Thread for last rebel

[Hebegebe]

Why should i obey the Hunting Act?

 

[lastrebel]

Good question and one I cant answer without contadicting myself.
I would like to say because its the law of the land and one that is probably supported by the majority.
I'm not saying that all laws are right but if we dont follow them we would have anarchy.
my question would be to you why not obey the hunting act.
(loaded question)

 

[Hebegebe]

because it is wrong to kill animals without a good reason.

 

[lastrebel]

I agree with you there but if foxes are a problem to a farmer then the farmer must be given the opportunity to look after his livestock and crops. Is this not good reason.

 

[Hebegebe]

Sure LR it is too.

people should have the right to kill animals by an effective method of theny need to and also the right not to kill them if they can use other methoids which are effective.

So the Hunting Act fails on both counts.

Do you support my right to break the law then?

 

[lastrebel]

Dont take this personally but I think your trying to trick me.
Do you feel being ripped apart by dogs is an effective method.
If so the thought of dogs on Deer is particualy nasty.

 

[Scratchline]

Sure LR it is too.

people should have the right to kill animals by an effective method of theny need to and also the right not to kill them if they can use other methoids which are effective.

The killing of any animal and the methods allowed are governed by law. People do not and should not be allowed to just do what they 'want', as clearly they cannot be trusted to always be humane in their actions.

So the Hunting Act fails on both counts. It is the law at present.

Do you support my right to break the law then? Do you support everybody elses right to break the laws they do not agree with? Of course not, daft thread!

 

[Hebegebe]

So you think I should shoot all the deer my dogs flush out then?

Isn't that a bit OTT?

Wopuld you kill animals just because of a badly drafted ;law?

 

[Hebegebe]

Dont take this personally but I think your trying to trick me.
Do you feel being ripped apart by dogs is an effective method.
If so the thought of dogs on Deer is particualy nasty.

I don't rip deer apart with dogs.

As I have said I don't hurt the deer. It's the Hunting Act which states they have to be shot if I flush them out.

haven't you read it?

 

[lastrebel]

In that case I'm with you 100%.
yes I have read it and most people agree its worthless,So how do you think the law should be written.

 

[Eagle_day]

A one-line bill would do:

"The Hunting Act 2004 is hereby repealed".

 

[lastrebel]

And relaced by what, if your saying it should be as it was before the law then thats kind of daft.

 

[peakpark]

Lastrebel, have you been on this forum before under a different alias?

 

[lastrebel]

No why ?

 

[peakpark]

Just wondering......

 

[Girlracer]

I have to say i think the whole "shoot all the deer you flush out" thing sums the whole act up. An utter load of rubbish which isn't helping anyone. Especially the one thing it was designed TO help - the animals.

As i've said in another thread after getting closer and closer to hunting folk after being extremely anti i honestly believe the majority of people have a preservation of the countryside and wildlife as their major reason for doing it. And quite frankly this act completely changes that.

Whether your anti or pro you must understand that this hunting act must be repealed. It is un-realistic to imagine it won't be replaced, i just hope it is sensible this time.

 

[Hebegebe]

I think everyone accepts it is bad law

sign up to this if you want

http://reformthehuntingact.labourspace.com/view_campaign?CampaignId=93

 

[Scratchline]

So you think I should shoot all the deer my dogs flush out then?

Isn't that a bit OTT?

Wopuld you kill animals just because of a badly drafted ;law?

No/Yes/No Aim high if needs be! Agreed the ACT is a bit of a mess but all calling for a repeal are out of touch with reality. All that is needed is ammendment.
There is a far worse, more inhumane law than the Hunting Act which was very much a knee jerk reaction and has seen many, many innocent pets destroyed due to the way they look, not behave. If the hunting act needs repealing then first the Dangerous Dogs Act does.

However, IMHO both need ammending.

 

[Scratchline]

Note the use of the word "alias", rather than username to make it all a bit naughty and sinister, your presence. lol lol lol

 

[Scratchline]

A one-line bill would do:

"The Hunting Act 2004 is hereby repealed".

" Pest Control Act", for those not looking for some believed "Victory"?

 

[Hebegebe]

So you agree that it is ok to break the hunting act then?

 

[lastrebel]

Oh hebegebe you are naughty.
you have to do what you have to do and live with reason why you did it.
If you disobey the law for moral reasons then good luck to you. if you break the law for greed, self gain or just pleasure then you no you are in the wrong, that goes for any law (end of) next you will be telling us huntsmen are prisoners of conscience.

 

[Hebegebe]

I break it for self gain, pleasure and moral reasons and also because it's too much effort to obey.

It's nit naughty to break such a law is it?

 

[lastrebel]

thanks hebegebe I knew you would show yourself up eventualy.
Ok you break it for self gain are you a burglar or something. you break the law for pleasure well that wont win you friends on either side, in fact that attitude disgusts everyone.
you break it for moral reasons I would like know more.
you break the law because you cant be bothered I suppose you use your mobile when driving and have a couple or pints whilst your at it. very mature.

 

[the watcher]

lastrebel

<<whispers>>

sometime hebegebe can be a bit of a tease.....

 

[Hebegebe]

Well I'd have to got to a huge amount of effort anhd expense to get all the deer I flush out shot last rebel

Yes I can't be bothered

I also really enjoy not killing them. What is wrong with enjoying not killing animals?

I really don't get you.

 

[JanetGeorge]

you break it for moral reasons I would like know more.
you break the law because you cant be bothered I suppose you use your mobile when driving and have a couple or pints whilst your at it. very mature.

hebegebe has already explained what he does.

He flushes deer out of woodland - with dogs - to encourage them to disperse. He SHOULD - by law - shoot all the deer he disperses in this way! In hebegebe's opinion - and mine - and I would hope yours - it would be immoral to shoot 20+ deer dead JUST to comply with a stupid law - when dispersing them prevents them doing too much damage in one area.

It has NOTHING to do with talking on a mobile phone while drink driving!! That causes accidents, may kill people, is stupid and counter-productive and NO-ONE in their right mind would agree that it is morally right!!

That is the FARCE that is the hunting act! One of the things hunts used to do was disperse litters in the autumn, encouraging them to move out and find new territories earlier than they would otherwise do. That meant they were less likely to kill poultry etc. and stood a chance of living longer! Hunts can no longer do that unless they position guns around all the coverts and try to shoot dead EVERY fox that emerges. Of course, if the guns wound a fox it is THEN alright to let hounds chase the wounded fox and kill it!

The Hunting Act dictates that FAR more wildlife is killed than was the case before. THAT's why it is a stupid and immoral law!

 

[lastrebel]

janet that explains it more clearly.

The one thing no one has come with is a good replacement for the current law.

And yes as I ahev said before it doesn't help either side or as you both piont out the wildlife.

 

[JanetGeorge]

The one thing no one has come with is a good replacement for the current law.
And yes as I ahev said before it doesn't help either side or as you both piont out the wildlife.

Actually, a serious number of attempts were made - by both the CA and by the Middle Way Group. Anti-hunt groups didn't want to know - and neither did the majority of Labour MPs. The best suggestion was licensing - with an independent 'authority' to investigate and act upon any breaches of the licensing rules. (While the MFHA and other hunting orgs. DO have the ability to hold enquiries and discipline any Masters or huntstaff who break the rules or act in an unacceptable manner, they never went far enough - and were not, of course, 'independent'!)

The government - at the time - was prepared to listen to these proposals - but at the last moment 'sold out' to their backbenchers - and used a hunting ban to 'buy off' MPs who were giving them grief over other issues!

 

[Hebegebe]

What I find unfathomable LR is your assertion that because I enjoy what I do it some hpw makes it worse.

Surely if something is fun then it's better?