Huntsmen surprised as fox leaps out (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Huntsmen surprised as fox leaps out
8:14am Monday 5th January 2009 in News
THE hounds were slightly more surprised than the fox when they accidentally flushed him out on the New Year’s Day meet.
The Derwent Hunt, which met at The Hall in Thornton le Dale, was following an artificial scent trail between Wilton and Allerston when the fox jumped out from beneath a hedge in front of 50 riders and 35 hounds.
But Joint hunt master Richard Morley said the fox was allowed to go on his way unharmed.
He said: “Our huntsmen and whippers-in were on hand immediately to stop the hounds hunting the fox. It went into some straw bales and it was left there. We rode on and hunted another trail below Thornton le Dale later in the afternoon.
“There was no intention at all to hunt the fox.”
Hunting with hounds was banned in February 2005. Mr Morley said the Derwent Hunt lays an artificial trail using a bottle of Canadian red fox urine as scent.
Hunts say the sport has grown in popularity since they were banned from killing foxes and recent years have seen hundreds of supporters turning out to watch the riders set off.
Charles Bader, who rides with the Middleton Hunt, said the Boxing Day meet was so popular it had to be split into two this year so that all the supporters can attend. But Douglas Batchelor, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, does not believe the sport has become more popular.
He said every year since the ban on hunting came into force the Countryside Alliance routinely claimed hunting was attracting more support than in the years leading up to the ban.
Comments(107)
smudge1
says...
11:01am Mon 5 Jan 09
Yeah right !!
Amazing how somebody had a camera with them to film it.
Slightly supspicious ???
Alien
says...
12:16pm Mon 5 Jan 09
The Vicar
says...
12:29pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
1:29pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Alien wrote:IDIOT!
disgraceful i cant beleve they didnt get the dam thing. they are such a pest and do so much damage then when they appear in front of a hunt with all the necesary to kill it they get let off scott free!! its like letting osama bin laden walk past you in tesco. screw the townys law!
I'm a country boy from near Malton,born and bred!
(Fox hunting country if ever there was one)
I'm totally against Fox hunting and totally support the ban.
So cut the crap about this being a "towny " law.
anti-rant
says...
2:11pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Mister Sheen
says...
2:35pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Free speech
says...
2:42pm Mon 5 Jan 09
smudge1 wrote:That nonsense about "huntsmen" surprise!
Huntsmen surprised as fox leaps out Yeah right !! Amazing how somebody had a camera with them to film it. Slightly supspicious ???
I totally agree with Smudge!
Lets see this terrible, cruel and pointless activity prohibited totally! The law needs to be enforced against these people just as it is against residents of Tang Hall or Acomb!
Mullarkian
says...
3:23pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Alien
says...
3:39pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Drew Peacock
says...
3:57pm Mon 5 Jan 09
The Vicar
says...
4:56pm Mon 5 Jan 09
We have moved on – there are far more humane, efficient and cost effective ways to deal with the problem..
Do the misguided idiots still wipe the bloodied tail of the fox across the face to initiate new members into their pathetic club?.... absolute lunatics…
A.Glover
says...
6:04pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Do tell me Mr Vicar, what are these more humane, efficient and cost effective ways? I'd be fascinated. Trapping perhaps? Gassing? Maybe poisoining is up your street. How about shooting, farmers being such excellent marksmen. You're pretty sick if you want to inflict this kind of thing to a fox.
I'm afraid sir you've been totally duped by the anti hunting morons. Smear of blood across the face? LOL Give over, I've NEVER seen that or heard of that being actually done. My god you're a gullible twit. And all toffs? Again, you've been sucked in. The hunt that I attended in Devon was full of farmers and their families. I suggest you get out more.
Littlepoo
says...
6:18pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Mister Sheen wrote:Give him lots of Canadian beer and wait.
Just a thought - how do you get hold of the urine of a Canadian Red Fox anyhow??
sayitasitis
says...
6:25pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Free speech wrote:I have followed many a hunt with camara or video camera. Sometimes I am lucky, sometimes I am not. I would imagine it was a total suprise that the fox jumped out so close to the hounds.
smudge1 wrote: Huntsmen surprised as fox leaps out Yeah right !! Amazing how somebody had a camera with them to film it. Slightly supspicious ???That nonsense about "huntsmen" surprise! I totally agree with Smudge! Lets see this terrible, cruel and pointless activity prohibited totally! The law needs to be enforced against these people just as it is against residents of Tang Hall or Acomb!
Unles,s of course, foxes are now clever enough to know that the hounds aren't chasing them anymore and don't bother running in the other direction like they used to ;o)
sayitasitis
says...
6:33pm Mon 5 Jan 09
The Vicar wrote:Say it often enough and the lazy and uneducated populous will believe you Vicar. It's much like, how the Government works. They rely on people not being bothered to find out for themselves.
Barbaric idiocy – toffee nosed fools running around the countryside killing for fun… We have moved on – there are far more humane, efficient and cost effective ways to deal with the problem.. Do the misguided idiots still wipe the bloodied tail of the fox across the face to initiate new members into their pathetic club?.... absolute lunatics…
Personally I would rather be a fox and take my chances with the hounds twice a year than be a battery chicken for instance. But then I guess you wouldn't support the banning of cheap food for on the grounds of cruelty because that wouldn't match your percieved class prejudice agenda would it?
the butler
says...
7:05pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
7:38pm Mon 5 Jan 09
I really don't need to say much here do I?
The pro-animal cruelty scum have said it all for them selves.
See above.
Oh! and another thing, you evil thick idiots.
The ban still stands!
ha ha ha ha ha!
A.Glover
says...
8:05pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Oh and another thing, you dim, ignorant snob - no one cares that there is a 'ban'. If you'd read my last post, the hunt that I attended in Devon on boxing day nabbed 3 of the b*ggers! You can cry your eyes out love, but foxes are still getting caught! You can't stop them! So to use your words...
bwah ha ha ha!
Now I'm off to smear fox blood all over me.
petethefeet
says...
8:43pm Mon 5 Jan 09
As for all this Towny's law bit? Well, please remember that at every turn, the towns subsidise the countryside. Whether it's through the CAP, provision of social services, utilities, postal, schools, bus-passes to get to school, provision of service is always more expensive in the countryside. I don't mind this, but don't throw the 'towny' label in!
Simonon
says...
8:58pm Mon 5 Jan 09
A.Glover wrote:Thanks for proving my point about your type.
Simonon, run out of garbage to regurgitate? Oh dear! And pro animal cruelty? Interesting to hear that you're more than happy for 18 chickens to be ripped to bits in one night, for newborn lambs to be dragged from their mothers. And of course you won't eat bacon, or any other meat product, so as to not make yourself a hypocrite.
Oh and another thing, you dim, ignorant snob - no one cares that there is a 'ban'. If you'd read my last post, the hunt that I attended in Devon on boxing day nabbed 3 of the b*ggers! You can cry your eyes out love, but foxes are still getting caught! You can't stop them! So to use your words...
bwah ha ha ha!
Now I'm off to smear fox blood all over me.
By the way, I love meat, preferably cooked rare.
A.Glover
says...
9:09pm Mon 5 Jan 09
I intend to throw the towny label in because it fits. Of course the rural inhabitants benefit from those living in cities. Similarly the urban inhabitants depend on produce from the countryside. I don't mind this, so long as urbanites realise that they are not experts on rural affairs. Rural people would never get a chance to deicde on innercity issues, it would be absurd. Yet vice versa is just fine apparently.
Besides thankfully the ban is totally unenforcable precisely because of the vast distance geographically and mentally between the people that chose the ban and the people that it directly affects.
A.Glover
says...
9:11pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
9:16pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Alien
says...
9:26pm Mon 5 Jan 09
but serously this totaly proves my points. i always thought that hunting was only opposed by gulible idiots who think hunters are all posh nobheads who wipe blood all over themselves. sure enough come on here and people do think it! my god you can convince anyone of anything now a days!
but yes even such a useless law will be repealed by the tories. quarter of a million people in the boxing day hunt few weeks back. hunting aint going ANYWHERE!!
Simonon
says...
9:30pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Oh! and thanks for all the evidence, it shall be passed on.
A.Glover
says...
9:53pm Mon 5 Jan 09
And Alien yes, thanks. I agree, the opponents on here do fit that stereotype... blood-thirsty toffs? I'd love simonon to meet the huntsmen I know and still say stuff like that. Wool firmly pulled over his eyes.
Simonon
says...
9:55pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Alien wrote:Erm, yeah, right.
LOL poor simonon is stuck! PWND! can you really not think of anything else to say to madame glover? guess shes cornerd you like a fox then lol!
but serously this totaly proves my points. i always thought that hunting was only opposed by gulible idiots who think hunters are all posh nobheads who wipe blood all over themselves. sure enough come on here and people do think it! my god you can convince anyone of anything now a days!
but yes even such a useless law will be repealed by the tories. quarter of a million people in the boxing day hunt few weeks back. hunting aint going ANYWHERE!!
Coming from you.
The Bin Laden in Tescos line.
Your right on one thing though.....
hunting aint going ANYWHERE!!
Simonon
says...
10:10pm Mon 5 Jan 09
If you look at my posts you shall notice that I do not refer to anyone as "blood-thirsty toffs" I also refer you to my previous post that I am from near Malton, where when I was a boy I would follow the hunts on horse back around the Burythorpe area.
When I saw the end result as it happened I was absolutely repulsed, and it still bothers me to this day, it was horrific to say the least.
I'm logging off now, but I shall be checking to see if you or Alien have left any more comments tomorrow morning.
sayitasitis
says...
10:13pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Simonon wrote:Simonon - you sleep easy at night in your believe that the hunting ban has "saved the Fox" and deprived the "Toffs" of their fun.
Well! I really don't need to say much here do I? The pro-animal cruelty scum have said it all for them selves. See above. Oh! and another thing, you evil thick idiots. The ban still stands! ha ha ha ha ha!
Whilst those of us in the real world know the truth.
The ban may still stand - but their is only one poster on this thread that has shown themselves to be "Thick"
Sleep well, you fool
A.Glover
says...
10:43pm Mon 5 Jan 09
If you look at MY post you shall notice that I did not say you called anyone a bloodthirsty toff. I was merely summarising your view, as that's what you seem to be implying. I hope you disagree.
Unfortunately we're seeing you clutch at straws now and doing yourself a disservice by lying. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you've never followed a hunt, and I'm 100% certain that you've never seen a fox being killed, so back off with your 'it was horrific' and 'I was repulsed'. Very few children or even young people have sufficient riding experience to be allowed near the front of a hunt. If you were indeed following it as you say, then there's zero chance of you seeing the fox being killed. Hunt followers go purely for the ride and basically never much at all. This amazes me that you dare to come out with such ill-thought-out rubbish. In my experience only the leader of the hunt, plus two perhaps three other lead riders would ever see the fox being killed. Now I'm sure you'll deny this, but think to yourself Simonon and you know you've been busted. You know you've not seen any of this first-hand, and at best only some gruesome PETA propaganda video. If you want to persuade us from an objective point of view go ahead, but don't for a minute pretend that you have genuine first-hand experience.
You haven't.
petethefeet
says...
11:42pm Mon 5 Jan 09
Sorry about this. I've followed foot-hunts in the lakes myself. I do love tradition but things do move on.
A.Glover
says...
12:19am Tue 6 Jan 09
Again you've provided a very dubious comparison. Many species of whales are endangered but more importantly it is impossible to kill a whale as humanely as a fox. A fox is dead within seconds of being reached.. the slow, bloody death of a whale is totally, totally different. If whales were as common as foxes and equally easy to dispatch I don't think people would be so bothered.
In fact I think the opponents to the ban need to grow up and join the real world. When the ban is so bureaucratic and unenforcable it will never be adhered to and you'll find that support for hunting has actually begun to increase again, especially when the conservatives are considering a repeal.
Lamplighter
says...
6:38am Tue 6 Jan 09
A fox is dead within seconds of being reached.
This may well be true, but it is chased over the countryside by barking dogs until it is exhausted and terrified first. It knows it is going to die and that's why fox-hunting is immoral in my opinion. I say in my opinion because it is what I think and I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Some of you posters should be ashamed of yourselves. Differing opinions do not need to cause slanging matches and insulting exchanges. Have your differences of opinion and move on, maintaining respect for your fellow posters.
mystic_genius
says...
7:59am Tue 6 Jan 09
Simonon wrote:
Well! I really don't need to say much here do I? The pro-animal cruelty scum have said it all for them selves. See above. Oh! and another thing, you evil thick idiots. The ban still stands! ha ha ha ha ha!
If you don't need to say anything, why bother leaving a comment?
Simonon
says...
10:19am Tue 6 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
10:21am Tue 6 Jan 09
mystic_genius wrote:Did you notice the word "much" in my comment?
Simonon wrote:
Well! I really don't need to say much here do I? The pro-animal cruelty scum have said it all for them selves. See above. Oh! and another thing, you evil thick idiots. The ban still stands! ha ha ha ha ha!
If you don't need to say anything, why bother leaving a comment?
sigh....
RobOneighty
says...
10:26am Tue 6 Jan 09
Lamplighter wrote:I think you'll find that there's is a reason for the saying "cunning as a fox". A healthy fox will never be caught by a hunt, it is usually only the sick ones that do.
A Glover says: A fox is dead within seconds of being reached. This may well be true, but it is chased over the countryside by barking dogs until it is exhausted and terrified first. It knows it is going to die and that's why fox-hunting is immoral in my opinion. I say in my opinion because it is what I think and I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Some of you posters should be ashamed of yourselves. Differing opinions do not need to cause slanging matches and insulting exchanges. Have your differences of opinion and move on, maintaining respect for your fellow posters.
That said you also seem to be ignoring the fact that by banning these hunts you are putting regular people out of work who's livelihoods depend on the hunts, such as stable owners etc....
Big Bad Wolf
says...
11:49am Tue 6 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
12:20pm Tue 6 Jan 09
As for the death of a Fox at the teeth of a pack of hounds may I refer you to Mrs Glovers post which describes it as a gruesome death. And she supports it!!!???!!
The Vicar
says...
12:26pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Ask yourselves a question….. why was it banned????
Jolly hockey sticks you pathetic morons….
Simonon
says...
12:32pm Tue 6 Jan 09
The Vicar wrote:Yayyyy!!! Nice one Vicar!!
It’s got nothing to do with foxes being cute….. It’s the idiots who dress up in fancy suits and silly hats blowing trumpets killing for fun…most of these toffee nose fools can’t actually remember the reason why they are hunting… it’s just an “old hat” sick ritual… why the “traditional” boxing day hunt??? – all the foxes too fat to run on Christmas pud….. Total jokers
Ask yourselves a question….. why was it banned????
Jolly hockey sticks you pathetic morons….
A.Glover
says...
1:12pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Lamplighter, I acknowledge your opinion but I do think its based on speculation. It's hard to graft human emotions onto a fox, especially something like a persistent knowledge of their own death! As Rob said, it is by no means cut and dried as the fox often escapes or goes to ground. Anyway, I would still rather be scared for 20 minutes before an instant death, rather than being maimed by a lousy shot and drag myself off to die somewhere. Wouldn't you?
Vicar, I refer back to Lamplighter's post: "Differing opinions do not need to cause slanging matches". Please grow up. In a way, I am pleased you posted again as it is clear you have no objections to the majority of fox-hunts. This ridiculous stereotype of toffee-nosed fools (chip on your shoulder??) can be disproved at the drop of a hat. I have seen with my own eyes that this is not the case in most cases and if a petty grudge against the upper-classes is all you have against fox-hunting, then you practically support it. Why don't you ask yourself some questions... why is it gaining in popularity nowadays? Why is it still going on? Why are they considering a repeal already?
To be honest I was hoping for a few more intelectual responses rather than these regurgitated stereotypes and fabricated experiences. The only vaguely persuasive argument I've ever heard against it was from a vegan who simply objected to the undeniable fact that the fox dies. I totally respect that. But all the other arguments on here are based on utter rubbish that people have read or heard that they are too lazy or gullible to question.. and my experiences disprove most of it in an instant.
Big Bad Wolf
says...
1:14pm Tue 6 Jan 09
sayitasitis
says...
1:18pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Simonon wrote:So your loathing of hunting as nothing to do with any cruelty issues on your part but simply ill informed class hatred !
The Vicar wrote: It’s got nothing to do with foxes being cute….. It’s the idiots who dress up in fancy suits and silly hats blowing trumpets killing for fun…most of these toffee nose fools can’t actually remember the reason why they are hunting… it’s just an “old hat” sick ritual… why the “traditional” boxing day hunt??? – all the foxes too fat to run on Christmas pud….. Total jokers Ask yourselves a question….. why was it banned???? Jolly hockey sticks you pathetic morons….Yayyyy!!! Nice one Vicar!!
Boxing day and New Years day hunts ? Possibly something to do with WORKING people having time off work to be able to participated mid-week prehaps ? Foxes don't celebrate Christmas as far as I know.
Simonon
says...
1:33pm Tue 6 Jan 09
A.Glover says..
"You know you've not seen any of this first-hand, and at best only some "gruesome" PETA propaganda video"
And don't tell me what I have and have not done, you don't know me so how the hell can you accuse me of lying?
The Vicar
says...
1:51pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Even royalty took part in these pathetic events as they would a polo match.
The reason for the band was that hunts were deemed and proved as inhumane and celebrated in an outdated show of cruelty.
A.Glover
says...
1:51pm Tue 6 Jan 09
I can accuse you of lying, because you are. I don't need to know you to tell. You lied very badly and totally unecessarily and you know it. You'd do better just to own up and pursue a more objective line of reasoning. The things you said indicate that you have little to no knowledge of how a hunt actually works. You don't know me or what I have done, but if I said I've been to France and rode a camel over the vast expanses of desert you will know I am lying. Simple. You know in yourself that if the best counterargument you can think of relies on an experience you've never had, you're scraping the barrel big time. Sorry to put you on the spot, but you made your bed.
A.Glover
says...
2:16pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Now I would like you to provide the evidence and the statement that the death of the fox was 'deemed and proven' as inhumane. I ask, because I know for a fact that this was not the reason. I have read the Burns report and the closest it comes to anything of that sort is to say that hunting "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". As would any activity that ends in the death of an animal. The report is online if you care to get the facts first. You may also read up on the League Against Cruel Sports who now have admitted that the ban is ineffective and almost redundant.
People enjoy the ride of the hunt, and why not if it is fulfilling a job that needs doing? So long as the need exists, then what is your issue with people enjoying it? Bear in mind any 'bloodthirsty' members will rarely be satisfied, it's not a gorefest.
The Vicar
says...
2:17pm Tue 6 Jan 09
But having said that, we all know that would spoil the “fun” and is only used as a lame excuse for these barbaric events..
Fact: Many participating in hunts don’t actually keep live stock, own or live on working farms…
Stu Pidd
says...
2:30pm Tue 6 Jan 09
David of York
says...
2:43pm Tue 6 Jan 09
According to the article: "Hunts say the sport has grown in popularity since they were banned from killing foxes and recent years have seen hundreds of supporters turning out to watch the riders set off".
The article also goes on to say: "every year since the ban on hunting came into force the Countryside Alliance routinely claimed hunting was attracting more support than in the years leading up to the ban."
If this is the case, and hunts really are more popular than ever before - despite the use of artificial trails, then why is the Countryside Alliance demanding a repeal of the ban?
Dare I suggest that people are perhaps now more comfortable supporting the hunt in the knowledge that a fox will not be hunted?
A.Glover
says...
3:07pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Dave, it's a good point and what you say could be true. However, it's worth remembering that a huge amount of hunts still do catch foxes 'by accident' and all riders would probably be aware of this. I'd be amazed to meet people who have only joined a hunt because it's 'humane' nowadays. Most people that turn up to meets do so precisely to support fox-hunting, not drag-hunting or anything else. Also the fact that it is dawning on ex-hunters that actually the ban is unenforcable means they are involving themselves once again as they see no reason not to. The current figure of quarter of a million active hunt supporters is roughly equivalent to pre-ban figures so there's little to suggest a sudden influx of people drawn by the new political correctness of it all.
The reason people want the law repealed is because it's been proven to be ineffectual and bureaucratic. People, understandably are either finding alternative ways to kill foxes or continuing as normal. Rather than moving forwards with an animal rights agenda, choosing what to ban next, protesters are actually taking a step backwards and we're all faced with a repeal situation.
Simonon
says...
3:43pm Tue 6 Jan 09
When I was younger I used to follow Fox hunts as it was great fun,I unexpectedly and unfortunately witnessed the Fox get caught and ripped to pieces. Not nice as I'm sure everyone agrees(even Mrs Glover)and so, I never went again.
Mrs Glover seems to swear blind that I'm lying. I have never met this lady before. Although she is still adamant that I'm lying. Hmm...
She also is trying to twist her words to suit her, like the 'gruesome' word SHE used to describe a video of a fox being killed by hounds.
It gets stranger.
I look forward to reading her next drivel.
A.Glover
says...
4:02pm Tue 6 Jan 09
I still know that you did not see the kill, it becomes more apparent with every post you make. You can persist as long as you want, but having followed hunts myself, and having spoken to members of my family that regularly hunt, I know what you say to be incredibly improbable. Can you provide any remotely convincing evidence? The name of the actual hunt body for example? Any little titbit?
I'm not twisting any words but thanks for the dig. I stand by my statement that the PETA propaganda video you've probably seen is no doubt gruesome. You can also see gruesome videos of fatal sky diving accidents on youtube, that doesn't mean to say skydiving is inherently gruesome or dangerous. I hope you can make the difference between isolated incidents and general practice.
Yes, I do think I am right in this debate, as no doubt everyone does. That is the point of a debate, and unless you can provide me with persuasive reasons or evidence to the contrary I will continue to think I am right. That is how it works. I however am coming from a more subjective view because unlike basically anyone else on here I have had first-hand experience and can therefore say categorically that some of the claims you have made on here are just simply false. I've clearly annoyed you, and for that I apologise. I would only repeat my sentiment that if you'd argued from an objective point of view rather than pretending to be involved, you would have got a lot further. You know this is the case and I'm happy in that knowledge.
Simonon
says...
4:08pm Tue 6 Jan 09
If I knew who you were I'd probably wrap my arms around your mink coat and give you a big fat kiss!
A.Glover
says...
4:19pm Tue 6 Jan 09
The Vicar
says...
4:21pm Tue 6 Jan 09
I mentioned the royals taking part in these pathetic events…..and the only reason being…… fun and enjoyment…how sick and very very sad
Anyway, I’m not going to respond again – crack on and have a great time killing (illegally) and enjoy the champagne at the end of the day… you truly deserve it!
Simonon
says...
4:23pm Tue 6 Jan 09
A.Glover wrote:Mid thirty's, athletic and frightfully handsome.
I think my husband might have something to say about that, though depending on your age and looks I might not object. Besides, mink is frightfully out of fashion my love, snow leopard is much more 2009.
Lol x
Big Bad Wolf
says...
4:24pm Tue 6 Jan 09
sayitasitis
says...
4:29pm Tue 6 Jan 09
David of York wrote:I know a number of people who made a point of going to support the local hunts after the Ban came in. They did so to protest in their own way against the Ban and support the Hunts that were worried they might not survive.
Could someone explain something to me? According to the article: "Hunts say the sport has grown in popularity since they were banned from killing foxes and recent years have seen hundreds of supporters turning out to watch the riders set off". The article also goes on to say: "every year since the ban on hunting came into force the Countryside Alliance routinely claimed hunting was attracting more support than in the years leading up to the ban." If this is the case, and hunts really are more popular than ever before - despite the use of artificial trails, then why is the Countryside Alliance demanding a repeal of the ban? Dare I suggest that people are perhaps now more comfortable supporting the hunt in the knowledge that a fox will not be hunted?
Many of these had never been hunting or followed the hunt before, but they were annoyed at the way the Government had brought in to force such an idiotic law.
Most of them still follow because they enjoy it and appreciate the social side of it and it has nothing to do with whether a Fox is actually caught or not !
Mister Sheen
says...
5:17pm Tue 6 Jan 09
When asked by a little old lady patient whay he was wearing it he replied "My missus the Queen asked me where I was going today and after replying she exclaimed - "Wear the fox hat!" - so I did!".
A.Glover
says...
5:58pm Tue 6 Jan 09
You clearly have an issue with the Royal family. I don't care. If people want to ride along with a hunt that needs to take place anywhere, so what?
It's so easy to condemn traditions that you have never had a part in, and will never allow yourself to understand. What strikes me most about reading these comments is the level of misunderstanding. The rubbish that people believe, it's no wonder people object to it.
Simonon
says...
10:02pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Ahhh.... that's better. 12!
petethefeet
says...
10:59pm Tue 6 Jan 09
you have overlooked something!
Simonon
says...
11:08pm Tue 6 Jan 09
A.Glover
says...
11:47pm Tue 6 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
12:13am Wed 7 Jan 09
petethefeet
says...
12:14am Wed 7 Jan 09
Simonon
says...
12:18am Wed 7 Jan 09
petethefeet wrote:I gotta agree with that pete.
Mrs Glover. I dunno who you are but, if I was employing then I'd employ you. Despite the odds, you've stuck to your guns, without getting nasty or bitter. Well done!
You have my respect Mrs G.,
despite our differences of opinion.
The Vicar
says...
10:06am Wed 7 Jan 09
This debate was never about battery chicken’s/pig slaughtering etc to which I fully object, it was for those for and against fox hunting. It just shows how week the opposing argument is with such lame justifications.
A question for you - How many of those working in slaughter houses etc, dress up in silly costumes and hats, kill for pleasure and make a jolly good day out of the whole sick event celebrating each kill like demented imbeciles?
Your argument and justification weakens further when mentioning you rarely catch a healthy fox…. I’ve heard it all now…. What’s the point then? Surely it’s the healthy ones that cause you the most problems? – just kill the lame and sick ones then…. How very nice
You and your supporters see fox hunting as a sport and past time rather than a serious problem resolution and that’s the sad part of it – Killing for pleasure..
The Vicar
says...
12:51pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Read this article, particularly the section under “The Kill”
http://www.ultraling
ua.com/eureka/index.
php/Category:Fox_Hun
ting#The_Kill
quote "Blood To daub a novice, often a child, with the blood of a freshly killed fox, as an initiation rite to the hunting field".
It’s clear you know very little on the “sport” you so richley support
Tally Ho
sayitasitis
says...
1:41pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Just because a web page that explains what terminologies mean has an entry for something - it does not make it a fact that that thing happens. Even if it did - so what ?
The first time I shot a rabbit and shown how to prepare it for eating, I had it's blood smeared on my face. It did not turn me in to a blood thirsty monster.
Re your dig at catching sick foxes. It is often the ill and old foxes that cause the biggest problems. Because they are no longer quick enough to catch wild prey, they are attracted to farmed or domesticated animals. Quite often the fox they catch might be one that has been shot and they are actually putting it out of its misery.
As for enjoying hunting being sick. It depends on what they derive the pleasure from.
I understand that the fox must be controlled and believe that hounds hunting their quarry, just as a fox might hunt it's own quarry, is the best way of doing it.
I get pleasure from watching the hounds work. Other get pleasure from being able to spend a day riding over land they do not know or would not have access to otherwise. On both cases, the pleasure is not enhanced or deminshed depending on whether a fox is caught or not.
If a rat catcher is caught smiling at work, does it make him a sadist?
A.Glover
says...
2:10pm Wed 7 Jan 09
A huge shame Vicar that you couldn't act with the same decorum and humour as the other opponents, who have proven that despite differing opinions they can still be civil. I'm afraid you entirely missed the point of my analogies, even though I quite clearly spelt it out. It was to counter your sensationalist claim that "chasing a fox until it drops with exhaustion only for it to be ripped to shreds by a pack of savage dogs is inhuman and barbaric". My point was, and still is, that I am absolutely sure you indirectly support activities which are FAR WORSE on a cruelty basis because it suits you, your belly, or your medicine cabinet. If you can tell me that you do not each fish or meat of any kind nor use animal products or animal-tested products then fair enough, but somehow I doubt it. Or are you going to tell me that it's different, that you'll tolerate people being cruel to animals so long as the animals are eaten after their suffering? You will accept our industries' ways of killing healthy animals by the million, but a quick death for an unhealthy animal is abhorrent is it?
So unless you're a vegan, the cruelty card is a pretty weak one. So what's up your sleeve... that old chestnut, the costumes. Seriously, who cares? Are you honestly going to object to it because certain members of a hunt wear certain clothes? Is that the best you can do? Would it honestly make it more cruel if fishermen, slaughtermen and knackers wore pink dresses or pointy hats? Does it make it more evil for animal testers to wear white coats? I thought you were objecting to the activity itself, not the dress code. And for what it's worth the last hunt I attended there were 3 out of about 30 riders who had the jackets... the leader and two whippers-in.
I really wish you would attempt to listen to people that have had first-hand hunting experience, if only to appear open-minded, rather than jumping to conclusions. Of course, make your own opinions, but please listen to the actual facts first so that your opinions are educated. Again, it shows us all how dangerous a little bit of information can be. First of all and simply enough no, it is not normally the healthy foxes that cause problems for livestock... this is why livestock is often killed by a repeat offender. A healthy fox is normally able to hunt for its own prey and wouldn't risk going near humans for a one-stop shopping trip unless it was desperate.
Sorry, but your little bit of research is ridiculous. You've actually just come up with a glossary of hunting terms, not an accurate description of contemporary hunts. Can you see that? It also lists the term 'currant jelly' which apparently refers to a hare's scent crossing the hunt.. Now Vicar, that does not mean to say that hares regularly cross British hunts, but merely that when they did there was a term for it. I am not going to deny that the verb 'to blood' does refer to what it says on that page. What I will say is from the direct experience I've had with about 4 hunts, plus the second-hand knowledge I have of many others through friends and relatives, I can categorically say that I've never heard or seen it being done nowadays. It is certainly not the norm, is quite ridiculous, and without a doubt if you'd tried that where I was in Devon on boxing day , you would've been in a LOT of bother.
I am amazed that I have to challenge this degree of aggressive ignorance and presumption. Your ability to generalise from titbits of info is incredible. I realise it's not usual for people directly involved in hunts to show up and engage in a debate, but unfortunately for you I genuinely do know about fox-hunting and I cannot let you get away with saying things I know are misleading. I can see it is frustrating for you, it's much easier to persuade your felllow city-dwellers who've never been near a hunt. Most of your opinions don't actually berate fox-hunting, but are critical about some of the ways it is occasionally performed. You're arguing with a bizarre, outdated stereotype of malpractice in hunting. To this extent, I completely agree with you. The tories have said they would repeal the ban, in favour of a body that would regulate pro-actively hunting. Fantastic. Fading rituals like blooding, if and where they do still exist, need to be stamped out. Similarly if people are still using terriers, if people are acting like imbeciles as you put it, then they can be brought to justice. However none of what you've said really discredits the kind of hunts that I have seen with my own eyes.
I'm sure you mean well and ideally you have animals' best interests at heart, but you've been basing your argument on things which aren't actually true and you need to take your thoughts to their logical conclusion. I'm afraid father, you've been the victim of misinformation.
The Vicar
says...
3:47pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Fox hunts are about killing for fun and are often referred to as a “sport” – justifications about chicken deaths etc hold no substance as the cost associated to procure, maintain and run a hunt far outweigh the cost of replacing a small number of live stock or indeed providing a more secure environment for the livestock holding which is obviously the recommend solution.
To take pleasure and make a whole event based on the death of a living creature is wrong and it is to this reason why so many protest.
Someone mentioned having shot a rabbit was then smeared in its blood…… why for heavens sake?? – for what reason???…. You absolute lunatic – This totally discredits you within this debate as it’s these cave man rituals people are trying to outlaw.
I think you’ve misunderstood me on a few other points too, however just to clarify;
It’s the people, supporters, the dress code, the hunt itself and everything it stands for I hate – the whole pantomime!!
The Vicar
says...
4:17pm Wed 7 Jan 09
It’s BANNED!!
A.Glover
says...
4:29pm Wed 7 Jan 09
You show your naivity when you suddenly switch the focus onto the economics of a hunt. The only significant additional expense is the upkeep of the hounds, who would need feeding even there was never another hunt. The riders already have horses and the ride is normally free. You seem to suggest you understand the costing of both a hunt and of fox proof fencing, please enlighten us. Exactly how much does it cost? I only know of one particular figure, which being the apparent expert you are, you'll be able to predict: a friend of mine has a small-holding of.. around 20 square feet I'm guessing, in which she used to keep 16 chickens. OK, after a gory visit from a fox, she looked into installing 8 foot high weldmesh fencing, buried two feet underground. On top of that she needed to roof it with bird netting, supported by 4foot joist straps angled outwards. Please Vicar, do me the honour of making an estimate as to how much this would have set her back by, I'll be able to correct you if by chance you're slightly out. Alternatively, don't make random unqualified claims about costing when you appear to know precisely zilch about it. And to think, my friend had a very modest smallholding containing just chickens. Can you begin to imagine the necessary precautions to secure an entire field of pregnant ewes? I very much doubt it. Perhaps you're right about replacing stock though.. perhaps we can convince these livestock holders to continually restock their chickens throughout the year so no doubt the same fox can return and tear each and everyone of them to pieces time and time again. How humane you are Vicar.
OK so you object to the people. A chip on your shoulder down to some misunderstanding about it being an entirely upper-class pursuit, I've already answered that one, you're very misguided. Supporters, likewise, if you're gullible enough to believe that they're all snobbish bloodthirsty barbarians then you need to do a little more research. The dress code, OK you don't like red jackets. So far that's your strongest point, as even I won't deny that I've seen people wear them. And the hunt itself? The cruelty of it perhaps? Like I said, pure and blinding hypocrisy and lazy misunderstanding. Do not close your mind to the facts that I can guarantee you are the truth.
Perhaps you should look into exactly what it is that is currently (and doubtless temporarily) banned. The people, supporters, the dress code are all the same, no bans there. And the hunt itself, in some places has changed slightly, though as I said in my experience foxes are still being caught and will continue to be.
Simonon
says...
4:59pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Fox hunting is cruel and that's why its banned.
X
A.Glover
says...
5:13pm Wed 7 Jan 09
The Vicar
says...
5:37pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Your “4” hunts must have really gone to your head..
I have more of an understanding than you think having been brought up on a farm and still actively involved in farming albeit arable. We previously kept hundreds of free range chickens and never had a single problem with fox’s due to having the necessary secure environment. It’s all about protecting your investment, just as you would lock your doors on a night – but you’re not interested because you loving going out and killing fox’s for fun!!!
And I'll point out again - Very few hard working everyday farmers are interested in, or get involved in "hunts" and I know plenty!
You don’t know me and have no idea of my profession so please don’t make accusation about me knowing “zilch” about anything construction as I have been in the business for over 20 years and could make you look very foolish!! – Protecting 16 chickens is not difficult or expensive depending on available resources and materials – but once again, if the chickens were safe you’d have no excuse for having fun, dressing up and killing a fox.
Anyway, I think it’s time to end this debate as you are now clutching at straws and picking up on very small points and twisting them to justify your responsive goals.
I won't be re-visiting this thread
Crack on and sleep easy….. Killer!
A.Glover
says...
5:39pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Vicar, that last post was actually aimed at you sir.
sayitasitis
says...
5:40pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Your ignorance of facts defy belief and you are clearly not open minded enough to listen to them (or too stupid to understand them).
You glory in the fact it is "banned" - so what is your Beef ? The fact that more foxes are suffering and or be killed than before the Ban does not seem to worry you. You are more pre-occupied with the fact that people enjoy what they do than the true welfare of the animals.
Your economics don't make sense.
Firstly to put suitable protection for lifestock on a very large farm would be rediculous and wouold be reflected in the cost of the food you buy. Or we could intensively rear in Sheds - Does that make sense to you ? To Make farm animals suffer more, so that half a doxen foxes a year are not caught and killed by hounds ?
Don't forget that Hounds hunt and kill a fox in just the same manner that foxes themselves kill their prrey. and cats kill Mice etc. We don't put human emotions on to the Cats and mice do we ??
The huntsmen are performing a service for teh landowners / farmers by looking after the hounds, which are financed by hunt follwers for the pleasure of riding out for the day. Hence the farmers gets the service for free in return for access to the land for the day to riders etc. Its a mutual co-operation - something modern society seems to have forgotten about.
You go and enjoy your cabbage sandwhiches and lentle broth for Tea tonight. Because that must be the only things your morals will allow you to eat.
You sleep easy in your bed knowing it is "banned". I will contiue to support the Hunts and the people that indirectly help put food on my table tat has had teh best life possible before it was killed.
I am not going to debate this anymore because you have no desire to learn of the facts. You are simply regurgitating untruths and myths whilst trying to hide your loathing of people that have differing views from yourself.
Simonon
says...
5:59pm Wed 7 Jan 09
A.Glover wrote:Great!.
Oops, sorry most of that was directed at Vicar, not Simonon! I jumped the gun and thought Vicar was crawling off. Simonon you're welcome to the last word. And did I mention, my husband is away with work this weekend.
Vicar, that last post was actually aimed at you sir.
I'll be round the back with the ladder at midnight. x
Drew Peacock
says...
6:30pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Whereas previously landowners and game shoots would tolerate foxes and leave them for the hunt. They are now much more likely to shoot them, either on sight or by lamping.
I heard of a shoot the other day where it took 4 shots from a shot gun to kill a fox. How is that more acceptable than a hunt where the fox has a chance and, if it is caught, dies quickly?
A.Glover
says...
6:45pm Wed 7 Jan 09
I too was brought up on a farm, and most of my friends were and still are farmers. I can assure you that from my experiences many if not most farmers are interested in hunting in some form, and at the very least supporting it. I dare you to deny it. Please, please, please do try and make me look 'very foolish', I'd absolutely love to hear it, as I'm thinking with every new post of yours that you are another blagger. My friend who looked into protecting her 16 chickens discovered the costs were absurdly expensive.. fact. Perhaps you are one of these landed gentry, inheriting a tradition you know little about and able to throw money at problems. The vast majority of farmers are not in such a comfortable position, and the price of securing livestock (which you've still not estimated, despite your 20 years of experience) is prohibitive.
You go out of your way to avoid the points I am making. I refute one aspect of your second-hand argument, so you move onto another, until eventually you turn full circle. You've shown no respect or acknowledgement for the facts that I have seen with my own eyes, irefutable, undeniable, and to you invisible. YOu make completely unjustified claims and have made no attempt to qualify yourself or persuade us that you have any of the facts at all. When I say I have been involved in four hunts, I mean four hunts as in four areas. The number of actual individual hunts I have been involved in is probably closer to 40, so I have an exceptional idea about how hunts actually take place. This is what you lack, yet you seem to have decided you are the expert and are willing to preach your half-truths and falsities to others. You know how much hunts cost, how the fox is killed, the motives behind the supporters, the costs of securing livestock. Honestly, it's ridiculous, entirely unconvincing and disgracefully arrogant. I advise you to find a special subject and refrain from talking about things which clearly you know nothing about.
Alien
says...
7:00pm Wed 7 Jan 09
drew sayit and mrs glover i sugest you save your time as some people are just so pig ignorant that they will not acept facts if they are rubbed in there faces. people like vicar have a LOT to answer for when they overlook far worse crimes. SHAME SHAME SHAME on them. disgusting selfdeluding idiots. id sooner hunt them than the foxes!!!
The Vicar
says...
7:30pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Glover – I’m not blagger but I certainly aren’t going to waste my time producing a quote you or your friend who will take absolutely no notice of it…
I don’t confess to being an expert but the facts are very basic really – You like to run around the country killing fox’s for fun…. hence the pantomime – the fancy outfits, the whole entourage.. It’s a sick ritual/tradition and then you make lame excuses as to justify your behaviour. There’s nothing more to understand.
It’s even more interesting that you don’t actually work or own a farm so why the intense interest????
Why is it referred to as a sport?
Why do people with no connection to farming become involved?
The bottom line is people participate for fun and that’s my point – the fun of killing a living creature.
To say I have missed the point is pathetic..
Alien
says...
7:45pm Wed 7 Jan 09
duh!!
A.Glover
says...
8:10pm Wed 7 Jan 09
Killing foxes for fun? No! Not killing foxes for fun, Vicar. Listen. Riding horses for fun! ( And doing a job while they're at it ).
OK? With me so far?
Fancy outfits? Sometimes fancy outfits Vicar! But normally not fancy outfits. Most hunters, no fancy outfits. OK? If it makes that much difference to you.
Ritual? No Vicar, not ritual. Ritual dying out. 'Blooding' etc dying out. Not ritual.
Sport? Some people say so, yes Vicar. Sport because it is bound by rules and there is an element of competition, thus 'sport'. ANd because it's riding horses for fun.
Why do non-farmers get involved? Because it involves riding horses for fun! OK? Riding horses for fun. That's why people are still hunting, still drag hunting. Riding horses for fun, not killing for fun. ( And doing a job while they're at it ). How's that?
Clearer? If there is still any doubt at all, then ask someone who has actually had something to do with a hunt. Not one of your builder friends, not a PETA supporter who's lived their entire lives in Kensington, but someone who has actually seen the facts with their own two eyes.
On the side, I'm intrigued to hear why you think that firstly I don't work on a farm, and secondly that I don't own one. Please elaborate.
What you're actually saying is no, you do not know roughly how much it would cost to protect a tiny smallholding of 16 chickens, you would have to get a quote which actually anyone could do. And no, you have absolutely no idea at all how much it costs "to procure, maintain and run a hunt". But your claim is that you can still succesfully compare these two unknown figures, and hunting is still more expensive. Wow. You're a genius my friend, and yes, you have made me look very foolish!
Oh. Does anyone else get the feeling we're not really making any headway?
The Vicar
says...
8:58pm Wed 7 Jan 09
What are you truly expecting from me??? – Just for me to role over and say “ok hunts people, fox hunting is truly great and a worthwhile cause”???
I’ve listened to you and I don’t like or agree with what I’ve heard. I’m not some green loony out for a fight. I don’t like what you stand for, the justifications or the actions. Your responses are very typical with many others jumping on the fox hunt bandwagon. I repeat my points, as your responses are bull… just because you think you have addressed the points doesn’t mean they are just or fact….or that I should lay down and take them… you, like me are no expert…
It also shows a total immaturity when I state I am in the construction industry that you automatically label me as a builder – How every childish…and interestingly not picking up on the fact I have also been involved in farming all my life and have a vast circle of farming friends who strangely to you, also share my views in relation to fox hunting the types that associate themselves with it.
So, since the beginning of this thread, we have now changed from justifying hunts from the livestock killings to the pure enjoyment of riding… if you like riding so much, just go and ride – why associate a pleasurable past time with a violent killing?
It’s very funny how you have turned full circle and actually now agree with me in that you do it for fun rather than the previous lame vermin justifications.
Who knows, it’s this carries on long enough you might come round to my way of thinking.
But please don’t forget - I, like you am entitled to my opinion and on one on a silly York Press web site can own up to being an “expert” as the “real” experts wouldn’t waste their time….
The Vicar
says...
10:20pm Wed 7 Jan 09
The next time you are out on your jolly hunt enjoying the ride, just after the kill, while you all peer down in celebration on the blood soaked body of a lifeless fox, take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror…. You won’t like what you see or what you are responsible for, and if you do… please get help
This sick past time was banned for a reason – not for government favouritism but on grounds of cruelty – you may not like it, but one day you’ll understand
A.Glover
says...
10:42pm Wed 7 Jan 09
The justification of the hunt is not merely the control of foxes, nor merely the enjoyment of riding, but crucially a combination of both. Yes, there are other ways to kill a fox (none any less pleasant), and there are other ways to have a good ride too, but this does both. I've explained both in the course of this thread, that does not mean that I've changed my argument in anyway at all.
So this is where the facts kick in. I can personally guarantee you that out of perhaps hundreds of people I've met hunting, I have never, ever met even one who seemed to be bloodthirsty or gruesome in any way. It is not 'killing for fun'. Out of 40 or so hunts I have not seen or heard of blood being used for any purpose, nor any ritual that could be considered cruel. If the fun part of a hunt was the kill, then nearly everyone in nearly every hunt would be perpetually disappointed as very few people will be in a position to see one. That is a fact, so please don't tell me that the majority of hunters are bloodthirsty barbarians. If you could say from experiences that a similar number of huntsmen you'd met had displayed these alarming traits, then you would have a stronger argument. Also I can categorically state that the overwhelming majority of huntsmen I've met have been either working class or lower middle class. This was mostly in an area with very low incomes, so leave the 'toffe-nosed' jibes at home. Fox hunting is not saturated with the upper classes. Until someone can convince me with facts that what I have seen with my own eyes for 25 years has been an anomaly each time, then my opinion stands.
Basically, you're argument is based on conjecture and strong opinions. If you can provide me with some objective facts that support these opinions of yours then fair enough, but so far I don't think I've seen it. What you seem to oppose is perfectly horrific; brutal traditions involving bloodthirsty snobs doing disgusting things with dead foxes for no reason. But this in my experience is not what fox-hunting actually is nowadays. So what I want to know is, either provide some evidence that this IS fox hunting, it IS the norm, or give me your opinion on the ways of hunting that I have seen.
sayitasitis
says...
11:16pm Wed 7 Jan 09
I am not debating hunting any more. But I would really like to have your opinion on killing Rabbits.
If you were brought up with Agricultural farming as you state -You must surely have been involved in Shooting or trapping Rabbits.
You must have done it. I don't know a farmer that hasn't and it is Law to control them.
Did you, every now and then, get a sense of satisfaction having got that difficult shot and killed it stone dead? Does this make you a bloodthirsty Barbarian? I only ask because that is the argument thrown against shooting sports, much as you view Hunting with hounds.
Simonon
says...
8:27am Thu 8 Jan 09
mystic_genius
says...
11:10am Thu 8 Jan 09
Foxes need to be hunted.
People are allowed to have fun.
if people can combine something fun with something necessary why stop them?
I agree that fox hunting, whilst inhumane, is the MOST humane way of doing it.
the alternative: shooting? no. baiting and trapping? no. Letting hounds run loose in the country, killing all and sundry? No.
I say, let them get on with it. Whatever your hobbies are, Vicar, I'm sure at some point it will involve some cruelty somewhere to something - even if you enjoy reading, you could be unknowingly murdering countless numbers of rare and endangered species at the rainforests decrease. I may be young and naive, but I'm not naive enough to not think that my actions almost certain cause pain to something somewhere, not least the lovely Debbie and Andrew suasages I'll be munching on for tea tonight.
Simonon
says...
11:34am Thu 8 Jan 09
there is a difference between doing something knowingly and deliberatly, and unknowingly from by-products.
Fox hunting is wrong!
A.Glover
says...
12:40pm Thu 8 Jan 09
Fish and chips is wrong!
mystic_genius
says...
12:43pm Thu 8 Jan 09
I always said that any person who eats meat, should be prepared to kill the animal it came from.
I raise the point again about naivity (however it's spelt). We ALL know where beef comes from. We all KNOW where sausages come from. I dare suggest that this whole sordid affair/law/discussio
n wouldes were eaten...
Simonon, you imply that it is OK to harm animals unknowingly. I think that that is worse than deliberatly setting out to hurt them. if I wanted something dead, I'd do it in the quickest and most pain free way possible. To do it unknowingly implies you're not fussed about the animal suffering, so long as it dies.
Simonon
says...
1:33pm Thu 8 Jan 09
Fish and chips taste lovely.
I dont fancy a slice of Fox though!
hmm... then again.
A.Glover
says...
1:54pm Thu 8 Jan 09
I expect Hugh Fearnley-Whittingsta
ll has eaten fox a few times, I'd have a nibble.
sayitasitis
says...
2:14pm Thu 8 Jan 09
A by product of buying cheap chicken or eggs at Morrisons is the cruel conditions in which the chickens are kept. Buying those products perpetuates the cruelty.
Personally, I would rather see an animal live a good life and be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible.
I happen to believe that hunting foxes with hounds gives the healthy fox a better than even chance of getting away and not being shot during eth rest of the year and the sick ones of being killed quickly with no chance of being left wounded.
So my logic tells me that a by product of hunting is that no seriuosly injured foxes are left to die a slow and painfull death -They either die quickly or escape. Unlike shooting, trapping or poisening them.
Refer to witnessing the fox being torn aprt when you were young. I agree this would look horrible. But it would have been dead long before that happened. The hounds are only doing, what the fox would do if it caught a Rabbit. We don't consider it barbarc to cut a carcess up in a butchers, the hounds are only doing the same thing - a Dead fox is simply a carcass.
Nature is Cruel when viewed with Human emotions. But I am not aware of mny animals dying peacfully in bed surrounded by their reletives to comfort them.
Simonon
says...
2:33pm Thu 8 Jan 09
sayitasitis wrote:fair point.
Simonon, Ar you against cruelty to animals or killing of animals ? A by product of buying cheap chicken or eggs at Morrisons is the cruel conditions in which the chickens are kept. Buying those products perpetuates the cruelty. Personally, I would rather see an animal live a good life and be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. I happen to believe that hunting foxes with hounds gives the healthy fox a better than even chance of getting away and not being shot during eth rest of the year and the sick ones of being killed quickly with no chance of being left wounded. So my logic tells me that a by product of hunting is that no seriuosly injured foxes are left to die a slow and painfull death -They either die quickly or escape. Unlike shooting, trapping or poisening them. Refer to witnessing the fox being torn aprt when you were young. I agree this would look horrible. But it would have been dead long before that happened. The hounds are only doing, what the fox would do if it caught a Rabbit. We don't consider it barbarc to cut a carcess up in a butchers, the hounds are only doing the same thing - a Dead fox is simply a carcass. Nature is Cruel when viewed with Human emotions. But I am not aware of mny animals dying peacfully in bed surrounded by their reletives to comfort them.
To answer your question, I am against cruelty to animals, but when asked in reastaurant how I would like my fillet steak cooked I say " just lead it through on a rope please"
sayitasitis
says...
6:27pm Thu 8 Jan 09
PS it my last comment was meant to be specific slieght on Morrisons, if any lawyers are reading this ;o)
Emjoy your Steak.
Simonon
says...
6:51pm Fri 9 Jan 09
Ahhh.... that's better!
A.Glover
says...
12:45pm Sat 10 Jan 09
Ha.
Simonon
says...
5:41pm Sat 10 Jan 09
Ha HA!
A.Glover
says...
12:26pm Sun 11 Jan 09
(not)
Simonon
says...
4:44pm Sun 11 Jan 09
is to.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with