Fox Hunting - Right or Wrong?

[raphael123]

Obviously it's been banned, so doing it now is wrong as its illegal, but do you think Labour were right to ban it? Or should it still be allowed?

Discuss :D

[pino]

They were right to ban it :up:

[raphael123]

They were right to ban it :up:

Anything in particular reason why you feel that way? :)

[pino]

Anything in particular reason why you feel that way? :)

I love animals too much that's why ;)

[Valve Bounce]

I love animals too much that's why ;)

Pino, if you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a pic of my latest addition to my home: Benny, a chihuahua. He is the cutest!! :)

[BeansBeansBeans]

There were reasonable arguments both for and against the ban, but I'm pleased they went ahead with it. As an animal-lover I found the sport barbaric.

[schmenke]

So... bullfighting is next?

[BDunnell]

I used to be dead against fox hunting, but have mellowed somewhat over time. I hate the pursuit, but can understand why some people think that banning it was wrong. Still, it was worth it just to see those hunting types getting into fights with the police during the pro-hunting demonstrations near Parliament, and being outraged by their treatment. Most amusing.

[Eki]

Wrong. We aren't any better than foxes, so we don't have the right to kill them just for fun or because they compete for resources with us. Here, fishermen want to kill seals because they reduce their profits. I say tough, the fish belong to the seals as well as to the humans, maybe even more, since it's their only source of food.

[pino]

So... bullfighting is next?

I do hope so ! :)

[BeansBeansBeans]

We aren't any better than foxes.

We are at some things. For instance, we are generally better drivers and with the exception of KFC customers, eat chicken in a much more civilised fashion.

[Eki]

We are at some things. For instance, we are generally better drivers and with the exception of KFC customers, eat chicken in a much more civilised fashion.
OK, but that's a matter of opinion and preferences.

[schmenke]

...with the exception of KFC customers, eat chicken in a much more civilised fashion.

:laugh:

[Hazell B]

We might eat chicken in a more civilised fashion, but we don't kill them half as humanely as foxes do.

Hunting's ban hasn't worked at all. If anyone's daft enough to think it's stopped they've another think coming. In fact it's actually more popular now, more people Hunt each week and far more 'injured' foxes are killed 'while exercising' Hounds. Foxes are known as 'long tailed rabbits' these days to avoid breaking the law when they're caught. How that works I don't know as I stopped Hunting some years ago and don't even follow in my vehicle now.

[Erki]

What's the point of hunting anyway? And isn't it a little bit unfair? A human with a gun vs a fox with no guns at all. Go and kill a fox with your bare hands, then I'll shake your hand. Just wash it beforehand. :)

[Hazell B]

It's using Hounds, Erki, not guns. Shooting foxes is done at night and called either lamping (which includes using Lurchers or other dogs sometimes) or just plain shooting.

Hunting as we think of it was a damned good day out, a chance to ride a horse very fast over dangerous land that's private and unavailable at any other time. Foxes were rarely caught if the truth be known. It was more about enjoying a race among sixty or so other horses and then getting plastered on somebody else's expensive gin before lunch :p :

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It shouldn't have been banned. I have no feelings for foxes. As for not wanting to hunt foxes because you are a animal lover? What do people think foxes do in their spare time? :confused: Make daisy-chains and sunbathe? No, they kill animals for fun, whether it be farm animals or wild. Farmers have told stories of all their chickens being killed in one night. Foxes are one of the few animals that hunt when they are not hungry.

However, saying this, my mum would never let fox hunting on to her land. Simply because of the damage they do to fences and walls, and sometimes not getting permission. ( I could go on to talk about my feelings on the 'right to roam' but I'll save that for another day)

[Eki]

No, they kill animals for fun, whether it be farm animals or wild. Farmers have told stories of all their chickens being killed in one night.
They kill animals for food. Even if they don't eat it right away, they kill it for future need. Just like squirrels hide peanuts they don't eat right away.

[jim mcglinchey]

[
Hunting as we think of it was a damned good day out, a chance to ride a horse very fast over dangerous land that's private and unavailable at any other time. Foxes were rarely caught if the truth be known. It was more about enjoying a race among sixty or so other horses and then getting plastered on somebody else's expensive gin before lunch :p :[/QUOTE]

Thats why I would never strongly object to fox hunting although I hate cruelty to animals. The actual fox hunting seems incidental to all the ritual and the risk attached to chasing Renard over the fields on a galloping horse, and people who throw up their hands in horror could do alot more for the cause of animal suffering than bash the toffs.

[CharlieJ]

So if it's all just about a good day out, why involve the fox???????????

Why not just have a drag hunt, or even just a point to point?

:dozey:

[jso1985]

It shouldn't have been banned. I have no feelings for foxes. As for not wanting to hunt foxes because you are a animal lover? What do people think foxes do in their spare time? :confused: Make daisy-chains and sunbathe? No, they kill animals for fun, whether it be farm animals or wild. Farmers have told stories of all their chickens being killed in one night. Foxes are one of the few animals that hunt when they are not hungry.



so if they bahave in cruel non-logical ways, should we answer in the same way? aren't we supposed to be inteligent creatures?

[Malbec]

Foxes are regarded as pests by the farming community because they attack chickens etc. Foxhunting has been banned, but the killing of foxes will continue through other means as long as they present a threat to farming.

So the choice is really between the different methods of killing.

Do you believe its more humane for a fox to be hunted down and killed by dogs, or to be poisoned, trapped or shot, none of which offer the same guarantee of a rapid death as the hunt?

How about the human impact on those who would normally be employed looking after the dogs and horses involved in the hunt?

What about the hunting dogs, now there is no demand for them what will be done about them?

I'm afraid in my opinion this is about the Islington lot and townies in general (and I am one myself) ramming their beliefs and values down the throats of the rural population who are actually involved and affected by foxes without careful consideration.

[Eki]

Foxes are regarded as pests by the farming community because they attack chickens etc. Foxhunting has been banned, but the killing of foxes will continue through other means as long as they present a threat to farming.
The farmers should find better ways to protect their farm animals than killing. If they can't, they should seek other employment. It's like keeping your garbage can wide open and complaining about rats. We have foxes and we have chickens, however I have never heard a fox kill a chicken here.



How about the human impact on those who would normally be employed looking after the dogs and horses involved in the hunt?
Life is more important than employment.



What about the hunting dogs, now there is no demand for them what will be done about them?
The hunting dogs have a maximum career of 10 years. The hunting dog breeders should have been given a notice 10 years before actually banning the hunt. Those who don't want to keep their dogs as pets should have stopped breeding them during that transit period.

[pino]

Pino, if you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a pic of my latest addition to my home: Benny, a chihuahua. He is the cutest!! :)

OK I will PM you :D

[Ian McC]

This got rather heated the last time it was discussed.

We should be above hunting and killing animals for fun by now.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The farmers should find better ways to protect their farm animals than killing. If they can't, they should seek other employment. It's like keeping your garbage can wide open and complaining about rats. We have foxes and we have chickens, however I have never heard a fox kill a chicken here.


What the hell are you talking about :confused: Farmers should seek other employment because Foxes kill their animals? :erm: I'd like you to suggest a way that a Farmer could protect all of their animals.

Also Eki- Foxes can't kill all the animals they kill. You compare them to squirrels saving nuts? Meat goes rotten in a week :dozey:

[Eki]

What the hell are you talking about :confused: Farmers should seek other employment because Foxes kill their animals? :erm: I'd like you to suggest a way that a Farmer could protect all of their animals.
Simple, you put walls, a roof and a floor that a fox can't penetrate around them.



Also Eki- Foxes can't kill all the animals they kill. You compare them to squirrels saving nuts? Meat goes rotten in a week :dozey:
Foxes don't know that (and they may also eat rotten meat). Seeing a lot of chickens together is an unnatural sight for a fox. It doesn't realize that they will still be there tomorrow, so it tries to kill as many as it can while they still are there.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Simple, you put walls, a roof and a floor that a fox can't penetrate around them.


.

How can a farmer keep over 500 sheep in one building?

[Eki]

How can a farmer keep over 500 sheep in one building?
Do foxes kill sheep?

Building is not necessary. High enough electrified fence that also goes deep enough so that a fox can't dig its way through is enough.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Do foxes kill sheep?

Building is not necessary. High enough electrified fence that also goes deep enough so that a fox can't dig its way through is enough.

By your immature response, I see that you concede the argument? ;)

:rolleyes:

[Eki]

By your immature response, I see that you concede the argument? ;)

:rolleyes:
Mmm...'kay

[Brown, Jon Brow]

How much would 6 foot high electric fences cost to install and run?
How would the farmer get into different fields?
How would people react if our dry stone walls were replaced by horrific fences?
Do you put animal rights ahead of human rights?

Eki- please think before you post.

[Eki]

How much would 6 foot high electric fences cost to install and run?
They could cover the costs by charging more for their products. People will pay if they want to eat, and I believe they do.



How would the farmer get into different fields?
Through gates.



How would people react if our dry stone walls were replaced by horrific fences?
Do you put animal rights ahead of human rights?

I think we both have rights and should learn to live together,

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They could cover the costs by charging more for their products. People will pay if they want to eat, and I believe they do.

The market dictates the price for meat. Farming is market led not asset led. Farmers only get what the supermarkets are prepared to pay. If farmers in this country asked for more, shops would just get their meat from abroad where it's cheaper. Supermarkets have the power, not farmers.



Through gates.

Well then there is gap in your electric fencing, foxes can get through. A fox can get through a closed gate.




I think we both have rights and should learn to live together,

Exactly, we can live together, but the only sustainable way by controlling fox numbers. Why can't this be through hunting?

[Eki]

The market dictates the price for meat. Farming is market led not asset led. Farmers only get what the supermarkets are prepared to pay. If farmers in this country asked for more, shops would just get their meat from abroad where it's cheaper. Supermarkets have the power, not farmers.
That's where the European Union can help. They can make the same rules apply in every member nation and put taxes on products that come outside the EU.





Well then there is gap in your electric fencing, foxes can get through. A fox can get through a closed gate.
Gates can be closed and they can be electrified as well. Even foxes can't walk through closed gates or walls, they don't have any superpowers.



Exactly, we can live together, but the only sustainable way by controlling fox numbers. Why can't this be through hunting?
Australians have tried to control their fox population by feeding them birth control medication instead of poison. I think that's a nicer method.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Gates can be closed and they can be electrified as well. Even foxes can't walk through closed gates or walls, they don't have any superpowers.
.

Eki- I don't know if you have ever been on a farm, but let me let you from someone that knows. It is impossible to keep foxes off farmland!

[Eki]

Eki- I don't know if you have ever been on a farm, but let me let you from someone that knows. It is impossible to keep foxes off farmland!
I say they haven't tried hard enough. Like I said, we have foxes here in Finland, but they aren't harmful for farming. Probably because we have to shelter the animals from cold air, and cold air can get through easier than foxes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You can't protect farm animals that live on open fell land.

[lilmelvschilton]

i think fox hunting should be banned as it is really horrible as i love foxes

[Ian McC]

The point almost has nothing to do with foxes, lets face it cars kill a lot more foxes than hunts, it could never seriously be considered a form of pest control, anyone saying that is just looking for excuses to justify hunting.

It comes down to killing animals for fun is wrong! We should have been around long enough to grow out of it.

[BDunnell]

I am in favour of urban fox hunting. People should be going around south-west London shooting them from the open tailgates of Range Rovers. If they catch the odd local resident along the way by mistake, no matter.

Either that, or Merton Council should give us all wheelie bins to stop these pests gnawing at our rubbish bags and messing up our road.

[CharlieJ]

Extensive research has shown that less than 5 percent of lamb deaths are due to predation (that's ALL predation, not just foxes) and that only 0.7 percent of free range chickens are lost to foxes.

Rabbits are a genuine pest to farmers because of the damage they do to crops.

Around 45 percent of a fox's diet (in the countryside obviously, rather than in towns) is rabbit.

So foxes are actually useful to farmers.

And on the subject of the hunt itself... what do those people that support fox hunting think about other "traditional" "sports" ? Would they like bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting brought back too?

[Eki]

Rabbits are a genuine pest to farmers because of the damage they do to crops.

Around 45 percent of a fox's diet (in the countryside obviously, rather than in towns) is rabbit.

So foxes are actually useful to farmers.

Exactly. And the harder the farmers make for the foxes to reach their garbage and livestock, the more rabbits the foxes have to eat. The foxes are basically like people, they are lazy too, why waste energy hunting rabbits if there's dinner ready on the table.

This reminded me of when the Chinese though sparrows were eating their crop, so Mao ordered the Chinese to kill the sparrows. Said and done. After the sparrows were gone, insects ruined the Chinese crop and there was famine. Turned out that sparrows also eat insects.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Extensive research has shown that less than 5 percent of lamb deaths are due to predation (that's ALL predation, not just foxes) and that only 0.7 percent of free range chickens are lost to foxes.

Rabbits are a genuine pest to farmers because of the damage they do to crops.


Not all farmers grow crops.

Take my brothers farm as a case. This year he has had over 700 lambs. The average value of a lamb is around £30. If 5% are killed by predators, then thats over £1000 lost every year.

[Eki]

Not all farmers grow crops.

Take my brothers farm as a case. This year he has had over 700 lambs. The average value of a lamb is around £30. If 5% are killed by predators, then thats over £1000 lost every year.
How many of them have been killed by a fox this far?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't know, I haven't been counting :dozey:

[BDunnell]

I think the truth is that hardly anyone would be bothered about fox hunting if it wasn't a sport traditionally favoured by the upper classes and if it (and they) didn't look a bit stupid to a lot of people when shown on the TV. If it was just an ordinary farming practice, the issue would never have come up.

Still, there's nothing wrong with a bit of class prejudice from time to time...

[Erki]

I have nothing against hunting to control the population of foxes and other animals, I just don't like that there's been made a game out of it.

[schmenke]

Just out of curiousity, how many foxes are killed by hunting every year? I can't imagine it's all that many?

[Hazell B]

Afraid I'm going to be a pain in the bum and answer each post individually as I've not mastered multi-quotes yet :dozey:

Eki - foxes don't hide food for the future like squirrels. They kill for fun, just like cats, and leave death and injury behind when they've had enough. They look at it as practice for when they need to tackle more difficult prey. Personally I don't begrudge them that, but then again I've never kept chickens.



So if it's all just about a good day out, why involve the fox???????????

Why not just have a drag hunt, or even just a point to point?

:dozey:

Two reasons Drag Hunting isn't anything like the real thing. The first is cost. Land owners don't want Hunts in without the tradition and chance of a fox less on their land. If you have Drag packs use your area, you'll get illegal and uninvited lampers at night, so having a real Foxhound pack on your land basically advertises the lack of foxes (which is nuts, but does seem to work). As Leon said, Hunting damages land and fences. Without fewer foxes the land owner will charge more than jump fees (payment for broken timber) and Drag packs charge about twice what Fox packs charge for cap fee. You have to pay the bloke with the stinky sack (pun intended) too, as he's doing some pretty nifty running to stay ahead :p : If I'd had to Drag Hunt I simply could never have afforded it.
Secondly, where's the danger and fun in a planned route? Talk about take the thrill out of a day :mark:

Point to points are different. They have zero to do with Hunting. You may aswell have asked why not buy a car and rally instead.

[Hazell B]

How about the human impact on those who would normally be employed looking after the dogs and horses involved in the hunt?

What about the hunting dogs, now there is no demand for them what will be done about them?



Damned good questions. Sadly, they're the main reason I left the whole Hunting thing behind me, those two questions. The Countryside Alliance lied on both counts.

It was claimed 16,000, then later 12,000, people were employed by Fox Hunting in general and they'd lose their jobs. Rubbish, they are all still in the same jobs or ones like them. Riders still need all the same stuff and the actual Hunts employ about three people each so it's hardly a calamity if they had to move to other jobs.

The Hounds and horses are different. Horse prices dropped slightly for Hunter types and older general purpose riding horses suitable to Hunt a bit on. So what? Horse prices alter from day to day anyway. The Hounds are bred by the pack and already most of them end up being shot as they're either too old, too slow or too over bred. Simply breed less is the answer. The CA claimed 'many thousands' would be put to sleep, but as they are already what's the difference? :rolleyes:

[Hazell B]

The point almost has nothing to do with foxes, lets face it cars kill a lot more foxes than hunts, it could never seriously be considered a form of pest control, anyone saying that is just looking for excuses to justify hunting.

It comes down to killing animals for fun is wrong! We should have been around long enough to grow out of it.


The League Against Cruel Sports said 70,000 plus foxes are killed each year on the roads and about 7,000 by Hunting. The CA roughly agreed at 7,000 for their annual kill.

There's 150 packs in the whole UK, each Hunting one, two or occasionally three days a week for about 22 weeks a year. The maths are impossible - Hunts cannot kill anything like 7,000 foxes. I would guess no more than a thousand, in a good year.

In all the years I Hunted I never, not once, became part of a day's killing. We just galloped about and pretended. One morning I was told to shut up when I said "there's a fox" and later the Field Master claimed a dead fox from the roadside as one we'd got. The fact that it had tyre marks over it's belly didn't stop him peeling it off the tarmac and waving it about at the land owner - who coughed up a bottle of good whisky in thanks :p :

Seriously, in my experince it's a farce and nobody kills anything but themselves. Some Hunts do kill of course, but I wouldn't go near them with a bargepole.

[CharlieJ]

Thanks Hazell. The question about drag hunting is usually just dismissed with "it's not the same". I know that point to point is a completely different thing - it was just the "good day out" comment - obviously your explanation on drag hunting explained why that's not an alternative.

I must disagree about foxes stashing food though - it's well documented, although it is a much more short term thing than with squirrels.

[Hazell B]

Not all farmers grow crops.

Take my brothers farm as a case. This year he has had over 700 lambs. The average value of a lamb is around £30. If 5% are killed by predators, then thats over £1000 lost every year.


Townies don't get that. Chicken farms keep chickens, while arable farms grow crops. Hence chicken farmers love Hunting and arable farms don't.

Rabbits are a bloody menace to all land owners, but Hunts don't tend to go where rabbits are (and therefore foxes) as the danger of a horse sticking his leg down a rabbit run is too high. Hunting may be cruel to some, but breaking horses legs for fun is a damned sight more cruel.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Townies don't get that.

That's true. We're an ignorant bunch. Mind you, we don't sleep with our relatives, so that's one thing in our favour.

[Hazell B]

Thanks Hazell. The question about drag hunting is usually just dismissed with "it's not the same". I know that point to point is a completely different thing - it was just the "good day out" comment - obviously your explanation on drag hunting explained why that's not an alternative.

There is a superb Drag pack near Sheffield, but frankly they're a snotty load of w***ers who charge too much and spend all morning moaning about their private school fees. That's why real humans don't Drag :p :



I must disagree about foxes stashing food though - it's well documented, although it is a much more short term thing than with squirrels.


Where's it documanted? Foxes kill, leave what they can't carry and that's that. They will return to a place they've been successful in, but then kill fresh chickens even if the dead ones are still there. Foxes are just big cats (though nearer to dogs gene-wise) who like fresh meat and warm food. I've never known a healthy one who can hunt live animals rely on roadkill for example. They pass roadkill outside my land every night to get to the rabbits half a mile further on ;)

[Hazell B]

That's true. We're an ignorant bunch. Mind you, we don't sleep with our relatives, so that's one thing in our favour.

Funny that, the cases of incest average double in the inner city council estate than in villages. I read an article on it only a month or so ago. There's also mange (scabies) in inner cities than in the countryside where mange is common on animals ......

Or where you attempting a pathetic dig at country folk's simple life?

[BDunnell]

As you will see, I haven't got multi-quoting either!


Townies don't get that.

This is the one thing in your various posts that I have a bit of an objection to. I come from what could be described as the countryside, but have lived in cities for quite a few years now, so I'm not sure which camp I fit into. I have always felt, since the hunting debate really started after Labour came to power, that the idea of there being a huge gulf between town and country, with neither understanding the other and our law-makers being just as divided, is not really true.

[BDunnell]

Damned good questions. Sadly, they're the main reason I left the whole Hunting thing behind me, those two questions. The Countryside Alliance lied on both counts.

It was claimed 16,000, then later 12,000, people were employed by Fox Hunting in general and they'd lose their jobs. Rubbish, they are all still in the same jobs or ones like them. Riders still need all the same stuff and the actual Hunts employ about three people each so it's hardly a calamity if they had to move to other jobs.

The Hounds and horses are different. Horse prices dropped slightly for Hunter types and older general purpose riding horses suitable to Hunt a bit on. So what? Horse prices alter from day to day anyway. The Hounds are bred by the pack and already most of them end up being shot as they're either too old, too slow or too over bred. Simply breed less is the answer. The CA claimed 'many thousands' would be put to sleep, but as they are already what's the difference? :rolleyes:

Excellent points. I remember you posting things along these lines before. I certainly wasn't having a go at you in any of my anti-hunting comments ('for once', you might say...) because I know you've always said how you feel, and think it's very commendable.

[BDunnell]

Or where you attempting a pathetic dig at country folk's simple life?

Let's not start an argument over a simple joke. I come from Norfolk, which is after all viewed as being the UK centre of inbreeding — largely, of course, because the county contains Sandringham — and I'm never offended by such comments. I think they can often be rather funny, because we all know that not everybody from rural areas is a backward cousin-s***ger.

[Hazell B]

I come from what could be described as the countryside, but have lived in cities for quite a few years now, so I'm not sure which camp I fit into. I have always felt, since the hunting debate really started after Labour came to power, that the idea of there being a huge gulf between town and country, with neither understanding the other and our law-makers being just as divided, is not really true.

I've always felt the reverse - town people never understand the first thing about what real country life is. Living near the country isn't living in the country.

Most villagers these days know little of true rural life, either. They might drive a Frelander, but they don't know what sort of soil their house is built on, what type of tree is in their garden or what a mange-covered fox could do to their children's health. In fact, I doubt most would know a badger from a pint of Guinness and in my experince they go knocking at their neighbours door moaning about a dog barking all night when it's actually a fox :laugh:

[BDunnell]

I've always felt the reverse - town people never understand the first thing about what real country life is. Living near the country isn't living in the country.

Most villagers these days know little of true rural life, either. They might drive a Frelander, but they don't know what sort of soil their house is built on, what type of tree is in their garden or what a mange-covered fox could do to their children's health. In fact, I doubt most would know a badger from a pint of Guinness and in my experince they go knocking at their neighbours door moaning about a dog barking all night when it's actually a fox :laugh:

All very true, but I have never understood why this should inform views on certain matters to such an extent. After all, not everyone from the countryside thinks the same way about matters such as hunting, the Tony Martin case, etc, just as people from towns and cities don't automatically line up in opposition to the views of rural dwellers.

[Hazell B]

I never said they did :rolleyes:

I said 'townies don't get it', which is different. Townies don't get it because they can't. Those who bother to learn, those who live half and half and so on get rural things, but townies do not. That's why they're called townies.

[BDunnell]

I never said they did :rolleyes:

I knew you were going to make a remark about that. I did think about making the point that 'I know you didn't say this, but...', but I decided not to. My mistake. Not everything I post in response to you is meant to be a dig. Maybe I should change that policy.


I said 'townies don't get it', which is different. Townies don't get it because they can't. Those who bother to learn, those who live half and half and so on get rural things, but townies do not. That's why they're called townies.

Well, don't expect townies to take the views of country folk about town/city matters seriously, then.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Townies don't get it because they can't.

Nah, you're right. I've tried to imagine sleeping with my sister, but I just can't.

[Hazell B]

My mistake.
Yes.



Well, don't expect townies to take the views of country folk about town/city matters seriously, then.


Why not?
That's the difference, people in rural areas who spend all day in fields or prodding at cattle can and do know about towns. We have no choice but to use them, or in my case live on the edge of one. Towns educate us, offer us shops and banks, entertain us and all the rest. We use towns exactly as you do. You, however, cannot use the country as we do because the chance isn't there for it.

Feel free to argue with me on this, but I'm willing to wager I know enough about to towns to live in one, but put the average townie in my fields and watch them starve without access to a town ;)

[BDunnell]

That's the difference, people in rural areas who spend all day in fields or prodding at cattle can and do know about towns. We have no choice but to use them, or in my case live on the edge of one. Towns educate us, offer us shops and banks, entertain us and all the rest. We use towns exactly as you do. You, however, cannot use the country as we do because the chance isn't there for it.

Feel free to argue with me on this, but I'm willing to wager I know enough about to towns to live in one, but put the average townie in my fields and watch them starve without access to a town ;)

'Know enough about towns to live in one'? Where was it suggested that people from rural areas couldn't live in towns? Those of us who live in cities don't tend to feel that country folk become hopelessly disorientated in urban areas, are unable to communicate with the townies and end up having to go back to where they came from. At least, I don't. This is part of the reason why I don't subscribe to the idea of there being a big division between town and country. It may, however, help explain why so many people have the view that country folk are unduly hostile to outsiders.

[Hazell B]

Well, don't expect townies to take the views of country folk about town/city matters seriously, then.

That line is what I was replying to, as quoted. That's where you suggested I shouldn't expect to be able to have a say in town matters if I won't allow ill-educated views on country life.

There is the idea that country dwellers are hostlie to townies and by god we are half the time. Mainly because they come out with rubbish about incest, mucking out cows all day and equally stupid things (I mean BBB and his like of course) constantly. Then they go out and get themselves a country dog as a town pet and wonder why it attacks other dogs, so we have every right to laugh at them and be hostile :laugh:

Thing is, country types are town types who've escaped, that's all. We are no different. We hate being told that our version of life is less when the truth is most townies would buy a house in the country if they had the chance. Burberry was stolen from us, Hunting's been taken away (I refuse to take part in the illegal version) and farming isn't making enough money - but we're happier, live longer, have less crime and don't think somebody's laughing at us if they happen to smile in the street.

I wouldn't swap it for owning an entire town.

[BeansBeansBeans]

There is the idea that country dwellers are hostlie to townies and by god we are half the time. Mainly because they come out with rubbish about incest, mucking out cows all day and equally stupid things (I mean BBB and his like of course) constantly. Then they go out and get themselves a country dog as a town pet and wonder why it attacks other dogs, so we have every right to laugh at them and be hostile :laugh

I've got nothing against country folk at all, I just don't like you, and therefore enjoy winding you up. You could live in a £1m penthouse flat near Sloane Square for all I care, and I'd still think you were a loathsome ****-for-brains.

[BDunnell]

There is the idea that country dwellers are hostlie to townies and by god we are half the time. Mainly because they come out with rubbish about incest, mucking out cows all day and equally stupid things (I mean BBB and his like of course) constantly. Then they go out and get themselves a country dog as a town pet and wonder why it attacks other dogs, so we have every right to laugh at them and be hostile :laugh:

Thing is, country types are town types who've escaped, that's all. We are no different. We hate being told that our version of life is less when the truth is most townies would buy a house in the country if they had the chance. Burberry was stolen from us, Hunting's been taken away (I refuse to take part in the illegal version) and farming isn't making enough money - but we're happier, live longer, have less crime and don't think somebody's laughing at us if they happen to smile in the street.

I wouldn't swap it for owning an entire town.

Each to their own. I still think there's no need for the 'us and them' mentality, from either 'side'.

[Hazell B]

Each to their own. I still think there's no need for the 'us and them' mentality, from either 'side'.

You'd think very differently if you had idiots saying gay men spend their nights with their own brothers, wouldn't you? Perspective alters views, and in this case mine has just been altered all the more.

Beans, think what you like, but don't post adult words on a family forum.

[BDunnell]

You'd think very differently if you had idiots saying gay men spend their nights with their own brothers, wouldn't you?

When said in genuine jest by someone I know isn't actually homophobic, it wouldn't upset me. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean to say that I am automatically offended by jokey comments about it. It all depends on context and the individual making the remarks. I would have thought that the same applies to remarks about sheep-s***gers and the like. As I said, I am from Norfolk, yet I'm not offended by the inevitable jokes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe I should step into the argument again on Hazell's side as she is outnumbered. ;)

I don't see why this discussion about fox-hunting has to become a rural versus urban argument, but as it has I will say that you learn more about the world living in the country than you do living in a town. Simply because if you live in a town there is no need to visit the country, if you live in a the country you still have to go to town to use the facilities. How many people in inner-city London will know that milk come from cows? Or pork chops comes from pigs? I bet many townies would be sick if they knew that carrots are grown in the soil! :laugh:

Banning fox hunting affects rural folk more than it affects townies, but it seems that urban people run rural peoples lives. :(

[pino]

Please quit personal attacks and keep this tread on topic...thanks :)

[raphael123]

There is the idea that country dwellers are hostlie to townies and by god we are half the time. Mainly because they come out with rubbish about incest, mucking out cows all day and equally stupid things (I mean BBB and his like of course) constantly. Then they go out and get themselves a country dog as a town pet and wonder why it attacks other dogs, so we have every right to laugh at them and be hostile :laugh:

Thing is, country types are town types who've escaped, that's all. We are no different. We hate being told that our version of life is less when the truth is most townies would buy a house in the country if they had the chance. Burberry was stolen from us, Hunting's been taken away (I refuse to take part in the illegal version) and farming isn't making enough money - but we're happier, live longer, have less crime and don't think somebody's laughing at us if they happen to smile in the street.

I wouldn't swap it for owning an entire town.

Wow, the hypocrisy, especially in that first paragraph is unbelieveable. Your complaining about people the stereotypical jokes people make of countryside people etc, and in the following sense take the mickey of 'townies'.

I'm afraid, though a rare occasion, I agree 100% with BDunnell. Your moaning about people taking the mickey, but your just as bad, making you a hypocrite in this instance (PS: This isn't a personal insult - it's a fact. You've critizised people for taking the mickey, then done the same thing :dozey :)

My view on fox hunting is though it is part of tradition, killing for enjoyment isn't enough of an excuse to allow fox hunting. If someone started going round shooting dogs, people would be in uproar. The fact it's been around (fox hunting that is) for so many years seems to cloud people's judgement of how wrong it actually is.

[pino]

Please quit personal attacks and keep this tread on topic...thanks :)

raphael123, what part of the above post you don't understand ?

[ShiftingGears]

Oh come off it pino, his argument is completely backed up.

[pino]

Oh come off it pino, his argument is completely backed up.

This thread is about Fox Hunting...not about how members are acting in here ! Too many personal attacks have been posted in this thread, it has to stop right now ! Thank You...

[Storm]

I am not gonna read through all these pages but hunting any animal for fun is idiotic especially for such a civilized (so called) nation as the UK.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Hazell B is above the rules I'm afraid, Raphael. As someone who has put up with her childish digs for 18 months due to an argument which I long ago apologised for, I can only sympathise with you. Just try to ignore it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

killing for enjoyment isn't enough of an excuse to allow fox hunting. .

Well you have missed half of my argument for Fox hunting :mad:




:rolleyes:

[raphael123]

I was going to reply Pino, as I disagree with some things, but I guess if I do I'd get banned? - So much for a 'forum'. I think some people forget the meaning of the word unfortunately. Or wait for it, is this going to be construed as a personal attack? :dozey:

[pino]

I was going to reply Pino, as I disagree with some things, but I guess if I do I'd get banned? - So much for a 'forum'. I think some people forget the meaning of the word unfortunately. Or wait for it, is this going to be construed as a personal attack? :dozey:

Reply as much as you want as long you stick to the topic which is Fox Hunting !

[raphael123]

Well you have missed half of my argument for Fox hunting :mad:

:rolleyes:

Sorry, I wasn't planning on quoting everyone's reply. However if you want me to reply to your points I will happily do so :)



Not all farmers grow crops.

Take my brothers farm as a case. This year he has had over 700 lambs. The average value of a lamb is around £30. If 5% are killed by predators, then thats over £1000 lost every year.



I know someone asked you how many lambs have been killed by foxes. I don't expect you to have an exact figure. But maybe you could find out a rough some. Is it near the 100 mark? Or the 5-10 mark?

What other points do you want me look at? The only other points you've made (unless I've missed something) is about how its unpractical to have buildings to protect your chickens. And yes...it is.

Do you think the hunting of tigers, of polar bears, or dolphins is just as acceptable as fox hunting then? Afterall, people who kill those animals are doing it for a living. People fox hunting are doing it for their own pleasure.

Inflicting cruelty on an animal for your own personal pleasure - for me - that's wrong.

[raphael123]

Pino, we're not allowed to point out someone's hypocrisy then? :(

[oily oaf]

If I may I should like to add my own humble take on this rather fraught topic :)
In an earlier post Eki stated quite categorically that foxes do not have super powers.
Well I have because I am none other than Fashion Disaster Beef Stock Warrior and if you don't stop shouting at each other and referring to having sexual relations with beasts of the field I will have no other choice than to shlep over to the nearest phonebox and don a diamond pattern sleeveless pullover, a pair of World War Two American General trousers and skin diver's flippers before spraying you all right in the face with scalding beef stock.

Nice bit of Fox liver for tea tonight.
Go down nice with a bit of Spanish Fighting Bull pate that will.

(climbs to top of Telecom tower and throws off cat) Ai Caramba!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Do you think the hunting of tigers, of polar bears, or dolphins is just as acceptable as fox hunting then? Afterall, people who kill those animals are doing it for a living. People fox hunting are doing it for their own pleasure.

Inflicting cruelty on an animal for your own personal pleasure - for me - that's wrong.

Foxes aren't an endangered species and my brother IS trying to make a living.

If people want to hunt foxes for pleasure then they should be able to make the moral decision whether it is wrong or not for themselves. :rolleyes: Not someone in Westminster. By taking away that decision you are taking away their human rights.

[Eki]

Foxes aren't an endangered species and my brother IS trying to make a living.

Yeah well, your brother should blame his customers and not the foxes if he fails to do it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why?? :confused:

[Eki]

Why?? :confused:
Because they aren't ready to pay more for your brother to protect his livelihood or cover his potential losses because of the foxes.

[ShiftingGears]

This thread is about Fox Hunting...not about how members are acting in here ! Too many personal attacks have been posted in this thread, it has to stop right now ! Thank You...


But pointing out the hypocrisy in ones argument is part of arguing your own view on any topic, in this instance fox hunting - thats just how you argue!

[ShiftingGears]

Because they aren't ready to pay more for your brother to protect his livelihood or cover his potential losses because of the foxes.




Do foxes kill sheep?

Building is not necessary. High enough electrified fence that also goes deep enough so that a fox can't dig its way through is enough.

You're complaining about killing foxes and then you suggest an electric fence?

What you suggested with the electric fence is a lot more expensive, and no more "ethical". Why would people pay more for livestock protected by an electrified fence?

I don't agree with fox hunting as a sport though. But if the farmers need to protect their livestock, they should be allowed to.

[Eki]

You're complaining about killing foxes and then you suggest an electric fence?

What you suggested with the electric fence is a lot more expensive, and no more "ethical". Why would people pay more for livestock protected by an electrified fence?

I don't agree with fox hunting as a sport though. But if the farmers need to protect their livestock, they should be allowed to.
Electric fences don't kill or permanently injure animals.

[raphael123]

Foxes aren't an endangered species and my brother IS trying to make a living.

If people want to hunt foxes for pleasure then they should be able to make the moral decision whether it is wrong or not for themselves. :rolleyes: Not someone in Westminster. By taking away that decision you are taking away their human rights.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's pleasure is acceptable. I think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's own personal pleasure is wrong.

People who torture dogs and cats, and kill them, which we always hear about from the RSPCA, do you think that's acceptable as well?

If your talking about killing foxes who try to kill your animals, fair enough, shoot them when they come near. I can fully understand that. However, if your going out for a day in the forest or the countryside, and looking to go inflict pain on a fox, and eventually death, because you think it's fun...then no, I don't think that's acceptable.

[raphael123]

Electric fences don't kill or permanently injure animals.


Why do you need an electrical fence anyway?

Why not have an agricultural building or something? If the purpose is to protect the live stock.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's pleasure is acceptable. I think inflicting cruelty on an animal for one's own personal pleasure is wrong.
.

I didn't say that.

I would never take part in Fox hunting, but if other people want to hunt then they should make the moral decision themselves.

I don't think that you can compare hunting wild animals with torture to domestic pets.

[BDunnell]

People who torture dogs and cats, and kill them, which we always hear about from the RSPCA, do you think that's acceptable as well?

Remember, it's not about the cruelty. It's about the sport. ;)

Fox hunting couldn't have been a proper sport, because I never saw it on Grandstand.

[raphael123]

I didn't say that.

I would never take part in Fox hunting, but if other people want to hunt then they should make the moral decision themselves.

I don't think that you can compare hunting wild animals with torture to domestic pets.

So the individual should start making moral decisions themselves? That's a bit of a cop out. Should the individual start making moral decisions on other things too then, maybe such as whether domestic abuse is acceptable? :dozey:

What about horses then? Someone who inflicts cruelty on a horse for their own pleasure. Should we leave that up to the individual and their conscious to decide if its right or wrong?

What about stray dogs, should we let the individual decide if its right or wrong to inflict cruelty on it for a bit of 'fun'?

If it was hunting for food, or protecting your lively hood, I can perfectly understand the reason. Killing and inflicting pain and cruelty on an animal for fun though....sorry, I think that's wrong. Do you think it's wrong? Yes or no?

[Daniel]

Foxes aren't an endangered species and my brother IS trying to make a living.

If people want to hunt foxes for pleasure then they should be able to make the moral decision whether it is wrong or not for themselves. :rolleyes: Not someone in Westminster. By taking away that decision you are taking away their human rights.
Ok Jon,

I'll decide to hunt YOU! Now don't YOU decide what I can and can't do.

Is that alright? :laugh:

[raphael123]

Ok Jon,

I'll decide to hunt YOU! Now don't YOU decide what I can and can't do.

Is that alright? :laugh:

lol :up:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So the individual should start making moral decisions themselves? That's a bit of a cop out. Should the individual start making moral decisions on other things too then, maybe such as whether domestic abuse is acceptable? :dozey:


Of course not. That is just taking the discussion way out of context. Why are you trying to compare fox hunting to domestic abuse? Your making mountains out of mole hills.

I wouldn't go fox hunting because the idea of riding around on a horse in stupid outfit doesn't appeal to me. However, if I did I wouldn't care less if a fox was killed or not. I wouldn't get any pleasure from killing a fox, but I wouldn't feel guilty if I killed one.


Ok Jon,

I'll decide to hunt YOU! Now don't YOU decide what I can and can't do.

Is that alright? :laugh:


Well you can if you think animal rights are more important than human rights, and only idiots believe that is true.

[Eki]

Why would people pay more for livestock protected by an electrified fence?

We already pay for the losses caused by shop-lifters and marketing. I haven't heard anyone demanding the shop-lifters and marketing people to be killed (well, maybe some would like to kill the marketing people).

[raphael123]

Of course not. That is just taking the discussion way out of context. Why are you trying to compare fox hunting to domestic abuse? Your making mountains out of mole hills.


No, I was trying to use your way of thinking, that the individual should choose what is morally right and wrong.



I wouldn't go fox hunting because the idea of riding around on a horse in stupid outfit doesn't appeal to me. However, if I did I wouldn't care less if a fox was killed or not. I wouldn't get any pleasure from killing a fox, but I wouldn't feel guilty if I killed one.


There you go then. Are you glad I answered your points? :) Was it worth it? :laugh:



Well you can if you think animal rights are more important than human rights, and only idiots believe that is true.

BDunnell and my canadian friend Schemke. Are you going to quote this man and tell him it's not stupid to believe animal rights are as important as human rights? Afterall, a contrary opinion to another peron isn't necessarily stupid, it's just different, isn't it :dozey:

[Eki]

Well you can if you think animal rights are more important than human rights, and only idiots believe that is true.
No, only if you think human rights are as useless as animal rights. Privileges aren't the same as rights. I think nobody should be allowed to kill their competition in order to increase your own profit.

[Hazell B]

I would love to know why anyone would think Hunting is a version of torture yet shooting isn't :confused:

I'd also love to know how you know about this torture, because if it's from one-sided animal right videos taken in the early seventies (I've not seen any newer ones ;) ) perhaps you'd consider doing what I did and get both sides before making a judgement. As a kid I was bang against Hunting, shooting, poisoning and gassing of foxes, feral cats, escaped fur farm animals, rabbits and deer. Then I learned about them all and made an educated choice.

I'm still against shooting, poisoning, gassing and actively fight using sighthounds to course or lamp. Some Hunting is cruel, some is far and away the best, fastest, cleanest method. Depends on the quarry and all sorts of other things.

Of course, I'm wasting my time posting the above - some of you are obviously soooo well versed on the subject you're talking about ......

Electric fences, by the way, won't work in about 50% of cases. UK weather breaks the wires that carry the current and no farmer has time to check every length each day, nor ability to supply power in some remote areas. Cutting grass and hedges to stop earthing is also a problem, as are deer hung up on the fence as they try to move from area to area. Larger animals such as horses and cattle break the fences sometimes, too. We use electric and it's a pain the backside both on fixed posts and mobile ones.

[raphael123]

I would love to know why anyone would think Hunting is a version of torture yet shooting isn't :confused:


Ok, maybe I should re-phrase it. I think killing animals for your own pleasure is wrong.



I'd also love to know how you know about this torture,


Hunting down an animal before letting the dogs rip you to pieces, and shoot them? Maybe it's not torture in your eyes. It's killing anyway. And killing animals for 'fun' is wrong in my eyes.



perhaps you'd consider doing what I did and get both sides before making a judgement. As a kid I was bang against Hunting, shooting, poisoning and gassing of foxes, feral cats, escaped fur farm animals, rabbits and deer. Then I learned about them all and made an educated choice.

I think hunting, shooting, poisoning animals for fun is wrong. However, for some purposes it's perfectly ok (in my opinion). If it's to protect your livelyhood I can perfectly understand why you'd want to get rid of them.

Why don't you tell us what you learnt? Maybe some people can be persuaded to change their opinion on the matter :)


I'm still against shooting, poisoning, gassing and actively fight using sighthounds to course or lamp. Some Hunting is cruel, some is far and away the best, fastest, cleanest method. Depends on the quarry and all sorts of other things.


What kind of hunting is cruel, and what kind of hunting is the cleanest method?

At the end of the day, if you kill them for your pleasure, whether its done cruelly, or the 'clean' way, I think it's wrong. Killing for pleasure isn't right.


Of course, I'm wasting my time posting the above - some of you are obviously soooo well versed on the subject you're talking about ......


Why not tell us what you know. Educate us :)

Anyway, as I say. If you have to kill them, I'd rather you do it the 'nice' (if there is a nice way to kill an animal) way. However in my opinion, killing for fun is wrong, I'm not objecting to the fact it may be a better way to die, its the fact your killing for fun which I don't approve of.

You seem to have completely missed that point :(

[Hazell B]

Ok, maybe I should re-phrase it. I think killing animals for your own pleasure is wrong.

Hunting down an animal before letting the dogs rip you to pieces, and shoot them? Maybe it's not torture in your eyes. It's killing anyway. And killing animals for 'fun' is wrong in my eyes.

The dogs don't rip the fox to bits. That's a common mistake made by people who don't know about it. As I already said, I've never been at a kill, but I have Hunted for years prior to the ban. The idea is that dogs, being pack animals, have a leader and he or she (some packs are all bitch) grabs the fox and kills it with a shake. I've seen sight hounds do it and it's incredibly fast, the prey is dead within a half second often as not. If it's already dead, so what if the hounds did rip it to bits anyhow? They don't, but if they did would it matter at all?

Most foxes are so covered in mange the hounds never actually go near it, they're just used to flush it out for a gunman waiting at a specific place. Hounds would be infected if they got near the fox, so they don't. That's why some hound bloodlines are slower moving than others, they are just there to chase out a fox to open ground where he can be shot.




I think hunting, shooting, poisoning animals for fun is wrong. However, for some purposes it's perfectly ok (in my opinion). If it's to protect your livelyhood I can perfectly understand why you'd want to get rid of them.

Why don't you tell us what you learnt? Maybe some people can be persuaded to change their opinion on the matter :)

Already did that in earlier posts.

Hunting foxes is to protect assorted other interests, like lambs, chickens and so on. Getting rid of foxes near a school or boarding kennels will stop mange (scabies) affecting humans or pets, lowering a fox population will help rarer wildlife like adders, newts, frogs, dormice and so on. So, numbers do need to be controlled and there's no way around that fact.

The fact that some bright spark hundreds of years ago saw wolves preyed on foxes and decided to chase foxes with his own domesticated wolves means we now have Hunting as an organised thing. Now, in our financial climate, everything costs money, so Hunting bacame a serious business perhaps 80 or so years ago. Hunts needed to cover costs. This meant land owners could call on a Hunt to clear out (out being off his land as much as dead) foxes and expect to be paid for his broken fences and trampled crops too. It gave men a job before horses became the pets they are now. It now means somebody like me pays twenty quid to basically be allowed on private land twice each week to thunder about on a horse legally. For my twenty quid the hounds are kept fit and the land owner feels he's sorted his fox worries without resorting to paying somebody with a gun - a win/win you could say.




What kind of hunting is cruel, and what kind of hunting is the cleanest method?

At the end of the day, if you kill them for your pleasure, whether its done cruelly, or the 'clean' way, I think it's wrong. Killing for pleasure isn't right.

Hunting with terriers is cruel. Hunting without them isn't. A Foxhound pack is maybe 30 hounds who chase a scent then stop when the scent ends at a fox hole. If terriers are employed, once the fox runs down a hole the Hounds are removed and the ride is over, then terriers are put in the hole to drag out or kill the fox. That is very, very cruel and is killing for the sake of it. Not many packs use terriers so therefore not many packs actually catch foxes. They just move them about from one bit of land to another.

I've seen hundreds of foxes, both during and away from Hunting. I've only a few times seen one run at full speed. More often when being Hunted they will happily have a sit down and scratch, stop for a drink, scent mark and just lop about at half speed. They know the score and know how to escape a Hunt.




If you have to kill them, I'd rather you do it the 'nice' (if there is a nice way to kill an animal) way. However in my opinion, killing for fun is wrong, I'm not objecting to the fact it may be a better way to die, its the fact your killing for fun which I don't approve of.

You seem to have completely missed that point :(

What's you 'nice' way then? The fox is naturally prey only to the wolf in the UK. We have no wolves. Alternatives are shooting, gassing, poison and hounds. Shooting a small animal is hard, so in actual fact most foxes killed by Hunts have previously been shot and only injured hence the pack's ability to catch them up. Shooting doesn't work, then. It leaves a fox hurt and more liable to attack easy prey like chickens. Gassing is just plain wrongness, as is poison. Both kill anything under the ground, whatever the species. If the body isn't taken away it also kills things that eat the corpse - especially birds of prey. Hound use is the most natural method, quick when they catch one and I genuinely believe a fox would rather take on a pack then some bloke with a gun - his odds are far better!

I haven't misunderstood anything. You simply don't like the idea of anyone appearing to enjoy a fox being chased and perhaps killed. Problem is that those who shoot love doing that, those who set traps, use gas and lay poison wouldn't do it if the job offened them plus they make a damned good living out of it - so every method of killing a fox brings pleasure in some way. I learned that and live with it. Even the man who came to shoot one of my horses said he loved his job and wouldn't do anything else. He hated that split second when the trigger was pulled, yet loved that he clears up fallen stock from the countryside, meets so many interesting people and goes to lovely places.
The fact that some people want to use their horses in a thrilling way is what offends you, that's all. It offends thousands of people. I can't see the problem as the fox would be hunted and killed anyhow, with or without the riders paying to follow. However, that crowd of riders do mean Hunt staff can't get away with much by the way of cruelty - I would have happily gone home from a day's Hunting and called the RSPCA had I seen anyone treat any animal in a cruel way just for the sake of it! The riders slow down the Hunt too, so foxes do get away as I've already said.

Anyway, this is all pointless. It's been banned ...... and even though not one of you appear to have noticed it, I do support that ban.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

BDunnell and my canadian friend Schemke. Are you going to quote this man and tell him it's not stupid to believe animal rights are as important as human rights? Afterall, a contrary opinion to another peron isn't necessarily stupid, it's just different, isn't it :dozey:

Let me re-phrase what I said, they are not stupid. They are liars.




No, only if you think human rights are as useless as animal rights. Privileges aren't the same as rights. I think nobody should be allowed to kill their competition in order to increase your own profit.

So you are saying that it is okay for foxes to kill my brothers 'assests'? :confused:

[schmenke]

......my canadian friend Schemke. ...

Why are you trying to drag me into this? Why the bold font? :s

[Eki]

So you are saying that it is okay for foxes to kill my brothers 'assests'? :confused:
If he can't protect his assets properly without killing anybody, he's part to blame. BTW, have foxes ever actually killed your brother's assets, or are you just afraid they could?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If he can't protect his assets properly without killing anybody, he's part to blame. BTW, have foxes ever actually killed your brother's assets, or are you just afraid they could?

:rotflmao:
Of course foxes have killed his assets before, I'd I have already explained to you why it is unfeasible to protect them. It isn't my brothers fault that foxes chose to kill his lambs.

[Eki]

:rotflmao:
Of course foxes have killed his assets before, I'd I have already explained to you why it is unfeasible to protect them. It isn't my brothers fault that foxes chose to kill his lambs.
Can't he keep his lambs indoors until they grow up? I guess grown sheep are too big for the foxes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Not 700

[raphael123]

The dogs don't rip the fox to bits. That's a common mistake made by people who don't know about it. As I already said, I've never been at a kill, but I have Hunted for years prior to the ban. The idea is that dogs, being pack animals, have a leader and he or she (some packs are all bitch) grabs the fox and kills it with a shake. I've seen sight hounds do it and it's incredibly fast, the prey is dead within a half second often as not. If it's already dead, so what if the hounds did rip it to bits anyhow? They don't, but if they did would it matter at all?


As I've said. The way they are killed, though is of some importance, it's the fact they are killed...for pleasure which I'm against.



Most foxes are so covered in mange the hounds never actually go near it, they're just used to flush it out for a gunman waiting at a specific place. Hounds would be infected if they got near the fox, so they don't. That's why some hound bloodlines are slower moving than others, they are just there to chase out a fox to open ground where he can be shot.


Just to clarify, they don't 'have a leader and he or she (some packs are all bitch) grabs the fox and kills it with a shake'?


Already did that in earlier posts.

Hunting foxes is to protect assorted other interests, like lambs, chickens and so on. Getting rid of foxes near a school or boarding kennels will stop mange (scabies) affecting humans or pets, lowering a fox population will help rarer wildlife like adders, newts, frogs, dormice and so on. So, numbers do need to be controlled and there's no way around that fact.


Oh is it? Earlier on you said 'hunting as we think of it was a damned good day out, a chance to ride a horse very fast over dangerous land that's private and unavailable at any other time. Foxes were rarely caught if the truth be known. It was more about enjoying a race among sixty or so other horses and then getting plastered on somebody else's expensive gin before lunch '

Have you had a change of heart then? One minute your saying it's a good day out, and foxes are rarely caught, now your saying it's to protect other live stock, and a way of controlling the number of foxes.

And as has already been pointed out, though not all farms grow crops, foxes have an important role in nature of hunting rabbits, who cause more harm to farms crop than foxes do to chicken stock. As they said, 5% of lamb deaths are due to predation (not just foxes, but all predators) and only 0.7% of free range chickens are lost to foxes. Farmers suffer more from rabbits, because they do damage to their crops. And 45% of a foxes diet (on average) is rabbit (in the countryside obviously, not town centres).


The fact that some bright spark hundreds of years ago saw wolves preyed on foxes and decided to chase foxes with his own domesticated wolves means we now have Hunting as an organised thing. Now, in our financial climate, everything costs money, so Hunting bacame a serious business perhaps 80 or so years ago. Hunts needed to cover costs. This meant land owners could call on a Hunt to clear out (out being off his land as much as dead) foxes and expect to be paid for his broken fences and trampled crops too. It gave men a job before horses became the pets they are now. It now means somebody like me pays twenty quid to basically be allowed on private land twice each week to thunder about on a horse legally. For my twenty quid the hounds are kept fit and the land owner feels he's sorted his fox worries without resorting to paying somebody with a gun - a win/win you could say.


If it was to provide jobs, it could maybe used as an arguement, but as I think you yourself said, very few jobs have been lost with the ban. The only difference is killing foxes for pleasure has now been banned.



Hunting with terriers is cruel. Hunting without them isn't. A Foxhound pack is maybe 30 hounds who chase a scent then stop when the scent ends at a fox hole. If terriers are employed, once the fox runs down a hole the Hounds are removed and the ride is over, then terriers are put in the hole to drag out or kill the fox. That is very, very cruel and is killing for the sake of it. Not many packs use terriers so therefore not many packs actually catch foxes. They just move them about from one bit of land to another.


Thanks :up: Btw I notice you say not many foxes are caught.


I've seen hundreds of foxes, both during and away from Hunting. I've only a few times seen one run at full speed. More often when being Hunted they will happily have a sit down and scratch, stop for a drink, scent mark and just lop about at half speed. They know the score and know how to escape a Hunt.


They know how to escape? So are they often caught? So is this arguement that fox hunting is a way of pest control, is this true or not?



What's you 'nice' way then? The fox is naturally prey only to the wolf in the UK. We have no wolves. Alternatives are shooting, gassing, poison and hounds. Shooting a small animal is hard, so in actual fact most foxes killed by Hunts have previously been shot and only injured hence the pack's ability to catch them up. Shooting doesn't work, then. It leaves a fox hurt and more liable to attack easy prey like chickens. Gassing is just plain wrongness, as is poison. Both kill anything under the ground, whatever the species. If the body isn't taken away it also kills things that eat the corpse - especially birds of prey. Hound use is the most natural method, quick when they catch one and I genuinely believe a fox would rather take on a pack then some bloke with a gun - his odds are far better!


Maybe nice isn't the right word. Killing for the right reasons is maybe more appropriate. Killing for pleasure, or a sport, or a 'good day out' isn't, in my eyes, a good reason for inflicting cruelty (I'd say killing = to cruelty, no matter how quickly it's done) on animals.



I haven't misunderstood anything. You simply don't like the idea of anyone appearing to enjoy a fox being chased and perhaps killed. Problem is that those who shoot love doing that, those who set traps, use gas and lay poison wouldn't do it if the job offened them plus they make a damned good living out of it - so every method of killing a fox brings pleasure in some way. I learned that and live with it. Even the man who came to shoot one of my horses said he loved his job and wouldn't do anything else. He hated that split second when the trigger was pulled, yet loved that he clears up fallen stock from the countryside, meets so many interesting people and goes to lovely places.


Your previous arguement was about why it wasn't torture, when my whole reasoning for being against fox hunting, was the fact it was killing for pleasure, not the way it was killed. So I think you did miss the point.

And your right, I don't like the idea of people being legally allowed to have a good day out hunting animals and trying to kill them. I don't think I'm alone. It's as if your trying to make it sound absurb I object to it. I'm going to stick with my guns here, and say I don't like it, and am glad it's banned.

I like how you started off saying it's a necessity to protect lambs, chickens etc, and as your post progresses, it becomes about the love of the 'job'. That's what I disagree with. Fox hunting, for pleasure is not right in my eyes.




The fact that some people want to use their horses in a thrilling way is what offends you, that's all.


I wouldn't describe it as thrilling. Riding their horses at high speed, fair enough. Go do it. Just don't kill the fox. If that's your idea of a thrill, fair enough, but I'm glad those people are no longer legally allowed to carry it out. To suggest I'm offended by people using horses in a thrilling way is nonense. It's the inflicting crueltly on an animal for one's personal pleasure I disagree with, and am offended by.


It offends thousands of people. I can't see the problem as the fox would be hunted and killed anyhow, with or without the riders paying to follow.


That's a silly arguement. If you used that philosophy in any other situation it would be ridiculed.


However, that crowd of riders do mean Hunt staff can't get away with much by the way of cruelty - I would have happily gone home from a day's Hunting and called the RSPCA had I seen anyone treat any animal in a cruel way just for the sake of it! The riders slow down the Hunt too, so foxes do get away as I've already said.

Depends on your definition of cruelty. I would say the killing of an animal is enough to be described as 'cruel'. If you were hunting and shooting dogs in the street, I'm sure the RSPCA wouldn't be happy about it. And couldn't help you notice say riders slow down, letting foxes get away. So it's not for controlling the amount of foxes then?


Anyway, this is all pointless. It's been banned ...... and even though not one of you appear to have noticed it, I do support that ban.

Why is that? And does that mean you don't really agree with anything you've said previously in that post, which was all pointing towards why fox hunting wasn't a bad thing?

Btw, it's nice to have a discussion with someone who obviously knows all about the subject :up: :)

[raphael123]

Why are you trying to drag me into this? Why the bold font? :s

Because I'm interested in your view point :) I found it ridiculous, when I described someone's comment as stupid, you replied an opinion contrary to mine isn't stupid, it's just different. I thought it was quite nonsense to try and say no opinion is stupid. Then we get Jon Brown saying the same thing, describing another persons opinion (this time about human rights and animal rights) as being stupid (which I agreed with btw). I was wondering if you were going to say the same thing, or whether it was just reserved for myself :)

Anyway, Jon Brown has changed his stance on things, changing his words disappointly I find. Apparently thinking animal deserve the same rights as human isn't stupid :dozey:

[raphael123]

:rotflmao:
Of course foxes have killed his assets before, I'd I have already explained to you why it is unfeasible to protect them. It isn't my brothers fault that foxes chose to kill his lambs.

Have you found out roughly how much live stock he losses through foxes?

As Hazell points out, they don't actually kill that many. I don't agree with the way Eki is going about the arguement, but at the same time I think you know his arguement is weak, so are picking at it.

I don't agree with fox hunting, but if your brother was to short a fox which he saw killing his stock, I would have nothing against that. Would he be able to do that? Has he got a gun?

As has been said, fox hunting doesn't result in many kills, so the excuse it protects chickens, lambs etc isn't really an excuse for why fox hunting shouldn't be banned.

[schmenke]

Because I'm interested in your view point :) I found it ridiculous, when I described someone's comment as stupid, you replied an opinion contrary to mine isn't stupid, it's just different. I thought it was quite nonsense to try and say no opinion is stupid. Then we get Jon Brown saying the same thing, describing another persons opinion (this time about human rights and animal rights) as being stupid (which I agreed with btw). I was wondering if you were going to say the same thing, or whether it was just reserved for myself :) ...

Thanks, but I don't require a solicitation to provide my opinion in a thread :mark:
Also it seems that you are attempting to use this thread to continue a debate from a previous unrelated thread.

[raphael123]

Thanks, but I don't require a solicitation to provide my opinion in a thread :mark:
Also it seems that you are attempting to use this thread to continue a debate from a previous unrelated thread.

My bad :mark:

Let's relate it. Is it stupid or not to say animal rights are as important as human rights?

In your opinion :)

[Flat.tyres]

I'm glad the ban came in.

They don't have the Hunt down here any more which never bothered me but because theres no reason to have wild foxes any more, they have been all but erradicated from the farms now. No more ripped bin bags, road kill, chickens killed etc. Good riddence to the vermin.

i wouldn't be surprised if they dont all but dissapear within the next decade.

Well done townies. About time you did something useful for the country :)

[schmenke]

My bad :mark:

Let's relate it. ...

Why? I thought this thread was about the ban on fox hunting?

[Eki]

I have seen foxes in zoos. If the zoos can keep foxes inside a fenced area, how come farmers can't keep foxes outside a fenced area?

[sxis]

Im sorry Hazel B but your wrong i have witnessed a hunt running afox to ground putting the terriers in and getting it out cutting the brush and forepaw off and then throwing the fox to the pack the fox was still alive by the way if this is sport god help us !

[Flat.tyres]

I have seen foxes in zoos. If the zoos can keep foxes inside a fenced area, how come farmers can't keep foxes outside a fenced area?

Sorry but im new so excuse me if this is some sort of internal joke but you are taking the piss arent you.

Can you imagine the expense, invironmental impact and unworkability of doing this to just 1 farm.

if its a joke, sorry, but it sounded for real.

[Eki]

Sorry but im new so excuse me if this is some sort of internal joke but you are taking the piss arent you.

Can you imagine the expense, invironmental impact and unworkability of doing this to just 1 farm.

if its a joke, sorry, but it sounded for real.
It should be required by the law to every farm and the costs shifted to the price of food.

[schmenke]

Eki, sorry, but that simply is not a practical solution.

[Flat.tyres]

It should be required by the law to every farm and the costs shifted to the price of food.

:laugh:

OK, I guess you are the forum jester. theres always one. only took a day to figure it out :)

Can you even begin to understand the environmental aspect.

foxes are vermin. Pure and simple. They spread disease, cause crashes, needlessly kill poultry and lambs. Im glad they banned fox hunting so we can eliminate this pest with no reason to artificially maintain the population.

why to people get all fluffy about this menace. Do people want to go around cuddleing rats and mice? Foxes are just bigger versions

[Eki]

They spread disease, cause crashes, needlessly kill poultry and lambs.
So do humans, and we are pests to the foxes.

And what do we need sheep for? I have tried sheep meat maybe once and didn't like it. And now that we have synthetic materials, wool is not necessary.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because I'm interested in your view point :) I found it ridiculous, when I described someone's comment as stupid, you replied an opinion contrary to mine isn't stupid, it's just different. I thought it was quite nonsense to try and say no opinion is stupid. Then we get Jon Brown saying the same thing, describing another persons opinion (this time about human rights and animal rights) as being stupid (which I agreed with btw). I was wondering if you were going to say the same thing, or whether it was just reserved for myself :)

Anyway, Jon Brown has changed his stance on things, changing his words disappointly I find. Apparently thinking animal deserve the same rights as human isn't stupid :dozey:

I changed my words because I don't actually believe any human thinks that animal rights and human rights should be equal.



Have you found out roughly how much live stock he losses through foxes?

As Hazell points out, they don't actually kill that many. I don't agree with the way Eki is going about the arguement, but at the same time I think you know his arguement is weak, so are picking at it.

I don't agree with fox hunting, but if your brother was to short a fox which he saw killing his stock, I would have nothing against that. Would he be able to do that? Has he got a gun?



He hasn't got a gun but some of his friends have been shooting on his farm before. The farm land is actually my mums land and she wouldn't let fox hunters on because of the damage the horses do to land and she says she finds the type of people who go fox hunting are quite arrogant.


So do humans, and we are pests to the foxes.

And what do we need sheep for? I have tried sheep meat maybe once and didn't like it. And now that we have synthetic materials, wool is not necessary.

So have you never eaten lamb chops? :erm:

[schmenke]

...And what do we need sheep for? I have tried sheep meat maybe once and didn't like it. And now that we have synthetic materials, wool is not necessary.

I question the environmental impact from producing synthetic fibres vs. sheep poop... :erm:


(...mmm... lamb chops... :facelick: :D )

[Erki]

So have you never eaten lamb chops? :erm:

I'm not Eki, I'm Erki, but most people probably won't notice :uhoh: , but to answer you question, no. :)

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Flat.tyres"] :laugh:


foxes are vermin. Pure and simple. They spread disease, cause crashes, needlessly kill poultry and lambs. Im glad they banned fox hunting so we can eliminate this pest with no reason to artificially maintain the population.


You hate foxes but you re glad that the government banned fox hunting ? I didnt know that foxes were reared, along with pheasants, for the sole purpose of hunting.

[raphael123]

Why? I thought this thread was about the ban on fox hunting?

It is about fox hunting.
What do you say to someone who says animal rights are as important as human rights? Is that stupid or not?

It's not a hard question, just a yes or no will do :up:

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, or just your yes/no - as you see fit :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Stop bullying people raphael :laugh:

[raphael123]

Stop bullying people raphael :laugh:

:laugh: I think your taking a shine to me ;)

I wouldn't say asking a poster on this topic for their opinion, which is related to the topic, is bulllying :)

I'm just interested in what Schemke has to say, which is a compliment to him :)

Jon, as you seem to be interested, what do you think fella, what do you say to someone who says animal rights are as important as human rights? Is that stupid or not?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Jon, as you seem to be interested, what do you think fella, what do you say to someone who says animal rights are as important as human rights? Is that stupid or not?

You are in a burning house and you can only help one being, one is a friend (human) and the other is a family pet. Which one would you save? Personally I think the answer is clear and means that I respect the interests of people more than the interests of animals, even though I love the family pet.

[raphael123]

You are in a burning house and you can only help one being, one is a friend (human) and the other is a family pet. Which one would you save? Personally I think the answer is clear and means that I respect the interests of people more than the interests of animals, even though I love the family pet.

lol. Very nice. But I asked what do you say to someone who says animal rights are as important as human rights? Is that stupid or not? Just say yes or no if you want, if you want to explain why your answer is yes or no...go for it :)

[Hazell B]

Im sorry Hazel B but your wrong i have witnessed a hunt running afox to ground putting the terriers in and getting it out cutting the brush and forepaw off and then throwing the fox to the pack the fox was still alive by the way if this is sport god help us !


So, if you did see this happen, why didn't I read about it being prosecuted on? You saw it and didn't let the RSPCA know? You are as guilty of cruelty as the people who did it in that case :(

Or did you see it on one of the LACS 1970's videos on TV? If you did, it was prosecuted on and the people responsible were sacked. As they should be.

If you have Hunted for as long as I have you'd know better than to judge all Hunting on one moron's actions shown by an anti-Hunt group :mark:

[Hazell B]

Raphael, I can't be bothered quoting you and answering. You're twisting words and implications far too much and taking life far too seriously.

By the way, I didn't stereotype townies when I said they get a country dog and then wonder why it isn't happy in town situations - Beans actually did just that. I note he's not been man enough to own up and explain that to you, so I have now. Five minutes of research on the subject and townies would know some types of country dog/life/thinking/etc just won't work in the suburbs. You should try reversing that raphael ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

lol. Very nice. But I asked what do you say to someone who says animal rights are as important as human rights? Is that stupid or not? Just say yes or no if you want, if you want to explain why your answer is yes or no...go for it :)


I said before, if they say that, I think they are lying. My answer about the burning house explains that I think that view is strange (maybe stupid :\ )

I just find it incomprehensible that someone would save an animals life before saving a human life.

[Hazell B]

Eki, sorry I forgot to address your posts about lambs being kept in.

Perhaps on lowland farms they can be, for a few days, but in the majority of sheep farming keeping them indoors for more than two or three days is impossible. Some sheep never spend a day under cover in their life, so they'd freak for starters. Being terrified while heavily pregnant or with a lamb beside them isn't exactly offering them good care, is it? But that's the least of their problems when it comes to being indoors....

....sheep need fresh air, so the buildings would allow foxes in anyway as they'd be about 30-50% open (as most sheep housing is as the moment). UK sheep farmers tend to have a large area with a roof and two sides that are part latted with wood and 10cm(ish) gaps, then an open gated front and rear. That way it's dry but cool, airy but not draughty. You can't fox proof a building like that.

Stronger buildings would be far too costly to build and maintain.

Sheep also need to stay on a regular diet and bringing them in for ages changes the diet just when they are giving birth and producing milk. Then when they go out again and the diet changes, lambs show a check in growth. That means they have to be kept longer to make a suitable size for slaughter and we'd end up with more store lambs reaching adulthood before they're big enough to eat. Nasty fact, but true. If they don't grow well and evenly you can't call them quality meat.

They also develop better when outside running about. Barns wouldn't allow enough freedom of movement. They also harbour disease better than fields, so more chemicals would be used to keep the animals indoors healthy.

I'm no sheep farming expert, but the principles are the same for most grazing animals. You can't breed good horses indoors, nor anything but veal calves and blandly flavoured crossbred calves. In highland sheep farms they can't have any buildings at all for miles sometimes thanks to townies (yes, them again) moaning about how it looks on the pretty hillsides, so I guess many of their sheep just give birth behind some heather and take their chances.

[Hazell B]

My answer about the burning house explains that I think that view is strange (maybe stupid :\ )



But most often we have the choice and never face an either/or situation.

For example, I hate lamping and would shoot at (above their heads, obviously) men who set their dogs on my cat. I wouldn't shoot at their dogs.
I'd tell a fur wearer what I think of them in no uncertain terms, and actually have done. It was fun :p :

If you want to decide if human or animal rights would win ask yourselves this question. Would you like to see captive Indian tigers released back into the wild? If you're Indian, would you like to see captive European wolves released back into Scotland? Most people answer yes straight away, without even considering that tigers eat humans :mark:

With animals there is always emotion. Misplaced half the time, but emotion as strong as it gets. It makes for stupid idealistic visions of a happier, friendly animal kingdom that cannot exist. I stupidly thought we could keep foxes off our land, but there they are using my arena as a toilet every night, giving my dogs fleas and taking all the cat's food. But they're so cute ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In highland sheep farms they can't have any buildings at all for miles sometimes thanks to townies (yes, them again) moaning about how it looks on the pretty hillsides, so I guess many of their sheep just give birth behind some heather and take their chances.

Oh god! lets not even go there! :mad:

I don't think that there is a barn in the country big enough to accommodate 700 lambs and their mothers. My brother only has about 12 sheep that breed inside. These are usually the ones that have triplets and don't have enough milk to feed the lambs, so he gives the lambs some of his own :erm: ;) and there are blue faced Leicesters, who's lambs are too fragile for the Cumbrian climate.

[Eki]

Eki, sorry I forgot to address your posts about lambs being kept in.

Perhaps on lowland farms they can be, for a few days, but in the majority of sheep farming keeping them indoors for more than two or three days is impossible. Some sheep never spend a day under cover in their life, so they'd freak for starters. Being terrified while heavily pregnant or with a lamb beside them isn't exactly offering them good care, is it? But that's the least of their problems when it comes to being indoors....

I think in Finland the sheep are kept indoors the cold and snowy winter months (that's at least 3 months a year).


...sheep need fresh air, so the buildings would allow foxes in anyway as they'd be about 30-50% open (as most sheep housing is as the moment). UK sheep farmers tend to have a large area with a roof and two sides that are part latted with wood and 10cm(ish) gaps, then an open gated front and rear. That way it's dry but cool, airy but not draughty. You can't fox proof a building like that.

Can't they use wire mesh like the bear den in this webcam?

http://www.panoraama.com/live/maakotka/KARHU_1_photo.jpg

That's tight enough to keep the foxes in or out, but still allows in fresh air.

[Eki]

Here are some pictures of a Finnish sheep house. Well, I must admit it doesn't look too cozy for the sheep, but at least it keeps them dry and their fodder from being buried in snow:

http://lampuri.fi/images/lampola038.jpg

http://lampuri.fi/images/lampola_edesta.jpg

http://lampuri.fi/images/lampola013.jpg

[sxis]

So, if you did see this happen, why didn't I read about it being prosecuted on? You saw it and didn't let the RSPCA know? You are as guilty of cruelty as the people who did it in that case :(

Or did you see it on one of the LACS 1970's videos on TV? If you did, it was prosecuted on and the people responsible were sacked. As they should be.

If you have Hunted for as long as I have you'd know better than to judge all Hunting on one moron's actions shown by an anti-Hunt group :mark:

it wasnt shown by an anti hunt group i was there ! and dont pass the blame on to me for the actions of the hunting fraternity

[oily oaf]

Eki. Please refrain from posting hardcore Welsh pornography in this thread :mad:

This is a family forum (drone)
You wouldn't catch me reproducing this kind of smutty.........(whine, simper)

PS I don't fancy yours much squire.

[Hazell B]

it wasnt shown by an anti hunt group i was there ! and dont pass the blame on to me for the actions of the hunting fraternity

Why not? You saw somebody torture a fox for fun and did nothing but tell us here and you think that's okay? I do not. You are covering up somebody's crime and allowing them to carry on acting like that. You are to blame as much as they are if it carries on, in my opinion.

Eki, that last picture shows just how crammed in those animals are. We don't like keeping them that way here. We're not so cold as Finland, so they'd be too warm half the time anyway.

Plus, if you've ever tried getting planning permission for anything in the UK countryside, you'd know there's not a hope in hell of building shelter for sheep in 80% or more of locations where they're kept. Moving them about between fields is bad enough with our busy roads and tight restrictions on movement, just imagine having to move them ten miles off a hillside to a town edge building to give birth .... then have the locals complain about the noise they make (they're really loud when they have lambs) and **** crap all over the roads.

There was a mass panic in York about a month ago when two little male calves got out of the auction centre. Armed police had to close the main road in and out, the A64, twice and shoot them in the end. The calves (or rampant bulls as the papers and TV news called them :rolleyes: ) where running around in a field two strong fences away from the road, yet the lads at the auction where told to just leave them and the police would deal with it - two weeks later as it happened - so imagine the fuss if a few sheep made a break and got on the roads. They ended up having armed police on pallets hoisted up on fork trucks stalking the calves for two full days in a field only 14 acres big :rolleyes:

Great practice for the police, but considering John the stockman had been sneaking them food over the gate and from his forktruck hardly worth the fuss :laugh:

[Eki]

Eki, that last picture shows just how crammed in those animals are.

Yes, I agree they look crammed. But maybe if they sold half of them or built another shelter, so that the number of sheep per shelter would be smaller.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yes, I agree they look crammed. But maybe if they sold half of them or built another shelter, so that the number of sheep per shelter would be smaller.

Can't build a new shelter because of planning permission, can't sell sheep because farmers hardly make a profit with the sheep they have.

[Eki]

Finnish tomato farmers and such often have large greenhouses. Maybe if you replaced the glass/plastic windows with wire mesh they could be suitable for sheep:

http://www.tativihrea.fi/kuvat/kasvihuone.jpg

http://www.veritas.fi/fin/tuotteet_ja_palvelut/vahinkovakuutukset/kasvihuone.jpg

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For over 1000 of them?

[raphael123]

Raphael, I can't be bothered quoting you and answering. You're twisting words and implications far too much and taking life far too seriously.

By the way, I didn't stereotype townies when I said they get a country dog and then wonder why it isn't happy in town situations - Beans actually did just that. I note he's not been man enough to own up and explain that to you, so I have now. Five minutes of research on the subject and townies would know some types of country dog/life/thinking/etc just won't work in the suburbs. You should try reversing that raphael ;)

That's rather disappointing you don't feel able to reply to my points, but not surprising as I don't think anyone can eventually win a discussion trying to prove that fox hunting is right.

I'm not sure what 'twisting' I have done. You were going on about how fox hunting helps keep's the number of foxes killing lambs etc down as an arguement for why fox hunting shouldn't be banned. All I did was point out that earlier in this topic you were providing figures to prove that that was not a valid arguement. I didn't twist anything, I can copy and paste what you said if you want to, it's there under your name :rolleyes:

Maybe I was wrong to say it's nice having a discussion with someone who knows what they are talking about, as refusing to reply isn't much of a discussion.

I'm still curious as to what posts are true and which of yours are lies. Are your earlier post, where you say not many foxes are killed, and not many jobs were lost true? or is it when you say fox hunting is important for pest control etc.

I'm sure you can forgive me for pointing out the fact you've made an arguement for fox hunting, which earlier you said was invalid. I don't think it's twisting. You just have to be grown up and admit it :)

[raphael123]

Why not? You saw somebody torture a fox for fun and did nothing but tell us here and you think that's okay? I do not. You are covering up somebody's crime and allowing them to carry on acting like that. You are to blame as much as they are if it carries on, in my opinion.

Eki, that last picture shows just how crammed in those animals are. We don't like keeping them that way here. We're not so cold as Finland, so they'd be too warm half the time anyway.

Plus, if you've ever tried getting planning permission for anything in the UK countryside, you'd know there's not a hope in hell of building shelter for sheep in 80% or more of locations where they're kept. Moving them about between fields is bad enough with our busy roads and tight restrictions on movement, just imagine having to move them ten miles off a hillside to a town edge building to give birth .... then have the locals complain about the noise they make (they're really loud when they have lambs) and **** crap all over the roads.

There was a mass panic in York about a month ago when two little male calves got out of the auction centre. Armed police had to close the main road in and out, the A64, twice and shoot them in the end. The calves (or rampant bulls as the papers and TV news called them :rolleyes: ) where running around in a field two strong fences away from the road, yet the lads at the auction where told to just leave them and the police would deal with it - two weeks later as it happened - so imagine the fuss if a few sheep made a break and got on the roads. They ended up having armed police on pallets hoisted up on fork trucks stalking the calves for two full days in a field only 14 acres big :rolleyes:

Great practice for the police, but considering John the stockman had been sneaking them food over the gate and from his forktruck hardly worth the fuss :laugh:

Good point, I work in the Planning Department in Swansea, which covers the Gower region in South Wales and getting planning permission for these barns Eki is proposing is never going to happen, unless you believe pigs can fly :rolleyes:

Eki, your not educated in this field it seems to be reasonable about it.

[raphael123]

Eki. Please refrain from posting hardcore Welsh pornography in this thread :mad:

This is a family forum (drone)
You wouldn't catch me reproducing this kind of smutty.........(whine, simper)

PS I don't fancy yours much squire.

I personally found that post rather amusing :laugh:

However, to be a bit of a party booper (as Ioan says lol), if this was against a race, you would probably be banned for that, or at least get people complaining.

I say that, because as soon as someone said Lewis's nickname should be 'The Flying Black' or something stupid like that, people were saying how wrong that was. But it's only negative if you see it as something negative. It's no different to 'The Flying Finn', unless you think being Finnish is something to be embarrassed about :p :

Anyway, just wanted to make a point :)

[BeansBeansBeans]

I say that, because as soon as someone said Lewis's nickname should be 'The Flying Black' or something stupid like that, people were saying how wrong that was. But it's only negative if you see it as something negative. It's no different to 'The Flying Finn', unless you think being Finnish is something to be embarrassed about :p :

No, someone said his nickname should be "The Black Man", because Kimi's is "The Ice Man". Wrong or not, nicknaming Hamilton "The Black Man" would be ridiculous.

[raphael123]

No, someone said his nickname should be "The Black Man", because Kimi's is "The Ice Man". Wrong or not, nicknaming Hamilton "The Black Man" would be ridiculous.

lol true. Would The Flying Black be ridiculous too?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't think anyone can eventually win a discussion trying to prove that fox hunting is right.


Why does a debate have to be won or lost. People have different opinions and no matter what want agree.

[Georgeboi999]

Hunting any animal is wrong and a fox is no execption. I dont care if it kills sheep, its there fault not keeping it safe

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Thats your opinion, I don't agree

[raphael123]

Why does a debate have to be won or lost. People have different opinions and no matter what want agree.

Your right, but generally in a 'debate', you try your best to show how your point of view is more 'right' than the other point of view. If you said you point, then the other person said theres, and you just said 'cool, let's agree to disagree' it wouldn't be much a debate :laugh: The whole point is to make your points, let the person counter those points and so on.

My main point against Hazell was the fact she said I was twisting things, after she used arguements to argue for fox hunting, which she had earlier said herself were invalid. In this instance, she couldn't really deny it, as it's there in black and white, hence why she said she couldn't be bothered I'm guessing.

[raphael123]

Thats your opinion, I don't agree

Who's right, you or George boy?

[Eki]

I think the most practical solution for everyone would be the following:

- If farmers lose about 5% of their sheep to the foxes, the government should put a 5% higher VAT on their products. The farmers could then deduct an equivalent amount of money in their income tax.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Who's right, you or George boy?

Well I think that I'm right with my opinion, because I doubt that Georgeboi999 knows much about sheep farming living in Barnsley.

[Eki]

Well I think that I'm right with my opinion, because I doubt that Georgeboi999 knows much about sheep farming living in Barnsley.
But how does the fact you know more about sheep farming make fox hunting right? I can't even see how sheep farming itself can make fox hunting right. One could even ask if sheep farming is right. It's all about opinions.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

. One could even ask if sheep farming is right. .

Well now you have brought it up what kind of opinion would it be that said sheep farming was wrong?

[Eki]

Well now you have brought it up what kind of opinion would it be that said sheep farming was wrong?
The same kind that says fur farming is wrong. Vegans don't use any animal products, so I don't believe sheep farming is essential for human existence.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The same kind that says fur farming is wrong. Vegans don't use any animal products, so I don't believe sheep farming is essential for human existence.

Are you a vegan? :erm:

Well if that is a argument then I don't think that the internet, cars, writing, talking is vital for human existence. I'll tell you what, why don't we all go and live in caves again.

[Eki]

Are you a vegan? :erm:

No, I'm not even a vegetarian, but some are, and I can't say they're wrong. However, I could survive just fine without sheep products. I don't eat it and most of my clothes are cotton and polyester, not wool. A sheep is about as useful animal for me as a fox.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

No, I'm not even a vegetarian, but some are, and I can't say they're wrong. However, I could survive just fine without sheep products. I don't eat it and most of my clothes are cotton and polyester, not wool. A sheep is about as useful animal for me as a fox.

But since when has democracy been based around you, one person? In the whole world I would say sheep are more important to the existence of the more of the human race than foxes are.

[Eki]

But since when has democracy been based around you, one person? In the whole world I would say sheep are more important to the existence of the more of the human race than foxes are.
I think there are many like me who think foxes and sheep aren't essential, they are just nice to look at (no Oily, not in a sexual way).

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think there are many like me who think foxes and sheep aren't essential, they are just nice to look at (no Oily, not in a sexual way).

WELL if that is the case then lets just let the foxes kill all of the sheep, so then you are happy. :dozey:

[Eki]

WELL if that is the case then lets just let the foxes kill all of the sheep, so then you are happy. :dozey:
They don't kill them all, just about 5% like you said. Foxes have to eat too, you know, and they can't be vegetarian because their digestive system isn't built that way.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They don't kill them all, just about 5% like you said. Foxes have to eat too, you know.

But then because, the farmers can't make any money out of sheep because they are 'not-essential', they would not breed any more so they could use the land for cattle or crops instead. Sheep would die out.

[Eki]

But then because, the farmers can't make any money out of sheep because they are 'not-essential', they would not breed any more so they could use the land for cattle or crops instead. Sheep would die out.
True. But it doesn't make it right. They could keep them as pets or to prevent grass and other vegetation from growing too tall. In Finland, some keep sheep as a hobby and they are also used to take care of historical and cultural landscape for tourists and museum purposes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

True. But it doesn't make it right. They could keep them as pets or to prevent grass and other vegetation from growing too tall. In Finland, some keep sheep as a hobby and they are also used to take care of historical and cultural landscape for tourists and museum purposes.

And who'll pay for that?

[Erki]

As I understood, foxes eat mainly rabbits anyway so sheep dying out wouldn't affect them much.
This dying out thing makes me wonder, where were sheep before humans started domesticating animals?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As I understood, foxes eat mainly rabbits anyway so sheep dying out wouldn't affect them much.
This dying out thing makes me wonder, where were sheep before humans started domesticating animals?

They were wild, but there are hardly any wild sheep in England anymore. The farmers would most likely not breed anymore or kill them so the land could be used by other farm animals.

but why would anyone want to reduce the number of a species so they would become close to extinction.

[Eki]

And who'll pay for that?
people themselves if that's a hobby, and taxpayers and visitors if it's for cultural and historical reasons.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I have a better more sustainable method.

I call it farming ;) -the process of producing food, feed, fiber, fuel and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals.

[raikk]

I agree with the ban...killing any animal for pure enjoyment is wrong..

[Erki]

I have a better more sustainable method.

I call it farming ;) -the process of producing food, feed, fiber, fuel and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals.

I don't remember where I read that but apparently farming animals contribute something like 20% of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.
But as I said, I don't know where it was written... maybe someone does?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I agree with the ban...killing any animal for pure enjoyment is wrong..

But people eat animals for the enjoyment of the taste, is that wrong?

[Eki]

But people eat animals for the enjoyment of the taste, is that wrong?
If you think it is, then it is. Besides nobody here has suggested that hunting for food should be banned. Maybe if the hunters ate the foxes they catch, fox hunting would be less objected?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Some people get their pleasure out of killing animals by eating them.
Others get their pleasure out of killing animals by hunting them.

You don't have to eat animals to survive, so will the government ban it?

[raphael123]

Eki, I'm against fox hunting, but your arguements are poor, Jon Brown even makes fox hunting seem like a good thing against your poorly thought out arguements!

[Eki]

Eki, I'm against fox hunting, but your arguements are poor, Jon Brown even makes fox hunting seem like a good thing against your poorly thought out arguements!
Which one particularly? Why don't you tell why they are poorly thought out?