Tony Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 No, they are a predator and scavenger who act on instinct and inbred behaviours. They don't kill for "fun". They surplus kill because that is their instinct. In the wild there may be long periods where prey is absent or difficult to find. When they do find a glut of prey they gorge on it, eating as much as possible in as quick a time, because they don't know where their next meal will come from. It is a natural behaviour. To class such behaviour using the human concept of "fun" is a bit daft. By the way surplus killing is not confined to foxes. Wolves, leopards, caracals, coyotes, hyenas, bears, shrews, mink, polecats and weasels are among some of the many species known to surplus kill. Are humans excluded from this 'surplus killing' ? Did that cow that you ate for your tea deserve to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Are humans excluded from this 'surplus killing' ? Did that cow that you ate for your tea deserve to die? No that's the price it paid for domestication and human protection & healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Shouldn't you have added "again" at the end of your rant as our representatives have already had a free vote and it was against hunting? No. Because they were not given a free vote on it. It was a three-line whip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Shouldn't be either IMO, the term "Braindead" is considered offensive to the mentally disabled... Why, mentally disabled people are not brain dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fibutton Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I am against hunting them for sport but I am certainly not opposed to them being culled. Well said !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 No that's the price it paid for domestication and human protection & healthcare. That will explain why, in The Archers, they refer to their cows being in the west field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I don't understand why someone wants to get their jollies out hunting, especially in such a cruel way. Glamrocker - how is money a measure of intelligence. It all depends how you define numpty,I define them as such as what appears on the JK show..mostly no hopers,I dont consider Cameron such a person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosyRat Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 No. Because they were not given a free vote on it. It was a three-line whip. Nope. The controversy around fox hunting led to the passing of the Hunting Act 2004 in November 2004, after a free vote in the House of Commons, which made hunting with dogs unlawful in England and Wales from February 18, 2005. Even Wiki's got that one right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Nope. The controversy around fox hunting led to the passing of the Hunting Act 2004 in November 2004, after a free vote in the House of Commons, which made hunting with dogs unlawful in England and Wales from February 18, 2005. Even Wiki's got that one right. According to the Independant it was a three line whip. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-orders-labour-mps-to-resolve-fox-hunting-dispute-533074.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosyRat Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 According to the Independant it was a three line whip. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-orders-labour-mps-to-resolve-fox-hunting-dispute-533074.html Check DEFRA's own website : archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/hunting/qanda4.htm Here's the text of it : The Labour Party had a manifesto commitment in 2001 to "enable Parliament to reach a conclusion" on the issue of hunting with dogs. The Hunting Act 2004 was passed by the House of Commons by a large majority, including MPs from all major parties, on a free vote, and the Parliament Acts applied to ensure that the will of the elected chamber prevailed when it proved impossible to reach agreement with the House of Lords on this issue. The Government's role in this was one of facilitation, rather than policy implementation. The ban on hunting is a decision of the House of Commons rather than the outcome of a specific Government objective. The Independent may have conjectured that the government would be calling a 3-line whip, but that's what it was, conjecture. In the event it was a free vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.