Weather blow for New Year’s Day Derwent Hunt (From York Press)

thats a shame NOT

Happy the horses and dogs got their exercise. Even more happy the filth on horseback didn't bag a fox.

I really can't understand this antipathetic attitude towards those who gain pleasure by pursuing small furry animals with dogs, torturing and then after much prolongued agony, killing them. What as a nation are we coming to ? Let us show our native fair mindedness to these overweight inebriated slobs and applaud their stoic resolution in meeting in inclement weather to enjoy their recreation. After all, we show at least as much tolerance to the overweight, inebriated slobs who foul the streets at New Year and most weekends.
P.S. If you take any notice of the above rubbish then it just goes to show that local newspaper posts really are the last refuge of the mentally disengaged.

They should let 'em chase criminals down instead. Probably do a better job in rural areas than the police!

Ah here we go again! I was going to try to jump in before anyone else, and predict the usual 'bloodthirsty', 'toffs', 'torture', 'ripped to shreds' type comments, but looks like I'm already too late!

'Lenin', if you're willing to open yourself to first-hand facts rather than the usual catchphrases, I would be more than happy to civilly answer some of your challenges.

Anyway, a period of snow is hardly going to stop hunting long-term, especially if a law can't even do it. Don't get your hopes up... where I was over Christmas, the boxing day hunt had the largest turn out in several years, and got a few foxes too. Great news bearing in mind a few years ago they thought they were going to have to put to sleep the entire pack of dogs to appease animal rights activists! The irony.

I really don’t see what pleasure people get out of hunting. I can see the joy of riding a horse or even racing them. I can see the pleasure in taking the dog out for a run but I just don’t understand the necessity or joy in hunting. My family were all country folk and indeed I’m part of the second generation of my family to be city dwellers but none of my older relatives supported the hunt. My uncle was a shepherd who would go out with his gun to bag pheasants and rabbits for the table but held huntsmen in very low esteem. Another uncle is still a farmer but he won’t allow the hunt on his land. It’s not a matter of town against country or indeed the knowledgeable against the ignorant it’s simply a matter a common decency. To chase a defenceless animal often for a considerable period of time causing it untold stress before tearing it to pieces is neither necessary or defendable. If the hunts genuinely believe that the fox is a pest then why do they encourage them to breed?

Thanks redr, for a more reasoned argument. I would still disagree however, when you say it's not a matter of ignorance before claiming that huntsmen encourage foxes to breed. The practice of artificial earthing is phenomenally rare, and certainly hasn't happened around the Dorset and Leicestershire hunts that I've known about. There is also a distinct urban/rural divide, as statistically far more support comes from rural areas, and far more antipathy from urban areas... another reason why the law can't work.
Foxes are undoubtedly a pest, and are officially classed as vermin. My aunt and her neighbour directly asked for the hunt's support recently, as at least twice last year her entire coop of hens has been ripped apart by one excitable fox. Not for food, I might add. Sheep farmers and poultry farmers often have difficulties with foxes - this is no secret - so it's not as simple as sitting in our suburbs saying they do no harm. They do. There are always exceptions, especially on the anonymous internet, but most of the farmers I've encountered have no problem with the hunt if they show respect for the land.
I sadly admit that there are unnecessary hunts and objectionable huntsmen. However, I know for a fact that there are also many important hunts supported almost entirely by working class local farmers who want to control the fox population. Not toffs in red jackets. And bearing in mind maybe 2 or 3 huntsmen would actually see any kill at all, saying they do it out of bloodlust is pathetically incorrect. I also know that compared with gassing, trapping, or shooting, hunting is a fast and dare I say more humane way of killing a fox. Most farmers aren't rifle trained, and use 12 bore shotguns that are more likely to maim than kill. If anyone is condoning taking pot-shots from 200yards, I'd suggest that THEY are the cruel ones.
Anyway, all I know is that from what I've seen, 90% of anti-hunt arguments aren't based on general truths. I'm not pro-hunt by any means, but I can't sit back and watch people trot out the same second-hand nonsense about torturing furry animals. Hunts must be licensed and controlled, but they can never be successfully banned everywhere.

'The Hunt' has very little to do with foxes; they are innocent pawns in an attempt, (most successful), by the ancient rulers of the country to hang on to their superiority in their rural society.
The ruling classes never achieved this in cities, but in rural parts, the 'squirearchy' and their modern moneyed equivalent, keep the 'good old way' by regular outings with historical appurtenances and plenty of 18th century imagery.
Of course hunts today allow all to take part. In some areas your life will not be worth living if you do not. So the squirearchy can justify this desperate bid at keeping their own version of law and order by saying that, well, 'foxes are vermin, and need to be kept down'.
What needs to be kept down are the peasants, and what needs to be kept up is the last vestiges of the feudal system.

Arblaster, I LOVE it! I so hope you're being serious. It's a class thing! Sounds like you have a big middle-class chip on your shoulder. Golly gosh, doesn't one just hate those loathsome aristocrats putting down those poor, meagre peasantfolk. You've given me a giggle, thanks!

Arblaster wrote:
'The Hunt' has very little to do with foxes; they are innocent pawns in an attempt, (most successful), by the ancient rulers of the country to hang on to their superiority in their rural society.
The ruling classes never achieved this in cities, but in rural parts, the 'squirearchy' and their modern moneyed equivalent, keep the 'good old way' by regular outings with historical appurtenances and plenty of 18th century imagery.
Of course hunts today allow all to take part. In some areas your life will not be worth living if you do not. So the squirearchy can justify this desperate bid at keeping their own version of law and order by saying that, well, 'foxes are vermin, and need to be kept down'.
What needs to be kept down are the peasants, and what needs to be kept up is the last vestiges of the feudal system.

Well said and well written! I wish I had the time and patience to reply to the Goodcoc's pathetic drivel!

The daft thing about this is that the press photo caption states "The hunt exercises their hounds and horses" YEP dont sit on the fence - this bunch were Hunting, nothing else. The difference is if your rich and a complete hooray and dont like the law that the goverment has imposed you just ignore it. And as usual the Police and courts will ignore it. If they were all from Acomb the Police would move in like a flash and nick them all.

Cat - I think you wish you had the intellect and knowledge more like! I don't think you can see the irony can you?
Well people if your main argument is against the upper-classes, that's just fine. I know several hunts that are about as posh as Netto, and the hunt local to where I come from is entirely made up of farmers and labourers! They'd wet themselves to hear you'd call them posh! But sure, if you want to get classist feel free!

Hunting is an amazing traditional thing, what does not consist of stuck up snobs and there posh totty dogs, i have to admit i usto think that but when you get involved the thrill of been out on the field is the worlds best thing, i have to admit the new year didn't last too long from the floor been to hard but we managed a couple of miles. It was great to see so many people turn up from such a small village. If you don't agree with hunting egnore it, it isn't in your face everyday, when it came to the vote you voted what you wanted and we voted ours, we lost you won and by you doing that we didn't loose are ground to hunt on just the fox to hunt so we stopped killing the foxes to please all you anti's but you stopping us taking are horses and hounds to exersize them is just cruel. Having the hounds locked up in cages is wrong dogs like them are bred to be out in fields with other dogs like themselves, Hounds are boisterous and cannot be kept in a house with small kids unless you want everything distroyed and you're kids knocked over. The fields are the best place to be fore these dogs and to watch a horse hunting is like watching horse racing watching the horses competing between each other is amazing and with the hounds makes it so much better. My dad shoots for a living and he tells me that shooting an animal can be more cruel than hunting them, if you get that shot wrong and it doesnt die instantly that will be cruel but with hunting as soon as the hound gets it, the animal is dead and i find hunting a less cruel sport than shooting! BAN THE BAN ON FOX HUNTING!!

GoodDoc wrote:
Cat - I think you wish you had the intellect and knowledge more like! I don't think you can see the irony can you?
Well people if your main argument is against the upper-classes, that's just fine. I know several hunts that are about as posh as Netto, and the hunt local to where I come from is entirely made up of farmers and labourers! They'd wet themselves to hear you'd call them posh! But sure, if you want to get classist feel free!

I am amazed at the blatant hypocrisy you write! May I quote you?..... "I know several hunts that are about as posh as Netto, and the hunt local to where I come from is entirely made up of farmers and labourers!" ......You speak well for the majority of animal cruelty supporters and obvious snobs.

Rach&&Midss wrote:
Hunting is an amazing traditional thing, what does not consist of stuck up snobs and there posh totty dogs, i have to admit i usto think that but when you get involved the thrill of been out on the field is the worlds best thing, i have to admit the new year didn't last too long from the floor been to hard but we managed a couple of miles. It was great to see so many people turn up from such a small village. If you don't agree with hunting egnore it, it isn't in your face everyday, when it came to the vote you voted what you wanted and we voted ours, we lost you won and by you doing that we didn't loose are ground to hunt on just the fox to hunt so we stopped killing the foxes to please all you anti's but you stopping us taking are horses and hounds to exersize them is just cruel. Having the hounds locked up in cages is wrong dogs like them are bred to be out in fields with other dogs like themselves, Hounds are boisterous and cannot be kept in a house with small kids unless you want everything distroyed and you're kids knocked over. The fields are the best place to be fore these dogs and to watch a horse hunting is like watching horse racing watching the horses competing between each other is amazing and with the hounds makes it so much better. My dad shoots for a living and he tells me that shooting an animal can be more cruel than hunting them, if you get that shot wrong and it doesnt die instantly that will be cruel but with hunting as soon as the hound gets it, the animal is dead and i find hunting a less cruel sport than shooting! BAN THE BAN ON FOX HUNTING!!

Well, need I say more?????

GoodDoc. Sorry, there is a class element to this. All the peasants blood-sports, e.g. ****-fighting and dog-fighting, were banned nearly 200 years ago. So why not the same for the landed gentry? Now, I'll listen to any argument about 'management' and therefore support the need to cull deer. But, I cannot suppport the wholesale destruction of our wildlife to save a few chickens! We try to encourage countries like India to set aside land for Tigers, etc, even though they eat people. Your argument just doesn't wash.

We need a lot of people to 'grow-up'.

<quote>Arblaster, I LOVE it! I so hope you're being serious. It's a class thing! Sounds like you have a big middle-class chip on your shoulder. Golly gosh, doesn't one just hate those loathsome aristocrats putting down those poor, meagre peasantfolk. You've given me a giggle, thanks!</quote>
I am being deadly serious.
I suppose I'm working-class, but I don't want my thinking to be an attack on the class-structure.
I want it to be an attack on the lies perpetrated by the majority of the hunting fraternity.
Of course there are 'working class' farmer's hunts. They are allowed by the rural regime, to give a sop to lesser mortals than themselves. They are rural tradition; keep them going!
I have a friend in Northamptonshire who rented a farm; the first year he was there, he was surprised to find a whole hoard of red-coated 'tally-ho Indescribables' having a break from their chase after the 'inedibles', in the middle of his land. When he approached Lord **** to ask what him and his chums were doing on his land, he was politely lead to one side and told it was 'tradition' that the hunt stopped to get pi55ed here. They always have, and my friend was in no way going to stop that happening.
So it's tradition, keeping the 'good old way'.
If it was an effective method of stopping 'vermin', I'd expect the York Rentokill man to take then same approach. Sport hunting-pink, have a van -full of braying hounds, toot a horn, and stop his van for what I suppose would have to be called a 'clutch-cup' outside my house...

Pete - had you been writing 200 years ago I'd agree entirely. Nowadays fox-hunting is categorically NOT an upper-class bloodsport. It's a PERCEIVED class element, a pantomime image of Lords in red jacket smearing blood about. I speak from direct first-hand experience; most huntsmen that I know are working class farmers and their families. That's not an argument that can 'wash' or not, that's just me telling you what I have seen. I'm almost tempted to introduce you to a few huntsmen I know, to see if you continue to think they're posh! I think most people on this board are more upper class than them!
Foxes are common vermin, so don't equate them to tigers! Mind you, whenever any animal begins to have serious negative effects on mankind, endangered or not, mankind steps in to control it. I hardly think fox-hunts lead to the 'wholesale destruction of our wildlife'! Can you suggest a more effective and humane alternative?


Cat dearest - can you explain how that was hypocritical of me, to suggest that most hunts aren't posh, including the ones that I know about? Or is that just another word you're not too sure about? And no lovey, you don't need to say more! Your argument has already been comandeered by people with better social skills, higher knowledge, and a level of intellectual thought! You can take a back seat now. "LOL"?

GoodDoc wrote:
Pete - had you been writing 200 years ago I'd agree entirely. Nowadays fox-hunting is categorically NOT an upper-class bloodsport. It's a PERCEIVED class element, a pantomime image of Lords in red jacket smearing blood about. I speak from direct first-hand experience; most huntsmen that I know are working class farmers and their families. That's not an argument that can 'wash' or not, that's just me telling you what I have seen. I'm almost tempted to introduce you to a few huntsmen I know, to see if you continue to think they're posh! I think most people on this board are more upper class than them!
Foxes are common vermin, so don't equate them to tigers! Mind you, whenever any animal begins to have serious negative effects on mankind, endangered or not, mankind steps in to control it. I hardly think fox-hunts lead to the 'wholesale destruction of our wildlife'! Can you suggest a more effective and humane alternative?


Cat dearest - can you explain how that was hypocritical of me, to suggest that most hunts aren't posh, including the ones that I know about? Or is that just another word you're not too sure about? And no lovey, you don't need to say more! Your argument has already been comandeered by people with better social skills, higher knowledge, and a level of intellectual thought! You can take a back seat now. "LOL"?

Once again you prove me right through your own snobbery and ignorance. Thanks. Oh by the way here's a little clue "Netto".

Ahh, you have to 'exercise the horses and hounds?' That's all you do with them, hmmm?
And if the animals don't get their exercise, they'll all have to be shot, eh? That is the sort of pathetic circular argument the jolly gentry regurgitate every year. It's rubbish, poppycock and banana-oil, and
it's supposed to make me feel sorry for the beasts, eh?
If the sole function of these animals is to be exercised, then I suggest you get rid of them once and for all, eat those that are edible (horse is tasty stuff, in my opinion), and don't bother your little selves with the oh-so expensive costs of looking after them. Do something else on a Bank Holiday. But! nothing else will do to show the countryside who is in charge, will it? A quick canter around the field will not give that faux-authority, will it? No, it won't.
I could equally well argue that I wish to 'exercise' my Chieftan tank, and I'm going to do so in your stable-yard...

Or you could just stop lying.

Arblaster - I'm intrigued by this idea of a 'rural regime', a dark aristrocratic force that decides who does and who doesn't hunt. The Dorset hunt that I visited over the hols is funded by the followers, and the Chairman is the only power at the top. He isn't a Lord, he's a local sheep farmer called John.

So, you can name an example of a tenant farmer who doesn't approve of a hunt, which by your description is unjustified. How would that invalidate my point? I've already conceded that there are many unjustified hunts, and doubtless many unpleasant hunters. But don't see a red jacket and label them so quickly. Ironically, if there's one character that has a reputation for snobbery it's the tenant farmer who buys up a family farm for slice of rural idyll!

It is a relatively effective way of killing foxes, the survival rate's low, the speed of death fast. Or I suppose, you could be suggesting we gas them, snare them, and posion them. Those ways would be more effective, I grant you. Mr Rentokil need not worry about his methods; his quarry are despised by the urban population so the animals rights bunch don't complain to him. Oh if only rats and cockroaches were cuter, it would be a totally different story!

Cat - saying something is NOT posh is not the same as snobbery. That's two words you need to look up now; 'hypocrisy' and 'snobbery'!

I think everyone should have there own opinion, if you think it's cruel you can think that no one is stopping you, and if you enjoy the thrill and excitment like I do, then get out there and do it. Don't go round trying to change peoples mind, by people saying things like that it has brought us lower by arguing about it over comments. Name calling isn't going to get us anywhere, hunters don't think there better than anyone and i especially don't think either side are 'snobs.' If you sat an 'anti' and a 'supporter' in a room a fight wouldn't break out beause of what each other beleive, even if they did have facts to prove both cases. If you read sites on the ban of hunting you can read that 'anti's' have taken it too far by abusing the huntsman causing both huntsman and anti to get arrested, you can simply have your own views, even the welfare sites have 'NO' side they have said although it's cruel for foxes to be killed like that it is also a good way to keep the fox population from over ruling and killing lambs and chickens. I have personally seen a fox take down a lamb and a hound take out a fox and the way the fox kills the lamb is more cruel than hound on fox, and i arn't just saying that. So have you own opinions but don't go round calling people 'snobs etc...' if you have no idea what you are on about.

"He isn't a Lord, he's a local sheep farmer called John."
I'm convinced 'John' gets regularly dragged out and stood before the dissenters....I'm convinced I've come across 'John' before.
At random, I looked at a hunt website. I chose the Berkshire Hunt, for rhyming-slang's sake...
...chairman: Viscount Astor.
Is his name 'John', too, by any chance?
It's Old Money. It wishes to make sure it stays that way. It never had a true foothold in the cities, so it's hell-bent on hanging on to it in the rurals.

Stop lying to yourself and admit it.

I don't see why were talking about admiting things, If you still no were doing it what is the point in telling us to admit it?? simple answer to you wanting us to admit it: Yes we still do hunt foxes and kill them. What are you going to do about it? You can't prove it, unless you're going to stand there and watch us twice a week all over the country , i realy don't think you're going to prove much.

Rach&&Midss wrote:
I don't see why were talking about admiting things, If you still no were doing it what is the point in telling us to admit it?? simple answer to you wanting us to admit it: Yes we still do hunt foxes and kill them. What are you going to do about it? You can't prove it, unless you're going to stand there and watch us twice a week all over the country , i realy don't think you're going to prove much.

Thanks. This has been forwarded to the erm, well, interested legal parties Rach&&Midss, Thornton-Le-Dale

go for it, you have no proof. People see hunts all over the country hunting and killing and yet still no proof, that is why no one gets arrested.

Ha this is getting daft. Arblaster, if you seriously think that huntsmen are all Lords then you're too ridiculous to argue with. I can honestly introduce you to people that hunt on a regular basis who are in no way upper-class. In fact, your academic style would probably be lost on them. Not that I'm doubting your credentials as an earnest working class hero fighting against the blue-blooded oppressors!

Cat - brilliant! Another comic gem. You're going to ring the police to tell them a commenter has said they've killed a fox! Wake up, foxes are still hunted and will continue to be. Until a fairer, moderate and relevant law comes in, hunts have no reason to stop. Now come on, give us another one-liner!

Thanks GoodDoc you're some one i can completly agree with.

"if you seriously think that huntsmen are all Lords then you're too ridiculous to argue with. I can honestly introduce you to people that hunt on a regular basis who are in no way upper-class."

No need, I know one or two myself, oddly.
Who said they are all Lords? not I, for one. I doubt if there are enough Lords to go round!
So I am not quite as ridiculous as you wish I were....
At the risk of turning into my own echo, I will say once again that the hunts are the last vestige of the sqirearchy keeping the rural parts of the country under the thumb of the feudal system. Lords are involved, as I found at random, from the appropriately self-deprecating 'Old Berks'. I'd warrant that Astor is not unique.
I suspect he and his kind are often found at the top table at hunt-suppers. Also involved are plumbers named Kevin, I don't doubt. It's not a lot of point having a clapped-out feudal system if you havn't got more people at the bottom of the heap than up the top.
Neither do I wish to suggest that it is 'dark and mysterious', as somebody suggested I did. Apologies if i gave that image; if If rural hunting was a cover for 'dark & mysterious' deeds, I'd credit most part-takers with a little more sense than to go shouting about it in red coats on horseback. It doesn't need to be shrouded in mystery, it would be self-defeating if it were. It has to be seen, and what better way to make it so?
Plus ca change; it was much about the same 500 years ago. Some people have managed to accept that some elements of society are better left as history.

Aha Arblaster. Well surely you think it's dark and mysterious in that these plumbers called Kevin and the people 'at the bottom of the heap' are being hoodwinked. They think they're just going out to kill some foxes, to have a good ride, to get outdoors, but NO! They're actually blindly upholding an antiquated political system that empowers the evil squirarchy. How cunning of those dastardly viscounts; those poor naive peasants. Seriously though, come on. I think the key point being that you know quite literally one or two at the very most. And neither, I'll warrant, has a peerage. Yours is the most imaginative response tonight, I'll give you that.

Foxhunting is illegal so why not arrest the Ruperts and Pollys if they decide to go to a meet?

Toffs or tramps, I don't care, it's cruel. And in no way a sport.

I've just read the Good Docs posts and am now ready for bed as it's sent me to sleep.

GoodDoc wrote:
Aha Arblaster. Well surely you think it's dark and mysterious in that these plumbers called Kevin and the people 'at the bottom of the heap' are being hoodwinked. They think they're just going out to kill some foxes, to have a good ride, to get outdoors, but NO! They're actually blindly upholding an antiquated political system that empowers the evil squirarchy. How cunning of those dastardly viscounts; those poor naive peasants. Seriously though, come on. I think the key point being that you know quite literally one or two at the very most. And neither, I'll warrant, has a peerage. Yours is the most imaginative response tonight, I'll give you that.

Always has to have the last word dont ya GoodDoc?

The Cat Amongst The Pigeons wrote:

GoodDoc wrote:
Aha Arblaster. Well surely you think it's dark and mysterious in that these plumbers called Kevin and the people 'at the bottom of the heap' are being hoodwinked. They think they're just going out to kill some foxes, to have a good ride, to get outdoors, but NO! They're actually blindly upholding an antiquated political system that empowers the evil squirarchy. How cunning of those dastardly viscounts; those poor naive peasants. Seriously though, come on. I think the key point being that you know quite literally one or two at the very most. And neither, I'll warrant, has a peerage. Yours is the most imaginative response tonight, I'll give you that.

Always has to have the last word dont ya GoodDoc?

No.

What’s class got to do with anything?
.
Folk who watch foxes being torn apart by dogs should thank Providence: they were only a chromosome away from being born as serial killers.
.
Statistically speaking, most psychos get a buzz from animal suffering before graduating to the human variety. Equally though, statistics also show that a few hunt members will fall and break their necks this year. Paralysis is (no doubt) a b*tch but at least the rest of us will find it easier to evade these Hannibal Lecter-types squeaking around in wheelchairs whilst blowing their daft little trumpets.

Ok im growing bored of bickering, if you want to argue like children over somthing as childish as who is right and who is wrong, i suggest you take it to parliment. Neither side is wrong or right at this point in animal welfare officers eyes. I work for a small animal managment centre in malton and I admit every staff member including myself agree with fox hunting and if a member of staff joined us we would respect them, even if it got brought up in a meeting, the right thing is to respect one and others point of view and this is what we should do here, as frankly this is getting us no where, especially when people are making it sound like it's the animals fault for been there: Horses, Hounds, Foxes they are all living creatures and should be treat equally. But when it comes down to fox or chicken i would pick death of fox. It is not cruel it's reasoning 'A Fox or 100+ chickens.' On are small hold we have had 79 Chickens killed from 1 Fox only 1 chicken was taken from the pen. Now if your going to call Hunters cruel look at a Fox.

for those so against it get off your backsides and get involved and actually witness what goes on first hand not the media drivel!!

if you still don,t agree then fairplay but don,t make a judgement from an armchair!

baileyuk wrote:
for those so against it get off your backsides and get involved and actually witness what goes on first hand not the media drivel!!

if you still don,t agree then fairplay but don,t make a judgement from an armchair!

Hear, hear. A very mature point of view.

I'm constantly amazed how people can develop such bold, swaggering opinions without any first-hand experience or actual knowledge whatsoever. They will swallow frankly absurd opinions and spew them out on cue! I'm not even pro-hunting, but when I've literally seen things which directly disprove and contradict nearly all of the anti arguments on here, it does make me wonder how gullible our citizens are.
Anyway, I'm off to go and write a film review. Not seen the film, but I overheard someone talk about it in a pub, and that apparently is sufficient to know what you're talking about nowadays!

" I'm not even pro-hunting,..."

Well, Gooddoc, it may surprise you to know that I am not absolutely anti-hunting.
Well, I fail to grasp the pleasure wrung from killing an animal, and I have killed an animal or two myself, but did not really enjoy the process. I did, however, eat them. Many years ago, it was...

...It's the hypocrisy of fox-hunters I cannot stomach....and I can see the hypocrisy from here, I do not have to attend the hunt.

By the way, with reference to your satirical 'film review' piece;
I know of one incident when a theatre critic wrote up his review from pure heresay, without seeing the play. I doubt if he is unique; so just say it was 'flawed', you cannot go wrong.
Over to you, for last word....

I see, so you can respond to my points and be defending your opinion, but if I do I'm merely trying to 'get the last word'? Talking of hypocrisy..
Well all I can speak from is my own personal experience which, unfortunately for you, is irefutable. The hunts, huntsmen and attitudes that I've encountered are absolutely the least hypocritical in this debate. They freely admit to enjoying the ride, they freely admit that the fox dies, and none but NONE have any interest or dealings with the landed gentry who you think control the countryside. The hypocrites are the people who support the fluffy-wuffy foxies without wondering about how chicken ends up on their plate or knowing the gory methods of pig slaughter. The hypocrites are people that write paragraphs attacking the perceived bourgeoisie while using expressions such as 'plus ca change'! By all means, keep your distance, and maintain your views with hearsay and scandal rather than evidence. Just bear in mind that it makes you look decidedly foolish to those of us who've actually been there.

GoodDoc wrote:
I see, so you can respond to my points and be defending your opinion, but if I do I'm merely trying to 'get the last word'? Talking of hypocrisy..
Well all I can speak from is my own personal experience which, unfortunately for you, is irefutable. The hunts, huntsmen and attitudes that I've encountered are absolutely the least hypocritical in this debate. They freely admit to enjoying the ride, they freely admit that the fox dies, and none but NONE have any interest or dealings with the landed gentry who you think control the countryside. The hypocrites are the people who support the fluffy-wuffy foxies without wondering about how chicken ends up on their plate or knowing the gory methods of pig slaughter. The hypocrites are people that write paragraphs attacking the perceived bourgeoisie while using expressions such as 'plus ca change'! By all means, keep your distance, and maintain your views with hearsay and scandal rather than evidence. Just bear in mind that it makes you look decidedly foolish to those of us who've actually been there.

What a load of cr@p! However you flower it up, whatever class commits the crime IT IS WRONG!!! And once again over to the mad proffesor for the last word, which I wont be bothering to read.

Of course you won't read this dearest. What you're still failing to understand is that 'It is wrong' is an opinion. It's your opinion. And as you have no ability to justify that opinion, it doesn't hold much sway. The people I will believe on this matter, are the people that have had significant direct dealings with the hunt or with foxes. And unless you count that episode of Pet Rescue you saw where the scruffy fox was fed warm milk, you have zero experience of either. "LMAO"?

GoodDoc wrote:
Ah here we go again! I was going to try to jump in before anyone else, and predict the usual 'bloodthirsty', 'toffs', 'torture', 'ripped to shreds' type comments, but looks like I'm already too late! 'Lenin', if you're willing to open yourself to first-hand facts rather than the usual catchphrases, I would be more than happy to civilly answer some of your challenges. Anyway, a period of snow is hardly going to stop hunting long-term, especially if a law can't even do it. Don't get your hopes up... where I was over Christmas, the boxing day hunt had the largest turn out in several years, and got a few foxes too. Great news bearing in mind a few years ago they thought they were going to have to put to sleep the entire pack of dogs to appease animal rights activists! The irony.

Reasoned argument ?
Foxes are more efficiently dispatched by shooting. If fox-hunting is so efficient, why did the master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complain that too many foxes were being killed after the banning of hunting in Scotland ? If foxes are a pest, why are cubs moved round the country in order to keep up the supply of foxes in hunting areas ?
You are of course absolutely correct in saying that hunting is a class issue. It maintains the landed class's hegemony; it's a statement of and for a class attitude. Having lived in an area where the hunt was far more in evidence than in the environs of York I know the sort of damage which hunting does, I know what happens when the pack gets out of control and I know the sort of people who are "hunt followers". When the hunt was on, roads were blocked, quite illegally and anyone who voiced opposition could have a hard time. Of course the law can't really stop this business, so I agree with you on that point. It's really about rising above blood-****. As for tradition, public hanging was traditional as was bear-baiting and **** fighting. I've yet to hear anyone defend hare-coursing on the grounds that hares are a pest. At least they're honest enough to admit that they like watching dogs rip small animals to bits.

leninwasright wrote:

GoodDoc wrote: Ah here we go again! I was going to try to jump in before anyone else, and predict the usual 'bloodthirsty', 'toffs', 'torture', 'ripped to shreds' type comments, but looks like I'm already too late! 'Lenin', if you're willing to open yourself to first-hand facts rather than the usual catchphrases, I would be more than happy to civilly answer some of your challenges. Anyway, a period of snow is hardly going to stop hunting long-term, especially if a law can't even do it. Don't get your hopes up... where I was over Christmas, the boxing day hunt had the largest turn out in several years, and got a few foxes too. Great news bearing in mind a few years ago they thought they were going to have to put to sleep the entire pack of dogs to appease animal rights activists! The irony.

Reasoned argument ? Foxes are more efficiently dispatched by shooting. If fox-hunting is so efficient, why did the master of hounds of the Buccleugh Hunt complain that too many foxes were being killed after the banning of hunting in Scotland ? If foxes are a pest, why are cubs moved round the country in order to keep up the supply of foxes in hunting areas ? You are of course absolutely correct in saying that hunting is a class issue. It maintains the landed class's hegemony; it's a statement of and for a class attitude. Having lived in an area where the hunt was far more in evidence than in the environs of York I know the sort of damage which hunting does, I know what happens when the pack gets out of control and I know the sort of people who are "hunt followers". When the hunt was on, roads were blocked, quite illegally and anyone who voiced opposition could have a hard time. Of course the law can't really stop this business, so I agree with you on that point. It's really about rising above blood-****. As for tradition, public hanging was traditional as was bear-baiting and **** fighting. I've yet to hear anyone defend hare-coursing on the grounds that hares are a pest. At least they're honest enough to admit that they like watching dogs rip small animals to bits.

blood l*st and c0ckfighting.

Lenin, we can't just drag it all up again with you quoting the very first post!
In short:
It's disgustingly cruel to expect farmers and shotguns to kill foxes. Have you ever even held a 12bore? Perhaps you don't mind the thought of them limping off with pellets of buckshot in their bodies, but I think that's vile and FAR worse. Obviously you're not worried about cruelty.
Foxes are VERY rarely moved, and normally to relocate them to less vulnerable areas, not hunting areas, after pressure from antis. You like to take an exception and generalise it don't you?
It's not a class issue everywhere, you're simply wrong. Perhaps in the quaint toffish rural places you come from, it may be. Perhaps the hunters you knew were toffs, I don't know. I am telling you that the ones I know would make you seem like the Queen. I grew up in several Southern counties with high poverty where hunting was a traditional pursuit of farmers, not gentry. They even have a 'care' team that sort out any damage to land for the farmers hunting so disrespectful hunters are not the norm.
Go and speak to a selection of real hunters, go and speak to some sheep farmers. Above all, educate yourself. What you're telling me directly contradicts what I've seen with my two eyes, so excuse me for not buying into it.
"blood l*st and c0ckfighting"? Bunny-hugging townies and gullible hypocrites!

I can't believe how much of the arguments against Fox hunting comes down to Class hatred. However they try and dress it up, regardles of whether they are right or not, wanting to stop something just because of the "class of person" is not a valid argumant.

The reason hunting is better than shoting, is because hounds disperse the healthy and catch the old and sick. Shooting, trapping and gassing is indescriminate.

Rach&&Midss wrote:
Ok im growing bored of bickering, if you want to argue like children over somthing as childish as who is right and who is wrong, i suggest you take it to parliment. Neither side is wrong or right at this point in animal welfare officers eyes. I work for a small animal managment centre in malton and I admit every staff member including myself agree with fox hunting and if a member of staff joined us we would respect them, even if it got brought up in a meeting, the right thing is to respect one and others point of view and this is what we should do here, as frankly this is getting us no where, especially when people are making it sound like it's the animals fault for been there: Horses, Hounds, Foxes they are all living creatures and should be treat equally. But when it comes down to fox or chicken i would pick death of fox. It is not cruel it's reasoning 'A Fox or 100+ chickens.' On are small hold we have had 79 Chickens killed from 1 Fox only 1 chicken was taken from the pen. Now if your going to call Hunters cruel look at a Fox.

You're claiming moral superiority over a fox? The fox is an unreasoning animal, acting purely on instinct. The hunt followers are rational human beings. Unlike the fox, they can be expected to have moral values. Given that foxes are vermin, is the most efficient way of controlling them really to get on a horse and chase after them with a pack of dogs? And if it were, would it really be necessary to dress up in a red coat and charge about tootling a horn? Clearly, the answer to both these questions is "no", so the primary aim of hunting isn't pest control, it's enjoyment. Unlike the fox, people have the mental equipment to know that's wrong.

And the issue WAS taken to Parliament, and a law was passed stating who was wrong. Unfortunately, it appears that a large number of country people refuse to obey it. Just as some people refuse to obey the law on, say, dog-fighting or wife-beating.

Caecilius, a quick point. 'A law was passed stating who was wrong'? Hardly. More members of parliament (counting both House of Commons and of Lords) voted against a total ban than supported it. However the Commons used an old act that gave them the last say, regardless of numbers. I'm sure you knew that, it was well publicised at the time.

It always was and always will be a class "thing" ask Dennis Skinner MP he will tell you the truth. The movement to ban hunting started in the early 50s and it was then about bringing the "toffs" so called to heel. So called cruelty was used in the argument much later to legitimise the argument. Trouble is there is far more cruelty controlling foxes by any other method, quite frankly those opposed to hunting do not give a toss about cruelty.