All the cute ickle foxes get to live

[dolly dagger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4024421.stm

what do y'all think?

[Kentish]

Inevitable. :(

Pointless. :(

More hope of Tony Blair losing the election. :thumb:

[Olive]

All the cute ickle foxes get to live

well, no. they'll still die. only they'll be shot, or caught in traps instead and die less violent but more extended deaths.

for the difference it'll make to the foxes, i personally think the government should have concentrated their time, money and effort on something that would have actually improved the quality of life for humans. or animals.

[budda]

Originally posted by Kentish
More hope of Tony Blair losing the election. :thumb:

Doubtful, there is no real opposition that looks ready to take over. He'll loose seats and the majority wont be as good, but he'll win.

As for the ban, frankly I really couldnt care all that much either way. Though I really dislike the Countryside Alliance so if it annoys them, great.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by kaffrin
well, no. they'll still die. only they'll be shot, or caught in traps instead and die less violent but more extended deaths.

for the difference it'll make to the foxes, i personally think the government should have concentrated their time, money and effort on something that would have actually improved the quality of life for humans. or animals.

Seconded.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I think the ban is just being consistant. All the other bloodsports were banned years ago, and the only reason foxhunting and shooting were kept is because they were the favourites of the upper classes epecially the monarchy. Badger baiting , dog fighting and cock fighting were working class bloodsports so easier to ban.

[budda]

They arent completely comparable though Rainbow, cocks and dogs arent really vermin.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by bongbudda
They arent completely comparable though Rainbow, cocks and dogs arent really vermin.

And that makes what difference?

We don't hunt any other "vermin" in this way, oh and deer aren't "vermin" either and this law covers hunting of them too...

Personally I welcome it and I'm glad that Parliament has spent some 700 hours recently debatng the issue. As these boards show it is something which most people have an opinion on and surverys show that 70% of people oppose this form of hunting.

[stargalaxy]

The Parliament Act is meant to be used only in emergency situations. That was until Tony Blair came along. Now, it is to be used only to save his skin. This flouting of democracy is a disgrace.

[Olive]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
As these boards show it is something which most people have an opinion on and surverys show that 70% of people oppose this form of hunting.

true. however, some if not most people are grossly under-informed about what the ban actually means, and what hunting is like.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
The Parliament Act is meant to be used only in emergency situations. That was until Tony Blair came along. Now, it is to be used only to save his skin. This flouting of democracy is a disgrace.

How does this flout democracy?

[stargalaxy]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
How does this flout democracy? It is a flouting of democracy in the sense that the banning of fox hunting is not something that must be done out of a matter of national emergency, but rather as something to appease socialist Labour MPs who are angry and baying for Blair's political blood after the Iraq war.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
The Parliament Act is meant to be used only in emergency situations. That was until Tony Blair came along. Now, it is to be used only to save his skin. This flouting of democracy is a disgrace.

Because the House of Lords is so democratic isn't it....


Good it's banned, hopefully once it comes into place the countryside alliance and all those other toffs will shut up.

[stargalaxy]

Originally posted by Renzo
Because the House of Lords is so democratic isn't it....
Good it's banned, hopefully once it comes into place the countryside alliance and all those other toffs will shut up. The House of Lords certainly is no democratic institution. It must be reformed, that I don't doubt. However, I put it to you that you want fox hunting banned not out of genuine concern for the fox, but rather of your hatred of the upper classes.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Renzo
Because the House of Lords is so democratic isn't it....


Good it's banned, hopefully once it comes into place the countryside alliance and all those other toffs will shut up.

You're quite the bigot aren't you renzo?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
The House of Lords certainly is no democratic institution. It must be reformed, that I don't doubt. However, I put it to you that you want fox hunting banned not out of genuine concern for the fox, but rather of your hatred of the upper classes.

I don't 'hate' the upper classes. They have just been allowed to continue with fox hunting because of their status though. Also fox hunting is cruel and barbaric.

[budda]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
And that makes what difference?

We don't hunt any other "vermin" in this way, oh and deer aren't "vermin" either and this law covers hunting of them too...

Personally I welcome it and I'm glad that Parliament has spent some 700 hours recently debatng the issue. As these boards show it is something which most people have an opinion on and surverys show that 70% of people oppose this form of hunting.

I was just saying that they arent really comparible. Foxes arent (in the main) bred for the hunt, unlike the dogs and cocks used to be.

And unlike with dogs and cocks there is some (however minor) merit to hunting.

I'm still pro-ban, I just was suggesting that its not comparable to dog or cock fighting, thats all.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
It is a flouting of democracy in the sense that the banning of fox hunting is not something that must be done out of a matter of national emergency, but rather as something to appease socialist Labour MPs who are angry and baying for Blair's political blood after the Iraq war.

Doesn't answer the question.

The duly elected house voted to ban hunting with dogs on more than one occasion.

The unelected house voted against.

If anything the lack of a ban would have been undemocratic

[Olive]

Originally posted by Renzo
Good it's banned, hopefully once it comes into place the countryside alliance and all those other toffs will shut up.

proving my point exactly.

yes, it's a 'sport' that traditionally royals are into, but if you go to any hunt, especially any in the north, the majority of people that take part are farmers, village people (residents, not the homotastic pop-group) and stablehands earning maybe £9000 a year. for years i rode at a stable where hunters kept their horses and i never came across any 'toffs'.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by kaffrin
proving my point exactly.

yes, it's a 'sport' that traditionally royals are into, but if you go to any hunt, especially any in the north, the majority of people that take part are farmers, village people (residents, not the homotastic pop-group) and stablehands earning maybe £9000 a year. for years i rode at a stable where hunters kept their horses and i never came across any 'toffs'.

Always when they are moaning on the TV there are lots of posh people though. I regard that not all of them are like that but it seems a hell of a lot of them are. Not to worry if they really want to continue at least they'll get whats coming to them.

[Teagan]

The only people that really have any right to object to the "cruelty" of fox hunting are vegetarians.

If you eat meat, you are guilty of a cruelty far worse than that done to most foxes.

If any of you have ever been to or worked at an abattoir, you will have witnessed the sight of the absolute fear these animals experience. They sense and know that they are going to be killed. Their eyes roll back in fear, they froth at the mouth, they tremble, they shit themselves and the noise is terrifying. But they cannot escape. They are trapped and spend the last few hours of their life in abject terror and stench.

Foxes? They have the opportunity to escape. The majority of them get away when chased by the hounds. Given a choice, I'd be a fox rather than an abattoir animal any day!

I am neither for nor against fox hunting. It just annoys me that left-wing politicians and city people think that the fox should be spared 'cos he's cute 'n cuddly - and a lot of it is about class. If you seriously want to end animal suffering, start in the abattoir and give up eating meat otherwise you are just being hypocritical. But that bacon butty is just too good isnt it?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by kaffrin
village people (residents, not the homotastic pop-group)
:lol:

It isn't a class issue - only those supporting the ban insist that it is in order to justify their objection.

I have no vested interest in hunting, but I am annoyed at the amount of time it has taken away from more important (IMHO) debates that MPs should be having.

[stargalaxy]

Originally posted by Kentish
I have no vested interest in hunting, but I am annoyed at the amount of time it has taken away from more important (IMHO) debates that MPs should be having. Let's see now - the NHS is going through important reforms, education is a mess, the transport system is becoming a national joke, Iraq is burning to the ground, terrorism is an increasing threat - so what do our MPs spend their days discussing? Ah yes - foxes! What a sense of priorities our politicians have! :rolleyes:

[Man Of Kent]

Try looking another way.

The Labour Party included a ban in its manifesto.

The public voted for a Labout Govt.

The Govt has pushed through something in it's manifesto.

Jeez, for once they have done what they promised and still people complain.

Yes there are other things which need attention. This is just one off a long list and the priority of that list will differ from person to person. It's not even like the whole 600+ MPs have been involved in the debate in the chamber for 700 hours.

Yes parliament could debate health, education etc ad nauseum and some would point out that they do, but what those areas need isn't more law - which is what parliament is there to create. Debating won't solve the problems, action will.

[Olive]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
The Labour Party included a ban in its manifesto.

The public voted for a Labout Govt.

The Govt has pushed through something in it's manifesto.

Jeez, for once they have done what they promised and still people complain.


i didn't vote labour, therefore i reserve the right to complain. :)

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Jeez, for once they have done what they promised and still people complain.
Fair points, but how many people voted Labour to get fox hunting banned? Not many I'd wager.

Who actually benefits from the fox hunting bans? (Apart from the foxes ;))

[Olive]

Originally posted by Kentish
Apart from the foxes ;)

i doubt it'll make a difference to them. sure, being chased for miles and then ripped apart isn't nice, but neither is being shot in the leg and dying slowly of septecaemia, or being caught in a trap and dying of blood loss or starvation, and farmers are still well within their rights to use those methods.

to answer your question, the people who will benefit are the government, when all the wishy washy voters are won over because they love fuzzy foxes and they won't die anymore. quite.

[minimi38]

Originally posted by Kentish
:lol:

It isn't a class issue - only those supporting the ban insist that it is in order to justify their objection.



It is when peopel in this thread are going "good it annoys the toffs".

Such a shame

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
The public voted for a Labout Govt.

The Govt has pushed through something in it's manifesto.

Jeez, for once they have done what they promised and still people complain.

Yes, but did people vote for Labour because of their stance on fox hunting? No - they voted for the economic and standard-of-living arguments presented by Labour. Fox hunting was just bundled in with it. If you wanted social and economic reform, how else could you vote?

[Aladdin]

http://www.bigdogfox.com/Duhallow_s2.jpg

Adios hijos de puta! :wave:


Finally!


With regard to the Parliament Act, Commons vs. Lords, etc, let's make one thing absolutely clear: the Lords are absolutely and solely responsible for the shambles and the endless affair this bill had become.

It really makes me laugh when some people claim the Commons are not being "democratic" in passing this bill through the Parliament Act. One of Labour's main points in its manifesto was to get fox hunting banned. When won. Twice over.

And let's remind ourselves that there has been an overwhelming majority of MPs, including many Tories and Lib Dems, who have voted in favour of the ban. Every single one of them being an accountable, removable and electable politician.

As opposed to their unelected, unaccountable, irremovable Lordships, naturally.

And when the people has spoken, and when the MPs have spoken, if that bunch of out-of-touch, self-serving selfish chaps think they can hold the country to ransom again, and again, and again, and again, they've got another fucking thought coming.

They have only themselves to blame for the Parliament Act being invoked. And thank fuck there is such a provision in place- otherwise their unelected, unaccountable, irremovable Lordships would have total control and power over the country.

[minimi38]

Selfish? The ones wanting to ban fox hunting are the selfish ones!

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Teagan
Yes, but did people vote for Labour because of their stance on fox hunting? No - they voted for the economic and standard-of-living arguments presented by Labour. Fox hunting was just bundled in with it. If you wanted social and economic reform, how else could you vote?

Sorry, but I didn't say it was the reason that people voted for them. But whatever else they voted on, whatever reason they chose to support Labour, they also voted on this issue.

All I am saying is that they have lived up to an election promise and it's not often that you can give them credit for that ;)

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
They arent completely comparable though Rainbow, cocks and dogs arent really vermin.

Neither are foxes.

[budda]

I'm still mystified as to why shooting is such a bad option, there's loads of good shots in the countryside, its not like the fox is that small.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
:lol:

It isn't a class issue

It is a class issue.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Sorry, but I didn't say it was the reason that people voted for them. But whatever else they voted on, whatever reason they chose to support Labour, they also voted on this issue.

All I am saying is that they have lived up to an election promise and it's not often that you can give them credit for that ;)

I know what you mean, MOK. :)

I just think that the subject was tied in with their more vote-winning policies so that, if one had a genuine concern for social reform in this country, one had to vote for Labour with the fox hunting agenda inextricably attached. The fox hunting ban IS an agenda by anti-monarchist republicans and the anti-cruelty argument is just their excuse to appeal to the masses.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
Let's see now - the NHS is going through important reforms, education is a mess, the transport system is becoming a national joke, Iraq is burning to the ground, terrorism is an increasing threat - so what do our MPs spend their days discussing? Ah yes - foxes! What a sense of priorities our politicians have! :rolleyes:

I agree with this however - fox hunting is a diversion from more important issues.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[stargalaxy]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
Indeed. How many people have been distracted from the passage of The Civil Contingencies Bill? Now that's a scary piece of legislation if ever I saw one. And what is this piece of legislation about? Please inform us, oh great GWST.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by stargalaxy
And what is this piece of legislation about? Please inform us, oh great GWST.

http://www.weiterbildungsblog.de/archives/google.jpg

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by minimi38
Selfish? The ones wanting to ban fox hunting are the selfish ones! On the contrary. The ones wanting to ban hunting have nothing to gain for themselves. How could they possibly be selfish?

Unless the dictionary definition of selfish has changed since I last looked it up, I think it is perfectly appropriate to use that word to describe a bunch of people who have consistently blocked and undermined the will of the people and the democratic process for a few years now simply to protect their little hobby and that of their chums.

[Skive]

Instead of dogs snares will be used.
And what now that this has been banned? It'll be game shooting next, then fishing...
I couldn't give a shit about a bloody mangy old fox.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Skive
Instead of dogs snares will be used.
And what now that this has been banned? It'll be game shooting next, then fishing...
I couldn't give a shit about a bloody mangy old fox.

back on topic plz

[queenmab_roo]

I thought that was rather on topic myself.

Bong, shooting foxes is really not a viable option. Fiend said in the previous thread that the guns needed to successfully shoot foxes are illegal in the UK. And while you say that foxes aren't that small, they are pretty damn quick. Nobody can say that shooting foxes instead is not cruel and barbaric- I very much doubt you have seen a fox who has been shot at and the shot has not outright killed the fox...the festering wound and the slow death from poison, or starvation.

Blagsta, why do you say that Foxes aren't vermin? maybe it's a slightly wrong choice of words, but the essential idea is there. The only reason they are not a plague now is because the Hunt keeps the numbers of foxes down to a manageable level. just like myxamatosis(sp) keeps the rabbit population down- again another pest. rabbits over run farmers crops, and threaten their livelihood. foxes generally threaten farmers' hen coops. And before blackarab or Aladdin (sorry, can't remember who it was) comes back with the concrete idea and chicken wire, check what the eggs you have in your fridge are-free range or organic? and check the cost of implementing that too.

Renzo, you do not listen to a word about fox-hunting and toffs. Have you ever seen life on a farm? getting up at 5am, getting to bed at 9pm or 10pm, the day absolutely filled to the brim with work? When are the farmers supposed to have time to go out and shoot the foxes that threaten their livestock? Why, if other people are willing to do it for them should the farmers take time out of their busy schedules to do it themselves? Yet, they would if they have to. Fine, the "toffs" do it because they enjoy the sport. they enjoy riding their horses. But, the "toffs" do it because they are asked to. the "toffs" are also the people you see at the front line because they are the people with status, and they're the people who can afford the time out to fight this band.

I bet you that if this changes to shooting foxes, it will still be the "toffs" who do it. they will have the time to do it.

[queenmab_roo]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth

ah wonderful, sounds more controlling day by day. yes, i admit that I have been distracted from that bill. where did you hear about it?

[budda]

I should point out that I have really nothing against the ban, or for it. I just think a lot of the arguements are a bit rubbish.

As for "keeping the numbers down" hunts catch how many foxes and take up how much time and effort?!

Its a sport plain and simple.

[queenmab_roo]

never said you were for or against it- i was merely answering your question about shooting foxes.

I don't actually know how many foxes a single hunt can catch, I'm pretty sure it is more than one fox per hunt. Yes, it is a sport, but then so is fishing. Only because people have turned a need into something enjoyable.

Shooting foxes takes up more time and effort- precious time that farmers don't really have. I think I recounted a story in the last thread about my father who tried to shoot a fox on his land. (daddy's neutral about the ban btw). He knew exactly where this fox had its den, exactly where it always went at a certain time-it followed a routine. For 3 nights he camped out there with his shotgun, and the fox was not spotted once. He gave up, and on the fourth night he lost hens.

ETA: Fishing with lines will be banned next. How fair is it to entice the poor fish with promises of food, only to recieve a sharp barb in their neck, then drowning as they're removed from their natural habitat... the stress they recieve even if they are thrown back in. It's barbaric, that's what it is.

[Fiend_85]

roo, I bow to you.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
For 3 nights he camped out there with his shotgun, and the fox was not spotted once. He gave up, and on the fourth night he lost hens.

. been there ...the beer was good though.

[morrocan roll]

are those who are passionately against the hunt ...now going to boycott spain as a holiday destination ...seeing as they torture bulls in the streets ...throw spears and axes at them ...run them to exhustion with no chance of escape?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
Blagsta, why do you say that Foxes aren't vermin? maybe it's a slightly wrong choice of words, but the essential idea is there. The only reason they are not a plague now is because the Hunt keeps the numbers of foxes down to a manageable level. it.

Total rubbish. Studies show otherwise. Look it up.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
I don't actually know how many foxes a single hunt can catch, I'm pretty sure it is more than one fox per hunt.

Depends on the hunt. Good hunts about 2, others will go for weeks catching fuck all. As a method of pest control, its next to useless.

[Martin_Bashir]

i would love to know where all of these people, who believe so greatly in the use of civil disobedience to defend their livelyhoods (sp?), stood when the Thatcherist Conservatives were using the Police to oppress the miners.

FAR MORE PEOPLE WERE PUT OUT OF WORK by the closing of the coal mines (and made worse off by the complete lack of support for ex pit workers, post closure) than will be by this ban.

Where alot of these people stand on that issue:confused:

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Depends on the hunt. Good hunts about 2, others will go for weeks catching fuck all. As a method of pest control, its next to useless.

Which brings the topic back to the fact that banning fox hunting is purely a political move to appease the 'masses' that Labour is on their side against the 'toffs'. If you want to stop animal cruelty in a far meaningful way, become a vegetarian.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Total rubbish. Studies show otherwise. Look it up.

Where did you find your information on these studies then? (Serious question - not being confrontational)

[Blagsta]

It was a Bristol University study iirc.

[queenmab_roo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Total rubbish. Studies show otherwise. Look it up.

I cannot find any studies that are not politically biased. Hell, I can't even find any articles that agree on how many foxes are killed by hunts per year, let alone per hunt. I've even searched the Bristol University Website and cannot find the study you refer to, so if you can post the link for me, I will gladly read it.

I'd rather base my opinions on my experiences and views than a biased source.

I did come across a news source about Scotland- after their ban, it turned out more foxes were killed. And in scotland they're still allowed to hunt with hounds, but must kill with shotguns.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Martin_Bashir]

:yes:
:yeees:

anyone remember the right old carry on about legalising weed a few years ago?

People went out and marched for that?!?!?!?!?

[Doofay]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
http://www.weiterbildungsblog.de/archives/google.jpg

You need to stop using that picture, its old.

[Fiend_85]

What a worthwhile post, Dude, really, did you just post to dig at me, because that IS OLD.

[Doofay]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
What a worthwhile post, Dude, really, did you just post to dig at me, because that IS OLD.

How ironic. And nope, i just noticed the picture for the millionth time this month.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
I cannot find any studies that are not politically biased. Hell, I can't even find any articles that agree on how many foxes are killed by hunts per year, let alone per hunt. I've even searched the Bristol University Website and cannot find the study you refer to, so if you can post the link for me, I will gladly read it.

I'd rather base my opinions on my experiences and views than a biased source.

I did come across a news source about Scotland- after their ban, it turned out more foxes were killed. And in scotland they're still allowed to hunt with hounds, but must kill with shotguns.

All studies are politically biased. But they give you a better idea of reality than your own experiences (which are also biased).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3929441.stm
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12486

[queenmab_roo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
All studies are politically biased. But they give you a better idea of reality than your own experiences (which are also biased).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3929441.stm
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12486

The BBC source seems reasonably fair and informed.

However I do not agree that studies give a better idea of reality than my own experiences. My experiences may not be the whole reality- but what if the reality of the studies is a small minority of the reality?

I still think that hunting is misunderstood- and while you may have perhaps persuaded me to think that the fox population is not regulated by the hunt- that is only one argument against fox-hunting.

[Blagsta]

Errrr...the whole point of a scientific study is to get a large enough sample to draw conclusions from. I doubt your experience is that.

[queenmab_roo]

biased sources manipulating studies to show what they want?

If not, why do all studies not agree?

[Blagsta]

That's not what I said.