Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

Dyr

jesus wept, its finger puppet time

I was pointing out to snyper (or whoever it was) that if he was going to play the grammar game (or act like a child as you put it) then he should pay attention to his own sentences. I couldnt be bothered calling people on grammar or spelling so long as they arent posting gibberish, the person could be mildly dyslexic for a start.

Anyway while we're here Mellor did you notice that "your" you mentioned was in capitals and had a (lol) behind it? What would that suggest? hmm? Perhaps that it was deliberate? Have a think about it. It makes sense


BTW You're thinking of respect rather than intelligence by the sound of it.

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

And that is relevent to snypers post how?

If you have never been to a hunt how can you comment on it?

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

No it shouldn't, I wasn't quoting you in that statement, you use " when you're quoting someone, like this: Bambi said "And that is ...".
I was pointing out a common error, because you were being childish, I see that hasn't changed overnight.

DeVore

This is being sent to Politics. These foxes arent worrying about what kind of sites to use nor indeed are the horses&hounds.


Politics charter and rules are in effect now. Play nice.

DeV.

BurnsCarpenter

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If you have never been to a hunt how can you comment on it?

Erm, I haven't been to a gang rape yet, but I'd have fairly strong opinions on them.

Genghiz Cohen

Dammit DeV, now I have to read another charter!

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

Erm, I haven't been to a gang rape yet, but I'd have fairly strong opinions on them.

Gang rape is illegal though, so it's a fairly safe bet.

djpbarry

Fox-hunting should most definitely be banned.

I would have serious reservations about anyone who gets a kick out of watching animals kill each other, or in this case, watching a large group of animals kill a single defenceless one.

reilig

DonJose wrote: »

http://www.ireland.com/head2head/

No, definitely not. I own a farm, keep sheep. Has anyone ever seen what a fox can do to a tiny defenceless lamb? Graphic images from Predator could match it. The country is becoming overrun with these fox's. They kill organic chickens, lams and other animals as well as attacking ewes and calves. On our land where there was once a few fox boroughs, now exists hundreds. A neighbour had their small dog half eaten by a fox and he had to be put down to take him out of pain. Imagine if this happened to one of your own pets???

The simple fact of the matter is that the fox population was always controlled by man since the beginning. They were used for their fur and in turn, the lower level of population meant that other domestic animals had a better chance of survival. In recent years, controlling the fox population became less acceptable in society and therefore the fox population has grown huge. Many fox's suffer food shortages at this time of year because of the cold weather and lack of vegetation and fruit growing on trees. They are forced to attack and kill other animals for their survival. When hunger gets so bad, it has not been unknown for fox's to attack each other.

While I'm sure many people will come back to me and tell me how cruel I am for writing this, but in the country this is the reality. Farmers need to control the fox population to ensure the survival of their animals. Traditional fox hunting involved dogs and horses. Its still carried out as a hobby in some places. But modern forx hunting involves rifles, snares, poison, gassing etc. Unlike traditional fox hunting which was done for pleasure, modern fox hunting is merely to control the fox population.

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of criticism for telling it as it is, but at least its the truth.

Lockstep

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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.

Or, you could lighten up and realize the difference between when someone is messing and when thet are being serious.


My personal views on fox hunting.

Cruel, pointless etc etc.


But, there are far more important issues than fox hunting.

Dyr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If you have never been to a hunt how can you comment on it?

I commented on a fox hunt in this thread? I dont remember that

Mellor

A refresh maybe

Bambi wrote: »

True, at least the hounds and the various lickspittles who attend them on behalf of his lordship check the foxes for ID before having a go. Oh wait...

Red Hand

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

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

Huh! And does the owner of this pet Fox want Fox-hunting banned?

It wasn't me!

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Or, you could lighten up and realize the difference between when someone is messing and when thet are being serious.


My personal views on fox hunting.

Cruel, pointless etc etc.


But, there are far more important issues than fox hunting.

And here was me thinking harassment was serious. Guess I'll just have to learn some more.

Lockstep

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And here was me thinking harassment was serious. Guess I'll just have to learn some more.

Dear God.


I was really only talking to Snyper, basically it was the first time I've seen him talk about something seriously. Usually when I see him outside of Lolocaust he is inserting jokes into otherwise serious conversations.

Snypers post was serious.

Mine wasn't.

Like I said, lighten up.

Riddle101

Yes it should be banned, leave the wildlife alone and do something less destructive like Plane spotting. Not to mention it's only for poshies so it's not affecting anyone important

Genghiz Cohen

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I was really only talking to Snyper, basically it was the first time I've seen him talk about something seriously. Usually when I see him outside of Lolocaust he is inserting jokes into otherwise serious conversations.

Snypers post was serious.

Mine wasn't.

Like I said, lighten up.

In fairness, when I read your post I thought you were saying how harassment wasn't serious, I thought you actually meant it. Cleared up now though.

Riddle101 wrote:

Yes it should be banned, leave the wildlife alone and do something less destructive like Plane spotting. Not to mention it's only for poshies so it's not affecting anyone important

That quote makes me think you are form a town/city.
Look back over the other posts and read how foxes affect farmers and wildlife, rad what would happen if they were left uncontrolled. It may change your mind.

AckwelFoley

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Dear God.


I was really only talking to Snyper, basically it was the first time I've seen him talk about something seriously. Usually when I see him outside of Lolocaust he is inserting jokes into otherwise serious conversations.

Snypers post was serious.

Mine wasn't.

Like I said, lighten up.

I was being sarcastic to make a point.

It went over your head.

No harm done.


End of story.

AckwelFoley

Riddle101 wrote: »

Yes it should be banned, leave the wildlife alone and do something less destructive like Plane spotting. Not to mention it's only for poshies so it's not affecting anyone important

Again i urge ppl that make idle comments based upon no fact, only an ill informed perception, to refrain posting rubbish in this thread.

Ive said it before and il say it one last time before i take a sh1t on this thread.

THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM VARIOUS WALKS OF LIFE INVOLVED IN FOXHUNTING,

To say otherwise is complete ignorance of the FACTS!!

Dyr

Now that we're in the politicis forum its time to put our serious heads on.


The argument boils down to a central issue. The activity in question here consists of a group of people pursuing a wild animal across countryside with a pack of dogs in an attempt to kill it, usually by having the dogs attack the animal en masse when they catch up with it. If you disagree with the idea that its okay for a wild animal to be chased and torn apart by a pack of dogs for a groups enjoyment then you are against hunting with hounds. I would believe that most people in Ireland would be against this as it is barabic and backward IMO. If you are okay with the idea then you have no problem with people hunting with hounds

Every other issue raised is a sidetrack (or a smokescreen) to this simple choice.

AckwelFoley

Bambi wrote: »

Now that we're in the politicis forum its time to put our serious heads on.


The argument boils down to a central issue. The activity in question here consists of a group of people pursuing a wild animal across countryside with a pack of dogs in an attempt to kill it, usually by having the dogs attack the animal en masse when they catch up with it. If you disagree with the idea that its okay for a wild animal to be chased and torn apart by a pack of dogs for a groups enjoyment then you are against hunting with hounds. I would believe that most people in Ireland would be against this as it is barabic and backward IMO. If you are okay with the idea then you have no problem with people hunting with hounds

Every other issue raised is a sidetrack (or a smokescreen) to this simple choice.

I agree fully with your points made except with the highlighted section with the emphasis on IMO

Bottom line is i dont think its barbaric. In my opinion. And im far from a barbaric person, the death of a fox is quick, if it wasnt id have a different opinion on this.

But life's a bitch.

There is far to much issue made of this for the simple reason that there are far less foxes being killed by this hunting than people realise.

I think that so called animal lovers would be better served putting their energy into helping the thousands of abandoned dogs around out country every year

Sparks

It certainly looks barbaric.
But then, so does childbirth. Blood, faeces, urine everywhere, ripping flesh, strange looking metal tools, screaming, etc, etc...
Point being, if you want to ban something based solely on how it looks, you'll have to ban a lot of things.

And if you want to ban foxes being killed, you have to ban killing them at all, because foxes are legally classed as vermin and are regularly hunted and shot because they kill farmed animals on a regular basis. If you're going to class them as an endangered species (and that's what would legally be required), you're going to need a new compensation scheme for farmers and professional hunters.

By the way, this entire discussion will get a new dimension soon, as John Gormley is currently being taken to court by the Ward Union hunt over loss of earnings and a seperate legal challange is being made against the conditions on their licence on safety grounds. Some of the precedents set in these cases will carry over to hunting foxes with dogs.

Lockstep

Personally I think all the energy used could be put into helping out real human beings.

I still find fox hunting an odd hobby.

But I'm really not that bothered about it.

Flukey

For all those who complained on my fencing comment, I did say myself that it would be impractical. I was asked for what could be done, and I gave a suggestion. It could be done theoretically, but I was the first to say it was impractical. I then went on to say, which no one really picked up on, that farmers could come up with other ways to keep the foxes at bay. They've used scarecrows for centuries to keep away birds, both the man on the stick kind and the more modern technological ways like sound waves or sirens. Airports do it to keep their runways clear. Many creatures, foxes included, can hear different ranges of sounds than we can hear. Devices to emit such sounds are available and could surely be adapted to reduce the fox problem, relatively inexpensively.

Genghiz Cohen wrote:

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.

As I already said, you can control foxes, keep fit, ride all you want across the country on your horse and have social gatherings... without killing foxes. So, like I said, those are not reasons.

Snyder wrote:

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 picked up on that, but conveniently ignored where in a previous post I said it was not a class issue, but about what is done, not who does it. As I keep saying, I have no problems with people riding across the country on their days out and having as much fun as they like, no matter what class they come from, but they can do all of that without killing foxes. The same applies to the likes of the stag hunts, who incidentally don't kill lambs or chickens!

Anti-hunt people are often portrayed as wanting to completely stop the entire event, when in fact all most anti-hunt people want is for one single element of the practice to be removed, which it can be. In their defence of hunting the hunters will often say how the fox gets away and no kill is made... but they still enjoyed their day out. So hunters themselves have proved on many occasions that they can have a great day out riding across the country, with hounds, and all done without killing foxes. In essence, on many days, they do exactly what most anti-hunt people want. So all you hunters, get 100s of your mates if you want to, a pack of hounds and ride across the country every single day if you like, just doing it without killing foxes, and you'll still have just as great a time as ever. I, and the vast majority of people, would fully support you and have no problem whatsoever with you doing that.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

And if you want to ban foxes being killed, you have to ban killing them at all,

And up goes the smokescreen, the issue is banning hunting with hounds by the various hunts around the country. Not banning the killing of foxes.

Like i said either you have problem with the manner in which a wild animal is being chased and killed for the enjoyment of the participants or you dont. Most people, I think, do but many wouldnt feel strongly about it. Most people would consider being chased down and torn apart by dogs a horrific way to kill any animal. Its "appears" barbaric because it simply is.

It would be interesting to see where the Gormley case goes. I'm betting the various hunts wouldnt like to risk incurring ministerial wrath and and having a minister start to place their activities under close scrutiny.

rrpc

Bambi wrote: »

It would be interesting to see where the Gormley case goes. I'm betting the various hunts wouldnt like to risk incurring ministerial wrath and and having a minister start to place their activities under close scrutiny.

I doubt that. The NARGC have been taking the Government to court for many years and winning. The point being that everybody has to obey the law including Government Departments and Ministers.

IRLConor

Bambi wrote: »

Like i said either you have problem with the manner in which a wild animal is being chased and killed for the enjoyment of the participants or you don't.

If someone shoots a fox and enjoys doing it are they more barbaric than someone who shoots foxes and gets no enjoyment from it? Does it matter to the fox? Can the fox tell the difference?

If you want to argue that the method of killing the fox is cruel, by all means do. I'm particularly interested in how you decide that a hound killing a fox is cruel yet a fox killing a rabbit is natural.

Riddle101

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

In fairness, when I read your post I thought you were saying how harassment wasn't serious, I thought you actually meant it. Cleared up now though.



That quote makes me think you are form a town/city.
Look back over the other posts and read how foxes affect farmers and wildlife, rad what would happen if they were left uncontrolled. It may change your mind.

I know Foxes are a pain in the butt for Farmers but it's nature, how else are they going to eat, go to KFC and order a 3 Piece. I can understand a farmers problem but lot's of people just hunt foxes for fun and if that's not animal cruety then i don't know what is

It wasn't me!

No, it's not. Why is killing something necessarily cruel? Why would killing something for a good reason necessarily be cruel? Do you leave the rats and mice run riot in your house just because it's their nature?

Tar.Aldarion

No, a simple sound device keeps them out.
If I want to kill a human is it necessarily cruel?

It wasn't me!

Sound devices are not 100% effective.

And no, it's not cruel. Why would it be? What is cruelty? It might be illegal, but not necessarily cruel at all.

Tar.Aldarion

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Sound devices are not 100% effective.

And no, it's not cruel. Why would it be? What is cruelty? It might be illegal, but not necessarily cruel at all.

Well the mice left, so they work.

What special definition of cruel are you working off?

Since you are asking what cruelty is...

1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2. enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3. causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
4. rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
Causing suffering; painful.
1: lacking or showing kindness or compassion or mercy