Hunting should be an equal opportunity sport. No distance weapons should be allowed.

There should be an equal chance the animal can inflict harm on you. The lads who hunt feral boar in Oz with a knife and a dog are a good example. A razorback can make a real mess of you (or the dog).

Just don’t bother Z-11, it’s like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. 😀

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Yes,
there is,
its called Kosher and Halal slaughter.

That’s not intentional pain and suffering- that’s a process done for a different reason that involves pain and suffering.

It is, if you like, much like the difference between hunting a fox for a purpose, and hunting a fox for a laugh.

Northwind – he is trying to confuse the argument with something irrelvant.

Halal / kosher has no relevance to hunting and this

it is utterly, utterly reprehensible, and far, far more of an animal welfare and cruelty issue than any of the other things I’ve ever seen in that field ( hunting)

shows how divorced from reality he is.

Rubbish Northwind, it is thoroughly and intentionally unnecessary cruelty, and the only justification for using this method of slaughter (without pre-stunning, which renders the animal incapable of feeling pain) is religious tradition.

TJ, if you honestly feel I’m “divorced from reality” can you please tell me how many animals you’ve killed, as I’d be interested to compare your and my experience in the matter.

See that word, experience, thats the thing that shows which one of us is grounded in ‘reality’…

I’d lay a fiver you’ve not even watched the video TJ, let alone seen it in real life!

The purpose is not the suffering, unlike hunting with dogs. Not a fan of halal/kosher slaughter by any means- it’s very literally a throwback practice IMO- but I don’t see any sensible comparison between cruelty purely for fun, and cruelty which at least has some purpose- regardless of what I think of that purpose.

Equally I can see no sense whatsoever in those who try and affiliate hunting with dogs to eating meat in general. It’s just a weird nonsequitor that they think will suddenly make sense if they repeat it often enough in hysterical enough tones, IMO.

What exactly is the “purpose” of choosing halal/kosher slaughter over stunned slaughter – both carry the same result, a dead animal, one of the options causes unnecessary pain and suffering, the only justification for this from the advocates is that it is part of their religion.

how is this different from the “purpose” of choosing the hunt over the lamp, or the snare? – both carry the same result, a dead animal, but apparently to you one of the options is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering, the only justification for this from the advocates is that it is part of their tradition

whats the difference?

No – hunting with dogs is unacceptable because it is deliberalty intended to be cruel and its only purpose is entertainment from cruel killing

So, what makes religious slaughter acceptable TJ?

How is the completely unnecessary infliction of more pain and suffering than absolutely necessary justified in the name of religion?

Your castigation of hunting as cruel, allied with a refusal to condemn religious slaughter, is utterly hypocritical.

Zulu-Eleven – Member
What exactly is the “purpose” of choosing halal/kosher slaughter over stunned slaughter – both carry the same result

They do not, no. (incidentally, you seem to be under the common misapprehension that stunned slaughter is haram)

Zulu-Eleven – Member

how is this different from the “purpose” of choosing the hunt over the lamp, or the snare? – both carry the same result, a dead animal, but apparently to you one of the options is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering

I shall explain it again, one last time. The diffence is that for one, the suffering is a side effect, whereas for the other the suffering is the reason. Hunting with dogs isn’t wrong because it causes pain and suffering, but because it is done solely to cause pain and suffering.

This isn’t complex or nuanced. You may believe that the difference doesn’t matter- I would completely disagree of course- but you can’t credibly claim there is no difference.

This isn’t complex or nuanced. You may believe that the difference doesn’t matter- I would completely disagree of course- but you can’t credibly claim there is no difference.

There is a difference, but not enough to excuse it. Much like protectign kiddie fiddling clergy to protect your religious world – you know the side effects, whether they’re your intention or not doesn’t make it excusable, it just means it looks like you had a bigger picture in mind while doing it.

there is no utility to it at all

tj, we’ve established that there is utility – social action.

don’t keep stating as fact things that have already been disproved on the thread.

unless of course you want to just keep arguing for the sake of it.

there is no utility to it at all

1. Exercise – riding a horse is quite strenuous.

2. Gets people out into the countryside and fresh air.

3. Entertainment/enjoyment.

Mmmmm….sounds like mountain biking, perhaps we should ban that as it has no utility. (IMO)

Page 5, I cant believe no one has insisted that someone “wear the fox hat”…..

The ppt presentation was indeed priceless….

If you need to spill the blood of an animal to get you out in the fresh air and talking to people you got issues.

Mmmmm….sounds like mountain biking, perhaps we should ban that as it has no utility

Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn’t tear animals to shreds.

trailmonkey / st george – all that could be done by a drag hunt.

Hence it is established there is no utility to killing the fox by chasing it to exhaustion then setting dogs on it

What’s all this Utility nonsense?

Mcboo – you racist idiot. What a stupid thing to say and why do you invent spurious things to attribute to me?

I am not commenting on halal because it is irrelevant to the issue. Its an attempt from Zulu to divert attention. two wrongs do not make a right

Utility – some purpose / use / to it. Proponents of hunting claim its for vermin control but that myth has now been demolished. Its only purpose is entertainment / blood lust.

So how do you stand on badger baiting? Cock fighting? How about dancing bears?

Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn’t tear animals to shreds.

…says someone who has never got a squirrel try to jump through their spokes 😆

ocrider – Member

“Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn’t tear animals to shreds.”

…says someone who has never got a squirrel try to jump through their spokes

No, my squirrel and I are just highly trained.

Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn’t tear animals to shreds.

I thought that was where the term “shredding the trails” came from. 😈

No, my squirrel and I are just highly trained.

Oh, very good! 😉

TJ:

Mcboo – you racist idiot. What a stupid thing to say and why do you invent spurious things to attribute to me?

Ahh, personal insults now. Going well. not sure I can find the racist post. Care to enlighten?

Transapp – the post is now removed.

Utility?

We had this with shooting, If you shoot a rabbit or pheasant to eat is that a utility? isn’t that the Same as halal.

Does that mean that it has no utility if there is no intention to eat the animal?

I agree TJ that Fox hunting has nothing to do with vermin control anymore, and doubt it ever did.

Fair enough. Always difficult to see!

Out of interest TJ – where do you stand on fishing? Straight question, honestly!

I mean coarse and fly, not commercial

Utility – some purpose / use / to it.

So, lets get this straight then TJ – you’re telling us that its ok to be unnecessarily cruel (ie, to inflict more pain and distress on an animal than is absolutley necessary) if it has its justification in “utility”

Is that correct?

ie – the unnessesary cruelty inflicted in Halal slaughter is ok, because it has a ‘utility’, whereas foxhunting is not ok, because it serves no ‘utility’ purpose.

I just want to be certain that thats what you’re saying, as thats the impression you’ve given me from your posts above.

Zulu – I have not said any of that as you well know

I like the way Halal slaughter has been pointlessly dragged into the debate, class..

Halal butchery in the UK is at least a regulated industry although not necessarily a humane as “regular” Butchery practise I think it qualifies as less inhumane than tearing animals to bits with angry dogs…

The defense of Fox hunting prior to the ban was not particularly coherent, as the bleating fools tended not to stick to any particular point (See preceeding 5 pages) but the 4 key tennant of the argument were effectively:

1- “It’s my tradition/Culture” – (Don’t victimise me… Boo Hoo)
2- “its pest control” – (The most efficient/Humane means available?)
3- “Surely all hunting/animal slaughter is ‘Cruel’ if you ban this you’ll have to ban everything” – (Applying a Black and White moral argument to a “Shades of Grey” area)
4- “This has nothing to do with Animal welfare but is in fact Lefty/pinko/townie class War thing” – (Might well be a grain of truth there in many cases, but the same argument cuts both ways too)…

We got the arguments pretty much straight away, it’s just they were quite clearly mostly cobblers… Hence the Ban was voted through.

I don’t remember the Countryside alliance entering into a proper Dialogue regarding means by which Fox Hunting with hounds could be made more Humane? They didn’t they all went a’protesting at their subdugation by those tyranical lefty types and assumed that shouting lots would win the argument.

The point is that we have had in the UK for some time Laws regarding unnecessary animal cruelty that have applied to every British citizen, Fox Hunting with Hounds basically already broke these but it’s proponents hid behind the “It’s my tradition/Culture” and “its pest control” banner to justify what was essentially just being extra **** nasty to small orange dogs. Specific legislation was required to make the point for the hard of thinking…

You can ride a horse in a posh coat surrounded by dogs, you can even have said dogs chase some fabricated fox stink with all the pomp, ceremony and bullshit required to satisfy your social and cultural needs, just leave the Fox shredding bit out – simple enough you’d have thought, but nope you lot just can’t help yourselves… Cause your basically, at heart, a bunch of rather nasty gits…

Cookea – I guess your comments are directed at Z11, but may I ask how much of this is a cruelty to animals and how much of this is a “perceived” class thing – hence the reference to toffs/posh gits etc. Or is it both?

Hence my question about fishing. Certainly not a class-drive sport and one that is enjoyed by many. I can never quite get my head around the idea that the fish is not in pain/or its not cruel to have a lump of metal thrust thought your mouth etc.

What is the utility in coarse fishing, other than recreation. Catch the fish, let it go, catch it again….? Do you draw a moral distinction between this and hunting with dogs?

Personally happy to leave this to individual conscience – legislation likely to remain an ass here.

Still though is there a utility if the aim is to eat the animal?

Looking at shooting/fishing here.

TandemJeremy – Member
…So how do you stand on … Cock fighting?…

Fair bit of that going on here. 🙂

Its not black and white – there are shades of gray.

Hunting withdogs is by far the most odious – compare with deer stalking where the deer is shot with a high velicity rifle bullet. a skilful deer hunter / successful stalk the deer is killed almost instantly, they need to be culled and the meat is eaten. wheras a successful fox hunt is one with a good long chase.

coarse fishing lives somewhere in between the two. worse than fishing for food but most coarse fishing the animal is retuned to the water alive.

leave it to individual consciences? How about badger baiting? still goes on but a mainly working class pursuit – no one tries to defend that tho do they.

We need legislation to prevent animal cruelty. It would be simple enough to outlaw the cruel practice of fox hunting just the labour party bottled it

It is indeed an issue with lots of grey areas.

I have a view where my personal boundaries lie but happy to let others make their own mind up in the main. But I really can’t get my head around fishing though – ok or not? Because actually, the idea that the fish is returned alive is merely saying that the utility (for want of a better word) is merely to see if you can trap the fish. Leaving aside the skill required to do this, it is merely for the pleasure of the angler (no food justfication etc in the main) and hard to really understand that the fish is not suffering some kind of pain/anguish.

But that’s for anglers to decide and frankly happy to let hunters do the same thing.

I’ve always thought sport fishing would disappear overnight if fish could scream.

Why try to divert the question on to other pursuits?

Fishing/Halal butchery/tiddly-winks, not really the point under examination however at least the majority of participants in all of those activities abide by/submit to the applicable laws and/or regulations, where as fox worriers appear to revel in their pretty flagrant circumvention of the law…
Hmmm, a minority in society considering themselves to be above the law, does kind of play to class stereotypes… but clearly that would never be the case..

Is it a class thing? Dunno – TBH I think there is an Element of that (Both ways), I’ve never been invited on a Fox hunt (I have a pretty boring Middleclass background), and I believe I’m right in saying that none of my Pro-Fox shredding friends have either (Most have some connection to agriculture), Shooting and fishing strike me as being by default more inclusive sports, make of that what you will…

Why try to divert the question on to other pursuits?

Because TJ’s buzz word “utility” cropped up. He said shooting has no utility in another thread but killing animals for food does.

my Pro-Fox shredding friends have either (Most have some connection to agriculture

Depends what type of agriculture they are in, If they are in landownership they are more likely to be involved.

Agriculture: the Hunt generally causes more damage than the fox. The gamekeepers near us would have shot the fox well before any chance of a hunt coming along.

Because the logic of the argument is important – especially when legislation is involved. Even at the moral debate level, its important to understand the logic otherwise people can just spout any old BS.

Plus – the utility argument put forward by TJ seems to apply to other so-called field sports such as angling and yet that is less of a contentious issue. Why is that. What is it that really gets people about fox hunting – how much is a pure cruelty to animals thing and if so where are lines to be drawn with other field pursuits and how much is a completely different issue based on perceived class differences or as you put it, inclusive versus exclusive?

Fox hunting is legislated (albeit imperfectly IMO) so not sure of your point in para 2 cookeaa.