I know they don’t release captive foxes (or at least I assume they don’t) Someone else said that.
If the running around is fun, why not just run around for fun? Isn’t there a sadistic element?
If I was in fact a hunt supporter, I’d still be amazed and ashamed at the way this ban is being protested.
And finally, (because I just can’t let it die) the foxes are not hunted ONLY for sport. The fox population is totally out of control in the UK. Foxes prey on livestock and spread parvo to domestic dogs (in the US they also carry rabies). Population control: it’s a Good Thing.
Poisoning vermin / Glue traps / Snaptraps
Scylla’s Evil Nazi Groundhogs
Poisonbombing your house
Smacking Spiders
All kill far more animals than the number of foxes killed on a typical foxhunt, with far more frequency. All can barely be justified, certainly not any more than exterminating “vermin” aka the fox, who will kill livestock and burrow into the ground (aka groundhogs).
Really, I think it quite hypocritical if an American would support/not object to the killing of deer/game animals (ESPECIALLY trophy hunting), and so violently object to fox hunting. Especially considering the number of animals killed.
I also find the “meat” argument uncompelling. There may be a certain section of the population who cannot buy meat, and therefore rely on hunting as a source of protein, but for all other hunters, meat can be easily had from supermarkets etc. No requirement for hunting, except for the “value added” “thrill” (as much as a scoped rifle/flashlight can give you, anyway) of the hunt.
Even if you say that hunting is cheaper than buying meat, what you are doing is putting a value on the animal’s life, which is no more compelling than the justification of “fun”
Well, because then you’d be a bit of a berk, wouldn’t you? “Excuse me, why are all of you dressed up so nicely and riding through the country with dogs and horses?” “Oh, no reason. Just figured it would be a nice day for it.”
You need the fox to give you an excuse for doing it. It’s the same reason that you bring a rod and reel with you when you go fishing, because otherwise, you’re just sitting on a boat out on the river.
So if farmer Jones says: goddamn foxes just killed 4 of my chickens this week!
Which do you prefer:
a)Jones sets 2 leg traps and two lots of baited strychnine. @ foxes are trapped and bleed to death while gnawing of their legs. 2 foxes eat the strychnine and die a slow convulsive death.
b)Jones calls up the Hypothetical Hound Hunt and allows them to hunt his lands for 4 consecutive weekends. 4 foxes are caught and are quickly killed by hounds.
Which is more desireable, and why? If Jones wants rid of his pests, which is the preferable course of action?
I have never hunted in my life, but am strongly against any ban being imposed on fox hunting in the UK. I think that there are a few strands to the debate. The political, legislative aspect is probably the least important to me. Although it is hard not to suppress a smile when the ghost of old labour rises shakily to its feet and proclaims “fuck the landed gentry!”, I think the ethical questions that surround the fox-hunting ban and cruelty to animals in general are far more important and interesting.
We tolerate levels of cruelty to animals throughout society (eg farming, sport, medical research), where you draw the line on what is acceptable and what is not really depends on your own world view. I have no problem with killing animals for sport, be it angling, shooting, hare coursing or fox hunting. It wouldn’t be my cup of tea as a leisure activity, but it is second nature to a sizable chunk of the UK population. I feel that our humanity is measured through our interactions with fellow humans, not foxes. The bottom line is that our society is more than robust enough to assimilate these acts of cruelty, because they are of profound irrelevance compared to the humanitarian issues that really do challenge the fabric of our lives, jobs, families and culture.
(Like you, I see the population-control arguments wheeled out by the fox hunters as mealy-mouthed and self-serving. They should just come clean and admit they love the sport; it would at least re-invigorate the public debate if nothing else).
On preview I see that I have not made a case to “justify” fox-hunting, I’m just giving a point of view. I guess you could turn around and say “what about bear baiting? or dog fighting?” I admit things start to get pretty arbitrary.
You were right to solicit the opinion of Uk dopers, I would guess that American hunting folk will struggle to empathise with the anti fox-hunting stance.
I’m afraid it’s not about the sadism. It’s about class division. Which would you consider more sadistic - death by dogs, or by poison/snare/gun?
Note that under the new law, hunters can still shoot foxes - only hunting with dogs is banned. That alone should tell you much about what the main priorities of the law is. If the hunters should organise hunting parties, but with guns, there would be no problem.
Well It looks like I got what I asked for.
Many good points have been made. I still think there is a sadistic (I would have said bloodlust, but prefer Stonebow’s word) element that is old fashioned. And I still think the ban protesters are demonstrating that, rather than arguing the logic like the people in this thread.
But if it happens to be true that culling the fox population is a neccesity, and that the absolute most humane and feasable way to do it is using a method that is sadistically motivated (for the most part) then I will admit that it is a ‘neccesary evil’
I guess some have a problem with killing, and others don’t. I’ve fished, and have euthanised a small bird on one occasion. Each kill (the fish and the bird) left me feeling sorry and guilty. I hid the feelings of sorrow at the time.
It’s not about class division for me. I’d be equally horrified if the opposite class went out killing foxes with their own dogs (or any other means) for fun. For me it has nothing to do with class.
For you it doesn’t, but for the quote rabid and widespread unquote protestors it does. I’m directly answering you question, as to why there is “rabid and widespread objection”. It’s viewed as a class problem.
It’s a tradition, part of the landed culture, and it has been since the Mayflower set sail. Would you care to argue against the hunting of deer by bow and arrow? Surely there exist more efficient ways of hunting. If you are unwilling to understand the background behind foxhunting, and instead insist on seeing it as a cover for sadism, then you will be unable to view the protestors for what they are really protesting - the imposition of rules upon them by a population that don’t understand them.
If you want an American analogy, look at gun ownership. Now, imagine if somehow the UK (who do not have a culture of civilian gun ownership) managed to ban the ownership of guns by civilians in the US “colony”, for safety reasons. If you cannot see past the screen of “gun crazy cowboys who want to hold weapons of death”, you will not understand the reason why there would be widespread protest.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were answering the question about the active protestors.
You mention it is a tradition and that the objection is to the impossition of rules by a population that doesn’t understand them. Well the problem with tradition is that it stands in the way of progress. I am on the side of progress. And I believe tradition is just the treacle on the road to progressing from a barbarian past to a civilized future.
I view it as part of the culture war between urban and rural people. If the city dwellers would just mind their own business, everyone would be happier. Want to ban hunting in London? Fine. Don’t try to impose your views on the rest of the country. Many people who have never lived on a farm have very strange ideas about animals and rural culture.
You state that it would be “progress” to bar hunting with dogs, when gun/snare/poison is still allowed?
My question in answer to your claim that it is “progress”, is
"Why is banning hunting with dogs and not snare/poison/gun progress, when in fact hunting with dogs gives a cleaner death than snare/poison, and kill far fewer animals than gun, and preserve a tradition that has lasted for hundreds of years, especially since the article itself states that the law is designed not to prevent the killing of “vermin”, ie. foxes.
Such moral outrage should be reserved for the asphyxiation of hundreds upon thousands times more fish, fowl and deer, for sport. Yes, they can be eaten as well, but so can store bought fish - see above for why I think the “killing for food is okay” argument fails. To choose this particular ban that has more of a class rationale rather than any animal rights argument for righteous condemnation seems rather weak, when the actual killing of the animal seems almost a footnote. If you must, protest the licences the government hands out for sport killing, which affect far more animals, rather than the controlling of vermin.
To me the main issue with fox hunting in Britain (which I’ve done once, but that was mainly because I wanted to ride and it sounded like it’d be fun) is one of personal freedom.
I just don’t see where the government has a legitimate right to tell people they cannot hunt down and kill a wild animal that is not endangered. Many of the arguments I’ve read in British papers deals with dangers of foxhunting and how some reckless foxhunters have caused problems for others in the woods. But just because some group of people misbehave doesn’t justify something like this. Lots of people engage in illegal street racing, make illegal street racing illegal, not driving. Just as lots of people engage in reckless and dangerous (to themselves and others) activities while fox hunting that should be made illegal, not fox hunting itself.
As a reference to the most ludicrous comment in this thread that related hunting to serial killers, that’s complete bollocks. I’ve read a lot about serial killers and I’ve never read “hunting” as one of the early warning signs. I’ve read cruelty to animals (and the people involved specifically define this as torturing neighborhood pets, or torturing small animals they might keep.) Killing something in a hunt isn’t torture, it’s certainly not fun for the animal but it’s not taking an animal back to your garage, cutting off their feet and setting them on fire (serial killers have done this.)
I personally don’t think I’ll ever participate in a foxhunt again if I’m ever back in the UK. I have a personal code of honor I follow when I hunt (and yes I’m a very avid hunter.) I firstly follow the laws of the land, I don’t kill animals that are not mature, and I don’t kill animals with cubs/foal/et cetera. I also don’t kill an animal and waste the corpse. I make use of the meat, to me that’s both because I like the meat of every animal I hunt and because I feel it is wrong to be wasteful when you kill something.
However that’s just my personal code. It shouldn’t be illegal to hunt something just because you aren’t going to use the meat. Most hunters I know put the meat to some use (a lot of them don’t eat it themselves but will have it prepared and give it to others) but there are some who hunt for trophies to mount on their wall. I don’t see anything wrong with this. Just because something involves the killing of an animal doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Bloodsport? So what? To me I don’t see any legal interest in stopping a bloodsport as long as:
Some would say that killing is innately cruel, maybe, I don’t agree with that (I call it the law of nature.) But I do not think it should be legal to wantonly cause pain and suffering to an animal. I’m an avid meat eater but I agree with PETA on certain issues they raise when it comes to meat processing. I don’t agree with them that meat eating should be banned, or that meat eating is murder. But I find it very unfortunate that we have to treat animals cruelly and in fact more or less put animals through physical torture in order to get their meat.
I also recognize a hierarchy of animal intelligence. A cow, a pig, a lamb, a goat, these are pretty intelligent animals. I know they can feel fear, they can feel pain et cetera. So these are animals we should try to treat more compassionately and not subject them to such hardship when we use them for meat.
Fish, I don’t recognize a great deal of intelligence in fish. I think fish are more driven by instinct and don’t actually posess the ability to do any thinking on the level of a cow or a pig.
So since I would argue that the “bloodsport” of hunting doesn’t fall under the three things I said above I don’t see it as a legitimate interest or even right of government to interfere. If Government wants to ban hunting within parks or other specially created tracts of government land that is perfectly fine. But as for the rest of the land I don’t see that government has any right to make hunting criminal or illegal there.
Yes. Primarily animals are tools or resources, not “persons” deserving of legal rights given to human beings. I think some of the more intelligent animals deserve to be protected from wanton torture or abuse, but I don’t think animals have the right to be “free” from human ownership or even the right to life if the humans that own it decide it needs to be used as a food resource.
As I already said to others, I am not saying any specific alternative is ok while the hunting is not. I would be against all forms of needless cruelty to animals.
I justified the mass-market killing of animals for food for society, as it would be unfeasable to halt it. I did not justify small-time killing on the basis that it can be for food. I stated that if fishing is done for sport and not food then I am against it. I implied that if a tradition (eskimo fishing, in a different country) is also mostly neccesary for food, then it is acceptable. If killing (fishing) for sport has the mere advantage of a meal then I am against it on principle.
I have also stated that my outrage is not at the sport itself (I said I would not care enough to pit it alone) but the overwhelming fuss made against the ban without a sound cause. The cause being that it is a tradition and a source of fun (bloodlust) and that population control is a convenient side effect of the true driving force. This is not sound justification for such rabid protest.
It is an irrational clinging to tradition.
By the way. I am not an experienced GD poster, so I have not thought about calling cite on the assertion that the Fox population is out of control, and that the foxhunting has a usefull effect on it. so,
cite??
Actually forget I asked. To ask for a cite after so long is just annoying.
Absolute shit. An absolute majority opposes fox-hunting in rural and urban areas alike. It’s a minority pursuit and always has been.