Like I say, never heard of this so it can't have been pervasive. Mind you, North Devon never lacked for mangy foxes, and I mean that literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Printable View
Like I say, never heard of this so it can't have been pervasive. Mind you, North Devon never lacked for mangy foxes, and I mean that literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Yet hunters and sponsored extermination practices don't work. Significantly more die to mange than to hunters (as PVC liked to point out with 'mangy foxes'). Practices to secure fencing do better than hunting in eliminating 'chicken coop massacres' described. There is even the concept of feeding local foxes so they don't need to try to break into enclosures. Foxes also control their own populations with their breeding patterns. If you go on killing sprees, the foxes breed significantly more and there is influx from migration, reducing in more foxes in the area in the following spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Fox Hunting is simply a sadistic sport where aristocrats glamour up with their red-coats and stick hordes of dogs on foxes for 'sport'. If we are going to be really truthful on the subject, the hunting ban stops packs of dogs, the hunts can continue with two dogs to flush them out, so 'ban' is probably the wrong word to use.
We are not talking about some random farmer having to deal with a fox inside of a chicken coop. The hunting ban doesn't affect this in the slightest.
There are indeed different reason for drug addiction as well as there are drugs different in their price which determines different income categories of the abusers. But while not denying vicissitudes of fortune as an important reason for drug abuse, I can't agree on it being the major one. In the USSR drug addiction was predominantly the amusement of the well-to-do youths whose parents had warm positions among the Communist party elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
in my limited experience it is very much a working class affair, a collective participation of rural communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Mangy foxes are an Urban problem, resulting from poor sanitation and over-breeding due to complete lack of control and ample food source. Urban Councils would dump mangy foxes in the country side rather than exterminating them (or treating them). This was considered more humane. From the Urban population mange would spread into rural foxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
This isn't really true, for reasons already described. Fencing alone is not a solution.Quote:
Practices to secure fencing do better than hunting in eliminating 'chicken coop massacres' described.
Yes, please, convince the foxes to move in, long term, to multiply and then tell me what happens when the farmer doesn't have enough money to spend on the luxury of feeding pests to bribe them from killing his livestock. This is the same thinking as behind Danegeld, pay the predator to leave, be surprised when he comes back.Quote:
There is even the concept of feeding local foxes so they don't need to try to break into enclosures.
Manifestly not true - see "Urban Foxes".Quote:
Foxes also control their own populations with their breeding patterns.
Hunting is not a "killing spree" though. A "Killing Spree" is conducted at night from a blind with a rifle and a scope over the course of a month, several times a week. Hunts are conducted during the day with a large, loud, pack of dogs, once a week or less over the course of several months. Hunters primarily target healthy foxes, Hunts primarily target sickly ones.Quote:
If you go on killing sprees, the foxes breed significantly more and there is influx from migration, reducing in more foxes in the area in the following spring.
1. Most people aren't in it for the killing, very few are in it to see the animal suffer.Quote:
Fox Hunting is simply a sadistic sport where aristocrats glamour up with their red-coats and stick hordes of dogs on foxes for 'sport'.
2. Most hunters are not aristocrats - that's urban class prejudice that says only the wealthy own horses and ride for please. I'm not wealthy, nor is my sister or mother, we all ride. Most of my friends ride, as do MOST farmers and their children in traditional farming communities.
3. Most people on a hunt do not wear the red coat, many hunts do not even have red coats, but blue or green.
You're three for three on not understanding the culture here - please - stop pretending to know anything about the inner workings of people you have never met and start listening to what they say instead.
Two dogs is a practically useless number, you need at least four. The only thing you can use two dogs to hunt is rabbits. The irony being that rabbit hunting with Lurchers is much more cruel than anything done to foxes.Quote:
If we are going to be really truthful on the subject, the hunting ban stops packs of dogs, the hunts can continue with two dogs to flush them out, so 'ban' is probably the wrong word to use.
Of course it does, the hunting Ban changes the way we hunt and kill foxes, which affects their demographics and breeding patterns - as you already noted. In fact, just by removing this regular, cyclical, form of hunting you have disrupted rural ecosystems and presented farmers with foxes that behave differently, and require different counter-measures not previously employed.Quote:
We are not talking about some random farmer having to deal with a fox inside of a chicken coop. The hunting ban doesn't affect this in the slightest.
I don't understand the use of dogs at all. Why put the little guys in harms way?
Reading through wiki it seems systematic fox hunting has a minimal effect for the purpose of population control and management, and that "shooting, poisoning, and fencing" are superior methods.
Hunting with dogs as partners -- and often the killing tool in the hunt -- is a very old tradition in Europe. Goes back at least to Celtic times with their legends of the Wild Hunt and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What I'd like to see figures for, if possible, from the past, if not, then from a limited reintroduction for the purpose of producing stats, is how successful these hunts are. Poisoning, hidden shooting and other non-discriminatory methods take both unhealthy and healthy foxes alike. If hunting with dogs weeds out the diseased and only the least athletic of the other foxes, then it might be the most natural method. If it has an extremely high success rate, then it's not much more useful than other non-discriminatory methods in keeping the general population healthy. Most hunts in nature end in failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You shoot the bird and the pupper goes and gets it. You don't make the dog do the work, philistines.
Is it somehow symbolic that the discussion of British elections came down to discussing foxes?
Foxes can fly in the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I guess everything is really better there than on the continent.
I can't give you figures, but I can tell you anecdotally that many hunts would end in failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yes, it's seen as a class issue. The Labour party banned fox hunting - ostensibly because it's cruel but really because about two centuries ago an alliance of Tories and Liberals caused baiting of Dogs, Bears and Badgers to be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Hunting is a "Field Sport" in British parlance because you go out into "the field" and hunt, and properly fail. However, the League Against Cruel Sports classifies it as a "Blood Sport" alongside the aforementioned baitings.
Then just hold a poll on the attitude to fox hunting and skip the elections altogether. Will save much money anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
So, I actually couldn't actually bring myself to vote yesterday, but crikey.
Labour battered, UKIP wiped out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39810488
Net gains and losses in the hundreds, and apparently the majority of results have not even been declared yet.
The people's verdict: BAA-AA-AA-AH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
We knew UKIP died, but it seems their decline is the Conservatives net-gain.
It was inevitable; a one issue party dies the second it wins and it can only be resurrected by having that victory reversed post fact.
Replace "Socialist" with "Christian".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Watch as hilarity ensures.
Not really... remember Cat Smith? "Smith has stated that she believes Jesus was a radical socialist"Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Though, if you read the full thing, she identifies as bisexual. So a Christian Socialist LGBT-identifier.
So...+~600 Tory seats?
And Labour decide that the right response to the local election disasters is to promote John McDonnell to a more prominent role. Yup, that's the guy who said he'd been waiting for decades for the opportunity that is the economic crisis. The guy who recently (less than a week ago) spoke at a rally, directly under Communist and Baathist flags. As in look at McDonnell on the podium, then look up to see the hammer and sickle a few feet above him. I guess he's replacing Diane Abbott, who not only has a tenuous grasp of geography, but has no concept of numbers either.
How many seats did UKIP win?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am noticing a trend with the baby boomers, some of which voted Labour which have moved their vote to Conservative. Just asked one of them for feedback.
- "Need a strong leader to take us out of Europe"
- "I cannot trust any of them, but I feel I can trust her the most"
- "Corbyn is unimpressive."
- "Pacifism is a concern. I want some one like Maggie, who will go off and sort it."
- "I like Tim Farron, but he is talking out of his rear if he thinks he can get an experienced government together. Gone too far for Brexit, and he needs to listen to the people."
Jesus was a Hippie, not a Socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The difference is not their aims, but their methods.
Socialists believe the rich should be taxed heavily, and that the richer you are the more heavily you should be taxed. Meanwhile the Christians believes that the rich should give generously and the richer you are the more generous you should be.
The Socialist doesn't trust society, he passes laws and forces the rich to support the law. The Christian trusts society too much.
As in all things, moderation.
The point being that your poster was reductive, and not entirely true - some Socialists will try to tax the wealthy in a way designed to actively prevent them gaining more wealth - such as inheritance tax - a tax considered morally dubious until recent times.
Anyway - the story of the local election is that the Governing Party of 8 years was the only real beneficiary in England and the main one in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland the Conservatives overtook Labour as the second-largest party.
@Pannonian - you forgot when McDonnell said he "wanted to take Britain back to the 1970's".
You know, everybody in a Union, collective bargaining, rolling blackouts, a three day week, a stagnant and failing economy.
I don't see the coherence in this. Christianity doesn't see a need for law and government, or assumes that a society exists without them? Or is it that Christianity identifies a supervenient "higher power"?Quote:
The Socialist doesn't trust society, he passes laws and forces the rich to support the law. The Christian trusts society too much.
TBF, he doesn't just look back to the 1970s. He also celebrates some 1980s events, like the Brighton hotel bombing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Christians believe that people should have everything on Beskar's list - but what defines a Socialist is the belief that everything should be provided by the State, as opposed to the community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
That's not an exact definition of socialism, particularly the type espoused by old (meaning, really old, not Bennite old) Labour, which ironically has more in common with Blair's New Labour than Corbyn's 1970s-80s Bennite Labour. The line "Libraries gave us power" sums it up. It's the state providing opportunity for the individual and community to better themselves through their own effort, opportunity that would not be available in a pure laissez-faire environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If we want to be picky, "Community" and "Communism" has the same root. in a sense, the State is the Community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Beskar's right - how is the community organized? They have to be in order to make a community, even if it's just an innate impulse to do God's work. State socialism in that context would be a matter of bookkeeping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Communism is enforced community, which is why it fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The State is not the community, though it arises out of it, because whilst everyone is - at least marginally - part of the community only certain people are part of the state.
For example, I am not a politician or an employee of the State - ergo I am not a part of the Organs of the State.
That does not exclude me from the community.
Nope, McDonnell is not replacing Diane Abbott, whom I just saw on Daily Politics. The Labour front bench is abysmally poor, probably the worst I've seen in my life by some distance.
The Progressive Alliance is gaining momentum.
With some luck, they will succeed in getting rid of the terrible Jimmy 'Unt.
Article SourceQuote:
A "progressive forum" organised by the South West Surrey Compass group over the weekend saw the Green Party withdraw their candidate from the race completely, while Liberal Democrats and Labour members agreed not to campaign, after members from all four parties selected the leader of the National Health Action party as the best placed candidate to oppose the Health Secretary.
Tory MP Candidate claims to heal Deaf people through Prayer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7721621.html
Quote:
A Conservative party candidate has reportedly claimed she healed a deaf man with her bare hands by channelling the power of prayer.
Kristy Adams, who is standing to be MP for Hove and Portslade, said she healed the man by placing her hands over his ears and saying: “Be healed in Jesus' name.”
Earnest Ainsley has her beat. Devil come OUT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The difference between the UK and US is that anyone who openly talks about their religion is considered a crackpot here, while it's mandatory in the US. Although I suspect faith healing would be considered crackpot even in the States.
Obviously the coastal elites do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But it's about as popular as "detox" across the country, and almost all states allow religious or personal-belief exemptions for child medical care, including vaccination (except California, West Virginia, and somehow Mississippi).
Corbyn reads The Canary (the left's equivalent of Breitbart) and he'll stay on as leader whatever happens in the election (with expectations being a Tory landslide).
I don't think it is really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Also, I agree with Tim Farron here (shocker) - Labour are not a Liberal Party, and the Lib Dems should not try to prop them up, notwithstanding what former Labour Councillor Sir Vince Cable says.
Well that's just silly, only the King can cure the halt, death and lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Far from mandatory. We have any number of settings where talking of one's religions is considered a little 'pushy.' On the other hand, except for rare circles, the declaration that one is religious does not evoke some form of pariah status either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Most consider faith healing a little crackpot -- though anyone who has studied the placebo effect at all cannot discard the value of belief in and of itself.
My reference above to Earnest Angley [sorry, mis-spelled things above] was using one of his catch-phrases.
I recall laughing over his recounting of a faith healing episode while on a mission trip to China. He prayed over a mute from birth teenager, and then claimed that he spoke his first words ever....and spoke in English.
Has he trademarked the cure? Don't forget scrofula as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Or 'rising of the lights'Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Labour's leaked manifesto looks good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439
Pro Manifesto Reporting - Guardian
Negative Manifesto Reporting - Daily Mail
Theresa May will repeal ban on hunting cute fluffy animals with hordes of dogs.
https://i.imgur.com/Q9ImNzG.jpg
It looks shit.
And foxes are murderous sociopaths. What? Just because they (mostly) kill small lambs and rabbits it's OK? That picture of a Fox even LOOKS murderous.
That's speciesist.
Sorry Beskar, but if you're going to be horribly biased, so am I.
https://i.imgur.com/EnLe9sQ.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Poor Husar impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Because, every time I see you I remember seeing those small lambs your kin killed and left in our field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I don't want to kill you, but I don't want any other small boy to have to suffer a trauma like that at your hands.
Foxhunting FFS. The Tories never change no matter what they say.
There are too many foxes. They need to be culled. I don't understand the pomp and the dogs though. Puppers should be protected. Natures way of "taking care of things" is ecosystem collapse. Like you don't have to take joy in it to recognize the importance of good stewardship.
Beskar have you ever left London?
Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Distance Wise to London:
Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Philippus & Idaho (South-West)
Furunculus
Me (North West) InsaneApache (North East)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)
Aren't the Northerners supposed to be manly men, raised in the mines, clothes made out of tin, grew up on a steady diet of earl grey and coal? Truth be told, I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The more you know, I suppose.
Used in the context of Ancient name of the Island of Great Britain. (the landmass which contains England, Scotland and Wales).Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
We have the delights such as Yorkshire Puddings. Go to London.. the blasphemers cannot even serve a proper Roast Dinner with them. Severely disappointing.
London is the dropoff for all Americans. Its our first impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I live near as area called the 'Lake District'. Probably one of the most beautiful natural areas of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
https://i.imgur.com/AcXjqlW.jpg
If I travel east, I have got the Yorkshire Dales. (Picture: Bolton Abbey)
https://i.imgur.com/7n71L11.jpg
OK, first off, I'm in the South-West, my family is from the South.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Second off, unless he's moved Idaho and I live within walking distance of each other and within the same Electoral Constituency.
Third off, my given name has three "p"s, two "i"s and one "l".
Tin is from Cornwall and Earl Grey is drunk primarily by, well, Earl Grey and his friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
You're right though, they are meant to be manly men covered in coal dust.
As to fox hunting - answer me this:
Why is it apparently OK for the fox to slaughter lambs and no eat them, or a whole hen house, but it's not ok for hounds to rip the fox apart?
It is, after all, primarily the hounds which "enjoy" the killing. Once upon a time every huntmaster carried a long barrelled pistol to finish off the fox before the hounds caught it - he shot it from horseback.
Guess why that stopped?
He kept accidentally shooting his dog?
and I am North West and InsaneApache is North East, which I simply shortened to 'North'. I changed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
As for Foxes, from Google on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:
It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.Quote:
One of the great myths that the hunters peddle is that foxes are a terrible problem for sheep farmers. It is rubbish of course, but as ever they don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of their supposed justification for fox persecution.
Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.
I do not pretend to understand the North, but here "South" and "South West" are different, as it "South East."Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
More annoyed you got my name wrong and placed Idaho in teh wrong city, though.
Hunting is a Field Sport, as the primary activity is the hunt, not the kill. Feel free to argue all Field Sports are cruel, though.Quote:
As for Foxes, from Google on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:
It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.
Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.
Anyway...
*Head. Ripped. Off*
One of the lambs was headless, another had it's throat ripped out. I'll never forget the image of that tiny animal just killed and left for dead.
I suppose it might not have been foxes, could have been a particularly angry badger but the multiple kills in close proximity and only one missing lamb suggest "fox".
The Farmer down the road did lose two of his dogs to something evil though, with the third found the next morning huddled in the corner. That was probably a badger.
You haven't addressed my question - why is it OK for the fox to kill wastefully but not for the hounds to kill the fox?
Why is it OK for hunters to send dogs into a situation where they must kill the fox?
You really need to step back here Phillip, you sound frantic.
You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-...predators.html
Quote:
Reprogramming Predators
A biosphere without suffering is technically feasible. In principle, science can deliver a cruelty-free world that lacks the molecular signature of unpleasant experience. Not merely can a living world support human life based on genetically preprogrammed gradients of well-being. If carried to completion, the abolitionist project entails ecosystem redesign, cross-species immunocontraception, marine nanorobots, rewriting the vertebrate genome, and harnessing the exponential growth of computational resources to manage a compassionately run global ecosystem. Ultimately, it's an ethical choice whether intelligent agents opt to create such a world - or instead express our natural status quo bias and perpetuate the biology of suffering indefinitely.
There's nothing more inside-the-box than "parasidism". It's just the logical conclusion of imbuing suffering with so much meaning - not a smart one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I fail to see how I sound "frantic" though - and I have to say I take exception to that.
I'm really not joking though, that image has stayed with me. It left me traumatised and is probably why, as I grew older, I didn't take up sheep farming. This is why I have no sympathy with the fox as a "cute and cuddly" animal. It's just an animal, it kills to eat, if it gets caught it kills all the witnesses.
I honestly do not understand - why is the fox still a "defenceless animal" even though we know every fox is a born killer, and a wasteful one at that? The hound is also a born killer, it chases the fox, it catches the fox, it kills the fox. So, why is is permissible to allow the fox to kill lambs and rabbits, and attack babies, and nobody even wants to talk about culling them - let alone hunting then - yet everybody is horrified at hunting and maybe catching and killing a fox with dogs?
It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.
It's not like humans don't kill all the time, either, we're horrible to the things we eat - we pen them up in huge barns that stink of offal and death, we lead them up a ramp one by one, torture them to make them insensible and then we kill them.
So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?
I do not understand this bizarre selective cruelty.
I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes, after they'd had their cubs for the year. I consider man and dog hunting foxes to be the same as wolves hunting deer or foxes killing hens. If you actually take pleasure in the pain of the animal as it dies you're sick in the head, and if you dig the fox out after he's gone to ground I think that's unsporting. I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.
What really does frustrate me, though, is that nobody will try to explain to me why this is wrong. I hear things like "It's cruel" which makes no sense because cruelty is an intention, not an action. I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.
For me, the fox is a pest. I have no desire to kill foxes but if I were still on my father's farm, hunting ban in place, I would need to go out and find the dens with a brace of dogs, dig them out and kill everything inside if we had a fox problem.
That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.
I could go on and on, but the point is I don't get why hunting with dogs is worse than anything else, if you actually sit down and thing about it.
I am as horrified as you would expect me to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
We would, of course, all have to become Vegans.
The proposals only appear to apply to vertebrates - so back to "Cute and Cuddly" here too.
What do you do with the parasite whose life cycle requires it to eat another creature's eyes? Given the relative primitiveness of the organism it's unfair to imbue it with any real degree of responsibility but it's also not really feasible to reprogram every parasitic insect and their predators. Then you have the problem of insect over-population as well, and as they've all been re-programmed to eat greens they're essentially locusts.
This is a great example of an idea designed exclusively around the affective sensibilities of human being with too much time on their hands. Having reached the top of the food-chain man feels guilty. The suffering of other animals distresses him, and so he decides HE will REMAKE THE WORLD to please HIM.
This is actually the best example ever of a secular "God Complex" I have personally been exposed to - please tell me it isn't real.
I just removed the suffix; it's spelled as you wish otherwise.Quote:
I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.
is it about the hound, or the hound's master?Quote:
It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.
I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.Quote:
So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?
Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.Quote:
I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes
Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.Quote:
I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.
I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.Quote:
cruelty is an intention, not an action.
Why would that matter?Quote:
I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.
Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.Quote:
That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.
That's philosopher David Pearce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Here's his response to your complaint:
Quote:
et if the world's 4000 species of cockroach were no longer extant outside a handful of vivariums, then their absence in the wild would be accounted no great loss on any plausible version of the felicific calculus. Nor would extinction of the swarming grasshoppers we know as plagues of locusts. A swarm of 50 billion locusts can in theory eat 100,000 tonnes of foodstuffs per day. Around 20% of food grown for human consumption is eaten by herbivorous insects. A truly utopian future world would lack even minuscule insect pangs of hunger, and its computational resources could micro-manage the well-being of the humblest arthropods - including the Earth's estimated 10 quintillion (1018) insects. In the meantime, we must prioritise. On a neoBuddhist or utilitarian ethic, the criterion of value and moral status is degree of sentience. In a Darwinian world, the welfare of some beings depends on their doing harm to others. So initially, ugly compromises are inevitable as we bootstrap our way out of primordial Darwinian life. Research must focus on how the ugliness of the transitional era can be minimised.
You wroteQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Phillip
Not
Philip.
See? My Forum name is "Philippus" not "Phillippus".
The spelling is the same as HRH.
Probably both, which is at least unfair to the hound.Quote:
is it about the hound, or the hound's master?
I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.Quote:
I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.
Vegans would be entitled to comment, though.
You assume, wrongly, that those who support hunting support only hunting. Hunting can be conducted only during part of the year - in fact it cannot be conducted in the spring when foxes have cubs and ewes have lambs, so other methods of control are also required.Quote:
Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.
Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.
The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.Quote:
Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.
No? Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings. To be cruel is, therefore, clearly a moral state and not an actual.Quote:
I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.
Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.Quote:
Why would that matter?
I do not believe it is possible to win a moral debate through rational application of logic.Quote:
Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.
What you are describing, however, is essentially a class-issue. One class sees the activity of another class as morally repugnant and therefore seeks to ban the activity.
As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted. Interestingly, I don't think anyone has ever tried to test to see if the hounds experience any catharsis when they catch and kill their prey. Note that on the hunt the humans do not do the killing the dogs do, the humans are essentially along for the ride. However, in the case where the den is dug out it is the humans who do the killing, not the dogs. Whilst some hunts do illegally set out to hunt foxes in many more cases (the ones that never come to caught) the hounds are out to track a scent-trail left by a drag and catch a live fox's scent instead. Then they hunt and kill the fox - because that's what Hounds do. So, even when humans set out NOT to hunt foxes and just to have a thrilling ride quite often the hounds conspire to killing a fox anyway.
Ok OkQuote:
You wrote
Phillip
Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.Quote:
I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.
As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.
So, that would be the problem, as it would have to settle for tertiary even in the best cases.Quote:
Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.
The justifications have been a little more specific than that.Quote:
The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.
Not really - according well with an understanding of cruelty as referring to acts just as well as intentions. If you rule out the former, then of course you would be more likely to apply it to humans than other animals in frequent usage.Quote:
Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings.
Well, "same way" is a rather dubious contention, but if it were the case - would it be alright for me to raid your abode, strike you down, devour your livestock, and forcibly mate with your children - as often goes on in the practices of living things? Trying to maintain an identical standard between human affairs and non-human affairs (which are so manifold in kind anyway) seems to handicap one's philosophy in ways that conservative types like you have long considered resolved.Quote:
Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.
When the hunt is practiced for recreational reasons over the professed practical ones. With some relevance here, Faroe islanders in the northern sea enjoy a tradition of mass killing whales far in excess of what can be consumed or processed. That's a clear-cut case of a tradition that only exists for its own sake, against urgent ecological motivations. You could condone hunting of whales for meat and parts, but extermination and enforced waste defeat that purpose. Drag hunting on the other hand involves no game or prey - it's just running around with dogs, no?Quote:
As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted.
In Texas it is becoming popular to outfit pitbulls in padding and send them after Hogs for big trophy kills. The sound the pig makes as it is being bitten by a dozen dogs is spine chilling. It is almost exactly the same as a pupper being bitten,. There is no honor in that kind of kill. It maximizes suffering and minimizes utility. Totally unethical.
That's where Im coming from.
Hang on Philippus, you're making non-mutual arguments here. IIRC you earlier made the argument for conservation, to which I responded. You now make the argument for pest control. But how is hunting with dogs effective pest control? Also, there is something else to be considered. Hunting with dogs was banned by Parliament some years ago. Hence it is now the status quo. Why the urgent need to change this? Is there a measurable difference in livestock keeping before and after hunting with dogs was banned?
the only point that matters:
Burns could not demonstrate that hunting with hound with any worse for the welfare of the fox than the other methods assessed.
But fox hunting with dogs is not allowed. That is the status quo. Why change the status quo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I could make a whole topic on how people keep making this mistake...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Nevermind.
Actually, I think I have voiced the opinion that all killing is horrible - and everything suffers when it dies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't kill animals and eat them. If I recall the point I made about certain forms of slaughter was that they caused needless suffering.Quote:
Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.
My contention here is that if you need to kill foxes then I don't believe the hunt is worse for the fox that being dug out and either gassed, shot or having their head stoved in.
It does seem to vary, a lot of people (including Lefties I know personally) will say "It's a bunch of post people getting on horses in fancy red coats and tearing round the countryside".Quote:
As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.
Bradshaw was knocking on doors on my street earlier in the week. Can't stand the man - traitorous blairite tosser. I'm in Heavitree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.
It is a foxes' fate to die as well and there are few quick easy deaths in nature; without the intervention of man they would mostly meet their fate at the jaws of dog's wild counterparts. I see little practical reason to alter this fate for a creature of little utility and high destructiveness.
On an emotional level I must admit a increasing distaste for the sources of protest being either "fuck the rich" communists and "population control, who needs it?" Enviromentalists. The "my only exposure to foxes is through disney" urbanites who back them while less offensive tend to be disconnected from the whys of the practice, being about as convincing as a greek banker.
Parading your ignorance again Greyblades. Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
So, following your logics, why feel pity for hunted foxes, they are all likely to die anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho