Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

Genghiz Cohen

SDooM wrote: »

I can see why. Rex would be a stupid name for a fox.

That raises and interesting and pointless point; what do you name a fox?

Doctor DooM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

That raises and interesting and pointless point; what do you name a fox?

Foxy cleopatra?

togster

SDooM wrote: »

No I haven't seen a trapped one.

How are the other 99% of foxes killed so?

What??
Well if you haven't seen a trapped one...then its really not a good suggestion to trap it because foxes get extremely stressed in confined spaces. Ever seen a fur farm with arctic fox.... The way they pace up and down.. Well now imagine a completely wild fox trapped for the forst time with human scent all over the trap. The fox will experience complete shock. So is this not cruel? I mean is this more appropriate than hunting a fox in wild open countryside? Who's to decide what is cruel or not? I would suggest people who have experience.

Spyral

Anyway, it's the dogs killing the foxes. It's what dogs do. It's like trying to ban lions from eating Antelope, in Africa.

so people dont kill people guns or bullets do ?

And as I said on the other, thread if I found any of these "hunters" on my land, I'd lay about them with a stick.

.303 rifle... dogs on a farmers land after all....

Foxes are overpopulated vermin.

dogs are mammals more specifically a type of canine if Im not mistaken.

Doctor DooM

togster wrote: »

What??
Well if you haven't seen a trapped one...then its really not a good suggestion to trap it because foxes get extremely stressed in confined spaces. Ever seen a fur farm with arctic fox.... The way they pace up and down.. Well now imagine a completely wild fox trapped for the forst time with human scent all over the trap. The fox will experience complete shock. So is this not cruel? I mean is this more appropriate than hunting a fox in wild open countryside? Who's to decide what is cruel or not? I would suggest people who have experience.

In the thread in the animal forum, one of the hunty people said that, in fact, hunts only take out 1% of the culled foxes.

As you pointed out, I am no expert, so I am asked: how are the other ones killed?

Please share with me your esteemed knowledge.

My points remain this:

1) There are (apparently) other more humane ways to kill foxes
2) Enjoying putting this sh*ts up an animal isn't ok, because it's fun, and being honest most people hunt because it's fun
3) Rex is a silly name for a fox.

Dyr

togster wrote: »

We don't have lords in Ireland. And foxes don't have ID's

Note: Please inform yourself of theses basic facts.

Technically, lordships still exist in ireland. Foxes however dont carry I.D though, well spotted togster. While you're here you could maybe answer this bit togster, it seemed to have evaded you razorlike intellect the first time around:

So what were the pheasants doing in the pheasant pin then?


Perhaps we should send delegations to other countries to see how they magically control their fox population without resorting to knobjockeys on horseback

Genghiz Cohen

SDooM wrote: »

In the thread in the animal forum, one of the hunty people said that, in fact, hunts only take out 1% of the culled foxes.

As you pointed out, I am no expert, so I am asked: how are the other ones killed?

I'd imagine by rifle, snare, and shotgun. Some people poison their land too.

togster

SDooM wrote: »

In the thread in the animal forum, one of the hunty people said that, in fact, hunts only take out 1% of the culled foxes.

As you pointed out, I am no expert, so I am asked: how are the other ones killed?

Please share with me your esteemed knowledge.

My points remain this:

1) There are (apparently) other more humane ways to kill foxes
2) Enjoying putting this sh*ts up an animal isn't ok, because it's fun, and being honest most people hunt because it's fun
3) Rex is a silly name for a fox.

OK but what are these other humane methods? You have already suggested one...but i hope you can see it isn't that humane. But then again what is humane? What is your definition of humane? My idea is probably different to yours!:)

I don't enjoy hunting because i scare an animal! OK? So please stop trying to put that rubbish on me. I enjoy it because i like to watch hounds work, the chase and hopefully a succesful chase resulting in a fox kill.
We do have rules you know!!;) We are not barbarians. That idea is because of ignorance of what we do.

And yes Rex is a silly name...Reynard is much better.

togster

Bambi wrote: »

Technically, lordships still exist in ireland. Foxes however dont carry I.D though, well spotted togster. While you're here you could maybe answer this bit togster, it seemed to have evaded you razorlike intellect the first time around:

So what were the pheasants doing in the pheasant pin then?


Perhaps we should send delegations to other countries to see how they magically control their fox population without resorting to knobjockeys on horseback

The pheasants were in the pin to keep them away from vermin. Again a little research would go along way.....

Doctor DooM

Spyral wrote: »

so people dont kill people guns or bullets do ?



.303 rifle... dogs on a farmers land after all....




dogs are mammals more specifically a type of canine if Im not mistaken.

Yes, and if my biology from college in the country isn't so rusty, foxes are a form of canine..?

Genghiz Cohen

SDooM wrote: »

Yes, and if my biology from college in the country isn't so rusty, foxes are a form of canine..?

Yup, but considered vermin, rather than game.

AckwelFoley

humanji wrote: »

Yes, because it'll piss off the toffs!

Its ignorant remarks like that, is why i ignore these discussions.

There is some bull**** assumption that foxhunting is for snobs.

Its not.

Ppl that want to ban it have never seen a fox let alone know the first thing about fox hunting.

AckwelFoley

togster wrote: »

We do have rules you know!!;) We are not barbarians. That idea is because of ignorance of what we do.
.

B.I.N.G.O.

Doctor DooM

togster wrote: »

OK but what are these other humane methods? You have already suggested one...but i hope you can see it isn't that humane. But then again what is humane? What is your definition of humane? My idea is probably different to yours!:)

I don't enjoy hunting because i scare an animal! OK? So please stop trying to put that rubbish on me. I enjoy it because i like to watch hounds work, the chase and hopefully a succesful chase resulting in a fox kill.
We do have rules you know!!;) We are not barbarians. That idea is because of ignorance of what we do.

And yes Rex is a silly name...Reynard is much better.

Yup but you are missing my point: I frankly don't care WHY you are hunting: the animal gets scared for its life and that is what I object to. Surely you are not going to argue that the animal is scared. This is where we are diametrically opposed! I don't think we're going to agree: but its an interesting argie. The reason I got onto the whole "humane" thing is because hunty types insist on going to the whole vermin thing when pushed on the "doing it for enjoyment" aspect: but from the other thread, it seems this isn't really all that valid a statement in anywho.

I can live with reynard.

EDIT: Out of here... was fun lads. Don't get too worked up, its only after hours

Mr. Incognito

I reckon we should arm the foxes with AK's and let them at it.

BLITZ_Molloy

I hunt myself and really hate bringing up this subject because it's such an emotional topic for many people that they have absolutely no interest in hearing my side of the argument. It's like trying to discuss the topic of abortion with someone who's fanatically religious.

My main point is as a poster mentions above is the number of foxes culled in hunting is absolutely tiny, especially on poorer land where I hunt in Clare. The odds are very, very heavily stacked in the foxes favour despite what you might think. While you have alot of dogs they invariably go the wrong direction, get lost for hours while you stand about in the rain or just go around in circles for a few hours and hours because there are several foxes in the area and their scenes all criss cross each other. I've had the fox run under the legs of my horse twice before and get away no problem. Before the hunt starts people have to pay a 'cap' that pays for the damage done to fields and walls by the hunt. The route is predetermined and if the fox goes off that section of farmland into another persons land who you haven't payed for then that's it, the fox is gone.

The crux of the issue for most people seems to be that people are doing this for sport and they have no intention of eating what they catch. I find this a bit moot. It's not like we're all starving here and need to be eating as much meat and fish as we do. Everytime you eat a cheap ass chicken roll you're propagating an incredibly cruel industry on a scale millions of times larger than anything to do with fox hunting. Ditto the fishing industry. I think alot of so called animal rights activists have got blinded by the fact foxes are cute and fluffy so they're getting all caught up on a very, very niche activity. There are acts of cruelty going on on a much larger scale that I admit I've been guilty of being a part of them well.

Frankly if people were more concerned with supporting rural communities, their customs (good and bad) and paying a little more to purchase locally reared meat then both they and the animals would lead much more healthy and fulfilling lives.

Dyr

togster wrote: »

The pheasants were in the pin to keep them away from vermin. Again a little research would go along way.....

Might want to look for a refund on that pin then togster. But come now togster, you're being coy. Were those pheasants in a pin so some "killers" could, at some stage, shoot them all "indiscriminately" like some sort of low down dirty... fox?

Blisterman

Spyral wrote: »

so people dont kill people guns or bullets do ?

Put a gun and bullet in a cage with a fox.

Then put a dog and a fox in a cage together.

Not exactly an accurate comparison, is it?

Mr. Incognito

The crux of the issue for most people seems to be that people are doing this for sport and they have no intention of eating what they catch

Ah, no. most people abhor the cruelty to the, the old, getting ripped apart bit by dogs and all.

It's like trying to discuss the topic of abortion with someone who's fanatically religious

No its not. Get real. People raise logical points you can't counter and you tarnish them with the fanatical brush.

There are acts of cruelty going on on a much larger scale that I admit I've been guilty of being a part of as well.

so two wrongs make a right?

Personally I don't give a **** about the foxes. If you tinned them I'd probably eat the feckers but the points raised as I see it objectively by the against camp are

1. Illegal destruction of land and trespass.
2. Animal cruelty as a pleasurable pastime. (although personally I agree that this is a load of **** considering what we do with chickens and even lobsters (boiling alive etc)
However it is animal cruelty as a form of entertainment as opposed to a food source which is a different kettle of fish imo.

Frankly if people were more concerned with supporting rural communities, their customs (good and bad) and paying a little more to purchase locally reared meat then both they and the animals would lead much more healthy and fulfilling lives.

Is this a point? I'm from a rural area and in general hunting is seen as an elitist thing as not too many people have horses out there in the countryside as a comparison of the general population. Hunting isn't a staple "rural communities". How does purchasing local meat affect......well anything.

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

Might want to look for a refund on that pin then togster.

If there is a way onto a pen, a fox will find it.

Bambi wrote: »

But come now togster, you're being coy. Were those pheasants in a pin so some "killers" could, at some stage, shoot them all "indiscriminately" like some sort of low down dirty... fox?

So all hunters a low down dirty fox's, yet another sweeping generalisation.

Even then to shoot a pheasant generally means you are going to eat it, as people said back a few pages, if you are going to eat it it's fine to kill it.
It's hard to get pheasant meat as it is, so I can't really see someone shooting a game bird just for the sport.

BLITZ_Molloy

SetantaL wrote: »

Ah, no. most people abhor the cruelty to the, the old, getting ripped apart bit by dogs and all.



No its not. Get real. People raise logical points you can't counter and you tarnish them with the fanatical brush.



so two wrongs make a right?

Personally I don't give a **** about the foxes. If you tinned them I'd probably eat the feckers but the points raised as I see it objectively by the against camp are

1. Illegal destruction of land and trespass.
2. Animal cruelty as a pleasurable pastime. (although personally I agree that this is a load of **** considering what we do with chickens and even lobsters (boiling alive etc)
However it is animal cruelty as a form of entertainment as opposed to a food source which is a different kettle of fish imo.



Is this a point? I'm from a rural area and in general hunting is seen as an elitist thing as not too many people have horses out there in the countryside as a comparison of the general population. Hunting isn't a staple "rural communities". How does purchasing local meat affect......well anything.

OK, it's a bit narrow of me to accuse people of being fantastical. I just feel the issue gets blown out of proportion. And I do feel the scale of animal cruelty is a crucial point. An animal being scared for 3 minutes and dying in 30 seconds is less of an issue than hundreds of millions of chickens spending their entire life standing in ****, other dead chickens and eating god only knows what. And because it's something that we all eat and involves everybody I get annoyed that this gets so much exposure. As an UK MP whose name escapes me said he was glad fox hunting was banned because it had wasted so much time in parliament that could have been spent tackling more important issues.

I'd be completely with you on the illegal tresspass and destruction. If they haven't paid in advance and got the farmers blessing then they have absolutely no right to be there. I've spent time rebuilding walls at my cousins place and it's a pain in the arse.

As I can see it most of the people don't go on hunts because they're mad to see an animal get ripped to shreds. They're mostly out for the craic, to meet some people, belt about fields going over massive walls and going out getting drunk afterwards. If for some reason the dogs don't turn up the thing usually goes on as normal and nobody bats an eyelid. I know that's what it was about originally but as the numebers of people going out has necessitated drag hunting the 'pure' hunting is really a thing of the dark ages. Yeah.. you still catch the odd fox if that's what you're all about you'll get very bored.

The elitist thing can be a problem alright. Now where I'm from most people have a horse or a pony somewhere. But Clare people tend to be a bit more horse mad than most. The hunts are maybe half local farmers/farmers kids and the rest rich townies and germans/americans. There are a certain amount of dull snobs but they're outnumbered. I'm not sure if that's the same way in the rest of the country.

togster

Bambi wrote: »

Might want to look for a refund on that pin then togster. But come now togster, you're being coy. Were those pheasants in a pin so some "killers" could, at some stage, shoot them all "indiscriminately" like some sort of low down dirty... fox?

Meh as already stated...a fox will get in anywhere. This pin had electric fencing everywhere but it still got in.

Seriously Bambi if you are going to argue with me....try a little harder;)

Lockstep

SetantaL wrote: »

Ah, no. most people abhor the cruelty to the, the old, getting ripped apart bit by dogs and all.



No its not. Get real. People raise logical points you can't counter and you tarnish them with the fanatical brush.



so two wrongs make a right?

Personally I don't give a **** about the foxes. If you tinned them I'd probably eat the feckers but the points raised as I see it objectively by the against camp are

1. Illegal destruction of land and trespass.
2. Animal cruelty as a pleasurable pastime. (although personally I agree that this is a load of **** considering what we do with chickens and even lobsters (boiling alive etc)
However it is animal cruelty as a form of entertainment as opposed to a food source which is a different kettle of fish imo.



Is this a point? I'm from a rural area and in general hunting is seen as an elitist thing as not too many people have horses out there in the countryside as a comparison of the general population. Hunting isn't a staple "rural communities". How does purchasing local meat affect......well anything.

Some good points there.

Dyr

togster wrote: »

Meh as already stated...a fox will get in anywhere. This pin had electric fencing everywhere but it still got in.

Seriously Bambi if you are going to argue with me....try a little harder;)

If a fox can get in anywhere then why bother with the pen? You said it was to keep vermin out yet now you're saying its impossible to keep vermin out.

So surely the pheasants would have had a better chance of survival if they were roaming free? unless the pen was to keep them in for some reason rather than to keep mr fox out. Were you lying to us togster?:eek:


BTW Im not arguing with you yet togster, I'm asking for clarification on something and you seem a teensy bit reluctant to give it. Why were the pheasants in the pen? Was it some sort of pheasant sanctuary run by an animal charity to keep them safe from foxes? Or perhaps was it so they could be taken out at a later stage and shot for sport? You seem to think foxes deserve whats coming to them as they are indiscriminate killers who kill pheasants when there's no need for it. Lets follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion here. C'mon toggy, you genius, spill the beans. answer the question, Why were the pheasants in the pen?

Lockstep

Bambi wrote: »

Why were the pheasants in the pen?

Togster has different physical needs to the rest of us.....

togster

Bambi wrote: »

If a fox can get in anywhere then why bother with the pen? You said it was to keep vermin out yet now you're saying its impossible to keep vermin out.

So surely the pheasants would have had a better chance of survival if they were roaming free? unless the pen was to keep them in for some reason rather than to keep mr fox out. Were you lying to us togster?:eek:


BTW Im not arguing with you yet togster, I'm asking for clarification on something and you seem a teensy bit reluctant to give it. Why were the pheasants in the pen? Was it some sort of pheasant sanctuary run by an animal charity to keep them safe from foxes? Or perhaps was it so they could be taken out at a later stage and shot for sport? You seem to think foxes deserve whats coming to them as they are indiscriminate killers who kill pheasants when there's no need for it. Lets follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion here. C'mon toggy, you genius, spill the beans. answer the question, Why were the pheasants in the pen?

OK here it goes...pay attention now;)

A pheasant pin is used to store young baby pheasants to feed them and give them a figthing chance against predators. OK? It is usually a side enclosed pin with electric fences to keep foxes, mink etc out. The pin is not enclosed at the top. When the birds are old enough they leave the pin. OK? So far so good

So to sum up.... the pin is used to alow the birds to mature before going into the big bad world also known as the countryside.

The pins are located in a game reserve. Many pheasants will leave the estate and travel to other areas around the estate. Some stay on the reserve. Novemner 1st is start of pheasant season and people usually pay to come and walk the land with their dogs and shoot and pheasants.

I hope you understand me now. I wasn't avoiding your question btw

It wasn't me!

yes, pheasants are reared to be shot.

Not all pheasants released are shot, many escape and propagate in the wild, contributing to increased numbers.

All shot pheasants are eaten, and a good time is had by all, with a lot of good done.

Where's the problem?

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

Why were the pheasants in the pen?

I'll answer if I may.

You keep the pheasants in a pen because it keeps their nesting area free from unwanted animals and people. It's nigh on impossible to stop anything getting in if it really wants to, so a pen will only deter the less desperate predators out there and keep people from walking/driving in the area.

The pens i have seen have an open top and a one way exit at ground level, fly in walk out.

All it really is, is a big sign saying 'Man Woz Ere!!'

togster

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Togster has different physical needs to the rest of us.....

Great lookin birds dem pheasants.;)

AckwelFoley

I dont fox hunt.

I havnt done so in 10 years.

I have however been alerted to tha fact that one member here has already received an anonymous phone call by a coward that wants to abuse him because he is not against fox hunting.


Im going to shoot 5 foxes for every cowardly threat that any member of the pro fox hunting group receive.

If you want to debate the subject fine. If you want to abuse , politely ask for their email. Cowardly lowfile threats shows the calibre of scum some (minority) of the anti fox hunting group are.

You threaten somone like a coward and i hear about it.. im taking my rifle and killing 5 foxes.

I dont represent the attitude of the pro fox hunting lobby, im certified mentally ill.... i can do stupid sh1t.. because this country expects that from ppl with mental illness.

Why will i kill the foxes?

Because i can.

How you like them apples?