combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Oh I get it now. People are only considered as engaging in serious debate if they agree with YOUR point of view, no matter how polite or reasoned a post from the other side of the fence may be.
What do you think about this?
- Thread starter Fantastic_Mr_Fox
- Start date
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
I have always seen hunting as being a management tool. Terrierwork is a vital part of that. It is the landowner's decision whether the quarry is left or dug and humanely dispatched. Once again the prime thoughts always lie with the fox hunting brigade, but there are many other quarry species where terrierwork was key - the mink hound packs for example where it was more common for a mink to be put to ground in the bank than to tree it or catch it on top.
We need to be looking at the wider picture.
We need to be looking at the wider picture.
LauraWheeler
Well-Known Member
My thoughts egsactly. I have tried to have a reasnable debate with this person but they have just not listened to anything i have to say. But how can you have a reasonable debate when the OP was so obviosly ment to cause offence and stur up strong feelings in anyone who is pro hunting. The insedent has nothing to do with hunting which has been pointed out many times but our points of view are not listened to. The OP will only listen to someone with the same view as them. There is no point in carrying on with this discution as i am not being listend to and if i dare question any of the OP choices in life that is wrong. Untill the OP feels able to answer questions about their lifestyle choices perhaps they should not question others.
Fantastic_Mr_Fox
Active Member
Ok, fire some questions at me and I will answer them.......
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I looked up the Burns report which said lamping by serious gunmen was equally as humane as hunting with hounds.
That group is not "neither pro nor anti", it is firmly pro and seeking a compromise to allow hunting with hounds to continue.
I would rather listen to the gunmen themselves and view the evidence of my own eyes where I live than trust a report funded by a group who are seeking a way to re-establish hunting with hounds.
I'll bet my bottom dollar that there are gunmen in this country who would claw each others eyes out for the chance to pay large sums of money to stalk and shoot a deer. It does not require the deer to be chased by a pack of hounds first. I have to say that I am firmly against hunting deer with hounds and find the argument that the best way to kill an old sick or injured deer is to chase it with a pack of dogs first entirely disgusting.
It could be paid for by the stalking fees. My brother regularly collects deer road kill and eats them.
The fallen stock scheme run by my drag hunt, for example?
Conservation does not require hunting. I live in a National Park which in my area is not hunted with hounds but which is heavily and expensively conserved by the residents and considerable sums of EU money.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. It is illogical to claim that you do not hunt to enjoy killing animals and then get at me for not addressing the fact that you will lose your fun watching the hounds chase and kill a fox.
The original poster posted to get a rise out of pro hunting people, and she managed it, didn't she? I wish it was possible to discuss this issue without some of the rubbish it throws up.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
I quote directly from the Burns report:
"None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications."
The clue to Middle Way Group lies in the name - they fall somewhere in the middle, taking a realistic view that yes species have to be controlled but that the answer lies in serious academic study rather than the hysterical psuedo-science practised by the League Against Cruel Sports and their ilk. You only have to pick up a copy of Rural Rites by Pye Smith to realise just how flawed some of their 'evidence' has been.
This is where we differ, I prefer to rely on serious academic papers backed up with personal knowledge rather than relying on anecdotal evidence from people who have just as much cause to be biased towards shooting as a huntsman might be towards hunting with hounds.
Once again your lack of knowledge shows itself. Much of Exmoor consists of small holdings and woodland without deer fencing. This makes arranging stalking complicated and the chances of losing a wounded deer far greater. Though your support for shooting of foxes already shows you don't care about the wounding rates. A hunted deer is shot in the head at close range, something that is not practiced in the art of stalking.
I am not talking about roadkill deer, I am talking about those who are badly wounded in road traffic accidents or who break legs and shoulders in other incidents. The West country packs provide this service at any time of day or night to track injured deer. An alternative scheme would be a nightmare to implement and the difficulties of organised stalking make the levy unrealistic.
We have been over the fallen stock issue already. Your drag pack is very much in the minority. The bulk of them, round here at least tend to feed biscuit rather than flesh, because most of them could not afford the huge costs involved in converting their facilities to match up to the Animal By-products regulations.
In the areas that I have experience of hunts and shoots own huge tracts of land that is managed for sporting interests, but with huge benefits for wildlife. The Badgworthy Land Company on Exmoor is a prime example, but this is not an isolated case. Some of the best managed woodland locally is that owned by shoots. But I forgot your anecdotal evidence is far, far more important than any peer reviewed research from academics. For those who are interested the papers can be downloaded here:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/dice/research/england_hunting.html
I'm trying to work out whether you are reading my posts or just reacting hysterically to what you think I have written. Which part of 'I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH A DRAG PACK ON MY BIKE' is proving quite so difficult to grasp and before you claim that your anecdotal evidence suggests that bike and foot followers can easily keep up, I have tried following by bike from meets that I know like the back of my hand and cannot keep up with the blistering pace without completely knackering my knees again. Herne has also explained to you the difference of scent laying that make drag hunting less like quarry hunting and thus less pleasurable to those who go to watch the skill of a huntsman working his hounds. Nowhere do I state that I get pleasure from the kill and I resent you inferring that everyone who chooses to follow a quarry pack is some bloodthirsty killer.
I'm not entirely sure that you can call a politely worded defence of the pro-hunting position as getting a rise, but no doubt your anecdotal evidence makes it thus.
"None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications."
The clue to Middle Way Group lies in the name - they fall somewhere in the middle, taking a realistic view that yes species have to be controlled but that the answer lies in serious academic study rather than the hysterical psuedo-science practised by the League Against Cruel Sports and their ilk. You only have to pick up a copy of Rural Rites by Pye Smith to realise just how flawed some of their 'evidence' has been.
This is where we differ, I prefer to rely on serious academic papers backed up with personal knowledge rather than relying on anecdotal evidence from people who have just as much cause to be biased towards shooting as a huntsman might be towards hunting with hounds.
Once again your lack of knowledge shows itself. Much of Exmoor consists of small holdings and woodland without deer fencing. This makes arranging stalking complicated and the chances of losing a wounded deer far greater. Though your support for shooting of foxes already shows you don't care about the wounding rates. A hunted deer is shot in the head at close range, something that is not practiced in the art of stalking.
I am not talking about roadkill deer, I am talking about those who are badly wounded in road traffic accidents or who break legs and shoulders in other incidents. The West country packs provide this service at any time of day or night to track injured deer. An alternative scheme would be a nightmare to implement and the difficulties of organised stalking make the levy unrealistic.
We have been over the fallen stock issue already. Your drag pack is very much in the minority. The bulk of them, round here at least tend to feed biscuit rather than flesh, because most of them could not afford the huge costs involved in converting their facilities to match up to the Animal By-products regulations.
In the areas that I have experience of hunts and shoots own huge tracts of land that is managed for sporting interests, but with huge benefits for wildlife. The Badgworthy Land Company on Exmoor is a prime example, but this is not an isolated case. Some of the best managed woodland locally is that owned by shoots. But I forgot your anecdotal evidence is far, far more important than any peer reviewed research from academics. For those who are interested the papers can be downloaded here:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/dice/research/england_hunting.html
I'm trying to work out whether you are reading my posts or just reacting hysterically to what you think I have written. Which part of 'I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH A DRAG PACK ON MY BIKE' is proving quite so difficult to grasp and before you claim that your anecdotal evidence suggests that bike and foot followers can easily keep up, I have tried following by bike from meets that I know like the back of my hand and cannot keep up with the blistering pace without completely knackering my knees again. Herne has also explained to you the difference of scent laying that make drag hunting less like quarry hunting and thus less pleasurable to those who go to watch the skill of a huntsman working his hounds. Nowhere do I state that I get pleasure from the kill and I resent you inferring that everyone who chooses to follow a quarry pack is some bloodthirsty killer.
I'm not entirely sure that you can call a politely worded defence of the pro-hunting position as getting a rise, but no doubt your anecdotal evidence makes it thus.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
"I'm trying to work out whether you are reading my posts or just reacting hysterically to what you think I have written. Which part of 'I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH A DRAG PACK ON MY BIKE' is proving quite so difficult to grasp "
If this is addressed to me, you have in the same paragraph accused me of not reading your posts before replying and quoted something that you believe you have read in mine which I never wrote.
"I resent you inferring that everyone who chooses to follow a quarry pack is some bloodthirsty killer. "
This is your inference and certainly not a point that I made. You asked me to address the issue that "drag hunting has nothing for the average follower of hounds". If you are not referring to getting pleasure from watching hounds hunt fox, to what are you referring? Your pleasure requires an occasional kill, or it would be line hunting not fox hunting, and therefore you ARE getting pleasure from the kill whether you wish to accept that or not. If you want a day walking or driving in the country with friends you can do that whenever you like. The presence of the hounds hunting fox is necessary for your enjoyment. This does not make you a bloodthirsty killer and therefore I would never have said such a thing. It does, however invalidate the argument that many (perhaps not you) pro-hunting people make that they do NOT follow the hunt for the pleasure of seeing an animal hunted and killed. I have no big axe to grind about that, but I do wish hunters would be honest about it.
"Your drag pack is very much in the minority. The bulk of them, round here at least tend to feed biscuit rather than flesh, because most of them could not afford the huge costs involved in converting their facilities to match up to the Animal By-products regulations. "
My drag pack do not process the carcasses, they pay an abattoir to do it. This service is provided to reward farmers for allowing us to ride across their land. If fox hunting stays banned then I predict that much of the country will be covered by drag packs offering similar services. Other than killing foxes, which is currently done by other means, there are no services offered by a fox hunt that cannot also be offered by a drag hunt. People who hunt to ride will not just stop going out, they will convert to drag packs and provide whatever incentive they need to to get farmers to allow them onto their land.
If my brother (a van salesman in Newbury) will go out of his way to fetch, skin, gut, butcher and cook a roadkill deer, he would go out of his way to help with the management of sick deer in return for the meat. I doubt very much that he is alone. Exmoor is not the only place that manages deer, but it is the only place I am aware of that the management was, in the last 50 years or more until the ban, done with hounds. We have plenty of deer around here too, with a herd of over twenty living in a one acre wood across the road from me. They are managed by lamping, not by hunting with hounds.
I would have more sympathy with shooting a deer through the head at close range as an alternative to shooting it through the heart at longer range if it did not require the animal, which by definition is sick, old, or injured, to be chased by a pack of hounds first. We do, after all, in this day and age have guns capable of taking a man out with a head shot at a distance of 2 miles.
"The clue to Middle Way Group lies in the name - they fall somewhere in the middle, "
The clue to the Middle Way Group does indeed lie in the name. They want hunting to continue and are seeking a "Middle Way" between totally unregulated and totally banned hunting to allow that to happen. If they were not pro hunting there would be no need for a middle way, they would simply be in favour of the ban.
If this is addressed to me, you have in the same paragraph accused me of not reading your posts before replying and quoted something that you believe you have read in mine which I never wrote.
"I resent you inferring that everyone who chooses to follow a quarry pack is some bloodthirsty killer. "
This is your inference and certainly not a point that I made. You asked me to address the issue that "drag hunting has nothing for the average follower of hounds". If you are not referring to getting pleasure from watching hounds hunt fox, to what are you referring? Your pleasure requires an occasional kill, or it would be line hunting not fox hunting, and therefore you ARE getting pleasure from the kill whether you wish to accept that or not. If you want a day walking or driving in the country with friends you can do that whenever you like. The presence of the hounds hunting fox is necessary for your enjoyment. This does not make you a bloodthirsty killer and therefore I would never have said such a thing. It does, however invalidate the argument that many (perhaps not you) pro-hunting people make that they do NOT follow the hunt for the pleasure of seeing an animal hunted and killed. I have no big axe to grind about that, but I do wish hunters would be honest about it.
"Your drag pack is very much in the minority. The bulk of them, round here at least tend to feed biscuit rather than flesh, because most of them could not afford the huge costs involved in converting their facilities to match up to the Animal By-products regulations. "
My drag pack do not process the carcasses, they pay an abattoir to do it. This service is provided to reward farmers for allowing us to ride across their land. If fox hunting stays banned then I predict that much of the country will be covered by drag packs offering similar services. Other than killing foxes, which is currently done by other means, there are no services offered by a fox hunt that cannot also be offered by a drag hunt. People who hunt to ride will not just stop going out, they will convert to drag packs and provide whatever incentive they need to to get farmers to allow them onto their land.
If my brother (a van salesman in Newbury) will go out of his way to fetch, skin, gut, butcher and cook a roadkill deer, he would go out of his way to help with the management of sick deer in return for the meat. I doubt very much that he is alone. Exmoor is not the only place that manages deer, but it is the only place I am aware of that the management was, in the last 50 years or more until the ban, done with hounds. We have plenty of deer around here too, with a herd of over twenty living in a one acre wood across the road from me. They are managed by lamping, not by hunting with hounds.
I would have more sympathy with shooting a deer through the head at close range as an alternative to shooting it through the heart at longer range if it did not require the animal, which by definition is sick, old, or injured, to be chased by a pack of hounds first. We do, after all, in this day and age have guns capable of taking a man out with a head shot at a distance of 2 miles.
"The clue to Middle Way Group lies in the name - they fall somewhere in the middle, "
The clue to the Middle Way Group does indeed lie in the name. They want hunting to continue and are seeking a "Middle Way" between totally unregulated and totally banned hunting to allow that to happen. If they were not pro hunting there would be no need for a middle way, they would simply be in favour of the ban.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
You have a very short memory. To remind you, you wrote:
'that you will lose your fun watching the hounds chase and kill a fox.'
This to me rather infers that you find everyone who hunts with a quarry pack is a bloodthirsty killer who gets their sole enjoyment from the kill. My pleasure comes from watching hounds working under a skilled huntsman. This is a distinctly different thing. I also get pleasure from being out in the countryside on my bike with my friends, accessing areas that I am not usually allowed over. This married with the challenge of trying to guess where the day's draw will take me. I never ever ask the huntsman where he is planning to draw, as I like the element of surprise. Just going for a walk or a bike ride would be pretty pointless as I hunt for the pleasure of watching my hounds working the trail or flushing to an eagle. I will reiterate as it still hasn't seemed to sink in that drag packs are too fast for me to keep up with and thus my chances of seeing the hound work (such that it is in drag packs) are greatly reduced. Thus although there is no kill, that is NOT the reason why drag hunting is so damn boring to the average follower on foot, bike and in cars.
It would be very difficult to have an organised casualty scheme. It would be even more difficult to administrate and we have already seen that DEFRA couldn't run a bath let alone a wildlife management scheme. Deer managed by lamping is very much illegal, which as a self-professed legal expert on hunting law I am amazed that you didn't know.
Since anecdotal evidence is so much preferred by the anti-hunting members of the forum. I have witnessed stag hunting, I have witnessed a kill at close quarters and I have never seen the deer distressed or pushed. The Harbourer picks out the deer for the day, it might be an older stag, it might be one that has a healed injury but is not thriving. A skilled marksman who rides with the hunt is on hand with a short barrelled shotgun to dispatch the deer at the end of the hunt. This for me makes stag hunting the most effective way of managing the deer population. I note you didn't bother to answer my points about the logistics of organising stalking in an area vastly different to where the other red deer herds reside.
The Middle Way Group are vastly preferable to the rabidly anti MPs who cannot see any further than a class war. If you don't believe me just look at some of the comments recorded in Hansard, oh wait no, you can't do that - it isn't anecdotal evidence and doesn't support your view of life.
Any comments on the rubbish science utilised by the anti-hunting brigade?
'that you will lose your fun watching the hounds chase and kill a fox.'
This to me rather infers that you find everyone who hunts with a quarry pack is a bloodthirsty killer who gets their sole enjoyment from the kill. My pleasure comes from watching hounds working under a skilled huntsman. This is a distinctly different thing. I also get pleasure from being out in the countryside on my bike with my friends, accessing areas that I am not usually allowed over. This married with the challenge of trying to guess where the day's draw will take me. I never ever ask the huntsman where he is planning to draw, as I like the element of surprise. Just going for a walk or a bike ride would be pretty pointless as I hunt for the pleasure of watching my hounds working the trail or flushing to an eagle. I will reiterate as it still hasn't seemed to sink in that drag packs are too fast for me to keep up with and thus my chances of seeing the hound work (such that it is in drag packs) are greatly reduced. Thus although there is no kill, that is NOT the reason why drag hunting is so damn boring to the average follower on foot, bike and in cars.
It would be very difficult to have an organised casualty scheme. It would be even more difficult to administrate and we have already seen that DEFRA couldn't run a bath let alone a wildlife management scheme. Deer managed by lamping is very much illegal, which as a self-professed legal expert on hunting law I am amazed that you didn't know.
Since anecdotal evidence is so much preferred by the anti-hunting members of the forum. I have witnessed stag hunting, I have witnessed a kill at close quarters and I have never seen the deer distressed or pushed. The Harbourer picks out the deer for the day, it might be an older stag, it might be one that has a healed injury but is not thriving. A skilled marksman who rides with the hunt is on hand with a short barrelled shotgun to dispatch the deer at the end of the hunt. This for me makes stag hunting the most effective way of managing the deer population. I note you didn't bother to answer my points about the logistics of organising stalking in an area vastly different to where the other red deer herds reside.
The Middle Way Group are vastly preferable to the rabidly anti MPs who cannot see any further than a class war. If you don't believe me just look at some of the comments recorded in Hansard, oh wait no, you can't do that - it isn't anecdotal evidence and doesn't support your view of life.
Any comments on the rubbish science utilised by the anti-hunting brigade?
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
"This to me rather infers that you find everyone who hunts with a quarry pack is a bloodthirsty killer who gets their sole enjoyment from the kill. "
I repeat, I explicitly state that this is not my inference.
You seem unable to make the connection that you can't have the enjoyment you get from hunting without hounds chasing and killing foxes. You serve no purpose to the day's hunt as a foot or car or bike follower. You are out purely for your own enjoyment. That enjoyment is enjoyment of the hunt, which includes the chase and the kill. It doesn't mean you love seeing a fox torn to pieces by hounds, but it does mean that you enjoy the activity of which it is an integral part. If you want hunting to continue simply beause it is the best way of controlling fox, then you would not be a foot follower. You do that for fun, and that fun depends on foxes being killed.
I don't mind this one way or the other, but why can't you just be honest about it?
I haven't researched the anti argument, so I offer no comment on their science, rubbish or otherwise.
"as a self-professed legal expert on hunting law"
I must correct you on this in case other people reading believe I have skills and knowledge that I do not. I am no such thing and I have never claimed to be so.
Lamping deer with a section 42 licence and the permission of the landowner is legal.
I repeat, I explicitly state that this is not my inference.
You seem unable to make the connection that you can't have the enjoyment you get from hunting without hounds chasing and killing foxes. You serve no purpose to the day's hunt as a foot or car or bike follower. You are out purely for your own enjoyment. That enjoyment is enjoyment of the hunt, which includes the chase and the kill. It doesn't mean you love seeing a fox torn to pieces by hounds, but it does mean that you enjoy the activity of which it is an integral part. If you want hunting to continue simply beause it is the best way of controlling fox, then you would not be a foot follower. You do that for fun, and that fun depends on foxes being killed.
I don't mind this one way or the other, but why can't you just be honest about it?
I haven't researched the anti argument, so I offer no comment on their science, rubbish or otherwise.
"as a self-professed legal expert on hunting law"
I must correct you on this in case other people reading believe I have skills and knowledge that I do not. I am no such thing and I have never claimed to be so.
Lamping deer with a section 42 licence and the permission of the landowner is legal.
endymion
Well-Known Member
FMF:
There's no point asking these people that question. Most probably are genuinely horrified by such cruelty as was in your story. The problem is that they can't relate it to fox hunting because most of them ride in the field; they never see the fox getting killed, they're too busy chatting with their mates and socialising!
There's no point asking these people that question. Most probably are genuinely horrified by such cruelty as was in your story. The problem is that they can't relate it to fox hunting because most of them ride in the field; they never see the fox getting killed, they're too busy chatting with their mates and socialising!
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
That is how your wording came over to me. Perhaps you ought to try being a little bit more subtle with your language.
Your logic is a complete jumble of ideas that just seem to spill off your keyboard. I enjoy hunting because I acknowledge the role it plays in the countryside. The fact that during the winter is my off duty part of the year I do not have a formal role to play on the hunting field does not diminish the fact that it was and within the confines of the Hunting Act is still a vital management tool. I freely admit that I am not a good enough rider to whip in to a mounted pack during the winter. I happen to whip in to a pack that hunts during the summer months, but no doubt that will confirm your opinion of me as a bloodthirsty killer. Your logic that I cannot enjoy hunting without enjoying the kill which would have been an integral part of hunting pre-ban is flawed in the extreme. For example I don't much like watching crunching tackles and the serious injuries that are an integral part of modern rugby, but that doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy and get pleasure from watching the other parts of the game. To suggest otherwise is completely illogical.
Perhaps if you are so anti-hunting, you might just want to look at some of the 'evidence' they put forward to support their argument. If they can't get the basic science right can we really trust them when they bleat on about KNOWING that hunts are breaking the law.
I do believe that on an older thread that you told me that and I paraphrase 'of course you had knowledge of the hunting act because you were a JP'. Yet I suspect your most recent claim is nearer the mark. I am no expert on deer law, but the Section 42 notice appears to apply only in Ireland. The Deer Act 1991 clearly states that Subject to sections 6 and 8 below, if any person takes or intentionally kills any deer between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Your logic is a complete jumble of ideas that just seem to spill off your keyboard. I enjoy hunting because I acknowledge the role it plays in the countryside. The fact that during the winter is my off duty part of the year I do not have a formal role to play on the hunting field does not diminish the fact that it was and within the confines of the Hunting Act is still a vital management tool. I freely admit that I am not a good enough rider to whip in to a mounted pack during the winter. I happen to whip in to a pack that hunts during the summer months, but no doubt that will confirm your opinion of me as a bloodthirsty killer. Your logic that I cannot enjoy hunting without enjoying the kill which would have been an integral part of hunting pre-ban is flawed in the extreme. For example I don't much like watching crunching tackles and the serious injuries that are an integral part of modern rugby, but that doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy and get pleasure from watching the other parts of the game. To suggest otherwise is completely illogical.
Perhaps if you are so anti-hunting, you might just want to look at some of the 'evidence' they put forward to support their argument. If they can't get the basic science right can we really trust them when they bleat on about KNOWING that hunts are breaking the law.
I do believe that on an older thread that you told me that and I paraphrase 'of course you had knowledge of the hunting act because you were a JP'. Yet I suspect your most recent claim is nearer the mark. I am no expert on deer law, but the Section 42 notice appears to apply only in Ireland. The Deer Act 1991 clearly states that Subject to sections 6 and 8 below, if any person takes or intentionally kills any deer between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
Let's hope the Court Clerk is up to scratch then.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
The two are completely different anyway. The original story was about gratuitous cruelty to animals. If you want a serious discussion you have to understand that although you might not like it yourself there IS a serious purpose to hunting fox and that is to reduce the number of vermin in the countryside preying on farm animals. You may believe that there are better ways to do that. But that is beside the point. Comparing the original story with fox hunting is comparing chalk with cheese.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
"but no doubt that will confirm your opinion of me as a bloodthirsty killer."
How many times do I have to say this? I have no such opinion. I never said any such thing. I did not imply such a thing. I do not believe it. I did not write it.
"Perhaps you ought to try being a little bit more subtle with your language. "
Perhaps you should try not being such a victim and reading insult where there is none?
"I do believe that on an older thread that you told me that and I paraphrase 'of course you had knowledge of the hunting act because you were a JP'."
Your belief is incorrect. I would never have made such a claim because it would have been untrue. I think that you are referring to a patronising post that someone made about how the law operates vis "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt", when I pointed out that I know full well how the law works. I have never claimed to know hunting law and in fact I have openly stated on this forum that I have learned about it from posts made by other people.
Thankyou for correcting my mistake about section 42, I googled it and failed to realise that it was only in Ireland. Presumably the people who shoot our deer do it in daylight or illegally.
I am baffled why you want to pick a fight with me Combat Claire - I'm not even an anti!
How many times do I have to say this? I have no such opinion. I never said any such thing. I did not imply such a thing. I do not believe it. I did not write it.
"Perhaps you ought to try being a little bit more subtle with your language. "
Perhaps you should try not being such a victim and reading insult where there is none?
"I do believe that on an older thread that you told me that and I paraphrase 'of course you had knowledge of the hunting act because you were a JP'."
Your belief is incorrect. I would never have made such a claim because it would have been untrue. I think that you are referring to a patronising post that someone made about how the law operates vis "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt", when I pointed out that I know full well how the law works. I have never claimed to know hunting law and in fact I have openly stated on this forum that I have learned about it from posts made by other people.
Thankyou for correcting my mistake about section 42, I googled it and failed to realise that it was only in Ireland. Presumably the people who shoot our deer do it in daylight or illegally.
I am baffled why you want to pick a fight with me Combat Claire - I'm not even an anti!
endymion
Well-Known Member
My point was simply that people who only ride in the field and never see the fox being killed first hand are in no position to comment. They're just glorified happy hackers.
mrsdickinson
Well-Known Member
Oh i say!!
At last the hunting forum has come alive :shocked:
Fantastice Mr Fox!!!!!!!! Do you own a horse/ride/own land/understand the culture?
Or is this just your unqualified opinion based upon media frenzy?
And, just to clarify, the equestrian people i know and mix with are not the same as those 'yobs' who did that mindless and unintelligent attack on those animals.
We work hard for our life style and are very dedicated people.
At last the hunting forum has come alive :shocked:
Fantastice Mr Fox!!!!!!!! Do you own a horse/ride/own land/understand the culture?
Or is this just your unqualified opinion based upon media frenzy?
And, just to clarify, the equestrian people i know and mix with are not the same as those 'yobs' who did that mindless and unintelligent attack on those animals.
We work hard for our life style and are very dedicated people.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
" We also had two gunmen, one previously a strong supporter of hunting with hounds and now firmly against on humanitarian grounds, tell us that their kills are clean. They are targetting the right animals by shooting them where they prey,"
Sorry - I have no problem with responsible shooting of foxes for control purposes, but ANY fox who is caught in the lamp is shot by the VAST majority of those who go fox shooting. FACT!
"Much of the argument above also seems to infer that hunting with hounds replaces other methods of fox control. I understand that the statistic was that 70% of foxes were killed by other means"
I think you mean it IMPLIES (sorry to be pedantic but infer is one of THE most incorrectly used words!) Foxhunting with hounds didn't replace other methods - in some areas it played a very small part in overall fox control; but in other areas it provided up to 70% of the control. In some areas, some methods are more suitable than others. Now, of course, snaring and other not particularly 'humane' methods have replaced hunting with hounds - I doubt a fox caught in a snare would agree that's a good thing!
"I also can't see the slightest conflict between being against hunting fox with hounds and for eating farmed meat."
Really?? And do you know just how many sheep farmers called in the hunt for fox control - and not just on normal hunting days, but on lambing calls?? So thousands of foxes were killed by hounds and terriers every year, just so you could enjoy your lamb chops!
"and we need serious discussion on this, not ridicule. "
Serious discussion would be easier if some of the anti-hunt propaganda wasn'tSO easy to ridicule! :grin:
Sorry - I have no problem with responsible shooting of foxes for control purposes, but ANY fox who is caught in the lamp is shot by the VAST majority of those who go fox shooting. FACT!
"Much of the argument above also seems to infer that hunting with hounds replaces other methods of fox control. I understand that the statistic was that 70% of foxes were killed by other means"
I think you mean it IMPLIES (sorry to be pedantic but infer is one of THE most incorrectly used words!) Foxhunting with hounds didn't replace other methods - in some areas it played a very small part in overall fox control; but in other areas it provided up to 70% of the control. In some areas, some methods are more suitable than others. Now, of course, snaring and other not particularly 'humane' methods have replaced hunting with hounds - I doubt a fox caught in a snare would agree that's a good thing!
"I also can't see the slightest conflict between being against hunting fox with hounds and for eating farmed meat."
Really?? And do you know just how many sheep farmers called in the hunt for fox control - and not just on normal hunting days, but on lambing calls?? So thousands of foxes were killed by hounds and terriers every year, just so you could enjoy your lamb chops!
"and we need serious discussion on this, not ridicule. "
Serious discussion would be easier if some of the anti-hunt propaganda wasn'tSO easy to ridicule! :grin:
Nortonlala
Well-Known Member
Very sad and very wrong in many different ways.
mrsdickinson
Well-Known Member
??????
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
No terriers hunting fox here for sheep farmers Janet George, just gunmen and not very often at that. The foxes do a job keeping down the overabundance of rabbits, I think we need them alive. So no hunting fox with hounds or terriers. Plenty of lamb chops though.
JVB
Well-Known Member
Pointless argument and best to ignore...
joe_carby
Well-Known Member
lmao it takes a special person with a severe lack of knowledge to make the comparison between that scenario and hunting.
mrsdickinson
Well-Known Member
Absolutely!
soggy
Well-Known Member
PMSL
You of course will have witnessed hounds killing a fox dozens of times from the window of your high rise flat in East London.......
I have to admit you have some stamina. How you and the other moronic antis have manage to keep of peddling the endless bullshit for all these years takes some doing. Still I suppose it beat working for a living. Or actually being in touch with reality.
The old maxim of never argue with an idiot as they will always beat you due to their years of practice, certainly holds true where you anti's are concerned.
Do you get some sort of Blue Peter badge for being as moronically idiotic as possible?
Or does it as some suggest simply come naturally?
soggy
Well-Known Member
Or a complete cretin.
My vote goes firmly on cretin.
soggy
Well-Known Member
And bullshit going by some of your posts.
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
I vote 'cretin'.