Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[Nancykitt]

Well, it's been frustrating at times but overall it's been a really good thread that has served to unite the like-minded pragmatists against those that live in the world of Disney animations. I've learnt a lot - and sometimes it's good to revisit our beliefs and core values.

 

[fburton]

As for the self-regulating argument - in many circumstances, it is true that a species will self-regulate. If there is a limited food supply then that is a major factor. In the case of foxes,

...it is space, as they are a territorial species.

Please do not tell me that with a plentiful food supply the fox population is self regulating as I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced the problems caused by large numbers of foxes.

Without additional culling, but with the same relatively large number of road deaths, how much will the fox population increase? Double, triple, even more? Does anyone know?

 

[Nancykitt]

Very hard to say how much the population could increase. Around here, road deaths are limited - infact, it's years since I saw a fox dead on the roadside, although, of course, some could well be injured.
If you look at the video posted by AengusOg on page 39 it gives some indication of just how big the population is in some areas. There have been times when the lampers around here have come across very high numbers, suggesting a possible increased tolerance (by the fox) to sharing territory?
Not sure, but I do know that if the conditions are favourable they can breed very successfully indeed.

 

[Vulpinator]

A .222 is fine in the UK - foxes aren't as easily freaked. They're used to lights, and vehicles and people. If they're not close enough, you can squeak them up.

On a big station in the outback, the foxes see very little of lights or vehicles - particularly at night. The odd person they see is usually on a horse - and anything out of the ordinary, they're off! You have to be able to shoot from a fair distance - and a .222 couldn't pack enough whack for a certain kill. There's probably a better rifle being used now in the outback - I was there 45 years ago!

Janet ive killed head shot at over 300 yds with .222 if thats not long enough then you should nt be behind the but modern ballistics can be quite a surprise not that im condoning shooting at distance i prefer at the end of the barrel but I can definatley say even as a competant marksman ive wounded foxes with both rifle and shot gun but ive never wounded a fox witheither terriers or hunting hounds so there it is.

 

[AnaV]

I have read T_ a_ l_'s post and its good it worked being a vegetarian for her during pregnancy but it is not the same for everyone. My aunt was not only vegetarian during pregnancy but before the time too. I believe that protein derived from meat is needed for sustaining a balanced diet and not only that it is part of the cycle of life. We as omnivores require nutrients from different sources of sustinence.

Vulpinator if you would be as so kind to look a few pages back I answered your query on rights and responsibilites.

GG- I am not vegetarian and I am not quite sure where you came up with that for the thread is about hunting for sport (you know where you dont need/intend to eat the animal after). Thank you however for you nicely backed up my point how humans being omnivores need a balanced diet in order to be healthy.

Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'.
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal.

As Simsar kindly brought up earlier it was man who introduced the fox into Australia for the leisure of killing them. They slaughtered them not for 'pest control' or to put them out of pain but for pleasure. What 'Core Values?'

 

[Vulpinator]

I have read T_ a_ l_'s post and its good it worked being a vegetarian for her during pregnancy but it is not the same for everyone. My aunt was not only vegetarian during pregnancy but before the time too. I believe that protein derived from meat is needed for sustaining a balanced diet and not only that it is part of the cycle of life. We as omnivores require nutrients from different sources of sustinence.

Vulpinator if you would be as so kind to look a few pages back I answered your query on rights and responsibilites.

GG- I am not vegetarian and I am not quite sure where you came up with that for the thread is about hunting for sport (you know where you dont need/intend to eat the animal after). Thank you however for you nicely backed up my point how humans being omnivores need a balanced diet in order to be healthy.

Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'.
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal.

As Simsar kindly brought up earlier it was man who introduced the fox into Australia for the leisure of killing them. They slaughtered them not for 'pest control' or to put them out of pain but for pleasure. What 'Core Values?'

AnaV.

Ive trawled the pages back and forward cant find it but what about your post about humans and animals being equal but some how the orwellian in you says we are more equal than animals could you answer in a less politician manner so we not so elequent tractor drivers can be assured you answer. thanks

 

[cptrayes]

I totally agree about the rabbit hole thing. Did you know that actually, there were only 18 reported incidents with horses and rabbit holes in all of the uk in 2012. Compared to incidents involving poor stable management, it is pretty much insignificant!

How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole?

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them.

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!

 

[Alec Swan]

How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole?

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them.

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!

For just this once, I agree with you. Totally! It's rather like those horses which are reported as having died from liver failure, brought on by ragwort poisoning. "REPORTING"? TO WHO?

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

Vulpinator- I think all animals should have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animals survival. On pg 35 and on post 342 you will find I have written a little about rights and responsibilities for you.


Christmas trees- I presume the incidents where horses have put their foot down a rabbit hole and sustained injury are noted down by the veterinarians which see to them and when overall data is needed they are reported.

 

[Nancykitt]

Ah right - all animals have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animal's survival! Fantastic! As my lambs and chickens - not to mention the ground nesting birds - can't survive while the fox insists on killing them, then the fox's life is needed in order to ensure the survival of others.

AnaV, in spite of the fact that you started this thread I think that it has outgrown you. It's made me feel a whole lot better though and provided me with some amusement. Thank you.

 

[_GG_]

How and where is one supposed to report an incident with a rabbit hole?

I've seen probably in the tens or twenties in the last couple of years and not reported one of them.

The lack of reported rabbit hole incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant when there is no known reporting mechanism!

Vulpinator- I think all animals should have equal rights to their lives as long as they are not needed for another animals survival. On pg 35 and on post 342 you will find I have written a little about rights and responsibilities for you.


Christmas trees- I presume the incidents where horses have put their foot down a rabbit hole and sustained injury are noted down by the veterinarians which see to them and when overall data is needed they are reported.

I have been waiting for this. I apologise for the method used, but thought it may be the most blatant way for me to make a point that has been made time and time again and yet ignored, time and time again.

AnaV - you PRESUME the incindents are noted by vets. You haven't gone and researched it properly by actually speaking to vets or calling the national statistics office. You have just read something online and taken it as true because it suits. You feel able to presume. You cannot form opinions on anything that are in any way educated or able to be taken seriously when you fail to even attempt to find the truth of something before PRESUMING that it is what it says it is.

To clarify. I have no idea how many rabbit hole related horse incidents there are. I do however know they happen. Known a horse have to be shot with a broken cannon bone and shattered knee. My own horse lost a shoe which I found in one and she had a very puffy leg for over a week and those incidents were in the space of a few months...so yes, they happen.

My point is, AnaV...your arguments in this thread hold very little to no authority because it is clear to the many people in here who actually understand things through first hand experience and knowledge that most, if not all of your arguments are based on presumption, emotion and a lack of actual, geuine, first hand, direct knowledge.

Nuff said!

 

[Molasses]

Molasses- What do you mean when you say 'where?' If you are not sure where Caucaus is please take a glance at the map of the earth.

Core values of hunting? What 'Core Values?'.
- You kill animals without the intention of eating them.
-You kill healthy fox under the name of 'pest control' when really mankind has invaded their land and they have every right of being on this earth as us.
-You kill rabbit under the impression the threat they are to horses is colossal.
'

Do you mean Caucasus AnaV because the people i've met there love to hunt? If its magical Disney land called Caucaus then please proceed there at the first available opportunity. I think NancyKitt sums up beautifully the thread has provided us with some amusement and some wonderfully eloquent arguments but I don't think poor AnaV will ever see it that way.

 

[AnaV]

GG- Thats right I do not know whether vets report incidents of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as well as I do not know whether anybody even gives a damn about how many times it occurs. The fact is you hunters exaggerate everthing in order for it to suit you best.

Molasses- It is true people in Caucasus hunt, however, to survive because the government would rather spend all its money on weaponery than looking after its people. As you are probably aware the area is a place of poverty for many of its people. People there will hunt to survive however, for they will not only eat the meat but turn the fur into clothing for harsh winter conditions. My great grandma (alongside my great grandad) lived amongst the same people her entire life (prior to when we brought her over here at the age of 80) and they would always give each other milk, eggs, meat which they raised and would think wisely on the money they spent on other products and groceries.

 

[_GG_]

GG- Thats right I do not know whether vets report incidents of horses putting their feet in rabbit holes as well as I do not know whether anybody even gives a damn about how many times it occurs. The fact is you hunters exaggerate everthing in order for it to suit you best.
.

Yet another PRESUMPTION....are you 10 years old? That is a genuine question and I ask it because only children or the seriously self centred think they can make such presumptions based on....NOTHING!

I am not a hunter. I don't hunt. I am a dressage rider. I did hunt as a child, twice. Didn't like it, never went again. Just because I didn't like it though doesn't mean I don't agree with it. I am a realist.

You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, so please sweetheart, don't presume you do. It really is quite pathetic.

 

[AnaV]

GG- I do apologise for believing you were of the hunting sort when it was supposed to have been projected to those who hunt when I based my thread 'To all those who hunt...' You are wrong in believing I base my knowledge on presumption and I sincerley do not care who you and what you do. I am open to different views and perspectives on hunting however, I aimed it at people who hunt themselves for I believe having first hand experience and the motiviation which fuelled them they would tell me why they thought it was alright to kill animals for sport.

 

[_GG_]

GG- I do apologise for believing you were of the hunting sort when it was supposed to have been projected to those who hunt when I based my thread 'To all those who hunt...' You are wrong in believing I base my knowledge on presumption and I sincerley do not care who you and what you do. I am open to different views and perspectives on hunting however, I aimed it at people who hunt themselves for I believe having first hand experience and the motiviation which fuelled them they would tell me why they thought it was alright to kill animals for sport.

I deduce that a lot of your opinions are based on presumption or what you have read or heard and just believed because you could because there is such a vast amount of information coming from you in your posts that is not true or realistic. Most of it is perhaps what you can find doing google search and is written by people who are fanatical about the subject and do no proper research.

Answer me a few questions if you will...

Have you ever been hunting?
Have you ever seen a fox that has been poisoned?
Have you ever seen a fox that has been trapped?
Have you ever seen a rabbit suffering from Myxomatosis?
Have you ever discussed the subject of taking out a second mortgage with a farmer because he is constantly losing poultry to foxes and having to replace the killed birds and keep erecting new or repairing fencing?
Have you ever seen a fox killed by a pack of hounds?

Have you ever eaten meat?
Have you ever visited an abattoir?

Do you hail from another planet where your type of human is not actually an omniverous animal? This question is asked because you question our rights to kill other animals. We are animals.

Do you think we need to take responsibility for our mistakes?

Do you think we should leave the natural world and the ecosystems and environments in the natural world to suffer through us doing nothing, when we could help by taking small measures?

I am genuinely interested in your answers to these.

I honestly don't want to be rude, but I felt the need to point out that you are so emotionally charged about this subject that you are jumping in with replies, inciting angry responses through your lack of understanding of what people are actually saying. You have had an enormous amount of replies on this thread, most of which have taken a great deal of time for the posters to write. For you, they have gone to great lengths to give you the explanations you have asked for and yet you still hold fast to the idealistic principals that actually do the wildlife you care about no good whatsoever.

 

[AnaV]

The answers to your questions are as follows;
1-No
2-No
3-No
4-Yes
5-No
6-Yes
7-Yes
8-No, I have auction markets where animals (eg horses) go prior to the knacker man but never an abattoir.

You banging on about me being from another planet? From which content of writing I have posted have you deduced I believe we are anything but omnivores? You will find it is I think we being omnivores are to eat a balanced diet containg meat, carbohydrates ect to be healthy.
I am very much for people trying to conserve our planet. These small steps you talk of? Would you consider taking the life of an animal for no other reason than it being a pest a small step? How is it a small step for the earth?

It has been proven to me on here people hunt fox for simply because they regard them as pests. I do not think that killing off certain animal populations because it suits people is the way forward for cleaning up the mess the human race has caused to the earth. Why should other animals suffer?

This topic is obviously one to draw emotion yet not at any moment through out it did I myself allow it to anger me. Funny you mention it for I have noticed on the other hand those who have opposed me on here have allowed it to do so. As I mentioned to one, how can you let something you believe whole heartedly subdue you so, for you to come across inferior through the manner of your post.

 

[Springy]

Is anyone actually still reading this thread

I cant be bothered to read it all / add to it as its going round in circles and not actually achieving anything now

 

[AengusOg]

We're nearly there.

 

[Nancykitt]

I agree Springy, it was entertaining at times but it's just becoming boring now. There's only so many times you can say something and be completely ignored before it just gets tedious.

OP has seen a fox killed by hounds (but has never been hunting) but presumably hasn't been there when a fox was shot and not killed and has not seen a poisoned or trapped fox. Had she seen any of these things she would have seen that death by hounds causes much less suffering.
Lots of MY questions have gone unanswered - not had any response about lambs (perhaps we're just supposed to stand around and let foxes kill our newborn lambs? After all, surely the farmers can stand the loss, everyone know how wealthy they are), or about the rare ground nesting birds. OP just hasn't a clue and when I raised the question about stone curlews all she could do was to post an irrelevant bit of stuff copied and pasted from a site about Australian bush curlews following a google search. The RSPB has a leaflet for farmers and landowners about stone curlews - this is one of our most endangered birds - encouraging them to use 'legal methods of predator control.' But hey, isn't the RSPB just full on bloodthirsty idiots and nothing to do with conservation?

For the record - yes, I do agree with killing animals that are pests, especially when numbers get out of hand and threaten other species.
Yes, I do consider taking the life of an animal because it is a pest a 'small step.'
Yes, I do support hunting and believe that hunting with hounds is the preferred method of fox control.

OP refers to 'killing off certain animal populations.' This I don't agree with at all, and foxhunting is not about that. It is about trying to ensure some sort of balance. Ironically, certain ground nesting birds could indeed be killed off if there isn't any predator control.

Presumably rats and cockroaches, even though they are pests, have a right to life too? How lovely. Forgive me, but I must go and plait my horse for hunting (although there will be no fox control until we next go lamping).

 

[Alec Swan]

Now I'm going to round on those who are justifying their sport.

Understand this; AnaV has displayed no interest what-so-ever, in listening to reason or logical or undeniable argument. AnaV has continued to make claims and statements which we all know to be preposterous and frankly, incredibly juvenile. When being faced with the fact that 2 + 2 really do add up to 4, continuing to argue that 5 is in reality where they see the total, makes for a pointless discussion.

Why on earth do you continue to discuss the subject with someone who whilst having no understanding of their own argument, and being unable to make coherent statements in their own support, will have even less chance of understanding yours? Tell me that if you're able.

Without the inclusion of the OP, this would have been an interesting and searching read.

Alec.

 

[bubbilygum]

Without the inclusion of the OP, this would have been an interesting and searching read.

Indeed. Some very informative and interesting points have been made on this thread.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Why on earth do you continue to discuss the subject with someone who whilst having no understanding of their own argument, and being unable to make coherent statements in their own support, will have even less chance of understanding yours? Tell me that if you're able.

Without the inclusion of the OP, this would have been an interesting and searching read.

Alec.

A little lesson for you, Alec. There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP. She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

The anti 'case' is so easy - foxhunters are - after all - a bunch of rich, Tory-voting toffs who charge around the countryside with packs of dogs, tearing up small fluffy foxes for fun!

The OP has given us a chance to put our arguments to people who will listen - and think - and perhaps change their views! That's what PR is all about.

 

[Bourbons]

A little lesson for you, Alec. There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP. She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

The anti 'case' is so easy - foxhunters are - after all - a bunch of rich, Tory-voting toffs who charge around the countryside with packs of dogs, tearing up small fluffy foxes for fun!

The OP has given us a chance to put our arguments to people who will listen - and think - and perhaps change their views! That's what PR is all about.

Both of these!

She has no intention of acknowledging anything that has been said to her re pro-hunting. Although it has been pretty amusing reading some of her "theories"

 

[Alec Swan]

A little lesson for you, Alec. There is absolutely NO point in trying to convince someone like the OP. She's away with the fairies, can't really justify her own arguments, and her English is quaint (obviously not her first language.)

But if we IGNORE her, then anyone who comes along (including someone who is a bit anti but isn't sure of the case) and sees her post - with NO reponse - will assume we have no answers.

.......

AH, right, I understand, and I apologise for being so dim, and leading on from that rational, then if I where to seek out an animal rights activist's group, and enter myself (I'll apologise for that, but hang on and you'll see the point), and claim that all those women (sic) who are "Activists", through some chemical imbalance, are quite obviously all lesbians, and their interests in wildlife protection are simply an extension of their ability, or lack of it, to produce children, then would you expect a reasonable response? Were I to do so, then I'd expect such stupid observations, to be roundly ignored, and the point that I was making was that so AnaV should have been ignored for her equally asinine remarks.

Had there not been one single response to the opening lines of this thread, then as an aside we'd have missed some interesting posts, I'll accept, but by ignoring it we'd have denied a platform to one who is quite possibly unbalanced.

As a disclaimer, and before the wrath of the forum lands upon me, for the first paragraph, you must understand that I'm offering up an example that when we respond to those who are agents provocateurs, so we fuel their sense of self importance. Again, as is the case with this particular thread, there has, though quite by chance, been an enlightening and interesting joining and bonding of thought. Many, including you Mrs. George, contribute posts of great worth, but I'm still of the view that those who are more interested in mischief than understanding, are best ignored.

Alec.

Ps. I've just re-read my words, and I'm getting to sound ever more like Judgemental! What would Rosie say?!!

 

[EAST KENT]

Rosie would smack you Alec...steady..don`t get over excited ! I actually am a veggie,but not vegan;OK confessed to that.I choose not to eat flesh,but my meriad dogs are fed entirely flesh! As to "justify",well I confess to having come from hunting stock,in my family`s case Beagling.Not Toff at all! They walked beagle pups/whelped bitches etc.As a child the hunting gene was extremely strong,I hunted water rats/rats/rabbits ..anything ,with my best buddy mongrel, that was normal for us country kids. If I got the chance I would foot follow or grab a pony in pursuit of the Chiddingfold Farmers hunt. Why...because I enjoyed it ,it was FUN....that`s why.
There is something primevil in hunting,it is in all of us,if we care to admit it,and I do.If it is also justifiable by being the most humane way of controlling foxes ,well good-oh,but that in the first place was not my reason at eight years old to stay out hunting until 4pm on a shaggy black 21 year old mare.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Had there not been one single response to the opening lines of this thread, then as an aside we'd have missed some interesting posts, I'll accept, but by ignoring it we'd have denied a platform to one who is quite possibly unbalanced.

I'm perfectly happy to help a rabid anti PROVE she's unbalanced!

 

[Orangehorse]

Well all the "antis" are having great fun, chasing their prey and shooting them - with cameras.

 

[Alec Swan]

Rosie would smack you Alec..........

.......

Oh no she wouldn't. Rosie was very fond of me, she just had a rather strange way of showing it.

Alec.

 

[Littlelegs]

Imo op's unrealistic & bizarre manner of promoting the anti stance has probably done more good for supporting hunting, to anyone previously on the fence, than a dozen pro's could have accomplished alone.