MagiKelly said:
Does this mean that owning a hound is evidence of intent to hunt? :yikes: I've never hunted myself, but I once (when I was about 3 years old) had a ride on an Irish Wolfhound, and I'd hate to see them abolished.
The poll idea.....
- Thread starter JakeR
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Does this mean that owning a hound is evidence of intent to hunt? :yikes: I've never hunted myself, but I once (when I was about 3 years old) had a ride on an Irish Wolfhound, and I'd hate to see them abolished.
In the origional bill there was a list of exemptions which included using dogs to flush out game on a shoot, ratting and rabbiting (no squirrels mentioned) but I can't find a list of the current exemptions..... can anyone help?
Even if not exempt, it would have to be proved you went with the intent of hunting..... If you were carrying a possibles bag with a skinning knife it may be a different story.
Ed
Instinctive hunter gatherers we may be but have you ever heard of a foxhunter that does anything with its kill? It is a sport, like has already been said fox population is controlled more by roadkill than foxhunting. However I do agree with you MagiKelly that thinning down the population from foxhunting is a more natural and safer way, for example: not very long ago a young boy was shot when mistaken for a fox so if England was to follow scotland and have foxhunters shoot the foxes it would be far more dangerous witha man/woman galloping across the country with a rifle raised, the route being dictated by the fox.
Ahh David ..... just as I would expect from a master of philosophy 
a version of the "we are better than the animals because we *think*" ... or to put even simpler ... "I think, therefore, I am"
we are physiologically exactly the same in the way we experience feelings to all other mammals ... we all basically have the same phyiological structure.
But psychology comes from another angle
We experience things no different to any other mammal .. psychologist have been aware of this from Jung onwards .. our motives for our choices come from our animal instincts . very few people are even mildly aware of or in control of those instincts which define our choices, this is why society has laws .. to give us other fears to overcome the ones which would otherwise be considered *immoral*
Our rational minds and our "abstract" thought developed as a means to have a referee for our conflicts within our instinctive and impulsive confrontations
Our rational minds are an annex to ourselves ..... and claim authorship for our choices after the fact .. by rationalising our choices ... most if not all our choices are defined by instinct ..... if we really were in control of ourselves and our choices ..... all psychologists would be carpenters instead
there is no such thing as free will ..... it's an illusion ... a game we play with ourselves ..... where the ego claims authorship to appease our insecurities and fears.
The fox feels and experiences just as we would in it's place ... any abstract thought either comes before as irrational fears within the imagination ... or after the fact.
Any other argument is just our *abstract* minds trying to rationalise a choice or perspective that comes from our basic instinct of fear of the competition ..... I believe man has come to his position purely out of the fact that he's more insecure than the other animals .. and has had a greater need to destroy the competition ... rationalise it anyway you like
... the basic motive comes down to our Fear.
a version of the "we are better than the animals because we *think*" ... or to put even simpler ... "I think, therefore, I am"
we are physiologically exactly the same in the way we experience feelings to all other mammals ... we all basically have the same phyiological structure.
But psychology comes from another angle
We experience things no different to any other mammal .. psychologist have been aware of this from Jung onwards .. our motives for our choices come from our animal instincts . very few people are even mildly aware of or in control of those instincts which define our choices, this is why society has laws .. to give us other fears to overcome the ones which would otherwise be considered *immoral*
Our rational minds and our "abstract" thought developed as a means to have a referee for our conflicts within our instinctive and impulsive confrontations
Our rational minds are an annex to ourselves ..... and claim authorship for our choices after the fact .. by rationalising our choices ... most if not all our choices are defined by instinct ..... if we really were in control of ourselves and our choices ..... all psychologists would be carpenters instead
there is no such thing as free will ..... it's an illusion ... a game we play with ourselves ..... where the ego claims authorship to appease our insecurities and fears.
The fox feels and experiences just as we would in it's place ... any abstract thought either comes before as irrational fears within the imagination ... or after the fact.
Any other argument is just our *abstract* minds trying to rationalise a choice or perspective that comes from our basic instinct of fear of the competition ..... I believe man has come to his position purely out of the fact that he's more insecure than the other animals .. and has had a greater need to destroy the competition ... rationalise it anyway you like
... the basic motive comes down to our Fear.
now there's Irony ..... just got my latest copy of New Scientist and guess what the main article is about? ....... how human nature created the modern world :biggthump
go read
go read
I have very little opinon on fox hunting but.... I am against anyone who does not eat what they kill, therefore I am against anyone hunting purely for sport
so I must be against fox hunting, if they ate the fox I would have no problem with it (it would get me into a debate about the number of calories used in the gathering being greater than those gathered though
)
so I must be against fox hunting, if they ate the fox I would have no problem with it (it would get me into a debate about the number of calories used in the gathering being greater than those gathered though
)
I agree with a ban, only for the reason that I don't think you should kill anything unless you're gonna eat it :biggthump Can't say I've ever seen a master of the hunt chowing down on a fox leg :?:
simon said:
Decartes!
Well put simon, took me a few reads to actually get what you were saying though! that certainly one way of putting it, but i think (if i have read correctly) fear is no longer a role player in that league, if you get me. Evolution has played a big role in modern society and we have all evolved from our instinctive days as it were. Hmm, for some reason i can't actually explain what i'm thinking...will get back to that one :roll: quite a problem for me, not being able to explain my thoughts. Could it be a form of dyslexia? :roll:
Cheers,
Jake
My views on the subject:
The idea of fox hunting is not purely sport as I see it. Foxes are seen as vermin by farmers and gamekeepers because of the damage they cause to livestock (chickens, pheasants as well as lambs). There is a sport around this method of control but it is to serve a purpose and as people have said it does weed out the old and weak which is of benefit to the fox population in general.
The dangers of lamping (youngbushman, not done on horseback but by using a high power lamp to reflect the foxes eyes in the dark and then shooting it) have been highlighted in 2 recent accidents where people have been shot by being mistaken as a pair of eyes illuminated by the lamp at night. It is still an effective method but hounds don't mistake people for foxes do they?
The ban includes any hunting with dogs so all rat control with terriers is included which again is an effective method of controlling vermin.
No the hunters do not eat their prey but nor would you eat rats which you kill with dogs that doesn't mean you shouldn't control their numbers.
Rabbits easily get out of hand without a method of control and this is often done with dogs. Again not after a ban.
The other cause for concern with this ban is the unnecessary use of the parliament act and the fact that this is being used as a reward for labour backbenchers showing support for other unrelated policies. I for one would not support anything dressed up as an animal rights issue which is purely political. I have been told by someone who was there that at a dinner party when Tony Blair was asked his view on the fox hunting debate he was heard to say "I couldn't care either way". When thousands of people will lose their way of life and their animals will be put down (no the hounds can't be re-homed as they are bred for work and not pets) I would be very angry.
If it is animal welfare you want then why do the government not address the conditions in which supermarket meat is produced in this country.
Just my views as I say. Also, now hunting with hounds but what next?
Bill
The idea of fox hunting is not purely sport as I see it. Foxes are seen as vermin by farmers and gamekeepers because of the damage they cause to livestock (chickens, pheasants as well as lambs). There is a sport around this method of control but it is to serve a purpose and as people have said it does weed out the old and weak which is of benefit to the fox population in general.
The dangers of lamping (youngbushman, not done on horseback but by using a high power lamp to reflect the foxes eyes in the dark and then shooting it) have been highlighted in 2 recent accidents where people have been shot by being mistaken as a pair of eyes illuminated by the lamp at night. It is still an effective method but hounds don't mistake people for foxes do they?
The ban includes any hunting with dogs so all rat control with terriers is included which again is an effective method of controlling vermin.
No the hunters do not eat their prey but nor would you eat rats which you kill with dogs that doesn't mean you shouldn't control their numbers.
Rabbits easily get out of hand without a method of control and this is often done with dogs. Again not after a ban.
The other cause for concern with this ban is the unnecessary use of the parliament act and the fact that this is being used as a reward for labour backbenchers showing support for other unrelated policies. I for one would not support anything dressed up as an animal rights issue which is purely political. I have been told by someone who was there that at a dinner party when Tony Blair was asked his view on the fox hunting debate he was heard to say "I couldn't care either way". When thousands of people will lose their way of life and their animals will be put down (no the hounds can't be re-homed as they are bred for work and not pets) I would be very angry.
If it is animal welfare you want then why do the government not address the conditions in which supermarket meat is produced in this country.
Just my views as I say. Also, now hunting with hounds but what next?
Bill
MagiKelly
Making memories since '67
Exactly,Lurch said:
I've never hunted but have no desire to stop it. Far more animal suffering happens in getting bargain priced meat and eggs onto the supermarket shelves each day than in hunting in a year.
And if hunting goes which is next, no more lamping or snaring rabbits for the pot? or catching fish or stalking deer?
Lots more unpleasant minorities are in politics but we don't ban them!
Cheers
David
MagiKelly
Making memories since '67
If it got ridiculous you would not be allowed to leave the countryJakeR said:
Last edited by a moderator:
hahahah John
just wait until the new compulsory ID cards are introduced
not to mention the sea angling permit
by the way does anyone remember the dog license ?
it proved so ineffective that it was scrapped but now they want to ban dogs from doing ....well..... Doggy things
The world is slowly going mad IMHO
would a government ban on foxes raiding chicken coops be a potential solution??
Tant
just wait until the new compulsory ID cards are introduced
not to mention the sea angling permit
by the way does anyone remember the dog license ?
it proved so ineffective that it was scrapped but now they want to ban dogs from doing ....well..... Doggy things
The world is slowly going mad IMHO
would a government ban on foxes raiding chicken coops be a potential solution??
Tant
MagiKelly
Making memories since '67
I dont think i would need a great excuse to move to South Africa, its a second home to me afterall. Perhaps i should go on "holiday" and never return. Like hell anyone could find someone weho doesnt want to be found in Neiwoudtville (its in the middle of no-where BTW, but absolutely stunning nonetheless)
Well, every bit of plastic in my wallet currently has an edge quite good enough for things other than the intended purpose! They conifiscate your nail scisors at the airport but leave your credit cards and keys :?:MagiKelly said:I wonder if they will have a nice sharp cutting edge):
World gone mad, or just lacking imagination
David
JakeR said:Decartes!
Well put simon, took me a few reads to actually get what you were saying though! that certainly one way of putting it, but i think (if i have read correctly) fear is no longer a role player in that league, if you get me.
How to explain how wrong you are, without writing an essay :rolmao:
We are genetically programmed with fear as a large part of our make up ... it's an evolutionary inheritance and was once, as you put it a major role player ... infact THE major role player as it took the lions share of our awareness... that genetic structure for fear is still there ... and so is the fear ... just because it doesn't take a frontal position in our awareness .. doesn't mean it isn't there.
We have cunningly renamed it neurosis, stress, anxiety ...... We don't need the fear quite as much yet it still exists and yet we make a lot of effort to deny our fears to ourselves ... yet within our society we feed off fear, we have created a society with fear, all be it under it's new titles, it still has the same physiological effect of stimulating our bodies with epinephrines ... we create things to fear ... that is why we make and watch scary movies .. and why some people read the Daily Mail (as a prime example), and other newspapers, or at least the tabloids, because they sell, primarily, by feeding the public their fears, fears that are hungry for stimulus. I'm not to sure whether the need for fear is physiological or psychological... but it definitely affects both aspects of us ... perhaps it's both
Modern society isn't exactly driven by fear, but rather the need to distract ourselves from our fears ... so that we don't spend too much time contemplating the conflict in us, most notably the Primary Neurosis. Yet the fears still exist under the new names of stress and anxiety .. and we have created our modern world to contain lots of stress and anxiety, we have, to all intents and purpose, built our modern society to contain stress and anxiety, it was a subconscious choice.
we feed our fears within our subconscious at the same time as trying to deny them from our consciousness
go figure :?:
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
