jrp204
Well-Known Member
How many of these people who are anti hunting and anti farmers are veggies and eat loads of soya which we can't grow over here but luckily they can grow it in lots of places that used to have rainforests.
Lush, again, again, again... Protests outside stores?
- Thread starter tasteofchristmaschaos
- Start date
pricklyflower
Well-Known Member
If Lush had supported the LACS they wouldn't have had a new film to go hand in hand with their new "charitable" bubble bar of the same name on the eve of it's release!
http://www.fantasticmrfox-movie.co.uk/
They have a history of supporting "controversial" charities, wasn't Sea Shepherd one of them?? I think they can also be quite violent in their protests although I'm not sure so I will stand corrected!
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Hill farming is pretty environmentally friendly and sustainable unless the hills are over grazed. It's been going on for many centuries. The hills look pretty fine to me.
GPWool
Member
Culling involves finding the most humane and painless way of controlling numbers.
Hunting with dogs isn't it.
Hunting with dogs is simply a way of providing pleasure for wierdos.
Hunting with dogs isn't it.
Hunting with dogs is simply a way of providing pleasure for wierdos.
GPWool
Member
Well done Lush for highlighting the illegal practices still used to provide perverse pleasure for bloodthirsty nutters.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Come on then stun us with your humane alternative to hunting with dogs? You have obviously found a new method that nobody else has thought of. You see this is the major problem of the Hunting Act, it is very vocal about how pest species CAN'T be managed but deadly silent on alternative suggestions for how the countryside should be managed.
Would you support a method that allowed a 50% chance of complete escape or a 50% chance of a quick kill within 30 seconds or would you rather condemn an animal to a horrendous death over weeks due to gangrene or starvation from a bodged shot.
Would you support a method that allowed a 50% chance of complete escape or a 50% chance of a quick kill within 30 seconds or would you rather condemn an animal to a horrendous death over weeks due to gangrene or starvation from a bodged shot.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Once again you confidently assert that the Hunting Act is regularly broken - yet with over 300 packs of hounds going out on average twice a week for 6 months of the year there has to date been a handful of prosecutions, resulting in just three convictions - one of which was overturned on appeal.
There simply isn't the evidence that hunts are engaging in illegal practices.
There simply isn't the evidence that hunts are engaging in illegal practices.
jrp204
Well-Known Member
OK, culling for whatever purpose you're right should be done as quickly and efficiently as possible, so since the hunting ban do you think the fox population is being managed effectively? I am thinking along the lines of open seasons and shooting which obviously is not a gauranteed direct kill.
You say you have beaten for a shoot, do you consider, since dogs are also used to flush out birds towards the guns that this is not providing pleasure for weirdos too? I know alot of people who beat on a regular basis, often for the social side, so is this not a very similar scenario to following a hunt since pre ban would ultimately end with the same outcome of an animal/bird being killed (although it is more likely of a bird being injured than a fox).
As i have said before i am neither pro or anti hunting but with a degree in conservation biology and ecology i am interested in peoples views. As for Lush, i will not support any business that actively encourages unethical violent behaviour.
You say you have beaten for a shoot, do you consider, since dogs are also used to flush out birds towards the guns that this is not providing pleasure for weirdos too? I know alot of people who beat on a regular basis, often for the social side, so is this not a very similar scenario to following a hunt since pre ban would ultimately end with the same outcome of an animal/bird being killed (although it is more likely of a bird being injured than a fox).
As i have said before i am neither pro or anti hunting but with a degree in conservation biology and ecology i am interested in peoples views. As for Lush, i will not support any business that actively encourages unethical violent behaviour.
GPWool
Member
I think everyone would agree that killing any living creature for pleasure does not bode well for the hunters mental state.
I can see that there is deeply primal, sub-conscience programming going on but if we are to call ourselves rational, reasoned and sentient then can we not work out that inflicting unneccesary pain is no longer acceptable?
Deer culling is done by highly trained marksmen, this seems to be the preferred option without going down the gassing route.
I stopped beating for the pheasant shoot when I grew up.
But as the birds are shot and do have an near natural existence then part of me still wonders if this isn't better than factory farming chickens.
The fact that people still derive pleasure from it however does bring me back to my opening line - re mental state.
I can see that there is deeply primal, sub-conscience programming going on but if we are to call ourselves rational, reasoned and sentient then can we not work out that inflicting unneccesary pain is no longer acceptable?
Deer culling is done by highly trained marksmen, this seems to be the preferred option without going down the gassing route.
I stopped beating for the pheasant shoot when I grew up.
But as the birds are shot and do have an near natural existence then part of me still wonders if this isn't better than factory farming chickens.
The fact that people still derive pleasure from it however does bring me back to my opening line - re mental state.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
and you want us to legislate against people's mental state?
jrp204
Well-Known Member
But isn't that the difference between fox hunting and game shooting? The fox is culled for stock protection, be it lambs, poultry or game whereas game shooting and fishing are done for pleasure. The fact that people follow the hunt is actually neither here or there since 99% of them are not there for the killing side of things but for the social side and the opportunity to ride across land that otherwise they wouldn't have access to.
As CC has pointed out that since the ban there has been very few convictions of hunt staff which supports the idea that hunts are working within the law so what right do people have to form vigilante groups targeting people who's lifestyle and ideas do not meet with their own even when working within the law.
What i consider rational, reasoned and sentient may not be the same as you although i agree inflicting unnecessary pain on any living creature is unacceptable, but where do you draw the line. I have sheep and free range hens (2500) i cannot afford to feed the fox, I would have had the choice a few years ago of getting the hunt in to control our fox population (a very quick death, no injuries) but now we have to shoot them with no guarantee of a quick death if it is injured, so given those 2 choices i would use the hunt as a more humane method of control. To me that is a rational decision if i want to avoid an animal suffering.
I'm not sure what part of the country you are in but i wasn't aware of deer being gassed as a form of control.
As CC has pointed out that since the ban there has been very few convictions of hunt staff which supports the idea that hunts are working within the law so what right do people have to form vigilante groups targeting people who's lifestyle and ideas do not meet with their own even when working within the law.
What i consider rational, reasoned and sentient may not be the same as you although i agree inflicting unnecessary pain on any living creature is unacceptable, but where do you draw the line. I have sheep and free range hens (2500) i cannot afford to feed the fox, I would have had the choice a few years ago of getting the hunt in to control our fox population (a very quick death, no injuries) but now we have to shoot them with no guarantee of a quick death if it is injured, so given those 2 choices i would use the hunt as a more humane method of control. To me that is a rational decision if i want to avoid an animal suffering.
I'm not sure what part of the country you are in but i wasn't aware of deer being gassed as a form of control.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
The difference is where the pleasure is gained. No hunting person I have ever met gets pleasure from the fact that an animal is killed. The pleasure lies in watching hounds work, having a fast ride across country, accessing land that is not normally open to the public and knowing that hunting is the only method that is based on principles of natural selection.
I think you will find that nowhere in law is it stated that marksmen must be highly trained to take part in the deer cull. All you need is a license for rifle and permission of the landowner. DCS1 and 2 are purely voluntary qualifications on quarry identification, safety aspects and meat preparation.
Deer may also only be shot in daylight, which vastly improves the chance of a clean kill first time. Foxes are lamped at night, which means the chances of a bodged shot are much greater - an injured fox is not going to stand still and wait for the shot to kill them, they limp off to die later of gangrene or in some horrific cases of starvation because their jaw had been shot away. Finally how do you imagine a wounded deer is tracked by a marksman? With a dog of course - established advice tells stalkers that they would be irresponsible to go on a stalk without the means to track a wounded deer.
I have no problem with any form of shooting for pest control or game shooting. Love tucking into pheasant, venison or pigeon of an evening. However if your main bone of contention is the enjoyment factor then surely shooting is even less defensible than hunting.
I think you will find that nowhere in law is it stated that marksmen must be highly trained to take part in the deer cull. All you need is a license for rifle and permission of the landowner. DCS1 and 2 are purely voluntary qualifications on quarry identification, safety aspects and meat preparation.
Deer may also only be shot in daylight, which vastly improves the chance of a clean kill first time. Foxes are lamped at night, which means the chances of a bodged shot are much greater - an injured fox is not going to stand still and wait for the shot to kill them, they limp off to die later of gangrene or in some horrific cases of starvation because their jaw had been shot away. Finally how do you imagine a wounded deer is tracked by a marksman? With a dog of course - established advice tells stalkers that they would be irresponsible to go on a stalk without the means to track a wounded deer.
I have no problem with any form of shooting for pest control or game shooting. Love tucking into pheasant, venison or pigeon of an evening. However if your main bone of contention is the enjoyment factor then surely shooting is even less defensible than hunting.
jrp204
Well-Known Member
Its funny that there is approx. 4 million anglers in the UK, obviously their reasoning and rational on inflicting pain on a living creature is ok, or is it that many of that 4 million are traditionally labour voters and not rural voters?
GPWool
Member
of course you cannot gas deer.
shooting apparently being the preferred method of culling vermin.
So you are saying that being pulled down by a pack of dogs and being ripped apart is more humane than shot by a high powered rifle (not some 12 bore loaded with pigeon shot)?
shooting apparently being the preferred method of culling vermin.
So you are saying that being pulled down by a pack of dogs and being ripped apart is more humane than shot by a high powered rifle (not some 12 bore loaded with pigeon shot)?
jrp204
Well-Known Member
Foxes aren't bigger than hounds so i think the phrase 'pulled down' is a little off the mark. If you watch a pack of wild dogs catch something smaller than them the animal is killed virtually instantly this is no different to a pack of hounds. I do actually consider the culling of a fox by hounds preferable to being shot with no guarantee of an instant death.
Do you so vociferously object to angling then? or do you partake in the leisurely torture of fish?
Do you so vociferously object to angling then? or do you partake in the leisurely torture of fish?
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
When will you get round to addressing the issues that I raised in my reply to you?
And yes I do believe a quick clean kill via pack of hounds is preferable and more humane to the potential of being wounded by a bodged shot and starving to death.
And yes I do believe a quick clean kill via pack of hounds is preferable and more humane to the potential of being wounded by a bodged shot and starving to death.
R2R
Well-Known Member
1. If I said you deserved to be hit for your beleifs, then you would say I was out of order
2. I live in a one bedroomed mobile home in my landlords farm, and have my own yard full of horses that hunt. I rent it. I do the yard in the morning, work, then return. Oh, and I drive a clapped out old car that is probably being held together with mud, and my phone is a battered nokia pay as you go.
Care to make any more assumptions?
GPWool
Member
There is a very easy answer to controlling rural fox population without culling, stop using land to breed food for vermin.
Before you jump down my throat, I am vegetarian and I gave up fishing years ago after catching a massive bass and being consumed by shame. As a child I also tried to shoot little birds (unsuccessfully I'm pleased to say) but you know, some of us grow up!
When you make the choice of how you use your land, it inevitably comes down to profit. If animals consequently suffer due to your choice, then is it moral to profit from it?
The argument for controlling numbers by hunting is weak anyway due to the comparatively small quantity of kills achieved.
The lack of prosecutions doesn't invalidate the illegality. It just means the Police either do not have solid evidence (that cannot be wriggled out of by some well paid barrister) or choose not to pursue the nobs who inevitably 'have friends in high places'.
Since entering this debate as a country person who was basically unhappy with the thought of people taking pleasure in causing an animals' suffering, I have tried to find out more about hunts v sabs and I have come to the conclusion that the sabs are right to do what they do, I may even join them if I get the chance.
If the pleasure really was for the ride, the dogs and social aspect then why not go drag hunting?
As for Lush's charity pot, why not read up on the donations they gave to the Fresh Start Foundation before trying to scupper their business.
Before you jump down my throat, I am vegetarian and I gave up fishing years ago after catching a massive bass and being consumed by shame. As a child I also tried to shoot little birds (unsuccessfully I'm pleased to say) but you know, some of us grow up!
When you make the choice of how you use your land, it inevitably comes down to profit. If animals consequently suffer due to your choice, then is it moral to profit from it?
The argument for controlling numbers by hunting is weak anyway due to the comparatively small quantity of kills achieved.
The lack of prosecutions doesn't invalidate the illegality. It just means the Police either do not have solid evidence (that cannot be wriggled out of by some well paid barrister) or choose not to pursue the nobs who inevitably 'have friends in high places'.
Since entering this debate as a country person who was basically unhappy with the thought of people taking pleasure in causing an animals' suffering, I have tried to find out more about hunts v sabs and I have come to the conclusion that the sabs are right to do what they do, I may even join them if I get the chance.
If the pleasure really was for the ride, the dogs and social aspect then why not go drag hunting?
As for Lush's charity pot, why not read up on the donations they gave to the Fresh Start Foundation before trying to scupper their business.
rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
so you are a vegetarian, so what, thats your choice- what you are suggesting is that farmers pack up their livelihoods(that have been there for generations) and cull all the cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens et al. i cannot believe the mentality of some folk- you want the countryside to become a barren overgrown tip i assume? who looks after the countryside that the people of this country like to go out into and appreciate the beauty of it all- the custodians of course, farmers in other words!! i cannot believe that youthink this is preferable?
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
You have a very simplistic view of life. There is a very good reason why the majority of the land round where I live in the Cambridgeshire fens is used for arable and vegetable production and that is because it is grade one land that is best for growing crops on. Where you have poorer land then pasture is the best option and grazing livestock keeps it from going into natural climax and becoming carr woodland. Are you seriously suggesting that the entire British countryside should be left to return to woodland because you, based on complete ignorance dislike the way we manage pest control. There is far much more to modern farming than profit and for someone who claims to live in the countryside you have very little understanding of the crux of the issues.
If I told someone who lived in London that they shouldn't keep any food in the house, then there would be no need to kill rats or other vermin it would be laughable.
Hunting has never been about killing large numbers, it has always been about controlling numbers at a sustainable level - we have always clearly stated that some foxes are good, but too many are bad. Therefore culling based on the principles of natural selection will always be preferable to indiscriminate shooting with rifles.
The Act has been in place for 4 years, in 4 years of constant hunt monitor activity and police call outs there have been just the three successful hunting prosecutions - of which one of those was overturned on appeal. That cannot just be a blip of not being able to gather evidence, that suggests to me that hunts are largely working within the law. Do you have any factual base for suggesting police are not pursuing cases because of friends in high places or is this something else you have made up??
I have no problem with people being anti-hunting, although I'd like them to look at the facts and see for themselves before committing themselves to an entrenched position. I do have a problem with violence from either side and I am appalled that anyone would consider joining a quasi-terrorist branch of the anti-hunting family rather than putting their efforts into peaceful and far more worthwhile groups.
Once again you expose your ignorance of forms of hunting by suggesting everyone goes drag hunting. Drag hunting is by its very nature fast and over large fences - this does not appeal to every person who goes hunting. Many of our followers dislike and won't jump, there are even more followers who like to foot, bike or car follow and simply can't keep up with a drag pack. I've tried it, they sprinted through the coverts that normally take us 2 hours in 30 minutes. I gave up shortly afterwards as my noble two wheeled steed and its gallant rider wasn't up to it!
Unfortunately Lush have a history of supporting violent groups who use extreme tactics, the funding of the HSA was a final straw for me and I will not be buying from them ever again in the future.
If I told someone who lived in London that they shouldn't keep any food in the house, then there would be no need to kill rats or other vermin it would be laughable.
Hunting has never been about killing large numbers, it has always been about controlling numbers at a sustainable level - we have always clearly stated that some foxes are good, but too many are bad. Therefore culling based on the principles of natural selection will always be preferable to indiscriminate shooting with rifles.
The Act has been in place for 4 years, in 4 years of constant hunt monitor activity and police call outs there have been just the three successful hunting prosecutions - of which one of those was overturned on appeal. That cannot just be a blip of not being able to gather evidence, that suggests to me that hunts are largely working within the law. Do you have any factual base for suggesting police are not pursuing cases because of friends in high places or is this something else you have made up??
I have no problem with people being anti-hunting, although I'd like them to look at the facts and see for themselves before committing themselves to an entrenched position. I do have a problem with violence from either side and I am appalled that anyone would consider joining a quasi-terrorist branch of the anti-hunting family rather than putting their efforts into peaceful and far more worthwhile groups.
Once again you expose your ignorance of forms of hunting by suggesting everyone goes drag hunting. Drag hunting is by its very nature fast and over large fences - this does not appeal to every person who goes hunting. Many of our followers dislike and won't jump, there are even more followers who like to foot, bike or car follow and simply can't keep up with a drag pack. I've tried it, they sprinted through the coverts that normally take us 2 hours in 30 minutes. I gave up shortly afterwards as my noble two wheeled steed and its gallant rider wasn't up to it!
Unfortunately Lush have a history of supporting violent groups who use extreme tactics, the funding of the HSA was a final straw for me and I will not be buying from them ever again in the future.
GPWool
Member
I am surrounded by modern farms, owned by one corporation who employ managers to deliver profits.
I take your point about land suitability but sheep aren't the only grazers and the farmer I was replying to also bred chickens.
I agree that for upland hill farmers with no other local employment, there are few alternatives beyond sheep farming.
Traditionally silviculture was an integral part of the rural economy and as demand for biomass and locally sourced timber increases, it may yet again be.
We have lost something like 50% of our woodlands this century so their return would not be such a bad thing.
I would like to ask where the blocking up of holes (which I have seen) so that a healthy fox cannot find refuge and is run down to exhaustion, comes into your 'culling on natural selection' principle?
I also agree with you that there is no place for violence, I have read a story about an assault on one horse and rider and heard of (seen video evidence too) of many more assaults on sabs, of course feelings run high in these circumstances but in no way does that excuse violent behaviour.
Therefore can I assume you would withdraw any support for a hunt that has been shown to use violence?
If so, does that not leave you with a very small number (if any) that you can still support?
I suggest to you, that it is the hunts that are (as you put it) "quasi-terrorists" and the intimidation and threats Lush staff have been subjected to lately only backs up that suggestion.
On a final note, please lift me from my state of ignorance and tell me why drag hunting, by its very nature, is fast and over large fences?
I take your point about land suitability but sheep aren't the only grazers and the farmer I was replying to also bred chickens.
I agree that for upland hill farmers with no other local employment, there are few alternatives beyond sheep farming.
Traditionally silviculture was an integral part of the rural economy and as demand for biomass and locally sourced timber increases, it may yet again be.
We have lost something like 50% of our woodlands this century so their return would not be such a bad thing.
I would like to ask where the blocking up of holes (which I have seen) so that a healthy fox cannot find refuge and is run down to exhaustion, comes into your 'culling on natural selection' principle?
I also agree with you that there is no place for violence, I have read a story about an assault on one horse and rider and heard of (seen video evidence too) of many more assaults on sabs, of course feelings run high in these circumstances but in no way does that excuse violent behaviour.
Therefore can I assume you would withdraw any support for a hunt that has been shown to use violence?
If so, does that not leave you with a very small number (if any) that you can still support?
I suggest to you, that it is the hunts that are (as you put it) "quasi-terrorists" and the intimidation and threats Lush staff have been subjected to lately only backs up that suggestion.
On a final note, please lift me from my state of ignorance and tell me why drag hunting, by its very nature, is fast and over large fences?
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
The fact remains no matter how much you dislike it is that agriculture has to be economically viable for the countryside to remain in its current state. Livestock farming is in the doldrums and facing huge pressure from milk prices, high input costs, low returns and gold plating of legislation from Europe. More and more livestock farmers are giving up. In 2007/08 - the latest data available shows that over 75% of lowland livestock farmers earnt less than £20,000. The average UK wage is nearer £22,000 per person. Remember a farm income often supports a spouse and children too. This leaves the choice of struggling on, attempting diversification where possible or just giving up and leaving the land to its own devices.
Timber prices at present are not much better returns than livestock farming, so unless things improve dramatically I can't see that an extensive return to silvilculture is going to be sustainable. There is also the fact that tourism depends on having the variety of UK landscape that currently exists, without the rolling hills, sheep grazing, moorlands etc I feel that tourism is not going to be such an attractive option to the general visitor.
There is also the pressure of feeding and housing people - we simply can't afford to take vast tracts of land out of production. Sustainably with no agriculture in upland areas there is the problem of employing people and housing them close to their place of work.
I've never personally been earth stopping, but a key argument of hunting has always been pest control, not extermination but a sustainable population. Earths are stopped to prevent them from going to ground after their night time wanderings. This is only undertaken by licensed terrier men governed by strict MFHA rules. A fox will find somewhere to go to ground, and that is when digging work would have been undertaken dependent on the wishes of the landowner regarding control of fox population on his/her land.
If I witnessed violence while out with any pack of hounds that I supported I would certainly reconsider whether I wanted to be associated with them. I am fortunate that our master has always taken the line that we ignore saboteurs and monitors, video them as necessary but never ever fight with them. I am also fortunate in that since I started hunting in 2003/04 I have only ever been monitored once - we just ignored and after they refused to leave private farm land and stop harassing followers we continued with legal activity before going inside for cake and tea.
On the flipside I assume you will undertake not to get involved with any branch of the HSA that has employed violent tactics.
There have been two incidents relating to Lush, both regrettable and I hope their masters will be letting it be known that such tactics are not acceptable and sink us only to the level of our opponents.
Drag hunting has never been about hunting a natural quarry they lay artificial lines over pre-determined routes with the key factor being a fast gallop rather than purityhound work, this allows them to take in the biggest and best jumps, they do not need to build in a check (where hounds stop to pick up the trail) until the end of the line - as such it is fast and over better jumps. Trail hunting in contrast is designed to simulate fox hunting of pre-ban, thus checks and routes through cover are built up to replicate pre-ban hunting as closely as possible - this makes it slower as hounds work the trail, with more chances to catch up (something much appreciated by those on 2 wheels) and the different target audience means jumps are generally lower (they are access points rather than a big scary challenge)
Timber prices at present are not much better returns than livestock farming, so unless things improve dramatically I can't see that an extensive return to silvilculture is going to be sustainable. There is also the fact that tourism depends on having the variety of UK landscape that currently exists, without the rolling hills, sheep grazing, moorlands etc I feel that tourism is not going to be such an attractive option to the general visitor.
There is also the pressure of feeding and housing people - we simply can't afford to take vast tracts of land out of production. Sustainably with no agriculture in upland areas there is the problem of employing people and housing them close to their place of work.
I've never personally been earth stopping, but a key argument of hunting has always been pest control, not extermination but a sustainable population. Earths are stopped to prevent them from going to ground after their night time wanderings. This is only undertaken by licensed terrier men governed by strict MFHA rules. A fox will find somewhere to go to ground, and that is when digging work would have been undertaken dependent on the wishes of the landowner regarding control of fox population on his/her land.
If I witnessed violence while out with any pack of hounds that I supported I would certainly reconsider whether I wanted to be associated with them. I am fortunate that our master has always taken the line that we ignore saboteurs and monitors, video them as necessary but never ever fight with them. I am also fortunate in that since I started hunting in 2003/04 I have only ever been monitored once - we just ignored and after they refused to leave private farm land and stop harassing followers we continued with legal activity before going inside for cake and tea.
On the flipside I assume you will undertake not to get involved with any branch of the HSA that has employed violent tactics.
There have been two incidents relating to Lush, both regrettable and I hope their masters will be letting it be known that such tactics are not acceptable and sink us only to the level of our opponents.
Drag hunting has never been about hunting a natural quarry they lay artificial lines over pre-determined routes with the key factor being a fast gallop rather than purityhound work, this allows them to take in the biggest and best jumps, they do not need to build in a check (where hounds stop to pick up the trail) until the end of the line - as such it is fast and over better jumps. Trail hunting in contrast is designed to simulate fox hunting of pre-ban, thus checks and routes through cover are built up to replicate pre-ban hunting as closely as possible - this makes it slower as hounds work the trail, with more chances to catch up (something much appreciated by those on 2 wheels) and the different target audience means jumps are generally lower (they are access points rather than a big scary challenge)
GPWool
Member
So given alternatives such as drag or trail hunting, there is no argument for fox hunting other than pest control.
I'm sure there are better (less cruel) ways to control fox numbers than chasing them down with dogs.
By providing them with food we are interfering with a natural balance.
If you breed an animal (chickens, pheasants, lambs, whatever), you should be responsible for it's safety and wellbeing, however that does not give you the right to go around killing anything that may threaten it.
Years ago that may have been the case but today we would like to think our standards are higher.
Are yours?
I'm sure there are better (less cruel) ways to control fox numbers than chasing them down with dogs.
By providing them with food we are interfering with a natural balance.
If you breed an animal (chickens, pheasants, lambs, whatever), you should be responsible for it's safety and wellbeing, however that does not give you the right to go around killing anything that may threaten it.
Years ago that may have been the case but today we would like to think our standards are higher.
Are yours?
rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
tell me GPWool, how do you propose we keep our lambs safe in spring- their only predator is the fox, unless there is a marauding dog on the job, in which case, it gets the bullet, and dont go down that line of"getting them in at night into big sheds!!!" been down that nonsense road before!! standards in this case is nothing to do with it, all through the years standards as you put it, have been kept as high as possible- on this farm anyway!
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I wonder if you bother to read the postings that I go to great trouble to write. For every person hunting mounted on a horse it has been estimated by our master that there are another 10 following on bikes, foot or by car. I have explained how drag hunting is impossible to keep up with for those not mounted and probably for those that don't enjoy a mad gallop across country, but still you continue to claim that drag hunting is an alternative. You also fail to account for the fact that many drag hunts operate on the back of quarry hunts - our master is very good at organising meets, clearing country and doing the admin for the local drag pack - but they don't contribute any tangible benefit to the farmer. On the otherhand the quarry pack provides a fallen stock service and a pest control service.
I'm not quite sure why you infer that pest control being the argument for fox hunting is a distasteful thing.
Anti-hunting proponents throughout the ages have been asserting that 'surely there must be a better way' - the fact is there isn't, if there were a better way the LACS would be taking out full page ads in the national papers. They would splatter it across every leaflet they produced. A ground breaking new method of fox control would not be kept quiet. The reason that they have not found a better way is because there IS NO better
There is NO natural balance in the countryside, it is all managed. The fact remains that the fox has no wild top predator, as such its numbers will run out of control and it is then that no matter how much protection we employ to keep livestock and game safe from predation it is never going to be 100% secure; unless of course we go back towards intensive and battery systems, sure they'd be safe then and never mind the welfare of the animals so long as the fox's rights aren't infringed.
Agriculture and managing the countryside will continue to be a trade-off, I know which standards of welfare I prefer, do you??
I'm not quite sure why you infer that pest control being the argument for fox hunting is a distasteful thing.
Anti-hunting proponents throughout the ages have been asserting that 'surely there must be a better way' - the fact is there isn't, if there were a better way the LACS would be taking out full page ads in the national papers. They would splatter it across every leaflet they produced. A ground breaking new method of fox control would not be kept quiet. The reason that they have not found a better way is because there IS NO better
There is NO natural balance in the countryside, it is all managed. The fact remains that the fox has no wild top predator, as such its numbers will run out of control and it is then that no matter how much protection we employ to keep livestock and game safe from predation it is never going to be 100% secure; unless of course we go back towards intensive and battery systems, sure they'd be safe then and never mind the welfare of the animals so long as the fox's rights aren't infringed.
Agriculture and managing the countryside will continue to be a trade-off, I know which standards of welfare I prefer, do you??
Spudlet
Well-Known Member
QR
Interesting thread. I don't normally venture in here but hey ho, lets try to summarise some of the arguments here. Have I got this right?
1. We should all become vegetarians.
2. Anyone who disagrees with our point of view deserves to be hit.
3. All sheep should be inside at night.
So....
1. What exactly happens to the animals that are currently bred for meat - does their welfare count for nothing? And what about the land that they live on - who will manage it? Allowing it to become wild - well fine, but what about the people currently employed on the land, directly and indirectly? The tourism industry is a huge employer in many parts of the country, and tourists are attrctaed by the landscape that has been created by thousands of years of farming, so how do we keep that going when the land returns to being a scrubby mess (because lets face it, majestic forests don't spring up overnight...). Also, we will all have terminal flatulence, and I like bacon sarnies so can't go for that one I'm afraid!
2. I can't go around hitting people that don't agree with me. I'd never have time to do anything else
This is a very silly suggestion.
3. Yes.... I can definitely see that being a realistic and viable option in Wales, the Lakes, the Peaks, the Highlands.... yep, no problems there that I can see...
Combat-Claire - I've been reading your posts and I think they're very informative but there's none so blind as those who don't want to see I fear! So not much point in taking them too seriously (lets face it, when people post such rubbish it's quite hard to take them seriously anyway I find!)
Interesting thread. I don't normally venture in here but hey ho, lets try to summarise some of the arguments here. Have I got this right?
1. We should all become vegetarians.
2. Anyone who disagrees with our point of view deserves to be hit.
3. All sheep should be inside at night.
So....
1. What exactly happens to the animals that are currently bred for meat - does their welfare count for nothing? And what about the land that they live on - who will manage it? Allowing it to become wild - well fine, but what about the people currently employed on the land, directly and indirectly? The tourism industry is a huge employer in many parts of the country, and tourists are attrctaed by the landscape that has been created by thousands of years of farming, so how do we keep that going when the land returns to being a scrubby mess (because lets face it, majestic forests don't spring up overnight...). Also, we will all have terminal flatulence, and I like bacon sarnies so can't go for that one I'm afraid!
2. I can't go around hitting people that don't agree with me. I'd never have time to do anything else
This is a very silly suggestion.3. Yes.... I can definitely see that being a realistic and viable option in Wales, the Lakes, the Peaks, the Highlands.... yep, no problems there that I can see...
Combat-Claire - I've been reading your posts and I think they're very informative but there's none so blind as those who don't want to see I fear! So not much point in taking them too seriously (lets face it, when people post such rubbish it's quite hard to take them seriously anyway I find!)
GPWool
Member
Good grief, isn't it obvious? If everyone went vegetarian then you wouldn't have to shut sheep in because there would be no lambs to protect.
It seems to me that it's the hunts and their followers that go around hitting people so not sure why you bring that up.
It seems to me that it's the hunts and their followers that go around hitting people so not sure why you bring that up.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
No livestock, no countryside as we know it. There was an interesting piece in Farmers Weekly where Christopher Thomas-Everard called anyone who became vegetarian in UK incredibly selfish as with only 170,100 hectares of vegetable growing land equates to 27 square metres per head of population. His argument was that a vegetarian eats other people's already tiny share of world horticultural land leading to greater hunger. However I digress the UK environment is so beautiful because it is varied in cultivation methods, destroy livestock farming so that the fox can reign supreme and you damage far more than you can ever envision.
GPWool
Member
combat_claire, I think even I can work out that livestock farming does not solely equate to sheep and birds.
I've not yet heard of a pig or a cow being taken by a fox, I'm not sure a grown sheep is that vulnerable either.
My point is that all living things have a right to life, you shouldn't be bringing a lamb into this world if you have to kill another animal to protect it.
I take your point that the landscape of this country is mostly the result of mans management and without sheep, some parts would return to a wild state.
I guess Christopher Thomas-Everard is only looking at current land usage and not investigating the possibility of converting to vegetable and fruit production.
I've not yet heard of a pig or a cow being taken by a fox, I'm not sure a grown sheep is that vulnerable either.
My point is that all living things have a right to life, you shouldn't be bringing a lamb into this world if you have to kill another animal to protect it.
I take your point that the landscape of this country is mostly the result of mans management and without sheep, some parts would return to a wild state.
I guess Christopher Thomas-Everard is only looking at current land usage and not investigating the possibility of converting to vegetable and fruit production.
GPWool
Member
I don't really want to waste any more time on this as discussions are not being productive.
So I will try to summarise where we have got to.
I joined this forum to defend Lush who I know donate far more than most companies to good causes such as The Fresh Start Foundation for orphans in Gambia or protecting Sumatran Urang-utans as well as more controversial organisations such as Plane Stupid and Sea Shepard.
What they have done in this campaign is highlight that illegal hunting continues.
Police forces have said, on a number of occasions, that enforcement of the Hunting Act is a low priority for them whilst maintaining order is more important. Which is why the majority of convictions relate to violence.
I don't think there is any place in this land for animal cruelty or any kind of violence.
So I was worried by all these claims of HSA violence.
From the reports I can find on the internet, nearly all the violence has been from the hunting community directed at hunt saboteurs.
There are examples of sabs being violent too and I do not discount the possibility that further evidence has not been recorded.
Going into this my only other issue is with the Countryside Alliance claiming to be the voice of the Countryside.
I grew up in the sticks, now live in a small village, know lots of country people and friends I've grown up with.
From this small sample, I know about a quarter are pro hunting, about a third are anti hunting and the rest ambivalent.
I was in the ambivalent majority, regarding the whole hunting thing as people just making themselves look silly until I started to think more carefully about it.
What are the ethics involved? what kind of values are they teaching their children? Is this a case of privileged tradition or primitive savagery?
Is this a cruel sport or a necessary pest control?
So I joined this forum to gauge opinions.
And it seems that this is a sport using pest control to validate it's existence.
In my opinion it is cruel and there are better ways to control numbers - not always most suitable to farmers livelihoods agreed.
I have listened to arguments that hunting with dogs is better than a botched shot and I have seen with my own eyes a 12 bore loaded with pheasant shot fail to bring down a fox.
But I also know that high powered rifles are the accepted humane method for culling deer and can imagine what happens when a pack of hounds eventually catch up with a fox.
So your arguments have failed to convince me and my conclusion is that I can see no reason to continue the illegal 'sport' of hunting foxes with dogs, consequently such activity strikes me as being immature and slightly sick.
Well done Lush for bringing this out.
So I will try to summarise where we have got to.
I joined this forum to defend Lush who I know donate far more than most companies to good causes such as The Fresh Start Foundation for orphans in Gambia or protecting Sumatran Urang-utans as well as more controversial organisations such as Plane Stupid and Sea Shepard.
What they have done in this campaign is highlight that illegal hunting continues.
Police forces have said, on a number of occasions, that enforcement of the Hunting Act is a low priority for them whilst maintaining order is more important. Which is why the majority of convictions relate to violence.
I don't think there is any place in this land for animal cruelty or any kind of violence.
So I was worried by all these claims of HSA violence.
From the reports I can find on the internet, nearly all the violence has been from the hunting community directed at hunt saboteurs.
There are examples of sabs being violent too and I do not discount the possibility that further evidence has not been recorded.
Going into this my only other issue is with the Countryside Alliance claiming to be the voice of the Countryside.
I grew up in the sticks, now live in a small village, know lots of country people and friends I've grown up with.
From this small sample, I know about a quarter are pro hunting, about a third are anti hunting and the rest ambivalent.
I was in the ambivalent majority, regarding the whole hunting thing as people just making themselves look silly until I started to think more carefully about it.
What are the ethics involved? what kind of values are they teaching their children? Is this a case of privileged tradition or primitive savagery?
Is this a cruel sport or a necessary pest control?
So I joined this forum to gauge opinions.
And it seems that this is a sport using pest control to validate it's existence.
In my opinion it is cruel and there are better ways to control numbers - not always most suitable to farmers livelihoods agreed.
I have listened to arguments that hunting with dogs is better than a botched shot and I have seen with my own eyes a 12 bore loaded with pheasant shot fail to bring down a fox.
But I also know that high powered rifles are the accepted humane method for culling deer and can imagine what happens when a pack of hounds eventually catch up with a fox.
So your arguments have failed to convince me and my conclusion is that I can see no reason to continue the illegal 'sport' of hunting foxes with dogs, consequently such activity strikes me as being immature and slightly sick.
Well done Lush for bringing this out.