Fox hunting poll in todays Irish Times

stevoman

peasant wrote: »

I have never been to a hunt and I will never go to one either , I could not guarantee for my actions.

TBH i think you are heavily misinformed. But you do think you are right and your doing your bit for nature. I just think you just fit into the "joe Q public anti hunting section", as far as im concerned.

Go to a hunt, do some real research and if you want pop on over to us in the hunting forum, great, and everyone can have a more "informed" debate.

togster

peasant wrote: »

In this forum, your main reason and justification for hunting foxes by horse and hound has been that of population control, conservation and "natural selection" of fox by hound ...which supposedly is good for the fox population as a whole.

During this long thread this argument has been disproven utterly and substantially.

Yes population control and conservation. I never mentioned "natural selection". You did. You could be accused of "selective selection".

My argument hasn't been disproven at all. In fact anytime i countered your argument, you threw something else out there. Like the point you brought up about the foxes in the sanctuary. I explained why that couldn't be hunted and you avoided it.

peasant wrote: »

- you only ever kill a percentage of the foxes, quite a lot get away. Whether those killed actually are the weak and sick or just random specimen that the hounds just happenend upon remains questionable

Would you like if we killed them all? I can only speak for my hunt and say that the majority killed are older foxes. I can say this because i know what older foxes look like. I also know what sick foxes look like. I also explained how sick older foxes are hunted. But agian you seemed to have missed that.

peasant wrote: »

- you only ever hunt in certain areas. Even if the hunt should result in an envigored/cleansed fox population, cross populating with foxes from unhunted areas will quickly change that again

- no attempts are made to control fox populations that lie outside your immediate area of interest.

Actually we only hunt areas we are permitted to hunt;) again i pointed this out to you. Many hunts hunt more than one area. we have things called "meets" which cover a wide expanse of countrside.

As for not controlling foxes outside of this area. Again i fail to see what this has to do with anything?? We hunt in areas we are allowed to.

peasant wrote: »

I'd say ...BAN IT ...because it's pointless, useless, ineffective and cruel.

Yes we know you think this :rolleyes: but you have yet to prove how that is so. You know very little about the subject. You just don't like the idea and you are entitled to that. But please try and inform yourself. Hating something just because is rubbish.

peasant wrote: »

And now, please go back to the hunting forum from whence you came

Eh no.

peasant

I'm not anti-hunting ...haven't you realised this yet ?

Man has made such a mess of the natural environement that there is no other choice but to control certain animal populations via hunting.

But I'm very much opposed to several hunting practices that are just cruel and cynical ...foxhunting being one of them.

The others are a debate for another day.

togster

peasant wrote: »

Nowhere in this thread have I said that I'm opposed to all forms of hunting.

So what forms of hunting do you agree with? Please enlighten me.:)

peasant wrote: »

This farmer has a real problem with foxes and has approached the local foxhunt to please lend him a hand with a few people on foot with a few hounds and/or terriers to flush the foxes out and shoot them.

They couldn't be arsed ...because it's not a real foxhunt (read: "no fun") and it would be too much like hard work. Yet the very same hunters (different dogs though) happily slush through the very same muck in pursuit of duck and pheasant.

I find it hard to believe they would happily hunt pheasants and not foxes on foot. Are you sure you have your facts straight?:)

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

To bring this thing to an end before it descents into utter foolishness let's summarise:

In this forum, your main reason and justification for hunting foxes by horse and hound has been that of population control, conservation and "natural selection" of fox by hound ...which supposedly is good for the fox population as a whole.

During this long thread this argument has been disproven utterly and substantially.


- you only ever kill a percentage of the foxes, quite a lot get away. Whether those killed actually are the weak and sick or just random specimen that the hounds just happenend upon remains questionable

This is better than doing nothing as a % of foxes is better vermin control than zero foxes. That's a fact you cannot dispute, hunting with hounds controls more foxes than not hunting them. Pretty simple really. So it is a form of vermin control, is it 100% effective, no, are there other effective methods yes. Does that mean hunting with hounds should be banned, hell no.

- you only ever hunt in certain areas. Even if the hunt should result in an envigored/cleansed fox population, cross populating with foxes from unhunted areas will quickly change that again

This is an arguement for more fox culling not less, if hunting was more widespread or there was a natural predator for the fox then this would only help thin weaker animals. Again not a valid reason to ban hunting, a reason for more of it actually.

- no attempts are made to control fox populations that lie outside your immediate area of interest.

Do you really expect people skilled at with horse and hound to apply these skills to urban areas and the likes. That is complete nonsense. As already pointed out dealing with foxes in an urban or likewise setting and hunters become useless because what they are good at no longer applies. That is pure foolishess on your part. How can someone shoot or hunt with hounds in towns.

So I just negated all your points, funny that as all along we have said your arguement was not a convincing one.

If we now get into all the other aspects like animal cruelty to foxes; questionable living conditions for the hounds outside of the hunt; injury to hounds and horses during the hunt; damage to land, fences and wildlife / farm animals during the hunt;

Which are not cruel at all really compared to any commercial farming or nature itself lets not forget.

...all that remains is a social activity that rates the enjoyment of people very much higher than the damage done to animals (and property) and cloaks itself in the mantle of conservationism.

I'd say ...BAN IT ...because it's pointless, useless, ineffective and cruel.

I'd say let people hunt as you have yet to make one strong point against it.

It wasn't me!

Man has made a mess? Your options here are somewhat limited. You can advocate the atrophication of farmland, and we'll all subsist on foraging and hunting (NO! Hunting bad!) or you can accept that the agricultural expansion of mankind is due to the demands of the majority, and as such, needs to be maintained. Personally, I'd love the former approach, but while you aren't prepared to forage and kill your own food, you directly increase the demand for agriculture, which exists to supply you, and has to contend with vast problems to supply you with your meat, which in my mind is sullied by its industry. Shooting pheasant or duck or grouse or woodcock leaves no guilt. The animal never suffered, never lived in horrific conditions as a result of my demand for meat, and is going to be a whole lot nicer and better than Supervalu's battery farmed chickens. So I'll take my ethically sound meat and leave you to argue the evils of killing foxes while your oven cooks something truly worthy of guilt.

cowzerp

Bendihorse wrote: »

Why do the red coats in particular bother people so much?
The hunt i used to ride out with (and plenty of other irish hunts) wear green coats if that makes anyone feel better about things??

The colour is irrelevant-the Huntsmen wearing them are foolish stupid looking morons that get a power trip out of hunting an animal that has not got a hope, even when the fox gets away its dug out of the hole, this is not sport as there is only 1 winner, or should i say 50, thats fair, 50-1, if there is a health reason for culling these animals the government should humanely put the animals down, if you've ever been chased by a gang of lads who want to give you a kicking imagine how the fox feels been chased by 40 hounds and horses with there horns going off-:o

This will be banned-its just a matter of time..i suppose you've no problem with dog fighting with pitbulls as the dogs dont feel fear like humans?

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

The colour is irrelevant-the Huntsmen wearing them are foolish stupid looking morons that get a power trip out of hunting an animal that has not got a hope, even when the fox gets away its dug out of the hole, this is not sport as there is only 1 winner, or should i say 50, thats fair, 50-1, if there is a health reason for culling these animals the government should humanely put the animals down, if you've ever been chased by a gang of lads who want to give you a kicking imagine how the fox feels been chased by 40 hounds and horses with there horns going off-:o

This will be banned-its just a matter of time..i suppose you've no problem with dog fighting with pitbulls as the dogs dont feel fear like humans?

great contribution. well argued:rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

cowzerp wrote: »

The colour is irrelevant-the Huntsmen wearing them are foolish stupid looking morons that get a power trip out of hunting an animal that has not got a hope, even when the fox gets away its dug out of the hole, this is not sport as there is only 1 winner, or should i say 50, thats fair, 50-1, if there is a health reason for culling these animals the government should humanely put the animals down, if you've ever been chased by a gang of lads who want to give you a kicking imagine how the fox feels been chased by 40 hounds and horses with there horns going off-:o

This will be banned-its just a matter of time..i suppose you've no problem with dog fighting with pitbulls as the dogs dont feel fear like humans?

The fox is not dug out the majority of the time.

The government is not responsible for the culling of foxes, but the rangers do their job where possible, though they're woefully underappreciated, don't have the time, numbers or resources required. hunters do their part as a result.

Stop personifying foxes. It's not rational.

dog-fighting serves no ethical purpose and does not result in clean, undisputable kills. It's not a fair comparison.

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

Try to follow the discussion, if you can

Nowhere in this thread have I said that I'm opposed to all forms of hunting.

Never said you were

This farmer has a real problem with foxes and has approached the local foxhunt to please lend him a hand with a few people on foot with a few hounds and/or terriers to flush the foxes out and shoot them.

I'm sure he does, you said they lived in a marsh land that floods quite often. Strange an animal like a fox would let its home fill with water on a regular interval.

They couldn't be arsed ...because it's not a real foxhunt (read: "no fun") and it would be too much like hard work. Yet the very same hunters (different dogs though) happily slush through the very same muck in pursuit of duck and pheasant.

Or maybe just maybe because it is a dumb and stupid way of controlling fox on marsh land and one guy with a lamp is much more effective on that terrain. Fox being mainly a nocturnal or crepsucular animal and incapable of living directly in an area which floods he would not be there in the day time. Normal hunts usually flush a fox near its home as they take place in daylight, which the fox does not favour, the marsh is not its home so they would more than likely fail to meet them. But that would makes sense and could not be. Small team with rifle and lamp would be much more successful anyway but especially on a marsh where dogs and men would be slowed.

cowzerp

im not arguing im stating the truth. them lads are the most sad people, they make me laugh at how sad they look and are-they have serious issues wanting to kill defensless animals-did you watch the video earlier on where they dug the fox out of the hole? sickening and not sport, sport is where either side can win and should be fairly matched up.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Man has made a mess? Your options here are somewhat limited. You can advocate the atrophication of farmland, and we'll all subsist on foraging and hunting (NO! Hunting bad!) or you can accept that the agricultural expansion of mankind is due to the demands of the majority, and as such, needs to be maintained. Personally, I'd love the former approach, but while you aren't prepared to forage and kill your own food, you directly increase the demand for agriculture, which exists to supply you, and has to contend with vast problems to supply you with your meat, which in my mind is sullied by its industry. Shooting pheasant or duck or grouse or woodcock leaves no guilt. The animal never suffered, never lived in horrific conditions as a result of my demand for meat, and is going to be a whole lot nicer and better than Supervalu's battery farmed chickens. So I'll take my ethically sound meat and leave you to argue the evils of killing foxes while your oven cooks something truly worthy of guilt.

very well put

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

im not arguing im stating the truth. them lads are the most sad people, they make me laugh at how sad they look and are-they have serious issues wanting to kill defensless animals-did you watch the video earlier on where they dug the fox out of the hole? sickening and not sport, sport is where either side can win and should be fairly matched up.

Well i don't have any issues. It takes skill and balls to cross country like we do.

cowzerp

togster wrote: »

Well i don't have any issues. It takes skill and balls to cross country like we do.

Funny, why dont you do boxing or something, then its 1 on 1 and your the 1 who might get hurt-:p BALLS!!! THAT MADE MY DAY!! bugle-beep beep

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

Funny, why dont you do boxing or something, then its 1 on 1 and your the 1 who might get hurt-:p BALLS!!! THAT MADE MY DAY!! bugle-beep beep

ignorance is bliss i guess? Why don't you come back when you can construct a coherent sentance and contribute something.

It wasn't me!

I don't hunt on horseback, but riding horses at speed is feckin' terrifying. Fair play to thems as can handle it well.

By the by, your opinions on traditional dress are unimportant. Foxes are not defenceless, or there would be no chase and hunts would kill hundreds of foxes a year.

Do you complain when people trap rats and mice? Far less humane in many cases, but has to be done to some extent. How about cockroaches? Or flies? Or if there's a wasps' nest in your vents, what do you do about it? Do you catch them and release them into the wild?

cowzerp

so stating that it takes balls is contributing something!!!!! sad little man..your on animal lovers forum talking about tearing foxes apart and we're meant to be grateful? forget it, issues i think!

peasant

Vegeta wrote: »

I'm sure he does, you said they lived in a marsh land that floods quite often. Strange an animal like a fox would let its home fill with water on a regular interval.

Or maybe just maybe because it is a dumb and stupid way of controlling fox on marsh land and one guy with a lamp is much more effective on that terrain. Fox being mainly a nocturnal or crepsucular animal and incapable of living directly in an area which floods he would not be there in the day time. Normal hunts usually flush a fox near its home as they take place in daylight, which the fox does not favour, the marsh is not its home so they would more than likely fail to meet them. But that would makes sense and could not be. Small team with rifle and lamp would be much more successful anyway but especially on a marsh where dogs and men would be slowed.

I have no idea where exactly the foxes live, neither has the farmer ...all he knows is that they are within his sheep on a regular basis.

He has a shotgun, but he's not very good with it ...so he's asked for help from the "experts" which is not forthcoming.

(Because they can't eat the fox and couldn't be arsed helping this guy out because it would mean work and possibly a few attempts at it...yet they regularly tresspass his land to shoot fowl where they shouldn't.)

It wasn't me!

Yup, because as animal lovers we conserve populations within the ecology. If you give a dog a raw chicken breast and it tears it up to eat it, do you gag and swoon? Because foxes are dead when they're torn up, so it's no different. Of course, you just mentally distance yourself from the chicken in the tiny cage when frying up your fillets, but the reality is you contribute to far, far worse than fox hunting.

cowzerp

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you complain when people trap rats and mice? Far less humane in many cases, but has to be done to some extent. How about cockroaches? Or flies? Or if there's a wasps' nest in your vents, what do you do about it? Do you catch them and release them into the wild?

Rats caused the black death and are killed by a simple whack when the trap comes down, like a fox been shot, there not chased for hours by 40 cats with eejits on horses blowing there bugles pretending to be hardmen!

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

so stating that it takes balls is contributing something!!!!! sad little man..your on animal lovers forum talking about tearing foxes apart and we're meant to be grateful? forget it, issues i think!

No but if you read the rest of the thread i have tried to enlighten people as to what we do. I never talked about tearing anything apart. Actually quiet the opposite. But again you missed that i guess?
As for the sad little man comment...:rolleyes: I never insulted anyone here and i would appreciate if you didn't do the same.

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

chased for hours by 40 cats with eejits on horses blowing there bugles pretending to be hardmen!

Cats?? Check your facts mate. And btw we are not hard men, nor do we pretend to be.

togster

peasant wrote: »

(Because they can't eat the fox and couldn't be arsed helping this guy out because it would mean work and possibly a few attempts at it...yet they regularly tresspass his land to shoot fowl where they shouldn't.)

Why would he ask for help from people "tress-passing" on his land?
Something is not quiet right....

It wasn't me!

cowzerp wrote: »

Rats caused the black death and are killed by a simple whack when the trap comes down, like a fox been shot, there not chased for hours by 40 cats with eejits on horses blowing there bugles pretending to be hardmen!

I asked do you complain. Traps are not that humane, by a long shot, and foxes are not chased for hours. A hunt may chase several foxes a day, but the chases last about twenty minutes. And shooting is a damn sight faster than a trap at its best in any case.

peasant

Vegeta wrote: »

very well put

very well put maybe ...but totally besides the point (as are most of "it wasnt me"'s contributions.)

What thas shooting your own meat in comparison with buying "produced " food from the supermarket to do with foxhunting ?

Nothing ...that's what

cowzerp

togster wrote: »

Cats?? Check your facts mate. And btw we are not hard men, nor do we pretend to be.

Thats not meant as reality, cats chase mice and rats, obviously this is not done but your obviously not able to work sarcasm out,

oh and i know your not hard men-thats why you choose to do a "sport" where you always win! weak people who want to show some power!!!
either this or you's are conservationists and im reading it all wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hendrix89

It's an evil act to kill a fox. And surely more so to do so in this barbaric fasion, or 'sport'... People who participate in fox hunting sicken me. They are evil cold hearted scum of the earth and I would treat them with less respect than bacteria.

I obviously voted YES on the banning of this cruel sport.. And the length that these fox murdering scumbags go to ensure the continuation of the so called sport just angers me so much...

togster

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats not meant as reality, cats chase mice and rats, obviously this is not done but your obviously not able to work sarcasm out,

Oh right...good one:rolleyes:

cowzerp wrote: »

oh and i know your not hard men

Glad thats cleared up....

cowzerp wrote: »

to do a "sport" where you always win! weak people who want to show some power!!!

Not all sports are about winning.

cowzerp wrote: »

weak people who want to show some power!!!

Again you are wrong. Im finished with you. You have contributed nothing.

Bye bye.

togster

Hendrix89 wrote: »

just angers me so much...

Yes you sound bitter.

Hellrazer

My opinion on it is that Fox hunting or any hunting where there is unnecessary cruelty involved should be banned.

Running a defenceless animal into the ground,then digging that animal out after its made it to safety and letting the hounds tear it to pieces is downright cruel.

All I keep hearing is that its for "vermin control" which is bull****.And we "dont hunt for pleasure" which is more bull****.