Poll
Question:
Should we ban Hunting with dogs?
Option 1:
votes: 0
With democracy in full flow today and with lords trying to stop it. What is the mood of the forum on the brutal barbaric toffs sport / "you townies don't under stand us country folk" / "we're only helping the farmer control vermin" / "we don't catch many anyway!" activity of fox hunting?
I tried hunting with dogs once. I couldn't hit a thing with them :D
It would possibly be slightly more helpful if the choices were a little more distinct. Four options may be more than this little tick-turd can cope with choosing between :blush:
TL.
there is no way it should be banned, i was discussing it at the golf club today and we worked out the odds of sucessfull kill/ no kill
1in 32 hunts ends up with a kill, with those odds and the fact that the ones that actually get killd are generally sick/lame animals i have absoloutly no problem with it.
I think its more the way they are killed that sticks in ya throat,than actual numbers that are killed. :eyebrow:
I think that there's nothing wrong in hunting with dogs. It seems that torches and rifles are more lethal! And it's the start of a slippery slope. If you can't hunt with dogs as it could concievably cause the animal pain, will fishing then be banned?
No, I fully support the pro-hunters...
Twig. How can being killed by a dog be less lethal than being killed a gun?
Exploitation of animals? You're either for it, against it or a hypocrite who selectively chooses which animals it's OK to exploit and which it isn't. Based mainly on how much not exploiting them adversly effects your life. I'm no hypocrite, so I say kill 'em all.
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Sep 15 2004, 07:05 PM
Twig. How can being killed by a dog be less lethal than being killed a gun?
One of the reasons given by the anti-hunting lobby is that hunts are dangerous to your average country dweller and its participants, however, the recent killing of the 12yr old boy who was mistaken for a fox illustrates that dogs aren't necessary.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. :whistle:
I not sure one tragic accident proves one way or another which is more dangerous.
Smilodons point about exploitation of animals is very intresting, but what would you call "exploiting".
Im gonna have to stay neutral on this subject. I've never been but i go to school with alot that are very keen huntsmen (and women). I also don't know enough about it to decide :whistle:
Exploiting =
People have either needs or desires.
Needs are things we have to have, such as air, water, food and shelter. Maybe stuff like love, companionship and security are needs too?
Desires are things we want, such as DVD's, holidays to Spain and games of golf.
If an animal dies to fulfill a need then it's not exploitation, but if it dies to fulfill a desire then it is exploitation.
Is fox-hunting a need or a desire? I'd say it's a desire and therefore exploits the fox. The question is what else is a desire rather than a need? A fur coat? A leather jacket? A steak sandwich? Do we need these things to survive? Or do we desire them?
Lord Toff might choose to enjoy his Sunday morning killing foxes rather than going for a walk. And I might choose to enjoy my Sunday morning stuffing my face with a bacon butty rather than a bowl of Corn Flakes. Either way something dies to enrich our day.
Alcohol induced rambling #238
I find it very difficult to condone the suffering of any animal for the pleasure of another animal, I have tried some blood sports in the past such as shooting and angling and although there is without doubt a “thrill of the kill†it was hardly a fair fight.
The argument for fox hunting has changed over the years (I am very old (not in the same league as Doorman and Brass), and it’s always been for the cause of the animals (is there such a word as animaltarian) that fox hunting is a good thing:
Then, fox hunting is good because it rids the farms of the evil foxes that tear the chickens to death.
Now, fox hunting is good because if there was no fox hunting all of the fox hounds would have to be put down, we wouldn’t need the stables and there would be mass unemployment in rural areas.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a “pinko lentil eating freak" who thinks that we should all be eating carrots and rice, animals are after all part of the food chain, even other animals eat animals (shock). Rather as mentioned above the reasons given for fox hunting have changed, more people see the fox as an innocent in a world where breeding, nobility and affluence give the chosen few the right to do what ever they like, whether it’s morally right or wrong is of no consequence, as anyone not on their level does not have the right to question them, this is the perception.
As with all alcohol induced rambles my reasoning at the start was crystal clear and my arguments were precise and to the point (please don’t buy me drinks at the lan, I’m very opinionated). I have nothing more to add as I have forgotten what it was I wanted to say.
I will not add my vote to this pole, I will say this:
I do not agree with the hunting of any animal solely for pleasure or sport.
Just as a footnote
As the fox has become more of an urban creature it has become a cuddly critter, “ah look at that fox, poor little thingâ€. Imagine if that was a rat.
If rats were the prey of a bunch of gimps on horseback with a pack of hounds would there be the outcry?
The only clear argument is 'Does the fox suffer?'
Yes it does, but they need culling. So do it some other way, like tie it to a stake and make an example out of it to all the other foxes.
Like the feckers that sh1t in my garden, then my dog goes and rolls in it, and gets mange (which costs me a ton each time to fix). They tip up bins, they bite and they never phone or write afterwards.
Fox hunting for pleasure, no. Fox hunting with dogs, no, fox hunting to cull numbers with a great big blunderbuss, yes.
(I'll admit I did once try to talk my friends into going cow hunting with a 12 bore once, we didn't have one, but thought it would be a cracking chase - cows hide their thoughts real well, mind against mind, hunter against hunted, lure them into a corner, trip them up, then jump 'em)
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Sep 16 2004, 10:19 AM
I'll admit I did once try to talk my friends into going cow hunting with a 12 bore once, we didn't have one, but thought it would be a cracking chase - cows hide their thoughts real well, mind against mind, hunter against hunted, lure them into a corner, trip them up, then jump 'em.
Your real name isn't Gary Larson by any chance is it?
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Sep 15 2004, 09:23 PM
Maybe stuff like love, companionship and security are needs too?
Not under your definition - you contradict yourself in the same sentence (although you put a question mark so I forgive ;) ). To function as a living breathing organism we need to eat, breathe, drink, and procreate. Nothing more. Anything else is a desire, under your description.
Smilo - I would agree with your argument for free, wild animals. I would not for something we raise/grow and use to our advantage. It's still exploitation, no argument. But you can't compare the two in my book. There is no "line" as you seem to imply that makes you either "right" or "wrong", or "hypocrite" or not.
Twig. Fishing - no concrete evidence to ever prove that fish have the ability to feel pain. Therefore where is the harm in fishing for sport? Foxs and deer do feel pain. Bottom line. Is trout fishing exploitation? People get a thrill and also eat the fish. Are they exploiting because they got some sport, or is it morally acceptable because they wanted to eat fresh fish?
Basically the whole "it's to get rid of vermin" is a completely bogus argument, and if anyone seriously takes it up here I have a real problem with them. Pigeons are vermin, rats are vermin. Tell me what you think vermin is? There simply isn't a case here. I grew up in the country in a farming community. It doesn't stand up. There are several more efficient, effective, and painless ways, no argument.
So that means you do it because you like it - fine. But because you've done something for hundreds of years doesn't make it acceptable on an ongoing basis. Society changes, and so do the things that society finds acceptable. Smoking was acceptable, now it isn't. Capital punishment was acceptable, now it isn't. Slavery was acceptable, now it isn't. Debate the rights or wrongs of it, but, as Zok so accurately puts it, "there is no right or wrong, just popular opinion". How true.
As you can tell, I'm not a believer in moral absolutes. It's nieve to think they exist.
Do the dogs kill the fox or is it shot?
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadMike@Sep 16 2004, 03:09 PM
Do the dogs kill the fox or is it shot?
Both - but generally it is chased down by the dogs, attacked, and then when the huntsmen catch up they shoot it. Can be a long period between those events.
QuoteOriginally posted by ChimpBoy+Sep 16 2004, 04:31 PM-->
| QUOTE (ChimpBoy @ Sep 16 2004, 04:31 PM) |
|
I think that the new law in Scotland says that you can fox hunt with dogs, but you have to shoot them and not let the dogs do it. seems a bit of a weak compromise to me.
smilo. you definition of exploitation is a bit back and white. it seems we all exploit animals just by wearing leather shoes or eating meat. so this must mean we have to except cruelty to animal or be a hypocrite. following that logic. we should bring back dog and cock fighting.
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman+Sep 16 2004, 03:58 PM--> | QUOTE (Doorman @ Sep 16 2004, 03:58 PM) | QuoteOriginally posted by ChimpBoy@Sep 16 2004, 04:31 PM
Yep peoples lack of understanding is suprising. In fox hunting the first dog to the fox, usually one of the lead pair, kills the fox more or less instantly. The rest just rip up the carcass. It's a nice argument for the anti-hunt lobby to say the fox suffers agony, but it's just not true. Fit the argument to satisfy the facts and not the other way round. Stag hunting on the other hand is totally different. Stag hounds hunt the stag to a standstill. They NEVER attack the stag. If they did the stag would probably gore the dog to death. If not the huntsman would shoot the dog more or less on the spot. The stag is approached my the Huntsman and shot through the head at point blank range with a pistol. Proper pistols are now banned under UK gun law so they actually use a human killer that looks like a gun but fires a bolt into the stags brain. QuoteOriginally posted by Chimpboy+--> | QUOTE (Chimpboy) |
Not under your definition - you contradict yourself in the same sentence (although you put a question mark so I forgive wink.gif ). To function as a living breathing organism we need to eat, breathe, drink, and procreate. Nothing more. Anything else is a desire, under your description.
[/b]I can't contradict myself if I don't offer an opinion. Maybe and '?' are there to say I believe there is no clear definition of what human needs are. Or if there are then I don't know what they are. It's up to each of us to answer that question. I suppose it's what we need to survive physically and emotionally. We are congnetive beings that exist both phsically and emotionally. It's a tough one to pin down.
Is leather not a by-product of the meat/farming industry. Stop using it as an example of a "want". as meat/food is a "need" and to bin it would be wasteful and dare I say a sin :unsure:
QuoteOriginally posted by ChimpBoy@Sep 16 2004, 05:31 PM
I grew up around Exmoor and went to the hunt most boxing days, so I feel in some position of authority here :eyebrow: Most boxing days? Well there's experience talking. :rolleyes: Did you actually follow them all day? Or did you do what most 'Boxing Day' visitors do and take in the nice Christmasy scene. Well done smilo at least you seem to have an idea of what really happens. For the record I don't have an issue with people who are opposed to hunting. It's a free........scrub that. It's when they speak from a position of ignorance that gets up my nose.
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Sep 16 2004, 05:52 PM
Is leather not a by-product of the meat/farming industry. Stop using it as an example of a "want". as meat/food is a "need" and to bin it would be wasteful and dare I say a sin :unsure: With the depressed price of beef stock a farmer can often get more for the skin than he can for the meat. A skin without deep scars or belmishes gets a premium price as it can be used for large areas of leather such as sofas and full length coats. This tends to encourage farmers to rear their cattle in barns rather than out in fields. They're also individually penned so they don't bite each other and ruin their skins. For a herd animal to be kept inside for it's whole life, away from direct contact with other cattle is a highly stressful environment for a cow. They even suffer mental depression (or a cow version of it) :huh: And here we get to the main point. Is eating meat a need? Do you need it to survive? Or do you desire it because it tastes nice? If we accept it to be a need then it can't be compared to hunting and so it's OK to scoff factory farmed animals but it's not OK to fox hunt. If on the other hand it's not a need but a desire i.e we can live Ok on a vegetarian diet but choose to eat meat as it's more tasty and less hassle in resturants, then we're in danger of being hypocritical by being anti fox hunting but pro meat eating. Depend on your view I guess. Hunt 'em, kill 'em, eat 'em and wear their skin on your back I say :D
Comment (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1264544,00.html)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1264544,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1264544,00.html)
He sums up my viewpoint perfectly - read it :D
I wish I had put it like that, good read.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Sep 16 2004, 05:41 PM
Stag hunting on the other hand is totally different. Stag hounds hunt the stag to a standstill. They NEVER attack the stag. If they did the stag would probably gore the dog to death. If not the huntsman would shoot the dog more or less on the spot. The stag is approached my the Huntsman and shot through the head at point blank range with a pistol. Proper pistols are now banned under UK gun law so they actually use a human killer that looks like a gun but fires a bolt into the stags brain.
So the dog points the target wich stands still and then you walk up to it and shoot it with a pistol? Or is that only the case if you "miss" and have to end its misery? Stag is deer, right? I have been to a number of Elk/Moose hunts that doesnt involve dogs but the animal is always shot and killed from a far with one or tops two shots from a rifle. Oh and i dont do the shooting i only take the skin off (flay?) and carve out the meat and such. I took a butchers course a while back and i killed some pigs with what must be a "human killer". How do you hunt rabbits or birds? with knife and bow? :D
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadMike@Sep 16 2004, 10:19 PM
How do you hunt rabbits or birds? with knife and bow? :D No we use tactical nukes for that! Vicious little blighters rabbits, have your leg off before you know it if your not careful ;)
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman+Sep 16 2004, 05:10 PM--> | QUOTE (Doorman @ Sep 16 2004, 05:10 PM) |
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadMike@Sep 16 2004, 10:19 PM
So the dog points the target wich stands still and then you walk up to it and shoot it with a pistol? Or is that only the case if you "miss" and have to end its misery? Stag is deer, right? I didn't explain fully. The hounds basically chase the stag to exhaustion. When it can't run anymore it's natural instinct is to put it's back to some secure barrier like a hedge or wall and face down the hounds. It's so knackered it can't do anything except stand there. The huntsman just walks up to it and shoots it. Hunt over. Then the stag is cut up and the bits handed out to various people in volved in teh hunt such as the Hunt Master and members of the hunt and the owner of the land where the stag was killed etc etc. And children that manage to be at the kill get 'bloodied'. Which means they get stag blood smeared on their cheeks. As happened to my brother and I when we were on holiday on Exmoor. As to the article I'm not sure I agree with everything but the comment about meat production is spot on the money and basically what I have been alluding to in this thread. I exploit animals just like fox hunters. They don't have a problem with their form of exploitation and I don't have a problem with mine. It would be hypocritical for me to argue my indulgence at the expense of an animal life is OK and theirs isn't. Great find Mr Twig :)
right then here we go i hope u r sitting comfortably.....
oh f#*k it i cant be TANGO'd ..
its cruel....
if ya need to get rid of em, shoot the buggers if not leave them alone..
my 2 c
I know what you are all saying but it will never make the news :rolleyes:
QuoteOriginally posted by ChimpBoy@Sep 16 2004, 10:31 PM
Well considering the amount of assumptions you're making there I'll ignore you until you come back with someting concrete. Sorry, but what you've just said has made me pretty angry given that you know nothing of my experience. Perhaps you'd like to regale us with your experience, rather than take a pop at me with little foundation <_<
The assumptions I'm making are based on your description of your 'experience' in that you went to the hunt 'most' Boxing days. Again I ask, did you follow them? If you did, one day a year would not add up to too much 'experience' in my book. For my part 'regale' would be too strong a word to use but I have hunted with two hunts, The Essex and the Essex Farmers and Union for 9 years both mounted and on foot. During flusher periods I sometimes hunted twice a week. I still have never seen a huntsman shoot a fox! Twig, good find. He was doing all right until he went all veggie.
QuoteOriginally posted by Chimpboy+--> | QUOTE (Chimpboy) | Smilo - my point isn't contradictory. I believe in moral relativism, whereas you're approaching things from a polar point of view (I think?). I find what you say about the "emotional" point of view highly questionable. You implied (so I think) that "needs" were essential to human existence. Not so for the proliferation of the species. In that case emotional needs are irrelevant and would, under your description, be counted as "desires". [/b]You may well be right. As I've said I don't profess to know exactly what the line between needs and desires actually is. So I don't draw one. There is an argument that says human needs go beyond what we need to survive. Unlike most animals we do have an emotional/spiritual side that may 'need' some sort of nurture. We're not machines and I'm open to (although not convinced by) the argument that says to 'exist' as humans we need to stay alive and we need to experience emotional growth and have some sort of interaction and relationship with other people. It is just an idea and I'm happy to stick with what keeps us alive being needs and what makes us happy being desires. Although someone who just satisfies needs isn't going to have much quality of life themselves.
looks like the "ban it" wins.
sorry you blood thirsty lot, but Tony was right.
Democracy works again :devil: :devil: :whistle:
Again..nothing to do with protecting animals and everything to do with a class war. And to think that prat Balir is going to envoke the Parliament Act to get it through. The Parliament Act is reserved for times of National Crisis and was last used during WWII.
Still we voted for the idiot :(
yep :dribble:
Yeah, its another chance for a good ole class war to try and keep the working vote for Mr Blair. (That isn't meant to sound condescending to anyone by the way)
If I had to die, and I had the choice of been chased till I dropped in mortal fear of my life then being ripped apart by wild dogs.... OR being shot dead at an undisclosed time I'd pick the later.
Any dipshit who is pro hunting with dogs/fanfare/horses/inbreds is simply a cock.
QuoteOriginally posted by Stryker@Nov 3 2004, 09:58 AM
Any dipshit who is pro hunting with dogs/fanfare/horses/inbreds is simply a cock.
[post=68507]Quoted post[/post] Hunting foxes with cocks is allowed? :blink: Gee, I never knew they could run that fast..... :whistle: What about inbred cocks? Are they alright too? What about smacking. Can I smack a fox? Can I? Go on, can I? Can I smack a fox with an inbred child holding a dog to the sound of a trumpet fanfare? Some times the world is far too complex. :( TL.
QuoteOriginally posted by Stryker@Nov 3 2004, 09:58 AM
If I had to die, and I had the choice of been chased till I dropped in mortal fear of my life then being ripped apart by wild dogs.... OR being shot dead at an undisclosed time I'd pick the later.
Any dipshit who is pro hunting with dogs/fanfare/horses/inbreds is simply a cock.
[post=68507]Quoted post[/post] If your comment it rephrased it might work differently though. So playing devils advocate..... If I had the choice of living free and as nature intended in a world through which I could roam, hunt and survive and die by being chased by dogs and assuming the unlikely happened and I was caught (statisitcally I would usually get away) be killed instantly by the first hound to reach me (remembering I am a fox with no higher brain function and therefore incapiable of the emotion of fear or able to conceive of my own mortality) or live a short unpleasant life crammed into a tiny, dark, smelly space, fed some chemical paste that makes me so fat I can't move, never see the sun or breath fresh air, never to roam free or live any kind of life for which I was designed and then be squeezed into a lorry with hundreds of other of my kind and driven up a motorway to a place where I get to queue up until it's my turn to have my throat slit. Fox or Kentucy Fried Chicken?
Are foxes edible?
If so, I'd eat em and so then would no longer be a hypocrite (on that subject anyway) :)
That my man, is the perfect answer.
If the inbred gentry were to be made to eat their kill, I'd be tempted into supporting the continuation of horse back fox hunts.
I mean they must really like it considering:
A ) Its a fox
B ) Its been licked/bitten by dogs that spend all day sniffing each others arses and licking their goolies.
Fox is quite a nice meat actually, has to be cooked properly though, otherwise it very easily ends up too tough and stringy.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Sep 16 2004, 09:19 AM
The only clear argument is 'Does the fox suffer?'
Yes it does, but they need culling. So do it some other way, like tie it to a stake and make an example out of it to all the other foxes.
Like the feckers that sh1t in my garden, then my dog goes and rolls in it, and gets mange (which costs me a ton each time to fix). They tip up bins, they bite and they never phone or write afterwards.
Fox hunting for pleasure, no. Fox hunting with dogs, no, fox hunting to cull numbers with a great big blunderbuss, yes.
(I'll admit I did once try to talk my friends into going cow hunting with a 12 bore once, we didn't have one, but thought it would be a cracking chase - cows hide their thoughts real well, mind against mind, hunter against hunted, lure them into a corner, trip them up, then jump 'em)
[post=67123]Quoted post[/post] Earth to Benny, Earth to Benny....how's the Oxygen supply holding out? :unsure:
Don't sass the Ben-meister, he has a point. I've never seen a cow with a facial expression. They look pretty bloody inscrutable to me.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Nov 3 2004, 11:40 PM
Don't sass the Ben-meister, he has a point. I've never seen a cow with a facial expression. They look pretty bloody inscrutable to me.
[post=68607]Quoted post[/post] All Cows are not Japanese!!.......English cows have a look of alacrity, French cows have a look of alarm and any cow spending half an hour with Benny has a look of Desperation....they have seen the Japanese girl video and are mightily alarmed!! :blink: :D
|
|
|
|
|