Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

Dyr

togster wrote: »

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

lolers ye werent avoiding it but it took ye three go's to admit they're there to be shot.Well done togster, We had to go around the houses but we got ye there in the end.

Now, you would contend that foxes are lowdown dirty killers who deserve to be hunted by a pack of dogs because they will kill your pheasants even if they dont need the food. You, me ould son , on the other hand will rear the pheasants in captvitity and then release them so yis can shoot them for sheer craic of blowing them away while they rise up into the air, bear in mind if you actually wanted them for food you could have given them both barrels in the pen which would be humane. So given that the ould madra rua is goverened by instict and you're goverened by free will, then by your own logic, you're far worse than a fox. So what should we hunt you with? pitbulls?

And as for the whole "its okay because we ated them all." Its horsesh*te, i know lads in wicklow who cant give the fecking things away in november they've so many hanging in the shed. At least have the balls to be honest and say "we like shooting dem dere birds outta the sky and thats all there is to it"


"with a lot of good done"

eh where's the lot of good again, Itwasn'tme?

It wasn't me!

The raise the pheasants that aren't shot makes to their wild population? Or did you gloss over that? Also, why is shooting them in the pen humane, rather than letting them loose? And yeah, pheasant is delicious, and shooting is a sport, and I don't think either of those is going to change any time soon.

Do you contend that foxes don't kill the pheasants? That they don't kill livestock or harm populations of wild birds and small animals?

And yeah, shooting is fun, challenging, a service to the environment and supplies meat. I can't see a single thing wrong with any of that, and if you can, you're looking at something different.

Lockstep

snyper wrote: »

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?

Snyper, IMHO you should STFU and get back in Lolocaust.

It's just not the same seeing you debating an issue as when you make politically incorrect statements.

It wasn't me!

He's responding to a case of harassment and threats made after this thread, so I think there's a more important issue to address here.

Dyr

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The raise the pheasants that aren't shot makes to their wild population? Or did you gloss over that? Also, why is shooting them in the pen humane, rather than letting them loose? And yeah, pheasant is delicious, and shooting is a sport, and I don't think either of those is going to change any time soon.

Do you contend that foxes don't kill the pheasants? That they don't kill livestock or harm populations of wild birds and small animals?

And yeah, shooting is fun, challenging, a service to the environment and supplies meat. I can't see a single thing wrong with any of that, and if you can, you're looking at something different.

Im guessing from the incomprehensible gibberish that is your opening statement that you think raising pheasants for de shooting is somehow helping the wild population. The pheasant population will get along fine without your help , but if you're really worried you could always lay off shooting em for a year :rolleyes:

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you contend that foxes don't kill the pheasants? That they don't kill livestock or harm populations of wild birds and small animals?

I never contended any of that, but feel free to make more silly stuff up. Foxes do what they evolved to do

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And yeah, shooting is fun, challenging, a service to the environment and supplies meat. I can't see a single thing wrong with any of that, and if you can, you're looking at something different.

what service would that be now? killing off every predator in this country bigger than a rat so their prey overbreeds and needs to be shot? Trust me, the environment will get along just fine without shooting. fun challenging and all that other lark is subjective so you can't really say it does "good"

It wasn't me!

Bambi wrote: »

Im guessing from the incomprehensible gibberish that is your opening statement that you think raising pheasants for de shooting is somehow helping the wild population. The pheasant population will get along fine without your help , but if you're really worried you could always lay off shooting em for a year :rolleyes:



I never contended any of that, but feel free to make more silly stuff up. Foxes do what they evolved to do



what service would that be now? killing off every predator in this country bigger than a rat so their prey overbreeds and needs to be shot? Trust me, the environment will get along just fine without shooting.

Foxes are a far bigger threat to the pheasant population than shooters, as are modern farming techniques.

How is releasing a given number of pheasants into the wild, then shooting a smaller number, not contributing to numbers? That's a net gain if my maths are up to scratch. No fear of pheasants overbreeding anyway, the numbers are consistently down this year, so I guess we'll just have to make a better go of pest control for next year, won't we?

AckwelFoley

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Snyper, IMHO you should STFU and get back in Lolocaust.

It's just not the same seeing you debating an issue as when you make politically incorrect statements.

If i decided to in the morning, i could kill every fox i lay eyes on.

I break no law.

Fox hunters on horses kill a few dozen nationwide all year, and there is UPROAR.!

Why?

Because of the assumption of the elitest nature of the sport which is infact unfounded in todays world

Its a classist issue.

Guns kill more foxes, but thats not a problem because gun owners are not calssed as snobbs.

Thats the simple point im trying to make.

AckwelFoley

Bambi wrote: »

Im guessing from the incomprehensible gibberish that is your opening statement that you think raising pheasants for de shooting is somehow helping the wild population. The pheasant population will get along fine without your help , but if you're really worried you could always lay off shooting em for a year :rolleyes:
"

Responsible gunclubs commonly practice this.

Please come up with a more logical statment next time, rather than "lay off the phesants for a year" crap.

Flukey

Fox hunting provides employment for thousands of people from farriers to dog breeders,clothing suppliers,stables,grooms,feed suppliers and a host of others.

All those jobs could be still there even if there was no hunting. A ban on hunting is not going to stop people riding around the country on their horses. They can do all of their usual things, without killing foxes. You may be shocked to know this, but people have been known to go horse riding without killing foxes. People have been known to breed dogs, without killing foxes. People have been known to work in stables, without killing foxes. People have been known to supply clothes, without killing foxes. People have been known to provide feed, without killing foxes. All those people can keep their jobs and all those people can go riding around the country as much as they want to and have their fun days out without killing foxes!

There has been much talk about vermin in this thread. When it comes to fox hunting, the only vermin are the ones sitting on the horses. It is not a class issue either. You get difference classes of people that go hunting, but it is not who they are, but what they are doing that is the problem. Farmers can easily look after their livestock and poultry and keep them safe from foxes if they want to. There are loads of excuses for fox hunting. I've never heard a good one yet.

WhiteWashMan

from ah

Dyr

Gunclubs practise what? There's three seperate statments in the passage you quoted, all of which you could be referring to. Please be more concise next time instead of coming up with that "this" crap. kthx

And feel free to point out the flaw in the old logic there snyper. Knock yourself out buddy.:)

It wasn't me!

Wow, all of a sudden, foxes aren't vermin, and it's up to farmers to protect their land other ways.

This is the real world however, where foxes are a problematic predator whose numbers need to be controlled for the benefits of the ecology and agriculture.

It wasn't me!

Bambi wrote: »

Gunclubs practise what? There's three seperate statments in the passage you quoted, all of which you could be referring to. Please be more concise next time instead of coming up with that "this" crap. kthx

And feel free to point out the flaw in the old logic there snyper. Knock yourself out buddy.:)

He meant gunclubs rear pheasants every year in order to keep stocks high, as it's in their interest to ensure plenty of pheasants in their area.

AckwelFoley

Farmers can easily look after their livestock and poultry and keep them safe from foxes if they want to.

You, with a statment like that define the ignorance associated with the subject!

Give me one simple method that farmers can stop foxes from killing young lambs born naturally on a 200 acre plot of land?

Please id love to hear it.

I got an idea.. sneak up on the fox and shake sugar on his tail?


You might think i grew up knee high in cow sh1te , but you'd be verry wrong. I grew up in a rough part of whats well known as a rough town, but i through life have been presented with oppertunities to see other walks of life and i took those oppertunities.

I see way too many comments from the anti hunting lobby that are as usual bullsh1t. Most of You dont know the first thing about rural life and culture, you dont know the first thing about farming, yet you want to press your beliedf and values on other ppl.

To call people who hunt foxes as "vermin" really is an indictment on to your own up bringing because its rather apparent you people have your values completely mis directed.

Flukey

snyper wrote: »

You, with a statment like that define the ignorance associated with the subject!

Give me one simple method that farmers can stop foxes from killing young lambs born naturally on a 200 acre plot of land?

Please id love to hear it.

They could use the land more efficiently, so they are not so spread out and easier to mind, but that's a side issue which you'll attack me for being too smart. Anyway, in the areas they do keep them, proper fencing and enclosures could be built. Foxes are clever, but I don't think they've yet worked out how to unlock a padlock. Now I note you used the word "simple" there so you'll tell me it is completely impractical to secure 200 acres of land, or even much smaller, with caging and fencing. Perhaps, but as we keep getting told, this is all about protecting a farmer's livelihood, so if that is what it takes, well then...! Farmers are ingenious people, much moreso than the foxes, so I am sure they can come up with many very inventive ways of protecting their livelihood, without resorting to hunting foxes themselves, or letting some other crowd do it, and at little cost to themselves.

Even if foxes do kill a few lambs that have been "born naturally", at least they will have "died naturally", a lot more natural than what way many of them are destined to die. Granted, foxes may kill more than they need to eat and cause damage that way, but their principle reason for killing lambs is basically the same as the farmers have for keeping them. Both the farmers and the foxes need ways to help themselves and their families survive. If the farmer loses a few sheep, he'll survive. He can afford that. He can also come up with ways to protect most of the herd if he has to, ways that don't involve hunting.

Anyway, most of the hunting is done for "sport" and "fun" and for a day out, with very little of it being done for the practical reasons of protecting farmers and their livelihoods. It is just one of many empty excuses used to try and justify it. The foxes may kill more sheep than they need to, but the same could be said about the hunters and what they kill. Tally-Ho!

AckwelFoley

They could use the land more efficiently, so they are not so spread out and easier to mind, but that's a side issue which you'll attack me for being too smart. Anyway, in the areas they do keep them, proper fencing and enclosures could be built. Foxes are clever, but I don't think they've yet worked out how to unlock a padlock.

lol..

im wasting my time even talking to you.

lol... thats soo funny..

fences.. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! to keep foxes out? and sheep in? hahaha!! brilliant!! Invent one.. u'll be minted.

Legend.

Google "balderdash"

I think ur little snide comment at the end "Tally ho" shows the real issue here, ive said it before, its an actual hate you ppl have for what you believe to be "snobs" rather than any concern for foxes.


You think farmers can afford to lose lambs? Nominate yerself a farmer.. every time a lamb dies take 100 euro out of your weeks wages and give it to him.. because its only a 100 euro per lamb on average.. sur 100 euro is nothing out of a wage packet..

Dyr

And feel free to point out the flaw in the old logic there snyper. Knock yourself out buddy.

Whenever your up to it snyper, no rush.

doctor evil

Flukey wrote: »

They could use the land more efficiently, so they are not so spread out and easier to mind, [QUORE]

What in small boxes?, battery hens come to mind...

,

proper fencing and enclosures could be built. Foxes are clever, but I don't think they've yet worked out how to unlock a padlock.

Any idea how building and maintaining such a thing would cost?, esp in hilly areas such as Kerry?. Not to mention even less access for walkers and the like. Keep Ireland Open would love that:rolleyes:

Now I note you used the word "simple" there so you'll tell me it is completely impractical to secure 200 acres of land, or even much smaller, with caging and fencing. Perhaps, but as we keep getting told, this is all about protecting a farmer's livelihood, so if that is what it takes, well then...!

Farming is under enough red tape without adding more stuff to it. You do know foxes every single night will check possible defects and will do their damdest to get through. When lambing season comes the farmer is swamped with work on top of his/her usual load. Do you really think they have time to check and repeatedly fix every chink in the chain?.

If the farmer loses a few sheep, he'll survive. He can afford that.

Lot of farmers work part time these days, and not by choice but need.

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

Whenever your up to it snyper, no rush.

And in your own good time, please tell me the last time you were ever within 3 miles of a fox or a hunting party?

And if you're going to be snide, you're is the correct way to shorten you are.

Flukey, please stop posting, if you had any idea of the cost of the fencing you are suggesting, you wouldn't have suggested it.
Also, Flukey, all those jobs you mentioned still would exist without fox hunting, but they would be greatly reduced, people breed dogs for hunting foxes as a pack, people supply the red coats and stuff for people hunting foxes, so please don't be so naive as to think a ban on hunting wouldn't have any affect on the economy.

Flukey wrote:

He can afford that.

How much do you give to charity each month?
10 Euro? 20?
Would you give 100 Euro to charity for every lamb a farmer lost and still be able to afford it? Get real! Farming is unprofitable enough without letting foxes have the run of the countryside.

Flukey wrote:

There are loads of excuses for fox hunting. I've never heard a good one yet.

There are also a load of excuses for getting locked at the local pub. I will never hear a good one because there aren't any.

So reasons for fox hunting;
Vermin control. Without which fox numbers would surely explode.
Keeping fit. Nothing like riding full belt across an open field to show your weak muscles. (Disagree with this and prove you have NEVER ridden a horse/pony).
As a social meeting. Much like the pub, but in the fresh air and without the booze, so much better than the pub really.

IRLConor

Bambi wrote: »

And as for the whole "its okay because we ated them all." Its horsesh*te, i know lads in wicklow who cant give the fecking things away in november they've so many hanging in the shed.

Please PM me their phone numbers next November. I will be happy to take some off their hands.

Option 1: Raise pheasant, shoot pheasant, eat pheasant.
Option 2: Raise chicken, kill chicken, eat chicken.

Where's the difference again?




As for the original quesition:

Are there more efficient ways of killing foxes than hunting on horseback? Yes, a good rifle in the right hands will kill a lot more foxes in a shorter time period. Does fox hunting with hounds on horseback look silly? Undoubtedly. Are either of these good reasons for a ban? No.

I honestly don't understand why people consider a fox chasing down a rabbit "natural" but hounds chasing down a fox "cruel".

Given that humans are going to kill foxes anyway (out of economic need apart from anything else) and that being hunted by another animal is not an unnatural death for a fox I don't see what the fuss is all about!

The point about "killing for fun" is a bit of a red herring too. If someone goes out with a gun and shoots foxes and cheers when the fox dies is it somehow worse for the fox than if the hunter is somber at all times? Does the fox suffer more or less?

The "humans should be held to higher standards than animals" argument is horsesh*t BTW. Claiming we're on some sort of higher moral plane than every other animal on the planet is the kind of elitism that the people on horses in red coats get blamed for. Unless you're some sort of ultra-vegan* you (directly or indirectly) kill living things for food. Unless you only eat just what you need to survive, you (directly or indirectly) kill living things for pleasure.

* I'm defining "ultra-vegan" here as someone who doesn't eat anything which has ever lived, so no plants don't count either. I don't know if it's even possible to live like this, it would certainly be hard work.

revan23

this is ridiculous, does anyone honestly think an online poll run by the independent, especially one where it seems people can repeatedly vote as many times as they like (rendering it useless) is going to change anything?
relax.

Black Swan

My pet Kerry Fox would appreciate it if you would ban fox-hunting.

Dyr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And in your own good time, please tell me the last time you were ever within 3 miles of a fox or a hunting party?

And that is relevent to snypers post how?

Exactly.


oh btw if YOUR (lol) going to be try play the grammar game then that sentence should have been: "You're" is the correct way to shorten "you are". Hate that

thelurcher

MODS - Have some replies to this thread been removed

I know BryanL had a very informative post and I can't find it now?!?!?!?
I made a reply aswell and it seems to have dissapeared?

Neither post was defamatory or very argumentative - they were just stating facts.

rrpc

I think this is a different thread lurcher. The other one was moved to humanities.

Degsy

Flukey wrote: »

They could use the land more efficiently, so they are not so spread out and easier to mind, but that's a side issue which you'll attack me for being too smart. Anyway, in the areas they do keep them, proper fencing and enclosures could be built. Foxes are clever, but I don't think they've yet worked out how to unlock a padlock. Now I note you used the word "simple" there so you'll tell me it is completely impractical to secure 200 acres of land, or even much smaller, with caging and fencing. Perhaps, but as we keep getting told, this is all about protecting a farmer's livelihood, so if that is what it takes, well then...! Farmers are ingenious people, much moreso than the foxes, so I am sure they can come up with many very inventive ways of protecting their livelihood, without resorting to hunting foxes themselves, or letting some other crowd do it, and at little cost to themselves.

Even if foxes do kill a few lambs that have been "born naturally", at least they will have "died naturally", a lot more natural than what way many of them are destined to die. Granted, foxes may kill more than they need to eat and cause damage that way, but their principle reason for killing lambs is basically the same as the farmers have for keeping them. Both the farmers and the foxes need ways to help themselves and their families survive. If the farmer loses a few sheep, he'll survive. He can afford that. He can also come up with ways to protect most of the herd if he has to, ways that don't involve hunting.

Anyway, most of the hunting is done for "sport" and "fun" and for a day out, with very little of it being done for the practical reasons of protecting farmers and their livelihoods. It is just one of many empty excuses used to try and justify it. The foxes may kill more sheep than they need to, but the same could be said about the hunters and what they kill. Tally-Ho!

LOL!Where to start..staggering stupidity.You should refrain from commenting further,you're out of your depth.

PS
Anybody who wants to threaten pro hunt people on this forum PM me and i'll happilly meet them to discuss it further.

thelurcher

Thanks rrpc

rrpc

Flukey wrote: »

Now I note you used the word "simple" there so you'll tell me it is completely impractical to secure 200 acres of land, or even much smaller, with caging and fencing. Perhaps, but as we keep getting told, this is all about protecting a farmer's livelihood, so if that is what it takes, well then...! Farmers are ingenious people, much moreso than the foxes, so I am sure they can come up with many very inventive ways of protecting their livelihood, without resorting to hunting foxes themselves, or letting some other crowd do it, and at little cost to themselves.

Do you even know what area an acre is let alone 200? Do you know where sheep graze? Have you ever tried to fence a mountain?

An acre has a perimeter of approximately 260 metres. Secure fencing would cost approximately €3000 minimum for that small area and that's just for the materials.

And then you'd have to maintain it.....

:eek:

Mac Tire

Great Wall of China springs to mind!
Biggest problem with a fence is that foxes can dig

Mellor

Bambi wrote: »

Whenever your up to it snyper, no rush.

Bambi wrote: »

oh btw if YOUR (lol) going to be try play the grammar game then that sentence should have been: "You're" is the correct way to shorten "you are". Hate that

If you are going to act like a child and call people up on grammar on an internet forum, please make sure that you didn't make the same "error" that you are correcting only 6 posts previous. Intelligence is truely earned and not given.