[Closed] Hunting with dogs?

your first line is incorrect he has said it would be a free vote if it came up, thats very different and points towards a certain gutlessness on his part IMO. Not that I'm bothered as I would never vote tory anyway.

There is another dimension to this, namely the different cultural opinions that exist between rural and urban communities regarding wildlife. What was seen as a humanitarian act by many was actually seen as an attack on cultural values by others.

5. I don't inflict cruelty on any other species for my own well being or satisfaction. Why should we?

Ever swatted a fly, spider, or a midge?

I'm against foxhunting for various reasons, though I understand the appeal for its supporters. We dont lament for the lost world and nobility of the dog-fighting scene now do we?.
The control argument is false. One of my customers is a pest control freelancer who is brought in by various estates when traditional methods fail. His views of the foxhunting communities methods were, to me, very surprising- complete contempt.
In fact if you want to kill more foxes, drive more.
While I don't have a strong view on sport angling, your number 5) is incorrect. Fish do feel pain and as importantly stress, much more than scientists previously thought.

I think the rule of 'if you kill it, eat it', is fairly reasonable. Whilst the production of meat etc can at times be less than ideal, big steps have been made in treating animals humanely. Humans eat meat, so will cultivate and kill animals for meat and other prodcuts. Lions etc kill to eat. Same thing really.

Fox hunting is just about status and class. The toffs need some sort of activity to prove they're still top of the pile, hence why hunting with dogs is still allowed. To try and allay bad PR, they let a few commoners get involved too.

Every argument regarding controlling fox numbers by hunting with dogs is just bollocks. Totally inefficient way of doing it.

I'd quite enjoy Toff hunting. Set them loose, in nice easy to spot red jackets, give them a head start, then chase them down with a pack of snarling vicious dogs...*

Of course, the lower classes stll have their own barbaric bloodsports (mostly outlawed though)- Badger baiting, dog/cock fighting, hare coursing and even greyhound racing is derived from hunting.

Using dogs to hunt stems from a time when it was useful to do so. It's not any more, and should therefore be stopped.

Humans still have a bloodlust, a need to 'prove themselves' in some form of violence, hence sports, hunting and fighting in town centres.

I do like jodhpurs though...

[img] [/img]

*I'm only joking, btw... 😉

5. I don't inflict cruelty on any other species for my own well being or satisfaction. Why should we?

Umm you eat meat and wear leather? So this statement is untrue for you...

I'm a carnivore but I think we are lying when we try to convince ourselves that we need to eat meat, we do not.

I think it should be repealed, only because there are more important thing for the authorities to be dealing with. Every fox that is killed in the Uk by dogs each year is much ,much less than the number of people killed on the roads. Spend the money on bike paths and legislation to make car drivers more considerate to pedestrians and cyclists. And it seems weird, the extreme end of the anti camp appear to value a foxes life over human life.

Fox hunting is just about status and class. The toffs need some sort of activity to prove they're still top of the pile, hence why hunting with dogs is still allowed. To try and allay bad PR, they let a few commoners get involved too.

+1.

The law which was brought in a few years back wasn't enough, it left the whole fox-hunting infrastructure in place. Callmedave will remove the law and fox hunting will carry on like it never went away(which it didn't).

Next time it's banned however, I would suspect it will be a hell of a lot more thorough. A word of warning to all you fox hunting lovers.

fox hunting is no longer about controlling fox numbers. Hunts have a vested interest in maintaining a fox population and have often been found to be feeding and supporting foxes.

Its all about the "entertainment" of chasing foxes ( and other animals)

What really stinks is the deer hunting - the dogs are bred to be only just faster than a deer so the chases continue for a long time - its no fun if the chase is over quickly.

In places where there is no fox hunting numbers do not explode - hunts only ever kill an insignificant number of animals.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.

Callmedave will remove the law and fox hunting will carry on like it never went away

Get it right please. He said he would allow a free vote on it. Not the same at all. If there is a Conservative majority in the next parliament and a free vote on hunting you might find a lot of the new Tory MPs in marginal seats either voting to retain the ban or abstaining so as to not upset their voters.

"I think the rule of 'if you kill it, eat it', is fairly reasonable"

I agree but I don't eat spiders or insects.

"Fox hunting is just about status and class. "

No I think that's urban perception. The better off rural folks around here own the fast horses so point-to-point and hunting is what they do. But most of the "supporters" are just ordinary rural folks for whom it's an important local cultural event - a bit like cheese rolling, flaming tar barrels, wassailing, fell-runs, "folk" music festivals and gypsy horse trading.

I'm against inflicting unnecessary suffering on creatures and using dogs for the "sport" of killing foxes is just that. I want my food reared and slaughtered with care. So deer stalking (shooting) is OK for me because they live wild, are killed quickly by expert ghillies and then eaten.

But most of the "supporters" are just ordinary rural folks for whom it's an important local cultural event - a bit like cheese rolling, flaming tar barrels, wassailing, fell-runs, "folk" music festivals and gypsy horse trading.

Absolutely, but I bet the usual defenders of cultural diversity on here won't go within a mile of recognising it.

Easier to just hate what is not understood.

No I think that's urban perception

I think it's the simple truth, tbh.

'Ordinary Rural Folk'? Or do you mean grateful commoners fortunate enough to be involved in toff activity, and therefore feeling a little better about themselves as they are involved in a 'great British tradition'?

Speaking of which, the Boat race is on. Two teams representing the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Teams consisting of mainly American and Canadian crew members, it seems...

Including one called 'Shared Hamburger'. 😯

The ban - was generally about bannning posh people from riding horses.

If your primary aim is reducing animal cruelty then stop people buying Danish bacon, factory farmed chickens and certain breeds of pedigree dog.

The debate about banning was generally about dealing with people who "enjoy" hunting with hounds. There are lots of gun packs in the hillier parts of the UK, which deal with large numbers of foxes and still involve people with dogs killing foxes, but that attract very little attnetion because there are no braying sloans on horses.

The hunting community did itself lots of damage by continually wheeling Retired Majors or Mrs smithely-matterson who banged on in a terrible accent about the damage to rural communities.

Just my opinion but the ban actually brought together lots of "country" people who now had a percieved common enemy.

To be honest i am bored to tears by the whole thing and despair that parliamentary time wil be wasted with endless debate when no-one will ever change their opinion anyway.

trailmonkey - I clearly understand that fox hunting is about the thrill of chasing and killing animals - its not about control of fox numbers.

Do you mourn the passing of bear baiting? The tradition pastime of badger baiting? cock fighting?

If what you want is to race around the countryside and all that cultural stuff drag hunts would do as well.

My family come from Shropshire peasant stock - I still know the people who live on the farm where generations of my ancestors came from - they ( and previous generations who I also knew) hated fox hunting despite raising chickens

Fox numbers do need to be controlled. All that is needed is a proficient rifleman and one of these:

[img] [/img]

tandemjeremy, i haven't at any point in the thread put forward a case for or against fox hunting. i haven't tried to make out that it is a useful method of pest control. i haven't at any point made any difference between bear baiting and any other blood sport. i haven't even said that all working class rural people are in favour of it.

all i have done is try to bring forward the case that fox hunting is part of a wider cultural theme that is under attack largely because people who are quite remote from it have decided that they don't like it. that, in my mind is the politics of the right not the righteous.

trailmonkey - and that is simply wrong - hunting is not a part of anything that is under attack - hunting is under attack as it is a barbarous practise of no utility.

so it has no function as social action ? i live in a rural community and can assure you that it does.

The social action could be easily fulfilled by drag hunts. After all if the thrill of killing an animal is not a part of it.......................

Of course, the danger is, if you totally abolished fox hunting, then the Muslims would take over! 😯

It's Health and Safety/Political Correctness gone mad, I tell you. Bloody Lesbian Disablists...

again tj, you are putting words into my mouth. i never suggested that killing the animal wasn't part of it, in fact the insistence of people to continue hunting despite the ban proves it beyond question.

all i'm saying is that the ban on hunting in my opinion is a ban on cultural diversity. i don't hunt myself and don't particularly like it either.

i'm just going to give in because you seem incapable of actually reading what i am saying. better you just pick a fight with someone who supports hunting.

I feel the need to point out that the hunting with hounds ban also banned Hare coursing which seems odd given that rabbits can still be hunted with dogs. Also lamping foxes with a couple of big lurchers is a fairly effective method of control. Hunting deer with lurchers is also banned. All of which to me seems very odd given that fox hunting is still going on with packs of hounds which I thought should have been banned to. A stupid law was bought in that doesnt do what it was meant to.

If it was a 1000 year old tradition being carried out in a South American jungle by loincloth wearing tribesmen then we be all for protecting it.

hunting is under attack as it is a barbarous practise of no utility.

And this is just rubbish it has been comprehensively proved that the hunt supports many people in the rural community. I was brought up a peasant in a rural community where everyone supported fox hunting, and still do, so TJ your example of your heritage proves nothing, as any individual case will prove nothing.

The point has been made clearly here and elsewhere that there are much worse activities legalised in the UK, so why ban Fox Hunting, it is so obviously a cultural issue using so called barbarism as a cover to get at the townies perceived notions of the gentrified country folk. (I'm not saying it isn't barbaric, it is, but I do not think that's the end of the world)

If they vote they should wrap it in with dog fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing and cock fighting; I don't see why it should just be toff's allowed to engage in cruel animal sports, we should have free access for all, infact we could grow some new ones like an animal 'Ultimate Fighter', where we pitch animals of different types against each other, hamster versus squirrel and the like, no holds barred. I'm sure it would make it on to Eurosports. I'm sure dog figthing from a lock up on the Aylesbury Estate would be cheap to put on, and should bring in the viewers.

theboatman - Member

If they vote they should wrap it in with dog fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing and cock fighting; I don't see why it should just be toff's allowed to engage in cruel animal sports, we should have free access for all, infact we could grow some new ones like an animal 'Ultimate Fighter', where we pitch animals of different types against each other, hamster versus squirrel and the like, no holds barred. I'm sure it would make it on to Eurosports. I'm sure dog figthing from a lock up on the Aylesbury Estate would be cheap to put on, and should bring in the viewers.

You better include any type of intensive farming, current slaughterhouse practise, farm animal transport, and while you are at it what about so called journalism and nature programmes, standing by and doing nothing while nature takes its course?

i used to be vehemently opposed then i got older and realised that there were far more important things to put right before wasting time in the commons debating the ins and outs of a harmless tradition that culls a tiny proportion of what is a very healthy population. it's more to do with class perceptions than animal cruelty at the end of the day.

You better include any type of intensive farming, current slaughterhouse practise, farm animal transport, and while you are at it what about so called journalism and nature programmes, standing by and doing nothing while nature takes its course?

I never really thought of fox hunting or dog fighting as nature taking its course, so I I'm not sure how that links. As a veggie, I've already made my choices about animal farming practices at the only practicable level one can.

I never really thought of fox hunting or dog fighting as nature taking its course, so I I'm not sure how that links.

I'm not saying it is.

As a veggie, I've already made my choices about animal farming practices at the only only practicable level one can.

Fair enough, I admire vegetarians and vegans. Wouldn't want to be one, but I still admire you.

toys - and all that could still be done by drag hunts if the fun of killing the animal is of no consequence.

Much worse activities legal - so what - two wrongs don't make a right - and anyway that depends upon your viewpoint. To me killing animals for fun is indefensible. Thats the moral crux. its not the same as killing animals to eat them or eradicating vermin. Fox hunts have a vested interest in maintaining a population of foxes and many hunts have been caught feeding foxes and have admitted that they are not eradicating the foxes.

So there is no utility argument at all and the cultural and employment issues could easily be sustained b drag hunts

Despite the sarcasm of my first post, I guess my point is if we are going to be a society that accepts cruelty to animals as a hobby, then I don't see why this should be restricted to one small part of society. I just don't like the lies of it, if a group of toffs want to run down a fox and have it torn to bits I find this no better or worse morally than 2 council estate scrots wanting have their dogs tear each other apart.

and all that could still be done by drag hunts if the fun of killing the animal is of no consequence.

Nope because the killing is what makes it attractive.

its not the same as killing animals to eat them

Yes it is. Nobody needs to eat meat, we only eat meat for pleasure (these days) ergo eating meat is killing for pleasure. The sooner meat eaters face this fact the sooner we can get on with more important things in life.

Fox hunts have a vested interest in maintaining a population of foxes and many hunts have been caught feeding foxes and have admitted that they are not eradicating the foxes.

Probably true and your point is?

Ah - so unlike most hunt defenders you accept that it is about killing for fun? Not morally acceptable to the majority of the population - why not badger baiting then? Or cock fighting?

I can find no justification whatsoever for killing animals for fun.

tj - of course it is. and?

the cultural and employment issues could easily be sustained b drag hunts

so how do you explain the insistence of people to hunt foxes despite the ban ? hunting the wild animal is clearly an intrinsic part of the ritual.

sorry, couldn't let it go.

Ah - so unlike most hunt defenders you accept that it is about killing for fun? Not morally acceptable to the majority of the population - why not badger baiting then? Or cock fighting?

Yes I do accept it, its a fact, denying it weakens the position.

I wasn't brought up with badger baiting, and the badger cannot get away so its a bit worse. I've seen cock fighting in Indonesia amazing but not particularly interesting. I don't want to start any new cruel sports, but fox hunting is here and is part of my heritage. Hands off.

I can find no justification whatsoever for killing animals for fun.

as we speak i have a haunch of venison shot by neighbour marinating in red wine and herbs. it smells beautiful and tomorrow i will be tucking into it whilst giving silent thanks to the doe that reared it and the man that shot it. and i will feel no remorse whatsoever. might even go catch the hunt meet if i have time whilst it slowly roasts.

But surely most people eat meat in the Uk because we enjoy eating meat - we don't actually want to think to much about the husbandry or the slaughtering issues, so long as its got an RSPCA sticker on the shrink wrap. And the vast majority of meat/eggs and dairy products doesnt get farmed in a warm and cuddly way.

If people didn't enjoy eating bacon - we wouldn't support a Danish pig farming industry that uses various practices banned in the UK for several years. Whilst the UK pork industry goes out of business.

What about the cruelty cats do to the local wildlife - if we banned the ownership of cats it would have done far more to prevent animal cruelty than banning hunting. But there is no votes in it.

The law is an ass amd that's why so few people have been prosecuted, with a bit of rational thought - far greater steps could have been taken, e.g. licensing hunts which would have given far greater control over some of the "fringe " hunting activities which are still ongoing.

I once watched a documentary on wolves hunting caribou in Canada - the wolves singled out the animal they wanted and spent all day tracking it and trying to seperate it from the rest of the herd. It was fairly gruesome to watch, the caribou new for several hours that its number was up and it was only a matter of time before it got exhausted and eventually collapsed. This was prime time BBC 2 and my colleagues at work the next day were really excited and talked about the battle of wits and how the different wolves all worked together with differnet strenghts to track and pull the caribou down. Not that differnet from watching a pack of hounds single out and track down a stag - except the stag is shot rather than getting ripped apart.......................

Andybach - on the nail and succinct.
andywarner- nice. I've got plenty in the freezer.

What I think is really disgusting is the increasing trend of the pheasant shoots, particularly around here in North Devon. The farmer next door raises beteen 2000-3000 pheasants a year in a 250 acre woodland. His main clientele are business groups from large banks and other city based companies who can afford the £1000 for a couple of days of mindlessly killing 30 pheasants. Why is this acceptable and fox hunting is not? it isnt even sport - there are so many birds breed that you can walk through the woods and pick them up with your bare hands, and it takes no skill to kill a huge number, more than could be possibly eaten. This isnt aimed at 'Toffs' because they have their own land. This isnt aimed at normally country folk, or normal city folk. its only because its the rich city people that it continues.
I grew up in the countryside and simply oppose the double standards that town dwelling people apply to the countryside. let urban problems be dealt with by urban dwellers and country problems be delt with by people who actually use the countryside to make a living.

Its true it's all done for fun. But I agree it blows my mind why this is acceptable and fox hunting isn't.

Although I can assure you that all the pheasants get eaten, the beaters and other staff get them or they get sold to butchers/restaurants. I was in a private shoot down here in mid devon and we never wasted a single bird. The fact is anyone who enjoys killing surely enjoys the eating, it makes it all the sweeter.

Personally I cannot find anything more hypocritical than those who eat meat or use any animal products criticising killing of animals for pleasure, and lots of meat eaters think I am a barbarian for shooting deer, whilst they tuck into their lamb chop.

country problems be delt with by people who actually use the countryside to make a living.

But they poison badgers and rare birds of prey... 😥

I enjoy hunting with dogs. Lurchers are fantastic to watch as they race to pick up a rabbit or hare. The rabbit/hare will almost always freeze in the dogs mouth and if you so wanted could release it without harm.

Where as dogs/hounds taking down fox/deer on top of the ground. Or being used in digging foxes or badgers in the ground is just cruel. Digging especially, is just sadistically cruel.

If the animal is being eaten then there is some utility to it. Also shooting is not cruel in the way that fox hunting with dogs is. Deliberately prolonging the chase of a terrified animal over several hours to a quick death.

If you cannot see the clear moral difference then I am sorry for you.

I do not like any blood sports at all - and as for you accusing me of hypocrisy because I eat meat - I am perfectly capable of turning a living animal into food and have done so.

Blacklug - at least with lurchers it is done quickly.

TJ I didn't call you a hypocrite you took that on yourself. I assumed you were a vegan/veggy. If you eat meat and claim its for utility reasons only, then you are a hypocrite, you do not need to eat it where is the necessity? Your so called utility argument is weak. Face it you like eating meat otherwise your morals would have prevented you from continuing as a carnivore.

In fact this is an example of what I call pick and mix morals, people agree with the Zeitgeist because their opinions are really formed by what they feel is acceptable to others, its not their own reasoned ideas, just received wisdom and pretty weak really. They only take the high ground when its a safe place to be.

The whole argument of if you eat meat or wear leather then your being a hypocrite to hunting if your against it is just laughable.

In todays society, nobody needs to kill their own food. They do the killing for their own enjoyment .. simple as that.

Usually the people who are hunting the foxes live in places far away from the places they hunt them .. so their argument of they are only controlling them kinda seems weak. How are the foxes affecting them?

Fox hunting with dogs to me seems little more than dog fighting. Yes, hunt for food no problem with that. but I've not seen many farms offering fox burgers yet. As for controlling numbers agrument, pro hunters oftern say that it's the most economical way to control numbers, yet they also say it's not often they catch one. They can't have it both ways. Anyway it's not like we're falling over them is it? I've live in a very rural part of north wales and I hardly see them. Now badgers that's a different story. I see loads of these! I don't see it's anything to do with class either. Most of the peolpe I know who hunt are working class lads.
Also read an interesting artical saying that during the F&M outbreak, when there was no hunting, fox numbers actually decreased. If fox numbers need controlling, I'm sure that either natural selection or the car is enough to control em.

Toys - that is just so much bullshine. I have my reasons based upon sound morals - you clearly have non if you think chasing a terrified animal to its death with no utility behind it is acceptable.

Is cruel and barbaric and as you admit its about the pleasure in killing.

TJ you haven't proved that your morals have any validity, you do not have a good reason to eat meat. Come on cite one, and then you might have an argument. You only eat meat because you like it. Therefore you are complicit in the killing of animals for pleasure, any reason or re-mentioning of the utility word doesn't prove a thing, you are the bullshiner. In fact if you want to use the "utility" word again, can you not see the utility in pleasure?

Its not an admission of pleasure, its a fact. I'm not trying to hide anything.

On that 'Cycling the Americas' programme, Marc Beaumont said he had to eat some meat in order to gain the energy he needed for his endeavours. In colder parts of the World, meat contains far more of the essential nutrients a person needs for survival. Inuit people have a diet that is mostly meat/fish, as there's bugger all else there.

Humans have eaten meat for more or less their entire existence. Out teeth have evolved to chew meat. Our digestive systems are closer to meat eaters than herbivores. We are naturally omniverous. There has never been any conclusive scientific evidence to suggest we would be better off not eating meat at all. Granted, we could 'survive', but it would be a struggle to replace the vital amino acids, vitamins etc found in meat. We would need to be far more agricultural in our habits, and far more land would have to be cultivated for the production of other foodstuffs.

I'm going to have some chicken tonight. I would like to think it was raised and killed humanely. I accept this is perhaps is a tad idealistic.

As for

chasing a terrified animal to its death with no utility

This is why I admire vegans, they stand behind their principles, and go against the norm.

Couldn't we just save the fox, and have different hunt groups put about 10 miles apart and then have them charge in and let both packs of hounds tear each over apart. Obviously you wouldn't be able do it quite as often which would please some people living in the areas effected by the hunt, and more jobs would most likely be required in training up a new fighting dog pack. For hunters though the pay off for less hunts would be the huge spectacle and there would be a chance of loseing adding to the excitement.

said he had to eat some meat in order to gain the energy he needed for his endeavours.

Ok not exactly scientific but lets assume its true.

a) is his ride a necessity? Does it serve a utility purpose? (Which needs to be higher than the utility of pleasure, because TJ doesnt think that's good enough, it must be necessary to prevent the suffering of animals or as necessary as food) No.
b)it is probably a more convenient package for the energy and protein he needs, but I'll bet a decent nutritionist could have filled him up .He might just be a meat lover and not facing up to the truth that he just loves the stuff.

Anyway I'm not advocating veganism, I love meat. Ergo I love killing things.

The fact is anyone who enjoys killing surely enjoys the eating, it makes it all the sweeter.

Toys - what you miss is the essential element of cruelty - non of the other things you mention are deliberately cruel. Fox hunting is deliberatly cruel. All of the other things have some utility - IE there is some other end product than just pleasure.

If your moral compass is so lacking that you cannot see the clear moral difference then I remain sorry for you.

I'm sorry, you are just ignoring the point, where have you shown that it is necessary for you to eat meat? Until you prove that eating meat is necessary and not only done for pleasure, by your own definition its deliberately cruel, I think your compass is failing you. My moral compass is sound, I am capable of discerning what the real reason for all of this is, you are still in denial of your own carnivorous desires, you need to learn more about yourself.

Anyway to refute what you say: Hunting has many other end products other than the act of killing a fox, all the people it employs, the sense of community cohesion, and the pleasure the activity brings, not just the killing but the riding, interaction with the dogs, the money that is spent, there is plenty of your "utility" present. You will just have to try harder, currently you are just repeating yourself.

Once again I challenge you to prove it, come on where is there any evidence that you need to eat meat. I want to see it. Your whole utility argument is based on this assumption but you haven't provided any grounds for it.

There are countless vegetarians who are incredibly healthy, long lived and athletic, I cannot remember ever hearing that someone has died of vegetarianism.

Ps don't feel sorry for me, I don't need or want your pity.

Ok not exactly scientific but lets assume its true.

Erm, I would have thought Mr Beaumont's eating habits may have been just a tad more 'scientifically' thought out than most of us, tbh. This man does know what he's doing. I doubt he could have taken on the 6000 calories required, daily, without eating meat, or copious amounts of vegetables, which a) would have been much more difficult to get hold of readily along his journey, and b) may have caused digestive issues that may have been detrimental to his efforts. Simple fact is, eating meat gave him the necessary nutrients needed for his immense physical activities. I think he was doing 200 miles a day or something crazy.

but I'll bet a decent nutritionist could have filled him up

From what was [i]readily available[/i] along his route? I seriously doubt it. He actually did say that he doesn't eat much meat normally, so I'm sure he thought his diet out very carefully, and decided that meat was in fact necessary. As for wether or not his journey was 'necessary', that's irrelevant really.

Humans have evolved as Omnivores for a reason. Not simply because they like meat. The amounts of meat eaten vary from geographic region to region. Many people in India do not eat meat, for religious reasons, and probably because a vegetarian option is perhaps more healthy due to storage problems in a hot climate, etc. This isn't the case for most regions on Earth however. In fact, I'd say Vegetarianism is more of a lifestyle choice than Omnivorism, globally. It definitely is in the West, where we enjoy a great deal of choice.

ok, decided not to pursue the topic - I'll limit myself to bike related threads only.

Is that a quote from Jeffrey Dammer?

Woody I think you were having a joke, but in case you are not then I'm not sure what you are trying to say, are you saying that meat eaters are really murders of human beings ala Jeffery Dahmer? Because he liked to kill things? Therefore anyone who likes to kills things must be a murderer? This is a common logical fallacy called the fallacy of guilt by association eg:

Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.

or

All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

That's anti-Semiotic.

Talkemada.

I cannot say I really disagree with your points about Mark Beaumont, if it wasn't convenient on his route then I can see how meat would be better. My point about unscientific is that he is not a representative of the norm of what our diet should be.

As for wether or not his journey was 'necessary', that's irrelevant really.

Not according to TJ, killing things has to have a utility, that's why I made the point about necessity.

Talkemada - Member

That's anti-Semiotic.

Indeed. 😆

Woody I think you were having a joke

yeah well once you start you cannot stop...

Anyway schoolboytastic logic was lifted straight from [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy ]wikipedia[/url]

toys19 - Member

My moral compass is sound

Clearly not if you think killing an animal by a method that is deliberately cruel for entertainment of the bloodthirsty is acceptable

The rest of your argument is equally facile.

TandemJeremy - Member

toys19 - Member

My moral compass is sound

Clearly not if you think killing an animal by a method that is deliberately cruel for entertainment of the bloodthirsty is acceptable

The rest of your argument is equally facile.

and yours is bang on if you think the end of an animals life in a slaughter house just for your pleasure is acceptable?

Yes my argument is simple, its easy to understand, thanks.

TJ you should be in politics, your ignoring of the real point here is very telling.

Anyway schoolboytastic logic was lifted straight from wikipedia

Well I knew where to look..

We could chat about bullfighting ?

Why, do you like bull fighting?

Only when the matador loses.

I don't hunt, never have done, and never will do, but I'd be happy to see this stupid, irritating piece of legislation repealed. [fwiw, that does not mean I will be voting Tory!]

Badly thought out, almost impossible to enforce without a colossal waste of valuable Police resources, and driven almost entirely by urban working class prejudice rather than a great desire for animal welfare. Just think how much time in Parliament could have been better used without it - they banned fox hunting before they legalised LED lights on bikes FFS!

And as for other means of control, as I recall, a wildlife trust in Essex banned fox hunting on it's land, and then discovered the darling creatures were decimating some of their rarer species they were trying to protect. After paying a pair of marksmen for a month to deal with the problem, not a single fox was successfully killed. It did actually serve a practical purpose in the countryside.

Maybe the urban majority will change their minds when the cute little foxes get into the rabbit run in the garden.....

Have you heard the joke about la bulla?

I'm going to have some chicken tonight. I would like to think it was raised and killed humanely. I accept this is perhaps is a tad idealistic.

Go on. I could do with some amusement today.

Cannot be arsed to type it so I found this on google:

A guy on holiday in Spain, feels somewhat hungry, so goes into the village restaurant. Gets the menu and after some careful study, orders the paella. Quite tasty it was too, but there was an absolutely delicious smell coming from the next table, where one of the locals, Carlos, was eating.

He calls over the waiter, and in his best holiday Spanish asks: "Tell me, what is that dish there, the one that smells so fantastic."

The Waiter replies: Ah yes, that is made from certain rather delicate areas of prime freshly killed bull. It is then marinated in our secret sauce mix, and garnished with fresh herbs, and just a touch of garlic, with our special red wine dribbling.

"Sounds superb, may I have some please.?"

"For you sir, as a special favour. But we have none left today. Come back tomorrow, an hour or so after the bullfight finishes"

The guy arrives on cue, his meal is ready, piping hot and tastes out of this world.

He calls the waiter over again, tips him hugely, sends his compliments to the chef, but asks. "But tell me, why was my portion so much smaller than the one Carlos had yesterday?"
.
.
.
.
" Ah well sir, sometimes the bull wins"

Ah. That one !

If you don't know it's origin and welfare conditions as I assume you don't from that comment, then its life was almost certainly an example of far worse animal cruelty than foxhunting.

I doubt it. I doubt very much that the chicken, notably not that intelligent an animal, was hunted down for ages, to the point of physical exhaustion, then ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. It might not have had a great life, but it's a chicken.

Fox hunting's all about 'lok at me, I'm a hunter, what a big brave soul I am'. It's not even about the 'hunting'.

Forget the countryside lot anyway. Polluting all the rivers and streams, poisoning animals, destroying wild habitats, so's they can grow environmentally destructive biofuels and get massive government subsidies to buy new 4x4s with. 😉

I love the irony, of when they want to complain about something, they have to come into the big bad city to do so, because no-one will take any notice of them anywhere else! 😆

(Country folk are ok. Good and bad in all. No need for fox hunting though, let's be honest)

Talkemada have a look here [url= http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html ]chickens[/url]

"Farmers" Guardians of our countryside? Discuss......