Ban Fox Hunting Forever

[Meade's Ball]

ANY form of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrant, and I don't doubt that the conditions some poor animals are kept in before their slaughter are abysmal, and that they too suffer before they die. HOWEVER. The animals which suffer with poor living conditions generally do so because of a reason. Quite simply, its cheaper, easier and more economical to keep a large number of animals in a confined space. Its easier NOT to look after them properly before they are slaughtered. No-one is submitting them to those conditions for their own personal pleasure, thats just sometimes "the way it is". Now that absolutely doesn't make it right, or in any way justifiable, but that is (sometimes) the economic reality, and for these reasons I can fully understand why some people choose to be vegetarian. Farmers and retailers who do not look after animals bred for consumption should be heavily punished.

Animals suffering before becoming our food IS different to animals suffering for our pleasure though. Deliberately and maliciously inflicting a horrifying death on a living creature for fun, or for "sport", is just not acceptable.

What it boils down to is intent. In general, food producers do not INTEND to hurt or cause suffering to the animals they are breeding. They are not in it for the bloodlust and pleasure of seeing animals die. But the pro-hunt lobby are into exactly that. The thrill of seeing a creature torn to shreds is what turns them on, that is their intent when they go hunting. And thats just wrong, plain and simple.

Those animals are killed and often farmed cruelly for the pleasure you get from eating them and the money the companies make from your enjoyment.
I'm not sure that's much better.
Food producers simply do not care about animals because they see them as produce. Again, i'm not sure that indifference is a much better excuse for suffering.

 

[fatboy]

For food. No-one's trying to ban the killing of animals for that. This is, apparently, "sport".

Why should you kill animals for food.

There are enough non-animal foods to go around.

 

[caz99]

so basically your a vegan, non leather wearing law abiding person are you?

or are you to scared to hold your hands up and say your a hypocrite too

 

[Easy 10]

Sorry Easy 10 but I see it slightly differently. Animals suffering before becoming our food equates to animals suffering for our pleasure - ultimately we eat animals for pleasure and know that they have to undergo some degree of suffering (sometimes minimal and sometimes extensive) to satisfy our tastebuds. We are therefore being complicitous in their suffering

Thats true, its undeniable that the human race could continue to exist on a purely vegetarian diet. Humans are at the top of the foodchain though, that is just the natural order of things, and has been since the dawn of time. The way I see it, if a cow has been bred specifically for the purposes of my steak, and has been slaughtered humanely, then I still see this as being very different from hunting a fox and having dogs tear it up for fun.

It is a moral conundrum though. Is the pleasure I derive from eating a steak any different, morally, to the pleasure a huntsman derives from seeing his hounds rip a live fox to shreds ? Personally I think there is a big difference, but its not a case that can be argued in black and white terms.

 

[fatboy]

that the eating of animals is also a cruel and barbaric act and one that should be outlawed.

You can no longer justify it by saying it is a necessity as humans can easily survive without meat.

 

[caz99]

like i said thats your opinion only about humans surviving by not eating meat. if this is the case why have the human race been eating meat since long before you and i were born?

 

[Meade's Ball]

like i said thats your opinion only about humans surviving by not eating meat. if this is the case why have the human race been eating meat since long before you and i were born?

We get educated by things slowly. Humans are not built for sudden change. It took us thousands of years to believe in human rights and accept that as part of "society". Now, perhaps, it's time for animals. And the fox-hunting debate is possibly the tip of that bloody iceberg.

 

[fatboy]

Why is it illegal to kill humans for food but not animals?

 

[The Great Cornholio]

This should be a poll - surely. In fact, I'll start one.

 

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

If fox hunting leads to a cruel and slow death the should we not also ban all other methods that kill wild animals in a slow and painful way?

This of course would mean banning all motor vehicles which are the biggest killers of foxes etc.

Or maybe being smacked up the arse at 70mph and crawling to the side of the road is not as painful as hounds.

They both sound cruel to me.


Some common obstacles being faced by us and the pro hunting lobby.

We both have votes showing a majority in our favour but are being ignored.

We are both being screwed by party politics.

We are both fighting emotional causes.

However, whatever your view on hunting there are much more important issues to worry about.

(interesting to note there are almost as many views on NSC about hunting as the march)

 

[Kev the Ape]

NO!!!!!

 

[Brovion]

Those animals are killed and often farmed cruelly for the pleasure you get from eating them and the money the companies make from your enjoyment.
I'm not sure that's much better.
Food producers simply do not care about animals because they see them as produce. Again, i'm not sure that indifference is a much better excuse for suffering.

Excellent point Meade's_Ball, I think between us we've managed to upset everybody; anti-hunting meat-eaters are uncaring hypocrites, pro-hunting meat-eaters are reactionary scum, hard-line vegetarians and animal activists don't care about the planet.

Have I missed anybody out?

 

[Dancin Ninja BHA]

Re: Re: Re: Ban Fox Hunting Forever

What a stupid f***ing question.

Anyone who can't see why the EVIL that is fox hunting should be banned needs their head examined.

At the risk of sounding like Dwayne, anymore of the tosser smilie and I'll come and a bop you one on the nose if I ever see you at Withdean

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just happen to think that there are worse, much worse things to get worked up about than the plight of vermin.......which foxes are, after all.

Don't be so melodramatic young man......terrorism is evil, not foxhunting

 

[Meade's Ball]

Excellent point Meade's_Ball, I think between us we've managed to upset everybody; anti-hunting meat-eaters are uncaring hypocrites, pro-hunting meat-eaters are reactionary scum, hard-line vegetarians and animal activists don't care about the planet.

Have I missed anybody out?

I'm not upset. Perhaps you could say something about egotistical misanthropes.

 

[Dancin Ninja BHA]

But does the issue warrant the hysterior (sp) that surrounds it?

Its a class issue and people who argue otherwise aren't, I guess, being honest. People who bang on about the rights of a fox should get their priorities in order (NHS, Education, Pensions, Immigration, Crime, Yob Culture are important issues to me, but FOXES!!!! No ) [/QUOTE

Bearing mind you f*** pigs anyway you vew is biased.

THANKS BRITBYTE, I'VE HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING NASTY TO YOU FOR MONTHS, AND THIS IS HOW YOU REPAY ME?!!

Would you like it if your home town was invaded by a reviled section of our democratic society be it Watford or Leyton who wanted to make their poiint by abusing aninals ?

DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY EXPRESSMAN, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT.......

 

[Meade's Ball]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ban Fox Hunting Forever

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just happen to think that there are worse, much worse things to get worked up about than the plight of vermin.......which foxes are, after all.

Don't be so melodramatic young man......terrorism is evil, not foxhunting

How is your fight against terrorism going?

This fox-hunting business is something that everyone seems allowed to have an opinion about. We can openly discuss it withhout offending each other, yet it cuts a swathe through many of our beliefs from our feelings toward animals, toward violence, toward belief, toward protest and class.
That's maybe why it seems so important.

 

[SussexHoop]

I'm caught in two minds on this subject. I think fox-hunting is cruel but at the end of the day, they are vermin and need to be controlled.

I have only ever heard of 3 ways for a fox to be killed:

1) Fox-hunting - cruel if the fox is caught.
2) Shooting - swift if the marksman gets a clean kill, otherwise the fox escapes only to die a slow and painful death, which is equally cruel.
3) Poisoning - which involves the fox going away and dying a slow and painful death.

The fact is this government is now rushing this legislation through parliament for political reasons hence no serious consideration of alternatives. My own preference is for a combination of 2 of the above, which apparently is currently being used in Scotland although technically it is illegal. This is a combination of shooting and dogs. The marksman shoots the fox and the dogs are then released. If the marksman has done his job, the fox will already be dead. If the fox is injured, the dogs will catch it quite quickly and it will die quickly.

Still sitting on the fence, I dislike the idea of people involving themselves in this 'for fun' but the logical extension to that argument is that we ban fishing and horse racing. A horse can recover from a broken leg, but more often than not, racehorses are shot. Could it be that a living racehorse with a broken leg is worthless but a dead racehorse with a broken leg is an insurance claim?

 

[3gulls]

I'm caught in two minds on this subject. I think fox-hunting is cruel but at the end of the day, they are vermin and need to be controlled.

I have only ever heard of 3 ways for a fox to be killed:

1) Fox-hunting - cruel if the fox is caught.
2) Shooting - swift if the marksman gets a clean kill, otherwise the fox escapes only to die a slow and painful death, which is equally cruel.
3) Poisoning - which involves the fox going away and dying a slow and painful death.

The fact is this government is now rushing this legislation through parliament for political reasons hence no serious consideration of alternatives. My own preference is for a combination of 2 of the above, which apparently is currently being used in Scotland although technically it is illegal. This is a combination of shooting and dogs. The marksman shoots the fox and the dogs are then released. If the marksman has done his job, the fox will already be dead. If the fox is injured, the dogs will catch it quite quickly and it will die quickly.

Still sitting on the fence, I dislike the idea of people involving themselves in this 'for fun' but the logical extension to that argument is that we ban fishing and horse racing. A horse can recover from a broken leg, but more often than not, racehorses are shot. Could it be that a living racehorse with a broken leg is worthless but a dead racehorse with a broken leg is an insurance claim?

The only reason is that Tony Blair wants people to think that he is a for the working classes, whilst talking about a "classless society" and attacking what people BELIEVE is an upper-class sport.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

However, whatever your view on hunting there are much more important issues to worry about.

I just don't understand this view. It has been argued that fox hunting is less important than eg. transport and schooling, and hence is not a matter for concern. But surely the AIDS crisis (for example) is more important than transport?

So does this mean that transport is then not a matter for concern? If we follow SG and other's arguements, then we should only be concerning ourselves with one issue in the world at a time until it is solved, then working our way down in order of perceived importance. What a load of utter and complete nonsensical rubbish.

Though many may disagree, the government is capable of multi-tasking, and the murder of animals for a minority's entertainment and titilation is in no way unimportant. Ban it, and punish those who choose to flout the ban suitably.

 

[3gulls]

I just don't understand this view. It has been argued that fox hunting is less important than eg. transport and schooling, and hence is not a matter for concern. But surely the AIDS crisis (for example) is more important than transport?

So does this mean that transport is then not a matter for concern? If we follow SG and other's arguements, then we should only be concerning ourselves with one issue in the world at a time until it is solved, then working our way down in order of perceived importance. What a load of utter and complete nonsensical rubbish.

Though many may disagree, the government is capable of multi-tasking, and the murder of animals for a minority's entertainment and titilation is in no way unimportant. Ban it, and punish those who choose to flout the ban suitably.

What Aids "crisis"? The gay plague? Let the queers die!