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
Where do you get your propaganda, TJ? You do realise that there was a study done which showed that the average chase was less than half an hour (significantly less I think, but really can't be bothered to go and look it up). As to it being killed by being torn apart, that bit is hardly a scientific fact either, much as the anti-hunt people like to keep repeating it (saw an interview with Mike "Hypocrite" Foster the other day where he said it every other sentence).
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 - MemberToys 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 - MemberDon'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.
