Given that parliament is today voting on a ban on fox hunting, does anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.

Should it be passed, or should it be thrown out??

Yeah, I'm totally in favour of an alright ban. It's only taken god knows how many years for labour to fulfil their promise - oh well a few thousand foxes have been killed in that time all in the name of sport. If you want to make yourself heard in the fox hunting debate or any other political debate then visit www.faxyourmp.co.uk

I am in favour of a total ban - now, not in two years time.

Yeah, I e-mailed my MP on the subject last week (also asked him to vote against any proposed delay on it too!).

An immediate ban would be nice, but it looks like they want to delay the implementation of it until after the next election - typical!!

I am totally in favour of a fox hunting ban, look what happened to that little boy when he went hunting with his family, he got shot and killed. need I say more?

All for it. Pity Mr Blair doesn't have the guts to implement the Act before the next election.

I hope if and when it is implemented that it will be policed and that strong action will be taken against the law breakers.......... or will it be another one of those laws that everybody just ignores and gets away with eg mobile phones and driving, muzzled dogs?


PS heard this morning that some landowners are now refusing to let the MOD use their land for practice on.

Ban fox hunting.
If foxes DO need to be controlled, there are surely more humane methods of doing it.

Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat? What makes murdering a chicken by passing it through a trough of electrified water any more humane than killing a wild pest?

I actually agree with the ban, if only to shut up the toffs who drone on about 'liberty' and 'way of life', as if they were on the streets protesting when Thatcher was butchering the mining community.

But for me, it can't be about the welfare of the fox. As a meat-eater, how is it possible, logically, to go from caring about the cuddly little foxes to tucking into a factory farmed burger?

Originally posted by Greenback
Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat?
I don't eat meat. Not since 1979:o

well no, i don't eat meat :) not sure about the others, but i disagree with it on many platforms, I don't believe guns should be used for any kind of sport, don't believ ein cruelty to animals amongst other things, and it disturbs me that people find watching animals hunt other animals down a laugh.

Originally posted by Greenback
Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat? What makes murdering a chicken by passing it through a trough of electrified water any more humane than killing a wild pest?

I actually agree with the ban, if only to shut up the toffs who drone on about 'liberty' and 'way of life', as if they were on the streets protesting when Thatcher was butchering the mining community.

But for me, it can't be about the welfare of the fox. As a meat-eater, how is it possible, logically, to go from caring about the cuddly little foxes to tucking into a factory farmed burger?

The difference is one is killed for a purpose i.e. for human consumption and the other is killed purely for fun and benefits no one apart from the select few, the ones with hereditory titles and more land you can shake a stick at. Besides, I feel it's the way that the fox is killed which is more the issue. The fox is usually pursued for miles by a pack of dogs until it's on the brink of exhaustion and then is ripped apart. Hardly humane is it?! It's about time that such barbarick acts were outlawed. I only hope Tony get's some balls and sticks by this!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Greenback
Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat? What makes murdering a chicken by passing it through a trough of electrified water any more humane than killing a wild pest?

I actually agree with the ban, if only to shut up the toffs who drone on about 'liberty' and 'way of life', as if they were on the streets protesting when Thatcher was butchering the mining community.

But for me, it can't be about the welfare of the fox. As a meat-eater, how is it possible, logically, to go from caring about the cuddly little foxes to tucking into a factory farmed burger?

The difference as i see it is when you eat meat you are enjoying the eating part, the vast vast majority of people who eat animals are totally detached from the killing and the lifestyle of the animal. How many people if they had to kill their own meal would still choose to eat meat? Or if every chicken in the supermarket carried a picture of the conditions those animals had been raised in, who would still choose battery farmed over free range. Most people do care about the conditions of the food they eat, but they are never confronted by the reality.


But with Fox hunting however it is the killing which is the main attraction, it is killing an animal in a brutal fashion for no the reason then the thrill of killing something. People on a Fox Hunt see the cruelty and barbarity of their actions and that is what they enjoy.


Eating a beef burger is one thing but spending you afternoons in an abattoir for entertainment because you enjoy seeing animals in a state of distress before being killed is another.


The plus point of a delay with the ban as i see it will be to give people employed within the industry more time to find other work and will also prevent a mass cull of dogs, hopefully.

Originally posted by Greenback
Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat? What makes murdering a chicken by passing it through a trough of electrified water any more humane than killing a wild pest?

I actually agree with the ban, if only to shut up the toffs who drone on about 'liberty' and 'way of life', as if they were on the streets protesting when Thatcher was butchering the mining community.

But for me, it can't be about the welfare of the fox. As a meat-eater, how is it possible, logically, to go from caring about the cuddly little foxes to tucking into a factory farmed burger?

I've been a vegetarian for 10 years, but I think you're missing the point here. Farmed meat for human consumption is not usually torn to pieces by a pack of dogs for the primary reason of being a bit of fun for a loads of upper class *****.

I want them to ban hunting as soon as possible.

Even though I am a vegetarian I can see why meat-eaters would be in favour of banning hunting. In my opinion there is a massive difference between killing for food and killing for sadistic pleasure.

Some people say that fox hunting is just a way of controlling pests but, if that was the case then why the need to make a big joyous occasion out of it? And if they think the fox is a pest then why do they keep breeding them specially so they can hunt them?

A large number of farm-owners do actually ban fox-hunters from their land, so the arguement that hunting is a "necesity" in order to control foxes doesn't hold much weight.

I would like to see the government go on to ban other "sports" that cause suffering to other creatures... including angling.

Originally posted by Dug
I've been a vegetarian for 10 years, but I think you're missing the point here. Farmed meat for human consumption is not usually torn to pieces by a pack of dogs for the primary reason of being a bit of fun for a loads of upper class *****.


Tricky one this! although I'm all for a ban so that the fox doesn't have to suffer a horrendous death, I also, eat meat, fish, poultry, so that makes me a hypocrite, however it depends on the way the animals are killed, as I do not agree with making them suffer unecessary.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Eating a beef burger is one thing but spending you afternoons in an abattoir for entertainment because you enjoy seeing animals in a state of distress before being killed is another.

The end result for the animal is the same, not matter how you justify it in human terms.

People eat meat for fun (it's no more noble than that), and the vast majority of the time this involves animal suffering. People hunt foxes for fun, and this also involves animal suffering. The fact that in one case the suffering is hidden away doesn't make it any better for the creatures involved.

Originally posted by Dug
I've been a vegetarian for 10 years, but I think you're missing the point here. Farmed meat for human consumption is not usually torn to pieces by a pack of dogs for the primary reason of being a bit of fun for a loads of upper class *****.

Well, the point is that I'm afraid hypocrisy abounds on this issue. Many people who own pets will eat factory-farmed meat and then complain about the poor little foxes.

just heard the bill has gone through

Originally posted by Greenback

Well, the point is that I'm afraid hypocrisy abounds on this issue. Many people who own pets will eat factory-farmed meat and then complain about the poor little foxes.

You have to separate out the two issues.

There is no reason to kill a fox in this way, if they need to be killed in order to control them fine but at least use other ways. I'm afraid the pro-hunt lobby are now clutching at straws with their arguments.

The end result is not the same for the animal. Abattoirs do make efforts to kill animals as humanly as possible, while they cause distress to animals it is in everybody's best interest that the animal has as peaceful a death as is possible. Fox hunters care about nothing but their own deranged sense of pleasure. Foxes are killed in the most brutal way possible after an exhaustive chase. The more distressed and punished the fox, the more successful the hunt.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
The end result is not the same for the animal. Abattoirs do make efforts to kill animals as humanly as possible, while they cause distress to animals it is in everybody's best interest that the animal has as peaceful a death as is possible. Fox hunters care about nothing but their own deranged sense of pleasure. Foxes are killed in the most brutal way possible after an exhaustive chase. The more distressed and punished the fox, the more successful the hunt.

The end result is exactly the same: premature animal death at the hand of man.

Measuring the exact level of animal distress caused by abattoirs, as opposed to fox hunting, is tricky. But I'll hazard a guess that judging by the numbers of animals being slaughtered - many of whom will be stunned and regain consciousness before dying - an abattoir will inflict far more misery than fox hunting (20,000 dead foxes per year).

Not a justification, just putting things in context.

Originally posted by Greenback

Not a justification, just putting things in context.

You've made the point yourself. You can't use the killing of animals for food as justification to continue the hunting of animals for pleasure - it is not the same thing.

Ah goodo, see Blunkett voted against the ban (finger on the pulse of what his constituents want - as always??!!)

The bill has not gone through parliament yet due to the commons being invaded by pro-hunt protesters at around 4:10pm - debating/voting will resume later - hopefully to be completed in full by tonight.

I love it when people dig their own graves :) Although I've had my own share in the past :(

Anyway one thing not mentioned in this thread is the damage caused when the fox inadvertantly tries to hide in someones garden. We've all seen stories where the hounds have followed and attacked someones pet.

Foxes are cool, we have one on our estate which I only see when stood outside at night having a smoke. A very serene moment when he comes trotting past the front of the drive in the depths of suburbia.

I'd rather see a ponce on a horse get torn to bits rather than one of these beautiful creatures.

Originally posted by Dug
You've made the point yourself. You can't use the killing of animals for food as justification to continue the hunting of animals for pleasure - it is not the same thing.

Both factory farming and hunting show a disregard for animal life. One is overt (hunting), while one we prefer not to think about - yet both are unnecessary and cruel. It's not the same thing, but the bottom line is that animals are killed for human pleasure.

Originally posted by Greenback
The end result is exactly the same: premature animal death at the hand of man.

Measuring the exact level of animal distress caused by abattoirs, as opposed to fox hunting, is tricky. But I'll hazard a guess that judging by the numbers of animals being slaughtered - many of whom will be stunned and regain consciousness before dying - an abattoir will inflict far more misery than fox hunting (20,000 dead foxes per year).

Not a justification, just putting things in context.

You also have to consider the indentured nature of domestic (farm) animals. Some animals can not be farmed, some can. Those that are entered into (unwittingly, sure) a contract with man - Give us shelter, food protection and a reasonable lifespan, and you will get high protein, high fat, high calorific value food on your doorstep.

That has been happening for at least 10,000 years, probably more than that.

There isn't a farmed pig or cow alive today that would exist if man had not domesticated animals (or is it the other way round?)

Hunting became obsolete as a food gathering method with the onset of argriculture and animal husbandry for all but a handful of civilisations. What hunting was retained became much more symbolic and ritualised, when survival depended on it less.

Much easier to go out to the barn and cut a goat's throat.....

The bill today was to outlaw hunting with hounds, not just fox hunting, but hare coursing and stag hunting too.

Fox hunting hardly affects the fox population of the country as a whole, but in the rural areas foxes are becoming so scarce that they have to be captured and transported.

If the hunts were really serious about controlling numbers or any other paper thin justification for their bizarre sport, then we'd see the pink coats galloping through Victorian suburbs, where fox numbers are much higher.

Morally I think greenback is right. If you use any product that directly or indirectly requires the death of an animal (leather shoes, cochineal, beer etc) then you cant really take a stand against fox hunting on an animal welfare level without being glaringly inconsistent.

On an empathetic level too, most of us are (happily and wilfully) ignorant of conditions inside abattoirs, where the mind bogglingly large amount of meat is slaughtered daily for the british plate. (Something like 50,000 red meat animals a day are killed). And that doesn't include the suffering these animals have to go through in live transportation. Pigs - extremely intelligent animals on a par with dogs in terms of emotional and intellectual skills - get extremely distressed by travel,.

The increasing centralisation of abattoirs means that animals are having to travel farther and farther to be killed.

The only reason I would like to see foxhunting banned is purely a selfish loathing of a symbol of rank and privilege, best consigned to the hostory books and pub placemats.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The only reason I would like to see foxhunting banned is purely a selfish loathing of a symbol of rank and privilege, best consigned to the hostory books and pub placemats.

This may be a trivial / silly point but ...

Can anyone go fox hunting !?

For example ...

Could some of my mates and I go and buy fox hunting outfits (red coats and white legging things) and horses. Then head of in to the countryside and start hunting foxes !?

What is to stop working class people from doing this !?

Yes hunting and factory farming are both cruel, but quite a few people do make a lifestyle choice that negates the use of animals being killed for human pleasure - and that choice is vegan.

The only reason fox hunting has remained legal for so long is because it is primarily the domain of the wealthy and privileged. The commons has successfully passed a ban on hunting many times only for it to be run out in the House of Lords (another domain of the wealthy and privileged - ooh what a coincidence).
If these huntspeople were so concerned with the actual hunt and not the kill then they would choose drag hunting. They still get their precious rides out in the fresh country air but without seeing an animal torn to pieces (nothing humane about it, would you rather be shot or torn to pieces by a pack of starving hounds??).

There is nothing humane or sporting about the whole sordid thing. From the training of young dogs using young fox cubs as bait to the disposal of the old or injured hounds left to rot in metal barrels.

Anyone after further information check out

www.vegansociety.com
[url]www.huntsabs.org.uk

Originally posted by Greenback
People eat meat for fun (it's no more noble than that) ... People hunt foxes for fun

People also eat meat for it's nutritional content that is utilised by their bodies.

So as well as it being a pleasure ... eating farmed animals also has a functional / practical purpose.

What is the functional / practical purpose of killing them cute little foxes !?

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Yes hunting and factory farming are both cruel, but quite a few people do make a lifestyle choice that negates the use of animals being killed for human pleasure - and that choice is vegan

It seems to me that to eat eggs in return for feeding sheltering and protecting chickens or ducks is a pretty fair trade. Why do vegans eschew eggs? Milk I can understand, and also, obviously battery farming, but in principle is there anything about a semi symbiotic relationship based on eggs?

Jamie - hunts are long standing (usually) organizations, like a club, that meet often and hunt a little less often.

The hounds need to be fed year round, and the horses liveried. Expensive stuff. But for a horse riding enthusiast it must be a real blast, riding across open country, I can see why they like it so much...

Perhaps there should be a new sport - fox hunter hunting? After seeing the scum fighting with police today I'd like nothing more than to be in a vigilante posse chasing them across open moorland.

I can't see how it can be argued that because we eat meat we shouldn't complain about fox hunting. Firstly, there is such a thing as a food chain, and humans aren't naturally vegetarians. Secondly, eating meat isn't pointless - nutritional gain and a healthy, balanced diet. Fox hunting however is pointless - even if numbers need controlling there are much more humane ways to do this than to rip them apart with trained dogs. Thirdly, in any case, two wrongs don't make a right (if you can argue that eating meat is wrong). We have a chance to get rid of one of the wrongs, so why not take it?

Best thing I've seen on TV for ages, - frock-coated Commons Constables chasing rural chavs around the floor of the House :cool:

Poor Blunket...two hits in three days.

And what about our already disreputable parliamentary democracy ? This cynical manipulation of our democratic process over an inconsequential matter of rural pest control will make us the laughing stock of the world. :mad:

Why do Vegans eschew eggs? - more reasons than you can probably imagine.

The cramped , unnatural conditions of battery hens (an average hen has a wingspan of 76cm, battery cages are normally 50cm wide, 46cm deep and house 4 or 5 birds at a time) the debeaking, the 300+ eggs a year they lay compared to the 10-12 of their wild counterparts, the breeding hens who lay the eggs that become the battery hens tend to lay an equivalent amount of 'male' eggs, the chicks are sexed at a day old, the male chicks are thrown into bins (hundreds at a time) and either gassed or crushed to death - as none of these being are any good to be reared for meat as they are specifically bred to be scrawny (so they take up less room - more to a cage).

Eggs referred to as free range are more accurately termed 'high density' - housed 2-3000 to a shed but are called free range because at least they have a little room to move around. A process that destroys the whole social order that hens would naturally exhibit when in the wild and so they end up not moving anyway for fear of crossing another birds 'territory' and being attacked.

Just a few reasons why vegans don't eat eggs!!

Originally posted by Greybeard

And what about our already disreputable parliamentary democracy ? This cynical manipulation of our democratic process over an inconsequential matter of rural pest control will make us the laughing stock of the world. :mad:

I agree about the manipulation of our democratic process but to my mind it's the House of Lords who are ignoring democracy. When such a large majority in the HoC, from all parties I may add, have their will continually ignored in the HoL it appears that they are the ones who are making our democratic process the laughing stock. If they had obeyed the will of the people back when all this first came before the house it would have all been sorted now.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Why do Vegans eschew eggs? - more reasons than you can probably imagine.

The cramped , unnatural conditions of battery hens (an average hen has a wingspan of 76cm, battery cages are normally 50cm wide, 46cm deep and house 4 or 5 birds at a time) the debeaking, the 300+ eggs a year they lay compared to the 10-12 of their wild counterparts, the breeding hens who lay the eggs that become the battery hens tend to lay an equivalent amount of 'male' eggs, the chicks are sexed at a day old, the male chicks are thrown into bins (hundreds at a time) and either gassed or crushed to death - as none of these being are any good to be reared for meat as they are specifically bred to be scrawny (so they take up less room - more to a cage).

Eggs referred to as free range are more accurately termed 'high density' - housed 2-3000 to a shed but are called free range because at least they have a little room to move around. A process that destroys the whole social order that hens would naturally exhibit when in the wild and so they end up not moving anyway for fear of crossing another birds 'territory' and being attacked.

Just a few reasons why vegans don't eat eggs!!

so its ok to rear your own chickens and eat their eggs if you are a vegan?

Funny you should ask that - the same thing has come up today on www.vegansociety.com forum (Get it off your chest section, vegans who're not vegan board).

It does seem to be a bit of a grey area but on the whole probably not - why would you want to eat (what is essentially) the menstrual product of a hen????

its kind of strange seeing the country side people suffering at the hands of the police, after all the police brutality which the hunt sabs have suffered over the years, its odd and terrible seeing the other side getting it, it feels very bizarre watching it all.

I am totally anti hunting and have been protesting against it for years but the people outside parliament today had every right to make their protests and they should not have been subjected to a lot of stuff the police did to them.

At the end of the day, this debate is about modern human standards being superimposed onto the increasingly detached natural world.

Cats kill for sport, just like ALL predators.

Humans are the ultimate predators and it just so happens that we have worked out some pretty sophisticated methods of having our sport, and yes, that sometimes involves killing other living animals. There is no black and white in this argument, though many people attempt to make it such. It satisfies our modern western pretentions at sophistication.

This argument is more about peoples perception of class than the actual hunting. That is the hypocritical thing about this debate.

Personally (gonna be unpopular for this) I would not ban hunting.

The post above about the condition hens are reared is all well and good but consider this - if they were able to roam about as free as, well a bird, then the price of a KFC 14 piece bucket would be out of my price range and that would not be good.

Something to consider.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Funny you should ask that -
I already did but you missed it first time round....
the same thing has come up today on www.vegansociety.com forum (Get it off your chest section, vegans who're not vegan board).

It does seem to be a bit of a grey area but on the whole probably not - why would you want to eat (what is essentially) the menstrual product of a hen????

Why would you want to drink the excrement of bacteria? Why would you want to eat the sexual organs of plants? Calorific value, varied diet, and all those things of course. Silly question IMO.

Eggs are a good food source and can help make up a healthy diet. The goose wins (long life, plenty of offspring) you win (lifelong supply of good protein, home defence), who loses? Where does any animal suffer or in any way have its liberty (as a domestic animal) infringed? Seems like a good deal, as I explained earlier.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
why would you want to eat (what is essentially) the menstrual product of a hen???? Hmm, well they taste nice and you can cook them in a thousand ways and they are very good for you.

Oh yes, and 9 million years of human evolution eating eggs helps too.

mmmmm lovely eggs!

what i woul'd like to know is how is this ban going to be policed,are we going to have police monitiring the fields of britain just in case they catch someone out with their dog.
I watched the police batter people who are simply exercising their democratic right to protest.
I tell you what they had better start building many more prisons because I think they will need them before long.
Blair has given in to the left wing of his party as a sop for not causing too much trouble over Iraq.
And finally it was good to see the conservatives vow to repeal this act when they come to power.
Blair and his party will never rest until all vestages of the british way of life are wiped out.

Would those of you who say it is ok and civilised for people to breed foxes to hunt and kill for sport also agree that it should be legal for me to breed cats or dogs for sport if I were to devise some new sport involving chasing them and killing them?

That's a bit of a misleading argument.

The difference is that hunting is a deriviative sport that mimics a natural process that occurs in this country anyway. What you propose isn't.

Originally posted by Tony
That's a bit of a misleading argument.

The difference is that hunting is a deriviative sport that mimics a natural process that occurs in this country anyway. What you propose isn't.

whaaat?


'Mimics a natural process' - which natural process is that? The one where foxed are reared for hunting by their wild predators?

I'm perfectly happy to be corrected, but I'm not aware that hunts rear foxes.

strange one really - having been brought up in sheff and lived there until 21ish I was always against fox hunting. Now that Ilive and work in the countryside I can see the other side of the argument too.

The end result being I'm not really swayed either way. :confused:

why don't they muzzle the dogs then they can hve their fun and then shoot the little blighter to save it getting ripped to pieces...:) but i don't really care as some years ago a fox murderd all my chickens so i don't like them anyway:D

Originally posted by spook
The end result being I'm not really swayed either way. :confused:
I kind of think the same, but I do think it's the thin end of a very unpopular wedge. De-facto, fishing has to follow eventually.

Hence I would not introduce the new law, and I'm not involved in any hunting or fishing activity.

spot on Tony - and neither do I take part in any of those activities.

Originally posted by Tony
I'm perfectly happy to be corrected, but I'm not aware that hunts rear foxes.

Not only do they rear foxes they also capture them in one part of the country and transport them to another. The hunts also build artificial setts where they encourage the foxes to live and then supply them with sheep and deer carcasses so they can survive.

All this is on the League Against Cruel Sports site and has been shown on several tv programs.

Originally posted by Tony
That's a bit of a misleading argument.

The difference is that hunting is a deriviative sport that mimics a natural process that occurs in this country anyway. What you propose isn't.

I don't see why you say it mimics a natural process that occurs in this country. The argument that it is ok to hunt foxes because foxes hunt and kill chickens and other animals would also apply to hunting cats because cats hunt and kill birds and mice.

And yes, huntsmen do encourage the breeding of foxes for hunting... so much for the claim that they hunt because they need to get rid of vermin!

Originally posted by Tony
I kind of think the same, but I do think it's the thin end of a very unpopular wedge. De-facto, fishing has to follow eventually.

Hence I would not introduce the new law, and I'm not involved in any hunting or fishing activity.

But the "thin end of a very unpopular wedge" started many years ago with the banning of things like bear fighting, cock fights, badger baiting, and dog fights. Should those things not have been banned either?

Over the years the public begin to realise that certain sports are too cruel to justify being legal, and vote to ban them. Although now most people accept that fish can suffer pain, the majority of people have not come round to wanting to ban angling yet, so unfortunately I don't believe there will be serious talk of banning it in the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by max
Not only do they rear foxes they also capture them in one part of the country and transport them to another. The hunts also build artificial setts where they encourage the foxes to live and then supply them with sheep and deer carcasses so they can survive.

All this is on the League Against Cruel Sports site and has been shown on several tv programs.
Well I haven't seen that myself, but I am perfectly prepared to believe you and so stand corrected.

It still doesn't alter the fact that I think it is a needless law, Fox hunting does mimic nature if you remove our human sensitivities (unlike bull baiting) and I don't see how anyone who supports the ban would not, with clear head, also support a ban on fishing or shooting or eating meat. To think less is hypocritical.

Where do you draw the line of 'too cruel"?? :huh: I don't see how you can. It is either cruel, or it's not. We either accept cruelty or we don't.

The hunting ban leads to a fishing ban which then extends to medical and scientific research. Like I said, the thin end of an unpopular wedge. To do less is hypocritical.

Now this of course leads us to the REAL reason for the fox hunting ban.

This new law is more about Labour Party politics than any concern for the welfare of animals.

... Now, where did I put that list of wars?

Originally posted by max
I agree about the manipulation of our democratic process but to my mind it's the House of Lords who are ignoring democracy. When such a large majority in the HoC, from all parties I may add, have their will continually ignored in the HoL it appears that they are the ones who are making our democratic process the laughing stock. If they had obeyed the will of the people back when all this first came before the house it would have all been sorted now.



Well it was OK to ignore the will of the people over the invasion of Iraq.

I haven't seen a recent POP on the fox hunting issue but I doubt that many of those who support a ban are remotely aquainted with the economic and social consequences. They are unlikely to be asked if they would support a ban knowing that several thousand people will be out of work as a result.

To the ordinary working people in the rural economy this ban is a parallel to Maggie Thatcher's destruction of the coal industry and will have similar repercussions in terms of unemployment. The BSE fiasco proved this govt's total detachment from farming and coubtryside issues, and there is now so little support for New Labour out in the sticks that they have nothing to lose with this hunting ban.

As for the HoL, - if the govt. had kept their manifesto promise of reform it wouldn't now be a thorn in their side.

Originally posted by Tony
Well I haven't seen that myself, but I am perfectly prepared to believe you and so stand corrected.

It still doesn't alter the fact that I think it is a needless law, Fox hunting does mimic nature if you remove our human sensitivities (unlike bull baiting) and I don't see how anyone who would not also support a ban on fishing or shooting or eating meat could be anything other than hypocritical.


... Now, where did I put that list of wars?
Where and when did wild hounds ever hunt wild foxes with horses in tow, or without horses for that matter.

Hounds are domesticated animals, have been for thousands of years. If you want a "natural" hunting sport, look no further than falconry.

Hunting rights in this country have been largely the preserve of the rich for at least 900 years (probably much longer but my pre-conquest social history is a bit shakier). The penalty for poaching was death.

You're right to say that supporting a ban onfox hunting, on the grounds of cruelty, is an act of total hypocrisy for any user of animal products - i.e virtually anyone.

There is no doubt that fox hunting and hare coursing are cruel sports, but the reponses to the debate are almost uniformly emotive.

Those opposed to hunting, in my view, on welfare grounds should take a long hard look at Jain monks and then reconsider precisely how much their life impacts on other creatures.

Those who oppose a ban on hunting with hounds appear to be mostly those involved, which is understandble, and also a large contigent of rural and semi rural dwellers who have lapsed into a them and us mentality, and found that fighting for a cause is fun, and you meet new people.

Also included here are the libertarians who really couldn't give a flying fox either way, but support the idea that people should be free to do what they want (including sabbing hunts too).

I think if you are going to outlaw hunting with hounds, the grounds could easily be needless cruelty to higher mammals. But then you have to take on the meat trade and everything else to show that you are serious about animal welfare.

Also, if its ok to hunt foxes with hounds, why not cats? These things really are a pest in rural areas, accounting for the wholesale destruction of populations of rare, indigenous small mammals (such as voles, shrews etc) - which in turn has contributed to the demise of other smaller predators (weasels, stoats, raptors).

I think cat hunting parties would be great. But it would have to be more of a stalking affair, with a rifle and scope - not running it to ground with a pack of baying hounds. And think of the payoff in furs!

Originally posted by Tony
Where do you draw the line of 'too cruel"?? :huh: I don't see how you can. It is either cruel, or it's not. We either accept cruelty or we don't.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere Tony.

Otherwise you have murder (of another human being) in the same catagory as wearing leather shoe-laces. Both involve some degree of cruelty, and as you seem to be saying that the degree of cruelty is not important ("It is either cruel, or it's not.") ... are these two the same?

Personally, I see it in terms of neccesity, and practical value, and fox hunting, it appears, goes way behond any of that.

I do not like it or the hunt people at all.

It seems to me pompus and arrogant for people to get so dressed up and feel animalistic excitement and a sense of power over another creature that they're going to kill just for fun.

For me it has nothing to do with class or being PC. It just seems like heartless and inhumane behaviour.

Badger baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting were banned many years ago. These were working class blood sports. So why was fos hunting not banned simultaneously? Because the arrogant people who fox hunt have been able to influence decision making in this country for way too long.

Tony Blair has been far too easy going with them in the past by allowing it to continue. They have had plenty of time to disband. Therefore I fully agree with pushing the bill through quickly.

Fox hunters do not seem to have the political sway they once had, so they behave like petulant children. Chaos ensued yesterday and when the police struck back the fox hunters didn't like it, but I thought they revelled in blood on their hands and faces! At least the police were able to defend themselves.

Ooo I never thought I would accuse a fellow mod of trolling, but... Phan, you're trolling! :P

Cats are singularly and wrongly maligned for the demise in the small bird and mammal population.

Methinks you had better take a long hard look at mans actions before blaming poor pussy.

Originally posted by Greybeard

I haven't seen a recent POP on the fox hunting issue but I doubt that many of those who support a ban are remotely aquainted with the economic and social consequences. They are unlikely to be asked if they would support a ban knowing that several thousand people will be out of work as a result.


That argument doesn't hold much weight. If something is wrong, then you can't allow it to go on just because people will lose jobs. It would be like suggesting that burglaries and other crimes are to be encouraged because they provide employment for police officers, insurance companies, solicitors etc.

According to a MORI poll a few months ago 76% of the public believe that fox hunting is cruel and should be made illegal, and a vast majority of the elected MPs have consistently voted for a complete ban several times since 1997.

Originally posted by scrolling

but I thought they revelled in blood on their hands and faces! At least the police were able to defend themselves.


I wish just one of those that got a beating woke up this morning and just thought to himself “**** that’s just how a fox must feel when we attack it”

Originally posted by Tony
Ooo I never thought I would accuse a fellow mod of trolling, but... Phan, you're trolling! :P

Cats are singularly and wrongly maligned for the demise in the small bird and mammal population.

Methinks you had better take a long hard look at mans actions before blaming poor pussy.

I'm quite serious about cats, even though we have one that I really like.

Several extensive studies using evidence literally collected from the jaws of domestic cats reveal that a single cat can kill well over 1000 small birds and mammals every year. (free roaming domestic cat rural or urban). Its a recognised problem.

Cats are a total cat-astrophe for small mammals. And that doesn't even factor in the effect of feral cats, no-one knows the numbers they hunt down, and with over a million of them in the UK, the effect is not going to be small.

Back to fox hunting, no-one has mentioned cruelty to hounds either. They don't get pensioned off to some nice family - they get a bullet to the brain (or the nearest legal equivalent).

And back to cat hunting - fair point, trolling attitude perhaps, but I believe the principles that apply should be exactly the same. The only thing that separates cat hunting from fox hunting is that cat hunting is already illegal. (they must be caught and euthanised in a humane manner if they are to be killed). But anyone who owns land with a population of feral cats owns them under british law, and could probably charge people for hunting rights (if they could find any customers) but it would have to be a stalking and netting routine, followed by a lethal injection, and then the pelt as a trophy (like fox hunting).

Anyway, people can still hunt foxes, just not with hounds.

Looks like bad news for the rather large number of beagles involved sadly surplus to requirements and not worth feeding. Not out of work so much as into a big deep hole with a few dozen of their lifeless brethren, a bucket of quicklime and no ceremony.

Maybe we could hunt beagles? We have to have something to chase after and kill after all. Now I seem to remember Stephen King writing a story about that... Endemol hasn't read it... yet

Before I start rannting I would just like to say a ban on fox hunting is a fair point.
They're are many ways to carry on the sport of hunting without resorting to killing a fox, or people losing jobs.

But i am sicked to death of people from both sides wingeing on about it.

On the same day as the protest their was 3 pictures in the Gaurdian.
In the 1st picture, their was a man in Iraq in some distress knelt in the road.
By the 3rd picture he was dead with is friends, also lifeless around him.
An American helicopter had sprayed bullets into a public street allegedly.
It was very visual and thought provoking.

So it winds me right up when I see both sides of the fox hunting debate, being so passionate for something so un important in the big scheem of things.

Where was the House of Commons stormers when we were about to go to WAR.
What a waste of energy!

Anyway before all you animal lovers get arsey with me, I have a dog which I love to bits, 2 cats and TWO DAUGHTERS, Get Real.

If it is wrong for meat-eaters to oppose fox-hunting on the grounds that both acts cause suffering and death to animals and it is therefore hypocrytical, then where do you draw the line? Is it wrong for a meat-eater to intervene and stop youths throwing fireworks at dogs or hedgehogs?

Well that rather depends. In the case of my dog, she Doesn't really mind fireworks, but would it be cruel to the youths to let her play with them with her rather large teeth? ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Well that rather depends. In the case of my dog, she Doesn't really mind fireworks, but would it be cruel to the youths to let her play with them with her rather large teeth? ;)

That's a good idea... could be killing two birds with one stone. Teaching the youths a good lesson, and introducing a new kind of bloodsport! :thumbsup:

Hehe, there would be a lot of blood ! :) Maybe that's the answer - we let the animals attack sub-humans?:D Put them in a glass room and see who wins?

Sub Humans tony? You mean "them" not "us" right?

I would be quite happy to take a test to see if I qualify as a sub-human.

(maybe that is the test ;))

As for my dog, well she would definitely qualify as sub-human so she's in the ring with the youth with the box marked 'Standard'. :D

Originally posted by Greybeard
I haven't seen a recent POP on the fox hunting issue but I doubt that many of those who support a ban are remotely aquainted with the economic and social consequences. They are unlikely to be asked if they would support a ban knowing that several thousand people will be out of work as a result.
A recent independent report states that job losses could be as low as 1000, whereas 10,000 farming jobs have gone in the past 10 years. 100,000s of land jobs have gone since1918 and the Country Landowners Association ,which has much to say about the loss of hunt-related jobs, did nothing and said nothing about these...... because they profited from the job losses.

Originally posted by Greybeard
the ordinary working people in the rural economy this ban is a parallel to Maggie Thatcher's destruction of the coal industry and will have similar repercussions in terms of unemployment.
222,000 miners jobs lost between 1984 and 1995. I don't think that 1 to 5 thousand hunt jobs compares.

Originally posted by Greybeard
The BSE fiasco proved this govt's total detachment from farming and coubtryside issues, and there is now so little support for New Labour out in the sticks that they have nothing to lose with this hunting ban.
Thatcher caused BSE by allowing deregulation of animal feed production.
Major and Gummer are complicit in the deaths of 100s of people, not only through inaction but actually encouraging them to eat Beef, some of which must have been infected. In my eyes they are guilty of multiple manslaughter at the very least. The fiasco cost the taxpayer billions. No one has been made accountabe.These people are Conservatives. Blair is only responsible from letting them off the hook (just as well he did because he'd have the next Tory government prosecuting him for war crimes in revenge)

Funny quote on the news last night.. fox hunt supporter had injury caused by policeman, he was very upset and said " all those policeman only wanted blood" ! they should shake hands and join forces...

Originally posted by Modesty
Before I start rannting I would just like to say a ban on fox hunting is a fair point.
They're are many ways to carry on the sport of hunting without resorting to killing a fox, or people losing jobs.

But i am sicked to death of people from both sides wingeing on about it.

On the same day as the protest their was 3 pictures in the Gaurdian.
In the 1st picture, their was a man in Iraq in some distress knelt in the road.
By the 3rd picture he was dead with is friends, also lifeless around him.
An American helicopter had sprayed bullets into a public street allegedly.
It was very visual and thought provoking.

So it winds me right up when I see both sides of the fox hunting debate, being so passionate for something so un important in the big scheem of things.

Where was the House of Commons stormers when we were about to go to WAR.
What a waste of energy!

Anyway before all you animal lovers get arsey with me, I have a dog which I love to bits, 2 cats and TWO DAUGHTERS, Get Real.


Similiar sentiment from The Independents cartoon today

I say no ban simply because I don't see the need.

Yes, the fox ends up in a mess ultimately BUT, generally when a fox is caught by the pack it will be killed fairly quickly by the 1st hound to get there. It gets messy a few seconds later when the rest of the pack get in on the act - by which time the fox is dead and presumably would not really care what happens too its' corpse?

If people enjoy dressing up and riding round on horses then there is no problem here for me, the only problem with hunting with hounds is *IF* it is cruel to the fox. Not just prejudice against 'toffs in red coats'.

Just my 2pence worth, I will happily discuss further (PM me) but I will not reply to 'u cruel *******' type messages.

Disscussion good - slanging match bad, can go to pub for that :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1305705,00.html

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Thatcher caused BSE by allowing deregulation of animal feed production.



My bad. Actually I was thinking of the last F&M outbreak....[but the damned dog was barking at nobody at the door]. The totally disorganised way the govt. handled that business broke a lot of farmers.

I did suggest a parallel with the miner's situation, - not a like-for-like comparison; nor is it just those people directly employed by hunts who will be affected, - livery stables and their supporting service industry will certainly feel the pinch.

The point about rural job losses isn't just the quantity. It's also the lack of any local alternative employment that will break these people, as well as the fact that many live in tied accomodation dependent on their employment. If many of them have to move to an urban environment to find work then that's another big bite out of the rural social fabric.

But don't worry too much about it, - the countryside will still be there for the townie to take a spin through on Sundays and Bank Holidays and who wants too see people working in the countryside..it just spoils the view.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I wish just one of those that got a beating woke up this morning and just thought to himself “**** that’s just how a fox must feel when we attack it”


Nice one Disco_Cat. Exactly!!!

I’m predicting that judging by the lack of pro pox hunting posts on this thread i won’t actually be talking to any fox hunters here but does anyone know what fox hunters actually do for a living?

I always presumed they had normal jobs and did it at weekends and boxing day but in news item after news item they’ve been showing them hunting during the week. their was a whole family on the news yesterday who had been on a hunt then gone to the protest then the next day they spent all day hunting.

Why haven’t the parents got jobs, why aren’t the kids in school?

Will we see truancy rates drop as soon as the ban comes into effect?

Aren't they allowed days off from work?

Why aren't you working ;)

Days off work is one thing but this news report said they did it every day.

And this is a really bad time for kids to be away from school.

I'm about to go to work, start an 8 hour shift in one hour

Incidentally i heard an interview with one farm hand who said his boss had given him the day off work so he could come to the protest with him. This dude was one of the men trying to break the police cordon and getting a beating for it. Certainly seemed like the majority of people attacking the police were land workers rather then land owners.

It's all very odd.
For years I haven’t been able to fathom out what all the fuss is about. Fox hunting is like, uh, dull. Don't get me wrong - I like the Gee gees and enjoy the thrill of an occasional gallop. But traipsing around just to kill a daft doglike thing - madness.
How is that a sport?
Put me in a car 160mph around a track competing against intelligent HUMANS! Now that sport. Or 280mph inverted 500ft above the ground in a sports plane competing against gravity with a 180 turn and +4.5Gs pull out. Now that's a thrill.
Thrill of a hunt.... the only hunt that’s thrilling involves the opposite sex.
I personally think far too much time has been wasted on this thoroughly pointless argument.
I couldn't care less one way or another if it's banned.
I eat meat but think it's crazy/sad to kill anything for "sport" especially when it's that dull. I've met a few of these hooray hunting types and their muck rough townie wannabe country set hangers onners. Boring as a wet Welsh Sunday. The real coutry set indulge in field sports, between pastimes like dealing in classic cars, diamonds and international art etc. Now that's a way of life.
Let's just ban Fox Nobbling, eat a pie, and move on.
Besides, I don't hear drugs barons complaining that they're going to be put out of business because crack coccaine is a banned Class A substance.
Now that hunting with hounds will be illegal there might be a thrill factor associated. Who knows, who give a monkeys ****.
Let's go and protest about something meaningful - PEOPLE are dying from disease, starvation and war. Women and children are raped in the name of… something... and the world's economy is a mess. And we’ve banged on for 50 years about the moral issues of killing dog thingies and now make it a Human Rights issue?
Collective stupidity folks - collective stupidity.

but the campaign to ban fox hunting has been succesful - so whether you agree or not or just don't care about the subject it is important because it has proven that relentless campaigning can make a difference, so you can take the methods uesd and apply them to the causes that you feel are worth bothering with - human rights etc..

I remember (not too long ago) a fox hunt rearing through a primary school in Warncliffe Side.

Just missed a group of 33 kids in the playground..

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmstand/c/st980114/am/80114s01.htm

From the above link - about half way down...
Wharncliffe primary school in Sheffield. A pack of hounds who were following a fox jumped over a 4-ft fence and went through the playground. Mr. David Rogers, the headmaster of the school, said: "had the hounds jumped the fence minutes earlier a group of up to 33 children under five would have been in their path."

There's a couple of foxes that pass through our back garden each night on thier run (very much not in the country).

I, for one, am glad hunting with hounds has finally been banned!

i eat meat and am for a ban on fox hunting. if i was caught out in the wild i would not feel bad about kiling an animal for food. its part of nature for animals to eat other animals.

killing animals for fun is where i have a problem. its not just the kiling of foxes that bothers me, horses are frequently injured and put down and hounds are killed when they dont measure up.

apparently one of the features that links serial sex murderers is that they tortures animals when they were younger http://www.parrotparrot.com/stopcruelty/

I think one concern over the banning of fox hunting is the control of foxes. Many have taken to scavaging in dustbins and certain parts of Bristol are overrun with them, I believe. We have enough problems down here with herring-gulls (which should be renamed fish, chip & cast-off pastie gulls) without adding to it with foxes. I know that fox-hunting isn't the answer to the fox population, so someone has to come up with an alternative.

Originally posted by Greenback
Devil's advocate time: do any of you eat meat? What makes murdering a chicken by passing it through a trough of electrified water any more humane than killing a wild pest?

I actually agree with the ban, if only to shut up the toffs who drone on about 'liberty' and 'way of life', as if they were on the streets protesting when Thatcher was butchering the mining community.

But for me, it can't be about the welfare of the fox. As a meat-eater, how is it possible, logically, to go from caring about the cuddly little foxes to tucking into a factory farmed burger?

i suppose it is down to the way that the hunt is conducted that people don't like.

All dressed up, chasing the thing for hours then glee as it is ripped to shreads.
I personally don't like the pleasure they take in it. If foxes are a problem then shoot them, don't waste time chasing them, tearing up the land while you do it.

I must admit it is a strange time to bring this bill in?

i think there are more pressing issues to worry about and suspect it is a ploy to win the election and to **** the conservatives off.

What do people feel about drag hunting?

Or getting a volunteer to leave a trail for an hour and then be hunted?

A human prey would be the smartest prey that the toffs could find, would still allow them to dress up and charge around on horses, would allow the dogs to be kept....

If they object to this suggestion in the name of 'tradition' then it simply indicates that it's blood lust or a fetish for dressing up in strange clothes that motivates them.


Joe

I've been led to believe that one reason why drag hunting is not popular is because farmers won't allow it over their land. With the 'normal' hunt farmers usually get paid for incidental damage to crops, fences, livestock, etc. With drag hunting the dragger would avoid areas where the hunt is likely to cause damage and so the farmer would not get his nice little earner as he does currently.

As to the timing of the bill, if the House of Lords had obeyed the wishes of the electorate then hunting with hounds would have been banned years ago.

They took away our guns, now they are trying to take our dogs.

Originally posted by Gerry
They took away our guns, now they are trying to take our dogs.

Hi Gerry,

The gun laws are a totally different issue - I happen to believe that the laws bought in to attempt to deal with firearms related crime were a total knee jerk reaction piece of legislation.

However, with regard to hunting dogs, what's this I hear about hunting dogs being killed off when they get to 6 / 7 years old - i.e. unable to keep up with the pack? ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmstand/c/st980211/am/80211s01.htm - half way through this )

About 10,000 dogs a year are destroyed like this, even without the Hunting Bill.

Whilst appreciating that these are 'working dogs' it does appear to be a case of crocodile tears being shed for the dogs.

Joe

What do people think about this proposed so-called compromise, which would keep things more or less as they are but would in my opinion worsen things by allowing fox-hunters more respectability by granting them a license? The commons have already overwhelmingly rejected the idea, but the prime minister is apparently in favour of it, even though he claimed to think fox-hunting is cruel. Does the man have no principles?:rant:

Does Blair have principles/ LOL YOU HAVING A LAUGH OR WHAT.
As for the ban this has nothing to do with animal cruelty and everything about class war and the destruction of another british tradition.
If this is about animal cruelty then what about halal slaughter or battery farming of chickens which die in their thousands in teribble conditions.
But back on fox hunting this will get banned ,the goverment will probably bring in the parliment act to drive it through.

Originally posted by royjames
Does Blair have principles/ LOL YOU HAVING A LAUGH OR WHAT.
As for the ban this has nothing to do with animal cruelty and everything about class war and the destruction of another british tradition.
If this is about animal cruelty then what about halal slaughter or battery farming of chickens which die in their thousands in teribble conditions.
But back on fox hunting this will get banned ,the goverment will probably bring in the parliment act to drive it through.

The ban does have a lot to do with animal cruelty... you can claim it as a brilliant British tradition just like badger baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting etc if you like, but it is still considered cruel by the vast majority of British people. I don't eat halal meat or battery farmed animals or eggs, but if you think these other acts are cruel then you should campaign against them, rather than saying we should keep fox hunting until there is no other cruelty left. I hope they do use the Parliament Act, but I'm not holding my breath as Tony Blair doesn't seem brave enough to do what the majority of the public want on this issue. How many times have the democratically-elected MPs voted to ban fox-hunting already?

Dont get me wrong on this I also beleive it to be cruel but as far as i'm concerned you shoul'd not be able to pick and choose which animal cruelty is acceptable and which is not.
If people coul'd see the goverment banning halal and chicken farming then they might think that they do indeed care about cruelty and are not doing this out of spite.
As for Blair having the balls to do this he will go along with the ban to placate his left wing MPS who he will need more that ever after the next election what with the iraq situation continuing.
It's all about looking long term at what the goverment needs in its next term i e happy back benches.

Originally posted by royjames
Dont get me wrong on this I also beleive it to be cruel

So if you believe it to be cruel, do you think it should be banned, or should it continue to be legal as you say it is a British tradition?

Ok this is my personal opinion,it shoul'd be banned,as shoul'd the others I have mentioned.
Now do you think those I have mentioned ought to be banned?

Originally posted by royjames
Ok this is my personal opinion,it shoul'd be banned,as shoul'd the others I have mentioned.
Now do you think those I have mentioned ought to be banned?

I agree with you. I have campaigned for all three of those cruelties to be banned. :thumbsup:

Oh my god we agree on something lol.
I would'nt mind campaiging on those other issues also,I think something needs to be done.
I also think whaleing is wrong and bear baiting the list goes on but there is far too much animal cruelty in this world and it needs to be stamped out.:clap:

And as we're in Europe, how's about bull fighting?

"You Brits aren't allowed bent cucumbers, but the Dagos can torture bulls." :loopy:

yes bull fighting also to be included,still many more also.

Can u imagine the arguements if try to ban Halal products?
You would of course be opprossing the minorities / being rascist as this is an important part of religion, it wont be touched be any politician.

But did it ever go away, and will it be back completely in 12 months time?