"Tories pledge to repeal hunting ban"

[ QUOTE ]
Urm... another issue with the old and sick is they don't just go and curl up and die. They try and find easy food because they can't get enough in the wild... that's when those lambs and chickens start to look mighty tasty.'

Hunting with hounds is the ONLY fair way to control numbers as its the only way to kill the select few who make up the majority of those going after the farmers stock.[ QUOTE ]


Urm dont the sick and old then come into contact more with the farms/guns to be shot easier?
 
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]I'm afraid that you are betraying your ignorance of the British countryside. Foxes absolutely rely on predators to keep their population sustainable and healthy - as we have eliminated those natural predators it is not only necessary, but arguably morally desirable, that we replicate this process as closely as possible. Shooting and other methods are not descrimatory and merely control numbers; hunting culls in the truest sense of the word. The presence of horses and riders is irrelevant - foxes being hunted by a pack of dogs IS entirely natural.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please dont throw the ignorance one at me. I live in the country, work in the country and hunt in the country. I even used to work lurchers on both rabbits and foxes so no need to throw any doggy nonsense my way either.
Now if I am correct it was the hunters who created this imbalence with their ignorance and pretending to replicate 'natures way', is in the opinion of most cruel because nature itself is often cruel. I dont need or accept humans playing god with a wild animals welfare and IMO there is no justification for our interfearance other than to keep numbers controlled if needs be. However you certainly dont know that nature wouldnt itself find a way to control fox numbers because you have never actually given nature a chance!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I can't actually understand what you are trying to say at the start of your second paragraph but as for nature finding a way to control foxes without hunting - of course it would! No-one is disputing that as far as I can make out. All I am saying is that there is no need for nature to find an alternative when the system that has been in place for thousands of years works perfectly well. Yes, man did create the imbalance by killing off the foxes' natural predators but doesn't that make it even more important that we find a way to replicate that maintenance of a healthy fox population?
 
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]the old and sick die of disease and starvation - slowly. Death by hounds is every bit as natural as this and a lot quicker

[/ QUOTE ]

The old and the sick of any species die and we do not interfere. The same as our own sick and old die. Hunting foxes, or other animals or indeed our old folk is not natural. Nature does not rely on a pack of hounds and people riding on horseback to keep a balance. Farmers NEED to control nature to protect livestock for mans requirements there is nothing natural about it. So get on, do what you must and shoot to control numbers but please stop bleating on about chasing foxes with a pack of hounds being natural in any way shape or form!
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

but we have interfered by removing the predators that would kill those old and sick animals. the reason they would die through disease and starvation etc is because we have interfered.

to say hunting with hounds isn't natural is missing the point. it affords a sick animal the most natural death - to be caught and killed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]the old and sick die of disease and starvation - slowly. Death by hounds is every bit as natural as this and a lot quicker

[/ QUOTE ]

The old and the sick of any species die and we do not interfere. The same as our own sick and old die. Hunting foxes, or other animals or indeed our old folk is not natural. Nature does not rely on a pack of hounds and people riding on horseback to keep a balance. Farmers NEED to control nature to protect livestock for mans requirements there is nothing natural about it. So get on, do what you must and shoot to control numbers but please stop bleating on about chasing foxes with a pack of hounds being natural in any way shape or form!
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

but we have interfered by removing the predators that would kill those old and sick animals. the reason they would die through disease and starvation etc is because we have interfered.

to say hunting with hounds isn't natural is missing the point. it affords a sick animal the most natural death - to be caught and killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly HeWas... - unfortunately, this is a point that some people choose to ignore or deny as it does not sit comfortably with their "arguments"
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Urm dont the sick and old then come into contact more with the farms/guns to be shot easier?

[/ QUOTE ]

no they don't. the foxes that will be flushed are the strong and brave ones whereas weak specimens will be more likely to take their chances in the undergrowth.

an animals natural instinct is to flee from what is chasing it. this is what they understand. none of their natural faculties equip them to deal with guns.
 
Why do pro-hunting people always assume that anyone is not in full support of hunting is a bunny-hugging townie!!

I too am a life-long country dweller and am fully aware of the "fox-threat" to farmers. But as far as farmers are concerned, anything is a threat to them. They don't like badgers, birds of prey, rabbits, and the list goes on. And yet the government terms them "Custodians of the Countryside"!!!!!

If it is felt fox numbers have to be controlled because Man has removed natural predators, then do so but why the need of a load of spectators on horse-back? Or do so many people have such a blood-lust?

Drag hunting is entirely different as no live animal is affected so is not part of the equation.

There are many people who genuinely feel that no animal should lose its life in the name of sport. So is hunting a sport, or vermin control? Of the latter, then definately no need for a bunch of followers. Let trained game-keepers (not trigger happy farmers) do the job.
 
Sorry Giles. Dont want yourself or Cammila thinking I am ignorant but have loads to do so will catch up later.

I was so busy talking on here and watching the Queen Mary 2's webcam as they went into Liverpool I lost track of time lol

Martin
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why do pro-hunting people always assume that anyone is not in full support of hunting is a bunny-hugging townie!!

I too am a life-long country dweller and am fully aware of the "fox-threat" to farmers. But as far as farmers are concerned, anything is a threat to them. They don't like badgers, birds of prey, rabbits, and the list goes on. And yet the government terms them "Custodians of the Countryside"!!!!!

If it is felt fox numbers have to be controlled because Man has removed natural predators, then do so but why the need of a load of spectators on horse-back? Or do so many people have such a blood-lust?

Drag hunting is entirely different as no live animal is affected so is not part of the equation.

There are many people who genuinely feel that no animal should lose its life in the name of sport. So is hunting a sport, or vermin control? Of the latter, then definately no need for a bunch of followers. Let trained game-keepers (not trigger happy farmers) do the job.

[/ QUOTE ]


TTC - I for one do not assume that all antis are bunny hugging town dwellers - honestly! I accept and respect all views and understand that views contrary to my own do come from all kinds of people!

Re: your 3rd Paragraph - it is not just a case of controlling numbers. The natural predators, and now hounds, actually selectively cull the fox population, keeping it healthy and sustainable. All other methods are non-selective. In order for hunts to operate, they need to be paid for - it is those riding to hounds who provide the funds for hunts to carry on.

I think the issue of controlling numbers/selective culling is one that gets muddied too often.
 
[ QUOTE ]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091018/tuk-tories-pledge-to-repeal-hunting-ban-6323e80.html

Would you now vote for the Tories? And do you think it'd actually happen?

ETS - spelling
blush.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

To answer the OP rather than get drawn into the rights and wrongs of hunting discussion...

I hunt but no, I wouldn't vote Tory just because of this. There are bigger issues to be considered, like the state of the economy. If the Tories get in, they will dessimate the NHS; they believe in a system like the US has, where if you can't afford to pay for your own healthcare (or have insurance for it) then you don't deserve to have healthcare at all. There would be no NHS if they get back in - Cameron is just a more PR friendly version of Thatcher.

They will stop spending to bring the economy out of the mess it is in. I agree that the Govt needs to slow down spending but when the economy is only just starting to level off, this is not the time to stop spending. The Tories believe firmly in a class system - public schools and private healthcare. They will tax the middle classes and provide little or no tax relief for the poor (and I am not wooley liberal who would let anyone and everyone live off the State because they can't be ar£ed to get a job!), yet will continue to give tax breaks to "upper" classes. Regardless of what David Cameron might profess, he and his party are there only to look after themselves. They genuinely don't care about anyone who doesn't have land, big houses etc.

There are bigger things at stake if the Tories get in. Labour aren't much better, but they aren't the Tories.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091018/tuk-tories-pledge-to-repeal-hunting-ban-6323e80.html

Would you now vote for the Tories? And do you think it'd actually



[/ QUOTE ]


I hunt but no, I wouldn't vote Tory just because of this. There are bigger issues to be considered, like the state of the economy. If the Tories get in, they will dessimate the NHS; they believe in a system like the US has, where if you can't afford to pay for your own healthcare (or have insurance for it) then you don't deserve to have healthcare at all. There would be no NHS if they get back in - Cameron is just a more PR friendly version of Thatcher.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunatly no matter what party comes in there will have to be major changes to the NHS. It is just now a question of waiting until someone is brave enough to do something about it. The NHS is unsustainable in its current form.
I work in the NHS I've seen first hand what a detrimental effect some of the recent changes have had, it saddens me to think that there will be a time where there might no longer be free healthcare for all but I cannot see where this country can go.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091018/tuk-tories-pledge-to-repeal-hunting-ban-6323e80.html

Would you now vote for the Tories? And do you think it'd actually happen?

ETS - spelling
blush.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

To answer the OP rather than get drawn into the rights and wrongs of hunting discussion...

I hunt but no, I wouldn't vote Tory just because of this. There are bigger issues to be considered, like the state of the economy. If the Tories get in, they will dessimate the NHS; they believe in a system like the US has, where if you can't afford to pay for your own healthcare (or have insurance for it) then you don't deserve to have healthcare at all. There would be no NHS if they get back in - Cameron is just a more PR friendly version of Thatcher.

They will stop spending to bring the economy out of the mess it is in. I agree that the Govt needs to slow down spending but when the economy is only just starting to level off, this is not the time to stop spending. The Tories believe firmly in a class system - public schools and private healthcare. They will tax the middle classes and provide little or no tax relief for the poor (and I am not wooley liberal who would let anyone and everyone live off the State because they can't be ar£ed to get a job!), yet will continue to give tax breaks to "upper" classes. Regardless of what David Cameron might profess, he and his party are there only to look after themselves. They genuinely don't care about anyone who doesn't have land, big houses etc.

There are bigger things at stake if the Tories get in. Labour aren't much better, but they aren't the Tories.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly (almost to the T) what I have been told time and time again about the Tories. I also will not vote Tory. BNP all the way... LOL JOKE!!!

I hate Labour but hate the Tories even more.x
 
I havent a ruddy clue which of them to vote for!!!!! Have been reading things like this and watching news more to make a more informed decision though so keep the opinions coming!
 
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] For the use of hunting full stop is ambiguous - so all hunting should be banned, including drag hunting? That, after all, can be looked on as just a silly game to no end.[ QUOTE ]


No. Drag hunting if that is what rocks your boat is fine by me if you can be proven to be trusted to leave the foxes alone. The jury is still of course out on that one.

[ QUOTE ]
Shoot them? Then, if the first shot is not instantly fatal, let them suffer before trying to shoot them again? And if they get away, let them die a lingering, painful death? Ah, such compassion for the poor foxy...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh the dramatics once more lol lol I hunt, I kill. But if I cannot make the shot I dont take it. Thats where the compassion and the humaness comes in but some of us DO actually have some control over oursleves and weapons when it comes to hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]

How marvellous, you get a clean shot and kill instantly every time. Shame everyone else in the world suffers from human error. You have perfect control over your weapon? Good for you, but unfortunately not everybody is as flawless.
 
<font color="blue"> How marvellous, you get a clean shot and kill instantly every time. Shame everyone else in the world suffers from human error. You have perfect control over your weapon? Good for you, but unfortunately not everybody is as flawless.
</font>

You need to add that this crackshot aim you have is also only employed well outside the breeding season, so as not to leave orphaned cubs dying slowly of starvation.

The Tories have said a repeal is on the list but not to the detriment of the far more pressing matters on their agenda when (not if) they are voted back in
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
this is not the time to stop spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

The country is already bankrupt, spending is not the answer. I will be voting Tory and not just because of my views on hunting, I believe their management of the economy, defence, health and crime will be more prudent than the current shower. Who couldn't be trusted to run a bath, let alone the UK.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You need to add that this crackshot aim you have is also only employed well outside the breeding season, so as not to leave orphaned cubs dying slowly of starvation.[ QUOTE ]


You have added it for me besides not sure why you feel I should have included that fact. I was writing a brief post not a book on shooting
wink.gif


Oh and the crackshot aim came from thorough training. Something anyone who goes out shooting should be forced by law to have undertaken IMO.
 
I would say that pie chart is b*ll*x!
Can you say where this information is from and provide a link to the website?
What is the author's definition of skilled?
A 'skilled' shooter would not wound that many foxes at 25yards they would be killed, even if they were using a shot-gun rather than a rifle.
What is unskilled person doing going out killing foxes anyway?

A very dubious piece of information if you ask me!
My husband has shot 16 foxes this year. 100% of the foxes he has shot at were killed with the first shot and they were at about 70 - 90 yards.
 
I agree Tinkerbee, I would be surprised really if this on its own was a key factor in anyone voting or not voting Tory at the next election. Hunting arouses strong feeling and high emotion on both sides of the debate, but a political party's stance on hunting would really not be that significant to me in deciding who to vote for. As an 'anti' this would not stop me from voting Conservative if I thought that their policies on society and economy were the best out there. As it happens I don't, but never the less!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is not the time to stop spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

The country is already bankrupt, spending is not the answer. I will be voting Tory and not just because of my views on hunting, I believe their management of the economy, defence, health and crime will be more prudent than the current shower. Who couldn't be trusted to run a bath, let alone the UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what would you suggest? That the Govt cuts front line NHS jobs, which is what will happen if the Tories get in? Or that they stop taking on teachers, so class sizes get bigger again? Or they could stop Govt funded construction projects and make people employed as part of those projects redundant? All in the name of prudence...

The Tories make a lot of claims but nothing is substantiated. They claim to want to impose caps on CO2 emissions, but can't say how they would go about it. They claim they will let people choose their own GP but how do they plan to stop GPs becoming oversubscribed and turning people away, much like NHS dentists at the moment? In principle, I agree with some Tory policies but there is nothing to the claims, no way to prove how they are going to achieve any of it.

I do agree with you to some extent about the current Govt though. I doubt I will be voting Labour either (I have never voted Labour), though whatever damage Gordon Brown and cronies have done, you can bet your life it will be worse under David Cameron.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunatly no matter what party comes in there will have to be major changes to the NHS. It is just now a question of waiting until someone is brave enough to do something about it. The NHS is unsustainable in its current form.
I work in the NHS I've seen first hand what a detrimental effect some of the recent changes have had, it saddens me to think that there will be a time where there might no longer be free healthcare for all but I cannot see where this country can go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that the NHS needs to change but I don't think the Tory way of doing it is the right way. I've worked with the NHS as a supplier and there is so much waste, it's frightening. There seems, from the outside looking in, to be a culture of just hiring more managers to sort things out.

Already a lot of services are contracted out to private hospitals (from my POV, I'm particularly thinking of things like pathology testing and so on). I agree that there need to be changes but it's a hell of a job. However, from what I can see of the Tories, they will just simply cut NHS budgets, which isn't the answer.
 
I would very much hope that people would vote for a party based on their policies of issues such as education, health, overseas engagement etc. rather then their stance on the huntnig bill.

If the Torries take office next year, which I very much suspect they will, I imagine the bill will be repealed quickly and quietly, without too much fuss.

However, as for voting for them just because they will do this, for me there are greater factors to take in to consideration.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What do you make of this Martin?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say Giles that AuntieDeeDee answered you perfectly lol lol

Mate, that chart has to represent shotguns and you should know by now that I am absolutely against the shooting of foxes with that weapon. IMO all hunting of foxes should ONLY be carried out by accomplished shots using rifles.
That in my very honest opinion is the ONLY humane method of fox control.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the Torries take office next year, which I very much suspect they will, I imagine the bill will be repealed quickly and quietly, without too much fuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to disagree
smirk.gif
but sreriously, you believe the act will be repealed quickly, quietly and without too much fuss?

I kid you not, messing about when banning hunting with hounds by a government due to strong opposition from the CA is one thing. But public reaction by those so far keeping quiet, to a government reintroducing a banned blood sport in this country will be something of the like no one has ever witnessed before. No way will the act be repealed.
 
No I suggest that they cut the useless and needless quangos that have been created by this government, there are also cuts to be made in the use of external consultants which has ensured that there is essentially two civil services. There are plenty of savings to be made without necessarily cutting front line jobs. However don't believe any party leaflet that claims they won't make cuts, it just doesn't stack up financially.

I think we will hear more from the conservatives about the nuts and bolts of how they will achieve manifesto commitments in the run up to the general election. Either way they are better than Labour who can only bleat that 12 years weren't enough time for them to implement change. Well just what were they doing with the time. They were handed an economy that was well in the black back in 1997 and have steadily pissed it all away.

Whoever we vote for there is a heap of pain ahead mainly of a fiscal nature, but of all the parties I trust Conservatives to get us back on a level footing.
 
“Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes” peer reviewed and published in Animal Welfare (May 06) concluded that “there was no (shooting) regime that had no probability of wounding, a factor that varied dramatically with gun-type, ammunition and range. ” Wounding rates were much higher than previously claimed – up to 50% in some cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top