Tally ho, Simon!

[LACS]

"Tally ho, Simon

Another slightly botched attempt at spin from the new-look Tories. Dave Cameron has been careful to play down his countryside toff connections, so a recent addition to his A-list of preferred candidates has been kept rather quiet. Simon Hart, Cirencester-educated chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, whose primary aim until now has been to lead an army of tweed-clad rebels in favour of hunting, has been pushed on to the list. 'Ruddy-cheeked hunt fanatics aren't exactly the look Dave's going for, but Hart was persistent,' says a party activist."

The Observer, 20/8/06

Now this is going to be fun!

 

[Paul T]

Would have thought the Tories need reactionary candidates such as Hart like a hole in the head.

 

[Hercules]

Today's polls put Labour 9 points behind the Tories.

 

[Paul T]

Mid term it looks as though Labour isn't doing too bad then. The Tories are going to have to do much better, over a much longer period, before you have reason to start getting cocky.

Labour will have a field day with the likes of Hart during an election campaign.

 

[LACS]

I tell you what, Labour are going to have an absolute riot with Cameron. What's the betting they put up posters of him in hunting gear during the election campaign?

 

[allijudd]

To be honest, I dont think spin like that is going to dig the Labourparty out of the hole its dug for itself now.
Taxes up, unemployment up, reduced civil liberties, political correctness gone mad, laws people dont agree with...... the list gos on, not to mention a PM who doesnt listen to the public and leads a country to war because his mate says so, and still stays in office even when his own party are calling for him to step down.
Oh dear a PM who doesnt even listen to his cabinet, says it all about listening to the country doesn't it??

 

[Paul T]

And I doubt jumping on the 'green' bandwaggon is going to help the Tories win the next election. People have rather longer memories than Cameron & co give us credit for.

One moment they're claiming to modern, compassionate and forward-looking, and the next they're pledging to bring back hunting and take on the head of the CA as an A-list candidate!

 

[Paul T]

Dressing him up as a Carreg type might be funnier.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But Hunting IS green, it's the most ecological form of fox control.

 

[allijudd]

"modern, compassionate and forward-looking"
Yes the conservatives are all that.
I dont remember them suddenly saying they will bring back hunting...... I remember them saying they would bring it back within a week of it being banned when they get back in office!
I also remember labours 3 day week, strikes, union control, and the mess they left the country in when booted out of power. Guess what it too 18 yeard of the conservatives to get the country back on its feet, and a few years of Labour to f*ck it up again. Lets hope they dont do as good a job of messing it up as last time before they leave this time.

 

[Paul T]

More 'green' than sticking a red-hot poker up a fox's arse?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

More green than any other form of pest control because it targets old and seek animals which otherwise cause ecological damage.

Definitely more green than the methods of mass extermination favoured by LACS.

 

[Paul T]

But more green than sticking a red-hot poker up a fox's arse?

Not sure LACS favours any mass extermination.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

LACS demand the use of a "line or lines" of guns to ensure that all foxes flushed out by dogs are shot and none are allowed to escape.

 

[Paul T]

I don't think they do. LACS would prefer it if hunts didn't try to kill foxes in the first place, but if they feel they absolutely have to the law demands that it is done as quickly as possible without a stressful prolonged pursuit.

 

[Hercules]

Karl,

And therefore no chance of escape. Some lover of wildlife you are.

 

[Paul T]

What's wrong with demanding that if someone is hellbent on killing foxes they do so as quickly as possible?

 

[Hercules]

You demand nothing from me. As quickly as possible is not the issue. If it were, there would be a ban on the use of snares, which apart from wounding by guns is probably the most slow and painful way to kill an animal.

The issue should be 'cleanly'. There is no cleaner way to kill a fox than by the use of hounds. As I witnessed 3 times this morning whilst hunting within the limits set by your toothless hunting act.

 

[Paul T]

""modern, compassionate and forward-looking"
Yes the conservatives are all that."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Ha.

 

[Paul T]

I didn't demand anything (in any case, so what if I did?), I said the law does. In fact it was Farmer Giles who first used the word.

We're talking about the Hunting Act here, not snaring. Just because snaring can lead to a prolonged and grizzy end, that doesn't stop the Hunting Act demanding that hunts that set out to kill foxes do so as quickly as possible.

 

[Hercules]

But a better alternative to the current bunch of clowns who are warmongers, liars and hypocrites.

What have you ever done to ensure the well-being, freedom and security of this nation?

Dodge soap and scrounge benefits per chance?

 

[Paul T]

Hercules, you're being silly again. In your view, does someone have to have averted a war or something before they are deemed worthy of contributing to an internet forum?

What on earth does this have to do with the Tories not being modern, compassionate and forward-looking?

 

[Hercules]

We're talking about the Hunting Act here, not snaring. Just because snaring can lead to a prolonged and grizzy end, that doesn't stop the Hunting Act demanding that hunts that set out to kill foxes do so as quickly as possible.

The hunting act and the use of snare are inextricably linked. Pre ban - few landowners permitted their use. Post ban - an increasing number permit their use.

Not too difficult to understand really, or would you prefer someone drew yuo a cartoon to explain it?

As I said previously, speed should not be the issue in the death of the fox. It should be judged on how clean the kill is.

Don't rats or rabbits have any feelings when they are pursued?

 

[LACS]

"Snares are a vital tool of wildlife management. Legal snares, properly set, are a humane means of control."

Countryside Alliance, June 2002.

 

[Hercules]

"Snares are a vital tool of wildlife management. Legal snares, properly set, are a humane means of control."

Countryside Alliance, June 2002.

This quote should be taken in the context that when it was made, Hunting was another tool in the box that could be used to manage wildlife. That tool has now been removed.

I would disagree that their use is humane, and certainly less humane than hunting with hounds. However the fox population is still required to be controlled and the use of the snare (as endorsed by DEFRA) is becoming increasingly common.

Well done all you animal lovers!

 

[Paul T]

"The hunting act and the use of snare are inextricably linked..."

Doesn't alter the fact that we were discussing the Hunting Act, which deals with hunting, not snaring.

Not sure where you get the idea that few landowners permitted the use of snare pre-ban. I've seen estimates of 100,000 foxes killed by snares pre-ban.

 

[Paul T]

Hunting was not a vital tool of wildlife management.

"[2.4.2.4]...it is worth noting that farmers consistently over-estimate the number of foxes killed by foxhunts on their land, as these estimates can be compared with the records of the hunts themselves... For example, Baines et al. (1995) stated that the culling intensity quoted by farmers for hunts (0.47 foxes/km2/year; Table A2.6) was actually four times as high as the value quoted by the hunts themselves (0.11 foxes/km2/year). Similarly, in the study of Heydon & Reynolds (2000) farmers over-estimated kills made by hunts on their land by six to 11 fold (Table A2.8)." White et al research report commissioned by the Burns Inquiry.

"[5.2.1] There was a five-fold difference between Wiltshire farmers’ estimates of the density of foxes killed by the hunt (averaging 0.46 foxes per km2) and figures provided by the hunt Masters (which revealed that in fact just 0.09 foxes were killed per km2). It is almost certain that farmers’ estimates of the number of foxes killed by the hunt on their land includes some double counting, possibly resulting from uncertainty regarding the fate of a fox which, at some stage of the chase, crossed their land. In contrast, figures provided by the Masters of Foxhounds were taken from their professional diaries, but do include some dead ground between farms within their territories. The same discrepancy was discovered independently by Heydon & Reynolds (2000a), who found that farmers over-estimated the hunt bag by 7 to 12 times." MacDonald et al research commissioned for the Burns Inquiry.

It's clear that virtually the only people who believe this are the pig-ignorant farmers and the pig-ignorant hunters.

Do you support the use of snares?

 

[Hercules]

Karl,

I support the requirement to control the fox population. Although the snare probably kills more foxes (and other hapless wildlife), I do believe their use to be the least humane and least discriminate form of pest control.

The fact remains that those who require foxes to be controlled on their land, now use snares in increasing numbers and on increased areas of land - in direct relation to the Hunting Act (well done, you!).

So, not only do you dislike all hunters, you have clearly got problems with the farming community. Which other section of society are you going to vent off at? Gays, immigrants, gypsies.....?

Call yourself tolerant? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Paul T]

There you go again, presenting your view as if it were fact. Where's your evidence that farmers are using snares in increasing numbers?

You really should seek help about this persecution complex you have. I don't dislike all hunters and have never posted comments to suggest I do. I have much more respect for those who acknowledge hunting is cruel but are honest enough to admit their enjoyment of hunting is more important to them than animal welfare considerations. I haven't got much time for puffed up ignoramuses.

Don't talk to me about tolerance when you post insults which allude to someone with Downs Syndrome. As with many of your pals, tolerance only becomes important to you when your own interests are affected.

 

[Paul T]

"Although the snare probably kills more foxes (and other hapless wildlife), I do believe their use to be the least humane and least discriminate form of pest control."

So you don't support the use of snares?