RSPCA prosecuting the Heythrop hunt

Was the RSPCA right to use over £326,000 in donations to prosecute the Heythrop?

  • Total voters
    0
Indeed :) apologies for being the dumbass who interprets your words in the one way you didn't mean it. There's always one, isn't there :rolleyes: :p
 
Alec Swan said:
As a matter of interest, were no one to follow hounds, legally, and there were no horses on our highways, what would your next favourite campaign be, apart from having me deported, that is? :D

Alec.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with people following hounds on horseback Alec, I do it whenever I can myself. Nor any to horses being on the roads, where I am several times a week on a horse. And I don't campaign against hunting; never have. Answering misinformation on this board is as far as it goes.

Deport you? I thought you were a Scot who lives in Scotland? You live in England? How dare you :D !!
 
Natch said:
Indeed :) apologies for being the dumbass who interprets your words in the one way you didn't mean it. There's always one, isn't there :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

No problem, I genuinely don't believe that anyone involved in fox hunting does it because they enjoy seeing an animal killed.
 
mulledwhine said:
Shooting is not that humane , unless you make an instant kill!!!! Sadly many people do not :(
Click to expand...
So what does "the evidence" really show? That hunting with hounds is not that humane either (because an instant kill isn't always guaranteed, as with shooting), so hounds and shooting are to be considered on a par? If hunting is "one of the most humane methods", and shooting isn't, what other comparably humane methods are there??

Or does "the evidence" show, as Alec suggests, that hunting is actually the most humane by a long shot (so to speak)?
 
cptrayes said:
1 in 5 of the people who have answered this poll, on a forum likely to contain more pro hunters than other forums because of the number of actual hunters who are members, voted that the spending of over 300,000 pounds was justified. The 4 in 5 who voted 'no' remember, contains an unknown, and probably significant number of people who would have supported the prosecution had the cost been ten quid.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I voted NO, but would have voted YES if the cost had been that small.
 
Natch said:
I don't think the fox worries about whether or not people get enjoyment out of his death, and I don't think decisions of whether or not his death is humane should be made based on that either. :o
Click to expand...

And nor do I. But the conversation was about why snaring was not banned instead of hunting, and the reason is that it attracts so much more attention to itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top