Why are antis not really bothered about animal welfare?

[teddyt]

Haircuts? Is that what you call them? I thought theyd fallen in front of a blunt lawn mower.
Good point perdy. Zigzags siggie is not him however, its a famous woman off the telly. Hes being sarcastic!

 

[Eagle_day]

I often put myself in danger, the only reason I do it is because I know I can stop someone hunting.

But you don't. Ever. And indeed, in the old days, antis' interventions killed more foxes than they saved - usually by heading foxes straight back into the pack

 

[guido16]

Lets face it, the sabs have a bigger problem on their hands than the pro`s do.

Its pretty obvious that ALL pro`s are singing from the same song sheet, so to speak. But, there are most certainly 2 different categories of Sabs.
The small minority seem to be the ones who genuinely beleave in their cause - the welfare of the fox. They see hunting as cruel. Full stop.

Unfortunately, they majority are the ones who have jumped on the band wagon, a bit like football hooligans who have no interest in football but just want to cause trouble. These are the ones who attack hunters and their horses/hounds. They trespass, cause damage and most definately have no concern for animal welfare. I wonder if they know anything at all about the two sides to the debate!

Its a shame really as I beleave that without them these violent situations at hunt would not occur.

 

[blackstar]

I disagree with fox hunting. I also disagree with people endangering human, horse and hounds in attempts to sabotage hunts. So one can be 'anti' hunting and still care deeply about animal welfare. My issue with hunting is that I feel that even if one can make a genuine, valid argument for the control of fox numbers and for death by hound,(and I have yet to be convinced on either of these points) this does not in any way provide justification for turning it into a jolly ride out. This part of the forum is for those who support hunting. I don't venture on here often as I am neither on a crusade to convert others to my way of thinking, or looking for an argument. I do think though that from what I have read, there seems to be a generally accepted opinion on here that 'antis' are violent, ill informed anarchists who care little for the welfare of humans and animals and who are just spoiling for a fight. We are not all like that. Those people disgust me. I support the ban on hunting, though am sad to see that it has had little effect and wish it had been a better piece of legislation.

 

[suzysparkle]

I've never been hunting (never had the chance but recently found out there is one up this way so might look in to it!!!) but I totally appreciate why it's done. I live next door to a farm and 2 days ago a newborn lamb was taken by a fox. No surprise the fox came back and was shot by the farmer. I saw it earlier today up the road, beautiful creature but if I was the farmer I'd have shot it as well. Hunting with dogs means the fox is humanely killed so I can't see the issue. With shooting you can't guarantee a clean kill. People go hunting because it's fun and I doubt they ever see the actual kill.

There's nothing wrong with being opposed to it but I personally believe that those extremists certainly don't have animal welfare as their motivation. Interestingly, I saw a dead fox the other day at the side of the road and I'll bet no-one gave a sh*t about it. On another note I also saw 2 badgers that clearly weren't road kill. More like badger baiting and dumped.

I am massively against any animal cruelty but I dont view foxhunting as cruel. The fox has a chance to escape and if it is caught it is killed instantly. It also isn't uneccessary as they take farm animals so compromise an already tough livelyhood. You could argue that using slug pellets or setting mouse / rat traps (or using terriers to catch rats!!) is cruel but no-one seems to bother about that.

 

[Scratchline]

I disagree with fox hunting. I also disagree with people endangering human, horse and hounds in attempts to sabotage hunts. So one can be 'anti' hunting and still care deeply about animal welfare. My issue with hunting is that I feel that even if one can make a genuine, valid argument for the control of fox numbers and for death by hound,(and I have yet to be convinced on either of these points) this does not in any way provide justification for turning it into a jolly ride out. This part of the forum is for those who support hunting. I don't venture on here often as I am neither on a crusade to convert others to my way of thinking, or looking for an argument. I do think though that from what I have read, there seems to be a generally accepted opinion on here that 'antis' are violent, ill informed anarchists who care little for the welfare of humans and animals and who are just spoiling for a fight. We are not all like that. Those people disgust me. I support the ban on hunting, though am sad to see that it has had little effect and wish it had been a better piece of legislation.

Agree with your post 100% blackstar and feel exactly the same. What I find ludicrous is those who would gladly see a return of hunting as was, who post on this forum, are almost desperate to lay the blame for extreme sabs behaviour at the feet of any who disagree with them!
Horses/hounds attacked, people attacked ( on BOTH sides!!!), any illegal activity or cruelty I condem absolutely. To be honest I am suprised they cannot see a difference between those involved in such activity and others who merely disagree that hunting with hounds is either right or humane. Perhaps it is the ONLY thing that holds the hunters together.

One thing is becoming apparent. There are many members of this forum now prepared, with discussions ongoing and generally in a fair manner, to come out and state they ARE against hunting and why. This is a healthy debate and the extremism appears to be coming from those who are pro. They want us to be the nasty sabs but in fact we are merely anti cruelty!

 

[Scratchline]

i still dont understand how you are saving a fow, when you (anits) harm children, adults, horses, hounds, yes you are going to stop them hunting that day,

May I suggest perdy that you are treading a very fine line suggesting other members of this forum have been invovled in any illegal activity. Just because someone disagrees with you and the fox hunting you wish to partake in, which is now banned does not make them a sab! It doesnt mean they have ever done any of the awful things you are suggesting or that they ever would. Being anti hunting does not make them any less likely than YOU to thoroughly condem such behaviour.

This is a public forum perdy. I suggest you are a tad more carefull with such accusations )

 

[Scratchline]

Hunting with dogs means the fox is humanely killed so I can't see the issue.

Okay. If you took your pet to a vet and it needed to be put to sleep but rather than wasting an injection the vet threw it into a pack of pit bulls to be ripped apart, would you call that humane and be happy???????????

I am massively against any animal cruelty but I dont view foxhunting as cruel. The fox has a chance to escape and if it is caught it is killed instantly.

Again. If I grab one of the hounds and release it, then chase it with some Staffordshire Bull Terriers the hound may escape. If not it will be ripped apart "humanely", by the Staffs and you wouldnt mind, true?

Before you answer, an animal being classed as a pest doesnt negate its right to humaness IMO.

 

[Scratchline]

Lets face it, the sabs have a bigger problem on their hands than the pro`s do.

Its pretty obvious that ALL pro`s are singing from the same song sheet, so to speak. But, there are most certainly 2 different categories of Sabs.
The small minority seem to be the ones who genuinely beleave in their cause - the welfare of the fox. They see hunting as cruel. Full stop.

ROTFLMAO ) The sabs, the sabs??? Who cares about the sabs, they dont post here!
Those of us who do may be anti fox hunting or pro and perhaps when given the safety to speak out in decent discussions this forum itself may indeed be anti hunting by percentage. Who knows.
Of course, the vast majority of people in this country believe fox hunting to be a cruel and unecessary/sick bloodsport and want the ban enforced and if needs be strengthened.

That doesnt make them sabs and the law is already rightly aligned with their beliefs.

 

[Grey_Eventer]

i still dont understand how you are saving a fow, when you (anits) harm children, adults, horses, hounds, yes you are going to stop them hunting that day,

May I suggest perdy that you are treading a very fine line suggesting other members of this forum have been invovled in any illegal activity. Just because someone disagrees with you and the fox hunting you wish to partake in, which is now banned does not make them a sab! It doesnt mean they have ever done any of the awful things you are suggesting or that they ever would. Being anti hunting does not make them any less likely than YOU to thoroughly condem such behaviour.

This is a public forum perdy. I suggest you are a tad more carefull with such accusations )

i never said anyone on this forum has done anything illegal.... im not the one making acusations about people... i said "you" as it makes it easier not as in you personally or anyone on here personally, i would never make an accusation like that as i dont know you, so how would i know...
i dont think you Scratchline should be the on to tell me not to make accusations as you did just that about my father, all i said was he got hit on the head by a policeman, that in now way makes him have a "viloent history with the CA" i really do think that you should be careful about what you say, and stop being a hypocrtie!

 

[Herne]

It's not that antis aren't concerned about animal welfare, it's more that they don't understand anything about it.

Most antis have a very one dimensional view of the world. Stop the horrid hunters and all the little animals will live happily ever after.

They don't understand that stopping hunting doesn't stop killing, dying and suffering going on in the countryside, it just changes it. It simply means that different animals suffer in different ways.

If the hunter kills the fox, the fox dies; if the hunter is stopped from killing the fox then the rabbit dies. Either way, something dies.

It's at this point that your average anti says something like "Oh, well, that's ok, that’s natural" or "I don't care, as long as people don't wear silly clothes or make a spectacle out of it" - but those are just cop-out answers, attempting to divest themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

If I go out and hunt something, I know what I am doing and why I am doing it. I am creating a known amount of suffering to a known species of animal in a known quantity for known reasons and with known consequences. I have weighed those consequences and decided (rightly or wrongly) that I have made the right judgement.

The average anti does not know the consequences of his actions, and generally doesn’t want to know the consequences of his actions. The anti wants to believe that that only possible consequence of his actions is that suffering will be reduced and he will close his eyes and ears to anything else.

Quite frankly, my attitude is a heck of a lot more responsible than theirs.

The reality is that someone has to take responsibility for what goes on in the countryside. Every ecosystem requires balance to survive – but there is no natural balance in the British countryside, there is no wilderness. It all has to be managed.

Stop controlling foxes (and other predators) and in some areas avocets and other ground nesting birds will be wiped out, stop controlling mink and water voles will be wiped out.

Ok, say the antis, shoot them. Problem solved, la la la. But who is going to shoot them? Are the antis? No. Do they expect the hunters to do it? Remember, these are the people who they supposedly think enjoy inflicting unnecessary pain on animals – are they seriously proposing arming a load of sadists with guns and setting them loose on the local wildlife? No. Are they proposing to employ professional animal control wardens? If so, how? Who is going to pay them? Who is going to train them? Etc etc etc.

These are questions that the anti hunters ought to know the answers to. If they really care about animal welfare, they ought to know what will happen after they make the changes they propose.

(And this is why so many top bods in the League Against Cruel Sports jump ship - because in their position, they can no longer avoid these questions and they have no option but to realise that there are no fairy tale answers)

If you want definitive proof that antis don’t understand animal welfare, just look at the Hunting Act 2004. Less than 5% of that Bill should have been about stopping what has gone on for the past 200 years. The other 95% should be about what is going to go on for the next 200 years. But what provisions for the FUTURE management of wildlife are there in the Hunting Act 2004? NONE – except a few clauses that allow hunting to carry on under certain circumstances.

That is what antis know or care about animal welfare – and that is why they don’t deserve to be in charge.

 

[Hebegebe]

I have

Why not break such a stupid law?

 

[Herne]

Here is an example of what I say above:

Okay. If you took your pet to a vet and it needed to be put to sleep but rather than wasting an injection the vet threw it into a pack of pit bulls to be ripped apart, would you call that humane and be happy???????????

This is a typical soundbite that makes perfect sense to an anti. Killing the dog with other dogs is horrid, so it must be stopped. Q.E.D.

But what is the alternative?

If he took his dog to the vet to be put to sleep to prevent it from suffering and dying of some disease and the vet said to him "Rather than wasting and injection, just take it up the road and dump it in the ditch. It'll be dead in a few days." Would _he_ think that _that_ was humane?

Of course not.

But that is the reality of the situation. In the wild, no fox dies a humane death. Those that aren't shot or run over die of cold, disease, injury, infection, starvation or, most likely, a combination of those things.

Those are deaths that can involve days or weeks of suffering. Those are things for which you would be prosecuted if you allowed them to happen to a domesticated animal in your control.

Is being chased for an hour and ripped to bits in few seconds, violent and gruesome though that may be, really worse than the alternative?

Most antis will not be able to tell you, because they will never have even considered the question...

 

[Hebegebe]

Excellent post herne!

 

[teddyt]

Very articulate Herne, nice to read a well reasoned evaluation. Very interesting post

 

[jrp204]

Herne, whoever you are, thankyou for such a well written, sensible post, no doubt you will be still jumped on by some though.

 

[A1fie]

Very well put Herne.

 

[suzysparkle]

Animals chase and hunt other animals. In fact correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure foxes don't have natural predators in the UK. I would imagine Wolves would have been their natural predators but they were hunted to extinction here a long time ago. A pack of hounds who kill very efficiently is really no different . Foxes themselves kill other animals including valuable farm animals such as chickens and lambs as well as other wildlife. So like someone else has said if the fox lives then other animals die.

Your argument comaparing this to how a domestic pet is PTS doesn't make any sense. Do you suggest then that people capture foxes, thus putting it under mental stress while it sits in a crate and have it restrained while a vet gives it an injection?? A fox is a wild animal and being hunted unfortunately is part of what normal life intended for it. A domestic pet however doesn't have the same instinct to flee.

As for pests, well, I don't think unless you have been on the receiving end you can imagine what it's like. A friend of mine lost many chickens to foxes and I know the example I gave of the farmer wasn't the first time it's happened. Whose to say what to a fox is humane. Being chased by a pack is natures own way of controlling the population and I guess foxhunting is simply replicating this. If all our domestic pets were wild animals then they would be out hunting to eat. Your average cat that goes outside catches mice, rabbits, small birds etc. Many enjoy to torment them while alive so hardly kill humanely. Not many people lock outdoor cats in to prevent them doing this. We recently had mice in our shed and I've caught 7 in a trap (one at a time of course). All killed instantly. I classed them as a pest because they were eating everything in sight and making a real mess. So call me cruel but I bet many people would have done the same.

I would also imagine that the vast majority of riders go to enjoy the riding, not to watch the fox being killed. Ok being ripped apart by a pack is mighty unpleasant but it is over instantly. Hounds are very efficient killers and don't start to eat an animal while still alive, unlike Wolves!!

Like I said we are all entitled to our own opinion. I believe that if animals must be controlled then providing it is done in as humane a way as possible then it's acceptable. Hunting I believe providing it is done fairly and with well trained dogs is acceptable. I used to think it was cruel but that was until I actually did some research into it. In an ideal world nothing would be killed, and that includes for meat, but the world simply couldn't function in this manner.

 

[hellybelly6]

Whats a Fow?

Its not just fowes who are hunted people!! It hares, and deer too. I have never heard of a hare or deer taking lambs. Unfortunately nature is red in tooth and claw. The difference is they do it for survival.

 

[Hebegebe]

Deer destroy woodland though

 

[Scratchline]

Herne,suzysparkle and all who agree with you. My point was clear and correct about ripping animals apart with dogs. It is not humane or acceptable in any other walk of life and is rightly now banned in the sports you all support. Never to return.
You can talk about foxes, pests, damage to livestock or the coutryside to your hearts content. Those involved in farming etc can deal with pest control as they see fit as long as it is within the law. If it comes down to shooting then so be it but if shots are taken that shouldnt be then dont blame anyone but the hunter! I hunt in an absolute humane manner and so should everyone else, by law.
But the very simple fact is we as a country have decided that we are not prepared to allow anybody to hunt other wild animals to the death with and by dogs. Killing in that manner is wrong, cruel and now thankfully illegal.

Perhaps we should now all concentrate on the alternatives as hunting with hounds is FINISHED. End of.

 

[Hebegebe]

Do you think it causes a fox more suffering to be killed by a pack of dogs or to be shot and wounded and die over a period of weeks?

Peer reviewed scientific research shows high rates of wounding irrespective of the skill of the shooter.

 

[Hebegebe]

How about a deer being shot at point blank range and dieing instantly against a herd of flushe3d deer mown down by a line of guns.

Which do you think would die with the least suffering?

 

[Scratchline]

Your argument comaparing this to how a domestic pet is PTS doesn't make any sense.

It makes absolute sense. Nobody, anywhere would suggest that chasing and killing another animal by means of a pack of dogs is in any way humane. Nobody! You wouldnt do it to your horses or hounds or other pets. You wouldnt do it nor would you let anybody else.
It is therefore not a humane way to kill a fox and is completely banned.

 

[Scratchline]

Do you think it causes a fox more suffering to be killed by a pack of dogs or to be shot and wounded and die over a period of weeks?

No idea but given the choice I would choose to be shot and die over a period of weeks than killed by a pack of dogs.

Peer reviewed scientific research shows high rates of wounding irrespective of the skill of the shooter.

How many of those shots should never have been taken according to that research?

 

[Scratchline]

How about a deer being shot at point blank range and dieing instantly against a herd of flushe3d deer mown down by a line of guns.

Which do you think would die with the least suffering?

If they are all cleanly killed with a shot the suffering would be the same.

 

[Hebegebe]

No idea but given the choice I would choose to be shot and die over a period of weeks than killed by a pack of dogs.
.
How many of those shots should never have been taken according to that research?

Would you choose a 5 in 6 chance of escaping over a long slow and certain death?

None they were all taken in conditions under which countless foxes are legally killed and wounded every year.

 

[Hebegebe]

But you must be aware that it is far harder to cleanly kill a herd of fleeing deer than one at point blank range.

You must realise that the probablity of suffering is far higher in the former case.

Yet in the former case under the law you support it is illegal NOT to shoot the deer.

That is downright disgusting.

 

[Scratchline]

Would you choose a 5 in 6 chance of escaping over a long slow and certain death?

Bud, if most of the time it is just about riding around terrorising animals and occasionally catching them and ripping them to shreds with the hounds its pretty clear why it is now banned.

None they were all taken in conditions under which countless foxes are legally killed every year.

So many of the shots should never have been taken in the first place. Time for another law change perhaps?! )) The present law has without doubt made it obvious that other practices need looking at more carefully. We have as a country made inroads into cruelty in our countryside and no doubt the animals in question will soon be properly protected by law against hunters who dont at present care about the suffering their actions cause. Lets keep the ball rolling.

 

[Hebegebe]

But they were all taken in the same circumstances and scientifically controlled to be so. .Basically lamping foxes at night.

There is no effective way of killing foxes that does not wound them apart from hunting.

What is worse is that the current law REQUIRES shots to be taken when they should not be.

How can you support that?