Boxing Day Hunt

[csider]

Have you had too much cider csider?

No.......but had some wine with my VEAL....lovely.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No.......but had some wine with my VEAL....lovely.

was it veally good?

 

[Alfred the greatx]

Strewth. This still going on? Quite simple all you animal-lovers who reckon it's cruel or barbaric - go vegetarian or have the guts (sic) to go to an abbatoir or battery farm and see how your meat gets from a living creature to your dinner table or takeaway.

Hunting's a darn sight more humane than some of the farming methods that you lot don't seem to give a shit about. Mind you, from most of the replies in this thread it's not actually about the animal, more to do with the fact that you perceive the hunters to be toffs. No war like a class war.

I dont think that's really fair Buzzer. I do agree that most people would stop eating meat if they had to watch it being slaughtered but they don't have to!

If you, me or anyone else see cruelty we should try to stop it. The banning of hunting with hounds is only a tiny part of the work that needs to be done to protect animals and, yes, the country types that do the hunting are often the very farmers that use the inhumane farming methods of which you speak.

I am really glad that many people think the class side of hunting, that has allways clouded the anti cruelty point, is now a thing of the past and the red coated huntsmen and women are all now working class.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I dont think that's really fair Buzzer. I do agree that most people would stop eating meat if they had to watch it being slaughtered but they don't have to!

If you, me or anyone else see cruelty we should try to stop it. The banning of hunting with hounds is only a tiny part of the work that needs to be done to protect animals and, yes, the country types that do the hunting are often the very farmers that use the inhumane farming methods of which you speak.

I am really glad that many people think the class side of hunting, that has allways clouded the anti cruelty point, is now a thing of the past and the red coated huntsmen and women are all now working class.

Pseudo toffs then.

 

[glasfryn]

Strewth. This still going on? Quite simple all you animal-lovers who reckon it's cruel or barbaric - go vegetarian or have the guts (sic) to go to an abbatoir or battery farm and see how your meat gets from a living creature to your dinner table or takeaway.

Hunting's a darn sight more humane than some of the farming methods that you lot don't seem to give a shit about. Mind you, from most of the replies in this thread it's not actually about the animal, more to do with the fact that you perceive the hunters to be toffs. No war like a class war.

I am a veggie,I have been to an abbatoir,battery farm, and I try to feed my cats with organic meat products,they don't eat from cans if I can help it (they are all fussy bastards so this does not always happen).
and I hope I am not Crusty.
but I am old,old enough to have done a bit of sabbing in my time.

thread closed .....................................................PLEASE

 

[1066familyman]

I don't really care about foxes, there are hardly an endangered species.

I just wish that the pro-hunting lobby would admit the reality of it.

It is basically a sport where thousands of dogs are bred for the purpose of killing another animal. When the dogs are unable to keep up with the rest of the pack at half their natural lifespan they are destroyed. 3000 a year according to huntsman themselves.

There it is. Breeding animals to kill other animals for fun.

Yes there is a whole industry that has built up around it, but I'm sure if dog fighting was allowed there would be a similiar support industry.

I think it's something that is very difficult to police and ban, but I'd just wish the people doing it would be a bit more honest publically about the sport they love.

Having read through this thread, it comes as no surprise to me that you've asked this perfectly legitimate question THREE times now and still not got an answer.

Unless I've missed it, and someone actually has answered you, I think you could go on asking the same question over and over again and still get no response. Now, I wonder why that is ?

Btw, don't let the horse racing fraternity fool you that a broken leg on a horse is incurable and therefore "for the best" that the horse is shot if it suffers a leg break. It's only "for the best" in pure economic terms.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Having read through this thread, it comes as no surprise to me that you've asked this perfectly legitimate question THREE times now and still not got an answer.

Unless I've missed it, and someone actually has answered you, I think you could go on asking the same question over and over again and still get no response. Now, I wonder why that is ?

Btw, don't let the horse racing fraternity fool you that a broken leg on a horse is incurable and therefore "for the best" that the horse is shot if it suffers a leg break. It's only "for the best" in pure economic terms.

Cant we just have a good old class dust-up on boxing day instead?

 

[1066familyman]

Cant we just have a good old class dust-up on boxing day instead?

That's fine, and I'm all for it; but just so long as you know that - " The revolution won't be televised "

 

[csider]

was it veally good?

sure was. love the taste of a caged up baby cow............moooooooooooooo

 

[m20gull]

Having read through this thread, it comes as no surprise to me that you've asked this perfectly legitimate question THREE times now and still not got an answer.

Unless I've missed it, and someone actually has answered you, I think you could go on asking the same question over and over again and still get no response. Now, I wonder why that is ?

When you breed animals for pets there is a natural desire to sustain their lives as long as possible. When animals only exist (i.e. are bred) for a purpose then their "natural" life expectancy is much shorter: the duration for which they serve the purpose. Sheep bred to be become lamb or cows bred to become veal have a life expectancy of less than 12 months and then they are slaughtered - that's their life expectancy. Without the demand for lamb or veal they would not exist at all. So for hounds bred to hunt, why would you sustain their lives beyond that when they can hunt?

 

[1066familyman]

When you breed animals for pets there is a natural desire to sustain their lives as long as possible. When animals only exist (i.e. are bred) for a purpose then their "natural" life expectancy is much shorter: the duration for which they serve the purpose. Sheep bred to be become lamb or cows bred to become veal have a life expectancy of less than 12 months and then they are slaughtered - that's their life expectancy. Without the demand for lamb or veal they would not exist at all. So for hounds bred to hunt, why would you sustain their lives beyond that when they can hunt?

I admire your honesty and you're pretty much correct in what you say.

The fact is that the hounds are bred to hunt and when it's no longer economically viable to keep them they are indeed deemed to have "served their purpose" and then destroyed. It begs the question then as to why the hunt lobby would appeal to the emotions of people as regards the fate of hounds should hunting be banned ? It's surely hypocrisy when they show such scant regard for the welfare of an animal that has given them, presumably, so much pleasure in their 'sport' ? It's a bit like racing greyhound owners who 'destroy' their dogs, or worse still, sell them to vivisectionists once they're no longer good enough to race. Sorry, I'm not some daft anthropomorphist, but the people I've described above are truly heartless bastards IMHO.

Callous people who treat animals as mere commodities, only on this earth to serve man, are extremely arrogant to suggest that certain animals wouldn't exist at all if man didn't breed them for a specific purpose. Such animals would exist, but in fewer numbers and in a more 'natural' state.

Hunt supporters should cut the bullshit that they're doing everyone who lives in the countryside a favour though. The tradition argument is bollocks too as we once had bear baiting, and no end of sick forms of 'entertainment' that we have thankfully moved on from, or at least made illegal.

 

[Hove Lagoonery]

sure was. love the taste of a caged up baby cow............moooooooooooooo

Did you calve it youself ?

 

[m20gull]

It begs the question then as to why the hunt lobby would appeal to the emotions of people as regards the fate of hounds should hunting be banned ? It's surely hypocrisy when they show such scant regard for the welfare of an animal that has given them, presumably, so much pleasure in their 'sport' ?

It's not hypocrisy - it's politics. In any debate you would expect each side to put their side of the story in the way that gets them the best press.

It's a bit like racing greyhound owners who 'destroy' their dogs, or worse still, sell them to vivisectionists once they're no longer good enough to race. Sorry, I'm not some daft anthropomorphist, but the people I've described above are truly heartless bastards IMHO.

Callous people who treat animals as mere commodities, only on this earth to serve man, are extremely arrogant to suggest that certain animals wouldn't exist at all if man didn't breed them for a specific purpose. Such animals would exist, but in fewer numbers and in a more 'natural' state.

I don't think they are heartless, I just think they genuinely see them as commodities - an attitude which has persisted for millennia and exists still in many places. Just think of elephant or rhino poachers for one blatant example. But all meat eaters are in pretty much the same boat just divorced from the reality.

Hunt supporters should cut the bullshit that they're doing everyone who lives in the countryside a favour though. The tradition argument is bollocks too as we once had bear baiting, and no end of sick forms of 'entertainment' that we have thankfully moved on from, or at least made illegal.

The tradition argument is complete bollocks for the reason you suggest as is the idea that there is any element of population control of foxes given the small number they kill. I personally have always been ambivalent about hunting because few foxes are actually killed by them and there are much bigger injustices to which the parliament time could have been devoted. But now we have a position which actually works. Hunts carry on hunting but kill even less foxes than they used to!

 

[clapham_gull]

Having read through this thread, it comes as no surprise to me that you've asked this perfectly legitimate question THREE times now and still not got an answer.

To be honest I was playing devil's advocate. It's a question I always ask people who hunt and it's the question they always shy away from. Huntings "dirty little secret" if you like. Lucky for them the issue in most people's mind is the welfare of the fox and it's an argument they can always counter act very well.

( I was even locking up a neighbours ducks over easter in the country because of what a fox might do to them for fun.. )

The anti-hunting argument always seem to focus itself the wrong direction, and in my opinion undermining itself in the process.

Class obviously is an issue though, the historical and traditional working class pursuits of dog and cock fighting, and badger baiting continue to be cracked down on, but the fox hunting still continues......

.. mmmmm wonder why ?

 

[clapham_gull]

So for hounds bred to hunt, why would you sustain their lives beyond that when they can hunt?

.. why would you breed them for the purpose in the first place ?

Of course the definition of hypocritical bleating was the hunting fraternity bringing out the figures of the amount of horses and dogs that would have to be destroyed as part of the hunting ban.

 

[glasfryn]

m20gull said

"there are much bigger injustices to which the parliament time could have been devoted."

very true but they promised in their manifesto that banning fox hunting would be a priority.

which somewhat proves my theory that most politicians are lying toe rags

 

[Guy Fawkes]

.. why would you breed them for the purpose in the first place ?

Of course the definition of hypocritical bleating was the hunting fraternity bringing out the figures of the amount of horses and dogs that would have to be destroyed as part of the hunting ban.

But that arguement is comparable to the line of animal welfare and the so called cruelty to the fox, which is exaggerated to gain simpathy from the public. This has alot more to do with the PR battle on both sides and the anti's trying to hide their true reasons for the banning of the hunts, that it is a class thing.

When a fox escapes its persuers, should it still have to be destroyed because it will be suffering from shock, or does it just get on with its life again? or if a fuish is caughyt while someone is fishing, should the fish be humanely destroyed to prevent suffering due to shock, etc...

Animals persue other animals in real life, they may or may not be successful in their hunt, (or play as some animals do - like domestic cats) but they just get on with their life as before, look at Africa for example, Lions attacking Zebras, Crocs attacking Wildebeast etc. is it cruel for those animals to have been hunted? and an animal welfare issue?

 

[glasfryn]

But that arguement is comparable to the line of animal welfare and the so called cruelty to the fox, which is exaggerated to gain simpathy from the public. This has alot more to do with the PR battle on both sides and the anti's trying to hide their true reasons for the banning of the hunts, that it is a class thing.

When a fox escapes its persuers, should it still have to be destroyed because it will be suffering from shock, or does it just get on with its life again? or if a fuish is caughyt while someone is fishing, should the fish be humanely destroyed to prevent suffering due to shock, etc...

Animals persue other animals in real life, they may or may not be successful in their hunt, (or play as some animals do - like domestic cats) but they just get on with their life as before, look at Africa for example, Lions attacking Zebras, Crocs attacking Wildebeast etc. is it cruel for those animals to have been hunted? and an animal welfare issue?

lots of domestic cats DO eat their prey and catching them is in their nature as is finding a bolt hole in case their food (the food you feed them)disappears hence the reason why most cats go missing when they are moved to find a bold hole and some mug to feed them.
I have been in animal welfare for some time but have no problem with animals hunting other animals for food, I also have no problem with humans hunting for food (anglers catch fish and either eat them or let them go) and even culling for the enhancement of the breed is exceptable in some quarters,its the killing for the sake of it that gets me.
as I have said before and said by Oscar Wilde "its the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable"
now theres a toff..............................

 

[clapham_gull]

But that arguement is comparable to the line of animal welfare and the so called cruelty to the fox, which is exaggerated to gain simpathy from the public. This has alot more to do with the PR battle on both sides and the anti's trying to hide their true reasons for the banning of the hunts, that it is a class thing.

When a fox escapes its persuers, should it still have to be destroyed because it will be suffering from shock, or does it just get on with its life again? or if a fuish is caughyt while someone is fishing, should the fish be humanely destroyed to prevent suffering due to shock, etc...

Animals persue other animals in real life, they may or may not be successful in their hunt, (or play as some animals do - like domestic cats) but they just get on with their life as before, look at Africa for example, Lions attacking Zebras, Crocs attacking Wildebeast etc. is it cruel for those animals to have been hunted? and an animal welfare issue?

The sport is simply a human organised fight between two species, nothing more nothing less.

It has no parallel in nature at all and the dogs do not get on simply with their lives as before. They are bred for the purpose of killing and when their purpose is done they are destroyed.

It's a human activity the same way a football match is. Let's be honest about that and stop pretending what's happening is part of nature.

 

[Motogull]

I really can't understand why fox hunters are so defensive and passionate about what they do. Look at Otis Ferry, he seems so overly devoted that it has consumed him. In his case it seems that the fact that he cannot legally see dogs rip a fox to pieces means that he should invade parliament, interfere with witnessess etc. Is he all there?

I would love to go out in rural England on a trials bike through fields and forests, enjoying the peace and quiet and the shear beauty of this country, so I can see why horsey types want to. Why it needs to involve ripping up an animal, I'll never know - wouldn't enhance my enjoyment of a few hours mxing.

I also hate the bullshit and the secracy. We are supossed to believe that a few dozen hunters turn up, ride out, randomly come across a fox and then nature takes its course while they do sterling work in vermin control. Pull the other one. Apart from death by cars, most (many I think) foxes are shot. Dogs have to be trained by a process called cubbing which is something not discussed very openly it seems. Wiping blood on faces? Lovely.

Ann Widdicome summed it up best for me - it belongs in the past.