Technology1 min ago
Not taken the Toffs long
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FREDFOX. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Most of them come down from the towns anyway for 'jolly 'weekend parties. Very few countryfolk are in favour of hunting and the Countryside Alliance does not represent the views of the majority of country dwellers. There is no way I want the hunt back all round my house. I have always found them to be extremely arrogant and patronising.
You can tell when people get backed into a corner - they start trying to squirm and wheedle to get out of it. What's to stop anyone just taking the horses out for a canter around the countrside? Why do they need to do it in a very large group accompanied by a few dozen hounds and, if it doesn't end in blood letting, they all traipse back home deflated and disappointed?
Long live the ban!
Long live the ban!
Before I answer this question I would just like to say that the video that was posted by Fredfox repulsed me in a way I find difficult to describe.
That being said, I'm not against the hunting ban as such. The problem, as I see it, is this: What's more effective and humane? - fox hunting (eg. with horses, dogs and the absurdly dressed); shooting them; laying traps and/or poison?
Unless I'm badly mistaken (which I admit I might be) there is a real problem in rural communities about the sustainability of livestock (be that sheep, chickens, etc.) and the fox population. That being the case, the argument is not about whether fox populations should be controlled but about the manner in which they are controlled.
I've never heard anyone give a convincing argument that setting traps, shooting or poisoning foxes is any more humane than chasing them with a pack of hounds. I don't want to see any animal suffer but if you're going to control the fox population then unfortunately some foxes will inevitably have to be killed.
I'd like to know from the anti-hunting people how they propose to control the rural fox population in a humane way, because on that matter we hear precious little.
That being said, I'm not against the hunting ban as such. The problem, as I see it, is this: What's more effective and humane? - fox hunting (eg. with horses, dogs and the absurdly dressed); shooting them; laying traps and/or poison?
Unless I'm badly mistaken (which I admit I might be) there is a real problem in rural communities about the sustainability of livestock (be that sheep, chickens, etc.) and the fox population. That being the case, the argument is not about whether fox populations should be controlled but about the manner in which they are controlled.
I've never heard anyone give a convincing argument that setting traps, shooting or poisoning foxes is any more humane than chasing them with a pack of hounds. I don't want to see any animal suffer but if you're going to control the fox population then unfortunately some foxes will inevitably have to be killed.
I'd like to know from the anti-hunting people how they propose to control the rural fox population in a humane way, because on that matter we hear precious little.
The simple answer to the problems you mention, Birdie1971, is really good quality fencing. Those who promote fox hunting are usually happy to spend large amounts of money on stabling their horses, buying their hunting apparel and enjoying the social life associated with hunting. Yet they seem less prepared to pay for decent fencing, to protect their livestock, so that they can happily co-exist with Britain's wildlife.
Chris
Chris
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
With the best will in the world you can erect a robust fence but at some point it will be compromised (eg. some animal will tunnel under it, or possibly gnaw their way through it, or maybe jump over it).
There comes a point where the landowner will exhaust every available economically viable security measure available. Should the landowner have the right to kill a fox that has managed to circumvent his fencing in order to prevent financial loss? I believe the landowner should have that right.
Does the Government allow farmers to own shotguns to protect their livelihood in exactly this kind of scenario? Yes they do.
Ergo it is legal to kill foxes in one particular way but not in another. Does that not strike you as odd?
There comes a point where the landowner will exhaust every available economically viable security measure available. Should the landowner have the right to kill a fox that has managed to circumvent his fencing in order to prevent financial loss? I believe the landowner should have that right.
Does the Government allow farmers to own shotguns to protect their livelihood in exactly this kind of scenario? Yes they do.
Ergo it is legal to kill foxes in one particular way but not in another. Does that not strike you as odd?
-- answer removed --
But animal cruelty is. It is a cruel sport and has no part in the modern world. I have no problem with culling if necessary by humane means. Foxes are part of the countryside and help with the balance of nature. People in fancy dress on horseback coming out for a day's jolly to hunt down animals are totally out of place an
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.