Discussion
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The fox is offered the same death which it offers it's own victims / food.
If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
Few animals in nature will die of 'old age'. After all 'old age' itself is no more than an alias for the disease / organ failure that finally killed you.
For animals, this will most often mean the disease or organ failure that leads to an inability to hunt, leading finally to starvation.
Nature is cruel. Always.
Take the toffs on horseback out of the equation and I'd kind of agree with you. I still can't see what value they add or quite why they enjoy it. I've also never seen foxes hunt in massive packs and chase chickens for miles, but I don't live in the type of area where this goes on, so perhaps I am mistaken.If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
Few animals in nature will die of 'old age'. After all 'old age' itself is no more than an alias for the disease / organ failure that finally killed you.
For animals, this will most often mean the disease or organ failure that leads to an inability to hunt, leading finally to starvation.
Nature is cruel. Always.
I can't see why the foxes can't just be shot. Even if you don't care about how humane the kill is, surely this would get kill many more for much less money and time? I suppose the obvious answer to that is that the people who do this aren't really short of either money or time...
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Nature is cruel. Always.
True, but only if you humanise it. Nature does what nature does.I think most (rational) people agree that foxes are a pest. Shooting etc sounds great, a nice quick painless death. Only in reality it probably isnt quite that simple or straightforward.
Is it right that townies should dictate to the country folk how they should live?
hyphen said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The fox is offered the same death which it offers it's own victims / food.
If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
So our laws should be changed too? Any punishment should be the same as the victim suffered, any killer be killed the same way.If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
An eye for an eye perhaps?
In spite of what my earlier picture post may have mislead you to believe
If you believe that Hammurabi's dictum "an eye for an eye" was a cruel revision of the laws, you need to review your history.
Let's face it, this issue has very little to do with foxes and everything to do with class. It's seen as a perk for the privileged few, and that riles everyone else up. It seems to be used as the yardstick to measure what posh people are allowed to get away with.
It seems a slightly morbid thing to enjoy but it's not like fat Americans paying $50,000 to go and shoot a sleeping lion with a high-powered rifle. The animal rights argument is probably valid but so few animals actually get killed that it should barely garner a mention. Besides, the fast, healthy foxes don't usually get caught so it takes out older or lame animals, which isn't a million miles from natural predation.
The bottom line for me is that fox-hunting affects almost nobody in this country. It's already had a massive waste of public money and parliamentary and legal time spent in relation to the actual impact it has, so it's frustrating to see it popping up again when there's so much other stuff going on that does actually affect people. Maybe putting it back in the news is deliberate but the public have taken the bait regardless.
It seems a slightly morbid thing to enjoy but it's not like fat Americans paying $50,000 to go and shoot a sleeping lion with a high-powered rifle. The animal rights argument is probably valid but so few animals actually get killed that it should barely garner a mention. Besides, the fast, healthy foxes don't usually get caught so it takes out older or lame animals, which isn't a million miles from natural predation.
The bottom line for me is that fox-hunting affects almost nobody in this country. It's already had a massive waste of public money and parliamentary and legal time spent in relation to the actual impact it has, so it's frustrating to see it popping up again when there's so much other stuff going on that does actually affect people. Maybe putting it back in the news is deliberate but the public have taken the bait regardless.
WCZ said:
rgw2012 said:
If you see first hand the carnage that a fox can reap on chickens or sheep you will realise that nature, viewed from a human perspective, can be inhumane and even cruel maybe, but that is an emotive perspective of how nature really is.
I have chickens, they have a large enclosure with mesh wiring. Last week a fox bit through the wires, climbed through and killed all of our hens - there were feathers everywhere and although it's upsetting to think of the poor hens sleeping then having to fight for their lives, I accept it's nature.This is completely different, like you suggest we are engineering this situation so therefore we have to take responsibility for it for the very reason that animals/nature doesn't have morals. If I released a wild coyote into a hospital room full of babies then simply said 'it's nature mate, don't blame me' when it snacks on a few new-borns then that's wrong too.
HughiusMaximus said:
Jonmx said:
better to let a couple of hounds loose to track and despatch the fox.
Gross oversimplification of what actually happens. Less 'track and despatch' and more run it ragged it for miles before cornering it and tearing it to pieces.
You can make the case about foxes being a pest that needs their numbers reduced, but the manner in which it is done has to be humane... and fox hunting is anything but that.
Lets be honest, it's barbaric.
LordHaveMurci said:
Quite. I know several people who go out lamping foxes, 1 served with the Royal Marines in Afghanistan & had his stomach turned when he saw a pack of hounds set on a fox.
Lets be honest, it's barbaric.
I was generally ambiguous about the issues of fox hunting until I saw a video of a woman rescuing a fox cub from a pack of hounds that were tearing the cub's mother to bits. This woman wasn't a hunt saboteur, she just happened to be in the right (or wrong) place at the right time.Lets be honest, it's barbaric.
Two things struck me: one, the look of absolute abject terror on the cub's face and two, the total, almost detached, lack of any sort of emotion on the faces of the huntsmen.
The death of any creature for 'sport' is barbaric. There are no 'degrees of harm' where barbarism is concerned.
Jonmx said:
better to let a couple of hounds loose to track and despatch the fox.
When you say couple, don't you mean 20 of the hounds on one fox, the hounds trained from birth and probably left hungry prior to the hunt?I suspect without training the dogs would just chase a fox for a bit and then give up. Just like other animals do when the prey gets away if the first attack fails.
Nothing natural about this, in the modern age there is no need for Fox Hunting 'to the death'.
LordHaveMurci said:
HughiusMaximus said:
Jonmx said:
better to let a couple of hounds loose to track and despatch the fox.
Gross oversimplification of what actually happens. Less 'track and despatch' and more run it ragged it for miles before cornering it and tearing it to pieces.
You can make the case about foxes being a pest that needs their numbers reduced, but the manner in which it is done has to be humane... and fox hunting is anything but that.
Lets be honest, it's barbaric.
durbster said:
Let's face it, this issue has very little to do with foxes and everything to do with class. It's seen as a perk for the privileged few, and that riles everyone else up. It seems to be used as the yardstick to measure what posh people are allowed to get away with.
I have no problem with the principal of people chasing after the hounds. Lay a pre-scented trail that doesn't involve the needless suffering of a live animal and have at it.
rgw2012 said:
I would suggest that Humans kill many more foxes inadvertently through car accidents or rubbish left out (plastics, wire etc) than hunts ever do, and neither issue would cause a "humane" death of a fox but there's no high profile concerns raised about that!
Indeed, but in the majority of those cases the humans are neither doing it deliberately or taking any type of weird pleasure from the kill.rgw2012 said:
Yes, acts of killing in the natural world are barbaric - just like the carnage when a fox terrorises a coop of chickens or attacks sheep. Nature is violent and it's only our human interpretation placed upon that that causes people to want it to be "humane" - there are zero guarantees of any humane method of control for foxes in the wild. I would suggest that Humans kill many more foxes inadvertently through car accidents or rubbish left out (plastics, wire etc) than hunts ever do, and neither issue would cause a "humane" death of a fox but there's no high profile concerns raised about that!
A car accident is just that, an accident, as is plastics, wire etc. Setting a group of trained hounds on a single fox is unnecessary & barbaric. Foxes kill for food, they kill more than required so they can cache it & return to it later. The fact that humans provide so much food in one easy place is not really the foxes fault is it?!
Most people appreciate that there is no guaranteed humane way of despatching them, shooting possibly offers the best chance though, hunting most certainly doesn't.
rgw2012 said:
Yes, acts of killing in the natural world are barbaric - just like the carnage when a fox terrorises a coop of chickens or attacks sheep. Nature is violent and it's only our human interpretation placed upon that that causes people to want it to be "humane" - there are zero guarantees of any humane method of control for foxes in the wild. I would suggest that Humans kill many more foxes inadvertently through car accidents or rubbish left out (plastics, wire etc) than hunts ever do, and neither issue would cause a "humane" death of a fox but there's no high profile concerns raised about that!
what are your thoughts on bullfighting? kingston12 said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The fox is offered the same death which it offers it's own victims / food.
If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
Few animals in nature will die of 'old age'. After all 'old age' itself is no more than an alias for the disease / organ failure that finally killed you.
For animals, this will most often mean the disease or organ failure that leads to an inability to hunt, leading finally to starvation.
Nature is cruel. Always.
Take the toffs on horseback out of the equation and I'd kind of agree with you. I still can't see what value they add or quite why they enjoy it. I've also never seen foxes hunt in massive packs and chase chickens for miles, but I don't live in the type of area where this goes on, so perhaps I am mistaken.If someone were tying it down and physically torturing it, I might find myself somewhat upset at the notion and inspired to have a strong opinion against it.
That the fox dies in the same way as his/her chicken dinners concerns me not in the slightest.
Few animals in nature will die of 'old age'. After all 'old age' itself is no more than an alias for the disease / organ failure that finally killed you.
For animals, this will most often mean the disease or organ failure that leads to an inability to hunt, leading finally to starvation.
Nature is cruel. Always.
I can't see why the foxes can't just be shot. Even if you don't care about how humane the kill is, surely this would get kill many more for much less money and time? I suppose the obvious answer to that is that the people who do this aren't really short of either money or time...
justinio said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Nature is cruel. Always.
True, but only if you humanise it. Nature does what nature does.I think most (rational) people agree that foxes are a pest. Shooting etc sounds great, a nice quick painless death. Only in reality it probably isnt quite that simple or straightforward.
Is it right that townies should dictate to the country folk how they should live?
The red coats seem to quite naturally inflame people's passions.
Any honest hunter will also admit they have made bad shots, and some will have pursued wounded prey for miles and hours to provide the cleanest death they still can. Many more probably won't, and the wounded animal will suffer for hours or even days before dying of it's wounds, starvation or being torn apart by another animal.
Where I grew up, hunting was a passage of manhood for many. My father didn't take me, he had put his guns down many years earlier.
I also put my guns down one day, and like my father, I respected the right/privilege of those that chose to continue hunting and the feelings of those that chose not to.
If I or my family were hungry, without the funds to purchase food, there would be fewer ducks on the local pond and I would feel no more remorse than buying a package of burger patties or bag of potatoes.
I think that for most people, including the well horsed red coat brigade, that it is about the comradeship, the chase and the thrill much more than any direct enjoyment of the kill,
I have never participated, and have no desire to.
I have lived quite a lot of time in 'the country' in the UK. Next to/near farms and around the people that supply a good deal of our daily food through raising crops and animals.
Life is different amongst the long term habitants, most especially those of multiple generations.
The cruelty of nature is only cruel if humanised, but we are human, and it will be in the nature of many modern people to humanise our views.
People see human like behaviour in most rodents (gerbils are very entertaining for a time), and smile and laugh at their actions, and even in the behaviour of song birds when they do human like things.
It's a good thing that many people do feel compassion for animals, as it tends to act as a curb to those few who are unable to feel any, and really would enjoy inflicting unnecessary, extreme cruelties.
LordHaveMurci said:
A car accident is just that, an accident, as is plastics, wire etc. Setting a group of trained hounds on a single fox is unnecessary & barbaric.
Foxes kill for food, they kill more than required so they can cache it & return to it later. The fact that humans provide so much food in one easy place is not really the foxes fault is it?!
Most people appreciate that there is no guaranteed humane way of despatching them, shooting possibly offers the best chance though, hunting most certainly doesn't.
Have you asked the fox? They might prefer the thrill of the chase and a 50/50 chance.Foxes kill for food, they kill more than required so they can cache it & return to it later. The fact that humans provide so much food in one easy place is not really the foxes fault is it?!
Most people appreciate that there is no guaranteed humane way of despatching them, shooting possibly offers the best chance though, hunting most certainly doesn't.
The whole argument is stupid.
Man is part of 'nature', whatever man does is part of nature.
It is only your pretentious superior sensitivities that class it as barbaric - which you consider 'wrong'.
Foxes get ripped apart by packs of wolves in 'nature'.
Any fox that doesn't get killed by hounds will suffer a lingering painful death from old age, mange, festering injuries, broken bones, and starvation.
So every fox hunted is saved from even worse suffering.
Fox hunting should never have been banned - it is typical of how a deranged PC screaming minority can impose their will through the democratic process simply because the other 95% just don't care so MPs support the politically correct outcome.
But should the government waste any more time on this farce now it has been banned, absolutely not.
And foxes do kill for fun, sheer blood lust, with no intention of stocking the freezer.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Have you asked the fox? They might prefer the thrill of the chase and a 50/50 chance.
The whole argument is stupid.
Man is part of 'nature', whatever man does is part of nature.
It is only your pretentious superior sensitivities that class it as barbaric - which you consider 'wrong'.
Foxes get ripped apart by packs of wolves in 'nature'.
Any fox that doesn't get killed by hounds will suffer a lingering painful death from old age, mange, festering injuries, broken bones, and starvation.
So every fox hunted is saved from even worse suffering.
Fox hunting should never have been banned - it is typical of how a deranged PC screaming minority can impose their will through the democratic process simply because the other 95% just don't care so MPs support the politically correct outcome.
But should the government waste any more time on this farce now it has been banned, absolutely not.
And foxes do kill for fun, sheer blood lust, with no intention of stocking the freezer.
Hats off to you for getting so much bThe whole argument is stupid.
Man is part of 'nature', whatever man does is part of nature.
It is only your pretentious superior sensitivities that class it as barbaric - which you consider 'wrong'.
Foxes get ripped apart by packs of wolves in 'nature'.
Any fox that doesn't get killed by hounds will suffer a lingering painful death from old age, mange, festering injuries, broken bones, and starvation.
So every fox hunted is saved from even worse suffering.
Fox hunting should never have been banned - it is typical of how a deranged PC screaming minority can impose their will through the democratic process simply because the other 95% just don't care so MPs support the politically correct outcome.
But should the government waste any more time on this farce now it has been banned, absolutely not.
And foxes do kill for fun, sheer blood lust, with no intention of stocking the freezer.
ks into one post.Goaty Bill 2 said:
People that don't hunt will rarely understand those that do.
The red coats seem to quite naturally inflame people's passions.
Any honest hunter will also admit they have made bad shots, and some will have pursued wounded prey for miles and hours to provide the cleanest death they still can. Many more probably won't, and the wounded animal will suffer for hours or even days before dying of it's wounds, starvation or being torn apart by another animal.
Where I grew up, hunting was a passage of manhood for many. My father didn't take me, he had put his guns down many years earlier.
I also put my guns down one day, and like my father, I respected the right/privilege of those that chose to continue hunting and the feelings of those that chose not to.
If I or my family were hungry, without the funds to purchase food, there would be fewer ducks on the local pond and I would feel no more remorse than buying a package of burger patties or bag of potatoes.
I think that for most people, including the well horsed red coat brigade, that it is about the comradeship, the chase and the thrill much more than any direct enjoyment of the kill,
I have never participated, and have no desire to.
I have lived quite a lot of time in 'the country' in the UK. Next to/near farms and around the people that supply a good deal of our daily food through raising crops and animals.
Life is different amongst the long term habitants, most especially those of multiple generations.
The cruelty of nature is only cruel if humanised, but we are human, and it will be in the nature of many modern people to humanise our views.
People see human like behaviour in most rodents (gerbils are very entertaining for a time), and smile and laugh at their actions, and even in the behaviour of song birds when they do human like things.
It's a good thing that many people do feel compassion for animals, as it tends to act as a curb to those few who are unable to feel any, and really would enjoy inflicting unnecessary, extreme cruelties.
That is a very good explanation of the issues. A lot of this is going to depend on upbringing and norms.The red coats seem to quite naturally inflame people's passions.
Any honest hunter will also admit they have made bad shots, and some will have pursued wounded prey for miles and hours to provide the cleanest death they still can. Many more probably won't, and the wounded animal will suffer for hours or even days before dying of it's wounds, starvation or being torn apart by another animal.
Where I grew up, hunting was a passage of manhood for many. My father didn't take me, he had put his guns down many years earlier.
I also put my guns down one day, and like my father, I respected the right/privilege of those that chose to continue hunting and the feelings of those that chose not to.
If I or my family were hungry, without the funds to purchase food, there would be fewer ducks on the local pond and I would feel no more remorse than buying a package of burger patties or bag of potatoes.
I think that for most people, including the well horsed red coat brigade, that it is about the comradeship, the chase and the thrill much more than any direct enjoyment of the kill,
I have never participated, and have no desire to.
I have lived quite a lot of time in 'the country' in the UK. Next to/near farms and around the people that supply a good deal of our daily food through raising crops and animals.
Life is different amongst the long term habitants, most especially those of multiple generations.
The cruelty of nature is only cruel if humanised, but we are human, and it will be in the nature of many modern people to humanise our views.
People see human like behaviour in most rodents (gerbils are very entertaining for a time), and smile and laugh at their actions, and even in the behaviour of song birds when they do human like things.
It's a good thing that many people do feel compassion for animals, as it tends to act as a curb to those few who are unable to feel any, and really would enjoy inflicting unnecessary, extreme cruelties.
From my perspective, I don't like the fact that people get a 'thrill' from the chase or the kill, in fact I find it quite disturbing. I would do regardless of who was doing it - toffs on horseback wearing red tunics or oiks on mopeds wearing tracksuits.
I don't feel the same way about shooting, even if it is just for sport rather than food, but I can understand why people wouldn't like that either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff