[Closed] Hunting with dogs?

You need to see what burning the heather does to the hills - for a start off it is effectively a monoculture over large areas leading to decreased biodiversity. The burning causes erosion as well. Its adopted over too wide an area.

One wonders therefore why the majority of Grouse moors are listed as key areas for conservation, ie. listed under EU Designation as SAC and SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI - of course, the main breeding areas for Red data book species also coincidentally lie on the upland grouse moors of the UK... plus the vegetative species found only on upland grouse moors. You might even wish to consider the fact that "decreased biodiversity" as you choose to label it applies on a regional and global rather than just a local scale, your "decreased biodiversity" areas are recorded as having concentrations of breeding golden plovers, curlew and lapwing up to five times higher on grouse moors than on equivalent moors not managed for grouse... what a disaster that must be! Incidentally, where are the highest population concentrations of hen harriers, oh, yes, grouse moors - wonder why they seem to have died out everywhere else?

Zulu - everthing I have said is either my opinion - the moral debate and that con only ever be opinion. Everything else is incontrovertable fact.

As for yu four questions they are spurious. One does not need to be a murderer to know tha murder is wrong - but I will answer them

Zulu-Eleven - Member

I've had this discussion a good half dozen times on this site - and it never goes anywhere useful!

I'll simply make one comment - how many of you talking about hunting have ever:

i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox

Yes - I have farmed. different sorts in different ways arable and mixed.
Hunted - I have been on hunts as a supporter as a child
Shot anything - I have watched animals shot and I have killed small animals in my hands
Seen a fox - yes - urban and rural. My ancestors farm had a fox lair on it and the despised the hunters despite raising chickens. Real rural farming folk.

I am no shinking violet on this - I know animals are meat and I have killed them and watched them be killed and later that day ate the flesh.

The fact remains - hunting with dogs does not act to reduce fox populations - this is admitted by various hunt masters. I found the direct quotes last time we had this debate. Hunts feed foxes and make sure they do not wipe them out - after all if they did they would be no more prey to hunt.

The hunting with dogs is deliberately cruel - of this there can be no doubt.

the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible

Zulu - go away and try to learn something beyond your blinkered little mind.

You are simply wrong on the grouse moors as anyone who has any knowledge of wildlife could tell you. Monoculture leads to decreased biodiversity. Simple fact.

Zulu eleven in talking utter shite again.

No TJ - some, [i]some[/i] hunts make very little difference in local fox populations, dependent on season, terrain and hunt priorities - however by your own admission, you don't want to decimate local fox populations as you will see a sudden influx from nearby areas, you want to keep them at a low, managed level, maintaining their terrains with an acceptable level of loss.

Monoculture leads to decreased biodiversity. Simple fact.

[u]On a local scale![/u] - what happens where a species relies largely on a particular, unusual habitat that is not found anywhere else- such as Hen Harriers?

Grouse moors become unsustainable below a certain size, if the "monoculture" is smaller than the sustainable size, then the biodiversity also decreases.

Zulu - hunts admit feeding foxes, preparing artifical earths for them and nurturing them. Its not about controlling fox numbers. don't make spurious hypocritical arguments.

Argue it on the basis of tradition if you want - but the utility arguments have been totally demolished many times over.

Hunts do not reduce fox numbers at all. This is a simple fact.

Don't get me wrong - I have no particular issue with shooting as it is not deliberately cruel and the shot animals get eaten - and the money it brings is welcome and significant.

However again the arguments about conservation are spurious - the land could be managed for conservation in a far better way( proven in Scotland as some of the estates are now in the hands of conservationists.) and shoots poison raptors - hundreds a year - why did the hen harrier population collapse - in large part persecution from shooting estates.

the biodiversity in place in most of the countryside is shaped by human involvement, this is as true in the english countryside as it is in the apparent wilderness of the rockies. the diversity and balance of species that we see as natural would have been shaped by centuries of man's hunting methods be they for food or pleasure.
i'm not sure that there's much mileage in bringing biodiversity to the debate unless you wish to argue that hunting levels and practices should remain as they are in order to maintain what we perceive as the natural balance.

TJ - you've never hunted in upland areas then - the Burns report accepted that Hunts played a vital role in successful control in the mixed upland hill and forestry areas - significantly different from lowland areas, as other methods are so much less effective/efficient.

You cannot have the argument both ways, Raptor populations are higher in areas managed for grouse moors for a reason, either they're important for conservation or not - the fact is clear that Hen harriers are barely extant in areas where there are no grouse - one goes with t'other!

No grouse moors, no Harriers

Zulu - to some extent you are correct - but the moors managed for conservation not for shooting produce greater biodiversity, and more raptors. excessive burning gets more young game birds but impoverishes the soil and you get increased erosion. Burning also stops other plants from growing such as trees

The biodiversity argument is purely about practices on the shooting estates. ( not lowland hunting) Its bogus to argue conservation for the shooting estates and estates managed for conservation not shooting have significantly better results.

However there is to my mind no moral issue wioth the shooting estates - its only the same as farming but the beasts are free range.

I suppose what I am saying is don't be hypocritical and spurious in your arguments. Same for both sides.

Hunting with dogs is morality v tradition. Shooting is about styles of land management there is no moral argument unless you are vegan.

All other parts of the debate are spurious and often hypocritical - from both sides.

However to atry to argue things that are demonstrably wrong is stupid. Land managed for conservation and biodiversity gets more animals including harriers on it - shoots kill raptors in the hundreds.

Langholme you referred to earlier has now got input from SNH to increase the conservation at minimal effect on the shoots.

The moral argument is not spurious. How can you justify a deliberately cruel practice thats only aim is to provide entertainment?

How can you justify the breeding and killing of animals for your own personal satisfaction? TJ your complete refusal to address the issue that your eating meat is not necessary makes you the biggest hypocrite on here, you are just denying the truth. Prove to us that you absolutely must eat meat, that is the only utility argument that is valid, your life or the cows life, other wise your arguments are shot down by your own so called moral compass.

Come on, cough up, answer the question.

This thread has taken a familiar turn.... 😆

Toys - are you so morally deficient you cannot see the difference? BTW your humbug and lack of knowledge was exposed further up the page. So you have never actually been in on the kill? You only follow hunts on a quad?

Hunting foxes with dogs is only about the pleasure of the kill.

Raising animals for meat is different.

1) its not deliberately cruel by intention - although intensive farming has some cruel aspects.

2) There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than ther pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

3) Its a domesticated animal bred and raised for this purpose - not a wild animal.

Clear and obvious moral difference.

Blimey this thread has run, thought I'd add a few comments

Hunting with dogs is inherently cruel as it is designed to give a long chase - the dogs are bred so as to be only a small amount quicker that the prey. If they caught it in 2 minutes it wouldn't be much fun would it?

TJ, you should stick to kicking puppies as you know very little about dogs. Lurchers/longdogs usually catch a hare within a couple of mins or they dont catch the hair at all, they can also catch foxes and deer very quickly and yet these sports were banned too and banned far more effectively.

Never done any fox hound hunting, always done by people who pissed me off too much, but have done various other types of hunting and shooting. I dont do it much anymore but it is remarkably good fun. I'm sure this sense of excitment is a genetic evolutionary thing.

(devils advocate hat on)
Perhaps any bill to repeal the anti foxhunting legislation should have a double section on also repealing dogfighting.

This way there will be no accusation of bias against working class townies, The hobby will be brought out into the open, and it will save the police a fortune in investigation and prosecution of a sport that gives pleasure and jobs to many?

Aa - I acknowledged that very point further up.

Fox hounds are bred to be only slightly quicker than a fox. Lurchers catch and kill quickly

Hunting foxes with dogs is only about the pleasure of the kill

No it's not, we've established that. The kill is a part of the process but the hunt in itself is an important social performance for many, many people in a huge area of the country.

Raising animals for meat is different

There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than ther pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

Seems to me that you're just justifying areas of animal exploitation that you enjoy yourself and condemning those that you don't rather than proving any moral high ground. You don't have to eat animals you do so to enjoy them. you don't have to wear leather you just enjoy wearing it and if you think that animals are destroyed humanely and without fear or discomfort at an industrial level then you are mistaken. My father worked in an industrial slaughter house and I can assure you that animals suffer greatly on the way to your plate.

So trailmonkey, where do you draw the line?
are you in favour of legalizing dogfighting?
The motives for it are exactly the same.

Oh dear we do seem a bit upset.

Do you think I actually need to see it to imagine what 20 odd baying hounds will do to a live fox? Is that a lack of knowledge? Your attempts to try and prove yourself are pathetic, I've worked in a kennel feeding the hounds dead horses, goats deer, foxes. Its vicious. Do I need to have been present on the day seeing what they do to a fox to have any idea what goes on? No, so don't give me your humbug, you are clutching at straws, but do carry on, it only exposes your ignorance.

I do not think you are in a position to call me morally deficient, when you think its OK to kill for your pleasure, but not for mine. It just shows that you are running out of things to say and have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make yourself feel better.

I'll address your points to show your total lack of knowledge.

1) its not deliberately cruel by intention - although intensive farming has some cruel aspects.

The intention is to remove the young from the mother and raise it for our pleasure, eating, as yet unproven by you to be actually necessary in these modern times. Seems pretty cruel to me. Not to mention all the previously reported aspects of cruelty in farming, and suffering and pain.

2) There is some utility as the animal is eaten and other products such as leather or milk is produced. Thus there is more than their pleasure of the kill. The animal is killed in a humane manner - not chased for hours then torn apart by dogs.

Contrasted with hunting as there is some utility as the hunt supports the local economy and provides a social function, skins are often produced, as are mounted heads (all as necessary as leather products, IE not in any way necessary). I agree the kill is awful, but then have you been to an abattoir? Its just as brutal. But you don't appear to know anything about that.

3) Its a domesticated animal bred and raised for this purpose - not a wild animal.

How is that better? This is so spurious. You keep banging on about how the hunts are supporting foxes by feeding and building sets for them, effectively raising them for the hunt, seems like its approaching domestication to me.

so have you addressed my question? Nope you have avoided it through some spurious personal attacks on me and avoiding the issue, can you prove to me that eating meat is essential for your survival? It's either the cow or you. Prove that without leather and meat that you will suffer more than the animals that are bred for slaughter?

You just feel that your utility is more important than my utility. You think that leather and meat are more important than jobs and social cohesion. It's just meaningless twaddle.

So trailmonkey, where do you draw the line?
are you in favour of legalizing dogfighting?

if there is a long tradition of it and it serves some kind of social purpose that is clearly beneficial to the community then i'd certainly consider it. don't really know enough about it to comment really though.

The motives for it are exactly the same.

I'm not sure that the social contexts are anywhere near close enough to come to that conclusion.

Seems to me that you're just justifying areas of animal exploitation that you enjoy yourself and condemning those that you don't rather than proving any moral high ground. You don't have to eat animals you do so to enjoy them. you don't have to wear leather you just enjoy wearing it and if you think that animals are destroyed humanely and without fear or discomfort at an industrial level then you are mistaken. My father worked in an industrial slaughter house and I can assure you that animals suffer greatly on the way to your plate.

Damn you trailmonkey that is just so much more succinct than my ramblings.

Its all going round in circles - we have established that either all the social aspects of hunts could be achieved by drag hunts - unless the pleasure of the kill is so central to it.

You cannot have it both ways Its either about the pleasure of the kill or a drag hunt will fulfil the same social purpose.

Chasing a wild animal for hours deliberately prolonging the chase and then being torn apart by dogs when there is nothing but the hunt being achieved is very different morally to raising animals for food. Anyone without blinker can see this.

End of from me - I am tired of the hypocrisy and distortion - I have tried to argue my side without cant but non of the pro hunters will engage on the central point.

Is killing a wild animal in a deliberately cruel way for no purpose but the bloodlust acceptable in a civilised society?

Is killing a wild animal in a deliberately cruel way for no purpose but the bloodlust acceptable in a civilised society?

Poor memory TJ, You have acknowledged that I have addressed it many times. Yes it is acceptable, and it provides so much more than just the satisfying of the bloodlust.

You refuse to address your central point which exposes your own hypocrisy, and blinding cant, that somehow your morals are better than my morals so I ask you again to answer my question:

[b]Is killing an animal in a legalised but obviously cruel way for no purpose, but the taste of blood on your tongue, acceptable in a civilised society? [/b]

End of from me - I am tired of the hypocrisy and distortion - I have tried to argue my side without cant but non of the pro hunters will engage on the central point.

Is killing a wild animal in a deliberately cruel way for no purpose but the bloodlust acceptable in a civilised society?

That's not true, I've tackled that head on. My answer has been - Yes if it upholds tradition/culture/heritage that serves a useful function of social action. I have also stated that denying that performance by assuming that an unquantifyable higher moral viewpoint must be imposed, is fascism and that has not been countered.

Trailmonkey - then why not drag hunts? You deny its about bloodlust - all the rest could be done by draghunts if its not about the bloodlust.

It may be authoritarian ( but it is not as its the majority view) but to call it fascist is offensive to the victims of fascism

I thought you were leaving?

We addressed the point about why drag hunts are not good enough, I think what trailmonkey is saying is that without the kill it doesn't provide the catalyst for all the rest..

The victims of fascism comment is just another version of Godwins Law, really quite puerile and logically does not carry any weight.

TJ you have missed the obvious hole in my argument, I'm not feeling like revealing it just now, I don't think you have earned a free leg up, not until you answer my question directly.

Would you pro foxhunting guys be more sympathetic to a ban if it was also matched with a definite effort at tightening up animal welfare in food production?
To me that would be the direction we should go in regardless.

Trailmonkey - then why not drag hunts? You deny its about bloodlust - all the rest could be done by draghunts if its not about the bloodlust

TJ i have constantly, throughout my posts, contended that the kill is integral to the ritual, i think that you need to re read what i have written.

It may be authoritarian ( but it is not as its the majority view) but to call it fascist is offensive to the victims of fascism

That's not strictly true is it. the labour govt has never been elected on a majority of the vote as i'm sure you are aware when it suits you.
Again, i think you are assuming the moral high ground here without any foundation.

PS - TJ there is a situation developing regarding a mutual freind (Sharki) on the other forum that you may wish to keep an eye on.

but it is not as its the majority view

Among the many logical fallacies I've seen committed in this forum, this one very common its called the appeal to popularity. Just because the majority believe in something does not make it true. Most people once believed the earth was flat, but we know its not true don't we..

Would you pro foxhunting guys be more sympathetic to a ban if it was also matched with a definite effort at tightening up animal welfare in food production?
To me that would be the direction we should go in regardless

I don't really have a position on that. I wouldn't even say that I'm a [i]pro fux hunter[/i]. For me the issue is the erosion of heritage which i feel is a really bad thing to happen and certainly more of a conservation isssue than our freind the fox. For me the banning of fox hunting is iconoclasm. Never a good thing in a supposed democracy.

Would you pro foxhunting guys be more sympathetic to a ban if it was also matched with a definite effort at tightening up animal welfare in food production?
To me that would be the direction we should go in regardless

For me its about a sense of proportion, fox hunting is less than 1000 foxes a year, farming is millions of animals. There are countless more important issues, and to me it reflects the sad state of this country when people choose to get angry about a 1000 foxes to satisfy their "morals2 but happily ignore the cruelty in agriculture, child neglect, poverty, world famine, the forgotten aged in this country, 100's of miscarriages of justice where people are languishing in prison because of crimes they didn't commit, etc etc I could go on, and I am prone to..

trailmonkey - I saw it on this - ta.

But I dont see why we shouldn't try and phase out one smaller cruelty, simply because there are greater ones taking place.
If foxhunting is mostly about tradition, about culture, then there is no reason why drag hunting isn't acceptable except bloody-mindedness. There are plenty of traditions that also have there roots in darker motives, from football internationals to morris dancing, and they've transformed into something else, with the times.
From the small number of folk I know, the real reason people are angry about the law is it has given them a focus to rally behind, a cause to prove how much 'the country is persecuted 'by evil townies that dont understand rural ways.
Most people dont really give a s**t about the precise climax of ripping a small canid to bits, but they'll be damned if they give into what they see as an erosion of their traditions.
Would you say thats a fair comment?.

Hello everyone!

I've been watching a recording of the F1. Wasn't brilliant.

I can't be bothered reading all the above; a cursory glance suggests it's people arguing over stuff just to appear bigger and cleverer, and I can't be bothered with all that.

Has anyone actually come up with a reasonable justification for hunting foxes with dogs? Or is it just the same avoiding the question by involving Pandas or some other such stuff?

Actually, can I ask the Big Brave Hunters; what is it about hunting that you enjoy? What aspects of hunting turn you on?

I've got to pop out to do a bit of shopping in a bit, so feel free to have fun.

trailmonkey - as a self righteous fascist i no longer feel i can add to this post. Are you seriously suggesting people on here of being fascists over comments for and against hunting with dogs?????? You need help!!

TJ - completetly agree with the deer issue, not too sure about the grouse moors though, I must admit my knowledge of the effects of moor burning is limited to the fact that it is required for the heather regrowth, even then i'm not so sure so i'll take your word for it.

I personally think if a fox is ripped to shreds by hounds then its quick, even though its deemed quite grotesque. I have seen foxes that havent been shot cleanly and suffer far longer than one ripped apart. Not taking into consideration the chase.

Is killing an animal in a legalised but obviously cruel way for no purpose, but the taste of blood on your tongue, acceptable in a civilised society?

Civilization is a very very thin veneer.....in the same sense as is democracy, straight politicians and a decent health service....don't fool yourself.

It reflects the sad state of this country when people choose to get angry about a 1000 foxes to satisfy their "morals2 but happily ignore the cruelty in agriculture, child neglect, poverty, world famine, the forgotten aged in this country, 100's of miscarriages of justice where people are languishing in prison because of crimes they didn't commit, etc etc I could go on

That's just naive.

Talkemada - As a big brave hunter I love the fact that what i have just shot has had a decent life up until I ended it and i will do it justice by cooking and eating it, as we once had to do as humans believe it or not before mass production evolved.

Can you say the same about what you eat?????

In some ways its a bit of a red herring to bring the food production issue in.
Ignoring meat, even arable farming is immensely harmful, immensely cruel, to lots of animals as they are poisoned, trapped, shot , ploughed up, passed through combine-harvesters and prevented from even living, due to land use changes and habitat loss.
The fact that food production of any type will result in some element of welfare issues, does not change the fact that people do need to be fed.
But they just dont need to eat foxes.

cynic-al - ditto your comments. there are far more important things going on in society than to single out country pursuits, which have been going on since year dot and is actually part of our heritage.
unfortunately there are to many do gooders nowadays waving the finger at everything they disagree with.

I'll give an example of such do goodedness.

Last year a woman strayed onto private land where 2 men were pigeon shooting in Nottingham near my parents and protested that shooting pigeons - which destroy a farmers crops - was cruel. The men had put their guns away into the slips as she arrived and started to lay into them. She then walked off, phoned the Police and stated that she had been threatened with a gun.
This prompted an response of approx 7 armed response cars and a helicopter and the arrest of the 2 men, she later admitted to lying about the threat.
How much money do you think this do gooder cost us as taxpayers and more to the point what SERIOUS crimes did she jeopardise?
See article here -

[url= http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/399068/Police_arrest_shooters_after_antis_hoax_call.html ][/url]

It is my opinion that do gooders can F*** right off because most of them haven't got a clue.

Chasing a wild animal for hours deliberately prolonging the chase and then being torn apart by dogs

Chameleon; I'm not attacking, just genuinely curious about what folk get out of hunting.

I've spent time talking to Norwegian hunters, and can see the traditions and reasons behind their form of hunting. Interestingly, they were all highly critical of fox hunting.

I see no problem at all with hunting for food, be it with guns, or other relatively quick and humane methods. I appreciate hunting serves some form of primal need within us, especially men, to prove yourself within an environment. Like with sex, perhaps there needs to be an element of enjoyment in order to provide the necessary drive to make people want to kill. And perhaps, it's just an idea, the reason so many people act like violent thugs at football matches and in town centre pubs, is because they have no other outlet for these instinctive urges.

I think I would quite 'enjoy' the Norwegian style of hunting, as it strikes me as one of the most humane methods of getting meat. I dare say I might get a thrill from a kill.

As for those who dismiss the issue of Class in fox hunting; this form of hunting has, until recently, been the exclusive preserve of the very wealthy; commoners were involved only to look after horses and dogs, and to find foxes lairs and stuff. They weren't allowed on the hunts themselves. Indeed, considering that more 'lower Class' forms of hunting rituals such as badger baiting etc have been outlawed, I think it's pretty safe to say that the powerful and far more influential upper classes have definitely had a hand in preserving their 'sport'.

West Kipper - the issue with food production is that potentially most of the people slating shooting and hunting eat meat that has been ill treated. I refer to cheap meat and meat from abroad.

I'm not sure you've properly read my post, chameleon.
Whether its meat or arable production, there will be some inevitable accidental cruelty and deaths, some necessary pest control issues
Whatever food you've eaten, even if you're a vetetarian, will have resulted in animals dying somewhere along the line.
My point is that with foxhunting its unnecessary and deliberate.

aracer - thats right - deliberately prolonging. The dogs are bred not to be too fast so they don't catch them too quickly.

TJ - where is your proof of this??? Just out of interest?

Talkamada - hate to disappoint you but I dont feel that while shooting i am trying to prove myself as a man.
I would also like to point out that there are many women who shoot and hunt so it isn't a world of men trying to prove themselves.

Just refresh my mind on the Norwegian style of hunting please - I am familiar with boar hunting in Europe and that is basically herds of pigs driven by men with dogs towards the guns. i'm not sure how similar Norwegian hunting is to this?

Well, in Norway, it's more about tracking the animals (mainly types of deer and elk), and shooting them with high-velocity rifles. Sort of thing depicted in 'Deerhunter'. It is very strictly controlled, and animal populations are closely monitored. This form of hunting serves to keep control of animal populations, 'culling' as it's known.

The animals are killed almost instantly, and therefore feel minimum pain and stress. The whole point is to approach the animal so that it isn't startled, and runs off. Virtually every part of the animal is used, and Norwegian culture reflects this strong tradition in it's traditional crafts. I found it fascinating.

It is far removed from the barbary of fox hunting.

cynic-al - Member
That's just naive.

Nicely justified.

The idea that the legislation against hunting foxes with hounds is to do with the welfare of foxes is complete nonsense. It is still perfectly legal to kill them with guns, traps and by gassing.

Shooting and trapping often leaves the fox to die a long drawn-out and agonisingly painful death where the animal is injured and still escapes the attention of the hunter. Trapped foxes often escape the trap by gnawing off the trapped limb, dragging themselves away to die in agony.

Gassed in the set, the vixen and cubs die in a particularly horrible way together, aware of each other's suffering.

To date, there is no outcry from the anti-foxhunters with regard to these methods of killing. What hypocrisy.

The upshot of the legislation is that you can still kill foxes, you just can't do it in a posh way...

I would feel happier about the situation if the anti's were honest about it and just admitted that the campaign is/was simply a matter of class/cultural prejudice.

When hunted by dogs, the fox:

1: has a chance of getting away and

2: if caught, is despatched quickly by a bite that severs it's spinal chord.

It seems obvious to me which is the more humane method.

Dont you think that drag hunting is deliberately being undersold a bit?
In the process of sticking to their guns, the countryside communities are ignoring something that could be non divisive, and promoted as a spectacle that would draw in money and visitors to an area. A bit like Up Helly Aa, The Hawick Common Riding or even The Palio in Siena.
Instead, we have a rather discredited, insular and bad tempered affair, unless of course thats the whole point?

Toys it's an obvious point that needs no justification.

You have taken a vote-seeking proposal from a Tory and turned it into "no one cares about anything else".

Not being funny but how old are you?

woppit - you think chasing a terrified animal for a deliberately long time then it being torn to death once it is exhausted is humane?

The quick nip on the back of the neck is a myth. Very rarely happens. Plenty of evidence of this.

Remember the fox hunt is not about getting rid of predators as is clearly established. Fox hunts nurture and support foxes to ensure a supply of prey. Again established fact.

Support it on grounds that make sense - tradition and culture but don't try to pretend its anything but killing for the fun of killing.

cynic-al - Member

Toys it's an obvious point that needs no justification.

You have taken a vote-seeking proposal from a Tory and turned it into "no one cares about anything else".

Not being funny but how old are you?

No I haven't, I merely pointed out that its not anywhere as important as many other issues, it about priorities. I don't need the tories or you to help me decide what's right or wrong.

As regards my age, I'm shy, why don't you tell us how old you are?

TJ I corrected this for you.

Support killing animals for meat eating on grounds that make sense - utility, reasons? Tradition and culture, but don't try to pretend its anything but killing for the fun of killing.

41 and grumpy. Your view of these things just strikes me as naive but I'm not bothered enough about it to argue with you.

38 and optimistic. Calling me naive strikes me as horribly patronising, but I don't really care how superior you think you are.

Talkemada - I'm sorry you're wrong as that isn't norwegian style hunting at all, it is basic stalking which is what goes on in Scotland and the UK and the world over. It is only an instant kill if the shot is perfect - I have seen Deer shot, only for it to run on for about 5 or more minutes with another shot or two required to finish it off provided you can keep up with it, which some would envisage as cruel.In some cases a dog is used to follow the injured deer and take it down. In the UK you have to take a test to prove that your shot grouping meets a required standard to give you permission to stalk and kill. I'm not so sure if the europeans are so hot on that, I may stand corrected though.

I think this thread could go on forever as its such a contentious subject as to what is cruel and what isn't.

Personally while i don't condone hunting with dogs I believe that the fox would die quicker by the dogs. whether its pointless or not is another thing and down to personal opinion.

Don't take it personally.

cynic-al - Member

Don't take it personally.

Thanks, I realise now you are the supreme being, everyone is naive in your eyes! 😆

Talkemada - I'm sorry you're wrong as that isn't norwegian style hunting at all, it is basic stalking which is what goes on in Scotland and the UK and the world over.

I meant, the style of hunting that is done in Norway. 🙄

Chamealeon - the pointlessness of it is fact. Fox hunting does not remove foxes from the ecology as the hunts nurture foxes by feeding and by providing artificial earths - and there is no fox problem in areas with no hunts. As for it being quicker - that opinion and all the evidence points to other methods being quicker and more humane should there be a need to cull foxes.

You've lost me but happy to see you smiling.

Mr Woppit - you couldn't have said it better. Spot on.

Like Woppit said the fox isn't chased for hours on end, usualy the hunt is only out for a couple of hours and it is unlikely that they find a fox, in the rare case that they do the chase usually ends pretty quickly with either a kill or the fox getting away.

If thats the case chameleon, why is the precise technicality of a fox death so important? such a sticking point?

Talkemada - that 'style' of hunting in Norway is the same 'style' that goes on here I'm afraid.

TJ - Where are you getting supporting evidence for these claims? Hunts usually operate to eradicate a pest on farmland - the fox. Why would a farmer deliberately allow a fox den to be built purely to get foxes in? I'm sorry but that is a load of Bollox.
As to other methods being more humane and quicker, please read Mr Woppits post. You can add to that death by a golden eagle. look it up see what you think is more humane.

I remember a program - kill it cook it eat it. On one episode they were shooting rabbits that were causing a problem on some farm land. One person on the show was an animal rights woman - she couldnt shoot the rabbits because it was in her words barbaric and there were more humane man made methods of killing them, to which the presenter replied "You think Mixamatosis is a more humane death than one shot?" the woman had no response and couldn't justify what she'd said. Point being that she was very blinkered in her opinions.

trailmonkey - as a self righteous fascist i no longer feel i can add to this post. Are you seriously suggesting people on here of being fascists over comments for and against hunting with dogs?????? You need help!!

i find the attitude of the anti hunt lobby to be both highly self righteous and also fascistic in its heavy handed approach to liberty heritage and tradition in a way that has no mandate from a majority of the public.

i also rather suspect that you haven't really bothered to read what i have posted.

Is hunting on public land allowed in the UK? I thought it was only allowed on private estates?

West Kipper - it isn't, just trying to get the point across that other methods of killing can be less humane.

Trailmonkey - there is a clear majority of the public in favour of banning hunting with dogs - again no doubt about that whatsoever.

The rank hypocrisy and tortuous justifications of the hunt supporters are really laughable.

Trailmonkey - there is a clear majority of the public in favour of banning hunting with dogs - again no doubt about that whatsoever

Evidence please

You'd probably find a majority of the public were in favour of capital punishment too.

Chameleon - admitted by hunts many times over. Plenty of evidence.

Well according to the guy I mentioned some pages ago, chameleon, it isn't more humane than skillful shooting. And while he's not mentioned any artificial den building, he is aware of feeding of foxes, since he's been called into shoot them.

New Ipsos MORI polling published today shows the latest public views on hunting (including fox hunting, deer hunting and hare hunting and coursing).

Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2479

And
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1389913.stm

This is the repeated pattern over many years - the overwhelming majority of the british public believe in a ban on fox hunting.

If you follow the text down a little you will find this.......

The poll was commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the League Against Cruel Sports

Hard to imagine that this was completely free of influence.

Hard to imagine that this was completely free of influence.

Ah, attempts to discredit the sources now... 🙄

Face it; no-one can come up with a proper reasonable intelligent justification for hunting foxes with dogs.

Therefore, the only conclusion that can be made is that it is wrong, and should stop.

Case dismissed!

clearly a biased source so please accept this large pinch of salt. Please also look at the direct quotes from hunts.

http://www.acigawis.co.uk/artificial_earths.htm

There is lots more. Beaufort hunt were caught doing it. Many other hunts have been. Its simply common practice to feed foxes and to create artificial earths

Again - don't be hypocritical and try to pretend fox hunting is about pest control - it simply is not.

Face it; no-one can come up with a proper reasonable intelligent justification for 22 grown men kicking a ball around a field.

Therefore, the only conclusion that can be made is that it is wrong, and should stop.

Case dismissed!

😉

Captan Flashheart, I hold you in contempt of court, and sentence you to fifty lashes from Madame Fou-Fou of Wardour St...

Mind you, having watched Birmingham v Liverpool today, you might have a point...

One of the protesters’ key arguments — that foxes need to be destroyed — has been undermined, however, by the discovery of a letter sent by the Master of Foxhounds Association to masters and hunt chairmen.

Complaining about “a shortage of foxes”, it berates landowners who did too little to encourage the animals to breed.

The letter, circulated last March, has come to light following the leak of documents from the Countryside Alliance. It is referred to in an e-mail from Simon Hart, chief executive of the alliance, to Lord Daresbury, the chairman of the foxhounds association. Hart warns the letter would be damaging if it were made public.

“The notice refers in line one to a shortage of foxes,” he wrote. “What for? For several years we have articulated a case for wildlife management.

“That management should be accounting for every rural interest not just hunting. I am concerned that nowhere in the letter do I see reference to the needs of farmers . . . only the interests of foxhunters.

“This would play badly in almost every sector outside hunting itself, and within too.”

Hart takes exception to the suggestion that hunt masters ought to put pressure on members to maintain fox populations: “This can only be interpreted by the outside world as suspicious — the artificial enhancement of a ‘pest species’ for purely sporting benefit.

“We would be ridiculed (if the remarks were published) in parliament and the media.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article486999.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/this-fox-was-reared-for-a-yorkshire-hunt-to-one-end--to-be-killed-for-pleasure-1167496.html

Again - don't be hypocritical and try to pretend fox hunting is about pest control - it simply is not.

TJ, I have continually stated that my argument is based solely on tradition, culture and heritage, I think that you are confusing my comments with someone elses.

Even if pro hunters were in a tiny minority of the population, I would still back their right to hunt based on those principles. It's not about proving or disproving animal welfare or fighting class politics, it's about defending multi culturalism, preseving heritage and preventing iconoclasm.