Ethics of Fox Hunting and Pest Control

[jon_hill987]

I think that people should have the right to do what the funk they like on there own land, not just guns either, fox hunting (with hounds) is soon to be banned here in the UK because some people who it dosn't effect object to it. why can't you do what you wan't, If it isn't harming anyone else then let people do it. I do however think that guns should never ever EVER under any circumstances be used by a civilan in a public place.

[iamtrip]

They don't, so why should they be treated as such.

 

(And btw, fox hunting is a past time, like many other blood sports. Foxes are pests/vermin). Last year throughout Europe only 45 foxes were killed on 'hunts'. An estimated 4800 were killed with various poisons and rodenticides).

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

 

They don't, so why should they be treated as such.

Ahh so mute children should also be hunted until they're rigid with terror (and more fatigued than a computer nerd at a nymphomaniacs' convention) with packs of dogs then? I understand where you're coming from there trippy, can't stand those little silent sprogs either!

 

And btw, fox hunting is a past time, like many other blood sports.

Yes, so is killing people and eating their flesh. Because some mildly sociopathic people find something AMUSING, doesn't mean it's not AMORAL.

 

Foxes are pests/vermin). Last year throughout Europe only 45 foxes were killed on 'hunts'.

Oh? Then it doesn't sound like a very efficient method of PEST control now, does it? Thank you for proving my point so well.

 

Next...

[lukeiamyourdad]

There's no point about hunting foxes unless there's an overpopulation of them and they threaten other species.

 

But anyway, when there is an overpopulation of any animal it's usually man's fault.

[iamtrip]

Well firstly, I regard comparing foxes to mute children quite absurd, not to mention offensive to the disabled children.

 

 

As long as issues don't effect them, people are quite happy to cast an ignorant opinion on matters they know little about.

 

 

Aww, aren't foxes cuddly and cute?

When's the last time you saw a fox as a pet? Take it down the park for a walk? Foxes are pests. They are primarily killed by poisons, but a minority are killed via hunts.

Who said it was efficient?

Surely a bunch of people killing 45 foxes a year isn't making that much difference?

Even if these 45 weren't hunted, its more than likely they would nibble some poison pellets and end up dead in a stream somewhere.

 

Finally, if you ban fox hunting, I believe you need to set a precedent to ban all other types of hunting, as well as other forms of animal farming, more specifically battery farming.

Since none have been banned, or are even being considered for being banned, there seems no legitimate reason to ban fox hunting, other than as a diversionary tactic unite a deeply fragmented party.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Every animal serves its own place in the ecosystem. Calling one a pest is ignorant.

 

Without foxes, we might end up with a rodent problem. See carnivores eat herbivores so that the herbivores don't grow too big in numbers and destroy the ecosystem.

 

And yes, they've banned the hunting of the following animals:

 

-Buffalos

-Polar Bears

-Whales of any kind

-Crocodiles and other variants

-Etc.

 

Yes, we are going to set such a precedent...

[jon_hill987]

I would just like to point out that i wasn't compairing foxes with kids, I was just cmpairing the past time of shooting (Targets or vermin) with the past time of chasing a fox accros the country on horses with some hounds. and BTW fox hunting kills very few foxes and mostly sick old and injured ones so there is little if any dammage to the eccosystem.

[Spider AL]

Samuel Dravis:

Heh, I can see how that would discourage potential muggers. You might actually get some retaliation...

Yeah, but can't you carry guns in the US now... are there some states where you can't?

 

Breton:

So you think we should have a society where everyone fears each other, 'cause everyone can kill others when they feel like it? And should the motivation for being polite be that your life is in danger if you aren't? I don't get it.

Well at the moment you have a culture where law-abiding people fear criminals and each other as potential criminals... I think that a culture where criminals fear the law-abiding people as well would be superior.

 

jon_hill987:

I was just cmpairing the past time of shooting (Targets or vermin) with the past time of chasing a fox accros the country on horses with some hounds.

Firstly I doubt a paper target feels pain or distress.

 

and BTW fox hunting kills very few foxes and mostly sick old and injured ones so there is little if any dammage to the eccosystem.

Even if it were true that the majority of foxes killed by the hunt are sick and elderly WHICH I DOUBT, that wouldn't alter the fact that the hunt is prolonged through many means by the huntsmen in order to eke out the pleasure of the fops on horseback, and therefore the suffering of the fox who is firmly convinced, and rightly so, that it is running for its life from an implacably malevolent enemy. Therefore fox-hunting is amoral.

 

As for the ecosystem, how do you know what impact the hunt has, not only on the foxes, but on the surrounding areas they sculpt to aid their sadistic enjoyment? Got any scientific studies to back up that claim?

 

Secondly, capturing a sick old stray cat on the street,stringing it up and torturing it for five hours before killing it won't affect any ecosystem too greatly... But it's still the evil act of a sadistic little sociopath, and it is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

No offense Sam, but just because you have no use for so called "assault weapons" doesn't mean nobody else does. And I'm not talking about criminals. Also, I'm not a member of the NRA. As stated several times by myself in the other thread, the only thing that makes an assault weapon fall into that category, is not the weapon, it's power, or rate of fire. It's the accessories placed on them. The same guns not considered "assault weapons" have always been for sale, only they weren't called assault weapons because they didn't have a colapsable stock, or a flash suppressor, or whatever else. The guns were no less lethal when they weren't called assault weapons. They fired the same rounds at the same rate as their assault weapon counterparts. I really don't see how keeping people from customizing their weapon makes it any less dangerous a gun. No colapsable stock? Hunting rifle. Colapsable stock? ASSAULT WEAPON! PREPARE FOR THE ASSAULT! It's rediculous the things our law makers come up with in this country.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, the people against the lifting of a ban aren't for guns being allowed, bar assault rifles.

What use could a regular person have for a m16 with a flash suppresser?

For that matter, what use could a regular person have for an m16 full stop.

 

I'm not arguing; Assault Rifles are bad, stick to normal guns. I'm saying Guns are bad, assault rifles are intensifying an already dangerous situation.

 

 

You seem to have some 'blood' sports. Some joy out of having guns (perhaps to shoot foxes, rabbits, birds etc. Of course, this is very different to fox hunting ). Fine. I don't particularly have a problem with that. If you want to shoot stuff, just like if men on horses want to chase foxes around a field, it doesn't effect me (nor most other people), so who are we to impose our morals upon you.

 

But when such activities begin to effect me, the problem belongs to all of us.

I do have a problem when guns are widely available in inner city areas (not many foxes around here .

 

And the nonsense about 'self defence' is just that. Nonsense. Criminals are far more likely to use a gun, if they suspect your carrying one, or if you reach for one.

Logically, someone points a gun to your head and asks for your wallet. You give your wallet and the guy runs off. You reach for a gun and either the guy runs, you end up dead, or both of you bleed to death. Guns only intensify violence. They are not a deterrent. Nor are they a solution to violence.

 

 

Obviously if you need a gun, a strictly controlled licence can be granted for use of the gun at certain times and areas. No large capacity gun licences should be granted to the general public, unless of course there is some kind of argument for uzi'ing rabbits now? No accessories such as grips, silencers, flash suppressers should be available to the public.

 

That way guns can still be used for sport/hunting, without them literally littering the streets.

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by Spider AL

 

as for the ecosystem, how do you know what impact the hunt has, not only on the foxes, but on the surrounding areas they sculpt to aid their sadistic enjoyment? Got any scientific studies to back up that claim?

 

Secondly, capturing a sick old stray cat on the street,stringing it up and torturing it for five hours before killing it won't affect any ecosystem too greatly... But it's still the evil act of a sadistic little sociopath, and it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. [/b]

 

There are scientific studies to back this up, though i don't have any to hand, and the hounds don't touture the fox, a fox hound is about 5 times the size of a fox and they are trained to kill the fox quickly by biting the neck, though I admit there will be some cases where the fox takes some time to die.

 

Personly I don't like fox hunting and wouldn't do it myself, I was mearly saying that if someone wants to do something that dosn't harm anyone its up to them. I do go fishing, I don't wan't that banned, now fox hunting is going to be banned what are the legue against cruel sports going to do now? you think they will stop there? or will they cary on trying to take away peoples freedomes one by one untill we all have to be vegatarians by law?

 

It is the same with guns, it is about freedom, not about headcases killing people.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

Congrats on making an intelligent comment . You'll get there eventually, I know you will.

About as subtle as a train wreck, and with all the impact of a model train wreck.

 

Pest control (...pest control doesn't have to be efficient).

If it's not efficient, it's not a valid method of controlling pests. It's that simple. You can't have it both ways.

 

The alternative is they nibble some poison, fall ill and die a few days later. This happens in most cases. Thats humane too?

This is not a debate over the merits of mass poisoning, nor is it the only alternative, nor is there only one poison to choose from.

 

If foxes weren't pests, there would be a reason to ban their hunting. As they are pests, whats the problem with hunting them?

Killing a pest is one thing... making their death unnecessarily painful and stressful AND deriving enjoyment from the experience, is quite another.

 

And overfeeding chickens in a 2 foot *3 foot cage at 30 C, so we can slaughter them is ok?

Why, do you think it's okay? You're the only one going on about it, after all. You must think it's okay.

 

Fox hunting is a just a meaningless 'scapegoat issue'.

It's immoral. If you're not in favour of banning an obviously inhumane pursuit, then you're either evil or ill-informed.

 

jon_hill987:

Ok, Scientific research:

It's more like conjecture, but let's examine it... Yes, there is a slim possibility that the interest in hunting the fox with dogs might have kept foxes from being exterminated more aggressively. That's irrelevant in today's more enlightened climate of animal preservation, however. Just because the mistakes of history might, MIGHT have had some inadvertently positive effects, doesn't mean we should continue to commit those mistakes now that we know better.

 

I don't fox hunt as I said, and I rarely use guns (and then only for clay (Skeet in america I think) or target shooting) I do however beleive I should have the right to if I wan't.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I hope you NEVER have the right to commit inhumane acts against other living creatures for no reason other than to obtain a few hours of enjoyment.

[iamtrip]

Since when did the definition of pest control become dependant on how efficient the means is? Stamping on cockroaches is a form of pest control. Its not an efficient method, but it works.

 

 

You're not conducting the sport, so the emotional experiences by riders etc. are theirs to bear. It's their choice to carry out hunts, whether you agree with them or judge them is irrelevant.

 

 

Either way thousands of foxes disrupt farmer's interests every year. Most are subsequently killed via poison, an equally inhumane method.

Since noone is actually against the killing of pests via poison, what difference can it possibly make that 5000 foxes are being killed via posion and 45 via hunting per year, rather than 5045 via poison and 0 via hunting per year?

 

Or should we ban cats from chasing mice and imprison rodenticide manufacturers.

[Spider AL]

Since when did the definition of pest control become dependant

Ah-ah, nobody but you has used the word "definition". Pest control is merely a dry, clinical culling of species we dislike. It must necessarily be efficient, therefore, or it is useless as "pest control".

 

Stamping on cockroaches is a form of pest control. Its not an efficient method, but it works.

You'd have to stamp on an awful lot of cockroaches to make it a valid method of pest control mate.

 

You're not conducting the sport, so the emotional experiences by riders etc. are theirs to bear. It's their choice to carry out hunts, whether you agree with them or judge them is irrelevant.

Pfft, what utter rubbish. You might as well say:

 

"You're not conducting the serial killings, so the emotional experiences of Hannibal Lecter are his to bear. It's his choice to carry out the eviscerations, whether you agree with him or judge him is irrelevant."

 

Fox hunting is immoral, so of COURSE the judgement of moral society is relevant to the issue.

 

Since noone is actually against the killing of pests via poison

What? Where did you get this? Of COURSE there are people who are against the use of inefficient poisons to kill pests.

 

But naturally there's an angle you missed completely, even though I've stated it several times. Poisoning does not usually involve people deriving sick enjoyment from watching the animals expire. It SHOULD be a clinical business, with a moral justification of disease-control and issues of productivity in rural business. This is MARKEDLY different to what we have in fox hunting, namely desensitizing, mildly sociopathic behaviour for NO other purpose than sick fun.

 

I personally believe that more research should be done to make poisons used to kill vermin more instantly effective, to spare them suffering. But once again, your obsession with poisoning is odd, in that it doesn't remotely impact on the morality of fox-hunting.

[iamtrip]

Your saying that fox hunting is not a form of pest control as it is not efficient.

Therefore, the definition of pest control must naturally come with the condition that the killing is efficient.

 

That's your definition. The definition of pest control to me is merely the controlling of pests whether this is done by poison on a mass scale or by killing each fox individually, 'the pests are 'controlled'.

 

"You're not conducting the serial killings, so the emotional experiences of Hannibal Lecter are his to bear. It's his choice to carry out the eviscerations, whether you agree with him or judge him is irrelevant."

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that he's right to kill people, or that he should be allowed to. But arguing against the murdering of people because of the adverse emotional effect it may cause to the killer is absurd. It ishis trauma to bear.

Perhaps you meant the trauma caused to the victims and their family, in this case, the mummy fox and all the little baby foxes.

 

 

Regarding poison:

 

The majority of people are for the killing of pests. Will we be banning the swatting of flies and the crushing of cockroaches next?

After all, they're living entities, with the same right to carry on living that a fox has.

 

Or perhaps you suggest the banning of fly swatting whilst smiling. If these people get some pleasure from hunting, then great.

I went fox hunting once, (as usual, an artificial prey was used (no fox was involved)). The pleasure wasn't in watching the dogs gnarl the drag, but in the grandeur and tradition of the occasion, as well as riding around privately owned land.

The fact of the matter is, many huntsmen have never even hunted a real fox. (Again, just 45 killed via hunting last year).

 

Either way, who are you to judge how people find pleasure? Just because other's ideas don't conform to your idea of fun, you automatically prejudge them, casting them as brutal and inhumane.

Open your mind.

 

 

And I've already addressed the morality issues.

There doesn't seem to be a strong campaign against other forms of hunting, such as deer hunting, hare hunting etc. I'm sure there is a campaign, but it has neither the press coverage, nor the support that fox hunting has had. Why is this?

 

Similarly, why is there not a large number of people protesting against battery farming? This is a far bigger problem than fox hunting has been/will ever be. Literally hundreds of thousands of animals are bred in appalling conditions just to provide cheap food. Why is there no mass movement against this?

 

As I said, fox hunting is a tertiary issue, physically effecting very few people. However, it is an issue that a flagging government can rally its people and party behind.

[Spider AL]

Your saying that fox hunting is not a form of pest control as it is not efficient.

I'm saying that fox hunting isn't pest control because it doesn't control the pests. It's like stamping on three cockroaches. It won't clear your house out. All it does is provide amusement for fops without senses of social responsibility.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying that he's right to kill people, or that he should be allowed to.

Good! then you agree that fox hunting should be banned. Thank you...

 

But arguing against the murdering of people because of the adverse emotional effect it may cause to the killer is absurd. It ishis trauma to bear.

... WHAT?

 

WHERE do you think I typed ANYTHING about the emotional effect on the huntsman? What ludicrous nonsense is this?

 

... I... I think I need to lie down.

 

Or perhaps you suggest the banning of fly swatting whilst smiling. If these people get some pleasure from hunting, then great.

You may think the idea you just proposed ludicrous, and indeed it's a little far fetched... but the principle is sound. I certainly wouldn't approve of ANYONE killing a living organism simply for pleasure. That includes flies. I mean, if the fly was going to bite the person, sure, swat them. But if one went around SEEKING FLIES OUT, swatting all flying insects, carnivorous or not, simply to derive some wierd sexual euphoria from the act... Yep, I think one should be stopped from doing that.

 

Same with banning hunting.

 

Either way, who are you to judge how people find pleasure?

Tee hee... is there something you want to tell us trippy?

 

I'm sure there is a campaign, but it has neither the press coverage, nor the support that fox hunting has had. Why is this?

Well one presumes that it gets a lot of coverage because it's an issue that people associate with injustices between the upper and working classes AND the town and the country, in a way that they do not associate other forms of hunting.

 

But if your morality is based around the popularity of the issues you deal with in the press, I think you need to rethink a bit.

 

Similarly, why is there not a large number of people protesting against battery farming?

There are mate, there are. It's a major issue. But I'm always surprised that people come out with things like

 

"WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT FOXES WHEN THERE ARE KIDS STARVING IN AFRICA RIGHT NOW EH?"

 

Well umm... we should care about both? Because they're both issues of right and wrong and morality and injustice... Do people think that they can only care about one issue at a time? The existence of big problems doesn't make smaller problems DISAPPEAR. And since it's a relatively local problem, I personally think we should deal with it first, before we start to preach morality to the REST of the world.

[iamtrip]

Firstly, you know as well as I do that battery farming is a long, long way from being banned. Yet tertiary issues such as fox hunting are brought to the headlines. Whilstmy morals aren't effected by the press, the majority of other people's are.

Why? It effects a minority of people. As showed by a Times survey, the majority of people in Britain barely knew fox hunting existed, never mind the finer details of the activity. Issues such as battery farming remain in the distant background, never mentioned.

 

deriving enjoyment from the experience, is quite another.

people deriving sick enjoyment from watching the animals expire.

WHERE do you think I typed ANYTHING about the emotional effect on the huntsman?

You're obviously addressing the mindset, emotions and emotional trauma (if any) of huntsmen and women. It's completely irrelevant to the reasons why fox hunting should be banned.

 

 

 

People chase flies around their house trying to swat them. People tread on cockroaches. People kill greenfly. Why?

 

They are all pests.

 

People hunt foxes. Why?

 

They are pests.

 

Whether people enjoy the process or not is completely irrelevant. The animal still dies whether a person smiles or not.

 

You may think the idea you just proposed ludicrous, and indeed it's a little far fetched... but the principle is sound. I certainly wouldn't approve of ANYONE killing a living organism simply for pleasure. That includes flies. I

 

But yeh, lets get the anti-fly swatting police together. This is as good as your other ideas Spiddy.

 

 

I think I need to lie down

 

Or just sit down.

[Kain]

No animal is a pest for several reasons:

 

1: Every animal has a key part in its ecosystem

2: Every animal returns to the ecosystem what it takes

3: If you remove an animal from an ecosystem, things start getting WAY out of whack and several other species run the gauntlet of evolve to the change or DIE OUT.

4: PEST is a term created by MAN to degrade animals that may cause damage to his household and/or lifestyle.

 

There is only ONE TRUE PEST on the planet, a creature so vile that it destroyes all other animals habitats and holds itself so far above every animal, it believes itself righteous enough to pass any judgement, sick and twisted or nice and gentle, on any animal it deems a problem. That animal, ladies and gentleman, is homo sapien. Humans.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

You're obviously addressing the mindset, emotions and emotional trauma (if any) of huntsmen and women.

Okay, you're not only wrong, you're wrong with conviction. Give me ONE QUOTE in which I address the emotional trauma of the poor old huntsmen. You won't find one. That's because you're talking rot.

 

People chase flies around their house trying to swat them. People tread on cockroaches. People kill greenfly. Why?

 

They are all pests.

People poison greenfly. People POISON cockroaches. People put fly-paper up. That's efficient pest-control.

 

The idea that swatting a couple of flies, treading on three cockroaches or crushing ten greenflies with a pair of tweezers is a valid method of pest control is just as idiotic as the idea that fox hunting is a valid method of controlling foxes.

 

Add to this the fact that the hunt causes damage to landowners' property with regularity, and you can equate fox-hunting to a stupid, sadistic man chasing a fly around someone else's garden to get his jollies, and knocking over a plant-pot or two in the process.

 

Whether people enjoy the process or not is completely irrelevant. The animal still dies whether a person smiles or not.

Whether a person is doing it JUST FOR THE SMILE though, is very relevant to the question of morality and you cannot deny this simple, oh so simple fact.

 

Or just sit down.

Trust me, when reading your posts I do feel a little faint at times.

 

Issues such as battery farming remain in the distant background, never mentioned.

They're mentioned all the time in the English press and on English documentaries. To say that they're "never mentioned" is a COMPLETE fallacy. a COMPLETE misrepresentation.

 

Firstly, you know as well as I do that battery farming is a long, long way from being banned. Yet tertiary issues such as fox hunting are brought to the headlines.

I dealt with the issue of "relative importance" in issues of morality in my previous post. I will not repeat myself just because you choose to ignore points instead of addressing them.

[toms]

Fox hunting is a kind of "gulf of understanding" issue, split largely across the Town vs Country divide and the Rich vs Poor divide.

 

Having said that, i grew up in the country and i have no time for fox hunting. I understand that i would be upset if someone tried to ban a hobby of mine... after all who wouldn't be upset at the thought of not being able to do something they love... but (whatever the arguements about cuteness, pest control, efficiency, history, or anything else) the basic issue for a lot of people who aren't involved is simply this:

 

It is taking enjoyment from the suffering of something

 

Of course, i'm sure if you are involved a lot of what you enjoy is the camaraderie, the speed, the adrenaline, the riding etc... but surely all this can take place without the focus on the fox? (and it seems often does according to those figures).

 

We no longer allow coc fighting, bear baiting, dog fights and many other sports that rely on the suffering of anything, so why should fox hunting be different? I'm sure there were fans of those who were very upset when their hobby was banned, but that has nothing to do with it.

 

If i was going to crusade on the "freedom to do what you enjoy" bandwagon, i'd start with sports that don't harm anything like base jumping and skateboarding before worrying about fox hunting.... but you don't see mass crowds out to defend other such "rights".

[iamtrip]

Debating the morals of fox hunting is pointless. Your opinion won't change and neither will mine. However, you need to ask yourselves the real reason why fox hunting was banned.

 

 

 

When did battery farming last make the front pages?

When was the last rally against hare hunting? Or deer hunting?

When were they last debated in parliament? Why weren't they on the Labour manifesto?

These issues simply don't have the same kind of publication. iF there was a widespread drive to ban cruelty to animals then fine.

But the fact of the matter is, whilst a minority of activists work to ban issues that really effect animals on a wide scale, such as battery farming, tertiary issues such as fox hunting get headline coverage.

 

Labour saw a small industry that it could rally the people against when it needed. A security policy. 'If we ever become so unpopular that the public starts to lose faith, whip out our anti-aristocrat policies and rally up some support."

 

The issue is a hollow one.

[Spider AL]

Debating the morals of fox hunting is pointless. Your opinion won't change and neither will mine.

I don't debate to change the opinions of people like you.

 

However, you need to ask yourselves the real reason why fox hunting was banned.

I'm not interested in why it was banned. We've been debating whether the ban is a good thing or not. Of course it's a good thing. It's one less institutionalised evil in England.

 

And I'll take those statements as an admission of defeat from you on the issue of the morality behind the fox hunting ban.

 

These issues simply don't have the same kind of publication. iF there was a widespread drive to ban cruelty to animals then fine.

There is a widespread drive, people like me discuss and explore and lobby and sign petitions... Just because the press isn't behind it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Labour saw a small industry that it could rally the people against when it needed. A security policy. 'If we ever become so unpopular that the public starts to lose faith, whip out our anti-aristocrat policies and rally up some support."

And it's a source of joy to me that the evil government was forced to spend a coin such as the fox-hunting ban, forced to live up to their pre-election promises. They would have preferred not to do it naturally, but circumstances favoured our side for a change. I'll enjoy it while it lasts, therefore.

[toms]

Originally posted by iamtrip

Debating the morals of fox hunting is pointless.

It may be pointless, but it is the point of this thread ;-)

 

When did battery farming last make the front pages?

When was the last rally against hare hunting? Or deer hunting?

When were they last debated in parliament? Why weren't they on the Labour manifesto?

It is hunting with dogs that is in the bill, not just fox hunting, but the pro hunting people have chosen to concentrate on that.

Battery farming made a lot of headlines in the 80s and early 90s, why do you think there are so many "free range" products on the shelves these days?

But even if that battle hadn't already been fought, at least there is a purpose to battery farming (to produce cheap food), it isn't like a lot of farmers get together on weekends to watch chickens suffer in cages...

 

These issues simply don't have the same kind of publication. iF there was a widespread drive to ban cruelty to animals then fine... tertiary issues such as fox hunting get headline coverage.

But it is the PRO hunting people who are causing it to get all the headline coverage. Battery farming would have gotten just as much coverage if the battery farmers had been marching on parliament, or the princes supported it. Not only that but the pro hunters have cleverly wrapped themselves in the cloak of the "countryside alliance" in order to make it a town vs country issue and mobilise the countryside aginst it. While many people joined the countryside alliance for many reasons, the only issue that they seem to care about if hunting... which can hardly be the most important issue facing the countryside today...

 

Labour saw a small industry that it could rally the people against when it needed. A security policy. 'If we ever become so unpopular that the public starts to lose faith, whip out our anti-aristocrat policies and rally up some support."

Maybe, but the bill has done them just as much damage in the countryside ans it has gained them in the cities... and i can't see many city dwellers voting solely on this issue. They put it in their manifesto because it was something most of their supporters were against... just like any other issue...

 

If it weren't for the pro hunting groups and house of lords issues then it wouldn't have been such a big deal, and would have passed quietly into law like any other law.

[iamtrip]

And I'll take those statements as an admission of defeat from you on the issue of the morality behind the fox hunting ban.

 

 

Do as you wish. I could continue to posts reasons why fox hunting shouldn't be banned, but it's as equally pointless as you continuing to post why hunting should be banned.

 

quote:Maybe, but the bill has done them just as much damage in the countryside ans it has gained them in the cities... and i can't see many city dwellers voting solely on this issue. They put it in their manifesto because it was something most of their supporters were against... just like any other issue...

 

If it weren't for the pro hunting groups and house of lords issues then it wouldn't have been such a big deal, and would have passed quietly into law like any other law.

 

 

 

People living in the countryside have predominantly conservative values, so the ban hasn't really removed support from labour; Labour never had these people's support.

 

And yes, it would have passed into law quietly had pro-hunting groups and those under the banner of the countryside alliance not protested.

 

However, the government realised and banked on there being a mass kafuffle outside Westminster.

That way: the bill is publicised; the government takes the moral high ground by stopping the evil hunters from murdering billions of cute, cuddly, innocent foxes; the population is distracted from the illegitimacies and hurt from the Iraq war; the party is seen to be carrying out its election promises and the party is united behind a single issue.

 

All just months away from a general election.

[Spider AL]

Do as you wish. I could continue to posts reasons why fox hunting shouldn't be banned, but it's as equally pointless as you continuing to post why hunting should be banned.

Fox hunting being the major subject of the thread, one must conclude that you consider the thread pointless. Well nobody's forced you to post several messages in here, sonny. Why are you here telling us this?

 

People living in the countryside have predominantly conservative values, so the ban hasn't really removed support from labour; Labour never had these people's support.

If you're seriously suggesting that there are no people in the countryside that have changed their vote away from Labour as a result of the fox-hunting ban being brought in, I'd say you're delusional, and that you'd need proof to qualify such a blanket statement.

 

All just months away from a general election.

Personally I don't know why you're continuing to spout this... Everyone KNOWS that the only reason Labour has put the ban through is to improve their chances at election-time. MOST of the things political parties do are designed to improve their chances at election-time. In fact, nearly everything that a party does that isn't geared towards giving them OTHER sorts of power, is designed to improve their chances at election-time.

 

So what? Bears no relevance to the subject we AND YOU, were discussing, namely the morality of a fox-hunting ban.

 

But since you've started calling that an "irrelevant" issue now, one must presume that you have no further arguments to offer upon the subject.

[iamtrip]

Debating the issue has become irrelevant as neither of our opinions will be changed.

All the arguments of any substance in favour of a ban have been stated. As have the arguments against a ban. You argue how its immoral, I argue other, worse areas aren't even touched upon by government. You argue foxes suffer, I argue they will suffer anyway through poisons. Same old, same old.

It seems pointless rephrasing ideas to continue the argument, which is all that has happened in the last few posts. (You're good at retyping your same old opinion without much evidence aren't you Spiddy )

 

And due to the abscence of original thoughts, I believed it to be more interesting to examine the reasons for the ban.

 

If you're seriously suggesting that there are no people in the countryside that have changed their vote away from Labour as a result of the fox-hunting ban being brought in, I'd say you're delusional, and that you'd need proof to qualify such a blanket statement.

 

I'm suggesting that the people who enjoy fox hunting have conservative values and probably never voted for labour in the first place.

Although moderate country dwellers may have been swayed towards the conservatives, its not too relevant as most fox hunting areas were already within secure Tory contituencies.

 

 

I just find it amusing that people may see the ban as some kind of idealic legislation by a sympathetic government now dedicated to animal welfare and human rights, which from reading other posts is the impression that is created.

 

The ban was merely a uniting issue, as well as an insult to the conservatives rather than a serious move to ban what some consider inhumane past times.