Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
Predator
40 Answers
Why is there such a debate over protecting the right to kill one predator *fox and then protecting just about every other predator on the planet * whales, tigers, owls, hawks the list goes on. how about a bit of consistancy
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by snotmonkey. 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.
The debate is not about the killing of the predator, but the method by which it is done. If someone wants to provide a quick and humane method of killing an agreed number of foxes, maybe (and it is only maybe) there is an argument there. But this debate is about chasing an animal to exhaustion, watching it torn to pieces by hounds, and dressing up for a social occasion to do it.Yes foxes kill chickens, it's what foxes do - if farmers don't appreciate that basic fact, they should build properly secure hen houses. Foxes do what comes natrually to them, fox-hunters' actions may be natrual to them, but the majority of thinking people have isses with their practices, hence the debate.
Fox hunting is possibly the last anachronistic practice "enjoyed" by the "gentry" and supported by some landowners and farmers. all other blood sports (practiced by the commoners) such as cock fighting, bear baiting, dog fighting, badger baiting to name a few, have been outlawed as barbaric over the years.The traditional sports of stag hunting, grouse shooting and fox hunting are still the exclusive province of the upper classes and will probably remain so as long as they are supported by those who feel that it is a precious part of our english heritage.
i dont personally have a problem with pest control but the way in which they do it is unneccessary.
If they are going to kill the foxes then why not just shoot them - why do these people feel the need to make the chase a 'sport'. The people that take part in foxhunting are not 'sportsmen' by any means.
How can you give people a fine for not feeding their pets or keeping them in a bad condition and then condone these people sending their dogs out to chase the fox until it dies of a heart attack or until it is caught and ripped to pieces?
It is simply cruelty to the animal
1: To put an end to a popular myth, the majority of people who hunt are not 'gentry', but it seems that way because of the way that the huntsmen dress up, and because the hunts that are mostly 'gentry' are of course the richer ones which are consequently well-known. There are many hunts where 'posh' people would definitely not be welcome. The same silly snobbishness exists in hunting, in both normal and inverted forms, as in all other walks of life.
2: Think about it - if hunting were banned, how would that benefit the fox? Charlie certainly wouldn't have a better life, and it is doubtful that he would have a better death. Why intervene in a system which has been going on for thousands of years and has worked well? On the grounds of cruelty to the fox, I would say two points: firstly that shooting is much more likely to maim than kill the fox leaving it to either die slowly of it's wounds or live crippled and starve to death, whilst a hunt either kills or not. Secondly it is often said 'the poor fox'. How can we know what the fox feels during the chase? Alright, ask me how I would feel and the answer is, of course, terrified. But can the same set of human feelings that I have be attributed to Charlie also? Fear of death is based upon the fear of a pre-conceptualised future being cutoff, and imaginings of the grief caused, but do animals such as a fox have an idea of a future, or do they live always 'in the now'? The humanisation of foxes (and other animals), possibly based on the typical 'cute' photos of cubs (foxes are beautiful-looking creatures and very photogenic), creates a lot of confusion and gives people the wrong idea about what a fox is - essentially a pest, spreading disease and damaging livestock and other property. The argument that 'a fox has got to eat' when he steals a chicken is a pathetic one. The farmer has to eat too (don't forget that the chicken/lamb/etc belongs to the farmer, not the fox), and that is why he hunts - to discourage the fox. It is a group activity because it springs from the day when communities supported each other because they almost all worked on local farms.
3: A fundamental part of the system of democracy is that a majority cannot unreasonably enforce it's will on a minority, so by that argument the ban on hunting would be out.
-- answer removed --
well j1_69, I'm not sure when I claimed to be God, but having lived deep in the countryside in fox areas all my life I do have a pretty good idea of what is 'good and bad for the fox'. About democracy, I would say that one of the most important principles in a constitutional democracy, especially in a supposedly christian-based one such as ours, is one of tolerance - that is, not restricting the freedoms of a minority where possible. It is often said as a joke, though with a grain of truth, that rule by the people is the stupidest idea ever - what do the people know about running a country?! I'm not an out and out believer in this, but I do feel that a wave of public feeling (which is actually not the case here as the British public is no longer actively interested in a ban) should not be a basis for restrictive legislation that will have a devastating effect on a sizeable number of people.
-- answer removed --
My personal opinion is that I am against fox-hunting. This debate is certainly not a a black and white issue, and I appreciate many of the pro-hunt comments put forward by Davvers. That said......,
Firstly, a small point - Davvers says "a majority cannot unreasonably enforce it's will on a minority" - but we can forget that when it comes to the Hunt galloping full pelt across the land of anti-hunt landowners, can we? (yes, they do exist)
More importantly, Davvers comments on "the effectiveness, or rather lack of it, of shooting as compared to hunting" and "The farmer has to eat too..and that is why he hunts". Really? So Mr Farmer has a problem fox on his land and you're honestly trying to say that the most effective way of dealing with this is to call in the local hunt? This would be the same hunt who often don't catch anything, let alone the particular problem fox? Further, as far as I am aware, hunts are not actually organised in response to a farmers' calls for problem foxes to be got rid of anyway. I also have it on very good authority (ie. huntsmen themselves) that in certain areas, fox populations are actively encouraged because there simply aren't enough to hunt. This hardly lends itself to the hackneyed pro-hunt argument that hunting is necessary to control fox populations. A controlled cull with trained marksmen would be more effective, surely (yes, shooting foxes can be crueller and less successul, but mostly this is due to it being in the hands of idiots with guns who don't know what they're doing). Controlling problem foxes is NOT the raison-d'etre of the Hunt. People hunt for FUN. Ask any huntsman why he/she does it and the reply will be "because it's fun" (or a variation thereof). Personally, I think encouraging a pack of animals rip another animal to shreds while we look on, for absolutely no good reason that I can make out, is barbaric.
Seeing as I seem to be the only pro-hunt man in this little discussion, I'd better answer Tenbears's points!
In answer to your 'small point' at the beginning, firstly it is rare these days that the hunt trespasses. i won't say it never ever happens because I suspect it sometimes does although I don't condone it. However that is not relevant to banning it. Car drivers constantly endanger both themselves and other people's lives (be honest - do you stick faithfully to every speed limit? have you ever overtaken in a hurry? used the mobile whilst at the wheel?) yet this is no reason to ban driving. the trespass laws should take care of that, there is no need for further legislation.
Next. "The most effective way of dealing with this" etc. Well, yes. Over thousands of years it has always been found to be so, and the latest (government-initiated don't forget) inquiry, the Burns report, found this to be so. This report, quoted so often for the statement (approx.) 'being hunted is not advantageous to the welfare of the fox', has overall findings that are all too conveniently ignored by the anti-hunt lobby - that hunting is not worthy of a ban, and probably better and if not definitely no worse than any other form of control.
If the hunt doesn't catch a fox, then that is a sign that the foxes in the area must be good and healthy which ensures that disease will not be spread (this is a large problem with a large fox population). In any case, if the hunt never catches any foxes (I'm not saying it doesn't, but this seems to be mentioned by the antis) then why are you in such a rush to ban it? And why is that a reason to ban it?
shooting - the arguments pro-hunting in the context of hunt v shoot have already been mentioned. Even trained marksmen find it difficult to kill a fox outright - they are tricky buggers.
Fun. Yes, hunting is fun. why should I deny it? Ok, so it's fun. So what? Is that a reason to ban it? I don't think so. If you wimpy pinko antis got up from your organic soya yoghurt and actually went out doors and lived in the countryside (see, I can generalise too) and followed a hunt then you would realise that the fun is not necessarily in the kill (though that is often a satisfying end to the chase) but in the chase. Riding a horse or following the hounds on foot, it is one of the most basic things that man has done for thousands of years and still one of the most exciting and skillfull. Never mind, though. The people who go for fun are not actually the ones who in the main chase and kill. The people who do this are the ones whose job it is, and it is a happy coincidence if they enjoy their job - lots of others don't, mainly it seems those in cubicles in office blocks who seem to need to ban hunting because the people who do it have the fun that they lack. (whoops I've started stereotyping again, mustn't fall, anti style, into that trap because it only leads to being shredded). If you need further convincing, try Boris Johnson's article in last thursday's (5th) telegraph. For all his bluster, he is one of the most intelligent people in politics.
well, happy bunny-hugging
love davver x
Further to the point about shooting, how would you shoot foxes? It is difficult to shoot a fox with a shotgun, the most likely outcome being an injury, even with an excellent shot behind the trigger. If you think that it would be feasible to shoot a fox with a rifle, think again. If you hit the fox, then yes, all good and fine. But if you miss (and it is difficult to get close enough to a fox to hit it every time) then how far will the bullet go? A rifle powerful enough to kill a fox with a single shot has a range of miles (no exaggeration) and there are few places where there is a background of a few miles of unoccupied land! The great thing about a hunt is that it either kills or it does not - there is no injury.
It struck me that no-one has actually answered the question yet! It is because some predators are endangered and some, like the fox, are far from it.
It struck me that no-one has actually answered the question yet! It is because some predators are endangered and some, like the fox, are far from it.
Fox hunting is good for foxes and the country side, the horses and dogs used are kept and breed to the highest degree, the foxes are not hunted to extinction on the contrary they are welcome on and around the country side providing there numbers are kept to a expectable figure.
If fox hunting is banned the farmers would not accept any foxes they would all be shot and/or driven off the land, a fox hunter/farmer would rather have a couple of horses and a number of dogs on his farm than a collection of guns!! Horses run in pacts dogs hunt in packs and people ride horses there is nothing more natural than that!!.
Fox hunting with horse and hounds is a traditional form of pest control not a blood sport, killing with guns is a blood sport and is not fair on the unsuspecting fox, at least with the horse and hounds the fox does have a fighting chance to get away, which is natural to the foxes wild way of life.
your views on fox hunting are as outdated as peter string fello's hair cut, as menancing as saddam and as unreasonable as a drunk margaret thatcher. the majority of anti-foxhunting arguments have been covered in other submissions on this site. all i can say is that very soon we will meet. i relish the prospect of verbally pulling you apart - the physical climax of your 'sport' will make you ascustomed to this.
Ukkid76 is kidding him/herself in saying that hunting with hounds is not a blood sport. It is exactly that, and it's the blood sport aspect which most people have a problem with. The pest control aspect is, at best, a fortunate side-effect of the sport. Hunting in its present form is more about the pomp and tradition and having a jolly good time in the pursuit of the death of an animal, regardless of whether than animal needs to die or not. Maybe fox-hunting should not be banned outright. Yes, in certain areas at certain times, it is necessary to cull the fox population in the same way that any "vermin" needs controlled (pity that this seems to apply to all creatures but ourselves though). I do also agree that my personal opinions do not give me the right to ban others from taking part in their activities . But I think the pro-hunt folks hide behind this pest-control aspect. As I've said before, this is NOT the reason people hunt. People hunt for fun, which makes it a sport. Maybe the middle ground would be to change that. If hunting with hounds is justifiable on the grounds of being and effective means of pest control, let that be all it is. Let's hunt only when a farmer calls in with a fox problem. Hunt only where the vulpine population exceeds manageable levels. Hunt only when and where it is necessary for the good of the farmer and fox - stop when the job is done and no skewing the balance by secretly breeding Mr Foxy to ensure he's there to chase. "The Rentokill Riders". And incidentally, there seems to be some sort of blanket assumption that all farmers have a problem with foxes. I know more than a couple of farmers in my native Scotland who have no such problem. They have no horses, no hunting hounds and no guns (not that they use on foxes anyway). But maybe they're just lucky.
To answer the original question. There is such a big debate because it is really part of the class war. I live in a city and have never hunted, but I can't see why, if you need to control vermin, you shouldn't find a way of enjoying it. I believe that the 'antis' assume that it is gentry who hunt. So what? Are the gentry the only people not allowed to enjoy themselves? How is foxhunting any different in principle from a few working-class lads who go out for a day's rough shooting, or even coarse fishing?
The fact is simple: it is fun to get together with your mates, get drunk and climb on horses and ride like a fool. It's great fun.
And then after all that you go out and do something socially harmless like kill an animal sentenced to death by the law.
We hunt foxes because it's fun. If we were out killing rats would there be such a bloody stink?
I know this post is long but please read it all. Thanks 8-).
Isn't the most important thing whether or not the animal ENJOYS its existence? E.g. "It is wrong to kill a human because that human would have gone on to enjoy life, to want to live." And "It is OK to kill single-celled organisms because they do not have feelings", and even "It is OK to kill animals with brains so small that they cannot feel pain and have no will or desire for life".
What about if you wanted to kill a fox or a cow, or if a lion wanted to kill an antelope? I think it's OK to kill these animals only if there is reasonable justification, such as if they did not enjoy their lives and you wanted to eat them for food.
Maybe when the country is overrun with foxes we can chemically adjust their diet to make half of them sterile and reduce numbers in that way rather than scaring the hell out of them and murdering them slowly. Would it be too hypocritical of me to ask "Would you fox hunters please cut it out?" whilst I myself eat meat?
Squirrel's post is ridiculous. How can anyone know whether an animal enjoys life? There are humans who can't communicate properly - e.g. Down's Syndrome, who are often very happy.
It's completely irrelevant. Foxes are classified as vermin because of the damage they cause, and therefore the law requires that they should be killed If people have devised an enjoyable way of doing this, what's the problem?
