tulip Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by smelley_cat1 i say we just forget this whole arguement its not getting anywhere we all agree fox hunting is humane we all agree they will all die still due to the law we all agree fox hunting should be banned completely and that foxes shpould be able to live in peace even tho by the looks of things that wont happen end. No, the thread is going somewhere - round and round in circles:D. I agree with the ban:clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madowl Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 fox hunting should be banned as.. its cruel outdated and barbaric.. if we really do need to kill the fox, why cant there be a more humane way to do it if we have to kill them at all? long live the hunt saboteurs.... :clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Pretty sure mother nature can look after herself. The issue seems to be protecting farmer’s livestock from foxes or other perceived pests. Anybody who knows anything about animals and eco-systems know that foxes play a very important part, and are only pests to farmers. It seems odd to me that farmers cannot or will not protect their livestock. If it's chickens then surely it's a small compound and certainly not beyond the realms of or science to protect this small area from anything that wants to get in. Also with other small animals or baby animals, correct me if i am wrong but aren’t they generally kept fairly close to the farm in small enclosures until they are old enough? If so again it must be very easy and pretty cheap to secure a small field. Burying the fence in to the ground so the fox cannot dig under, making sure any wholes in the fence are repaired quickly etc. The simple fact is, if a fox gets in its the farmers failiure. We have fox proof fences. Here is one built in 1901 in Australia to cover an entire state! And it's not only fox proof it's rabit proof as well. (http://camelfarm.com/camels/rabbit_proof_fence.html). There are also designes and products for fox proof chicken coops. From my experience Chickens are usually kept in a old, rickety, home made wood shed with more holes than a tea bag. Thats why we are even talking about this, it's not because shooting them is the only option from what i can see. A small outlay would protect the animals and allow the farmer to sleep at night and spend less time hunting the very hard to hunt, fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautynbeast Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 well said. long live the hunt sabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 it looks like hunt sabs & terrorists rule. pity that when they support islam we have to try & stop them. no one has stated that the hunt is not barbaric or that it doesn't hurt the fox. however no one as offered any justifiable reason to stop some people from a livelihood apart from pure emotion. we have no conclusive proof from anti hunt - how many foxes have been saved. if the hunt only kill a few foxes as the anti hunt states then why bother banning it - you've only saved 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Thought it had been explained that the purpose was not specifically to save foxes but to give them as humane a death as possible? Must have got my wires twisted again. Has the world gone facts mad? You can dredge up any facts to fit any picture you want - ask the flat earth society about that one. They have some damned good explanations and proofs that the earth is indeed flat. So - the question has to be - killing for pleasure, as a sport, or killing to get rid of a problem? To enjoy killing is wrong. All life is important. There has to be a more humane method than fox hunting with horse and hound. I do not know what it is - before you ask, but there has to be one surely? Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by willman it looks like hunt sabs & terrorists rule. What do you mean. You mean in the way that the whole country is now forced into islamic vegetarianism? pity that when they support islam we have to try & stop them. no one has stated that the hunt is not barbaric or that it doesn't hurt the fox. however no one as offered any justifiable reason to stop some people from a livelihood apart from pure emotion. I take it then, you would not object to my putting on a live puppy skinning contest. Lots of people would really enjoy the challenge, I'm betting we could even get television rights. we have no conclusive proof from anti hunt - how many foxes have been saved. if the hunt only kill a few foxes as the anti hunt states then why bother banning it - you've only saved 1 or 2. Well, how many foxes do hunts kill per year, on average? That is how many foxes will not be dying that particular death for the entertainment of some humans on horseback. It seems straighforward enough to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Dragon So - the question has to be - killing for pleasure, as a sport, or killing to get rid of a problem? To enjoy killing is wrong. All life is important. There has to be a more humane method than fox hunting with horse and hound. I do not know what it is - before you ask, but there has to be one surely? Dragon i do understand your post dragon & i agree in principle. i do however feel that the need for a ban was not justifiable pureley on emotional grounds. i leave food from kfc for the local foxes, and as nature/animal lovers do not like to think of animals suffering. but i strongly disagree with terrorists dictating what people can & cannot do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Terrorsists? Thanks mate. Not been called one of those before. As the move to ban foxing was a majority decision based on what the general public wanted - I think it was a pretty fair law. Just look at the votes in the poll. Are you saying that because a minority believe it is fine to hunt foxes in such a cruel manner, then it should not be outlawed, regardless of what the people in general want? Who is taking away the rights from whom? Hunt sabateurs acted in the only way they knew how to bring the most attention to the plight of these animals. I do not agree with threats to families and such, but they have been ignored for too long. I also saw a documentary where a club of hunters set about some demonstrators who were peacefully waving banners against the hunt. Seems like it is tit for tat in some cases. Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by willman i do understand your post dragon & i agree in principle. i do however feel that the need for a ban was not justifiable pureley on emotional grounds. i leave food from kfc for the local foxes, and as nature/animal lovers do not like to think of animals suffering. but i strongly disagree with terrorists dictating what people can & cannot do. As I recall it was in the labour 1997 manifesto, upon which they were elected. It was then passed (hunting with dogs act) in parliament and repeatedly delayed in the lords, without due cause, before eventually passing into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.