a waste of time and should be archived off to a new forum dedicated to the now near eternal debate of people that will never see eye to eye, along with other threads that just take up too much space.
Oh yes the man that goes lamping, never misses and never wounds a fox, he's perfect of course. Perhaps we should hunt a night, whats out of the public eye must be acceptable to the uneducated masses.
This thread is a waste of time and should be archived off to a new forum dedicated to the now near eternal debate of people that will never see eye to eye, along with other threads that just take up too much space.
micki
Well-Known Member
So why bother taking the hunt out then? If they cant flush out with a full pack then it seems that the hunt are a bit out dated then. By the way i'm not an anti i have hunted before the ban, just can't see the point if this is true.
AengusOg
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many birds of prey could kill a foxlol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQorMyH0EA
It just needs one...
Springy
Well-Known Member
1 big one lol.... I presume that theres only 1 or 2 big birds of prey that can....
bubbilygum
Well-Known Member
That video is amazing!
A very big bird of prey indeed... Bigger than any round my way (that said, there are some rather large Red Kites!)
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many birds of prey could kill a fox
You need the right bird - Golden Eagles or Eagle Owls make mincemeat of a fox!
AengusOg
Well-Known Member
Or this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2UJe_Nc_4k
Countryman
Well-Known Member
Lamping is unselective mass slaughter. It's pest control. Hunting on the other hand, is selective because overall it takes out the old weak sick and infirm.
Nickijem
Well-Known Member
I would have posted something on this thread but I agree with all that Countryman has said so it has saved me doing the typing! Thank you Countryman for your intelligent posts that to me are common sense - I haven't yet seen an argument that stands up against all you are saying.
AnaV
Well-Known Member
I see I shall have to select out the excuses you have given me to justify why you believe it is alright to kill animals for sport. You appear to stick together and call yourself pro hunting crew so you can hold responsibility for your fellow hunters reasons which have stuck out to me.
Hairy Old Cob: Survival of the Fittest (Pg1)
Noobs31: And this happens not by magic, but by the strongest, youngest, wiliest fox outsmarting the hounds. (Pg1)
Countryman: It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull (Pg14)
By what I have read and presuming you stick by what you say you all seem to be very for the fact it is part of natural selection. Now the theory is down to natural occurrences (no not a someone climbing on to a horse/ or going out at night to kill an animal) where over time animals breed the most favourable traits. I am sure I am repeating myself now. The traits that offspring may inherit is perhaps the ability to run faster, jump higher, hear better, dig better, or generally be more wary. You think your intervention by man encourages this naturally. It does in the way it aids the alleles to be passed down faster but it is not natural to the extent of the way you do it. You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome.
HappyHunter123: AnaV, you must remember that while hunts are successful in catching the injured or sick, most foxes caught are probably perfectly healthy foxes.
^REALLY? Wait was your opposition not that the hunts killed only the weak/old to maintain a healthy population? I would like to point out the word most used above. So with hounds you do kill perfectly healthy foxes.
Vulpinator- No you do not have to have responsibilities to be entitled to rights. Responsibilities are something mankind are supposed to have to be structured and live in harmoniously in society. Animals do have responsibilities for like people when they reproduce it is their responsibility to care and raise the offspring until time is right.
Now what is your excuse for killing rabbits in the wild? I also did not say Natural Selection would occur in a couple of generations I used the words future generations so talk about twisting words.
You dont live in the real world if you think every person who has a horse in their care has it put to sleep or shot because they think it is whats best. People who have horses in their care who actually care about them do for them what is best. HOWEVER, many people who have horses in their care such as racing yards, ex stud owners, breeders (yes I know from experience) do have horses shot because its quick and for them the easiest option. Just one example would be when my friends and I rescued a colt from a breeder who at about 6months old was going to be shot just because he wasnt a coloured or a filly.
Hairy Old Cob: Survival of the Fittest (Pg1)
Noobs31: And this happens not by magic, but by the strongest, youngest, wiliest fox outsmarting the hounds. (Pg1)
Countryman: It is the old and weak foxes that hunts cull (Pg14)
By what I have read and presuming you stick by what you say you all seem to be very for the fact it is part of natural selection. Now the theory is down to natural occurrences (no not a someone climbing on to a horse/ or going out at night to kill an animal) where over time animals breed the most favourable traits. I am sure I am repeating myself now. The traits that offspring may inherit is perhaps the ability to run faster, jump higher, hear better, dig better, or generally be more wary. You think your intervention by man encourages this naturally. It does in the way it aids the alleles to be passed down faster but it is not natural to the extent of the way you do it. You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome.
HappyHunter123: AnaV, you must remember that while hunts are successful in catching the injured or sick, most foxes caught are probably perfectly healthy foxes.
^REALLY? Wait was your opposition not that the hunts killed only the weak/old to maintain a healthy population? I would like to point out the word most used above. So with hounds you do kill perfectly healthy foxes.
Vulpinator- No you do not have to have responsibilities to be entitled to rights. Responsibilities are something mankind are supposed to have to be structured and live in harmoniously in society. Animals do have responsibilities for like people when they reproduce it is their responsibility to care and raise the offspring until time is right.
Now what is your excuse for killing rabbits in the wild? I also did not say Natural Selection would occur in a couple of generations I used the words future generations so talk about twisting words.
You dont live in the real world if you think every person who has a horse in their care has it put to sleep or shot because they think it is whats best. People who have horses in their care who actually care about them do for them what is best. HOWEVER, many people who have horses in their care such as racing yards, ex stud owners, breeders (yes I know from experience) do have horses shot because its quick and for them the easiest option. Just one example would be when my friends and I rescued a colt from a breeder who at about 6months old was going to be shot just because he wasnt a coloured or a filly.
AnaV
Well-Known Member
I can not take some of the people on this thread seriously for they try to justify the actions of people where they know not of the stupid reasons.
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
At last op, something we can agree on, I too 'cannot take some people seriously on this thread...they know not...stupid reasoning'. And omg, they shoot horses who have little chance of a decent future? Wow, never heard that before. They should all be set free & allowed to self regulate their populations, just like the foxes. Do you live in a Disney film?
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
AnaV, you must, by now, realise that you are losing more and more credibility here as your 'arguments' are based on fragmented nonsense which you attempt to put together in an some sort of articulate and coherent manner. However, you have not succeeded because you are failing to see the big picture, and time after time after time you fail to listen to what people here are saying.
"You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome."
THIS is the issue. You disagree with killing foxes. So any debate on how they are killed is futile. If you don't agree that foxes need to be controlled you are not going to enter into a considered debate about the best method of control.
So you acknowledge that the fox may be a pest for some with poultry, but this can be overcome? How, exactly? I have a large number of hens who free-range in the field, covering an area or around a third of an acre. Should I pen them in, digging the fence all round, covering the top and maybe electrifying it too? Any ideas on the cost of such an exercise? I'm producing high quality free range eggs for people to eat, I am not a charity. Oh, hang on a minute, wouldn't the hens be safer in cages? Maybe we should resort to that, then, just so that we won't have a fox/chicken problem.
What about newborn lambs? Are foxes not a pest to them? In case you didn't know, the answer is YES. So how do we overcome this? Do give us an answer. And don't forget that sheep need to live outdoors and graze.
I've mentioned this before but you ignored it - what about ground-nesting birds, such as the stone curlew? What about tern colonies? Some of the numbers of these birds are very low but presumably we should just allow the fox to wipe them out? Do you REALLY believe this? Why are the RSPB killing foxes to protect these birds? If you can find a solution, first of all tell us here and then get in touch with the RSPB because they'd love to hear from you.
What about my beloved cat, killed by a huge dog fox two years ago? And the fox did not eat him, by the way. Should I have kept my cat indoors at all times? Or should I just not have a pet cat? Does my pet cat have less of a right to life than a wild fox?
Try telling the people in certain urban areas that the fox isn't a pest. I have friends who used to live in Essex and foxes were constantly causing problems, defecating in gardens, fighting with each other at night, attacking pets. Pest control workers trap these foxes and shoot them. Is that acceptable to you? If not, what is the alternative?
If you can provide a sensible, workable solution to the above I would be interested to hear about it. Otherwise, don't bother replying.
"You take it upon yourself to deny animals their life for no reason. The main excuse you have given is they are pests. Perhaps a pest for someone with poultry, it can still be overcome."
THIS is the issue. You disagree with killing foxes. So any debate on how they are killed is futile. If you don't agree that foxes need to be controlled you are not going to enter into a considered debate about the best method of control.
So you acknowledge that the fox may be a pest for some with poultry, but this can be overcome? How, exactly? I have a large number of hens who free-range in the field, covering an area or around a third of an acre. Should I pen them in, digging the fence all round, covering the top and maybe electrifying it too? Any ideas on the cost of such an exercise? I'm producing high quality free range eggs for people to eat, I am not a charity. Oh, hang on a minute, wouldn't the hens be safer in cages? Maybe we should resort to that, then, just so that we won't have a fox/chicken problem.
What about newborn lambs? Are foxes not a pest to them? In case you didn't know, the answer is YES. So how do we overcome this? Do give us an answer. And don't forget that sheep need to live outdoors and graze.
I've mentioned this before but you ignored it - what about ground-nesting birds, such as the stone curlew? What about tern colonies? Some of the numbers of these birds are very low but presumably we should just allow the fox to wipe them out? Do you REALLY believe this? Why are the RSPB killing foxes to protect these birds? If you can find a solution, first of all tell us here and then get in touch with the RSPB because they'd love to hear from you.
What about my beloved cat, killed by a huge dog fox two years ago? And the fox did not eat him, by the way. Should I have kept my cat indoors at all times? Or should I just not have a pet cat? Does my pet cat have less of a right to life than a wild fox?
Try telling the people in certain urban areas that the fox isn't a pest. I have friends who used to live in Essex and foxes were constantly causing problems, defecating in gardens, fighting with each other at night, attacking pets. Pest control workers trap these foxes and shoot them. Is that acceptable to you? If not, what is the alternative?
If you can provide a sensible, workable solution to the above I would be interested to hear about it. Otherwise, don't bother replying.
AnaV
Well-Known Member
Once again you are missing the point.
My issue is humans unecessarily killing animals. Unecessarily as in 'we do not need to eat them, yet some of us take it upon ourselves to kill other animals.'
I thought that was easy to understand.
No obviously if I disagree with killing animals for sport I shall not be spending my time thinking of solutions for your murderous games.
I told you ending an animals life with good intentions for its welfare (last restort..) is a different situation.
But, taking it yourself to go out at night another animal or get on a mount and chase the poor creatures then over see hounds tear them apart for no other reason other than you believing it is alright should not be a right.
My thoughts on dealing with a chicken/fox issue? Dig a little deeper and think a little higher. Is it a foxes fault that is seeks food in peoples waste when in some places bin bags are left in open reach for them. Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests.
The curlew and fox situation is part of nature, are you going to intervene with lion predating a gazelle? The stone curlew very much thrives in North Australia where it is still common and its overall species is of least concern to being extinct. May I remind you the wolf was eliminated by people, killing more animals for should be the last thing on anyones list due to that human error. Those who have a pest issue should think around the box for other ideas which do not involve death.
My issue is humans unecessarily killing animals. Unecessarily as in 'we do not need to eat them, yet some of us take it upon ourselves to kill other animals.'
I thought that was easy to understand.
No obviously if I disagree with killing animals for sport I shall not be spending my time thinking of solutions for your murderous games.
I told you ending an animals life with good intentions for its welfare (last restort..) is a different situation.
But, taking it yourself to go out at night another animal or get on a mount and chase the poor creatures then over see hounds tear them apart for no other reason other than you believing it is alright should not be a right.
My thoughts on dealing with a chicken/fox issue? Dig a little deeper and think a little higher. Is it a foxes fault that is seeks food in peoples waste when in some places bin bags are left in open reach for them. Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests.
The curlew and fox situation is part of nature, are you going to intervene with lion predating a gazelle? The stone curlew very much thrives in North Australia where it is still common and its overall species is of least concern to being extinct. May I remind you the wolf was eliminated by people, killing more animals for should be the last thing on anyones list due to that human error. Those who have a pest issue should think around the box for other ideas which do not involve death.
AnaV
Well-Known Member
It has also been found in places where the Stone Curlew thrives in healthy numbers there is also a good population of fox. You also did not qutie finish amusing me as to why you think its acceptable to kill rabbits?
What about the badger cull? Why not just innoculate them against TB through food in such a way it was used to wipe out rabies in this country?
What about the badger cull? Why not just innoculate them against TB through food in such a way it was used to wipe out rabies in this country?
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Oh my, you really have excelled yourself this time.
The fox has no natural predator in this country. The comparison with the lion and the gazelle is ridiculous.
Absolute RUBBISH about stone curlews thriving - they DO NOT thrive in this country in areas where they frequently fall victim to foxes! Do you think that the RSPB would spend time and money protecting these birds just for fun? Speak to some RSPB wardens responsible for protecting colonies of birds such as roseate terns from foxes. You might learn something - but then again, probably not as you know everything there is to know and have the most closed mind I've ever come across on this forum.
You didn't deal with the lamb question, but actually just don't bother. You have not given one single plausible answer to anything.
You seem to think that killing for food is acceptable but other reasons for killing are not. If you knew anything about anything you would know that animals torment and kill each other for a variety of reasons. My much-loved hens are sometimes vile to each other and cause painful injuries. Wolves will kill coyotes and foxes in places such as Yellowstone presumably because they are competitors.
"Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests."
Yes, and all the land was once wilderness and unspoilt etc etc etc = but IT ISN'T NOW!!!!! Look around you! No, the fox does not 'have a right' to cause a whole host of problems! You'll be telling me next that they have the 'right' to go into houses and bite children!
(By the way, you might like to learn some spelling if you want to give the impression of being articulate - eg, 'terrain'; 'wander'.)
Your comment - 'where human civilisation infests' - speaks volumes about your horrid, twisted, distorted view. I would put you in the same category as any other fanatical extremist nutter and you are therefore not worth any more of my time.
The fox has no natural predator in this country. The comparison with the lion and the gazelle is ridiculous.
Absolute RUBBISH about stone curlews thriving - they DO NOT thrive in this country in areas where they frequently fall victim to foxes! Do you think that the RSPB would spend time and money protecting these birds just for fun? Speak to some RSPB wardens responsible for protecting colonies of birds such as roseate terns from foxes. You might learn something - but then again, probably not as you know everything there is to know and have the most closed mind I've ever come across on this forum.
You didn't deal with the lamb question, but actually just don't bother. You have not given one single plausible answer to anything.
You seem to think that killing for food is acceptable but other reasons for killing are not. If you knew anything about anything you would know that animals torment and kill each other for a variety of reasons. My much-loved hens are sometimes vile to each other and cause painful injuries. Wolves will kill coyotes and foxes in places such as Yellowstone presumably because they are competitors.
"Also would urban areas not once have been rugged terain where the fox would have thrived? So they have every right to wonder the streets where human civilisation infests."
Yes, and all the land was once wilderness and unspoilt etc etc etc = but IT ISN'T NOW!!!!! Look around you! No, the fox does not 'have a right' to cause a whole host of problems! You'll be telling me next that they have the 'right' to go into houses and bite children!
(By the way, you might like to learn some spelling if you want to give the impression of being articulate - eg, 'terrain'; 'wander'.)
Your comment - 'where human civilisation infests' - speaks volumes about your horrid, twisted, distorted view. I would put you in the same category as any other fanatical extremist nutter and you are therefore not worth any more of my time.
Last edited:
AnaV
Well-Known Member
The fox has not natural predator in this country because of what? Humans.
You make me larff. When you write in caps lock I assume you would be speaking in a yelling manner or with a raised intonation. I am afraid by doing this you are the one that loses credibility for you have ruptered your composure. Can you not stand up for something in which you believe in without having to resort to shouting?
I am prepared to stand up for what I believe in and the rights animals deserve.
With that tis you who closed your mind by beckoning me to abandon this argument.
The Stone Curlew has been found to thrive in places where fox population have been of good numbers. It is a fact unknown as to why. Where in the world this data has been collected from I do not know (most likely from somewhere where the Curlew is reasonably common eg Australia).
The idiom 'You can dish the dirt it out, but you can't take it' applies well here indeed.
You make me larff. When you write in caps lock I assume you would be speaking in a yelling manner or with a raised intonation. I am afraid by doing this you are the one that loses credibility for you have ruptered your composure. Can you not stand up for something in which you believe in without having to resort to shouting?
I am prepared to stand up for what I believe in and the rights animals deserve.
With that tis you who closed your mind by beckoning me to abandon this argument.
The Stone Curlew has been found to thrive in places where fox population have been of good numbers. It is a fact unknown as to why. Where in the world this data has been collected from I do not know (most likely from somewhere where the Curlew is reasonably common eg Australia).
The idiom 'You can dish the dirt it out, but you can't take it' applies well here indeed.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
AnaV,
there are those (I'm not amongst them), who would consider that drinking this early in the day, does little to assist with lucid argument.
Alec.
there are those (I'm not amongst them
), who would consider that drinking this early in the day, does little to assist with lucid argument.Alec.
Keimanp
Well-Known Member
As humans are responsible for removing the natural predator of the fox from this country should we not try to replace the role to endeavour to restore balance? (however we can although it will not be perfect)
You yourself have suggested the reintroduction of wolves to become once again the natural predator of the fox?
Wolves hunt in a pack, stalk, chase and kill their quarry in a similar vein to hounds, both prior to ripping the carcass apart to divide and eat.
Whilst I would like to see packs of wolves reintroduced the majority of the rural and urban landscape is no longer an appropriate place for a pack of wolves. This would result in them being contained in localised high fenced areas, it is not an option for nationwide fox control. In addition a high fenced area would have to contain their entire food source.
The closest method for a natural predator to the wolves out of the available options for fox control (shooting, snaring, poisoning, hounds) is replacing the pack of wolves with a pack of hounds.
Unfortunately the pack of hounds hunting the fox has to be managed and kept together to reduce the impact of other ‘users’ of this country. Similarly to the wolves we can’t just let them run riot and out of the two hounds have long since been domesticated which enable humans to work with them.
It is unfortunate that people take offence to the business aspect of hunting (the social ride side, the social ride continues as it is still required to finance the hunt and services rendered to the farmers for fox control).
From what I have read of your responses and viewpoint we should return the natural landscape of this country, and probably many more as to how they were before humans arrived, or became technologically advanced. Whilst I can see your reasoning for this and the perception of a natural harmony restored, where do all the human inhabitants of this world go? Do we build an ark? How do you achieve this idealisation? Surely if you have a view of what it should be like it should be achievable? I would like my neighbours to be further away from my house but my pockets aren’t deep enough for that let alone buying a country!
You have admitted that foxes are a nuisance to a number of sources, out of the methods available for controlling the fox population and with your ideal for the country to be returned to a more natural state, how do you achieve fox control? Bear in mind that feeding and nursing foxes would require increased production of food and medicines etc and is counter intuitive to a more natural country.
Simsar
Well-Known Member
Keimamp I wrote all this earlier then deleted it as I shall not waste my breath on this numpty.
Still, good post.
Still, good post.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
But Kelmamp, apparently all we've got to do is to make this country more akin to 'somewhere like Australia' and everything will be fine! (The fact that the fox is not indigenous to Australia, as far as I know, is by the by).
We're not talking about Australia anyway, or anywhere else in the world - we were talking about this country.
I tend not to get too involved in arguments about things I know little about because it's only a matter of time before I would be exposed as an idiot. Unfortunately the original poster is under some sort of illusion that by repeating stuff about lovely foxes, the right to life, and that other species aren't really threatened by foxes then it will all magically come true. Take the argument about the stone curlew. I've actually visited places where these birds are nesting and I'm only too aware of the threat from foxes. I wonder if the OP has done the same? I doubt it very much - it would seem she knows very, very little about birds because she then came up with some stuff about the bush stone curlew which isn't even the same bird and is endemic to Australia. She has got this information by googling stone curlew! Hmmm, I wonder how some of these people would cope without google - even though it's part of the technological world brought about by the evil human species!
We're not talking about Australia anyway, or anywhere else in the world - we were talking about this country.
I tend not to get too involved in arguments about things I know little about because it's only a matter of time before I would be exposed as an idiot. Unfortunately the original poster is under some sort of illusion that by repeating stuff about lovely foxes, the right to life, and that other species aren't really threatened by foxes then it will all magically come true. Take the argument about the stone curlew. I've actually visited places where these birds are nesting and I'm only too aware of the threat from foxes. I wonder if the OP has done the same? I doubt it very much - it would seem she knows very, very little about birds because she then came up with some stuff about the bush stone curlew which isn't even the same bird and is endemic to Australia. She has got this information by googling stone curlew! Hmmm, I wonder how some of these people would cope without google - even though it's part of the technological world brought about by the evil human species!
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
AnaV, whilst intelligent debate & conflicting opinions can be of interest to myself & I imagine many others, I would be more likely to have an adult discussion with the foxes in question than yourself, goodbye.
Antw23uk
Well-Known Member
I got to page two before i yawned and took a very strong disliking to the OP. Numpty!!
E13
Well-Known Member
Very interesting thread! Unfortunately some have closed minds. Not judging though as I can identify with many of the 'anti' posts; however I can also see the logic of the 'pro' hunters. I think the natural reaction for those without experience of hunting (myself included) is that it is awful and barbaric. But the points raised about fox control and likeness to wolves are very convincing - I would rather we not have to control the population, and not kill animals for fun, but if it is indeed true that the population must be controlled then I can see that hunting is the most natural, and in some ways most humane, way.
ETS: Not that those who hunt find it fun to kill, I understand the fun is all about the riding, which is why I don't have a problem with drag hunting; I think maybe it's that hunting in itself is seen as fun, so it's difficult to separate, that the fun part is one bit, and the actual kill a separate factor, and the two - fun and kill - aren't related, in order to have the kill you need the chase which is where the fun comes in. I hope I make sense!
ETS: Not that those who hunt find it fun to kill, I understand the fun is all about the riding, which is why I don't have a problem with drag hunting; I think maybe it's that hunting in itself is seen as fun, so it's difficult to separate, that the fun part is one bit, and the actual kill a separate factor, and the two - fun and kill - aren't related, in order to have the kill you need the chase which is where the fun comes in. I hope I make sense!
Last edited:
Springy
Well-Known Member
If you introduced 'proper' wildlife like the wolf thats being suggested then surely you would have to re-introduce wild boar, bears and such like.....
Hmmm not sure how that would work
Hmmm not sure how that would work
AnaV
Well-Known Member
Keimanp the issue you have raised about if the reintroduction of wolves was overseen they would struggle to adapt to the present environment is very much true. As I am sure however, you are aware places in different parts of the world where the human population overlaps with that of another predatory animal such as Wolf, Bear or Tiger they keep optimism high in order to cope.
I do not think that we should abolish technology that would be like saying we should go back to being cave men. My arguement is what gives someone the right to deny any animal its life, be it a healthy one for instance?
One of your fellow hunters told me on this thread they do mostly kill healthy foxes and I am questioning why we should have authority to.
Does anyone have an excuse up their sleeve why people should be allowed to kill rabbits and badgers aswell?
My answers do not seem to register with others such as NancyKitt for she clearly knows not of all the cruelty inflicted by people and gives an overall portrayal of mankind with a backside beaming radiant sunlight.
I do not think that we should abolish technology that would be like saying we should go back to being cave men. My arguement is what gives someone the right to deny any animal its life, be it a healthy one for instance?
One of your fellow hunters told me on this thread they do mostly kill healthy foxes and I am questioning why we should have authority to.
Does anyone have an excuse up their sleeve why people should be allowed to kill rabbits and badgers aswell?
My answers do not seem to register with others such as NancyKitt for she clearly knows not of all the cruelty inflicted by people and gives an overall portrayal of mankind with a backside beaming radiant sunlight.
Springy
Well-Known Member
Molasses
Well-Known Member
Having lived in some of those places, i'd say they keep optimism high, and the gun loaded
This thread keeps getting funnier, bless you AnaV
I want what you're drinking