Fox hunting coming back.

[grace]

You eat fish, mangled fox just isn't the same.

[Thunderstruck]

Originally Posted by NavyBlue

OH I'm concerned about the fox alright, once we picked up a fox that had been hit by a car crossing the road, & took her to our vet... & our vet called us "noble"! Imagine that! Unfortunately she did die, & to make it worse she was pregnant, but our vet not only didn't charge us for the visit, he said our next visit would be free for being so kind! So, I can sleep at night, knowing I tried to help a defenceless animal!

Well bully for you.

I'm sure that if you were a chicken farmer, that little parable might have had a different outcome.

[Skive]

Originally Posted by grace

You eat fish, mangled fox just isn't the same.

Most angling is done for sport not to food.

And why is hutning foxes with dogs a big deal whilst hunting rats with dogs not such a big deal. And I wonder how many anti fox hunters own cats - animals that have had a massive impact on garden wildlife by killing all manner of creatures in horrific ways?

[Carolina]

Originally Posted by Skive

Most angling is done for sport not to food.

And why is hutning foxes with dogs a big deal whilst hunting rats with dogs not such a big deal. And I wonder how many anti fox hunters own cats - animals that have had a massive impact on garden wildlife by killing all manner of creatures in horrific ways?

It always make me think that in some people's heads it's a class issue as well as an animal issue. You know the usual everyone who hunts is rich, upper class, braying toffs thing etc. When really if you look at it properly 80% of hunting people actually aren't. Same as everyone who shoots obviously is posh and wears tweed and so on
I get a lot of inverted snobbery because i own horses. God forbid i might actually work hard 6 days a week to have them. But then hey that's another thread isn't it really

[CptCoatHanger]

Originally Posted by Carolina

It always make me think that in some people's heads it's a class issue as well as an animal issue. You know the usual everyone who hunts is rich, upper class, braying toffs thing etc. When really if you look at it properly 80% of hunting people actually aren't. Same as everyone who shoots obviously is posh and wears tweed and so on
I get a lot of inverted snobbery because i own horses. God forbid i might actually work hard 6 days a week to have them. But then hey that's another thread isn't it really

I certainly think class snobbery plays its part. Even if fox hunting was exclusively the reserve of manor house-owning toffs, I don't see how that's an argument against hunting.

[ShyBoy]

Originally Posted by purplestarfish

I asked this a while back but don't think i got an answer.... are the same people who are against fox-hunting, against fishing?

Not at all. I'm quite pragmatic about it these days. I think fox hunting with hounds is wrong as there are serious concerns about the welfare impact on the fox (i.e. is it "humane"?) and we have already set the precedent in society of banning inhumane treatment (lets start at an easy point - slavery was banned despite the economic benefit because it was inhumane).

Add to that questions of it really being the most effective method (Burns report indicates lamping is probably the most effective except for areas where it is difficult to traverse by car) and the real question is then why should fox hunting be allowed when so many other things aren't that are on a parallel? (e.g. bloodsports)

Fish, ultimately, aren't on the same level in my opinion. They're not mammals. Nobody cries about pesticides killing insects because we do make a subjective judgement on which animals are ok to kill inhumanely and which aren't and for what reasons. Afterall, we have no issues being barbaric almost to poultry for food. I know animals suffer to bring me meat on a plate, but I like meat on a plate - and if enough people like meat on a plate - it's legal. In practical terms the benefit foregone by preventing people eating meat (a lot of really miserable people) is far far greater than the benefit to the welfare of those animals that would be spared poor treatment and slaughter.

This is politics for you, though I don't think banning foxhunting with hounds is especially wrong - in fact I think for a long time it was the exception to the rule in being allowed when other animal welfare issues had already been addressed. If we can't be rational, at least we can try to be consistent in drawing a line or a semblance of a line on what is ok. And remember, it wasn't a quick decision, they spent ages reviewing the issue of fox hunting and then voted on it parliament, and not everyone voted the same way. It was obviously a split issue and perhaps that is why it's important.

You can look into the government's inquiry here: http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mai...ntingframe.htm I suggest just going to the final report section and reading the abstract / conclusions at the beginning, because reading the main evidence is boring and tiresome. You will see it leaves a fairly open verdict and says that it's up for parliament to decide. In my judgement and apparently many MPs judgement, upon reviewing the conclusions it would seem there are merits to fox hunting but they are not sufficient to warrant the costs in terms of welfare and so on.

[Carolina]

Originally Posted by CptCoatHanger

I certainly think class snobbery plays its part. Even if fox hunting was exclusively the reserve of manor house-owning toffs, I don't see how that's an argument against hunting.

It isn't. Well not in my book anyway. But i think it does serve as a backbone to some people's stance against fox hunting (for some reason). I've come across a quite a few people who start off with the fox hunting is barbaric argument and swiftly descend into the class debate as well.