Question re. shock in a fox.

Nothing quick about being hounded across the countryside for miles. Nothing quick about being disembowelled alive, either.

You choose to flush them from their earths using a terrier and blast them with a gun, Labour didn't make you do this. Do you generally deny all personal responsibility for your actions, or does this only happen when you go hunting?

Personally I think the most important quality that sets us apart from other animals is our ability to empathise and put ourselves in the position of others. It allows us to appreciate the suffering endured by others. I also believe this quality brings with it a responsibility to act humanely, and kill animals only where it is necessary to do so.

I've it heard all before. It's claimed hunting is humane and involves the least amount of suffering, and that hunts are really doing their quarry a favour by hounding them to death. There's little debate about whether killing the animals in the first place is necessary, let alone effective. It's just assumed, for example, that any fox that may be killing livestock will be the one hunted to death (as if hunts have the ability to be that selective), and ignores the propensity of other foxes to quickly move into vacant territories. It assumes that hunting somehow helps keep the fox population at an optimum level (whatever that is). Of course, any enjoyment derived out of a day's hunting is purely incidental.

Some have argued that foxes 'enjoy' killing chickens and that justifies any enjoyment derived from killing foxes. We're not foxes, and our interpretation of their behaviour should not be used as a moral yardstick for our actions.
 
The fox is killed by hounds my dear....not people, actually thats a lie, that was how it worked pre-ban...now we flush them from their earths using a terrier (far less stressful than killing them in the earth wouldn't you say? Well done Labour) and then blast them with a gun.

The fox oesn't care about what is honourable or what is morally correct, it cares about a quick and humane death which is exactly what it got pre-ban.

We don't shout..we debate.

"I don't have a problem with killing foxes but I do have a problem with terrifying them for hours beforehand."

That one takes the biscuit...another who has never witnessed hunting but feels they're opinion is valid. *yawn*

How do you know that I have never witnessed hunting? I have, and not from the stance of an anti. My opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

Your aggressive, emotional response is exactly what cost you the right to hunt with hounds. (reminds me of how a certain Mr Prescott deals with any who disagree!)

And if you state that a fox doesn't care about an honourable death, then you must agree that it is incapable of killing for fun? And would hounds go out in a pack by choice, killing only foxes, if not trained to and directed to by humans?

As I said, I don't want a fight and really should not have come on this, your hunting forum, and made my comments as obviously we'll never agree. But I am interested to hear well considered opinions from those who choose to hunt - I want to know what it is about hunting that makes you care about it so passionately. I haven't made any judgements about you as people and you weaken your argument by doing so with me.
 
I agree that its good to see both arguments and i can definately see why people would think its cruel, but I believe that its far less cruel than other methods, which is why hunting will alwasy get my vote. I believe that since the ban foxes have been delt with in a far more inhumane way.
In the same way that the animal is programmed to kill, it is also programmed to run , the amount of fear they feel is unknown.
I would say that there is a vast difference between terrified and scared. To me terrified is an animal that cannot function due to fear, a scared animal is an animal acting to protect its self. Not saying that it is alright to scare an animal, just think that saying the fox is terrified is an exaggeration.
My understanding of what goes on at the front is limited to say the least (so feel free to correct me if you know better) but the fox is often fields in front of the pack, only knowing they are upon it when it stands little chance of escape and the rest would happen pretty quickly.

Thank you for putting forward your points for the other side whilst seeing my point! As I said before, the point of death is undoubtedly quick and possibly the most humane way - my problem has always been with the chase. (which I guess is the best part for the riders)
 
"Personally I think the most important quality that sets us apart from other animals is our ability to empathise and put ourselves in the position of others. It allows us to appreciate the suffering endured by others."

That isn't empathy, it's anthropomorphism.

And you can't have it both ways. I can no more project my concept of suffering onto what a fox briefly experienced when killed by hounds anymore than I can imagine the pleasure or otherwise the predator feels when killing its own prey.
 
What situations would be regarded as necessary for killing an animal?
Im pretty sure people do not think they are providing the animal a service by killing it, but i would think that by emulating the natural process of a predator/prey hunt the animal is probably less stressed than other methods, for example being trapped or gassed.
Foxes will always be controlled, because people see them as a problem with no natural form of control.
 
"That isn't empathy, it's anthropomorphism."

Hmmm, wouldnt anthropomorphism involve the ascribing of human emotions and motivations to the animal, as in 'foxes enjoy killing'.
 
"That isn't empathy, it's anthropomorphism."

Hmmm, wouldnt anthropomorphism involve the ascribing of human emotions and motivations to the animal, as in 'foxes enjoy killing'.

Or a 'fox is terrified when hunted'.
 
Fear is an instinct present in all sentient creatures, hence the fight or flight response - emotional responses, eg. the capacity to have fun, need a certain level of intellect which I don't believe animals possess. Maybe terror was too strong and emotional a word.

Some interesting points made for both sides, I think. Am going to leave this post now, cos I think it could go on and on and we'll all still think we're right! Apologies to the hunting folk once again for putting my anti views on what is, after all, a forum for people who enjoy hunting! Thanks for an interesting debate.
 
Same old same old, I guess!

Why do some antis think that people go hunting because they enjoy seeing animals killed!! I find that suggestion absolutely BIZARRE..how do those antis minds WORK?!! Talk about kinky..

Don't they know that foxes are killed all the time by far crueller ways than hunting, which, lets face it, is the greenest and most environmentally friendly of ALL sports, being, as it is, perfectly in tune with nature..
 
I always find it shocking that antis think I enjoy seeing the fox killed. Plus the only time I was ever near the hounds when they caught a fox I couldnt see for the hounds!
Just to anthropomophise for a moment, I think my horse loves his hunting!!!
 
That is what absolutely annoys me too. After all it is the hounds that kill the fox, not the humans. Unlike shooting or fishing.

I have never seen a close up view of a kill, nor would I want to particularly (but does that make me a hypocrite?).
 
Yes, the antis always seem to have difficulty in realizing that people go hunting for the sake of HUNTING, not killing! Watching hounds work out a trail and keeping with them is what it is about, NOT killing. Of course, for hounds to do their natural job, as it was before the ban, then they need to kill foxes. On Exmoor foxes are a real pest so we are really running on 'borrowed time' at the moment and the goodwill of everyone. Lets get this silly and inneffectual law - The Hunting Act 2004 - overturned ASAP!
 
Bye

What a very polite anti!

And a very post productive one at that. 223 posts in less than 5 months. That's some going!
 
You must be from Exmoor then...............

You are of course right about Foxes....and the deer of course!

One "but" though. I go hunting for the killing, as in that is the whole point!

The fun of hunting is incidental.

If I don't hunt foxes I snare them.

If I don't get to hunt deer then I will have them all shot.

I am not running a charity.

Might as well mind, I am sure Hilary (crazy name, crazy guy) has a little syringe full of FMD or Anthrax or something with a North Devon address on it.
 
Hmmm,Tom...wonder about your motives there! It would be relatively easy to kill all foxes I guess..develop a suitable disease which would wipe 'em out in the same way as myxi did for rabbits ( not quite, I admit), but that wouldn't be hunting would it? I agree that from a hounds point they have to be running for blood if they are to do their job, and for me the watching of this perocess and staying with them is the 'fun' part of hunting.

But snaring or shooting foxes or deer is surely only a pale echo of a pack of hounds, wouldnt you say? Its a job, and unlike hunting, not a glorious spectacle and living poetry!
 
To quote Oakash "Yep, funny ain't it! The same people who watch 'wildlife' films on TV where animals are killed by other animals in terribly cruel ways, will (sometimes) then go out and sign an anti-foxhunting petition! Strange old world isn't it?"

I dont see that being strange. The animals on the wildlife TV shows are killing to eat, their only source of food. Very different to humans killing for sport.
 
"I dont see that being strange. The animals on the wildlife TV shows are killing to eat, their only source of food. Very different to humans killing for sport."

Why different?

People watch television for entertainment, not out of desperate concern whether Leo the Lion is going to get his dinner tonight.
 
Once again we hear from the Hunting Fraternity in their own words about the barbarity of their actions and the lengths they will go to see animals suffer in the name of sport.

These lawbreakers are the very people who would be up in arms if the "ignorant townies" defied the law. So-called pillars of the community who continue to flout the Hunting Act, designed to protect innocent life. As we know with regards the Hunting Fraternity, The Nature of the Beast Never Changes. Sadly, there are still so many that have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into the Fraternity and now practise the same methods on others to convince them that killing our wildlife is an acceptable pursuit. Thankfully, the Fraternity is very much on the decline, with the Bloodsports Alliance having to struggle to make ends meet and paying the usual rent-a-mobs to turn out at the hunt meets.

Regards

Lord_Blairite
 
Top