Fox Hunting

Fox Hunting is....

  • Neccesary and should be allowed

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Barbaric cruel and should be banned

    Votes: 16 80.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Like what what? Parts?
For your information (although this is offtopic) the constitution of the United Kingdom consists of:

* Acts of Parliament (written)
* Treaties (written)
* EU law (written)
* Common Law (unwritten)
* Conventions (unwritten)
* Royal Prerogative (unwritten)
* Works of authority (written).

If there was no constitution why would you call your country a "constitutional monarchy"? ;)
 
Roman said:
Tell you what I have done.

I've stoned a bird so it couldn't fly, sprinted over and torn it's head off. Then peeled the flesh off, pulled the guts out and roasted it over a fire before consuming its half cooked flesh.

And you know what? It was more fun than you'll ever know. There are two reasons why it's fun. First, the bird has an nervous system, and second, it tastes delicious.

That is a slightly sadistic way of putting it. "Oh! what about canibalism! lets stone you and do all those terrible things!" the reason were not doing that now is that we have developed a law system which prevents that happening (more or less) and that law also bans hunting with hounds!

fox hunting is just as bad as seal clubbing, whaling and dolphining. If you want some violence then get out a game console and start playing! Heck they might even let out "Fox hunter the game" for your pleasure
 
Roman said:
They're just foxes. I don't think it's that big of a deal to kill a few foxes so some old Brits can get their jollies off.

All they're doing is killing some animals. We kill animals all the time. I don't see what the big deal is if you run them to death or just club them in the head and gut them.

Is it because foxies are cute?

No its because it isn't efficient, the fox population is usually restricted by the amount of prey avaliable to them, if farmers can stop foxes getting their livestock then their numbers will decrease! thats basic biology! foxes also aren't as much of pest as rabbits, voles and mice are, all of these are eaten by the fox!

10-20 men on horses with loads of hounds or a lot of wire fencing?
As a side note roman the Brits you refer to are the ones who think charging into the front line of battle with a sword/rifle thinking they are brave/heroic/chivilrous/traditional then wind up dead because of their "traditions"
 
Last edited:
Katana said:
No its because it isn't efficient, the fox population is usually restricted by the amount of prey avaliable to them, if farmers can stop foxes getting their livestock then their numbers will decrease! thats basic biology! foxes also aren't as much of pest as rabbits, voles and mice are, all of these are eaten by the fox!

10-20 men on horses with loads of hounds or a lot of wire fencing?
As a side note roman i think the Brits you refer to are the ones who think charging into the front line of battle with a sword/rifle brave/heroic/chivilrous/traditional then wind up dead because of their "traditions"


The government have tried killing rabbits by introducing a disease however, it worked for a wile but they came immune to it. Shooting the rabbit would not work unless under a huge scale. Fox’s are pest and should be controlled like rabbits or mice
1) Do you think killing fox's by other mean's should
be used to keep down the population of fox's
2) Do you now of any other way's of keeping the population of rabbits down
 
In Latvia and all other European countries that is done through hunting.
If the Brits don't know how to do it - learn from other countries!

As for rabbits - a healthy natural threat does the trick,
so keep the foxes, they kill the rabbits, fence your fields (against the foxes).
 
Avatar said:
Like what what? Parts?
For your information (although this is offtopic) the constitution of the United Kingdom consists of:

* Acts of Parliament (written)
* Treaties (written)
* EU law (written)
* Common Law (unwritten)
* Conventions (unwritten)
* Royal Prerogative (unwritten)
* Works of authority (written).

If there was no constitution why would you call your country a "constitutional monarchy"? ;)

He does know. Or at least he should - he's a British citizen, albeit alittle S-L-O-W. Please, forgive him my learned friend. "Royal Perogative" makes me laugh though - our Royal family are only there for the keepsake of cherished tradition and a rather naive tourist industry! (Thank christ they are'nt as influential as the once were - boring old farts.)
 
An efficient way of getting rid of foxes

Sprinkle nitrotriiodide crystals around your hen coop during a hot day, after a while they will dry and become volotile, when a fox treds on them there will be an almighty bang and the fox will be so terrified he will never return
 
A defenseless bird, eh? It's got wings. I just happened to outwit and out throw it. Do I take pleasure in its pain? No, that's why I pulled its head off. If I took pleasure in its pain, I would have started with pulling something else off.

What I delight in is the hunt and the kill and the prize. It's nature. I consider people who say they don't want to kill an animal either lying, ignorant or weak. And it seems to me most of you are weak and squeamish.

Mind you, I make a point to eat what I kill. Otherwise it's a waste. However, I understand where these Brits are coming from in their hunting of a fox. I figure that the Brits' enjoyment in killing a fox every now and again far outweighs the fox's suffering. If the fox wrote a letter to the House of Lords and complained about his savage and cruel treatment, I'd feel differently. But until foxes can do that, they're hound fodder.

Seal clubbing I'm cool with. They are plenty of seals, and they're pretty dumb. Cute, but dumb. Clubbing is such a controlled trade that there's not much risk of suddenly plunging the northern ecosystem into a seal-depression or sommat.

Whales and dolphins are different. They're big, slow to reproduce, and intelligent. Far more brainy than a fox, and far fewer in number. But limited whaling is alright, especially when it's culturally relevant, such as for native tribes and the like. Besides that, much of whaling done by natives is for subsistance, as it's quite expensive to move grain from the US Heartland to the North Slope.
 
Roman said:
A defenseless bird, eh? It's got wings. I just happened to outwit and out throw it. Do I take pleasure in its pain? No, that's why I pulled its head off. If I took pleasure in its pain, I would have started with pulling something else off.

What I delight in is the hunt and the kill and the prize. It's nature. I consider people who say they don't want to kill an animal either lying, ignorant or weak. And it seems to me most of you are weak and squeamish.

Mind you, I make a point to eat what I kill. Otherwise it's a waste. However, I understand where these Brits are coming from in their hunting of a fox. I figure that the Brits' enjoyment in killing a fox every now and again far outweighs the fox's suffering. If the fox wrote a letter to the House of Lords and complained about his savage and cruel treatment, I'd feel differently. But until foxes can do that, they're hound fodder.

Seal clubbing I'm cool with. They are plenty of seals, and they're pretty dumb. Cute, but dumb. Clubbing is such a controlled trade that there's not much risk of suddenly plunging the northern ecosystem into a seal-depression or sommat.

Whales and dolphins are different. They're big, slow to reproduce, and intelligent. Far more brainy than a fox, and far fewer in number. But limited whaling is alright, especially when it's culturally relevant, such as for native tribes and the like. Besides that, much of whaling done by natives is for subsistance, as it's quite expensive to move grain from the US Heartland to the North Slope.

This is a joke, right?
 
If it is ok to kill "things that are dumb" you ought to be out shooting retards and visiting hospitals where there are human vegetables, because obviously if something is less intelligent than you it has to be killed.
 
Roman said:
What about abortion?

I don't believe in it unless you have just cause to do so, if you're not going to look after it personally (because it has 3 arms or retarded etc) then it is better to wipe the slate clean and try again, although these people should still be urged (not forced) to have it.

If someone aborts a baby because it is an "inconvenience" i.e "oh i dont really have time for that as i want to go out with friends and get drunk"
then i would consider this a criminal offense and maximum penalty (about 20 years in the slammer) should apply.
 
Godless,

Alright, anti-abortion then. Good.

Tell you what, I'll get back to you on this. I need to sleep, got tests tomorrow.
 
I'm not strictly anti-abortion, just PRO moral order to the far right extreme.

For instance i'd have all paedophiles and rapists executed to set an example to others that this is not the done thing, you would still have free-will to do it but you have to accept punishment if you do.

The more ordered and pro-moral we are the more we can move on and reach higher standards, each generation should improve on the work of the last, i do not mean technologically, i mean socially.

It is disgusting how people treat some animals, you are not an animal and have no excuse other than bad upbringing to warrent such outlandish violence.
 
I believe that it will be banned shortly. There was, last time I heard, debate over what to do with all the dogs. Foxhunting is a very brutal "sport" and should not exist in civilized or any country for that matter. It is also dangerous to the dogs and hunters as much as the fox. Sure, they don't always get caught but what if the fox happened to run onto a road. A hound has a single track mind when it's hunting and will not stop for traffic, all it cares about is getting the prey. Likewise a hunter may ride into the road if they weren't paying attention to such things and the "sport" becomes an endangerment to all involved. What I don't understand is why people think it's all right to go fox hunting, a brutal, gory bloodsport but can't stand the thought of bull baiting and dog fighting. Why is one form of violence acceptable but not another? Personally I find them all distateful. I think the dogs should be given to police/military forces and search and rescue groups to nurture the dog's instinct but without the bloodshed.
 
If it is banned it has to be banned the right way, we may still have to eliminate some if they are a problem, but if i were in charge i'd send soldiers with sniper rifles to do it, i would set up a task force for a war on foxes :) , it would not have to be done that often, if at all.

That is all i would ever use soldiers for, is eliminating problems in our homeland and ensure security.

I wouldn't let animal rights get anywhere for the simple reason they are nothing more than a terrorist group and do more harm than good anyway, i am not animal rights, these lot are anti-human pro vegan and are equal in brutality and mindset as pro-fox hunters.
 
Unless you use the meat/fur of the fox, it is extremely barbaric. But then again, foxes are known as being pests and eating chickens etc... But still, to kill them for sport is to be irresponsible with your power, its pretty much bullying the weaker/defenceless.

- Melbourne, Australia.
 
Serb05 said:
But still, to kill them for sport is to be irresponsible with your power, its pretty much bullying the weaker/defenceless.

Isn't that what is happening to the people of Iraq too? At least foxes have somewhere to run and hide.
 
Back
Top