Acceptable that a Minister takes part in blood sports?

Scofflaw

Fox hunting remains, for whatever reason, a legal activity, but is it really acceptable that (a) a Minister for Agriculture should take part in it; and (b) should defend it with false claims?

Minister Coveney wrote:

I am not sure it is true to say an animal is usually pulled apart. In my experience of hunting, the fox normally escapes, not that I have huge experience of it, but when I have hunted, I have never seen a fox being pulled apart. I am sure, however, that it happens and I am not saying it does not. Our policy decisions try to strike a balance for those who derive great enjoyment from hunting and farmers who want foxes to be hunted off their land. If the Deputy were to see a field of lambs being killed by a fox, she would see a gruesome sight of an animal being pulled apart where the fox was the predator.

The claim that foxes might "kill a field of lambs" is contradicted by every expert body, as is the Minister's further claim:

Foxes are wild animals and can be vicious at times and do significant damage to farm animals, poultry and so on, although I know that is not the point the Deputy is raising. I am not willing to go as far as she would like, but we are doing what we can to ensure we put parameters, rules and codes of conduct in place to make sure foxhunting will be as acceptable as possible from an animal welfare perspective.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-02-17a.83&s=fox+hunting#g91

Lastly, how can one make an inherently cruel practice "acceptable...from an animal welfare perspective"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Acceptable that they take part? Yes, unless it becomes illegal. Otherwise the acceptability of the minister for health taking a drink or a friday night curry and down that road madness lies.

Acceptable that they spread falsehoods? Its not right, but most politicians skirt the line of truth to press their agenda so its certainly tolerated.

The humane rules for blood sports include, strangely, that once caught a fox must be killed (put out of its misery). But to be fair he doesnt say it will make it acceptable, just as "acceptable as possible"

Discodog

It pretty much compulsory for a Minister to support cruelty. The recent Animal Welfare Bill was only passed after amendments to protect blood sports. The Greyhound Board receive a lot of support despite the fact that thousands of unwanted Greyhounds are killed every year.

I became involved in various meetings with the Greens prior to the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill including with Senators promoting the Bill. The level of ignorance was staggering. The Minister even referred to microchips in the ears of dogs

Those involved in Animal Welfare warned that the Dog Breeding Act would be ineffectual. The recent seizure of large numbers of puppies in Dublin proves the point.

Nodin

It'll never be acceptable to some as long as an animal is killed. Certainly there's some elements of it that I find unacceptable, such as the digging up of a fox that's gone to ground.

walshb

It's unacceptable. It's the 21st century. What sad individuals get pleasure from inflicting such fear and terror on an animal that is totally outgunned? Hideous activity, and a man in such a position should know better.

WakeUp

hunting and killing foxes for "sport" is disgusting. its cruel and its nasty. how brave of them trotting along on their horses taking part in their "sport". no different than other people who line up other animals with their high powered rifles and blow their brains out..because its a...sport. to answer the question posed in the OP no I dont believe its acceptable that a minister take part in a blood sport. legal or not.

Sick fox hunters slaughter animal as children as young as five watch on

Three young children look on as a fox is dragged from a hole and shot in these shocking pictures released by anti-hunt campaigners.

The images show the kids standing just yards away as the helpless creature meets a grisly end at the hands of vicious terriermen and their dog.

A farmer who witnessed the incident was appalled to see youngsters being taken on a hunt. He said: “How could those guys think any of what played out was fit for small children to see?”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-fox-hunters-slaughter-animal-3062356

vicious, cruel and nasty. shame on them.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Acceptable that they take part? Yes, unless it becomes illegal. Otherwise the acceptability of the minister for health taking a drink or a friday night curry and down that road madness lies.

Maybe, but there's a reason why 'acceptable' and 'illegal' are two different words.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Acceptable that they spread falsehoods? Its not right, but most politicians skirt the line of truth to press their agenda so its certainly tolerated.

And 'tolerated' is another different word...

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The humane rules for blood sports include, strangely, that once caught a fox must be killed (put out of its misery). But to be fair he doesnt say it will make it acceptable, just as "acceptable as possible"

"Acceptable as possible" on what basis, though? On the basis that the foxes are still going to be killed by being hunted down with dogs and killed by them? What are we looking at here? Making sure the dogs are humanely treated?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Discodog

Scofflaw wrote: »

Maybe, but there's a reason why 'acceptable' and 'illegal' are two different words.



And 'tolerated' is another different word...



"Acceptable as possible" on what basis, though? On the basis that the foxes are still going to be killed by being hunted down with dogs and killed by them? What are we looking at here? Making sure the dogs are humanely treated?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually the Hounds get treated pretty badly too. Needless to say the hunt won't feed & keep a hound that's not able to hunt.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fox hunting remains, for whatever reason, a legal activity, but is it really acceptable that (a) a Minister for Agriculture should take part in it; and (b) should defend it with false claims?

a - Yes, its a legal activity.
b - As its legal, he doesn't really have to defend it at all.

Its only a matter between the minister and his local constituents. If his local voters don't see it as a red line issue (and they don't seem to) then its fine.

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Acceptable as possible" on what basis, though? On the basis that the foxes are still going to be killed by being hunted down with dogs and killed by them? What are we looking at here? Making sure the dogs are humanely treated?

Acceptable as possible in the sense that, if you want to be cynical, a sop is thrown to animal welfare activists that the killing of foxes wont stop but at least they wont suffer long agonising deaths I suppose.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

a - Yes, its a legal activity.
b - As its legal, he doesn't really have to defend it at all.

See the earlier comments about 'legal' and 'acceptable' being two different words.

Sand wrote: »

Its only a matter between the minister and his local constituents. If his local voters don't see it as a red line issue (and they don't seem to) then its fine.

Which in fact neatly encapsulates an issue in any political system which makes Ministers of constituency politicians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Acceptable as possible in the sense that, if you want to be cynical, a sop is thrown to animal welfare activists that the killing of foxes wont stop but at least they wont suffer long agonising deaths I suppose.

Certainly I can't see any way in which one can combine "hunting with dogs" and "acceptable as possible from an animal welfare perspective" that doesn't require cynicism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tayto lover

As Oscar Wilde said -- " the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable".

There is no justification in chasing / killing a defenseless animal.
The minister should be ashamed of himself.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

See the earlier comments about 'legal' and 'acceptable' being two different words.

Yes, I'm all too aware of the difference, especially given Ministerial actions and behaviour for as long as I can remember. "Legal" is what is key phrase in Ireland. "Acceptable" is barely relevant. I don't think foxhunting is the red line issue when it comes to making a stand on the behaviour of the great and good in Ireland tbh.

Which in fact neatly encapsulates an issue in any political system which makes Ministers of constituency politicians.

Never said I agreed with it, but that's the way it is. And the way it always will be.

Discodog

The problem is the obvious conflict of interest. The Minister is responsible for Animal Welfare legislation, which includes animal cruelty law.

How can he be independent if he partakes in & therefore supports an inherently cruel pastime?

Sand

Discodog wrote: »

How can he be independent if he partakes in & therefore supports an inherently cruel pastime?

The natural world is inherently cruel. Its not Disney.

Cork Lass

tayto lover wrote: »

As Oscar Wilde said -- " the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable".

There is no justification in chasing / killing a defenseless animal.
The minister should be ashamed of himself.

Minister Coveney is too arrogant to ever be ashamed.

KingBrian2

walshb wrote: »

It's unacceptable. It's the 21st century. What sad individuals get pleasure from inflicting such fear and terror on an animal that is totally outgunned? Hideous activity, and a man in such a position should know better.

You've clearly never watched Wrestling.

Cookie_Monster

Scofflaw wrote: »

Certainly I can't see any way in which one can combine "hunting with dogs" and "acceptable as possible from an animal welfare perspective" that doesn't require cynicism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pest control, eradication of introduced species? Granted the situation here in NZ is a little different than hunting down foxes but there is a very strongly supported hunting scene here to help control introduced pests like rabbits, goats, possum, deer, pig etc.
I find this entirely acceptable and support it regardless of the manner in which the animals may be ultimately killed but I cannot support fox hunting in the same light.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

The natural world is inherently cruel. Its not Disney.

Which is why we abandon our sick and elderly in pits to live or die at the whim of fate...because life isn't Disney.

Or you could come up with a decent argument that wasn't left behind with Social Darwinism and eugenics.

regards,
Scofflaw

R P McMurphy

I would imagine that a substantial number of hunts are breaking trespass laws as many enter lands they have no permission to be on while following their dogs

S. Goodspeed

Of course it's acceptable as long as it's legal. Other politicians have participated in a lot worse (but lets not mention the banks again..)

As an aside, I'm living in London now and the place is full of foxes. They really are pests, sh*t everywhere, route through bins leaving rubbish everywhere and they literally wake me up every night having what sounds like horrendously painful sex. I know there is no correlation between this and the banning of fox hunting in the UK years ago but I think it's only a matter of time before some sort of cull (or "population control measures") happens.

happy_knome

Nodin wrote: »

It'll never be acceptable to some as long as an animal is killed. Certainly there's some elements of it that I find unacceptable, such as the digging up of a fox that's gone to ground.

a fox is a beautiful animal , their is a fox who comes right up to my door ( i live out in the country ) , this fox is so tame , it beggars belief , ive no time for that " hunt " crowd

that they at the very least , scare certain animals half to death but they are an obnoxious bunch to boot , they see it as their birth right to trape across land which they dont own and are indifferent to damaging private property in the process ( knocking fences etc )

not a big goverment - nanny state fan but i would be happy to see it banned

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is why we abandon our sick and elderly in pits to live or die at the whim of fate...because life isn't Disney.

Or you could come up with a decent argument that wasn't left behind with Social Darwinism and eugenics.

regards,
Scofflaw

The natural state of the world is that fox, left unhunted, will inflict some appalling cruel death on some other young, fluffy, cute, huggable animal. That's life and that's natural and I presume you wouldn't want to try that fox as a murderer or pass laws mandating the police to patrol farms to protect the lives of young, fluffy, cute, huggable animals.

Or would you?

I've no particular interest in or love of hunting - I have had to pick up what's left of attacks by animals on young animals, but I've never hunted - but I've no outrage against it either. Animals hunt and kill animals. Fat men on horseback hunt and kill animals. The death of the animal is no worse or no more cruel for it being killed by a man.

Sand

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I would imagine that a substantial number of hunts are breaking trespass laws as many enter lands they have no permission to be on while following their dogs

So sue them.

johnnyskeleton

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I would imagine that a substantial number of hunts are breaking trespass laws as many enter lands they have no permission to be on while following their dogs

That is actually a very good criticism of hunting if true, but that is illegal. However, i understood that most of them get permission of the landownrs first, if not being the landowners themselves.

Discodog

Sand wrote: »

The natural world is inherently cruel. Its not Disney.

But we have decided that cruelty to animals is illegal. If foxes need to be controlled, which they don't, then they should be killed humanely & not chased until they are utterly exhausted.

Even the old legislation deemed it illegal to "terrify or infuriate" an animal. However we decided that the law shouldn't apply to some animals even though they experience pain & terror.

The legislators didn't want to spoil their "sport".

Discodog

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Of course it's acceptable as long as it's legal. Other politicians have participated in a lot worse (but lets not mention the banks again..)

As an aside, I'm living in London now and the place is full of foxes. They really are pests, sh*t everywhere, route through bins leaving rubbish everywhere and they literally wake me up every night having what sounds like horrendously painful sex. I know there is no correlation between this and the banning of fox hunting in the UK years ago but I think it's only a matter of time before some sort of cull (or "population control measures") happens.

After the erroneously reported, so called, fox attacks Boris promised a cull in London. There was a massive public outcry & a poll revealed that the vast majority welcomed the foxes.

There is no scientific justification for hunts or culls. Foxes are territorial. If you kill one you simply release it's territory for another fox.

Urban foxes exist because we leave out waste food. They also eat huge quantities of rats.

Sand

Discodog wrote: »

But we have decided that cruelty to animals is illegal. If foxes need to be controlled, which they don't, then they should be killed humanely & not chased until they are utterly exhausted.

Even the old legislation deemed it illegal to "terrify or infuriate" an animal. However we decided that the law shouldn't apply to some animals even though they experience pain & terror.

The legislators didn't want to spoil their "sport".

Yes, we've decided that unusual cruelty, mistreatment or brutality to animals is illegal. I'm wholly opposed to unusual cruelty, mistreatment or brutality towards animals. I think that is vile and wrong.

However, foxhunting is legal and that's still consistent with animal cruelty laws. Because foxhunting is not unusually cruel or brutal. Afterall, where do you think your dinner comes from? You think an animal raised on the farm isn't distressed or terrified when its swept up, put in the back of a truck an then shoved into a slaughterhouse? Even if it doesn't see the kill coming, its going to be distressed and terrified in the same way you would be if you were swept out of your home and dumped into alien surroundings being driven to some uncertain and fearful fate.

Yet people still scoff down burgers at McDonalds day in and day out. In between protesting foxhunting...

KingBrian2

Discodog wrote: »

After the erroneously reported, so called, fox attacks Boris promised a cull in London. There was a massive public outcry & a poll revealed that the vast majority welcomed the foxes.

There is no scientific justification for hunts or culls. Foxes are territorial. If you kill one you simply release it's territory for another fox.

Urban foxes exist because we leave out waste food. They also eat huge quantities of rats.

Long may the Madra Rua grace us with their presence.

Discodog

Sand wrote: »

Yes, we've decided that unusual cruelty, mistreatment or brutality to animals is illegal. I'm wholly opposed to unusual cruelty, mistreatment or brutality towards animals. I think that is vile and wrong.

However, foxhunting is legal and that's still consistent with animal cruelty laws. Because foxhunting is not unusually cruel or brutal. Afterall, where do you think your dinner comes from? You think an animal raised on the farm isn't distressed or terrified when its swept up, put in the back of a truck an then shoved into a slaughterhouse? Even if it doesn't see the kill coming, its going to be distressed and terrified in the same way you would be if you were swept out of your home and dumped into alien surroundings being driven to some uncertain and fearful fate.

Yet people still scoff down burgers at McDonalds day in and day out. In between protesting foxhunting...

Do you think that we would eat beef if the cows were chased to the point of exhaustion & then torn apart by dogs?

Sand

I think we eat beef because we don't really care if the animals were scared when they died or not.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

The natural state of the world is that fox, left unhunted, will inflict some appalling cruel death on some other young, fluffy, cute, huggable animal. That's life and that's natural and I presume you wouldn't want to try that fox as a murderer or pass laws mandating the police to patrol farms to protect the lives of young, fluffy, cute, huggable animals.

Or would you?

I've no particular interest in or love of hunting - I have had to pick up what's left of attacks by animals on young animals, but I've never hunted - but I've no outrage against it either. Animals hunt and kill animals. Fat men on horseback hunt and kill animals. The death of the animal is no worse or no more cruel for it being killed by a man.

It's perhaps unsurprising that the assumption might be made that I'm a solid blood sports opponent, but that's not actually the case - like yourself I find it neither appealing nor outrageous.

I just find certain very flimsy arguments appalling in themselves. That "nature isn't Disney" isn't an argument for or against anything at all, it's simply a trite platitude trotted out as if it meant something despite its utter vacuousness.

We ban a variety of things because we consider them cruel, in particular, where the cruelty is unnecessary - for example, we require the use of humane rearing, transportation, and killing methods for beef cattle even though the animals are going to be killed, because an inhumane method adds nothing to the desired outcome of beef on the table.

In this case, the question can very well be whether the methods used in fox hunting are cruel and unnecessary given the desired outcome, or whether indeed the cruel methods are the desired outcome - an argument which has seen fox hunting with dogs banned in the UK.

I'm sure someone who can argue that "nature isn't Disney" will appreciate the point that there are plenty of people for whom cruelty is an end in itself - and would perhaps justify it, too?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Discodog

Sand wrote: »

I think we eat beef because we don't really care if the animals were scared when they died or not.

We kill cattle in the, what the experts regard as, most humane way. We also kill for food.

Fox hunting is the opposite. We kill in an incredibly cruel way & for so called sport.

The issue here is whether the Minister responsible for preventing cruelty should be joining in with causing cruelty?

Perhaps the Tourism Minister should join in? Since the hunting ban in the UK hunters have started coming here.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's perhaps unsurprising that the assumption might be made that I'm a solid blood sports opponent, but that's not actually the case - like yourself I find it neither appealing nor outrageous.

I just find certain very flimsy arguments appalling in themselves. That "nature isn't Disney" isn't an argument for or against anything at all, it's simply a trite platitude trotted out as if it meant something despite its utter vacuousness.

We ban a variety of things because we consider them cruel

But the point is foxhunters don't need to defend the activity. It is legal, and indeed traditional. Those opposed to it need to justify the exceptional measure of making the activity (which harms no one else and infringes on no ones constitutional rights) illegal by explaining how it is unusually cruel or brutal. As I noted, animals are hunted and killed throughout Ireland. The animal being "torn to shreds" in a foxhunt is no more brutal than an animal being "torn to shreds" by another animal. So its not unusually cruel, outside of the Disney view of the natural world.

One characteristic of progressive government that I agree with is not legislating against human beings who are harming no one else on the basis of people having strong personal opinions on a given topic.

Sand

Discodog wrote: »

We kill cattle in the, what the experts regard as, most humane way. We also kill for food.

Fox hunting is the opposite. We kill in an incredibly cruel way & for so called sport.

The issue here is whether the Minister responsible for preventing cruelty should be joining in with causing cruelty?

Perhaps the Tourism Minister should join in? Since the hunting ban in the UK hunters have started coming here.

Its not incredibly cruel. The fox kills in exactly the same manner most nights of any given week. You might consider that incredible, but I assure you its true.

And maybe the Tourism Minister should join in - an increase in foxhunter tourists from the UK would be a genuine economic good news story to post in the Irish economic forum.

KingBrian2

Sand wrote: »

Its not incredibly cruel. The fox kills in exactly the same manner most nights of any given week. You might consider that incredible, but I assure you its true.

And maybe the Tourism Minister should join in - an increase in foxhunter tourists from the UK would be a genuine economic good news story to post in the Irish economic forum.

We want no Foxhunters in our country.

R P McMurphy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That is actually a very good criticism of hunting if true, but that is illegal. However, i understood that most of them get permission of the landownrs first, if not being the landowners themselves.

Is a common practice for them to hunt across lands they have no rights to nor permission to be on. Hunting this time on year causes considerable damage to fields, scarring the land, breaking down fences, worrying sheep in lambing season. Not much benefit for a landowner to have these 'hunters' digging up their lands. Yet is ongoing. Have often seen the local guardians of the peace involved as well. I think it increased in popularity during the boom as people thought it was a sign of prosperity and class

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Its not incredibly cruel. The fox kills in exactly the same manner most nights of any given week. You might consider that incredible, but I assure you its true.

And maybe the Tourism Minister should join in - an increase in foxhunter tourists from the UK would be a genuine economic good news story to post in the Irish economic forum.

Are we foxes, then, that it's acceptable for us to kill as foxes kill?

amused,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Discodog wrote: »

We kill cattle in the, what the experts regard as, most humane way. We also kill for food.

Fox hunting is the opposite. We kill in an incredibly cruel way & for so called sport.

The issue here is whether the Minister responsible for preventing cruelty should be joining in with causing cruelty?

Perhaps the Tourism Minister should join in? Since the hunting ban in the UK hunters have started coming here.

Foxes arent domesticated, so while you can lead cows to the slaughterhouse there isnt the same means of killing hem humanely.

I dunno, I dont have any interest in hunting myself, but I would be slow to ban it and slow to criticise someone for doing somethig that is log established and legal. The idea that people go to watch two men beat the stuffing out of each other in a cage fight is strange to me, but I wouldnt think less of the Minister for Sport and Tourism for congradulating Connor McGregor

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are we foxes, then, that it's acceptable for us to kill as foxes kill?

amused,
Scofflaw

Does an animal feel worse being killed by a man than it does by another animal?

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than having none *for* your own point of view and just criticising opposing arguments. You started the thread, so the burden is on you to make the case better than "wont someone please think of the children!"

johnnyskeleton

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Is a common practice for them to hunt across lands they have no rights to nor permission to be on. Hunting this time on year causes considerable damage to fields, scarring the land, breaking down fences, worrying sheep in lambing season. Not much benefit for a landowner to have these 'hunters' digging up their lands. Yet is ongoing. Have often seen the local guardians of the peace involved as well. I think it increased in popularity during the boom as people thought it was a sign of prosperity and class

If my rolling estates were trampelled on in such a manner I'd sue the hunt organisers for trespass

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are we foxes, then, that it's acceptable for us to kill as foxes kill?

amused,
Scofflaw

How do you feel about keeping a cat in granary or other suh premises to kill the mice?

Sobko

Sand wrote: »

Does an animal feel worse being killed by a man than it does by another animal?

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than having none *for* your own point of view and just criticising opposing arguments. You started the thread, so the burden is on you to make the case better than "wont someone please think of the children!"

What about the cruelty and mistreatment of the hounds who are starved to the point where they turn on each other? Is that acceptable?

Discodog

Sand wrote: »

Its not incredibly cruel. The fox kills in exactly the same manner most nights of any given week. You might consider that incredible, but I assure you its true.

And maybe the Tourism Minister should join in - an increase in foxhunter tourists from the UK would be a genuine economic good news story to post in the Irish economic forum.

I have studied foxes, rescued dozens of them & handreared cubs. I was part of the group that advised Blair prior to the UK ban.

The pro hunt lobby always accuse those who oppose it as ignorant. Just as they also accuse us of being "townies"

The Fox kills naturally to obtain food. We allow dogs to tear it apart for sport. One is being carried out by a wild animal, the other by educated human beings. There is absolutely no comparison.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

. If foxes need to be controlled, which they don't,

Care to back that up there? In one nights lamping in space of an hour I seen 9 foxes. In one hour?! Within 4 fields and yes all different foxes.
Amount I've seen last year on my permissions is most I've ever seen.
And the housing estates are getting worse with them. And now people are leavin scraps out for them. Feeding a wild animal? Are they thick?
Those foxes will end up dependent on these scraps and will associate humans with food which is wrong.
As for the fox hunters on horseback with dogs I'm against it.
If your going to kill a fox it should be done with the appropriate firearm and ammunition to allow the most humane and quickest death.
Not to chase it down and make its last few minutes horrible and terrifying.

Discodog

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Foxes arent domesticated, so while you can lead cows to the slaughterhouse there isnt the same means of killing hem humanely.

I dunno, I dont have any interest in hunting myself, but I would be slow to ban it and slow to criticise someone for doing somethig that is log established and legal. The idea that people go to watch two men beat the stuffing out of each other in a cage fight is strange to me, but I wouldnt think less of the Minister for Sport and Tourism for congradulating Connor McGregor

Bull baiting, dog & cock fighting were long established. The boxers chose to fight. The Fox doesn't get a choice.

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Care to back that up there? In one nights lamping in space of an hour I seen 9 foxes. In one hour?! Within 4 fields and yes all different foxes.
Amount I've seen last year on my permissions is most I've ever seen.
And the housing estates are getting worse with them. And now people are leavin scraps out for them. Feeding a wild animal? Are they thick?
Those foxes will end up dependent on these scraps and will associate humans with food which is wrong.
As for the fox hunters on horseback with dogs I'm against it.
If your going to kill a fox it should be done with the appropriate firearm and ammunition to allow the most humane and quickest death.
Not to chase it down and make its last few minutes horrible and terrifying.

All the research shows that even if you kill nine foxes they will be replaced. Nature abhors a vacuum. If there is a spare territory, with suitable food etc, then more foxes will move in.

Your nine foxes ate a lot of rats & rabbits. They will now increase until the foxes return. Nature will control the foxes. By killing them we upset the balance & make the problem worse.

Predator numbers for any species settle at the level of the food source. You can dramatically reduce urban foxes by not leaving out food waste.

Cookie_Monster

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Foxes arent domesticated, so while you can lead cows to the slaughterhouse there isnt the same means of killing hem humanely.

shoot them if it's really about pop / pest control. quick easy kill, not a exhausting hours long sufferfest.

Scofflaw

These are again impressively weak arguments:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Foxes arent domesticated, so while you can lead cows to the slaughterhouse there isnt the same means of killing hem humanely.

So because you haven't the same range of options, you abandon the idea of even trying? You simply accept that hunting and killing them with dogs is OK because you're not going to be able to stun them and kill them painlessly? That's not an argument - but it's at least better than this one:

I dunno, I dont have any interest in hunting myself, but I would be slow to ban it and slow to criticise someone for doing somethig that is log established and legal.

Seriously? And so you'd have been equally slow to see anything wrong in beating animals to death, sending small children to work in factories and mines, slavery, FGM, capital punishment, judicial torture....well, the list is long, and deeply unedifying.

Again, without reference to any position on the right or wrong of the matter, if these are the arguments in favour - these and Sand's "nature isn't Disney" - then the only thing really keeping fox hunting going is inertia and/or an acceptance of cruelty. Because it is cruel, and we do make things illegal on that basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

steddyeddy

Legal and acceptable are two completely different things. Apartheid was legal but not acceptable for instance. Before I get lynched here I'm not comparing fox hunting an apartheid, I'm just illustrating the difference between legal and acceptable. As for whether it's acceptable? No it's barbaric that a man would want to watch another animal by ripped to pieces.