hunting r u for it

[joeking27]

Culling eh? Only good when done by a decent marksman, or the fox is wounded and dies in horrible pain.

 

Enviroment agency eh? Who is gonna pay for that?

 

Killing to eat okat, but not to not okay? So any form of killing, like war, is not okay, and so every war in history should not have been fought?

[aimpoint]

Nope, i agree foxes should be CULLED with rifles there.

 

But it would be more acceptable if one was to ask and enviromental agency... otherwise, as long as you are a good shot i agree. If you are not then get someone else to do it

 

You cant eat fox unless you are realy hungry so no option

 

Rabbit pie is lovely though Just make sure you get rid of the lead pellet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well thats never going to happen,half the monkeys employed to cull deer f*ck it up and the animal dies in extream pain,now think how they would do witha fox

 

Culling eh? Only good when done by a decent marksman, or the fox is wounded and dies in horrible pain.

Enviroment agency eh? Who is gonna pay for that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what he said

and what rizzo said aswell

[aimpoint]

Bill Bailey has it all right on fox hunting...

well kinda, number 1... i think shooting foxes is fine, i would do it... i think it should be done to cull them or just for sport, what ever.

 

I dont agree with hunting with dogs... being ripped apart is not good. Having said this as Bailey said... i cant hold the moral highground, i eat chicken burgers at KFC, i eat and support without knowing it battery farms... so how can i complain?

So i have taken instead to hating the whole snobbery of the events, the Earl of lesser imperial Brumatic Parguay and his 8 inbred sons on their little horses and red coats. Pile of pompus *beep*, although i am a stringent nationalist and not afraid to say it, i don't believe in the royal family or snobish lords.

As for the arguement of who cares? Or let people get on with their own buissness, i would ask you whether you agree with Bear baiting? And whether you would ban it? (Edit: Sorry sledge didnt see your post )

Did the poor bear baiters lose jobs? *O DEAR*

That was banned, why not fox hunting? Just because people have been doing it for generations doesnt mean it is good... do you believe we should (being serious and not ignorrant) have deuls, jousting or bear baiting or even the stocks just because it was tradition??

 

Quite frankly what the public wants the public gets, and if Labour get votes then good on them, that is what government means and whatever they do, that is what they aim for. For the voters. 

So now it is banned, the money has been spent, the time used and the controversial acts used... 

 

Would anybody here seriously legalise again it with similar trouble, money and controversy?

Look forward to hearing   (    Bring it on! )

 

Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

sorry only just saw this

 

1st point: in cornwall LOTS of jobs will be lost/done away with if the ban comes in so stop the o dear ###### ! its going to affect everyone big time

2nd point: the people who got the fox hunting banned are now starting on pheasant shooting(this IS cornwalls biggest earner next to tourism ),which is then to be followed by hunting animals full stop.

there are other things i could go into but i said i wouldn't bite anyones heads off despite what they said !

[rizzo]

Culling eh? Only good when done by a decent marksman, or the fox is wounded and dies in horrible pain.

 

Enviroment agency eh? Who is gonna pay for that?

 

Killing to eat okat, but not to not okay? So any form of killing, like war, is not okay, and so every war in history should not have been fought?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Killing, in my opinion, is never "okay". Killing is always wrong. However, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, and situations when this arises, are lamentable

[joeking27]

Surely the lesser of two evil's has to acceptable, otherwise nothing could be done.

[aimpoint]

Surely the lesser of two evil's has to acceptable, otherwise nothing could be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

quoted for the truth

[destrukto]

I do support hunting, while all of you are going "oh don't hurt the cute little furry animals" hunting effectively reduces the population to sustainable levels.. The animals that hunters kill off will die anyways because the ecosystem can't support them. Would you rather starve to death or be shot? You think hunting's bad, take a trip to a cattle ranch or chicken farm where all your pre-packaged hamburger and chicken comes from, there the "cute little furry animals" don't stand a chance. Out in the woods the deer, fox, pheasant, etc.. have a much better chance of survival than on a farm.

 

I've been hunting since I was 12, I hunt because I enjoy being out in the woods, I like the taste of wild game, and because it's an efficient way to get meat, a single deer will easily bring in 150 pounds of good meat, if not more, do you have any idea how long that lasts?

 

Before you go off and try to ban hunting, take a trip to a slaughter house and look around, watch the animals go to the slaughter, and then come back and tell me hunting isn't humane

[aimpoint]

most people have just said that hunting with dogs is wrong,there are actual silly buggers out there who think hunting is wrong full stop,yet they are the ones that near enough live at KFC

[joeking27]

I can remember a "debate" I had with a vegitarian once. She cried. Although "hunting is wrong"

[Spedz]

joking you tight git you¬¬'

[joeking27]

Meh I was bored, and she was *beep* irritating.

[Spedz]

lol yes we all must of had an argument with veggies i did as well and won! (i did get her to cry but she was about to)

[Crazy_Harry]

once again, its the usual nonsense.

 

a bunch of farmers get sick of foxes Knacking their chickens. What do they do? machine-gun every fox within twenty miles.

 

fair enough, surely?

 

i notice that, at no point, did the farmer admit responsibility for inadequately protecting his own livestock from foxes- I mean, seriously, we're dealing with a fox here, not harry bloody hoodini.

 

honestly, if farmers REALLY wanted to save their flocks, they'd invest IN A BETTER FENCE.

 

the fact that so many farmers still think a bit of tin foil is ok investment in their livestock protection indicates for me the lack of reality the majority of farmers exist within.

 

I've met ONE farmer in my life who has invested heavily in anti fox techniques, and not a single one of these techniques involved hunting- He bought a llama, which are supreme anti-predator devices. He bought better fences (apparently, if you erect fences made of something other than chicken wire, foxes can't get in... go figure), and he spent time tending to his flock and offering a physical prensence, rather than simply expecting his livestock to give him an income while he offered it no protection and sat home with his feet on a stool while his animals were slaughtered.

 

but then, he's not your usual farmer...

 

and he's yet to lose an animal to anything other than old age.

[Crazy_Harry]

oi. whats this crud about making veggies cry?

 

Oh, I'm sorry that we give a rats *albartroth* about things that you stupid selfish scum don't want to spend five minutes moralising about.

 

I'm a veggie, and if you want to try and make me cry, please fell free.

 

and I have the power to ban you.

[joeking27]

I wasn't making her cry because she was a veggie. She was being mightily pretentious.

 

Fair points about anit-fox measures, they work. However what will put most off is the cost of it. I'm not sure the exact cost, but it costing anything can be off putting.

[Banzai]

Right now im jsut waiting for hissing sids post

[Hissing_Sid]

For me it depends what sort of "hunting" you're talking about.

 

I enjoy rough shooting. I shoot grouse and pheasant with a shotgun. I hunt rabbits with a rifle. I also often get asked to hunt foxes and rats on behalf of farmers.

 

When people say "You should only hunt for food and you can buy food in shops" it makes me laugh.

What is the difference between a cow spending a life of misery in a factory-farm, getting it's throat slit, before being turned into beefburgers and me shooting a brace of rabbits and making a stew out of them?

 

Either way an animal dies. What's the difference?

 

I'm not a big fan of fox-hunting purely because I don't know many of the people who take part. Those I do know are your classic upper-class snobs and it's not the sort of company I choose to keep.

 

Having said that, in the grand scheme of things, how many foxes do we suppose get killed by fox-hunting every year? 100? 200? 300?

Assuming there is a fox-hunt every other weekend of the year and there are perhaps 15 or 20 in the entire country, that makes a grand total of 300 foxes killed.

Given that the people who go fox hunting spend thousands of pounds every year on grooming and care for their horses, equipment, land access and repair, and other items AND regularly hold charity events running in conjunction with the hunt itself then I honestly don't see that the loss of a couple of hundred foxes per year is a big deal at all.

 

I reckon I knock off more foxes every year than the local hunt.

I see the positive input which the fox-hunting brigade have on the local community. I find fox-hunting rather distasteful but I don't think that's a valid reason to ban it simply because it's cruel to a bunch of vermin.

 

By contrast, how would the population of Birmingham, Manchester or London feel if a bunch of country yokels started campaigning to make new buildings illegal because they destroy the habitat of animals, thus killing them?

 

Or, how about banning cars because they kill thousands of hedgehogs, foxes and badgers every year?

 

The bottom line is that fox-hunting has a positive impact on the communities local to where it happens. A bunch of bleeding-heart tree huggers who live in cities have succeeded in butting into affairs that are abso-f***ing-lutely NONE of their concern and seem to have succeeded in getting it banned. No surprise really since butting in to other peoples business is a recurring issue with our current government.

[Duff Beer]

Looking through the thread Count Doom made a point about just because things have been done for generations it doesn't make them right. He then asks if we would want duelling to be legal.

 

Well yes I would. Imagine if you could duel with pistols. think of the scum you could remove from the world. No more chavs. It woudl be nirvana.

[Duff Beer]

while all of you are going "oh don't hurt the cute little furry animals" hunting effectively reduces the population to sustainable levels..

 

You think hunting's bad, take a trip to a cattle ranch or chicken farm where all your pre-packaged hamburger and chicken comes from, there the "cute little furry animals" don't stand a chance. Out in the woods the deer, fox, pheasant, etc.. have a much better chance of survival than on a farm.

 

I've been hunting since I was 12, I hunt because I enjoy being out in the woods, I like the taste of wild game, and because it's an efficient way to get meat, a single deer will easily bring in 150 pounds of good meat, if not more, do you have any idea how long that lasts?

 

Before you go off and try to ban hunting, take a trip to a slaughter house and look around, watch the animals go to the slaughter, and then come back and tell me hunting isn't humane

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Duff cracks knuckles, and gets ready to destroy argument*

 

Firstly, not all of us as you say have missed the issue of population control. I believe in my first post in this thread I described how I understood the need for popualtion control, perhaps you haven't read the thread through and are just goin on the defensive?

Taking a trip to an abbatoir would show how the animals are stunned first, and then killed. To kill the animal without stunning is illegal and any abbatoir acting in such a way would lose its licence. Therefore the slaughter of animals for meat is humane, which also detonates your last point.

You seem to be confused with which form of hunting is being described here. Last time I checked you cannot get 150lbs of meat from a fox. Perhaps you are in fact refering to hunting deer with hounds. Again, if you want to eat the animal surely it would be more sensible to shoot it so that all the meat can be enjoyed, compared to wasting the bits where the hounds have bitten in. Or do you eat where the hounds have also chewed? You cannot say that hunting with hounds is an efficient way to get meat. if you wanted to be really efficient then you would go tot eh supermarket and do your weekly shopping at the same time which would not only be more time efficient, but also economically efficient. However, if you must hunt, then shoot the animal. It is quicker, more humane, and cheaper.

Before you start moaning at me and calling me a townie, I have grown up in the most rural part of England, where hunting still takes place. I know of the social value that hunts bring to vilages. Therefore I suggested that drag hunting replace the hunting of foxes with hounds. If you are really concerned about humanely killing then the foxes will be shot, and to counter the economic disaster that most hunters say will happen if hunting with hounds is banned go drag hunting instead. The village would still get it's social event, the economy would not implode, and the fox gewts dealt with by someone else quickly and cleanly.

However, that is a compromise, and something many hardline hunters will never accept. It is sad that they cannot reach a compromise, as I value the social event that is hunting, juts not the actually hunt itself.

[Hissing_Sid]

*Duff cracks knuckles, and gets ready to destroy argument*

 

Firstly, not all of us as you say have missed the issue of population control.  I believe in my first post in this thread I described how I understood the need for popualtion control, perhaps you haven't read the thread through and are just goin on the defensive?

Taking a trip to an abbatoir would show how the animals are stunned first, and then killed.  To kill the animal without stunning is illegal and any abbatoir acting in such a way would lose its licence.  Therefore the slaughter of animals for meat is humane, which also detonates your last point.

The slaughter might be humane but what about the life beforehand?

You seem to be confused with which form of hunting is being described here.  Last time I checked you cannot get 150lbs of meat from a fox.  Perhaps you are in fact refering to hunting deer with hounds.  Again, if you want to eat the animal surely it would be more sensible to shoot it so that all the meat can be enjoyed, compared to wasting the bits where the hounds have bitten in.  Or do you eat where the hounds have also chewed?  You cannot say that hunting with hounds is an efficient way to get meat.

Maybe it's not him who's confused.

 

"Hunting" includes the act of killing a stag with a .223 rifle.

Just because you choose to imagine the act of hunting as a bunch of hooray henries on horseback with a pack of hounds running in front don't make it the only way.

 

If you wanted to be really efficient then you would go tot eh supermarket and do your weekly shopping at the same time which would not only be more time efficient, but also economically efficient.  However, if you must hunt, then shoot the animal.  It is quicker, more humane, and cheaper.

See my first point.

 

You're saying it's better for a pig or cow to spend a lifetime locked into a stall so small it can't even move and then be killed "humanely" to make you your beefburgers rather than Floppytail bunny living a healthy and happy life right up until the moment you snuff out his existance in order to provide your dinner?

 

I know which way I'd rather go.

 

Oh, and you'll get rheumatism cracking your knuckles like that.

[aimpoint]

For me it depends what sort of "hunting" you're talking about.

 

I enjoy rough shooting. I shoot grouse and pheasant with a shotgun. I hunt rabbits with a rifle. I also often get asked to hunt foxes and rats on behalf of farmers.

 

When people say "You should only hunt for food and you can buy food in shops" it makes me laugh.

What is the difference between a cow spending a life of misery in a factory-farm, getting it's throat slit, before being turned into beefburgers and me shooting a brace of rabbits and making a stew out of them?

 

Either way an animal dies. What's the difference?

 

I'm not a big fan of fox-hunting purely because I don't know many of the people who take part. Those I do know are your classic upper-class snobs and it's not the sort of company I choose to keep.

 

Having said that, in the grand scheme of things, how many foxes do we suppose get killed by fox-hunting every year? 100? 200? 300?

Assuming there is a fox-hunt every other weekend of the year and there are perhaps 15 or 20 in the entire country, that makes a grand total of 300 foxes killed.

Given that the people who go fox hunting spend thousands of pounds every year on grooming and care for their horses, equipment, land access and repair, and other items AND regularly hold charity events running in conjunction with the hunt itself then I honestly don't see that the loss of a couple of hundred foxes per year is a big deal at all.

 

I reckon I knock off more foxes every year than the local hunt.

I see the positive input which the fox-hunting brigade have on the local community. I find fox-hunting rather distasteful but I don't think that's a valid reason to ban it simply because it's cruel to a bunch of vermin.

 

By contrast, how would the population of Birmingham, Manchester or London feel if a bunch of country yokels started campaigning to make new buildings illegal because they destroy the habitat of animals, thus killing them?

 

Or, how about banning cars because they kill thousands of hedgehogs, foxes and badgers every year?

 

The bottom line is that fox-hunting has a positive impact on the communities local to where it happens. A bunch of bleeding-heart tree huggers who live in cities have succeeded in butting into affairs that are abso-f***ing-lutely NONE of their concern and seem to have succeeded in getting it banned. No surprise really since butting in to other peoples business is a recurring issue with our current government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

best post yet sid well done, i take my hat off to you

im glad someone else see the good things the hunt does for the community

[Lance Jackass]

Im a hypocrite. Yes hunting is morally wrong and i hate the thought of it. But it does seem an experience and a challenge to actually be able to do it. One which i might try just the once.

 

I think fox hunting is totally wrong, yet a fullbore round to an animals head is ok. How weird am i?

[Vindicare]

Killing to eat okat, but not to not okay? So any form of killing, like war, is not okay, and so every war in history should not have been fought?

 

No I've got no problem with killing things if necessary. Like in a war, or if you're threatened by a large trout...

[joeking27]

And how does one decide necessity? Purely by yourself? So someone could decide it is necessary to go hunting. And so you would have no problem with it.

[Duff Beer]

Aimpoint, I have, on several occasions outlined the benefit to the community. To kiss up to Sid and make out that noone else has is, really, a misrepresentation of the arguement being had here. Was it not you who not three pages ago agreed that a compromise could be made in the form of drag hunting?