Should the Government ban fox-hunting?

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

In my personal opinion foxhunting (the horse and hound variety) is ineffective as a form of vermin control

Certainly less effective than using a rifle from what I've heard (I don't hunt at all, nor am I a farmer so I don't know from personal experience).

peasant wrote: »

and cruel.

How is it that hounds killing a fox is cruel but a fox killing a rabbit is not?

peasant wrote: »

On the bottom line it is a pastime for people...

This is the "People are enjoying killing animals! That's barbaric!" line of reasoning. How does the hunter's enjoyment make it cruel? If someone shoots a fox and enjoys it are they more cruel than someone who shoots a fox without enjoyment?

peasant

IRLConor wrote: »

How is it that hounds killing a fox is cruel but a fox killing a rabbit is not?

At first glance both acts seem equally "cruel" ...but they aren't.
A solitary fox catching and killing a rabbit does what nature intended for a carnivor ...feed itself.

A pack of hounds on the other hand is bred by people, kept by people, fed by people and trained by people for the sole purpose of chasing the fox on a weekend. Yes, the killing comes natural to them too ...but it is people that facilitate and enable it ...for their own enjoyment. What makes it especially cruel though, is the numbers game: it's one fox versus one rabbit ...but up to 50 hounds versus one fox.

This is the "People are enjoying killing animals! That's barbaric!" line of reasoning. How does the hunter's enjoyment make it cruel? If someone shoots a fox and enjoys it are they more cruel than someone who shoots a fox without enjoyment?

No, it's the "People are watching foxes being torn to pieces for fun ..that's barbaric!" - line of reasoning.

I have absolutely no problem with someone shooting a fox (for conservation/population control reasons) and that person taking pride (or even having fun) in a good, clean shot that finished the fox without much suffering.

That's my opinion anyway ...and I don't really want to re-hash the discussion from over on the animals & pets forum.

What about the second part of my previous post?

Does our governement even have the moral authority to ban foxhunting, when they are pumping millions into the greyhound industry for example, where the goings on in the background are really and truly appalling ?

It wasn't me!

Cruelty seems to be subjective here, and while there is no acceptable definition for all sides, the debate seems meaningless. I see no cruelty in hunting, only mastery of the environments, be it by rifle and good stalking practices and calling of the fox, or by equestrian prowess and masterful command of an extremely organised pack of hounds. Man is chief in modern Ireland, and hunting is proof of it.

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Man is chief in modern Ireland, and hunting is proof of it.

Well ...that's a debate for another day ....but it is questionable if man behaving like "chief" and ruler over all animals "below" him to do with as he wishes and pleases ...

...isn't maybe just a tad outdated and not worthy of modern man ?

Obviously not for the politics forum, that one

It wasn't me!

Not really. We kill animals every day in pursuit of our happiness, despite questionable necessity, by virtue of the fact that we demand more than one type of farmed meat for our table. Foxes are hunted in the pursuit of challenging, vigorous exercise and to ease the life of the farmers who supply our meat. Really, you can't argue for our exertion of control on one aspect of the countryside but not others. Either we are for and support our policy of farming meats of all kinds for slaughter for our tables or we withdraw all support of it.

peasant

...but you can draw a line as to what is acceptable suffering/discomfort (for animals) and what isn't. Both in hunting and in farming.

It's not either/or or all-or-nothing. Some practises (both in farming and in hunting) just cross the line from acceptable suffering to cruelty and those activities should be regulated / banned.

As far as hunting is concerned, foxhunting (by horse & hound) is one of those practises. (So are the carted deer hunt, hare coursing and others)

It wasn't me!

It's hard to see where you find cruelty, when there's no physiological evidence to support it. It's very much a case of how something appears to you, which, obviously, is not always what it seems.

Where's the problem with hare coursing actually? The hounds are muzzled, the hare has an excellent chance of escape and the numbers aren't horribly unbalanced.

peasant

The hares are caught, kept in captivity until the event and then chased by dogs, running for their lives. (I don't think a hare knows what a muzzle is)

All for the fun (and bets) of the bystanders ...if that's not cruel and totally unnecessary, then I don't know what is.

It wasn't me!

Do you object to catch and release fishing?

peasant

Yes, I do.

I think it's pointless.

I do some sea fishing off the cliffs myself every now and then, but I always eat what I catch. I don't see the point in trying to catch fish that I'm not allowed to take home and eat.

It wasn't me!

So do you want to see it banned? Even when I fish for things I can eat, plenty of the time I release it. Is that wrong?

peasant

That is a difficult question:

In fishing you don't have full control over what kind/size fish is going to take the bait.
Occasionally you will catch a fish that may be undersized (no protected species off the cliffs). In those cases I do make a judgment call to see if the fish is basically unharmed and should be returned or if has sustained an injury that would hamper its survival/feeding. Injured fish that are too small I kill and take them home as dog or cat food. By choosing big, single (instead of small double or treble) hooks and big bait I minimise the risk of that happening.
If there are only small fish about, I stop fishing.

I think it utterly pointless though, to bait up/ fish in particular waters for a particular species that is protected and has to be returned.


EDIT
But I'm not sure that this fishing particulars have anything to do with the politics forum ...maybe we should leave it at that?

It wasn't me!

But again, do you think people who enjoy catching a big bag of say, roach, and returning them at the end of the day, are they barbaric and should their sport be banned?

It wasn't me!

peasant wrote: »

EDIT
But I'm not sure that this fishing particulars have anything to do with the politics forum ...maybe we should leave it at that?

No. You think hunting particulars are perfectly okay here. Fishing is a bloodsport as much as hunting is, so where's the issue?

peasant

Don't know what the regualtions on roach are (not interested in river fishing)

But if they're legal to fish, then people should fish for the table and go home when they have enough

If they're illegal to take out, people shouldn't fish for them, neither should they do so, if they deem them inedible.

It wasn't me!

The question is, would you have our government legislate for a ban on fishing for coarse fish species which, by and large, are returned uneaten? It would be an overwhelmingly unpopular move, and very difficult to defend, while the anti fox-hunting lobby have a cute red face to stick on their propaganda.

peasant

Really dumb question here ...because I really don't know ...

Why are they returned uneaten?

Is it because its not allowed to take them out or are they perfectly legal to take and just deemed inedible?

EDIT:
Actually, it doesn't matter ...in both cases I don't see the point in fishing for them.

It wasn't me!

Perfectly legal to fish, most fisheries specify catch and release only for coarse species, and most folk don't want to eat them anyway. You're dodging the issue here though, would you have a ban on coarse fishing if they're not being eaten?

peasant

errm ..yes ...I would.

Needlessly bouncing fish in and out the water, possibly injuring and stressing them in the process, what's the point?

(other than expressing your supposed "mastery of the environement" )

AckwelFoley

peasant wrote: »

errm ..yes ...I would.

Needlessly bouncing fish in and out the water, possibly injuring and stressing them in the process, what's the point?

(other than expressing your supposed "mastery of the environement" )

LOL.

Credibility, just flushed down the toilet.. you are actually serious about this are you?

*im sending an invoice from my hospital to you for the 2 broken ribs ive sustained laughing at that*

Stress to fish... OMFG. Bwahahahaha!

IRLConor

peasant wrote: »

At first glance both acts seem equally "cruel" ...but they aren't.
A solitary fox catching and killing a rabbit does what nature intended for a carnivore ...feed itself.

A pack of hounds on the other hand is bred by people, kept by people, fed by people and trained by people for the sole purpose of chasing the fox on a weekend. Yes, the killing comes natural to them too ...but it is people that facilitate and enable it ...for their own enjoyment.

So you argue that the intent of the hunt is what determines the cruelty, not the act done to kill the animal?

peasant wrote: »

What makes it especially cruel though, is the numbers game: it's one fox versus one rabbit ...but up to 50 hounds versus one fox.

Larger numbers of predators do not make it more cruel. Surely then a pride of lions taking down a gazelle is more cruel than a solitary cheetah taking one?

It might be an unfair match, but unfair matches don't make for cruelty either. After all, a human with a rifle is unfairly matched against a fox and a fox is unfairly matched against a rabbit.

IMHO, cruelty in a hunting context can only happen if the predator making the kill (shooter, hound, etc) deliberately and knowingly causes more pain than is strictly necessary to make the kill.

peasant wrote:

On the other hand, it is questionable if a government that has a dismal record on animal welfare legislation has the moral authority to ban one activity while turning a blind eye (or even worse: subventions!) on many others.

Since when have Irish governments (of any flavour!) worried about having the moral authority to do anything?

denashpot

yes i think they should ban it!!

It wasn't me!

Grand. I wish you the best of luck in banning two of the most popular sports on the planet.

So are you going to write letters to your local TD's asking them to lobby against both fox-hunting and coarse fishing in the same breath? Do you consider the two of equal importance?

peasant

IRLConor wrote: »

IMHO, cruelty in a hunting context can only happen if the predator making the kill (shooter, hound, etc) deliberately and knowingly causes more pain than is strictly necessary to make the kill.

That is EXACTLY my point.

In case of the foxhunt, the hound is not the predator (foxhounds are not wild animals), but the people organising the hunt are.

They keep and train hounds as a "tool" to catch and kill the fox ...in a way the pack of hounds has the same function as a gun.

The difference is, with a gun (and enough practice) a hunter can kill a fox with a minimum amount of suffering.
With a pack of hounds there is always the chance that things go terribly wrong for the fox and that it is torn to pieces by several hounds while still alive instead of being killed quickly and cleanly.

Let me put it this way ...you wouldn't deliberatly take a defective/unsuitable gun on a fox shoot if you knew that in all likelyhood that gun would cause terrible injury and a slow, painful death to the fox instead of killing it outright, would you?

Yet by hunting with hounds that is in effect exactly what you do.
Despite all propaganda to the contrary, on a foxhunt with hounds there is always a chance that things will not go as planned. For example the hounds could corner a fox against an obstacle it can't get over, so it will turn and defend itself, preventing the hounds from placing that surgical, quick death bite to the neck. Instead they will keep picking at every bit of fox the can get hold of, eventually taering it to pieces while it's still alive. On top of it all, some hounds may get injured themselves.

That is just cruel ...no two ways about it

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Grand. I wish you the best of luck in banning two of the most popular sports on the planet.

I think you may find that most likely football (soccer) and tennis (or whatever) are the two most popular sports on the planet and that most people couldn't give a fiddlers if foxhunting and/or coarse fishing were banned ...they probably wouldn't even know what you're talking about.

It wasn't me!

In terms of spectators, yes. However, in terms of participation, that thing that counts, fishing is the most popular sport in the world, and I don't think people would take kindly to trying to ban it.

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

In terms of spectators, yes. However, in terms of participation, that thing that counts, fishing is the most popular sport in the world, and I don't think people would take kindly to trying to ban it.

In terms of a political decision (to ban or not) it may matter how "kindly" people would recieve it. As a moral decision, people's reception of the ban should be of no consequence ...it is just right.

It wasn't me!

I would think it does. How much support do you think a motion to ban the world's most popular sport will get? You'd be laughed out of every public arena you tried to bring it up in. And if you can't get this one banned, why should you get the other one banned?

peasant

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I would think it does. How much support do you think a motion to ban the world's most popular sport will get? You'd be laughed out of every public arena you tried to bring it up in. And if you can't get this one banned, why should you get the other one banned?

last question first:
Obviously you start from the top down...you ban the most plain and obvious cruelty first ...foxhunting ...that's what this thread is about ...worry about the intricacies of fishing later.

first question:
I'd imagine that bear baiting in the 17 or 18 hundreds (or whatever century it was banned in) had quite a loyal following and a large opposition to the ban ...but banned it got. It's called progress.

It wasn't me!

Your argument seems to be that, in the fullness of time, everything will go your way, and I really don't see why it should. Fox-hunting wasn't banned with bear-baiting, yet bear-baiting was clearly an action against animal cruelty, so why wasn't fox-hunting banned? Was it not deemed cruel then? If it wasn't cruel then, why is it cruel now?