Hunting with dogs.

[ChimpBoy]

Originally 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.

[DeadMike]

Do the dogs kill the fox or is it shot?

[ChimpBoy]

Originally 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.

[Doorman]

Originally posted by ChimpBoy+Sep 16 2004, 04:31 PM-->

[Armitage]

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.

[ChimpBoy]

Originally posted by Doorman+Sep 16 2004, 03:58 PM-->

[smilodon]

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.

Originally posted by Chimpboy+-->

[Armitage]

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:

[Doorman]

Originally 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.    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.

[smilodon]

Originally 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  

[A Twig]

Comment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1264544,00.html

He sums up my viewpoint perfectly - read it

[Zok]

I wish I had put it like that, good read.

[DeadMike]

Originally 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?  

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by DeadMike@Sep 16 2004, 10:19 PM
How do you hunt rabbits or birds? with knife and bow?  

No we use tactical nukes for that! Vicious little blighters rabbits, have your leg off before you know it if your not careful

[ChimpBoy]

Originally posted by Doorman+Sep 16 2004, 05:10 PM-->