If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Moog. 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.
Well, I understand they'll all receive M&S gift vouchers... ;-)
Seriously though, the main way in which they'll be better off is that they'll be less likely to be torn apart by a pack of slavering hounds. Which is not, of course, to say they won't be hunted and killed as vermin, but at least it won't be for someone's pleasure.
Seriously though, the main way in which they'll be better off is that they'll be less likely to be torn apart by a pack of slavering hounds. Which is not, of course, to say they won't be hunted and killed as vermin, but at least it won't be for someone's pleasure.
Given the acknowledged statistics concerning the number of foxes actually killed during hunts, the overall effect is likely to be minimal. The older / sicker foxes who may have fallen prey to hounds will live longer, the fit ones who are chased for an afternoon will be left to get on with life. A (in national unemployment terms) very few people will loose their livelyhoods, and the mistrust and dislike between country and city dwellers will increase substantially.
They may be worse off. Farmers and land-owners will probably use more traps and will use their guns more often on foxes; they may even be tempted to look for their homes (sorry, don't know the proper term for a fox home) and destroy them there, not that I would condone any of these actions. Bottom-line is that farmers will do anything to protect their property/animals and no townie MPs are going to stop them (their views, not mine).
I am against fox hunting...however, this new law could mean that too many foxes will be killed by other means. All farmers will try to shoot as many as they can, some may be poisoned.Many shot foxes will not be killed, but just left with terrible injuries. They will be tracked to their "homes" (forgot what its called now, curses!)and the adults and cubs killed. If a fisherman does not catch any fish, he cant throw dynamite in the river to kill them before he leaves. Thats because its a sport. If foxhunters left the fox alone if it got "home" (sorry, still cant remember the word!), then maybe it would be more acceptable as a sport. After all, it does help to keep the population down, and usually its only the older foxes who get caught.Come on, tell me what a foxes home is called before I go mad!
Killing anything for "fun" should be banned full stop. If the fox were a human they wouldn't allow it. Where does the RSPCA stand in all this, could they not prosecute hunters?
The foxes would benefit from not being chased around for "fun" and then ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds. I say the simple answer is that they will live!
not an answer as such just a comment - I have heard this said on more that one occasion by members of the fox hunting fraternity. "Its the most efficient way to control foxes" then when asked isnt it barbaric to allow hounds to rip apart a fox they then say "Well we harldy ever catch one anyway" maybe if we have some fox hunters on here they could explain how it is an efficient hunting method if they never catch anything?
Doolallygirl banning fox hunting won't allow any more foxes to live, they will still be controlled by other methods, which I understand is shooting or gasing. To be honest if I was going to die I'm not sure that it'd make much of a difference if I was shot, gassed or ripped limb from limb by dogs. To be honest at least by being hunted the fox has a chance of escaping - survival of the fittest in it's most literal sense?! Dogs are used to catch rats and no-one complains do they?
In response to el duerino:
(PLEASE NOTE the following is not intended to cause offense and is not my personal view point - it is purely done as a Devil's advocate position)
Would over 50% of the population (which would make your majority) find sex between two men distasteful. I am pretty sure that more than 50% of men have not tried it and would find it "distasteful" if asked to perform it.
Should we therefore outlaw this act?
AS I SAID please do NOT take offense - point making only
slightly confused - are you supporting me or arguing with me. your point supports me so I will assume that . . .Or how about immigration - exactly what proportion of the British public would like to give the amount of aid we currently supply to migrants? But we still do? seems to me our 'representatives' pick and choose their fights very carefully indeed.
personally I have no problem admitting I find the physical act of homosexuality extremely distasteful.
The mixed messages coming from pro-hunting spokespeople probably stem from the fact that some hunts are have more success than others. This comes down to the size / suitability of the ground they hunt and the ability of the huntsmen. My local hunt are a fairly useless bunch who don't catch many but a lot of hunts can catch several on most outings.
Livestock owners will not tolerate foxes on their land without the benefit they bring from the hunt's fallen stock collection service. Ban hunting or suggest drag hunting and livestock owners will simply shoot, poison or snare foxes and far more foxes will die this way.
I've already been asked if I can shoot foxes if / when the ban happens by a landowner who had previously turn down a request by me to shoot rabbits on his land. (I declined as it happens and put him in touch with someone who was more experienced in fox shooting and more suitably armed than myself).
