The foxy Tories

[Trouble43]

I didn't think it was that high either, and I'm sure a great deal of the support for this ban was garnered by one-sided and emotional arguments on behalf of 'the poor fox'. But having lived in the country for many years and seen the damage that the animals can wreak on farms and smallholdings with young or small animals, these people should realise there's more than one side to the story. The number of foxes who actually 'suffer' for a very short time whilst being hunted with dogs is very small, and it wouldn't surprise me if many times that number were left to crawl away and die slowly and painfully having been mortally wounded by poor shooting or by poisons. OK, there's no excuse for that, but it happens regardless of a hunting ban or not, and the social and employment benefits to the countryside of allowing hunting to resume far outweighs the 'feelings' of a few pests who do get torn to pieces by dogs.

having been on a hunt in Ireland I have seen what the dogs do when they get the fox and I can honestly say that hunting with dogs is sick;it gave me nightmares. I too live in the country as you know and have done for a while; my family in fact hail from this area too. However, I HATE fox hunting. In fact, in my whole village - numbering not a lot admittedly - I only know of one person who supports this vile act and she's a former townie, who (allegedly) has only seen foxes on tv.

I have friends who have problems with foxes getting at their chickens, they shoot them (the foxes, not the chickens). its quick; the fox is dead and no longer a problem. In most cases it didn't even see it coming; never once has he left a fox injured - its always a clean shot and instant death. He has a small holding in the dales of Derbyshire. Oh and all his firearms are licenced shotguns. My uncle in Ireland also had a farm where I spent a lot of time growing up and visiting family over there; he too had many problems with foxes (and also rabbits).

Hunting them with dogs drives the poor animals into a frenzy of fear and exhaustion, I've seen it.....only for them to be ripped apart if caught (and I've seen this too; which is why I am now so anti hunting). All so hooray henrys and henriettas can go (as expounder puts it) tally hoing round the countryside.

If the well heeled are SO desperate to go careering around the countryside then drag hunting works just as well. If not, then find something else to do - take up extreme ironing.

Basically there is absolutely NO need to hunt foxes with dogs. Oh and don't try and convince me its the sport of the poor - its not. Yes a few farmers daughters were on old horses on the hunt I went on; there were a few conemmara ponies (the best horseflesh in Ireland; even if not the most expensive), even one old cart horse who doubled as a 'rider' (he was HUGE!). They wore jeans and sweaters, or jeans and shirts...nothing too costly. I think the total number of farming people and other locals numbered about ten out of about forty.

The mainstay of the hunt was a LOT of people on VERY expensive horses, with expensive equipment (one woman told me her saddle alone cost her over (in English money) a THOUSAND pounds. And this was about twenty five years ago.) Another man told me his l'latest' hunter cost him NINE thousand pounds - he had four in his own stables. Oh and so the costs went on adding up....it was mind boggling to me. People were spending more on a saddle and bridle than my family had EVER spent on a car! All so they could hunt an animal.

Still my uncle had a farm and I'd seen the damage foxes had done - he couldn't abide the hunts, so banned them from his land (not that they always took notice of his wishes) and he shot the foxes. I went along to see what he would get so mad about and row with my grandmother (a wholehearted fox hunting supporter). I saw......I wish I hadn't; but I did.

Then to top the vile act off, two young girls aged about 12 and 13 were brought forward and "blooded". I honestly thought I would throw up. The best rider of the day, some local landowner, got the 'brush' as I recall. Mind you there wasn't much left of anything else of the poor creature.

That night I had nightmares; and did so for some months after; even today I can still recall the smell of blood and.....well, it wasn't pleasant and I remember it as if it was yesterday.

At the time, my uncle got up with me, made cocoa and told me he too had been sent on a hunt as a boy - his hunt had also 'caught' the fox and he'd been blooded. He never went again even though my great uncle (his father) thrashed him for being 'weak'.

I, too, never went on another hunt and became vehemently anti fox hunting. If you're going to kill something, do so because it threatens you, you're livliehood and/or your home. If possible kill it to eat it too - either way ensure the death is quick and clean, with a gun if possible. My uncle was a crack shot. He never used a snare or any kind of trap; never used ferrets on the rabbits either. Just used his gun. We ate lots of rabbit that year as I recall.

So you see there is NO need to hunt with dogs to kill foxes;as he said and I still agree with him (imagine with a broad Irish accent) "if stupid folk wish to ride around like maniacs, let them follow a poor sod with a sack full of smelly fish, or some such. I bet if the dogs teared he apart there'd be a loud halloo....and not a good one neither." He was a country man born, bred and even dying on his beloved farm (he passed away two years just gone). Yet he HATED and LOATHED the fox hunting.

[Trouble43]

Well ask yourself who would be monitoring any hunt to see if the law was broken if it wasn't for the protesters? It wouldn't be the police, as they are only there because the protesters are present.

The hunters left to their own devices would continue as normal ignoring the law. The law, whether unpopular to a minority or not, was passed by Parliamentry Legislation by a majority in the commons which has now been turned into a case of cause celebre by rural Tory party supporters many who decide that are above the law.

To me that smacks of total arrogance. Read this interesting link.

The Rise of Fox-hunting - Fox-hunting and the Ban - Icons of England

Utterly agree; as I said in my post to Midas, my uncle banned their local hunt from his land (he had a large farm in Ireland - his daughter now runs it); but more often than not his wishes were ignored and they'd go across his fields as if they owned them.

He used to get so mad, I was often worried he'd shoot them or something as he had a terrible temper on him sometimes (he didn't though - but he would also go rabbitting after a hunt had gone on his land, and I think it was so that he could pretend he was shooting the hunt people instead of the rabbits.)

The hunt's total disregard for people and their property is also totally uncalled for. I remember it being on the main news a few years back that an elderly lady's cat had been torn apart by the hounds because, according to the leader fellow (the one in the red jacket), "it looked like a fox." The cat was a dark ginger one.....allegedly from a distance it looked like a running fox - although there was no evidence to prove this.

They never even said sorry to the elderly woman - even though it happened right in front of her. The hunt members arrogance is simply breathtaking - and not in a good way.

[Expounder]

With due respect Exp, there speaks someone who's never lived in the country, and particularly someone who's never had livestock savaged or crops eaten by the tonne by animals like foxes, rabbits, pigeons, crows, squirrels...... I think if you had done so you'd have a very different viewpoint on the whole matter of killing animals.

The countryside as we know it now is a wholly artificial construction and left unchecked, those natural predators would decimate many farms and smallholdings. Killing them is absolutely essential to ensuring that the vast majority of what are only marginally profitable farms can at least pay their way.

Actually Midas although originally from london, I do live in the country albiet not on a farm.

I am not against the humane killing[where possible] of a pest and accept thats it's neccessary. I agree many townies are not in tune with the county locals on the practicalities of running a farm and the damage that can be caused by birds and animals to crops and small livestock. But as already pointed out, the amount of difference hunting would make to the fox population is minimal as to have little effect. and is an inhumane archic sport that demeans the people pursuing it.

[Midas]

I feel like I'm under siege here

Rather than reply individually to all the recent points made by Keiran, Trouble and Expounder, several of which I accept are perfectly valid, I'm going to summarise. But I would also like to say that there's a much wider issue at stake here, not specifically fox hunting, which I think is very important to consider.

As far as fox hunting itself is concerned, I really have no particular interest in it. As I've already said, I'm completely indifferent to the whole horse and hounds aspect of the countryside; if people want to spend their lives round those animals, that's their choice. I'm also indifferent to the fact that a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got torn to pieces by hounds; it's only what would have happened naturally had our countryside not been transformed by agriculture and the larger natural predators eliminated by man. There are far worse ways for an animal to die, including being mortally wounded by a poor shot, being slowly poisoned to death or being hit by a car and crawling off into the undergrowth to die in agony over many hours or even days. No-one has much to say about that, they'd rather concentrate on what's more obvious, regardless of it being statistically insignificant.

However what I think is important is the fact that the Labour party set out with a specific intent to kill off a very longstanding British tradition simply because historically it was the province of the landed gentry, almost exclusively Tory. Because it was an emotive issue and picked up by many woolly-minded animal rights activists (who often don't fully realise the implications of what they're doing) and the media, it received much public support. As I said above and earlier in the thread, the other side of the story rarely surfaced and I sincerely doubt whether many of the 'ban fox hunting' brigade really understood either the history and tradition of it or the real, everyday facts about the supposed 'cruelty'. They simply got carried along on a wave of emotion concerning the death of a few pests.

Underlying this ban is the nasty side of politics, the "let's get the opposition by any means" side which has little to do with the matter in hand. How many people really cared if a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got killed by hounds as opposed to dying by the other, potentially more painful, means? How many of those people who cried out "cruelty" really gave a moment's thought to say the systematic cruelty of intensive farming such as the issue surrounding battery chickens? Very few I'd venture to suggest; the important fact as far as the Labour party was concerned was to stick one over on one of the longest standing British traditions simply because of historical Tory associations, by using emotive, and very one-sided, public support against an 'easy target'.

That form of political sniping and game-playing, largely unnoticed by the public who were simply being manipulated as pawns in a wider game, is what's really dangerous, not the matter in hand specifically. It has absolutely nothing to do with running the country effectively or efficiently but it has everything to do with winning at any cost, and that's the major reason why I consider issues such as this as being so important. It set alarming precedents for the future.

[Trouble43]

I feel like I'm under siege here

Welcome to my world when you and your athiest buddies start on me about religion.

I mean I'm all for 'live and let live' with people's opinions, as I have always said - BUT, and its a big one, only when others are not forced to suffer for those opinions; and that includes defenceless animals, pests or not.

But I would also like to say that there's a much wider issue at stake here, not specifically fox hunting, which I think is very important to consider.

Nope, I think we were talking about fox hunting rather than some secret government conspiracy to upsetthe tories, purely by stopping them killing defenceless animals by hunting them to the point of exhaustion and then letting a pack of dogs rip them to pieces.

As far as fox hunting itself is concerned, I really have no particular interest in it. As I've already said, I'm completely indifferent to the whole horse and hounds aspect of the countryside; if people want to spend their lives round those animals, that's their choice. I'm also indifferent to the fact that a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got torn to pieces by hounds; it's only what would have happened naturally had our countryside not been transformed by agriculture and the larger natural predators eliminated by man. There are far worse ways for an animal to die, including being mortally wounded by a poor shot, being slowly poisoned to death or being hit by a car and crawling off into the undergrowth to die in agony over many hours or even days. No-one has much to say about that, they'd rather concentrate on what's more obvious, regardless of it being statistically insignificant.

You have NEVER been on a hunt have you Midas? You've NEVER actually seen fox ripped to pieces by hounds have you? If you had you wouldn't be quite so blase about it.

Most farmers round here use guns; they also don't support hunting with hounds, despite what the countryside alliance would have you believe. most farmers are a far better shot than many hooray henrys who shoot 'for fun'. There's more likely to be lots of game birds dying slow and agonising deaths due to being hit by a bad shot from a game shooters gun, than foxes dying the same way from a farmer's gun.

However what I think is important is the fact that the Labour party set out with a specific intent to kill off a very longstanding British tradition simply because historically it was the province of the landed gentry, almost exclusively Tory. Because it was an emotive issue and picked up by many woolly-minded animal rights activists (who often don't fully realise the implications of what they're doing) and the media, it received much public support. As I said above and earlier in the thread, the other side of the story rarely surfaced and I sincerely doubt whether many of the 'ban fox hunting' brigade really understood either the history and tradition of it or the real, everyday facts about the supposed 'cruelty'. They simply got carried along on a wave of emotion concerning the death of a few pests.

I don't give a damn why fox hunting was banned, only that it was. I am not "simply got carried along on a wave of emotion concerning the death of a few pests" - as I have stated I have been on a hunt, something I doubt you have, and I have seen the outcome. NO animal, pest or otherwise, deserves to die like that.

As much as you don't think hunting should be banned because it upsets the rich, I don't think it should be allowed just because the rich want it to.

I also don't give a damn about the history or tradition of the slaughter that takes place. The history and tradition of the chase can be just as easily carried out by drag hunting - there doesn't need to be the cruel death at the end; those that still want that side of it are merely showing their sadistic leanings.

There was, no doubt, a lot of 'history and tradition' behind other - already banned - blood sports, such as dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting and bull baiting. But I don't see people clamouring to have to those back.

Underlying this ban is the nasty side of politics, the "let's get the opposition by any means" side which has little to do with the matter in hand. How many people really cared if a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got killed by hounds as opposed to dying by the other, potentially more painful, means? How many of those people who cried out "cruelty" really gave a moment's thought to say the systematic cruelty of intensive farming such as the issue surrounding battery chickens? Very few I'd venture to suggest; the important fact as far as the Labour party was concerned was to stick one over on one of the longest standing British traditions simply because of historical Tory associations, by using emotive, and very one-sided, public support against an 'easy target'.

No, sadly that conspiracy theory is only in the minds of the toffs who would rather think the world was out to get them, than people were just sickened at their actions in the name of 'fun'.

As I have repeatedly stated, foxes don't necessarily die worse deaths by 'other' means. If you are so worried about that, perhaps you could start writing to the government to get all shooting blood sports banned too? I'm sure there's many a duck and pheasant that dread the 'glorious twelfth'; loads of untrained idiots running around the countryside with their twelve bores firing hapazardly at birds being forced to fly before their wavering guns by paid lackeys. I wonder how many of those birds die slow and agonising deaths from gunshot wounds inflicted by idiots, whose only reason for being there is they have the money to pay for it.

That form of political sniping and game-playing, largely unnoticed by the public who were simply being manipulated as pawns in a wider game, is what's really dangerous, not the matter in hand specifically. It has absolutely nothing to do with running the country effectively or efficiently but it has everything to do with winning at any cost, and that's the major reason why I consider issues such as this as being so important. It set alarming precedents for the future.

What you have to understand Midas is that there are many in the countryside, who work and live on the land, who do not agree with hunting. They are not part of some great conspiracy to undermine the tories. They are just ordinary people who objected to the slaughter - perhaps you should stop listening to the claptrap dolled out by the (predominately) toffs controlled 'countryside alliance' and start to talking to the REAL people in the countryside.

I hope it does set a precedent - I would like ALL bloodsports to be banned eventually. Do you know what I really think? Just that the wealthy don't like being told what to do by the 'chattering classes'. Tough; a democracy is that we 'chatterers' get a say too. We have spoken - they have to live with it.

[DTE]

Midas, you're last post was right on the money.

Its not conspiracy theory Trouble, its what actually happened. Its just part of Labour's continued war on the countryside, and the upper/upper middle classes. So the fox gets ripped apart by the dogs, just because Midas or myself haven't physically seen it happen with our own eyes, doesn't mean we don't understand what goes on. Thats the great thing about words, they can describe things.

Trouble, you say you haven't been caught up on the wave of emotion, and then with the next breath describe how because you've seen it happen, you have a fuller understanding of the hunt. That sounds exactly like letting your emotions dictate your opinions to me.

Everyone loves to go on about saving the foxes, because they're all cute and furry. If the rich were off beating grasssnakes to death do you think there would be quite as much uproar? I doubt it. If its done on private land, and all are consenting adults, then I really don't see the problem. Ripped apart, shot, beaten, whats the real difference? In the end they're just as dead. There's a massive hypocrisy with all things animal rights related. If anyone here is a vegan, then fair enough, you have the logical groundwork to be against killing animals, otherwise, as Midas says, its just the natural order of things. The class issue is a huge influence here.

And before anyone goes off on one, I having nothing against animals per se, its just I think people should remind themselves that we are the top of the foodchain, and if only more effort was put into the rights of the fellow man, rather than a countryside pest we'd all have a better society.

[Expounder]

I feel like I'm under siege here

Rather than reply individually to all the recent points made by Keiran, Trouble and Expounder, several of which I accept are perfectly valid, I'm going to summarise. But I would also like to say that there's a much wider issue at stake here, not specifically fox hunting, which I think is very important to consider.

As far as fox hunting itself is concerned, I really have no particular interest in it. As I've already said, I'm completely indifferent to the whole horse and hounds aspect of the countryside; if people want to spend their lives round those animals, that's their choice. I'm also indifferent to the fact that a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got torn to pieces by hounds; it's only what would have happened naturally had our countryside not been transformed by agriculture and the larger natural predators eliminated by man. There are far worse ways for an animal to die, including being mortally wounded by a poor shot, being slowly poisoned to death or being hit by a car and crawling off into the undergrowth to die in agony over many hours or even days. No-one has much to say about that, they'd rather concentrate on what's more obvious, regardless of it being statistically insignificant.

However what I think is important is the fact that the Labour party set out with a specific intent to kill off a very longstanding British tradition simply because historically it was the province of the landed gentry, almost exclusively Tory. Because it was an emotive issue and picked up by many woolly-minded animal rights activists (who often don't fully realise the implications of what they're doing) and the media, it received much public support. As I said above and earlier in the thread, the other side of the story rarely surfaced and I sincerely doubt whether many of the 'ban fox hunting' brigade really understood either the history and tradition of it or the real, everyday facts about the supposed 'cruelty'. They simply got carried along on a wave of emotion concerning the death of a few pests.

The Labour Party tapped into a vein of public abhorence agaisnt the practice of animal cruelty and blood sports. As T43 points out all other blood sports have been banned. In spite of this there are still warped people who even now want to organise and run these evil events would you call these all good country folk? The principle is the same

Underlying this ban is the nasty side of politics, the "let's get the opposition by any means" side which has little to do with the matter in hand. How many people really cared if a few hundred/thousand foxes a year got killed by hounds as opposed to dying by the other, potentially more painful, means? How many of those people who cried out "cruelty" really gave a moment's thought to say the systematic cruelty of intensive farming such as the issue surrounding battery chickens? Very few I'd venture to suggest; the important fact as far as the Labour party was concerned was to stick one over on one of the longest standing British traditions simply because of historical Tory associations, by using emotive, and very one-sided, public support against an 'easy target'.

Wev'e already seen the nasty side of politics from the previous Tory administration and we shall no doubt be seeing some more If elected.

Midas, for whatever reason a majority of the the public don't agree with hunting with hounds. The Commons voted to outlaw it, democracy has spoken. It has touched a raw nerve with the Tories but if they try to reverse it, if elected, it will help to spell out in it's own small way what a callous bunch they have elected. Translate the fox to into Joe Bloggs
If they can be so cold hearted towards animals why shouldn't they adopt the same attitude to the man in the street.

That form of political sniping and game-playing, largely unnoticed by the public who were simply being manipulated as pawns in a wider game, is what's really dangerous, not the matter in hand specifically. It has absolutely nothing to do with running the country effectively or efficiently but it has everything to do with winning at any cost, and that's the major reason why I consider issues such as this as being so important. It set alarming precedents for the future.

The Tories never stop political sniping against Labour it's all part of the game. The banning of fox hunting with hounds is a moral issue and polititans have responded to the public mood as there was certainly no public outcry when it was introduced. The world, particulary Britain has moved on, people's attitude to animal cruelty has moved on with it.

Time to stop digging midas.

[Trouble43]

Its not conspiracy theory Trouble, its what actually happened. Its just part of Labour's continued war on the countryside, and the upper/upper middle classes. So the fox gets ripped apart by the dogs, just because Midas or myself haven't physically seen it happen with our own eyes, doesn't mean we don't understand what goes on. Thats the great thing about words, they can describe things.

I don't think, unless you've actually seen what the hounds do to the fox, that you can say you understand what goes on. Words can indeed "describe things", but they can never prepare you for the actual act.

It is conspiracy theory - the public didn't want hunting to continue, but the hooray henrys and henrietta would much rather believe (as I've said) that its all a witch hunt against them, than believe the actual truth. That most of us are sick of the killing; that we do not believe its 'fun' to slaughter an exhausted and terrified animal, pest or not, by letting a pack of dogs tear it apart.

Trouble, you say you haven't been caught up on the wave of emotion, and then with the next breath describe how because you've seen it happen, you have a fuller understanding of the hunt. That sounds exactly like letting your emotions dictate your opinions to me.

MIdas was talking about Joe Bloggs in the street going along with the masses type of thing, yet not really knowing about fox hunting. I was merely pointing out that I have been on a hunt, I do know what goes on and I am still against it. I wasn't, funnily enough, until I actually took part and saw what happened. Also if its all about pest control why give the 'brush' to the 'best rider of the day' and also blood new hunt members or the person on whose land the fox was 'run down'? Doing any of that is simply not necessary is it?

Everyone loves to go on about saving the foxes, because they're all cute and furry. If the rich were off beating grasssnakes to death do you think there would be quite as much uproar? I doubt it. If its done on private land, and all are consenting adults, then I really don't see the problem. Ripped apart, shot, beaten, whats the real difference? In the end they're just as dead. There's a massive hypocrisy with all things animal rights related. If anyone here is a vegan, then fair enough, you have the logical groundwork to be against killing animals, otherwise, as Midas says, its just the natural order of things. The class issue is a huge influence here.

Nope, I would be saying that clubbing to death a grass snake is wrong too. Any cruelty to any animal is wrong; there is nothing you could say to me that would justify it.

Oh yes, its done on private land - they even trespass if they feel like it, as my uncle found out only too often. he NEVER gave his local hunt permission to ride across his land, but they still did it anyway.

They don't care either when their hounds take a family pet. Would you be so magnanimous if it was your cat or dog that the hounds tore to pieces? Unlikely.

I think the 'difference' is that if an animal is shot, it dies instantly. A fox cornered by a pack of dogs tries to defend itself; but of course it can't because there's too many hounds and only one of him/her. So he gets bitten and torn at, as the blood flows the hounds become almost crazed and start tearing even more at the fox. By now the fox's snarls and barks are replaced with whines and yelps as he is now torn apart whilst still alive. It took over five minutes for the poor thing to die with the hunt I was on; apparently, so I was told, the hounds were having a 'good day' as it was a 'quick death'. Sometime it can, apparently, take longer for the poor beast to finally be rent apart and killed.

Would you choose that death over a swift bullet? I doubt it very much. But that, as bad as it is, is not the end of it; and its the next part that makes a mockery of those who say its only about 'pest control'.

The bloke in the red jacket (I forget what he's called) rescues the brush, the fox's tail, (if possible) from the dogs - the same hounds who are still busily pulling and tearing at the corpse of the fox and who are by now covered in blood and gore, and he gives it to the 'best rider of the day'. The rider who basically kept up with him as the leader. Apparently its 'bad form' to overtake the hunt leader.

Next he calls the new hunt members to the fore, and/or the person whose land the fox was 'run down' on - he dips two fingers in the blood of the fox, and there's plenty of that splattered about, and smears it over each cheek of these people/person. Those around whoop, cheer and laugh, they also clap.........one girl from my hunt looked utterly traumatised, the other grinned and laughed; so both reacted differently. The man who got the brush held it aloft and waggled it around to much laughter, more whooping, cheering and clapping.

Not one piece of that is about pest control is it?

And before anyone goes off on one, I having nothing against animals per se, its just I think people should remind themselves that we are the top of the foodchain, and if only more effort was put into the rights of the fellow man, rather than a countryside pest we'd all have a better society.

Oh and think about this DTE - if we are so hard that we say animals should be tortured to death for sport because, as I've just pointed out, there's no 'pest control' about it - then what hope is there for us?

If we cannot even treat a dumb animal with a little respect by shooting it if it has the temerity to inconvenience us; how in the hell are we going to treat each other with anything other than contempt?

Oh and bear in mind also that the reason the fox is becoming such a nuisance, as my farmer friend pointed out, "all them blasted townies moving here - them knows nowt about the countryside do them? Builds all them houses, digs up foxes dens and such - where's the buggers to go eh? Into my chicken coops and your blasted bins eh? Got nowt else to get food from 'ave them? Local land all under concrete aren't it....." And he's right.

So, as we're taking their habitat, the least we can do is shoot them - rather than let what I saw happen to them become run of the mill.

I knew there was a good reason why I shouldn't vote tory. Good to see that my parents teaching of me that they are all self, self, self hasn't been wasted.

Also, what about bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, bull baiting? All that's been stopped now - why? Because it was cruel. End of. Fox hunting ain't no different. Personally, I want ALL blood sports stopped. I'm not ashamed to admit that the day of the hunt, when it was all over I went behind a tree and threw up. That night I had nightmares - the first night of many months worth. even after getting up and talking to my uncle about it, I still cried myself to sleep - I was 23.

I will never support anything but a total ban on fox hunting. If the hooray henrys and their 'gals' are so keen to ride around like lunatics then let them go drag hunting - at least there's no slaughter at the end.

[Trouble43]

The banning of fox hunting with hounds is a moral issue and polititans have responded to the public mood as there was certainly no public outcry when it was introduced. The world, particulary Britain has moved on, people's attitude to animal cruelty has moved on with it.

As you say, Exp, there is no political 'sniping' when it comes to this issue. Yes, perhaps nulab decided to take a very emotive public issue and respond to it for their own ends; but it was not, as some suggest here, to 'get back at' the tories.

I agree that the mainstay of the public, country and town, loathe and despise hunting. The countryside alliance, full of its hooray henrys and henriettas (such as Bryan Ferry's oik of a posh son), would try and convince us that its all good 'down to earth country people' who actually support hunting. But of course they're.....well, let's just say being economical with the truth. Most people who support it are employed by the hunting fraternity; or they hunt themselves.

Most local 'down to earth country people' that I know do NOT support fox hunting. Indeed most farmers prefer to deal with foxes themselves, by shooting them. A rare few, who feel they may be 'upwardly mobile' in the social scale, might ride out occasionally. But most wouldn't give houseroom to the hunting fraternity.

I think the upper classes need to understand that we also have a vote and we used it. In a democracy the majority rules - the well heeled now need to accept it and move on. It's not like they can't 'ride to hounds' - they just can't slaughter a fox at the end of it. The fact that they still want to says more about them than anything else.

[DTE]

I don't think, unless you've actually seen what the hounds do to the fox, that you can say you understand what goes on. Words can indeed "describe things", but they can never prepare you for the actual act.

It is conspiracy theory - the public didn't want hunting to continue, but the hooray henrys and henrietta would much rather believe (as I've said) that its all a witch hunt against them, than believe the actual truth. That most of us are sick of the killing; that we do not believe its 'fun' to slaughter an exhausted and terrified animal, pest or not, by letting a pack of dogs tear it apart.

I'm not a hooray Henry, neither I think is Midas (although I'm sure he'd correct me if I'm wrong) and I would imagine that yes, most people if asked would be against fox hunting. It would be a slim majority though, a lot of people are just indifferent to the whole thing. People who are against it, do so because of the stock view that "animal cruelty is wrong". Fair enough. I guess it just comes down to your opinion of animals. I respect animals, I would never kill one for the sake of it, and I've never been hunting for sport, however, I see no problem with other people doing so. I don't see how people justify placing the life of a fox over the life of a spider, a squirrel, a snake, or a rat. We had rats in our garage. Killed them, with traps, slightly humane I suppose, but really the only issue was cost rather than preventing the poor mite's suffering. Now someone's pet? Thats another story...

Yes, posh people are weird. Yes, they have their traditions and their weird blood rituals, which do sound odd, especially the thing about the blood smeared faces. But they are having a good time (strange as it is), people are employed, the fox is dead and the dogs have had a good hunt. Let them get on with it.

Nope, I would be saying that clubbing to death a grass snake is wrong too. Any cruelty to any animal is wrong; there is nothing you could say to me that would justify it.

So any form of pest control is also wrong? Meat eating is wrong? My cat killing a bird is wrong? I don't mean to be feceacious, but it all depends on where you draw the lines and how much of a right to life you give to those lower down on the food chain.

Oh yes, its done on private land - they even trespass if they feel like it, as my uncle found out only too often. he NEVER gave his local hunt permission to ride across his land, but they still did it anyway.

They don't care either when their hounds take a family pet. Would you be so magnanimous if it was your cat or dog that the hounds tore to pieces? Unlikely.

I think the 'difference' is that if an animal is shot, it dies instantly. A fox cornered by a pack of dogs tries to defend itself; but of course it can't because there's too many hounds and only one of him/her. So he gets bitten and torn at, as the blood flows the hounds become almost crazed and start tearing even more at the fox. By now the fox's snarls and barks are replaced with whines and yelps as he is now torn apart whilst still alive. It took over five minutes for the poor thing to die with the hunt I was on; apparently, so I was told, the hounds were having a 'good day' as it was a 'quick death'. Sometime it can, apparently, take longer for the poor beast to finally be rent apart and killed.

Would you choose that death over a swift bullet? I doubt it very much.

No, but I am not a fox. Not in the literal sense anyway. So I don't see the connection. I can imagine that is pretty nasty way to go for the fox, and I'm sorry Trouble, but I just don't care as much as you do. This sounds bad but...its only a fox.

I will never support anything but a total ban on fox hunting. If the hooray henrys and their 'gals' are so keen to ride around like lunatics then let them go drag hunting - at least there's no slaughter at the end.

Yeah but I imagine its kind of boring. The injustice of fox hunting pales in comparison with other animal rights issues, the level of importance is greatly exaggerated. I can't believe the public outcry it continues to generate, which must owe more to class warfare than it does to animal rights. People get more angry at the pomp and theatricality of it than the slaughter itself. Maybe because its a comparatively trivial matter people get more worked up, as hey, its easier to form legislation on that than say, solve knife culture or fix the NHS.

[Trouble43]

I'm not a hooray Henry, neither I think is Midas (although I'm sure he'd correct me if I'm wrong) and I would imagine that yes, most people if asked would be against fox hunting. It would be a slim majority though, a lot of people are just indifferent to the whole thing. People who are against it, do so because of the stock view that "animal cruelty is wrong". Fair enough. I guess it just comes down to your opinion of animals. I respect animals, I would never kill one for the sake of it, and I've never been hunting for sport, however, I see no problem with other people doing so. I don't see how people justify placing the life of a fox over the life of a spider, a squirrel, a snake, or a rat. We had rats in our garage. Killed them, with traps, slightly humane I suppose, but really the only issue was cost rather than preventing the poor mite's suffering. Now someone's pet? Thats another story...

Sorry I think we will have to beg to differ on this one. Poles apart and all that. Oh and I don't kill the mice that get into our house; we have humane traps. They catch the mice alive in a little box and we take it far away (you have to go further than ten miles or they can actually make it back to you!) and release it. I put a bell on my cat's collar so he can't catch birds or stuff anymore. The only thing I can't show the same magnaminity towards are spiders... I am seriously arachnophobic (I can't even watch them on television or look at pictures of them).

So I have a simple rule - they stay on my ceiling, they live (my husband evicts them); but if they drop down near me or <shudder> on me....they are so dead I can't begin to tell you. But its a quick death - I jump on them and squish them, big ones I have a special book (its HUGE and very heavy) and I drop that on it and kill it that way, I also (to my shame) jump up and down on it.

I wouldn't let anyone torture them, like pull their legs off or something - my mate's grandson does that and I'm always telling him off.

Yes, posh people are weird. Yes, they have their traditions and their weird blood rituals, which do sound odd, especially the thing about the blood smeared faces. But they are having a good time (strange as it is), people are employed, the fox is dead and the dogs have had a good hunt. Let them get on with it.

So if the weird posh people suddenly felt like, say, hunting their neighbours dog - that would be okay too? Because they're weird and having a good time? See, for me we're becoming so desensitised to the suffering of others that its a short hop from turning a blind to this to turning a blind eye to the other suffering that goes on in the world.

The blood smeared faces is very sick, so is the taking of the brush - trust me. I think you should go on a hunt and actually see the end result like I did, and I bet it would change your mind like it did mine.

Also, going by your argument, what about bear baiting? Bull baiting? Dog fighting and cock fighting? All been banned decades ago because of their known cruelty - yet, according your 'weird toff' scenario, they should be allowed to do that too.

Why? Because they are rich and we are not? Not much of a reason is it? I certainly wouldn't accept that as the best reason for returning ANY of those blood sports or for letting the toffs continue with the others I'd like stopped.

So any form of pest control is also wrong? Meat eating is wrong? My cat killing a bird is wrong? I don't mean to be feceacious, but it all depends on where you draw the lines and how much of a right to life you give to those lower down on the food chain.

No, I don't think all forms of pest control are wrong. I think shooting a pest (and I can think of a few I'd like to take 12 bore to ) is better than tearing it apart is all. Its like meat eating, I actually don't do it a lot as I'm not allowed certain types of meat now and to be honest I'm that ill right now I struggle. However, as a rule I like chicken and fish. I used to fish myself, I was a really successful mackerel catcher in Ireland But when I realised the fish could feel pain, I gave it up. Much to my father's disgust as he loved his fresh mackerel. As to chickens I try and buy the humanely bred and despatched ones.

My uncle on his farm had his chickens running free - when it was time for them to be 'dinner', I held them on the block and a swift drop of the wood axe and it was a dead chicken. Took about a minute in all I think; the bird was usually dead before it even realised what was happening.

Animals killing animals upset me, but its natural. I try and stop my own cat doing it, but that's just me. However, a group of baying humans riding sodding great horses with a pack of hyped up hounds at their heels running down a single animal until its exhausted and then letting those same hounds tear it apart whilst its still alive....well, there is no way you can tell me that that's part of the natural order of things.

No, I don't think you're faceacious <sp?> - you have your opinion and this your way of telling me. I respect that even if I don't agree with it.

No, but I am not a fox. Not in the literal sense anyway. So I don't see the connection. I can imagine that is pretty nasty way to go for the fox, and I'm sorry Trouble, but I just don't care as much as you do. This sounds bad but...its only a fox.

yes, its only a fox - and next time it could only be someone's pet; it happens. All to often. Or you could say "well, its only babies in Somalia that are starving, who cares? It doesn't affect me, does it?"

This is my point - we allow this; we then allow bear baiting back, and all the others. After all, if you can allow a fox to be torn to pieces whilst still alive then letting a dog attack a bear or a bull until one of them dies is actually tame. Dog fighting and cock fighting the same.

So we start taking HUGE strides backwards in our development - we become increasingly desensitised to violence and what is the end result? People stepping over a girl at a bus stop who was being raped - oh and this actually happened; in Ealing, west london. It was all over the news and people were so horrified that no one helped her.

Or the woman who was murdered by her violent ex in Yorkshire (can't remember the town) but on three front doors there were bloody handprints where she'd tried to get help, but had been ignored.

We become desensitised to ANY violence at our peril.

Yeah but I imagine its kind of boring. The injustice of fox hunting pales in comparison with other animal rights issues, the level of importance is greatly exaggerated. I can't believe the public outcry it continues to generate, which must owe more to class warfare than it does to animal rights. People get more angry at the pomp and theatricality of it than the slaughter itself. Maybe because its a comparatively trivial matter people get more worked up, as hey, its easier to form legislation on that than say, solve knife culture or fix the NHS.

Its the same as fox hunting, just without the slaughter at the end. So, its not boring unless you're particularly sadistic and really only like the fox getting ripped up whilst alive.

WHY are other animal rights issues more important? Surely if tearing a fox apart is alright, then experimenting on beagles or apes is fine too? After all the beagle and ape experiments are just to help us humans remain healthy and have nice make up and hair products. WHo cares if these animals suffer? Why should we give a hoot if rabbits and guinea pigs are tortured by having acidic hair lotion sprayed into their eyes, just so it doesn't hurt us when we wash our hair? Why do we need to be bothered? After all, its only a beagle, or a chimp, or a rabbit or a guinea pig - surely they're not more important than us? I mean - we're the top of the food chain for a reason, right? Anyway, they're destroyed fairly humanely when all's said and done, so who cares.

See? Its not so easy to dismiss is it? As for curing knife crime and such. Why would a teenager bother? if we're (sort of) telling him that its alright to torture some animals because they're deemed as pests, or that we turn a blind eye to the torture of others because it suits us - why on earth would he even care whether he stabs that kid that hacked him off or not?

We've already proven we don't really care about torture and the like. We allow the slaughter of animals because they're deemed a pest and its 'fun' to watch a fox get torn to bits. So he can say "well, you know what? its fun for me to get my own back on a kid that bad mouthed my gang."

An extreme example, but one that could happen if we continue to turn a blind eye to the suffering around us. We have to start somewhere and if that's with the suffering of animals, then that's fine by me.

[Midas]

I'm not trying to avoid answering any of the many points which this thread has thrown up since my last post yesterday, but I really haven't got time to say much right now since I'm off racing for the first time this season in a short while. Motor racing that is, before some idiot in the Labour party sees it as a sport enjoyed mainly by people who must have a bit of spare cash and concludes that they're therefore obviously Tories, so tries to ban it, gathering support from the environmental lobby and turning it into a major national issue

I will reply more fully later on either today or tomorrow, but in the meanwhile I'd just like to say that:-

a/ the ban wasn't on environmental or conservation grounds since as we all know, the number of foxes killed by hunting is relatively small.

b/ the ban wasn't on the grounds of cruelty since there are far more overt and widespread instances of systematic cruelty to animals occurring on a daily basis.

c/ the ban wasn't on the grounds of it being unnecessary and an archaic tradition; if that was the case there are plenty of other candidates which would have been be lined up.

What does that leave other than the fact that historically it was an almost exclusively Tory sport was still seen as being representative of that, even though the sport attracted people from all classes and all walks of life, and public support could be whipped up by very unbalanced emotional argument?

Trouble, whilst I mightn't have been on a hunt, I have been to several, and I have seen foxes torn to pieces by hounds several times - the house I had with my ex-partner backed onto countryside where hunting often took place. However when you talk about animals getting ripped to pieces, you're trying to be emotive about the whole issue, not realistic, and as Dr. T.E. points out, it's just the natural order of things. Besides, as someone who goes out shooting 4 weeks out of 5, I'm personally unlikely to be fazed by such things given that I'm often to be found with my hand inside a freshly killed rabbit, pulling its guts out!

No, as I said before, I'm afraid this whole issue typifies the "get the opposition at any cost" aspect of politics, employed mainly by the left, but at that I'm going to have to leave it for a while......

[Trouble43]

I'm not trying to avoid answering any of the many points which this thread has thrown up since my last post yesterday, but I really haven't got time to say much right now since I'm off racing for the first time this season in a short while. Motor racing that is, before some idiot in the Labour party sees it as a sport enjoyed mainly by people who must have a bit of spare cash and concludes that they're therefore obviously Tories, so tries to ban it, gathering support from the environmental lobby and turning it into a major national issue

Actually I don't know many poor people who go motor racing so perhaps you were right the first time.

a/ the ban wasn't on environmental or conservation grounds since as we all know, the number of foxes killed by hunting is relatively small.

b/ the ban wasn't on the grounds of cruelty since there are far more overt and widespread instances of systematic cruelty to animals occurring on a daily basis.

c/ the ban wasn't on the grounds of it being unnecessary and an archaic tradition; if that was the case there are plenty of other candidates which would have been be lined up.

All this is, of course, your opinion - which is a bit different from how you've put it across. You can assume that these were not the grounds, but that's not necessarily the case.

What does that leave other than the fact that historically it was an almost exclusively Tory sport was still seen as being representative of that, even though the sport attracted people from all classes and all walks of life, and public support could be whipped up by very unbalanced emotional argument?

I still question that its a 'sport' at all; I also question that it attracts all classes and walks of life. Many I know in my village (which is also a farming community), with one exception, are all anti hunting.

Trouble, whilst I mightn't have been on a hunt, I have been to several, and I have seen foxes torn to pieces by hounds several times - the house I had with my ex-partner backed onto countryside where hunting often took place. However when you talk about animals getting ripped to pieces, you're trying to be emotive about the whole issue, not realistic, and as Dr. T.E. points out, it's just the natural order of things. Besides, as someone who goes out shooting 4 weeks out of 5, I'm personally unlikely to be fazed by such things given that I'm often to be found with my hand inside a freshly killed rabbit, pulling its guts out!

Do you eat the rabbit? If not, then your shooting is a 'sport' I am also keen to get banned. I'm sorry, but what I saw was a defenceless animal being ripped to pieces; what else would you call it? Being dismembered, disembowelled? torn apart? What do you call it when a pack of dogs set upon an exhausted animal and tear it apart? It's certainly NOT the 'natural order of things'. The fox has been hunted to the point of total exhaustion and then is torn to pieces in front of a group of baying humans.

But, as you say, you enjoy killing animals so this all a 'so what?' situation for you. So I think this is really a 'have to beg to differ situation' for us.

No, as I said before, I'm afraid this whole issue typifies the "get the opposition at any cost" aspect of politics, employed mainly by the left, but at that I'm going to have to leave it for a while......

No, as I've said before, I'm afraid this is just the toffs being upset that we, the chattering classes, have (for once) told them what to do. I will be writing to my local Conservative hopeful and telling him that if they put the rescinding of the hunting ban into their policies I will ensure that I tell as many people as possible about it and ensure their support locally falls.

I am only glad I have not been persuaded to vote for them. Thank God my common sense prevailed.

[Opinionated]

Have to say I support the ban and I fail to see why drag hunting wouldn't be a suitable alternative. I would also like to add, that the dog v. fox outcome of a hunt is not the natural order of things, the treatment of the hounds (particularly just prior to the hunt) is disgusting and the way they are discarded when they fail to perform simply heartless!

[Midas]

I've only just been able to get round to making a further post, and I know I said I'd answer other people's posts much more fully, but quite honestly there's been so much said, particularly by T43 (!), that it would take all day to do so.

But first I have to ask you T43, were you being serious when you said "Do you eat the rabbit? If not, then your shooting is a 'sport' I am also keen to get banned."? I sincerely hope not! I've not heard such a ridiculous suggestion for quite a time; if you've got any idea about country living and the damage that rabbits do - according to DEFRA it runs at about £100 million a year - you'd very rapidly change your mind! As a matter of fact I do eat some rabbits, but quite honestly you can't even give them away so many people are out shooting them. The saying "breeding like rabbits" has a sound foundation you know - you'd rather see us over-run by them, and that £100 million turn to £1 billion would you?

Also T43, as is often the case, your 'arguments' against hunting are all emotionally based, not factually. So, a few cats get killed - how many are killed by foxes, do you know? Many, many times the number killed by fox hounds; the figures aren't easy to come by, but according to DEFRA, in rural areas it's estimated that 0.7% of cats are victims. Given there are about 7.5 million cats in the UK as a whole, and let's conservatively say only 15% live in rural areas, that's something like 7,000 a year, close on half the number of foxes killed by hunting.

So a couple of kids are 'traumatised' by seeing nature in the raw; big deal, perhaps they should go and watch the big game in Africa to see what real wild living is all about. Poor little over-protected things; their parents should have told them what really happens in nature and why.

The basic facts, if anyone has actually read the legislation and the parliamentary discussions which lead up to the ban were actually very simple and as I've already outlined. It was not a logical ban based on any environmental, conservation or cruelty reasons, it was simply based on the fact that the Labour party wanted to get one over on the Tories, couched in some fancy but meaningless verbiage! You mightn't want to believe that, but tell me this. Why, if it wasn't for that reason, was the Parliament Act of 1911, amended in 1949, invoked to force the legislation through? Those acts have only been used 7 times since 1911 for matters as weighty as the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, Home Rule for Ireland, War Crimes in connection with Nazi Germany and for part of the Sexual Offences Act. The killing of about 15,000 foxes a year hardly falls into the same league of matters of national importance now does it - which incidentally is around 8% of the total number killed by other forms of hunting, including trapping and poisoning, both of which are far crueler.

Well, it's not in the same league of national matters unless you're absolutely determined to score one up on the opposition whatever heavyweight tactics were used! Even controversial anti-terrorist legislation hasn't received the same degree of legislative attention. No, forget all your emotional and liberal-minded arguments, face the fact that I'm correct on the reasons here, which is why the Tories are so keen to get the act revoked; they know the real reasons Labour forced it through in the first place.

[Trouble43]

I've only just been able to get round to making a further post, and I know I said I'd answer other people's posts much more fully, but quite honestly there's been so much said, particularly by T43 (!), that it would take all day to do so.

So sorry I seem to have upset you, again.

But first I have to ask you T43, were you being serious when you said "Do you eat the rabbit? If not, then your shooting is a 'sport' I am also keen to get banned."? I sincerely hope not! I've not heard such a ridiculous suggestion for quite a time; if you've got any idea about country living and the damage that rabbits do - according to DEFRA it runs at about £100 million a year - you'd very rapidly change your mind! As a matter of fact I do eat some rabbits, but quite honestly you can't even give them away so many people are out shooting them. The saying "breeding like rabbits" has a sound foundation you know - you'd rather see us over-run by them, and that £100 million turn to £1 billion would you?

As DTE pointed out, I cannot condemn one form of slaughter and support another. Whilst foxes can be pests and, as I've said, shooting them is better than tearing them to pieces; rabbits CAN be eaten and so, if you are going to shoot them, eating would better than just letting them rot.

But I am also against the shooting of pheasants and similar again as it seems to be a 'fun' pastime for a few idiots. That is something I am very committed to getting banned.

Also T43, as is often the case, your 'arguments' against hunting are all emotionally based, not factually. So, a few cats get killed - how many are killed by foxes, do you know? Many, many times the number killed by fox hounds; the figures aren't easy to come by, but according to DEFRA, in rural areas it's estimated that 0.7% of cats are victims. Given there are about 7.5 million cats in the UK as a whole, and let's conservatively say only 15% live in rural areas, that's something like 7,000 a year, close on half the number of foxes killed by hunting.

Sorry I've been on a hunt and seen the end results, I know many in the farming community who do NOT support it either. So first it was ONLY foxes, now its ONLY pet cats? You really couldn't give a hoot what animal suffers so long as the hoorays have their fun can you? Very sad.

So a couple of kids are 'traumatised' by seeing nature in the raw; big deal, perhaps they should go and watch the big game in Africa to see what real wild living is all about. Poor little over-protected things; their parents should have told them what really happens in nature and why.

kkkkerchiinngg! and there we have it - first it was ONLY foxes, then ONLY cats and now its ONLY kids being traumatised. Its NOT 'nature in the raw' is it? Its a group of Haw-haws driving an animal to exhaustion for FUN and then letting their hounds tear it APART. If you'd TAKEN PART in a hunt as I HAVE, then you might have a different view. But then, as you are part of the 'huntin', shootin', fishin' set I doubt it.

The basic facts, if anyone has actually read the legislation and the parliamentary discussions which lead up to the ban were actually very simple and as I've already outlined. It was not a logical ban based on any environmental, conservation or cruelty reasons, it was simply based on the fact that the Labour party wanted to get one over on the Tories, couched in some fancy but meaningless verbiage! You mightn't want to believe that, but tell me this. Why, if it wasn't for that reason, was the Parliament Act of 1911, amended in 1949, invoked to force the legislation through? Those acts have only been used 7 times since 1911 for matters as weighty as the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, Home Rule for Ireland, War Crimes in connection with Nazi Germany and for part of the Sexual Offences Act. The killing of about 15,000 foxes a year hardly falls into the same league of matters of national importance now does it - which incidentally is around 8% of the total number killed by other forms of hunting, including trapping and poisoning, both of which are far crueler.

If you actually bothered to speak to the people living in RURAL areas, especially farming communities (its not just cats that get taken), then you would be severely surprised that the people you defend (the 'hoorays') are despised by most of them. My uncle, as well as many, many other farmers are most annoyed at the way the hunt ignores them when told they are NOT allowed across the farmers PRIVATE land.

Now, as I have said - the tearing apart of a living animal, pest or not, for fun; for those attending (newbies at least) to be SMEARED WITH THE BLOOD from the mutilated corpse is NOT the 'natural order of things' and its most certainly NOT fun. If you do not understand that simple and basic concept because you are too interested in protecting the fun of a few pathetic sadists then there is no point continuing this discussion.

I had a very amblivient attitude to hunting UNTIL I went on one. THAT was when my opinion changed.

Well, it's not in the same league of national matters unless you're absolutely determined to score one up on the opposition whatever heavyweight tactics were used! Even controversial anti-terrorist legislation hasn't received the same degree of legislative attention. No, forget all your emotional and liberal-minded arguments, face the fact that I'm correct on the reasons here, which is why the Tories are so keen to get the act revoked; they know the real reasons Labour forced it through in the first place.

No, it was the majority making the government work for US; if the 'hoorays' can't accept democracy - frankly? TOUGH.

As for the Tories, I certainly would NEVER vote for them now I know they might rescind the ban and, as I said, I will be ensuring my Tory hopeful local understands that there are many of us voters who feel that way and not to underestimate us.

[DTE]

Lots of points here, I'll just do the most glaringly innacurate.

kkkkerchiinngg! and there we have it - first it was ONLY foxes, then ONLY cats and now its ONLY kids being traumatised. Its NOT 'nature in the raw' is it? Its a group of Haw-haws driving an animal to exhaustion for FUN and then letting their hounds tear it APART. If you'd TAKEN PART in a hunt as I HAVE, then you might have a different view. But then, as you are part of the 'huntin', shootin', fishin' set I doubt it.

People do get traumatised by seeing animals kill other animals, I get that, I do. But I can't help agreeing with Midas, thats their problem, not the problem of the huntgoers (so not a word). Hounds chasing foxes whilst oddly dressed priviliged types follow on horseback is obviously nowhere near natural, however, what happens when the hound catches the fox, no matter how man-made the situation is, is just the laws of nature. As I said before, I think it all comes down to where you draw the lines, now for me, if the huntgoers (!) were torturing the foxes using man-made weapons of some sort, then that would be wrong. But as they are just using other animals, animals that live to hunt, then although not something I would take part in, I can't see that much of a problem with it.

[Trouble43]

People do get traumatised by seeing animals kill other animals, I get that, I do. But I can't help agreeing with Midas, thats their problem, not the problem of the huntgoers (so not a word). Hounds chasing foxes whilst oddly dressed priviliged types follow on horseback is obviously nowhere near natural, however, what happens when the hound catches the fox, no matter how man-made the situation is, is just the laws of nature. As I said before, I think it all comes down to where you draw the lines, now for me, if the huntgoers (!) were torturing the foxes using man-made weapons of some sort, then that would be wrong. But as they are just using other animals, animals that live to hunt, then although not something I would take part in, I can't see that much of a problem with it.

So because a dog is bred to tear a defenceless animal to pieces its alright, but if a human did it, either with their bare hands or a device of some sort, it isn't it? You do know that argument makes absolutely no sense right?

Why is it alright for animal to do it, but not anyone or anything else? Where is the difference for God's sake?

[Midas]

So sorry I seem to have upset you, again.

Not in the slightest; I'm far more phlegmatic about things than you seem to be!

As with any topic where you hold emotionally based views, such as religion, once you are faced with facts which you can't challenge, you resort to long and rambling posts in which you try to argue all kinds of peripheral matters in your usual emotionally charged way. When again the facts are brought up, particularly if backed up with actual quotes or statistics, your tactics change to snide innuendo directed at whoever had the temerity to challenge your opinions.

To quote your remark in another thread, "sorry, I'm not biting". I've made my point and stated the facts and simply because you disagree and want to argue it emotionally, it doesn't mean that either you're right or that others wish to play the same game, or indeed that you've 'won' the argument!

[Trouble43]

Not in the slightest; I'm far more phlegmatic about things than you seem to be!

As with any topic where you hold emotionally based views, such as religion, once you are faced with facts which you can't challenge, you resort to long and rambling posts in which you try to argue all kinds of peripheral matters in your usual emotionally charged way. When again the facts are brought up, particularly if backed up with actual quotes or statistics, your tactics change to snide innuendo directed at whoever had the temerity to challenge your opinions.

To quote your remark in another thread, "sorry, I'm not biting". I've made my point and stated the facts and simply because you disagree and want to argue it emotionally, it doesn't mean that either you're right or that others wish to play the same game, or indeed that you've 'won' the argument!

Okay, let me spell it out in a short sentence so you understand - Killing ANY animal by using dogs to tear it apart IS WRONG. SMEARING BLOOD from the carcass onto human faces IS WRONG. I have given instances of my own experiences as proof that its not all a 'bit of fun' nor in any way 'natural' (that would be like saying 'Dolly' the cloned sheep was 'natural'), which is want you usually go mental to have. However, I understand why you would wish to ignore that.

Simple and to the point enough for even you?

[DTE]

So because a dog is bred to tear a defenceless animal to pieces its alright, but if a human did it, either with their bare hands or a device of some sort, it isn't it? You do know that argument makes absolutely no sense right?

Yeah...unless you assume that human beings and animals are different in some way. Which I do. Why "defenseless"? Are you saying we should arm the foxes? If a human being killed an animal for food its fine. Even if they ripped it apart.

Dogs kill things, its in their nature, its primal and its the product of their evolution. In fact you could say the urge to hunt (in some manner, whether it be like this or with a gun) is a product of our evolution also.

Why is it alright for animal to do it, but not anyone or anything else? Where is the difference for God's sake?

Then again maybe you wouldn't.

[Trouble43]

Yeah...unless you assume that human beings and animals are different in some way. Which I do. Why "defenseless"? Are you saying we should arm the foxes? If a human being killed an animal for food its fine. Even if they ripped it apart.

I don't - every living thing has a right to a swift death. No, I am saying if a human killed an animal by ripping it apart whilst alive, its STILL wrong.

Dogs kill things, its in their nature, its primal and its the product of their evolution. In fact you could say the urge to hunt (in some manner, whether it be like this or with a gun) is a product of our evolution also.

well it certainly is with hunting hounds as they especially bred for their job. It USED to be a product of our evolution, as we needed to hunt to survive; not strictly necessary now, like we don't run around barefoot in animal skins shouting "ugg, ugg".

I also don't remember reading about Neanderthals riding on horseback with a pack of dogs and tearing apart any unsuspecting animals for fun, before smearing themselves in the animals blood.

Then again maybe you wouldn't.

No, you're right, I wouldn't. There is no evolutionary element in fox hunting.

[DTE]

I don't - every living thing has a right to a swift death. No, I am saying if a human killed an animal by ripping it apart whilst alive, its STILL wrong.

I assume from this statement that you are pro euthanasia then. And that you will be campaigning for the education of wild animals in the art of a 'humane kill'. Just because nature can be cruel doesn't mean its wrong.

well it certainly is with hunting hounds as they especially bred for their job. It USED to be a product of our evolution, as we needed to hunt to survive; not strictly necessary now, like we don't run around barefoot in animal skins shouting "ugg, ugg".

Well, you are assuming there that evolutionary tendancies can simply be switched off, which is logically in direct opposition to the theory of evolution itself.

I also don't remember reading about Neanderthals riding on horseback with a pack of dogs and tearing apart any unsuspecting animals for fun, before smearing themselves in the animals blood.

I'm guessing the smearing of animals blood does come from the primal celebration after a kill. Don't hold me to that though, I obviously haven't done as much research as you have. And they're "unsuspecting" now...right. So far it seems foxes should be armed and also be warned in some way. How about a single note from a bugle?

No, you're right, I wouldn't. There is no evolutionary element in fox hunting.

Apart from all the living creatures involved that is.

[Trouble43]

I assume from this statement that you are pro euthanasia then. And that you will be campaigning for the education of wild animals in the art of a 'humane kill'. Just because nature can be cruel doesn't mean its wrong.

This isn't nature - its a load of humans on horses with a pack of dogs bred specifically to kill foxes. There is nothing 'natural' about it. But yes, I am pro euthenasia - I do not believe in any living thing suffering unnecessarily (though of course with humans it should be the patient's personal choice when to end their own life); why; is that a problem?

Well, you are assuming there that evolutionary tendancies can simply be switched off, which is logically in direct opposition to the theory of evolution itself.

I thought we were supposed to evolved - or are you saying we're all just one step away from going neanderthal again?

I'm guessing the smearing of animals blood does come from the primal celebration after a kill. Don't hold me to that though, I obviously haven't done as much research as you have. And they're "unsuspecting" now...right. So far it seems foxes should be armed and also be warned in some way. How about a single note from a bugle?

Hunts do have a horn actually. Well, I don't know if they do a leaflet drop to warn the foxes, but as they couldn't read anyway what would be the point?

Research is one thing - very clinical. Experience is something else - I've actually BEEN on a hunt and seen what happens when the fox is caught. Something, apparently, both you and Midas have not. Go on one, actually watch the fox get torn apart alive, see some of the riders get blooded and one holding the brush aloft to the baying riders and gore covered hounds, and then tell me you still think its all good clean honest fun and that I'm just a sad little spoilsport for wanting it stopped.

Apart from all the living creatures involved that is.

I could be wrong, I mean I usually am. But to my honest knowledge I have yet to see a lion dressed in a particular riding outfit, astride a large horse with hounds out in front chasing down a wildebeast. Where, on having seen the hounds tear the wildebeast apart whilst alive; take the tail, smear blood on their fur and then ride off laughing about what a 'grand day its been'.

In fact, I have yet to see any animal hunt in that way. Sadly THAT form of sadistic barbarity is all man's doing.

[SussexWithLove]

Would we still be having this debate if the hunters actually took the fox home for their pot?

[Trouble43]

Would we still be having this debate if the hunters actually took the fox home for their pot?

Yes, because its the WAY the fox is killed that is so unnecessary.

[Midas]

Yes, because its the WAY the fox is killed that is so unnecessary.

You mean being killed in the natural way it would be if the countryside was still wild do you? That's as opposed to being badly shot and maimed to die slowly, or to be trapped and be left in agony for hours or even days before dying, or perhaps being poisoned and crawling off into the undergrowth to die an extremely painful death. Me, I'd rather face the hounds and at least stand a chance of escaping.

[Trouble43]

You mean being killed in the natural way it would be if the countryside was still wild do you? That's as opposed to being badly shot and maimed to die slowly, or to be trapped and be left in agony for hours or even days before dying, or perhaps being poisoned and crawling off into the undergrowth to die an extremely painful death. Me, I'd rather face the hounds and at least stand a chance of escaping.

Right. 1. there is nothing natural about being hunted by people on horses and then ripped apart by dogs for fun.

2. Badly shot? Don't make me laugh, most farmers I know are bloody excellent shots. Its only the hoorays in the 'huntin', shootin', fishin' set' that are crap shots; and then its the pheasants and ducks, etc that suffer.

3. being poisoned - farmers rarely do that in case it affects their own livestock. Again they prefer their guns.

4. Get away? Yeah right - they never have chance once they're run to ground. With a pack of about forty dogs, on the hunt I was on anyway, against one lone fox there isn't a hope the poor creature will escape.

But you go on and defend the hoorays, Midas; we shall just have to beg to differ on this one. However, there is nothing to stop these saddos doing drag hunting.....oh, except the fact they can't satisfy their sadistic bloodlust at the end. I don't doubt for one moment that if the person who did the dragging got torn apart by the hounds there would be a huge outcry.

I just hope that we can ensure this barbaric sport remains BANNED. Hopefully we can even extend it in the future to include other so-called 'sports' like that. Though perhaps you would prefer it if we brought back other 'sports' like bear baiting and such?

[Midas]

As usual when you get all emotional about a subject, your objectivity goes out of the window.

Right. 1. there is nothing natural about being hunted by people on horses and then ripped apart by dogs for fun.

Natural hunting in the wild by packs of animals does involve them being torn to pieces - watch any nature documentary. The aspect of being followed by people on horses is simply an adjunct to the hunting; it's the dogs chasing a natural prey that does the killing, and despite your emotive words of "ripped apart", in 95% of the cases it's a very quick death.

2. Badly shot? Don't make me laugh, most farmers I know are bloody excellent shots. Its only the hoorays in the 'huntin', shootin', fishin' set' that are crap shots; and then its the pheasants and ducks, etc that suffer.

I assure you it happens far more often than you'd like to think, probably because to accept the truth would undermine your claim.

3. being poisoned - farmers rarely do that in case it affects their own livestock. Again they prefer their guns.

Again it happens far more often than you'd like to think, and although there don't seem to be any statistics, it's common enough amongst smallholders who have only penned animals and birds.

4. Get away? Yeah right - they never have chance once they're run to ground. With a pack of about forty dogs, on the hunt I was on anyway, against one lone fox there isn't a hope the poor creature will escape.

The majority of foxes will run like hell or go to ground the moment they even hear the hounds, way before the dogs have picked up their scent. It's only a small minority which actually get caught. Many hunts came back having caught no foxes at all. Check the facts.

But you go on and defend the hoorays, Midas; we shall just have to beg to differ on this one. However, there is nothing to stop these saddos doing drag hunting.....oh, except the fact they can't satisfy their sadistic bloodlust at the end. I don't doubt for one moment that if the person who did the dragging got torn apart by the hounds there would be a huge outcry.

I just hope that we can ensure this barbaric sport remains BANNED. Hopefully we can even extend it in the future to include other so-called 'sports' like that. Though perhaps you would prefer it if we brought back other 'sports' like bear baiting and such?

Don't put words in my mouth. I've never even mentioned "hoorays", you brought them in as one of your sidelining tactics, as you have done with all your references to other forms of hunting, or rather a mixture of pest control and efficient countryside management. I don't see where the analogy is between that and bear baiting; you must be struggling to have to bring that subject up. Why don't you try to take on the fishing lobby too; dragging the poor little things out of the water using a barbed hook in their mouths only to have them die 'drowning' in air over the next few minutes (far longer than it takes a fox to die!).

Or how about getting back to the real reason fox hunting was banned, the Labour party being determined to get one over the Tories simply because of their historic association with it, and the way the Parliament Act was invoked to do so. I notice you've somehow forgotten to comment on that somewhat important fact, but then facing facts never was your strong point when you think your outpouring of emotion and obfuscation can supplant them.

And FWIW, I do indeed hope the Tories revoke the law on fox hunting. Not, as I've said several times before, because I have the slightest interest in it per se, but simply because of the reason and way the ban was enforced in the first place.

[Opinionated]

You mean being killed in the natural way it would be if the countryside was still wild do you?

What is a fox's natural predator out of interest? Perhaps wolf? Couldn't really introduce a natural pest solution could we, without losing much more livestock. It is not in the dogs nature to visciously kill, they are bred that way and then starved in the days preceeding the hunt in order to raise a blood lust, they are also destroyed whilst still healthy because they are unfit to live with families!

That's as opposed to being badly shot and maimed to die slowly, or to be trapped and be left in agony for hours or even days before dying, or perhaps being poisoned and crawling off into the undergrowth to die an extremely painful death. Me, I'd rather face the hounds and at least stand a chance of escaping.

Is there no quick acting poison attractive only to foxes? I'm also with Trouble on this, the farmers I know are fantastic shots, one of the problems with that is that a fox won't choose a time to attack that suits a farmer.

[Trouble43]

As usual when you get all emotional about a subject, your objectivity goes out of
the window.

I was very objective to begin with; its just your ridiculous argument that what happens on a hunt is 'natural', that has made me 'emotional'.

But as I said, I think we need to beg to differ about this one. You side with the hoorays (no shock there) and I side with the animals.

As I said I will be lobbying my local tory hopeful, along with others, to ensure he understands that rescinding the ban will NOT win votes. I will also be writing to Cameron. Again, from what I've read on the news, I doubt I will be alone.

I'm with O74, I think there's nothing natural about what goes on in any way, shape or form. But you can go on thinking different if you wish; it won't change the facts - hunting is NOT a sport, its NOT natural and it IS cruel.

[DTE]

Would we still be having this debate if the hunters actually took the fox home for their pot?

Probably not. And there lies the hypocrisy in the anti fox hunting arguement. Its okay to kill for food, but not for sport. Why is that exactly? Its not like we as the human race are starving and every animal we kill is a necessity.

OP74 has a point about the dogs, I'll admit that. (See Trouble, if someone presents an argument without insisting on personalising the foxes, I can get behind it) However, the cruelty issue is the one (other than the classism) that is most divisive. As I said before, nature is cruel, does'nt mean its wrong.

[Midas]

What is a fox's natural predator out of interest? Perhaps wolf? Couldn't really introduce a natural pest solution could we, without losing much more livestock. It is not in the dogs nature to visciously kill, they are bred that way and then starved in the days preceeding the hunt in order to raise a blood lust, they are also destroyed whilst still healthy because they are unfit to live with families!

As far as I know it's only golden eagles, red kites and badgers which predate on foxes, even then it's only on the cubs. Wolves certainly did hunt foxes, and although there are moves to return them to the wild in Scotland, I can't somehow see it becoming a widely accepted means of control!

Yes, the dogs were kept hungry before a hunt, but they were hardly likely to show much interest in chasing for food, the way that would have done naturally in the wild, if they had full bellies. Whilst in their kennels the hounds were very well looked after though, I'd suggest better than many pet dogs, and as for being put down at the end of their hunting days, yes, but I personally don't have a problem with that. Many different animals get killed for all sorts of reasons without any public complaint; it's simply that we associate dogs with household pets rather than with anything else.

Is there no quick acting poison attractive only to foxes? I'm also with Trouble on this, the farmers I know are fantastic shots, one of the problems with that is that a fox won't choose a time to attack that suits a farmer.

Not that I'm aware of - the poison that is. I don't disagree that the vast majority of farmers are excellent shots, they have enough practice, but they have to learn somewhere, as do plenty of other gun owners who go quite legally into the countryside, and although not with foxes, I've seen plenty of pigeons and rabbits injured but not killed by less than accurate shots.

But behind all this I have to keep coming back to the point that Trouble keeps on avoiding; that this ban was not brought in for any reasons concerning cruelty or conservation, but solely for party political reasons. Why else were Labour MPs put on a three line whip and why was the 1911 Parliament Act, originally designed to get deadlocks on measures of constitutional, military or similar importance resolved, used to over-ride the House of Lords? It's for that reason more than anything else that it was wrong.

[Trouble43]

Probably not. And there lies the hypocrisy in the anti fox hunting arguement. Its okay to kill for food, but not for sport. Why is that exactly? Its not like we as the human race are starving and every animal we kill is a necessity.

OP74 has a point about the dogs, I'll admit that. (See Trouble, if someone presents an argument without insisting on personalising the foxes, I can get behind it) However, the cruelty issue is the one (other than the classism) that is most divisive. As I said before, nature is cruel, does'nt mean its wrong.

I am not 'personalising' the foxes, just saying the hunting of them with hounds is wrong because of the way they're killed for 'fun'. If they are decimating your livestock, then shoot them. It's what my local farming community does - not rocket science really is it?

Oh and you will see that my answer to SWL said that yes, even if the fox was killed for the pot by a hunt I would still object. Its the WAY the fox is killed, as I keep repeating, that I object to. There is NOTHING natural about it.

If they're a pest to you personally and you don't have a gun or don't like them, ask your local farmer to help you out. Despite what Midas says, they are crackshots and would be more than happy to help. Even the smallholders are very good; again, despite what Midas says.

The ONLY gun users that tend to injure mammals are what I like to call the 'hoorays'. Some, very few, but some are good shots - not farmer level, but good none the less; but most are just people with money (usually men) who think shooting birds, etc is (again) 'fun'. Give me a farmer any day; they are crack shots for a reason.

[Trouble43]

But behind all this I have to keep coming back to the point that Trouble keeps on avoiding; that this ban was not brought in for any reasons concerning cruelty or conservation, but solely for party political reasons. Why else were Labour MPs put on a three line whip and why was the 1911 Parliament Act, originally designed to get deadlocks on measures of constitutional, military or similar importance resolved, used to over-ride the House of Lords? It's for that reason more than anything else that it was wrong.

Nope I haven't avoided it at all. In fact I've replied every time; to my way of thinking its just the tories and the hoorays getting upset that the nulab and general public have been telling them what to do for a change. The status quo has always had the upper classes telling the of us what to do; they don't like the change.

The tories wanting to bring back hunting is just them trying to re-establish the old status quo. Apparently they care about as much for democracy as any other political party once in power. The house of lords, made of hoorays, objected to the banning of the hunt; the tories, made up of a lot of hoorays, objected to the banning of the hunt - in other words those who felt they were better than the rest of us didn't like being told what to do. Sadly for them the public overwhelmingly objected to hunting with hounds and so nulab pushed through the ban. Democracy worked; the tories and their hooray friends need to deal with that and move on, instead of bleating about being bullied.

If anyone is trying to bully, its them; by saying they will rescind a democratically invoked ban they are merely showing themselves in their true colours.

But as I say, we will have to beg to differ on this one - you support the killing for fun, I don't. You say the poor hoorays and tories were bullied by dastardly nulab into giving up good clean family fun; I don't think they were.

I think hunting with hounds is utterly UNnatural; you don't. I think the the ban was a democratic decision brought about the general public; you think the upper classes and tories were short changed.

You think hunting is a sport; I think its cruel. Not much more to add is there? So what's the pont going on?