Discussion
Wiccan of Darkness said:
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.
You've used the term 'anthropomorphic', but then say the fox does things for 'fun.'Do you see those terms as opposed?
Halb said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
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.
You've used the term 'anthropomorphic', but then say the fox does things for 'fun.'Do you see those terms as opposed?
Lance Catamaran said:
Halb said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
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.
You've used the term 'anthropomorphic', but then say the fox does things for 'fun.'Do you see those terms as opposed?
I'm not aware of another in common use myself.
I would suggest that 'fun' and 'sport' are easily the most commonly used for describing the phenomenon in animals.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Perhaps suggest a more appropriate term for the pointless mass slaughter of a group of animals by another animal?
I'm not aware of another in common use myself.
I would suggest that 'fun' and 'sport' are easily the most commonly used for describing the phenomenon in animals.
Instinct.I'm not aware of another in common use myself.
I would suggest that 'fun' and 'sport' are easily the most commonly used for describing the phenomenon in animals.
MiniMan64 said:
You can't have a social gathering in the country without killing a fox?
Read my previous posts, I have yet to start on the actual hunting (the act of chasing a fox with hounds) instead I have touched on "the hunt" which is the social gathering.I'm assuming you find it difficult the two things can be separate.
It's perfectly possible to hold a social gathering, "The Hunt" or any other gathering, without killing a fox - or anything for that matter. Just like it's possible to go down the pub with your mates and not drink alcohol. Even before the ban, hunt meetings where there was a shortage of quarry would resort to drag hunting, and there's a lot of drag hunting that goes on today. Serves the same purpose.
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)
What's wrong with simply shooting them rather than creating pomp, spectacle and unnecessary suffering? ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)Stickyfinger said:
another person who does not read the thread................
I may have skimmed 3 pages of you going LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH NOT LISTENING, but the question has never really being answered in any meaningful way. Either they are a serious pest damaging farm animals that needs controlling by effective means, which means not over allocating resources and huge amounts of time and land and controlling them in an efficient manner, or they aren't a serious threat, which means that people just like seeing animals suffer for extended periods of time for their own bloodlust.
I have no problem with pest control from a purely utilitarian perspective. I have a problem with the needless and pointless suffering of animals.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
MiniMan64 said:
You can't have a social gathering in the country without killing a fox?
Read my previous posts, I have yet to start on the actual hunting (the act of chasing a fox with hounds) instead I have touched on "the hunt" which is the social gathering.I'm assuming you find it difficult the two things can be separate.
It's perfectly possible to hold a social gathering, "The Hunt" or any other gathering, without killing a fox - or anything for that matter. Just like it's possible to go down the pub with your mates and not drink alcohol. Even before the ban, hunt meetings where there was a shortage of quarry would resort to drag hunting, and there's a lot of drag hunting that goes on today. Serves the same purpose.
If people want to rid horses through the country as a group and shag in the hay bales afterwards then go for it.
Why feel the need to kill an animal in an unnecessarily brutal way in the process?
Colonial said:
I may have skimmed 3 pages of you going LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH NOT LISTENING, but the question has never really being answered in any meaningful way.
Either they are a serious pest damaging farm animals that needs controlling by effective means, which means not over allocating resources and huge amounts of time and land and controlling them in an efficient manner, or they aren't a serious threat, which means that people just like seeing animals suffer for extended periods of time for their own bloodlust.
I have no problem with pest control from a purely utilitarian perspective. I have a problem with the needless and pointless suffering of animals.
Really....lalalalaEither they are a serious pest damaging farm animals that needs controlling by effective means, which means not over allocating resources and huge amounts of time and land and controlling them in an efficient manner, or they aren't a serious threat, which means that people just like seeing animals suffer for extended periods of time for their own bloodlust.
I have no problem with pest control from a purely utilitarian perspective. I have a problem with the needless and pointless suffering of animals.
about every 3 pages those very questions have been asked and are answered....and I am sorry but a few of us posting information are getting a bit sick of repeating the answers to EXACTLY your questions.
Two options...read the f-ing thread or wait for another person who has not yet run out of repeat vouchers.
I'm surprised this thread is still going to be honest. Does anyone know what StickyFinger is going on about? Random questions about Volvos and eating meat? Odd...
To summarise for those that are new to the thread, the main points are:
1. Do fox numbers need to be controlled?
Not really, no. Lots of evidence says no. But at the same time many say they do. It's possible that is localised areas population control might be necessary.
2. If numbers need to be controlled, what is the reason?
This is the big question that few have attempted to answer. Everything we've read says that the financial cost to farmers of uncontrolled fox populations is minimal to say the least. Less than 5% of lamb losses for example. It's obvious that a farmer that does adequately protect a chicken coop could see it wiped out by a single fox, which would be devastating to that farmer, but on the whole we've yet to see evidence of a major issue.
3. Can't farmers protect their livestock from foxes?
Apparently foxes are smarter than humans and there is not a fence in the world that can stop a fox. Except those that do exist. I don't think anyone has given a good reason why livestock cannot be protected from foxes by decent fencing/buildings. It's probably money, but this isn't about profits apparently.
4. Why haven't fox numbers increased exponentially since the ban, or during the foot and mouth outbreak (which led to a temporary ban)?
Well that's an awkward question. Apparently, illegal hunts and increased shooting are keeping numbers low. But no-one can tell us how many foxes are being killed at the moment. It's possible that foxes are regulating their own numbers. Y'know, like nature tends to.
5. But don't you have to kill a lot of foxes to control the population?
Yep. You'd need to kill over 60% of the population. Hunts and farmers don't kill anywhere near that number, so can't be responsible for controlling numbers on a national scale.
6. I thought nature would look after itself in terms of population?
It does. The number of foxes in an area and the size of a litter is directly related to the availability of food and habitat.
7. So the more foxes we kill, the more that will move into an area?
Yep.
8. So is it all about the "sport" and a jolly good day out?
Apparently that is just a side effect of hunters doing a public service. Which is convenient.
9. I'm against fox hunting but I wear leather shoes. Am I a hypocrite?
That's an argument some idiots will use, knowing full well that leather is a by-product of the food industry. And industry that is heavily regulated to avoid animal cruelty as far as practicable. So no, you're not a hypocrite.
10. Isn't this just a class thing? Why can't the townies let the toffs have their fun?
Ah, that old chestnut. No, it's nothing to do with class. Those that are anti-fox hunting tend to also be againsts setting their dogs on hares as well. And I'm pretty sure s aren't upper class toffs.
11. So why do the Tories want to bring fox hunting back?
Officially May just wants a free vote on it. You see, she's quite the libertarian. Except that she isn't! It might have something to do with the pro-hunting lobby tending to be Tory voters. It might also have something to do with huntsmasters being Tory donors. It might even be to appease farmers who fear they are going to lose out after Brexit. But it's nothing to do with animal welfare.
12. What you say makes sense but where can I get some more facts so I can make up my mind?
You can't. Not really. Everyone in the debate has an "agenda" so the bias is strong. You could start a thread on Pistonheads but after 13 pages you'll find your questions get answered by idiots talking about Volvos and leather shoes...
To summarise for those that are new to the thread, the main points are:
1. Do fox numbers need to be controlled?
Not really, no. Lots of evidence says no. But at the same time many say they do. It's possible that is localised areas population control might be necessary.
2. If numbers need to be controlled, what is the reason?
This is the big question that few have attempted to answer. Everything we've read says that the financial cost to farmers of uncontrolled fox populations is minimal to say the least. Less than 5% of lamb losses for example. It's obvious that a farmer that does adequately protect a chicken coop could see it wiped out by a single fox, which would be devastating to that farmer, but on the whole we've yet to see evidence of a major issue.
3. Can't farmers protect their livestock from foxes?
Apparently foxes are smarter than humans and there is not a fence in the world that can stop a fox. Except those that do exist. I don't think anyone has given a good reason why livestock cannot be protected from foxes by decent fencing/buildings. It's probably money, but this isn't about profits apparently.
4. Why haven't fox numbers increased exponentially since the ban, or during the foot and mouth outbreak (which led to a temporary ban)?
Well that's an awkward question. Apparently, illegal hunts and increased shooting are keeping numbers low. But no-one can tell us how many foxes are being killed at the moment. It's possible that foxes are regulating their own numbers. Y'know, like nature tends to.
5. But don't you have to kill a lot of foxes to control the population?
Yep. You'd need to kill over 60% of the population. Hunts and farmers don't kill anywhere near that number, so can't be responsible for controlling numbers on a national scale.
6. I thought nature would look after itself in terms of population?
It does. The number of foxes in an area and the size of a litter is directly related to the availability of food and habitat.
7. So the more foxes we kill, the more that will move into an area?
Yep.
8. So is it all about the "sport" and a jolly good day out?
Apparently that is just a side effect of hunters doing a public service. Which is convenient.
9. I'm against fox hunting but I wear leather shoes. Am I a hypocrite?
That's an argument some idiots will use, knowing full well that leather is a by-product of the food industry. And industry that is heavily regulated to avoid animal cruelty as far as practicable. So no, you're not a hypocrite.
10. Isn't this just a class thing? Why can't the townies let the toffs have their fun?
Ah, that old chestnut. No, it's nothing to do with class. Those that are anti-fox hunting tend to also be against
s setting their dogs on hares as well. And I'm pretty sure s aren't upper class toffs.11. So why do the Tories want to bring fox hunting back?
Officially May just wants a free vote on it. You see, she's quite the libertarian. Except that she isn't! It might have something to do with the pro-hunting lobby tending to be Tory voters. It might also have something to do with huntsmasters being Tory donors. It might even be to appease farmers who fear they are going to lose out after Brexit. But it's nothing to do with animal welfare.
12. What you say makes sense but where can I get some more facts so I can make up my mind?
You can't. Not really. Everyone in the debate has an "agenda" so the bias is strong. You could start a thread on Pistonheads but after 13 pages you'll find your questions get answered by idiots talking about Volvos and leather shoes...
I think Theresa May summarised the argument reasonably well when she was questioned on hunting again over the weekend. "I was brought up in the country, so I support hunting".
There doesn't seem to be any other particularly valid reason as far as I can see, and this is why the gap will never be bridged. I will never understand the reasoning and mentality of wanting to hunt foxes, those on the other side of the divide will never understand that viewpoint.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff