Discussion
Digby said:
A57 HSV said:
it's already been explained to you that the considerable power to weight ratio of a fox hound over a fox will result in a quick death.
Wonderful.Bloodlust defence 101.
I assume you would have no issue with someone letting bigger dogs tear hunting dogs to pieces should someone want to protect foxes?
How about shooting hunting dogs in the face?
stichill99 said:
Welsh farmer has asked his MP if they can review hunting with hounds so that they can use more than 2 hounds to flush a fox as he has lost 115 lambs to fox kill this lambing time. It's all LIES LIES LIES. I Don't believe it. Cuddly Basil would never ever kill for fun. Maybe the lambs had these orange coats on to protect them from the cold and foxy thought Look at these over dressed t
ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)
Exactly, Fell and Hill farmers, Toffs personified. ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)
A57 HSV said:
Exactly, Fell and Hill farmers, Toffs personified.
Ignore the facts. Well done.As you say, the reasoned debate has ended for several posters here who have been left with no answers.
It has been this way for decades simply to support tradition and, as with the example above, false assumptions.
Poor old farmer. Clearly not a very good one, either!
Digby said:
Ignore the facts. Well done.
As you say, the reasoned debate has ended for several posters here who have been left with no answers.
It has been this way for decades simply to support tradition and, as with the example above, false assumptions.
Poor old farmer. Clearly not a very good one, either!
Facts....LOLAs you say, the reasoned debate has ended for several posters here who have been left with no answers.
It has been this way for decades simply to support tradition and, as with the example above, false assumptions.
Poor old farmer. Clearly not a very good one, either!
No answers.....bigger LOL
Not a good farmer......falls over leg in the air LOL
Digby said:
A57 HSV said:
Exactly, Fell and Hill farmers, Toffs personified.
Ignore the facts. Well done.As you say, the reasoned debate has ended for several posters here who have been left with no answers.
It has been this way for decades simply to support tradition and, as with the example above, false assumptions.
Poor old farmer. Clearly not a very good one, either!
Good God do I dare wade in to this debate, despite my unique position?
Do I support hunting? Not really
Do I go on hunts? Yes
Should the ban be repealed? Yes
Do I agree with the ban in principle? Yes
Do I agree with the ban? No
I did an essay on fox hunting as an undergrad and it was a bloody good analysis. There are several huge issues surrounding the debate, all of them mired in emotive aspects. I'm not going to repeat the essay ad infinitum but it covered pretty much every aspect of the entire debate, including every composite view on both sides of the argument, including the POV of the fox. Silly anthropromorphic statements like "how would you like to be chased for miles and torn apart by hounds" are ridiculous, obviously I personally wouldn't but then I don't break in to chicken coops and tear them apart for fun, whereas a fox does. So the view from an animal that does rip animals to shreds for fun is clearly going to be different.
Farming and rural activities have created a very intensely micromanaged ecosystem and fox hunting used to play a part in that.
I'll post up what I can over the next few nights and elaborate on points others raise but I'm not going to get in to emotional debate nor tolerate any flinging of abuse because that gets people nowhere.
Do I support hunting? Not really
Do I go on hunts? Yes
Should the ban be repealed? Yes
Do I agree with the ban in principle? Yes
Do I agree with the ban? No
I did an essay on fox hunting as an undergrad and it was a bloody good analysis. There are several huge issues surrounding the debate, all of them mired in emotive aspects. I'm not going to repeat the essay ad infinitum but it covered pretty much every aspect of the entire debate, including every composite view on both sides of the argument, including the POV of the fox. Silly anthropromorphic statements like "how would you like to be chased for miles and torn apart by hounds" are ridiculous, obviously I personally wouldn't but then I don't break in to chicken coops and tear them apart for fun, whereas a fox does. So the view from an animal that does rip animals to shreds for fun is clearly going to be different.
Farming and rural activities have created a very intensely micromanaged ecosystem and fox hunting used to play a part in that.
I'll post up what I can over the next few nights and elaborate on points others raise but I'm not going to get in to emotional debate nor tolerate any flinging of abuse because that gets people nowhere.
The first point is to actively differentiate between "The Hunt" and "hunting". The hunt is the entire aspect of fox hunting. From experience, there are very few people who enjoy hunting as a bloodsport, merely they enjoy the social aspect of the hunt. I have a number of friends who go on "the hunt" because they like to ride their horses at speed across the countryside, galloping through woods, wind in their hair, and laughing their socks off when someones horse misbehaves. It's a social thing, and that aspect of "the hunt" will not change whether there's a ban in place or not. Do we consider banning car meets because a select few will have souped up vehicles untaxed, uninsured and couldn't give a hoot if they killed someone? No, we don't. It's the same with "the hunt", hundreds of people who gather, socialise, drink themselves into oblivion at black tie functions and chat about all sorts of things. Land sales, vehicle sales, machinery sales, job offers, recruitment - it all goes on at "the hunt". For example, farmer Giles needs a new field, he buys one off another farmer at "the hunt" instead of the classified ads in farmers weekly.
Importantly, a lot of economic activity is undertaken at "the hunt", as well as a few young dames getting up the duff. It is part and parcel of rural life, and the reason so many people went on the countryside march, myself included, was the hunting ban wasn't so much a ban on hunting, it was an ill thought out policy that directly threatened the way of life of country people. Many saw it as the thin edge of the wedge, this notion that townies don't understand how the countryside actually works. On the flip side, townies simply saw it as 300,000 people who enjoyed tearing foxes apart, which isn't the case. But alas, emotions got in the way of that fact. Two tribes of people, one lot who were deeply concerned they were being portrayed as toffs and their way of life being attacked by a vicious labour government who seemingly enjoyed to make the lives of any tory voter an abject misery and relished dishing out punishment for 18 years of tory rule backed by swathes of populist notion. The other side were a bunch of people who constantly felt hard done by and saw "the hunt" as a focus for their anger, and seized the opportunity to portray cuddly foxes as innocent victims of a barbaric regime, without understanding that "the hunt" and "hunting" were two different kettles of fish.
Importantly, a lot of economic activity is undertaken at "the hunt", as well as a few young dames getting up the duff. It is part and parcel of rural life, and the reason so many people went on the countryside march, myself included, was the hunting ban wasn't so much a ban on hunting, it was an ill thought out policy that directly threatened the way of life of country people. Many saw it as the thin edge of the wedge, this notion that townies don't understand how the countryside actually works. On the flip side, townies simply saw it as 300,000 people who enjoyed tearing foxes apart, which isn't the case. But alas, emotions got in the way of that fact. Two tribes of people, one lot who were deeply concerned they were being portrayed as toffs and their way of life being attacked by a vicious labour government who seemingly enjoyed to make the lives of any tory voter an abject misery and relished dishing out punishment for 18 years of tory rule backed by swathes of populist notion. The other side were a bunch of people who constantly felt hard done by and saw "the hunt" as a focus for their anger, and seized the opportunity to portray cuddly foxes as innocent victims of a barbaric regime, without understanding that "the hunt" and "hunting" were two different kettles of fish.
Stickyfinger said:
MiniMan64 said:
You can't have a social gathering in the country without killing a fox?
Lets get your "base line" in the open.....do you agree foxes need to be controlled ?I'm really not sure chasing them with dogs and horses is the most efficient way to do it.
Digby ,your comment that the Welsh Farmer is clearly not a very good one shows how completely and utterly ignorant you are. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to be a sheep farmer. Do you think he has nothing better to do than spend his time 24 hours a day on sheep protection duties. How do you think that there are hundreds of sheep killed by dogs every year. Are all the farmers who have been victims bad farmers because they weren't there to protect the sheep. You are completely bloody clueless.
ofcorsa said:
MiniMan64 said:
You can't have a social gathering in the country without killing a fox?
You can, But this way foxes are controlled with no financial input from the farmer. My own experience in Cumbria, is that hunting ( please note these are foot packs, so no horses, Toffs, "fancy dress" ) is very much a social glue that binds together farmers and locals who otherwise wouldn't find the time to socialise. This was particularly the case when the Fell packs were trencher fed and the tradition of attending the meet and perhaps following the hounds has remained.
MiniMan64 said:
Stickyfinger said:
MiniMan64 said:
You can't have a social gathering in the country without killing a fox?
Lets get your "base line" in the open.....do you agree foxes need to be controlled ?I'm really not sure chasing them with dogs and horses is the most efficient way to do it.
There's a difference between pest control and the use of hounds for population management. The later being to maintain a healthy and balanced populations of foxes at levels which can be sustained by their local environment, and which are acceptable to farmers, landowners and the overall balance of all other wildlife.
A pack of hounds is the closest we'll get to a pack of wolves and applies the same natural selection process whereby old, weak and sick foxes are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby maintaining a fit and healthy population. The survival of the fitness!
Wiccan of Darkness said:
The first point is to actively differentiate between "The Hunt" and "hunting". The hunt is the entire aspect of fox hunting. From experience, there are very few people who enjoy hunting as a bloodsport, merely they enjoy the social aspect of the hunt. I have a number of friends who go on "the hunt" because they like to ride their horses at speed across the countryside, galloping through woods, wind in their hair, and laughing their socks off when someones horse misbehaves. It's a social thing, and that aspect of "the hunt" will not change whether there's a ban in place or not. Do we consider banning car meets because a select few will have souped up vehicles untaxed, uninsured and couldn't give a hoot if they killed someone? No, we don't. It's the same with "the hunt", hundreds of people who gather, socialise, drink themselves into oblivion at black tie functions and chat about all sorts of things. Land sales, vehicle sales, machinery sales, job offers, recruitment - it all goes on at "the hunt". For example, farmer Giles needs a new field, he buys one off another farmer at "the hunt" instead of the classified ads in farmers weekly.
Importantly, a lot of economic activity is undertaken at "the hunt", as well as a few young dames getting up the duff. It is part and parcel of rural life, and the reason so many people went on the countryside march, myself included, was the hunting ban wasn't so much a ban on hunting, it was an ill thought out policy that directly threatened the way of life of country people. Many saw it as the thin edge of the wedge, this notion that townies don't understand how the countryside actually works. On the flip side, townies simply saw it as 300,000 people who enjoyed tearing foxes apart, which isn't the case. But alas, emotions got in the way of that fact. Two tribes of people, one lot who were deeply concerned they were being portrayed as toffs and their way of life being attacked by a vicious labour government who seemingly enjoyed to make the lives of any tory voter an abject misery and relished dishing out punishment for 18 years of tory rule backed by swathes of populist notion. The other side were a bunch of people who constantly felt hard done by and saw "the hunt" as a focus for their anger, and seized the opportunity to portray cuddly foxes as innocent victims of a barbaric regime, without understanding that "the hunt" and "hunting" were two different kettles of fish.
This post and the previous one represent a good summary of why there will never be agreement on this thread or the issue as a whole. We may as well stop talking about it.Importantly, a lot of economic activity is undertaken at "the hunt", as well as a few young dames getting up the duff. It is part and parcel of rural life, and the reason so many people went on the countryside march, myself included, was the hunting ban wasn't so much a ban on hunting, it was an ill thought out policy that directly threatened the way of life of country people. Many saw it as the thin edge of the wedge, this notion that townies don't understand how the countryside actually works. On the flip side, townies simply saw it as 300,000 people who enjoyed tearing foxes apart, which isn't the case. But alas, emotions got in the way of that fact. Two tribes of people, one lot who were deeply concerned they were being portrayed as toffs and their way of life being attacked by a vicious labour government who seemingly enjoyed to make the lives of any tory voter an abject misery and relished dishing out punishment for 18 years of tory rule backed by swathes of populist notion. The other side were a bunch of people who constantly felt hard done by and saw "the hunt" as a focus for their anger, and seized the opportunity to portray cuddly foxes as innocent victims of a barbaric regime, without understanding that "the hunt" and "hunting" were two different kettles of fish.
Edited by kingston12 on Monday 29th May 19:18
Wiccan of Darkness said:
....merely they enjoy the social aspect of the hunt. I have a number of friends who go on "the hunt" because they like to ride their horses at speed across the countryside, galloping through woods, wind in their hair, and laughing their socks off when someones horse misbehaves. It's a social thing, and that aspect of "the hunt" will not change whether there's a ban in place or not.
Pretty much confirms what many think. "Social" "Sport" "vermin" "directly threatened the way of life of country people" I doubt it matters which version of the hunt you are talking of. Wiccan of Darkness said:
Do we consider banning car meets because a select few will have souped up vehicles untaxed, uninsured and couldn't give a hoot if they killed someone? No, we don't.
Yes, that is exactly what can happen and continues to happen.Wiccan of Darkness said:
but then I don't break in to chicken coops and tear them apart for fun, whereas a fox does.
Completely and utterly 100% wrong.Edited by Digby on Monday 29th May 19:12
stichill99 said:
Digby ,your comment that the Welsh Farmer is clearly not a very good one shows how completely and utterly ignorant you are. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to be a sheep farmer. Do you think he has nothing better to do than spend his time 24 hours a day on sheep protection duties. How do you think that there are hundreds of sheep killed by dogs every year. Are all the farmers who have been victims bad farmers because they weren't there to protect the sheep. You are completely bloody clueless.
How do you know what I know?You do not agree with the survey figures I posted earlier, then?
Why are they completely making up such figures?
Convince me.
Digby said:
How do you know what I know?
You do not agree with the survey figures I posted earlier, then?
Why are they completely making up such figures?
Convince me.
Endlessly REPEATING questions will get you zero results beyond those that you have already been given.You do not agree with the survey figures I posted earlier, then?
Why are they completely making up such figures?
Convince me.
Try answering some asked of you.
Do you eat meat ?
Do you have any leather goods ?
Do you drive Old Volvo turbos ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff