Hunting with hounds ban

[AlanHo]

After my earlier confession that I am a serial murderer of slugs and snails I am now worried that the animal rights activists might target me.

As a right wing carnivore - I find that the Atkins diet is far too veggy for me. I don't mind how much you guys hunt and fish - foxes eat rabbits and I like rabbit stew.

[nellie2]

I don't agree with hunting one bit and support a total ban. However I do feel for those whose livelihoods are affected.

What I can't understand is why aren't alternatives being looked at? What is wrong with drag hunting? After all, it is the chase that is exciting surely!

Drag hunting by the way is when a scent trail is laid for the dogs to follow. So you all get a jolly good run up hill and down dale.. but no fox or any other animal is killed at the end of it.

ps.. I hope they are including hare coursing in this debate in parliament.

[andsome]

As far as I am concerned, no one has made out a case FOR hunting. The word TRADITIONAL does not wash. Just because something has been done for many years does not mean that it is necessarily right. We are supposed to live in a civilised society in this country, and I cannot see that hounding an animal to it's death for so called pleasure and tradition can be right. As I have already said, this has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the fox or deer population, else why do some hunts release foxes in poorly fox populated areas, so that they have something to chase? Why on earth do they rub blood over children's faces? It may be called traditional, but it certainly cannot be called civilised. What on earth is wrong with drag hunting if all these people want is a day out chasing round the countryside on horseback? They claim that it does not have the same appeal, of course it doesn't, it doesn't have any blood lust.As regards the invasion of The house of Commons goes, this was far more damaging to the FOR lobby than was Batman's invasion of Buck House, which was in support of a genuine cause of hardship to people.

[moon]

My interest in this, as a 'foreigner', is in how far your government is prepared to go to warp the British parliamentary system to its own ends. Its past actions to eradicate the only defense you have against tyranny, the Lords, has been quite successful. Now they intend to employ The Parliament Act to force legislation through, an Act which is intended for use only in an emergency and over an issue of national importance.

Irrespective of your desire, some of you, to end foxhunting with dogs, is this further errosion of your parliament an acceptable price to pay ?

[andsome]

My interest in this, as a 'foreigner', is in how far your government is prepared to go to warp the British parliamentary system to its own ends.  Its past actions to eradicate the only defense you have against tyranny, the Lords, has been quite successful.  Now they intend to employ The Parliament Act to force legislation through, an Act which is intended for use only in an emergency and over an issue of national importance.

Irrespective of your desire, some of you, to end foxhunting with dogs, is this further errosion of your parliament an acceptable price to pay ?

It's a price which we may have to pay if the Lords keep thwarting the will of the elected parliament, which is trying to make a law that the majority of the people of this country want.

[moon]

Hear, hear.

It's a price which we may have to pay if the Lords keep thwarting the will of the elected parliament, which is trying to make a law that the majority of the people of this country want.

I must have missed the result of that referendum, andsome. :D

This is not necessarily my viewpoint, but it's one that your members of parliament missed by not being present in the chamber for the debate. The vote was by prejudice only;

Landowners , who have had a relationship with foxes for many hundreds of years, hold the fox in high esteem and claim that hunting with hounds breeds out the weaker foxes. Randomly shooting them has no such selective element.

Also, foxes frequently escape the hounds whereas there is no escape from the sniper.

[andsome]

The figures come from market research not a referendum. As regards weeding out the weaker foxes, why don't we do this with all wild animals? NO, the whole point of hunting foxes or deer is just pure blood lust, especially smearing kids faces with the resulting blood after the kill.

[nellie2]

so just because the odd fox might escape now and then is justification for the barbaric death the ones that don't escape have to suffer?

[moon]

I haven't seen any statistics, nell, I'm repeating the claim by the pro-hunters that it's far more than the odd one.

You Brits have many pagan traditions, andsome. I'm in no position to tell you what the blood-smearing represents.

[expertec]

Who originally thought of this stupid idea of banning hunting, and when?

I found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1846577.stm

[-pops-]

Oscar Wilde had it right:

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable"

That quotation is supposed to be in large type.

[andsome]

Oscar Wilde had it right:

"The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable"

That quotation is supposed to be in large type.

As far as I'm concerned they are completely unspeakable.

[Sparks]

You Brits have many pagan traditions, andsome.  I'm in no position to tell you what the blood-smearing represents.

The practice of "blooding" where the foxes blood is smeared on the faces of those witnessing their first kill, usually children.

[catgate]

Re the referendum that andsome writes about. Who were those questioned and what were the nature of the questions.

I recently came across some interesting and enlightening numbers, produced by Mair & Biezen (go and Google for verification), relating to political party membership across the EU. They throw a very long shadow across the idea of a democratic system of government when one looks at the figures for the UK. I can only assume that these are the latest numbers available and anyone desperate for more will have to wait until 2007, if the sequence is adhered to.

Year / Eligible voters / Party members / %

'80 /41,095,490 / 1,693,156 / 4.12

'89 /43,180,573 / 1,136,723 / 2.63

'98 /43,818,324 / 840,000 / 1.92

Year / Lab. /Cons. /Lib.LD ........ /SDP /Greens

'80 /343,156 /1,200,200 /145,000 .........

'89 /293,723 /750,000 /82,000 /11.000

'98 / 385,000 /350,000 /100,000 ....... ....... / 5,000

This all point to the disillusionment of the population with the political parties and also shows up, for the sham that it is, the selection of prospective MPs. They are "adopted" by the local party activists (who must be considerably less in numbers that the actual local party member numbers) from a short list of "approved" prospectives sent down, from "those in charge", at party HQ. The total party members who "adopted" the candidates for New Labour at the last election constituted only 0.87% of the eligible voters and something like half of the candidates failed to get elected. This means that, at best, the present governments MPs (who are forcing through Tony's legislation) were "rubber stamped" by only 0.43% of the population. Of course we all know that all MPs are chosen by the party hierarchy to do the bidding of the party backers and in exchange for malleability and lack of personal conviction they are guaranteed a place at the trough. If sufficiently docile they will get a Sirship and a big fat pension too. As to whether they get elected depends so much on local tradition, safe seats, and pre election "pledges" (political shorthand for "promises we are not obliged to honour).

The one thing that is more than puzzling about our Tony and his anti hunting stance is what is he up to? He is certainly out to totally destroy England and its traditions, and is playing the Old Labour "anti-toff card" for all he can, but he is in his current position of power due to the backing of the new era toffs (Branson, Robinson, Eccleston & co.) and his abandonment of the Old Labour "ethics". Could he possibly be "running with the fox and hunting with the hounds" in order to create yet another sleight of hand???

Sorry about the table of numbers, it's a right mess, but I am sure it will be easily followed by the intelligensia who frequent this oasis! :blush:

[andsome]

The practice of "blooding" where the foxes blood is smeared on the faces of those witnessing their first kill, usually children.

The hunt is barbaric enough. The blooding is even MORE barbaric, and they call themselves sportsman and women.

Regarding Catgates point about Cheesy's agenda. I firmly believe that this is in fact irrelevant in this case. It's about time that someone banned this barbarity, and I for one don't give a damn who does it, as long as someone does.

[catgate]

It's about time that someone banned this barbarity, and I for one don't give a damn who does it, as long as someone does.

Well that's that then. No one can argue with that sort of reasoned logic. :rolleyes:

[rong]

Just a question, where do you get your views on banning hunting from. Is it the (people) who last year walked into a shed of Turkeys at night, flashing lights around, hence causing the turkeys to run to the back of the shed and get crushed etc. then to blame the farmer? (I have worked with animals for 20 years, not turkeys, so have a good idea how they react. I was a Shepherd)

Or the same (people) who some years ago, in the name of the calves that they distressed more than the journey they were trying to stop (you could see the distress on there faces).

That’s not to mention the people they have attacked.

My next point is that there is no democracy in British politics when a small minority of the population can give such a large majority.

I have never hunted foxes with hounds, but have shot them and would think the hounds would be the better choice.

Also when my wife walks the dog and it chases a rabbit or mouse she then becomes a criminal.

This is the longest letter I have written in years.

[catgate]

This is the longest letter I have written in years.

I would suggest you write some more, because you make a more balanced case than many who have "concerns" for animal welfare. Most of the Animal Rights people use the same sort of logic that is used by Moslem Fundementalist and the IRA "I know I am right and there is no room for debate. I will not be denied."

I think it would probably make for an interesting "poll" if we tried to find out where the line should be drawn below which creatures no longer were "important" enough to warrant "rights".

[moon]

This is the longest letter I have written in years.

It's good to write, rong, right ? :)

[andsome]

I do not condone animal rights protesters who attack peoples homes etc. I would certainly not approve of physical abuse to hunters, any more than I approve of huntsmen/women lashing out with riding crops when people organise a peaceful demonstration, note PEACEFUL.

It would be ridiculous to brand a person a criminal because their dog has happened to chase a rabbit, this is a natural reaction of a dog who sees a rabbit, but I could not condone someone deliberately setting a dog onto another animal, and then smearing a child's face with the blood of that animal.

I have NOTHING whatsoever against humane slaughter for meat, but cannot approve of battery conditions for the rearing of animals.

I don't suppose for one moment that huntsmen/women approve of the ancient Romans putting people in with lions for sport, but it works both ways.

I cannot understand for one moment where the PLEASURE comes in when chasing an animal to it's death.

Regarding the hint that I have no room for debate, why do you think I started this thread in the debates section? The reason was to start a debate, and see what possible pleasure people can get from hunting.

[catgate]

Who originally thought of this stupid idea of banning hunting, and when?

I found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1846577.stm

Thanks to the above link, put up by Expertec, I have part of the answer to one of my above questions.

Old Labour:-

1949 - Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting fail to make it onto the statute books. One is withdrawn, the other is defeated on its second reading in the Commons. The Labour government appoints a committee of inquiry to investigate all forms of hunting. The committee concludes: "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."

New Labour:-

8 July 1999 - Prime Minister Tony Blair makes a surprise announcement that he plans to make fox hunting illegal and before the next general election if possible.

12 July 1999 - Labour denies that Mr Blair's pledge is connected to an extra £100,000 donation it had received from an anti-hunt pressure group. The Political Animal Lobby (PAL), had previously given £1m to the party before the 1997 election.

Was it that there was less cruelty involved in 1949 or were the politicians more honourable in those days?

[andsome]

Just goes to show that even the brain dead can change their minds when they get a fit of conscience

[expertec]

Just goes to show that even the brain dead can change their minds when they get a fit of conscience

What's that supposed to mean? Who's had an attack of conscience? :o

[andsome]

What's that supposed to mean? Who's had an attack of conscience? :o

Cheesy and his mob

[expertec]

You are joking, right?