Berberis Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 So you finally get what fox hunting is all about, BLOODLUST. Well we got there in the end. How exactly did you come to this conclusion as it’s obvious to anyone who knows you have never been on a hunt or could have attended every hunt in the country to make such a sweeping judgement? Some people may well be only there for the reason you gave, but you are making your accusation based on a small number of examples. It’s funny as this attitude is exactly what you despair at when anyone dares mention the world “Muslim” in close proximity to the word “terrorist”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Fishing as well:loopy: Fishing was one of the areas the league against cruel sports cited as their next target some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 it’s obvious to anyone who knows you have never been on a hunt I've never been to a dog fight, but i believe it's wrong. I've never seen a bull being killed by the sword, for pure entertainment, but i believe it is wrong. I have never sat on a horse and chased a fox so we could kill it, but i believe it's wrong. One doesn't have to take part in something to make a moral judgement, surely? Secondly, if only a small amount of people are after their bloodlust, like you claim, then why are you against the hunting ban? You'd be happy to hunt an artificial scent, because you all have a jolly good time and the 'small number' of people who enjoy to inflict suffering would no longer take part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 does it really matter if fox hunting is brought back...the people who do it claim it is a sport...and maybe it is a snobbish sport...so what about the working class sport of hunting rabbits with dogs and ferrets should that be banned..and fishing...and shooting as a sport....or is it just the snobs your after... life is cruel and some people enjoy this hunting game... me i enjoy my sport that contains only humans except the horses and dogs that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rioja Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 life is cruel and some people enjoy this hunting game... ... Some people enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on cats, dogs, children. Should that be permitted just because some people "enjoy" it? The fact that some people enjoy inflicting pain and suffering seems a thoroughly good reason for banning it. People used to enjoy **** fighting. People enjoy dog fighting. "Enjoyment" is not an argument for permitting something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Some people enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on cats, dogs, children. Should that be permitted just because some people "enjoy" it? The fact that some people enjoy inflicting pain and suffering seems a thoroughly good reason for banning it. People used to enjoy **** fighting. People enjoy dog fighting. "Enjoyment" is not an argument for permitting something. yes but if they bring it back it will be legal...as is fishing and shooting would you ban those... if anyone is caught inflicting pain on cats dogs and children they should be jailed for a very long time..and in the case of the child they should swing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 life is cruel ... I'm not a class warrior in this context. I dislike all cruel sports. I have links with animal sanctuaries and the working class past-time of dog fighting is equally as repugnant. Mother nature is cruel, but is that a reason for us to compound it? If we took that line of thought we'd have no justice system. "Life is cruel, go home now". We've grown as a race because we can philosophise other things, and we can look at the way we live and say that fox hunting is cruel. So why not try and find a better way of culling them if need insists? I shall bow out of this debate now, they normally keep going in circles and i've said my piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I've never been to a dog fight, but i believe it's wrong. I've never seen a bull being killed by the sword, for pure entertainment, but i believe it is wrong. I have never sat on a horse and chased a fox so we could kill it, but i believe it's wrong. One doesn't have to take part in something to make a moral judgement, surely? Secondly, if only a small amount of people are after their bloodlust, like you claim, then why are you against the hunting ban? You'd be happy to hunt an artificial scent, because you all have a jolly good time and the 'small number' of people who enjoy to inflict suffering would no longer take part. 1) Dog fighting serves no purpose while fox hunting comes from a need to control fox numbers in the country side and as already shown it is considered the most humane method of dispatching a fox. 2) My support for fox hunting starts and ends with the need to control fox numbers. This is why I support licensed fox hunting and not stag or deer hunting with dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ooooh. Fell into my lap. In an average fox hunting season: Foxes killed: 15,000 (36% by digging up by terriermen) Humans killed (in accidents): 3 Pups and hounds killed: 6,000 Veterinary fees for horses: £15 million Injuries to hounds: 1,000 Injuries to those on foot (including sabs): 500 Total blood spilled: 1 ton plus Veterinary fees for horses: £15 million ?? The horses have not vanished or been sold to France or glue factories! They are still in the UK and being looked after by the same vets. Horses cost a fortune to keep and vets bills are astronomical. The evidence that the reason why vets support fox hunting is wholly financial is rubbish. The real financial loss is the care and breeding of hounds, which is only a tiny proportion of vets income and really only effected the breeders. Vet supported fox hunting because of the evidence. In their professional capacity the most humane method of dealing with the task of maintaining fox numbers is by hunting with hounds. Your quote comes from the league against cruel sports, whose own members have left in disgust, including chief executives because the league "has no interest in animal welfare when running it's campaigns". Some quotes from ex-members of the League Against Cruel Sports: "I found it impossible to ignore the truth and facts about hunting. I have come to despise the League Against Cruel Sports, even though I was its Chairman and Chief Executive, simply because these people know as well as I do that the abolition of hunting will not make any difference to the welfare of foxes, hares or deer." Richard Course Former Chairman and Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports for thirteen years. Commenting in April 1998. "Hunting is part of the country life and destroying it will put a lot of people out of work and be worse for the animals. They will have to be shot instead - and that means many will be wounded. We kill them outright." Liz White Ex saboteur and former member of the League Against Cruel Sports who now hunts. 17 March 2003. "if hunting with dogs is to be proscribed, other methods to kill foxes currently in use will take its place. These methods are not all preferable to hunting as far as the suffering of animals is concerned" James Barrington Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports from 1988 to December 1995. Tribune - 2nd May 200. "Compared with shooting, gassing and trapping – which are often indiscriminate, often inefficient and clearly detrimental to other wildlife – give me hunting any day." Mark Halford Ex hunt saboteur and former member of the LACS and Hunt Saboteurs Association. Daily Telegraph – 8th April 2000. "I urge your readers to think carefully about the likely animal welfare implications of a ban on ‘sport’ hunting. For those who genuinely seek improvements all is not lost however. Indeed, by placing all hunting under the strict control of a statutory licensing system, and by amending existing legislation, it will be possible to generally improve wild mammal welfare as opposed to allowing the current situation to degenerate into chaos." Miles Cooper Representative and investigator for the Hunt Saboteurs Association, the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Campaign for Protection of Hunted Animals for twelve years, leaving in May 2002. Letter to regional press - July 2002. “The scent hunting or tracking down of fox hunting cause no stress or no trauma to the fox who must be totally unaware of this major part of the hunt. How the fox is located is totally irrelevant to animal welfare considerations. It took me ten years to realise this irrefutable fact – others will never realise it because bigotry, prejudice, narrow mindedness, class animosity and ignorance blind people to the truth.” A ban on hunting is for animal welfare purposes? Rubbish. We know it, the League Against Cruel Sports know it and Labour MPs know it. Richard Course Ex League Against Cruel Sports member, In his submission to the Burns Inquiry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 serapis has been rather selective in his references to the Burns enquiry, here are the main points: Thursday, 14 March, 2002, 17:42 GMT The Burns Inquiry: Key points In 1997, the Labour Party devoted just 13 words to fox hunting in its general election manifesto, declaring that there would be "a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned". By 1999, that vote had yet to appear. To some criticism from its own side, the government set up an inquiry into hunting under Lord Burns, the former civil service head of the Treasury, in an attempt to establish the facts amid the froth. A similar but separate inquiry was established in Scotland (see below). Lord Burns reported in June 2000. This is a summary of his inquiry's conclusions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic facts about hunting Burns found that there were approximately 200 active packs of hounds in England and Wales. Almost all of these involved hunting on horseback, the most notable exception being the Fells packs which hunt on foot in the Lake District. Lord Burns: Mixed report The inquiry estimated that the hunts killed between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes every year, some 40% of these kills taking place in the autumn "cub" season. However, outside of the packs, many more foxes are dug out and shot every year by farmers, landowners and gamekeepers. In Devon and Somerset there are three staghound packs which kill approximately 160 red deer a year. There are a further 100 packs which hunt hares, killing 1,650 a year. This, Burns concluded, was a small proportion of the total number of hares killed annually. There are a further 24 registered hare coursing clubs, a smaller number of unregistered groups and some 20 minkhound packs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hunting and the rural economy Burns concluded that the relationships between hunting and the rural economy were complex with some economy activity merely serving it and others dependent upon it. It estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs dependent on hunting. Some 700 jobs are tied specifically to hunting. Up to a further 3,000 jobs were hunting-related while the rest included all manner of businesses and jobs which have any kind of economic relationship with hunts. Burns stressed that the inquiry had not been able to provide a precise figure of how many jobs would be lost by imposing a ban. The team predicted that the first job losses would be of those employed by hunts followed over the coming years by related-businesses affected by, for instance, the reduction in the use of horses. However, the inquiry also predicted most if not all of the effects of a ban would be offset within a decade if money transferred into other rural activities. "In terms of national resource use, the economic effects of a ban on hunting would be unlikely to be substational," said the inquiry. "However, at least in the short and medium term, the individual and local effects would be more serious." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Social and cultural issues Burns examined the assertion by the hunting lobby that they play a critical role in the social and cultural life of rural communities. The inquiry found that there were higher levels of support for hunting within rural communities than expected. While the hunt had a significant social role, this was not as important as that performed by a village pub or church and there were some in rural communities who regarded the hunt as "divisive, intrusive and disruptive". However, the report added: "It is clear that, especially for participants in more isolated rural communities, hunting acts as a significant cohesive force, encouraging a system of mutual support." The inquiry also warned that some pony clubs and point-to-point meetings could be adversely affected by a ban as they rely on voluntary work by hunt followers and supporters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population management and control Burns reported that there were an estimated 217,000 foxes in England and Wales prior to annual breeding and that most landowners or farmers believe that the population needs to be controlled to protect livestock. Hunting itself, the report found, was responsible for only a small number of the foxes killed every year. Controlling the fox population in upland areas appears to be more dependent on using dogs, the report said. Hunts kill approximately 15% of the 1,000 deer culled every year in Devon and Somerset in order to "maintain a stable population", reported Burns. The inquiry predicted that deer numbers could drop if hunting was banned without an adequate management plan being put in place. Hare hunting and coursing, the report found, "are essentially carried out for recreational purposes" and have little effect on population. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Animal welfare The most contentious issue for both sides is the issue of whether or not hunting with hounds can be classed as cruel. The inquiry found that if hunting were banned, farmers would use other methods more frequently to kill foxes. The inquiry found that "death is not always affected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound". While there is a lack of scientific evidence on the effect of the hunt, the inquiry said that it was satisfied that "this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". None of the legal methods of fox killing were "without difficulty" but lamping, the use of torches and rifles at night, "has fewer adverse welfare implications". Using shotguns during the day or snaring were arguably worse than hunting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Practical concerns over hunting Burns reported that there are "too many cases of trespass, disruption and disturbance". If hunting were to remain legal, the inquiry recommended that hunting should be conducted on a more open basis to provide reassurance to those who have concerns over how hunts are carried out. This could be carried out through an independent monitor. Other proposals mooted by the inquiry included creating defined hunting seasons or only permitting activity where there is a clear need to control fox numbers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scotland's report While Lord Burns conducted his report in England and Wales, a separate report was prepared for Scotland. Published in June 2000, it reported that the banning of Scotland's 10 hunts would cost businesses approximately £260,000 and up to 300 jobs. Scotland's mounted hunts kill an estimated 543 foxes every year. Up to 20 people were directly employed by hunts and some 633 people who took part owned more than 1,600 horses. A third of these people told the inquiry that they would give up riding if hunting was banned. The report concluded: "The main employment effect of a ban is on those most directly connected with the hunts or the follower households. Impacts beyond these in the Scottish economy would be small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.