0
   

Foxhunting with dogs. Should it be made illegal?

 
 
McTag
 
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 03:39 am
Hunting of foxes and other animals with dogs is now illegal in Britain.
This is a controversial law.
What is your position on the issue?
I will state mine: I used to be against it, but have recently changed my mind. I do not think it a suitable subject for legislation.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,550 • Replies: 90
No top replies

 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 03:51 am
You need to explain more.

I love tradition but I dont see how fox hunting is 'fair'.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 03:52 am
I'd be very interested to hear what caused you to change you mind, McTag. Is it only that you believe it's not a suitable subject for legislation? (Could you explain your thinking on that, please?) And what about your thoughts on the animal cruelty issues?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 03:53 am
Ah, the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. I "googled" that quote to see what i could come up with, and it is amazing the extent to which this exercises people's minds. One gentleman states that it is not concern for the fox which moves Britons, but: "the simple truth is that we hate toffs behaving like toffs, particularly when they behave like the mid-Victorian hunters who provide padding in some of Trollope's novels."

I'd be interested to know why it is that you take the position you do in this matter, McT.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 04:07 am
Setanta

I suspect that the toff argument is a red herring. Imagine what the response would be if hoards of the unemployed regularly indulged in fox hunts for "sport" & recreation? They'd be told to go and do something more useful with their lives, like get a job & not be so uncouth! Laughing

I'm really interested to know why some like McTag, whose opposed fox hunting for a long time, sees the issue differently now.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 04:46 am
I can't see it being tolerated on the basis of property damage. That the participants are willing to pay for it makes no difference. Football hooligans who tear the place up are denounced as criminal, and an offer on their part to pay for the damage would mean nothing. Were i a farm owner in the path of a hunt, i'd put up pitfalls and booby traps, and then offer to pay for the damage. As far as i can see from this side of the pond, the class system is alive and well, and continues to favor those with dubious claims to an inate superiority.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 05:34 am
Yes, McTag...please share your views. It is very interesting when someone is against something and then reverses that decision. The process for the change is of interest. Is it legislative change that you do not like, or do you actually champion the fox hunt?

For me, I am glad of the legislation. Foremost for the cruelty of the sport.

I hear about the the fact that foxes are a nuisance etc. and must be culled. If dogs, in fact, are to be used for this then why do they need all of these people on horses galloping across the countryside? Tradition is one thing, but you folks do not engage in pistol duels, swordfights etc. any longer. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 06:01 am
We have a lot of fox-hunting here in Germany, actually more than in the UK :wink:

But we do it without real foxes, and no-one complains about it.

Foxes are either shot by hunters or (very rarely nowadays) gazed/poisoned if ill, or they die naturally or get shot illegally (which happens, too).

Hunting animals with dogs is something interesting for learning history, but nothing for a civilised society.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 06:38 am
I can possibly see where McTag is coming from, re. the legislation part.

My own view is that, as earlier stated in this thread, a so called "sport", so that social climbers, nouveau riche and other hangers on, can latch on to something that is seen as a persuit of the Aristocracy, or "superior" class.
An argument is put forward by the hunters, saying that it is the most effecteive and humane method of keeping the fox population under control, as left to do their own thing, they would multiply to the point that they would become a major pest in the countryside...killing chickens, newborn lamb etc.
On the other side of the coin, Paul McCartney owns thousands of acres of farmland, and being the original tree hugger, has run this farm on a strictly organic regime, growing only vegetable crop and letting a fair amount of land to grow "Naturally", with just a bit of coppicing and hedge maintenance here and there. I THINK he also rears Sheep, but only for the wool....dont quote me on it though.
They have carried out a population check on the foxes over the past ten or fifteen years, and the numbers havent increased at all....WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CONTROL. When the numbers increase, the Vixens give birth to smaller litters for a couple of years, when the numbers drop, they have a few years of large litters. The laws of nature seem to keep the numbers stable.

As far as legislation is concerned, how on earth could it be policed effectively, as the sport normally takes place at weekends, and many hunts go out at the same time all over the country, and the monitoring area would therefore cover hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness.

I believe that, at present, the law makes it illegal ONLY if the fox is actually killed by the dogs at the time of capture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not ACTUALLY illegal to "ride to hounds" in persuit of a Fox. What the hunt is SUPPOSED to do, is humanely despatch the Fox (Shooting? Lethal injection? Telling it some Letterman jokes? who knows?) when the hounds have it cornered.
Try explaining that to the Hounds!

If it were to be effectively enforced, you would either have to devote MASSIVE police resources (at the cost of the Taxpayer), or have a policeman riding with each hunt on every occasion, just in case they encounter a Fox, and then manage to run it to ground.
It would probably need TWO policemen, thinking about it, as this would then give a corroborating witness for Court.

Laws can be easily introduced, the hard part is enforcing them.

I, personally, am totally against Fox hunting. They could easily switch to "Drag" racing, whereby a human "fox" lays a trail (using a scrambler bike dragging a scented lure), which would give just as much "sport" to people who want to race in a group, across fields, ditches and hedges. As long as full permission has been given by the landowner, I can see no problem with this.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:04 am
Fox hunting
Bull fighting
Greyhound racing
Cock fights
Pitt Bull fighting
etc.

All forcing living creatures with as much right to be here as humans, to engage in behaviors that would never be found to this extreme in nature.

Why not just rebuild the Coliseum and again force prisoners to engage in battles to the death with gladiators or other fierce beasts?

Animals are not here to serve as entertainment for humans.
They are here to live on this planet, bred, raise their young and engage in their species' activities.

Teasing, torturing, goading, terrifying, enraging other creatures who've done nothing to us for pleasure.........Shame, shame, shame on us.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:00 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:

My own view is that, as earlier stated in this thread, a so called "sport", so that social climbers, nouveau riche and other hangers on, can latch on to something that is seen as a persuit of the Aristocracy, or "superior" class.


Well, yes, it's an emotive subject, and one on which I was unwilling to embark, but msolga talked me into it.

My original objection to the pastime was along the lines of the quote above; it is partly a conspicuous display of wealth, power and influence. The landed classes and the very rich indulge in it, and others aspire to copy them.

Also, it is cruel at times. It is cruel to the cornered fox, and to some of the horses. Riders often get injured too.

But should it be banned by law?

There is cruelty in other things; in commercial fishing, in battery poultry rearing, veal calves, raising geese for pate. Hunting with rifles and shotguns is killing for fun, at bottom, and a pastime which gives pleasure to many. It is a subjective matter where the line should be drawn.

The fox has a better than evens chance of escape; not so the battery hen.

When this law was enacted in Britain, I changed my thinking on this. I do see it as a town versus country argument. Country people want to indulge in their traditions and pastimes without interference, or putting themselves outside the law. I want to go fishing sometimes, and I feel the same, though there are those who would class me with the foxhunters.

Animals in the wild tear each other to bits. Clever filmmakers capture some of this on wildlife programmes, and show it on our screens. Maybe those watching would not associate themselves with the foxhunters, but is there a big difference? The kill is an exciting moment. Can we deny it?

For those who wish to rise above this, I say good for you. For those who wish to ride to hounds, I say go ahead, break a leg. It is for each of us to decide on the morality/ cruelty issue, individually, and not have it dictated to us.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:15 am
I think the trespass issue is the only real issue. If you're going to ban something, find real reasons for doing so and not just play the heartstrings of the disenfranchised urbanite.

I also take exception to the comment that hunting with rifles and shotguns is "killing for fun". Sure, I enjoy going hunting, getting out in the woods, the thrill of actually finding game. Most of the time I get skunked, but when I don't, I'm more than happy to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Without a shotgun, how exactly am I supposed to hunt grouse?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:21 am
Quote:
Animals in the wild tear each other to bits. Clever filmmakers capture some of this on wildlife programmes, and show it on our screens. Maybe those watching would not associate themselves with the foxhunters, but is there a big difference? The kill is an exciting moment. Can we deny it?


One basic difference is that animals do not kill for sport..they kill to eat. Anyone who gets excited about killing is getting about as basic as one can get.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:24 am
I like getting primal.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:27 am
Hunting of fox is highly regulated in most states (typically it's done by trapping, not hunting). I support it for a variety of reasons, one of which is that I like to hunt upland birds. With too many fox around, there are no birds to be had.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:34 am
Intrepid wrote:
Quote:
Animals in the wild tear each other to bits. Clever filmmakers capture some of this on wildlife programmes, and show it on our screens. Maybe those watching would not associate themselves with the foxhunters, but is there a big difference? The kill is an exciting moment. Can we deny it?


One basic difference is that animals do not kill for sport..they kill to eat. Anyone who gets excited about killing is getting about as basic as one can get.


My point, maybe not clear, was that the excitement for the viewers is the behaviour of the animals on the screen.
And I'm saying double standards sometimes apply.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:37 am
Charles Kingsley, an English poet with evident love of the countryside and of nature, wrote this from the huntsman's viewpoint.


WELCOME, wild North-easter!
Shame it is to see
Odes to every zephyr;
Ne'er a verse to thee.
Welcome, black North-easter!
O'er the German foam;
O'er the Danish moorlands,
From thy frozen home.
Tired we are of summer,
Tired of gaudy glare,
Showers soft and steaming,
Hot and breathless air.
Tired of listless dreaming,
Through the lazy day:
Jovial wind of winter
Turn us out to play!
Sweep the golden reed-beds;
Crisp the lazy dyke;
Hunger into madness
Every plunging pike.
Fill the lake with wild-fowl;
Fill the marsh with snipe;
While on dreary moorlands
Lonely curlew pipe.
Through the black fir-forest
Thunder harsh and dry,
Shattering down the snow-flakes
Off the curdled sky.
Hark! The brave North-easter!
Breast-high lies the scent,
On by holt and headland,
Over heath and bent.
Chime, ye dappled darlings,
Through the sleet and snow.
Who can over-ride you?
Let the horses go!
Chime, ye dappled darlings,
Down the roaring blast
You shall see a fox die
Ere an hour be past.
Go! and rest to-morrow,
Hunting in your dreams,
While our skates are ringing
O'er the frozen streams.
Let the luscious South-wind
Breathe in lovers' sighs,
While the lazy gallants
Bask in ladies' eyes.
What does he but soften
Heart alike and pen?
'Tis the hard grey weather
Breeds hard English men.
What's the soft South-wester?
'Tis the ladies' breeze,
Bringing home their true-loves
Out of all the seas:
But the black North-easter,
Through the snowstorm hurled,
Drives our English hearts of oak
Seaward round the world.
Come, as came our fathers,
Heralded by thee,
Conquering from the eastward,
Lords by land and sea.
Come; and strong within us
Stir the Vikings' blood;
Bracing brain and sinew;
Blow, thou wind of God!
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:55 am
McTag, first let me say that was an awesome poem, but as for the fox hunting, the only objection that I have is the need of a law. Tradition and the glorification of it is what needs to be brought under rein. It is just one further "I belong and you don't" situation, but that will always be, I imagine.
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 01:14 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
Fox hunting
Bull fighting
Greyhound racing
Cock fights
Pitt Bull fighting
etc.

All forcing living creatures with as much right to be here as humans, to engage in behaviors that would never be found to this extreme in nature.

Why not just rebuild the Coliseum and again force prisoners to engage in battles to the death with gladiators or other fierce beasts?

Animals are not here to serve as entertainment for humans.
They are here to live on this planet, bred, raise their young and engage in their species' activities.

Teasing, torturing, goading, terrifying, enraging other creatures who've done nothing to us for pleasure.........Shame, shame, shame on us.


Does this include sexual activities with animals?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 01:17 pm
I was wondering the same thing because the founding father of the PETA movement advocates sex with animals.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2001/000040.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Foxhunting with dogs. Should it be made illegal?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 11:27:36