Fox hunting, banned.

[stuart f]

Well this sounds like terrorism. Relent to our demands or the hounds get it.

In Scotland it has been banned for two years and i have,nt heard of any hounds being destroyed, because if there had i,m sure the CA would have made a big propganda campaign out of it.

 

[tenbears10]

In Scotland it has been banned for two years and i have,nt heard of any hounds being destroyed, because if there had i,m sure the CA would have made a big propganda campaign out of it.

That I think is because the law banning hunting in scotland was so badly written that all the hunts before the ban are still hunting, it was more of an inconvinence. The english ban will not make the same mistake and the redundant hounds will have to be put down. A bullet in the yard is as humane for a hound than the vet comming with a needle.

Womble, I think the ban which causes 12,000 hounds to be put down is what is barbaric.

You see what I mean about the 2 sides never being able to agree.

Bill

 

[Tantalus]

i know this is an emotive subject but please can we check stuff out before putting it up in here?

i asked earlier about evidence of foxes being introduced to the uk

nobody bothered to reply

now the whole buffalo / bison thing and native americans being univerally in tune with the land ??

plus the lack of info on hounds being killed

yesterdays scotsman carried a fairly impartial article titled

"Ban on hunting has taken heavy economic toll"

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1105432004

members only but you can sign up free to read it if you like

a couple of interesting paragraphs

Although no study has been carried out into the economic impact of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, the anecdotal evidence suggests varying degrees of hardship. Feed merchants, farriers and kennels have all reported a drop in takings, according to the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the pressure group set up to fight the legislation.

Before the ban, which is yet again being challenged in court today, Scotland’s ten hunts employed 30 full-time staff; now there are only 15. In 2002, there were 1,100 hounds; today there are only 500, with more than 400 animals having been put down - a fate that may yet befall hundreds more. The irony is that, far from sparing foxes, the new legislation has resulted in a 50 per cent increase in the number of foxes killed during the newly adapted "hunts" with guns.

from the above article

Also reports are coming out of a challenge to the scottish ban on hunting which is in progress at the moment

and a letter to the editor printed in the scotsman commenting on the rise of fox attacks on humans

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1077042004


there that should provide a little food for thought at least

Tant

 

[C_Claycomb]

Just an idle thought. How long do you think it would have taken for fox hunting to die of natural causes, without a ban? I mean, there are fewer and fewer people taking part in most field sports. If so much hadn't been made about banning stuff most of us probably wouldn't ever have anything to do with fox hunting. A lot of horse owners might not have felt motivated to continue taking part?

It might have taken a while longer, but I think that fox hunting's days could have been numbered anyhow. It might have faded away gradually.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[tenbears10]

Tant

Your points are noted and I'm sorry for posting before checking.

I was getting at the fact that the hunting in Scotland is still happening and your quote shows that the ban far from preventing hunting means more foxes killed AND peoples livelihoods ruined. How does that please either side?

This is why I don't agree with a ban, I can't ride a horse for toffee no matter hunt but the politicians are fooling everyone that this ban is about animal welfare and I think it will become apparent that it is not, but only after people and the countryside suffers.

I will just read this thread from now on I promise.

Bill

 

[Tantalus]

nooooooooo bill

didn't mean to scare anyone off from posting honest
apologies if it seemed like that
we are all entitled to our opinions it would be a sad world where we were not entitled to state our opinions
this is by no means the definitive debate on hunting
please keep all comments coming

Tant

 

[stuart f]

Tant.
The reason i couldn,t reply about said info on foxes being introduced was because at the time the thread had been closed by moderators.

So as to clarify this issue and for you not to think i was blowing hot air and just sounding off,back in the eighties i went to a lecture hosted bya lecturer from Edinburgh uni and thats where i came by said info.Please forgive me for not giving his name because for the life of me i can,t remember his name also it was 20 years ago.

 

[Womble]

A bullet in the yard is as humane for a hound than the vet comming with a needle.
Womble, I think the ban which causes 12,000 hounds to be put down is what is barbaric.
You see what I mean about the 2 sides never being able to agree.

Bill

Hmmm... my comment actually had nothing to do with the pros and cons of hunting; more to do with the act of dumping the carcases of the disposed of dogs in picnic spots.

What would such an act actually achieve?

It would surely cause a wonderful health and safety hazard, especially good at attracting scavengers to the area. Presumably the fox population will soar with this amount of fresh meat dumped for consumption. And if it continued would it not cause a negative effect on the countryside economy, by encouraging people not to come out into it in the first place?

So, what a great idea! Sabotage the government by making people not want to come into the country! Especially those politically correct busybodies from the inner cities! After all city folk don't deserve the countryside, do they?

Look at those little children crying after seeing the carcas of a dead dog. Hah! That'll teach them for supporting a hunting ban!

 

[Jack]

.............and then there are horse's to be dealt with.

 

[Jack]

But don't forget what I said earlier. Try and look through the propaganda, from both sides.

 

[Lurch]

In Scotland it has been banned for two years and i have,nt heard of any hounds being destroyed, because if there had i,m sure the CA would have made a big propganda campaign out of it.

I believe many hounds were 'rehomed' with English packs.

 

[Lurch]

Just an idle thought. How long do you think it would have taken for fox hunting to die of natural causes, without a ban? I mean, there are fewer and fewer people taking part in most field sports. If so much hadn't been made about banning stuff most of us probably wouldn't ever have anything to do with fox hunting. A lot of horse owners might not have felt motivated to continue taking part?

It might have taken a while longer, but I think that fox hunting's days could have been numbered anyhow. It might have faded away gradually.

What do the rest of you think?

It's an interesting point C.
Perhaps if there wasn't so much hoo-ha about banning it then fox hunters might not have been so motivated to go hunting - bloody mindedness if you will.

Let's not forget though, the ban isn't a ban on foxhunting. It is a ban on hunting with dogs.

 

[R-Bowskill]

This could really put the cat among the pidgons (or fox among the hounds).

Foxhunting is neither hunting as per for food, nor a sport. It's actually a form of pagan animal sacrifice. I'm useing the word pagan here in it's true sense of, belonging to the place / locality or rural as opposed to city dwelling.

This is why they have the 'blooding' ritual, it's a right of passage / initiation into the group.

If the pro hunt people were prepared to admit this aspect of what they do they would have a strong case for foxhunting being protected under the human rights act as a religious observance with the same status as christenings and bar mitzvahs' etc.

As for the idea of dumping the dead hounds in picnic areas, not a good idea as it won't take long to gather them up into a lorry and take them away. If they really wanted to cause problems they'd let them out in the middle of cities to tie up resources and cause traffic chaos.

There is a mixture of good argument and emotive rubbish put out by both pro and anti foxhunting people. It's not an easy one, the tendency to seek to solve problems with a ban is worrying, as are some of the threats that have been made by pro foxhunters.

But where were the countryside alliance when bowhunting and many other bushcraft skills, once part of British rural life were banned? :roll:

 

[EdS]

Pagan doesn't mean rural etcc it form the latin for outsider (forgiener) ie someone not from here or to be specific outside of the Roman empire.

 

[Ginja]

I think the ban which causes 12,000 hounds to be put down is what is barbaric.

You see what I mean about the 2 sides never being able to agree.

But both sides CAN agree ...!!! Here's how:

1) Ban hunting with dogs and start killing foxes in a more 'humane' manner instead (shooting, for instance). This will keep the 'bleeding heart city liberals' happy

2) ... which leaves the huntspeople/Countryside Alliance fuming .... SO, encourage them to keep on hunting, BUT replace the actual, live fox with a scent bag (and offal if you like). This allows every aspect of the hunt to continue EXCEPT the actual killing of foxes - which means that the hounds don't have to be put down, rural people don't have to lose their jobs, old traditions are kept alive and the social side of hunting is allowed to thrive

Surely this is as close to a win-win situation as we're ever going to get?

G :?:

 

[tomtom]

well said Ginja

 

[Simon]

Pagan doesn't mean rural etcc it form the latin for outsider (forgiener) ie someone not from here or to be specific outside of the Roman empire.

I would have mentioned the misuse of pagan too had you not beat me to it ... although I am not sure that it even means outside the roman empire ... because the "author/editor" of the bible was the Emperor Constantine ... a Pagan Emperor of Rome

 

[Lurch]

Ginja, drag hunting already exists. It is of limited popularity. I think partly because it is more predictable than the hunt and partly because there is no chance of getting a fox - no end game if you will.
Someone mentioned bow hunting, I think bow hunting has been banned way before the CA/BFSS came into being.

 

[ESpy]

Compromise. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.

Ambrose Bierce.

 

[Ginja]

Lurch - never heard the term 'drag hunting' before (barrel of jokes in that ... but won't go there for now!! ).

I can understand why drag hunts aren't particularly popular, but I do think it's a viable alternative to 'putting down' dogs/horses, supposed job losses, etc, that are being touted as the final outcome of the ban. Yes, it is ultimately going to be a case of trying to find some kind of compromise, and while both 'sides' are guilty of stubborness, to some extent, I can't help thinking - and this is my personal opinion - that a certain set of society (ie. the fox hunting community) are being a bit TOO melodramatic about the whole thing - because there ARE alternatives, and they don't HAVE to stop the riding, the dog keeping, the dressing up, the drinking, the socialising ... just the killing.

And yes, I can understand that people's emotions run high, and that for some, this is a deeply personal issue, worthy of taking a stand for/against. But democracy applies to EVERYONE - the idea that the majority rules - and sometimes, when the majority doesn't go in your favour, you just have to take it on the chin and put up, or shut up. Because this ISN'T simply a case of Government dictate, it's a case of the majority of people in the UK supporting the ban. And at the end of the day, no one can argue with that - save for stamping one's feet in a tantrum and screaming, "but we're special, the rules don't apply to us!" Yes they bl**dy well do ...

As an aside, I don't mind telling you that I have actively marched and demonstrated against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and I actually come from a 'forces family'). I'm a peaceful kind of soul most days, though on these marches I have seen violence commited by both sides - by the demonstrators and police alike. This was an issue over which lives we going to be/are now being lost, so it's not surprising that some people got hurt trying to put their point acrross. My point here is that at the time, the majority of the UK population (according to the MORI poll at least) were AGAINST the war - yet the government (both Labour and Tory) decided to go against the grain and bring out the guns regardless. That, in my opion, was something worth risking a few bumps and bruises for. And on that occasion, the government really were (are?) the bad guys.

But not here ... it's the majority of UK people 'against' a minority - and no, it ain't pleasant, but in my book the majority rules the day.

One rule for all - NEVER one rule for some, and another rule for others ... !

I'm going to leave this thread alone now!!

G