Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Silly ban
36 Answers
Are there any people that use the answerbank who think that the ban on fox-hunting with dogs is ridiculas?
I do
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ahmed. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with you ahmed - it is an age old tradition that has not seen any threat to the fox population and maintains their numbers to protect farming. It employs a lot of people in the country side. They have a whole different way of life and approach to life than those of us brought up in the burbs/towns & cities and we cannot understand that until we have lived it - we are banning and critisising something we don't really know about.
And I think there are more worrying threats to the world than fox hunting that people should be putting their efforts into instead.
You closed the subject because somebody agreed with you! Ha! I grew up in the deep dark countriside, and I am totally against hunting with dogs. It's cruel and pointless and doesn't employ that many people, either. You have to be very rich to hunt seriously, it's not something most rural-dwellers do, and the attitude of almost every hunting person I've ever met is elitist and unpleasant. The local hunt used to meet in my village sometimes, and it created a horrible atmosphere. The hounds will kill your dog if they happen across it unleashed, the hunt tramples farmland, and seems to believe that it has supreme right of way across any bit of open country it fancies. I know some farm managers who are violently opposed to hunting: are you saying they aren't 'real' country people?! What exactly is your defense of hunting? It barely controls the fox population; many smallholders go out with shotguns if they want to get rid of a fox, they don't call in the pink coats.
It's an utterly outdated pastime and there are plenty of ways to enjoy horseriding in the country without killing foxes/ deer/ etc at the same time.
-- answer removed --
Sorry, Ahmed, but I am a country person too who is against it and I know all about hunting as I live in the middle of a hunting area. Hunting with dogs does not control foxes, and there are not loads of people employed in hunting in the countryside. And just because something is a tradition does not make it right. It used to be a tradition to duck people in ponds to find out if they were witches, children used to be sent up chimneys to clean them and people were hung for stealing loaves of bread, etc. Hunting is cruel and outdated. It is purely a sport for the pleasure of a few. Let's not pretend they are doing the countryside any great service by their so called 'sporting' activities.
I totally agree with the majority here. Calling killing foxes with dogs a sport is sick. And as for employing lots of people - big deal. So did coal mining - and I didn't see too many "country folk" supporting the loss of jobs there. By all means, ride your horses and exercise your dogs for enjoyment - but tearing a fox up at the end of it and calling it sport - perlease.
I have to add my voice to the majority here. Democracy - which is our system of government - dictates that the majority of people do not agree with fox hunting. The argument that 'town' people do not undersstand 'country' people is not valid. Some country people think badger baiting is a great day out, and fighting with dogs is a great way to spend an afternoon - the list goes on. As has been pointed out eloquently on this thread, tradition does not mount a defence against cruelty, if it did, each country fair would have a dancing bear being whipped to make it dance faster. This is 2004 - time to leave the 'old' ways behind.
I don't hunt, although do understand the issues involved and feel that an inordinate amount of attention is being put on this one issue. It is clearly a case of two-fingers up to the upper classes and elite and an example of Labour focussing on a pointless issue to divert attention away from the otherwise appalling state of this country.
I would need to ask how many of the antis have ever bought or eaten supermarket chicken, beef or pork as the conditions, quality of life, transport and slaughter policies are absolutely disgraceful. The longterm cruelty of the rearing of these animals (particularly pigs who have been shown to have the same intelligene as dogs) in my mind should be a larger priority than that of the killing of foxes (which will be killed anyway, no one disputes that they are a pest). But the majority still want to buy 5 chicken breasts for �3.99 so clearly this isn't a crusade the government wishes to pursue. (And for the record I'm not a vegetarian, I enjoy meat but I prefer to eat that which has been humanely reared and killed - even if this does limit me to a one a week treat instead of including it as part of my daily diet)
Dunno about anyone else but I don't give a stuff about supposed class issues or townies vs country folk. Since I can remember I have always been opposed to any poor innocent animal being ripped to pieces, on the basis that it is simply barbaric. I am continuously shocked & sickened that people think this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. People get jailed for doing less to their pets (and rightly so too).
(For the record, I have been a vegetarian all my adult life.)
I'd like to pull up the chap that seems to think people losing their jobs is inconsequencial. When Mining died many towns and villages and entire communities died with it. Many families were devistated by financial ruin, depression and in some cases suicide. Many Men started at the mines as young as 13 and that was as good as it got for them. When the mines closed having worked there for many years, the workers were left high and dry. So "BIG DEAL" it actually was - Wind your neck in
Moving on, living in the country does not make you an authority on Hunting. To say you have to be rich is not the case, to say there is not that much employment at stake is again untrue and for the uneducated soul that claims it damages crops - perhaps you know better than the farmers who give their permission to the hunts and who drive their land rovers over the fields to catch and kill the foxes themselves. Over 250,000 are culled per year. They ARE a pest and need to be controlled - this is not in dispute. It really beggars belief that there are those of you on here that seem to think it's about the foxes. Hunting is a big country-side pursuit and Labour, having already launched their assault on the aristocracy with the parliaments act are following up with this Ban. I should imagine before Labour drew up this white paper that most opposers to hunting didn't even give it a second thought. Do you think there is a new wave of animal welfare legislation coming through? no, infact quite the opposite. Pharmaceutical companies are being granted exclusion orders to keep the protestors away from their animal testing sites - raises an eyebrow doesn't it?!?. Sadly, the public has been hoodwinked into thinking animal welfare was at stake - it wasn't, isn't and won't be.
Camille 79. I, like you, prefer to eat meat that has been humanely reared, and would rather pay more and have meat less often. I am against hunting and it isn't a two fingers up to the upper classes. It is purely on the issue of cruelty that I object. I think this is the case with most people. I certainly would join any cause for alleviating animal or human suffering. I don't know whether you live in the town or country, but as a country dweller in agricultural norfolk in an area where cereal crops prevail and chickens are kept in unsavoury conditions in sheds, foxes are not a pest. In fact they help to keep the rabbit population down!
Over a quarter of a million foxes are killed a year. Only 15,000 by hunts. It would be true to say that those 15,000 would have died long before the hounds got to them were hunting banned. Hunts help preserve fox numbers, albeit for hunting. Fox conservationists are worried that their numbers may plummet so quickly as a result of the ban that they may become endangered.
Nature is cruel and that is something we seem to have an issue with. We are not above it and there is no real way around it. Killing foxes is a necessity as they kill our livestock. They don't need to but it's an easy kill for them.
Unfortunately, the real point here isn't animal welfare, it's a political move by the left to attack the aristocracy and traditions of Britain. I am sure you are all aware of the fact that Pharmaceutical Cos have just been granted exclusion orders to prevent protestors from demonstrating at their animal testing labs and from hindering their progress/business. Raises an eyebrow does it not? No animal welfare there. For science? cruelty is cruelty as you all say.
It beggars belief that you seem to think this is an animal welfare issue. The Gov have hoodwinked you on to their bandwagon, you may not like to hear that but it's true. Public support was not very vocal before the white paper, infact i should imagine you supporters of the ban rarely gave it a second thought and now you're fighting passionately for it!?!?! Have a long hard think about it.
I'm sure, TTFresh, that most people who've posted have had a 'long hard think' about hunting. I agree that foxes will still be killed after the hunting ban gets put in place, of course they will, but the point is they will not be killed in the same way!
Hunting is NOT a 'big country-side pursuit'. I don't know the statistics, but I do know that at the meets in my old village, I would recognise maybe one person. This suggests that it is mainly not local people who participate, but people who either a) come down at weekends to stay in their second homes for the hunting (all the while pricing the villagers out of the market for homes in the place they've inhabited since childhood... but that's a different matter), or b) travel from some way away to hunt. As I said in my earlier post, by no means all farmers and farm managers are happy to have the hunt charge across their fields, because they treat the place with such disrespect. And as for the argument that there will be fewer foxes after the ban because the hunts won't be around to preserve the fox population, well, you're shooting yourself in the foot there aren't you? If there weren't so many foxes, there would be no need for the hunt; if there isn't a hunt, there'll be no need for so many pesky, livestock-killing foxes, will there?
Latest Posts
Crosswords27 mins ago
Film, Media & TV41 mins ago
ChatterBank46 mins ago
Body & Soul59 mins ago
